TK - "There is a problem with the product"

[oddlycalm]

Interesting comments from TK on the on-track product
Kendall comments (http://www.oregonlive.com/motorsports/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1087732580173270.xml)


oc

[KLang]

It's too bad he didn't say what he thought was wrong and suggest some solutions.

[Old3Fan]

I agree and suggest that one thing that needs to be changed is to
eliminate these mandatory pit stops and just give the teams all the
fuel they need and then let them go balls to the wall to the checkered
flag. This pit early and pray for a yellow flag is driving me crazy. Face
it. These changes to allow more passing ( :rofl: ) ain't working. The fastest car and driver ain't going to be passed unless he or his pit crew makes a mistake.

[Railbird]

imho

eliminate the mandantory soft rubber and pit window nonsense.

Probably wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference today but I would just as soon watch the teams call their own strategy.

Have the soft tire as an option and let them call the pit windows on their own.

[Sean O'Gorman]

I'm glad he said it, so I don't have to and deal with the resulting flames. ;)

[nrc]

It's much easier to spot the problem than find solutions. Everyone wants to see talented drivers in fast, sophisticated race cars, but that's not necessarily a good formula an exciting "show". Passing usually requires a driver error or an advantage for one of the cars (more tire left, different fuel load, better setup, etc). Good drivers make few mistakes and good teams with good cars rarely have a major setup problem during the race.

The sad truth is that an ill-handling race car with a piece of junk gearbox might just put on a better "show" on road courses.

It's a quite a conundrum. Most of us want "real racing, real sport" but the sport may need to put on a better show if the series is going to start recovering it's former popularity.

[Railbird]

The sad truth is that an ill-handling race car with a piece of junk gearbox might just put on a better "show" on road courses.

I understand what you're saying nrc but I have a hard time agreeing.

I guess it's all in the way you look at it.

I've seen quite a few message board participants call this year's Indy 500 a "classic" while I found it to be an embarrassment.

[nrc]

I understand what you're saying nrc but I have a hard time agreeing.


I certainly don't mean to sound like I'm advocating ill-handling race cars with junk transmissions or drag limited momentum racers. That's why I put "show" in quotes.

I'm just saying that it's a tough nut to crack. How do you create a situation where the fastest guys on Saturday have some competition on Sunday without resorting to gimmicks?

[CARTNUT]

The solution in two words: BAN COMPUTERS!

Hey, I am completely in awe of ChampCars as the most sophisticated racing machines on the continent, but, IMHO, all this parity is a result of feedback from the onboard computers being fed by, how many is it now, over 100 sensors??? In our everyday lives, computers are a good thing, but on a race car, they take away most of the guesswork involved in setup. Heck, any 17 year old can drive a ChampCar nowdays! ;)

I'm not saying turn ChampCar into open wheel NAPCAR, but if the cars' performance was based more on the talents of the driver, crew, and the engineer to tune the various aspects of the car, rather than the Data Acquisition Guy, I think we'd see a different story on the track.

'NUT :gomer:

[Formula 409]

We have a flawed product, but not an "awful" product. Like TK said, he's good for interviews.

The problem is that we're running in "economy mode" with super durable engines that never blow and drivers who can't risk trashing a car.

Good racing comes from drivers whose moves put the cars in jeopardy, and equipment mis-matches. Unfortunately, this all takes money, and we don't have that right now. These gimmicks we have right now are the best that we can do, but I'm sure the product will be improved as time goes on. 2006 is a long time to wait for the new specs to kick in, but that's what we may have to do.

A solution in the near term? Go to Ford-Cosworth, and ask them to break up the mechanics building & rebuilding the engines into two or three teams. Say a "Mustang" team, a "GT 40" team and a "Thunderbird" team. Brand the Cosworth engines under these names, and have the various teams tinker with the engines to try and get more power out of them. That way you can a limited form of competition while remaining with a single manufacturer. You could also do this with tires, having Bridgestone and Firestone teams.

Jus' a suggestion.

[Dr. Corkski]

Reading the article I didn't even see what TK listed as the problems.

For one Bridgestone could start bringing bricks instead of those rubber erasers they have been supplying so they wouldn't have comb all those marbles out of Fabio's hair after every race.

