This should put things.....

[jimispeed]

into perspective......

[jimispeed]

Hope for this....

[Ranger]

Are you kidding.

A picture of a Dallara and a Panoz doesn't put a possible end of 13 years of AOWR's depletion, self-harm and excruciating embarrassment of itself into perspective at all.

[nigelred5]

Actually, that TCG car is a G-force/Panoz, not a Dallara. The AGR cars following it are the Dallaras. I still say put 'em all on the track together. HP can be equalized VERY easily.

[Chris R]

The G-force/Panoz is not nearly as ugly as the Dallara (actually it is a decent looking race car, IMHO)... As much as I prefer the Champcar, I really do not see a significant difference in terms of the general public - they may even prefer the IRL car because you can actually see the things with that big ole' air box (a'la' F-1 circa 1973)

OK, so the Dallara is not the most beautiful car (although I always thought that the G-Force/Panoz IRL car was nice on the eye), but I have never quite understood why the DP01 has been so reverred.

It's not that stunning. In fact, it looks like a homogenic modern single-seater.

Seriously, can anyone really say that the DP01 is significantly better-looking than the World Series by Renault car

[tbyars]

Jimi, please give us a detailed explanation with the perspective this creates.

Remember, aesthetics are a matter of opinion. What looks good to one may not be "pretty" to another. I may like blue, you may like green. Doesn't give us any perspective at all about which color is "better"; just tells us which color we each like. So please try to stay away from anything referring to aesthetics while you explain your point of view regarding perspective.

[Fangio]

Anyone that has seen and heard both in person, doesn`t need an explanation.

[F1boat]

The Panoz car is good-looking, but not stunning and it resembles GP 2. The Indy Car is not as sexy as the old CART machines, but you can say that it is an Indy Car machine, not some European series.

[indycool]

To the GENERAL sports fan, even the GENERAL race fan, on-site or on TV, they are rear-engined race cars with four wheels and a wing on the front and another one on the back and they're a certain size.

The GENERAL fan can't tell the difference between an '87 March and an '07 DP-01 or '07 Dallara when it's going 200 miles an hour in front of them, on-site or on TV. What's more, he/she isn't likely to care. What he/she wants to follow is whether it's Danica or Paul Tracy driving the thing or not.

If we're in the broader sports entertainment business with this sport, rather than it being a hobby for the more technical to argue about, then this is a non-issue.

[DrDomm]

I just hope the next Indycar (my fingers hurt typing that) has more Champcar qualities. Afterall, why did the IC become so ugly?

[Chris R]

The engine issue is very hard to debate - the IRL engine sounds harsh at best - but the aesthetics are another story all together. I cannot say that I am a big fan of the look of a modern F-1 car - but there is no doubt it is an awesome looking machine full of purpose. In that sense, the IRL chassis might actually have a leg up on the DP-01 which was clearly styled while the Dallara MUST have function in mind since it clearly is NOT about form.....

At any rate - mid 70's Indycars were no great shakes in the looks department - neither were mid 70's F-1 cars for that matter... IRL cars have never been exactly pretty - but Champcars since 1995 have not really been super exciting either...

What we want/need is a new rule book for 2009 or 2010 I am personally ready for a new formula that moves beyond both current cars....

[BoilerIMS]

Afterall, why did the IC become so ugly?

The IRL chassis are ugly because of the rules package. Form follows function. It is not as though Dallara thought, "Let's see how ugly a chassis we can design." Here is the plus side: a new chassis design will eventually be necessary. So between now and then we as fans can put forward ideas (taken or not) for the rules package that will result in a better looking car.

Here's my first suggestion: suppose the reunified series sticks with naturally-aspirated engines (which I think is likely, if only to avoid pop-off valves if/when there are multiple manufacturers), make a rule that raised airboxes are not allowed. This design would, of course, not provide the ram-air boost to the engine, but would allow for a lower-slung chassis design that I admit looks great.

[nanders]

What we want/need is a new rule book for 2009 or 2010 I am personally ready for a new formula that moves beyond both current cars....

Hydrogen Electric baby!

[nanders]

The IRL chassis are ugly because of the rules package. Form follows function. It is not as though Dallara thought, "Let's see how ugly a chassis we can design." Here is the plus side: a new chassis design will eventually be necessary. So between now and then we as fans can put forward ideas (taken or not) for the rules package that will result in a better looking car.

Here's my first suggestion: suppose the reunified series sticks with naturally-aspirated engines (which I think is likely, if only to avoid pop-off valves if/when there are multiple manufacturers), make a rule that raised airboxes are not allowed. This design would, of course, not provide the ram-air boost to the engine, but would allow for a lower-slung chassis design that I admit looks great.

