Im not alone

I agree with Gil on Indycar spec. Indycar racing is supposed to be a top-level, professional category. The cars need to be quick, somewhere in the 800 horsepower range.

The 240mph oval races are gone for good, however. Too many major injuries to drivers and, perhaps more importantly, fans were no longer safe either. Although CART seemed to have gotten it right with the Hanford device, I feel Indy car racing has outgrown high banked superspeedways. Run the road and street courses with the 850hp ground effects monsters and limit ovals to Indy and the flat mile tracks (dialing the power back for the ovals).

Povol, I agree that drastic performance cut backs are bad for the spectacle. Comparing a turbo Indy car to the IRL evolution shows a large gap; forget Auto Week's skidpad and slalom comparisons. One car wasn't far off F1 times, the other struggles to out-pace Le Mans' lower prototype category. The difference between a 218mph lap and a 240 can be seen even on TV. Today's bulky Indy car also looks clumsy in the turns compared to the 90s machines.

Now, going back to your DMG superbike spec argument, was the difference as big as in the Indy car case? Was there a 20mph difference in speed? Did you really notice it?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Oct 29 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I agree with Gil on Indycar spec. Indycar racing is supposed to be a top-level, professional category. The cars need to be quick, somewhere in the 800 horsepower range.

The 240mph oval races are gone for good, however. Too many major injuries to drivers and, perhaps more importantly, fans were no longer safe either. Although CART seemed to have gotten it right with the Hanford device, I feel Indy car racing has outgrown high banked superspeedways. Run the road and street courses with the 850hp ground effects monsters and limit ovals to Indy and the flat mile tracks (dialing the power back for the ovals).

Povol, I agree that drastic performance cut backs are bad for the spectacle. Comparing a turbo Indy car to the IRL evolution shows a large gap; forget Auto Week's skidpad and slalom comparisons. One car wasn't far off F1 times, the other struggles to out-pace Le Mans' lower prototype category. The difference between a 218mph lap and a 240 can be seen even on TV. Today's bulky Indy car also looks clumsy in the turns compared to the 90s machines.

Now, going back to your DMG superbike spec argument, was the difference as big as in the Indy car case? Was there a 20mph difference in speed? Did you really notice it?
At certain tracks,you could most definatley tell the difference in top speed.At all tracks,you could tell the bikes were ill handling compared to real, proper Superbikes

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Oct 29 2009, 10:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you limit HP and make it to where ANY COMPETITOR can purchase one,that is a defacto spec series. More double talk and fence sitting.You were ALL about DMG until things started going south.To keep from looking like you latched onto a loser,you have posistioned yourself to argue both sides of the aisle, which i might add,you are very good at. You should look into politics,i am being serious.

A set amount of horsepower, weight, and grip is not a spec series. It allows teams to design and engineer a multitude of solutions to the same problem. Some teams will inevitably go after high hp per liter. Some teams will see how cheap they can build the bike. Some people might build an a nationalist team that only uses parts from a certain locality. Some people might obsess over mass centralization. Some people might not use 4 stroke technology. Someday a team might race a bike that has no internal combustion engine. Some people might race hybrid bikes. Some teams might run a completely different type of clean fuel to make the requisite power.

Stupid formulas that require manufacturers to make the maximum horsepower out of a set displacement is a stupid game in the digital era. Pre-electronics it was fun. I don't think we should throw electronics out, just toss the displacement rules and cap horsepower by using electronics to police the cars or bikes.

If you think an electric bike racing a rotary bike racing a 2 stroke racing a half-dozen different 4 strokes designs---if you think that is a spec series, you're off your rocker. Instead, I suspect you don't see how horsepower/weight/grip/downforce rules will revolutionize racing if they can be properly policed.

I didn't latch onto a loser. DMG have the right idea. I don't have any allegiance to the organization. Unfortunately, DMG lack the political power to make changes b/c people question their motives based upon a perceived ignoble past. I don't know of any racing organization that could make changes to an existing racing series without xenophobic backlash from the fans. I think it will take a new series altogether to bring racing into the digital age.

Bring back CART 1998, and then racing will return to the world.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hayden Fan @ Oct 29 2009, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Bring back CART 1998, and then racing will return to the world.

