The Need to Slow the Cars Down:

[MichaelG]

In 2004, they really slowed the cars down at Indy. But it looks like the speeds are approaching the 230-level of 2003. The racing was better in 2004 and 2005 with lower pole and race-paces. There's also a safety issue, in my view, once the cars get close to/much above 230 at Indy. Simply put, the higher the speed, the higher the g-forces when something goes wrong, and things get closer to the limits of the human body.

My questions are: Do you think the cars need to be slowed down a little bit before May? And what, if anything, can be done to slow the cars down? Mandatory wing angles, etc?

[MacSparty]

My brain says yes, they need to be slowed down, but my heart bemoans the likelihood of never hearing "It's a newwwww, traaaaack recooord!" ever again.

How to do it is another story. Meddling with aerodynamics sometimes seems to me like it could be a safety issue. I'd rather mess with powerplants, but at this stage I'm not sure it can be done that quickly. Rules need to be changed early in the offseason, or even farther, in advance.

[MichaelG]

Rev-limiters, detuned engines maybe? With one engine supplier it might be easier to make an across the board change.

[Cygni]

With Honda supplying all the engines, lowering the speeds can even be done on a track by track basis. Cosworth adjusts the HP based on the event in ChampCar, by way of adjusting boost pressure via the ECU, and Ilmor could do the exact same thing for the Honda. Lower the rev limit, or detune the timing a bit... they could take a little bit out for the fast tracks like Indy, Michigan, and Texas pretty quickly, and they probably will if they feel the need.

[Cant_hit_apex]

IMHO, you could significantly slow these cars and still have great racing and a wonderful show for the fans. If it would increase the safety and survivability of drivers at Indy, Texas and the other big tracks, I'm for it.

[Sea Fury]

http://www.deviantart.com/view/27235593

[Gomer Simpson]

220 is dangerous, 230 is dangerous, 240 is dangerous. I would have to think that safety has caught up somewhat since 1997 when the cars were first slowed down. I absolutely don't want to see it done again for awhile.

The racing was better in 2004 and 2005 with lower pole and race-paces.

IMO the racing was the worst the IRL has ever seen in those years, but it was mostly due to other factors (Toyota dog engines).

[Doctorindy]

220 is dangerous, 230 is dangerous, 240 is dangerous. I would have to think that safety has caught up somewhat since 1997 when the cars were first slowed down. I absolutely don't want to see it done again for awhile.

I recall Arie saying his 217 mph lap in 1997 was a lot harder, edgier, uncomfortable, and forgettable than his 236 mph pole run a year earlier.

[brickyard1911]

If they are at 230 mph at Indy I say no changes. 235+ maybe. I'd love to hear "It's a new track record" again also but for safety's sake I'd say those days are over. The current speeds at Michigan are no problem that place is so wide and banked. I'm guessing the sensation of "speed" is more apparent to the drivers at a place like Richmond.


I could be wrong but I haven't heard any drivers starting to complain, unless I've missed something. The SAFR and the HANS weren't around the last time they were going this fast.

[Benson477]

Recent serious problems have not been as much a result of speed as allowing the slow back markers to continue on the track.

Tighten up the spread during an event so the surprises are not so disastrous.

The teams with decent engineering will work out the aerodynamics to keep the cars on the track.

[indyrjc]

[QUOTE=speedmonkey]220 is dangerous, 230 is dangerous, 240 is dangerous. I would have to think that safety has caught up somewhat since 1997 when the cars were first slowed down. I absolutely don't want to see it done again for awhile.
QUOTE]
Speedmonkey makes a good point. All racing at any speed is dangerous. In terms of injuries 140 or 150 was much more dangerous years ago than 230 is today. What has really made racing more dangerous is that the cars are actually TOO SLOW for the tracks that they race on due to too much regulated aerodynamics and engines. Since the cars are too slow for the tracks every driver is running around wheel to wheel all day long with a set aero package (like everyone else's) and a rev limited engine (again like everyone else's). Wheel to wheel racing makes both good and bad drivers run close to each other which is a recipe for disaster. The cars should be TOO FAST for the tracks so that driver skill comes back into the equation. You could run 200MPH laps at Indianapolis again with reduced downforce that forces a driver to actually lift for the corners and pick up the throttle again coming off the corner no matter how much horsepower a car had. The driver would be the main factor again in whether or not one car goes faster than another one again. Today the engineer in the pits is much more important than the driver is when it comes to turning a fast lap at most tracks since the driver only runs around with their foot planted on the throttle for the entire lap. As it stands right now many of the people who write on Trackforum could lap Indianapolis over 200 without breaking a sweat (yes, I remember that quote about Juan Montoya's grandmother driving his car because it was so easy to drive). I really don't care where the speed ends up. Just make the driver DRIVE again. Indianapolis 500 Mile Races are won by engineers today no matter what the lap speeds are since the driver does nothing but hold down on gas with the engineers various setups as the race goes on. The driver needs to be a much bigger part of the equation than the current situation allows.

[R22]

Recent serious problems have not been as much a result of speed as allowing the slow back markers to continue on the track.

Tighten up the spread during an event so the surprises are not so disastrous.

The teams with decent engineering will work out the aerodynamics to keep the cars on the track.

exactly..........
everything seems slower if all are going the same speed..........

try to keep the field within a certain parameter....but...........

for safety's sake what is a safe speed???
we've all seen drivers terribly injured and killed at very seemingly low speeds.
with the advancements in safety in the areas of chassis and personal equipment; what is safe???

spectator wise i couldn't tell 190 from 230 with my naked eye if all the cars were going 185 - 190 or 210 - 230.........

then take into account, speed is very expensive. a good way to cut cost is in cutting speed............

but, i sure liked hearing..........and it's a new track record!!!!

six of one, half dozen of the other??

[FenderFree]

indyrjc is right the speeds aren't the problem...the downforce is.

A bunch of fully trimmed out cars lapping at 230 are safer than that same bunch regulated by too much downforce to 220 and under. It's the NASCAR plate-racing effect. Only way more dangerous because of the open wheels. Kenny Brack, Buddy Rice and Ryan Briscoe can attest to the danger of pack racing.

Sure it only takes 2 to tango and their accidents could've happened under any circumstances but the restricted pack racing increases the chances of those accidents dramatically. For better or worse (in terms of on-track product), the wings need to be smaller and fully adjustable by teams at all tracks. Only then will the packs be broken up. The truly talented/brave/ballsy drivers will take it side by side. Those who can't handle it will struggle horribly until they are replaced by those who can.

Once the cars are trimmed out you can run 'em at any speed you like.

[jkentner15]

I agree with the people who say take out some downforce. You reduce speed and put more emphasis on driver skill. It may sacrifice pack racing, but seeing some of the recent wrecks (Rice, Briscoe), I think it would be the best. Even Hornish when he was at Indy was going 160, there was enough downforce to flip the car and it just didn't flip. It took off.

[Gomer Simpson]

I recall Arie saying his 217 mph lap in 1997 was a lot harder, edgier, uncomfortable, and forgettable than his 236 mph pole run a year earlier.

He was in a first generation, first year car. Those things probably were pretty scary to drive. Not to mention the constant exploding sounds that were coming from directly behind him.

Eventually safety is going to catch up to the point to where we can begin to let the speeds drift back upward into "new track record" territory. The Safer Barrier alone has had an enormous impact.

I would at the very least like to see them keep the pole sitter at just over 230.