Time Attack

Please discuss here all your remarks and pose your questions about all racing series, except Formula One. Both technical and other questions about GP2, Touring cars, IRL, LMS, ...
MadMatt
147
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:04 pm

Time Attack

Post by MadMatt » Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:22 am

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 :lol:

Wing behind a wheel?
Image

What car is that?
Image

More is better?
Image

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!

Cold Fussion
136
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

Re: Time Attack

Post by Cold Fussion » Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:49 am

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).

F1NAC
158
User avatar
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:35 pm
Location: CRO

Re: Time Attack

Post by F1NAC » Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:02 am

I think is Lancer evolution. Up there is Astra. Man what a diffuser porn

wesley123
215
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: Time Attack

Post by wesley123 » Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:04 pm

Time Attack certainly (still) is a sport where guys can show up with their cars prepared in their own garage just to have some fun. Lots of aero certainly is throwing spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks, but i guess that's also the fun part about the whole culture.

In recent years this certainly has changed when Nemo was found and wrecked the whole field. It has certainly become more professional at the top-end of the field, throwing spaghetti at the wall doesn't work anymore and specialized aero kits are being built, often designed by Mr. Andrew Brilliant.

The atmosphere has certainly changed from highly tuned cars to dedicated prototypes that share very little from their real-life counterparts.
Image
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

NoDivergence
28
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:52 am

Re: Time Attack

Post by NoDivergence » Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:37 pm

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 :lol:

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!
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.

The lap time the Tilton Evo did in 2014 was on grooved tires and while losing 500 hp coming onto the main straight.

I don't think you have any idea about what these guys are doing. Just because this is a series where efficiency can be overcome with power doesn't mean these guys aren't producing the most downforce of any car in existence.

And "wing" behind the wheel isn't a new concept at all, in fact it's totally sensible. Go run it in one of your CFD models and you'll see.

Nakajima, Barry Lock, and Andrew Brilliant aren't chumps putting aero parts on for no reason.

MadMatt
147
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:04 pm

Re: Time Attack

Post by MadMatt » Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:37 pm

Well, that's a nice answer. You assume that because people are doing CFD or are ex-F1 engineers they know "how to do it". In motorsport (maybe more than anywhere else), many people "know" if you see what I mean (you get a good view of that on forums). So you might be a current F1 engineer that I wouldn't care unless you prove yourself, but obviousely if you were, you wouldn't have time to write messages on forums! :)

You mention grooved tyres. How grooved are actually these tyres? How soft? As far as I know when F1 went to grooved tyres (1998), it didn't take long to have tyres better than the slicks they had! Also you might have a crappy old hard slick tyre VS a new soft grooved tyre, so just saying grooved tyre is pointless. What do you know about the other lap times I posted (tyres used for example)? I am not going to mention the "500bhp loss" as having your car right for a single lap is hmmm.

I have a good idea of what these people are doing as I have been following Time Attack well before it became mainstream. To be fair Time Attack is just a circuit form of hillclimb racing where people have been experimenting years before Time Attack (check the Berg Cup).

Your last answer is wrong as well. Everybody can make a mistakes (take example on some F1 engineers to remain in your engineer subject that did the aero work on the F1 Ferrari lately). It doesn't mean that because someone did X on a car that it will work. And if it does, can you measure what this part brought to the car performance?

You mention CFD, do you actually have numbers to share? I would be interested!

Things are not as simple as "being an ex-F1 engineer" or "knowing his stuff with CFD"... :wink:

I admire the work that people do to prepare the cars but its the fuss I don't like.
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).
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.

NoDivergence
28
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:52 am

Re: Time Attack

Post by NoDivergence » Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:26 pm

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.

wesley123
215
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: Time Attack

Post by wesley123 » Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:29 pm

Since we're talking about bolting on wings;
Image
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

MadMatt
147
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:04 pm

Re: Time Attack

Post by MadMatt » Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:14 pm

NoDivergence 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.
I redirect you here where I've put some numbers up WITH SOURCES: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =5&t=21291

You will see that you remark on group C is wrong. Plus you are comparing a FIA limited formula of 30 years ago with some today's technology with no rules.

You are making a general rule of the Time Attack series based on 2-3 top cars while most of the field is not what you are saying.

I imagine why you are taking this personally and you are missing my point here, but its ok. I am here to discuss about the cars, and yet nobody really spoke about the pictures I posted. Besides, your comment on wings behind the wheels is wrong, I did try this on one of my model if you check my blog entry from May 2013 you would actually see that I did some CFD with a wing behind the wheel of a S14 Subaru Impreza, but well I'm not here to justify myself, again what works on a car might not work on another.

I am yet to see any new concept there rather than applying Katz, Hutcho or McBeath! :wink:

Andrew is around, let's hope he can share some technical pictures of his work, THIS would be interesting.

NoDivergence
28
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:52 am

Re: Time Attack

Post by NoDivergence » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:51 am

Wasn't it you who said you didn't trust #'s? Sorry, but windtunnel extrapolations out to 200 mph are not real world.

Here it is, straight from Andrew Brilliant.
http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ ... ment918413

That was in 2013 with no additional development. Under Suzuki's car makes significantly more downforce than that car.

As for the rest of the field, just look at the laptime delta from 2010. It's massive...

What parametric studies did you do for the wing behind wheel test? I'm hoping it's at least wheel rpm, wing height location, wing width, wing geometry, tire width, wing angle of attack. Not to mention any flow coming from around the fender/tire.

As for if Nakajima knows what he is doing, look at the Evasive S2000. It had limited changes other than aero, and it shaved off a massive amount of time.

Facts Only
270
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:25 am

Re: Time Attack

Post by Facts Only » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:05 pm

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.
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver

Cold Fussion
136
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

Re: Time Attack

Post by Cold Fussion » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:10 am

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.
http://www.worldtimeattack.com/index.ph ... 015-rules/

Facts Only
270
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:25 am

Re: Time Attack

Post by Facts Only » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:37 am

Those rules make an interesting read, very open aero rules but surprisingly tight on the chassis.

If I was building a car I would start with a tiny Kei car (Something like a Honda Beat) and fit an ex hillclimb Turbo Hayabusa engine seeing as how you change the engine for anything from a vehicle manuafacturer with the same number of cylinders and gearbox is free.

I assume somebody has already thought of this though. Or am I missing a rule that would prevent it?
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver

wesley123
215
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: Time Attack

Post by wesley123 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:17 pm

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.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

Facts Only
270
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:25 am

Re: Time Attack

Post by Facts Only » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:45 pm

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.
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.
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver