Sebring testing?

[Hoop-98]

Anyone seen any results?

[DanicaFan]

I havent heard or seen anything yet either. I am curious.

[Chamoo]

Who all was there. I only have confirmation that E.J. Viso (Dreyer & Reinbold) and Simona de Silvestro (HVM/Team Stargate Worlds) was at the test.

[EuroRaceFan]

I´ve checked a bunch of other boards and there is no meaningful news

[MDS]

SPEED's Marshall Pruett was apparently at the test and was impressed with Simona de Silvestra. His top times for the session was E.J. Viso 53.91 and Simona at 54.0, compared to the NHL session a week before where Graham and Hediki ran around 54.2 and 54.3.

Pruitt was apparently impressed with Simona and so was HVM. For those who haven't been to these sorts of things, the fact that it went from a rookie evaluation test to a R&D test so quickly says a lot about her ability.


de Silvestro and the Stargate folks are reportedly close to signing a deal, and according to one person involved with her HVM IndyCar test at Sebring, de Silvestro had the look of a driver capable of making an immediate impact in the series.

“She’s ready. I’d have a hard time seeing her qualify outside the Top-10 in her first race. She’s that level of talent. Now, the talent pool continues to get a lot deeper for next season, but she was completely unintimidated by the car, and most of all, her speed was really good. She’s a professional racecar driver, no question. She’s ready to graduate, for sure, and it’s just amazing to think she’s still only 21.”Read the full article here:
http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/pruett-triple-stint-1215/

[Hoop-98]

Thanks!!

[El Libertador]

I had really hoped Simona would have A. won the Atlantics title and B. actually been paid the prize money for it so she could have tried her hand in the European formulae, but I'm more than happy to see her in an IndyCar. HVM equipment is not going to be that good, and Simona will have the old car while Robert gets the new, lighter one, but I still think she'll put in impressive performances. She has a lot of talent, a lot of time, and she's just one of the nicest people in all of the paddock. I'm thrilled to see her test went well.

[SUBARUTEAM]

she does sound pretty quick. ej viso is no slug and she almost beat him.
the ovals may be a different story tho.
well done and good luck to her.

[anthonyvop]

54 seconds on the Sebring Short Course?

They need a new car............fast

[beachbum]

54 seconds on the Sebring Short Course?

They need a new car............fastWhy? Can you tell the difference between a 51 second and 54 second lap?

[nigelred5]

When we're comparing lap times to judge against known benchmark drivers, previous sessions, ... yeah.


That and they are just old and ugly ;)

[anthonyvop]

Why? Can you tell the difference between a 51 second and 54 second lap?

On the Sebring Short course??? Most people can.

[MDS]

For some comparison Paul Tracy and Jos Verstoppen were running 51s in the old Lola chassis, Robert Wickens ran 58.9 in an Atlantic car and Sebastien and Franck Perera set a fast lap in the Panzo of 49.8 in 2007.

So the question is can the average fan tell the difference between a 49-second lap and 54 second lap, and I feel the answer is absolutely. While the speed might not be apparent when you're standing next to the track, but it shows up in competition, especially on road courses. The slower the car the greater the margin of error and the less the driver matters.

For example if Danica Patrick is working a pit-stop strategy and is two seconds ahead of Graham Rahal, and Danica flubs a high speed corner and screws her entrance and exit the amount of time she's going to lose as a result of her mistake is lessened by the fact that the car is five-seconds a lap slower than the Panzo. In the Panzo Graham catches her by the end of the next straight and gets a passing opportunity. In the Dallara he comes close to her by the end of the straight but doesn't get an opportunity to pass because his car wasn't fast enough to take advantage of Danica's mistake.

On a road course speed equals passing because mistakes are magnified, and cars have more power. The downside is that on high speed ovals more speed generally mean less passing because it increases the speed differential from first to worst, fewer cars stay on the lead lap and Aero becomes everything. However on flat and short ovals the show is better because it favors the bolder drivers, see Paul Tracy at Milwaukee.

