FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
MEDIA EVENT: Thursday, July 7 at 11:00 a.m.
WHAT:
Champ Car Driver Media Conference and Ford of Canada Special Announcement
WHO:
Champ Car Drivers:
Paul Tracy – Forsythe Championship Racing (Canadian)
Alex Tagliani – Team Australia (Canadian)
Andrew Ranger – Mi Jack Conquest Racing (Canadian)
Jimmy Vasser – PKV Racing
Oriol Servia –Dale Coyne Racing
Formula Atlantic Drivers:
Antoine Bessette (Canadian)
Tim Hauraney (Canadian)
Katherine Legge
Joe Hinrichs, President and CEO, Ford of Canada
Jo-Ann McArthur, President, Molson Sports & Entertainment
WHEN: Thursday, July 7 at 11:00 a.m.
WHERE:
“Pit Out” at the Molson Indy Track, Exhibition Place, Toronto
WHY:
This is the chance for media to get face to face with the drivers of the Champ Car, Formula Atlantic and Trans AM Series to discuss their strategies for a win at the Molson Indy in Toronto. Also, be the first in Canada to hear a special national announcement from Ford of Canada.
Tuesday, July 5, 2005
SHOULDICE ALSTAR: Delisle set to return at Kawartha
WINDSOR, ON – Shouldice ALSTAR Series rookie Dan Delisle driver of the #1 KFC/CharterHouse Printing Chevrolet has been cleared by his physician to return to action this weekend at Kawartha Speedway. Delisle has been sidelined since early June because of a work related injury.
“I feel great and very anxious to strap back in this weekend at Kawartha. It’s been very difficult to sit back each week and see the Shouldice Stone Alstar results come in and my name not be anywhere on that page.”
“We’re ready for Kawartha. It looks like an awesome track, and the crew has done their homework. With only 7 races remaining winning the championship may not be in the cards but we are gonna win a few.”
The Shouldice Stone Alstar Series resumes racing this Friday night at Kawartha Speedway.
“I feel great and very anxious to strap back in this weekend at Kawartha. It’s been very difficult to sit back each week and see the Shouldice Stone Alstar results come in and my name not be anywhere on that page.”
“We’re ready for Kawartha. It looks like an awesome track, and the crew has done their homework. With only 7 races remaining winning the championship may not be in the cards but we are gonna win a few.”
The Shouldice Stone Alstar Series resumes racing this Friday night at Kawartha Speedway.
TRANS-AM: POINTS LEADER RUHLMAN LOOKS FOR REPEAT PODIUM FINISH AT MOLSON INDY TORONTO
Courtesy Derhaag Motorsports
TORONTO (July 5, 2005)--After scoring his second win of the season in a dramatic come from the back finish at the Cleveland Grand Prix, Randy Ruhlman is looking forward to racing the #49 Preformed Line Products Canada Corvette this weekend at the Molson Indy Toronto in Round 4 of the 2005 Trans-Am Series.
The current Driver's Championship point’s leader, Ruhlman will be making his 150th start in Trans-Am, having scored two wins and a second in the first three Rounds of 2005 competition. Ruhlman hopes to continue that streak in Toronto, and feels he has some unfinished business at the track at Exhibition Place.
Ruhlman says, "We've run some great races so far this year against the Jags and Fords, and I have a great team to thank for giving me a winning car. I am still really hungry for a win at Toronto, though. We fell a bit short last year, when Ron [Fellows] and I finished just off of the win. So coming back this year, I feel good about our chances. I've been coming to Toronto since 1988 in the Corvette Challenge. I love this track and the fans are some of the most supportive and knowledgeable in the sport." Ruhlman scored a second place finish here last year, where along with teammate Canadian driver Ron Fellows, they made it a two-three podium finish for the Corvettes.
Not only will Ruhlman be fighting the Jaguars again, but he will have an additional 25 pounds of "reward weight" added to his Corvette. This weight (a 25-pound penalty for each win), plus that for the Long Beach win, puts the #49 car at a 150-pound weight disadvantage against the AJ V8 of Gentilozzi, and 125 pounds heavier than Portland winner Klaus Graf.
Braking, acceleration and tire wear are the major issues with weight and are especially critical at a fast and tight track like Toronto. With a significantly heavier car, Ruhlman will be forced once again to call on his ability to drive a fast, steady pace and his skill at keeping the car and tires in good shape for the final dash to the checkered flag. Ruhlman has continued to be very fast in the Corvette, setting a new track record at Portland with the fastest race lap, and, while driving to a 16 second winning margin at Cleveland, he missed the fast lap of Klaus Graf in the Jaguar by thousandths.
