|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
13 Jan 2010, 23:10 (Ref:2613051) | #76 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 809
|
It doesn't, but it means engines will be readily available and much cheeper to develop, using the same logic as the FIA's world engine idea. Then all we need is a couple of other chassis and we've got a great series back.
|
||
|
13 Jan 2010, 23:32 (Ref:2613055) | #77 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
But as far as I can tell the IRL are going to stick with a single manufacturer spec chassis, unless they've recently decided otherwise.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
14 Jan 2010, 00:02 (Ref:2613071) | #78 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 785
|
|||
|
16 Jan 2010, 19:49 (Ref:2614376) | #79 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,710
|
Quote:
About the chassis, well, create regulations and a cost limit and see who shows up. |
|||
|
16 Jan 2010, 22:23 (Ref:2614430) | #80 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 593
|
||
|
17 Jan 2010, 23:58 (Ref:2614884) | #81 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,311
|
A new engine spec is essential before future chassis configurations are contemplated, whether they come from Delta, Dallara, Swift, Lola, or anybody else.
No additional engine manufacturer is going to design a stressed engine to fit the current chassis, unless it is readily adaptable to the new chassis design...which hopefully will accomodate a non-stressed installation as well. That encourages variety. There aren't any manufacturers interested in building racing engines for the IndyCar series. Honda is bored with it, along with realizing diminishing returns. Initiating a V6 (or 4 cyl) program, when no other manufacturers are entering competition, is a waste of resources for Honda. They could design an alternate engine to fit the current chassis and an evolutionary chassis, and wonder why they bothered. IndyCar can announce a new chassis design, and if it is a radical enough departure they will need new engines to accompany it. Honda reluctantly agreed to go to 4 cyl., and have backed off from that position which wasn't their choice from the get-go. That means IndyCar can't consider the Delta unless they approve an engine spec that can power it, and find someone with a reason to do so. They're going to have to write a spec for a four cylinder, and open it up to any independant builder who wants to make the investment. That means the requirement for a builder to supply most of the grid will have to be ditched as well. Then you have a variety of engines, with the need to police them and possibly implement equivilancy restrictions. Good medicine, some side effects indicated. Then they can see who wants to build a chassis around it, set a spec, and allow anyone who wants to build a car to meet the requirements to submit a design for crash testing. 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. That's my map, many people will try to pick it apart and no one above the level of chat room expert will listen. |
||
|
18 Jan 2010, 00:23 (Ref:2614890) | #82 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Quote:
As far as drag and downforce regulations are concerned, do Dallara have enough time before the 2010 season begins to design and wind tunnel test new sidepodes and undertrays? |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
18 Jan 2010, 00:56 (Ref:2614897) | #83 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,311
|
" ...the IRL looking to various maufacturers to design and build a new engine."
And those manufacturers would be....nobody. The last of the talkers just left the table, unless there is some very intense and very secret negotiation underway. Other than gravity pulling it through a tunnel, what would power the Delta car? And no, Dallara would be hard pressed to develop significant aero mods before March 14. May is easy. I wrote the changes last September. Added, I have no way of knowing that the undertray and sidepods would have to be renewed, perhaps modifying the existing panels is possible. But the design and testing to reduce the downforce would first be required regardless. The goal is to reduce the ground effect downforce, perhaps 20% is the target. Permitting selective wing angles then enables the driver to run as much or as little downforce as he requires. This opens up a variety in straightline speeds and cornering speeds, dependant upon the compromise selected. And none of the changes above enable the cars to lap any faster, which is why the downforce levels are mandated now. Last edited by JagtechOhio; 18 Jan 2010 at 01:25. |
||
|
25 Jan 2010, 00:27 (Ref:2618844) | #84 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
25 Jan 2010, 08:24 (Ref:2618955) | #85 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,512
|
Honestly I need to have a draft draw of the resulting car; I fear it could turn oou tto be a horrible device
|
||
__________________
You got to learn how to fall, before you learn to fly P.Simon |
25 Jan 2010, 08:50 (Ref:2618966) | #86 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
I would like to see it as well, I've seen all sorts of 'prospective' designs bandied about on the www. Hopefully Ben Bowlby will be obliging, soon.