[Hoop-98]

In march they were in the 52's

rh

[MDS]

Which is where the Champ Car times come for as well. Still, I stand by the idea that more speed equals better RC and flat oval racing.

[Hoop-98]

Which is where the Champ Car times come for as well. Still, I stand by the idea that more speed equals better RC and flat oval racing.

The DP01 had the same P/W ratio with about 10 PCT (reported) more downforce.

While it received a lot of praise and attention, no statistical analysis of the racing metrics showed any improvement in racing.

It was slower at about 1/2 the tracks and faster at about 1/2.

Any track that had 150 MPH corners loved the DP01, mechanical grip tracks not so much.

If you added 20 pct more downforce to the Dallara it would lap Sebring as fast as a DP01 but suck (IMO) as a race car.

What we seem to want is a better P/W ratio and perhaps less braking performance, without trailing car AERO interference.

At Montreal the Champ Cars were as fast thru any corner but 20 MPH slower in the traps than F1.

The IndyCar relates to the ChampCar much closer than ChampCar to F1, it's traps are off 5-9 MPH but not the huge difference between CC and F1.

I guess I am saying that lowering lap times does not guarantee better racing. A healthy sport, is more important, to provide the competitors, than absolute speed, within a reasonable performance envelope.

Of course I want to see a 250 pound lighter car with similar power and drag.

Faster than a DP01, manageable speeds, and no minimum wing angle, trim till you can;t stand it!


rh

[anthonyvop]

If you added 20 pct more downforce to the Dallara it would lap Sebring as fast as a DP01


How do you come to that conclusion? You do realize that any increase in downforce comes with an increase in drag? So a 20% increase in downforce would costs them speed on the straights.

[Hoop-98]

How do you come to that conclusion? You do realize that any increase in downforce comes with an increase in drag? So a 20% increase in downforce would costs them speed on the straights.


I not only know that, I know the trade off in modeling between corner vs straight. I actually study this. For example how much the DP01 lost in trap speeds vs the Lola. If you don't know that, well....

I come to that conclusion by researching segment times, how the cars compare in various parts of courses. I do extensive study of the differences in the performance of various cars in various situations.

I know how the approximate L/D ratios of the Lola, the DP01, and the Dallara with wind tunnel data on the Lola and the Dallara.

Based on this data I speculate, and make pretty good approximations of performance over the years, as most people here can testify.

I don't simply make negative statements about a series I hate without any thought or research.

Others are willing to do that.

rh

[garyshell]

How do you come to that conclusion? You do realize that any increase in downforce comes with an increase in drag? So a 20% increase in downforce would costs them speed on the straights.


Do you even have a CLUE who you are asking this question? If there is ANYONE on this forum who would understand this it is hoop.

Gary

[Easy Drifter]

Comparing lap times from one test day to another is also very inconclusive. The weather conditions, both temp. and wind and wind direction can make a big difference. Getting a tow, wether on an oval or road course makes a difference. How green, or rubberred in a track is also can make a big difference. How old are the tires? Which compound?
What is the test trying to accomplish?
All these variables make comparisons extremely difficult.
I am talking from practical experience over many years and umpteen test days.
That said someone like Hoop you really studies all the angles, and you can be sure he takes into account all I said above, can deduce one heck of a lot.

[beachbum]

Hoop, you are one of the very few here talking sense. Keep up the info coming.

[anthonyvop]

Do you even have a CLUE who you are asking this question? If there is ANYONE on this forum who would understand this it is hoop.

Gary

So I am suppose to agree with everything hoop says?
He is good generating stats to support his cause and leaving out what wouldn't. He claims that all the Dallara needs is some more downforce to be the equal of the Panoz. He conveniently leaves out other factors such as suspension geometry, braking, weight balance and Drag.

At least he can always get a job at the University of East Anglia.

[MDS]

A couple pounds of drag won't make up for the fact that the Panzo had a turbo-charged engine and the Dallara doesn't.

