2007 Champ Car Design [Archive]

trauma1

05-18-05, 12:12 PM

great insight, this isn't going to be a half asses bake attempt, i do like the idea right now of one chassis maker and rewarding Lola, it will be good looking , , the narrower chassis is going to be good, along with the areo changes, not having all the areo bits on the wings and sidepods like F1, and the thoughts of having the cars less areo sensitive when in packs , great thinking, keeping the turbos is great, i know alot of people will rag that there will be only one chassis maker, this keeps cost down and puts a racing product on the streets, this is very well thought out and they have the teams involved if lola builds it, it's going to be sweet :rofl:

KLang

05-18-05, 12:32 PM

I'm very happy to see not one word in that article about working with the earl on the new specs. :thumbup:

Twin turbo Cosworth power. :cool:

devilmaster

05-18-05, 12:59 PM

Interesting read. Early thoughts fer me:

Design in house. Should cut down on the final price of a chassis. The other benefit is that if you went with multiple chassis builders, there is less of a chance one builder would dominate. An in-house design leaves little wiggle room for builders to invent.
I like the smaller track, bigger sidepods idea - its something that has been mentioned on the forums for years. More room in the concrete canyons, and theoretically, less ability to block other cars.
Obviously, the aero changes are great. If they can design a car that gives off less turbulence in the rear, that will improve racing immediately.
The larger sidepods might still allow the cars to be smaller and yet still be safe enough for the larger ovals, if they decide to go back to that down the road.
I like the thought that they are talking about the sexiness of the car. I would like to see some of the more recent f1 body designs like the renault sidepod, designed into CC. A showcar still gets alot of ooohs and aaahs from the general crowd.

Looks like a good start for the new car. Cant wait to see early concept drawings.....

mueber

05-18-05, 01:58 PM

I'm very happy to see not one word in that article about working with the earl on the new specs. :thumbup:

Twin turbo Cosworth power. :cool:

I haven't time to read it right now, but that's my first thought. Champ Car needs to go its own way. :thumbup:

DagoFast

05-18-05, 02:25 PM

Seems to me we could save alot of time and effort and just pull all the old ARS/Indy Lights out of the warehouses and blow the dust off of 'em.

Thats basically what this sounds like to me.

Andrew Longman

05-18-05, 02:34 PM

I like that they are gathering input from the right people

I like that they are openly talking about it with their fans on their website. And they are talking about it is technical terms. They haven't dumbed down the explanation.

Narrower = good

Twin Turbo Cosworth = Excellent. Gotta have that whine.

Smaller wing, bigger tunnels, less turbulence = Excellent. Why did the choke the tunnels back in the 90s anyway?

Gotta look sexy = So they are total engineering nerds :)

Nerf bar front wing? = I dunno. This and the sidepod talk has be a little afraid this will look like the new USAC high speed car.

Sitting more upright = Same as above

Finally, I never thought about testing multiple cars together in the wind tunnel. Great idea.

cameraman

05-18-05, 02:44 PM

Gotta look sexy

look like the new USAC high speed car.

Those two terms define opposite

cameraman

05-18-05, 04:20 PM

Anyone have a link to a photograph of a "nerf bar" style front wing on a CART or F1 car???

nrc

05-18-05, 05:31 PM

Smaller wing, bigger tunnels, less turbulence = Excellent. Why did the choke the tunnels back in the 90s anyway?

It was a way to control speeds once they ran out of boost adjustment. Especially on short ovals where the cornering speeds were starting to generate some big hits and and some injuries.

RichK

05-18-05, 05:53 PM

It sounds like a beefed-up Atlantic car to me.

This was curious:

"When we brought in the high cockpit sides in 1996, I remember Michael Andretti said, 'How are we going to race with these cars? How am I going to see the guy coming up alongside me?' But then everybody got used to it. But the problem we were trying to solve needed the Hans device. So now that we've got that we can drop the sides down a little bit."

I don't think the HANS is designed for sideways head movement, so I don't understand how lowering the head restraints is a good idea.

nrc

05-18-05, 06:09 PM

I don't think the HANS is designed for sideways head movement, so I don't understand how lowering the head restraints is a good idea.

The original HANS definately was. The collar wrapped around more to the sides. Even in the current open wheel version it will limit side to side motion to the length of the tether, but I would think that the more rearward anchor would cause a rotating motion that could be a problem.

They have good people on the case so I assume they'll consult the HANS folks.

Robstar

05-18-05, 07:11 PM

Twin Turbs... :thumbup: :thumbup:

dando

05-18-05, 09:54 PM

Seems to me we could save alot of time and effort and just pull all the old ARS/Indy Lights out of the warehouses and blow the dust off of 'em.