Ruhlman drives the #49 blue and white PLP Corvette, sponsored in Canada by Toronto area, Preformed Line Products Canada.
This year, Ruhlman is joined on the Derhaag Motorsports team by Calgary native and rookie contender Hima Maher. The two drivers will be talking to the media at the trackside pre-race press conference on Thursday, July 7th.
The Toronto Trans-Am race will be held on Saturday, July 9th at Exhibition Place in downtown Toronto. The 100-mile race of 57 laps will be run at 3 PM EDT. Television coverage will be Sunday, July 17th at 12:30 EDT. The Toronto race is one of three Canadian races for Trans-Am in the 2005 season. The series travels to Edmonton, Alberta next week, and ends the season at the Molson Indy at Montreal.
TORONTO (July 5, 2005)--After scoring his second win of the season in a dramatic come from the back finish at the Cleveland Grand Prix, Randy Ruhlman is looking forward to racing the #49 Preformed Line Products Canada Corvette this weekend at the Molson Indy Toronto in Round 4 of the 2005 Trans-Am Series.
The current Driver's Championship point’s leader, Ruhlman will be making his 150th start in Trans-Am, having scored two wins and a second in the first three Rounds of 2005 competition. Ruhlman hopes to continue that streak in Toronto, and feels he has some unfinished business at the track at Exhibition Place.
Ruhlman says, "We've run some great races so far this year against the Jags and Fords, and I have a great team to thank for giving me a winning car. I am still really hungry for a win at Toronto, though. We fell a bit short last year, when Ron [Fellows] and I finished just off of the win. So coming back this year, I feel good about our chances. I've been coming to Toronto since 1988 in the Corvette Challenge. I love this track and the fans are some of the most supportive and knowledgeable in the sport." Ruhlman scored a second place finish here last year, where along with teammate Canadian driver Ron Fellows, they made it a two-three podium finish for the Corvettes.
Not only will Ruhlman be fighting the Jaguars again, but he will have an additional 25 pounds of "reward weight" added to his Corvette. This weight (a 25-pound penalty for each win), plus that for the Long Beach win, puts the #49 car at a 150-pound weight disadvantage against the AJ V8 of Gentilozzi, and 125 pounds heavier than Portland winner Klaus Graf.
Braking, acceleration and tire wear are the major issues with weight and are especially critical at a fast and tight track like Toronto. With a significantly heavier car, Ruhlman will be forced once again to call on his ability to drive a fast, steady pace and his skill at keeping the car and tires in good shape for the final dash to the checkered flag. Ruhlman has continued to be very fast in the Corvette, setting a new track record at Portland with the fastest race lap, and, while driving to a 16 second winning margin at Cleveland, he missed the fast lap of Klaus Graf in the Jaguar by thousandths.
Ruhlman drives the #49 blue and white PLP Corvette, sponsored in Canada by Toronto area, Preformed Line Products Canada.
This year, Ruhlman is joined on the Derhaag Motorsports team by Calgary native and rookie contender Hima Maher. The two drivers will be talking to the media at the trackside pre-race press conference on Thursday, July 7th.
The Toronto Trans-Am race will be held on Saturday, July 9th at Exhibition Place in downtown Toronto. The 100-mile race of 57 laps will be run at 3 PM EDT. Television coverage will be Sunday, July 17th at 12:30 EDT. The Toronto race is one of three Canadian races for Trans-Am in the 2005 season. The series travels to Edmonton, Alberta next week, and ends the season at the Molson Indy at Montreal.
Alright F1 fans…most of us ‘lifers’ know that the behind-the-scenes wrangling is often more interesting than the racing itself. So it comes as no surprise that the proposed F1 regulations for 2008 were introduced shortly before the Indy race, allowing enough time for the two youngest members on staff to produce a point/counterpoint. I, for one…am firmly against the proposed regulations.
The purpose of the new regs is to keep costs in check. Well guess what – they won’t. Instead of manufacturers being able to spread out their budgets over a wide range of departments (chassis, aero, engine, etc.), the workforce will be concentrated on refining the most minute part of the car’s package. This will force teams to do more development for far less achievable performance gains.
James Neilson (JN) and Michael Banovsky (MB) report.
ENGINES
“All components of the engine will be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification.”
MB: Bad – Think “fuel rig” on this one. The FIA isn’t capable of contracting a company to supply a fuel rig that doesn’t malfunction, let alone a complex ECU.
JN: Good – Fuel rig? They don’t work because teams like Benetton modified them outside of FIA regulations. Remember Jos Verstappen and the inferno that obscured his stricken Benetton in 1994? I’m sure a company like Magnetti Marelli, who currently provide ECU’s to Ferrari, could provide a standard ECU to all teams.