Remember that '89 Benetton where the ram air came along side the driver? http://www.race-cars.com/carsold/other/1053626307/1053626307pd.htm

[mikiec]

Personally, I can't really see much difference between the G-Force/Panoz and the Dallara, except for the shape of the air-intake and G-Force has a rounder nose/leg-area than the Dallara which is flatter except for the two bumps for the suspension.

The IRL has been looking to create a style/design of car for 2010 that will be unique and not look like every other F1-inspired open-wheeler, such as GP2, WSR, FPA, etc.

They're looking for 'outside the box' thinking, which should be applauded, and it should be interesting as to what transpires. If there's multiple chassis manufacturers involved, I wonder whether they'd give their designers carte-blanche and then give approval to designs?! It could end up with completely different styles of cars, which would almost bring back the old intrigue of the Indy 500.

WRT to the air-intake/box, who says that it has to be high above the driver's head? Surely that's just been a convenience factor of needing a roll-hoop there, so put the airbox in as well? Why not put one on top of each sidepod??? Some 70's F1 cars had one on either side of the driver's head, for example. It needs someone to get away from the 'make it look like an F1 car' mentality.

[Alexamateo]

Hasn't the IRL addressed the engine "note" issue to get a better sounding car?

[mikiec]

Some 70's F1 cars had one on either side of the driver's head, for example.
....

At any rate - mid 70's Indycars were no great shakes in the looks department - neither were mid 70's F-1 cars for that matter...

Well, some mid-70's F1 cars were stunning, the Martini-Brabhams, all the Lotus cars and the Ferrari 312T2 for example.....some were marvels of innovation (the Tyrell P34).....some were lacking in the aesthetics department, the 1979 Ensign & Merzario's make the IRL Dallara look like Scarlett Johansson covered in baby-oil.

But then others were just plain silly.....

[CCFan]

Actually, that TCG car is a G-force/Panoz, not a Dallara. The AGR cars following it are the Dallaras. I still say put 'em all on the track together. HP can be equalized VERY easily.

How would you do that easily without turbos & pop-off valves?

Remember that '89 Benetton where the ram air came along side the driver?

They weren't alone back then.

The Ferrari 639 'muletta' (test-hack to those who don't speak Italian) of 1988 managed to keep a low engine cover.

Admittedly, by mid 1989 in it's 640 guise, it had grown a hump, but originally it looked brilliant.....

How would you do that easily without turbos & pop-off valves?

In theory, the ECU's could be used to 'normalise' power output, but horsepower isn't the whole story and, to be honest, never has been.

The different torque and rev patterns would be just as important, perhaps more so. In that respect, a normally-aspirated engine generally has better 'pick-up', but the mid-range & top-end 'grunt' of a turbo is generally better.

The altitude of the track also plays a significant part. Turbo engines don't struggle for breath at altitude. Although, since Denver long fell by the way-side, I suppose that's less of a factor!

From an aerodynamics and mechanical grip point of view, the packaging of the engine is also a major factor. Although engine bulk has dramatically reduced (you'd be amazed how well tucked-in an F1 engine is now), the bigger the space needed for ancillaries, the more detrimental to the over-all balance of the car and aerodynamic efficiency it becomes.

[nigelred5]

How would you do that easily without turbos & pop-off valves?

Well, considering the Cossie is a spec engine and there has been no equalizing pop off-valve on the current engine for some time, It's not that hard.
You benchmark the Honda NA engine on the dyno, then you match the Cossie turbo's HP to the NA Honda via turbo boost, fuel mixture and ingnition timing, just as they have done for the last two years at almost every race. The torque curves are likely going to be dramatically different, but so are driving styles. Equivalency formulas aren't the best solution, but it does get cars of different configurations on track together.

A turbo engine is very easy to adjust it's output, especially if you need to dial it's output DOWN! I can vary the HP/torque on my car by as much as 100 hp at the flip of a switch thanks to APR and a friend that knows just a little more about the Audi ECU than VAG would probably like.

Series officials and an engineer from Honda and Cosworth could probably accomplish it an a weekend without any major modifications to either motor.

[nigelred5]

Those airboxes aren't going anywhere. They provide much needed advertising space for sponsors sorely lacking on most Open wheel cars. That has been One of the major shortcomings i always fround with openwheel cars.

[Chris R]

Those airboxes aren't going anywhere. They provide much needed advertising space for sponsors sorely lacking on most Open wheel cars. That has been One of the major shortcomings i always fround with openwheel cars.

