Jason
--
don
-------------------------------------
BAPOM
Alternative Program Covers for GPL
http://www.trilon.com/bapom/
> >It would seem Bernard is merely waiting the remainder of the Indy
> >contract for such to happen. (if the rumors have any truth to them)
> Interesting. Well, if Bernie and Pook team up, I would guess that
> would remove any roadblocks, no? I'm assuming Pook is still the
> "owner" of that event, unless he's handed it off to someone.
> Jason
Erm...what are you saying? Everyone knows that CARTs use caveman technology
compared to F1. What would it prove? I believe the F1s were something like
7 seconds quicker in lap times at Montreal. As for the drivers, well, I
think it's possible for a class driver to emerge from any series.
> > >> > Dunno, CART always looks like amateur hour to me after watching
F1.
> I
> > >can't
> > >> > believe how dodgy some of those CART tracks look. Some of them
make
> > >Monaco
> > >> > look good.
> > >A certain bumpy old concrete airport comes to mind. In general,
the
> street
> > >circuits look like they were set up by 'racetracks-are-us'
> > Funny, I think that bumpy old airport is one of the most brilliant
> racetracks
> > of the past twenty years.
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Dan Belcher
> Even my wife, who HATES racing, remembers the Cleveland race with
> Jacques and Robbie Gordon driving themselves off the pavement, and
Robbie
> cussing on the Radio because Mikey Andrettie Cut his tires with a
front wing
> endplate not ONCE but TWICE!! Ah yes...cleveland is a fine racing
> enviroment.
> But clearly it is not the best the US has to offer. I dare anyone
to find
> a more complete track than Mid Ohio. With it's blind corners,
elevation
> changes, fast and slow sections...it is magic(and I'm not talking
about the
> the sim-ports of ICR2)
> Road Atlanta, Road America two fine high speed circuits...Laguna
> is...well home of the Corkscrew, a turn that rivals Eau Rouge in
> complexity(but certainly not in speed)
> I'm not thrilled with most street courses...although for 20 or 30
years
> the course at Long Beach has shown you CAN have racing inside a City.
But I
> would take simple Portland over those Chicaned-Nuetered tracks
anyday. If
> you got rid of that Bastard wiggle at the end of Suzuka, they'd have a
truly
> admirable circut. Monza? (it's a ghost of it's former self) and San
> Marino? With the Senna safety mods, that track is about as exciting
as ....
> as ....
> Spa? A truly Classic circuit...magnificent UNTIL you reach the end
of the
> lap...what an absolutely awful way to slow the cars down before the
> grandstands.
> Modern F1 tracks can be summarized by the newer Nurburging. I
watched
> a DTM race there from last season(on the tv, I didn't attend) and the
cars
> didn't wiggle, didn't bounce, had barely ANY attitude change while
> negotiating a wide smooth grippy track. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz MAN!
Give me
> one of those tiny tiny bumpy Scottish tracks with BTCC touring cars
banging
> away at each other for lap after lap..
> dave henrie
Overall what I am saying is make a match race kind of like when Donovan
Bailey went against that American runner with the gold shoes (YIKES this
could start a war of another kind)
> Erm...what are you saying? Everyone knows that CARTs use caveman technology
> compared to F1. What would it prove? I believe the F1s were something like
> 7 seconds quicker in lap times at Montreal. As for the drivers, well, I
> think it's possible for a class driver to emerge from any series.
pssst Wayne...I DID mention Elkhart....whaddya think Road America is????
:)
dave henrie
The biggest problem is the brakes. F1 carbon brakes are just sooooooooooo
much more effective than the steel Cart brakes. No Matter how fast each car
is....they still have to stop and there, the F1 cars have a HUGE advantage.
Now take those F1 cars and run them at CALIFORNIA. The drag coeficient
alone of the F1 chassis will make them look like bricks. Even with a 2001
Hockenheim wing package, the F1 tub has more 'built in' downforce. They
could never trim the cars out enough without major modifications.
On any roadcourse the F1 car will win, be it a tight track like Mid Ohio
or an open screamer like
Elkhart Lake(Road America) due to braking, and acceleration advantages.
But put them on a BIG oval and you will see 6 F1 cars lapped in fairly short
order. I wonder how many laps an F1 engine would last at 19K(or k?) rpms
and no lifting????
Dave Henrie
>>True but it would be like an open wheel IROC kind of thing. Except the
>>drivers get to use their regular equipment. The fundamentals of the cars
>>aren't that different. Open wheels, front and rear wings. Just the
>>technology under that (eg F1's over use of electronics and computers).
>>On some of the tracks (granted street circuits come to mind) that CART
>>picked up after F1 left them (eg. Detroit and Long Beach.), the CART
>>cars seemed to be much more entertaining to watch. Then out of
>>curiosity, how would the two cars compare at a place like Elhart Lake.
>>As for Montreal, who knows what next year will be like. Maybe the CART
>>cars will have much quicker lap times now that the drivers have run
>>there and kind of know the place better. Look at the USGP. The pole
>>timee in 2001 was 3 seconds faster than the year before because the
>>drivers and teams knew the place.
> The biggest problem is the brakes. F1 carbon brakes are just sooooooooooo
> much more effective than the steel Cart brakes. No Matter how fast each car
> is....they still have to stop and there, the F1 cars have a HUGE advantage.
