Lower Cost at Cost of Reliability?

[RacingManiac]

http://www.motorsport.com/magazine/f...g&D=2004-02-19

Interesting point this guy is making....

[cybersdorf]

Very interesting observations.
However, I get the feeling that the articles implies all DPs are unreliable cr*pwagons stapled together in some backyard, and that's perhaps not quite fair. The manufacturers build cars to the regulations that exist.

[KA]

It's certainly an interesting article, but to me, any discussion of DP reliability at Daytona certainly ought to take into account that there were a lot of teams out there running new cars for the first time in race conditions,- whatever you think of the merits or otherwise of the DP, the fact remains you don't usually get a reliable car without putting in the time, effort and testing mileage to do so, and at this stage in the season, a lot of the guys running new DPs haven't had that much time with those cars....

[Tim Northcutt]

I agree with you, KA....

The cars this year, due to the red flag, spent only about 18-20 of the 24 hours on the track, but the Crawford and the Riley, as examples, were turing their first race laps...and in that context, a 24 hour event is truly a "Baptism by Fire" for a new chassis...

Engineering in many ways isn't an "exact" science, even though there are very concrete principles of physics that serve as the guideposts...

Parts can be designed to "theoretically" take certain stresses, and a computer program can only tell you so much...

The "reality" test is when the respective parts are actually bearing loads and the physical stresses that can only occur through physical testing or in race conductions....

And I don't necessarily think that those issues are "Cost-related"

The R&S MkIIIA was as durable as a tank...but it did not necessarily cost a lot to build or to buy....

Although he has some poins worth considering, I do not believe that his overall assessment is fair or applicable...

[Danske]

IIRC, the Multimatics all died from the exact same electronic brain failure, and the overheating issues were caused by debris in the standing water being forced into the radiators and holing or clogging them.

It's a nice theory that the cost of the cars compromised their reliability, but "retirement by other than crash" isn't full proof.

[Tim Northcutt]

and "Retirement by other than crash" can be misleading as well when you really delve into it...

Tony Stewart raced for a long time on two wheels because the rocker on his suspension broke...the crash was caused by a part failure that didn't necessarily have anything to do with "cost" at all....

[Fogelhund]

I don't really think the initial price of the DP's has anything to do with reliability. Where the author does have a point, though missed in what I read, is that dollars spent by entrants in the DP class will likely cause them to be less reliable. It is the cost of preparation that helps lead to reliability in the end. The said target audience of DP's is lower budget teams, who may not have the budgets to prepare the cars as well as professionals and factories might.

Is this a design problem with DP's, no.