Thats basically what this sounds like to me.
Dunno that Swift is still around to support them. What's 'king Hiro up to these days anyway?

-Kevin

FCYTravis

05-19-05, 12:58 AM

Swift didn't build those - Lola did.

Swift is very much still around... spare parts, anyone?

trauma1

05-19-05, 09:03 AM

the new chassis will look fine, i know alot of people are dead set against the spec chassis, , this keeps cost down, and the people they have designing the new chassis are good, they are not going to build a crapwagon, they said they want it to look sexy, and loal will doa good job, having another chassis maker isn't going to do sqat for the series, i do like the idea of putting 2 to 3 cars in the tunnels to see what effect they have on each other, i really like the idea of getting rid of the aero that prevents passing, i really don't think that GF and kk are going to put a POS on the track, it may be close to the A1Gp car with a few tweaks, and that's not to bad but ours will be without the air scoop, even better

pferrf1

05-19-05, 09:38 AM

The sides came up because of hte Senna crash. It was to protect the drivers head more inthe case of a crash and debris flyin in the air around the drivers head.

I think its a bad idea. Make the mirrors bigger.

Chief

05-19-05, 12:30 PM

pchall

05-19-05, 12:38 PM

I still want a shorter wheelbase and overall length. Lose a foot in the wheel base and at least a foot and a half overall.

FRANKY

05-19-05, 12:43 PM

Twin Turbos? Why? Wouldn't that defeat the reliability of the current spec Cosworth and raise costs? If the object is to raise boost levels to increase HP (and overcome some additional downforce created by wider tunnels) what's wrong with the current setup? That part sounds mumbo-jumbo-ish.

People love turbos, so naturally two gives the marketing people more oomph, attracts the "tuner" crowd, It's different than the IRL, I'm sure KK discussed it with his company.

Unless these new chassis are cheap, I don't see them until Champ Car doesn't need to fill the field writing checks. It's tough enough as it is to attract new sponsors without digging in ones pocket to buy new chassis.

Does anyone know how many new Lola chassis are selling for and the quantity the last couple of years?

cameraman

05-19-05, 01:11 PM

Twin Turbos? Why? Wouldn't that defeat the reliability of the current spec Cosworth and raise costs? If the object is to raise boost levels to increase HP (and overcome some additional downforce created by wider tunnels) what's wrong with the current setup? That part sounds mumbo-jumbo-ish.

Did you read the article?
"Keep it a 2.6 liter V8 and make it a twin turbo, rather than a single turbo in order to get the turbo out of the gearbox. It doesn't need to be there. It was a single turbo rule that made that happen and to build the best car around that rule we buried the turbo more and more into the gearbox. But all that heat has to be dissipated and it makes the gearbox itself and the cooling system much more complicated. So I'd like to see a spec twin turbo with a wastegate probably incorporated on the side if it."

.....

nrc

05-19-05, 01:19 PM

Twin Turbos? Why? Wouldn't that defeat the reliability of the current spec Cosworth and raise costs? He actually described it pretty well. The current single turbo installation creates unecessary complexity and durability problems because the turbo is buried down in the transmission.

I was tried to find a picture that shows how the turbo nestles down in the gearbox. In the pictures below you can see how the exhaust headers go into the transmission area and the forced air comes out the top. There are a lot of other cool pictures on this site as well.
http://www.lolachampcar.com/images/95%20Firestone/100_0163.JPG
http://www.lolachampcar.com/images/95%20Firestone/100_0162.JPG
http://www.lolachampcar.com/images/99%20Shell/100_0168.JPG
http://www.lolachampcar.com/

So by switching to twin turbos you can use a simpler gearbox design and not worry about all that heat. You can also simplify the header and turbo plumbing. With twin turbos you'll get faster spin up and better response and probably not much more cost than the single big turbo used now.

indyfan31

05-19-05, 01:46 PM

Anyone have a link to a photograph of a "nerf bar" style front wing on a CART or F1 car???
No pics but didn't F1 go to a "blunt" style endplate for their front wings to keep from cutting tires?

coolhand

05-19-05, 01:54 PM

whats a nerf bar?

I dont know guys, i am not going to get my hopes up on this new design. We have been making fun of the IRL for all these years and i fear a dumbdowned ugly car.

I hope i am plesently surprised

pchall

05-19-05, 02:33 PM

whats a nerf bar?

A rudimentary tubular bumper found on things like T and A model fenderless hotrods, also used on midgets/sprints. Sometimes nerf bars were also added to sports cars to protect the aluminum bodywork.

