Here's a new article on IndyCar designs (from students). I wish they had more pictures though:
http://www.indycar.com/news/?story_id=11174
Printable View
Here's a new article on IndyCar designs (from students). I wish they had more pictures though:
http://www.indycar.com/news/?story_id=11174
I'm not liking the way this is going. What are they going to let artists engineer the new car?
Not Good.
I see that one student copied the 1972 Antares for their concept. I want to know what the Target disc does on the model. :D
What a future to look forward to. :(
B I N G OQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris R
i don't know if i'd take this all as a negative. How seriously are they taking these designs? It's in addition to, not in place of, whatever car design professionals they already have working in development.
http://www.indycar.com/multimedia/photos/
There is something retro cool about the "Audi" one. The XFX is striking as is the Armed Forces Honda one, I like it a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickfalzone
Gary
I'm hoping that audi one is sending some kind of message.
While form should follow function, these designs are neat in that they do show what some of the consequences (good or bad) of implementing radical changes (i.e. split rear wing, no wings, cockpit protection, etc.) might be. Cool.
Put me in the skeptics camp. These designs are fascinating and stylish and creative and all of that, BUT WILL THEY WORK?!! A designer is not an aerodynamicist or a race car engineer, which for me, makes these designs no more than fancy paper weights.
Now, if in the end one of these designs can be adapted to a well engineered car and be fast, stable and adjustable at high speeds, I'm all for it. Until then................
I think the idea here is to try to bring some design aesthetics to the engineering. Yes, these are PURELY aesthetic designs, they might not be able to be engineered. But look what happens when you remove designers from the process and put everything into the hands of the engineers. You get this sort of GARBAGE. (see attachment) That nose on the leading car is the UGLIEST thing I have ever seen on a race track.
But when you allow the designers and the engineers to work side by side you get things like the Bentley prototype that ran at Le Mans a few years ago. A work of art AND engineering.
Guys, this is NOT an either/or situation.
Gary
i dont like these crazy futuristic designs....
Actually it was San Jose in 2006 and raced in 2007. First serious test took place weeks before Las Vegas by Roberto Moreno at Sebring.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobGarage
It was a rush job like the Atlantics the year before.
(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)
I know... "shame on me for remembering the good old days". But remember when there were new car(S!!!) EVERY year? Sometimes the new car from one manufacturer was an evolution of the previous year. Sometimes it was revolutionary. But multiple manufacturers took multiple approaches. But this discussion just reinforces how pathetic this has become, with people hoping that maybe a better looking, better performing (single make spec?) design can be cobbled together in a couple of years, and be launched three seasons from now.
Other than counting my gray hairs, it doesn't get much worse than that.
I agree, you think that an F1 car is a 1.5 year introduction process? Ummm..... No!
Ive said it before, set some design specs and let the manufacturers build a car... then let the teams buy them.
If you want to control cost you set a max amount allowed for the builder to sell the car for. You set a max price for parts. It can be done.
You'd think that if they designed it based on aesthetics the designs would look better than the Dallara...Quote:
Originally Posted by nickfalzone
How wrong we were!
Fresh sheet of paper - design a car around a wingless formula. Make sure the important things are taken care of and then worry about aesthetics. The racing will sell itself a lot better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegasguy
If you go that route, you'll end up with one of two scenarios:
a) Car at set price isn't up to the job
or
b) Car is up to the job, but is too expensive for enough teams to purchase.
The highest priority right now is economic control, not getting a kubillion manufacturers competing for limited dollars from a cash strapped pool.
One of the advantages of having a spec series is the costs can be spread out allowing prices of parts to come down from mass production. Panoz would not have been able to produce the DP01 at Champ Car's asking price if they only had 3 teams out of the entire Champ Car paddock purchasing from them. The logistics of hiring personnel on the project and delivering in timely manner would've forced Panoz to raise the price of the car.
Opening up manufacturing of the chassis to multiple vendors is something you do after economic control has been established and teams are back on their feet. That's still a few years away. the next new car needs to be a spec car. After that contract runs out, they'll be able to allow multiple manufacturers to compete.
I think we've already seen wingless designs in other series. they all look alike, and for good reason. If you build something purely for function, chances are it won't look too pretty. that's how the Dallara ended up the way it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
GOOD SWEET JEEBUS those student cars were HORRIFIC. There are people (Gordon Murray) and cars, THe McLaren M-16, The Lotus 56 Turbine (my favorite Uhm...Wingless car of all time) the AAR EAGLE OLSONITE LIVERY, that were race cars that were works of art not works of art that become race cars!
Stangely, I see so little drawings and hypthesizing about real possibilities and I would give my uhm...well a lot to see and talk about some ideas even radical, battery powered ones!
How about it?
I do remember...and that's what we need again. I've said this for a couple of years now...we need multiple manufacturers. It adds drama and storylines. When Danica isn't winning a race, and when the race is actually boring, we (and the media) will be able to talk about the performance of different chassis manufacturers, engine producers, and perhaps even different tire makers. What a world it will be!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Hey, Doc. Yeah, sweet times, weren't they?
I think as long as everything comes down to cost control (instead of increasing the value), nothing is going to change. Formula car racing is going to require a certain budget, no matter the cost of a chassis or engine lease. But if it's seen as a commodity, the value won't be there to encourage sponsors and others to invest. CCWS found that out the hard way. And (IMO) as long as the IRL relies primarily on Danica and Gene Simmons (or other gimmicks) to bring long term value to the series, it'll be in the same boat.
Personally, I think Grand Am has a pretty good model. I'm not crazy about some of the designs. But they've found a way to affordably get a good number of chassis and engine manufacturers involved... and keep costs in line with the expected returns/value.
Just dust off the chassis rule specs from the mid-nineties -- mail to any interested parties and tell them they have to be able to supply rollers for x-amount of dollars if they want to partake.
Done!
Next problem?
P.S. Just don't let them use that fin\fence that ran down the centre-line of the engine cover from the roll hoop towards the rear spoiler. That was UUHHGGLLYY!! I couldn't believe any top class series would allow such an abomination. Oh well, I guess they didn't know any better back then... way back then... before Jag had grey hairs. ;)
There are too many small features that wouldn't easily carry over. For example, the DP01's gearbox was designed to be especially cheap. The Dallara's gearbox was designed to act as a crumple zone in a rear first collision. A gearbox like the DP01's crashing rear first on an oval would have F1 like results.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDomm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA1KRf9s8Ds
That's a good point: the cowl fence or shark fin or whatever it was called. Didn't that first appear on the Penske? Then some other teams used it on their chassis, and some didn't. There were different approaches to aerodynamics from chassis to chassis, and even team to team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbles
And yeah, I understand and agree that ongoing development costs money. But whether under CART or USAC, part of the attraction this type of racing had in North America was the innovation that was allowed. That seemed to attract fans and sponsors, and it added to a general buzz that the sport no longer seems to have (IMO, true of CCWS or IRL).
I don't know what the magic bullet answer is, but when it comes to spec racing, GP2, Atlantics and Star Mazda do the trick for me. To be top shelf, it seems to me that you have to have something more than that.
I'm going to try some of that Grecian Formula stuff. I met a perky tweenager with a navel ring at a NOPI race a couple of years ago. She said her dad used that junk. So it must be good. :)
Current Dallaras are IMO the safest OW cars ever which is definitely important. So the next car must be even safer.
What?!Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
You mean cars the drivers really have to drive??! GASP!
:up:
There's no question that safety is of huge importance in the new design, and being spec more than ever will not only improve safety but balance of safety and speed.
And it just popped up now... over a decade later in F1... who'd of thunk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Personally, for me the best racing finishes last year came from Canadian NASCAR (you had to see Ranger's finish at Trois Rivieres to believe it) and SCCA Touring Car.. But they just ain't sexy. Those guys don't spend anywhere near as much money on losing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I'd like to see the chassis regs freed up and a small displacement turbo engine. Fiddle with the boost and fuel mileage (restrict revs) when the manufacturers start making too much HP and adjust boost for road and oval purposes. Ferchrissakes, we can't mandate horsepower when more than one engine supplier is involved.
Remember, both top and bottom. The illusion must be complete! So I've heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Late sixties F1 cars looked great. Also, in my estimation, did a Champ Car when it had it's rear wing knocked off (awesome profile). This should seriously be looked at if the ICS wants a distinct identity. Wings provide advertising space though. Serious set back. They do not, IMO, provide much in the way of crush zone safety. Some here, however, feel they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
The teams can't currently sell the advertising space they have, and with the nice teardrop shape of the engine cowl, advertising on the cowl would be perfectly visible from a rear 3/4 angle if there wasn't a rear wing blocking the view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbles
If they had these tail-happy beasts that glued eyeballs to the TV, a whole lot less advertising space would be worth a whole lot more.
?? IRL crash test regs are nothing compared to those implemented in F1. The Panoz DP01 had to pass the F1 front and side impact tests as well. I'd argue the Dallara is at the end of it's life and the series could do with a safer car like the al the other higher level open wheels series.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan-veteran
Would it be possible for the ICS to desing a cockpit\safety cell and allow manufacturers to design a car around it?
With some tight specs on a rear crush zone BEYOND the cell, this is an EXCELLENT idea!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbles
Gary
Do you know how fast the F1 crash testing speed is? 15 m/s, or 33 miles per hour. Steve Matchett recently went on a rant about that on Speed F1 coverage about the low speed of the crash testing. Is it starting to show? Well, Kubica's feet were clearly exposed in his accident at Montreal last year, and you could clearly see daylight through Kovalainen footbox in Barcelona. And they hit at less speeds than what you would see on an oval...Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
I have no insight into the specifics of the DP01 gearbox, and whether or not it has the structural integrity to absorb enough energy during an oval crash. But I'd imagine that it would be something that could be modified. I suppose there is a point where too many modifications make it more practical to start from scratch. I'm not convinced that anyone who posts on this forum (aside from maybe Hoop98) has that knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by call_me_andrew
Here's another guy that might have some insight into the DP01's specifics...
http://archive.motorsportforums.com/...&userid=23508&
The IRL car would not pass many (any?) of the FIA tests. Obviously there are more tests other than front impact and of course F1 cars don't generally see the kind of impacts that oval race cars can be subject too. Both Kubica's accident and Kovalainen's was a testiment to the safety of the cars. I just think that crash test regs need to be updated for the IRL, and I'm sure they will be with any new rule set that is announced.Quote:
Originally Posted by gofastandwynn
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofastandwynn
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
Testament to the safety of the cars? You have to be kidding right? Kubica's feet were exposed and you could see daylight in the footbox of Kovalainen's car and this is a testament to their safety? No I'm sorry, it is a testament to how LUCKY these two guys were.
Gary
The Dallara was tested to "exceed FIA standards" and passed all crash test standards. The F-1 chassis came apart at speeds a lot slower than what a crash at Indy would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
Simply not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by gofastandwynn
http://www.indycar.com/tech/images/dallara_car.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
Yea, I guess not...
Specifics??? Or is this more of the "testament to the saftey of the F1 cars" sort of thinking?Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
Gary
I don't understand what the above info proves? I'm not saying that the IRL car is unsafe, just that an F1 car in a typical F1 accident (if there can ever be a typical accident) is safer than an IRL car. Can you honestly say that you would rather have Kubica's accident in a Dallara that his BMW? Kubica's crash was an almighty impact, and the fact that he all but walked away is a testiment to it safety. Yes you could see his feet, but he suffered no injury. The chassis protected him.Quote:
Originally Posted by gofastandwynn
My contribution to this thread was merely to suggest that the new IRL car needs to be the safest car for obvious reasons. For example an IRL chassis will not pass an FIA F1 holl hoop test. The rear of the IRL tub is a bolt on alluminium panel which is simply not strong enough to resist the load applied to the roll hoop. Based on the various accidents in the last few years in the IRL that cars have landed upside down the IRL car is still pretty stout. I may be wrong but I think in one of Dario's accidents the roll hoop did fail though.