Which series use Traction Control?

>> Champcars have never had driving aids, whether it be active suspension,
>> traction control, semi-automatic gears, etc. I'm not a big fan of the
>> current NA Cosworths, but the older formulas with the turbo 4 bangers
>> coupled with the standard CART ground effect, low profile bodywork, and
>> actual stick shifts were some of the most exciting race cars ever made,
>> up there with GTX 5, GTP C, the Lotus 78/79, and the Mclaren MP4/4.
>
> Careful there JM. Penske routinely ran TC it was finally allowed when
> Toyota began complaining. And the current Cosworths ARE TURBO. Just de-
> tuned turbos. Same basic block that did 900+hp and 240+mph at California.

That was 240+mph average lap speed during qualification. Top qualify speeds
were 265mph. During a race at Michigan, Paul Tracy recorded a trap speed of
257mph. They slowed them down after that year (1997?) with by adding a drag
inducing strip to the rear spoiler. There's no point in this anymore, as they
don't run on high speed ovals anymore. Down to just 2 ovals, mid-sized ones,
the rest being road and street courses.

Toyota Atantic series specifies a no lift sequential shifter, don't the
Champ cars use a similar type shift setup?

Jeff Reid wrote:

> Toyota Atantic series specifies a no lift sequential shifter, don't the
> Champ cars use a similar type shift setup?

Fully manual paddle shifting with a foot clutch, unless it's changed
very recently. IIRC the engine cuts out on upshifts to keep the car
from over-reving, rather than being semi-automatic.

"Jeff Reid" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Yt7Te.167992$E95.152561@fed1read01...
>> > FIA - F1
>> True for last year as you wrote, but Auto-shifting and launch control
>> were banned in 2005. Traction control must not be used at the start until
>> the cars reaches 100 kph.
>
> Who could possibley check the ECU's to see if traction control being used
> under 100kph / 62mph? Dumb rule anyway, hard to enforce, and do they want

Yes, very hard to control that for the FIA. But they try to but I don´t know
how.

> a crash fest during the standing starts?. How many F1 tracks have sub

When the full launch control was allowed we had much more cars that stalled
on green.

> 100kph hairpins anyway?

I think you misunderstood something. The rule that TC must not be active
under 100 kph is only for the start. After that TC is allowed at any speed.

[...]

Regards
Stephan

"jason moyer" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
> Jeff Reid wrote:
>
>> The even brag about this, no traction control, (translation, we
>> crash more).
>
> Having to rely on your skill as a driver when applying the throttle is
> a bad thing?

No, not for Champcar. But it should stay legal for F1.

> Champcars have never had driving aids, whether it be active suspension,
> traction control, semi-automatic gears, etc. I'm not a big fan of the

Traction control was allowed at least for 2002.

> current NA Cosworths, but the older formulas with the turbo 4 bangers

The Cosworths are still turbo charged, but with reduced pressure and a rev
limit.

> coupled with the standard CART ground effect, low profile bodywork, and
> actual stick shifts were some of the most exciting race cars ever made,
> up there with GTX 5, GTP C, the Lotus 78/79, and the Mclaren MP4/4.

Full ACK

Stephan

"Jeff Reid" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eW8Te.168895$E95.16546@fed1read01...
>>> Champcars have never had driving aids, whether it be active suspension,
>>> traction control, semi-automatic gears, etc. I'm not a big fan of the
>>> current NA Cosworths, but the older formulas with the turbo 4 bangers
>>> coupled with the standard CART ground effect, low profile bodywork, and
>>> actual stick shifts were some of the most exciting race cars ever made,
>>> up there with GTX 5, GTP C, the Lotus 78/79, and the Mclaren MP4/4.
>>
>> Careful there JM. Penske routinely ran TC it was finally allowed when
>> Toyota began complaining. And the current Cosworths ARE TURBO. Just de-
>> tuned turbos. Same basic block that did 900+hp and 240+mph at
>> California.
>
> That was 240+mph average lap speed during qualification. Top qualify
> speeds

Yes, that was fanstastic. I remember watching it on Eurosport. Mauricio
Gugelmin took the record in 1997 and was beaten by Gil de Ferran in 2000.

> were 265mph. During a race at Michigan, Paul Tracy recorded a trap speed
> of
> 257mph. They slowed them down after that year (1997?) with by adding a
> drag

I was searching for those topspeeds for quite a while but could never find
them. I only knew they were above 400 kph but not more. So where did you get
the numbers from?

