Anyone follow IndyCar enough to understand the nuances involved and challenges posed? I don't really understand the challenge, and I would love to have it explained to me. They're downforce cars, right? It seems like, specifically on an oval track, they'd never *ever* lift the throttle. Just WFO and steer, for 200+ mi. I totally get that there'd be some strategy in the pits and in drafting, and I also get that at 200+mph shit happens prettyfuckingquick, but... There's gotta be more to it.
I dunno but some of these cars are so much quicker than the others... dude just flying around on the outside with what looks like a 40mph difference.
It's all in the setup and the car's balance, aero is a big deal even at a short track. Some drivers, like Newgarden, excel at certain tracks, he owns Iowa. This track isn't even a mile long, and they don't race at many 1.5 mile high banked tracks like Charlotte anymore....too fast and too dangerous. Texas is a good race.
So are the drivers still managing, and struggling for, grip? People like to shit on NASCAR but those guys are basically *always* sideways, so they're constantly fighting with the car and doing a corner-entry/corner-exit balancing act. But having ridden in a few downforce cars, especially in wide corners, there's more grip than power.. so they don't lift. And if that were the case with these Indy cars.. what would the challenge for the driver be? Thinking it through, I guess the answer would be that they're probably running less downforce than I imagined initially. If the limiting factor were power, I would reduce downforce until grip started to be a problem... And then leave it to the driver.
I'd imagine that all the cars are so close to the EXACT SAME that 1/2 a degree on the rear wing would make a pretty big impact over the course of 250+miles, if the driver can handle it. Then there's ride height, and weight distribution... I can see how minute changes in setup could be a big impact over the course of the race.
The series specifies what wings/flaps can be run at each oval and generally set it up so that the drivers will have to lift for most, if not all of a fuel run. IE this weekend the onboards would suggest every driver was lifting from T1, Lap 1. Even if they could make it around flat out a few times, tire falloff at Iowa is so bad it wouldn't be worth it (1s+ on a 19 seconds lap). Far more important to preserve the tires. Sounds simple enough but it was actually hard as hell with the amount of traffic they had this weekend. Lot of guys understeering when they get stuck in the aero wash, then cranking the wheel over to keep the car turned. Unsurprisingly this would come back to bite them all by the end of the race. As usual, the big winners were the guys who moved to the 2nd groove early (which is also something like 0.3 degrees more banked, IIRC) saving their tires and making it much easier to run around the slower traffic. And for me, the traffic was what made the races fun. From lap 15 to lap 250 it was an onslaught, with the leaders trying to pick their way through as quickly as possible while simultaneously not crashing and not burning up their rubber. In some ways it was much closer to an endurance race than your typical oval race.
Oh interesting, I didn't even think about tire wear. Good point. Alright, cool, that makes it a bit more interesting. Definitely more things for the drivers to decide.
Tires, sure. Chassis and aero setup talent, pretty basic driver skill to racing a car, and a big difference at places like Iowa. How about doing all this under high g forces, 5 g’s or so, so high they hold their breath and breathe on the straightaways. Can’t imagine driving a car with finesse and aggression without mistakes for 250 miles, while weighing 800 lbs sideways.
Anyone remember the Texas race that was canceled within hours of the green flag drop because the drivers were experiencing light-headed and/or black out conditions... from the g-forces the cars were pulling.
I would think that having enough downforce to run wide open would also create enough drag to crush the fuel mileage compared to the others.
…. and straightaway speed. It’s an optimization balance of corner speed, vs. straightaway speed vs. endurance. In a non downforce car, the side slip is linear. In a downforce car you can slip a little, but get too sideways and your aero is spoiled. If that happens, it’s a quick ride into the wall. 3-5g means you’re hitting that wall at 3-5x the 1g cornering force of a NASCAR. Man I used to love open wheel racing. F*ck Tony George.
Lifting of the aero + centrifugal forces bringing the RPMs down. Has anyone ever run an F1 car on an oval with an Indy car of the same year? I'm curious what kind of lap time differences cubic dollars make. And could an Indy car team show up on an F1 grid to try to qualify? Country come to town!
And fuck the IRL Crapwagons that they did hold the throttle open around the whole track. Talk about pack racing...
Yea the IRL really hurt IndyCar racing. At one point, around 1999, when the IRL built their new cars and were much cheaper, the cost of four F1 cars cost the same as all 33 cars in the Indy 500!
You beat me to it! F'ing Crapwagons! F them. I remember when CART was showing up at 1 mile ovals and having to cancel because the G forces were making the guys lose conscienceness... and that was 20 years ago! F the IRL!
I wonder how much time he'd make up if the indy car took the same 'liberty' with the track limits that Hammy did there
