What would you like to see to lower costs in 2010?

[!!WALDO!!]

When a new car comes out, what would you like to see to lower the per team to hopefully increase competition.
Remember, more technogy would cause a higher cost.

Mine would be a 335 V-8 Pushrod engine, that could be bought over the counter from GM, MOPAR or Ford. The engine could cost less and all the NASCAR teams that build engines could de-stroke current engines and sell them to teams.
320 cubic Inches if you use a special head.

So the engine can take the name of the builder and head supplier. Example: If the engine builder is Shell then it could be at 335 the Shell/Dodge or at 320 the Shell/Yates-Ford.
Restrict the engines to 675 hp. This could put engine programs for less than $500,000 for the year.

Just one idea how about others.

[garyshell]

If the engine builder is Shell then it could be at 335 the Shell/Dodge or at 320 the Shell/Yates-Ford.



Damn, how did you know I was going to start and engine building company this summer???

<big ol' grin>

Gary

[Rex Monaco]

They could use over the counter radial tires.

[Rex Monaco]

Oh, and using Mustang II front ends would save money too!

[!!WALDO!!]

They could use over the counter radial tires.

Kidding right? Look this engine concept was available in the 1960s, 1980s and in 1994 with the 209 Turbo V-8 that was not an Ilmor/Penske.
The Aurora was basically this in 1997.

[nanders]

I don't want to see them lower the cost. I want to see them increase the cost.

Bring in a new rules package that embraces Hydrogen Electric propulsion and other technologies that the car companies want to pour money in to.

Lowering cost is just another way to surrender to NASCAB.

[nanders]

When a new car comes out, what would you like to see to lower the per team to hopefully increase competition.
Remember, more technogy would cause a higher cost.

Mine would be a 335 V-8 Pushrod engine, that could be bought over the counter from GM, MOPAR or Ford. The engine could cost less and all the NASCAR teams that build engines could de-stroke current engines and sell them to teams.
320 cubic Inches if you use a special head.

So the engine can take the name of the builder and head supplier. Example: If the engine builder is Shell then it could be at 335 the Shell/Dodge or at 320 the Shell/Yates-Ford.
Restrict the engines to 675 hp. This could put engine programs for less than $500,000 for the year.

Just one idea how about others.

Sounds like a losing proposition to me. Backwards to low tech. What a horrible idea.

[grungex]

Kidding right? Look this engine concept was available in the 1960s, 1980s and in 1994 with the 209 Turbo V-8 that was not an Ilmor/Penske.
The Aurora was basically this in 1997.


Put the engines back in front! :dork:

[Chris R]

Is it time to bring out the stock block plan again??? How many times has this concept been soundly rejected by teams and fans alike (roughly once a decade by my recollection)? I do not have the best answer but I am sure old tech is NOT it.... Leave the "car of yesterday" to NASCAR....

[Chris R]

Put the engines back in front! :dork:

front engine cars MIGHT be a plausible plan if done well - nothing to be ashamed about with the old Panoz LMP cars.... that being said - it is still a little retro for my taste - however if there was a good engineering reason to go front engine - bring it on....

[Hiryu]

Time has passed this idea by. This is unless you want to use those unloved "Silver Crown" cars that NASCAR tried to foist on USAC.

If cheap racing is the plan something like A1GP, where everyone leases a spec package from the sanctioning body, is probably the way to go. This is if cheap is your only concern. What is really needed is something that will bring the manufacturers back to the sport, though in the current economic environment I'm not holding my breath.

[pits4me]

Sounds like a losing proposition to me. Backwards to low tech. What a horrible idea.

Agreed. Next they'll be proposing bicycle cranks for drive shafts. Let's bring the DP01 back, max 4:0 liter biodeisel. NO ETHANOL. Let's run em on filtered McDonalds fryer grease.

[Rex Monaco]

Kidding right? Look this engine concept was available in the 1960s, 1980s and in 1994 with the 209 Turbo V-8 that was not an Ilmor/Penske.
The Aurora was basically this in 1997.

It's 2008. Gas is over $3.00 per gallon and the world is looking for fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. It's long past time for motorsports to move into the 21st century.

[!!WALDO!!]

Is it time to bring out the stock block plan again??? How many times has this concept been soundly rejected by teams and fans alike (roughly once a decade by my recollection)?

Never been rejected. It was trying to make it work with turbo. CART made them go away after 1987 because they wanted all turbos. It is the only way to get Detroit back in without a major investment.


I do not have the best answer but I am sure old tech is NOT it.... Leave the "car of yesterday" to NASCAR....

This can bring more people into the sport over having wheelbarrels of money, cubed.

High tech is not for racing, it is for testing.

[!!WALDO!!]

It's 2008. Gas is over $3.00 per gallon and the world is looking for fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. It's long past time for motorsports to move into the 21st century.

The internal combustion engine for racing is not going away for awhile. Racing is not who has the biggest winkie or can throw a stream 5 feet, but about drivers beating other drivers, teams beating other teams.

[Rex Monaco]

...but about drivers beating other drivers, teams beating other teams.

And manufacturers beating other manufacturers...

[!!WALDO!!]

I see we tear down an idea and contribute nothing to lowering cost. Every Sanction including F-1 is going to costs controls to make sure that competition continues to come.

You want high tech then you will have 12 cars racing against each other, lower tech you can have 50 cars. $100,000,000 budgets compared to $3,000,000 budgets.

