new engine rules

[Chris R]

is it just me or is the new engine formula announcement basically just not much.....??? can a manufacturer actually get interested in this formula is it is laid out???

[Mark in Oshawa]

is it just me or is the new engine formula announcement basically just not much.....??? can a manufacturer actually get interested in this formula is it is laid out???

In 2012 it looks like multiple engines, up to 6 cylinders and 2.4 L. That says to me a far more interesting formula maybe be in the offing. They say 550 to 700 hp but if they are smart, they allow the engine manufacturers a little more room. Once upon a time 1500 cc turbo's were pushing 1000 hp in F1, so I think what may be coming may be a very interesting engine package. It is on the IRL webpage, but the details are not finalized yet....

[Bob Riebe]

is it just me or is the new engine formula announcement basically just not much.....??? can a manufacturer actually get interested in this formula is it is laid out???

NO, another losing proposition but they cannot blame TG now.

[Scotty G.]

NO, another losing proposition but they cannot blame TG now.

But, some still will. :p

[Brad Erman]

NO, another losing proposition but they cannot blame TG now.

Right. We should keep the same crap. No need for any industry relevance. Nothing to see here, move along. You could have had a future in the previous IndyCar adminstration.

[Bob Riebe]

Right. We should keep the same crap. No need for any industry relevance. Nothing to see here, move along. You could have had a future in the previous IndyCar adminstration.

New crap verses old crap, it is all crap.
Try again.

[Brad Erman]

New crap verses old crap, it is all crap.
Try again.

Old crap, no industry and little fan relevance. New crap perhaps. Same old crap, no way, your words right?

[Bob Riebe]

Old crap, no industry and little fan relevance. New crap perhaps. Same old crap, no way, your words right?
If they think the new formula is going to bring Detroit back to Indianapolis, or the fans they have lost will give a damn about quasi-spec. four-bangers and six-poppers, they are idiots.

Now wait, the past ten years have already shown that.

[Brad Erman]

If they think the new formula is going to bring Detroit back to Indianapolis, or the fans they have lost will give a damn about quasi-spec. four-bangers and six-poppers, they are idiots.

Now wait, the past ten years have already shown that.

Can we agree that spec racing, as we've seen since the split, hasn't kept or captured the public-at-large's attention? If so, why isn't an open rule formula good news for the IndyCar series? What would you propose as an option?

[Bob Riebe]

Can we agree that spec racing, as we've seen since the split, hasn't kept or captured the public-at-large's attention? If so, why isn't an open rule formula good news for the IndyCar series? What would you propose as an option?

Absolutely.
Go back to the rules CART inherited from USAC-- revise, as need be-- (allowing as Gurney fought for, true stock blocks, along side racing engines) and allow what ever chassis makers that want to race, to race.
No spec. tires or single tire company, and leave the damn pits open, always.

[nigelred5]

What a display of indecision. While I've advocated such a formula for years that allows some measure of run whatcha bring, at least have the balls to say You were afraid of totally losing the only two companies even remotely interested in participating so we said fine, we'll allow both suggestions and everything in-between.

[Brad Erman]

Absolutely.
Go back to the rules CART inherited from USAC-- revise, as need be-- (allowing as Gurney fought for, true stock blocks, along side racing engines) and allow what ever chassis makers that want to race, to race.
No spec. tires or single tire company, and leave the damn pits open, always.

Perhaps I've misjudged you Bob. I read often but rarely post. And I don't research the previous posts of posters. I'm all for open rules, chassis, tires, engines, fuel etc. and it sounds like you are too.

Mr. Bernard, Randy, please continue to move in this direction. Without industry relevance, dollars will be hard to come by and fan interest will follow industry innovation.

[Chris R]

Perhaps should re-phrase m question/concern.. I think an more open formula is a great idea. The problem is that if they are too vague is anyone going to "bite" for fear of their innovation being squashed???

I think we can all agree that the various powers that be in AOWR for much of the past 50 years have left a lot to be desired and much of the success has been in spite of their best efforts rather than because of them......

[Brad Erman]

Perhaps should re-phrase m question/concern.. I think an more open formula is a great idea. The problem is that if they are too vague is anyone going to "bite" for fear of their innovation being squashed???

I think we can all agree that the various powers that be in AOWR for much of the past 50 years have left a lot to be desired and much of the success has been in spite of their best efforts rather than because of them......

F1 is a free for all within a given set of specifications. There certainly seems to be commercial interest in that formula.

[TURN3]

Well I guess the choice is clear. Nominate Bob to be the new President of Indycar and the sole member of the advisory board. Seems you have all the answers yes?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't you effectively saying go back to technology and specs that were used in the 90's...and that'll bring all the Detroit manufacturers back in the game? If that is correct, you're past your prime!

I don't know the details of the prop yet but, anything that leaves innovation to incorporate new technologies, and especially green technologies, is a step in the right direction. Why? Because the way back into the mainstream is to become a proving ground for relevant technology to what consumers can see in their products. I don't give a rats behind if these engines come from Detroit your FakeDanicaFan's painted room...point is they are leaving room for multiple manufacturers, new technology, and allowing space for those manufacturers to demonstrate at the edge...which is what auto racing was invented for to begin with.

[Brad Erman]

Well I guess the choice is clear. Nominate Bob to be the new President of Indycar and the sole member of the advisory board. Seems you have all the answers yes?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't you effectively saying go back to technology and specs that were used in the 90's...and that'll bring all the Detroit manufacturers back in the game? If that is correct, you're past your prime!

I don't know the details of the prop yet but, anything that leaves innovation to incorporate new technologies, and especially green technologies, is a step in the right direction. Why? Because the way back into the mainstream is to become a proving ground for relevant technology to what consumers can see in their products. I don't give a rats behind if these engines come from Detroit your FakeDanicaFan's painted room...point is they are leaving room for multiple manufacturers, new technology, and allowing space for those manufacturers to demonstrate at the edge...which is what auto racing was invented for to begin with.

