On-board starters

[NickFalzone]

The lack of on-board starters in IndyCars is a real joke IMO and I think is a big reason for today's accident. If Phillipe had been able to get restarted he could have driven out of the racing line before Will got there. It seems like almost every race and certainly in practice there are perfectly good racecars that get spun out and stalled, sitting on the track while the truck with the starters shows up. Is there any good technical reason for not having starters?

[grungex]

Yes.

[jwhite9185]

They were supposed to have starters on the DP01 Champcar but i think they found they didnt work all that well so dropped the idea. Guessing thats stopped anybody else from trying it since.

[Sonic]

Yes.

Lol.

Sod starters - just have anti-stall. No need to restart if the engine is still running after a spin!

[DBell]

Lol.

Sod starters - just have anti-stall. No need to restart if the engine is still running after a spin!

That works well if you have a computer controlled clutch and semi-automatic gear boxes. Indy cars don't have those.

[SarahFan]

sometimes a racing incident is just a racing incident

[Lousada]

Perhaps if they had starters, he would have rejoined straight in the path of Viso.

[nigelred5]

I think Champcar found the batteries and starters were too heavy and battery technology still isnt to the point where the starters had enough torque to actually start a hot engine. Batteries have evolved a good bit in two years though. Now's the time to do it with a new package coming down the line. I would think any sort of hybrid or KERS system would have enough energy to start a stalled engine or at least enough to move a car out of the racing line.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Starters would have been on Indycars years ago if they were practical. Sometimes you have to realize the reality of the present is based on the facts of the past. There is a REASON Indycars don't have onboard starters. F1 cars don't have them either. Batteries don't work unless they have sufficient ummmph and then they are too heavy. You don't see this issue as much with NASCAR, but even there, the cars are a pain to restart with a hot engine....

[call_me_andrew]

That works well if you have a computer controlled clutch and semi-automatic gear boxes. Indy cars don't have those.

Isn't that what all this "paddleshift" buisness is about?

[nigelred5]

Isn't that what all this "paddleshift" buisness is about?

From my understanding, it's what is between the shift paddle and the gear change and how that is accomplished that is quite different from F1.

[BoilerIMS]

From my understanding, it's what is between the shift paddle and the gear change and how that is accomplished that is quite different from F1.

F1 gearboxes are a whole different beast than the manual-sequential boxes in IRL and previously in CC. All the F1 teams have those tricked out two-shaft "seamless shift" boxes now.

As I understand it, the old "lever" sequential shifter used a strain gauge to cut the engine spark momentarily, and the continued pull on the cable engaged the "can" in the gearbox that changed the gear +/- one. Clutching was not necessary, except from a dead stop.

Since the gearbox fundamentals in IRL have not changed with the addition of paddle shifting, I think the paddle shifter is just engaging an actuator that does what the driver used to.

[Easy Drifter]

Hot racing engines do not like to start on starters. It has been tried over and over but they are contrary beasts. The sprints and midgets tried it a few years ago to speed up the show. It did not work.
Funnily enough it usually only takes a little push to fire them up.
You will note in Endurance Racing there are often problems getting the cars to fire after a pit stop and battery changes are a regular occurence.
I sometimes think the obligatory push to help engage gears (true) and ease the clutch is not a little judicious start as well. :eek: