Riddle Me This, Turbophiles

[call_me_andrew]

Let's say that in 2010, the IndyCar Series does switch to turbo engines. What engine formula could they use? We know that with out the governance Champ Car gave after Honda and Toyota left, the Ford-Cosworth engines would have been putting out well over 900 horsepower. 900 is not going to cut at oval tracks anymore. And when (God willing) an engine war breaks out, the 2.65 liter engines are not going to stay at 700-750 horsepower.

It seems logical to me that if turbos came back, the engines would have to be downsized. 2-2.3 liters would probably be ideal with turbos, but it seems silly to build a V8 that small. An inline 6 would probably be the better choice. So I have to ask, would you want your series to have a tiny six-cylinder when all other major series run big(ger) V8s?

[DN5]

Didn't Honda and Mercedes try to strongarm CART into a sub-2.0 formula before they left?
Sounded good to me, but what do i know.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

I would actually prefer small turbos, too. Hoop-98 proposed a 2.25 Turbo V6 last week. The FIA has proposed 2.2 Turbo V6's with 10,000 rpm limit or 1.3-1.5 four cylinder turbos without rev limit for Formula 1 in 2013.

To handle the engine war, Indycar could use energy flow/fuel consumption limitation. Also worth thinking about is the idea of a hybrid boost system similar the KERS if F1, only with heat recovery instead of kinetic energy because of the ovals.

Who cares if other series' engines will be bigger? If you want to see big engines, watch NHRA. For Indycar, it's time to move on to the technology of the 21st century.

[Civic]

Honda wanted a 1.8 turbo if I remember correctly. Look what they did with 1.5 turbos in F1. Didn't those engines make more than 1000hp?

[BenRoethig]

Honda wanted a 1.8 turbo if I remember correctly. Look what they did with 1.5 turbos in F1. Didn't those engines make more than 1000hp?

Yeah, but they probably cost more than the budgets of TCGR, AGR, and Penske combined.

[fan-veteran]

There was a BMW 1.5 liter, 4 cylinder, in-line turbo engine in F1 in mid 80s yielding at best 1500 HP (!!!) in qualification setup. Well, it is fact that the life of this engine was only one qualification :) .

An issue i can see is the RPM and number of cylinders. These two numbers should be high enough to sound good :) , with high pitch. And that is how many..., maybe more than 10 000rpm and V8. Well, V6 is closer to serial production engines. But i would propose 2.5 V8 turbo engine, around 700hp/10500rpm for superspeedways, and at least 800hp for street/road circuits.

[DBell]

IMO, the next engine formula will have to be set up to make lesser HP on an oval than on road courses. How much HP an engine is capable of making isn't an issue as this will have to be governed by rules no matter what direction they go. The 3 liter na V10's in F1 were making over 900 hp before the rules changed. The Honda engine is certainly capable of making a lot more hp if the rules let it.

My thought with bringing in the turbo is that Honda could bring their's back and a manufacturer could badge the Cosworth, then you have 2 engines available with a fraction of the cost that it would take to develop a new engine program. I think cost is still going to be a big issue for teams in 2010.

[SarahFan]

for being a race junky I don't know the first thing about engines..

but what i do know is the engines have been detuned in both series and it has IMO negatively effected the racing.....

and we haven't heard the words 'a new track record' in a long time..I know flirting with the mid 230's and looking to get to 240 is friggin nuts...but isnt that (speed) what the sport is ultimatly about


questions for hoop.....or anyone else

1. when they adopt a new engine formula how easy/hard would it be to allow N/A and turbo?.....is there a simple equivalancy formula?...or is it just a tangled web of worms?

2. how would changing undertray and wing size effect racing?.....I'm assumeing that adopting a formula that produceing less downforce (requiring lifting into the corners) effects safety..?....again is there a happy medium?

[keysersoze]

If the logic for having turbos is the "better" engine note, can that not be addressed by the exhaust system?

I agree, the 4.0 IRL formula was too throaty, but the current engine note is quite good. Not as lovely as the 2.65 turbo, but like I said above . . .

[DBell]

for being a race junky I don't know the first thing about engines..

but what i do know is the engines have been detuned in both series and it has IMO negatively effected the racing.....


questions for hoop.....or anyone else

1. when they adopt a new engine formula how easy/hard would it be to allow N/A and turbo?.....is there a simple equivalancy formula?...or is it just a tangled web of worms?

