PDA

View Full Version : Say no to airboxes for the NA V10



ChrisB
02-28-03, 09:35 PM
This is just a cut+paste of one paragraph in my other V10 post, but with a few pictures. I posted a lot on this when CART was gonna do the XG 3.5L V8 last year, and I still believe it for a NA V10.

CART shouldn't lose the sleek look we all like about the Champcars, and put a big hump at the back of the cars profile. Nascar and Indy Lights (and early F1) have shown that a race engine can run just fine without the intake air being "rammed". Think about it... the airbox is most effective at high speeds like you would see on an oval... which is where they might be using an orifice restrictor. Why use a device to increase power only to need to take it away? The airbox is least effective on a road-course, paricularly braking and accelerating in turns when the speeds are lowest. There's no advantage to having an airbox if everyone also has one... it's a wash. There's also issues of whether airboxes disturbs the airflow (http://www.netaxs.com/~gg1/race/airbox2.jpg[/url) to the rear wing. Tech reasons aside, aesthtics and differentiation are important too. Champcars, even with an NA engine, don't need airboxes. (Of course, if CART were to go to a spec chassis, they could make the intake opening over the engine whatever they want, and everyone would have the same thing)


Here's those pix I've posted before, from RACER and Racecar Engineering circa '94 when F1 was talking about eliminating their airboxes. Looking at these, I kinda wish they had.

http://www.netaxs.com/~gg1/race/airbox2.jpg

http://www.netaxs.com/~gg1/race/airbox3.jpg

This car needs no introduction:

http://www.netaxs.com/~gg1/race/lotus79.jpg

patm
03-01-03, 12:50 AM
I concur. No Air Intakes. :thumbup:

But I'd also go so far as to do this...
Lotus 49 (http://www.motorracingretro.com/60gp/retro68/retro68safrica/68za04a.jpg)

I don't know how to put a picture in. If someone wants to tell me I'd appreciate it.

patm

911
03-01-03, 02:42 AM
I double agree. C^RT needs to keep its distinguished, sleek look. If it adopted airboxes, then all of the top forms of OW racing would have airboxes. They look great on F1 cars, but terrible on the IRL cars.

FortyOneFord
03-01-03, 04:38 AM
I agree as well. No reason for it. Especially on high speed circuits where it serves no other function then to force more air into the engine, thus making more power, and higher speed. Exactly the opposite of what's needed. Plus, most of them look horrible.

nz_climber
03-01-03, 06:13 AM
You guys have my vote on this one - NO FUNNY LOOKING AIR THINGY!!

Napoleon
03-01-03, 08:45 AM
I have always hated airboxes.

Dave99
03-01-03, 03:21 PM
Another vote for no airboxes! That was my one big scare when CART announced N/A specs last year. I don't like the look of the chassis (F1 included) and I don't like the sound of the N/A motors. In addition to airboxes compromising aero and aesthetics, do they also affect the car's c/g or not really? I vote for the 1.8L V8 twin-turbo and I'll let Chris B determine the boost. :D

Jag_Warrior
03-01-03, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by patm
I concur. No Air Intakes. :thumbup:

But I'd also go so far as to do this...
Lotus 49 (http://www.motorracingretro.com/60gp/retro68/retro68safrica/68za04a.jpg)

I don't know how to put a picture in. If someone wants to tell me I'd appreciate it.

patm

I'd use yours as an example, but it's large and will probably push the page size here too large for easy viewing.

It's really easy. Just right click the image. Select "properties". Drag over and capture the "address" of the photo - select "copy". Back to this page, click the "IMG" button. Paste the address into this field. You're done.



And of course the one I selected... DIDN'T WORK! Let's try again...
:)
http://www.a-senna.com/lotus_pictures/1987/87lot1.jpg

patm
03-01-03, 11:24 PM
Thanks, Jag_warrior. Think I'll give it a try.


http://www.motorracingretro.com/60gp/retro67/retro67german/67ger24.jpg

RARules
03-03-03, 02:50 AM
I'm sorry they're so huge, but I couldn't resist.

yes, airboxes can be pretty ugly.

1978, F5000 at RA. See if you can guess who's driving the UOP car in the 2nd picture. ;)

http://dyn141.usa.utulsa.edu/~rick/images/F5000AirboxesAtTurn5.jpg

http://dyn141.usa.utulsa.edu/~rick/images/F5000Oliver1978.jpg

GoBlue
03-03-03, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by 911
I double agree. C^RT needs to keep its distinguished, sleek look. If it adopted airboxes, then all of the top forms of OW racing would have airboxes. They look great on F1 cars, but terrible on the IRL cars.

I disagree with your last point. I think they look horrible on F1 cars too. People who claim beauty in the 2002 Ferrari car must be novice race fans or lovers of Ferrari red, because there no other eras of Formula 1 where the cars were mandated ugly like they are now.

Warlock!
03-03-03, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by GoBlue
People who claim beauty in the 2002 Ferrari car must be novice race fans or lovers of Ferrari red, because there no other eras of Formula 1 where the cars were mandated ugly like they are now. Been a race fan all my life, I have a genuine dislike for Ferrari, and I think the 2002 red car is the sharpest car in F1 in 10 years (the profile on the deep blue Prosts during Alesi's last year were a close 2nd). The F1 airbox just seems to be part of the car, whereas the Earl airbox looks like the main feature. All IMO, obviously...

Winter Warlock!

WWpantz
03-03-03, 11:48 PM
How about a nice chrome MOROSO air filter on Vasser's ride? I'm sure CCWS could look the other way at tech inspection...