|
Post by Grey Mouser on Jan 18, 2013 11:00:10 GMT -6
This thread is for all the gear heads, trivia buffs and those interested in Open Wheel History. Hopefully we will learn things here that will amuse us or make us go "WOW!... I never knew that!"
|
|
|
Post by oldwrench on Jan 21, 2013 19:48:49 GMT -6
Can we talk "real" engineering & stuff?
|
|
|
Post by Grey Mouser on Jan 21, 2013 20:15:13 GMT -6
You Betcha Red Ryder
|
|
|
Post by scuff on Jan 22, 2013 6:28:40 GMT -6
Anyone know the horsepower capabilities of the current motors in the unlikely event the rule book was trashed ? At what point would frequent detonations begin ?
|
|
|
Post by Railroad on Jan 24, 2013 10:54:08 GMT -6
scuff: I don't know what they can put out, but I think they're boost-controlled for 550HP on ovals and 650-ish on road and street courses, depending on the whim of the suits at IMS. Maybe oldwrench can provide more specifics about detonation, etc. PS: Isn't detonation a function of timing and fuel/air mixture?
|
|
|
Post by Grey Mouser on Jan 24, 2013 13:44:38 GMT -6
RR: I think in this case case he means when engines go Ka-Boom and parts fly everywhere
|
|
|
Post by scuff on Jan 27, 2013 9:19:31 GMT -6
RR: I think in this case case he means when engines go Ka-Boom and parts fly everywhere Yep..........that was my intent. I just wondered how fast these things might go if they let the teams set boost and worry about the engine bills.
|
|
|
Post by Railroad on Jan 27, 2013 11:08:33 GMT -6
RR: I think in this case case he means when engines go Ka-Boom and parts fly everywhere Yep..........that was my intent. I just wondered how fast these things might go if they let the teams set boost and worry about the engine bills. Good question. Probably a lot faster. But they have to play wet nurse so the speeds continue to stay down.
|
|
|
Post by joshknight on Feb 9, 2013 12:10:40 GMT -6
Anyone remember the Hanford Device?
|
|
|
Post by Grey Mouser on Feb 9, 2013 12:13:45 GMT -6
Yep. Supposed to increase downforce and induce drag. IIRC
|
|
|
Post by xorpheous on Feb 10, 2013 7:13:36 GMT -6
Anyone remember the Hanford Device? Remembered with disdain. It was essentially a passive DRS in that the driver behind gained a huge advantage over the driver in front making passing, especially on ovals, absurdly frequent and meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by daddyofeq on Feb 14, 2013 19:00:21 GMT -6
@xorpheus - the Hanford was contrived and did making passing too easy, but they still had to get the pass done and then lift before the turns, even at Michigan and Fontana. I'd rather see that than cars flat out all of the way around the track, and side by side because the couldn't get past each other. Many drivers expressed frustration at the way the first gen Crapwagon didn't have enough power to allow the drivers to pass each other.
This new Crapwagon Mk.II .............. pffffffft! Squirreling around on the oval tracks and losing 2 3 MPH/lap.
|
|
|
Post by joshknight on Feb 15, 2013 17:32:54 GMT -6
I tweeted Justin Wilson about this. He seems to want more Horsepower and less downforce
|
|
|
Post by Railroad on Feb 15, 2013 19:09:56 GMT -6
I tweeted Justin Wilson about this. He seems to want more Horsepower and less downforce Will Power feels the same about it. More HP, less DF.
|
|
|
Post by daddyofeq on Feb 18, 2013 9:48:10 GMT -6
I tweeted Justin Wilson about this. He seems to want more Horsepower and less downforce @ Josh - Most of the drivers have made similar statements over the last 2-3 years, and have compared IICS oval racing to NASCAR restrictor plate racing. I don't know why they won't listen to the drivers.
|
|