Bad bad comparison

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, ...
User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Do'h... because that figure is what you get without TC... Besides, the tyres are harder to be on the safe side (they last longer).

It's not only the weight and power. Wheelbase is slightly shorter in ChampCars, which means less weight transfer. Turbocharged engines respond in a different way, once they kick in they have a flatter rpm-torque curve.

Champ Cars had over 1.000 hp as recently as 2000, when JPM drove them. During the 70's, Champ Cars were definitely more potent than F1 cars. They've been using a 2.65 liters turbocharged V8 since I remember.

Champ Cars had undersides (kind of skirts), banned in F1. They develop most of their force from the tunnels in the underbody, allowing easier overtaking. This means that at slow tracks, like Laguna Seca, Bourdais was faster than Zonta by 1 second.

So, if you ask me, both series are very similar, the only difference is about 300 million dollars per season per team. ;)

Besides, that's irrelevant: NHRA leaves an F1 car in the dust any day. The couple of dragsters you see at the starting line, at over 7.000 hp each, have more power than the entire F1 grid... ;)
Ciro

nae
nae
0
Joined: 29 Mar 2006, 00:56

Post

more power than the f1 grid
and a longer stopping distance than a truck

horses for courses though init

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

I believe you Belatti, but these 0-60 figures are so fine, the differences make it almost equal in my eyes. Remember that performance is limited by the regulations and compromises to achieve optimum performance over a wide range of conditions. It's not a simple case of.. "this design uses high tech, while the other uses less modern tech, so therefore the newer tech must be faster". Heck, the absolute, undisputed kings of acceleration (Top Fuel dragsters) use pushrod, two valve technology.
And it's a disservice to the many hard working mechanics and engineers in Champ Car, to put them down without giving them the recognition of doing a fantastic job with what they have to work with.

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

Oh geez, my

opinion is simply that the last time any such comparisons made sense was when ChampCar (CART) wasn't a spec series. Then, it was possible to compare concepts, and what kind of solutions and creativity those concepts enabled. There was a real, substantial debate to be had but these "facts" ... see if I care now no matter what is claimed. In this I'm not taking anything away from ChampCar, they're awesome machines to drive and set up in their own right - but that's the problem, it's just in their own right as long as their concept is so fundamentally different from F1.

Today, if you want to create an open wheel racing series where the cars have better acceleration then F1, it's just a matter of will. The same goes for average speed and top speed. It's another thing altogether whether the end result is more, or less, sensible and exciting than F1 is. Ciro is right about underbody aero, though, it's something F1 should look into.

Belatti
Belatti
33
Joined: 10 Jul 2007, 21:48
Location: Argentina

Post

I´m getting tired of this, everyone missunderstand everything!

Look Dave, I did not put Champ car mechanics and engineers down, never ever! I myself wish would be in their place!

I´m only saying that, being fully aware of technical rules and limitations (financial and technological) of each series, it seems at least a bit strange (somebody admit it, pleeeeease) to have one car accelerating 0.4 seconds faster to that speed (if you know what does that means, its A LOT!). It seems that the Misters who published that webpage wanted to impress the average petrolhead with those numbers rather than posting real ones.

Champ cars maybe a cool fast series but thats another story!
I´m not against Champ cars, godamit! ](*,) (in fact I would like it evolves and crush IRL and becomes big like once it was Indycar series)
Only considering those numbers suspicious!!!
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Don't worry, Belatti, my man. I think we understand you. We politely point out to you the same thing: CART are nice AND they are the work of a couple of smart guys, not of an entire nation. :) So, you don't need the national gross product of a small country to develop one.

Besides, they are as fast if no faster. Some curves, like Corkscrew, cannot be taken by an F1 as fast as a CART (yes, I know CART is no longer here, but the name still is in my heart).

Anyway, what I like more about CART is that they don't proclaim their superiority, just like Belatti's signature says we should do. That's closer to the essence of racing, in my humble opinion, ehem. ;)

Sure drags cannot turn or brake. I wrote something about the racing ecosystems that different tracks bring to the world, dear nae. NHRA is about acceleration, so it will always be a point of reference.

So, claiming your car has more power or is the pinnacle of anything is a little vain, I believe. That's why every time Belatti posts pointing to differences between CART and Grand Prix racing, he gets three or four responses of "anti-vains".
Ciro

User avatar
jgredline
0
Joined: 16 Jan 2006, 07:07
Location: Los Angeles

Post

I was their at California speedway when Gil set the speed record of 241 + and straight line speed was 255MPH...It was an amazing thing to see...


On October 28, 2000 during CART qualifying, Gil de Ferran set the track record for fastest lap at 241.426 mph (388.537 km/h)
To finish first, first you must finish.

Belatti
Belatti
33
Joined: 10 Jul 2007, 21:48
Location: Argentina

Post

That is impressive jgredline!

In the Mark Cipolloni link i posted:
http://www.autoracing1.com/MarkC/2001/0 ... ormula.htm
he brings reason for some debate:
CART should keep their current 2.65 liter turbo engines for the foreseeable future. Having arrived at the conclusion that Champ Cars are only too fast on the superspeedways (Texas, Michigan and Fontana), much like NASCAR at Daytona and Talladega, perhaps CART's version of a restrictor plate is in order. Not an engine restrictor plate, but an aerodynamic restrictor plate. The Handford Device has proven that it can control speeds through aerodynamic drag, just like NASCAR's carburetor restrictor plate has controlled speeds by starving a cars engine for air. However, whereas NASCAR has changed the size of their 'engine' restrictor plate to control speeds, CART has yet to change the size of their 'aerodynamic' restrictor device for the Superspeedways.

There is nothing stopping CART from inducing more drag on their cars by making the 'parachute' type effect of the Handford Device even more effective. The vertical plate on the back of the Handford Device can be made taller each year to keep terminal speeds in check (say, 235 mph max. straightaway speed) at Texas, Michigan and Fontana. Simple wind tunnel tests will enable CART to determine if the change in any one given year should be 1/4", 1/2", 1" or more. Each additional 1" added to the Handford Device is equivalent to losing about 30 HP from the engine. You'd need to add nearly equal amounts top & bottom to keep the downforce the same and just add drag.
the article is very nice to read and shows how all the technological progress made by engineers is thrown to the garbage can because speeds increase so much... in spanish we would say "es un mal necesario" like money is
also there is this other article:
CART has a dilemma. Their Champ Cars make too much HP for ovals, yet just the right amount for road courses. The racing show on ovals is suffering because the aerodynamic band-aides needed to slow the cars make them unsettled. Yet on road courses the 'show' is better than it has ever been. The engine manufacturers may leave CART if they go to a technology restricted formula such as what NASCAR and the IRL use. What is CART to do? Read and find out.
Its difficult to make the same cars run in so different kind of tracks...

this leads me to think... and allow me to change a bit the topic (after all I started it) but does somebody know the difference between Nascar "till 2007 cars" and the COT (car of tomorrow) ???
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

The COT is a totally new design, even though it's diffficult to distinguish the new from old. But externally, the COT differs in having a rear wing instead of spoiler, and the nose has a splitter plate instead of an air dam. Additionally, the driver's greenhouse is enlarged to afford more driver protection.
http://www.jayski.com/schemes/2006/COT.htm

User avatar
jgredline
0
Joined: 16 Jan 2006, 07:07
Location: Los Angeles

Post

Belatti
Those are some good articles, thanks...
There was a time when it was ''almost'' fair to compare the CART of old, late 80's through most of the 90's with F1...
Now sadly, owners and drivers in both CART and the IRL realize that there series is a feeder system for F1, but is it really? JPM was last of the true race car drivers to have come out of CART...Marco Andretti, does not look to have what it takes...He was beat soundly last year by both Kannan and Franchiti..

Sea Bass, while he made it to F1, Look what it took...4 CART titles..Does he have what it takes? Time will tell...He was not racing anyone in CART...And when I see ''F1 back markers'' AKA moving chicanes, come and do well in CART, It says even less about the CART series...

Frankly, it turns out that ''ole'' Nascar is not that easy...The fact that JPM did so well by Nascar standards is amazing and what people do not realize is that chip gannasi racing is a mid level team at best, yet JPM had them in the front many times...I hope coultard really does come over as well as other F1 drivers...It is great for NASCAR and great for the fan, ''me''....

Now to put things into proper perspective as I see it...
With the COT it is more than ever going to come down to Hp...This is why Gibbs changed to Toyota...Last year by the end of the season the Toyota's had the most HP and that was TRD...With Gibbs engine dept, that is a huge advantage to Gibbs / Toyota COT program...

With F1 it is the other way around..HP is not nearly as critical as the chassis..One only needs to look at the back markers and Toyota is a great example...They got beat like a little red headed step child by Williams last year...

Back in the mid 80'S and the Renault turbos and Honda turbos where in the 1500Hp range for qualifying, that was great stuff...One of those engines in todays chassis, and you will have something!!!!
To finish first, first you must finish.

