Interesting Item on New Chassis in Indy Star (Merged)

[awrb]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

But how does that address the problem of a single spec chassis, which is at the heart of the IRL's problem?

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.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by awrb

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.

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.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

Hence Why I think they should forget the turbo engines and adopt Formula Nippon engines.

AFAIK Toyota's and Honda's Formula Nippon engines are derived from their IRL designs. Same rules then? They said 6 or 4 cylinders...

[ger80]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

Hence Why I think they should forget the turbo engines and adopt Formula Nippon engines. DTM is looking to integrate with Super GT, which use FN engines (and are supposedly conform with LM 2011 rules). So there you have Toyota and Nissan besides Honda, as well as Audi (read... VW) and Mercedes and maybe BMW would join in.
Just my $0.02

Well, think they should go for LMP2 engine which become LMP1 next year. Mazda, Porsche and Accura/Honda have one and there are more to come. Think you could run the Formula Nippon engines with small modifications in that ruleset.
About the chassis, well, create regulations and a cost limit and see who shows up.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by awrb

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.

Thanks, that about sums up my thoughts.

[JagtechOhio]

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.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

A new engine spec is essential before future chassis configurations are contemplated, whether they come from Delta, Dallara, Swift, Lola, or anybody else.

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.

That's certainly is an intersting map. I don't see why a new chassis program couldn't be run along side a new engine program. In fact isn't that what's happeneing at the moment? You've got Ben Bowlby working on a new chassis and the IRL looking to various maufacturers to design and build a new engine.

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?

[JagtechOhio]

" ...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.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I found this interesting piece by Ben Bowlby:

http://getsatisfaction.com/indycarco...delta_wing_car

[climb]

Honestly I need to have a draft draw of the resulting car; I fear it could turn oou tto be a horrible device

[bjohnsonsmith]

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.

[JagtechOhio]

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.

[bjohnsonsmith]

My mistake then.

[nickyf1]

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

[bjohnsonsmith]

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.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by nickyf1

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

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.

[Purist]

He's NOT talking about ICS taking over SuperLeague, but ICS adopting SuperLeague machinery.

[nickyf1]

Or Superleague derived machinery. But IMS want mini-spaceships so that will never happen..

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Purist

He's NOT talking about ICS taking over SuperLeague, but ICS adopting SuperLeague machinery.

That was clear and understood, but I don't want those indy people anywhere around that series. For anything.

[JagtechOhio]

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.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

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.

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.

[JagtechOhio]

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.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

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.

Actually it took 3 calls, a pithy email and a pork tenderloin sandwich. So I'm not that good, sorry.

[JagtechOhio]

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?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

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?

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.