Call this a spinoff from the DeltaWing thread. Some people say they want a real prototype class. Okay, if you were in charge, what would the rules say? I'll add one requirement, though: How will you prevent one manufacturer/team/whatever from coming in and running off the rest of the competition?
Go!
In reply to David S. Wallens: Is this for UTCC or 20xx Challenge?
This is for whatever. I have heard a few message boarders call for a return of real unlimited prototype racing, so let's hear those ideas.
That's funny. I'd be thrilled if one manufacturer ran away from the competition. That's what's wrong with racing now, as everyone thinks that all the cars running evenly in a pack is racing. I see the value in that for series like World Challenge and such, but for prototype racing we need to go back to the Can Am days. I get just as excited in the engineering of the cars as I do the racing. Impose too many rules and you stifle that. The only reason for rules that keep everyone even is for cost, which IMO shouldn't be part of real prototype racing. I say spec a general formula and let them go at it. Best manufacturer/team/drivers win.
Initial thoughts. This is about what I want a prototype class to be. I'll be the first to admit in may not be an ideal prototype class. One of the elements to this is that I want "prototype" to mean "prototype of ideas we may actually use on road cars", not "prototype meaning is unrelated to anything but this class".
First off, I want limited aero, because advances in in extreme multi-element wings do almost nothing for improving road cars. It's also an area of seriously diminishing returns for massive investments in wind tunnel time. With that in mind, we will do dynamic testing of downforce, not to exceed TBD% of car weight at each of several TBD speed ranges. (EDIT: yes, this allows expenditures for drag reduction for a given downforce, but if we keep limits sane, we can contain how quickly the returns diminish.)
Sane minimum weights. High-tech, sure. But again, once you've pared off the kgs, the grams get expensive. Probably tied to power. This doesn't prevent expenditures on going extra-light to optimize ballast, but if we keep the weights sane enough, that advantage should be minimized.
I want fuel economy to be rewarded, but not with some bizarre fuel limit. More like light weight and reduced fuel stops. Probably a restrictor plate, capping peak power but allowing forced induction to broaden the area under the curve. Not sure how or whether to allow for alternative fuels or hybrid powerplants, though I'm inclined to do so...
I'd say put it in one of two groups. Spec engine, and spec body. Use the spec body, do whatever you want to the rest. Use the spec engine, do whatever you want to the rest. Don't let people combine the two. Go from there.
Limit energy used for the race length. Open fuel (even electric), open powertrain.
Meet safety standards.
Go!
bravenrace wrote: That's funny. I'd be thrilled if one manufacturer ran away from the competition. That's what's wrong with racing now, as everyone thinks that all the cars running evenly in a pack is racing.
CGLockRacer wrote: Limit energy used for the race length. Open fuel (even electric), open powertrain. Meet safety standards. Go!
This. I don't care HOW you do it, and I'd love to see somebody walk away with the championship because of their superior development/technology...isn't that the point of open classes, to develop the absolute best machine you can (and hope that it trickles down?).
Bryce
Not really a prototype class but I want an anything goes class except you must build 50 road cars to qualify.
I wouldnt mind one mfg running away with it all ONLY if the others were determined to catch them and not turn tail and hide as they do now.
3 liters. 4 wheels. Enclosed wheels. Enclosed cockpits.
NO OTHER RULES! PERIOD!
True. I wish there was less pissing and moaning, and more trying harder. That's the way they used to do it, even in NASCAR. Didn't like the last race? Cheat harder the next time!
David S. Wallens wrote: How will you prevent one manufacturer/team/whatever from coming in and running off the rest of the competition? Go!
By making all/ANY innovation public knowledge.... that way everyone has access to it.
Oh... and as far as unlimited... I put one limit... 20mpg minimum (you only get enough fuel per race to go the distance.... 200 miles - you get 10 gals
Maroon92 wrote: 3 liters. 4 wheels. Enclosed wheels. Enclosed cockpits. NO OTHER RULES! PERIOD!
I could be persuaded to agree with this. A free beer would do it, I think.
ransom wrote: Initial thoughts. ... .. . . though I'm inclined to do so...
You just described the ruel set for the IZOD Indy car series.
Car must fit in a box x by y by z. Fuel on board is limited to x gallons. The usual crash safety bits.
And go.
They'll be insanely fast. The series will only last for a couple of years before it gets cancelled due to the safety concerns. And it may not advance road cars much, but Twitter connectivity is more important to most people now anyhow. So let's have a spectacle.
Keith wrote: Car must fit in a box x by y by z. Fuel on board is limited to x gallons. The usual crash safety bits. And go. They'll be insanely fast. The series will only last for a couple of years before it gets cancelled due to the safety concerns. And it may not advance road cars much, but Twitter connectivity is more important to most people now anyhow. So let's have a spectacle.
Came in here to state "safety, max size, nothing else," but I see I was beaten to it.
Pffft. Who ever said car racing was supposed to be safe.
Make it relevant to manufacturers so that they will want to participate. It needs to advance road transportation in order to provide value back to them. Racing by BTU usage and emissions. Most efficient gets the most power from the allowed limits. Within safety limits, anything else goes. Let the engineers create inovative solutions. You would get stuff like a hybrid powered delta wing, etc.
Osterkraut wrote:Keith wrote: Car must fit in a box x by y by z. Fuel on board is limited to x gallons. The usual crash safety bits. And go. They'll be insanely fast. The series will only last for a couple of years before it gets cancelled due to the safety concerns. And it may not advance road cars much, but Twitter connectivity is more important to most people now anyhow. So let's have a spectacle.Came in here to state "safety, max size, nothing else," but I see I was beaten to it.
The only thing I'd add is a salary cap.
I want innovative concepts/engineering, not $150 million spent in the wind tunnel.
If I was doing a prototype class, I would have safety rules, a spec tire and fuel (100 octane gas) and 4.0 liter displacement rule. No aero, power or anything else limit. Spend as much as you want do whatever you want I want crazy cars.
I'm watching this. 
Fuel limit to promote mileage.
140 (or whatever) road tire to promote tire development.
chassis of tubular steel to allow home builders to really play.
No on track gps.
Ready............go!
Must weigh 1500lbs or more with driver.
Must use pump fuel.
Must have a drag coefficient of .25 or worse.
GO!
In reply to z31maniac:
How would a salary cap prevent $150M in a wind tunnel? And how is it that engineering changes base on a wind tunnel test are not innovative? I think some F1 teams might have an argument with that statement.
However, I agree with what I think you were getting at. And I'm not for aero on race cars. It's like Mario Andretti said a few years ago - You want lower speeds and more excitement? Take the aero away and separate the men from the boys...Or something similar to that. 
You'll need to log in to post.
