scuderiafan wrote: but that's going to suit certain drivers and really hurt other drivers." - Dario Franchitti
It is so difficult being a big time Indycar driver.
Jersey Tom wrote:A few other points worth discussing... for those adamant that the suppliers couldn't possibly be at fault for missing weight targets - onwhat are you basing this VERY bold presumption?
Beyond that, the claim that ballast is being used to make up for a "flawed" weight distribution rather than a tuning tool... how is there any distinction? Take the ballast out of just about any racecar and the static distribution isn't magically going to be what you necessarily want it to be. There is a certain reality that you can't escape in component packaging and placement, and a limitation in what distribution you can realistically achieve. I know this first hand, I've done it before.
Would Swift or Lola or anyone else have done better? That's very tough to say. Pulling several HUNDRED pounds out of an already lightweight car is a massive challenge and I could certainly see it leading to being painted into a box.
In any event, the point is still that you have to take a logical and fair assessment of these things. Even more important is one of the best life lessons of all: When you have a problem, wasting time pointing fingers, shuffling blame, and/or getting worked up and emotional will do you no good. The only thing that matters is finding the most reasonable solution, which in this case is to bump the minimum weight back up and let the teams ballast the cars the way they want to.
Jersey Tom wrote:So supposedly (I haven't personally confirmed this), Dallara claims they had issues with what the suppliers delivered - presumably overweight. But you think this is somehow not the case and is some conspiracy by Dallara, covering up god knows what? I don't see any probable reason why that would be the case. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
As for cars being designed to not run ballast.. that makes no sense to me. Any car designer wants to be able to run as much ballast as possible. Any race team wants to be able to run as much ballast as possible.
Here's what I see as a plausible chain of events: ICONIC or IndyCar or whoever the hell set a chassis spec to Dallara, who have won the contract based on their conceptual work business proposition. Dallara has a very aggressive weight reduction target they have to meet, which likely is going to make it very challenging to have much working room to ballast the car. They do their initial design work and put placeholders for supplied parts and their anticipated weighs, and design around that to hit their design targets. Later in the design stage Dallara gets the final pieces from their various suppliers to find that they are appreciably overweight. At this point it's too late to spec another supplied part or to do fundamental redesign. They're stuck with what they have, and by being a bit overweight their headroom for ballasting and adjusting nose weight has shrunk.
Now to the point of other chassis manufacturers... first you effectively say, "Dallara has so much experience, it's crazy and disappointing that they goofed this much." This is followed up with, "Well I can't imagine Swift or Lola would have done this." How are they any different than Dallara? You couldn't imagine Dallara "screwing up," but did... if you couldn't imagine Swift or Lola "screwing up" how is that any different? I could see the same series of events going down and screwing anyone.
In any event, simplest solution is still to raise the minimum weight. I don't see how that is making the teams "pay" for anything.
wesley123 wrote:That is the case yes. But 6% is just too much. Apart from that, First builds are always a little bit heavier and Dallara just had to take that into account, which in my eyes seem like they didn't.
hardingfv32 wrote:Look at this from a engineering perspective:
If you remove the engine and transmission from the equation, what do are you left to work with to achieve the specified lightening goals? If you assume the old cars were reasonably designed and used somewhat current manufacturing techniques, where are the weight savings going to be found? I wound assume the strengths and safety requirements are not any lower.
It would seem the engine and transmission weights would need to play a big role in the weight reduction effort.
wesley123 wrote:I personally think they didnt need to set such an low target for themselves, I mean for waht was it needed? I am sure they will lower the weight in following seasons but to set a goal you are never going to reach is a bit over optimistic and after that admit you are wrong and you've made mistakes, but no now everyone has to work extra hard just because Dallara didnt meet their goals.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest