Danica

[Fencer]

Thats why the only sport I watch is UFC. You know the ring girls are there, but they are not the show.

BTW I did the pay per view for UFC 60. It went as I expected Matt Hughs Kicked Gracie's ***.

We need play by play. Skip the ring girls and go straight to the bust-up bones and ****.

Hughs TKOed Gracie in the first round. Ref stoppage from Gracie only covering up and not fighting back. I give cudo's to Gracie for not tapping. Hughs had him in an arm bar that looked like it would snap the elbo. Hughs let it go and just ground pounded the stew out of him. Hughs just dominated.

 

[Scab]

Thats why the only sport I watch is UFC. You know the ring girls are there, but they are not the show.

BTW I did the pay per view for UFC 60. It went as I expected Matt Hughs Kicked Gracie's ***.

We need play by play. Skip the ring girls and go straight to the bust-up bones and ****.

Hughs TKOed Gracie in the first round. Ref stoppage from Gracie only covering up and not fighting back. I give cudo's to Gracie for not tapping. Hughs had him in an arm bar that looked like it would snap the elbo. Hughs let it go and just ground pounded the stew out of him. Hughs just dominated.

After the fight (which I didn't see), went searching for the winning info. Found a Judo forum where it was the hot topic of discussion. One dude said that Hughes said that he heard the elbow 'pop' when he had the arm bar. Said he saw that Gracie wasn't going to tap, so he let go and just pounded him.

 

[rublenoon]

funny thread...sorry I missed it in near real time...so likely this is too late

IMO...very few limits racing died when racing authorities ruled Jim Hall's toys :yahoo:

were too good for the competion [because there were no rules against what Hall had done] :dribble:

sad but true, marketing beats engineering most every time

rublenoon

 

[jestal]

I think the basic problem with any discussion of "racing" is the idea that it represents something that might in some way apply to passenger cars or other passenger vehicles or that it is an engineering or technical exercise that "improves the breed". Racing is marketing...pure and simple. Nothing else. Never will be anything else. Forget learning anything from racing that is technically applicable to anything else but racing. Racing is.....racing. What goes on in a race vehicle has absolutely nothing to do with passenger vehicles so the only thing that benefits is the race vehicles. The marketing guys all want you to believe that racing improves the breed but it doesn't in any way. It is all about marketing. That is why racing budgets come from marketing groups not the engineering groups of the companies involved.

Kind of playing the devils advocate here....but.....anyone care to put forth an idea of a technical "innovation" from racing that made it to a passenger car? Besides the rear veiw mirror from 1903.... Just don't happen.

 

[Woodstock]

Rear view mirror? Anyone remember this great scene from Gumball Rally..

Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.

[Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]

Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.

 

[Dallara]

Kind of playing the devils advocate here....but.....anyone care to put forth an idea of a technical "innovation" from racing that made it to a passenger car? Besides the rear veiw mirror from 1903.... Just don't happen.

Seat belts, and later shoulder belts

Windshield wipers

Disc brakes

Rack & pinion steering

Mechanical fuel injection

Electronic fuel injection

Electronic ignitions

Narrow valve angles (ala Cosworth DFV's)

Variable valve timing

Variable intake manifold length

Active suspension

Traction control

Variable split, viscous-controlled four-wheel drive systems

Fixed aerodynamic devices (spoilers and front air dams)

Moveable aerodynamic devices

Ground effects

Wings

Electronic instrumentation

Onboard diagnostics

Composite materials

Monocoque construction (which also led to unibody construction)

Independent suspensions

Run-flat inner liners

Roll bars (like on many convertibles today)

Automatically, electronically controlled manual transmissions and clutches

Onboard data acquisition systems

Onboard tire pressure sensors

Along with multiple others, not to mention the engineering knowledge gained in torsional rigidity, chassis and steering dynamics, deformable crush structures, aerodynamic theory along with reduced drag, using engines and gearboxes as stressed members, reduction in frictional loses, pumping losses, etc., crash data, tire performance, suspension systems, mechanical grip and handling dynamics, cooling system theory, combustion chamber design and theory, rod design along crankshafts and the like and their continued direction in strength increases while being reduced in weight and rotational mass, etc. , etc., etc.

And soon to be added to the list - pneumatic valve control, and not so long after that electronic valve control.

The list is even longer for motorcycles... To name just a brief few...