I'm pretty sure I agree with this

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="TURN3"]Well I guess the choice is clear. Nominate Bob to be the new President of Indycar and the sole member of the advisory board. Seems you have all the answers yes?

[b] IF you do not like what I wrote, do not read it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't you effectively saying go back to technology and specs that were used in the 90's...and that'll bring all the Detroit manufacturers back in the game? If that is correct, you're past your prime!

No. There were no specs. in the seventies, eighties when CART took over.
There were boundaries, between which any one could build a car to fit his won magic potion.
Spec. racing is for SCCA week-end warriors, (and for decades most of those classes were more open than they are now) not for professional racing that is supposed to show who builds the best. Spec. racing proves nothing.

Why would anyone have to use only tech. from that era.
By what dim thoughts do you think one cannot build a new car to those basic rules using new tires, engine components, chassis materials etc.
If you would read, you would see I said revise as need be.

[Chris R]

F1 is a free for all within a given set of specifications. There certainly seems to be commercial interest in that formula.

ummm, I am not sure that is a good example these days... the specs are very tight and they have been losing sponsors and manufacturers at a pretty good rate.....

[NickFalzone]

This is the "press release" on the IRL's upcoming engine platform. Hard to make heads or tails of what it really means in brass tacks, but I do like the sound of it.

http://www.indycar.com/news/show/55-izod-indycar-series/37859-next-engine-strategy-is-all-inclusive/

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Well I guess the choice is clear. Nominate Bob to be the new President of Indycar and the sole member of the advisory board. Seems you have all the answers yes?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't you effectively saying go back to technology and specs that were used in the 90's...and that'll bring all the Detroit manufacturers back in the game? If that is correct, you're past your prime!

I don't know the details of the prop yet but, anything that leaves innovation to incorporate new technologies, and especially green technologies, is a step in the right direction. Why? Because the way back into the mainstream is to become a proving ground for relevant technology to what consumers can see in their products. I don't give a rats behind if these engines come from Detroit your FakeDanicaFan's painted room...point is they are leaving room for multiple manufacturers, new technology, and allowing space for those manufacturers to demonstrate at the edge...which is what auto racing was invented for to begin with.

+1

[V12]

F1 is a free for all within a given set of specifications.

No it isn't. Not since 2007, anyway, thanks to the engine freeze and spec tyre regulations. They've even started freezing the chassis this year (!!)

This announcement by IndyCar is a step, however small, in the right direction. Allowing different engine configurations is more than F1 has done since they mandated V10s somewhere in the late-90s, which of course morphed into the "frozen" V8s of today, I use "frozen" in quotation marks because the engines are subject to NASCAR-style (before the CoT came about anyway) performance balancing, which of course is a load of nonsense but that's what we have.

With F1 becoming more and more standardised (I predict spec F1 cars in the next decade or so if the trend is not reversed), it's refreshing to see somebody else attempt to go the other way. There's still a long way to go, will the engines be frozen/homologated/approved, will there still be a spec chassis, and so on, but it's still a good thing.

And to hell with cost cutting (there, I said it). I'd rather see a field of 15-18 varied and interesting machines than a pack of 25 or so cars that are only differentiated by their colour scheme. And who knows, maybe, just maybe, even if it's a 0.0001% chance, some more interest in the technological side might bring a few extra fans, and dare I say it sponsors, to the table.

[DBell]

No it isn't. Not since 2007, anyway, thanks to the engine freeze and spec tyre regulations. They've even started freezing the chassis this year (!!)

This announcement by IndyCar is a step, however small, in the right direction. Allowing different engine configurations is more than F1 has done since they mandated V10s somewhere in the late-90s, which of course morphed into the "frozen" V8s of today, I use "frozen" in quotation marks because the engines are subject to NASCAR-style (before the CoT came about anyway) performance balancing, which of course is a load of nonsense but that's what we have.

With F1 becoming more and more standardised (I predict spec F1 cars in the next decade or so if the trend is not reversed), it's refreshing to see somebody else attempt to go the other way. There's still a long way to go, will the engines be frozen/homologated/approved, will there still be a spec chassis, and so on, but it's still a good thing.

And to hell with cost cutting (there, I said it). I'd rather see a field of 15-18 varied and interesting machines than a pack of 25 or so cars that are only differentiated by their colour scheme. And who knows, maybe, just maybe, even if it's a 0.0001% chance, some more interest in the technological side might bring a few extra fans, and dare I say it sponsors, to the table.

I agree, but I think F1's move in this direction goes back to the late 90's when they mandated how many cylinders an engine could have. It's been a steady diet of restrictions since.

On the Indycar engine, I like the idea overall, but I want to see more specifics before I make up my mind.

[V12]

I agree, but I think F1's move in this direction goes back to the late 90's when they mandated how many cylinders an engine could have. It's been a steady diet of restrictions since.

I agree that the V10-only rule in F1 was a significant backwards step, one of the most significant in the evolution of the F1 rulebook, but you could just as easily go back to the late 70s/early 80s when they mandated how many wheels a car could have (4). Rules saying what you can and can't do with your design, are fundamentally OK, although of course the freer they are, then the more fun/interesting/intriguing it is.

When the line is crossed, for me anyway, is when you either mandate spec components (apart from for things like safety equipment, or for admin purposes like on-board cameras, transponders and so on). Or when you say certain components, or even the whole car cannot be developed within a certain time-frame, which is all a bit arbitrary especially when someone who was trailing a bit in development when the "freeze" took place starts arguing for special dispensation to catch up, etc.

So while I agree F1 had been going backwards, technically, for quite a while before, it stopped being a "free for all within a given set of specifications" in 2007. :)

[veeten]

Ah, good old Bob. :)

Still 'fighting the good fight' for those dinosaurs (stock block V8's), I see. Looks like the proposals that Indycar have drafted just aren't your cup 'o tea, eh? :p :

[jerryb]

I have been a racing fan since 1959, so that shows you what I have seen over the years.

