Chassis question re: big ovals

[WickerBill]

I've read much talk about how the cars could be made more nimble and more able to pass if there were no ovals (and rules regarding the ovals) to force the designers to bulk up the tub.

My question for those tech people here, if Fontana and Germany were taken off the schedule, and therefore we still had ovals but they were all short 170-180mph ones, what would that eliminate as far as car bulk? Would the Champcar still have to retain it's current size for safety, even on the slower ovals?

[JT265]

WAG, yep.

Concrete will bite as hard at 180, unfortunately.

[pchall]

I been told that it's pretty expensive to repair an Atlantics car after an oval hit.

But I can imagine that a somewhat smaller and somewhat lighter champcar could be made as "safe" for high speed ovals. Remember that Lights had some hellacious wrecks on the superspeedway events they ran near the end of the series -- and those tubs were related to a Lola F3000 design.

[Mike Kellner]

Remember, Formula Tony proved that additional "Beef" doesn't automatically equate with improved safety. Their beefier car transmitted more shock to the drivers and caused more injuries.

A Grand Prix car weighs about 2/3 what a Champ Car weighs and their tubs hold up well in bad crashes. I think safety comes more from inteligent design and packaging of the driver than car weight. For the most part, bad injuries seem to be caused by unsafe track side obstacles these days.

[nrc]

I would say that the crash safety that you need for a concrete lined street course with any fast straights isn't much different from what you need on a short oval. Consider Christian Fittipaldi's crash as Surfer's Paridise for example.

[pchall]

Originally posted by nrc
Consider Christian Fittipaldi's crash as Surfer's Paridise for example.

CF's fractured right tib/fib complex was an injury very similar to what passenger car drivers get when hitting something at 50mph while braking heavily. He was doing 180mph +.

[nrc]

Originally posted by pchall
CF's fractured right tib/fib complex was an injury very similar to what passenger car drivers get when hitting something at 50mph while braking heavily. He was doing 180mph +.

Right, I'm not suggesting the cars aren't safe right now, just pointing out that dropping ovals isn't going to allow a drastic change in the safety standards.

[pchall]

Exactly.

The cars can get somewhat lighter and also lose a foot or foot and a half of wheelbase and be much better roadracing machines and still be acceptable oval cars.

[Ziggy]

For an oval track design, you must consider the possible high impact from the start. Things like duration, and puncture's of the structure come into play. Bulkheads are meatier, and most all parts will be somewhat heavier in design than a pure road racing car. The actual thickness of the tub itself, and its lay up. Im sure everyone remembers Panis crash in Canada a few years ago. Panis broke his leg pretty bad, but far worse (he was very luch) the front of the car sheared off. These sort of hits we scoff at as low speed, good angle impacts. Schumacher also had a fairly tame accident in England with very ugly front end damage, although there was little angle involved.

Ziggy

[Treeface]

More nimble? They can't put all of that power down now.
"Nimble" means spending a whole lot of money on stuff like traction control, carbon brakes and exotic suspension materials.

Plus, why narrow the field of potential venues?

If you must, shed the weight from the block. Less mass with the same structural strength.

[pchall]

Less weight in the block and heads?

That means L4t to me instead of V10. :)

[Railbird]

Count me in for a smaller more nimble car. The inline turbo four sounds much more interesting, and at this point in time more do-able, to me. Like it or not CART appears to be heading more and more toward the streetcourses and "F/A on steroids" would make for a much racier formula for those venues IMO.

Light and nimble with more power than what is needed pretty much defines a racecar to me.

[Mike Kellner]

Right now, the cars weigh 1550 lb, and carry at least 100 lb of ballast. That means they could get below 1450 with zero changes. A 2L Turbo 4 would be lighter than a 2.65 Turbo V8 and saving in one area leads to weight saving in others. A 700 hp transmission has to be lighter than a 900 hp transmission. If they are below the weight limit, designs get sloppy so there are pounds to be squeezed out by being more cognizant of weight. All told, it seems a 1350 lb dry weight isn't unreasonable. A 200 lb reduction would make up for some of the power loss, and a more nimble car would be better on street courses.


I don't think they would end up taking strength out of the tub. The rules governing tub construction would remain the same, but with lower mass there would be 10 - 12% less energy in any given crash. If anything, these cars would be safer. They would still be 200 lb heavier than an F1 car.

[WickerBill]

Originally posted by Treeface
More nimble? They can't put all of that power down now.
"Nimble" means spending a whole lot of money on stuff like traction control, carbon brakes and exotic suspension materials.

Plus, why narrow the field of potential venues?

If you must, shed the weight from the block. Less mass with the same structural strength.

TF, my idea is a little smaller car, allowing for more passing at current venues that the cars, at least now, seem too large to be side-by-side on for much of the track. Laguna, Denver, Mid-Ohio, Miami.

I'm likely way off base here though.

[Ziggy]

Let me give you an example. At Johanson's GoKart track a few years ago, on display were Dan Gurney's F5000 Eagle and Chip Ganassi's Target Reynard. The Reynard Champcar was a truck compared to the F5000 car.

The current Champ Car is large, too large to put on a proper motor race on a city street course. The guys cant race, they are driving long, wide cars with gobs of horsepower behind their backs. Getting along side someone is more often than not, a sure fire way to a DNF. So what do they do about it? Follow them around and hope the pit stop can carry them ahead. Very silly, and anti racing.

I like the term "Atlantic on Steroids," much like the 1.5 liter F1 cars of the by gone days. These cars evolved into something spectacular. The racing was great, and the racing did not suffer one bit.

If were gonna race on the streets, and I am to remain a fan, some ACTUAL RACING has to occur.

Ziggy

[Mike Kellner]

The reason they lengthened the cars was for safety. The fuel tank went between the driver and motor. They moved the front axle forward to give more crush space for a head on crash. I see what you mean about the cars, but those are both changes I'd like to keep.

If they used a straight 4, they could turn it sideways like a motorcycle and shorten the car from the rear.

The cars are 78.5" inches wide, which is 4" wider than a Cadillac Sedan deVille measured from mirror to mirror and the 199" max length which is only 8" shorter.

mk