933 replies to this topic

[proviz]

The thing about today's IndyCar is, though, that it's a spec formula. The polar opposite of what Indy 500 traditionally used to stand for!

[Henri Greuter]

The thing about today's IndyCar is, though, that it's a spec formula. The polar opposite of what Indy 500 traditionally used to stand for!

 

Now I am known to be an indycar fan and to some extent I do agree with you on this,

But Indy traditionally the opposite of a spec formula?

 

During the 50's and that went up till 1962, there were a number of years in which 31 of the 33 starting cars used the very same engine. A few years there were more than  31 of those engines in the race... And as for complete cars, the majority of those cars were built by the same chassis builders and the same chassis used multiple years because of the lack of development that allowed to keep using the same car over and over again.

And as for that engine: that engine with which that era started remained used with a few updates over the time and over the years, left nearly unchallenged. And had it not been for Ford taking up a factory supported V8 project then the Offy might have remained in use for even longer

 

( Or how about 1984 with 27 March 84C chassis, 25 of them with Cosworths and support of a few more older uprated elder March models )

 

 

I must instantly admit that for personal reasons I like a lot about this era I described first. Some of what made it so enjoyable was partly because of that lack of developments. But I won't close my eyes for the fact that it came close to spec racing.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 06 April 2019 - 10:38.

[B Squared]

The thing about today's IndyCar is, though, that it's a spec formula. The polar opposite of what Indy 500 traditionally used to stand for!

March providing quick cars out of the box in the early eighties changed the landscape......over 30 years ago. Today's scenario isn't ideal for those of us who saw the transition from roadsters to rear engine, but considering all of the challenges this series has faced, it's no small feat to be alive and a viable series with many positives.

[proviz]

Now I am known to be an indycar fan and to some extent I do agree with you on this,

But Indy traditionally the opposite of a spec formula?

 

During the 50's and that went up till 1962, there were a number of years in which 31 of the 33 starting cars used the very same engine. A few years there were more than  31 of those engines in the race... And as for complete cars, the majority of those cars were built by the same chassis builders and the same chassis used multiple years because of the lack of development that allowed to keep using the same car over and over again.

And as for that engine: that engine with which that era started remained used with a few updates over the time and over the years, left nearly unchallenged. And had it not been for Ford taking up a factory supported V8 project then the Offy might have remained in use for even longer

 

( Or how about 1984 with 27 March 84C chassis, 25 of them with Cosworths and support of a few more older uprated elder March models )

 

 

I must instantly admit that for personal reasons I like a lot about this era I described first. Some of what made it so enjoyable was partly because of that lack of developments. But I won't close my eyes for the fact that it came close to spec racing.

Fully hear what you're saying. But for me personally easily the biggest draw of Indycar always used to be the out of box innovations, even as late as 1994 from Penske. It still has not nearly reached the same heights after the collapse and unlikely it ever will.

[PayasYouRace]

Now I am known to be an indycar fan and to some extent I do agree with you on this,

But Indy traditionally the opposite of a spec formula?

 

During the 50's and that went up till 1962, there were a number of years in which 31 of the 33 starting cars used the very same engine. A few years there were more than  31 of those engines in the race... And as for complete cars, the majority of those cars were built by the same chassis builders and the same chassis used multiple years because of the lack of development that allowed to keep using the same car over and over again.

And as for that engine: that engine with which that era started remained used with a few updates over the time and over the years, left nearly unchallenged. And had it not been for Ford taking up a factory supported V8 project then the Offy might have remained in use for even longer

 

( Or how about 1984 with 27 March 84C chassis, 25 of them with Cosworths and support of a few more older uprated elder March models )

 

 

I must instantly admit that for personal reasons I like a lot about this era I described first. Some of what made it so enjoyable was partly because of that lack of developments. But I won't close my eyes for the fact that it came close to spec racing.

 

There's a big difference conceptually with most or all of an entry using the same equipment for competitive/commercial reasons and the series mandating particular equipment.

[Henri Greuter]

Fully hear what you're saying. But for me personally easily the biggest draw of Indycar always used to be the out of box innovations, even as late as 1994 from Penske. It still has not nearly reached the same heights after the collapse and unlikely it ever will.

 

I had the fortune to have seen most of the CART supported events of the years '88-'94 at Indy in person. But I got to say that within those years there were only three cars I would call revolutionary I have seen in that era. The most innovative one for me was the 1990 March-Porsche with its centrally located turbocharger in front of the engine. There was so much thinking behind that car that it is a dire shame that it never got the chance to obtain the success it deserved for daring to thoink out of the box in a time when the cars had become much more standard already..