2. how would changing undertray and wing size effect racing?.....I'm assuming that adopting a formula that producing less downforce (requiring lifting into the corners) effects safety..?....again is there a happy medium?

I think an equivalency formula can be done. Sports cars and touring cars do it. Some would argue that turbos made na engines obsolete in F1 in the '80s. But that was a different era with, other than displacement, unlimited development rules. I think the real problem would be the constant politicking by the engine makers. The "we need more air through the air box" or "we need more boost" refrains would get old real quick.

The down force thing has been discussed on several other threads. I seem to remember Hoop saying, in effect, that reducing the downforce on big ovals with banking wouldn't make the drivers have to lift. They would still be able to go through flat and with less drag, I assume that would mean higher speeds.

[fan-veteran]

Remember Indy2003 - they made 231mph, third fastest grid ever (after 1995 and 1996) with NA 3.5L engines, i think with a little more than 700hp. In 1995 the power was at least 800hp. So a mark of 700hp today is important. But also in 2004 in F1 the power was around 900hp, and the weight of F1 car is around on average 100kg less than an IRL car. So power of even 900hp in IRL for RC will not be so high.

[pits4me]

If they want to attract more manufacturers to participate and support open wheel they need to offer a return for them that is worthwhile investing in.

For that reason why not base the engine formula on emerging technology? Something exciting like the twin turbo V6's being rolled out by all the major manufacturers? Ford introduced its EcoBoost Gas Turbo Direct Inject 3.5L V-6 concept at this years Detroit auto show.

Some of the Japanese manufacturers like Nissan have similar developments with the new GT-R 3.8L

[JSH]

If they want to attract more manufacturers to participate and support open wheel they need to offer a return for them that is worthwhile investing in.

For that reason why not base the engine formula on emerging technology? Something exciting like the twin turbo V6's being rolled out by all the major manufacturers? Ford introduced its EcoBoost Gas Turbo Direct Inject 3.5L V-6 concept at this years Detroit auto show.

Some of the Japanese manufacturers like Nissan have similar developments with the new GT-R 3.8L

V6 Bah!! Don't forget inline sixes... like the turbo-direct injection 3.0L that propels the BMW 335i.

BMW's also got a turbo V8 DI engine coming......and then there's the Turbo V8 DI in the Audi R8.... oh wait, we wanted to downsize, sorry. :p

[dataman1]

I like the idea from pits4me. Go to a formula that is emerging. The manufacturers would see benifit of using racing as a test environment. Need to ask them what they want racing to use rather than dictate the formula.

[weeflyonthewall]

I like the idea from pits4me. Go to a formula that is emerging. The manufacturers would see benifit of using racing as a test environment. Need to ask them what they want racing to use rather than dictate the formula.

Is Tony George capable of not being a dictator? If he has changed there may be promise for open wheel here in the US after all.

[NickFalzone]

They need to make the car safer before they can make it faster. The Honda can still hit 230-240 at Indy. I've heard that they're working on a number of safety features for the new car, so they may bump up the power. I agree that they should go with a new formula for manufacturers to test and perfect. V6 3.5 with turbo sounds good to me. I know that the turbos can add headache to the teams, but hey I like the drama of whether an engine is going to blow at any moment on a high speed oval. The current Hondas are fast, very reliable and have provided good competition, but the new IndyCar can do better. Love the turbo sound of the CCs.

Current engine:

Specifications


Engine Displacement: 3.5 L (213 in&#179 ;) DOHC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_camshaft) V8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8_engine)[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Gearbox: 6 Speed paddle shift gearbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission)[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Weight: 1,525 lb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_%28mass%29) (693 kg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram)) on ovals; 1,600 lb (727 kg) on road courses[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Power Output: 650 hp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower) (481 kW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt))[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Fuel: 98% ethanol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol) 2% Gasoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndyCar_Series#cite_note-7)[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Fuel Capacity: 22 U.S. gallons (83 liters)[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Fuel Delivery: Fuel injection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injection)[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Aspiration: Naturally aspirated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturally-aspirated_engine)[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Length: 192 in (4.88 m) minimum[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Width: 78.5 in (1.99 m) (outside wheel rims); 74 in (1.88 m) minimum (measured at the hub centerline)[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Wheelbase: 120 in (3.05 m)[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]
Steering: Manual, rack and pinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_and_pinion)[/*:m:tmpbfsdm]

[PSfan]

I really think they should get a summit going at indy this May with a whole bunch of Engine manufacturer's. chasis builders, tire companies, etc etc, Do some legit brain storming that might amount to something. Of course it may be to early to gauge the impact the merger has had on the sport by then, making it difficult to figure out what the sport can support in 2010, but atleast they would be able to determine how much support from the manufacturers they can expect.

