Riddle Me This, Turbophiles

[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.