For a champcar I think they are suggesting a front wing and nose package substantial enough that it won't come apart with the slightest contact at $30K a crunch.

For some reason the tubular sidesteps on trucks and SUVs are called nerf bars these days. Go figure. :shakehead

66 Cobra with nerf bars around the radiator opening and across the rear.

http://www.classicdreamcars.com/89cobra1.JPG http://www.classicdreamcars.com/89cobra2.JPG

32 lowboy --- the classic nerf bar

http://streetrodderweb.com/tech/0403sr_tail_01_z.jpg

coolhand

05-19-05, 02:35 PM

oh God :shakehead please no nerf bars on an openwheel car

Methanolandbrats

05-19-05, 02:49 PM

I found a spy photo of the new Champcar being tested! http://members.aol.com/adrake3/prose1.jpg

oddlycalm

05-19-05, 03:02 PM

"We used to design the car in isolation in a wind tunnel. The new car needs to be done with two or three cars in a wind tunnel because you're looking at the effect of three cars on each other rather than the car on its own." Someone is finally asking the right questions. This is what we have been discussing here and on 7G for years. They have finally "discovered" that getting the downforce from the tunnels creates a lot less turbulence than wings do. The only way to find out what will create an acceptable aero package when cars are running in a group is to test what happens. Sounds simply, but as far as I know nobody has ever done it before.

As nrc posted, the twin turbo layout is an effort to simplify the plumbing and manage heat, i.e. better longevity and lower maintenance costs. The actual price of a turbo is nothing compared to the cost of the complex plumbing and the labor cost every time it's disassembled.

oc

Napoleon

05-19-05, 03:02 PM

Actually I thought "Nerf Bars" very, very specifically referred to a tube assembly that was in front of the rear wheel to keep a wheel from anouther vehicle from being able to interlock, and in the process of interlock launching the one vehicle. In the pictures supplied by pchall all that is depicted is bumpers. In the picture supplied by methonalandbrats the tube assembly on the side streaching back from the number 81 is the Nerf Bar. The tube assembly on the front is a bumper. The guy in the article is using the term nerf bar incorrectly IMO.

That would explain why they call tube assembly on the sides of SUV, between the two sets of wheels Nerf Bars, even though there function is not to keep the wheels apart.

pchall

05-19-05, 03:10 PM

How about something like this as the ultimate "chrome horn" for PT?

http://www.oldracingcars.com/Images/ChevronB24-Beck2c-400x.jpg

oddlycalm

05-19-05, 03:29 PM

For a champcar I think they are suggesting a front wing and nose package substantial enough that it won't come apart with the slightest contact at $30K a crunch. Exactly. I think "nerf bar" was a poor choice of words, but meant to convey the general goal in terms of durability.

For those that want to imagine a horrible ugly chassis that looks like some USAC turd churner, carry on and have fun with it. Considering who the members of the group doing the actual design I prefer to think that the results will be postive until there is evidence to the contrary.

oc

trauma1

05-19-05, 03:32 PM

i hope its a blend of the current champ car chassis and the new A1Gp chassis sweet looking
http://www.suttonimages.com/fotoweb/FWbin/preview.dll/dne0515ja200.jp.jpg?D=69EECD86F8F8F3BB305A07B8E127 0F2EFA17E75E9484CBB515C4F0DD6BFF94F6C2646A100E7BF4 A6E12979DEAB8D8620AEB3596584746B8A023CA3A515AB40F0 D5243723883CF57F372251FA3B9E67FBCD5E987A66F94961C2 93B391F301F28497BD73CC31B5185EFD392634595F3CDD

Chief

05-19-05, 03:44 PM

Here's some nerfbars for ya...

http://www.modseriesscene.com/gallery/albums/album11/VariousPhotos.jpg

Peter Venkman

05-19-05, 07:12 PM

coolhand

05-19-05, 07:23 PM

the one turbo is not even running on that high of a boost. they have decreased to near atmospheric levels. twin trubos add nothing unless they change them to a smaller size.

pchall

05-19-05, 07:25 PM

It could be that two, smaller turbos would "spin-up" faster, and that's good from a road racing standpoint.

One larger turbo has a larger rotational inertia, and takes more time to spin up.

I also think that a smaller turbo closer to the header on each side of a V8 would make for much tighter packaging and probably allow for even better airflow around the engine cowling and to the smaller rear wing.

Here's a nice shot of all the plumbing hanging off the back needed for the single-turbo Cosworth XFE:

http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/FORD%20COSWORTHXFE-2262.jpg

nrc

05-19-05, 08:27 PM

the one turbo is not even running on that high of a boost. they have decreased to near atmospheric levels. twin trubos add nothing unless they change them to a smaller size.Not really true anymore. They went back up to 41 inches of boost when they went to the lower rev spec engine tuned for more durability.

Badger

05-20-05, 02:08 PM

Well, I imagine that many of you won't like hearing this, but I think the car they are talking about is designed by Menards Competition Technolgies division. There was a thread about a year ago at TF with a sketch of the car. The fact that Ashmore is involved indicates that the car pictured in the thread is basically what is being considered for Champcar.

racer2c

05-20-05, 02:20 PM

FRANKY

05-20-05, 02:20 PM

RichK

05-20-05, 02:30 PM

coolhand

05-20-05, 02:44 PM

http://www.220mph.com/images/Menards%20Prototype%20005.jpg

exactly, what a POS phoney car.

if they go that direction i would feel mistreated becuase they would actually think we are that dumb to like a car like that.

extramundane

05-20-05, 02:56 PM

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think the A1Gp cars look like the offspring of a Minardi and a Crapwagon.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Napoleon

05-20-05, 02:57 PM

that looks like an SCCA F500. Does it run on a 2 cycle engine also?

http://www.f500.org/albums/Mid-Ohio-2004-Runoffs-%28JJG-photos%29/DSC_0587.sized.jpg

cameraman

05-20-05, 03:02 PM

exactly, what a POS phoney car.

if they go that direction i would feel mistreated becuase they would actually think we are that dumb to like a car like that.

I think that KK and GF and even PG have much better taste than that. Also consider that Carl Haas is the Lola dealer so he probably won't be too thrilled buying a Menard.

Ankf00

05-20-05, 03:05 PM

if they hook up the turbos in series they'd be even smaller and even easier to spool up due to the multiplier effect than if they were in parallel, one dedicated for each bank

Jervis Tetch 1

05-20-05, 03:09 PM

Just don't put the engines in the front like those moronic fools at Crack Forum want.

oddlycalm

05-20-05, 03:11 PM

The fact that Ashmore is involved indicates that the car pictured in the thread is basically what is being considered for Champcar. Some basic elements of it no doubt, however the rendering certainly doesn't have a small front wing and until actual tunnel testing of 2 and 3 car packs are accomplished there would be no way of knowing what other changes would be required. Also, they are talking about a more upright seating position and lower cockput side, and the redering appears contrary in that regard. The parts that do fit in general with the discussion are the wider side pods/narrower track that would prevent wheel interlock wrecks and rounder countours as well as a smaller rear wing.

IMO, if they can get rid of the turbulence that inhibits passing and cut down on full course yellows significantly they would be accomplishing quite a lot. Just the fact that these are their goals is a very positive development. One could do much worse than a dual turbo Cosworth. Compared to the brainfarts coming from the FIA and the stock block embarrassment the EARL is determined to become, these guys look like bloody geniuses.

oc

trauma1

05-20-05, 03:39 PM

it wiil have elements of the A1 and current ccws chassis, and lola doesn't make an ugly chassis, imo the probably have a mock up near completed or this wouldn't have hit the streets

Dr. Corkski

05-20-05, 04:05 PM

lola doesn't make an ugly chassishttp://www.f1rejects.com/teams/lola/large/97-melbourne-rr-4.jpg

:rofl:

racer2c

05-20-05, 04:16 PM

I remember much grumblings when the current Lola Champ Car hit the track. Many said it was the ugliest Champ Car ever.

cameraman

05-20-05, 04:32 PM

I remember much grumblings when the current Lola Champ Car hit the track. Many said it was the ugliest Champ Car ever.

But those folks now post on CF...

Badger

05-20-05, 07:07 PM

Some basic elements of it no doubt, however the rendering certainly doesn't have a small front wing and until actual tunnel testing of 2 and 3 car packs are accomplished there would be no way of knowing what other changes would be required. Also, they are talking about a more upright seating position and lower cockput side, and the redering appears contrary in that regard. The parts that do fit in general with the discussion are the wider side pods/narrower track that would prevent wheel interlock wrecks and rounder countours as well as a smaller rear wing.
oc

Here is the original post that appeared about a year ago.
www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43831
Is this the next generation IndyCar?

Looks like John Menards Menards Competition Technologies division, has kept the lads at the former TWR Arrows UK facility very busy.

MCT's Bruce Ashmore has penned this new prototype open wheel chassis with safety as a primary goal.

Designed so driver sits more upright, which improves driver vision and provided better protection and support for drivers back and neck

New front wing aero assembly - rounded corners minimize potential for cut tires, much stronger -by design this front wing is far less affected by disturbed air in traffic.

