View Single Post
Old 1 Apr 2010, 22:52 (Ref:2665139)   #561
JagtechOhio
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
United States
Powell, Ohio USA
Posts: 2,311
JagtechOhio should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridJagtechOhio should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
The notice that Tim Northcutt posted came to my mailbox from Delta Wing this morning, along with a list of email addresses of a lot of heavy hitters.

I am sending them the following plan, which is the one I sent to Robin Miller in January.

As always, constructive criticism is welcomed.

Much of the following material was conceived in September and October 2009. I have publicly discussed many of these initiatives in the interim. If you have read similar proposals in public circulation, you now know the concepts of the original author.


"STAY ON TRACK"

2010 Dallara/ Honda Spec Andrew G. Bernstein Jan.22, 2010

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following changes are proposed to improve competition in the following areas:

1) Increase the significance of car control by reducing the ground effect component of total downforce;

2) Increase the significance of aerodynamic setup by permitting selective downforce levels;

3) Reduce the undertray surface area to further inhibit lift generation in pitch or yaw;

4) Increase the power output and frequency levels of the overtake assist function to increase passing oportunities on the racetrack.

5) Retain selective fuel consumption selectivity and strategy

None of these changes require major reconfiguration to the 2009 Dallara/Honda. The intent is to initiate the most significant improvements to competition at the least possible cost.

Aerodynamic Changes:

To the existing Dallara sidepod and undertray: Narrow the undertray two inches (approximate) on each outer edge, and round the lower edge of the sidepod accordingly. The consequence is that the surface area of the undertray is now reduced, and air can more easily escape from under the car in off-axis situations. These are both anti-lift improvements. They are consistant with the modifications enacted in response to the 2004 anti-lift studies.

The major width and height of the sidepod is unchanged: aspects of crash intrusion and deformation are retained.

Modifying the shape of the oil and water coolers may be necessary, perhaps just angling them slightly within the sidepod would suffice. Even replacing them with coolers of slightly different shapes, i.e. a rounded off outer bottom corners, would not be a huge expense.

Re-profile the tunnels, since simply narrowing them would increase the velocity and increase the downforce they generate. CFD analysis and model testing required. If downforce reduction can be achieved with the addition of a splitter or fence, no major reconfiguration of the existing tunnels is necessary. Final configuration is designed to reduce the ground effect downforce component by 20%, while retaining the existing center of pressure. Actual dimension of final undertray width and tunnel configuration to be determined by test results.

Similarly, sidepod internal aerodynamics must be quantified and maintained to match current capabilities for cooling. I do not perceive these changes to be significant.

Regulation Changes:

Remove mandates for wing angle, wing flap angle and wicker dimensions.

Consequence:

Drive your Dallara down the back straight at Kentucky, or any other speedway, and guess what? It's just like the back straight at Motegi, because you dont have enough downforce to go through three flat. You can lift early (Dixon), go in deep and brake (Franchitti), or beg for more wing (Dunno).

The mandates for wing angles and wicker heights are eliminated. Take as much as you need, change it during the race if you want. Put enough wing on the car to corner flat, and you'll be a brick in a straight line.

Car control, variation in corner entry speeds, exit speeds, variation in straightline speeds.

Reduction to aerodynamic lift generation.

____________________________________________________________________________

Overtake Assist Changes:

The downforce reduction is only one of three changes.

The second is decreasing base horsepower to 585 HP, so that overtake assist is an 8% increase to 635. IICS has announced a change: I am afraid it will still not be significant (perhaps 20HP total.)

They said they doubled it. From 5 to 10 (625 base)? From 10 to 20 (615 base)? And the same number of available applications?

This greater differential of 8% follows the Ferrari Power Boost used in A1GP.

Establish overtake assist availability for the length of one straightaway (maybe the 20 second works for road courses too?), at a frequency of a minimum 25% of the total laps. 50 HP punch.

This perceived parameters can be achieved with ECU re-mapping. No internal engine modifications are necessary, current peak available output of 635 HP is unchanged.

