Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Penske PC-30?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by BADGER View Post

    The timeline seems a bit off at least in regards to Barnard. For the 1979 season, Barnard had designed the Chaparral. In the tech forum, straight line speeds at indy thread, there were some stories on how the Chaparral got its underbody shape. From what Insider said, Patrick Head sent over the underbody profile from the Williams F1 car for John to use.
    It looks like my original post was misleading/incorrect. The story I heard was that Armstrong signed Barnard right after Barnard parted ways with Hall...so the timeline would have been late-1979 for 1980.
    Real drivers don't need fenders!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by BADGER View Post

      If someone wants clarification about post 30, all they need to do is ask. Regarding the March designs that were flops, I can't think of any that would qualify as both a flop and as a copy of another car. Indyote, and myself were curious as to which car you were referring to, but you chose to remain coy. The March Indy chassis though 87 were all pretty gas as were the Porsche Marches. The Alfa ones were junk but I can't think of which cars they were derived from and were only bad because of some cost saving measure. I certainly don't think the March GTP was a copy design as it was one of the most unique looking cars in the class. Some of the f1 cars flopped, but again, I can't recall a specific design that I thought looked like a copy. I did come across an early ground effect March GP car (811) that was a bit Williams like, but I suspect its failures were beyond saving a few bucks in one or two areas.
      You mentioned the March-Porsches and the Alfas:

      the '88 Porsche cars were derived from the basic 88C design, the most important changes compared with chassis using other engines were said to be related with the manner how the engine was built into.
      The 89P and 90P were stand-alone designs.

      The Alfa cars: the 1989 89CE was derived from the 88C and said to be an improved version of that, there is a rumour that Guerrero preferred the lone 88C muletta chassis that the team also still posessed.
      The 1990 90CA was inspired on the 89P, If the latter was true, then the good parts on the 89P that were worth to adopt were missed.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by turbopanzer View Post

        Considering that TG sat on the CART board and was politely ignored, would you have invited the very people into your sandbox who snubbed you ?
        That's what I mean about the political environment. But if TG really wanted a diverse and successful series he would have put personal feelings aside for the good of the business. Result? He's history. And it's the snubbers that own what he got for free.
        "An emphasis was placed on drivers with road racing backgrounds which meant drivers from open wheel, oval track racing were at a disadvantage. That led Tony George to create the IRL." -Indy Review 1996

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by BADGER View Post
          If someone wants clarification about post 30, all they need to do is ask. ...
          Consider yourself asked.


          Originally posted by BADGER View Post
          ... Regarding the March designs that were flops, I can't think of any that would qualify as both a flop and as a copy of another car. Indyote, and myself were curious as to which car you were referring to, but you chose to remain coy.
          Put quickly, neither conjuring up an ulterior motive nor expecting me to violate expressed limits is no way to earn any favors. My professional obligations to you or to those like you have been met; I have no interest in engaging in an extended tutorial in this space. There are more important responsibilities that require my time. A flop question specifically referring to the 87C and 88C was answered when I found the time. In case you missed it, here is the compete answer posted, "No."

          You have every reason to know what I am prepared to do here. Please do your part first and I'll be happy to help you afterward as, if and when I can consistent with enunciated limits and time constraints.


          Originally posted by BADGER View Post
          ... but I suspect its failures were beyond saving a few bucks in one or two areas.
          Decisions made by March were about more than "saving a few bucks in one or two areas" given the company's perilous financial state throughout most of its history.

          A rhetorical question you should put to yourself: Is all you knowledge on the subject so factually uninformed?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by BADGER View Post

            Regarding the March designs that were flops, I can't think of any that would qualify as both a flop and as a copy of another car. Indyote, and myself were curious as to which car you were referring to, but you chose to remain coy. The March Indy chassis though 87 were all pretty good as were the Porsche Marches. The Alfa ones were junk but I can't think of which cars they were derived from or which cars were copies and only bad because of some cost saving measures. .
            BADGER,

            I gave the matter which of the cars Editor referred to might have been the one last final thought before putting the matter to rest.
            Thinking things over, I have one last candidate left but it takes a lot of reasoning and explaining why.
            Allow me to share my thoughts and if you have finished reading them, I wonder what you think about my reasoning and the approvals I can bring forward

            You wrote: The March Indy chassis though 87 were all pretty good but were they?
            I think it is fair to say that among the first ones the 81C and 82C were pretty good and could have been better had there been some of them placed in true top teams.