Apart from the 240mph oval races, I agree! If Michigan and Fontana must be run, bring back the Hanford device. What a great balance that was!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Oct 29 2009, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Apart from the 240mph oval races, I agree! If Michigan and Fontana must be run, bring back the Hanford device. What a great balance that was!

I was never a fan of the Hanford device. It made some close races, but it did so artificially. Slows the cars down, but given the technology of today, I think the designers would be able to build a car which car do a 230 mph average fairly safely.

Michigan should at least by run. It is one of the best ovals in the nation.



But saying that, I am a road racer, so I also loved Champ Car's 2007 season.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hayden Fan @ Oct 29 2009, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I was never a fan of the Hanford device. It made some close races, but it did so artificially. Slows the cars down, but given the technology of today, I think the designers would be able to build a car which car do a 230 mph average fairly safely.

Michigan should at least by run. It is one of the best ovals in the nation.



But saying that, I am a road racer, so I also loved Champ Car's 2007 season.

The important thing about the Hanford device was that it got the cars below the crazy high speeds, encouraged good draft racing while somehow avoiding the idiotic pack running the IRL depends on.

I'm not sure the danger of high speeds have as much to do with car design as the forces involved. Open wheel cars have simply outgrown banked ovals IMO. However, I do feel that Indy car racing should stick with the flat bullrings like Milwaukee. AOWR made its name with the diverse tracks. Spec cars and all road courses, like 2007, make for another open wheel feeder series.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Oct 29 2009, 09:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The important thing about the Hanford device was that it got the cars below the crazy high speeds, encouraged good draft racing while somehow avoiding the idiotic pack running the IRL depends on.

I'm not sure the danger of high speeds have as much to do with car design as the forces involved. Open wheel cars have simply outgrown banked ovals IMO. However, I do feel that Indy car racing should stick with the flat bullrings like Milwaukee. AOWR made its name with the diverse tracks. Spec cars and all road courses, like 2007, make for another open wheel feeder series.

The only track I've really seen that was Texas in 2002. When you had drivers blackout due to the g-forces, you knew that some tracks were just too much for those speeds.

But I love Nazareth. Also Milwaukee. The old Loudon, before they turned it into a NASCAR circuit. Difficult as hell to drive.

Closest I came to driving on an oval was in '07 testing an Indy Lights car at Homestead's road circuit. We drove turns 3-4 of the oval, and that was something I really did like. You'll never see me in a Lights of IRL race machine even if I was paid due to the series safety record, but if they made improvements, I'd love to run at Nazareth, Pikes Pike.

I think Champ Car in '07 and plans in '08 would have been similar to that of Superleague Formula or A1GP without the gimmicks. It was trying to be a series that could stand alone and possible rival F1 to a certain extent.

What is your opinion on the IRL? Can they turn AOWR around? Is it really just a feeder to NASCAR?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hayden Fan @ Oct 29 2009, 08:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The only track I've really seen that was Texas in 2002. When you had drivers blackout due to the g-forces, you knew that some tracks were just too much for those speeds.

But I love Nazareth. Also Milwaukee. The old Loudon, before they turned it into a NASCAR circuit. Difficult as hell to drive.

Closest I came to driving on an oval was in '07 testing an Indy Lights car at Homestead's road circuit. We drove turns 3-4 of the oval, and that was something I really did like. You'll never see me in a Lights of IRL race machine even if I was paid due to the series safety record, but if they made improvements, I'd love to run at Nazareth, Pikes Pike.

I think Champ Car in '07 and plans in '08 would have been similar to that of Superleague Formula or A1GP without the gimmicks. It was trying to be a series that could stand alone and possible rival F1 to a certain extent.

What is your opinion on the IRL? Can they turn AOWR around? Is it really just a feeder to NASCAR?

Nazareth is gone.;(

Sure, Champ Car didn't aspire to be just another spec series, but with mandated spec cars and no ovals, what was it? CART/ICS challenged F1 by doing its own thing.

The IRL? It's a mess run by inept people, who haven't been able to capitalise on what the sport has to offer. I think the sport will make a comeback only if the current regime gives up and is replaced. By who? I don't know...

