|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
3 Mar 2008, 19:16 (Ref:2143523) | #26 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
Bob, I don't think we're going to see evolution and development of cars on a meaningful level under current circumstances. The one way I could see it working is if tracks didn't worry about standard insurance, but put their insurance on each and every ticket (as in, each ticket would include a waiver of liability for the track and series racing there).
As to the cars, I was watching some old CART footage from the 1980s. The 1983 cars, like the ones Teo Fabi, Mario Andretti, and Bobby Rahal were dirving, were visually very mean machines. They were long, low, smooth, sharp cars. The cockpit surround was fairly substantial, which would be good for driver protection. And the height of the cockpit, along with the large rear wing endplates, appeared to make the cars more stable; Desire Wilson didn't do a Dario Franchitti when she got sideways and crashed at Pocono in 1983. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
3 Mar 2008, 20:25 (Ref:2143556) | #27 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,536
|
the "modern" look raises the nose to allow for the front wing to get more air and work better-IIRC
keeping the nose attached will keep down force lower provided the wings are the same dimensions (the area for the nose high would have larger effective area) the undertray aero allowed in INdycar past and present and either split variation allowed to keep the nose low as more down force was found that way. so keep the noses low or better the wing attached to the nose by the chord or wing section rather than attached by a support beam (s) viola- Indy style look the big IRL side pods are also built as a matter of intrusion safety and anti wheel interlocking..so that must stay... but speedways should run smaller single element wings |
||
__________________
SuperTrucks rule- end of story. Listen to my ramblings! Follow my twitter @davidAET I am shameless ... |
13 Mar 2008, 03:59 (Ref:2150511) | #28 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 611
|
The only truly high speed oval other than Indy left on the schedule is Texas. Homestead, Chicagoland, and Kansas are the next fastest, but clearly a tier down in speed and I feel that the racing is pretty good at those tracks.
Also realize that when you reduce downforce you reduce drag and therefore increase speeds. The league doesn't want the cars lapping at 225 at Texas. By mandating higher wing angles they're limiting speed. However, to make the racing less pack-like (which would be even worse if they just raised drag - see Device, Hanford) they've been trying to do things with the tires to reduce mechanical grip. However, there's only so much you can do as you don't really NEED a lot of mechanical grip on most of those tracks. |
||
__________________
racing is an addiction that once you get it into your blood, no matter how long you sit out, its always there. |
13 Mar 2008, 05:18 (Ref:2150526) | #29 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
If you reduce the downforce significantly, they probably will be slowed noticeably in the corners, even at Texas, and certainly at Indy. They might be somewhat faster on the straights, but average lap speeds wouldn't change drastically.
|
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
13 Mar 2008, 14:43 (Ref:2150834) | #30 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Quote:
The problem is the sanction/s are trying to play god and it does not work. Bob |
|||
|
13 Mar 2008, 15:29 (Ref:2150877) | #31 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
The ovals they should visit should be Fontana, Michigan, Indy, Motegi, Homestead or Nashville, Phoenix and Milwaukee. This: http://www.gordonkirby.com/categorie..._is_no117.html makes a good point. |
|||
__________________
"On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And you then go for this limit and you touch this limit, and you think, 'Okay, this is the limit.' And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high." -Ayrton Senna |
13 Mar 2008, 19:10 (Ref:2150996) | #32 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,514
|
Kirby's article is good common sense and very accurate.
Select your 6-7 best oval races and suitable dates and build the rest of the schedule around that. |
||
|
13 Mar 2008, 20:11 (Ref:2151085) | #33 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
Bob, wings are just another tool in the chest to go faster. Jeez, sanctions have already banned more than enough technical advances. Do you really want them to dock the biggest one of the last 50 years? Aside from that, sportscars and formula cars are so synonymous with wings, that they simply wouldn't look remotely "modern" without them. You're not going to help motor racing by turning the clock back like that. Oh, and despite what you say, I have absolutely no doubt that the Greenwood Corvettes weren't particularly stable aerodynamically. They may well not have been as bad as the initial Porsche 917s, but with a nose shape like that, you're probably making lift somewhere, not to mention your comments about hanging the tail out.
