When you rear end a car in a speedway you go flying, fairing or no fairing, the fairing is obliterated instantaneously.j2004p wrote: ↑27 Jul 2017, 13:32Very much so, I don't understand why, after making such a point of including the rear pods on the original DW12 design to prevent wheel to wheel contact that they've now dropped it.TwanV wrote: ↑27 Jul 2017, 13:25Right, silly me. Front wheel of the incoming car has a higher angular velocity and will want to drag over the rear wheel on the moment of impact.. That and a car's inertia pushing it to the only place it can go.
so, it seems the new cars are less safe than in the past in this respect?
Only engine, when the DW12 first came out it also had a generic aero package produced by Dallara itself, aero packages developed by the engine makers where added later.Jolle wrote: ↑27 Jul 2017, 21:25I see these cars still have the “Monger-hook” to lift the car.
Although pleasing to the eye, I generally don’t like one-make series. This is why I’ve been in love with F1 since the mid-eighties, the constant development battle between constructors.
How much can Chevy and Honda change about the car? Only wings?
The idea behind the DW12 was great regarding safety, but the fairings are another piece of body that can fall off a car just as easily. You don't want that at a speedway going +200mph. Remember Indy 500 this year, how many full course cautions we had because of debris? Not sure if any of those debris were parts of the fairings.Sevach wrote: ↑27 Jul 2017, 21:31When you rear end a car in a speedway you go flying, fairing or no fairing, the fairing is obliterated instantaneously.j2004p wrote: ↑27 Jul 2017, 13:32Very much so, I don't understand why, after making such a point of including the rear pods on the original DW12 design to prevent wheel to wheel contact that they've now dropped it.TwanV wrote: ↑27 Jul 2017, 13:25Right, silly me. Front wheel of the incoming car has a higher angular velocity and will want to drag over the rear wheel on the moment of impact.. That and a car's inertia pushing it to the only place it can go.
so, it seems the new cars are less safe than in the past in this respect?
Wheel to wheel contact is less dangerous than when your nose goes up (which was what happened with Webber, wheels never touched on that one).
Only engine, when the DW12 first came out it also had a generic aero package produced by Dallara itself, aero packages developed by the engine makers where added later.Jolle wrote: ↑27 Jul 2017, 21:25I see these cars still have the “Monger-hook” to lift the car.
Although pleasing to the eye, I generally don’t like one-make series. This is why I’ve been in love with F1 since the mid-eighties, the constant development battle between constructors.
How much can Chevy and Honda change about the car? Only wings?
You really take every chance you get to promote super-duper amazing never actually proven to be true ground effects.
The 'increase' in underbody downforce is only relative to the 35% reduction in overall downforce. So it's mostly because of a reduction of downforce from the top of the car, i.e. no more winglets above the wheel pods and simpler front wings.wesley123 wrote: ↑28 Nov 2017, 15:02You really take every chance you get to promote super-duper amazing never actually proven to be true ground effects.
Also;
https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... ndycar.jpg
http://www.autoracing1.com/Images/Photo ... vyRear.jpg
They don't really seem to be all that much different. I am 99% certain that the underbodies are identical(the leading edge is identical, and the diffuser itself also, so it is safe to assume that the rest in between would be the same as well). A part in the design of the new indycar was with costs, and because of that they carry over a large part of the DW12.
You are correct to some extent that a simpler aero package should be less affected, but I believe the main difference is total downforce, which is some 15-20% lower on the indy car. From numbers I found for the original DW12 vs a modern F1 I would say that's a Cl of -2.8 vs -3.5 based on reference area of 1.5m^2, or a difference of 70 points of downforce. So if we assume the the new body kit is producing forces similar to the DW12 rather than the manufacturer kits, then the absolute effect of a 20% loss of downforce for an indycar will be smaller than on a F1 car, a loss of 56 points of downforce compared to 70 points, a 50% loss is 140 points vs 175...etc etc. So the more downforce you have the more you will lose in a wake, and the greater difference the driver will feel because of it.
One compromise common to all cars, and one that eluded me until Slipstream pointed it out, is the gaping hole between the radiator tunnel and the sponsor blocker. Look below at this "floor" on the old DW12 (right) and the new hole on the Honda (left). The story goes that this solid floor is worth around 300-400 pounds of downforce(!) and that these new aero kits may be good for around 1000 pounds of additional downforce! Seeing as this is a LOT of downforce, a compromise was necessary somewhere. Cutting out that relatively small hole from between the blocker and the tunnel was a way of dialing back some of the incredible gains expected from these new aero kits.
Indycar have been quite good with releasing videos to explain the new aerokits...Michelada wrote: ↑18 Dec 2017, 14:37Apparently there might be a slight overall increase in the underbody downforce. According to this article: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/the-secre ... 1691381347 Dallara purposefully made holes to the front part of the underfloor to artificially decrease downforce when the aerokits were introduced. In the universal aerokit the holes are no longer there.