|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
13 Dec 2003, 10:51 (Ref:810856) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,419
|
IRL to cut speeds
Haven't seen this mentioned here already, so here goes - from CBS Sportsline;
Quote:
|
||
|
13 Dec 2003, 11:24 (Ref:810868) | #2 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,344
|
About time.
|
||
__________________
"Abe will be remembered as a fighter" - RIP Abe. |
13 Dec 2003, 11:56 (Ref:810880) | #3 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 80
|
have heard irl refered to as Rollerball by some people.
I was wondering how many more big crashes before they took some action. |
|
__________________
Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional. |
13 Dec 2003, 12:06 (Ref:810889) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,188
|
Idiots, they dont need to decrease power they need to increase it and put rules on the wing angles. They are dangerous because they are not powerful enough, that means that to be the fastest you have to run with no wing. And what happens when you run without wing, yes you take off.
|
||
__________________
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel." |
13 Dec 2003, 12:29 (Ref:810901) | #5 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,419
|
The crashes by Mario Andretti, Dan Wheldon and Kenny Brack had nothing to do with the wing configuration, and I don't think Tony Renna's crash had something to do with it either.
The flat bottoms of the cars is one of the main reasons the car catches air in the first place (once the nose has been punted up far enough for air to get in underneath that is), just like the sports-car flips in recent years (Yannick Dalmas @ Road Atlanta, Peter Dumbreck and Mark Webber @ Le Mans and Michele Alboreto @ Lausitzring, to name a few). Last edited by rustyfan; 13 Dec 2003 at 12:32. |
|
|
13 Dec 2003, 12:37 (Ref:810905) | #6 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 393
|
I was thinking that the problem was too much downforce.:confused:
|
||
__________________
In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. |
13 Dec 2003, 14:24 (Ref:810948) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 670
|
This was exactly what Hornish was calling for in that interview that Down F0rce posted during the week. I guess he must have had some inside information... I'm not sure, though. It seems to me that Mackmot has a good point. The tendancy is to run with such little wing and so close to the ground that the car setup is on a knife edge. It's a bit like the way F1 cars were when Senna died, no?
|
||
__________________
"Meet me at the racetrack, Jack." |
13 Dec 2003, 14:30 (Ref:810949) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,536
|
i agree with mackmot- maybe more wing, or less tire so they run more wing the engine dropping to 3 litres? we know how that slows f1, sheesh. making tunnels under car would be a good idea- i don't like the flat bottoms- the whole car is a wing.
I think less tyre would be a good solution as less gripp in the turns would lead to lifting earlier, and slower accelerations and overall less speed, maybe a harder compound? but less power i am not sure that's exactly it. but this in the name of safer races is a good thing- more likeley safer crashes. |
||
__________________
SuperTrucks rule- end of story. Listen to my ramblings! Follow my twitter @davidAET I am shameless ... |
13 Dec 2003, 14:39 (Ref:810950) | #9 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,043
|
High speed ovals + cement walls + open wheel cars = recipe for disaster. What difference does 210 mph vs 230 mph when you are running into a solid cement wall?
Don't need comments like that, thank you. Last edited by Down F0rce; 13 Dec 2003 at 19:13. |
|
|
13 Dec 2003, 15:51 (Ref:810992) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,419
|
The lower speed can make a lot of difference, not to mention they never hit the wall at those speeds - you'd be surprised if you knew how much speed is scrubbed off during, for example, a spin before the actual impact with the wall.
Speaking of the walls, with the SAFER barrier being installed at more and more tracks (Indianapolis, Richmond, Homestead and Phoenix - so far), the forces involved when striking the wall are reduced even further. It's been proven several times already - both in IndyCar and NASCAR competition - that the SAFER barrier reduces the G-spike a lot during impacts. Quote:
Last edited by Down F0rce; 13 Dec 2003 at 19:14. |
||
|
13 Dec 2003, 16:09 (Ref:811002) | #11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,376
|
It's a good development. I don't think that the fans will notice a 10MPH difference, but if it saves life and limb, go for it.
|
||
__________________
"I don't feel insecure about 'being girlie'. I do as much media as I can because I want this IRL series to be so kick-butt that NASCAR goes, 'Huh?'" Danica Patrick |
13 Dec 2003, 21:18 (Ref:811196) | #12 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 496
|
10mph still wouldn't have stopped Kenny Brack going into the debris fence though, and if you believe it will then your kidding yourself (wasn't it Castroneves that did the same at Richmond at 190mph in a test?).
Lowering speeds is only half the problem, they need to address the aerodynamic issues the cars have that means the engineers have to set them up on a knife edge in the first place as well to make it work. |
||
__________________
If it isn't broke... Don't fix it! |
13 Dec 2003, 23:50 (Ref:811276) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,276
|
I would also have thought that it would have been more sensible to make aerodynamic changes to the cars.
Questions from an uneducated guy in IRL and CART aerodynamics: -Why do IRL cars take off and CART cars do not? -Is it all a fluke? -If you couldn't touch the engine, what should be done to fix the issue? |
||
__________________
"Many people depend on motor racing for their livelihood, to them it is a business. To me, it is a sport." -Jim Clark |
14 Dec 2003, 12:21 (Ref:811544) | #14 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,344
|
Well one reason could be that Champ Cars only race on highspeed ovals 2 times a year, so there is less chance of a crash, and i think i remember Michael Andretti stating that last year the field was just so experianced for the most part that there was less of a chance for a crash. And finaly, the CART cars don't run nose to tail like the IRL cars so there again, is less of a chance of a crash.
As for the actual aero dynamics...dunno! Um as from a very very very un-informed opinion removing the flat bottoms and sucking the cars to the ground could work maybe? (Wasn't that why the 956s et al didn't flip down Musslane straight ub the 80s?) |
||
__________________
"Abe will be remembered as a fighter" - RIP Abe. |
15 Dec 2003, 01:01 (Ref:811869) | #15 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 496
|
Quote:
I think however, if they were going to try and address all issues together, then it will probably be better to throw the current crop of cars in the bin and start from scratch, cos by changing one thing, they'll probably find it'll introduce another issue (an example would be putting large F1 style flipups on the back of the sidepods to induce downforce to stop them flying could cause lift when the cars go backwards). Wheel to wheel contact is a different thing however, I've seen Formula Ford's get high enough to clear 15 foot high debris fence so changing the cars to avoid that kind of a shunt is going to be an impossible job unless they put barge bars on the back of em... Last edited by Ian-S; 15 Dec 2003 at 01:03. |
|||
__________________
If it isn't broke... Don't fix it! |
15 Dec 2003, 20:03 (Ref:812444) | #16 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,065
|
Quote:
IMO, if you were to compare the IRL's current era of safety to that of F1, taking into consideration the nature of ovals, I would say that they're round about 1994-'99ish. |
|||
__________________
I am just a cowboy lonesome on the trail A starry night, a campfire light The coyote call, the howling winds wail So I ride out to the old sundown |
15 Dec 2003, 20:19 (Ref:812459) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
I have to disagree a little bit on the downforce issue. I also thought that they were perhaps running too little downforse and too close to the edge. But, look at how they are running on some of these tracks. Many of the tracks they are flat out the whole way around. Even on a few of the miles they can go flat out through the turns. Just read an article on the changes at PIR where they talk about being able to go flat out through turns 3 and 4. This has to be because of downforce. Don't fool yourself.
Now I admit that I'm no aero genius. I believe the IRL cars are ground effects cars (like CART). Correct me if I'm wrong please. But what about running no ground effects like the current F1 cars? And perhaps adopt a new aero package that forces the cars to lift some in the turns. |
||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
15 Dec 2003, 20:32 (Ref:812471) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,536
|
why not cover the catchefence in polycarbonate? this way we can see through the fence, and it won't snag a car that was thrown into it- of course glare may be an issue, but the proper angle for the shields can avoid this, simple trig or some triagnulation with the suns angle and the drivers head in the cockpit and light reflection angle we can keep everyone happy and have a good barrier read to keep a car deflected.