It is easier to get $3,000,000 in the U.S. than $100,000,000.

[!!WALDO!!]

And manufacturers beating other manufacturers...


Ok I will give you that if both are using the same equipment. If one is using different rules then no.

So Toyota, Ford, Dodge and Chevy in NASCAR it is about winning, but who does the winning?

A. Engine
B. Chassis
C. Team
D. Driver

[Rex Monaco]

If one is using different rules then no.

Audi beat other manufacturers to win Le Mans in a Turbo Diesel. That's the future. That's technology. And that's the type of racing a manufacturer could use to develop and market road going technology. And there's where the ROI is found.

[weeflyonthewall]

Agreed. Next they'll be proposing bicycle cranks for drive shafts. Let's bring the DP01 back, max 4:0 liter biodeisel. NO ETHANOL. Let's run em on filtered McDonalds fryer grease.

Will it leave a distinctive smell like the bikes running Castrol R in the two-stroke days? Hmmm. Smelling them Big Mac drippings now. :D

[geek49203]

This could put engine programs for less than $500,000 for the year.

Dang, the Honda lease is only like $1.8 million a year. Given the lack of engine failures, I'd say that the extra cost is worth it since it saves on in prize money (no losing due to blown engines) as well as the cost of cars wrecking when they spin in oil.

The $500k figure might've worked in the old ASA, with their crate motors (and that's a great idea for ASA) but the average motor budget for a major NASCAR team is at least 10x the figure you cite.

[!!WALDO!!]

Audi beat other manufacturers to win Le Mans in a Turbo Diesel. That's the future. That's technology. And that's the type of racing a manufacturer could use to develop and market road going technology. And there's where the ROI is found.


How many cars are in the Prototype 1 Class? Are there 19 as tested at Homestead with 5 or 6 engine suppliers?

[geek49203]

It's 2008. Gas is over $3.00 per gallon and the world is looking for fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. It's long past time for motorsports to move into the 21st century.

Uh, why?

Motorsports isn't about technology these days. It hasn't been about technology for at least 20 years. It's all about entertainment.

The cost of auto racing isn't a problem until the sponsorships no longer pay the bills. So, Indy costs could double and you'd have a record number of entries if the sponsorship monies triple.

[Rex Monaco]

How many cars are in the Prototype 1 Class? Are there 19 as tested at Homestead with 5 or 6 engine suppliers?

How many car makers competed in Indy during the last 10 years? Were Ford, Mercedes, Porsche, Alfa Romeo or Maseratti there?

It's already broken and you want to break it further by introducing pushrods and carberators so Willy and Buck down at the local garage can go back to Indy one last time before they retire.

I say let them retire and allow racing to move into the future.

[geek49203]

A. Engine
B. Chassis
C. Team
D. Driver

E. None of the above.

The correct answer is, "Lots of money spent in the proper way over lots of years."

Hendricks has more engineers than most of the other teams have total staff.

Evernham and Roush are a lot more competitive this year after their influxes of money. Yates is dying because they don't have the money.

[Rex Monaco]

Uh, why?

Because we live in an era where the first companies to go green win the public relations battle. That's why.

And a green racing series would help attract more high-tech sponsors than a some low-tech fart wagons running production based V8's which might not even be available to the buying public in 2012.

[geek49203]

It's already broken and you want to break it further by introducing pushrods and carberators so Willy and Buck down at the local garage can go back to Indy one last time before they retire.

The NASCAR Cup guys are spending more on pushrods and carbs than any Indy car is spending on Honda leases. They're using technology that is coming over from F1 where they can. Forget about Days of Thunder (which was laughable even when it was released). I'm betting that Hendricks is spending $40 million a year in its motor program, and they're micropolishing, using cryogenics, and running dynos round the clock. I'm gonna bet that at least one of them has a relationship with Ferrari, and you KNOW that Toyota's guys are using the F1 team.

I'm telling you, the IRL and CCWS had the right idea -- one engine, monitored by an army of guys with laptop computers. The Indy 500 motors will also run Milwaukee, and nary a motor will blow. If the speeds are too high then the geeks simply turn down the HP a few notches. And, any one of us can get into IRL racing by simply writing a check to Honda.

[!!WALDO!!]

The NASCAR Cup guys are spending more on pushrods and carbs than any Indy car is spending on Honda leases. They're using technology that is coming over from F1 where they can. Forget about Days of Thunder (which was laughable even when it was released). I'm betting that Hendricks is spending $40 million a year in its motor program, and they're micropolishing, using cryogenics, and running dynos round the clock. I'm gonna bet that at least one of them has a relationship with Ferrari, and you KNOW that Toyota's guys are using the F1 team.

I'm telling you, the IRL and CCWS had the right idea -- one engine, monitored by an army of guys with laptop computers. The Indy 500 motors will also run Milwaukee, and nary a motor will blow. If the speeds are too high then the geeks simply turn down the HP a few notches. And, any one of us can get into IRL racing by simply writing a check to Honda.


Very well said....

[Rex Monaco]

And, any one of us can get into IRL racing by simply writing a check to Honda.

I can get into auto racing by writing a check to Mazda or Porsche too. And while it might be fun, it doesn't make it the penacle of the motorsports, American or otherwise.

[!!WALDO!!]

How many car makers competed in Indy during the last 10 years? Were Ford, Mercedes, Porsche, Alfa Romeo or Maseratti there?

It's already broken and you want to break it further by introducing pushrods and carberators so Willy and Buck down at the local garage can go back to Indy one last time before they retire.

I say let them retire and allow racing to move into the future.

You made it about LeMans so answer so stay with what you believe. How many cars in Prototype 1?

Porsche was chased out by CART as was Alfa. Maserati was last at Indy in 1965 and Al Unser passed his Rookies test in it.
Ford was built by Cosworth and Badged, Mercedes was built by Ilmor and Badged by Mercedes which was the Ilmor D, the Ilmor C was a badged Chevy. Their only win came in a 209 v-8 Turbo. Find one of those in your Mercedes catalog.

[trinksuk]

Do you believe that reducing engine costs alone will make a difference? The Honda lease is already less than $1M (not the $1.8M quoted above), for that you get a fit and forget engine, looked after by professionals, who on the rare occassion there is a problem, fix it for you...go back a few years and look at the finishing record of cars running production derived racing engines, how did the non finishers at Indy stack up then?

Using a spec engine, particularly one so well controlled in terms of performance on an engine by engine basis may not give you the rivaly of manufacturer v's manufacturer however it does place the racing in the hands of the teams and drivers and means that one team just can't bolt in extra horse power each weekend (a' la AGR in 2004 and 2005).

The only way to control costs is to control development; either you go the A1GP or F2 route; spec car, spec chassis, don't allow anyone to change anything - costs will be minimized as in this formula you don't need to test so much or hire so many people but all the best engineers will leave and go and look for something more challenging or you say OK development is open (however tightly you want to define 'open') and let people get on with it.
Then the costs rise. You close down development in one area and it springs up in others, just look at all the iterations of mirrors in the IRL in '07, how many 10's of thousands of dollars went into windtunnel development? If you restrict testing - computer simulations will take over requiring more and more engineers to run them...a never ending spirial, but certainly an exciting environment for the engineer to work in.

At the end of the day, each team will spend every last penny the owners give them and then some, and you will continue to hear the crys of it 'costs too much' as they write the check on their next private jet or yacht all paid for by sponsors dollars.

[!!WALDO!!]

Do you believe that reducing engine costs alone will make a difference? The Honda lease is already less than $1M (not the $1.8M quoted above), for that you get a fit and forget engine, looked after by professionals, who on the rare occassion there is a problem, fix it for you...go back a few years and look at the finishing record of cars running production derived racing engines, how did the non finishers at Indy stack up then?

Using a spec engine, particularly one so well controlled in terms of performance on an engine by engine basis may not give you the rivaly of manufacturer v's manufacturer however it does place the racing in the hands of the teams and drivers and means that one team just can't bolt in extra horse power each weekend (a' la AGR in 2004 and 2005).

The only way to control costs is to control development; either you go the A1GP or F2 route; spec car, spec chassis, don't allow anyone to change anything - costs will be minimized as in this formula you don't need to test so much or hire so many people but all the best engineers will leave and go and look for something more challenging or you say OK development is open (however tightly you want to define 'open') and let people get on with it.
Then the costs rise. You close down development in one area and it springs up in others, just look at all the iterations of mirrors in the IRL in '07, how many 10's of thousands of dollars went into windtunnel development? If you restrict testing - computer simulations will take over requiring more and more engineers to run them...a never ending spirial, but certainly an exciting environment for the engineer to work in.

At the end of the day, each team will spend every last penny the owners give them and then some, and you will continue to hear the crys of it 'costs too much' as they write the check on their next private jet or yacht all paid for by sponsors dollars.

Well thought out and very true. I threw it out as an idea, new concepts come from a thought.

[Rex Monaco]

How many cars are in the Prototype 1 Class? Are there 19 as tested at Homestead with 5 or 6 engine suppliers?

There are 20 LMP1 entries for the 24 Heurs Du Mans and 13 engine suppliers.

[Rex Monaco]

You made it about LeMans so answer so stay with what you believe.

Now answer my question. How many engine manufacturers have entered the Indy 500 during the past 10 years?

[rpralon]

V8s with pushrods is too NASCAR for my taste ...
If you like old tech ... so bring back the old offenhauser four turbo from 70s!!!

[!!WALDO!!]

Now answer my question. How many engine manufacturers have entered the Indy 500 during the past 10 years?


Oldsmobile, Infiniti, Chevy, Toyota and Honda so 5.

CART Mercedes, Ford, Toyota and Honda same time frame.

[!!WALDO!!]

V8s with pushrods is too NASCAR for my taste ...
If you like old tech ... so bring back the old offenhauser four turbo from 70s!!!


Actually a 4 cylinder 149 Cubic Inch Turbo with 55 inches could be restricted to 675 HP

A mechanic told me the most Horse Power he ever saw from Offy was in 1973, 1176 HP.

[SoCalPVguy]

When a new car comes out, what would you like to see to lower the per team to hopefully increase competition.
Remember, more technogy would cause a higher cost.

Mine would be a 335 V-8 Pushrod engine, that could be bought over the counter from GM, MOPAR or Ford. The engine could cost less and all the NASCAR teams that build engines could de-stroke current engines and sell them to teams.
320 cubic Inches if you use a special head.