“The ECU may only be used with FIA-approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators as specified by the FIA.”
MB: Bad – So what if there’s a faulty sensor and the car fails during a race? Does the FIA lose constructor’s points? Of course not. And what will be the cost to each team for this technology and the software to use it?
JN:
Good – Cost is always an issue but cost debates always revolve around some teams having more money than others. If the software is provided to teams at the same price what’s the problem with standard electronics?
“A 3 litre V10 engine will remain an option for teams unable to obtain a 2.4 litre V8, but subject to similar strict performance limitations as in 2006 and 2007.”
MB: Bad – Don’t worry, the new 2.4L V8s will be up to today’s performance levels in two years. So it would be a farce to allow teams to use V10 engines in 2008, considering their increased longevity through the increased displacement. I say engine regs should allow for more creativity. Cap the displacement at 4L, and produce a rev limit for any combination of V6-V16 engines at that displacement. This would allow, say, a 3L V8 limited to 18,000 RPM to compete alongside a 4L V12 at 9,000 RPM.
JN: Good – Longevity is irrelevant as the 2.4 litre V8 will be designed to make it through two races. If a V10 could last longer, say four races, it will most likely still be changed after two as the rules allow you to do that. Development will inevitably cease on the V10 and any advantage that configuration might have initially will be nixed by the crappy chassis, think Minardi, it will be strapped to.
GEARBOXES
“All cars will be fitted with gear ratios, final drive ratios and differentials that have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification.”
MB: Bad – Is there one gearset allowed for a season? What is the maximum number of parts allowed to be purchased by teams? What are the fatigue levels for each component (how long will the gears last)? And who agrees to this specification?
JN: Good – Gearboxes are one of the most expensive items on a car to develop and maintain. Considering the money BAR spent this season on their “seamless shift” transmission and the resultant embarrassing performance, it’s obvious that money could have been spent elsewhere, like giving David Richards an offer to return he couldn’t have refused.
“Gear changing will only be permitted by the use of a manually operated mechanical linkage to the gearbox.”
MB: Good – This should help drivers shake the in-car image of being robots.
JN: Good – I Still remember watching poor Ukyo Katayama clang through the gears and dance the two-step in the footwell of his anemic Tyrrell at the ’94 Japanese Grand Prix. Bring that back! Please!
“Clutches will only be operated via a foot pedal connected mechanically to a release mechanism.”
MB: Bad – I firmly believe that F1 technology should precede technology available to the consumer, not follow it. So, in the world of SMG and DSG, where is the link between F1 and available technology? At the very most, limit clutch use to the start of the grand prix and pit stops.
JN: Undecided – I’m still trying to figure out where the teams would fit a third pedal in a modern Formula 1 Car.
BODYWORK
“Downforce will be reduced to approximately 10% of current levels.”
MB: Bad – The trick here is to increase the overtaking, but to reduce the tendency for the cars to slide. When a car slides, it puts drivers/spectators/track workers at more of a risk from out-of-control vehicles. Also, without the downforce, how will high-speed component/tire failures be controlled? And how will the cars stay on the ground after tire-to-tire contact?
JN: Good – Cars should be less dependant on their aerodynamics in a bid to increase overtaking but to 10%? That’s a little extreme. Reduce the drag, reduce the resultant turbulence that renders the aerodynamics of a following car ineffective, increase the mechanical grip, but don’t just cut downforce. For the ‘95 season they did that, the cars went faster, when they raised the height of the front wing, the cars went faster, when they changed the rules for this year the cars inevitably caught up. Is the FIA ignorant? Oops, silly question.
“Drag will be maintained at current levels.”
MB: Bad – Less downforce with current drag levels will produce ugly looking cars, as most of the drag currently is created by the wings and tires. If a major source of drag is at 10% of current levels, something will have to be added to put the two back into balance. Bumpers?
JN: Bad – Can anyone explain to me how the FIA intends to do this? I shiver at the thought of how big a gurney flap you need to pull this rule off!
“Overall car width will be increased.”
MB: Bad – This is bad only because it isn’t clear where the width will come from, and by how much. Increasing width will allow for lower, more tightly-packed sidepods that should make the cars look better. Or like old Indycars.
JN: Good – Assuming they increase the width of the cars by moving the wheels out farther, and back to pre-1998 configuration, I’m all for it.
“By stipulating maximum and minimum dimensions cars will be “cleaned up” with devices such as barge boards, flip ups, winglets and other small add on parts removed.”
MB: Bad – If an engineer is told he can’t put winglets on a car, he will instinctively try to find other ways to make up for the lost downforce. And if the team has a big budget and wants to win, instead of developing a wide array of test parts (different barge boards, wings, flip-ups, etc.), they will concentrate their resources on the bigger components: the nose cone, airbox, sidepods, etc. to make up for the lost performance. This will increase manufacturing costs as the components will be larger and more complex to manufacture.
