Interesting Item on New Chassis in Indy Star (Merged)

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

If I was a betting man, it seems as though they would be leaning in the same direction. If that means a "closed shop" with Honda simply supplying everyone with V6 instead of V8, I don't see how that will substantially reduce cost or raise interest in the Series.

The V6 would not reduce cost but definitely reduce interest in the series.It's the worst of both worlds - not a V8, not a turbo. Seriously they need a powerplant platform relevant to the manufacturers' interests or this series is in big trouble. Spec Honda V6's in a new spec Dallara and I'm done for good.

[JagtechOhio]

Canada, if it's a V6, it will be a turbo and maybe even twins. So the power will be there for street courses.

But reducing cost, weight, and enabling competition from other sources seems to be largely neglected if they hand Honda the deal.

[Canada ALMS fan]

OK, that's better. Even if there is only Honda at first but it is open to others to enter that would be okay. We need at least 2 manufacturers. I really believe a turbo 4 is what manufacturers will want based on their road going product and for the optics in the public's eye, fuel efficiency and high technology. Twin turbo V6 would be great but not realistic IMO.
Have we had an inkling of whether there will be more than one chassis? My gut says no...

[JagtechOhio]

Excerpt: Autobloggreen, March 10, 2010:
___________________________________________________________

"At 61.9 percent of total passenger car sales, the once lowly four-cylinder is now on top by a wide margin. Compared to 2008 numbers of 51.7 percent, the four-cylinder engine displayed market gains unheard of in previous years. In addition, the once-dominant V8 now represents only 4.9 percent of the passenger car market, way down from its 88.9 percent share back in 1969".


The talking point from Delta about the relevance of a four cylinder turbo was about the only one that had any validity.

I don't see how a new Dallara chassis ends up 140 lbs lighter with a V6 and a turbo.

Chassis alternatives are unlikely due to the cost constraints the IICS has put in place. A constructor can't make enough profit unless he gets all the volume.

[Purist]

Jag, I know the aero doesn't get you jack below 60mph, which is precisely why I said what I did about dealing with such slow corners. And if you've seen how the F1 cars appeared to "jump" off of Turns 11 and 12 on the Indy road course (leaving the trailing car well behind), and how the trailing car seemed to shoot back up on the tail of the leader going into Turn 1, you know what I'm saying clearly is NOT bunk.

The aero wash issue that keeps cars from running close behind one another is more pronounced in faster corners that cannot be taken flat-out. That was a big part of the basis behind the comment about Road America that the Swift engineer made.

And no, I won't "save myself the trouble" when I know what I'm talking about and I know I'm NOT full of it. You're never going to be heard if you simply stop ever opening your mouth.

Sure, you will have a pressure impact in the wake of the leading car, but how much is that going to be, and how far back will it extend? Just because you still have a theoretical slipstream, it does NOT mean you have one that will be nearly as useful. And I wasn't even the one who brought up this whole issue in that conversation over this past weekend.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

Chassis alternatives are unlikely due to the cost constraints the IICS has put in place. A constructor can't make enough profit unless he gets all the volume.

I would disagree. They don't make money on the car, but on the spares and replacement parts as you know. Reynard, Swift, and Lola were all profitable with a handful of cars in CART. Plus having their chassis in the top tiered series acts as a billboard to sell a greater number of cars in the lower formulae. The real issue may be a single supplier greasing the palm of the series for the contract and on the residual revenue.

[JagtechOhio]

Canada, that's not my opinion, it is general statement based on specific ones made by at least a couple of the constructors. And IICS thinks enabling alternate chassis will lead some teams to purchase more than one make, and penalize the teams that can't afford to.

[JagtechOhio]

"The aero wash issue that keeps cars from running close behind one another is more pronounced in faster corners that cannot be taken flat-out."

No, it is more pronounced on racetracks where all four corners are being taken flat out.

The topic is aerodynamics, it has nothing to do with what racetrack the air surrounding or what corner you are coming out of, pothole or not.