Last edited by bjohnsonsmith; 25 Jan 2010 at 09:14. Reason: typo |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
26 Jan 2010, 02:49 (Ref:2619507) | #87 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,311
|
You need to look at that a little closer. Bowlby didn't write that.
Speedway configuration Cd is currently in the .5-.6 range. That kid is a moron, I just read the rest of it. Last edited by JagtechOhio; 26 Jan 2010 at 02:55. |
||
|
26 Jan 2010, 07:55 (Ref:2619545) | #88 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
My mistake then.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
26 Jan 2010, 16:45 (Ref:2619761) | #89 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,789
|
Man, why can't they just get a normal single seater and let it naturally change, rather than making a futuristic hover car?
Surely a modified Superleage formula type car would do... Then we could pick up where Champcar left off |
||
__________________
'My lovely horse, running through the fields! Where are you going, with your fetlocks blowing in the wind?' |
26 Jan 2010, 17:56 (Ref:2619808) | #90 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
If I had my way, I'd get rid of those Dallara's give the teams a mixture of Reynard and Lola chassis, there have got to be quite a few knocking around and let them go at it.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
26 Jan 2010, 19:48 (Ref:2619889) | #91 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,885
|
Back off there pal. We don't need Superleague to be polluted with indycar "VISIONS" and all that. I like Superleague as it is and don't want those indy people anywhere around that championship.
|
|
__________________
Wolverines! |
26 Jan 2010, 20:30 (Ref:2619919) | #92 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
He's NOT talking about ICS taking over SuperLeague, but ICS adopting SuperLeague machinery.
|
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
26 Jan 2010, 22:58 (Ref:2620013) | #93 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,789
|
Or Superleague derived machinery. But IMS want mini-spaceships so that will never happen..
|
||
__________________
'My lovely horse, running through the fields! Where are you going, with your fetlocks blowing in the wind?' |
26 Jan 2010, 23:23 (Ref:2620023) | #94 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,885
|
||
__________________
Wolverines! |
27 Jan 2010, 03:13 (Ref:2620083) | #95 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,311
|
Who builds them dern V12's?
Best go through your rolodex and give John Menard a ring then. Apparently the cross-contamination his participation has brought to both series will lead to disaster any day now.
|
||
|
27 Jan 2010, 04:46 (Ref:2620099) | #96 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,885
|
Quote:
He's out of the irl now completely so I can excuse it. Everything the irl touches turns to stone, so I just want Superleague left alone. I don't want the Pork Tenderloins getting any big ideas. I'm going to try to find some business excuse to go over to Europe to see at least one race. It costs me about the same to fly to London, Paris or Madrid as it does to fly to California. |
||
__________________
Wolverines! |
29 Jan 2010, 04:43 (Ref:2621445) | #97 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,311
|
Hey star,
I truly underestimated the scope of your omnipotence. One call from you, Menard kisses Tony off and the doors get locked. I'm impressed. |
||
|
29 Jan 2010, 06:16 (Ref:2621457) | #98 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,885
|
||
__________________
Wolverines! |
29 Jan 2010, 07:18 (Ref:2621471) | #99 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,311
|
Schmooze and Pith. Sounds like the bankruptcy law firm.
So what is the story with Menard? He was my hero for a minute, when I read that he hired some of the old TWR guys to build the Superleague V12. How's come he doesn't stand up and say he can't spend money to support anything in IRL, even if he's just offering a lame excuse? |
||
|
29 Jan 2010, 10:27 (Ref:2621557) | #100 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Maybe he's embarrased to say so. He's been a major sponsor before and since the IRL's inception and it might look rather hypocritical to now be seen to no longer support the IRL, therfore it's best to say nothing.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interesting Controversy in Today's Indy Star | Tim Northcutt | Indycar Series | 21 | 24 Apr 2010 01:17 |
Interesting 2006 Venue News in Indy Star | Tim Northcutt | IRL Indycar Series | 18 | 6 Apr 2005 01:24 |
From Indy Star - Another Bias?? | racinthestreets | ChampCar World Series | 11 | 17 Feb 2004 21:25 |
Interesting item about Franchittii | MolsonBoy | ChampCar World Series | 7 | 17 Aug 2002 10:16 |