The 1994 Penske, the chassis itself wasn't that revolutionary but it was of course the engine and the entire story behind it that made the car revolutionary. To some extend one could argue that the Reynard in Speedway trim, with its hanging down front wings was more innovative as a chassis than the Penske

 

But as B Squared pointed out in post 904, once March rushed out the well working off-the-shelf cars, it was pretty much done with the innovations at Indy. I agree with him on that.

[proviz]

I would not argue at all that after the split the writing maybe was on the wall. After all, even CART went spec. Still, to me all of that takes away the prestige that once was so intrinsic with Indy. Motor racing was supposed to be about man and machine, now in the ever increasing number of spec formulae it's more man and team. Not so much motor sport anymore.

[Jim Thurman]

It was a rhetorical question for comedic effect, but anyway wasn’t aimed at you.

I see you’ve had a major sense of humour failure about the whole thing.

 

I fail to see humor (yes, I spell it that way  ) in the sort of "Ha ha! America" stuff that routinely goes on routinely in this forum. Much of it comes off like Jeremy Clarkson with half as much wit and twice as much rant. Yep, Half-wit Clarksonians. Your response reminds me of the folks that tell "ethnic jokes", then tell the offended that they're being too sensitive and need to have a sense of humour about it.

 

There's also all the whingeing, which I've been told is a British pastime ("They don't even have Watney's Red Barrel!"  ). That would be amusing in itself, were it not for turning that miserablism on others and it becomes griping and complaining.

 

Just in this thread alone there were these sort of comments - alleged "jokes" - about legal age for drinking and marriages in the U.S., the definition of cider in the U.S. (which was baseless, BTW, as these "humorous asides" generally are), and who knows what else. Sometimes it seems as if those little "jokes" make up a good percentage of the posts in race threads. All the down time during advert time, I guess 

 

If you knew me, you'd know that I am the opposite of a "USA! USA! USA!" type. I don't have a flag decal, and I know it won't get me into heaven (jp might be the only one that gets that  ), but the hypocrisy and double standards here are staggering. No one likes being the brunt of "jokes" consistently, especially when they're based on unfair assumptions and the worst kind of stereotyping. Do you get that?

Edited by Jim Thurman, 06 April 2019 - 16:39.

[Jim Thurman]

There's a big difference conceptually with most or all of an entry using the same equipment for competitive/commercial reasons and the series mandating particular equipment.

 

That's a good point. Like Henri and Brian mentioned though, and from discussions I've had with other veteran (and new) fans, for all those bizarre and fascinating experiments at Indianapolis in the 60s, few of them had a realistic chance at making the field (at least after they arrived and took to the track). A couple came close, but that was about it. Most were dismal failures, but noble efforts.

 

As Brian wrote, It was the transition from the front-engined Watson based roadsters to rear-engined machinery that led to most of those oddities (though there were some at Indianapolis clear back to the 1910s and 20s), with similar bizarre looking bodywork/wings during the early aerodynamic era.

[proviz]

Variety at Indy has not been only supplied by no-hopers. How about the fwd Millers, STP and Lotus turbines, carbon chassis Chaparral, etc? 

[B Squared]

Variety at Indy has not been only supplied by no-hopers. How about the fwd Millers, STP and Lotus turbines, carbon chassis Chaparral, etc?

proviz - the ship of your desires sailed many years ago; you do understand this, correct? It's not like the spec aspect of IndyCar just started. You're pointing out machines that are decades old - in the case of the Miller's nearly a century. To illustrate this, I was 9 years old when I saw Parnelli run the STP Ferguson turbine.... I'm now 61

Edited by B Squared, 06 April 2019 - 17:31.

[Vitesse2]

jp ain't the only JP fan hereabouts y'all.

[red stick]

Gratuitous John Prine reference.      

[Henri Greuter]

Variety at Indy has not been only supplied by no-hopers. How about the fwd Millers, STP and Lotus turbines, carbon chassis Chaparral, etc? 

 

Do you rate all of theose no-hopers?

 

I don't want to be seen as putting you into place (thanks for PM!!!!!!), see this as a moment to bring back something into memory or a helping hand of history offered

 

About the FWD Millers for example, A little known fact about them is that one of them had been the car that had held the track records for the longest periods of time (28-36, bettered in 37). In general, FWD 91's qualified quite well for the 500, yet victory eluded them. But even the TWD Millers were beaten by the supposedly lesser Duesy's twice.