JN: Good – Engineering costs will go down, despite my associate’s claims. The development costs for some of these parts are staggering. And how many times have we seen an F1 car lose a bargeboard and continue on like nothing happened? Besides if there were untapped development potential in areas such as the Airbox and Nose-cone teams would have been all over that by now. In fact, teams are all over it already. Williams ran their bizarre front wing with “tusks” last season. Mclaren have their novel “canards” on this year’s MP4-20. I also think they would look a hell of a lot better devoid of all those incongruous appendages.
“Total advertising area on the car to remain unchanged.”
MB: Good – Who cares, anyway? Just paint the cars in the colour of the manufacturer’s home country and post a website on the side of the car that lists the sponsors.
JN: Good – Remember when they wanted to ditch airboxes in ’94? Every team cried about losing ad space they had already sold. I say keep them, F1 teams whine enough as it is. We don’t really need to give them another reason as they will surely find one themselves
WHEELS AND TYRES
“Tyres will be supplied by one manufacturer appointed by the FIA after an invitation to tender. Such an appointment will be conditional upon.”
MB: Good – Do I have to explain why?
JN: Good – See above, US GP, cough, cough.
“Slick tyres will be introduced for use in dry weather.”
MB: Bad – At first I was against grooves, but I think there needs to be a link between F1 and top-level road cars. Keep grooves, and introduce a more aggressive tread.
JN: Good – Mechanical grip should be increased, slick tyres is one easy way. Bring on the overtaking!
“Lower profile tyres will be introduced.”
MB: Good – Again, this would allow for a link between road and race cars.
JN: Who cares really?
“Significantly larger wheels with minimum and maximum sizes stipulated for front and rear will be permitted.”
MB: Good – So staggered wheels, and optimized sizes for each track, eh? (Smaller sizes for faster tracks, larger for high-grip tracks like Austria.) But just how will one supplier keep up with all of the different sizes? And does “significantly” allow for future cars to roll on 24-inch dubs?
JN: Good – It makes the technical package more fluid and we’ll get to see some interesting tyre configurations throughout the season.
“Tyre blankets and other heating devices will be prohibited.”
MB: Good – This will put more emphasis on the start and restarts.
JN: Good – I’m all for placing more emphasis on a driver’s car control ability. Plus I’m sure F1 teams have found a way to over-engineer and pay a fortune for what is essentially a space heater.
CHASSIS
“The minimum height of the centre of gravity of the chassis will be specified.”
MB: Good – But really – this will just allow teams to concentrate the majority of the component weight at the minimum allowed.
JN: Irrelevant – Like MB said, teams are just going to lower the car’s centre for gravity to within acceptable limits anyways.
“The minimum weight for a chassis will be specified.”
MB: Good
JN: Good
“Energy of all impact tests will be increased.”
MB: Good
JN: Good
“Loads for all static tests will be increased.”
MB: Good
JN: Good
“Side intrusion test requirements will be increased.”
MB: Good
JN: Good
“Ballast will be reduced to minimal levels.”
MB: Bad – Without ballast, how will teams keep weight at the corners? They will spend more money on things like the floor of the car and sidepods and mould ‘heavy spots’ into the composite component. This will create a need for track-specific floors and sidepods, as well as increased replacement cost per component.
JN: Good – I’m sure all those genius designers in F1 can build a car to legal weight without ballast right? Aside from Geoff Willis of BAR of course.
BRAKES
“All cars will be fitted with brake discs, pads and calipers which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification.”
MB: Good – This will allow for differences between drivers to show through, like Sato’s brake wear vs. M. Schumacher’s. However, the design of said components can be fixed, but the teams should be allowed to manufacture the components in-house to allow for tighter quality control.
JN: Good – Like BAR’s seamless transmission, Ferrari have spent a fortune developing trick brakes for this season and the performance benefit is indistinguishable.
DATA ACQUISITION AND TELEMETRY
“With specific exceptions, any data acquisition system, telemetry system or associated sensors additional to those associated with the ECU will be physically separate and completely isolated from the control electronics.”
MB: Good – Keep it simple. This will also allow fans to see where the cars are on track.
JN: Good – Like MB said it could open this information up to the general public.
“Pit to car telemetry will be prohibited.”
MB: Good – Telemetry is different from radio, of course. Drivers should focus on driving only.
JN: Good – see above
MATERIALS
“Limitations, similar to those within the 2006 engine regulations, will be imposed on all parts of the car.”
MB: Bad – What about Britain’s advanced composite manufacturing industry? Most people don’t know that F1 is the breeding ground for advanced material production. If the F1 doesn’t develop things like carbon fibre, who will?
JN: Good – Those exotic materials in the engine are unnecessary and at times dangerous. Remember the beryllium components in the Mercedes Engines of a few years ago? The vapors caused by the worn parts were poisonous to breathe.
STARTER
“All cars will be equipped with a driver operated starter which is capable of starting the car without outside assistance a minimum number of times.”
MB: Good – This will prevent M. Schumacher from waving marshals across the track.
JN: Good – This gives a chance for a driver that has spun and stalled to get going, and most importantly off the racing line, much quicker which will increase safety and decrease race stoppages.
SPARE CARS
“Spare cars will be prohibited, i.e. no team may have more than two built-up cars available at an Event at any one time. Spare chassis will be permitted but precisely what constitutes a car in this context will be clearly defined.”
MB: Bad – In the event of an accident, more money will be spent on flying additional needed components to the track, possibly requiring damaged cars to sit out whole sessions at the expense of spectators.
JN: Bad – The third car is a good rule. Sooner or later a driver is going to wreck his car. He shouldn’t be handicapped for taking chances because that’s what we all want to see right?
TESTING
“Testing will be limited to 30000km per team between 1st January and 31st December, subject to a single tyre supplier being appointed.”
MB: Good – Teams will be able to spend vast sums of money on testing (by having more personnel at the track to maximize data acquisition/testing analysis and computer simulation software.) Oh, and wind tunnel time.
JN: Good – Cutting costs and decreasing the divide between the haves and the have-nots is good for F1 in the long run.
CAR ACQUISITION
“Teams will be free to buy a complete car or any part of a car from another constructor.”
MB: Good – It will be nice to see Lola and Dallara (back) in F1.
JN: Good – Bring back the days of March! Frank Williams wouldn’t be in F1 if he didn’t have that choice while running Piers Courage.
The purpose of the new regs is to keep costs in check. Well guess what – they won’t. Instead of manufacturers being able to spread out their budgets over a wide range of departments (chassis, aero, engine, etc.), the workforce will be concentrated on refining the most minute part of the car’s package. This will force teams to do more development for far less achievable performance gains.
James Neilson (JN) and Michael Banovsky (MB) report.
ENGINES
“All components of the engine will be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification.”
MB: Bad – Think “fuel rig” on this one. The FIA isn’t capable of contracting a company to supply a fuel rig that doesn’t malfunction, let alone a complex ECU.
JN: Good – Fuel rig? They don’t work because teams like Benetton modified them outside of FIA regulations. Remember Jos Verstappen and the inferno that obscured his stricken Benetton in 1994? I’m sure a company like Magnetti Marelli, who currently provide ECU’s to Ferrari, could provide a standard ECU to all teams.
“The ECU may only be used with FIA-approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators as specified by the FIA.”
MB: Bad – So what if there’s a faulty sensor and the car fails during a race? Does the FIA lose constructor’s points? Of course not. And what will be the cost to each team for this technology and the software to use it?
JN:
Good – Cost is always an issue but cost debates always revolve around some teams having more money than others. If the software is provided to teams at the same price what’s the problem with standard electronics?
“A 3 litre V10 engine will remain an option for teams unable to obtain a 2.4 litre V8, but subject to similar strict performance limitations as in 2006 and 2007.”
MB: Bad – Don’t worry, the new 2.4L V8s will be up to today’s performance levels in two years. So it would be a farce to allow teams to use V10 engines in 2008, considering their increased longevity through the increased displacement. I say engine regs should allow for more creativity. Cap the displacement at 4L, and produce a rev limit for any combination of V6-V16 engines at that displacement. This would allow, say, a 3L V8 limited to 18,000 RPM to compete alongside a 4L V12 at 9,000 RPM.
JN: Good – Longevity is irrelevant as the 2.4 litre V8 will be designed to make it through two races. If a V10 could last longer, say four races, it will most likely still be changed after two as the rules allow you to do that. Development will inevitably cease on the V10 and any advantage that configuration might have initially will be nixed by the crappy chassis, think Minardi, it will be strapped to.
GEARBOXES
“All cars will be fitted with gear ratios, final drive ratios and differentials that have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification.”
MB: Bad – Is there one gearset allowed for a season? What is the maximum number of parts allowed to be purchased by teams? What are the fatigue levels for each component (how long will the gears last)? And who agrees to this specification?
JN: Good – Gearboxes are one of the most expensive items on a car to develop and maintain. Considering the money BAR spent this season on their “seamless shift” transmission and the resultant embarrassing performance, it’s obvious that money could have been spent elsewhere, like giving David Richards an offer to return he couldn’t have refused.