Desmodromic valves

Spar-type alloy frames

Single shock rear suspensions

Single bore/tube, Decarbon-type shock absorbers, and often the remote resevoirs that go with them

Cartridge forks

Adjustable damping

Ram air systems

Cassette-loaded-type gear clusters

Radial-mounted caliper brakes

Radial piston master cylinders

Composite materials

Fairings

And the list goes on and on...

Dallara

 

[rublenoon]

I agree with you Jestal...racing today is a marketing act/play...just like NFL/NBA/NHL/IOC/World Cup/etc.

That is why the Jim Hall judgements were the end of engineering based "racing" [Hall had side door acess to Chevy engineering].

However, sometimes I'll play with devil... so here goes one from the current form of racing: training of technical people within a racing format then using that training in the production field, ie.,

"Honda has made good use of its R&D efforts on racing circuits to enhance its consumer products. According to Robert Clarke, General Manager of Honda Performance, "One of the most prominent examples of racing technology finding its way into street vehicles is the variable valve timing system found on our VTEC engines." Interestingly, according to Clarke, "The biggest direct benefit of the racing programs to Honda is the development of people." Engineers and technicians from Honda's mainstream R&D departments who work on the racing program become more cognizant of the effects of technological thinking, then apply that thinking to the production vehicles that reach the streets, and eventually your shops. "

see link for more link

note the author defines racing as marketing from the beginning

rublenoon

 

[Hoog]

Seat belts, and later shoulder beltsWindshield wipers

Disc brakes

Rack & pinion steering

Mechanical fuel injection

Electronic fuel injection

Electronic ignitions

Narrow valve angles (ala Cosworth DFV's)

Variable valve timing

Variable intake manifold length

Active suspension

Traction control

Variable split, viscous-controlled four-wheel drive systems

Fixed aerodynamic devices (spoilers and front air dams)

Moveable aerodynamic devices

Ground effects

Wings

Electronic instrumentation

Onboard diagnostics

Composite materials

Monocoque construction (which also led to unibody construction)

Independent suspensions

Run-flat inner liners

Roll bars (like on many convertibles today)

Automatically, electronically controlled manual transmissions and clutches

Onboard data acquisition systems

Onboard tire pressure sensors

Along with multiple others, not to mention the engineering knowledge gained in torsional rigidity, chassis and steering dynamics, deformable crush structures, aerodynamic theory along with reduced drag, using engines and gearboxes as stressed members, reduction in frictional loses, pumping losses, etc., crash data, tire performance, suspension systems, mechanical grip and handling dynamics, cooling system theory, combustion chamber design and theory, rod design along crankshafts and the like and their continued direction in strength increases while being reduced in weight and rotational mass, etc. , etc., etc.

And soon to be added to the list - pneumatic valve control, and not so long after that electronic valve control.

Desmodromic valves

Spar-type alloy frames

Single shock rear suspensions

Single bore/tube, Decarbon-type shock absorbers, and often the remote resevoirs that go with them

Cartridge forks

Adjustable damping

Ram air systems

Cassette-loaded-type gear clusters

Radial-mounted caliper brakes

Radial piston master cylinders

Composite materials

Fairings

Yeah, but other than that racing is just marketing.

 

[Scab]

If memory serves me correctly, the first unibody was in 1946 and it was a Nash. I don't think its development was due to racing, though. And in the U.S., most unibody construction has been driven by the desire to reduce total vehicle weight and thus increase fuel economy and this also lessens production costs.

The crush zone was first developed by Daimler/Benz. I don't know the motivation (racing safety or just safety on consumer autos).

Not much from that long list though, eh?

 

[Woodstock]

What about checkered flags?

 

[Scab]

What about checkered flags?

The 'diamond-tuck' interior, of course.

 

[Woodstock]

Carbon fiber bling?

 

[jestal]

Dallara, all the items on your list showed up in racing after passenger cars or airplanes.... many of the items on the list have been excluded from racing and are still on passenger cars. I know the marketing guys keep trying to convince you otherwise, but none of that stuff came about thru racing. Most all of it was invented or showed up first on passenger cars and then made it's way to racing or was banned from racing before it even made it there.

Racers seem to always think that because they figured out another use for some technology that they "invented" it....LOL. Most all of it was around long before they figured out to put it on a race car.

Many of the items on your list were around for years and are only seen on race vehicle because of the unique application and/or the expense...not because they were "invented" by racing.