[garyshell]

So I am suppose to agree with everything hoop says?
He is good generating stats to support his cause and leaving out what wouldn't. He claims that all the Dallara needs is some more downforce to be the equal of the Panoz. He conveniently leaves out other factors such as suspension geometry, braking, weight balance and Drag.

At least he can always get a job at the University of East Anglia.


Oh my look now, the "reporter" has become an "engineer". He found a race engineering technical dictionary.

At least hoop actually SUPPORTS his cause with real data rather than just taking pot shots. Do you have any DATA to support your claim that hoop is wrong? Go back to "reporting", engineering is not your forte'.

Gary

[anthonyvop]

Oh my look now, the "reporter" has become an "engineer". He found a race engineering technical dictionary.

At least hoop actually SUPPORTS his cause with real data rather than just taking pot shots. Do you have any DATA to support your claim that hoop is wrong? Go back to "reporting", engineering is not your forte'.

Gary

WOW!!!!
I am not an engineer but I have raced enough to know that you get nothing for free. Added downforce comes at a cost(Drag). 2 different vehicles with the same weight, downforce and power will not automatically have matching times. Even NASCAR fans know that.

So now I will leave you two to your mutual admiration society.

[Hoop-98]

There are tracks that are power limited, and those that are grip limited for each car, the downforce wouldn't do the trick at Edmonton or Long beach.......awwww why waste good bandwidth


rh

[chuck34]

WOW!!!!
I am not an engineer but I have raced enough to know that you get nothing for free. Added downforce comes at a cost(Drag). 2 different vehicles with the same weight, downforce and power will not automatically have matching times. Even NASCAR fans know that.

So now I will leave you two to your mutual admiration society.

You do realize that the relationship between the added cornering power due to the increased downforce and the decrase in straightline speed due to drag is not necesarily linear right?

[anthonyvop]

You do realize that the relationship between the added cornering power due to the increased downforce and the decrase in straightline speed due to drag is not necesarily linear right?

Yes but it is present.

[chuck34]

Yes but it is present.

Of course it's present. But it is possible, even likely at many tracks, that you can increase downforce which increases cornering power and drag which slows you on the straights, but still have a higher overall lap time. Why in the world do you think that these cars have wings? If your assumption is correct (that increased downforce will necessarily create excess drag that will slow the cars) then why wouldn't the engineers taken the wings off years ago?

If you can find a good used copy of the Millikens' book (new ones are EXPENSIVE) I'd suggest picking it up. They do an excellent job of explaining the interactions between tire load, geometry, aero bits, etc. Nothing is 1 for 1, but generally speaking adding downforce is ALWAYS good as tires NEED more load to create more corning force (especially on the un-loaded side). And if you can give a tire more load using aero, it is especially good because then you don't have to accelerate (in any direction) the added weight. Anyway, that's the long answer. If you're interested I can go through the longer answer.

[Hoop-98]

And if you look at Sebring;

http://www.skipbarber.com/img/locations/details_sebring_modified.jpg

Notice the 4-5 sections and the 7-8-9 sections, this is where the DP01 shines.

That's why, comparatively, the Indy Car is closer at Long Beach than here. This track loves down force.

If you studied the different performances of the Lola and the DP01, you can see where the DP01 is faster on downforce tracks, but slower or the same where it is more mechanical grip and speed.

Of course , this would only matter if someone wanted to seriously understand the performance differences of the Dallara, DP01, and Lola.

If all one wants to do is trash every aspect of something they have a serious hate for, understanding is the last thing one would want.

Besides Milliken, Competition Car Downforce is a good reference and a lot cheaper. Wright's F1 technology is very reasonable, though not nearly as complete as Milliken.

http://i50.tinypic.com/347ack5.jpg

It also helps to have the segment times when comparing cars.


rh

[chuck34]

Another thing that I just thought of in the drag/downforce/speed question to think about is, Why do drag cars have wings, if all they do is slow you in a straight line?

Although I suppose we're beating a dead horse at this point. Suffice it to say that drag is NOT the end-all-be-all of race car vehicle dynamics.