OK what to do about Superspeedway specs

Now that the series are merging, lets have some light hearted, real world debate regarding downforce on superspeedways.

In my opinion IRL cars have way too much downforce causing the cars to run in packs and you hope to get a draft and run to pass the car in front of you.

CART/CCWS tried many different setups and devices to make competition better, hanford device, road course wings on the front with superspeedway wings on the back etc.

What about this scenario, REDUCE the total aerodynamic downforce on the cars with both minimal front and rear wings and specifically designed undertrays.

The concept being that the cars are very fast in a straight line but the drivers would be forced to lift when the went toward the corner.

This would force the driver to be a huge part of the equation and keep corner speeds down.

Thoughts?

I remember the CART race at Fontana where Vasser won. That was a good race where there was real battles for position and it didn't seem overly aero dependant. Anyone remember what kind of setup they ran there?
I am not a huge fan of the current IRL setup now either. Running side by side is all good, but not when the guy on the bottom can just stay there without lifting. I would like to see a change as well.

At Indy, with the single element, races are good.

The problem is on little speedways only, i think

Indy has "flat" turns. The problem is with the aero and restricted power, you can't make decisive moves on the higher-banked, moderate length ovals (1.5-milers in particular). At Iowa, the cars don't have the power to run off of the bottom, even on the straights. If you get caught on the outside (even just the second lane up), you're a sitting duck.

Purist sums it up pretty well. The current IndyCars have too much downforce in their oval package, which means that it is all too easy for a driver to keep his car on the bottom line and keep everyone behind him at bay. The next generation of car needs a less aero-dependent chassis that requires driver finesse to avoid sliding up the banking in turns.

Remember that when CART introduced the Handford Device, it did so to create excess drag and slow down top speeds. Of course, in doing so it punched a huge hole in the air which sucked a trailing car in at speeds even faster than those reached before, and also had the side effect of creating ridiculous amounts of on-track passing at Michigan and Fontana. When CART tried to install the Handford Device at short ovals, though, that drag equated into massive turbulence which made passing impossible. Take from this the fact that what works on big tracks doesn't necessarily work on small ones.

I remember the CART race at Fontana where Vasser won. That was a good race where there was real battles for position and it didn't seem overly aero dependant. Anyone remember what kind of setup they ran there?
I am not a huge fan of the current IRL setup now either. Running side by side is all good, but not when the guy on the bottom can just stay there without lifting. I would like to see a change as well.

I was at that race in 2002, and if I remember correctly CART had Handford devices at that race. It was a sight to see Champ Cars competing with NASCAR-style dradting. It really made the whole race even more exciting.

Contrast that when Champ Car went to Las Vegas Motor Speedway in 2004 (my sister and I were there). Without the Hanford devices, the cars had too much downforce and basically they couldn't pass one another. Once the top speeds were reached there was no way to catch up and pass one another. It was boring. The Craftsman Truck race before it had way more action.

I have to agree with the OP - reduce the downforce, the IRL cars carry far too much in their oval configuration.

I was at that race in 2002, and if I remember correctly CART had Handford devices at that race. It was a sight to see Champ Cars competing with NASCAR-style dradting. It really made the whole race even more exciting.

Contrast that when Champ Car went to Las Vegas Motor Speedway in 2004 (my sister and I were there). Without the Hanford devices, the cars had too much downforce and basically they couldn't pass one another. Once the top speeds were reached there was no way to catch up and pass one another. It was boring. The Craftsman Truck race before it had way more action.


I was at the 2004 and 2005 Las Vegas oval race also. The 2004 race was a complete joke, if memory serves me correct they ran road course wings resulting in a huge amount of downforce.

There was no passing, the cars were slow in a straight line and everybody stayed down low.
That race was boring and most of the crowd WAS gone after the NASCAR trucks ran.
In that race Bourdais ran into the back of Tracy putting him in the wall, he had followed Tracy for 20 laps or so.
Forsythe went down to the NH pit after that and almost punched Carl Haas right in the face, Haas looked like he was pretty scared.

