Really good NACAR race lightly attended

[Bob Beamesderfer]

Don't fixate on the leading car, think about the two-car system. We're taking the wings off *both* cars so any aero effect coming off the leading car does not affect the trailing car in terms of aero-downforce-assisted braking grip required for a late-braking pass. You still get the draft effect for the run down the straight (which IS exciting). And removing the aero lengthens the braking zones, allowing more opportunity for a pass.

The 2011 aero rules are just plain stupid. Now the driver of the trailing car can change the position of the wing if the track detects a sub-one-second gap exiting a turn? Talk about artificially manipulating the game. Ugh.

On one hand the FIA went on for the past six years about cutting costs and on the other they made significant rules changes each year that cost the teams more development costs. But they save money by banning testing other than straight line. Next year's rules are still a fuzzy mess.

[Will Kalman]

On one hand the FIA went on for the past six years about cutting costs and on the other they made significant rules changes each year that cost the teams more development costs. But they save money by banning testing other than straight line. Next year's rules are still a fuzzy mess.

I'm with ya, there. They keep changing the rules in order to (ostensibly) save money but the rule changes have to be costing them an arm and a leg. KERS, yes. KERS, no. Front wing adjustments, no, rear wing adjustments. Wide grooved tires, no wait, narrower slicks. Bah!

I'm reading in this months Racecar Engineering how the teams are building their movable rear wing systems. So they're spending money already trying to anticipate still-fuzzy rules. Yeah, that's working great in the costs department.

At least the constant rule changes seem to keep the teams spending money on first principles and not spending ever-more money on ever-smaller details with ever-diminishing returns in speed.

BTW, I think ideas like KERS is awesome - what a great way to prove the relevance of racing to the common car and kick-start new ideas and technology, hopefully leading to more rapid development of energy-recovery technologies for everyday cars. Now let's see what it can do when you up the amount of energy storage and release and remove the limitations of how often it can be used.

[Bob Beamesderfer]

On one hand the FIA went on for the past six years about cutting costs and on the other they made significant rules changes each year that cost the teams more development costs. But they save money by banning testing other than straight line. Next year's rules are still a fuzzy mess.

I'm with ya, there. They keep changing the rules in order to (ostensibly) save money but the rule changes have to be costing them an arm and a leg. KERS, yes. KERS, no. Front wing adjustments, no, rear wing adjustments. Wide grooved tires, no wait, narrower slicks. Bah!

I'm reading in this months Racecar Engineering how the teams are building their movable rear wing systems. So they're spending money already trying to anticipate still-fuzzy rules. Yeah, that's working great in the costs department.

At least the constant rule changes seem to keep the teams spending money on first principles and not spending ever-more money on ever-smaller details with ever-diminishing returns in speed.

BTW, I think ideas like KERS is awesome - what a great way to prove the relevance of racing to the common car and kick-start new ideas and technology, hopefully leading to more rapid development of energy-recovery technologies for everyday cars. Now let's see what it can do when you up the amount of energy storage and release and remove the limitations of how often it can be used.

Oddly enough it was an effort to put more of the racing effort in the driver's hands that lead to the end of active suspension and traction control, which are very relevant technologies to road cars. Odd aero bits and barge boards are barely seen on exotics like the Bugatti or Zonda. The pre-2009 cars had all sorts of strange bits on them.

ALMS has made a huge effort to keep the racing connected to road car development even though half the classes are prototype. Four approved fuels, three of which are or can be made and distributed using existing infrastructure: gasoline E85, clean diesel and isobutanol, which carries none of the corrosion issues of ethanol.

http://www.dysonracing.com/company/news ... ws_id=1112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KJ Christopher]

Oddly enough it was an effort to put more of the racing effort in the driver's hands that lead to the end of active suspension and traction control, which are very relevant technologies to road cars. Odd aero bits and barge boards are barely seen on exotics like the Bugatti or Zonda. The pre-2009 cars had all sorts of strange bits on them.

ALMS has made a huge effort to make its racing more relevant to road car development. Four different approved fuels, including three which can be made and delivered with existing infrastructure.

Oddly enough the rules changes made 20 years ago to put more of the car control on the driver removed two very relevant technologies: traction control and dynamic suspension. The odd aero bits and barge boards are barely seen even on exotics like the Veyron or Zonda.

ALMS has made a huge effort to keep the racing connected to road car development even though half the classes are prototype. Four approved fuels, three of which are or can be made and distributed using existing infrastructure: gasoline E85, clean diesel and isobutanol, which carries none of the corrosion issues of ethanol.

http://www.dysonracing.com/company/news ... ws_id=1112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is there an echo in here?

[Bob Beamesderfer]

Yes. Yes. An echo. An echo. I can fix that. See? No echo!