View Full Version : Indy: lack of lifting, and lack of off-line grip
Watching the race yesterday, 2 problems stood out (at least to me)
1. The lack of lifting... how often did we see the throttle remain at 100% through the turns? This leads to an environment where drivers only have to plant their foot. ICS needs a combo of MORE power and LESS aero downforce... let's see who actually has the talent to be able to lift, but carry speed through the turns, instead of this go-kart track stuff.
It would be nice to have a wider speed differential, like 225mph on the straights and maybe 190mph on the turns (wild guess) but lowering the overall lap speed goes against the IMS "speed" marketing... so I'm probably wasting my time writing this :)
2. Is it me, or did these cars seem exceptionally bad this year at losing grip when they got out of the perfect line on the turns, into the marbles?
It's a complex problem... on one hand we'd like the cars to have less grip to emphasize talent... but it would also be nice to have a wider racing line in the turns.
Is it possible (counter-intuitively) that reducing grip, thus making the cars go into the turns slower, would widen the line, and lessen the dreaded effect of running in the marbles? How about a combo of a harder rubber compound and less aero grip? I dunno, what do you guys think?
High Sided
05-26-08, 12:59 PM
get the lap average back in the 230's and everything will be fine :cool:
Andrew Longman
05-26-08, 01:11 PM
There was some lifting, but really only in cars that hadn't found the right set up.
The key these days is to trim the car out just enough to not lift in the corners so as to get maximum exit speed heading into the straights.
Leave too much in and it drags down the straights.
It seems hard too get it right through the entire stint.
But Chris you point is correct. Too much at Indy (and ICS in general) is about car set up and too little is left to the driver. I'd like to see the winner be the one who came closest to turning 200 perfect laps at terrifying speed.
That also said, I enjoyed the 500 (and Monaco) far more than the snoozefest in Charlotte. There, gas mileage and not setting up the car so aggressively that it blows the right front tire is more important than the driver.
2. Is it me, or did these cars seem exceptionally bad this year at losing grip when they got out of the perfect line on the turns, into the marbles?
This has been a problem for some time, and not just Indy, but all ovals. It hasn't been this bad since the CART tire wars.
It's not so much the marbles in themselves (although it does have something to do with it) but the fact that the racing line is so precise that there is hardly any rubber laid down off the racing line, in combination with the marbles. So once they get off the line, they are on relative ice.
oddlycalm
05-26-08, 02:58 PM
Whatever it takes to progress beyond the circus clown car level they are at now is what they better do in a hurry if they are looking at long term viability. When 150 miles of the race are being run with the pace car on the track you've got big problems.
I do think you can make a valid argument that the car spec contributes to the carnage. A car that is glued to the track and suddenly comes unstuck is going to tempt those of lesser skill in over their head, then bite them suddenly if the aero grip is interfered with.
oc
Well, FWIW, there was a Brian Barnhardt quote the other day where the ICS is saying they might stay with a single supplier spec chassis... something CCWS did... and something many of us here were suggesting years before that. By going with a spec chassis, you can design the thing around providing good competition, which CCWS was trying to do. Get ready for the DP02 at Indy :)
the racing line is so precise that there is hardly any rubber laid down off the racing line, in combination with the marbles. So once they get off the line, they are on relative ice.
What can be done to make the car (assuming the next gen is a spec chassis/tire) more forgiving of going outside the perfect line?
I would guess a harder compound tire? ("500 miles without a change!") Not only less marbles, but less rubber gets laid down overall, making for less difference between the line and outside the line.
And is having less aero grip in the first place more forgiving if a car goes off that perfect line?
What can be done to make the car (assuming the next gen is a spec chassis/tire) more forgiving of going outside the perfect line?
The easy answer would be to destroy the track by rounding the corners like every other NASCAR oval in the world. :thumdown:
What can be done to make the car (assuming the next gen is a spec chassis/tire) more forgiving of going outside the perfect line?
snarky answer: the drivers should slow down and use their brakes when they get offline.
honest answer: i don't know. The very nature of the track of indy (a rounded rectangle) will never really allow this problem to go away.
Using a hard compound in the tires that lasts the entire race is an interesting idea. Less rubber gets put on the track over the same period of time versus the single cycle tires used now.
The easy answer would be to destroy the track by rounding the corners like every other NASCAR oval in the world. :thumdown:
don't forget banking!
Maybe the DP03?...I think the '02 is that Superleague thing. :tony:has even said a slight name change for the series is being considered and actually said "A lot of people liked The Fed Ex Indy Car World Series as a name":D Sounds OK to me too, just so Go Daddy:yuck: isn't the title sponsor!
Andrew Longman
05-26-08, 06:17 PM
It's not so much the marbles in themselves (although it does have something to do with it) but the fact that the racing line is so precise that there is hardly any rubber laid down off the racing line, in combination with the marbles. So once they get off the line, they are on relative ice.
I hadn't really thought about that before, but that's also the product of too much downforce. With enough downforce everyone can and does run the same exact optimal line, which leads to it becoming the the only viable line because there is no rubber anywhere else. Hmmm.
