In reply to codrus:
It makes intuitive sense to me, too.
That's a shame, I was hoping to have my cake and eat it, too...
In reply to codrus:
It makes intuitive sense to me, too.
That's a shame, I was hoping to have my cake and eat it, too...
novaderrik wrote: didn't Indycar have what amounted to a jump at one street course that they had to put a chicane in front of to slow the cars down? do that, but without the chicane...
The infamous San Jose race. The course had a light rail crossing in it that made the cars leave the ground. A lot of broken suspension parts in that one. Nevertheless, they never went back there. The worst designed race course ever.
There once was a series with no rules. Okay, it had one rule: The car had to run on pump gas. Everything else was open. The series was called Can-Am and the cars were beasts. Unfortunately, every year would have one dominant team so the races were like parades in some cases. Plus, the cars ate money like popcorn. With "unlimited" rules, the cars went to full bodies. Nothing like hearing a field full of 7+liter beasts hit the throttle simultaneously for the start.
Jerry From LA wrote: The infamous San Jose race. The course had a light rail crossing in it that made the cars leave the ground. A lot of broken suspension parts in that one. Nevertheless, they never went back there. The worst designed race course ever.
Actually they held three races here in San Jose, although they did something to the tracks after the first one so that crossing them wasn't as big of a deal as it was the first year. It was ChampCar, though, not IndyCar. After 3 years they were going to move the race back to Laguna Seca, but then it got cancelled by the merger with IRL.
I think IndyCar (or whatever it's called now) has the same issue in Baltimore.
yes.. Baltimore... they should do that on purpose..
also maybe raise the minimum ground clearance, and measure it with the driver in, the gas tank full, and the springs adjusted all the way out so that it's at it's lowest possible ride height.
Keith Tanner wrote: In an open formula, I don't think you'd see a semi-open wheel setup like Apexcarver's pic. They'd go with full bodies like a Le Mans car - more surface means more downforce, and exposed wheels are ugly from an aero point of view.
Oh, I am well aware of that.. The picture is from an Anime series from the 90's that was on the principle of an unlimited formula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_GPX_Cyber_Formula
The first series kinda reeks of speedracer (with some of the tracks being rally stages), but the OVAs are more like unlimited F1. Its an anime, its unrealistic, but it is fun.
Keith Tanner wrote:ransom wrote: What if ride heights were forced up to the point that entire sections of chassis design aren't about creating an artificial 2mm of ground clearance when moving, because it would be a drop in the bucket?Just put a big speed bump on the entrance to the pitsDon't legislate the cars, make them evolve to suit the courses.
They tried that in 82 after banning skirts then raising the ride height. The cars all had to be able to drive over a plank of certain dimensions to make sure they had a minimum ground clearance. No problem, soft helper springs that at pit lane speed were uncompressed, but at track speeds the downforce overcame them and they were back to being go-karts with only the tires providing any suspension at all and drivers all getting back problems plus massive accidents if air ever got under the car. That's what lead to banning tunnels and flat bottoms.
mad_machine wrote: find me a race series that does not exploit the rules?
Stadium Super Trucks
My Solution is a massive and radical re-write of the aero rules.
1. Single plane flat bottom cars other than a small single diffuser at the back. From the center line out there can be no change in profile of the underbody other than small skid blocks. There can be a gentle curve from the front to the back of a max of X degrees as even with low nose fronts the nose was always slightly higher.
2. From the centerline of the car outwards the bodywork may only trend down, once it can gone down it can never go back up again to keep the shape simple except of air and cooling intakes which all have a minimum radius.
3. Minimum radius from the side of the car to the underbody.
4. Front and rear wings have a maximum plan area and a maximum number of elements (say 2 or 3). They must be of constant aspect ratio and in a single plan, not curving up and down.
5. Front and rear wing end plates must will have a maximum size and be totally flat with a generous radius on the leading and trailing edge.
6. No Barge boards, winglets etc. Mirrors to have a prescribed mount to stop them becoming winglets again
7. The exhaust must exit at the rear of the car, aft of the bodywork alongside the rear crash structure. They must exit parallel to the ground and have been straight for X distance prior to the end to the gasses go back and can’t be used for downforce.
Apexcarver wrote: I still think it would be awesome for a unlimited development series to exist. Even though getting the money together for it would probably never happen. Active suspension geometry, active aero, CVT (at least the option), sucker cars.. All of it...