[call_me_andrew]

V6 Bah!! Don't forget inline sixes... like the turbo-direct injection 3.0L that propels the BMW 335i.

Well of course I didn't forget. I proposed an I6 over a V6 because an inline engine tends to place less stress on the bottom end making it a more reliable (thus cheaper) engine.

Which I suppose raises the question of whether production blocks should be used.

Instead of worrying about reducing the downforce, I think we should focus on making the cars heavier. I think 1650lbs. (750kg) at all tracks would reduce mechanical grip enough that drivers would lift at ovals. I mean we could probably accomplish that with groved tires as well, but I don't think we want to risk being seen as imitating F1.

http://www.vsmodelsport.com/images/tt-thmb-pmt-f-1_tires.jpg

[xtlm]

Whatever size the manufactures want to make it, and let the teams pick one

[DrDomm]

Don't increase the weight! These cars are too heavy on road and street courses. The agility of an F1 car makes and IC (or CC) look sluggish.

Perhaps radically different configurations for oval vs. road/street circuits. Different weight, wings, tires, rev limit, boost (for turbos), etc.

This was always the dilemma in CART...how to keep the cars slow enough on ovals, but quick enough on roadcourses.

And yes, we need to hear the phrase "new track record" again.

[BenRoethig]

I really think they should get a summit going at indy this May with a whole bunch of Engine manufacturer's. chasis builders, tire companies, etc etc, Do some legit brain storming that might amount to something. Of course it may be to early to gauge the impact the merger has had on the sport by then, making it difficult to figure out what the sport can support in 2010, but atleast they would be able to determine how much support from the manufacturers they can expect.

I agree.

[dataman1]

Let's say that in 2010, the IndyCar Series does switch to turbo engines. What engine formula could they use?

I am still amazed at how the writers on this forum have such short attention spans and/or their own agendas. This thread was about engine formula and has covered chassis safety, summits, tires, car weight, etc... I'm getting dizzy.

[BenRoethig]

Let's say that in 2010, the IndyCar Series does switch to turbo engines. What engine formula could they use?

Assuming it is turbo, which sorry to say Champ Car people is extremely improbable, it might stay 2.65L. The E98 mixture is going to make a little less power than methanol.

[MAX_THRUST]

2 stroke chainsaw engine supplied by Briggs and Stratton. To run on lawn cuttings.

Seriuosly though. Honda still has a few 2.65 ltr turbo engines from the CART days. Cosworth has a few as well. Rather than spend a fortune on new engines lets make the series run the old engines with green fuel, and be done with it. Turbos are easy to adjust hp etc, and I love the sound.

Having said that the IRL cars sounded good at STPete on TV the other night. They sound like tractors accelerating but sound good on the down shifts.

either way I'm just glad to have seen one race on TV, and to see full grids. INDY is gonna be the best for 13 years. Don't care who wins it, don't care George owns it. Just happy things are moving forward. Lets not get over excited lets wait unti lthings are done.

[SarahFan]

I am still amazed at how the writers on this forum have such short attention spans and/or their own agendas. This thread was about engine formula and has covered chassis safety, summits, tires, car weight, etc... I'm getting dizzy.


such is a discussion forum.....

chassis, tires safty etc will all be factors to be considered when a new formula is announced....

[pits4me]

I like the idea from pits4me. Go to a formula that is emerging. The manufacturers would see benifit of using racing as a test environment. Need to ask them what they want racing to use rather than dictate the formula.

That was my point. Neither open wheel series was on the same page with the manufacturers. Consequently no manufacturers support except Honda.

I thought perpetuating the 2.65L Turbo engine was a practical approach but was enlightened by a manufacturer attending Long Beach who said that would not be the solution they'd look for. They want to see something their auto consumers can relate to.

The series should embrace an engine formula based on emerging engine technology in the industry. It doesn't need to be top drawer technology like F1. We all agree that's a budget buster but the fact remains when CART lost the manufacturers, they also lost a great deal of associate supplier support. Many stepped away from open wheel all together and elected not to pick a specific side.

If Indy Car wants to re-establish itself as the 2nd drawer of open wheel racing is must address the gap between where it (and Champ) is today and the outragious expense of Formula 1. We're coming up to the 100th anniversay of Indy and what car will be featured on the grid. Nothing very exciting in many peoples opinion.


