41 replies to this topic

[jeze]

Recently IndyCar has been critisised due to bad oval races, most of them suffering from single file green flag runs in dirty air, making passing virtually impossible. Could perhaps adding races at Daytona and Talladega address the problem? I know the banking could be a concern, but at least the drivers get a long rest on the straightaways, which the CART drivers hadn't at Texas in 2001. Do you think the racing could be better at real superspeedways?

[blackgerby]

I believe the track surface isn't smooth enough. It was discussed on the indy radio network during Sunday's race.

Edited by blackgerby, 08 July 2009 - 19:48.

[Kooper]

G forces would be a big concern. I think having a track like Talladega where no lifting is required would continue the same problems they're having now. Its the car that needs changing.

PS: I believe it'll be a cold day in hell before an Indy type car races at Daytona!

[Blythy]

random - I misread this as would indycar work at the travelodge.

anyways, I wanna see F1 at talledega, that would be awesome.

[blueracer6]

I think there would also be the safety concern of those cars turning into airplanes at the speeds they would be carrying at Daytona or Talladega.

[cas422]

For what it's worth, I remember in 2001 CART / Champcar or whatever it was being called then had to cancel a race at Texas because (going on memory here) they didn't have to lift and the gforces were making the drivers lightheaded. Running in excess of 230 mph if memory serves. Of course that is a shorter track and the current cars probably aren't as fast ...

[blueracer6]

For what it's worth, I remember in 2001 CART / Champcar or whatever it was being called then had to cancel a race at Texas because (going on memory here) they didn't have to lift and the gforces were making the drivers lightheaded. Running in excess of 230 mph if memory serves. Of course that is a shorter track and the current cars probably aren't as fast ...

You're absolutely right... they didn't test before hand and had no idea what they were getting into.

Here's a video about it:

[KJ7]

You're absolutely right... they didn't test before hand and had no idea what they were getting into.

Here's a video about it:

Hello all! Just a couple of quick notes for everyone...
-Actually CART did test at Texas in December of 2000, although it was only Brack that partcipated. The speeds they reached in Friday practice for the race a few months later were 20 mph faster.
-And there are a couple of threads on this board regarding Indycars at Daytona. I would also suggest checking out the May/June issue of Vintage Motorsport magazine.
Just a quick summary for you, in February, 1959 Marshall Teague was killed in a USAC car while testing and George Amick was killed in April during the race.
Daytona was all but closed to anything but closed course record runs after that.

As far as Talladega, who really knows (other than the France family)...although I would suspect that the Daytona accidents were enough to keep Talladega promoters from trying to get USAC/CART/IRL races.

[johnap]

The last time Indycars ran at Daytona was during the USAC era, and someone died. They are not going to be returning to the oval there, however IRL cars tested on the road course a few years ago.

[chdphd]

There was a thread about open wheelers at Daytona here: http://forums.autosp...howtopic=110033

[Rob]

I believe the track surface isn't smooth enough. It was discussed on the indy radio network during Sunday's race.

The Daytona surface, maybe, but the Talladega surface is much better.

[brabhamBT19]

Daytona and Talladega are bizzare circuits. They always remember me of that old motorcycle stunt show, where rider rode motorcycle inside the huge wooden barrel (maybe older guys will remember this)

You have to be aware that those racetracks are not even suited for nascar vehicles. They run nascar vehicles there but with restricted power output, using restrictor plates, without restrictor plates those cars would be reaching 250 mph, thats too much.

Infact even with restrictor plates there are tragedies occuring, if you remember there were injured spectators in spring race at talladega this year.

IMO those tracks are bizzare, but are also part of the history. Nascar should continue to race there. But indycars not.

Also on infield cirtcuits there is no need to run indycars.

BUT my greatest wish is to see Daytona 24hrs run under GT2 and GT3 categories only, without hideous grand-am prototypes. Just GT2 and GT3 field of Porsches, Corvettes, Astons, Ferraris, Audi R8, Ford GT40, Vipers, Spykers etc, but without grand-am prototypes

Edited by brabhamBT19, 08 July 2009 - 21:38.

[Bob Riebe]

John Greenwood's IMSA Corvette has the official "unofficial" top speed on the back straight before they added the chicanes. He was recorded at 236 mph; the next year they forced them to use the motorcycle chicane.

[ch103]

Recently IndyCar has been critisised due to bad oval races, most of them suffering from single file green flag runs in dirty air, making passing virtually impossible. Could perhaps adding races at Daytona and Talladega address the problem? I know the banking could be a concern, but at least the drivers get a long rest on the straightaways, which the CART drivers hadn't at Texas in 2001. Do you think the racing could be better at real superspeedways?

My inclination is no at both. Definitely not at Talladega, it has far too many bumps.

Dayona perhaps, the road course, but no way the 500 circuit. Initially when the IRL went to Texas motor speedway the race was canceld, or almost canceled, due to safety reasons as the drivers were complaining about blacking out almost.

It would be nice to see a lap time on the 24 hr track tho.

[Just waiting]

Ovals?

NO

[ch103]

Ovals?

NO

Ovals provide great racing, especially the small 1 mile ovals like Milwaukee Mile and formerly Nazereth Speedway.

[Zeebo]

My dad did a lot of Formula Ford, sports car, and some stock car racing here in the states back in the seventies, and he swears up and down that the Indycars (or USAC) ran at Talladega at some point in the seventies. I did find online that A.J. Foyt tested there in '74 (lap of 217.894, way back then!), but haven't found info about a race. (Just looked through an online USAC record book, no mention of Talladega. But they did run Pocono for a number of seasons.)

I think it would be interesting to see the lap times they'd rack up at Talladega or Daytona, but it would make for boring racing. Any time you can keep your foot down for the entire lap, you're going to see boring racing. Milwaukee makes for good racing because they have to use the pedal on the left too, or lift heavily. Pocono would be interesting.

Edited by Zeebo, 09 July 2009 - 03:49.

[whitewaterMkII]

I tried to find the absolute closed circuit world record speed and couldn't find it anywhere.
I do know thatin 2000 Gil de Ferran did a qually lap of 241.428 mph at California Speedway a Penske Honda/Reynard because I was in the stands. I believe that record still stands.
I had a bud in the pits that said his backstretch speed was 250+ on radar.
I would say that the same spec car at Talladega would break that record easily.

[Henri Greuter]

Recently IndyCar has been critisised due to bad oval races, most of them suffering from single file green flag runs in dirty air, making passing virtually impossible. Could perhaps adding races at Daytona and Talladega address the problem? I know the banking could be a concern, but at least the drivers get a long rest on the straightaways, which the CART drivers hadn't at Texas in 2001. Do you think the racing could be better at real superspeedways?

The opposite.
History is repeating itself times and times again.

The glorious 1.5 liter Miller 91's provided prosessions on the board tracks since tha cars were too fast for racing on steep tracks. And the Boards were steep...
around 2000 CART saw the same happen on banked ovals. Remember Texas 2001?
As spectacular as steep ovals look, it doen't provide much racing anymore once the cars are too fast.

The flatter the oval, the more racing lines are possible. As already suggested, Milwaukee still does well.....


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 09 July 2009 - 06:55.

[cmgoodman]

I don't expect IndyCar's to race at Talledega or Daytona, because:
1) banking of turns is to too severe, and will result in G-forces which are pointed down along with lateral. Severe downward g-forces can results in transient drops in blood flow to the brain, resulting in confusion and semi-consciousness. A similar situation happaned several years ago at Texas Motor Speedway, and the open wheel drivers, primarily CART, refused to race. IndyCars would have to have stiff springs and shocks to prevent bottoming out, but would also need something to limit their speed.

That's also why F1 car's will never race at Daytona, Talledega, or the old oval circuit at Monza.

2) the fanbase at Talledega and Daytona is primarily pro-NASCAR, and anti-IndyCar. The attendence would be low, and would lose money.