Wow, what a hijack!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. Shupe @ Oct 29 2009, 04:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Apart from the 240mph oval races, I agree! If Michigan and Fontana must be run, bring back the Hanford device. What a great balance that was!

For sure. Close racing at 230mph in an openwheeled car sounds more like a bad way to die than a good way to spend your racing career.

I'd prefer they take it back even farther to the early 1990s CART vehicles. They looked smaller and more nimble. I miss the old street races.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 29 2009, 05:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>A set amount of horsepower, weight, and grip is not a spec series. It allows teams to design and engineer a multitude of solutions to the same problem. Some teams will inevitably go after high hp per liter. Some teams will see how cheap they can build the bike. Some people might build an a nationalist team that only uses parts from a certain locality. Some people might obsess over mass centralization. Some people might not use 4 stroke technology. Someday a team might race a bike that has no internal combustion engine. Some people might race hybrid bikes. Some teams might run a completely different type of clean fuel to make the requisite power.

Stupid formulas that require manufacturers to make the maximum horsepower out of a set displacement is a stupid game in the digital era. Pre-electronics it was fun. I don't think we should throw electronics out, just toss the displacement rules and cap horsepower by using electronics to police the cars or bikes.

If you think an electric bike racing a rotary bike racing a 2 stroke racing a half-dozen different 4 strokes designs---if you think that is a spec series, you're off your rocker. Instead, I suspect you don't see how horsepower/weight/grip/downforce rules will revolutionize racing if they can be properly policed.

I didn't latch onto a loser. DMG have the right idea. I don't have any allegiance to the organization. Unfortunately, DMG lack the political power to make changes b/c people question their motives based upon a perceived ignoble past. I don't know of any racing organization that could make changes to an existing racing series without xenophobic backlash from the fans. I think it will take a new series altogether to bring racing into the digital age.

You stated "I just want rules that specify horsepower and weight and I want DMG to homologate race bikes that can be purchased by any competitor."

OK,lets say im a competitor and DMG homologates Superbikes that can be purchsed turn key for 50k.
Now remember,im a competitor and ANY competitor should be able to purchase that bike. I cant afford 50k, all i can pay is 30k. In your fantasy land of racing where everything is dumbed down to the lowest denominator,the price should be lowered to 30 k since like you said,should be able to be purchased by ANY competitor. The figure in this scenario means nothing,if it was 100k and all i could afford is 60k, its the same thing. What you propose is the same thing that ails society,lowered standards for equality.It doesnt work in society and it sure as hell dont work in racing. A perfect example is you thinking capped horsepower is the answer.What does that do to the tuning guru who might just be a little brighter than the others and he is able to squeeze 10 more HP out of a motor [under the rules] than the other guys. Do you tell him his expertise is no longer needed because the HP is capped and any trained monkey can get the max allowed hp for a smaller salary.As far as DMG,they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT IDEA. The right idea is what brings in customers,not drive them away. What DMG has, is a vision of how THEY want Superbike racing to be.Unfortunately for them,their vision and the fans vision are on opposite ends of the vision spectrum. Regardless of how great THEY think their vision is, IT IS A LOSER if the paying customer thinks otherwise.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Oct 30 2009, 07:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You stated "I just want rules that specify horsepower and weight and I want DMG to homologate race bikes that can be purchased by any competitor."

OK,lets say im a competitor and DMG homologates Superbikes that can be purchsed turn key for 50k.
Now remember,im a competitor and ANY competitor should be able to purchase that bike. I cant afford 50k, all i can pay is 30k. In your fantasy land of racing where everything is dumbed down to the lowest denominator,the price should be lowered to 30 k since like you said,should be able to be purchased by ANY competitor. The figure in this scenario means nothing,if it was 100k and all i could afford is 60k, its the same thing. What you propose is the same thing that ails society,lowered standards for equality.It doesnt work in society and it sure as hell dont work in racing. A perfect example is you thinking capped horsepower is the answer.What does that do to the tuning guru who might just be a little brighter than the others and he is able to squeeze 10 more HP out of a motor [under the rules] than the other guys. Do you tell him his expertise is no longer needed because the HP is capped and any trained monkey can get the max allowed hp for a smaller salary.As far as DMG,they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT IDEA. The right idea is what brings in customers,not drive them away. What DMG has, is a vision of how THEY want Superbike racing to be.Unfortunately for them,their vision and the fans vision are on opposite ends of the vision spectrum. Regardless of how great THEY think their vision is, IT IS A LOSER if the paying customer thinks otherwise.

