New Chassis Opinion Pole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I agree with you. I don't know what they need to do to get there, but that is what needs to happen. Isn't it funny that in the (nearly) laissez-faire world of Formula One, a change in the rules set the F1 world on its head last season? And with Red Bull now a top team, it's still somewhat on its head. What confuses me is that in GP2 the racing is typically VERY good with a good amount of passing, but they have a spec chassis too. I mean there are top teams that tend to attract the best drivers every year in GP2. But watching a GP2 race is like watching a pack of wild, hungry dogs fighting over the last scrap of bread. I continue to think that one issue with the IRL is the drivers being too sweet & nice to each other. I'd rather see Paul Tracy, Mike Andretti, Alex Zanardi, Greg Moore, Jacques Villeneuve and Juan Montoya type people (truly) going for it, as if their lives depended on getting that next spot... like in GP2. But you can't just go out and buy those types of "win at any cost" personalities, so I don't know...

I guess the latest rumor is an announcement of multiple chassis next week. We'll see what that does.

---

That's what I've been saying all along. There are no guarantees that a spec formula will produce better racing- neither will multiple chassis and engines. And yes, GP2 has much better racing and they are a spec formula.

So I'm left to conclude that it isn't the spec, but how the series itself. I don't care if we have a field full of one make cars or teams are required to build their own. If it improves the racing, I'm for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The racing WONT be better under the current format because the cars are about all developed out and there is a lack of room to find new ideas when the rules are so restrictive.

---

Respectfully Mark, I think you're so bent on ridding the series of the Dallaras that you're willing to justify any reason to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I too think that the Dallaras are the ugliest race cars ever to hit the track, and would have a hard time beating a Champ Car from the 80's, 90's and 2000's.

But what's even worse is the racing. I could live with the Dallara if it produced much better racing. IMO, it's the rules around the cars rather than the cars themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by px400r

That's what I've been saying all along. There are no guarantees that a spec formula will produce better racing- neither will multiple chassis and engines. And yes, GP2 has much better racing and they are a spec formula.

So I'm left to conclude that it isn't the spec, but how the series itself. I don't care if we have a field full of one make cars or teams are required to build their own. If it improves the racing, I'm for it.

---

I've said it numerous times, and I'll keep believing it until somebody really proves me wrong... If a series is going to be a "spec" series, or at least tight enough rules to be a virtual spec series, that spec has to be carefully engineered to produce good racing.

Some key points:
The cars must be fast in the slipstream, rather than fastest out front.
They shouldn't leave a overly turbulent wake that makes it dangerous or impossible to run close nose-to-tail.
The brakes shouldn't be too good - ultra short braking zones do not make for a better show.
They must have more power than they have tires... traction control & cars that can't drift or powerslide don't make for a good show.
No setup should ever be allowed where you can run a whole lap flat out without lifting.
There must be enough flexibility in fuel strategy & tire wear to allow different pit strategies.

The current Indycar formula gets many of these things wrong, & it hurts the "show". Hopefully a new chassis can be a lot better.

So do you want them to be able to draft, or do you want the cars to not make turbulence? I hate to be the one to tell you this: but that turbulence is the draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by px400r

Respectfully Mark, I think you're so bent on ridding the series of the Dallaras that you're willing to justify any reason to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I too think that the Dallaras are the ugliest race cars ever to hit the track, and would have a hard time beating a Champ Car from the 80's, 90's and 2000's.

But what's even worse is the racing. I could live with the Dallara if it produced much better racing. IMO, it's the rules around the cars rather than the cars themselves.

---

Actually, I don't hate the Dallara's as much as I used to, and I hope they build a new Dallara for a new series where they have to compete. WHAT I used to love was how manufacturers would come out with new cars and new upgrades. If you were a fan of team A, you would know that Team B would come back next year with a new wing, or a new chassis, and Team C would show up with a new chassis from someone else with a new motor from a new manufacturer...and all the sudden your Team A was now chasing the other two. Now I know in a series where money is tight, this is less likely to happen, but why in god's name would you write rules that just outlaw any development or changes?

All you have done is put everyone in the same stuff, and you notice of course that the same two teams dominate every race. So really, what have you changed? All you did was "save" money and eliminate the fan who looked forward to the evolution of the cars.

The fact is, no one cares that much about series where everyone runs the same stuff. If they did, A1 might have stuck around, because god knows it provided some decent races....

2. Date Salma Hayek.


Too bad Panoz couldn't have been in on this. The DP-01 and DP-09 concept's could have been molded into one package for roadies and ovals.

It would never happen based on a multitude of variables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

So do you want them to be able to draft, or do you want the cars to not make turbulence? I hate to be the one to tell you this: but that turbulence is the draft.

---

I'd hate to think that you think you're telling me something I don't know. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e2mtt

The cars must be fast in the slipstream, rather than fastest out front.
They shouldn't leave a overly turbulent wake that makes it dangerous or impossible to run close nose-to-tail.

---

I should rephrase that as such:

A spec car must be designed to NOT be overly aero dependent, especially not on the front wing.
The loss of downforce & traction due to the turbulent wake must not be so severe that it is impossible follow another car closely through a turn.
It must be able to run in a slipstream without becoming difficult to control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e2mtt

I'd hate to think that you think you're telling me something I don't know. :-)

---

Oh good! You're not ignorant, just crazy.

I saw this at Speed.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...odel-revealed/

The article says that Lola must be confident that it's going to be involved if they went ahead and built a scale wind tunnel model. There's a pic of the model in the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DBell

I saw this at Speed.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...odel-revealed/

The article says that Lola must be confident that it's going to be involved if they went ahead and built a scale wind tunnel model. There's a pic of the model in the story.

---

L-O-L-A Lola.