3) Currently IndyCar/ IRL is managed by the George family, and they do not want to invest in new races that will not make them money. IndyCar is already bleeding cash fast, except for the race at Indy.

4) No corporate sponsorship from American auto companies, such as GM, Ford, and Chrysler, will be forthcoming soon; at least, not until their financial balance sheets turn-around, and they justify the marketing dollars to the powers that be from the US government and corporate directors.

[Risil]

The opposite.
History is repeating itself times and times again.

The glorious 1.5 liter Miller 91's provided prosessions on the board tracks since tha cars were too fast for racing on steep tracks. And the Boards were steep...
around 2000 CART saw the same happen on banked ovals. Remember Texas 2001?
As spectacular as steep ovals look, it doen't provide much racing anymore once the cars are too fast.

The flatter the oval, the more racing lines are possible. As already suggested, Milwaukee still does well.....


Henri

But what's the solution? Continually tear down old ovals to make way for new, more modern configurations? Or change the technical regulations for the cars, and enable them to race on the tracks again? The levels of downforce run by either IRL or CART were excessive and self-defeating, IMO. Seeing a car zoom around an oval as if glued to the ground at ~180mph is spooky, but not as exciting as doing it 40-50mph slower, but sliding and threatening to break away the whole time.

As for Daytona, running on the road cours is mooted now and again. I think they did a test a couple of years ago. If IRL wants to become more of NASCAR's bitch than it already is, then running there would be a logical step forward. Maybe they'd like to put fenders on the cars, too.

Edited by Risil, 09 July 2009 - 14:41.

[Henri Greuter]

But what's the solution? Continually tear down old ovals to make way for new, more modern configurations? Or change the technical regulations for the cars, and enable them to race on the tracks again? The levels of downforce run by either IRL or CART were excessive and self-defeating, IMO. Seeing a car zoom around an oval as if glued to the ground at ~180mph is spooky, but not as exciting as doing it 40-50mph slower, but sliding and threatening to break away the whole time.

As for Daytona, running on the road cours is mooted now and again. I think they did a test a couple of years ago. If IRL wants to become more of NASCAR's bitch than it already is, then running there would be a logical step forward. Maybe they'd like to put fenders on the cars, too.

CART at least tried it: The Hanford device on the rear wings

But I think that the first start is: Power reduction so tha cars can't generate that much downforce anymore and still be fast in straight line too.

But every time when I rember people about the pre-Turbo F1 years when cars ran with about 500 hp at best and smaller wings and less downforce but did overtake another too I'm laughed away since the majority of the race fans seems to believe that race cars need power and lots of it too.
But only power enables cars to drag all these downforce generation objects attached on it through the air.

And tio tell an American based formula you need to reduce powere by using smaller engines...
As for Indycar, in the land of th bulky and oversized King StockBlock you won't make supporters with such rule changes....




Henri

[Risil]

CART at least tried it: The Hanford device on the rear wings

The Handford device was a novel aerodynamic device that should be seen as a first step, rather than the creator of some bizarre superspeedway races as an end-product. When CART should've been taking stock of its experiment, and applying similar, more sophisticated solutions to both the wings and underbodies, it was instead in court undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. I can't imagine that Indycar would have the foresight, initiative, or long-term planning to start a similar experiment, they seem comfortable applying every short-term solution that comes to mind, putting off the philosophical crisis of speed and technological advancement until next year.

But I think that the first start is: Power reduction so tha cars can't generate that much downforce anymore and still be fast in straight line too.

But every time when I rember people about the pre-Turbo F1 years when cars ran with about 500 hp at best and smaller wings and less downforce but did overtake another too I'm laughed away since the majority of the race fans seems to believe that race cars need power and lots of it too.
But only power enables cars to drag all these downforce generation objects attached on it through the air.

And tio tell an American based formula you need to reduce powere by using smaller engines...
As for Indycar, in the land of th bulky and oversized King StockBlock you won't make supporters with such rule changes....

