Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Indy 500 will celebrate its 100th


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 02:31 PM

year, but not its running this Memorial Day (29th). The speeds will be far and away above the first one, and this time we will actually know who won the thing.

In the first one, there is some doubt about just who it was that completed the 500 miles first, or at all. There wasn't a decent track lap counting system yet developed, and with blown tires, and pit-stops a constant occurrence everybody lost count of the car's laps.

The following year that confusion was addressed, and a lap counting system of independent observers removed from the danger of the track itself ended any doubt.

Goto:

http://www.na-motors...1/RussellJ.html

Edited by brndirt1, 22 May 2011 - 02:59 PM.
forgot URL

Happy Trails,
Clint.

#2 Martin Bull

Martin Bull

    Acting Wg. Cdr

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,558 posts
  • LocationLondon, England.

Posted 22 May 2011 - 06:15 PM

So many changes at Indy, but somehow I always think of those old 'roadsters'...

YouTube - ‪Indy Roadster Running‬‏
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

#3 Victor Gomez

Victor Gomez

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 11:52 PM

I have always wanted the rules to be changed to allow a more or less equal displacement rotary or turbine to see what developments could come about. Most people have forgotten the strange year the turbine was used. It was not in a fair size compared to the piston engines. It has become less interesting in recent years and needs some kind of rules changes to regain it's interest as a place where developments are made.

#4 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 12:23 AM

I have always wanted the rules to be changed to allow a more or less equal displacement rotary or turbine to see what developments could come about. Most people have forgotten the strange year the turbine was used. It was not in a fair size compared to the piston engines. It has become less interesting in recent years and needs some kind of rules changes to regain it's interest as a place where developments are made.


I understand your wish, but the rules were and have been changed over the years to make the propulsion systems "NOT" the challenge to make them the most "powerful" or efficient. The two years the turbines were allowed, they both failed the challenge of distance/reliability, and in consequence did little to aid or improve the automotive industry.

The Wankle rotary remains too unreliable for this type of endurance race, and oddly enough the diesel which has the reputation of extreme reliablity has also failed to do the race on the "winning side". The first diesel to run, by Cummins (I think) ran the entire race without a fuel up, but they needed tires.
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#5 Martin Bull

Martin Bull

    Acting Wg. Cdr

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,558 posts
  • LocationLondon, England.

Posted 23 May 2011 - 06:46 AM

I vividly remember watching Emerson Fittipaldi race the Lotus 56B ( a modified Indy chassis ) at Silverstone and Brands Hatch in 1971. It was fascinating to see and very fast - the problem IIRC was the engines' lack of 'braking power' compared to internal combustion. Emmo burned out the disc brakes trying to get the thing to shed speed......
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

#6 Victor Gomez

Victor Gomez

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 01:05 PM

I will point out that the turbines were early designs and not allowed long enough to develop reliability, I realize the rules do change but have not really seen changes that invite the old "development" instead they have been designed to maintain the "status quo" as the accepted designs and innovations have been in aerodynamics mostly. The failure in braking is a thing that could be conquered with development. It is my opinion that Indy rules threw the baby out with the bath water. Indy was so much more exciting when new engines and chassis were created by the early designers that often built their own car from scratch which includes the roadsters that were the early history of the sport. Now, individual innovation is out and the factory produced chassis mated with the factory produced engines are what rules. Sometimes those are not even original designs but are adaptations from "Formula" class cars. Indy rules succeeded in expanding NASCAR and Formula racing by its "rulemaking". Individuals that were innovators such as the Unsers, and the likes of Rick Galles have minimal participation in this once beloved sport.

Edited by Victor Gomez, 23 May 2011 - 01:10 PM.


#7 Poppy

Poppy

    grasshopper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,906 posts
  • LocationShambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3KP0

Posted 23 May 2011 - 02:02 PM

Not sure if there was a car back in late 60's where there was a large fan(?) underside that would actually suck the car to the road by creating a vacuum. It was banned, but a great example of innovation....I know todays cars could race upside down at speed with all the air dams/foils etc. Maybe I've got Indy and F1 cars mixed up.