Of course Brack and renna,s wrecks were so bad they want to fix- but the obvious Aero problem has been brushed under the carpet- remember mario testing at Indy as well? he hit debris and caught a bit of air-enough under the car to send it skyward, and into 4 flips and he walked away- was that not scary enough to redo the aero? leave the engines, hell use the Cosworth XFE, it doesn't matter but the aero bits are bad news. i can not see the current generation Champ cars (from i'd say 96 on up) ever doing what happened in the IRL- is it the aero? most likely and this is in reference to Oval only races. When greg moore passed, he didn't lift like kenny, i remeber him skidding through the grass and flipping up on that crazy infield concrete guillotine to chop the car in half- and montoya andretti fight at MIS, they touched wheels enough to rubb off the tyre names. Which raises the point of all who crashed- and race in IRL. Mario got his airborne at indy to no damage, but his skills aren't lacking, maybe not as sharp as they were but it was the car's aerodynamics lifting it after it bumped and ran over some of (ironically) Kenny Brack's debris in testing. Kenny Brack is a great Oval Racer, and a pretty good driver period, his CART year was solid and air free, and he had some wrecks, He is an IRL series champ and Indy 500 winner- he can handle himself in an oval- again bad aero lifting the car after it gets enough air underneath- Renna had tried the oval game before, but the experience of the 2 mentioned before clearly outweighs his to deal with any accident, and bad aero clearly sending a car up so at what speeds does the car lift? 170 MPH 200MPH seriously 220MPH? The design of current IRL cars will toss up probably at lower speed than an Oval configured,more powerful and lighter champcar. The skill of the field in IRL is not what it should be- USAC guys flip up and go blinding fast (so do supermodifieds) but no serious wrecks like the IRL why? it isn't power to weight, because at 900 lbs or about 445kgs a sprint car has 800 or more horsepower, zooming at 170 or more Mph- the Silver crown still lighter than IRL car at 1200 lbs or 580kgs. have 800 or so HP and they do not encounter the IRL trouble on mile tracks or (this year proposed 2 milers) The USAC guys spot trouble and deal with open wheels much better than guys who bump open wheel- like my favorite wrecking ball loos cannon Tomas Schekter- he has been involved in sooo many wrecks and is lucky he didn't kill anyone yet- it isn't a racing deal, it is a skill and open wheel oval experience thing. Speeds irrespective USAC guys (silvercrown especially) don't do this nose to tail and interlock wheels thing- when i race midgets or sprints the rule is always leave day light (or track) visible between the wheels. so IRL guys don't seem to care about this. It has become a very talented pool- however the talent involved in some accidents show th flaws in the cars designs possibly, and the few involved in wrecks show the flaws in the accident participants more often than not. |
||
__________________
SuperTrucks rule- end of story. Listen to my ramblings! Follow my twitter @davidAET I am shameless ... |
15 Dec 2003, 22:29 (Ref:812589) | #19 | ||||||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 496
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You also can't compare a silver crown car to a IRL car, perhaps you might be able to soon when they get on the superspeedways, but not right now. As it says on the back of the ticket, "Motor Racing is Dangerous and you are present at your own risk". Did you know that, by stats, fishing is more dangerous than motor racing? |
||||||
__________________
If it isn't broke... Don't fix it! |
15 Dec 2003, 23:21 (Ref:812623) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,536
|
"Did you know that, by stats, fishing is more dangerous than motor racing? "
so is changing a light bulb or shovelling your drive.. and Moore's car was launched atthe change of banking eh? he got loose but didn't fly is my point, that flying was caused by the bump... mario's wreck- as i mentioned was debris related, but how loose do current indycars need to be or not be when air gets underneath them enough to cause flight? Polycarbonate, would shatter your right, in large shards too. spectatotors would be skewered. (secretley i am laughing at the absurdity of this idea...) a series of poly walls could possibly work, or changing the indy car grandstanding. eliminating the bottom row altogethr- or computer generating the crowds and not really let a live spectator audience. |
||
__________________
SuperTrucks rule- end of story. Listen to my ramblings! Follow my twitter @davidAET I am shameless ... |
16 Dec 2003, 00:50 (Ref:812669) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,125
|
"computer generating the crowds"
Now that's funny. I'm the farthest thing from an aerodynamic engineer that you can ever find, but the flat bottom has just GOT to act like an aircraft wing when lifted off the tarmac. Sort of like flying your hand out of the car window on the highway. The reasons for the "flights", be it debris or wheel-to-wheel contact, are unavoidable in this game. But once the car has become airborne, something's gotta help to keep them from going to the moon. |
||
__________________
Don't make a fuss, just get on the bus! |
16 Dec 2003, 05:17 (Ref:812759) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,744
|
From a racing standpoint this is the WORST thing they could have done. IRL's biggest problem is that the racing isn't good due to the inability to utilize the driver's strengths. Drivers do not lift in corners. If the drivers don't lift then you're not challenging them and allowing those who are more skilled to shine through.
It's probably a good idea to slow the cars down, but do it as a whole. The grip needs to go down with the power, but more of a decrease in grip than in power and the racing will be better. As a percent of total grip run more mechanical grip and/or a more effective undertray (I thought IRL cars weren't flat on the bottom?). The "CART never ran on that many ovals in a season" arguement doesn't cut it. A few seasons back CART ran about the same number of ovals as IRL is running now. Something is wrong with these cars. I think you could argue that accidents are more likely and will be of a different nature when running wheel to wheel as much as the IRL does. A possible ramification of an engine spec change might be that it would annoy Honda and Toyota. They spent a lot of money developing their engines and that R&D money has to get ROI. Recall this was a big reason why Honda left CART for the IRL. As of today Honda could return to CART without investing more than a $1M in R&D (running the 2.65L V8 turbo). |
||
__________________
No Rotor, No Motor. |
16 Dec 2003, 05:55 (Ref:812775) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 625
|
On the polycarbonate idea, it has merit. Don’t assume that the engineers would simply design a system and put up single sheets of Lexan or Plexiglas (Those are most likely spelled wrong and need a “reg” or “TM” next to them.) They would certainly consider what would happen at impact involving applicable forces as well as effects. A more likely design would involve multiple layers of a modified composition sandwiched with layers of a thin flexible film similar in design to aircraft windows. The result would be very strong and resistant to breakage. The panels could be mounted on structural supports using shock mounts to absorb some of the impact forces.
The downsides are of course costs. This would be a much more expensive system than the typical chain link fencing. One other problem would be the deflection of the racing sounds. You wouldn’t feel the roaring of the engines in your chest. |
||
__________________
"The pedal doesn't care what your nationality is" Paul Gentilozzi |
16 Dec 2003, 08:58 (Ref:812877) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,419
|
Seems there is a slim chance the tires might be modified as well - the following is axed from an article at ESPN;
Quote:
|
||
|
16 Dec 2003, 15:01 (Ref:813141) | #25 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
To gttouring. Your info on the Silver Crown cars is a bit off. They are to weigh 1500 pounds without the driver. The motor is a 355ci V8 that produces 700-750hp. Source:
http://www.usacracing.com/sccarspecs.asp Altering the tires for IRL would make some sense, lack of grip would definitely slow the corner speeds. |
||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GT4 Speeds | nickyf1 | Virtual Racers | 7 | 9 Dec 2005 21:44 |
Top speeds at Pre-Q | 917Addicted | Sportscar & GT Racing | 39 | 8 May 2004 08:03 |
Top speeds | ljakse | Formula One | 2 | 16 May 2003 17:18 |
Top speeds | ThaDutchDevil | Sportscar & GT Racing | 3 | 11 Jun 2002 12:38 |
F1 Speeds - what do you think? | f1_fanatic8 | Racing Technology | 2 | 18 Jun 2001 17:33 |