All I mean is that the bike is available for purchase. It doesn't have to be within every competitors price. At this particular moment, the sport it needs to be relatively cheap to keep the good teams in the sport and help get some profit flowing. I don't recommend that AMA SBK maintain low priced bikes that barely pass as superstock.

AMA is a private organization and it doesn't have any relationship to society at large. Traditional racing is more like keeping up with the Jones' rather than healthy competition. Most of the manufacturers are out to buy the same stuff (hp/liter) in a bid to out do their neighbor. Only one person can be richest on the block, everyone else goes bankrupt. Like consumer consumption wars, displacement racing benefits the commercial rights holders most of all. With horsepower caps people can develop new methods of propulsion. It doesn't put the hp per liter guru out of work b/c they can simply drop displacement and continue raising the state of tune to make the necessary horsepower and torque.

I'm not advocating a horsepower cap under the current displacement arrangement. I want the current displacement rules to be eliminated once and for all. Displacement rules in the digital age are responsible for the spec engines and performance indexing that dominate the technical rulebooks around the world. If you like technical innovation, you'll get rid of them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 30 2009, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>All I mean is that the bike is available for purchase. It doesn't have to be within every competitors price. At this particular moment, the sport it needs to be relatively cheap to keep the good teams in the sport and help get some profit flowing. I don't recommend that AMA SBK maintain low priced bikes that barely pass as superstock.
AMA is a private organization and it doesn't have any relationship to society at large. Traditional racing is more like keeping up with the Jones' rather than healthy competition. Most of the manufacturers are out to buy the same stuff (hp/liter) in a bid to out do their neighbor. Only one person can be richest on the block, everyone else goes bankrupt. Like consumer consumption wars, displacement racing benefits the commercial rights holders most of all. With horsepower caps people can develop new methods of propulsion. It doesn't put the hp per liter guru out of work b/c they can simply drop displacement and continue raising the state of tune to make the necessary horsepower and torque.

I'm not advocating a horsepower cap under the current displacement arrangement. I want the current displacement rules to be eliminated once and for all. Displacement rules in the digital age are responsible for the spec engines and performance indexing that dominate the technical rulebooks around the world. If you like technical innovation, you'll get rid of them.
I see what your saying but we are years away from nuclear powered Tron bikes and technical innovation takes lots and lots of money. In the above highlighted sentences,where are you going.On one hand you say,at the moment,the sport needs to be relatively cheap to help keep teams in the sport.Then your next sentence is totally contradictory saying you dont recommend AMA maintain LOW PRICED bikes that barely pass as Superstock. WTF

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Oct 30 2009, 09:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I see what your saying but we are years away from nuclear powered Tron bikes and technical innovation takes lots and lots of money. In the above highlighted sentences,where are you going.On one hand you say,at the moment,the sport needs to be relatively cheap to help keep teams in the sport.Then your next sentence is totally contradictory saying you dont recommend AMA maintain LOW PRICED bikes that barely pass as Superstock. WTF

DMG have proposed cheap turnkey racers and they let Buell kick things off last year with the RR. I think price controls are an interesting concept b/c it creates incentives for teams to make cost-effective performance. In my opinion, turnkey racers are a good idea b/c it is basically a cost-limited reversion to the old rule book where teams could modify almost anything.

BUT the turnkey racers will probably have a slightly lower state of tune than the SBKs this year b/c they won't have the benefit of continual factory development. As time goes on, the AMA should be working towards more heavily modified bikes, even if they don't want to raise engine tuning.

There is a middle ground between $500,000 SBKs and $25,000 SBKs. I expect DMG to find a comfortable middle ground as prospects imporve (if DMG are in it for the long haul).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 29 2009, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>For sure. Close racing at 230mph in an openwheeled car sounds more like a bad way to die than a good way to spend your racing career.

I'd prefer they take it back even farther to the early 1990s CART vehicles. They looked smaller and more nimble. I miss the old street races.