> inducing strip to the rear spoiler. There's no point in this anymore, as
> they

Yes, they slowed it down consistently after the 1997-season. But Gil de
Ferran beat Gugelmins record in the 2000 qualifying at Fontana. I still
don´t know how they could go faster in 2000 with all those regulations
reducing power and increasing drag.

> don't run on high speed ovals anymore. Down to just 2 ovals, mid-sized
> ones,
> the rest being road and street courses.

That´s bad I think. Champcar always was about the oval/road-course-mix. Too
many road-courses today.

> Toyota Atantic series specifies a no lift sequential shifter, don't the
> Champ cars use a similar type shift setup?

Yes, in Champcars you don´t have to lift.

Stephan

"jason moyer" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
> Jeff Reid wrote:
>
>> Toyota Atantic series specifies a no lift sequential shifter, don't the
>> Champ cars use a similar type shift setup?
>
> Fully manual paddle shifting with a foot clutch, unless it's changed
> very recently. IIRC the engine cuts out on upshifts to keep the car

Champcars never had paddle shifting. It was only sequential gearbox with a
gear-lever.

> from over-reving, rather than being semi-automatic.

I never got the real difference between semi-automatic, which is often
mentioned as being paddle-shifting, and sequential gearboxes. I think
semi-automatic systems automatically activate the clutch and blip the
throttle. Is that right?

Stephan

"Stephan Paskert" > wrote in
:


> No, not for Champcar. But it should stay legal for F1.

Traction Control, stay legal for F1 are you serious???
--
Transplants save lives! - Have you signed up to be a donor?
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk

Do something amazing today. Save a life, give blood.
http://www.blood.co.uk/

My games collection and Live games:
http://www.fooatari.plus.com/.

> I was searching for those topspeeds for quite a while but could never find them. I only knew they were above 400 kph
> but not more. So where did you get the numbers from?

Paul Tracy at 257mph:

http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/f1/top_speed.html

I'll have to look again for the 265mph speed reached during qualifying
at California. It was mentioned a few times as the reason for slowing
the cars down.

>> inducing strip to the rear spoiler. There's no point in this anymore, as they
>
> Yes, they slowed it down consistently after the 1997-season. But Gil de Ferran beat Gugelmins record in the 2000
> qualifying at Fontana. I still don´t know how they could go faster in 2000 with all those regulations reducing power
> and increasing drag.

No reduction in power, just that strip. Apparently the teams figured out
how to divert air flow around the strip, and/or used more effeicient air
foils / nose cones. CART was one of the few series where a different nose
cone and wing size were used depending on the speed of the track.

Other differences between CART/Champ/IRL versus FIA is that the
USA series allow underbody tunneling for more efficient downforce (FIA
uses skidboards), CART/Champ cars use turob-charged alcohol burining
engines, and the CART/Champ cars are more crashworthy than F1 cars
because they were over 200mph so often, which is why they are 200lbs
or more heavier than F1 cars. Now with the high speed ovals gone, I'm
suprised there isn't a trend in the rules to allow lighter cars.

"Jeff Reid" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:wqlTe.179829$E95.59227@fed1read01...
>>> inducing strip to the rear spoiler. There's no point in this anymore, as
>>> they
>>
>> Yes, they slowed it down consistently after the 1997-season. But Gil de
>> Ferran beat Gugelmins record in the 2000 qualifying at Fontana. I still
>> don´t know how they could go faster in 2000 with all those regulations
>> reducing power and increasing drag.
>
> No reduction in power, just that strip. Apparently the teams figured out
> how to divert air flow around the strip, and/or used more effeicient air
> foils / nose cones. CART was one of the few series where a different nose
> cone and wing size were used depending on the speed of the track.

Yes, I should have written "reducing boost". I am quite sure that boot was
reduced over the years. Power might have stayed about the same because of
heavy development from the engine manufacturers.
As you wrote the rest will be aerodynamic optimizations and maybe
tyre-development.

> Other differences between CART/Champ/IRL versus FIA is that the
> USA series allow underbody tunneling for more efficient downforce (FIA
> uses skidboards), CART/Champ cars use turob-charged alcohol burining

Yeah I allready knew all of that. Formula 1´s underbodys with their "wodden"
plates are crap compared to the champcar ones.

> engines, and the CART/Champ cars are more crashworthy than F1 cars
> because they were over 200mph so often, which is why they are 200lbs
> or more heavier than F1 cars. Now with the high speed ovals gone, I'm
> suprised there isn't a trend in the rules to allow lighter cars.

Well there is only one chassis manufacturer left and the financial situation
of the teams is not the best. So no argument for lighter cars.
I think I heard a new chassis will be used from 2007 on.

Greetings
Stephan