Interesting Item on New Chassis in Indy Star (Merged)

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Purist

Talking to a long-time aerospace engineer over lunch, he said that the layout and design made sense when I told him what the weight distribution was (specifically that it's 72.5% over the rear wheels). I didn't get a chance to have him elaborate very much, but this is somebody I definitely trust and know to be quite competent in the field.

Gordon Murray(who I am sure everyone here is aware of) once said about engineering and design that if it doesn't look right then it probably isn't.

This looks wrong in every way. I'm no engineer but I know driving and vehicle dynamics and I can't get my head around how this is going to work. I suspect you are either going to have hair raising understeer or poop your pants oversteer.

[Purist]

Well, a lot of people nowadays would probably say bi-planes and tri-planes don't look right. A lot of people nowadays would probably say wingless formula cars don't look right. So, you have to take that comment with a grain of salt.

Hmm, most older racing cars would probably be considered to have "hair raising understeer" by today's standards. Conversely, the old Auto Unions (and likely most old mid/rear engined race cars period), particularly the C-Type, would probably be considered to have "poop your pants oversteer" by modern drivers. And the Auto Unions were considered pretty hair raising even in their heyday.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Gordon Murray(who I am sure everyone here is aware of) once said about engineering and design that if it doesn't look right then it probably isn't.

This looks wrong in every way. I'm no engineer but I know driving and vehicle dynamics and I can't get my head around how this is going to work. I suspect you are either going to have hair raising understeer or poop your pants oversteer.

If it doesn't work, I say it would probably be due to understeer, because the light front end coupled with the small contact patch of those narrow front wheels on the road surface is a prime recipe for massive understeer. If that variable torque differential in the rear works, it could compensate, but that would in effect be "wired" steering..

Would YOU go into the first turn at Indy at 235 mph without a manual steering assembly that you can feel through your hands because your car electronic guided system to operate rear steering that could glitch out?

I sure as Hell wouldn't...JMHO

[Purist]

The front wheels steer the car. Ben Bowlby went over that in one of the articles that has been linked to. The torque vectoring may augment the steering, but it's NOT a steer-by-wire system.

It should actually be the light weight of the front end (27.5% of the weight on the front wheels) that allows those smaller wheels to do the steering. Also, without a front wing, they aren't overwhelmed by aerodynamic grip keeping the front end so planted that it interferes significantly with turning.

Somehow, I just don't see an inherent, profound problem in controllability with this design. Sorry that I don't agree with you, I guess.

[Tim Northcutt]

Ben Bowlby does had a lot of experience, but I've also read a lot of comments from a lot of people who are involved in motorsports in general or have covered the sport that have the same doubts.

Guess we'll see once it hits the track...

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Purist

It should actually be the light weight of the front end (27.5% of the weight on the front wheels) that allows those smaller wheels to do the steering. Also, without a front wing, they aren't overwhelmed by aerodynamic grip keeping the front end so planted that it interferes significantly with turning.

Somehow, I just don't see an inherent, profound problem in controllability with this design. Sorry that I don't agree with you, I guess.

Semi trucks seem to get many tons of stuff turned on winding roads just fine with those two skinny wheels without a lot of weight on them. Not exactly the same dynamic, I recognize, but there is some parallel.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Purist

Well, a lot of people nowadays would probably say bi-planes and tri-planes don't look right. A lot of people nowadays would probably say wingless formula cars don't look right. So, you have to take that comment with a grain of salt.

Hmm, most older racing cars would probably be considered to have "hair raising understeer" by today's standards. Conversely, the old Auto Unions (and likely most old mid/rear engined race cars period), particularly the C-Type, would probably be considered to have "poop your pants oversteer" by modern drivers. And the Auto Unions were considered pretty hair raising even in their heyday.

Yeah well that was 80 years ago and some things are better left in the past. Not many of those guys actually lived long enough to tell us about it.

[gttouring]

There is not even aworking model just a full size mockup I think this may have been a press and hype exercise

[Purist]

Then again, are we going to have a working version of ANY of the chassis proposals by the time a decision is supposed to be made in May?

[luke]

What I don't understand is we've gone from the best looking open wheel cars from the '80s to the mid '00s in CART to a proposed fighter jet with wheels. inovation and all it's fair enough but it has to look atleast like a race car and not something from 2156 IMO.

[nickyf1]

Originally Posted by luke

What I don't understand is we've gone from the best looking open wheel cars from the '80s to the mid '00s in CART to a proposed fighter jet with wheels. inovation and all it's fair enough but it has to look atleast like a race car and not something from 2156 IMO.

Exactly, innovation should come naturally, rather than trying to introduce some synthetic innovation!

[Purist]

Except that natural innovation has largely been quashed in much of motorsport, because the primary impetus behind such evolution was one simple goal: go faster. That not being as acceptable as it once was, what exactly are we supposed to do to get that natural process back?

This is especially a problem for Indy Car, where the equipment has stagnated by and large for roughly the past decade. Where is that jumping off point from which to progress? This is particularly troublesome when most on here don't like the current car, at least aesthetically, and when quite a few don't think a mere evolution of what we have now is going to be good enough to garner the attention and new-found support the series could really use.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by gttouring

There is not even aworking model just a full size mockup I think this may have been a press and hype exercise

As I speculated earlier in the thread, my belief is that this car is likely a trojan horse for power and control plus money.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Purist

Except that natural innovation has largely been quashed in much of motorsport, because the primary impetus behind such evolution was one simple goal: go faster. That not being as acceptable as it once was, what exactly are we supposed to do to get that natural process back?

Go faster with limited fuel. Kind of like what they are proposing.

[johntt]

From the guy who brought you the Penske Delta Wing...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46996264@N06/4382128037/

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

This is especially a problem for Indy Car, where the equipment has stagnated by and large for roughly the past decade. Where is that jumping off point from which to progress? This is particularly troublesome when most on here don't like the current car, at least aesthetically, and when quite a few don't think a mere evolution of what we have now is going to be good enough to garner the attention and new-found support the series could really use.

Isn't the case that stagnation of equipment and the aethetics of the current car are interlinked? The IRL has done nothing to inovate and thus allow the series to evolve. It's merely preserved the Status Quo because it is 'safe' making the series uninteresting for fans, sponsors, TV companies and those in the automotive industry.

[Purist]

Yes, BJS, I agree with that. I'm just pointing out that when the primary motivation for ANY development of racing cars for most of the history of motorsport has been diluted, this can lead to some definite problems for just about any current sanctioning body, let alone what that needs a shot in the arm.

Miatanut, your proposal is still fundamentally different, as this approach can be much more limiting on outright pace based on current technology. And if the cars can't go any faster than at present on the limitations you impose, development isn't really going to go anywhere noticeable on the part of the car that most people ever see. Thus, your approach can also lead to some level of stagnation.

On top of this, drivers HATE fuel economy racing; just ask Stuck and Bell about Group C sportscars in the World Sports Prototype Championship. And except in those VERY rare occasions where an extended green run at the end leads to excitement over who can go the distance without stopping, and thus leads to unexpected final results, economy racing is NOT good for the "show", and hence will NOT draw fans to a racing series. Therefore, I would say that such a philosophy being applied in Indy Car is very much counter to the ends the series needs to be seeking at this point.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Purist

Miatanut, your proposal is still fundamentally different, as this approach can be much more limiting on outright pace based on current technology. And if the cars can't go any faster than at present on the limitations you impose, development isn't really going to go anywhere noticeable on the part of the car that most people ever see. Thus, your approach can also lead to some level of stagnation.

On top of this, drivers HATE fuel economy racing; just ask Stuck and Bell about Group C sportscars in the World Sports Prototype Championship. And except in those VERY rare occasions where an extended green run at the end leads to excitement over who can go the distance without stopping, and thus leads to unexpected final results, economy racing is NOT good for the "show", and hence will NOT draw fans to a racing series. Therefore, I would say that such a philosophy being applied in Indy Car is very much counter to the ends the series needs to be seeking at this point.

I mean an all-out arms race.

There are different ways to do fuel formulas. With Group C they had a minimum mileage. It would also be possible to make refueling a painfully slow process. Make it the same speed as a typical gas station pump, so it's a four minute deal to get a full tank. No working on the car while refueling. I thought the approach at the Dubai 24HR was absolutely perfect.

You would have some teams go for the fast, thirsty approach, and others would go for a less powerful approach where they get to spend more time on the track. Every team gets to make their own compromise between mileage/power and refueling time.

[Purist]

I understand that tack as well, and that approach could well lead to more speed differential. This may produce additional overtaking, but it is very possible that it will NOT produce the real car-to-car, on-track battles the series needs to put on during the races. Sorry, but most fans want to see the races decided on the track, NOT in the pits.

Besides, I think the no working on the car while refueling is utterly unnecessary and kind of dumb in modern racing. And refueling rate as slow as for a regular gas station is going to look pathetic in modern racing; I don't care to see it myself, and it will probably lose you eyeballs on the tube if there's a caution and the race is put on hold for literally minutes.