More HP, wider tires, smaller wings, more relative downforce from the undertray. Why not?
miatanut
05-26-08, 06:55 PM
I would guess a harder compound tire? ("500 miles without a change!") Not only less marbles, but less rubber gets laid down overall, making for less difference between the line and outside the line.
I would LOVE to see that at every track, and have made a similar comment various places. Teams would still change tires for pressure adjustments, because they got pick-up, and other reasons, but the reduction in marbles alone would make it a really great move.
I hadn't really thought about that before, but that's also the product of too much downforce. With enough downforce everyone can and does run the same exact optimal line, which leads to it becoming the the only viable line because there is no rubber anywhere else. Hmmm.
More HP, wider tires, smaller wings, more relative downforce from the undertray. Why not?
why not? "safety"
extramundane
05-26-08, 07:09 PM
Maybe the DP03?...I think the '02 is that Superleague thing.
If we're going to be that pedantic, the Superleague car is the DP09. DP02 is the IMSA Lites car. http://www.elanmotorsports.com/images/products_DP02.jpg
miatanut
05-26-08, 09:41 PM
why not? "safety"
Considering downforce reduction has been a major part of F1's effort to improve safety by reducing cornering speeds, given corners are where most of the accidents happen, what would be the conflict between downforce reduction and safety*?
*assuming professional drivers who belong in the top-level series, not ride-buying wannabes.
Andrew Longman
05-26-08, 10:54 PM
why not? "safety"
I'm not firm in my position, but if straight line speed at IMS was say, 245+ and drivers had to actually lift and brake in the corners for a total lap speed of say 220-230, would that be more dangerous than what we have now?
I really would be interested in the community's thoughts. Play with the numbers as you like, but I think one aspect of the Indycar brand going back 92 years is wicked, scary speed.
It's not the cornering speed as much as it is the top end speed on ovals.
Imagine the speeds they could get going into the turns if they reduced downforce and upped the HP on the motors. If they were to hit the wall, they would hit it with even more force than they do now.
Granted, it would put more control in the hands of the drivers, where they'd have to lift, but I don't think the IRL has never had the philosophy of putting more control in the hands of the driver.
The new car will have to better for the roads and streets, which will almost certainly make it more along the lines of what we want to see.
Remember they do not have mandated wing angle at Indy, which I think shows when someone's handling goes off. There were people lifting yesterday, but the current oval-friendly car makes it less likely than it used to be.
stroker
05-27-08, 12:17 AM
The new car will have to better for the roads and streets, which will almost certainly make it more along the lines of what we want to see.
Remember they do not have mandated wing angle at Indy, which I think shows when someone's handling goes off. There were people lifting yesterday, but the current oval-friendly car makes it less likely than it used to be.
So are you saying that the cars as so badly designed that unless they're set for "foot to the floor" downforce then they're so close to the edge of stability that they're virtually uncontrollable?
Sounds like a job for Max Mosley!
miatanut
05-27-08, 12:52 AM
Imagine the speeds they could get going into the turns if they reduced downforce and upped the HP on the motors. If they were to hit the wall, they would hit it with even more force than they do now.
I'm for reducing downforce but leaving power levels where they are now. The DFV gave me many years of very enjoyable racing with power in the 400-500 HP range. Take away a lot of the downforce, you take away a lot of the drag, and current power levels are plenty.
I would LOVE to see that at every track, and have made a similar comment various places. Teams would still change tires for pressure adjustments, because they got pick-up, and other reasons, but the reduction in marbles alone would make it a really great move.
Very hard tires have been used in the past. That "500 miles without a change" quote is from a 1969 Firestone promo pic I have of Mario. They really used to do the whole race on ONE SET of tires!
Granted, it would put more control in the hands of the drivers, where they'd have to lift, but I don't think the IRL has ever had the philosophy of putting more control in the hands of the driver.
Putting more control into the hands of the driver certainly doesn't suit Roger or Chip's agenda.. they'd probably prefer to have their army of engineers setup the car and just have a driver who'll hold the throttle down and turn the wheel. They would likely be the first to try to influence TG to NOT put more control into the drivers hands. Seriously!
Sean Malone
05-27-08, 08:42 AM
I'm for reducing downforce but leaving power levels where they are now. The DFV gave me many years of very enjoyable racing with power in the 400-500 HP range. Take away a lot of the downforce, you take away a lot of the drag, and current power levels are plenty.
You'd have to take all of the downforce away to hit 225 around Indy in a 450hp car.
SurfaceUnits
05-27-08, 10:31 AM
You'd have to take all of the downforce away to hit 225 around Indy in a 450hp car.and then you'd have to rename the fanclub
JLMannin
05-27-08, 11:18 AM
What can be done to make the car (assuming the next gen is a spec chassis/tire) more forgiving of going outside the perfect line?
I would guess a harder compound tire? ("500 miles without a change!") Not only less marbles, but less rubber gets laid down overall, making for less difference between the line and outside the line.
Hard compound tires designed to last for 500 miles is one of the best ideas I have heard of recently. This would add a whole new element to fuel strategy, decoupling fuel mileage from tire lifetimes.
opinionated ow
05-27-08, 11:50 AM
Hard compound tires designed to last for 500 miles is one of the best ideas I have heard of recently. This would add a whole new element to fuel strategy, decoupling fuel mileage from tire lifetimes.