            But the major mistake many Indycarfans keep making is that we face on Indy most of alll and the other CART races are, just there, giving nowhere near the attention and given the status as Indy does. Because of the failure to qualify for the '95 Indy 500 the Penske PC24 is rated as a lemon, but in the CART season it wasn't that bad a car, remember who finished second in the CART championship, 11 points behind the champion and had driven one race less than the Champion.....
            While for example, the 1983 type PC11 finished 2nd & 3rd at Indy (behind Tom Sneva) but a few months later it was repalced by Team Penske for updated PC10 designs to rescue the season and making Al Sr champion after all. But how often do we read about the PC11 as being a failure among the Penskes?

            So what I did was: instead of focussing on Indy alone as the yardstick, look at the entire season as well. And then I see a weak link, one would not think about at all if we focus on "Indy Only".
            The 1984 84C !!!
            Of course, there were no less than 27 of them in the Indy 500 starting field, the top 12 at Indy were all 84C's. Nothing wrong with that, right? So why and/or how can the 84C being a failing Copycat? If I have my data correct, there has never been a chassis that was represented with so many examples in a starting field until the IRL Era started. If I have my records correct the 84C-Cosworth is, at least in the Pre-IRL days the car-engine combination that was represented with the largest number ever in an Indy 500 starting field (24 examples)
            But: look at the results of the 1994 CART Season. The season opener was for Mario in a Lola, then there were 4 victories for the 84C, among them was Indy. But then we had 8 races in succession in which Lolas were victorious with either Mario or otherwise Danny Sullivan. The season closed with 3 more victories for 84C's but in 16 races, the two Lolas of Mario and Danny had been victorious over a sea of Marches: Lola - March 9 - 7 for victories. March still won the constructors title, thanks to the large number of cars in every event, while there were races in which the single Lola of Andretti retired early on. Killing for the constructors title because March lowest best finish within any of the 16 events was 3rd....
            Now of course, Indy went to March and Penske (Team Penske's only victory that entire year !!!!) and so for many Indycar fans who concentrate primarily on Indy, they will rate the 84C as a stunning succesful design. But it wasn't over the full season and its reputation as also tainted because of the number of drivers who ended up with serious leg inhuries after having crashed an 84C, Rick Mears being the best known victim, he was still suffering from that crash one year later.

            Another argument that supports my theory that the 84C is the car in question is the following. Even in '84 when the 84C saturated the starting field: There were still 3 updated elderly Marches in the field. But one year later, in 1985 not a single car built before 1985 made it into the starting field. It was for a long time the only year ever in Indy history in which the field was filled with only brand new chassis.

            My theory to nominate the 84C as the car Editor referred to has some weak points.
            If the 84C was a copycat that failed, then what was its inspiration? The 1983 Penske PC11 was replaced by an elder car during the season, Gordon Johncock did win the '83 season openenr with a Wildcat but that was the last ever for a Wildcat and Patrick Ricing didn't win anything anymore that year. And the Wildcats failed at Indy.
            And the Eagle of 1983 was still heavily inspired on the BLAT cars of 80-82. Mayby under all of that bodywork there was something that inspired the March designers but if so, I havent found the clues for it.' within the material I have for reference.
            Was the '83 Lola an inspiration? I don't have access to enough data ro rate the '83 Lola. But that there were no takers to start the '84 season with a Lola and only during the season, with Andretti having shown promise in the first races of the season th Shierson team went over to one, does it say something about how good the '83 car had been?