That's the point - I think it is one of the reasons F-1 keeps those air boxes as well..... As an advertiser - I like the "canvas" the IRL car presents over the Champcar.....

[grungex]

Perhaps they should race these, then.

http://www.ohiomobilebillboards.com/images/mobile_billboard_furniture.gif

[nigelred5]

Money available, I'd prefer to see a return to a single brand sponsor for both cars in a team and wrap the car in the logo so that is totally what is seen on TV from TV angles. If you expect sponsors to foot the bill for the teams by plastering their logos on the cars to get televison time, that's just reality. We are seeing just how long "gentlemen" racers are willing to foot the bill out of their pockets without sponsors.

Some of the liveries done by members over at CCF are amazing, To the point the teams should be ashamed of them selves for the schemes we see on track.

[indycool]

Well, when they're having a tough time getting a sponsor for one car, how do you figure that more money for TWO is available?

[Chris R]

Perhaps they should race these, then.

http://www.ohiomobilebillboards.com/images/mobile_billboard_furniture.gif

lol, don't they have big rig racing somewhere in Europe or Australia?? :p

seriously, a little advertising space is not a totally bad thing...

[Nick Brad]

Both actually Chris, no trailers though unfortunately for advertising :laugh:

[bblocker68]

They would've had rigs racing this year, but Dakar got cancelled :(

[Nick Brad]

We still have Rigs racing, take a look in the SCSA forum as they're mentioned in there running alongside the pickups an most events this year.

[Sandfly]

Lets see,, big cars with NA engines, single seaters -- racing mostly ovals,,, Sounds familiar ....

[nigelred5]

Well, when they're having a tough time getting a sponsor for one car, how do you figure that more money for TWO is available?

I know what you are saying, and I did quailfy it by stating "Money Available"
It just looks far more professional than running the second car around unsponsored with half a$$ed paint jobs like many have done on both sides in the recent past. If they can put two cars on track which they have, then they can just as easily wrap both cars the same. I'm sure some will counter by saying well, it looks like they have sponsors, how would they get more? Apparently there isn't a line of companies flush with cash and a handful of decals in either pit lane.

It's all in the way they package it. I will say, the IRL teams have certainly APPEARED to have had more money, even if that is just appearances. However If I were a company apporached by a team for sponsorship, I would certainly rather associate with an outfit that LOOKS like they have their $#!T together. Many of the teams in CCWS have looked ameteurish in presentation. Honestly It got hard to tell what team anyone was driving for race to race.. Don't we have an entire website and ongoing thread based around this problem at CCF? F1 even mandates it, and I totally agree with their reasons for doing so.

[nigelred5]

Well, when they're having a tough time getting a sponsor for one car, how do you figure that more money for TWO is available?

I know what you are saying, and I did quailfy it by stating "Money Available"
It just looks far more professional than running the second car around unsponsored with half a$$ed paint jobs like many have done on both sides in the recent past. If they can put two cars on track which they have, then they can just as easily wrap both cars the same. I'm sure some will counter by saying well, it looks like they have sponsors, how would they get more? Apparently there isn't a line of companies flush with cash and a handful of decals in either pit lane.

It's all in the way they package it. I will say, the IRL teams have certainly APPEARED to have had more money, even if that is just appearances. However If I were a company apporached by a team for sponsorship, I would certainly rather associate with an outfit that LOOKS like they have their $#!T together. Many of the teams in CCWS have looked ameteurish in presentation. Honestly It got hard to tell what team anyone was driving for race to race.. Don't we have an entire website and ongoing thread based around this problem at CCF? F1 even mandates it, and I totally agree with their reasons for doing so. I hate the "NASCAR" way of having multi car teams all in different liveries. Even though FCR's second car was largely unsponsored, they at least maintained matching paint schemes.

[jimispeed]

Jimi, please give us a detailed explanation with the perspective this creates.

Remember, aesthetics are a matter of opinion. What looks good to one may not be "pretty" to another. I may like blue, you may like green. Doesn't give us any perspective at all about which color is "better"; just tells us which color we each like. So please try to stay away from anything referring to aesthetics while you explain your point of view regarding perspective.


Ever been to Champcar race, and seen the DP01 in race trim form??

Ever heard a Champcar close up??

Beautiful

What everyone is settling for (of course there is no choice!!)

Not that inspiring to me

Explained......

[indycool]

TO YOU.

Do you look at the big picture, that there are less than 30 DP-01s around and more than 70 Dallaras and Dallara is on standby to build more? Do you look at the big picture that there's no oval kit for the DP-01 and the season starts next month? Do you look at the idea of a melded series after 12 long years of Internet, financial and creative warfare as smaller than your opinion about what race car to use?