Other than that Champ Cars have grown far too aerodynamically dependent, but there isn't really all that much that can be done except for new specs replacing the currently outdated specs, which I am sure will be ready by 2016.

Of course things can also be more exciting just by having Justin Wilson in a top car, but that would be far too easy.

[pchall]

I certainly don't mean to sound like I'm advocating ill-handling race cars with junk transmissions or drag limited momentum racers. That's why I put "show" in quotes.

I'm just saying that it's a tough nut to crack. How do you create a situation where the fastest guys on Saturday have some competition on Sunday without resorting to gimmicks?

I don't think things will improve until there is a change in the engine formula and chassis regs. The teams have worked with this package so long that they know it inside out. Whoever hits the race day set up the best just checks out and there are no variables to create competition.

The new chassis certainly has to be significantly different from the current one. The current champcar is burdened by the Indianapolis legacy: too much of the design has been determined by the old need to run well at IMS, Michigan, and Fontana. Champcars is trying to be a road and street racing series and is burdened by what I see as essentialy a superspeedway chassis.

The series really needs at least two chassis choices and several engines to make the on track action more compelling. The last time I was moved to cheer was at M-O last year when Vasser was charging up in that ancient Reynard.

[Insomniac]

It's too bad he didn't say what he thought was wrong and suggest some solutions.

He was pulling a Michael Moore. :)

[Insomniac]

imho

eliminate the mandantory soft rubber and pit window nonsense.

Probably wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference today but I would just as soon watch the teams call their own strategy.

Have the soft tire as an option and let them call the pit windows on their own.

Did you hear what they said though? They could've done the race in 2 stops instead of 3. You can give them all the fuel they want, doesn't mean they'll use it.

[Insomniac]

I don't think things will improve until there is a change in the engine formula and chassis regs. The teams have worked with this package so long that they know it inside out. Whoever hits the race day set up the best just checks out and there are no variables to create competition.

The new chassis certainly has to be significantly different from the current one. The current champcar is burdened by the Indianapolis legacy: too much of the design has been determined by the old need to run well at IMS, Michigan, and Fontana. Champcars is trying to be a road and street racing series and is burdened by what I see as essentialy a superspeedway chassis.

The series really needs at least two chassis choices and several engines to make the on track action more compelling. The last time I was moved to cheer was at M-O last year when Vasser was charging up in that ancient Reynard.

I'm with you. I fully blame aerodynamics and the chassis. When we had racing with lots of passing, no one had a perfect car. They were good in some places while other guys were better in others. The drivers can have cars that are good everywhere. They're all fast (or slow) in the same places. No one is making any trade-offs. It is time for a new chassis and a big limitation on the wind tunnel time.

[jonovision_man]

The sad truth is that an ill-handling race car with a piece of junk gearbox might just put on a better "show" on road courses.


Some of the best races I've ever seen were amateurs... they make more mistakes, try stupid moves, have fantastic offs... :) It's a great "show".

There have been some great Toyota Atlantics races over the years too, the guys seem to care that much more about winning, and not having pit stops means you can't wait, you want to get in front of a guy, you ,have to pass him on the track.

We just haven't been getting many strong on-track battles this year.

Ban pit stops. :)

[Madmaxfan2]

I am glad that there is a champ car product.

[Clown]

Nix the gimmicks :thumdown:

[racer2c]

I read his comments as regarding open wheel racing in general from a high level, not detailed aspects of the Champ Car tech.

[Al Czervik]

"When people say there's nothing wrong with the product, that all it needs is better marketing and promotion, that's a pretty good clue they don't know they have a product nobody wants," Kendall said before Saturday's Trans-Am race.

Somebody ought to post that over at TF for the cable installer. :laugh:

[mueber]

If you make the technology cheap and easy to use, you’ll have all the cars and all the “action” you can stand without gimmicks. Think sprint cars.

I’m not saying OWRS should go that far, but a cheap, easy to maintain car that is hard to drive separates the talented from the untalented in a hurry and makes for full fields.

[redmist]

another 8 to 10 cars on the grid would help things a bunch.

[pchall]

We just haven't been getting many strong on-track battles this year.

Ban pit stops. :)


Even 80 gallons of methanol in a tank over the rear end won't eliminate pit stops (but it would be a gomer wet dream :gomer: ).

35 gallons of gas in the tank could have made Portland a VERY interesting one stop race.