But with the early 90's the drivers legs were at risk.



Not until the Stan Fox crash did those changes take place.

This car should be for what AWOR should be built around

The 1996 Reynard.



And Jimmy Vasser behind the wheel. Well that is just a bonus.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hayden Fan @ Oct 30 2009, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But with the early 90's the drivers legs were at risk.



Not until the Stan Fox crash did those changes take place.

This car should be for what AWOR should be built around

The 1996 Reynard.



And Jimmy Vasser behind the wheel. Well that is just a bonus.
Zanardi lost both his legs in that car,of course it probably wouldnt have mattered what open wheel car he was in that day,he was losing something. In the old car,it would have sheered him off at the waist.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hayden Fan @ Oct 30 2009, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But with the early 90's the drivers legs were at risk.

The size of the car is not so much the problem as the position of the driver. Driver position is easy to remedy, but it will affect handling unless they are able to obtain smaller lighter engines. Imo, the problems faced by CART and IRL drivers are not a result of the car but the result of ovals. Cars that wander back into the path of other racers and cars that make brutal impact with walls is what kills open wheeled drivers. The longer you spend at speeds in excess of 230mph the greater the risk. Circuit racing maybe involves speeds of over 200mph for 2 or 3 minutes a race. Sometimes they don't even reach 200mph.

If CART were ever to come back I'd say contract with Cosworth to get a slightly detuned version of F1's 2.4L V-8s. Detuned to make 600hp or 650hp you'd think the engine could last 4 or 5 races. Maybe other manufacturers would lend their old F1 engines to the fray as well. Rumor has it that the 2.4s will be gone in a few more years so they might be happy to get some more mileage out of the design in another venue.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Oct 30 2009, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Zanardi lost both his legs in that car,of course it probably wouldnt have mattered what open wheel car he was in that day,he was losing something. In the old car,it would have sheered him off at the waist.

In probably the most freak of accident if you remember. He spun coming off pit lane and was stuck at a near standstill be Tagliani. He was dead when the medics reached the car, but was able to be revived. The fact that only losing his lower legs in what is the scariest of accidents. Only way he would have gone away without injury in that accident was to be in a tank.

Or what about one of the greatest drivers in the world at the time of his death, Greg Moore? They are freak incidents, but noneless this auto racing accidents. It is apart of oval racing. Fans loved seeing the cars go into turn 4 at Michigan or Fontana at 260+ mph. The drivers loved it.

Still, these cars did their jobs at those speeds. They broke apart. But in the case of Moore, his head made contact with a tire barrier upside down and a few feet off the ground.

Compared to bike races, where outside Daijiro Kato's fatal crash, the serious injuries and fatalities are some causal falls. Craig Jones come to mind. 99.9% of the time, the rider would have walked away.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Oct 29 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you limit HP and make it to where ANY COMPETITOR can purchase one,that is a defacto spec series. More double talk and fence sitting.You were ALL about DMG until things started going south.To keep from looking like you latched onto a loser,you have posistioned yourself to argue both sides of the aisle, which i might add,you are very good at. You should look into politics,i am being serious.


This is an example of hitting the nail on the head.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 30 2009, 05:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The size of the car is not so much the problem as the position of the driver. Driver position is easy to remedy, but it will affect handling unless they are able to obtain smaller lighter engines. Imo, the problems faced by CART and IRL drivers are not a result of the car but the result of ovals. Cars that wander back into the path of other racers and cars that make brutal impact with walls is what kills open wheeled drivers. The longer you spend at speeds in excess of 230mph the greater the risk. Circuit racing maybe involves speeds of over 200mph for 2 or 3 minutes a race. Sometimes they don't even reach 200mph.

If CART were ever to come back I'd say contract with Cosworth to get a slightly detuned version of F1's 2.4L V-8s. Detuned to make 600hp or 650hp you'd think the engine could last 4 or 5 races. Maybe other manufacturers would lend their old F1 engines to the fray as well. Rumor has it that the 2.4s will be gone in a few more years so they might be happy to get some more mileage out of the design in another venue.

That is a true statement but
If the fan wants it,and the drivers like it,it should be a no brainer.