It is so difficult being a big time Indycar driver.scuderiafan wrote: but that's going to suit certain drivers and really hurt other drivers." - Dario Franchitti
And lose the green PC PR bull s*17? No way that will hapen.Jersey Tom wrote: 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.
What the problem is is that Dallara seems to blame the problems on the suppliers. Based on what Dallara delivered(the Indy is actually too slow too) I find it more likely that Dallara mde some serious mistakes rather than that the suppliers parts are that much overweight.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?
Let's say that this is a car that wasnt meant to run ballast at all, or very little to equalize the runners. They designed the car around a 48:52 weight distribution but it more came out 42:58, thus they need to place that ballast in the tip of the nose to actually make the car drivable. I am 100% sure that if Dallara did their job correctly there wouldnt be any ballast in the nose.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.
I am sure that these two wouldnt have a flawed design with a ruined weight distribtuion. Seeing with the experience Dallara got it is just disappointing to see what they delivered.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.
Agreed here, and now everyone started to make their parts lighter to reach the weight said. But what is wrong is to let the teams pay extra for mistakes that Dallara(and it's suppliers) made.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.
Of course I cannot back this up, so it is my assumption. I simply assume Dallara themselves have made some sort of error in its design. Even if every supplier part is overweight, then a 6% more rearward weight distribution is too much. It just doesnt sound right.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.
I do not see why you'd want your car to be overweight compared to others. Do you seriously think any of the teams would run their 20Lbs of ballast all the way in the front. It is an spec series and personally I would say it doesnt need ballast, in the worst case to equalize it, but not to fix a Weight Distribution that is 6% off what was aimed forAs 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.
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 didnt.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.
Dallara indeed had much more experience, so you'd expect them to take such thing into account expecially when the weight distribution is virtually the same. To state that Lola or Swift would have done a better job, hard to say. The timeframe that Dallara has to work under isnt quite helping this whole situation actually.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.
The teams have to pay for the fixes that Dallara and others are making to bring it to the target weight. The teams have to pay extra above what they already had to pay for the chassis.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.
Look at this from a engineering perspective: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.
Brian.. for once we are in agreement!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.
Indycar did specify a goal to have a lighter car with the lower powered engines so as to at least maintain current performance.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.