I really think they should get a summit going at indy this May with a whole bunch of Engine manufacturer's. chasis builders, tire companies, etc etc, Do some legit brain storming that might amount to something. Of course it may be to early to gauge the impact the merger has had on the sport by then, making it difficult to figure out what the sport can support in 2010, but atleast they would be able to determine how much support from the manufacturers they can expect.

Its all about connecting the dots, not giving them a reason to look elsewhere. ALMS seems to be doing a good job in that regard.

[garyshell]

We're coming up to the 100th anniversay of Indy and what car will be featured on the grid. Nothing very exciting in many peoples opinion.

We are already looking at the car that will be on the gird for the 100th anniversary. It is too late in the game to think otherwise now. I don't see how the engineering and manufacturing could be pushed ahead to meet a May 2009 deadline.

Gary

[CCFan]

We are already looking at the car that will be on the gird for the 100th anniversary. It is too late in the game to think otherwise now. I don't see how the engineering and manufacturing could be pushed ahead to meet a May 2009 deadline.

Gary

Indy was shutdown for a few years during WWII. Isn't its 100th race going to be ~2011?

[Vegasguy]

The first Indianapolis 500 Mile Race was held in 1911 so it would be the 100 year Anniversary of the first race, not the 100th race.
The first race was a 5 miler held in 1909 that killed 6 people, so 2009 would be the 100th Anniversary of the first race.....

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/sports/autoracing/indy500.html

If I counted right I figure that 08 will be the 93rd running....

http://www.indy500.com/modules/pdf/stats/Indianapolis%20500%20Race%20Winners.pdf

[pits4me]

We are already looking at the car that will be on the gird for the 100th anniversary. It is too late in the game to think otherwise now. I don't see how the engineering and manufacturing could be pushed ahead to meet a May 2009 deadline.

Gary

I agree Gary. Although anything is possible with the right minds and motivation behind it.

[call_me_andrew]

I am still amazed at how the writers on this forum have such short attention spans and/or their own agendas. This thread was about engine formula and has covered chassis safety, summits, tires, car weight, etc... I'm getting dizzy.

The whole car is going to be different. It's natural to expect different changes to the car to match different changes to the engine.

[quote="CCFan"]Indy was shutdown for a few years during WWII./QUOTE]

Yes, I believe it was also shut down during WWI.

[gofastandwynn]

The Speedway was shutdown in 1917 & 1918 for WWI (and became a military base IIRC) from 42 till 45 because of WWII.

2009 will be the 100th birthday of the track opening
2011 will be the 100th anniversary of the Indianapolis 500
2016 will be the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500

[pits4me]

So Tony can throw 3 legitimate parties.

[nanders]

For Indycar, it's time to move on to the technology of the 21st century.

Hydrogen Electric?

[nanders]

Honda wanted a 1.8 turbo if I remember correctly. Look what they did with 1.5 turbos in F1. Didn't those engines make more than 1000hp?

If a 1.8 turbo engine can still make 1000bph why would you bother changing from the 2.65? Just tune on them with the electronics they are doing. Ilmore has them, Honda has them and Cosy has them. There's 3 different versions from parties participating in the IRL now!

[nanders]

Assuming it is turbo, which sorry to say Champ Car people is extremely improbable, it might stay 2.65L. The E98 mixture is going to make a little less power than methanol.

IMO, If it's going to go turbo, even as an interim formula, they would probably go to the 2.65 just so to lower the cost of switching. All the while waiting to roll out their Hydrogen Electric formula.

[NickFalzone]

I'm probably not following this thread entirely, but the current IRL Honda engine is a 3.5L. Though I know the CC one was 2.65. They've had the 3.5 since they switched to Ethanol which is higher octane than methanol, 116 vs 113.

[nigelred5]

Hmmm, 2.65L DOHC 4 cylinder turbo sounds good to me. Wonder what kind of HP an Offy would make with modern electronics and injection.

[pits4me]

IMO, If it's going to go turbo, even as an interim formula, they would probably go to the 2.65 just so to lower the cost of switching. All the while waiting to roll out their Hydrogen Electric formula.

A big part of racing is the sound the engines make. The electric AC Cobra demo run on the Long Beach circuit Sunday wasn't too exciting. You could hear the occasional soda slurp.

Indycar needs to get with the manufacturers and pick an engine that stimulates factory support.

Let's get a summit announced for Indy. Throw the fans a bone Tony!
Honda does not plan to be the sole engine supplier forever. Just ask Fernandez, Andretti, De Ferran, and Sharp. How much does an ARX-01b cost anyway.

[Osiris333]

The unified proposal from Ford, Honda and Mercedes was a 1.8 liter turbo with 80 inches of boost. It could be detuned for ovals (drop the boost).

Personally, I don't care if it has 8 cylinders or not. I just want it to make power and sound good, so we can have a world class racing series again.

[Miatanut]

Use an air restrictor (like F3 & ACO/ALMS), take away most of the downforce, no minimum weight , no exotic materials, off the shelf KERS (as using a system already used in F1) allowed, mandated slow re-fueling system, and engine-wise build whatever you want! If you want to do a 1.0L turbo, go for it! You've just saved your car 100 lbs. The air restrictor will limit power. Emphasis will move to improving efficiency to spend less time re-fueling.

May the best package win!

[mantom]

If they want to truly use a formula that can transcend itself into the consumer market, then inline 4-cylinder 2.0L turbo running ethanol or hydrogen it is.

Majority of cars sold today are inline 4's. Turbo gives the series the ability to adjust to race track conditions and control costs. the fuel of tomorrow will be ethanol or hydrogen fuel cell. Unless something radical develops in the world of science very soon, IRL's next formula is right there and probably won't change much for years to come. Just a matter of approving it and moving on. Squeezing horsepower out of 4 cylinders and making it reliable for 2,000 miles before a rebuild is required should be enough of a challenge to keep the manufacturers busy for years to come. Would certainly establish the proving ground of who's who in engine development and produce a wide variance of results in the first few seasons that we used to enjoy years ago when multiple manufacturers participated.

If something new in science does develop, it'll be a long time before it's mature enough to put into the market. Not much more to debate. TG, put the stamp on this formula and move on to the chassis.

[fan-veteran]

Well, we may consider 2.65L V8 engine to be formed by two 1.325L 4cyl.in-line engines :p .

[BenRoethig]

and running in a FWD sedan body as well. 4-Banger? Come on.

[Miatanut]

and running in a FWD sedan body as well. 4-Banger? Come on.

The Offy was a turbo four banger.

[BenRoethig]

Offy?

[Miatanut]

Offy?

You're joking, right?

If you're not, it would be the engine that totally dominated Indycar racing for 50 years, the last few of which, overlapping my time following the sport, it was turbocharged.

Its full name was Offenhauser, but everybody called it an Offy.

[fan-veteran]

Racing in Kansas was good IMO. A little more power maybe would be better, to give them possibility to accelerate to 220-225 Mph before the corner.

[nigelred5]

Offy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offenhauser

Only one of the most successful racing engines of all time. That was what my earlier post referred to.

[dataman1]

AR1 Rumor page quotes TG via a USA Today release that his is saying there is better than a 50-50 chance that turbos will be part of the engine package in 2010 because it better matches the direction of the manufacturers. Wow! Is he listening now, getting better advise or is Honda looking for competition? I'd put my money on the later.

[NickFalzone]

TG was on Curt Cavin's radio show a few weeks ago and pointed out he prefers the sound of the turbos and that's part of their consideration in the new car design.

[coogmaster]

True, but he also stated that they are considering many other options, and even mentioned diesel engines. So who knows what we may see.

[coogmaster]

TG was on Curt Cavin's radio show a few weeks ago and pointed out he prefers the sound of the turbos and that's part of their consideration in the new car design.

True, but he also mentioned that they are considering many other options, even diesel engines. So who knows what we may see.

[Miatanut]

Assuming it is turbo, which sorry to say Champ Car people is extremely improbable, it might stay 2.65L. The E98 mixture is going to make a little less power than methanol.

Now I understand better!

You know the 2.64L turbo was the traditional Indycar formula. CART merely adopted what was already there, as did CCWS. It was important to the founder of the IRL that the IRL formula be completely incompatible with the existing formula. Now, there is no competing series to maintain incompatibility with, so there is no reason not to go back to the traditional formula. The engines, or at least the blueprints and CAD files for them, are already out there. Nothing to do but make them better.

Appeals to the manufacturers in saving them considerable initial development expense. They are quieter, which helps with the venues where noise is an issue. They are turbos, which can appeal to the new generation of hot-rodders, known as the "tuner" crowd, because turbos are their chosen method of engine performance boosting, and they represent a large group of gearheads of the first order, who could become a key part of the fan base.

It would make a lot of sense to return to a turbo formula.

[mantom]

Sure, but that doesn't mean they have to return to the 2.65L version.

They would be better served by putting a carrot in front of the manufacturers to chase for a while. All the manufacturers still standing have done the 2.65L turbo thing to death - what's it been, 30 years? Make it hard, make them figure out a 4 cylinder version running on ethanol or hydrogen (if they can figure it out) that consumes less fuel but outputs the same horsepower and lasts the same number of miles before rebuilds are required AND gets better miles per gallon AND does not exceed a league specified R+D budget for development. Make them chase a carrot that benefits the consumer markets.

It shouldn't just be a straight contest of who builds the fastest engine, but rather who can build the most efficient engine too. That'll garner lots of interest because costs will be contained, benefit will be well defined and all the manufacturers who want to shoot for all the marbles can do so without excessive risk. Teams benefit from contained costs. consumers benefit from technology developed to create these racing engines. Manufacturers benefit from bragging rights from their performance. Turns more into the battling bot championships held annually at MIT where all participants are given the same bucket of parts and the only thing that separates them is their wits. Combine that with a driver championship provided by variety of driving conditions (road, street, oval) and you've got a winner of a series.

[Miatanut]

Sure, but that doesn't mean they have to return to the 2.65L version.

They would be better served by putting a carrot in front of the manufacturers to chase for a while. All the manufacturers still standing have done the 2.65L turbo thing to death - what's it been, 30 years? Make it hard, make them figure out a 4 cylinder version running on ethanol or hydrogen (if they can figure it out) that consumes less fuel but outputs the same horsepower and lasts the same number of miles before rebuilds are required AND gets better miles per gallon AND does not exceed a league specified R+D budget for development. Make them chase a carrot that benefits the consumer markets.

It shouldn't just be a straight contest of who builds the fastest engine, but rather who can build the most efficient engine too. That'll garner lots of interest because costs will be contained, benefit will be well defined and all the manufacturers who want to shoot for all the marbles can do so without excessive risk. Teams benefit from contained costs. consumers benefit from technology developed to create these racing engines. Manufacturers benefit from bragging rights from their performance. Turns more into the battling bot championships held annually at MIT where all participants are given the same bucket of parts and the only thing that separates them is their wits. Combine that with a driver championship provided by variety of driving conditions (road, street, oval) and you've got a winner of a series.

I agree with you. See my earlier posts here (and other threads) advocating slug slow refueling rigs so there is a major advantage in designing a more fuel efficient engine and chassis. Problem is, the sport is currently flat on its back, and being able to use an off-the-shelf 2.65L turbo reduces the cost of entry.

Then, when things are healthier, blow it wide open! I'd love to see somebody do a 1.0L turbo that beats a 4.0L atmo by producing comparable power with a lot less weight and a bit better fuel efficiency!

[NickFalzone]

They needed to go to a 3.5 with the ethanol's reduced power. Don't you think a 2.65 would be underpowered?

[DRC]

...Problem is, the sport is currently flat on its back, and being able to use an off-the-shelf 2.65L turbo reduces the cost of entry.

Then, when things are healthier, blow it wide open!...

Agreed. Building in steps here. Use the 2.65 turbo motors, a standard ECU will allow different hp for different tracks (850 at road coarses, 650 at ovals?), start rebuilding excitement in the series. Then begin opening up the rules for Indy only...gives a little something special to the I500, but doesn't complicate things for the rest of the series. Then, if some of the trends we're seeing in the auto industry continue, begin to consider opening up the engine rules for the rest of the series.

[nigelred5]

They needed to go to a 3.5 with the ethanol's reduced power. Don't you think a 2.65 would be underpowered?

Not if the 2.65 is still turbocharged.


It comes as little to no suprise that Honda would advocate a small displacement turbo. That is their bread and butter and they have advocated that since the CART days. Toyota only wanted a NA V8 because that was the IRL spec when they decided to go to the IRL. They don't even have a V8 road engine. A 1.2l to 1.5l turbo or supercharged multi-fuel cabable design makes the most sense to me. It is relevant to the manufacturers and the public, and it isn't a quantum leap in technology that racing can't afford right now. A sensible and cost effective chassis and a smaller, more fuel efficient and affordable engine.

[NickFalzone]

Multi-fuel capable is a huge aspect of their engine choice. I just do not see the IRL turning its back on ethanol so quickly, they have a team (RLR) and an entire track (Iowa) built around the stuff. Granted, the public perception of ethanol fuel has gone down the tubes lately, but at the least this engine will need to multi-fuel capable. I agree that something like hydrogen and/or the tech behind the Tesla Roadster should be under consideration, the 100% torque all the time is pretty impressive. It would be great to show off a series of race cars that are green while also incredibly fast.

[weeflyonthewall]

True, but he also mentioned that they are considering many other options, even diesel engines. So who knows what we may see.

Turbo using bio-diesel and an engine more in line with automakers wishes?

[mantom]

I agree with you. See my earlier posts here (and other threads) advocating slug slow refueling rigs so there is a major advantage in designing a more fuel efficient engine and chassis. Problem is, the sport is currently flat on its back, and being able to use an off-the-shelf 2.65L turbo reduces the cost of entry.

Then, when things are healthier, blow it wide open! I'd love to see somebody do a 1.0L turbo that beats a 4.0L atmo by producing comparable power with a lot less weight and a bit better fuel efficiency!

A slow refueling rig will never come to fruition and shouldn't. The manufacturers should be enticed, not forced.

The manufacturer's incentive to is to work with the best available equipment within budget. If anything should be crippled it should be the money manufacturers are allowed to spend on R+D to develop their engines and whatever else. That challenges the engineers to come up with novel and new ideas to solve age old problems. Testing those ideas under extreme competition is what proves the theory that gets sent into mass production on the consumer market. NASA had to work under similar conditions while figuring out how to send man to the moon back in the 1960's, and get them back during mission Apollo 13.

Ideally, IndyCar should start thinking about endurance racing being added to the schedule. That would add to the driving championship another feat any driver would be proud to notch on the ol' belt. Would be a nice season ending event that would give manufacturers time to perfect their designs over the course of the season. Either that or put the endurance race early in the year to force the engines to be pushed before the season takes hold. That would give teams more reliable engines the rest of the season.

[Miatanut]

A slow refueling rig will never come to fruition and shouldn't. The manufacturers should be enticed, not forced.

The manufacturer's incentive to is to work with the best available equipment within budget. If anything should be crippled it should be the money manufacturers are allowed to spend on R+D to develop their engines and whatever else. That challenges the engineers to come up with novel and new ideas to solve age old problems. Testing those ideas under extreme competition is what proves the theory that gets sent into mass production on the consumer market. NASA had to work under similar conditions while figuring out how to send man to the moon back in the 1960's, and get them back during mission Apollo 13.

There has been 40 years of attempts to get motorsport costs under control. They have left us with boring, spec. racing, and budgets have continued to explode. Cost control doesn't work. Making the rules as open as possible, with only minimum safety rules and "no exotic materials" type rules, but other than that, anything goes, would bring innovation back. Making the "sporting" rules to encourage energy efficiency would align the R&D budgets to research that will actually prove useful for road cars, and would put the truth back into "Racing improves the breed".

Slow refueling rigs is the simplest, cheapest technique which could achieve that.

As to "never come to fruition", it's the sort of thing the ACO has done in the past and would be likely to do again in the future, but the ACO is unusual in auto racing in being a sanctioning body that likes to see variety and innovation. I would agree it would be highly unlikely in American open wheel.

As for "shouldn't", I guess we will just need to agree to disagree.

[fan-veteran]

IMO - spec series is OK. Nobody needs innovation in technical field .... because it is not possible anymore, or at least not achievable by means of racing. There are practically none innovations from these racing cars that can be adopted in serial production. None. Only in very expensive Porsches, Ferraris and only to some extent.

The racing with practically the same cars in spec series is good, better than with diversity cars.

[mantom]

There has been 40 years of attempts to get motorsport costs under control.


Not really. There's been a lot of ego and politics, but not much in the way of actual cost reduction attempts. Champ Car did the right thing with the DP-01, but unfortunately they botched the rest of their series to flush it all down the drain.

Problem has been that the egos at play only look at their own selfish wants such as having the built-in advantage towards winning the races whether it be technically, financially or otherwise. There has always been a 'conflict of interests' involved with whomever has been calling the shots. That's why costs keep heading in the same direction - the minute somebody lets up, somebody else cuts in line and cheats their way to the front. Now that everything is under one roof and slowly moving towards unbiased governance (still a ways to go though), real measures can be enacted to reduce costs on a more level playing field so people will actually abide by the rules.



They have left us with boring, spec. racing, and budgets have continued to explode. Cost control doesn't work. Making the rules as open as possible, with only minimum safety rules and "no exotic materials" type rules, but other than that, anything goes, would bring innovation back. Making the "sporting" rules to encourage energy efficiency would align the R&D budgets to research that will actually prove useful for road cars, and would put the truth back into "Racing improves the breed".


I disagree.

Spec racing can be very interesting and fun to watch if the right formula is created. The DP-01 did a good job. Champ Car just lacked enough cars on the track to put on a good show. A few cars fall out due to mechanical or crashes and there's not enough competition on the track to sustain activity. Bigger grids would provide more interesting action.

As for wide open innovation - great for innovation, bad for fair play competition as the have's will always rule over the have not's. You'll see Penske outspend the competition like he did with the Mercedes project in 1994. You'll see Honda outspend Chevy to dominate the manufacturers competition. The right constraints have to be in place to promote innovation properly. Mainly budget caps and formula rules to stay within.




Slow refueling rigs is the simplest, cheapest technique which could achieve that.


I disagree because that would penalize drivers unnecessarily force them to wait in the pits longer each time they refuel thus exposing them to going a lap down more easily. Cars barely make it out as it is. All it takes is for a yellow to come out while they're in the pits and they're screwed because they won't be able to get back on the lead lap after they've been passed. On some of the ovals it would be 2 laps. That's why Champ Car abandoned the mandatory pit window rule a few years ago and why slow refueling "should never come to fruition". Champ/Indy cars are just too fast for the circuits they drive to make slow refueling an option. It makes sense for slower series like ALMS or sports cars, but not open wheel.

Cost control needs to be implemented in a way that won't negatively affect competition. It would be better to create a challenging formula all the manufacturers adhere to and can serve as an incentive towards their main business. Slow refueling doesn't help Honda/Toyota/Ford/Chevey/etc make better cars. Creating race technology around a formula used in their passenger cars does.




As to "never come to fruition", it's the sort of thing the ACO has done in the past and would be likely to do again in the future, but the ACO is unusual in auto racing in being a sanctioning body that likes to see variety and innovation. I would agree it would be highly unlikely in American open wheel.


Yeah, well that's a different economy of scale. When you get to the big leagues, the rules apply a little differently.

It's like computer programming for network based applications. Certain algorithms work up to a certain size of network, then they cannot accomodate larger systems anymore because of the bottlenecks created from storing and retreiving data. Completely different designs must be implemented to address the same problems because the traffic patterns and usage are also completely different even if the basic goal is the same.

[garyshell]

IMO - spec series is OK. Nobody needs innovation in technical field .... because it is not possible anymore, or at least not achievable by means of racing. There are practically none innovations from these racing cars that can be adopted in serial production. None. Only in very expensive Porsches, Ferraris and only to some extent.

The racing with practically the same cars in spec series is good, better than with diversity cars.


Some of the best RACING that I ever saw was in the old LeCar series. Spec Renault LeCars came from the factory ready to race. Pretty much everything was sealed such that you couldn't fiddle with much. They would have a field of 30 plus cars as warm up to the IMSA series at MidOhio. These guys would be two and three wide around various parts of the track. In the Carousel they were nose to tail all lifting an inside wheel. It was EXCITING stuff. REALLY EXCITING STUFF.

Gary

[DrDomm]

Some cool ideas here, but in the end this is racing. The idea is to go fast, and complete a set distance before anyone else. Putting safety first, speed should be second. I hope any new formula promotes the notion that these cars and drivers are trying to go fast. For me, some political agenda ("going green") and fuel efficiency are lower on the list.

[Miatanut]

For me, some political agenda ("going green") and fuel efficiency are lower on the list.
I don't remember if it was started by CART, or dated back to the USAC days, but there used to be a mandatory fuel mileage requirement. It was instituted because the sanctioning body wanted to make a preemptive strike on outside forces using the legislative process to virtually ban auto racing. There were also one or two Le Mans that were less than 24 hours, or had some sort of minimum fuel economy requirement, or some such back then. I have a good memory for general details and a completely worthless memory for specifics!

In any case, we are again in that kind of environment. We can get ahead of it, or we can get rolled over by it.

[DrDomm]

In any case, we are again in that kind of environment. We can get ahead of it, or we can get rolled over by it.

Still, it is not why people watch auto racing. But, fuel efficiency is part of racing...ask Danica. So, it will not go away. I just don't think it should supercede speed, power, and agility when it comes to creating a formula.