I think is Lancer evolution. Up there is Astra. Man what a diffuser pornMadMatt wrote:What car is that?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 20bde16edf
No offense, but many of these guys are doing significant CFD, if not windtunnel testing. That Evo you posted there that you say "more is better" is fully wind tunnel tested and designed by an ex-F1 engineer, and its performance shows. These cars are fully strain gauge'd up with IR sensors facing tires.MadMatt wrote:I think a thread needs to be created here about Time Attack cars, as we have few members on this forum that are involved in this.
First, let me tell you that I like the concept, but not the manner this competition is handled. Mostly because of medias that believe these cars are the ultimate machines around while if you look closely at most cars, it is pure guess work and just bolting as many (stupid) wings on the cars as possible. I wouldn't mind so much if they were not making a big fuss about it, but oh well.
Now that this is out of the way, I can post some pictures. Sometimes the car behind the wings is hard to recognize, and the concepts difficult to understand
Wing behind a wheel?
https://scontent-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot ... e=559D3923
What car is that?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 20bde16edf
More is better?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 5976_o.jpg
Certainly some cars are fast, but they have 900bhp to push these inefficient aero packages, and while I appreciate the effort, I have the feeling sometimes things are done just for the show.
Finally, because without numbers all this would be useless, we have the following times recorded at Eastern Creek:
- Red Bull RB7 (F1): 1:11.23 (2014)
- Lola A1GP (A1GP): 1:19.14 (2007)
- Mitsubishi Lancer Evo IX (Time Attack): 1:24.84 (2014)
- Radical SR8 (Radical Australia Cup): 1:25.70 (2013)
- Mercedes SLS AMG GT3 (GT Sports Cars): 1:27.97 (2013)
- Holden VE Commodore (V8 Supercar): 1:30.91 (2012)
One good thing tho is that you get to see a lot of ideas on the track!
Just wait that some manufacturer comes along such as what Peugeot did at Pikes Peak, and that would be the end of it, although I doubt winning this series would bring anything to the manufacturer.Cold Fussion wrote:Time attack is interesting in the sense that the car development is not very professional but the rules are very open. I wonder how this will look in 5 or 10 years if media coverage picks up. If there is enough media coverage I imagine a professional outfit will come a long with an aerodynamic package developed by something with an at least rudimentary understanding of fluid mechanics and demolish the competition (as the NEMO car did in 2012 during the WTAC).
I redirect you here where I've put some numbers up WITH SOURCES: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =5&t=21291NoDivergence wrote:Numbers exceed any Group C car ever made in terms of measured overall downforce. Measurable what each part adds by strain gauges. The tires the other cars you listed used are qualifying slicks, other than the RB7. Entire seconds can still be shaved by going on a supersoft slick tire vs the A050. If you want to really look up the difference, Buttonwillow CW#13 is a good example of slicks vs control tire. They are also limited to a 295 size tire.
If you've been following time attack for awhile, you'd know that the aero works. They've shaved off 5 seconds of laptime in 3 years.
So you don't trust CFD, do you trust windtunnel numbers? On the track numbers?
How does 5300 lbf of downforce at 240 kph sound to you, calculated at the tire? That was in 2013.
It's plenty simple that they "know what they are doing." You wanna know why? That's because the CFD matches data from the track, and the records are made. It's that simple. And not just for one car, but multiple cars that they work on, as each car has specific details that are individual (cooling from engine bay, for example). And yet every single car they've worked on is seconds faster than when they started.
It amuses me to no end that someone who does not have a horse in this race is trying to diminish these engineers when they have proven time and time again their capability and knowhow.
http://www.worldtimeattack.com/index.ph ... 015-rules/Facts Only wrote:I see that Time Attack has now come fully under the MSA in the UK for 2015 so will probably become more mainstream.
I quite like the idea, somewhere between sprints and racing. I assume that the cars have to be based on production models though as I never see kit/open cars testing for the events? This seems a bit of a lost opportunity in the UK as there is a huge group of road going kit cars from Caterhams to Locosts running in sprints and hillcimbs that I'm sure would like to try the format.
Has anybody ever attemted some sort of link up with Pikes Peak? These would be the perfect cars to send to the event.
According to the rules (as I read them, perhaps I missed something) the min weight is set as the original cars min weight minus 5%. So a 725Kg (origninal kurb weight) Suzuki Capacino with a 400bhp Turbo Busa would have the same power to weight as a 1500kg Evo/Impreza with 800bhp. But power to weight is only a tiny element, having a car that is only 1/2 the weight would give insane gains on acceleration, braking and cornering and you have a clutchless upshift 6 speed sequential gearbox as well.wesley123 wrote:The problem is weight. Afaik there is a hard limit set on the minimum weight, making such an engine pointless(not that it would ever make enough power anyways).
Due to the WTAC rules regarding wing placement a sedan or coupe would be more beneficial as the wing could be placed further away from the passenger area.