Would wingless formula racecars sell tickets?

Zeke · 09:18 PM

I'm looking at Curt's thread on wierd race cars and there is one thing common to many of them: Ugly wings. Some of the most beautiful formula race cars came from the era of BRM, Lotus and Cooper.

I don't think that a cigar shaped car 6 inches off the ground is necessarily what I have in mind here, that's just a retro look. But what if an open wheel race series or support series mandated no wings? Underside is free, tires are free, 3.5 NA displacement. No sidepods either, max body width rule along with max track and length. Aero devices allowed if they fit within the prescribed body profile and are molded into the body panel with the base of the device equal or greater in size than the outward dimention. (This would eliminate attempts of molding a wing shape standing off the body, i.e., a duck tail would be legal, a Turbo tail not legal.)

In spirit, it would be a driver's car. Silver Crown USAC cars are sort of this way, but front engined V8s. How about a modern rear engine car, carbon fiber tub, all the present technology and no wings? Primarily road race with an oval or two. Would this be a series you would watch or go see?

motion · 03-08-2004, 06:21 AM

Sounds dangerous to me, Zeke. At 200mph, a 1000 lb car needs serious downforce to keep it on the ground.

masraum · 03-08-2004, 08:05 AM

Sounds like the old Can-Am cars like the 917/30.

cstreit · cstreit's Garage

Formula V ....

cegerer · cegerer's Garage

Hmmmm .... how about a series of Auto Union replicas - pretty much fits that formula.

Zeke · 03-08-2004, 07:46 PM

Let me tell you that if the car won't stick then I guess you won't drive it into the corner at 200. You'd be surprised at the percentage of downforce created by the undertray and not the wings. Williams has the idea, use the nose, use everything. I could design a car with 6 inch wide a arms situated at the right angle, but that is already defeating my premise.

The FV is a good example. Lets put 800 hp in one with 10 and 12 inch tires and see what it would do.

The question is, would people pay to see drivers in a very visable 4 wheel drift exercising car control and skill? At my local race, the Long beach Grand Prix, I go to see the TransAm guys. Man, if there weren't walls, these guys would really hang it out. They do anyway. But someone forgot to tell the drunk idiots that fill the stands that there are other forms of racing. The people watch what they're told to watch. I'd like to see Colin McRea in a WRC car with pavement tires on it. Let hin do 5 laps until the tires are fried and take a vote in the stands.

greglepore · 03-10-2004, 04:32 AM

F1 circa 1967. Probably the Golden Era. Sure it'd sell tons of tickets. Downside is that it'll kill a bunch of drivers, particularly the latest generation that's used to very safe racecars-ask Magneson and Mad Max...

Zeke · 03-10-2004, 06:43 PM

Greg, the cars of '67 didn't have the safety aspects of today's cars. David Hobbs was saying one day that the FI car he drove had an aluminum gas tank (no bladder) over the top of his legs for additional fuel beyond what he was laying on right behind. With the carbon fiber/kevlar tub, the driver safety is much better today.

I think it is easy to miss the point here. I am talking about alltogether a new car. Just no wings. I'd wager that designers could get 70% of the current avaialbe maximum downforce with the body and the undertray alone. Remember that full downforce is only used in the rain.

When you look at an F1 car of the last few seasons, you get the idea that this wing is directing the air to that wing and that wing is directing the air somewhere else. The barge boards are directing the air into and away from the radiator intakes and the rear tires. JEEZ!! Let the car have a little drag. It might be the answer to some of the problems in terms of speed.

I'll recant on one thing, they could use a little side pod. Helps with the placement of the radiators, aids in the configuration of the undertray and protects the driver.

greglepore · 03-11-2004, 07:32 AM

Yeah, I get your point now-I'd just rather see less downforce, period. Sorta like the Stewart era, but use the undertray for downforce, and eliminate traction control.

I certainly recognize that the tubs are safer, but that's only part of the equation. The driver's are very, very good, don't get me wrong, but I think they've become overly accustomed to having a large safety margin. I'm not advocating taking that away, but any change to a more "car control" oriented series is likely to shake it up a bit.

motion · 03-11-2004, 08:33 AM

What happens when you hit debris or a rise in the track at 200mph? The Gomer-Twirl, oops I mean the IRL, is having problems with their big-ass wings keeping the cars from flying into the stands.

Zeke · 03-11-2004, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greglepore
......The driver's are very, very good, don't get me wrong, but I think they've become overly accustomed to having a large safety margin. I'm not advocating taking that away, but any change to a more "car control" oriented series is likely to shake it up a bit.

I have two more observations then. The "margin" is not large. When the cars get loose, they fly into the wall. Loose that suction and wing induced downforce and it's game over real quick. The NASCAR boys seem to get around these tracks with absolutely no aero devices underneath, i.e., Fontana = 190mph compared to an estimated IRL of 220 and CART at 230. For the stock cars, it's done with the bodywork alone. I know it's a large body comparitively, but the formula car can combine the body and the undertray for the needed downforce.

I take it you guys don't think much of this and that's OK. Many of you were born after wings became a permanent fixture in open wheel racing. I think the wingless cars tat I have in my mind are better looking and serve the auto industry better in terms of applied research, as they used to.