While I always enjoyed the "open" rules, I also remember how the upsurge in technology in the 70's changed some of the foundation of racing. I really enjoyed the CanAm series and even liked the Porsche panzer. But the Porsche did bring a demise to CanAm because of it's dominance.

In Indy racing we have seen periodic dominance by such as the Mercedes "stock block" that Penske had one year. He had that dominance because of finding loopholes in the rules. That is fine with me because the rules quickly change to level the playing field.

The problem today is that technology, mainly in the form of the ECU is a radical departure from the engine and car management of old. A simple program change can alter horsepower by the hundreds, on the fly. So once again rules had to be put in place.

See where I'm going with this?

If I understand this latest policy, it was derived using feedback from the manufacturers. They are the ones who wanted to see smaller (cylinder wise) turbo engines because that is their preference for street engines. Allowing anything up to 6 cylinders still gives them the opportunity to come up with any configuration they want. I guess the only restriction I would put on these engines (besides the cubic inch limit) would be that they all have to use the same ECU. A standard ECU would then have to be fairly open in order to allow the various configurations, but still prevent tampering.

As for the chassis, I would open it up to anyone who wants to build one. My restrictions would be to limit the aero package to the minimum needed for safety. You need to have strict rules on this otherwise we would see a regression back to the ground effects, etc. that got us to where we are now.

While everyone wants to see large horsepower numbers bandied about, we have to remember that before the extreme aero came into being, all the HP in the world was useless without good mechanical grip. There used to be concerns of too much HP at times in the past. I can remember the likes of one A.J. Foyt struggling to make a success of the Hussein CanAm car. It had gobs of power but could not harness it because the chassis was crap!

I would love to see the old Novi engine in action again, but unfortunately those days are long gone. Now I would like to see 1000hp turbos pushing a chassis that requires a driver to lift and use the brakes to make it through turn 1 at Indy.

[Lousada]

“We will continue to evaluate rules that will keep a level playing field across the board with the various engines that could enter our sport,” said Brian Barnhart, president of competition and racing operations. “For example, we could see a V-6 competing against an Inline 4 at all IZOD IndyCar Series events in the future. We will require reference engines as a benchmark in performance while looking at sonic air restrictors, fuel flow restrictions and more as key criteria for competition.”


This sets of my alarmbells. I hope this "evaluating" will not be as in ALMS, were at one time they changed the formula every single race. Make a set of rules, build something to it, let the best one win, is my opinion. Equalising = specracing = not good. Were will the innovation be if BB will "evaluate" your advantage all away??

[V12]

This sets of my alarmbells. I hope this "evaluating" will not be as in ALMS, were at one time they changed the formula every single race. Make a set of rules, build something to it, let the best one win, is my opinion. Equalising = specracing = not good. Were will the innovation be if BB will "evaluate" your advantage all away??

I agree. The worst culprit for this (that is contemporary and springs to mind, anyway) is the new FIA GT1 Championship, where the 6 different manufacturers (sorry Ratel, I'm not calling them "brands") are equalised by all sorts of arbitrary measures known as "Balance of Performance" rules, which include a (human) driver taking all six cars out for timed laps (obviously not at the exact same time, so will track conditions be the same?) - an 11-year old school kid who has studied the fundamentals of performing a controlled experiment in Science class could spot the holes in that one.

"Equalising" by pegging back certain cars/engines/whatever just because they are better is, of course, fundamentally wrong and flies in the face of everything competition should be about, a bit like getting Usain Bolt to run with lead shoes, Roger Federer to play with a broken racket, or FC Barcelona to play with 9 or 10 men every match.

But there is a difference between that, and having measures that equalise the inherent advantage/disadvantage between say diesel or petrol (Le Mans), turbo or non-turbo (pre-1989 F1), and maybe this is what Barnhart has in mind for 4s and 6s, although I don't think it's necessary (see bottom).

However I strongly believe this shouldn't be done on a whim and not only applied equally to all cars of a given configuration regardless of how fast or slow that makes them, and backed up by painstaking scientific analysis, which is then published in a report in the public domain for any competitor, fan or interested party to look at should they have the mind to.

Of course even this scientific approach wouldn't be perfect and wouldn't correlate 100% on the track, and it would be a VERY difficult job to get right, but there's a huge difference between the intentions of this approach and the GT1 example I gave above, since the aim is to have a broad variety of machinery, rather than to artificially equalise things.

In an ideal world, using the IndyCar example, they should say yeah, maximum displacement, maximum of 6 cylinders, simple as that, if that means everyone finds a 4 or 6 is the optimal solution and gravitates towards that then fine, providing the option is there to do either.

The Barnhart quote doesn't specify which of the two approaches he means, although since there is no NA/forced induction or petrol/diesel type of equivalency that needs to be reached, I do share your concerns.

[e2mtt]

how about a simple formula: limit fuel flow & fuel used per race

any engine you want as long as they all use the same fuel? would be interesting...

[anthonyvop]

how about a simple formula: limit fuel flow & fuel used per race

any engine you want as long as they all use the same fuel? would be interesting...

And then every race becomes a fuel economy run? No Thanks.

A fuel flow and air restricter is an idea but I want no part of limiting fuel amounts.


The DTM seems to do a good job of maintaining equal engine and chassis performance. So does F-3

[Bob Riebe]

Ah, good old Bob. :)

Still 'fighting the good fight' for those dinosaurs (stock block V8's), I see. Looks like the proposals that Indycar have drafted just aren't your cup 'o tea, eh? :p :
When Detroit told the IRL where to stick its head the result is what we have now.
Dan Gurney thought it was a good idea.
If the Indianpolis race wants to be what it once was, they had better give Detroit a reason to show.

Four-poppers and six-bangers, which will have the HP level- adjusted- to make them go only as fast as the IRL thinks they should, is only a slightly different version of the dung-heap it is now.

IF I remember correctly, this proposed formula was floated to "five" auto companies already several years ago, and four of the five said-- don't waste my time.

It actually sound a lot like the crap that has been foisted on the F-1 builders.

[e2mtt]

And then every race becomes a fuel economy run? No Thanks.

A fuel flow and air restricter is an idea but I want no part of limiting fuel amounts.


The DTM seems to do a good job of maintaining equal engine and chassis performance. So does F-3

A fuel flow & air restricter? That might lead to a rev-limiter style parade. :-)

My idea being the cars can run a lot faster then they usually will. Smaller displacement engines might run closer to flat-out the whole time, while a bigger engine would have to run in economy mode, but the power would be there when needed. Plus, more cautions = faster times near the end.

To me it has such an elegant simplicity: A 200 mile race, using 50 gallons of fuel.

I think the DTM uses ballasts added to winners & podium finishers to balance teams out over the course of the season. This is an interesting idea, and seems to work pretty well. It also opens up a lot of different strategies.

[Bob Riebe]

how about a simple formula: limit fuel flow & fuel used per race

any engine you want as long as they all use the same fuel? would be interesting...The former is what the IMSA did.

Chevy built special small-port cylinder heads for the Corvette that were designed to maximize hp with the possible fuel flow, that were ONLY given to the factory team.
With in a few years Chevy was racing against itself because only they could spend the millions to make parts specifically designed to defeat the spec. restriction.

Restrictors and spec. racing is a cancer that should be killed.

Eliminate the aero gimmicks and speeds will fall.

[e2mtt]

Another engine formula idea that I want to see - NO MORE PUSH TO PASS BUTTON!!!!

Give them NOS! 1 bottle of NOS per race weekend, to be used at will.

[e2mtt]

The former is what the IMSA did.

Chevy built special small-port cylinder heads for the Corvette that were designed to maximize hp with the possible fuel flow, that were ONLY given to the factory team.
With in a few years Chevy was racing against itself because only they could spend the millions to make parts specifically designed to defeat the spec. restriction.

Restrictors and spec. racing is a cancer that should be killed.

Eliminate the aero gimmicks and speeds will fall.

Well right now Honda is racing with itself in Indycar. At least other teams & manufacturers could have built a fuel-efficient engine in IMSA if they had wanted to...

[Mark in Oshawa]

A better idea might be no limit on fuel flow or quantity used, but limit the size of the on board fuel cell. If you have a (much) thirstier engine then the penalty is more pit stops.


I think the freedom to choose any engine is essential.

Any chassis is another story perhaps. You need to be able to do crash testing for safety reasons and that pretty much eliminates the "one offs" as it's too expensive. Still, there need to be multiple approved chassis.

I like both points, and I agree to with eliminating gimmicks like PTP

[anthonyvop]

What i find interesting are the aerodynamic possibilities between a in-line 4 and a V-6.

By allowing 2 different engine layouts you have guaranteed an Aero-War

[Brad Erman]

What i find interesting are the aerodynamic possibilities between a in-line 4 and a V-6.

By allowing 2 different engine layouts you have guaranteed an Aero-War

Assuming a non-spec chassis...

[Brad Erman]

No it isn't. Not since 2007, anyway, thanks to the engine freeze and spec tyre regulations. They've even started freezing the chassis this year (!!)

OK, an overstatement, but F1 compared to the dalarra/honda...

[Chris R]

I like Starter's idea - limit the size of the on board fuel tank. I would add that they should also specify the re-fueling apparatus and make sure it is good and slow (in racing terms) - and not a drop spilled.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What i find interesting are the aerodynamic possibilities between a in-line 4 and a V-6.

By allowing 2 different engine layouts you have guaranteed an Aero-War

Not necessarily. A narrow engine would give aero advantages if the rules allow side tunnels and the like. That said, if the IRL dictates a flat bottom between the wheels, then the config of the engine will come down to the Center of Gravity. If you can make a V6 work for a lower center of gravity say than an upright inline 4...or if you can shoe horn a straight six in there and make it work, then all power to you.

The fact is, how the chassis minimum dimensions are laid out will be the final arbiter really of what engine config would likely work best.

[anthonyvop]

Not necessarily. A narrow engine would give aero advantages if the rules allow side tunnels and the like. That said, if the IRL dictates a flat bottom between the wheels, then the config of the engine will come down to the Center of Gravity. If you can make a V6 work for a lower center of gravity say than an upright inline 4...or if you can shoe horn a straight six in there and make it work, then all power to you.

The fact is, how the chassis minimum dimensions are laid out will be the final arbiter really of what engine config would likely work best.

You are only taking into account under-body aero.

A V-6 will allow for a lower engine cover while a inline-4 will allow for a narrower. Both effect rear-wing efficiency.

Of course there is not only center of gravity issues but suspension layout differences also.

[Bob Riebe]

Well right now Honda is racing with itself in Indycar. At least other teams & manufacturers could have built a fuel-efficient engine in IMSA if they had wanted to...
Corporations do not spend money to make some sanction body god wanna-be happy.
They race to sell their product, not spend money on spec. gimmicks.

You notice, Chevy, Ford, Nissan, and Toyota voted with their feet.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You are only taking into account under-body aero.

A V-6 will allow for a lower engine cover while a inline-4 will allow for a narrower. Both effect rear-wing efficiency.

Of course there is not only center of gravity issues but suspension layout differences also.

True, but in f1 they run just fine with a v8. They also built 1500 turbo cars back in the day with inline 4's or v'6s and both had their pluses and minuses. I would like to see the governing body encourage variety instead of dictating everyone run copy cat designs. That is why the racing sucks now...the car isn't being developed so the car has more or less stagnated and the top teams can spend money to gain fractions of a second while the poor teams are pretty much stuck with what they can unload.