“Gear changing will only be permitted by the use of a manually operated mechanical linkage to the gearbox.”
MB: Good – This should help drivers shake the in-car image of being robots.
JN: Good – I Still remember watching poor Ukyo Katayama clang through the gears and dance the two-step in the footwell of his anemic Tyrrell at the ’94 Japanese Grand Prix. Bring that back! Please!
“Clutches will only be operated via a foot pedal connected mechanically to a release mechanism.”
MB: Bad – I firmly believe that F1 technology should precede technology available to the consumer, not follow it. So, in the world of SMG and DSG, where is the link between F1 and available technology? At the very most, limit clutch use to the start of the grand prix and pit stops.
JN: Undecided – I’m still trying to figure out where the teams would fit a third pedal in a modern Formula 1 Car.
BODYWORK
“Downforce will be reduced to approximately 10% of current levels.”
MB: Bad – The trick here is to increase the overtaking, but to reduce the tendency for the cars to slide. When a car slides, it puts drivers/spectators/track workers at more of a risk from out-of-control vehicles. Also, without the downforce, how will high-speed component/tire failures be controlled? And how will the cars stay on the ground after tire-to-tire contact?
JN: Good – Cars should be less dependant on their aerodynamics in a bid to increase overtaking but to 10%? That’s a little extreme. Reduce the drag, reduce the resultant turbulence that renders the aerodynamics of a following car ineffective, increase the mechanical grip, but don’t just cut downforce. For the ‘95 season they did that, the cars went faster, when they raised the height of the front wing, the cars went faster, when they changed the rules for this year the cars inevitably caught up. Is the FIA ignorant? Oops, silly question.
“Drag will be maintained at current levels.”
MB: Bad – Less downforce with current drag levels will produce ugly looking cars, as most of the drag currently is created by the wings and tires. If a major source of drag is at 10% of current levels, something will have to be added to put the two back into balance. Bumpers?
JN: Bad – Can anyone explain to me how the FIA intends to do this? I shiver at the thought of how big a gurney flap you need to pull this rule off!
“Overall car width will be increased.”
MB: Bad – This is bad only because it isn’t clear where the width will come from, and by how much. Increasing width will allow for lower, more tightly-packed sidepods that should make the cars look better. Or like old Indycars.
JN: Good – Assuming they increase the width of the cars by moving the wheels out farther, and back to pre-1998 configuration, I’m all for it.
“By stipulating maximum and minimum dimensions cars will be “cleaned up” with devices such as barge boards, flip ups, winglets and other small add on parts removed.”
MB: Bad – If an engineer is told he can’t put winglets on a car, he will instinctively try to find other ways to make up for the lost downforce. And if the team has a big budget and wants to win, instead of developing a wide array of test parts (different barge boards, wings, flip-ups, etc.), they will concentrate their resources on the bigger components: the nose cone, airbox, sidepods, etc. to make up for the lost performance. This will increase manufacturing costs as the components will be larger and more complex to manufacture.
JN: Good – Engineering costs will go down, despite my associate’s claims. The development costs for some of these parts are staggering. And how many times have we seen an F1 car lose a bargeboard and continue on like nothing happened? Besides if there were untapped development potential in areas such as the Airbox and Nose-cone teams would have been all over that by now. In fact, teams are all over it already. Williams ran their bizarre front wing with “tusks” last season. Mclaren have their novel “canards” on this year’s MP4-20. I also think they would look a hell of a lot better devoid of all those incongruous appendages.
“Total advertising area on the car to remain unchanged.”
MB: Good – Who cares, anyway? Just paint the cars in the colour of the manufacturer’s home country and post a website on the side of the car that lists the sponsors.
JN: Good – Remember when they wanted to ditch airboxes in ’94? Every team cried about losing ad space they had already sold. I say keep them, F1 teams whine enough as it is. We don’t really need to give them another reason as they will surely find one themselves
WHEELS AND TYRES
“Tyres will be supplied by one manufacturer appointed by the FIA after an invitation to tender. Such an appointment will be conditional upon.”
MB: Good – Do I have to explain why?
JN: Good – See above, US GP, cough, cough.
“Slick tyres will be introduced for use in dry weather.”
MB: Bad – At first I was against grooves, but I think there needs to be a link between F1 and top-level road cars. Keep grooves, and introduce a more aggressive tread.
JN: Good – Mechanical grip should be increased, slick tyres is one easy way. Bring on the overtaking!
“Lower profile tyres will be introduced.”
MB: Good – Again, this would allow for a link between road and race cars.
JN: Who cares really?
“Significantly larger wheels with minimum and maximum sizes stipulated for front and rear will be permitted.”