Listen to what the Swift engineer says at the end of the clip. That's the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7jal...ure=youtu.be&a

[Canada ALMS fan]

They could limit teams to one chassis manufacturer for a season. Of course there will be lobbying from the constructors complaining they can't make money unless they supply the full grid. I'd like to see the numbers on that. If there wasn't good money to be made there wouldn't have been 5 proposals. That's what these companies do - build race cars profitably. I'm all for keeping costs down and having a good grid but I don't want to sacrifice the quality of the "hardware" being raced to keep a few of the weaker teams around. We have mediocre, outdated machinery right now. If there were sexy new cars that reflected new aero, chassis, and engine technologies - that would be a much better package to attract sponsors. So a couple of the weaker teams might go broke but new ones would spring up having been able to get funding for the rejuvenated product. The net result: a stronger series IMO.

[JagtechOhio]

Mushroom buster:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...2012-fray.html

Canada, I'd agree with most of what you said, although not all racecar constructors are good at making money. Diversification is the key for success of the healthier companies.

I'm pretty sure that both McCool of Lola and Refsdal of Swift have expressed no interest in building for less than the whole market. BAT might not be capable, Delta has no intention of doing so.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Based on what you are saying I would prefer Lola or Swift to get the contract then so at least they would in theory offer multiple versions of their chassis although all teams would probably gravitate to the best package eventually. If we do not see multiple chassis then there had better be multiple engines.

[JagtechOhio]

This is from Gordon Kirby's interview with Randy Bernard from Monday night:

"I would love to see a completed decision by June 15th," he remarked. "So there's a tremendous amount of work we have to do in a very short time."

OK, Tony Cotman is on the panel. I don't know if he is busy designing another race track right now, but he is still steward for the Indy Lights. He will be busy at Kansas and Indy in May.

Brian Barnhart is on the panel, so I presume he has time to devote to race preparation and supervision for Kansas, and the last two weeks of May. Texas is the week after Indy.

He's also involved in froming the rules oversight committee that Bernard said was to be formed immediately.

Eddie Gossage is on the panel, and his IndyCar race is the week after the 500. Busy guy, I didn't look to see what else might be on his plate.

Gil De Ferran is on the panel, he is working with his team for both races, and adding a second car for Davey Hamilton for Indy. Maybe Kansas too, I forget. Running two cars at Texas. Another busy guy.

Rick Long is on the panel, he builds the engines for the Indy Lights. Maybe he hasn't been too busy, but that might be changing right about now as preparations for Indy gear up.

So how often are these guys going to get together with Looney and the other members to examine and discuss the proposals?

When I think about the ICONIC panel, I imagine all the members in a conference room interviewing each of the "salesmen". Lots of wall charts, slide shows, spec sheets. Lots of Q&A. For five different sales teams.

That doesn't include discussion about the engine choices, if there are any.

So how is it really going to work? A lot of zipped files zipping through the ether? Emails and tweets? I'd hope they are meeting right now, and quite a bit after the Kansas race, 'cause June 15th isn't very far away.

They have an awful lot of work to do, unless a lot has already been decided.

[Purist]

Jag, the Swift renderings and design change how the wake is dealt with, in order to decrease its impact on a following car. The strange thing was, the computer model from the front view seemed to show the wake going much higher than the side view computer image seemed to indicate.

Considering he's the Chief Scientist (I hadn't heard what his official title was before), I'm a bit surprised, but pleasantly so, that Mark Page was able to make it out here to Wichita this past weekend with the USC DBF Team.

Swift also designs/makes UAVs, so they aren't totally reliant on race cars to make their money.

Finally, no, Jag, the aero wash isn't an issue on an oval where the trailing car can still hold the throttle wide open in the corners. The problem there is that flat-out is the same for everyone, which makes pulling off a decisive pass extremely difficult on such an oval. To get the cars to race well on the over 1.0-mile ovals, and not run flat in the turns, you'll need to trim a lot of downforce, and possibly add some power. And this is important for the racing, but the oval issues don't have anything to do with the aero wash if everyone, clean air or otherwise, can run the corners wide open.

[JagtechOhio]

"Finally, no, Jag, the aero wash isn't an issue on an oval where the trailing car can still hold the throttle wide open in the corners."

You have established your unbelievable affinity for for race tracks.

The statement above proves you know nothing about the subject of the cars which race on them. I won't bother you with any more facts, you can read drivers' comments all day long if you want to learn something.

[JagtechOhio]

Kentucky '09 post-race transcript:

RYAN BRISCOE: I think from one race, it's hard to tell exactly. I think we're going to have to sort of wait and see over the course of a couple more ovals.