#8 mcoffee

mcoffee

    Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 02:15 PM

Not sure if there was a car back in late 60's where there was a large fan(?) underside that would actually suck the car to the road by creating a vacuum. It was banned, but a great example of innovation....I know todays cars could race upside down at speed with all the air dams/foils etc. Maybe I've got Indy and F1 cars mixed up.


You may be thinking of the Chapparal from the Can-Am racing series. The Can-Am series was almost 'anything goes' for a while, and led to many of the technology advances in racing aerodynamics.
Can-Am at Laguna Seca: The Increbible Chaparral 2J
Illegitimis non carborundum

#9 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 03:04 PM

That Jim Hall Chaparral was an amazing machine, and of course the "powers that be" banned the ground effect type car in short order. At least a "powered effect" car, one that relied on created down pressure from a power source. The rational behind banning it wasn't so far off the mark really, the thinking was "what would happen if the vehicle suddenly lost the 'effect' due to power loss, or damage to the transmitting system?"

Would it become "unhinged" and just a danger to all the other cars and spectators, or would it just crash and kill the driver. And wasn't there some problem with the Chaparral picking up ground debris and chucking it into the air for other cars to hit?

We all know now what happens when a "ground effect" down force, produced by a passive/movement system fails. The car turns into an unguided missile.
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#10 Martin Bull

Martin Bull

    Acting Wg. Cdr

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,558 posts
  • LocationLondon, England.

Posted 23 May 2011 - 06:06 PM

The Chaparral 2J was innovative in the extreme ; it led to the F1 Brabham 'fan car' ( banned after one race ) and of course the passive ground-effect era in F1 which came to an end due to several reasons ( such as the death of Gilles Villeneuve ). The principles live on in the racing cars of today with their stepped undersides and venturis using the airflow beneath the car.
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

#11 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 24 May 2011 - 05:40 PM

Here is a stunning video of one of the major crashes at Indy in 2010.

Goto:

Sport Science: Conway's Crash - ESPN Video - ESPN

Much of it is using Computer Graphics to illustrate what happened to the car since it cannot be broken down otherwise. Conway lived through this BTW.
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#12 Poppy

Poppy

    grasshopper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,906 posts
  • LocationShambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3KP0

Posted 24 May 2011 - 11:01 PM

Geeze. Gilles Villeneuve. Hadn't thought about that in a long time. He was a hero in Quebec. And that crash was due to ground effect fail? And the F1 cars are engineered differently now because of that crash?

#13 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 26 May 2011 - 09:42 PM

I will point out that the turbines were early designs and not allowed long enough to develop reliability, I realize the rules do change but have not really seen changes that invite the old "development" instead they have been designed to maintain the "status quo" as the accepted designs and innovations have been in aerodynamics mostly. The failure in braking is a thing that could be conquered with development. It is my opinion that Indy rules threw the baby out with the bath water. Indy was so much more exciting when new engines and chassis were created by the early designers that often built their own car from scratch which includes the roadsters that were the early history of the sport. Now, individual innovation is out and the factory produced chassis mated with the factory produced engines are what rules. Sometimes those are not even original designs but are adaptations from "Formula" class cars. Indy rules succeeded in expanding NASCAR and Formula racing by its "rulemaking". Individuals that were innovators such as the Unsers, and the likes of Rick Galles have minimal participation in this once beloved sport.


Here is some interesting footage from Jay Leno's Garage again, this time specifically on the turbine engined Chrysler. Mr. Leno owns one of the few of these cars still in existence, and as he points out it really wasn't that much better than the car engines everybody else was making in performance, fuel mileage, or anything else.

Goto:

1963 Chrysler Turbine: Ultimate Edition - Video - Jay Leno's Garage

This is a pretty long episode, nearly 25 minutes, but very informative.
Happy Trails,
Clint.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users