Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
What a Car!!
What a Car!!
I have heard some praise about the new car, but
WHAT A CAR!
It had some teething problems with the fuel delivery, but one has to
expect such problems on a new car which I expect will be solved before
this post hits the server.
I think it is a great, modern car and will propel CC into the future.
It seems to be blindingly fast and handles like it is on rails. It
looks great. Low bodywork and wide stance make it a work of art. Up to
date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
ensure the car will be long lived. I work about 10 miles from where it
is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
What a great accomplishment for CC, Panoz and American OW racing.
I have heard some praise about the new car, but
WHAT A CAR!
It had some teething problems with the fuel delivery, but one has to
expect such problems on a new car which I expect will be solved before
this post hits the server.
I think it is a great, modern car and will propel CC into the future.
It seems to be blindingly fast and handles like it is on rails. It
looks great. Low bodywork and wide stance make it a work of art. Up to
date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
ensure the car will be long lived. I work about 10 miles from where it
is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
What a great accomplishment for CC, Panoz and American OW racing.
Re: What a Car!!
Agreed great looking fast and on rails.
Lenny wrote:
> I have heard some praise about the new car, but
>
> WHAT A CAR!
>
> It had some teething problems with the fuel delivery, but one has to
> expect such problems on a new car which I expect will be solved before
> this post hits the server.
>
> I think it is a great, modern car and will propel CC into the future.
> It seems to be blindingly fast and handles like it is on rails. It
> looks great. Low bodywork and wide stance make it a work of art. Up to
> date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
> ensure the car will be long lived. I work about 10 miles from where it
> is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
>
> What a great accomplishment for CC, Panoz and American OW racing.
>
Agreed great looking fast and on rails.
Lenny wrote:
> I have heard some praise about the new car, but
>
> WHAT A CAR!
>
> It had some teething problems with the fuel delivery, but one has to
> expect such problems on a new car which I expect will be solved before
> this post hits the server.
>
> I think it is a great, modern car and will propel CC into the future.
> It seems to be blindingly fast and handles like it is on rails. It
> looks great. Low bodywork and wide stance make it a work of art. Up to
> date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
> ensure the car will be long lived. I work about 10 miles from where it
> is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
>
> What a great accomplishment for CC, Panoz and American OW racing.
>
Re: What a Car!!
On 10 Apr 2007 06:05:36 -0700, Lenny wrote:
> I work about 10 miles from where it
> is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
Weisach? maybe Weissach.
On 10 Apr 2007 06:05:36 -0700, Lenny wrote:
> I work about 10 miles from where it
> is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
Weisach? maybe Weissach.
Re: What a Car!!
On Apr 10, 8:05 am, "Lenny" <hayso...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> I have heard some praise about the new car, but
>
> WHAT A CAR!
>
> It had some teething problems with the fuel delivery, but one has to
> expect such problems on a new car which I expect will be solved before
> this post hits the server.
>
> I think it is a great, modern car and will propel CC into the future.
> It seems to be blindingly fast and handles like it is on rails. It
> looks great. Low bodywork and wide stance make it a work of art. Up to
> date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
> ensure the car will be long lived. I work about 10 miles from where it
> is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
>
> What a great accomplishment for CC, Panoz and American OW racing.
Frankly it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen in a
long time. Development problems are one thing. That you would expect
with things like electrical gremlins and wear items. I don't know why
paddle shifting is such a big deal. Who cares? Its just shifting.
As long as its the same for everyone what difference does it make? I
could care less that F1 shifts that way. Not being able to
consistently fuel the car was one of the biggest embarassments since
the early IRL cars. It wasn't that bad, but they couldn't have tested
the fueling system in anything like race conditions. From a safety
standpoint that is awful. Most of the fires Champ Car has seen in the
last several years have been pit fires. Not testing that rig with the
car prior to race weekend makes you wonder just what else wasn't
tested.
The car was hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. When you
create expectations, you should deliver. Calling this race a great
accomplishment with the development time that was at hand is way
overstated. Its like calling the IRL 500 last year a great success.
On Apr 10, 8:05 am, "Lenny" <hayso...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> I have heard some praise about the new car, but
>
> WHAT A CAR!
>
> It had some teething problems with the fuel delivery, but one has to
> expect such problems on a new car which I expect will be solved before
> this post hits the server.
>
> I think it is a great, modern car and will propel CC into the future.