[rabbit]

"There is a problem with the product. People are afraid to admit that. I think the product, as it is presented now, is awful -- although it has the makings of being a tremendous product. The fans will scream at me, but admitting it's awful actually frees you to figuring it out." Bingo.

[Mike Kellner]

My 2¢. The new cars need to be lighter and less powerful. They need wider tires, and much more liberal rules governing undertrays. It is my observation that passing dissappeared, not when areo downforce appeared, but when CART & F1 began to severly restrict undertray design to reduce cornering speed. I think a 300 lb lighter car, with a lot of its downforce coming from the undertray, and a less powerful motor (600 HP), would be a more racable car. I am not advocating the IRL's glued to the track formula, but allowing designers to follow a set of aero rules closer to those of the early 80s.

I would also ditch all pit open/closed rules, and have pit speed limits only during yellow flags.

mk

[pchall]

I would also ditch all pit open/closed rules, and have pit speed limits only during yellow flags.

mk

I like this idea.

[jonovision_man]

My 2¢. The new cars need to be lighter and less powerful. They need wider tires, and much more liberal rules governing undertrays. It is my observation that passing dissappeared, not when areo downforce appeared, but when CART & F1 began to severly restrict undertray design to reduce cornering speed. I think a 300 lb lighter car, with a lot of its downforce coming from the undertray, and a less powerful motor (600 HP), would be a more racable car. I am not advocating the IRL's glued to the track formula, but allowing designers to follow a set of aero rules closer to those of the early 80s.

I would also ditch all pit open/closed rules, and have pit speed limits only during yellow flags.

mk

They'll never get rid of the pit speed limits, although certainly they've wrecked things a bit.

A lighter car would be fantastic... when you watch footage from Montreal of Champcars and F1, they look like real dumptrucks compared to the nimble and much lighter F1 cars. With slicks and those turbos, the lap times would come down in an awful hurry, it would be a great formula to watch.

IMO we need less aero grip, not more, keep the slicks for all that mechanical grip. And go FAST. :)

[JT265]

My 2¢. The new cars need to be lighter and less powerful. They need wider tires, and much more liberal rules governing undertrays. It is my observation that passing dissappeared, not when areo downforce appeared, but when CART & F1 began to severly restrict undertray design to reduce cornering speed. I think a 300 lb lighter car, with a lot of its downforce coming from the undertray, and a less powerful motor (600 HP), would be a more racable car. I am not advocating the IRL's glued to the track formula, but allowing designers to follow a set of aero rules closer to those of the early 80s.

I would also ditch all pit open/closed rules, and have pit speed limits only during yellow flags.

mk


I'm agreeing with all of that except the pit speed limit. If you're the guy holding the lollipop, how comfortable would you be knowing that Fabio and Lavin have may be pitting too?

[Wolverine]

TK is right - Champ Car's product needs a lot of improvement. Like it or not, Champ Car is a spec series right now with everyone running the same engine, same tires, and (except for a couple of Reynards) the same chassis. Further, the rules Champ Car has imposed this year prohibit the teams from doing anything creative to the car like new aero development. Hence, no one should be surprised that every race has been a boring parade.

There have been some good suggestions here on possible long-term fixes, but there are also several things that could be done in the near term for minimal cost. The easiest would be to eliminate all fuel mileage and pit stop restrictions - no more 1.85 mpg fuel allocation. Teams could use as much fuel as they like, and make as many pit stops as they like. These changes would add team strategy back into the mix, and allow for some lead changes. Passes on the track will always be difficult in a spec series, but enabling complex pit strategies would at least allow lead changes. The 1.85 mpg rule was enacted to keep engine manufacturers (gee, remember the days of 4 engine manufactureres in CART?) from making more and more horsepower and driving speeds upward. There's no need for such an artificial restriction in a spec series.

Rule changes to inject more pit strategy in F1 have improved the F1 product, even though a pass for the lead on the race track in F1 is still a rare occurrence.

[KLang]

Didn't the 1.85 mpg rule go away years ago or at least become irrelevent?

edit:

Just checked the rule book and it is still there. But I think it isn't relevent with the current engines and lack of driver fuel mixture controls. When was the last time any team had an issue with fuel supply in the tank on pit road?

