I was watching 1993 Indy 500 and the cars were taking the corners around 190mph and 230mph at the end of the straight aways. I think this was a pretty cool race since cars weren't taking the whole track flat out. I know the current cars don't take Indy flat out in the draft but I still think the Dallara's have to much downforce from both the chassis and wings.

Keep in mind that '93 was the first race with the reconfigured turns, they took out the apron and added the separate warmup lane.

As I understand it, ever since wings were introduced they have always run flat all the way around. The trick was to trim the car out until you could just barely run flat through the turns. The cars slowed through the turns becase of the resistance created by tire scrub. Note that to minimize the scrub, the cars were set up slightly loose. Not the most stable setup. It was (and still is I hope) up to the driver to hang on to the car for 200 laps. Pretty tough job. That's why I think the best drive at Indy in recent years was JPM's. He made it look easy.

I just wish people would make up their minds. Half the people want to go faster and the other half want less down force. You cannot have it both ways.

I am new to the boards, so be gentle on the rookie!! I was brought over by the unification, so I want to see the combined series succeed..I would love to see a low downforce configuration. For street/ road courses, it would extend breaking distances. For the ovals, it would (I think) require lifting off the gas and jumping back on the throttle at the right moment. In both cases, reduced turbulance for the 2nd car in line may inspire a passing attempt that would not normally take place. I would like to see NO front wings and limited rear wings.

jcmark611 - 17 May 2008 12:06 AM

I just wish people would make up their minds. Half the people want to go faster and the other half want less down force. You cannot have it both ways.

Both are better than the status quo. Restricting speed via high downforce created the pack racing that hasn't done much to attract fans. And, isn't attracting fans the whole idea?

Having a "new track record" went along ways towards making the Indy 500 so popular. It seems unlikely that TG will accept rules that would promote same.

So, better racing is the goal. Getting rid of downforce and having the drivers lift in the turns is preferable (to some) as it separates talent levels. It does create more of the follow the leader type racing, so you offer an opinion.

My opinion? Give them a 1000 hp and very little downforce. Does this mean I can have my cake and eat it too?

Gandretti - 17 May 2008 09:58 AM

Both are better than the status quo. Restricting speed via high downforce created the pack racing that hasn't done much to attract fans. And, isn't attracting fans the whole idea?

Having a "new track record" went along ways towards making the Indy 500 so popular. It seems unlikely that TG will accept rules that would promote same.

So, better racing is the goal. Getting rid of downforce and having the drivers lift in the turns is preferable (to some) as it separates talent levels. It does create more of the follow the leader type racing, so you offer an opinion.

My opinion? Give them a 1000 hp and very little downforce. Does this mean I can have my cake and eat it too?

Hear Hear!

Anyone see Montoya's interview on Wind Tunnel? He was discussing the car he won the CART championship in. Claimed that with 950 HP that the cars were (almost) unsafe to paraphrase. I think he used the term "beasts".

Is that the kind of car that should be racing?



I think so.

Gandretti - 18 May 2008 07:03 AM

Anyone see Montoya's interview on Wind Tunnel? He was discussing the car he won the CART championship in. Claimed that with 950 HP that the cars were (almost) unsafe to paraphrase. I think he used the term "beasts".

Is that the kind of car that should be racing?



I think so.

I think that attributed to the mystique of that era.

Those cars weren’t the quickest openwheel cars in the world, but they were the fastest, the biggest and the baddest. That has typically been the American manufactures attitude towards building sport cars.

branland - 18 May 2008 01:11 PM

Gandretti - 18 May 2008 07:03 AM

Anyone see Montoya's interview on Wind Tunnel? He was discussing the car he won the CART championship in. Claimed that with 950 HP that the cars were (almost) unsafe to paraphrase. I think he used the term "beasts".

Is that the kind of car that should be racing?



I think so.

I think that attributed to the mystique of that era.

Those cars weren’t the quickest openwheel cars in the world, but they were the fastest, the biggest and the baddest. That has typically been the American manufactures attitude towards building sport cars.

Agreed. It's what Mario Andretti mentioned in a article about the possible new car for 2010. The car should hav ea high top speed, but low downforce so that the cars would have to slow down into the corners (road course and oval) and also to extend the braking distances, thus it should allow for more overtaking.

branland - 18 May 2008 01:11 PM

Gandretti - 18 May 2008 07:03 AM

Anyone see Montoya's interview on Wind Tunnel? He was discussing the car he won the CART championship in. Claimed that with 950 HP that the cars were (almost) unsafe to paraphrase. I think he used the term "beasts".

Is that the kind of car that should be racing?



I think so.

I think that attributed to the mystique of that era.

Those cars weren’t the quickest openwheel cars in the world, but they were the fastest, the biggest and the baddest. That has typically been the American manufactures attitude towards building sport cars.

It was always cool that the American open wheel series had more powerful cars than F1, without the traction control, launch control, semi automatic shifter, and all the other junk. They should be racing open wheeled beasts as described above, separate the men from the boys, and you will see a whole lot less wankers trying to make the field... they would be too afraid to