That is why I say, cut a HUGE amount of downforce off the cars, rely more on the mechanical grip of the tires and force the DRIVER and his crew to adjust to changing conditions to improve the racing. With the downforce now drivers just run flat out.

They should use the minimal CART style front wing, which was basicaly a winglet on each side of the nose and a Single Element rear wing.

As little downforce as possible was a good theory put into practice back in the 90's. I remember (my Dad says I have a strange memory like this - remembering primarily what happened in the racing world when I was a little kid) in 97 or somesuch at the season opener in Miami CART had changed the rule so that they ended up running their super speedway wings at what was a unique four-cornered track and the race was fantastic as a result. Drivers actually had to drive the car instead of going flat and that allowed for passing. That is what is needed at the super speedways - very, very little downforce so cornering require significant off-throttle time.

Chris

I have done some more thinking on this topic.

Extreme low downforce, drivers are forced to lift for corners, which creates virtually no turbulence.

2 sets of tires, soft and hard compound, both compounds of tires MUST be used at least ONCE in the race.

Push to pass with 1.5 minutes of time BUT with 2 settings. One setting gives 50 extra horsepower, the other gives 100 extra horsepower, however, if you use the higher push to pass setting (100 extra ponies) each push uses up 2 seconds of time, 50 extra horsepower uses 1 to 1 time.

Think about this, minimal downforce cars have great straightline speed but so little downforce that drivers MUST lift for the corners. Low downforce equals low turbulence.

2 sets of compounds and push to pass with 2 settings.

This setup could prove to add some real driver input to superspeedway (and even short track) racing.

[QUOTE=Amar7605]I was at that race in 2002, and if I remember correctly CART had Handford devices at that race. It was a sight to see Champ Cars competing with NASCAR-style dradting. It really made the whole race even more exciting.
QUOTE]
I think they ran a short-oval package at that race. The rear wing looks like a smaller version of the Handford.
http://www.motorsport.com/photos/cart/2002/fon/cart-2002-fon-tm-0307.jpg

as opposed to the larger version they ran the year before.
http://motorsport.com/photos/cart/2001/fon/cart-2001-fon-ds-0424.jpg

A bit off topic, but aren't those beautiful cars?

Limiting aero seems to be the simplest solution. Changing the stagger of the tires would aid in this along with increasing power.

Tire width and aero would seem to be the best options.

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/cart/2002/fon/cart-2002-fon-tm-0307.jpg


http://motorsport.com/photos/cart/2001/fon/cart-2001-fon-ds-0424.jpg

A bit off topic, but aren't those beautiful cars?

I just thought the same thing, hope the net generation cars are a modern version of those. Really beautiful at the same time as they differ from the "F1-style" formula cars. Come on Dallara!

yeah, the roll hoop on its own was nice, also, no raised nones! The cars should resemble something like the late 90's Lola, Ranards and
Penskes.

Also, the 1997 Indy Racing Leugue car looked nice :)

http://www.bjwor.com/altsin97.jpg

No offense, but is this Vintage Racing? While an early 90's look may be cool and in no small part nostalgic, any new formula should bring with it a more modern look, if you will.

A step forward in looks/technology will help capture the new fan as well. In fact that should be the primary goal: capturing new fans along with energizing the existing fan base. I do not think the best way to make this happen would be to make things look like it is 1994 all over again.

Good-looking as the Lola was, I was really growing tired of looking at it by the time they retired the chassis.

IMO the aesthetics should be based on the 2003 CART World Series cars. Technically i would go with what someone suggested a while ago which was LMP2-style engine rules to encourage technical diversity and draw manufacturers in. IIRC an LMP2 Judd engine can crack 1000bhp with its restrictor removed.

LMP1 Judd V10s can get 800hp or so unrestricted, a LMP2 unit surely couldn't do 1000hp unless it's got a turbo and it will blow up after a minute or so.