[chuck34]

What's the breakdown of V8, V6, I6, and 4cyl engines are there in the production car market? I'm willing to bet that the new rules more closely represent what's on the road than the current spec. I think that's the justification for this new direction. If the engines running are more like the production units then Detroit may see the value

[V12]

You are only taking into account under-body aero.

A V-6 will allow for a lower engine cover while a inline-4 will allow for a narrower. Both effect rear-wing efficiency.

Of course there is not only center of gravity issues but suspension layout differences also.

Who knows either way? The fun, for me anyway, will be finding out. Assuming we get the opportunity. :up:

[anthonyvop]

Who knows either way? The fun, for me anyway, will be finding out. Assuming we get the opportunity. :up:


Exactly


now for giggles lets us add the Subaru equation!!

Flat 4 cylinder

[e2mtt]

Corporations do not spend money to make some sanction body god wanna-be happy.
They race to sell their product, not spend money on spec. gimmicks.

You notice, Chevy, Ford, Nissan, and Toyota voted with their feet.

I don't understand your point - the spec CART used was 2.65 liter turbo V8s with standard pop-off valves to limit boost. That was arguably a very good engine, but it wasn't a stock block & they were completely custom to CART.

Now, Indycar needs a new spec of some kind. Will they allow a range of displacements, and handicap to make them even? This can be a mess, because with handicapping comes politics. :-(

Making the engines spec unlimited beside fuel usage is a possible idea that could open up competition to many different manufactures, including the option of building your own engines without manufacturer backing. It is also very cutting edge & "green", and it would be real bragging rights for an engine manufacturer to be able to claim their engine won at Indy by being more powerful AND more fuel efficient.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Exactly


now for giggles lets us add the Subaru equation!!

Flat 4 cylinder

I love this way of thinking. Just say, put the car on the track with a flat floor between the axles. Build in regs to make sure of a minimum dimension in height that allows for any config up to 2.4 liters to have a reasonable go. Handicap the motors by limiting fuel. They did that at Indy years ago. You were given so much ethanol, and if your guys didn't use their heads, they would use it all up and may not make it to the end......

It is a great way of encouraging people to build more fuel efficient motors while still producing more power to race.

[I am evil Homer]

The engine spec would have little to do with road car manufacturers anyway unless it became some weird 1.8 turbo diesel.

Bigger concern would be the multiple types of engines and attempts at equalisation which has been shown time and again to not work.

[nigelred5]

The engine spec would have little to do with road car manufacturers anyway unless it became some weird 1.8 turbo diesel.

Bigger concern would be the multiple types of engines and attempts at equalisation which has been shown time and again to not work.

Nothing weird about a turbodiesel. Very much un-weird and absolutely basic to be honest. Considering there is essentially only 1 company selling such an engine in any sort of volume in the US, that's not an issue. Maybe some will wake up and smell the coffee with regards to fuel efficiency of a small TD motor, but apparently few can. I drove one for 7 years and I am about to buy another.

N/A and turbo 4's and 6's, multi-fuel with and without hybrid technology is the direction in this market and I think their first limited details of the new spec reflect this. I wouldn't mine seeing them allow a KERS as well.

[Lousada]

Nothing weird about a turbodiesel. Very much un-weird and absolutely basic to be honest. Considering there is essentially only 1 company selling such an engine in any sort of volume in the US, that's not an issue. Maybe some will wake up and smell the coffee with regards to fuel efficiency of a small TD motor, but apparently few can. I drove one for 7 years and I am about to buy another.

Ford, GM and basicly any other major manufacterer produces turbodiesels... in Europe. For some reason Americans just don't seem to warm up to it.


N/A and turbo 4's and 6's, multi-fuel with and without hybrid technology is the direction in this market and I think their first limited details of the new spec reflect this. I wouldn't mine seeing them allow a KERS as well.

I don't see where you read that. It will be turbos only and ethanol only and I don't expect to see hybrid engines.

[Marbles]

While I think it will open up the possibility of more manufacturer involvement, the bottom line is I feel this sort of formula is better left to sports cars. I can't even imagine the amount of griping that will be going on from race to race. Changes to air restrictors or revs when one manufacturer manages to get ahead of the others or when one manufacturer falls too far behind the pack. "We hope they'll give us a break". Add to that, with the series trying manage horsepower amongst the different configurations for different tracks. Are they going to manage the torque curve or drive-ability as well?

Even in the strict formula of CART I recall them crying about another manufacturer's placement of the pop-ff valve or turbo charger. Also, manufacturers like Honda and Toyota and to just stick it out until they caught up with the Benz and the Cosworth.

I'd rather see the innovation with a more open environment with regards to an energy recovery system similar to F1 with a 2.0 litre four cylinder engine and turbo for flexibility.

[I am evil Homer]

Nothing weird about a turbodiesel. Very much un-weird and absolutely basic to be honest. Considering there is essentially only 1 company selling such an engine in any sort of volume in the US, that's not an issue. Maybe some will wake up and smell the coffee with regards to fuel efficiency of a small TD motor, but apparently few can. I drove one for 7 years and I am about to buy another.

N/A and turbo 4's and 6's, multi-fuel with and without hybrid technology is the direction in this market and I think their first limited details of the new spec reflect this. I wouldn't mine seeing them allow a KERS as well.

I totally agree with you and would suggest that in order to attract manus they need to make it more in line with what can be transferred technology wise to road cars. I drive a TD and it's amazing. However watching the SEAT LEon TDI's or even the Peugeot LMS cars they don't sound right!

Biofuel is a no-no and a total non-stater in terms of a sustainable fuel source. KERS as energy re-use I would also agree with but not as some push to pass-lite system it became in F1.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well We wont see Diesels. Indycars have traditionally been run on ethanol/methnanol and will continue to do so. That said, there is still a lot to be learned about fuel efficiencies and head design in racing, and I am sure that if the formula for engines is loose enough, manufacturers might just jump in to do R and D and do a little racing.....

[nigelred5]

Well We wont see Diesels. Indycars have traditionally been run on ethanol/methnanol and will continue to do so. That said, there is still a lot to be learned about fuel efficiencies and head design in racing, and I am sure that if the formula for engines is loose enough, manufacturers might just jump in to do R and D and do a little racing.....


They only went to methanol for safety reasons in the 70's, however I agre, they won't deviate from alcohols. Maybe the source of them may change. Diesel is much more stable as IM sure you are well aware, but cleanup from a spill is a potential nightmare

Lousada, I'm well aware of what is available IN EUROPE, problem is, those choices NEVER make it to the US market, even from the US companies. I've sent probably close to 100 letters to the various manufacturers begging for small and moderate sized TD's. We get VW TDI's and huge v10's from VW, a smattering of UP-Market luxury cars that cost over $45K from Audi, MERC and BMW, a POS jeep liberty with an italian sourced TD that was impossible to obtain, and pickups powered by backhoe motors. I"ve even gone as far as attempting to import a V6 TDI passat wagon, but it was just near impossible with current grey market laws. The oil companies and hte enviro's simply don't want them here.

I was more referring to the market than what has been announced as the the engine spec, however the engine spec certainly is more in line wiht the trend in the US market than 3.5L NA V8's.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They only went to methanol for safety reasons in the 70's, however I agre, they won't deviate from alcohols. Maybe the source of them may change. Diesel is much more stable as IM sure you are well aware, but cleanup from a spill is a potential nightmare

Lousada, I'm well aware of what is available IN EUROPE, problem is, those choices NEVER make it to the US market, even from the US companies. I've sent probably close to 100 letters to the various manufacturers begging for small and moderate sized TD's. We get VW TDI's and huge v10's from VW, a smattering of UP-Market luxury cars that cost over $45K from Audi, MERC and BMW, a POS jeep liberty with an italian sourced TD that was impossible to obtain, and pickups powered by backhoe motors. I"ve even gone as far as attempting to import a V6 TDI passat wagon, but it was just near impossible with current grey market laws. The oil companies and hte enviro's simply don't want them here.

I was more referring to the market than what has been announced as the the engine spec, however the engine spec certainly is more in line wiht the trend in the US market than 3.5L NA V8's.

the reality of diesels is simple. Until recently, the diesel in the US had too much sulphur and it would mean not many cars would pass emissions. Our emissions on this continent are tougher, and the higher sulphur numbers just meant all but a few cars could burn it clean enough. Now that the oil companies have started putting out enough low sulphur diesel at a good price, that diesels now make more sense, and they will come. That said, the VW Rabbit in the late 70's with 45 hp wasn't going to make any American ditch the gas version, much less his more powerful v8's.

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. I am going to assume (silly of me to do that I am sure) that the ICONIC committee talked to the manufacturers when they came to this recommendation...so This must be in the ball park for what manufacturers might find a tie in...

[Bob Riebe]

I don't understand your point - the spec CART used was 2.65 liter turbo V8s with standard pop-off valves to limit boost. That was arguably a very good engine, but it wasn't a stock block & they were completely custom to CART.

Now, Indycar needs a new spec of some kind. Will they allow a range of displacements, and handicap to make them even? This can be a mess, because with handicapping comes politics. :-(

Making the engines spec unlimited beside fuel usage is a possible idea that could open up competition to many different manufactures, including the option of building your own engines without manufacturer backing. It is also very cutting edge & "green", and it would be real bragging rights for an engine manufacturer to be able to claim their engine won at Indy by being more powerful AND more fuel efficient.
You had best do some in depth reading into the history of Indianapolis and the sanctions that ran there, Especially the rules.

CART died by destroying what inherited from the USAC. They chopped, sliced and eliminated till blownd Ford were all that was left.

I.E. CART took rules that had basic boundaries and guidelines, and turned it into a spec. formula by elimination, till they eliminated Automotive builders interest.
George did the same thing only on a quicker scale and by killing the rules he created.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So Bob, when Mercedes, Honda and Cosworth were going at it with Ilmor in CART in the early 90's, the mismanagement of the series had NOTHING to do with those automakers leaving? It had little do with engine rules.....it had everything to do with the mess the whole OW world was going through in terms of two series fighting over a smaller and smaller group of race fans and destorying their TV product. I am sure THAT had a hell of a lot more to do with the loss of manufacturer interest than whether you could run 40 inches of boost or 43....

[call_me_andrew]

the reality of diesels is simple. Until recently, the diesel in the US had too much sulphur and it would mean not many cars would pass emissions. Our emissions on this continent are tougher, and the higher sulphur numbers just meant all but a few cars could burn it clean enough. Now that the oil companies have started putting out enough low sulphur diesel at a good price, that diesels now make more sense, and they will come. That said, the VW Rabbit in the late 70's with 45 hp wasn't going to make any American ditch the gas version, much less his more powerful v8's.

I think you underscore the damage done by GM's 4.3L and 5.7L diesel engines in the 1980's.


Another engine formula idea that I want to see - NO MORE PUSH TO PASS BUTTON!!!!

Give them NOS! 1 bottle of NOS per race weekend, to be used at will.

How old are you? It looks to me like most of what you know of engines comes from bad movies.

As to the push to pass button, multiple engine manufacturers will remove the need for push to pass as a TV gimic, but the new engine manufacturers will probably want their own versions of it so drivers can access extra power if they need it during a race. No one mentions that F1 cars have overtake buttons because that information isn't included in TV telemetry.

I don't think 4 cylinder engines have any real disadvantage over 6 cylinder engines. As long as displacement is equal top power output will be the same. I think the 4 bangers could have an advantage on ovals from having a lower rotating mass, but 6 cylinder engines would be better for road courses (especially if it rains) because of a smoother torque curve.

