Champ Car aero.

Please discuss here all your remarks and pose your questions about all racing series, except Formula One. Both technical and other questions about GP2, Touring cars, IRL, LMS, ...
User avatar
zenvision
0
Joined: 12 Sep 2006, 19:06
Location: Malta

Champ Car aero.

Post

The past few weeks and months have been busy but exciting times for the people who work for the Panoz Group at Élan Motorsports Technologies in Braselton, Georgia. Led by chief designer Simon Marshall and chief aerodynamicist Nick Alcock, Panoz's engineers, fabricators and component builders have been embroiled in finalizing the details of the first Panoz DP01 Champ Car and getting the car ready for a dozen or more days of testing at Sebring over the next three weeks.

After nine months of unrelenting work the brand new Champ Car runs for the first time over five days at Sebring this week with test driver Roberto Moreno at the wheel. Moreno, 47, has a wealth of experience in Champ Cars, Indy cars and Formula 1. He won Champ Car races in Vancouver in 2001 and Cleveland in '02 while driving for Patrick Racing, finished second to teammate and old friend Nelson Piquet in the 1990 Japanese GP with the Benetton team, and was a Ferrari F1 test driver in the late '80s. There couldn't be a better man for the job of testing the new Panoz DP01.

Chief designer Marshall worked for Lola Cars in England before joining Panoz where he developed the company's recent IRL cars. Marshall commented on the challenges of coming to grips with Champ Car's design brief for the new DP01.

"When Champ Car approached us asking for our proposal for their product they gave us a three-page summary of bullet points," Marshall said. "These ranged from the performance aspects, which would be seen as lap times, weight, power and downforce, as well as safety considerations. There was half a page of bullet points which covered some of the toughest tests in racing we would have to put this car through. It's given us a good chance to wipe the slate clean, break away from certain regulations which don't make sense today, and rewrite the Champ Car rulebook."

The new Panoz makes around 5,500 pounds of downforce at 200 mph with the underwing accounting for nearly fifty percent of the downforce. The focus on increasing the proportion of downforce produced by the underbody is the key component in trying to improve the raceability of the DP01 compared to recent Champ Cars.

"We also had to look at the aesthetics of the car," Marshall added. "It's hard to put your finger on what a Champ Car is and what it looks like because in a competitive environment it has changed and evolved. It seems to be dominated by the dissolving shape and the low engine cover which are all products of the turbo installation and not requiring any cold air intake located high up but something that is more purposefully low. We don't have to ram air into the Cosworth engine."

Another important element in the appearance, let alone the performance of the DP01, relates to its F1-like high nose.

"This was an area where Champ Car needed to break away from the traditional-looking car," Marshall commented. "It would give us some very good aesthetics with the suspended front wing and enhanced role of the underbody. Being remote from the nose itself, especially the center section, the high nose allows the front wing to work more efficiently. You've got to be careful that the sloping surface of the underside of the car doesn't produce its own lift, which it actually does. So you can negate the effect very easily."

Marshall's design team have been able to define some parts of the rulebook, particularly the underbody which was strictly specified by CART for many years going back the mid eighties. Chief aerodynamicist Alcock, who also worked at Lola as well as enjoying five years in F1 with Williams, was delighted with this element of the design brief.

"Just to be given a free hand on the underbody and the fact that we've got no regulations to work to in that respect is a breath of fresh of air," Alcock remarked.

Added Marshall: "We've got no restrictions on the entrances and exits and with vortex generating devices. We were able to spend a lot of time in making the best underwing possible and generate most of the downforce on the underwing."

The Panoz design team does its aerodynamic testing and development in the Penske wind tunnel at the Penske Technology Group in Mooresville, NC. Built by Adrian Reynard, who had hopes of breaking into NASCAR, the tunnel was purchased by Penske after Reynard's company went bankrupt. Alcock and his aero people work with a half-scale model which can run up to 100 mph and so far the DP01 Champ car has spent five weeks in the wind tunnel.

"Your goal when you go to the tunnel is to work as efficiently, quickly and as accurately as possible," Alcock says. "Doctor Panoz is paying Roger Penske a lot of money to be there every day and we've got to make sure that me and my guys work as flat-out and efficiently as possible.

"You have to go to the tunnel very well-prepared with your test plan. All the changes you make to the model have to take place as quickly as possible so you can maximize your time. We would typically go and work four days in a row, twelve-hour days, working straight through with no lunch breaks. When the tunnel is running is sort of down-time for the model makers, and when they're making their changes provides some down-time for the rest of us, although there's always plenty of data to look at and work to be done. We take two model-makers and usually myself and one other aerodynamicist."

Alcock emphasized the importance of aerodynamics in influencing the layout of the car.

"It is the key," Alcock said. "The car is laid-out aerodynamically. The intake area at the front of the sidepods is the most powerful part on the Champ car. There are three turning vanes in there which generate some very strong vortices down the tunnel. The vortices are very high-speed and very low pressure.

"Simon and I have a very good working relationship and he knows how important aero is. I'm not saying the mechanical side has to be designed around the aero, but it's a team effort. And of course, I understand the mechanical requirements. It's always a compromise and packaging your suspension is always your big nightmare."

Added Marshall: "It's no surprise why these cars go 'round the corner so fast. It's not the steel parts of the car that do it. It's the downforce-producing carbon bodywork parts.

"We have to package some of the ancillary items around that. It has an impact on what we can and can't do with the rear suspension and gearbox. Usually with cars of this magnitude of downforce, the suspension installation and a lot of mechanical items on the car have to take a back seat and play second fiddle to the aerodynamic performance. So there's a lot of give and take between the mechanical and aerodynamic sides of the design."

Alcock says a lot of work has gone into making the car as aerodynamically stable as possible on a typically rough street circuit.

"The car will be running on bumpy street courses and not being sensitive to pitch and ride height changes will be very important in terms of controlling your downforce as you go over the bumps," Alcock commented. "The ultimate downforce we have to hit is the target but retaining that downforce at high ride heights is another important goal. We've done some work simulating braking and acceleration and turning the car, just so we can calculate how much downforce is on the car in different conditions and how the aerodynamic balance is affected.

"The very latest wind tunnels are getting into more dynamic, or quasi-dynamic testing, where the model moves in real time. We take ride heights from around the circuits. At Long Beach for example, we've looked at current car data and tried to simulate these changes in conditions around the tracks."

Marshall and Alcock have enjoyed working on the concept of creating a more raceable car with a less turbulent wake and proportionally less influence from the front and rear wings versus the underbody.

"We've been allowed to pursue the subject of raceability and less turbulence because we can write the aerodynamic rules ourselves and we're not constrained by performance-limiting factors, which we usually are," Marshall said. "Also, we're not giving anything away to a competitor. Usually you wouldn't dream of helping the guy behind with your aerodynamic wake.

"We worked with the whole package from the front to the back, optimizing around the new high nose and front wing. Then we would go back to the front and start again because the effect of the aerodynamic parts at the rear of the car have an effect upstream as well as downstream."

Like most of us, Marshall is interested in seeing the results of Champ Car's experiment in making a change to the aerodynamic equation.

"It's a realistic goal to achieve in some manner. It's just the magnitude that is unknown," Marshall observed. "We are doing some CFD (computational fluid dynamics) studies where we can take the entire car as a model and calculate the flow characteristics at the back of the car and the wake, and then input that into the front end of another car and see what it does to the numbers.

"We've been trying to head towards that but we can't forget that the performance of the car is a very important thing. The numbers we've had to hit aerodynamically to achieve a certain lap time have still been there. You can't throw away the performance to make it driveable. But we do the best we can with a solid underwing and less reliance on the front and rear wings."

Marshall confirms the drivers' opinions that we won't know how well the idea works until we get a pack of cars running together on the track.

"Absolutely," he declared. "You never can tell what the car will be like for a driver running on its own, let alone in a bunch of cars interacting together. Every feature on the car has an influence on the balance and handling. We've had only nine months from a clean sheet of paper to a complete, manufactured car, so we don't have the luxury to simulate absolutely everything along the way.

"I think we'll be able to assess where we theoretically should be with our CFD model but it will come down to the first race. Racing on street circuits is not as easy to analyze as racing on ovals where the cornering is very much steady-state and you can accurately calculate and measure the effects of changes and driver lines.

"There's a lot more driver feel and seemingly random effect to ten or twenty cars on a street circuit. They'll all behave and handle very differently. It'll depend on the guy driving the car and a few millimeters here and there on the ride height when you're taking a turn or braking or accelerating. We'll find out at the first race whether we've actually achieved it."

Marshall and his design team are proud that the DP01 has exceeded the FIA's and Champ Car's crash test requirements.

"We subjected the car to a number of different crash tests," he said. "Some of them are through static loading, some are through fairly abstract experimentation and some are dynamic crash tests. We've subjected the roll hoop on this car to a twelve-ton load, which is about five or six full-size passenger cars sitting on top of a purely carbon fiber structure. Other areas are poked and squeezed and prodded and the test car comes out of it looking a little second-hand and dented and dinged, but all within the standards set by Champ Car.

"The frontal crash test is always the most impressive of these tests to watch. We run the car into a very unyielding concrete/steel wall at 12 meters per second and the car weighing in at 800 pounds. So it's got a fair amount of momentum to absorb and it converts the energy of the crash into heat and noise by the splintering of the crash structure at the front of the car.

"It takes a certain amount of energy to break each carbon fiber and split it away from its neighbor fiber. Hence, we use special carbon fibers and resins structured in such a way that it's crash resistant."

Marshall admits that meeting Champ Car's cost control requirements has been a serious challenge.

"To design a car at the level of a Champ Car and also keep it economical is very difficult," he remarked. "If you look at the car, there are no cheap parts. It all comes down to the amount of time we spend designing this car. Hopefully, we've done it right and the investment upfront in the safety and performance of the car will continue for three or maybe four years, and we can spread that investment over a high-volume of parts and cars.

"When we're competing, the drive to beat another manufacturer or team escalates costs, so by turning this championship into a single-make series, it should make things a lot more economical for the competitors. They can worry about their engineering of the car and working with the driver and the whole team aspect without getting more into redesigning of the race car."

Alcock says the cost control aspect has not put any serious restraints on the DP01's aerodynamic design and development.

"It's something you've got to be mindful of, but in terms of the actual aerodynamic shape and surfaces, I don't design a car to be cheap in that respect," Alcock observed. "It's a bit of a different mindset for myself, coming from an F1 background where you're actively encouraged to spend money because that's what gets you to the front of the grid. But here, the company is very conscious about how they manufacture the cars and how they're made in order to keep the costs down."

Concluded Marshall:

"The single-make race series brings its own challenges. We just try to give the customer exactly what they want and in this case the customer is the race teams and also the series organizer. We work with them to try to create the best tool for them to use over the next few years and not leave out any options or adjustments they might need over those years.

"Hopefully, we're not designing the car like we did in the IRL to do just one job aimed at a single circuit. We're designing it to be adaptable to a lot of different situations, different drivers and team engineer requirements."

----

i think the car design is a complete rip-off from A1 cars. having re-read the article, there are many people in the project who worked for lola, and one even for williams, so from there comes the similarities. i dont think its a good thing because each series should have different and identificable cars.
"Aerodynamics are for people who can't build good engines" Enzo Ferrari

Guest
Guest
0

Post

Just because it has a high nose and a suspended front wing with a similar looking mount doesn't mean its an A1 ripoff. I think most people would agree, just looking at it confirms it is most likely a more aerodynamically sound design.

User avatar
zenvision
0
Joined: 12 Sep 2006, 19:06
Location: Malta

Post

i think you're right it was a bit rash comparing them, but anyway its obvious that there will be some crossover first because its more efficient second because its coming from the same brains.

champ car
Image

last year A1 gp, couldnt find next years.
Image
"Aerodynamics are for people who can't build good engines" Enzo Ferrari

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

it's time for a newer design in Champ car, and the new Panoz looks quite nice. There are many features toward practicality and making this single class racer cheaper and easier to live with. It's starter location is quite evident in the rear shot, very easy to find and use. In the current Champ car, it's a twin turbo V-8. Each turbo resides down below each cylinder bank, with the compressed air fed through a cutout in the bellhousing connecting the engine and transmission. The mirrors are just slapped on the sidepods, ultra simple.
It's funny when politically Champ Car and IRL seem to be closer together, the nose is more F1 than IRL.
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/03/moto ... -unveiled/

User avatar
zenvision
0
Joined: 12 Sep 2006, 19:06
Location: Malta

Post

do you think the long time roumored merge will happen dave? i think there are many obstacles for that to happen in the near future. a pity, because it diluted he talent and fanbase of the single seaters for tin tops which to be honest, i'm not much a fan of.
"Aerodynamics are for people who can't build good engines" Enzo Ferrari

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

Zenvision--Thank you for the extensive article--- it offered a clear anaylsis of the design condiderations, & compromises involved--- and especially aero considerations---with a depth, that has certainly enhanced
my understanding considerably--- it also gave me pleasure to learn--that
Roberto Moreno is still active----at 47! Remarkable. Thank you once again.