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Allow me to add (as always) that CANAM cars were the best in that respect (raw power in a circuit). That's why I'll allways admire the ill fated Mark Donahue, who said "it will never have enough power until I can spin the wheels at the end of the straightaway in high gear" and "If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough horsepower." That's what I'm talking about, baby! :)

McLaren M1A, drove by Bruce McLaren
Image

I quote: "these land-bound rockets outgunned even the Formula 1 cars of the era. It was a series of excess—too much power, too little weight and too much fun! With nowhere near enough tires and brakes, it made for exciting racing, but the wide-open rules that made it so compelling were ultimately the cause of its demise."

I think that the Porsche 917/30 is probably the most potent car in the history of track racing. Yeah, I know Renault achieved the same horsepower, but the torque? Read again Donahue's words...

Porsche 917-30, 1580 hp, 394 km/h, V12, 5.5 liters, turbocharged
Try to "pinnacle" this car! ;)
Image
For the "pinnacleists", CANAM introduced most of the technologies that F1 has adopted as their own:

- first effective turbocharging

- first wings

- first ground effect

- first use of titanium

Autocoast Ti22
Image

- first use of moveable skirts (made of Lexan!)

Chaparral 2J
Image

- first use of fan for ground effect

Chaparral 2J
Image

- first use of smaller wheels for less drag

Shadow AVS
Image
I wait for your collective "brain power" to make clear if I'm right about this list of "firsts". Thanks in advance for any collaboration or contradiction, specially for the first three claims (first ground effect, first wings and first turbocharging) as I was not able to identify the specific cars in which that was achieved.
Last edited by Ciro Pabón on 20 Dec 2007, 19:30, edited 2 times in total.
Ciro

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

Speaking of

CANAM, you might want to visit LMP Engineering's website (link), it's a nice project and presented quite beautifully. All the links are not very obvious though, so keep clicking on the images even if the cursor doesn't indicate a link. And while you're viewing an enlarged image, move the cursor towards the right edge of the picture window to see whether there are more images under that heading.

Image
Image linked from lmp-engineering.de

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

Ciro I wouldn't call it 'effective turbocharging', it only raced a few times and wasn't retained & can't be sure it was the first example of a turbo race engine.

Bob McKee built cars that were run in the Can-Am from 1966 through 1969. The most famous one was named the Cro-Sal Special. Raced in 1969, it had a turbocharged Oldsmobile engine -- the first turbocharged engine in the Can-Am.The engine was a 455CID Oldsmobile 2 valve cast in aluminum. The engine was also made in non-turbo 2 and 4 valve versions. The 4 valve aluminum head/block produced 700HP at 6800RPM
http://www.classicoldsmobile.com/tech/32.shtml

Ever lusted after the aluminum 427CID used in the 1968 Mclaren? Yes the ZL-1 620HP engine GM produced that year for the series.

Well the story is, some keen eyed GM engineer spotted the original race motor castings and tooling in a Detroit scrap yard in 2006... GM restored the machining and 200 of the competition short blocks are being produced in 2007-8 at 20,000USD each. The perfect Xmas present.

Another classic fever of engineering was the 4 engine Macs-It CANAM Special ... with a rotax 2 stroke engine at each wheel ... Maybe another Group 7 marque - Ferrari will compete and release a crated 6.9 L V-12 from the 612 CANAM

Titanium - I think F1 may have used it before CANAM. The 1967 Eagle had titanium pins cast into the rear aluminum uprights.

CANAM was an interesting series.

Ciro - It may surprise you - The sun also shines on N. America :D
EDIT - I believe the 917-30 was a flat 12.


May everyone find happiness and prosperity in the New Year

Giblet
Giblet
5
Joined: 19 Mar 2007, 01:47
Location: Canada

Post

I beleive in the 60's that CANAM cars and F1 cars all raced on the same track, the site of the Canadian GP, Mosport in Bowmanville Ontario.

A comparison of laptimes would be neat.

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Carlos wrote:Ciro - It may surprise you - The sun also shines on N. America :D
EDIT - I believe the 917-30 was a flat 12.
Yes, it surprises me. How long has been since you went outside your house? I've heard Belatti's Christmas palm wouldn't survive these days in most of Canada for five minutes (except close to the fireplace)... :)

Yes, it was a flat 12, that's true, but I've seen the V-12 mentioned. Perhaps they changed the engine through the 917 development?

About the titanium pins, thanks for the info, I had no idea. However, the CANAM Ti22, a radical car by a very surprising cockney mechanic, had chassis and suspension components made of titanium. Unreliable and unlucky it was.
Ciro