Add to that, you had the option for smaller teams to buy year old chassis from the top teams which would add some smaller teams to the fold.Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
Printable View
Add to that, you had the option for smaller teams to buy year old chassis from the top teams which would add some smaller teams to the fold.Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
They have that option now, but they are more likely beat down several year old versions of the same chassis. Ask some of the ex ccws teams what they thought of some of the old eQuipment they got.
When I said frustrating, I meant the fact that everyone keeps talking about needing a chassis designthat does A, b, and C, and allows x,y,and z. Those chassis and engine designs already exist, just build NEW ones! No re-invention of the wheel is necessary.
He'll, the dags and chassis engineers probably still have their data and set up sheets!
Taking 93 Lolas and putting them on the track will last ooohh...about a year and we will be heading right back where we are. The teams will improve the cars but make them more aero dependent. I don't want to see the series mandating progress either.
I vote for radically removing the aero off the cars. Aero creates wake turbulence and aero means aero push. Make a car rely on mechanical grip and you put racing back in the hands of the men driving the cars ( and women ). They have to brake for more corners, which increases passing opportunities and less aero means more car control rewarding skilled wheelmen.
Will it be slower? Yup. Will it be more dangerous? Maybe a few more crashes but not necessarily more dangerous because safety isn't dependent on wings, it is dependent on cockpit design and building that capsule around the driver. That we must never stop working on.
Giving us 93 Lolas wont work because the safety isn't there compared to today's car and the teams will go right back down the road of making these cars as undrivable as the current car.
First off, 93-95 Lolas have a lot in common aero wise with 1997-2003 IndyCars.
Here is a good discussion of many issues, a bit old and lots (to say the least) has changed but the fundamentals are the same.
http://www.autoracing1.com/MarkC/000801AeroProposal.htm
rh
They produced good racing every where they went which is what I want to see a return to.
So should race cars accelerate, brake, maybe even skid with different cars having different speeds and advantages on different parts of the racecourse and use different strategies and setups? The conventional wisdom has been fans want to see cars all going at the same speed in close pack racing.
You guys have a lot of good ideas on technical changes to make that change. The problem is, I don't think the fundamental obstacle is technical. It is a philosophical choice of what the racing is supposed to look like. The current rules and car are designed to work one way and I don't have your faith that whoever is running the IRL is going to actually reverse this philosophical position - even with a new car or new manufacturer involvement.
CCWS, it is complicated by the success of NASCAR. It is pack racing in a sense and a lot of people think the OW version of that works. I think to some fans it might, but I think us OW fans are looking for something different.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWS77
My point is that many seem to think certain technical changes or even manufacturer involvement solves this. That won't make a difference if the overarching philosophy of those making the rules hasn't changed
CCWS, IndyCars obviously brake and accelerate on Road Courses, On Super Speedways no one has since the early 80s.
On miles ChampCars were flat in the 90s and when they took away the downforce it was a disaster, not to say they couldn't have worked it out, but they didn't.
The DP01 was faster at high speed tracks because you did not have to lift in many sections that you had to lift in the Lola. At common tracks the Dallara has to brake and slow then accelerate more than the DP01 because it has lower specific downforce.
So why does this seem to be such a sudden new thing when it has been around during the "golden years"?
http://i25.tinypic.com/2jblam8.jpg
Note how the faster car with better grip doesn't lift. And yet many praise the higher downforce cars as better, very confusing. The bottom trace is the throttle trace on the loweer downforce car thru a high speed sweeper. Notice the top trace is flat.
rh
I was not trying to claim this trend was "new" nor I am disputing which technical changes might result in better racing. The idea of managed, regulated or designed outcomes is the primary reason I have not been a big motorsports fan for alot of my lifetime. I became a bigger fan when I sensed a trend away from that and found some racing series which I could follow which were not like that. Perhaps that was an illusion because as far as I can tell, that movement or sentiment has been killed and thus my interest in racing is waning.
This thread seems based on the idea that some technical changes can fix that broken philosophy of managed outcomes. I do not see it. Even if the technical change has the desired effect, that is nothing but a bandaid on the issue which can be reversed with some backdoor rule that probably wont even be published for fans. Furthermore, fans constantly insisting that what is really wrong is lack of variation on the starting grid will only serve to make those who constantly work to control the outcome interfere in the rules even MORE. More disparity at the start is not the solution to defeat the idea of a managed outcome, they will just work twice as hard or twice as secretly to achieve it (GrandAm?!)
Hoop, can you do a mini compare & contrast on the IRL car and the most recent GP2 car? Not that I'm suggesting that the GP2 car is THE answer. But as I've been trying to catch up on GP2 races to make some room on Mr. Tivo, at least on road courses, it seems like they've gotten something right with the GP2 formula. Or maybe it's the drivers, or the fact that they don't run for fuel mileage or that they have very few yellows/safety periods. I don't know. But since both cars are made by Dallara, I just wondered about the two.