Regards Carlos

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

zenvision wrote:do you think the long time roumored merge will happen dave? i think there are many obstacles for that to happen in the near future. a pity, because it diluted he talent and fanbase of the single seaters for tin tops which to be honest, i'm not much a fan of.
Sadly, I doubt it. Presently the Champ cars are closer to the IRL cars than they will be next year. In the aero commonality, they seem to be moving apart, instead of finding similar cars. Tony George has made IRL work, and it's now capable of standing on it's own, no longer relying on just one race, Indy, to make it viable.
I'm not that much excited these days about NASCAR, their aims to please the common man had led to rules and a show designed for entertainment, and very little to give the racing purist like myself. It's a shame because the teams and drivers give it their all, yet the delivery on the TV just sucks.

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post

I like the fact that ChampCars still have proper underbody Aero which has stupidly been banned along which many other great advances in F1!

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

Welcome Djos---Anew voice and F1 Brother is always welcome. Welcome to F1technical. "our" site--in my opinion--offers the racing fan the most acessable, informal venue for expression of any auto site. Why ---it is 4AM. I am without clothes, smoking and drinking "4 fingers" of scotch neat---where else can you do that? Just kidding--all untrue except for the time --4:20AM to be exact.

Concerning the aero of the Panos Champ Car--the triangular "flip-ups are actually an original feature of CC aero--pioneered by CC in the 1970's--I am suggesting that there are features that are not copied from other modern formula. as has been suggested--the :flip ups: I am referring to are behinfd the driver, where the bodywork narrows in a curve- thet "veil" the flow over the rearwing-directing a flow over the wing--and in my opinion--may offer some downforce. A beautiful car---non?

I hope Panos is succesful with this car--I hope that they prosper and other "series" ask them to produce cars. Although it has been suggested that this car is derived from minds that have contributed to other formulas--true perhaps--almost every "new" design in any field--is an evolution of past designs--with --new original features--hopefully. The definition of "creativity" is "change"--which implies profiting from an evolution of previous efforts. I also hope the Panos Design team is asked to produce "original" cars by teams in a variety of formula--open wheel and "sports cars". The Panos story--and cars--have a remarkable history.

Concerning the future of the Champ Car Series---I suspect that within 3-5 years the series will fail--and be purchased by the IRL at a devalued, bargain $---I hope not---but this is a common business model---there is no "free" lunch in business or life--but sometimes you can get a "meal" at a discounted price.

Meandering Regards Carlos

User avatar
joseff
11
Joined: 24 Sep 2002, 11:53

Post

That is one seriously good looking automobile!

I used to think Champ Cars look fat. This changes everything. I love the way the sidepod front looks, with the smallish intake and agressive looking turning vanes for the underbody aero. And the mirrors - McLaren should just copy that instead of having theirs fall off regularly.

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 22:24
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

The new Panoz looks great in my opinion. There's a big write up on it in this months Racecar Engineering. They've moved to a paddle shift, but are utilising the same turbo Cossie engine. The new chassis is lighter and stronger than the old chassis and I can't wait to see them line up
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

User avatar
NickT
2
Joined: 24 Sep 2003, 12:47
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Post

There is a lesson to be learned here for F1, that if learn't could bring back wheel to wheel fighting and overtaking. Lets hope the people in F1 paddock are wise enough to look outside their little politically short sighted world :wink:
NickT

zac510
zac510
22
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 12:58

Post

I'm surprised that with an unlimited underbody it still only contributes 50% of the overall downforce.

User avatar
zenvision
0
Joined: 12 Sep 2006, 19:06
Location: Malta

Post

correct me if i'm wrong, but f1 cant have that type of mirrors because the sidepods are situated more towards the back no?
"Aerodynamics are for people who can't build good engines" Enzo Ferrari

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

That's correct Zenvision, those surface mounted mirrors would be behind the driver in currect F1 cars.
I think the underbody contributes just 50% downforce is to allow each team to mess with the wings, to allow differences in setup.
I've watched a lot of Champ Car races, and many aspects are real nice. The "push-to-pass" button definitely injects an uncertainty factor, any driver at any moment could pass another if he wished. It's just a matter of managing a limited resource. I don't like the forced use of different tires and the pitting strategies. This usually results in cars each running different strategies during the race, and only in the waning moments of the race do you see them all in the same place at the same time, racing for position. But there's tons of action, passing, and the focus is on what happens on the track.
Oh yes, they have just one person who travels race to race, and he makes all the decisions on penalties. Sometimes they seem weird, but his decisions rarely displease the fans, stupid driving isn't tolerated, and it results in great entertainment. This is vastly superior where at each GP there are different people making decisions on penalties and driver transgressions.