The full width front wing, along with the barge boards behind, make the front tires fully protected - still clearly an open wheel car but with safety of a closed wheel design

Other features include;

Larger, full length, full width sidepods - better overall protection, better protection for rear tires and larger, smooth area for better signage

Larger underbody tunnels and overall smaller wings - when combined with new nose/frontwings the entire platform is more stable in dirty air. Tunnels pay particular attention to laminar flow - no vortices or sharp edges - which create more overall downforce and make less susceptable to pitch and attitude changes as well as dirty air. Where a current chassis loses a large portion of its downforce in draft, this chassis should be far more stable.

A simplified body design, with fewer total parts - intended to improve fit, build times and reduce maintanence

With this chassis "aimed for introduction" "around the year 2006" - I think most can do the math

Does anyone still think its just a coincidence? I think its pretty clear that this is the concept that Kirby was referring to in the original link. By the way, I would not get too hung up on the cars looks since this is simply a rendering. I for one look forward to the day the current chassis are retired, because they have provided some pretty poor racing with the turbulence they create.

coolhand

05-20-05, 07:36 PM

Does anyone still think its just a coincidence? I think its pretty clear that this is the concept that Kirby was referring to in the original link. By the way, I would not get too hung up on the cars looks since this is simply a rendering. I for one look forward to the day the current chassis are retired, because they have provided some pretty poor racing with the turbulence they create.

maybe their is behind the scenes deal making here. underminding people like TG to get a common forumla "inadvertently".

pchall

05-20-05, 07:39 PM

I remember much grumblings when the current Lola Champ Car hit the track. Many said it was the ugliest Champ Car ever.

I still don't care for the F-15 sidepods...

KLang

05-20-05, 07:55 PM

Does anyone still think its just a coincidence?

Sorta.

While Ashmore's involvement in both projects might lead to some similar characteristics, wouldn't the design of the Menards car be the property of Menards? According to the article, Champ Car is developing their own design, not buying one from Menards or anyone else.

I suppose you are suggesting this is to be a common chassis for the two series? If so I don't buy it. Even if Champ Car was so inclined, and I don't think they are, FTG has shown time and again that he isn't interested.

oddlycalm

05-20-05, 09:03 PM

Here is the original post that appeared about a year ago. Funny stuff. Predictable that among the immediate reactions would be someone wanting to turn it into a roadster... :laugh: A few of the more astute twigged to the fact that it looks more like a concept for a champcar than a crapwagon.

Whatever, if they can come up with a car that makes for that promotes more passing and few full course yellows it would probably get my vote.

oc

Badger

05-20-05, 09:03 PM

Sorta.

While Ashmore's involvement in both projects might lead to some similar characteristics, wouldn't the design of the Menards car be the property of Menards? According to the article, Champ Car is developing their own design, not buying one from Menards or anyone else.

I suppose you are suggesting this is to be a common chassis for the two series? If so I don't buy it. Even if Champ Car was so inclined, and I don't think they are, FTG has shown time and again that he isn't interested.

Whether the Menards car/design is the property of Menards would depend on who paid for it, don't you think? Menards bought the old Arrows F1 team so they had a lot of experienced people. Is it so hard to believe CHAMPCAR would commission them to do design work for the next Champcar? As for why Menard would do it, do you really have to ask ($)?

As far as the common chassis theme, that was not my suggestion at all, and I don't think this would have any influence one way or the other on whether the two series run a common formula.

extramundane

05-20-05, 09:08 PM

Menards bought the old Arrows F1 team so they had a lot of experienced people. Is it so hard to believe CHAMPCAR would commission them to do design work for the next Champcar?

Considering how poorly Arrows performed under TWR, yes.

NismoZ

05-20-05, 09:35 PM

It's all in the new RACER. Nice renderings and diagrams. I don't see anything to fear or hate. I too thought of those SCCA F-500s, Nappy...that's no joke, either...close, competitive and safe. Most karts have the same theory about "open wheels"... it's the most UNsafe aspect of open wheelers! Many of you whine about the exact things these new ideas are trying to fix. Give it a chance. All of us should applaud efforts to make our cars stronger and safer, more affordable and user friendly. I just hope they can be lighter and faster, too. They're aren't too many out there any better than Ashmore. I'm glad he's on this project. PS...the comments about keeping the cars from flying and that "rear nose" impact absorber (don't say attenuator!, :eek: ) seem aimed at areas not so critical to Champcars as somewhere else...we MAY BE seeing a universal design!?

coolhand

05-20-05, 09:44 PM

All of us should applaud efforts to make our cars stronger and safer, more affordable and user friendly.

a top notch race car should be a difficult thing we should look a in amazment. not user friendly hightdownforce like a crapwagon that anyone can drive.

whats next cup holders? i remember when porche fans got pissed when they put those in street cars/ :laugh:

Ankf00

05-20-05, 10:06 PM

coolhand

05-20-05, 10:45 PM

with regards to that menard car and the covering up of the wheels, does that seem like it would reduce alot of drag created by exposed wheels to anyone else? if the sidepod is right up on the front wheel you cut down the pressure drag and in the rear you remove most of the rear tires' exposure to air on the front side cutting down the total momentum of air hitting the rear tire...

that would be true for striaght line type stuff correct? it seems that the narrower body of the menards car would reduce drag, but it would look more and more like a Le Mans sports car optimized for top speed on the mulsan (i spelled it wrong) straight.

its not "open-wheel" IMO.

NismoZ

05-20-05, 10:49 PM

Just meant "friendly" in terms of teams not needing their own test tracks, wind tunnels, government support, etc., Less complex could mean cheaper but doesn't have to mean slower, any less entertaining, or unpleasant looking.

racer2c

05-20-05, 10:54 PM

But those folks now post on CF...

I wouldn't know.

nrc

05-20-05, 11:38 PM

Is it so hard to believe CHAMPCAR would commission them to do design work for the next Champcar? As for why Menard would do it, do you really have to ask ($)?
Ashmore has been with several different chasis builders and the other engineers involved have connections of their own. It's pretty clear from the story that they plan to shop around among chasis suppliers. They'll get proposals based on the formula they come up with and then they'll select a supplier.

Ankf00

05-21-05, 12:15 PM

I still don't care for the F-15 sidepods...
:)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15e-19990512-f-2171a-017.jpg

cameraman

05-21-05, 12:48 PM

It's all in the new RACER. Nice renderings and diagrams. I don't see anything to fear or hate.
An article about the new Champ Car? What issue is that, I need to go find one.

PS...the comments about keeping the cars from flying and that "rear nose" impact absorber (don't say attenuator!, :eek: ) seem aimed at areas not so critical to Champcars as somewhere else...we MAY BE seeing a universal design!? Or maybe CCWS might be looking to pick up an oval race or two somewhere...

Jag_Warrior

05-23-05, 12:43 AM

Here is the original post that appeared about a year ago.
www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43831
Is this the next generation IndyCar?

Does anyone still think its just a coincidence? I think its pretty clear that this is the concept that Kirby was referring to in the original link. By the way, I would not get too hung up on the cars looks since this is simply a rendering. I for one look forward to the day the current chassis are retired, because they have provided some pretty poor racing with the turbulence they create.

I feel somewhat odd saying this, since the gang from Track Forum seems to like it, but if this is along the lines of the next Champ Car, then :thumbup:

If they can catch the ACO not paying attention, maybe they can even sneak one onto Circuit de la Sarthe.

skaven

05-23-05, 11:06 PM

After watching Monterrey on RD, I think another thing the 2007 car needs is an onboard starter. Some of the local cautions that went full course yellow :shakehead might have been avoided if the cars had starters.

L1P1

05-23-05, 11:45 PM

Andrew Longman

05-24-05, 05:59 AM

An article about the new Champ Car? What issue is that, I need to go find one.

Or maybe CCWS might be looking to pick up an oval race or two somewhere...

In the latest issue. With Jeff Gordon on the cover. Yes, nothing to fear from those renderings

NismoZ

05-24-05, 12:03 PM

Too many recent co-inkydinks to ignore...from Penske's and Mario's pleadings, to this new spec talk, (for both!) to CC getting Long Beach, to Honda whining about the very situation they helped create, to FTG FINALLY breaking the silence on the efficacy of a single series...SOMEthing is afoot! :gomer: Remember all this crap so you can include it in your "History of The Unification" (!?) Sometimes it's hard to recognize history when you are right in the middle of it! :) PS...ONE guess as to which oval (or 2) CC might be aiming to "pick up." C-man?

pchall

05-24-05, 12:18 PM

No peace with honor or dignity for Tony George. He should rot with the other split criminals on the gallows.