LMP1 Judd V10s can get 800hp or so unrestricted, a LMP2 unit surely couldn't do 1000hp unless it's got a turbo and it will blow up after a minute or so.

May have been LMP1 style engine regs then.

No offense, but is this Vintage Racing? While an early 90's look may be cool and in no small part nostalgic, any new formula should bring with it a more modern look, if you will.

A step forward in looks/technology will help capture the new fan as well. In fact that should be the primary goal: capturing new fans along with energizing the existing fan base. I do not think the best way to make this happen would be to make things look like it is 1994 all over again.

Good-looking as the Lola was, I was really growing tired of looking at it by the time they retired the chassis.

I can only speak for myself but what I meant wasn´t going back to those cars but to do something modern based on that style. For example look at the new GP2 chassis: nice looking cars which resemble F1 cars and fit in to that package without looking exactly like them.

Hope you get my point. :)

Im not saying, 'hey, lets run some old cars'. I am basically saying that the new chassis should have that 'indycar' look, but in a more modern way. And I was only pointing out that the 1997 car looked nice...

I can only speak for myself but what I meant wasn´t going back to those cars but to do something modern based on that style. For example look at the new GP2 chassis: nice looking cars which resemble F1 cars and fit in to that package without looking exactly like them.

Hope you get my point. :)


Got it now!

Thanks!

Is this a racing series or a fashion show.

The term "modern" rhetorically, is an obtuse chorus heard often on on line forums, but when I ask what is "modern" the answer is near always defeaning silence.
"Modern" is NOT A LOOK, it usually represents something BETTER than that that came before but it has been over a decade since "modern" race cars of near ANY sort have fit that.

I would much rather see super mods. or front engine cars without the chicken-**** restrictors run, and continually try to get faster, than see another rear-engined go-kart series with all the spec. restrictions that make racing a boring farce.
Bob

I Totally agree with everyone who feels the Down force need to be cut dramatically. I think the cars being this over winged is dangerous for the drivers. It seems when ever these IRL cars touch wheels they go flying into the air and were all praying that the drivers isn't killed. Some examples are Dario's crash this year and Marco's at Indy. I'm sure there are a lot more but I'm sick and have a headache and can't think of anymore right now.

I also agree that Super Speed Way oval racing is different then short oval racing and I think it be an interesting Idea to perhaps have a different Aero package for them but only if it made the racing more fun to watch.

Is this a racing series or a fashion show.

The term "modern" rhetorically, is an obtuse chorus heard often on on line forums, but when I ask what is "modern" the answer is near always defeaning silence.
"Modern" is NOT A LOOK, it usually represents something BETTER than that that came before but it has been over a decade since "modern" race cars of near ANY sort have fit that.

I would much rather see super mods. or front engine cars without the chicken-**** restrictors run, and continually try to get faster, than see another rear-engined go-kart series with all the spec. restrictions that make racing a boring farce.
Bob


So, Bob, what do you really think about this issue (just kidding!)?

But you hit it on the head: this is not a fashion show and when I say "modern" I mean cars that are obviously being designed to go faster today, rather than borrowing elements to duplicate past characteristics.

To use Indy as an example - I loved it when the Loti (Lotuses?) arrived and you had the classic handling and lightweight vs power and heavier weight. More than having favorite drivers, the cars also had variety to them as well.

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 "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

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.

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.

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.
Just eliminate the wings entirely, problem solved and no asinine robbing peter to pay paul rules that do nothing but lead to more and more problems.
The problem is the sanction/s are trying to play god and it does not work.

Bob

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.

IMO open wheel cars shouldn't be going anywhere near 1.5 mile high banked ovals.

The ovals they should visit should be Fontana, Michigan, Indy, Motegi, Homestead or Nashville, Phoenix and Milwaukee.

This: http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2008/the_way_it_is_no117.html
makes a good point.

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.

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.

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.
Advances, wings are a add on gimmick, that advance nothing.
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

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.

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.