What about removing the wings altogether, USAC-style? In F1, as Frank Williams will tell us, this isn't an option, as how else would TV viewers be able to see their hard-earned sponsor logos? With IRL, the problem is easily resolved: what TV viewers? What sponsor logos?

[OfficeLinebacker]

Seeing a car zoom around an oval as if glued to the ground at ~180mph is spooky, but not as exciting as doing it 40-50mph slower, but sliding and threatening to break away the whole time.

I like how you put that!

[Henri Greuter]

The Handford device was a novel aerodynamic device that should be seen as a first step, rather than the creator of some bizarre superspeedway races as an end-product. When CART should've been taking stock of its experiment, and applying similar, more sophisticated solutions to both the wings and underbodies, it was instead in court undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. I can't imagine that Indycar would have the foresight, initiative, or long-term planning to start a similar experiment, they seem comfortable applying every short-term solution that comes to mind, putting off the philosophical crisis of speed and technological advancement until next year.



What about removing the wings altogether, USAC-style? In F1, as Frank Williams will tell us, this isn't an option, as how else would TV viewers be able to see their hard-earned sponsor logos? With IRL, the problem is easily resolved: what TV viewers? What sponsor logos?

Banning wings is no option. But you could go to low drag wings.
For F1 that means limit the wingsizes to what is used at Monza. Still some bollboard area for sponsors.
But the major gains in roadholding are not because of aero either, the teams also made tremendous progress thanks to improvemtns in suspension technology and chassis setup.

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 10 July 2009 - 07:41.

[B Squared]

I tried to find the absolute closed circuit world record speed and couldn't find it anywhere.

I think that A.J. Foyt still holds the record from his runs in the Oldsmobile Aerotech in 1987. It was based upon, IIRC, a highly modified 85C March IndyCar with the Olds Quad 4 engine. They had a short tail version, which ran 257+ and a long tail which ran 278+. I think the track was a testing facility in Texas that was close to seven miles in length.

Any corrections or clarifications are welcome - I'm going back in the memory bank here.



Brian

[OfficeLinebacker]

But the major gains in roadholding are not because of aero

I'll have to disagree. There's no substitute for downforce.

[brabhamBT19]

I'll have to disagree. There's no substitute for downforce.

so you never heard of magnet cars running on iron track? also you never heard of inverting g-force?

[Rob]

But the major gains in roadholding are not because of aero either, the teams also made tremendous progress thanks to improvemtns in suspension technology and chassis setup.

I'd have thought the biggest non-aero gains came from the improvements in tyre technology.

[Bob Riebe]

I'd have thought the biggest non-aero gains came from the improvements in tyre technology.

The switch to radials did not make the cars faster but reduced tire changes.

[whitewaterMkII]

I think that A.J. Foyt still holds the record from his runs in the Oldsmobile Aerotech in 1987. It was based upon, IIRC, a highly modified 85C March IndyCar with the Olds Quad 4 engine. They had a short tail version, which ran 257+ and a long tail which ran 278+. I think the track was a testing facility in Texas that was close to seven miles in length.
Brian

Yeah, that's the one I was looking for but I could find no record of it.
On another note:
That test track has a number of records held at it, I believe.
I have a bud who is Porsche mechanic to the stars, although our mutual main interest is boats and huge HP V-8's for them, it's a pretty funny thing to see these massive 600ci engines in his engine room alongside Porsche boxers, his customers just don't get it.
One day I was at his shop, which has about 20 bays and he says can you pick out the most expensive Porsche in here? And there is all sorts of choices in there of sweet cars.
Off in the corner was a rather worn out looking 911 from the the seventies that I strolled over to and lo and behold it is was a original 911RS, all fiberglass panels, a huge tank in the front of it, an oil fill sticking out the rear fender and doors that opened with a string w/ lexan windows held up with a leather strap. Turned out ot was one of 6 identical Porsches made by the factory in order to break the 24hr distance record at that track in Texas. It belonged to Jerry Seinfeld who dug it out of some barn in Michigan somewhere, and my bud was rebuilding the engine and tranny, but was leaving the body and interior completely original. The engine in it was so radical, that when he took it down it had cams in it like he had never seen, so he sent them to Stuttgard to have them factory reground. About two weeks later he got a call from Germany with a 'where did you get these' on the other line, and after he rattled off the chassis and engine block #'s to them, they requested he send them the whole engine and tranny. They rebuilt the thing for free just so they could copy everthing that was in it and build a replica for their museum. The tranny is geared so tall it pretty much runs in first and second around town and that's it, but Seinfeld is keeping it as is.
That is such a rare bird it was easily worth double of anything else in his shop.