Cause this worked so well in Formula one:rolleyes:
Insomniac
05-27-08, 12:56 PM
Hard compound tires designed to last for 500 miles is one of the best ideas I have heard of recently. This would add a whole new element to fuel strategy, decoupling fuel mileage from tire lifetimes.
The tires aren't even pushed to their limits. Fuel dictates stops, not tires.
miatanut
05-28-08, 12:42 AM
You'd have to take all of the downforce away to hit 225 around Indy in a 450hp car.
Funny thing, those 450 HP Cossies WERE powering cars with no tunnels and no or minimal wings. Power levels went up when the cars became like they were dragging anchors around to generate aero downforce.
At the same time, could anybody make it around Indy at 225 with no downforce? Probably they would do a little better than the early '70's, so they would be around 190, the cars would drift, the drivers would be sawing at the wheel, they would be lifting for corners, some drivers would stuff it in a little deeper and sort it all out on exit to make a pass,... (you get the idea).
Current power levels (650? 680?) on a car with minimal downforce would provide a perfectly decent show, though.
At the same time, could anybody make it around Indy at 225 with no downforce? Probably they would do a little better than the early '70's, so they would be around 190
That's a huge problem right there... the IMS has put so much emphasis on marketing it's "speed" image that they would not likely allow a drop of average laps speeds of 225 to 190mph (even though the racing action would improve)
(Unfortunately, the only thing that probably will make them substantially reduce the speeds is a "Bobby Allison Talladega 1987" incident)
Although they would STILL be faster than Nascar, does anyone have a decent guess at the average lap speed for a modern Indycar without any downforce, and tires hard enough to go the whole race? Could it at least make 200mph for an average lap speed?
opinionated ow
05-28-08, 08:58 AM
That's a huge problem right there... the IMS has put so much emphasis on marketing it's "speed" image that they would not likely allow a drop of average laps speeds of 225 to 190mph (even though the racing action would improve)
What is the point of a Superspeedway when you don't even go fast?
devilmaster
05-28-08, 09:29 AM
What is the point of a Superspeedway when you don't even go fast?
nascar believes the point is 'the big one'. :irked:
What is the point of a Superspeedway when you don't even go fast?
Depends on how you define "Superspeedway". (which is a Nascar originated term)
Bill France designed Nascar's "Superspeedways" to be ~2.5 miles (like Indy) but with banking like the old high-banked board tracks, and they don't need as much downforce to sustain high speeds. Indy, on the other hand is a fairly flat track.
...which means that in order to get these crazy 220+ mph speeds on a track with almost no banking (compared to Daytona, 'Dega, MIS, California, TWS, etc) you have to rely on huge amounts of aero and soft rubber... which makes for the racing we saw Sunday.
opinionated ow
05-28-08, 10:31 AM
...which means that in order to get these crazy 220+ mph speeds on a track with almost no banking (compared to Daytona, 'Dega, MIS, California, TWS, etc) you have to rely on huge amounts of aero and soft rubber... which makes for the racing we saw Sunday.
no it doesn't. there was less aero, harder tyres and more power 15 years ago and they were faster...
Insomniac
05-28-08, 03:27 PM
That's a huge problem right there... the IMS has put so much emphasis on marketing it's "speed" image that they would not likely allow a drop of average laps speeds of 225 to 190mph (even though the racing action would improve)
You can have good racing action with high speeds too.
More Hp + less aero + harder tires is fine by me. That'll definitely separate the drivers according to SKILL levels.
JohnHKart
05-28-08, 06:31 PM
[QUOTE=ChrisB;232759]At the same time, could anybody make it around Indy at 225 with no downforce? Probably they would do a little better than the early '70's, so they would be around 190
(Unfortunately, the only thing that probably will make them substantially reduce the speeds is a "Bobby Allison Talladega 1987" incident)
QUOTE]
That already happened to poor Tony Renna....and speeds were not reduced. Thankfully it was in fall testing 2003. Renna was killed , his car flew into the fencing/grandstand, just like bobby. I say thankfully, who knows what would have happened to spectators if it was during a race.
John
Well the thing about the Allison crash is that AFAIK, no one was hurt, but it happened right in the middle of a race in front of lots of eyeballs, and it was spectacular enough of a close call to make everyone wonder "What If..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wySxP-tWZQU
IIRC, Nascar dropped the speeds by about 15-20mph on the Superspeedways after that.
Edit: I was reading the comments on that Youtube, and apparently some people did get hurt.
miatanut
05-29-08, 12:55 AM
no it doesn't. there was less aero, harder tyres and more power 15 years ago and they were faster...
15 years ago, there was more downforce than now, softer tires, and, yes, more power. In the last 15 years, aero knowledge has gone up, knowledge of how to get more grip out of a harder tire has gone up, and knowledge about how to get more grip through damper and suspension tuning has gone up.
One of the great things about (real) racing. The rules makers can keep taking tools away from the engineers, and the engineers keep finding ways to do more with less!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.