[Insomniac]

Didn't the 1.85 mpg rule go away years ago or at least become irrelevent?

edit:

Just checked the rule book and it is still there. But I think it isn't relevent with the current engines and lack of driver fuel mixture controls. When was the last time any team had an issue with fuel supply in the tank on pit road?

None. The Cosworths get well over the 1.85 MPG. They have more than enough fuel and ChampCar is trying to force them to use it.

[Insomniac]

I like the idea of raising the minimum ride height. That would certainly mess up all of the teams current data and make the Reynard more competitive. Some type of change is needed to make the cars drive differently, the engineers working harder to get the car running well and the drivers struggling some. During the 90s, the chassis was constantly changing which made all of the data they had on the old one useless. They had to do things the "old way" to get the car to perform well every weekend. And the beauty of it was people did it differently. Now everyone has had 3-4 years and they know exactly what to do and do it in the same place.

[Hard Driver]

How about front engine roadsters with skinny tires...... :gomer:

Oooops... wrong forum. ;)

Look, the fact of the matter is that the cars are already as cost constrained as they can be and all this soeculation about new chassis is unrealistic for now. Champ cars need to grow BEFORE a new chassis spec.

So what can be done is primarily limited to tires and small engine tweaks like the puch to pass.

I do agree that the rules are getting too articficial/gimmicky. I think that the mandatory pit windows should go away and the mandatory option tires. This would allow more variation in fuel strategy which makes cars go different speeds... which adds to passing.

However I think the 2 option tires available rule is good and so is the push to pass.

But even though N/H seems to be the best at the moment, it is nothing like the Ferrari domination in F1 and that is a good thing. I don't know who will win the next race like I do in F1, so I personally don't think the product is "awful". I am for trying tweaks if possible, like changing wings or undertrays, but there is not a lot wrong in my mind.

[racer2c]

P2P has proven itself the most underwhelming racing gimmick since the six wheel March. They need to make it so that when a driver pushes the button, he passes. If they need to add 25 more horses or 150hp, so be it. I want that car to take off like a solid rocket booster. Or else get rid of it. It's stupid.

[rabbit]

P2P has proven itself the most underwhelming racing gimmick since the six wheel March. They need to make it so that when a driver pushes the button, he passes. If they need to add 25 more horses or 150hp, so be it. I want that car to take off like a solid rocket booster. Or else get rid of it. It's stupid.It's right up there with the non-optional optional tire. Either let the teams choose which tire they want to run and when they run it, or get rid of it.

[Al Czervik]

P2P has proven itself the most underwhelming racing gimmick since the six wheel March. They need to make it so that when a driver pushes the button, he passes. If they need to add 25 more horses or 150hp, so be it. I want that car to take off like a solid rocket booster. Or else get rid of it. It's stupid.

ahem, thats the six wheel Tyrell.

or is (was) there a goofy March that I don't know about?

[racer2c]

ahem, thats the six wheel Tyrell.

or is (was) there a goofy March that I don't know about?

The Tyrell had four front wheels, the March had four rear wheels.

http://www.geocities.com/simontmallett/240march1/240march2.JPG

Link (http://www.geocities.com/simontmallett/240march2.html)

[rabbit]

Decades ago, at the local dirt track, they had "hot dog races." They would have a race with all cars driving the traditional counter-clockwise direction. At the halfway point of the allotted distance, each driver would stop his car on the front straight and down a hot dog. When, and only when, the hot dog was finished, he had to turn around and run the last half of the race going clockwise. Needless to say, it provided for some very non-boring racing.

Maybe it's an idea whose time has come... again. ;)

[Al Czervik]

The Tyrell had four front wheels, the March had four rear wheels.

http://www.geocities.com/simontmallett/240march1/240march2.JPG

Link (http://www.geocities.com/simontmallett/240march2.html)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

[Steve99]

P2P has proven itself the most underwhelming racing gimmick since the six wheel March. They need to make it so that when a driver pushes the button, he passes. If they need to add 25 more horses or 150hp, so be it. I want that car to take off like a solid rocket booster. Or else get rid of it. It's stupid.

But if the car he is trying to pass also uses the button, you have a stalemate again.

[RTKar]

The first thing, should be to eliminate the tendency to throw full course yellows. ...and mandating anything other than something for safety should go too.