[Henri Greuter]

I'll have to disagree. There's no substitute for downforce.

I made a typo It should read: But the major gains are not only because of aero alone.
Aero is indeed the major gain.

If we compare the lap peeds of the 1961-1965 generation F1 cars, the 1.5 liters, that had no aero.
if we compare those with the the modern day FFords 1600 (hardly any aero compared with winged cars) speeds.
How much faster, if faster is and F1 of then compared with the FFord?

I think the gains in suspenion technology, chassis balance and, indeed tires, are not to be underestimated in the increment of speeds.


Henri

[Risil]

But the major gains in roadholding are not because of aero either, the teams also made tremendous progress thanks to improvemtns in suspension technology and chassis setup.

Aerodynamic downforce is a major factor though, and the easiest and most obvious target for removal. Those USAC Silver Crown cars much of the latest suspension and chassis technology, but no wings -- if they don't slide at early '70s Formula One levels, they certainly provide quite a spectacle, especially when on low fuel. And they pass each other!

[DOF_power]

Aerodynamic downforce is a major factor though, and the easiest and most obvious target for removal. Those USAC Silver Crown cars much of the latest suspension and chassis technology, but no wings -- if they don't slide at early '70s Formula One levels, they certainly provide quite a spectacle, especially when on low fuel. And they pass each other!

USAC Sliver Crown tracks aren't mickey mouse cookie cutters.

[whitewaterMkII]

USAC Sliver Crown tracks aren't mickey mouse cookie cutters.

Do they still run Pocono?

[Bob Riebe]

Do they still run Pocono?

No the three-quarter mile track is gone and they only ran the big track once. (That I know of)
I still remember Smokey Snellbaker, who drove a Silver Crown car at Pocono saying "there I was doing over one seventy in a car not designed to go over one forty!"

[Peter Leversedge]

Did they have a "Indy Car" race at Daytona in 1959??

[B Squared]

Did they have a "Indy Car" race at Daytona in 1959??

See post #10

B²

[Race Nerd]

In my opinion, the more the speed the better. Add the Hanford device and let 'em race on those tracks. I think it would be a great race to watch.

[McGuire]

In my opinion, the more the speed the better. Add the Hanford device and let 'em race on those tracks. I think it would be a great race to watch.

All the factors that have made the racing boring lately would be amplified at Daytona and Talladega. The race would be a crushing bore except for the crashes, which would be horrifying.

[Risil]

USAC Sliver Crown tracks aren't mickey mouse cookie cutters.

They run some of the same tracks as Indycars. But the fact that they're suitable for a greater variety of circuits in America is surely another reason for IRL to try emulating them? And Indycar oval racing is crushingly dull, on cookie cutters and otherwise. Richmond, Iowa, Nashville, Indianapolis, Texas -- very different ovals, all producing the same (non) show.

[Kooper]

They run some of the same tracks as Indycars. But the fact that they're suitable for a greater variety of circuits in America is surely another reason for IRL to try emulating them? And Indycar oval racing is crushingly dull, on cookie cutters and otherwise. Richmond, Iowa, Nashville, Indianapolis, Texas -- very different ovals, all producing the same (non) show.

and just a few years back IRL ovals were as exciting as racing as possible. They've got to get the car package sorted, and soon.