MB: Good – So staggered wheels, and optimized sizes for each track, eh? (Smaller sizes for faster tracks, larger for high-grip tracks like Austria.) But just how will one supplier keep up with all of the different sizes? And does “significantly” allow for future cars to roll on 24-inch dubs?
JN: Good – It makes the technical package more fluid and we’ll get to see some interesting tyre configurations throughout the season.
“Tyre blankets and other heating devices will be prohibited.”
MB: Good – This will put more emphasis on the start and restarts.
JN: Good – I’m all for placing more emphasis on a driver’s car control ability. Plus I’m sure F1 teams have found a way to over-engineer and pay a fortune for what is essentially a space heater.
CHASSIS
“The minimum height of the centre of gravity of the chassis will be specified.”
MB: Good – But really – this will just allow teams to concentrate the majority of the component weight at the minimum allowed.
JN: Irrelevant – Like MB said, teams are just going to lower the car’s centre for gravity to within acceptable limits anyways.
“The minimum weight for a chassis will be specified.”
MB: Good
JN: Good
“Energy of all impact tests will be increased.”
MB: Good
JN: Good
“Loads for all static tests will be increased.”
MB: Good
JN: Good
“Side intrusion test requirements will be increased.”
MB: Good
JN: Good
“Ballast will be reduced to minimal levels.”
MB: Bad – Without ballast, how will teams keep weight at the corners? They will spend more money on things like the floor of the car and sidepods and mould ‘heavy spots’ into the composite component. This will create a need for track-specific floors and sidepods, as well as increased replacement cost per component.
JN: Good – I’m sure all those genius designers in F1 can build a car to legal weight without ballast right? Aside from Geoff Willis of BAR of course.
BRAKES
“All cars will be fitted with brake discs, pads and calipers which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification.”
MB: Good – This will allow for differences between drivers to show through, like Sato’s brake wear vs. M. Schumacher’s. However, the design of said components can be fixed, but the teams should be allowed to manufacture the components in-house to allow for tighter quality control.
JN: Good – Like BAR’s seamless transmission, Ferrari have spent a fortune developing trick brakes for this season and the performance benefit is indistinguishable.
DATA ACQUISITION AND TELEMETRY
“With specific exceptions, any data acquisition system, telemetry system or associated sensors additional to those associated with the ECU will be physically separate and completely isolated from the control electronics.”
MB: Good – Keep it simple. This will also allow fans to see where the cars are on track.
JN: Good – Like MB said it could open this information up to the general public.
“Pit to car telemetry will be prohibited.”
MB: Good – Telemetry is different from radio, of course. Drivers should focus on driving only.
JN: Good – see above
MATERIALS
“Limitations, similar to those within the 2006 engine regulations, will be imposed on all parts of the car.”
MB: Bad – What about Britain’s advanced composite manufacturing industry? Most people don’t know that F1 is the breeding ground for advanced material production. If the F1 doesn’t develop things like carbon fibre, who will?
JN: Good – Those exotic materials in the engine are unnecessary and at times dangerous. Remember the beryllium components in the Mercedes Engines of a few years ago? The vapors caused by the worn parts were poisonous to breathe.
STARTER
“All cars will be equipped with a driver operated starter which is capable of starting the car without outside assistance a minimum number of times.”
MB: Good – This will prevent M. Schumacher from waving marshals across the track.
JN: Good – This gives a chance for a driver that has spun and stalled to get going, and most importantly off the racing line, much quicker which will increase safety and decrease race stoppages.
SPARE CARS
“Spare cars will be prohibited, i.e. no team may have more than two built-up cars available at an Event at any one time. Spare chassis will be permitted but precisely what constitutes a car in this context will be clearly defined.”
MB: Bad – In the event of an accident, more money will be spent on flying additional needed components to the track, possibly requiring damaged cars to sit out whole sessions at the expense of spectators.
JN: Bad – The third car is a good rule. Sooner or later a driver is going to wreck his car. He shouldn’t be handicapped for taking chances because that’s what we all want to see right?
TESTING
“Testing will be limited to 30000km per team between 1st January and 31st December, subject to a single tyre supplier being appointed.”
MB: Good – Teams will be able to spend vast sums of money on testing (by having more personnel at the track to maximize data acquisition/testing analysis and computer simulation software.) Oh, and wind tunnel time.
JN: Good – Cutting costs and decreasing the divide between the haves and the have-nots is good for F1 in the long run.
CAR ACQUISITION
“Teams will be free to buy a complete car or any part of a car from another constructor.”
MB: Good – It will be nice to see Lola and Dallara (back) in F1.
JN: Good – Bring back the days of March! Frank Williams wouldn’t be in F1 if he didn’t have that choice while running Piers Courage.
ST. THOMAS DRAGWAY: NITROUS NATIONALS returns for 2005
Courtesy ST. Thomas Dragway
Sparta, ON, July 1, 2005 - The wildly popular Nitrous Nationals are returning on Wednesday, July 13. Featuring a $4,000 to win pay-out for the Pro Mod/Pro Street Shootout the event always attracts the area's top race cars.
Run on the 1/8th mile to put on a faster show, the night will feature Dan Pirisi's Gladiator Jet Dragster, the 8-car Pro Mod/Pro Street Shootout, all-run Pro Comp (6.00 index) and full bracket racing in The Ultimate Garage Top bracket, Performance Parts Plus Mod bracket, Essential Speed Street bracket and Lightning Power Sports Bike/Sled bracket.
Gates open at 12 Noon, Time Trials at 2, Pro Qualifying at 3 & 5 and Eliminations at 6. General admission is $20 for adults, $10 for students and seniors and no charge for kids 12 and under.
For further information, contact the track at 519-775-2263 or visit the website at www.stthomasdragway.com.
George: Reunification talks going nowhere.
Good news for a Canadian race at the end of this post.
=========================================
George: Reunification talks going nowhere.
TSN.ca Staff
7/4/2005 10:20:35 AM
Indy Racing League boss Tony George says don't look for an end to the
open-wheel split for 2006 - or anytime after that for that matter.
George tells the Indianapolis Star that the window of opportunity to bring
the two rival factions together is slowly closing shut, likely for good.
"I don't think (reconciliation) is possible for 2006," George said over the
weekend. "I don't think it's possible ever."
George says he offered Champ Car owners a set of compromises in a letter
just prior to the U.S. Grand Prix but that the rival series' desire to share
ownership of the IRL was the primary stumbling block.
While he would not say if talks are continuing, he indicated that he had
heard back "indirectly" from the other side.
George's desire to give up any kind of control in any kind of partnership
with Champ Car has long been mentioned as a problem to reconciliation.
George points to last month's U.S. Grand Prix fiasco as the primary reason
behind his desire to retain control.
The IRL is expected to unveil its 2006 schedule within a month, hence the
reason why the two sides likely won't get together in time for next year.
It's believed the IRL will make its first appearance in Canada next year
Quebec City slated to hold a street race.
Champ Car officials are also putting the final touches on their 2006 schedule
as well.
==============================
There's a race we need to get CASCAR into.
JMHO Greasemomkey.
=========================================
George: Reunification talks going nowhere.
TSN.ca Staff
7/4/2005 10:20:35 AM
Indy Racing League boss Tony George says don't look for an end to the
open-wheel split for 2006 - or anytime after that for that matter.
George tells the Indianapolis Star that the window of opportunity to bring
the two rival factions together is slowly closing shut, likely for good.
"I don't think (reconciliation) is possible for 2006," George said over the
weekend. "I don't think it's possible ever."
George says he offered Champ Car owners a set of compromises in a letter
just prior to the U.S. Grand Prix but that the rival series' desire to share
ownership of the IRL was the primary stumbling block.
While he would not say if talks are continuing, he indicated that he had
heard back "indirectly" from the other side.
George's desire to give up any kind of control in any kind of partnership
with Champ Car has long been mentioned as a problem to reconciliation.
George points to last month's U.S. Grand Prix fiasco as the primary reason
behind his desire to retain control.
The IRL is expected to unveil its 2006 schedule within a month, hence the
reason why the two sides likely won't get together in time for next year.
It's believed the IRL will make its first appearance in Canada next year
Quebec City slated to hold a street race.
Champ Car officials are also putting the final touches on their 2006 schedule
as well.
==============================
There's a race we need to get CASCAR into.
JMHO Greasemomkey.
Monday, July 4, 2005
Not racing, but....
Hi everyone,At the risk of lowering (ha!) the level of journalism on this blog, I wanted to make a personal post regarding my family.
I have so many great friends in the racing community and a lot of people know that my wife, Melody, and I have been going through the process of adopting a child for the past year. This past weekend, we had some great news.
On Friday afternoon (Canada Day), Taylor Joy MacPherson was born at Humber River Hospital. Melody was in the room with the birth-mother the whole time. On Saturday afternoon, after being checked out, Taylor came home with us.
We're getting her just over four years after Melody received a bone marrow transplant from her brother to get rid of her Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. We can't believe how lucky we are in so many ways. Everyone is doing very well, although somewhat sleep deprived.
Thanks to everyone for all of their good wishes over the past while. Again, we have so many great friends in racing and we'd promised to let everyone know as soon as we had any news... and this was the best way to do it.
Greg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
