IndyCar series

[jumbopackage]

Personally, I'd like to see what would happen if an Indy car ran at either Daytona or Talladega. Would we end up seeing some cars go airborne?

I doubt it. They don't go airborne very often at Indy, and it's not a significantly different track from Daytona or Talledega from the open wheel perspective in terms of speed or handling. I think Indy cars at Daytona would be pretty damned boring, to be honest. Kinda like Nascar at Daytona.

[wesley_w]

I doubt it. They don't go airborne very often at Indy, and it's not a significantly different track from Daytona or Talledega from the open wheel perspective in terms of speed or handling. I think Indy cars at Daytona would be pretty damned boring, to be honest. Kinda like Nascar at Daytona.

Actually, Indy is about as different from Daytona or Talladega as you can get. The turns at IMS are banked 9 degrees 15 minutes so it's pretty flat. The only similarity is the track length.
I believe that structurally an Indycar would not be able to take the enormous loads that would occur on the high banks of the other two tracks. I'm talking about the uprights and other suspension pieces. I think this has been beefed up in recent years and certainly COULD be strengthened enough, I suppose. But I don't think in it's present form an Indycar could do it.

[jdoggivjc]

I doubt it. They don't go airborne very often at Indy, and it's not a significantly different track from Daytona or Talledega from the open wheel perspective in terms of speed or handling. I think Indy cars at Daytona would be pretty damned boring, to be honest. Kinda like Nascar at Daytona.

Then you've never seen a race at Daytona. I went to the Pepsi 400 in 2000. I've been hooked on NASCAR since (yeah, I know, not a popular answer in this thread).

[jdoggivjc]

Actually, Indy is about as different from Daytona or Talladega as you can get. The turns at IMS are banked 9 degrees 15 minutes so it's pretty flat. The only similarity is the track length.
I believe that structurally an Indycar would not be able to take the enormous loads that would occur on the high banks of the other two tracks. I'm talking about the uprights and other suspension pieces. I think this has been beefed up in recent years and certainly COULD be strengthened enough, I suppose. But I don't think in it's present form an Indycar could do it.

I'm just curious how fast they could get at a track such as Daytona or Talladega. I know I've seen Indycars over 220 at Texas, but stock cars not scratching 200 there. If you took the restrictor plates off the stock cars at Daytona and Talladega, they'd be well over 200 mph, and that's basically because of the banking braking is minimal. It just makes me curious just how fast an Indycar could go at such a track...

[jumbopackage]

Actually, Indy is about as different from Daytona or Talladega as you can get. The turns at IMS are banked 9 degrees 15 minutes so it's pretty flat. The only similarity is the track length.
I believe that structurally an Indycar would not be able to take the enormous loads that would occur on the high banks of the other two tracks. I'm talking about the uprights and other suspension pieces. I think this has been beefed up in recent years and certainly COULD be strengthened enough, I suppose. But I don't think in it's present form an Indycar could do it.

Agreed, that the banking is different, but you can put enough grip in Indy cars that it doesn't make that huge of a difference.

Daytona would probably be easier on the cars than Indy. More banking = less stress on the suspension components. If the interstates all had flat corners with the same radiuses, and you drove the same speed around them as you do on a banked corner, which do you think would be harder on the car?

[jdoggivjc]

Agreed, that the banking is different, but you can put enough grip in Indy cars that it doesn't make that huge of a difference.

Daytona would probably be easier on the cars than Indy. More banking = less stress on the suspension components. If the interstates all had flat corners with the same radiuses, and you drove the same speed around them as you do on a banked corner, which do you think would be harder on the car?

Wouldn't be so hard on the car as much as it'd be much easier to lose control of the car, especially in wet/snowy/icy conditions.

[jumbopackage]

Then you've never seen a race at Daytona. I went to the Pepsi 400 in 2000. I've been hooked on NASCAR since (yeah, I know, not a popular answer in this thread).

My g/f is a huge nascar fan. I've been to race or two and nearly fell asleep 4 or 5 times. It's just not compelling racing. Most NASCAR fans are in it because they like a driver and like the whole drama aspect of it. I like racing because I like the competition. Nascar (especially Daytona) is about 75% luck.

I'm just curious how fast they could get at a track such as Daytona or Talladega. I know I've seen Indycars over 220 at Texas, but stock cars not scratching 200 there. If you took the restrictor plates off the stock cars at Daytona and Talladega, they'd be well over 200 mph, and that's basically because of the banking braking is minimal. It just makes me curious just how fast an Indycar could go at such a track...

Top speeds are different than fast lap speeds. What makes you go fast in the straight away is the least amount of downforce (and drag). What makes you go fast in the corners is the most downforce you can get. I'd guess you could push a modern indy car up to around 220 or so with a crappy handling car.

F1 cars, which have 100 more horsepower and weigh a couple hundred pounds less usually top out in the 230 range.
I think the record (from a few years ago when F1 cars were still putting out more than 1k HP ) is around 250.

The real advantage that F1 cars or IRL cars have as far as race cars go is that they handle so well (brake so quickly and have so much grip). It's why it's really such a waste to run them on ovals.

[wesley_w]

The lateral forces are significant on high bank tracks. When the IRL went to Texas the first time there were a whole bunch of suspension failures. They beefed them up before the next season plus they have a mandatory minimum wing angle to keep the cars slower.
It takes a lot of grip and downforce to run fast at Indy on the flat corners but the cars (especially in qualifying) are on a knifes edge with regard to grip. Any driver I've spoken with has said that high bank tracks are WAY easier to drive.
The last year with the turbocharged engines(1996) Arie Luyendyk ran 239+ in one of his qualifying laps and said afterwards he could actually feel the chassis flex.