But to me it felt like with the changes, maybe the vertical wickers, that might have been the biggest change. I'm not sure felt like I could be more aggressive if the car crossed my nose, it didn't affect my balance as much as it felt like it had in the past. And it enabled all of us, I think, to drive a little bit more aggressively, stick our nose underneath other cars, knowing that the group was still going to be there.


MODERATOR: Ed, what about you? Do you have an opinion as to which of the rule changes made any difference?

ED CARPENTER: I agree with a lot of what Ryan said. Speaking to vertical wickers that we took off, to me I felt that was the biggest difference. The car was definitely more stable in dirty air, following people. I felt it was a little less turbulent. And you didn't feel as much of the wash off the cars in front.

It made the car more consistent and did give you more confidence to get your nose a lot closer to a guy in front of you.

I felt like we were able to use the draft through the corner to time a pass on the straightaway a little bit better than we could with those wickers on there.

But really it's hard to really single one of the changes out. They were all done together, and I think they have an effect as a group of changes, not just one change.

http://www.autoracing1.com/article.asp?id=1441

[Purist]

If you had a run, and didn't stick your nose in, you either backed out of the throttle just a smidge, or did what the Toyota runners used to have to do, and pulled to the high line, which put an end to your added momentum in a lot of cases. If you got in there, and had to make a correction in the wake, you lifted out of the throttle at least a little while making that correction. As I said, my statement was dependent on the stipulation that the cars were holding the throttle wide open in the corners.

The drivers don't have to say that they backed out of the throttle when making a correction or backing out of a possible overtaking maneuver; it can be heard watching the onboard footage during the race broadcasts, and plain to be seen when watching the races. If you're on a very similar line to the car in front of you, and suddenly, you lose ground without a radical change in course, you backed off the throttle. It didn't have to be by much, because at those speeds, and with everyone having the same engine, you notice when one guy keeps it flat, and the one behind does not.

In fact, I brought up the issue of doing stubby, superspeedway wings on the Swift with Mark Page, with the aim of cutting downforce, so the cars weren't running flat-out in the corners, so that decisive passes were more possible, and he concurred that some sort of wing package could be done and seconded with my thoughts on the matter. He did not subsequently bring up the wake turbulence as being the issue on ovals. From his comments, he was more concerned about the aero wash on the road courses with an abundance of high-speed corners.

What I'm saying is, wake turbulence is an issue if the drivers are having to back off in the corners because of it. If they are still perfectly able to keep flat-out in the turns in someone's wake, then the turbulence isn't the core of the overtaking difficulty in that particular case.

[JagtechOhio]

Yeah, I gotta run alright. See ya.

[Purist]

I'm just saying that there's a critical difference between the cars having so much downforce that they can run the turns flat-out, even in wake turbulence, and the wake turbulence preventing a trailing driver from maintaining as much throttle application as the leading car. Nothing more, really, when you get down to it.

Is that really so unreasonable?

[JagtechOhio]

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/mod...cle&sid=120712

Excerpt:

Aero changes: Marco Andretti, Tomas Scheckter and Vitor Meira tested a modified aerodynamic package that Indy Racing League officials hope will allow for more passing and even better competition at the 2010 Indianapolis 500.

Officials removed the vertical wickers from the rear-wing end fences and moved the rain light toward the rear attenuator, all designed to reduce aerodynamic drag and turbulence behind the cars.

Andretti and Scheckter said they’re confident the changes will be for the better, although the changes aren’t very noticeable without a large pack of cars running together.

"I think the big thing is how it (the car) reacts in traffic," Scheckter said. "With the rain light and end fences you’ve got a little bit bigger of a tow but you couldn’t follow cars as closely in the corners, and to try and improve the racing maybe this is the way to go."

End of excerpt.
_____________________________________________________________

And an effective "mushroom buster", or the appendages rendered by Lola to also reduce turbulence, will help at Indy and any other racetrack where the car is moving through the air at every point other than low speed corners on a road course.

[JagtechOhio]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...eerings-latest

[jondownunder]

I can't say I like the appearance of it one bit.

[bjohnsonsmith]

It's comes from an excellent group of designers/race engineers but it's not exactly open wheel.

[icemachine]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It's comes from an excellent group of designers/race engineers but it's not exactly open wheel.

More of an open wheeler than the Delta Wing

[Purist]

That's not really saying much.

[Juarez Jed]

The more I see of these new designs the more I think that the current Dallara isn't THAT ugly after all.
I can forgive looks as long as the racing on ovals improves BTW.