Cry me a river.

[DrDomm]

The IRL chassis are ugly because of the rules package. Form follows function. It is not as though Dallara thought, "Let's see how ugly a chassis we can design." Here is the plus side: a new chassis design will eventually be necessary. So between now and then we as fans can put forward ideas (taken or not) for the rules package that will result in a better looking car.

So what part of the rules package is responsible for the poor aesthetics? That needs to be changed.

Also, unlike most people here, I don't think an airbox is the main problem. It's mostly the nose and sidepods look ugly.

[Sandfly]

Airbox makes it look like the other 6 or so open wheel formulae in the world. Indistingquishale (except by the number of spatulas )

The CART / ChampCar roll hoop is "IndyCar" racing. Admit it - even the 60's and 70's and 80's -- no stinkin airboxes at Indy.

[ShiftingGears]

It's the racing the cars produce that is the primary problem here. Aesthetics are only minor in comparison.

Last season, to the untrained eye, CCWS races were no more exciting than an F1 race. Races like Road America and especially Assen were boring, processional racing. The cars drove on rails. Marbles dictated a single racing line, limiting passing.

AOWR needs to write new regulations that remove the rear wing and increase the horsepower. As well as making the slicks harder. That'd make passing more of a spectacle (more sliding, more passing, and more throttle control required on ovals). It isn't a gimmick like P2P, it actually requires the drivers to control a car with more power than grip, rather than vice versa. It'd be a drivers car.

Also, it distinguishes itself from F1 and other leagues like GP2 and A1GP. Both aesthetically and in the amount of racing in each race. If necessary, restrictor plates for ovals.

Whats not to like about that?

[SoCalPVguy]

Now there's a airbox...

http://files.conceptcarz.com/img/Lola/74_lola_T332_DV_05_Jfrsn_06.jpg

[Phoenixent]

Nice Photo SoCal. :up:

It is amazing how people forget or just never stopped to see what cars and series used to look like. The air box on the Dallara is no worst that the useless wing CART had on the engine cover. Both are great places for adverts.

[nigelred5]

Now there's a airbox...

http://files.conceptcarz.com/img/Lola/74_lola_T332_DV_05_Jfrsn_06.jpg


That's not an airbox, THIS is an airbox! ;)

http://grandprixinsider.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/g-hill-embassy-hill-gh1.jpg

[tbyars]

Ever been to Champcar race, and seen the DP01 in race trim form??

Ever heard a Champcar close up??

Beautiful

What everyone is settling for (of course there is no choice!!)

Not that inspiring to me

Explained......

No, it is NOT explained! It is simply YOUR OPINION, and that doesn't make it right. That is my point! Aesthetics is a matter of taste, not an absolute.

To answer your question, no, I did not go to a CC race last year, so I have NOT seen the DP-01. I have, however been to dozens of CC races with the Lolas, which was the LAST place this IRL/CC aesthetics thing was an issue. While everyone was saying the Lola was so beautiful and sounded so good, I always felt it looked a little like a cockroach trying to slip under the door, and sounded like a pack of 90 cc motocross bikes. I NEVER liked the looks or the sound.

That is MY OPINION; it's not something up for discussion. You can't tell me I'm wrong; just as I can't tell you you are wrong.

But when you are throwing up that aesthetics issue in order to prove a point, that's hogwash. It proves nothing, it provides NO perspective. IT IS INSIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION!

That's one of the reasons I have said time and time again, NONE of this issue is about the equipment. That is the smallest, LEAST SIGNIFICANT issue at hand. In my opinion, anyone who bases anything on the equipment isn't very wise and isn't, hasn't been, a student of racing history for very long.

And IC is right. Put it on the track, and the general sports fan can't see the difference in the cars. They can HEAR the difference, but that's no guarantee they will "like" the sound of one car over the other. It's what you like, but YOU have an agenda.

Again, the original post in the thread, jimi, provides NO perspective. It's still nothing more than calling names. We've gotta get beyond that.

Tbyars, you are right about aesthetics........Beauty is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder.

However, I would be shocked if anyone did not think that this car was anything short of being the monocoqued-equivalent of Aphrodite!

Oh, and note the uber-cool airboxes!

[nanders]

No, it is NOT explained! It is simply YOUR OPINION, and that doesn't make it right. That is my point! Aesthetics is a matter of taste, not an absolute.

To answer your question, no, I did not go to a CC race last year, so I have NOT seen the DP-01. I have, however been to dozens of CC races with the Lolas, which was the LAST place this IRL/CC aesthetics thing was an issue. While everyone was saying the Lola was so beautiful and sounded so good, I always felt it looked a little like a cockroach trying to slip under the door, and sounded like a pack of 90 cc motocross bikes. I NEVER liked the looks or the sound.