____________________________________________________________________________

Fuel Consumption Changes:

Third change is selective fuel consumption strategy. They just removed this variable: it now joins the list along with identical horsepower, chassis, aero setting, and tire compound that dilutes the quality of today's racing when compared to days when all variables were in play.

They went the WRONG way. Fuel consumption always was a determining factor in racing. It's a factor you can manipulate with brains and skill, and the advantage is maximized when luck (cautions) are in your favor. Ask Tony Cotman. Or Chip Ganassi.

I have an additional element to add to this equation: I consider it as marketable intellectual property and choose to retain those details at present. The result is an added strategic element which also yields an applicable marketing strategy to offer to a potential sponsor.

____________________________________________________

Cumulative Effect of all Changes:

So whaddya got?

Car #18 has qualified in 18th place. His sponsors are ****ed. We're going to the front, now.

Setup is slightly higher drag to carry cornering speed, fuel setting is full rich, and we're honking on the button. We're blowing off cars who are starting with a conservative strategy, and passing cars with higher downforce levels... provided we have the mechanical grip and enough skill to maintain our corner exit speed.

Yep, we're drinking fuel, but gaining track position. First pit stop sequence, slide in a smaller wicker and drop the front wing angle, go to full lean, lay off the button, draft with the front pack.

The more yellows we catch, the more positions we keep thanks to the early charge.

There's faster guys still behind us, so far. They started out conservative: low drag, low fuel consumption, and they're saving overtake assist for the last 25 laps.

They are going to come in for the last stint, add balanced downforce, go full rich and hammer to the flag.

Does #18 have enough overtake assist left to hold them off? Enough fuel to run full rich? Can he still maintain good cornering speed with less downforce? Will he get a little help to maintain track position from another yellow or two?

Don't know. Too many variables.

It's up to car control, mechanical grip, selected downforce, remaining fuel load, remaining opportunities to utilize maximum horsepower, and luck. Not too much different from 2009, except there is a measurable differential in speed between the cars. More potent and frequent "push to pass". And a far greater emphasis on setup and car control. More overtaking opportunities throughout.

That's the IndyCar racing I watched growing up. It didn't suck.

Does lower downforce demand more (and different techniques of) car control? Ask Dixon and Franchitti about turn three at Motegi, they say yes.

Ask Johnny Rutherford about getting around Phoenix in the yellow submarine. Or about left foot braking.

Does selective downforce introduce speed differential ? Of course, ask Mike Hull and Larry Curry if they want it. They say yes.

Does 50HP overtake assist kick you in the butt? Ask J.R. Hildebrand, Marco, and Danica. They all drove A1GP cars. Every IndyCar driver will tell you 5HP is nothing, 10 will hardly be noticeable either. You're not going to blow somebody's doors with 20, either.

Is safety affected? Aero lift characteristics are reduced by the undertray/ sidepod modifications in step one.

Do the sum of the changes increase top speed, which has probably been set behind closed doors at 230 MPH? With low drag selection, the factors are as follows:

reduced rolling resistance (from lower ground effect downforce component)
reduced aero drag from frontal area decrease of leading edge of sidepods
reduced drag from lower wing angle/ wicker height if selected.

And with 635HP (on the button), you could set the car up to have a HIGHER trap speed: at the end of one straightaway per lap.

How much speed you can carry through the corner is your business, because you ain't going through flat. What your average lap speed becomes is your team's business, it depends on the mechanical grip level they can provide and the compromise of downforce level they select.

Reducing grip levels by changing tire compounds or sizes would be a MISTAKE. You can't expect Firestone to accept responsibility for improving the racing by decreasing the safety margin of their excellent product.

These drivers race at Motegi, and every road course with a sweeper where they are challenged to get through and carry their best speed. Reducing the ground effect downforce brings that challenge back to Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Chicago, Homestead, and the Speedway.

If you can't cut it, take all the wing you want and motor around from the back. The fast guys won't have any trouble getting around you, and have 50HP to seal the deal if they need it.

And what does it all cost? Keep the fuel mixture knob, zero. Remap the ECU for increased overtake assist, no problem (ask a Honda engineer, I did). Make some selective rear wickers to slide in...old hat.