[naracingfan]

I don't think 4 cylinder engines have any real disadvantage over 6 cylinder engines. As long as displacement is equal top power output will be the same. I think the 4 bangers could have an advantage on ovals from having a lower rotating mass, but 6 cylinder engines would be better for road courses (especially if it rains) because of a smoother torque curve.

I've been told that 4 cylinders have more reciprocating mass compared to V6s, hence less power for a given displacement.

[px400r]

You had best do some in depth reading into the history of Indianapolis and the sanctions that ran there, Especially the rules.

CART died by destroying what inherited from the USAC. They chopped, sliced and eliminated till blownd Ford were all that was left.

I.E. CART took rules that had basic boundaries and guidelines, and turned it into a spec. formula by elimination, till they eliminated Automotive builders interest.
George did the same thing only on a quicker scale and by killing the rules he created.

Well Bob, in that case I agree that George was more successful than CART in killing a series. Much more efficient...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I've been told that 4 cylinders have more reciprocating mass compared to V6s, hence less power for a given displacement.

Well BMW built a 1500 cc turbo inline 4 that was putting 1100 hp out for qualfying in the f1 Turbo era . So again, tell me how bad a 4 is? IN this same Era, Renault have their v6 Turbo, and they didn't see 1100 hp but they were up there....

the configuration comes back to packaging, and marketing. If the car is big enough and open enough to either engine, and aero between the wheels is restricted, there is ample room for a manufacturer to try to make either config work.

[Bob Riebe]

So Bob, when Mercedes, Honda and Cosworth were going at it with Ilmor in CART in the early 90's, the mismanagement of the series had NOTHING to do with those automakers leaving? It had little do with engine rules.....it had everything to do with the mess the whole OW world was going through in terms of two series fighting over a smaller and smaller group of race fans and destorying their TV product. I am sure THAT had a hell of a lot more to do with the loss of manufacturer interest than whether you could run 40 inches of boost or 43....
Umm, engine, chassis, tire rules are made by sanctions management last time I checked.

If you remember correctly, there were often reports over the years of "possible" or actual meetings to discuss a formula rules.

Neither side ever was serious so Detroit said bye-bye.

Engines are Detroit's involvement in Indy car racing, they will not jump through hoops because sanctions think they should.
CART and the IRL found that out the hard way. (The IMSA should have paid attention, they have found out now also.)

[Bob Riebe]

Well Bob, in that case I agree that George was more successful than CART in killing a series. Much more efficient...

To the point he crapped on his own dream, yes.

Non-CART II IRL last less than ten years, so You are pretty much correct.

[Bob Riebe]

soLuTIOn:
Unlimited displacement; F-heads only; using isopropyl alcohol with Stromberg carbs.
It will take at least five years before they get too fast.

[Jag_Warrior]

So Bob, when Mercedes, Honda and Cosworth were going at it with Ilmor in CART in the early 90's, the mismanagement of the series had NOTHING to do with those automakers leaving? It had little do with engine rules.....it had everything to do with the mess the whole OW world was going through in terms of two series fighting over a smaller and smaller group of race fans and destorying their TV product. I am sure THAT had a hell of a lot more to do with the loss of manufacturer interest than whether you could run 40 inches of boost or 43....

Underscored for emphasis! :up:

When one notices that the same manufacturers that have left AOWR (throw in Dodge as Daimler Benz) are now racing in NASCAR, with carbureted pushrod V8's (that have not a damn thing to do with the current OEM market), it's pretty clear that the management and marketing failures in AOWR had more to do with them leaving than whether or not the cars ran turbos vs. N.A., V8's vs. V6's vs I-4's.

[Marbles]

Re: Mark's comment on BMW's monstrous horsepower.

There's a reason why F1 dropped the mixed formula. I'll never forget Canadian driver Allen Berg commenting on his drive in F1 with back-marker Osella: "We were down 400 horse power to the BMW!" That's 400, not 40!

Would this happen in the new IRL set-up. I'm afraid not not. The new "come one, come all" formula will certainly be accompanied by a wink and a nod that will ensure nobody gets embarrassed.

That's my issue this formula.

[Jag_Warrior]

I just saw the details (or lack thereof) of the new engine formula on Versus. Other than Honda, who is still at the table? Unless one of those that crossed it off the list last year comes back (or someone new shows up), aren't we still just looking at Honda?

VW seemed the best bet, but they didn't seem to leave any doubt about where they stood once they left the table. So Honda and...??? Any ideas or rumors?

[Bob Riebe]

Underscored for emphasis! :up:

When one notices that the same manufacturers that have left AOWR (throw in Dodge as Daimler Benz) are now racing in NASCAR, with carbureted pushrod V8's (that have not a damn thing to do with the current OEM market), it's pretty clear that the management and marketing failures in AOWR had more to do with them leaving than whether or not the cars ran turbos vs. N.A., V8's vs. V6's vs I-4's.

No it does not, by your analogy why did Dodge, Ford (Saleen) and Ferrari walf away from the IMSA GT1 ?

Many, many, especially gear-head fans, find the engines under a NASCAR stocker closely related to how good the company making street cars is.
Ford did not abandone it genuine production based V-8 till this year.
If it did not sell cars why did Toyota, have its U.S. racing branch, build a new engine.
The France boy told Detroit it was going to go to a generic engine, along with its generic car; Detroit, told France-- fine, you will do it without us.

France blinked.
If organization cluster f---s cause such a failure, CART would have died the day it had to take USAC to court to get into Indy.
If they found Indy so unimportant, why did they bother?

George has poorly managed his IRL since day one, yet it still exists.
OH by the way, engine and chassis rules are priority one, for a racing sanction. No cars, no races, so yes in that manner management and marketing failure with the basic rules was/is the major failure.

Track owner do not give a sh-- about TV rating, unless they get fans in the stands, they will not bother with any sanction. CCW or what ever it is called found the out when the kicked the Indy cars out, and only let them back in on probation If ENOUGH fans showed up.