Johntt, I don't see the problem with a couple of those ovals, as long as they can't run them flat-out, and they have little enough downforce that the cornering G''s aren't causing black-outs. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
13 Mar 2008, 22:22 (Ref:2151195) | #34 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Quote:
They were there to make the cars go faster, period. They want to slow them down, take them off. Oh and the "modern" look rhetoric, I have heard that cliche so often yet it means nothing. Tell me what determines moidern verses, not modern. Gee when they put the wings on the Formulas A/1 cars in '69 that really made a difference. You could not tell them from the ones the year before. yeah right. Indy cars added them in 1972 and they were so modern compared to 1971. As far as Greenwood goes, well if you don't want to believe the guy who drove it, as far as stability goes, maybe you have a source that knows more. But then John crashed so often at Daytona you MUST be right. Bob Last edited by Bob Riebe; 13 Mar 2008 at 22:25. |
|||
|
14 Mar 2008, 01:46 (Ref:2151420) | #35 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
Bob, I don't disagree with what the man himself said. On the other hand, we can both be right from our own perspectives, because the car could be quite unstable compared to today's machinery, but not so much compared to its contemporaries, and Greenwood would have been used to driving a car that was that way. So, it wouldn't have been such a big deal to him.
Uh, Bob, the point of racing IS to go fast. That being the case, what's the problem with wings (if anything, they'd be on of the features that harken back to the purity of what racing was supposed to be about). And if you're issue is exclusivity, that only the big teams can produce really good wings, I have a newsflash for you. That's how is is with the whole car. So by your standards, EVERYTHING on the cars MUST be a gimmick! And still, I don't understand, and maybe it's my engineering background, how wings are a "gimmick". It just doesn't compute, and at some level, I have a real aversion to such comments. Of course, wings started out as just little stubs, but there is a VERY noticeable difference between a Lotus 49A and a Lotus 72 even, much less a Lotus 79 (and I haven't even gotten into the 80s or 90s with the car designs). Indycars of the mid 60s looked like bulbous "torpedo racers", but by 1972, you have cars resembling early Lotus 72s with those rear-deck-looking wings. I'm more than half blind, literally, and even I can tell that wings made a BIG visual difference on the cars. Last edited by Purist; 14 Mar 2008 at 01:53. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
14 Mar 2008, 03:53 (Ref:2151451) | #36 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
As to "modern", I'll try to separate things out. You have the Vintage Era of racing: before 1950. You have the Classic Era: 1950-70. Then there's this kind of no-man's-land period: ~1970-81. From 1982-94 or so is the Group C/turbo/CART Era. I suppose the Modern Era kicked off around 1995. That's when the transition to what we now have in sportscar began. "The Split" was in the works. NASCAR was really beginning its rise, and F1 was about to go the the V10 standard, along with embracing the raised nose design.
Bob, I suppose what signifies a modern racing car is slick tires, wings, sharp edges in many cases (funky winglets and diveplanes, rather crisp clinical shapes in many cases), and the rest is really intangibles. I'd like to see a move back towards sharp, focused noses, but a more smooth shape overall. The image I have of this is rather like the 1983 CART cars, except for the Eagle. It's interesting, CART for a time seemed to lead the way, aside from Williams-Renault in F1. You had the slope down toward the front on those big sidepods, and the big wings/endplates hung off the back in a number of cases. It took until 1990-91 for IMSA/Group C to pick up on such features. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Superspeedway | nickyf1 | My Track Designs | 8 | 2 Aug 2006 11:07 |
Cancun Superspeedway | Alwaysfirst | My Track Designs | 8 | 30 Jun 2006 00:52 |
Specs | gttouring | Virtual Racers | 10 | 21 Mar 2003 15:14 |
Your PC specs. | Sharky | Virtual Racers | 23 | 26 Aug 2002 19:14 |
engine specs? | kmchow | Touring Car Racing | 21 | 1 Aug 2002 09:04 |