"Cyber Formula" could only happen and be safe with massive amounts of runoff room. As in, spectators needing powerful binoculars to watch from a safe distance, and all-new tracks needed for them to run on. Otherwise there would be SO MUCH DEATH.
Notice that a lot of the tech from that series is real now?
Aero mode = DRS
Messier Wing = KERS (well it's an electric boost...those solar panels would need to be 90%+ efficient)
Boost = TERS
Suction fans = exhaust-blown diffusers (kinda)
Lifting pass = Roman's driving 
Jerry From LA wrote: There once was a series with no rules. Okay, it had one rule: The car had to run on pump gas. Everything else was open. The series was called Can-Am and the cars were beasts. Unfortunately, every year would have one dominant team so the races were like parades in some cases. Plus, the cars ate money like popcorn. With "unlimited" rules, the cars went to full bodies. Nothing like hearing a field full of 7+liter beasts hit the throttle simultaneously for the start.
That's a bit of an over-simplification, there were more rules than that. But it was amazingly open in the early days. And yes, it wasn't great racing most of the time. But the cars were spectacular. One very cool thing about the series was that the races were enduros, so the mechanical stress was enormous.
Did you know the 917-30 had a fuel capacity of over 100 gallons? The thing was a 1000 hp fuel tanker.
Yes, I did know about the Porsche Valdez. The rules required two seats as well as some safety requirements. That was it. After the Chaparral 2J, they banned the auxiliary power units necessary for creating a sucker car. Unlimited displacement plus supercharging and turbos allowed.
Active aero was banned in the late 60's (moveable wings), the sucker car snuck in via a loophole that was later closed. Fuel economy rules were added in as well.
It is interesting how, given the choice between huge and powerful vs small and nimble, the former turned out to be the best choice.
Keith Tanner wrote: It is interesting how, given the choice between huge and powerful vs small and nimble, the former turned out to be the best choice.
You really could just limit them with tires. Too much down force and the tires will overheat and die. Acceleration, braking, cornering speed, all brought into line. Put them on 175/60-R15's and let them have at it!
Keith Tanner wrote: It is interesting how, given the choice between huge and powerful vs small and nimble, the former turned out to be the best choice.
I guess no one wanted to bring a knife to a cannon fight. Even Porsche went brutal over finesse.
What about allowing all the tire they want, but nothing identifiable as a "wing"? Then scale the engines down 'til top speeds are safe-ish.
We'd still see under-tray downforce, which we (in this thread) have half-identified as hopefully less sensitive to the prior car's wake than wings.
Engine development would still need peak power, but there would be strong reasons to make tractable power across a usable range.
I wonder just how little power we'd wind up with keeping cars under 200mph sans wings at Monza?
I think I've mostly just convinced myself that other series are what I should be watching. Just wish I could see F1 levels of development and coverage on some other philosophies.
I need to wrap up the garage and go concern myself with my own construction.
ransom wrote: We'd still see under-tray downforce, which we (in this thread) have half-identified as hopefully less sensitive to the prior car's wake than wings.
Undertray downforce is very sensitive to suspension movement. If the ride height increases because you went over a dip or up on a curb, downforce drops massively. That's why it's limited now.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Good point. To my embarrassment, that's how I started on this whole shambolic ponderment...
My proposed new F1 (or better yet, Can-Am with full bodies) rules:
That's all the rules. They can do ride-height, HP, and exhaust blowing development until they are blue in the face. By making the motors actual production line pieces they will have to really step up their street cars (yay!!!) or work on longevity.
How cool would be to see a bruiser with a Porsche 918 drivetrain racing against a flyweight capacitor/Sky-D Mazda, and a Jag V6SC?
Jerry From LA wrote: I guess no one wanted to bring a knife to a cannon fight. Even Porsche went brutal over finesse.
This will not necessarily be a popular view, in fact I guarente I will get death threats from the faithful, but that has always, scrub that, normally been Porsche's way.
Jerry From LA wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: It is interesting how, given the choice between huge and powerful vs small and nimble, the former turned out to be the best choice.I guess no one wanted to bring a knife to a cannon fight. Even Porsche went brutal over finesse.
Not really true. A few teams tried to go small and light, and got their clocks cleaned by the bruisers.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:Jerry From LA wrote: I guess no one wanted to bring a knife to a cannon fight. Even Porsche went brutal over finesse.This will not necessarily be a popular view, in fact I guarente I will get death threats from the faithful, but that has always, scrub that, normally been Porsche's way.
