Steve Matchett goes to Nazareth

[KC]

I found this article interesting in that Steve Matchett, former Bennetton mechanic on Michael Schumacher's WDC car, went to Nazareth for his very first CART race and oval event. He compares the two series and his comments are interesting coming from someone who has been at he sharp end of F1 from the pitlane.

Steve Matchett writes a weekly column on the state of affairs in F1 and is 1/3rd of the broadcast team for F1 on Speedvision. I copied this article from the Speedvision/RACER site.

Steve Matchett: How the Other Half Lives

"We're not in Bernie's bunker anymore, Toto..." (

Montjean, France, May 16 — In the normal course of events, I usually return to Europe after each of Speedvision’s F1 broadcasts, back to France, desperate to make some sort of forward progress on stopping my wreck of a house from total collapse. However, I stayed in the States between the Spanish and Austrian Grands Prix; and a few of the chaps were planning a trip to Nazareth Speedway to attend the fourth round of the CART FedEx Championship. They had asked if I would like to join them; I’d never visited a CART race and thought it would be a great experience. I wasn’t disappointed.

Wide-eyed, I walked the paddock, pits and grandstands, taking in a whole new formula of racing. The atmosphere in the paddock was wonderfully tranquil, and the fans had the sort of close access to the cars and drivers that hasn’t been seen in Formula 1 for more than a decade. Nowadays, access to any inner area of a Grand Prix venue is extremely difficult to obtain, and the security measures ensuring that no one strays into restricted zones are very effective. For the last six years, the Formula 1 paddocks have been guarded by computer-controlled security gates.

The teams, VIP guests, television crews, etc. are all issued with ATM-style swipe cards (etched with photo ID). Big Brother knows exactly who has been issued with which pass, and he knows for precisely how long that precious visa is valid: A single day, a race weekend, the entire season. B.B. knows the exact time you entered the paddock and he knows the exact time you left. B.B. knows who you are, and for what purpose you have been granted access. The idea of handing your pass over the fence to sneak a friend through the gates doesn’t work, either: The security system will not allow your swipe card to enter the paddock gates twice consecutively: You have to swipe back out of the paddock before the system will allow the card to re-enter.

Vigorous measures, certainly, but measures that became inevitable. Formula 1 has grown so big, so hugely popular, that without these strict controls the paddock and pit lane would become more than congested, it would be totally jammed with hordes of people, making it impossible to stage the race, and that is not an option.

Thankfully, such security measures are not a part of CART. Here the paper pass still suffices; here the circuit marshals give the credentials a cursory glance and bid people welcome. And long may it last. Once inside the Nazareth paddock, I asked a hundred different questions of the people I met. In return, the question that most people asked me was how the technology of CART compares with Formula 1.

I found this to be quite a difficult thing to answer, not because I hadn’t noticed any particular distinctions – there are a great many technical differences between the two – but I felt a little uncomfortable. I didn’t want my answer to be interpreted in a way that could suggest I was choosing between the two. I’m sure that this wasn’t anyone’s deliberate intention; I’m a former Grand Prix mechanic, so it was only natural that the question of contrasting technologies should arise.

Nevertheless, I felt a little vulnerable in answering, fearing that I risked alienating the CART enthusiasts if I suggested Formula 1 was the more sophisticated (with regard to its engineering finesse) – or, on the other hand, if I suggested the opposite then I might be perceived as being a patronizing limey sod! Naturally, I didn’t want to elicit either of these negatives… it was a little like being an invited guest of the New York Yankees, and asked how baseball compares to cricket.

While looking over the cars at Nazareth, the one aspect that really caught my attention was how robust the suspension components are in comparison to those of F1; indeed both the Reynard and the Lola CART chassis appear distinctly beefier than anything currently produced by the F1 constructors. I understand CART’s technical regulations don’t allow for the use of composite suspensions, and thus the reason why the teams still use steel for much of their fabrication material.

The suspension layout of the current CART cars is similar to what the F1 teams were running seven or eight years ago: The front of the car uses steel wishbones and pushrods, connected to machined, horizontally-pivoted rockers, which in turn are connected to longitudinally mounted dampers (sitting atop the chassis and covered by a removable access panel). The dampers are fitted with coil springs; the front rollbar (sway bar) mounting is located inside the chassis, but, unlike F1 designs, the roll bars are adjustable by the driver, something that is forbidden in Formula 1. With just a few subtle alterations the same suspension design is used at the rear, too, the dampers and springs mounted above the transmission.

In fact, the more I studied the front suspension layout of the Reynard chassis, the more it reminded me of the 1992 Benetton. In contrast to CART, the current trend in F1 is to move away from coil springs, the Grand Prix teams instead favoring machined titanium torsion bars, the thinking being that they are lighter, more compact and don’t suffer from as much friction as coil springs (they are also frighteningly expensive). Also, Formula 1 teams are in the process of discarding steel wishbones: Aerodynamically shaped carbon units are now very much in vogue. A few teams still use steel to manufacture their rear-lower wishbones (due to the high loads they are subjected to), but it will only be a matter of time before every F1 car features full composite suspensions. There are engineering advantages to be gained by using carbon wishbones (primarily a saving in weight). but once again the financial cost incurred by the teams is fairly astronomical.