"and sounded like a pack of 90 cc motocross bikes"

???? no. Atlantics maybe .... F-BMW maybe ..... even the current F1 cars maybe ...... I'm thinking your "and sounded like a pack of 90 cc motocross bikes" comment could almost be inflammatory. :s mokin:

[Ruben Barrios]

Funny, as I remember, when the last generation LOLA came out... people where disgusted, they said the big sidepod intakes were disgusting... A lot of die-hards wished it would go away and hoped the Reynard would beat it on the track...

People have a hard time with change...

[mikiec]

Tbyars, you are right about aesthetics........Beauty is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder.

However, I would be shocked if anyone did not think that this car was anything short of being the monocoqued-equivalent of Aphrodite!

Oh, and note the uber-cool airboxes!

Looks great but I can't imagine the design of the airboxes being particularly aero-efficient though ;)

[nigelred5]

http://www.f1-site.com/imgphoto/history/alfa_romeo-brabham_formula_1_1976_1600x1200.jpg

I always thought this one was kinda sleek. Brabam certainly was one of the more innovative marques pushing the envelope back in the 70's

[SoCalPVguy]

That's not an airbox, THIS is an airbox! ;)

http://grandprixinsider.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/g-hill-embassy-hill-gh1.jpg

I'll see your giant airbox and raise you...

http://transfers.mep-llc.com/files/76bra26v%20Laffite%20Ligier%20JS5.jpg

[nigelred5]

I think that Ligier was the first 2 seat F1 car. I probably could have stood up inside of the airbox.!

[Ruben Barrios]

"I always thought this one was kinda sleek. Brabam certainly was one of the more innovative marques pushing the envelope back in the 70's"

Beautyful!!!

[tbyars]

"and sounded like a pack of 90 cc motocross bikes"

???? no. Atlantics maybe .... F-BMW maybe ..... even the current F1 cars maybe ...... I'm thinking your "and sounded like a pack of 90 cc motocross bikes" comment could almost be inflammatory. :s mokin:

Certainly not meant to be inflamatory. Certainly meant to be, as stated, my opinion.

[jimispeed]

No, it is NOT explained! It is simply YOUR OPINION, and that doesn't make it right. That is my point! Aesthetics is a matter of taste, not an absolute.

To answer your question, no, I did not go to a CC race last year, so I have NOT seen the DP-01. I have, however been to dozens of CC races with the Lolas, which was the LAST place this IRL/CC aesthetics thing was an issue. While everyone was saying the Lola was so beautiful and sounded so good, I always felt it looked a little like a cockroach trying to slip under the door, and sounded like a pack of 90 cc motocross bikes. I NEVER liked the looks or the sound.

That is MY OPINION; it's not something up for discussion. You can't tell me I'm wrong; just as I can't tell you you are wrong.

But when you are throwing up that aesthetics issue in order to prove a point, that's hogwash. It proves nothing, it provides NO perspective. IT IS INSIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION!

That's one of the reasons I have said time and time again, NONE of this issue is about the equipment. That is the smallest, LEAST SIGNIFICANT issue at hand. In my opinion, anyone who bases anything on the equipment isn't very wise and isn't, hasn't been, a student of racing history for very long.

And IC is right. Put it on the track, and the general sports fan can't see the difference in the cars. They can HEAR the difference, but that's no guarantee they will "like" the sound of one car over the other. It's what you like, but YOU have an agenda.

Again, the original post in the thread, jimi, provides NO perspective. It's still nothing more than calling names. We've gotta get beyond that.



I'm not calling anyone names, I'm showing all of you what you had, and what you're gonna have......

The cars, and engines are pitiful!!!

[SoCalPVguy]

The cars, and engines are pitiful!!!

Again your opinion only !!! If you don't like it don't watch

As a professonal mechanical engineer, I appreciate the IndyCars for what they are.

You want pitiful, go look at a Nascab: Carburetors (what are those ?), overhead valves and rocker arms (rocking chair more like it).... Even a Hyundai Accent is more advanced.

[indycool]

jimispeed, you need to learn the basics of the term "IMO."

[ShiftingGears]

I just read the CCF boards. My god they're pathetic.

[nigelred5]

I just read the CCF boards. My god they're pathetic.

Yeah, I gave up earlier, but then it's been that way over there since the TF days.

[tbyars]

I'm not calling anyone names, I'm showing all of you what you had, and what you're gonna have......

The cars, and engines are pitiful!!!

I give up. You are obviously right.