 

But in the 30's, the years of the `Junk formula`, some of those 91 FWD's weere rebuilt into 2-seaters and between 1930 and 1934 they won three races! Exactly why these less purebred versions of the FWD's did win then, I still can't figure that one out properly. But parts of the FWD Miller technology certainly redeemed itself during the leanest era at Indy.

 

STP: Well,...  Now we're opening a tincan of worms....

 

To put it friendly, The first STP cars were the Novis they sponsored and sad as is makes me to write it down but the bitter truth is that the Novis simply were nowhere near the supercars as they were believed to be. The Granateli's owned them and they definitely had some bright ideas to improve the actual engine and in what kind of cars they were to be used. But still, it wasn't good enough, the more when all ind of innovations became available that worked even better on other cars than with the Novi V8 powered cars.

 

Turbines, now that was more cruel bad luck being thrown to the team than one could think to happen. At least one of those two races should have been won by a turbine.

 

But.....

 

STP was owned by Andy Granatelli and his brothers. Andy however was the kind of man who rather had publicity because of failure that no publicity at all. Even he reckoned that the failure of the turbines gained STP more publicity than any result with a conventional car..... Which is possibly true. STP was the sponsor on three winning Indycars but I think most people could mention only one of them and have forgotten the other two....

 

There's a lot to say for your comment but not always. I would certainly not rate the FWD Millers and the turbines among the no hopers.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 06 April 2019 - 17:31.

[Vitesse2]

I think we have a failure in translation here. I'm pretty sure proviz is referring to the 4wd Miller RE4s.

[FLB]

 

As Brian wrote, It was the transition from the front-engined Watson based roadsters to rear-engined machinery that led to most of those oddities (though there were some at Indianapolis clear back to the 1910s and 20s), with similar bizarre looking bodywork/wings during the early aerodynamic era.

 

I think what really changed back to having few chassis builders as the Kurtis Kraft-Watson roadsters was the arrival of ground effects. Once people realized the 1980 Orbiter (a March in disguise) worked as well as the Chaparral 2K, March started getting inquiries and once March started getting inquiries, they realized they had a market, much like Lotus and Brabham had had in the 1960s. Smaller teams had to choice to spend a ton of money on tech even good people did not fully master (EX: the flirtation of Lindsay Hopkins with Dave Klym's FABCAR organization, the Interscope Batmobiles, etc.)... or buy the ready-to-race March.

 

Then, Lola built a better ready-to-race IndyCar, and March lost the market.

Edited by FLB, 06 April 2019 - 17:52.

[proviz]

Henri, I meant the exact opposite, in response to Jim Thurman who above my comment had just said that few of the experiments had a realistic chance of making the field. So I wanted to emphasize that quite a few made sizable impacts on the race.

Vitesse2, I did in fact mean to single out fwd as it was not the norm when Miller proved it competitive, although could just as well have mentioned 4wd of course.

And B Squared, yes, of course IndyCar being spec is no longer a recent phenomenon, but my point was that since it became that way it really has lost a lot of its lustre. Specialist mags always used to give several pages to all the novelties in their previews, but that's all in the past now and dilutes from the event's importance, certainly in my eyes.

[B Squared]

And B Squared, yes, of course IndyCar being spec is no longer a recent phenomenon, but my point was that since it became that way it really has lost a lot of its lustre. Specialist mags always used to give several pages to all the novelties in their previews, but that's all in the past now and dilutes from the event's importance, certainly in my eyes.

Trust me, I know. My Dad would bring home Automotive Industries magazine from work when for usually two consecutive months they would visit shops and show photos of the builders latest machines, most commonly still in the jigs and seat fittings, etc. I loved the engineering side of things as much as the competition on the track. When I worked my nearly 15 years with CART, the hardest thing was being on the track still working the "lesser" series cars, than being able to just watch and try to learn from the Indy Car guys going through the procedures of their "down" time. It's still the maximum thrill to be able to be on pit lane and in the garages at Indianapolis as well as their other events; it's just different, but I choose to carry on despite the changes throughout the sport. It makes me appreciate the earlier days of Indy Car, Formula One and NASCAR that I was able to experience all the more.

[jonpollak]

jp ain't the only JP fan hereabouts y'all.

Seeing as the COTA race thread is now a repository for ancient history I’m wondering if it was Johnny Parsons reference?
Jp

[Jim Thurman]

proviz, absolutely. Those were the exceptions rather than the rule though. Those were true innovations versus some of the oddball entries, such as the twin-engined Porsche, the reverse torque car, etc.  There were interesting and unique ideas tried at Indianapolis from the start. Times change. Would it be more interesting? Certainly. But, it also would probably mean an end to the series.

[Jim Thurman]

Seeing as the COTA race thread is now a repository for ancient history I’m wondering if it was Johnny Parsons reference?
Jp

 

  That would be JP Jr.   Johnny was actually Johnnie 

 

I guess it's ok, since I haven't seen any posts complaining about discussing "old stuff" 

 

...or is this another of those jokes that the people who think we don't get the jokes, don't get themselves? 

[proviz]

Recommended to all of you who appreciate variety: "132 of the Most Unusual Cars That Ever Ran at Indianapolis" by Lyle Kenyon Engel and the Editors of Auto Racing Magazine. Published in 1970 and possibly hard to find today, but in 160 pages gives a fantastic glimpse into enterprising technical innovation.

[Vitesse2]

Recommended to all of you who appreciate variety: "132 of the Most Unusual Cars That Ever Ran at Indianapolis" by Lyle Kenyon Engel and the Editors of Auto Racing Magazine. Published in 1970 and possibly hard to find today, but in 160 pages gives a fantastic glimpse into enterprising technical innovation.

About 20 copies available on t'interwebz starting at about £10. Doug Nye's 'Motor Racing Mavericks' also covers some of the more unusual Indy cars, along with a lot of other innovative, weird, wonderful and just plain bonkers ones. Not many copies of that around, but surprisingly cheap considering what a good book it is!

[Collombin]

Recommended to all of you who appreciate variety: "132 of the Most Unusual Cars That Ever Ran at Indianapolis" by Lyle Kenyon Engel and the Editors of Auto Racing Magazine. Published in 1970 and possibly hard to find today, but in 160 pages gives a fantastic glimpse into enterprising technical innovation.

 

I agree it's a good book, although by no means would I describe all of them as unusual - most of the run of the mill stuff is there too.

 

Agree on Motor Racing Mavericks, an astonishing book for a 29 year old author, I wonder what became of him.

Edited by E.B., 07 April 2019 - 13:37.

[red stick]

Agree on Motor Racing Mavericks, an astonishing book for a 29 year old author, I wonder what became of him.

 

Doubtless trolling around crankily on some disreputable message board . . .

 

[Jim Thurman]

Seeing as the COTA race thread is now a repository for ancient history I’m wondering if it was Johnny Parsons reference?
Jp

 

For a bizarre twist, the second dirt track race I attended was promoted by Johnnie Parsons. He walked down the aisle right by me. He was quite a dapper looking, well-dressed gentleman.

[AustinF1]

Man, I respect Robin Miller's work, but he's just completely clueless when it comes to the COTA Track Limits issue, imho ... or he's just toeing the IndyCar line.

 

Ignoring T19 Track Limits is not what made for good racing during the IndyCar race at COTA.

 

https://t.co/0zfPM22mdu

[jonpollak]

 

Jp

[rghojai]

In 2019, did Noemi Hulkenberg's parents even know each other?

[jonpollak]

This is as close to being your beloved RaceRewind as it is a marker for posterity.

Jp

[Frood]

Heh. Looking back on this thread is fun. Looks like some of the predictions re: the beginning of the Pato/Herta era might not be too wide of the mark.

 

The two Swedes are together on track.

 

Time to find out which one is better!

 

(It's Rosenqvist)

 

Don't look at the 2021 results, 2019 Frood.
 

[Disgrace]

Don't look at the 2021 results, 2019 Frood.

 

Hmm, I did not call Grosjean's move to IndyCar particularly well...

 

I did not think he would succeed on the back of his Bahrain accident which he himself caused.

 

In my defence, he hasn't been on a big oval yet and I still hold some reservations...

[FLB]

PATTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Marshall Pruett sur Twitter : ".⁦@PatricioOWard⁩ qualifying for the 2021 Laguna #IndyCar race: 1m11.2s. Pato, lapping in a McLaren MP4/13A #F1 car: 1m10.3s. https://t.co/K5T5gVqOYE" / Twitter

[Ross Stonefeld]

Ricardo Zonta in a 2006 Toyota, when it was a current car, 1:06.309

 

Previous record had been Castroneves in a 2000 Reynard-Honda at 1:07.7

 

Then Bourdais in a Panoz Champ Car did a 1:05.8 in testing. 

 

But the current 'record' is Marc Gene in a Ferrari F2003-GA at 1:05.786 on what must be demonstration tires?