You're right. My point was that a car like say an IMSA car has always been assymetrical in terms of aero, so advantage NASCAR Cup car. Not anymore though, that advantage no longer separates them. So the setup, mechanically, is what it's all about.
They have some kind of design that lets them adjust all four corners. They don't have to change springs out to setup the car.
F1 cars are at LEAST as safe as a Cup car, and they accomplish that feat with far, far less weight.
"Some kind of design", yeah, spring buckets with screws and wedge wrenches. I don't get your point
how many serious injuries and deaths have they had in the last 20 years. Sorry to say but I think F-1 has more
I was commenting on what you said, I am not positive it is that simple. If I run across the article I will post it.
If Cup cars were going as fast as F1 cars and hit the same types of barriers, there would be a lot more injuries and possibly deaths. F1 cars are a miracle of motorsports safety science.
They aren't safer is my point. I'm glad F-1 and IndyCar are doing as well as they are, and in that area it is an unfair comparison Nascar is safer hands down, as is top speed of the open wheelers compared to Nascar's is.
You're moving the goalposts, or rather not defining any. You're making a generic blanket "the nextgen car is the most advanced racecar in the world" type statement, and it's not, and then you're saying, "well not like THAT...".
"One of the most advanced on the planet" is not correct.
That's your opinion.
Ok then support yours with something more factual.That's your opinion.
It doesn't look like it. The function of the removable bolt on clips is so teams can replace the front or rear instead of having to build a whole chassis. The car does have some pretty massive foam behind the front and rear bumpers.
This is a pretty thorough article from Car and Driver:
Previously, raw steel tubing would enter a race shop at one end, and a tube frame would exit the other. That is no longer the case. Michigan based Technique Inc. will provide all the frames, which now consist of a common center cage with bolt-on front and rear substructures. The idea here is that when an inevitable crash occurs, the bolt-on structures can be replaced rather than cutting up or throwing away an entire tube frame, and in turn, this should help reduce operating costs.
NASCAR Reveals Next Gen Race Car, and We Dive Deep into the Specs
NASCAR's seventh-generation Cup car modernizes the racing body's premier series racer in big and small ways.www.caranddriver.com
You should be able to find something there
who else does that? Are cost savings a bad thing?
Google Super GT chassis, which is also the DTM chassis.
You are a troll. Back on ignore you go.
It still isn't one of the most advanced, that just doesn't make sense. IRS, 18" wheels, a 5 speed transaxle, composite body, etc all would still not have been advanced even 20 years ago.
That's your opinion. The advanced race cars use most of it today.
I hope you do bud, your personal attacks are getting real old.
That's not my opinion. Even here in the US, Rolex Grand-Am and ALMS had this stuff 20 years ago. I don't think you understand how wild the *actual* current "advanced" cars like prototypes and F1 really are by now.
Yep those cars are advanced race cars. It looks like you are hung up on dates. I didn't say the car was the most innovative
Innovation is what leads to advancements... The word "advanced" means "modern and recently developed".
so the Next Gen wasn't recently developed? It isn't modern? To me it is.
If I release a new brand of mechanical can opener, same old design as ones from 1950 except mine have a different colored handle, is it really a "modern" product?
funny. The car chassis was designed by Dalarta, built by Technique who build for other race car series using the latest technology (robotic welds and cuts using Cam programming) Innovative chassis design, not a different colored handle.
Dallara*
Save your energy. He took your entire comment, and all he got out of it was “dallara designs chassis for other series so that makes the car advanced”. He can’t answer the givin question so he makes up an answer for a question that wasn’t asked.
The results were turned over to an independent panel and the car passed
Hopefully because it is actually safer and not because the independent panel was paid-off to claim it was safer
when you find a more advanced way to build a chassis let me know ok?
what would be to gain with that conspiracy theory? Make an unsafer car so they loose their record for safety?
More advanced methods are open information. Start with some carbon fiber sheet, a vacuum mold, and an autoclave.
That method was considered, but turned down in favor of steel. Better safety factor. They do use a carbon fiber undertray though and changeable diffusers for the different tracks