Vai al contenuto
  • Navigazione recente   0 utenti

    • Non ci sono utenti registrati da visualizzare in questa pagina.

Indycar Series 2015


Andrea Gardenal

Recommended Posts

AndrettiHondaMarco AndrettiRyan Hunter-ReayCarlos Muà±ozKurt Busch (Indy 500), Justin Wilson? Zach Veach? Simona De Silvestro(?)

GanassiChevroletScott DixonTony Kanaan, Charlie KimballSage Karam?

CFHChevroletJosef NewgardenEd Carpenter/Luca Filippi, JR Hildebrand (Indy500)?

KV RacingChevroletBryan Clauson (Indy 500), Sébastien Bourdais, Sebastià¡n Saavedra? Stefano Coletti(?)

RahalHondaGraham Rahal

SchmidtHondaJames Hinchcliffe, James Jakes

PenskeChevroletWill Power, Juan Pablo MontoyaHélio CastronevesSimon Pagenaud

FoytHondaTakuma Sato, Jack Hawksworth

HertaHonda: Gabby Chaves, Jay Howard (Indy 500), Và­tor Meira (Indy 500)?

LazierChevroletBuddy Lazier (Indy 500)

CoyneHondaAlexander Rossi? Carlos Huertas? Justin Wilson? Pippa Mann(Indy500)?

Fan Force, ???: Stefan Wilson

Insomma resta in ballo Wilson sulla quarta di Andretti se trovano gli sponsor, poi sulla quinta potrebbero alternarsi Veach e altri. Di Karam non si sa niente ma ci sono stati segnali positivi, per la seconda di KV Coletti sembra avere delle possibilità , ma attenzione a Sonic, Coyne solitamente un sedile lo paga (alla fine rimarrà  Wilson come ogni anno :asd:) e potrebbe andare a Rossi, poi c'è sempre Huertas in mezzo. 

Link al commento
Condividi su altri siti

Grande Stefan Johansson

 

...

Would people forgive the fact that IndyCar is almost spec racing if the cars were the flame-spitting monsters of your Indy car era?

Personally, I think so. Any proper racecar should have 900-1000hp if it is going to be appreciated by the drivers and the general public. It takes skill and bravery to handle, and the fans can see it. When I think of a qualifying lap at Monaco in F1’s turbo era, when we had 1400 horsepower, the wheel was never straight, because you were getting wheelspin even in fifth gear, so you were constantly correcting the slides, often one-handed because it was a manual gearbox at that time. Now, you see an onboard lap at Monaco and it looks quite calm, because the car is doing half the job for the driver. Relatively speaking, obviously.

The problem is, every racing category has been dumbed down, from the top, I think in the interests of safety. And so just like in F1, Indy cars are completely different to drive now than they were 20 years ago and although the cars themselves are safer now, I’d argue that the racing on ovals isn’t, aside from the addition of the SAFER barriers. My thinking is that it’s hardly more dangerous doing 240mph than 220 down the straights because it’s very, very rare you get an accident on the straights. Accidents happen in the turns – and that’s where the Indy cars are going faster than ever! So getting a bigger difference between straight line speed and cornering speed on ovals is not only safer, it will also spread the field out more, sort the men from the boys.

And to a lesser extent, I think there is room to make IndyCar racing harder, so there’s a better separation between the great and the good. The racing is very good at the moment but maybe that’s because the guys who aren’t quite as good can still perform reasonably well because the car isn’t as challenging as if it had another 2-300hp – that goes without saying. I don’t think it’s right that on a road course, the whole grid is covered by just 1.3seconds or whatever. To me, that just suggests the cars have been dumbed down a bit too much. I look at Scott and see he’s only half a second quicker than X or Y on the grid, and I think, ‘If these cars were as hard to drive as they should be, that gap would be two seconds!’

So yeah, spec racing in a more powerful and difficult car would be the way to go. Also, although certain aspects of the car are spec, I think there should be less regulation. I think the teams should be allowed to do more to their cars, to alter the car to suit a driver’s driving style. But also they should be allowed to have a greater variety of choices. The rules shouldn’t say you can only tilt the wing back this far or bring it forward that far. As an even easier example, I think it’s wrong that you have to run both types of tire. Give more choice, allow drivers and teams to adopt different strategies. If someone thinks they can run faster with two stops using three sets of black [hard compound] tires than if they do three stops using two sets of blacks and two sets of reds [soft compound], then they should be allowed. It brings in another tactical dimension, another variation.

OK, you say that they should be allowed to do more to their cars, and I agree. But where do you stop? Should teams be allowed to build a special wing or a reprofiled sidepod or little winglets…?

Well it’s funny you should bring up aerodynamics because that is the main anti-racing culprit, isn’t it? The amount of money that’s spent on aero in F1, for example, is ridiculous and almost makes the best argument of all for spec racing. Aerodynamics on an open-wheel racecar is the one thing that is never going to be transferable from racecar to road car and yet F1 limits boost levels, KERS power, fuel and so on but not aerodynamics. Yet, aero is one of the main reasons why passing has become so difficult in a modern racecar: as soon as you get in the turbulence of the car in front, you lose the front end which makes it very hard to make a pass.

