Interesting Item on New Chassis in Indy Star (Merged)

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by climb

And why do many people eat McDonald's hamburgs instead of attending 3-Michelin star reastaurants?

Because people don't eat tires?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

Because 200 mph in an open-wheeled, tube frame car is SUCH a great idea. The safety cell has to be a carbon fiber monocoque. It saves lives.

Carbon fiber is no safer than tube frame cage.

[JagtechOhio]

At anywhere close to comparable weight? That one will take more than "my buddy sayz"....

[climb]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

Because people don't eat tires?

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Carbon fiber is no safer than tube frame cage.

CF is a lot safer, especially with an open wheel car. Steel bends, carbon fractures displacing the energy.

It's not happening so no point in even going there.

I was reading some comments from John Barnard about the Delta Schwang and again mr. bowlby has too many answers for an unbuilt car. I aint no engineer but i do understand vehicle dynamics and I still don't get with 70% of the weight at the rear and weeny tires at the front with a narrow as hell track, how that is going to work threshold braking into a corner then trailing off the brakes transferring grip over to steering and getting through the corner.

[climb]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Based on what proof?
....

Even the most spending series in the world (F1 and nascar) are facing serious problems; If Toyota and BMW shut up shop, why shouldn't Panther Racing (or similars) be affected?

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

This system puts money in only certain peoples pockets ..

Yes but the money in the system's wallet is less and less: haven't you noticed it?

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

... and they do not want it to change, no matter how badly it screws things up.

The cases of BMW and Toyota dismiss completely your assumption

[climb]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

CF is a lot safer, especially with an open wheel car. Steel bends, carbon fractures displacing the energy.

It's not happening so no point in even going there.

I was reading some comments from John Barnard about the Delta Schwang and again mr. bowlby has too many answers for an unbuilt car. I aint no engineer but i do understand vehicle dynamics and I still don't get with 70% of the weight at the rear and weeny tires at the front with a narrow as hell track, how that is going to work threshold braking into a corner then trailing off the brakes transferring grip over to steering and getting through the corner.

for strange that it may seem , I for once agree 100%

[JagtechOhio]

Star,

You point out some of the concerns raised when the description of this vehicle was first released. With the torque vector steering, weight balance and brake bias specifications of this vehicle, it won't be similar to driving an actual car.

Even the drivers who ran the simulator said so.

[JagtechOhio]

Maybe this will help to clarify the cost arguments:

Hamilton and Matos both wrecked their De Ferran Dragon Racing Dallaras at Indy. They didn't have a spare car, and apparently couldn't afford to buy one: Hamilton didn't race at Texas as a result, and there has been no plan announced for his return before Indy 2011.

Simona's tub was cooked at Texas, and HVM is running her at Iowa in their backup car...it's an old tub, the only one they have. In this case, it was specifically stated that they didn't have the money to replace the toasted chassis.

The new spec chassis cost will be mandated by the IRL. Figures in the $300-$400K range have been mentioned, and Delta quoted an approximate roller cost at $450K.

You probably don't have to pay more than that for a used Dallara roller now, and at least two teams can't. SFR is also short one chassis. Heaven knows where KV is finding the money to keep their cars on track, as they have had a total of 14 shunts so far this season. Some were very heavy ones.

With only one approved 2012 chassis, none of the constructors will have to worry about competition or losing market share. As soon as you have two competing chassis, you have started the arms race and split the number of customers. The cost would escalate immediately. Price bids are based on a reduced profit margin, with no expenditures included for additional R&D after the construction begins.

All of the constructors realize this, and have stated that they require a sole supplier contract. Most of the teams won't be able to afford to race any other way.

If HVM can't find $300K now, it's hard to see where the $600K or more will come from when they have to buy a new chassis and a spare for 2012. Wiggins of HVM is a Delta supporter, so that means more like $900K if that vehicle is approved.

It's not possible for the constructors to walk down that road either: remember the Falcon? Competing chassis were approved at the time of its birth, and the project died when no teams placed an order.

What we want, and what we will get, are two different animals. Unless you want to watch a tube frame race car at Indy, that is. Buy a ticket to the Brickyard 400 and enjoy.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Carbon fiber is no safer than tube frame cage.

Yes it is.

[climb]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

...
The new spec chassis cost will be mandated by the IRL. Figures in the $300-$400K range have been mentioned, and Delta quoted an approximate roller cost at $450K.

You probably don't have to pay more than that for a used Dallara roller now, and at least two teams can't. SFR is also short one chassis. Heaven knows where KV is finding the money to keep their cars on track, as they have had a total of 14 shunts so far this season. Some were very heavy ones.

Yes, but right for this reason, you cannot suppose old tubs to last forever; sooner or later some new are to be bought, and at this stage, a 2012 spec is far cheaper than the current one

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

With only one approved 2012 chassis, none of the constructors will have to worry about competition or losing market share.

Exactly like today

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

As soon as you have two competing chassis, you have started the arms race and split the number of customers. The cost would escalate immediately. Price bids are based on a reduced profit margin, with no expenditures included for additional R&D after the construction begins.

All of the constructors realize this, and have stated that they require a sole supplier contract. Most of the teams won't be able to afford to race any other way.

absolutely correct

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

If HVM can't find $300K now, it's hard to see where the $600K or more will come from when they have to buy a new chassis and a spare for 2012. Wiggins of HVM is a Delta supporter, so that means more like $900K if that vehicle is approved.