Things like "onboard diagnostics" is a joke to ascribe to racing. 1981 Cadillacs had digital fuel injection systems with onboard diagnostics when all forms of racing were using carburetors or mechanical fuel injection. I helped develop some of the first electronic diagnostic system in cars and I KNOW they were not in racing first... Same for electronic dashes and gauges. All that stuff started with the digital fuel injection systems developed for passenger cars back in the 70's. Even when closed loop fuel control and closed loop carburetors were common on cars in the early 70's the passenger car guys were using digital data system and electronic dashes. Heck, a 74 Cadillac had a digital, electronic "trip computer" on board that was the industry's first production example of digital/electronic dash info to get experience with that technology. Look at the race cars of that era and tell me they had electronic ANYTHING.

Electronic fuel injection...???....racing...???....give me a break. It was on passenger cars long before any racers figured out to use it. Sprint cars are still using mechanical systems. The first real round of electronic fuel injection came into play in the later 80's long after it was on passenger cars in the mid 70's in the US.

Composite materials were in aerospace LONG before racers picked up on them. That is why the first composite tubs for race cars were cooked in aerospace autoclaves. Not invented in racing. And they haven't really made it to passenger cars because of the expense...and likely never will. As for aluminum and aluminum engines....engines were made of aluminum back in the 20's because it was easier to cast and easier to machine. Not invented in racing.

Traction control....???....LOL. The first traction control systems were on 1989 Cadillacs long before anyone in racing applied them.

Same for onboard data acquisition. That was pretty routine in passnger cars during the late 70's as the digital fuel injection systems were developed. Pi figured it out in the late 80's and made it available to racers.

GM brought the first tire pressure monitoring systems to racing from passenger car developed systems....a la the original Aurora Indy V8's and the electronics for that engine that were based on passenger car systems when the IRL first started.

Aero devices are a tough call. Race cars use aero for a completely different reason than passenger cars. Passenger cars tend to use aero to influence cooling, reduce drag for fuel economy, keep side windows and mirrors free of dirt, etc.... Racers trade off HP for downforce. Totally different functions. There are rare performance cars that do trend toward aero for stability but that would happen when the car is designed to run those speeds regardless of racing or not based on the duty cycle of the car and the wind tunnel testing required. As far as aero is concerned....passenger car aero work drove the building of the first major wind tunnels used for vehicular wind tunnel development, not racing requirements. Besides, if you really want to argue aero, I would call in the aerospace guys that really invented the tunnels and the testing protocal and let you explain to them that racing 'invented" aero work....LOL.

Disc brakes were on airplanes long before race cars.

I seem to remember that Honda first put variable valve timing of sorts on a dirt bike engine back in the very early 80's.....not invented in racing. And besides, very few, if any, racing engines use variable valve timing or variable intake tuning. Race engines are designed for use in a specific RPM band. Not something that variable valve timing nor variable intake tuning helps with. Much of that is banned in some series anyway, even if someone did think they needed it.

Run flat inner liners were developed on and for racing, yes. Still stays in racing. No passenger car applications that I know of. Racers do not use the "run flat" techniques used on passenger cars and the passenger cars do not use the racer developed techniques. No score.

Seat belts and such...???...racing...??? Nonsense. They were production in passenger cars before many sanctioning bodies even required them. A GREAT deal of the crash safety development in race cars has been done by engineers well schooled in making passenger cars safe in crashes. Crush zones were being built into cars long before racing picked up on it. The whole race car safety issue is a joke to compare to passenger cars as race cars have LAGGED production cars in many safety aspects. Hell, many racers still cannot figure out how to even mount the seat belts much less say that they invented them (as proven by Dale Earnhart). The crash recorders put into Indy cars were developed by the passenger car passenger safety engineers. Same for IRL and NASCAR. NASCAR's "car of tomorrow" is still behind in basic safety devices compared to any passenger car on the road today. For a real hoot, the idea of "crush zones" is a good example. Ask Rick Mears how well his 'crush zones" worked on Indy cars designed with the drivers feet sticking out past the front axle long after passenger cars were routinely being barrier tested for crash worthyness. Even the "soft walls" concept has lagged basic highway safety devices for energy absorbing barriers by about 50 years. NOTHING in racing changes in this respect due to engineering advances...only after enough drivers die from the same injury does it get addressed. Do you realize that every new car sold has an air bag data recorder that is more sophisticated than some of the "racing" crash data systems? After a crash the manufacturer can interrogate the device to determine the air bag performance and vehicle operating modes leading to the crash as well as G loads, etc... EVERY production car has this onboard. Developed by racing..??? Hardly.