You generally don't see more than maybe half of a Le Mans sportscar pit stop during the telecasts because it's just so long, even though it is less than a minute, and 99% of the time, they do NOT bother to put a timer on those stops (I wonder why). If the fuel tanks are large enough, I suppose you could justify 20 to 25-second stops to people, but in Indy Car, NASCAR, F1, etc, if it's more than 15 seconds, people just assume something has gone with the pit stop. It's a matter of perception, and now that so many people watching racing think a good stop should last no more than about 15 seconds, anything much longer than that they think something is wrong, and if it continues to happen, it just looks unprofessional, which isn't helpful for any series.

[JagtechOhio]

B: Bruce Ashmore
A: Alan Mertens
T: Tim Wardrop

B: U.S. race car designer, USAC Silver Crown. Lola and Reynard designer. American entrepreneur in Indianapolis.

http://www.ashmoredesign.com/


A: March designer. Galmer designer. Entrepreneur in Alburerque, New Mexico.

http://galmerinc.com/index.htm


T: Dr. Speed. Arie's guy, 239.26. That's his screen name on TrackForum, too. Here's his bio, scroll down a bit:

http://www.pdmracing.com/PDM_Racing/Team_Profile.html

No offense intended to any other chassis designers: I'll be waiting to see what the three men who comprise BAT come up with.

They certainly shaped the recent history of American Open Wheel Racing. Let's see what they have to say about its future.

Andy

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Purist

I understand that tack as well, and that approach could well lead to more speed differential. This may produce additional overtaking, but it is very possible that it will NOT produce the real car-to-car, on-track battles the series needs to put on during the races. Sorry, but most fans want to see the races decided on the track, NOT in the pits.

Besides, I think the no working on the car while refueling is utterly unnecessary and kind of dumb in modern racing. And refueling rate as slow as for a regular gas station is going to look pathetic in modern racing; I don't care to see it myself, and it will probably lose you eyeballs on the tube if there's a caution and the race is put on hold for literally minutes.

You generally don't see more than maybe half of a Le Mans sportscar pit stop during the telecasts because it's just so long, even though it is less than a minute, and 99% of the time, they do NOT bother to put a timer on those stops (I wonder why). If the fuel tanks are large enough, I suppose you could justify 20 to 25-second stops to people, but in Indy Car, NASCAR, F1, etc, if it's more than 15 seconds, people just assume something has gone with the pit stop. It's a matter of perception, and now that so many people watching racing think a good stop should last no more than about 15 seconds, anything much longer than that they think something is wrong, and if it continues to happen, it just looks unprofessional, which isn't helpful for any series.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. When they show pit stops, I think 'Why are they showing me a pit stop when there's a race going on out there?'. Oh, because nobody can get past anybody, so the race will be decided by a pit stop. Yippiee!

With a four minute refueling, naturally they wouldn't show the refueling. They would show the tire change frenzy after the refueling. Of course with four minute pit stops, they would need to shut the engine off, so they might as well put in starters, like sportscar racing. That would make more of a connection between open wheel cars and real cars. I'm with Dan Gurney:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...can-visionary/

Auto racing has gotten too technically stagnant, and too far removed from street cars.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I guess it's a matter of perspective. When they show pit stops, I think 'Why are they showing me a pit stop when there's a race going on out there?'. Oh, because nobody can get past anybody, so the race will be decided by a pit stop. Yippiee!

With a four minute refueling, naturally they wouldn't show the refueling. They would show the tire change frenzy after the refueling. Of course with four minute pit stops, they would need to shut the engine off, so they might as well put in starters, like sportscar racing. That would make more of a connection between open wheel cars and real cars. I'm with Dan Gurney:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...can-visionary/

Auto racing has gotten too technically stagnant, and too far removed from street cars.

There's a reason for that. Road cars are slow.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Auto racing has gotten too technically stagnant, and too far removed from street cars.

You should watch the British Touring Car Championship.

[Purist]

Miatanut, open wheel cars, by the virtue of them just being that, are thoroughly disconnected from road cars in the eyes of the public anyway. And no, there is on-track passing in Indy Car, so that doesn't really add up. You also must consider that the battles after the pit stops will resume in a different place, so if you follow the cars that haven't pitted, you lose track of where the other guys are for a number of minutes in your scheme. There is passing in NASCAR, but the pit stops there get as much scrutiny, if not more, than any other televised, circuit racing series in the world. People want to see that choreography of the pit crew, and they don't wish for the racing stops to be longer; they dream of their own service station being able to give them service approaching the speed of what those pit crews can do. Heck, I imagine that, and I can't even drive on the street due to my eyesight.

BJS, do you think he's ready for NASCAR to be put in perspective by the antics in BTCC?

PTC, good one.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

BJS, do you think he's ready for NASCAR to be put in perspective by the antics in BTCC?

Are you refering to the reverse grid?