There are other notable differences between the two series. F1 uses hydraulically activated transmission selector mechanisms, operated by steering wheel-mounted paddle levers; CART has no high-pressure hydraulics, and therefore uses the more traditional ‘stick’ shift. F1 prefers longitudinally mounted transmissions, in order to make the rear of the car as narrow as possible; CART favors transverse boxes, a design which allows the gear ratios to be changed without removing the gearbox from the engine. CART’s regulations permit the engine manufactures to use turbochargers; the F1 rules do not. There are different fuels, different tires, different wing designs, and on and on it goes. There is also a significant weight difference: an F1 car tips the scales at 600kg (1320lb), while the CART chassis comes in at 1550lb (704kg).

If the nimble agility of an F1 car could be likened to a graceful ballerina, then a CART chassis looks more akin to a well-chiseled running back: Solid and powerful, sure-footed and very quick.

So, I guess the key question is this: Even if we conclude that Formula 1 is the more technologically advanced of the two series, does it actually matter? Does it make a significant difference to the quality of the racing? If no CART team is allowed to use carbon wishbones, then no one has to incur the vast expense in time, money and manpower to produce a composite suspension, the advantage of which will be completely negated by the very fact that everyone else has been forced to design a similar system.

The same reasoning also applies to semi-automatic transmissions, hydraulically-controlled differentials, traction control, launch control, etc., etc. If no team is allowed to use the technology, then no team gains or loses the advantage. Providing that the CART teams continue to play by the same rules, then the fact that they are all using relatively basic technology will have no detrimental impact to the excitement of the sport, the thrill of the show.

I greatly enjoyed my first trip to a CART event. The atmosphere was terrific, the people I met – drivers, enthusiasts, mechanics, journalists and engineers – were friendly, and happy to talk. RACER and Speedvision.com’s Jeremy Shaw chatted like an old friend, as did Autosport’s Gordon Kirby. There was no overwhelming sense of bustle, stress and anxiety that one encounters at a Formula 1 meeting.

This continued in next post....

[KC]

When I asked John Cummiskey, Michael Andretti’s chief mechanic, if he could quickly explain how the front wing adjusters worked on his team’s Reynard chassis, he invited me to visit the Team Motorola pits and took both the time and trouble to remove the nose assembly from his car so I could look at the adjusters for myself, while he explained exactly how the mechanism worked. I had met John for the first time only minutes before, and this was a fine gesture on his behalf, one I greatly appreciated.

A similar thing happened when I was introduced to Iain Watt, the chief race engineer with Team Green. I asked a few questions about the chassis set-up procedure for Nazareth and was given a guided tour of the whole car. No secrecy, no security covers thrown over anything, no anti-photograph screens around the car. Everything was open, relaxed and friendly.

If there was one aspect of the race weekend I found a little difficult to appreciate, it lay with the idea of oval racing itself. I watched qualifying from the grandstands, and although it was possible to see the cars throughout much of the lap, an oval track lacks the impression that the cars are actually going anywhere! A lap of any race track ends where it starts, obviously, but a road course gives the sensation that the cars are traveling somewhere – of the current F1 tracks, Spa is perhaps the greatest at creating the illusion that the cars are setting off on a journey.

People tell me that oval racing is different to road racing: The mechanics set the cars differently, the drivers need to adopt different techniques. They say that oval racing is just as much of an art form as any other – it’s just that the art is different. I believe them, too. I think the true beauty of anything can only be really appreciated after gaining a thorough understanding of it.

Well, I’m certainly an oval-racing novice, but I loved my first exposure to CART and I’m already looking forward to visiting my next oval venue. And allow me to say a quick thank you to everyone who made me so welcome in Nazareth, especially Mario – his Saturday-night drinks party made the whole weekend truly unforgettable. — Steve Matchett (Photo: LAT Photographic)

[Liz]

Very good, KC. I've printed it out to study and enjoyed reading it through. Nice to see the differences explained so clearly.

[bella]

mr matchett is great. i read his first book in one go when i got it. and he tells the technical bits so well too.

nice to see he was impressed with our sport, even if it was mainly because of its quiet sunday league styles.

[Emfa]

Very interesting article. This is a keeper - it will definitely come in handy the next time the question comes up about how the 2 formulas differ.

Mr Matchett asks:

So, I guess the key question is this: Even if we conclude that Formula 1 is the more technologically advanced of the two series, does it actually matter? Does it make a significant difference to the quality of the racing?

I would say no on both counts. I say we can appreciate the engineering marvel of F1, the variety of tracks & competition in CART and enjoy the spectacle of both.

How do you say ... Vive la difference!

(PS - this would probably be of interest in the F1 & Tech forums as well)