            Alan Henry wrote the book "MARCH, the F1 and Indycars" He describes how the 84C came about and quotes Adrian Newey who was very negative about the 84C and points out some details as of why the 84C was not to be rated as a top car. Some of those points do support the thought about 84C being the Copycat that failed though Henry doesn't list sources of inspiration (actual cars) for the development from 83C into 84C

            So that's what I can throw in the ring: Ingore Indy but look at CART 1984 as a whole season and the legendary 84C with its fabled records at Indy pales dramatically.
            I don't have the hard written approval to point to but could it be that the 84C is Editor's " March ##Copycat that failed " he hints ont in post #32 ???






            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Indyote View Post

              Another argument that supports my theory that the 84C is the car in question is the following. Even in '84 when the 84C saturated the starting field: There were still 3 updated elderly Marches in the field. But one year later, in 1985 not a single car built before 1985 made it into the starting field. It was for a long time the only year ever in Indy history in which the field was filled with only brand new chassis.

              Rule changes more to do with that than anything else.
              The Ayn Rand of Indycar

              No one had to badge the Offy.

              Crapping all over threads since 2000.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by DaveL View Post

                Rule changes more to do with that than anything else.


                I had forgotten about that. There were indeed some rule changes that year. Thanks, So that is an arguement to support my theory gone.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Indyote View Post

                  You mentioned the March-Porsches and the Alfas:

                  the '88 Porsche cars were derived from the basic 88C design, the most important changes compared with chassis using other engines were said to be related with the manner how the engine was built into.
                  The 89P and 90P were stand-alone designs.

                  The Alfa cars: the 1989 89CE was derived from the 88C and said to be an improved version of that, there is a rumour that Guerrero preferred the lone 88C muletta chassis that the team also still posessed.
                  The 1990 90CA was inspired on the 89P, If the latter was true, then the good parts on the 89P that were worth to adopt were missed.
                  The march-Alfa 89CE was a March 88C knockoff, with front and rear push rods suspension being the primary difference, which may be the "change" referenced in a previous post about copy cat with some slight change. I believe it was primarily a test mule.
                  1989 march alfa.jpg

                  The 1990 March-Alfa was a sled and not much to look at. It doesn't resemble March's other design in 1990 for Porsche.

                  march alfa 1990 speedway.jpg

                  1990 March-Alfa-may-24-Carb-day-.jpg






                  Best looking March designed Indy Car of all time IMO is the 1990 March designed for Porsche. Porsche March Indy Car 1990.jpg


                  1990 march porsche fabi.jpg

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Straightup82 View Post

                    The march-Alfa 89CE was a March 88C knockoff, with front and rear push rods suspension being the primary difference, which may be the "change" referenced in a previous post about copy cat with some slight change. I believe it was primarily a test mule.

                    The 1990 March-Alfa was a sled and not much to look at. It doesn't resemble March's other design in 1990 for Porsche.

                    Given the fact that the 1990 Alfa powered 90CA was supposedly inspired on the Porsche powered 89P, and remembering how good a car that eventually became during the second half of the 1989 season while the 90CA was a disaster, another candidate?

                    In defence of the 1989 89CE of Alfa, how much that project was affected by the death of the designer of the car, Maurice Philippe, less than a month before the race debut of the car, that's anyone's guess. We'll never know what could have happened for teh sake of the 89CE and for the continuation of the entire Alfa project if it comes to the March input.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Pelican Joe View Post

                      It looks like my original post was misleading/incorrect. The story I heard was that Armstrong signed Barnard right after Barnard parted ways with Hall...so the timeline would have been late-1979 for 1980.
                      In his book "March, the Grand Prix & Indycars" Alan Henry wrote (page 177) about the Armstrong Orbitor that John Barnard set out a few basic parameters which provide some fundamental guidance for March. The engineers were Ian Reed (Later of Shierson Racind DSR-1 fame) and Shish Ahmed. The actual chassis was derived from a March 792.

                      The 792 was a 1979 type Formula Two car, the majority of those being fitted with 2 liter BMW in-line 4 cylinders. The 792 was designed as a ground effect car.

                      Hope this helps???

                      Comment

                      Unconfigured Ad Widget

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X