That leaves the undertray/ tunnel profile and sidepods. Replacement required? I'm not certain of that, and I lack the ability and resources to quantify the reduction or simulate the effect. I'm only guessing that 20% downforce reduction is appropriate.

Figures I have seen for total downforce generation at IMS are currently at 1000 lbs approximate total. Reducing the ground effect component decreases the effect of downforce evacuation in pitch or yaw events.
___________________________________________________

2011 Dallara Specifications

All 2010 specifications retained as previously described, subject to analysis of their cumulative effect in competition.

The major change will be the available option of adapting a non-stressed four cylinder in-line turbocharged engine.

Following is a partial list of four cylinder engines which are currently available in competition builds, or would serve as suitable platforms for development:

AER P0 17 2.0L
Mazda MZR-R 2.0L
Ford Duratec 2.3L
GM Ecotec 2.2L
Toyota 503E 2.1L
Toyota (Lotus) 2ZZ-GE 1.93 L
Subaru EJ20 2.29L

Candidates:
Audi TFSI 2.0L
Ford EcoBoost 2.0L
BMW 2.0L

A non-stressed engine configuration is an essential element of this formula change, as are the establishment of equilivancy formulas to permit equal power output to 2010 performance levels.

A stressed engine block design will result in immediate obsolesence: the future chassis regulations for 2012 will require non-stressed engine installation. Design and construction of a new proprietary stressed engine configuration is an expensive and unnecessary mistake.

In 1982, one of my duties was the installation of non-stressed 350 C.U. Chevrolet engines into a stressed engine Lola and Tiga Can Am chassis. These engines were fitted with adapter plates by Ryan Falconer to mount to the chassis rear bulkhead and accept a Hewland DG300.

My presumption is that an inline four cylinder engine can similarly be adapted for fitment in the existing Dallara chassis. Of course the resultant changes to center of gravity and weight distribution would require resolution: I trust you guys, you know what you are doing. It would be my honor to lend whatever assistance I could capably provide.

Accompanying changes for turbocharged requirements are inevitable. I am not well versed with turbocharged four cylinder racing engines, but my presumption is that addition of required ancillaries are possible within the current chassis.

The intended goals of adapting a non-stressed four cylinder turbocharged engine:

A range of existing contemporary powerplants are available, already used in competition, from a variety of independent builders. Manufacturer participation is not required. Mandated engine lease programs are not required.

Teams have the option of continuing the use of a 2010 spec Dallara/Honda race car. The intent is to outline a logical progression of the formula and permit teams to adapt as finances permit.

Teams opting for installation of the new spec engine into their 2010 Dallara chassis will have the benefit of developing the same engine which will be used in subsequent chassis designs.

Summary: STAY ON TRACK

Write the 4 cyl turbo spec, and builders can design it to fit the current chassis. With equivalancy, they can run against the Hondas. Then the new chassis can be designed to accept the 4 cyl engines, unstressed.

That works even if the decision for the new chassis is a Delta car. If the new chassis is instead an evolutionary one, call it SW 012, then you can have 4 cyl turbo SW 012's competing with four cylinder turbo Dallaras and V8 Dallara/ Hondas. The little guys can still run what they got, then phase in an engine program, and then install it in their new chassis when they can afford it.

So 2010 should bring reduced downforce and drag regulations, along with overtake assist that is more effective than they just hinted at (by lowering the base HP, not by modifying the peak output of the existing engine). All of that means minor ECU mapping, new sidepods and undertray, more driver car control required, and punch enough to pass on the straightaway. With enough skill and selective downforce levels, enough variety to pass in the corners, too.

2011, tubo four cylinders permitted. Equivalency established to match Dallara/ Honda 2010 performance levels.

2012, new chassis designs accepted after approval. If it's evolutionary, old Dallaras can still play too.

If not, the little guys are out.

Andy Bernstein
aka JagtechOhio

STAY ON TRACK

Last edited by JagtechOhio; 1 Apr 2010 at 23:08.
JagtechOhio is offline  
Quote