So the engine can take the name of the builder and head supplier. Example: If the engine builder is Shell then it could be at 335 the Shell/Dodge or at 320 the Shell/Yates-Ford.
Restrict the engines to 675 hp. This could put engine programs for less than $500,000 for the year.

Just one idea how about others.

You just described a Silver Crown sprint car.

I disagree, Indy car should go towards a high-tech / "green" alternative technology to recapture the general public's imagination vs. "dumbing down" the cars, afte all that's what Nascab is for.

[Rex Monaco]

Oldsmobile, Infiniti, Chevy, Toyota and Honda so 5.

How did I know that you were going to count GM twice?

[Rex Monaco]

I disagree, Indy car should go towards a high-tech / "green" alternative technology to recapture the general public's imagination vs. "dumbing down" the cars, afte all that's what Nascab is for.

Exactly!

[ShiftingGears]

And manufacturers beating other manufacturers...

One thing you learn from watching F1 is that high technology is rarely good for the quality of the racing. The cars can't pass.


So, what do you want?

[nanders]

I see we tear down an idea and contribute nothing to lowering cost. Every Sanction including F-1 is going to costs controls to make sure that competition continues to come.

You want high tech then you will have 12 cars racing against each other, lower tech you can have 50 cars. $100,000,000 budgets compared to $3,000,000 budgets.

It is easier to get $3,000,000 in the U.S. than $100,000,000.

It's because you are fundamentally dead wrong.

"Push advanced technologies and alternative propulsion. It's time for the IRL to put the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and the Indianapolis 500 back at the forefront of developing advanced automotive technologies for our production automobiles. I've written about this subject often, especially over the last year in conjunction with our Hydrogen Electric Racing Federation project, but now is the time for the IRL to come up with a rules package for 2011 - the 100th Anniversary of the Indy 500 - that puts open wheel racing back in the business of pioneering future automotive technologies. Formula 1 can't or won't do it and NASCAR is incapable of doing it, so the IRL has a golden opportunity to put its stake in the ground and present a series that can capture the "stick and ball" media's fascination again. The ALMS has made a lot of hay in this regard, but there's only one Indianapolis Motor Speedway and only one Indianapolis 500 - so Tony George could and should move his series forcefully into this arena."

http://www.autoextremist.com/fumes1/

[veeten]

'return with us, now, to those thrilling days of...'

Formula 5000 :dozey:

sorry, Waldo, but the only place you see Moe & Joe's Speed Shop takin' their car is to either the Friday Night 'bullring' races, local drag strip or Bonneville. Even Sprint Cup and Nationwide teams are major concerns, not a pickup pulling an open trailer. The examples of stock block-based engines, except for the Penske, all met with failures at the Indy 500, and were just as bad on other tracks during their respective seasons. The amount of money to develop them would make the very same manufacturers you're trying to intice blanche at the very thought.

Overhead cam V8's are now a standard manufacture in US cars, be they Ford, GM, or Chrysler. And, except for Honda & Subaru, Japanese auto manufacturers have had V8's in their lineups tor many years. The Toyota pushrod V8 used in Stock Car racing is of independent design, built to NASCAR specifications, and is not a production piece.

[nanders]

Try this rules package:

Hydrogen 500 -- Key Specifications
Mass -- 900kg (min.)
Construction -- Manufacturers' choice
Aerodynamics -- Allowed (not movable; cannot touch track surface)
Suspension, Steering, Brakes, Controls -- Manufacturers’ choice
Power -- 300kw/400hp (min.)
Battery type -- Manufacturers’ choice
On-board hydrogen (compressed; 10,000psi) -- 8 kg (max.)
Tires -- One size package for oval tracks; one size for road courses
Fuel -- One manufacturer; to specification (from renewable resources)
Projected lap speed (at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway) -- 185mph+

http://www.hydrogenforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=347

[nanders]

Motorsports isn't about technology these days.



Too bad because that's what made Indy great. Entertainment plus technology will differentiate ICS from the CABs and F1.

[nanders]

Because we live in an era where the first companies to go green win the public relations battle. That's why.

And a green racing series would help attract more high-tech sponsors than a some low-tech fart wagons running production based V8's which might not even be available to the buying public in 2012.

Rex is getting it.

[nanders]

I disagree, Indy car should go towards a high-tech / "green" alternative technology to recapture the general public's imagination vs. "dumbing down" the cars, afte all that's what Nascab is for.

SoCal get's it.

[nanders]

One thing you learn from watching F1 is that high technology is rarely good for the quality of the racing. The cars can't pass.

F1 is an obsolete racing formula. It should be used as an example of going forward. It's rules are going retrograde.

[Rex Monaco]

One thing you learn from watching F1 is that high technology is rarely good for the quality of the racing. The cars can't pass.


So, what do you want?

And what makes the NASCAR low-tech approach any different? They need to throw cautions to get get the cars back together so they can put on a show.

When did racing become a show and not a sport?

[veeten]

and we come back to the original question...

'What would like to see to lower costs in 2010?'

The idea of alternative fuels isn't a cost dropper, but a cost increasment. Remember, it would take at least 3 years for a manufacturer-based team to have a modest return. Audi took 2 years before the R10 LMP1 was ready for the track, and most of their info was from the previous R8 Prototype racer.

Now, imagine what that would be for an IndyCar team that is not factory-supported. For many, 'home-brewing' isn't an option, as the technology isn't a 'store-bought' availability factor, nor is self-fabrication of the parts. This would involve the need to farm out much of it and, once again, costs would be the limiting factor.

The K.I.S.S.(Keep It Simple, Stupid) factor would be the best option. The same way as F1 & NASCAR with an engine formula that provides the largest number of providers, not necessesarily having to be manufacturers, can afford a large number of teams without having the problems of cost. In all of my postings on this subject, both past & present, I have made mention of this, and to see the actual physical examples isn't hard.

[JasonD]

Agreed. Next they'll be proposing bicycle cranks for drive shafts. Let's bring the DP01 back, max 4:0 liter biodeisel. NO ETHANOL. Let's run em on filtered McDonalds fryer grease.

The IndyCar World Series, Powered by McDonalds. :D

[BenRoethig]

I don't want to do anything to cut costs. I want to increase sponsorship money.

[garyshell]

On-board hydrogen (compressed; 10,000psi) -- 8 kg (max.)

How do you contain that so that it will be safe in a race car? Not suggesting you can't, or challenging the idea, just genuinely curious. Also how many miles would one get on such a spec? Would this require in race refueling? The idea of 10,000 PSI fueling rigs sounds a might scary to me.

Gary

[Hoop-98]

As Ben said, grow revenue, we are 1/80th the cost of F1, 1/7th the cost of stock cars for ****** sakes.


rh

[BenRoethig]

As Ben said, grow revenue, we are 1/80th the cost of F1, 1/7th the cost of stock cars for ****** sakes.


rh

And about a quarter of what it took at the beginning of the decade.

[Hoop-98]

And about a quarter of what it took at the beginning of the decade.

Yeah, seems some would like us to compete with WKA.


rh

[nanders]

I don't want to do anything to cut costs. I want to increase sponsorship money.

Ben get's it.

[nanders]

How do you contain that so that it will be safe in a race car? Not suggesting you can't, or challenging the idea, just genuinely curious. Also how many miles would one get on such a spec? Would this require in race refueling? The idea of 10,000 PSI fueling rigs sounds a might scary to me.

Gary

Geez! "I don't know!" says Scubby

[nigelred5]

And manufacturers beating other manufacturers...


Yeah, Darryl Waltrip certainly had to eat crow with his comments about NASCAR not being about competion between brands. That was about the most foolish thing out of his mouth I've ever heard. Of course he was just spouting the TOYOTA party line. Manufacturer competition, brand recognition and brand loyalty is huge in racing.

[geek49203]

Do you believe that reducing engine costs alone will make a difference? The Honda lease is already less than $1M (not the $1.8M quoted above), for that you get a fit and forget engine, looked after by professionals, who on the rare occassion there is a problem, fix it for you...go back a few years and look at the finishing record of cars running production derived racing engines, how did the non finishers at Indy stack up then?

My notes indicate that your figure was last year's cost for the full month of May at Indy. I took last year's full year figure, added some for inflation and 3 more races to arrive at my figure.

Did "Honda" cut the price?

[geek49203]

When did racing become a show and not a sport?

When did someone pen the words, "Greatest spectacle in racing"?

I dunno, but that's certainly where we've been for the last 20 years. CART missed that memo, and it was their undoing. TG got that memo, but botched the job. NASCAR got the memo, and Winston helped them become bigger than pro football.

[geek49203]

The K.I.S.S.(Keep It Simple, Stupid) factor would be the best option. The same way as F1 & NASCAR with an engine formula that provides the largest number of providers, not necessesarily having to be manufacturers, can afford a large number of teams without having the problems of cost. In all of my postings on this subject, both past & present, I have made mention of this, and to see the actual physical examples isn't hard.

Again, let me say that the motor cost for IRL probably is less than the budget for most Nationwide teams, and isn't even equal to the restrictor plate budget for the top teams. If you're looking to NASCAR, stock blocks, etc as a way to cut costs then I'm afraid you're not gonna find a good example.

The "crate motors" from the old ASA series would be a possibility, but for the life of me I can't think of a single street car that hooks a tub on the front end of the motor, and the gearbox and rear suspension on the rear. If you perform the modifications, aren't you pretty much back to the "Honda" (Ilmor) or Cosworth spec motor idea.

How to cut costs? Well, we could eliminate wind tunnel testing. And, shaker machines, 5-posters (or is it 7-poster now?), CAD-based suspension computer programs from F1. We could mandate the same shocks for everyone. Testing should be forbidden.

IN other words, we lock up the cars between races, have the IRL haul them to the race venues, and then the teams dust them off and see if they run.

[geek49203]

I don't want to do anything to cut costs. I want to increase sponsorship money.

Bingo.

[!!WALDO!!]

I don't want to do anything to cut costs. I want to increase sponsorship money.


Gee, where is that money going to come from? The U.S. economy is not good, thus the world economy will faulter.

It is interesting to see the Yates Team in NASCAR looking for dollars to continue, yet Open Wheel fans believe that their is a "printing press" somewhere pumping out $1,000.00 bills.

Folks do not hammer on my idea, come up with something that can lower costs. Everyone is going that way due to Sponsorship Problems.

Reality folks, Mad Max is going that way.

[Rex Monaco]

Reality folks...

Ok, back to reality. Pushrod engines are not a valid technology for the future automotive world. Going green is.

Going green opens up many possible sponsors from many different industries that are not currently suffering under this credit crunch that some people call a recession, nor are they likely to suffer anytime soon.

Automakers would support a series that showcased green technologies, as winning on Sunday would be the best way to sell a sceptical public to buy on Monday.

An equivalency formula, with various engine sizes and fuel options would be ideal but unlikely.

Since the V8 will likely disappear from the marketplace after 2012 thanks to the cowardice politicians in congress, the 6 cylinder would probably be the best engine to use.

I'd set the maximum engine displacement and the minimum engine weight and let each engine maker decide what they should build. And then I'd make the manufacturers focus on fuel economy by allocating less fuel each season.

[!!WALDO!!]

Going green opens up many possible sponsors from many different industries that are not currently suffering under this credit crunch that some people call a recession, nor are they likely to suffer anytime soon.

Name a sponsor that has the $16,000,000 required to fund one car under this?

So we in 2009 use engines and 2110 use something else?

Credit crunch? We have banks billions in the hole, that isn't a crunch, that is a hammer.

I am looking to be able to field a team (one car) $3,500,000 for 24 races. That is what will be needed.
That way 30 cars could be funded for $105,000,000. Your idea is 7 cars.

[Rex Monaco]

So we in 2009 use engines and 2110 use something else?

I certainly hope so! That's 101 years away.

[Rex Monaco]

Name a sponsor that has the $16,000,000 required to fund one car under this?

ExxonMobil

[Rex Monaco]

I am looking to be able to field a team (one car) $3,500,000 for 24 races. That is what will be needed.

I'm sure communism is great and all, but capitalists race to win. And they will spend much more than $3.5 million to do so.

You seem to want to allow the underfunded back markers the chance to be included in the sport. If that's what you really want, then hold a charity race the weekend before.

[Rex Monaco]

You want cost savings? Lobby the cowards in congress to give 'green' race engine development a tax break and see how many people show up with money to join the sport.

[ShiftingGears]

And what makes the NASCAR low-tech approach any different? They need to throw cautions to get get the cars back together so they can put on a show.

When did racing become a show and not a sport?

When you start introducing gimmicks like bogus caution flags it stops being an entertaining sport and it becomes a show with sport secondary. I am adamently against gimmicks that take away the driver challenge - the essence of motor racing.

[ShiftingGears]

F1 is an obsolete racing formula. It should be used as an example of going forward. It's rules are going retrograde.

Because the amount of proper racing in the sport is being backward. That's why people build circuits with a zillion hairpins. Because they're trying to facilitate cars that can't pass.

[!!WALDO!!]

I'm sure communism is great and all, but capitalists race to win. And they will spend much more than $3.5 million to do so.

You seem to want to allow the underfunded back markers the chance to be included in the sport. If that's what you really want, then hold a charity race the weekend before.

In 1994 F-1 had 20 plus teams, now the have 20 plus cars.

It is better to have more competition than less.

You have an 800 lb Gorilla that gives the public what they want to see and then there is us with something that does not appear in anyones driveway.


Link please that ExxonMobil is interested in getting into racing. They were the official fuel supplier for the 1950's and early 1960's. I think Parnelli was last winner.

[Rex Monaco]

Link please that ExxonMobil is interested in getting into racing.

That wasn't your question, was it?

There are companies out there that have that kind of money that are involved in developing and marketing alternative fuels and powertrains. Racing can and should be the development place for these emerging technologies and the sponsors will follow.

But if you really want a cheap and fast way to get more engine suppliers then adopt the LMP1 engine rules.

[!!WALDO!!]

But if you really want a cheap and fast way to get more engine suppliers then adopt the LMP1 engine rules.

How many engine suppliers?

You mean the Grand-Am Prototype, more suppliers than LMP1 has cars.

Name a sponsor that has the $16,000,000 required to fund one car under this?

Again a smart answer and spun back to being my fault.

You want higher cost start your own thread.

[Rex Monaco]

Name a sponsor that has the $16,000,000 required to fund one car under this?

ExxonMobil

[Rex Monaco]

How many engine suppliers?

You mean the Grand-Am Prototype, more suppliers than LMP1 has cars.

I meant what I said, the LMP1 engine suppliers of Audi, Peugeot, Aston Martin, Mugen, Judd, AER and YGK.

But adopting a chassis and engine rule strategy like that of Grand Am would help lower costs and increase the number of entrants. Especially at Indy! Which would help bring excitement back to the whole series.

So if it means that you'd drop the silly idea of pushrods and carborators, then I'd settle for the fewer 'branded' Grand Am engine suppliers of Lexus, Pontiac, Ford, Porsche, and BMW.

[!!WALDO!!]

I meant what I said, the LMP1 engine suppliers of Audi, Peugeot, Aston Martin, Mugen, Judd, AER and YGK.

Really, I will see all of those at Long Beach in the ALMS LMP1? I read there are only 5 full time LMP1 in the ALMS and you got 7 engines.

If you mean, at LeMans then ok. 12 LMP1s but that is the only race cars operate under those rules. ALMS are a bit different.

The "fewer 'branded' Grand Am engine suppliers of Lexus, Pontiac, Ford, Porsche, and BMW". Had 19 Prototypes show up at the Homestead.

[veeten]

I meant what I said, the LMP1 engine suppliers of Audi, Peugeot, Aston Martin, Mugen, Judd, AER and YGK.

Audi, Peugeot, and Aston Martin are manufacturer teams or one-team suppliers, in the cases of Swiss Spirit & Team Charouz(Lola chassis/Audi powertrain & Lola LMGTP chassis/Aston Martin engine) The problems here is that both are well outside the engineering parameters to make them open wheel capable, with major attention to the Aston Martin as this is a production-based V12 engine of 6.0 L that is being used. Audi & Pug use Diesel engines, at 5.5 L.

Can you say 'boat anchor'? :eek: :dozey:

Judd, AER, YGK, and even Mugen(which is the performance subsidiary of Honda) also manufacture 3.4L engines, many with suprising capability.


But adopting a chassis and engine rule strategy like that of Grand Am would help lower costs and increase the number of entrants. Especially at Indy! Which would help bring excitement back to the whole series.

So if it means that you'd drop the silly idea of pushrods and carborators, then I'd settle for the fewer 'branded' Grand Am engine suppliers of Lexus, Pontiac, Ford, Porsche, and BMW.

The problem is that Grand Am uses a two-tiered equivalency formula with production-based engines in the DP's, not racing derivatives. And, yes, the Pontiac is a pushrod-actuated engine. The rev range for all engines used in the series is lower, never getting above 9600 RPM, muchales anything near 10,000 RPM.

The chassis requirements are less than stellar, based on, yes, NASCAR-like design (Space Frame chassis w/ aluminium subset panels for reinforcement). Strong, but extremely heavy.

The return of the 'roadster'. Oh, joy... :\

Let's try again, shall we?... :dozey:

[nigelred5]

ExxonMobil

Yet were' talking about a series that shunned their primary product in 1964 in the name of safety. A company about as "green" as the proverbial pot calling people names. When ExxonMoblil gets into the alternative fuels business willingly, let me know.

[nigelred5]

Really, I will see all of those at Long Beach in the ALMS LMP1? I read there are only 5 full time LMP1 in the ALMS and you got 7 engines.

If you mean, at LeMans then ok. 12 LMP1s but that is the only race cars operate under those rules. ALMS are a bit different.

The "fewer 'branded' Grand Am engine suppliers of Lexus, Pontiac, Ford, Porsche, and BMW". Had 19 Prototypes show up at the Homestead.

You are missing all of the LMP2 cars Waldo. Acura, Porsche, Radical/AER are all LMP2 cars, though they are very competetive with the heavier cars of LMP1. There are many more prototypes in LMP2 than LMP1.

[!!WALDO!!]

Yet were' talking about a series that shunned their primary product in 1964 in the name of safety. A company about as "green" as the proverbial pot calling people names. When ExxonMoblil gets into the alternative fuels business willingly, let me know.

Mobil supplied racing alcohol through 1963. Full was opened up in 1964. Foyt won with Enco Alcohol.http://www.indy500.com/photo/gallery.php?series_id=a:2:{i:0;i:1;i:1;i:6;}&track_id=4&searchType=driver&drivername=Foyt&photo_id=56546

Parnelli had Mobil in Old Calhoun in 1964.http://www.indy500.com/photo/gallery.php?series_id=a:2:{i:0;i:1;i:1;i:6;}&track_id=4&offset=40&searchType=freeText&freeText=Parnelli%20Jones&photo_id=13858

Eddie Sach was on Marathon Gasoline.
http://www.indy500.com/photo/gallery.php?series_id=a:2:{i:0;i:1;i:1;i:6;}&track_id=4&searchType=driver&drivername=Eddie%20Sachs&photo_id=13704

Dave MacDonald was on Mobil Gas. (Note the emblem on the head cover)
http://www.indy500.com/photo/gallery.php?drivername=Dave+MacDonald&track_id=4&series_id=a%3A2%3A%7Bi%3A0%3Bi%3A1%3Bi%3A1%3Bi%3A6 %3B%7D&searchType=driver

[Rex Monaco]

If you mean, at LeMans then ok.

Then ok.

[Rex Monaco]

The chassis requirements are less than stellar, based on, yes, NASCAR-like design (Space Frame chassis w/ aluminium subset panels for reinforcement). Strong, but extremely heavy.

The return of the 'roadster'. Oh, joy... :\

Let's try again, shall we?... :dozey:

Did I say adopt the Grand Am chassis? No I didn't. I said adopt a similar rule strategy. And by that I mean one the allows for a diverse mix of chassis (and engine) makers to participate.

[Rex Monaco]

When ExxonMoblil gets into the alternative fuels business willingly, let me know.

"Although ExxonMobil has no interest in developing renewable fuels, the company is developing technology for hybrid vehicles that would reduce the need for its primary product.

Subsidiary ExxonMobil Chemical is presenting a paper this week about a polymer technology for lithium ion battery separators that is expected to reduce the size and cost of batteries for hybrid vehicles.

The prototype microporous film "is expected to dramatically improve LIB power and safety performance," according to ExxonMobil. The separator membrane is more permeable, which increases performance, and would also prevent the batteries from melting down if overheated.

The petroleum peddler believes that the future will feature more fuel economy. "Over the next 25 years, ExxonMobil expects the average fuel economy of new vehicles worldwide to improve by over 25 percent as a result of both the evolution of technology as well as shifts in the kinds of vehicles that people drive. "

Wow, strong words from an oil company.