I'll let you in on another little secret.... All that computer modeling that leads to increased engine output in race engines. And the stuff that model cranks and rods and pistons and such... It was all developed by the OEM's to speed up development time for production engines and frames and bodies and such. The OEM's are light years ahead of the racers in that respect. Light years. Racers cannot afford it and did not invent it. Trust me. The race teams that I have had communication with just LOVE to get access to any and all tools like that that the OEM's have. Not invented in racing.

Tire technology..?? That is an interesting item. Race tires are....race tires. Little to nothing transfers from either direction. Even Goodyear admits that racing is marketing. What they develop for racing is specific to the track and the formula. Racing limits so much thru the tire rules that race tires do not even resemble production passenger car tires in construction. What do you think anyone learns about tires from developing a grooved racing tire for F1?? LOL Besides, on a 50,000 foot view, radial construction in tires was on passenger cars years before it finally made it into racing use.

Not to itemize the whole list...but...see what I mean..?? Nothing was developed in racing that helps passenger cars. It is a myth perpetuated by the marketing guys to make the public believe that the car they buy is made "better" by the manufacturer's involvement in racing. And the racers bought it because it makes their fun seem so noble and such a just cause. Baloney.

Understand that I like racing and am playing the devils advocate here as mentioned but racing is not a means of improving passenger cars. It is fun for the driver, exciting for other participants, good marketing for everyone else. A developement tool it is not. Except maybe for developing engineers...but....I have yet to see a "race engineer" come out of the race group and be a star in the passenger car groups.... And the engineers that build racing enginer use the passenger car engineer's tools and knowlege more often than the opposite. Racing engines are easy. They just have to make power between a very narrow RPM range and last for 2 hours or 5 seconds depending on your poison. Passenger car engines must be reliable, buildable, cost effective, pass emissions, get good fuel economy, etc..... LOL.

 

[Fencer]

Hey jestal

I thought every thing I drive was "Race Inspired" oh wait thats marketing

 

[jestal]

OK...I will admit to one thing that was developed in racing that passenger cars inherited.....

Gluing on the lug nuts to make pit stops faster.

In the never ending quest to improve productivity passenger car engine and vehicle assembly techniques have picked up on the idea of pre-assembling parts, much like the glued on lug nuts, to reduce assembly time. MANY parts come in preassembled...i.e..bolts already in covers held by the nubs in the gasket, all preassembled so that the operator just pops the cover on in one motion and then tightens the bolts.

That is about the ONLY thing that I know of that had it's roots in racing that made it to passenger cars.

Hey jestal
I thought every thing I drive was "Race Inspired" oh wait thats marketing

You drive the only two door taurus that Ford made....???.....LOL No, oh, then it must be the only rear wheel drive Monte Carlo that GM let slip off the line...?

 

[Windjammer]

I'm with Jestal on the technical stuff. And now for a little more factual data:

Janet Guthrie's best Indy finish was 9th - having only completed 190 laps of the 200 lap race. In fact, in that 1978 race, only 2 of the 33 cars entered finished on the lead lap. Bobby Unser finished 6th in that race, 5 laps down.

Danica has entered 2 Indy 500's. Her worst finish was 8th, and she was on the lead lap in both races - she completed all 200 laps in both races. She was the first woman to lead a lap at Indy in 2005. Good looks or not, she has better race results than any other woman driver at Indy, by a fairly wide margin. I'll guarantee you none of the guys she races with were letting her pass them just to be nice to the cute girl racer. She earned those results, and deserves due credit for them.

"But I think that, in the end, they will follow and cheer for Danica for what she represents." - Bobby Rahal

Bobby is right, based on what I've seen as a spectator at Indy. If you think all the fans are following Danica because she's cute, you're wrong. They're following her because they know she's the first woman driver with a real chance to make history, by being the first female Indy 500 winner. BTW, the much less cute Sarah Fisher was popular too, until it was seen that she couldn't drive a racecar well enough to compete at Indy.

Now about racing going down the tubes, and the Indy 500 in particular, lets look back to race results again. Races with few or no drivers on the lead lap at the end are boring. The IRL is following NASCAR's lead in making cars more equal, and thus having closer, much more exciting race finishes. In 1984, when Rick Mears won the 500, he was the only car on the lead lap. In 1978 when Al unser Sr won, only one other car was on the lead lap. When Foyt won in 1967, the closest car to him was 2 laps down. That takes nothing away from the achievements of those men, but the race finishes were less exciting then.

Contrast that with recent finishes. Since 2000, there have been at least 6 cars on the lead lap at the end. This makes for great drama, much better than waiting for your favorite driver to get killed in a fiery wreck. And if that's really why some people went to races, to see others get killed, then I'm glad those people don't have a reason to come anymore. Damn rubberneckers can stay home!!

I've been going to Indy for about 15 years. The fans in the area I sit in are there for the RACE, and the Spectacle that is Indy. No one wants to see a driver killed, as that takes away from next year's competition, and no one wants to lose the guy they're rooting for. I also happen to be a corner marshal for motorcycle races, and I've been present when a racer lost his life at the track. It was a tragedy, and all were saddened by the loss. No one came there for the purpose of witnessing that.

One last comment. As much hype as I've seen about Indy losing its luster, you sure don't know it from the stands. There were a couple of years after the CART/IRL split when the crowds were down a bit, but this year's crowd was one of the largest I've ever seen. Traffic on Crawfordsville Road was backed up all the way to I465 - on Friday, for Carb Day. Seems the Indy 500 isn't dead just yet. :yahoo:

FYI, the above quoted race results were obtained from Indy timing and scoring records shown in the official race program. The top ten finishers of each race are shown all the way back to 1911 every year in the race program.

WJ

 

[Geezer]

snip...Danica has entered 2 Indy 500's. Her worst finish was 8th, and she was on the lead lap in both races - she completed all 200 laps in both races. She was the first woman to lead a lap at Indy in 2005. Good looks or not, she has better race results than any other woman driver at Indy, by a fairly wide margin. I'll guarantee you none of the guys she races with were letting her pass them just to be nice to the cute girl racer. She earned those results, and deserves due credit for them.

...snip

Those results are worthy of praise and Danica certainly deserves credit for her hard earned success. I kind of doubt the Twinkie sponsorship has anything to do with her success on the track other than the the fact that racing was her path to fame. Normally only those drivers who actually win a few big races get that level of fame and money. On the other hand, it is a very good thing that racing is being funded by a broader range of products. Too bad it isn't a motorcycle racer on those Twinkies.

 

[radman]

I have nothing against Danica proper-my tirade is against a system that turns every phenom into a visual form of "In the Garden of Eden": overexposure and hype unbound until numbers indicate a downturn-toss and repeat. I'm sick of it, and not just in Motorsports.

 

[jestal]

Aside from my previous tirade about marketing and racing I think that a lot of "racing" went out the window when aerodynamic aids came into being. Huge amounts of resources are expended on improving aero and cornering and lap speeds are almost entirely dependent on aero these days. Upset the aero, either by following another car or getting alongside or in front of and the other cars, and the car becomes uncompetitive. Not much fun there.

The other problem with huge amounts of aero grip is that the cars become so "driveable" that most anyone can do it. Drivers start to whine when the car becomes "hard to drive" and the lesser drivers wreck so something has to be done by the sanctioning body so that sponsors do not leave.

What is wrong with skinny, hard tires, no wings and let the driver compensate and really "drive"??? Watch old Grand Prix and Indy films and watch the cars go thru corners in controlled 4 wheel drifts for hundreds of yards and you realize that it took far more to "drive" the car rather than the video game approach today.

Indy cars and F1 cars generate so much downforce that they could race on the ceiling quite easily. They generate more downforce than they weigh, that is how important aero is. Get rid of it and the racing would get much better.....at least you would be able to see who could really drive again.

I wish Danica all the luck in the world but you have to admit that she is a marketing dream....and she is cleverly making the most of it. She has absolute top notch equipment, especially last year....that doesn't hurt her results. Just having the equipment puts you in the top 10% at a technical race like Indy. Sarah Fisher got similar coverage and media response the first year she was at Indy but it quickly faded when the results weren't there and hasn't returned as she is unable to drive a car with fenders....too bad she isn't as cute as Danica....

I dont' know about the traffic and perception of a crowd at Indy this year but it certainly looked like a lot of empty seats on the TV coverage....which cleverly cut away everytime to keep the view of empty seats out of the picture as much as possible. Maybe the crowd and traffic SEEMS big because the support structure for the race has been scaled way back, too.

 

[radman]

Nothings more fun than a MG TC and 4 wheel drifts at every turn............+1