2020 IndyCar Miscellaneous

From out of left field...most sources suggest it will be a Honda-powered entry with a driver with recent Indy 500 experience. The press release says they'll aim to run the Indy GP too. Doesn't seem like vaporware at first look.



 
Felipe Nasr. Buy stock now.

1. Nasr
2. Dixon
3. Bourdais
4. RHR
5. Veach
6. Rossi
7. Harvey
8. Rosenqvist
9. Ericsson
10. Herta
11. Kimball
12. Andretti
13. Ferrucci
14. Alex Palou
15. Ben Hanley

 
Really long - but good! - piece on what could happen at Richmond this summer. I think it's really important this race is a success because, quite frankly, there just aren't many ovals left to go to and the TV ratings in that market have been some of IndyCar's higher figures. Sounds like reason for cautious optimism.

In that regard, early indications from last October’s Richmond test featuring Dixon’s Ganassi-Honda and Josef Newgarden’s Penske-Chevrolet are highly encouraging. The cars reached a top speed of 175mph, but had to go down to 135 on corner apex.

“It’s not going to be like the last Richmond race,” IndyCar’s VP of competition, Bill Pappas tells Motorsport.com. “I think we had too much downforce back then, and the track had a lot more grip than it has now, so the cars carried a lot of speed into the corner and then had too much drag on the straights. I think that’s why it was follow-the-leader. This car is very different and so is the track these days.”
Click to expand...

A fuel load could last 120 laps around the three-quarter-mile course, but the tires won’t reach anything like that distance. The Newgarden/Dixon test – conducted with the cars carrying aeroscreens – demonstrated just how punishing the little track’s turns will be on the Firestones. Between Lap 5 and Lap 80, lap speeds dropped from 148mph (already 10mph off a simulated qualifying lap) to just 128! In other words, come the race, a driver on fresh tires is going to absolutely carve into the track position advantage of a rival who hasn’t yet pitted.
Click to expand...

“Yeah, wheelspin could be a problem, you’ve got to be careful with the throttle application on exit,” he says. “Off Turn 2, it’s very nasty in the transition there as the banking drops off [from 14 degrees to just 2]. Iowa has a more gradual transition and has a little more banking on the straight [4 degrees].

“So someone who has a very good-handling racecar that can really turn in the center of the corner but then also puts the power down well in a straight line is going to be really strong. But the tire deg is still going to be really high compared with other tracks. I mean, if I was going to give you a ballpark figure, I reckon there’s up to 40 percent more dropoff than Iowa.

“The thing is, the corner radius is just tighter so you just can’t keep the momentum up like at Iowa, you have more understeer. There’s a lot more braking, a lot more going on for the driver from the input standpoint, and Iowa already requires a lot of input, so imagine putting 40 percent more on top of that. I mean, even on new tires, we’re having to brake for the turns. It’s awesome. So you can see why I’m optimistic about us putting on a really good show there.”
Click to expand...

 
Charlie Spencer said:
I would love to see them try to bite off Darlington. Hell, I'd drive over there just to see them test, even if they never scheduled a race date.

Does anyone doubt the Roval is coming?
Click to expand...
I think they'd be scared of Darlington, the same way they will never go back to Dover.
 
donthaveanickname said:
Can't they run the superspeedway package at all tracks?
Click to expand...
Those kits are designed to go fast. Downforce is a function of velocity and if they’re not at a place like Texas or Indy or Pocono they’re not efficient and the cars become skittish, undrivable messes. There’s obviously very little as far as topside downforce with those cars already and the slower they go the less underside downforce they’ll generate too. Road course speeds are more akin to short oval speeds so that kit makes more sense there. Cars are more drivable and more raceable.
 
The series needs to go where it’s wanted and can be a success. In recent history, those places just haven’t been ovals. There are certainly tracks it’d be good to see them go to again if it’s a financial loser for the track it’s a financial loser for the series. And if the series even makes a profit, it’s not much of one...2014 was the first time they made a profit in God knows how long because the Hulman-George family spent millions propping up the IRL and then building back up post-merger IndyCar.