[jumbopackage]

The lateral forces are significant on high bank tracks. When the IRL went to Texas the first time there were a whole bunch of suspension failures. They beefed them up before the next season plus they have a mandatory minimum wing angle to keep the cars slower.
It takes a lot of grip and downforce to run fast at Indy on the flat corners but the cars (especially in qualifying) are on a knifes edge with regard to grip. Any driver I've spoken with has said that high bank tracks are WAY easier to drive.
The last year with the turbocharged engines(1996) Arie Luyendyk ran 239+ in one of his qualifying laps and said afterwards he could actually feel the chassis flex.

The high bank tracks are indeed way easier to drive. Daytona has 31 degree banking while Texas has 24 degree. That's a fairly big difference. The steeper the banking, the less lateral G force, and the more vertical G force. Of course the G force itself might be higher at a track where you can run faster through the corners, but the point is that the suspension has less lateral force on it on a high bank track than a shallow bank track at the same speed.

[SpokaneCY]

I guess alot of you guys might not even know this, but about 13 years ago there was a split in American open wheel racing and one series was spun into two series. The result, while to me it needed to happen, was that Indycar racing about fell off the map.
Later today there will be a press conference announcing the reunification of the two series. Through it all, the Indianapolis 500 has remained the most attended single day sporting event in the world but has taken a beating in the press and with fans. It would be like if the NFl split into two competing leagues with half the players in each league.
Anyway, I hope IndyCar racing will regain it's prominence and some of you give it a look!!

Tony George and has inbred clan all but ruined openwheel racing.

As a side note, I lived in Indy for 6 years (through 1996) and was a dead-ringer for Paul Tracy back then. We'd spend lots of time at or near the track and I was approached many times by autograph seekers. I almost got sex out of it, but my wife was NOT amused...

[taco2000]

My guess is you could run either a IRL car or Champ car around Daytona or Talledega without wings just because of the ground force they generate under the car.
Mauricio Guglemin went just over 240 way back when (97) in qualifying for a CART race @ California

That may have been the same year CART cancelled their Texas race the day of the race because the drivers were getting vertigo from the lateral and vertical G's the were generating. They feared drivers blacking out.

[jumbopackage]

Tony George and has inbred clan all but ruined openwheel racing.

In the US anyway. F1 is still insanely popular worldwide. Outside of that, I pretty much agree with that sentiment. Had CART kept the Indy 500 as part of their schedule instead of IRL, I don't think IRL would have ever had a shot.

It's a shame that Tony George pretty much held the open wheel racing world hostage with his race track. Had it not been for that, we may have been talking about an F1-CART merger at this point, and how awesome would THAT be?

[jumbopackage]

My guess is you could run either a IRL car or Champ car around Daytona or Talledega without wings just because of the ground force they generate under the car.
Mauricio Guglemin went just over 240 way back when (97) in qualifying for a CART race @ California

That may have been the same year CART cancelled their Texas race the day of the race because the drivers were getting vertigo from the lateral and vertical G's the were generating. They feared drivers blacking out.

There's NO way you could run an open wheel car without wings around either of those tracks. An IRL car only weighs 1600 lbs, and a fair amount of that is towards the back of the car. It'd flip over like a leaf above probably 80 MPH without wings. As soon as you hit a corner it'd be ***-around-teakettle as well. They get balanced at speed due to downforce distribution from the various aero surfaces.

Compare that to a Sprint cup car that weighs 3200 lbs, and has a ton more surface area to push down with, and even those are all over the place at speed.

Back in '97, IRL cars had a lot more horsepower and speed than they do now. They are intentionally slowed down (aero settings and engine displacement) because ovals are just inherently more dangerous than road courses and too many people were getting injured and killed.

[wesley_w]

Had CART kept the Indy 500 as part of their schedule instead of IRL, I don't think IRL would have ever had a shot.

I'm not being argumentative, but even though the CART teams raced in the 500, it was never a CART sanctioned race. It was sanctioned by USAC and then the USAC officials kind of morphed into the IRL. Although it did count as points in the CART championship.
Again, I'm not trying to be a smartass Jumbo because your point is well taken, I just wanted to point this fact out. I will never be in disagreement that when the split occurred the best teams and drivers went to CART.
When I first started going, the 500 was even an F1 points paying race and I got to see Jimmy Clark (my all time favorite) and Graham Hill and Jackie Stewart all race live!!! That was a great era because there was a mixture of so many types of cars and engines. Front and rear engines in the same race was something to see!!

[taco2000]

There's NO way you could run an open wheel car without wings around either of those tracks. An IRL car only weighs 1600 lbs, and a fair amount of that is towards the back of the car. It'd flip over like a leaf above probably 80 MPH without wings. As soon as you hit a corner it'd be ***-around-teakettle as well. They get balanced at speed due to downforce distribution from the various aero surfaces.

Compare that to a Sprint cup car that weighs 3200 lbs, and has a ton more surface area to push down with, and even those are all over the place at speed.

Back in '97, IRL cars had a lot more horsepower and speed than they do now. They are intentionally slowed down (aero settings and engine displacement) because ovals are just inherently more dangerous than road courses and too many people were getting injured and killed.

Good thing Jimmy Clark didn't know his Lotus 38 needed wings. My point is the majority of the downforce comes from the venturi tunnels under the car. Essentially why they run negative wing angles at Indy.