So I would suggest – and this would be applicable to IndyCar too, in order to push innovation within the teams – that you’re given a limit on downforce, say 1,500lbs or whatever the sensible number is. That would be easy to measure through the strain gauges of the pushrods which feed right into the car’s ECU. Engineers would then have to look at drag reduction, and other yet-to-be invented methods of improving the overall performance of the car, but they could only go so far downforce-wise. Then the emphasis would be on mechanical grip through suspension, damping, tire technology. That way, you’ve got innovation, you’re stretching the talents of the engineers, but in a very, very cost-effective manner, because you’re still running the same basic car, engine, tires, etc. And the car is adjustable to suit the style of the driver who then also has to compromise between what’s best for him or her, but also what is quickest.

...

OK, so does their need to be a revolutionary approach to the marketing?

There needs to be a revolution among the people who are guiding IndyCar, I think. Look at the most successful racing series in the world – NASCAR and F1. They’ve been run by the same people for decades as benevolent dictatorships; they consist of individuals or a very small group of people who have a precise understanding of the whole business, every little detail, but are also capable of looking at it from a distance. That’s important because distance means you avoid the internal politics down at team level, but also means you can see a long, long way down the road.

But these people aren’t just smart in business; they’re also real racing enthusiasts, people who have racing in their blood; their job is their life. And I’m sorry to say, I don’t think that’s the case for a lot of people in charge at IndyCar, which is why we ended up with Gene Simmons marketing the series, and then Boston Consulting Group advising the series. Totally clueless. They couldn’t tell one end of a racecar from the other. Motor racing is a very complex business at every level, with an incredible amount of moving parts; it’s unfair and a complete waste of money to expect someone from the outside to come in and learn in a very short period of time all the intricacies required to make it work.

If you look at NASCAR, they do small evolutionary steps most years, big steps occasionally. Formula 1 sometimes doesn’t do any steps if it doesn’t need to and sometimes there’s a revolution like with the current engines. But IndyCar seems to make at least one major change every year, whether it’s new staff, whether it’s new races in/old races out, whether it’s in terms of marketing tactics… There’s just no consistency in the message, year on year.

...

L'intervista completa: http://www.racer.com/indycar/item/113499-indycar-2018-by-stefan-johansson?showall=1&limitstart=

  • Like 4
Link al commento
Condividi su altri siti

Insomma resta in ballo Wilson sulla quarta di Andretti se trovano gli sponsor, poi sulla quinta potrebbero alternarsi Veach e altri. Di Karam non si sa niente ma ci sono stati segnali positivi, per la seconda di KV Coletti sembra avere delle possibilità , ma attenzione a Sonic, Coyne solitamente un sedile lo paga (alla fine rimarrà  Wilson come ogni anno :asd:) e potrebbe andare a Rossi, poi c'è sempre Huertas in mezzo. 

 

No fatemi capire, c'erano la De Silvestro, Valsecchi, Daly e Shmidt ha scelto Jakes???

 

Vo a casa! 

Link al commento
Condividi su altri siti

Ero un po' scettico a riguardo ma comincio a pensare anch'io una cosa: come successo per la IndyLights  forse qualcuno diverso dal gruppo Hulman-George dovrebbe comprare e gestirsi il campionato e lasciare la Indy 500 come evento a se stante organizzato da IMS, com'era ai tempi di USAC e CART. IMS non è in grado di organizzare un campionato decente, bisognerebbe imparare dagli errori della CART e ripartire da lì.

  • Like 4
Link al commento
Condividi su altri siti

Quello di fianco a Miles (che non so chi sia :asd: ) difende la scelta di richiamare Brian Barnhart nel ruolo di direttore di corsa, sostenendo che i suoi compiti saranno molto diversi da quelli che ha avuto fino al 2011

E' Derrick Walker. In parte è vero perchè ai tempi decideva tutto Barnhart, ora le penalità  saranno decise da un collegio di tre commissari, lui e due piloti. Però la scelta di bandiere gialle, rosse eccetera penso dipenderanno sempre da Barnhart.

Link al commento
Condividi su altri siti

1) Come avevo detto si confermano un branco di coglioni: prima della presentazione di questa roba avrebbero dovuto fare un casino, una promozione assurda...io mi ritengo uno spettatore più o meno attento...non ne sapevo niente, nel sito non ho visto nulla, su RACER non c'era nulla, su Trackforum nulla...niente di niente.

2) Un obbrobrio peggiore di quello che pensavo

  • Like 3
Link al commento
Condividi su altri siti

02-17-Chevy-Aerokit-Unveil-Std.jpg?h=366

Superato lo shock, vediamo un po': l'ala anteriore non sarebbe neanche male, hanno eliminato quel ponte orrendo ma quei due piloncini erano evitabili, anche perchè partiranno con una facilità  estrema. Purtroppo il ponte l'hanno spostato sulle pance, neutralizzando l'effetto dei profili davanti alle ruote posteriori che avrebbero segnato un passo avanti esteticamente. Dal cofano motore del tutto chiuso ormai nessuno direbbe che è un turbo. Triplano posteriore, perchè non bastava quello che c'era già , cui si somma un muso posteriore rialzato e alettato...quello è veramente tragico.

  • Like 2
Link al commento
Condividi su altri siti

Crea un account o accedi per commentare

Devi essere un utente per poter lasciare un commento

Crea un account

Registrati per un nuovo account nella nostra comunità. è facile!

Registra un nuovo account

Accedi

Hai già un account? Accedi qui.

Accedi ora

×
×
  • Crea nuovo...