This is a decent summary that I found of the GP2 model:
Could the new IRL car be some enhanced version of this car?Quote:
The feeder series founded in 2005 by F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone and Renault chief Flavio Briatore runs identical Dallara chassis powered by 580hp 4-liter Renault V8s shared across the board by all 13 two-car teams.
The new Dallara GP2/08, which will remain in place over the next three seasons before replacement, was the only non-F1 car to pass the full 2007 FIA crash tests. Introduced over a two-day test session at the Paul Ricard circuit in France this past weekend, the 2008 model features a number of updates, primarily focused on aerodynamics. Although most of the 26 cars ran largely without problems, a few cars revealed extra strain on the front suspension and steering assembly as a result of the new aero package.
The main thing to take from this or any car is IMO of course more undertray, less wing.
I was at the INDY museum yesterday looking at the 95 Lola and the other cars in the evolution of the series. What stuck in my mind is the cycle of innovation and rule change to thwart that innovation. Big wings sprout, then become small wings etc..
In the late 90s we restricted the tunnel exits and that idea has carried over into the IRL cars, though to a lesser extent. This was to counter the annual advances in aero.
Without that competition between makes I think Dallara or anyone for that matter will go in this direction.
One somewhat radical idea Handford had was a wing with minimal lift ~200 lbs, that actually improved grip in a wake.
But with a single make series, you design the car to do what you want it to, not to fit in a rules box designed to hamper performance.
The GP2/0x is also designed to appeal. look like a F1 car, this isn't a design objective here.
Whatever criteria the series decides on it shouldn't be a monumental task to improve performance and control costs in a single chassis series. Swift has done a good job of this and I am sure Dallara can too.
I realize I didn't answer your question directly jag, but I think they would rather go with a substantially new design, not enhance a GP2-0x.
The car should:
1. Look fresh but purposeful.
2. Be of similar dimension, but perhaps lighter (150 would be nice)
3. Be safe!
4. Be cost effective to purchase and repair.
5. Lap 5 pct quicker on Road Courses with 700-750 HP.
6. Be easy to work on
7. Have customizable undertrays for 3 downworce configurations.
Something like that!
rh
I just want to see a set of technical regulations drawn up and let whoever wants to build a car meeting them to be able to do so, I don't like this idea of a spec chassis being designed with things like looks and quality of racing in mind. To be honest any racing car which is designed with any other objective than to be quicker than the opposition just leaves a horrible sick feeling in the pit of my stomach :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
Affordability be damned, huh? Maybe that's not so much an objective as a constraint, but as they say at the end of "Little Steven's Underground Garage" show each week: "It's time to face stupid reality again."
We learned the lesson of speed being the only objective back in the Can-Am days, when the equation became one of cubic dollars and cubic inches. Or at least I thought we had until the IMSA days when again the costs skyrocketed. And now this sort of sentiment seems to be back. So maybe we haven't learned the lesson at all.
Gary
I just don't see how if you have a SPEC or if you instead have every car on the grid totally custom designed- I don't see how there is any difference whatsoever between the racing product of the two when you have burecrats in charge of the rulebook with the idea doing whatever it takes to make the outcome be a managed side by side finish. A rocket ship racing against a bicycle can be managed and regulated to be the same speed if you come up with enough interesting rules for the competition. Diversity on the starting grid doesn't address it whatsoever so IMHO you get sick over the wrong thing if you actually care about there being a genuine competition of some kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWS77
CCWS, for my clarification purposes. What professional series did you enjoy that didn't have all this management and bureaucracy?
rh
Well are you really asking me to spell out which series seem to manage the outcome and which don't? obviously NASCAR does and the IRL seems to have originally been modeled on that. F1 does too, they just bury their management in a mountain of paperwork and legalese and fans buy this for some reason. GrandAm is just awful with race to race rules changes based on the outcome of the prior race.
I think Champ Car had a lot less of this - actually less then CART. I know people want to complain Champ Car was only ever a minor version of CART but if what had been cut out is all this BS then im fine with that. I just don't understand why people even care about the kind of vehicle showing up to race if you can't trust the integrity of the rules and process used to decide the winner.
CCWS, in what way(s) are the integrity of the rules in the IRL and NASCAR unfair to the paying fans? Specifically, what aspecs of Champ Car's rules (which I did not watch) were superior to these series?
I see, CART (the home of the Circus Clown, variable Pop offs, the Austrailian wait till Andretti runs out then throw the flag, the banned Lola, the porsche, the Franchise System) I could go on forever!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWS77
Champcar with the 5 minute post race techs that had the Teams screaming...
I am speechless....Thats some dayuum good koolaid...
;n)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWS77
Leaves me asking, OK which ones didn't/don't?
Gary