> It seems to be blindingly fast and handles like it is on rails. It
> looks great. Low bodywork and wide stance make it a work of art. Up to
> date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
> ensure the car will be long lived. I work about 10 miles from where it
> is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
>
> What a great accomplishment for CC, Panoz and American OW racing.
Frankly it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen in a
long time. Development problems are one thing. That you would expect
with things like electrical gremlins and wear items. I don't know why
paddle shifting is such a big deal. Who cares? Its just shifting.
As long as its the same for everyone what difference does it make? I
could care less that F1 shifts that way. Not being able to
consistently fuel the car was one of the biggest embarassments since
the early IRL cars. It wasn't that bad, but they couldn't have tested
the fueling system in anything like race conditions. From a safety
standpoint that is awful. Most of the fires Champ Car has seen in the
last several years have been pit fires. Not testing that rig with the
car prior to race weekend makes you wonder just what else wasn't
tested.
The car was hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. When you
create expectations, you should deliver. Calling this race a great
accomplishment with the development time that was at hand is way
overstated. Its like calling the IRL 500 last year a great success.
Re: What a Car!!
On Apr 10, 12:06 pm, "Mark" <mblackwell1...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> Frankly it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen in a
> long time.
I have to disagree. It wasn't such a disappointment to me.
> Not being able to
> consistently fuel the car was one of the biggest embarassments since
> the early IRL cars. It wasn't that bad, but they couldn't have tested
> the fueling system in anything like race conditions.
And that is why the problem surfaced. They couldn't test in race
conditions until a race was run. Simulations are just that...until the
race is run, many problems don't surface. They didn't obviously test
every car because some cars had no problems.
> From a safety
> standpoint that is awful. Most of the fires Champ Car has seen in the
> last several years have been pit fires. Not testing that rig with the
> car prior to race weekend makes you wonder just what else wasn't
> tested.
I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. No fires occurred.
If anything it was not sending enough fuel, not the other way around.
Maybe the system was designed to be safe first and fast comes later?
>
> The car was hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. When you
> create expectations, you should deliver. Calling this race a great
> accomplishment with the development time that was at hand is way
> overstated. Its like calling the IRL 500 last year a great success.
The development time was years, but the first real prototype was built
only late last year. Problems do happen that are not anticipated and
this one only surfaced on race weekend.
If that is all they had to complain about, then it was a pretty good
first race run of the car. It ruined Paul's race, but he probably
would have screwed up on his own if he was in the lead.
On Apr 10, 12:06 pm, "Mark" <mblackwell1...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> Frankly it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen in a
> long time.
I have to disagree. It wasn't such a disappointment to me.
> Not being able to
> consistently fuel the car was one of the biggest embarassments since
> the early IRL cars. It wasn't that bad, but they couldn't have tested
> the fueling system in anything like race conditions.
And that is why the problem surfaced. They couldn't test in race
conditions until a race was run. Simulations are just that...until the
race is run, many problems don't surface. They didn't obviously test
every car because some cars had no problems.
> From a safety
> standpoint that is awful. Most of the fires Champ Car has seen in the
> last several years have been pit fires. Not testing that rig with the
> car prior to race weekend makes you wonder just what else wasn't
> tested.
I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. No fires occurred.
If anything it was not sending enough fuel, not the other way around.
Maybe the system was designed to be safe first and fast comes later?
>
> The car was hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. When you
> create expectations, you should deliver. Calling this race a great
> accomplishment with the development time that was at hand is way
> overstated. Its like calling the IRL 500 last year a great success.
The development time was years, but the first real prototype was built
only late last year. Problems do happen that are not anticipated and
this one only surfaced on race weekend.
If that is all they had to complain about, then it was a pretty good
first race run of the car. It ruined Paul's race, but he probably
would have screwed up on his own if he was in the lead.
Re: What a Car!!
On Apr 10, 11:25 am, "Lenny" <hayso...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:06 pm, "Mark" <mblackwell1...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Frankly it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen in a
> > long time.
>
> I have to disagree. It wasn't such a disappointment to me.
Here we have to agree to disagree.
>
> > Not being able to
> > consistently fuel the car was one of the biggest embarassments since
> > the early IRL cars. It wasn't that bad, but they couldn't have tested
> > the fueling system in anything like race conditions.
>
> And that is why the problem surfaced. They couldn't test in race
> conditions until a race was run. Simulations are just that...until the
> race is run, many problems don't surface. They didn't obviously test
> every car because some cars had no problems.
Why not? You can not make a series of hot pit stops with a new car?
Re reading my original text it was in error. These pit stops could be
made and just drain the tanks and measure it to see just how much fuel
they got in the tank and how fast. It ain't rocket science. Nozzle
goes in the car, fuel goes in the car, and check. You don't need to
be racing to do that. You would need to run enough laps to get the
engine hot and do it enough to really test it. No just doing it a few
times isn't the answer. You need to do it enough to not only simulate
an entire race, but do it with enough nozzles and rigs to simulate the
entire field doing it an entire race. Stats could potentially be used
to cut that sample size down, but just pulling the car up and using it
once with an it works and going on is especially inexcusable. Safety
is vital especially in the pits. See the comments following your next
point.
>
> > From a safety
> > standpoint that is awful. Most of the fires Champ Car has seen in the
> > last several years have been pit fires. Not testing that rig with the
> > car prior to race weekend makes you wonder just what else wasn't
> > tested.
>
> I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. No fires occurred.
> If anything it was not sending enough fuel, not the other way around.
> Maybe the system was designed to be safe first and fast comes later?
Yes you are right that the fuel rigs were not dispensing fuel at all.
Yet if the system wasn't properly tested how do you know that its not
going to send fuel out at all? It could have just as easily failed to
shut off the fuel at disconnect dumping fuel right on a hot engine and
we have seen that mess before. It isn't pretty. What if the dead
man's switches had problems. What about the break away parts? Were
they tried? Frankly I could care less how long it takes to fuel a car
as long as its the same for everyone. If everyone has the same rate,
it doesn't matter as it all works out for everyone. Speed isn't why
you are testing. Its reliablity and safety is the reason you test.
Till you test you don't know where the problems are. The only reason
the problems were as severe as they were is they assumed it would all
be just fine. There is an old joke about assume and what it does to
you, but there is an awful lot of truth in that old joke. As bad as
these problems were they may not have even gotten the fuel rigs ready
till that race weekend. I hope that isn't how it happened, but if it
is there can be no excuse.
>
>
> > The car was hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. When you
> > create expectations, you should deliver. Calling this race a great
> > accomplishment with the development time that was at hand is way
> > overstated. Its like calling the IRL 500 last year a great success.
>
> The development time was years, but the first real prototype was built
> only late last year. Problems do happen that are not anticipated and
> this one only surfaced on race weekend.
IF the development time was years, why a prototype only late last
year? With most of the modern engineering models such problems are
usually easily anticipated and avoided. Yet again even with that
Roberto Moreno had driven the car plenty of miles to have had this
problem surface if they had bothered to check it. This is not the
type of problem that you can accept as a car development issue. IF a
particular part were prone to failure, it could take several races for
the stresses to work on that part before it causes it to fail. The
old lolas had some very early problems with front suspensions that
were due to unexpected loads. That I could accept as a wear type or
stressed type item and pass that off as something that would not be
reasonably be expected to be caught during a reasonable test program.
Getting fuel in the car isn't one of those types of items.
The worst mistake the IRL made when they developed their first car was
attempting to rush it. It was the drivers that paid the price. I
hope this one wasn't rushed. Right now I know there have been reports
around about being short of cars, backup cars and parts. That's a
pretty strong indicator that they started way too late.
>
> If that is all they had to complain about, then it was a pretty good
> first race run of the car. It ruined Paul's race, but he probably
> would have screwed up on his own if he was in the lead.
I could care less about whose race got messed up. Paul's wasn't the
only one. Maybe he would have crashed out of the lead, but it
shouldn't have been that kind of a mechanical issue that kept him from
the opportunity to do so. Bruno's race was also ruined and several
others further back also had their races impacted because of the fuel
situation. I am also not that sure that the gear box is as solid as
it might seem just yet. About 6% of the field had their race ended
with gearbox failure. Is that because of a bad box, the new highly
touted paddle shifting, or some other quality control issue, or was it
just one of those things? Fact is the sample is still too small to
say, but I wouldn't say its out the woods yet either.
That is more than enough to complain about, especially when the car
has been hyped for such a long time. There is an old saying "He that
produces hype, best produce." So far it hasn't. Long Beach is their
biggest race of the year. If this is to be the start of a growth
cycle in Champ Car, it all MUST WORK AND WORK RIGHT. They don't have
many chances left at making it work. The non hardcore fan might watch
Long Beach. IF its fixed and a good race, they may continue to follow
the series. If it isn't they maybe gone for good.