NismoZ

05-24-05, 05:00 PM

He should...but not to the further detriment of open wheel racing. I believe "his" race isn't really his anyway. Don't make the same mistake(s) he has. I can not be convinced that destroying the Indy 500 should be any part of a merger/reunification plan, OR a CCWS go-alone scheme. An FTG minority interest, one voice to be heard, owner and promoter of the Indy 500?...fine. A resurgence of open wheel racing combined with a turnaround for the fortunes of the 500 would not be distasteful to me. In fact, I think it's the whole point of any of the recent speculation...mutual benefit. You think the new CC design team ISN'T thinking of Indy and perhaps a few more ovals as they pen the new Champcar design? The sort of bile passed TG's way on these forums is easily understood and richly deserved, but I'm not sure of any lasting good that will come of it. Hell, my brother-in-law was in the RAF in WWII and he drives a BMW. My father-in-law was wounded in the Philippines and he drives an Acura. My Uncle was drafted and sent to Korea and (no he doesn't drive a Kia) he happily buys inexpensive Chinese-made clothes! Think I'd go to an Indy 500 with about 15 CC guys in the field? :)

Gnam

05-24-05, 06:07 PM

I still don't care for the F-15 sidepods...
They always struck me as F-14 sidepods.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14/f14_01.jpg

NismoZ

05-24-05, 09:41 PM

Right...and BOTH of 'em are too big and heavy...and expensive. Pretty damn fast, though!

Ankf00

05-24-05, 09:58 PM

F-14 == heavy
F-15 == pwnz j00 bish.

cart7

05-24-05, 10:09 PM

that would be true for striaght line type stuff correct? it seems that the narrower body of the menards car would reduce drag, but it would look more and more like a Le Mans sports car optimized for top speed on the mulsan (i spelled it wrong) straight.

its not "open-wheel" IMO.

Apparently someone else in that TF thread noticed the sportscar hook on that car too. There are definitely some DP type lines on that thing. Nice looking car though.

nrc

06-08-05, 10:45 PM

SPEED has a little blurb on their web site about the RACER story on the 2007 car. It include an image for the concept from the magazine.

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/champcar/17429/

I like this a more than the Menard design. The front wing is a bit more like a wing and less like a bumper. The sidepods aren't quite as tight to the wheels in front and the rear looks like the flip-ups on some of the older cars before they pushed the body work away from the tires.

http://www.speedtv.com/_assets/library/img/medium/67980_2007.jpg
Bigger image (http://www.speedtv.com/_assets/library/img/large/67980_2007.jpg)

dando

06-08-05, 11:09 PM

I like this a more than the Menard design. The front wing is a bit more like a wing and less like a bumper. The sidepods aren't quite as tight to the wheels in front and the rear looks like the flip-ups on some of the older cars before they pushed the body work away from the tires.
Initial impression = :thumbup:

The suspension bits look a bit large in contrast to the current chassis. Interesting rear wing, and it would appear that the body work near the tires should improve turbulence and thus passing.

-Kevin

Ankf00

06-08-05, 11:30 PM

Initial impression = :thumbup:

The suspension bits look a bit large in contrast to the current chassis. Interesting rear wing, and it would appear that the body work near the tires should improve turbulence and thus passing.

-Kevin

you're still gonna have a vacuum being generated behind those tires and thus turbulence, that's on top of the induced vortices coming off the trailing edge of the bodywork and the wing

I like that the rear wing is smaller though, less reliance on the wings for DF is what the doctor ordered, more reliance on undertrays and rubber.

dando

06-08-05, 11:47 PM

you're still gonna have a vacuum being generated behind those tires and thus turbulence, that's on top of the induced vortices coming off the trailing edge of the bodywork and the wing

I like that the rear wing is smaller though, less reliance on the wings for DF is what the doctor ordered, more reliance on undertrays and rubber.
The inside part of the bodywork near the rear wheels looks overdone, but if improving the ability to pass is one of the primary goals, a vacuum may be a desired consquence. It also appears to prevent wheels from interlocking, which is :cool:, IMO. This is just a design concept or mock, or, IOW, a graphic designer's wet dream. That front wing does hafta go, tho.

-Kevin

NismoZ

06-09-05, 03:21 PM

No, actually what has to go is how fragile and lethal they currently are and how much one costs to replace!

Turn7

06-09-05, 04:17 PM

No, actually what has to go is how fragile and lethal they currently are and how much one costs to replace!

Please comment further on what you are referring to when you say lethal. Are you speaking of the wings or the overall design of the current champ car?

Thanks.

Wheel-Nut

06-09-05, 04:33 PM

F-14 == heavy
F-15 == pwnz j00 bish.

I agree, . . . . . I think!? :confused:

FCYTravis

06-09-05, 06:45 PM

Nothing says "I Love You" overwater like an AIM-54 from way downtown.

dando

06-09-05, 07:51 PM

No, actually what has to go is how fragile and lethal they currently are and how much one costs to replace!
:saywhat: :confused:

We aren't talking cr@pwagons, aye?

-Kevin

Gnam

06-09-05, 07:58 PM

F-14 == heavy
F-15 == pwnz j00 bish.
The F-14 has way better movie credits. :p

Ankf00

06-09-05, 08:08 PM

Iron Eagle baby, F-16 has better movie credits :gomer:

NismoZ

06-09-05, 08:29 PM

7? The current front wings...they are fragile, they cut tires and change the complexion of a race with the tiniest nudge, they bend and fall off too easily, they are too complicated and expensive. I was criticizing the criticism of the proposed new front wing. I applaud a design that suggests a solution to a long-standing problem. More upright driving position. Good. Let's do something to reduce the possibility of back injuries. "Rear nose". Good. Concrete doesn't care if a car is from CC or the IRL. Less likely wheel interlock. Good. We JOKE about flying cars and the carnage that may result, then whine about a design that is intended to prevent such an occurrance? These are all moves to make the dangers of driving open-wheel racers less dangerous, and some of you complain because it looks funny. I can't abide that. That color rendering is just that. Look at the side view diagram and the car does not look all that different. I am VERY hopeful that a lighter, less expensive, faster and safer car can put Champcars a notch ahead of GP2 in performance and KEEP them there. No rant, just hopeful.

skaven

06-09-05, 09:27 PM

I don't know what a GP2 is, but whatever it is, CCWS needs to be faster than it on a road course. Really, only a few things should be faster - F1, fighter jets, bullets, things that explode...

What's a GP2?

Also, the "MiG 31" from Firefox would blow away Top Gun and Iron Eagle one on one. :mad:

In fact, I'd take Firefox and Blue Thunder against your Top Gun and Iron Eagle. :gomer:

Sean O'Gorman

06-09-05, 09:40 PM

I don't know what a GP2 is, but whatever it is, CCWS needs to be faster than it on a road course. Really, only a few things should be faster - F1, fighter jets, bullets, things that explode...

What's a GP2?

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/gp2/2005/bar/gp2-2005-bar-tm-0270.jpg

nrc

06-09-05, 10:22 PM

I thought someone posted that GP2 lap times were actually slower than F3000. The GP2 engine is less than 600 HP and Champ car can order up whatever HP they need from Cosworth.

jonovision_man

06-09-05, 10:29 PM

I thought someone posted that GP2 lap times were actually slower than F3000. The GP2 engine is less than 600 HP and Champ car can order up whatever HP they need from Cosworth.

Are you maybe thinking of A1GP? The were slower than F3000 at a Silverstone test.

GP2 is very fast actually, light chassis and 600bhp engine... a very worthy ladder for F1, it's a real race car in every sense.

jono

racer2c

06-09-05, 10:36 PM

Why in the world does GP2 use grooved tires? Boo.

Let me guess, so the drivers are used to those jelly donuts when they get the call. Double boo.

No wonder they don't want RHR, AJ and Danicle.

:thumdown:

nrc

06-09-05, 11:18 PM

Are you maybe thinking of A1GP? The were slower than F3000 at a Silverstone test.

GP2 is very fast actually, light chassis and 600bhp engine... a very worthy ladder for F1, it's a real race car in every sense.

jono
yes and no. The lap times I'm remembering were from A1GP, but the figure I saw for HP on the GP2 car was 580. So the Champ car would still have a power to weight advantage. Obviously GP2 car will have some advantage in braking and cornering, but how they compare will depend a lot on how much downforce they each have.

cameraman

06-10-05, 02:06 AM

GP2

4.0 litre, 580 bhp Renault V8
Chassis is carbon fibre built by Dallara, ground effect design
585 kg / 1290 lbs
Carbon brakes
Six speed semi automatic gearbox w/ paddle shift
Tires are F1 spec
Maximum straight line speed 320 kph / 199 mph
0 to 100 kph / 62 mph in 2.95 seconds
0 to 200 kph / 124 mph in 6.7 seconds

Dr. Corkski

06-10-05, 02:23 AM

yes and no. The lap times I'm remembering were from A1GP, but the figure I saw for HP on the GP2 car was 580. So the Champ car would still have a power to weight advantage. Obviously GP2 car will have some advantage in braking and cornering, but how they compare will depend a lot on how much downforce they each have.This is by no means scientific, the GP2 cars do have about 580 HP but are probably fairly lighter than Champ Cars. Comparing qualifying times the GP2 cars lapped about 14% slower than the F1 cars at Barcelona. Last year, the Champ Cars lapped about 10% slower than F1 at Montreal, but keep in mind that back then qualifying was with race fuel, which in my estimation was worth about maybe 2-3%. So the new Champ Cars probably can't go much lower than the current specs.

FYI, using the Barcelona qualifying times the GP2 cars were about 22% faster than the cars they replaced.