It is odd that while the company doesn't want to develop biofuels that could be another revenue stream as fossil fuel supplies dwindle, ExxonMobil is developing technology to boost vehicles' reliance on battery power instead of gas.

The analogy that comes to mind is tobacco companies developing programs to help smokers to quit."


http://blog.wired.com/cars/2006/05/exxonmobil_back.html

[veeten]

basically the same situation that both CART/ChampCar & the IRL were in prior to '02-'03, before one series was down to one chassis by default and the other by choice.

engine/chassis diversity can happen, with the proper precautions. It's just that an equivalency-based rules strategy isn't in the cards for the near future. That may come up in discussion by '10-'11, if the financial picture is more conducive to such expenditure, but right now, sorry...

[nigelred5]

"Although ExxonMobil has no interest in developing renewable fuels, the company is developing technology for hybrid vehicles that would reduce the need for its primary product.

Subsidiary ExxonMobil Chemical is presenting a paper this week about a polymer technology for lithium ion battery separators that is expected to reduce the size and cost of batteries for hybrid vehicles.

The prototype microporous film "is expected to dramatically improve LIB power and safety performance," according to ExxonMobil. The separator membrane is more permeable, which increases performance, and would also prevent the batteries from melting down if overheated.

The petroleum peddler believes that the future will feature more fuel economy. "Over the next 25 years, ExxonMobil expects the average fuel economy of new vehicles worldwide to improve by over 25 percent as a result of both the evolution of technology as well as shifts in the kinds of vehicles that people drive. "

Wow, strong words from an oil company.

It is odd that while the company doesn't want to develop biofuels that could be another revenue stream as fossil fuel supplies dwindle, ExxonMobil is developing technology to boost vehicles' reliance on battery power instead of gas.

The analogy that comes to mind is tobacco companies developing programs to help smokers to quit."


http://blog.wired.com/cars/2006/05/exxonmobil_back.html

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but I don't see hybrids and electric as the panacea for our current reliance on petroleum. You still have to generate the electricity somehow, and they know well that gasoline or diesel engines and natural gas fired generating stations are a long long way from going the way of the dynosaurs, so I'm confident BigOil will remain Big Oil for the remainder of my lifetime. Renewable fuels take from their Bread and butter in the short term. Batteries in hybrids just make people feel better.

[nigelred5]

Mobil supplied racing alcohol through 1963. Full was opened up in 1964. Foyt won with Enco Alcohol.http://www.indy500.com/photo/gallery.php?series_id=a:2:{i:0;i:1;i:1;i:6;}&track_id=4&searchType=driver&drivername=Foyt&photo_id=56546

Parnelli had Mobil in Old Calhoun in 1964.http://www.indy500.com/photo/gallery.php?series_id=a:2:{i:0;i:1;i:1;i:6;}&track_id=4&offset=40&searchType=freeText&freeText=Parnelli%20Jones&photo_id=13858

Eddie Sach was on Marathon Gasoline.
http://www.indy500.com/photo/gallery.php?series_id=a:2:{i:0;i:1;i:1;i:6;}&track_id=4&searchType=driver&drivername=Eddie%20Sachs&photo_id=13704

Dave MacDonald was on Mobil Gas. (Note the emblem on the head cover)
http://www.indy500.com/photo/gallery.php?drivername=Dave+MacDonald&track_id=4&series_id=a%3A2%3A%7Bi%3A0%3Bi%3A1%3Bi%3A1%3Bi%3A6 %3B%7D&searchType=driver

Ok, so Mobil supplied racing ALcohol, until Indycar switched to methanol. So they abandoned a product Indy Adopted at roughly the same time. Fine. Back to this century Waldo! :)
When was the last time an INDYCAR or Champcar was powered by Gasoline? Why haven't they renamed it Methanol, I mean Ethanol Alley? My point was, but you already know this, a gasoline company has little to no interest in participating a series that does not use their primary product, GASOLINE. Mobil1 is a small percentage of their interest in sponsorship. Mobil1, not Exxon/Mobil. Havoline, not Texaco. Shell Oil, not SHELL. Does ANYONE believe that ANY of the Major Oil companies actually wants to mix Ethanol in their fuels? It's not their product.

[!!WALDO!!]

Then ok.

One race. Not even the biggest race in Europe that weekend.

[pits4me]

One race. Not even the biggest race in Europe that weekend.

Your point being?

[!!WALDO!!]

Your point being?


You figure it out. A Touring Car race has more to do with the reality of selling cars than 12 prototypes.

[fan-veteran]

Is it going to be a spec car or not. Well, a spec car offers:
- the lowest possible cost
- the closest possible racing
- the highest level of safety and possibility to deal with any performance related troubles

To be possible many manufacturers to take part (a diversity to exist), the regulations must provide that. And i think in this case they must lead to essentialy the same cars from performance viewpoint. Expenditures will go up, certainly. So the manufacturers must support all this.

[BenRoethig]

Is it going to be a spec car or not. Well, a spec car offers:
- the lowest possible cost
- the closest possible racing
- the highest level of safety and possibility to deal with any performance related troubles

To be possible many manufacturers to take part (a diversity to exist), the regulations must provide that. And i think in this case they must lead to essentialy the same cars from performance viewpoint. Expenditures will go up, certainly. So the manufacturers must support all this.

But it lacks sponsorship and free advertsing. Plus rivalries get rear ends in the seats and eyes glued to the TV.