On Apr 10, 11:25 am, "Lenny" <hayso...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:06 pm, "Mark" <mblackwell1...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Frankly it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen in a
> > long time.
>
> I have to disagree. It wasn't such a disappointment to me.
Here we have to agree to disagree.
>
> > Not being able to
> > consistently fuel the car was one of the biggest embarassments since
> > the early IRL cars. It wasn't that bad, but they couldn't have tested
> > the fueling system in anything like race conditions.
>
> And that is why the problem surfaced. They couldn't test in race
> conditions until a race was run. Simulations are just that...until the
> race is run, many problems don't surface. They didn't obviously test
> every car because some cars had no problems.
Why not? You can not make a series of hot pit stops with a new car?
Re reading my original text it was in error. These pit stops could be
made and just drain the tanks and measure it to see just how much fuel
they got in the tank and how fast. It ain't rocket science. Nozzle
goes in the car, fuel goes in the car, and check. You don't need to
be racing to do that. You would need to run enough laps to get the
engine hot and do it enough to really test it. No just doing it a few
times isn't the answer. You need to do it enough to not only simulate
an entire race, but do it with enough nozzles and rigs to simulate the
entire field doing it an entire race. Stats could potentially be used
to cut that sample size down, but just pulling the car up and using it
once with an it works and going on is especially inexcusable. Safety
is vital especially in the pits. See the comments following your next
point.
>
> > From a safety
> > standpoint that is awful. Most of the fires Champ Car has seen in the
> > last several years have been pit fires. Not testing that rig with the
> > car prior to race weekend makes you wonder just what else wasn't
> > tested.
>
> I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. No fires occurred.
> If anything it was not sending enough fuel, not the other way around.
> Maybe the system was designed to be safe first and fast comes later?
Yes you are right that the fuel rigs were not dispensing fuel at all.
Yet if the system wasn't properly tested how do you know that its not
going to send fuel out at all? It could have just as easily failed to
shut off the fuel at disconnect dumping fuel right on a hot engine and
we have seen that mess before. It isn't pretty. What if the dead
man's switches had problems. What about the break away parts? Were
they tried? Frankly I could care less how long it takes to fuel a car
as long as its the same for everyone. If everyone has the same rate,
it doesn't matter as it all works out for everyone. Speed isn't why
you are testing. Its reliablity and safety is the reason you test.
Till you test you don't know where the problems are. The only reason
the problems were as severe as they were is they assumed it would all
be just fine. There is an old joke about assume and what it does to
you, but there is an awful lot of truth in that old joke. As bad as
these problems were they may not have even gotten the fuel rigs ready
till that race weekend. I hope that isn't how it happened, but if it
is there can be no excuse.
>
>
> > The car was hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. When you
> > create expectations, you should deliver. Calling this race a great
> > accomplishment with the development time that was at hand is way
> > overstated. Its like calling the IRL 500 last year a great success.
>
> The development time was years, but the first real prototype was built
> only late last year. Problems do happen that are not anticipated and
> this one only surfaced on race weekend.
IF the development time was years, why a prototype only late last
year? With most of the modern engineering models such problems are
usually easily anticipated and avoided. Yet again even with that
Roberto Moreno had driven the car plenty of miles to have had this
problem surface if they had bothered to check it. This is not the
type of problem that you can accept as a car development issue. IF a
particular part were prone to failure, it could take several races for
the stresses to work on that part before it causes it to fail. The
old lolas had some very early problems with front suspensions that
were due to unexpected loads. That I could accept as a wear type or
stressed type item and pass that off as something that would not be
reasonably be expected to be caught during a reasonable test program.
Getting fuel in the car isn't one of those types of items.
The worst mistake the IRL made when they developed their first car was
attempting to rush it. It was the drivers that paid the price. I
hope this one wasn't rushed. Right now I know there have been reports
around about being short of cars, backup cars and parts. That's a
pretty strong indicator that they started way too late.
>
> If that is all they had to complain about, then it was a pretty good
> first race run of the car. It ruined Paul's race, but he probably
> would have screwed up on his own if he was in the lead.
I could care less about whose race got messed up. Paul's wasn't the
only one. Maybe he would have crashed out of the lead, but it
shouldn't have been that kind of a mechanical issue that kept him from
the opportunity to do so. Bruno's race was also ruined and several
others further back also had their races impacted because of the fuel
situation. I am also not that sure that the gear box is as solid as
it might seem just yet. About 6% of the field had their race ended
with gearbox failure. Is that because of a bad box, the new highly
touted paddle shifting, or some other quality control issue, or was it
just one of those things? Fact is the sample is still too small to
say, but I wouldn't say its out the woods yet either.
That is more than enough to complain about, especially when the car
has been hyped for such a long time. There is an old saying "He that
produces hype, best produce." So far it hasn't. Long Beach is their
biggest race of the year. If this is to be the start of a growth
cycle in Champ Car, it all MUST WORK AND WORK RIGHT. They don't have
many chances left at making it work. The non hardcore fan might watch
Long Beach. IF its fixed and a good race, they may continue to follow
the series. If it isn't they maybe gone for good.
Re: What a Car!!
Mark mblackwell1958@yahoo,com said:
> Not being able to
> consistently fuel the car was one of the biggest embarassments since
> the early IRL cars.
>
And a good reason to scrap the car and fold the league because cars that you
can't fuel will never work in a race.
Mark mblackwell1958@yahoo,com said:
> Not being able to
> consistently fuel the car was one of the biggest embarassments since
> the early IRL cars.
>
And a good reason to scrap the car and fold the league because cars that you
can't fuel will never work in a race.
Re: What a Car!!
Lenny <haysooce@hotmail,com > wrote:
> date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
> ensure the car will be long lived.
No, they mean that 'arcade drivers' will come to dominate. Let's ditch
all the electronic trickery and arcade controls and make a *real* racing
car. It does look good though.
pete
--
pete@fenelon,com "how many clever men have called the sun a fool?"
Lenny <haysooce@hotmail,com > wrote:
> date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
> ensure the car will be long lived.
No, they mean that 'arcade drivers' will come to dominate. Let's ditch
all the electronic trickery and arcade controls and make a *real* racing
car. It does look good though.
pete
--
pete@fenelon,com "how many clever men have called the sun a fool?"
Re: What a Car!!
On Apr 10, 1:14 pm, Pete Fenelon <p...@stratos.fenelon,com > wrote:
> No, they mean that 'arcade drivers' will come to dominate.
> Let's ditch
> all the electronic trickery and arcade controls and make a
> *real* racing
> car.
It doesn't have traction control or other electronic driving aids, so
it's as close to old school racing as is possible in the modern era.
Not too much downforce from the wings will bring the drivers closer.
> It does look good though.
I think it is stunning, but what do I know ;-D
On Apr 10, 1:14 pm, Pete Fenelon <p...@stratos.fenelon,com > wrote:
> No, they mean that 'arcade drivers' will come to dominate.
> Let's ditch
> all the electronic trickery and arcade controls and make a
> *real* racing
> car.
It doesn't have traction control or other electronic driving aids, so
it's as close to old school racing as is possible in the modern era.
Not too much downforce from the wings will bring the drivers closer.
> It does look good though.
I think it is stunning, but what do I know ;-D
Re: What a Car!!
On 10 Apr 2007 06:05:36 -0700, "Lenny" <haysooce@hotmail,com > wrote:
>I have heard some praise about the new car, but
>
>WHAT A CAR!
>
>It had some teething problems with the fuel delivery, but one has to
>expect such problems on a new car which I expect will be solved before
>this post hits the server.
>
>I think it is a great, modern car and will propel CC into the future.
>It seems to be blindingly fast and handles like it is on rails. It
>looks great. Low bodywork and wide stance make it a work of art. Up to
>date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
>ensure the car will be long lived. I work about 10 miles from where it
>is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
>
>What a great accomplishment for CC, Panoz and American OW racing.
agreed.
On 10 Apr 2007 06:05:36 -0700, "Lenny" <haysooce@hotmail,com > wrote:
>I have heard some praise about the new car, but
>
>WHAT A CAR!
>
>It had some teething problems with the fuel delivery, but one has to
>expect such problems on a new car which I expect will be solved before
>this post hits the server.
>
>I think it is a great, modern car and will propel CC into the future.
>It seems to be blindingly fast and handles like it is on rails. It
>looks great. Low bodywork and wide stance make it a work of art. Up to
>date features such as paddle shifting and an advanced ECU will only
>ensure the car will be long lived. I work about 10 miles from where it
>is built and Panoz is turning the area into an American Weisach.
>
>What a great accomplishment for CC, Panoz and American OW racing.
agreed.