Damn, no death threats yet! OK, to defend myself anyway as I spent the last 15 mins typing this.
The early cars I will absolutely agree were finesse over brute force. No one could ever accuse a 356, even a Carrera engined one, as being a brute force machine! Ditto the early 904 and 906 cars.
The 907 for the new 3 Liter Sports car formula was their first real look at the top class and that was still very much finesse over brute force. It did pretty well at Daytona and Sebring, plus Vic Elford’s monumental win in the Targa Florio. But the other big races went Ford’s way with brute force (although in itty bitty 289 form, not the old 427 version)
Then we come to the 917 which started as an evil handling beast with lots of power, then in both Group 6 and CanAm form morphed into a massively powerful but still evil handling machine. Let’s face it, all that power and a weak spindly aluminum space frame chassis that was flexible and cracked easily was built for weight savings not ultimate handling. I remember reading an interview with Derek Bell, who lets remember drove the late much much improved cars that had at least some straight line stability on the Mulsan straight, who said that going through the faster corners the chassis would flex so much it would trap his foot on the pedels. Gentlemen these were animals of cars for when men were men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri (sorry Douglas)
After the 917 was the 936. Another flimsy space frame when almost everyone else was using aluminium monoqocue’s for race cars. Long tail, low drag and the 935 engine for Group 6. Again, successful and won LeMans, but with power, weight and drag taking precedence over that messy handling stuff.
At the same time as the 936 was the 934 and 935 twins based on the 930 road car. Being production based with the same 6” wheel base and trailing arm rear, strut suspension and a spool for the diff. Can you even imagine the nad’s you’d need to do over 200mph with a 90” wheel base berkeley off wide slicks in the rain at night then have to negotiate the old kink! It makes my back side pucker just at the thought of it.
After the 934/5/6 came the 956 then the 962 to make it eligible for IMSA over here where they cared a little bit about the driver and wanted his (or her) toes behind the wheel center line to give the poor sods a better chance of survival in a crash. So now Porsche were ultra-modern in the chassis and running gear (NOT) The rest of the racing world was now at least using bonded aluminium honeycomb for their monocoque’s but Porsche were only now getting to folded and riveted aluminium sheet panels. The still had outboard front spring damper units and rocker arms at the rear and the rear diff was still a solid spool. Again beautiful monstrous machines that had masses of turbocharged power where they could turn the boost up and down for the fuel economy needed. Even when the Daur 962 won in 1994 (I was there cheering it) it was a brilliant bit of rule interpretation. The Daur 962 was a ‘street’ car so it was running in the GT class not as a prototype so it had more fuel allowance, large tank capacity and a larger restrictor than the prototypes so again brute force won over finesse
It was really only when the TWR Jag’s then the Sauber Mercedes came along that finesse started to beat them. My favorite was the 96 win with the TWR Porsche WSC-95 which was really a re-bodied Jag XJR 14 monocoque with a Porsche engine.
In single seaters Porsche built the TAG badged 1.5L F1 engine and left Ron Dennis and the revitalized McLaren team to build the chassis. In Indy car the 87 Porsche chassis was such a disaster that they soon switched to March Chassis, although the engine wasn’t that great either. Ditto in 1990 their chassis didn’t work out so it was back to March again.
So, I stand by my statement, the 20 years that really put Porsche on the map as a race car manufacturer was built off the back of big berkeleying fast engines and at best workman like chassis that were not in any way subtle, precise or had any real finesse. Don’t take that the wrong way, I absolutely love Porsche products and their Sports races, they made solid reliable customer cars where a good private team could take the fight to the factory boys and at times win (Joest, Kremer, Brun etc.)
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
Man, I enjoyed that! I never really thought of Porsche in that way, but you're definitely converting me.
Ah yes, but most of that happened after their Can-Am experience in the early '70s. If one took a look at their history up to that point, one could still say on balance they were a finesse marque. So what I'm talking about is in the context of their pre-Can-Am history.
Keith Tanner wrote:Jerry From LA wrote:Not really true. A few teams tried to go small and light, and got their clocks cleaned by the bruisers.Keith Tanner wrote: It is interesting how, given the choice between huge and powerful vs small and nimble, the former turned out to be the best choice.I guess no one wanted to bring a knife to a cannon fight. Even Porsche went brutal over finesse.
Like I said...
You'll need to log in to post.
