Originally Posted by beachbum
The Cooper may have been seen as radical by Indy car standards, but technically, it was a known quantity and was hardly revolutionary. What was more revolutionary was the advent of wings.
As someone who has a degree in mechanical engineering, there are aspects that make sense, and some that make no sense at all. Even with modern tire constructions, there is a limit to how much traction you can get with a certain width and loading. The only possible way that might work is with a severe rearward weight bias, or have tires that last a few laps. I am not sure how they can achieve that and still get a lighter car. There are only so many mechanical bits you can move.
The problem is building car that can run by itself and be controllable is a lot different that the issues of racing the same cars. With today's cars, certain common events like banging wheels don't immediately result in disaster. With widely different track widths, if the rear wheels touch, the car will likely rotate. Not good and a probable crash.
Crash loads are reduced with crush space. The side pods are minimal, so when the crash does occur, there isn't much crush space. That severe rearward weight bias may have some unexpected dynamics in a spin, and race cars do spin. A car tends to spin around the CG, and if it is rearward, that funny nose will have some serious velocity as it comes around.
Technical innovation is great, as is thinking outside the box, but with so much hard data on vehicle and tire dynamics, building something this radical that is vastly different than any other solution anyone has built just makes little sense. Perhaps I will be proven wrong (won't be the first), but this reminds me too much of the Mickey Thompson "roller skate" and other ill conceived "radical" ideas.
There is a good reason most race cars look a lot alike. Base on the laws of Physics, everyone comes to similar conclusions.