The bulk of the schedule is mostly good anyways, IMO...the twisties sure as hell beat most F1 grands prix.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Walker races at the retirement home beat F1.
Click to expand...
F1 is interesting in that no race ever really seems mediocre. If it’s bad it seems awfully bad and if it’s good it’s an absolute banger. More of those fall into the former these days, but the 2021 regulations seem a lot more promising.
 
FLRacingFan said:
F1 is interesting in that no race ever really seems mediocre. If it’s bad it seems awfully bad and if it’s good it’s an absolute banger. More of those fall into the former these days, but the 2021 regulations seem a lot more promising.
Click to expand...

What kills F1 on race day is that only 6 cars can win. If a few people have a bad day, the race is total ****.

I do love how on the edge F1 is though. 2018 was amazing and so was the second half of last season
 
Mispeedway15 said:
I do love how on the edge F1 is though.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean when you describe an entire series as 'on the edge'.

I admit I only glance at F1 a couple of times a year but each time, all I see is a parade. Maybe I've consistently caught the wrong tracks or the wrong time in a pit cycle. Maybe I just don't know understand what I'm seeing or how to appreciate it. I'm not a gear head; the technology alone isn't going to keep my attention if the racing itself doesn't entertain me. I do know I've heard too many times I should watch qualifying 'because that's the exciting part'.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I'm not sure what you mean when you describe an entire series as 'on the edge'.

I admit I only glance at F1 a couple of times a year but each time, all I see is a parade. Maybe I've consistently caught the wrong tracks or the wrong time in a pit cycle. Maybe I just don't know understand what I'm seeing or how to appreciate it. I'm not a gear head; the technology alone isn't going to keep my attention if the racing itself doesn't entertain me. I do know I've heard too many times I should watch qualifying 'because that's the exciting part'.
Click to expand...

I’d say just the raw speed to handle these cars. Sure they’re perfectly engineered machines, but the g forces put on drivers is insane. Takes some balls to dive into a corner as hard as they do
 
kkfan91 said:
They need good ovals, American open wheel racing was built on ovals. Watching them on road courses is the equivalent to me of doing math problems for fun.
Click to expand...

I agree we need more ovals, but I still like the road racing.

The ridiculous part is that every time someone gets hurt or killed they take the track off the schedule. Pocono has historically not been that bad, and I believe the freak Wilson accident has been the only fatality. People have been killed at Laguna and Mid Ohio, but we still race there, so this should not be the measuring stick. The Texas fence has never been fixed, but it stays on the schedule because it's a popular race.

They need to go back to Milwaukee and make it work, and judging by what Penske has done with Detroit, is more than possible. They could also easily go back to Michigan and Fontana and even Phoenix. Nothing was more sh*tty than Detroit, but now it's a well groomed, well supported jewel in the crown.

The big difference here is Penske, who knows how to promote.
 
McLaren does a lot of weird ****, but I don't think even they would acquire a number to go do some testing.
 
Doc Austin said:
I agree we need more ovals, but I still like the road racing.

The ridiculous part is that every time someone gets hurt or killed they take the track off the schedule. Pocono has historically not been that bad, and I believe the freak Wilson accident has been the only fatality. People have been killed at Laguna and Mid Ohio, but we still race there, so this should not be the measuring stick. The Texas fence has never been fixed, but it stays on the schedule because it's a popular race.

They need to go back to Milwaukee and make it work, and judging by what Penske has done with Detroit, is more than possible. They could also easily go back to Michigan and Fontana and even Phoenix. Nothing was more sh*tty than Detroit, but now it's a well groomed, well supported jewel in the crown.

The big difference here is Penske, who knows how to promote.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure Michigan is at play because it could take away from Roger’s own event at Detroit. And Fontana and Phoenix probably will have a cooling off period that will last a few more years at least, if they even ever go back. The attendance levels were pretty horrific when they last went there.

I think Chicagoland would be the safest bet for the next oval gone back to. Midwest should always be fairly safe compared to most other prospects when it comes to attendance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom