View Full Version : How about the turbo Cosworth in a Premier1 chassis?
*IF* CART were an all-roadrace series... How about putting the turbo Cosworth into a modified version of the Premier1 Chassis? (no airbox)
The Reynard Premier1 chassis is intended to use a 750hp motor... and lookit... the turbo Cosworth just happens to be making 750hp in it's current configuration!
Premier1 chassis are intended to be about the same size as F1 cars, but unlike F1, they use slicks (no grooves) and better undertrays... they may actually have better grip than F1!
Spec series? Yea... Champcars like this would be spec for a few years. But at least it's one way to get away from the current chassis and moving in some useful direction. Actually... a Cos/Premier1 car would be faster on a road-course than the current big fat Champcars!
http://www.netaxs.com/~gg1/race/Premier1ReynardHi_reduced.jpg
Did anyone acquire the rights to that design when Reynard went belly up?
Originally posted by pchall
Did anyone acquire the rights to that design when Reynard went belly up?
Force 10, or whatever that British outfit that split the deal with Derrick did I believe PC.
And Chris, I'm all for that deal. ;)
On edit: And I don't care if they leave the airbox, course it would be dumb with a turbo. :D
Originally posted by JT265
On edit: And I don't care if they leave the airbox, course it would be dumb with a turbo. :D
They've gotta lose that Fwannabe raised nose.
RaceGrrl
10-05-03, 09:02 AM
Gotta agree with you on that, pc. I don't want Champ Cars to look like F1 cars. What's the point?
Ahh, but even the first Reynard Champ cars had a slightly raised nose. It has probably been the most distinguishing mark on that chassis over the years.
Andrew Longman
10-05-03, 11:10 AM
It probably defeats the cost control objectives of a spec chassis, but I'd much prefer to have 2-3 different chassis "equalized" in some way. It would add some variety to the grid and interest week to week as any chassis might actually have an advantage given the specific course.
Jeez, that's about what Nascar does with their "common template".
But it probably add not save costs.
And ultimately yes I'd like to see multiple chassis free to innovate within stable rules and open competition
raised nose == more wing area exposed == more downforce, go raised noses, superior engineering.
Originally posted by cart7
Ahh, but even the first Reynard Champ cars had a slightly raised nose. It has probably been the most distinguishing mark on that chassis over the years.
I'm thinking that the bottom of the tub has to be on the same plane from the engine mounting forward to the first bulkhead ahead of the front suspension. It's a basic safety issue for CART. The designers can play with PC27b/Reynard/Lola nose jobs all they want ahead of that bulkhead.
Of course, not all raised nosed OW cars perform the same.
Here's a sled that never worked right.
http://www.indyphoto.com/CONTENT/Photos/al/hot_in_houston.jpg
1998 Penske.
According to this article (http://www.racinglines.com/article/articleview/1760/1/58)
"The end result will have performance close to a Formula 1 car but will run on slick racing tyres and will have the advantage of ground effect aerodynamics"
The article also mentions that the Premier1 cars are not intended to have traction/launch control, and mentions the 750hp also.
Here's also an article (http://www.autoracing1.com/MarkC/2001/1122Premier1Positioned.htm) by MarkC from a while back... and here's another article (http://www.premier1grandprix.com/news_reynardquestions.html) with an interview from a Reynard engineer with more info on the chassis.
sundaydriver
10-06-03, 09:58 AM
As long as Lola is included, I would not mind seeing a car like this for CART.
jonovision_man
10-07-03, 09:30 AM
It's quite a bit different from anything Americans currently watch. Much closer to F1 than Champcars, really.
I'm a big F1 fan, so a formula like Premier 1's really appeals to me... F1 would be so much better with more mechanical grip, less aero, and even less gadgets. (Although the technology is what makes F1 so great).
CART could be more than just F1-light, it could be a model for what F1 should be like. The current Champcars aren't much to look at, frankly, but they have to be big and bulky to withstand oval impacts, correct?
jono
wait, if these things have venturi tunnels how come they still have barge boards? :saywhat:
jonovision_man
10-07-03, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Ankf00
wait, if these things have venturi tunnels how come they still have barge boards? :saywhat:
What makes you think they have venturi tunnels? I don't see the intake-y bits.
jono
Steve99
10-08-03, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by jonovision_man
What makes you think they have venturi tunnels? I don't see the intake-y bits.
jono
"The end result will have performance close to a Formula 1 car but will run on slick racing tyres and will have the advantage of ground effect aerodynamics"
Originally posted by Steve99
"The end result will have performance close to a Formula 1 car but will run on slick racing tyres and will have the advantage of ground effect aerodynamics"
That's what bargeboards and difusers do. Word is that a flat bottomed F1 chassis makes more ground effects that a restricted tunnel ChampCar.
jonovision_man
10-09-03, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Steve99
"The end result will have performance close to a Formula 1 car but will run on slick racing tyres and will have the advantage of ground effect aerodynamics"
I see your point, they make it sound like they have "ground effect aerodynamics" beyond what F1 has...
Guess we'd have to see it upside down to know for sure what they're refering to. Give it to Bourdais, Tracy can flip him for us... ;-)
jono
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.