...

Dunno where you take those numbers from; The new chassis should cost 45% less than the current, thus for a poor team it could be interesting.
Not only should a chassis be cheaper on the whole, but fewer components are expected to reduce inventory costs; I think that this investment could be recovered in one "ordinary" season (= a season with an average charge of crashes)

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Yes it is.

Based on what proofs.

Not theories, proofs.

The Pond Racer had a CF safety cell that when asked to perform, shattered like an egg and left a very dead pilot.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Based on what proofs.

Not theories, proofs.

Based on 29 years of Formula 1 racing. If tubular frames are so much better why has no one reverted to using them?

The Pond Racer had a CF safety cell that when asked to perform, shattered like an egg and left a very dead pilot.

I thought that was a plain?

[Tim Northcutt]

Sorry I didn't post this earlier, but I'm really getting busy setting up for our summer outdoor concert season that opens tomorrow night.

This was in today's Indianapolis Star:

http://www.indystar.com/article/2010...ks-good-for-12

[JagtechOhio]

climb, I can substantiate those figures from quotes by both Barnhart and Bowlby, and I'm not going to bother looking them up.

You can ignore them if you wish. My point was not arguing the need for a new chassis, or questioning the wisdom of making a cheaper one available.

My point was that if you don't have $300K now to buy a replacement, it's a bit worrysome to presume that you're going to have the money to buy a new chassis and spare on the day your existing equipment is ruled obsolete.

Tim, I posted a benign comment on Cavin's article when it appeared in the middle of the night. Curious to see that it's not there now.

[Bob Riebe]

[QUOTE=bjohnsonsmith;2714442]Based on 29 years of Formula 1 racing. If tubular frames are so much better why has no one reverted to using them?
The use of carbon fiber and earlier glass fiber, had/has nothing to do with safety.
Just as the main reason a monocoque is used is not for safety reasons.


I thought that was a plain? [b]It was t he ONLY one built with the wonderful carbon fiber, for safety.
Weren't just too safe.

[bjohnsonsmith]

[QUOTE=Bob Riebe;2714455]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Based on 29 years of Formula 1 racing. If tubular frames are so much better why has no one reverted to using them?
The use of carbon fiber and earlier glass fiber, had/has nothing to do with safety.
Just as the main reason a monocoque is used is not for safety reasons.

Until the advent of the carbon fibre chassis, the safety cell didn't exist. As for the monocoque being used, the main reason Colin Chapman pioneered its use in F1 was because it was all in all a better method of chassis construction and that included driver safety.

[Bob Riebe]

[QUOTE=bjohnsonsmith;2714465]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Until the advent of the carbon fibre chassis, the safety cell didn't exist. As for the monocoque being used, the main reason Colin Chapman pioneered its use in F1 was because it was all in all a better method of chassis construction and that included driver safety.

F-1 Lotus concerned about safety-- now THAT is a tall-tale.

[mountainstar]

So the decision will be delayed beyond june 30

[bjohnsonsmith]

[QUOTE=Bob Riebe;2714528]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

F-1 Lotus concerned about safety-- now THAT is a tall-tale.

Really? However, I think this going slightly off topic.

[wnut]

There are a couple of questions I have after reading this thread:

How do the manufacturers arrive at $300k for a tub?
I have quite a lot of experience laying carbon and glass and boats seem to be a lot bigger and way cheaper!

Given a spec the tubs could just be farmed out?
Would it not be possible for IRL to start manufacturing their own tubs as a series?

Carbon is safe because it disperses energy through the whole structure before shattering. If it is too light for the job at hand it will shatter like an egg.
Carbon fibre is just lighter than steel and when built to the same weight is massively stronger - if done correctly.

I still can't understand why Carbon fibre laying it is so expensive!
What is the total cost of the carbon fiber and epoxy in a tub?
Total weight 50Kg?

[JagtechOhio]

I believe the projected cost figures in the $3-$4K range are for complete rollers, presumably with gearboxes. Only guesses for what a tub would cost.

CF is expensive, but the labor and equipment costs are very high. Big autoclave and laser pattern cutter for starters. Lots of time for design and R&D to meet crash testing standards.

The IRL is currently running about $25M in the red. They have expressed no desire or ability to get into the race car manufacturing business, and would probably make a mess of the job anyway.

[climb]

Originally Posted by wnut

There are a couple of questions I have after reading this thread:

How do the manufacturers arrive at $300k for a tub?
I have quite a lot of experience laying carbon and glass and boats seem to be a lot bigger and way cheaper!

Given a spec the tubs could just be farmed out?
Would it not be possible for IRL to start manufacturing their own tubs as a series?

...
I still can't understand why Carbon fibre laying it is so expensive!
What is the total cost of the carbon fiber and epoxy in a tub?
Total weight 50Kg?

wnut, there is a misundersting on terms: those 300 k $ are related to the chassis intended as the whole car, not the sole tub who's bound to cost much less as you correctly point out

[bjohnsonsmith]

Does anyone know if we are going to hear on the pronouncements of the ICONIC Group tomorrow?

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Does anyone know if we are going to hear on the pronouncements of the ICONIC Group tomorrow?

I thought it was delayed another month... yet again.