> Now take those F1 cars and run them at CALIFORNIA. The drag coeficient
> alone of the F1 chassis will make them look like bricks. Even with a 2001
> Hockenheim wing package, the F1 tub has more 'built in' downforce. They
> could never trim the cars out enough without major modifications.
> On any roadcourse the F1 car will win, be it a tight track like Mid Ohio
> or an open screamer like
> Elkhart Lake(Road America) due to braking, and acceleration advantages.
> But put them on a BIG oval and you will see 6 F1 cars lapped in fairly short
> order. I wonder how many laps an F1 engine would last at 19K(or k?) rpms
> and no lifting????
> Dave Henrie
SB
> >>True but it would be like an open wheel IROC kind of thing. Except the
> >>drivers get to use their regular equipment. The fundamentals of the cars
> >>aren't that different. Open wheels, front and rear wings. Just the
> >>technology under that (eg F1's over use of electronics and computers).
> >>On some of the tracks (granted street circuits come to mind) that CART
> >>picked up after F1 left them (eg. Detroit and Long Beach.), the CART
> >>cars seemed to be much more entertaining to watch. Then out of
> >>curiosity, how would the two cars compare at a place like Elhart Lake.
> >>As for Montreal, who knows what next year will be like. Maybe the CART
> >>cars will have much quicker lap times now that the drivers have run
> >>there and kind of know the place better. Look at the USGP. The pole
> >>timee in 2001 was 3 seconds faster than the year before because the
> >>drivers and teams knew the place.
> > The biggest problem is the brakes. F1 carbon brakes are just
sooooooooooo
> > much more effective than the steel Cart brakes. No Matter how fast each
car
> > is....they still have to stop and there, the F1 cars have a HUGE
advantage.
> > Now take those F1 cars and run them at CALIFORNIA. The drag coeficient
> > alone of the F1 chassis will make them look like bricks. Even with a
2001
> > Hockenheim wing package, the F1 tub has more 'built in' downforce. They
> > could never trim the cars out enough without major modifications.
> > On any roadcourse the F1 car will win, be it a tight track like Mid
Ohio
> > or an open screamer like
> > Elkhart Lake(Road America) due to braking, and acceleration
advantages.
> > But put them on a BIG oval and you will see 6 F1 cars lapped in fairly
short
> > order. I wonder how many laps an F1 engine would last at 19K(or k?)
rpms
> > and no lifting????
> > Dave Henrie
The difference between carbon and steel rotors actually isn't that big
in reality. I don't know what regulations CART has regarding brakes,
but they sure brake worse than the F1's(in the incar footage at
Montreal the champcars braked at the 200 sign before the chicane,
whereas the F1's at about 130-150m). If champcars are bound to have
standardized brakes it's probably there the difference lies, that and
the extra 200kg. Otherwise you make brakes that fully use the traction
of the tyres at any time, be it carbon or steel. The notion that you
would have lots longer brake distances just because you change to
steel discs is just a pipe dream.
The maximum friction isn't the major advantage of carbon fiber brakes,
the absolutely biggest gain is that they are 3-4kg lighter than steel
brakes. In fact I've heard that the complete brake assembly on one
wheel weighs about a kilogram. All wheels combined, you save as much
as 15kg in _unsprung_ weight, which makes a _lot_ of difference in
roadholding capabilities.
The other advantages like no fading, heat resistance and high
tolerance for abuse is comparatively insignificant. And the gain also
outweighs the disadvantages, like progressiveness and that you have to
keep the temperatures up(well... that goes for most racing brakes, but
not to the same extent).
I don't like the talk of reducing the brake efficiency like so many
do. You _should_ have brakes that fully uses the tyre traction.
Otherwise you could aswell allow ABS, because you wouldn't be able to
lock up the wheels anyhow! If the brake distance is to be longer, you
reduce the grip, not the brakes.
/Magnus
> >I admit I always did wonder what F1 cars would be like on ovals. Thanks
> >for the info on brakes Dave, I didn't know about the carbons/steel
> >difference.
> The difference between carbon and steel rotors actually isn't that big
> in reality. I don't know what regulations CART has regarding brakes,
> but they sure brake worse than the F1's(in the incar footage at
> Montreal the champcars braked at the 200 sign before the chicane,
> whereas the F1's at about 130-150m). If champcars are bound to have
> standardized brakes it's probably there the difference lies, that and
> the extra 200kg. Otherwise you make brakes that fully use the traction
> of the tyres at any time, be it carbon or steel. The notion that you
> would have lots longer brake distances just because you change to
> steel discs is just a pipe dream.
In fact the last time steel brakes were tried (as far as I know) was in
1999 by Zanardi/Williams and they found they actually offered slightly
more stopping power than carbon. Williams still prefered carbon due
to the reduction in unsprung mass and rotational inertia however.
As to the bit about ABS, I think it is pretty hard (impossible?) to lock
the wheels up at high speed/downforce, the drivers have to ease off
the brakes as the downforce reduces with speed to stop locking up.
I believe CARTs greater braking distance is down to the extra
mass, less grip/downforce, and less drag.
Paul
That's pretty bizarre since he's the person who thought it would be a
good idea to race cars there in the first place.
That said, with the lack of CART sims at least if it moves to F1
there's a chance in hell we'll be able to drive it finally.
Jason