[naracingfan]

I just saw the details (or lack thereof) of the new engine formula on Versus. Other than Honda, who is still at the table? Unless one of those that crossed it off the list last year comes back (or someone new shows up), aren't we still just looking at Honda?

VW seemed the best bet, but they didn't seem to leave any doubt about where they stood once they left the table. So Honda and...??? Any ideas or rumors?

I've heard Lotus being interested earlier this year. Heck, they're sponsoring a car with a Honda engine lol. :D Must be interested in doing something.

[anthonyvop]

No it does not, by your analogy why did Dodge, Ford (Saleen) and Ferrari walf away from the IMSA GT1 ?



Dodge left because they won everything and their business plan had run it's course.

Saleen just plain ran out of money.

Ferrari was stopping production of the 575 and the replacement wasn't a good replacement under the rules. Ferrari was never "Officially" in the series but providing assistance to certain teams.

[Jag_Warrior]

No it does not, by your analogy why did Dodge, Ford (Saleen) and Ferrari walf away from the IMSA GT1 ?

Lack of ROI, I would say. What did it cost the manufacturers to run vs. the return?




Many, many, especially gear-head fans, find the engines under a NASCAR stocker closely related to how good the company making street cars is.
Ford did not abandone it genuine production based V-8 till this year.

Gearheads tend to be fanbois to certain marques (nothing wrong with that, hell, look at my screen name!). Jimmie Johnson winning in his Chevy might make me cheer if I was a Chevy guy. But that has little to do with how, or how good my Chevy pickup truck might be engineered and built. The first Jaguar I bought was built in the year that Jag won an epic battle at Le Mans. I bought that model year primarily for that reason. I'm a fanboi for Jags. But I was not, and am not under any illusion that the ontrack success had anything to do with how good or bad my car was. I do give props to Honda for successfully rotating engineers through the racing programs, so as to better train them in areas of problem solving, while under severe time constraints. I'm told that it was like a Six Sigma course on steroids. But outside of that... meh :dozey:

Especially these days (in the U.S.), the manufacturers want to win, or at least place well... and have the best/most well known drivers/teams that they can get in their cars. For the most part, it is a marketing exercise. The more eyeballs your series can attract, the more likely it is that they'll devote resources to your series. Lose the eyeballs and, well... why would they spend the same or more to get less exposure?




If it did not sell cars why did Toyota, have its U.S. racing branch, build a new engine.

Let's not pretend that Toyota's main goal in getting into NASCAR was NOT primarily based on a marketing exercise. And yes, it has worked quite well. If it stops working, don't expect them to keep hanging around though. And if they leave, I don't think that's going to mean that Camrys and Tundras will suddenly start coming to a halt (or not stopping :D ) along the road.



George has poorly managed his IRL since day one, yet it still exists.

So does AIG. Shovel enough money at any business and it can continue to exist - if that's all the goal is (basic existence). Has the IRL ever turned the first dime of profit? Well, OK then. At least AIG did have its good years before sinking the ship.



OH by the way, engine and chassis rules are priority one, for a racing sanction. No cars, no races, so yes in that manner management and marketing failure with the basic rules was/is the major failure.

Yes, no cars = no races. And no sponsors = no teams, no teams = no races. I don't feel like going in circles here. Regarding my quoted post, it's not a completely either/or proposition. The point being, screw up enough of the major input variables that go into running a racing series (or any other business for that matter) and you are necessarily screwed. That is just a simple fact of business.

[Jag_Warrior]

I've heard Lotus being interested earlier this year. Heck, they're sponsoring a car with a Honda engine lol. :D Must be interested in doing something.

And the (faux) Team Lotus in F1 is powered by a Cosworth (owned by Kalkhoven). Interestingly enough, this "Lotus" in the IRL is prepped by Kalkhoven's KV team. ;)

I've read that Cosworth may be in line to help Lotus (the car company) develop some new engines (Toyota based?) for their road cars. But the various Lotus racing teams have a strange sort of connection to the car company. In any case, they're not really one and the same.

But with that said, now that I think about it... I wouldn't be surprised to see Kalkhoven/Cosworth develop an IRL engine under these rules and try to get Lotus (Hyundai, Pep Boys, etc.) or somebody to badge them. So you may be onto something! :up:

[Bob Riebe]

Dodge left because they won everything and their business plan had run it's course.

Saleen just plain ran out of money.

Ferrari was stopping production of the 575 and the replacement wasn't a good replacement under the rules. Ferrari was never "Officially" in the series but providing assistance to certain teams.

Yet the Dodge continued to race and win, in Europe.
Dodge built the Viper Comp. coupe for the SCCA series, but did not attempt to re-enter the ALMS; whilst having it made legal for GT3 in Europe.

The winning Saleens, suffered a performance penalty after its last win.
The most competitive team quit and continued to race and win in Europe.
The one/s that remained became also rans.

The Ferrari that came within a hairs-breadth of beating the factory Chevy team was the 550. The main cars were the privateer cars from Prodrive.

The factory 575 came about because it embarrassed the factory that a privateer team could take their car and win without their help.
Ferraris, made early token attempts in 2004, and then left, but continued to race and win in Europe.

After Ferrari almost beat Chevy in 2003. Chevy did not lose again, not that they had much real competition, till Aston Martin bitched until Chevy received a performance penalty.

Hmm, after 2003, all continued to race and win in Europe, yet in the U.S. it was Chevy racing against itself, and privateers who could finish higher than third only if one of the team Corvettes did not finish.
After 2003, Chevy did not loose another race till Aston Martin bitched so loudly that the rules were changed till, the Corvette was an also ran, so Chevy bitched till the Aston Martin was penalized enough to let the Chevy win.
So Aston Martin, quit and left.
The only privateer that tried a Corvette in the U.S., was told they would get factory assistance,(but no factory only cylinder heads) but were barely an also ran; after which they got rid of the Corvette.

Your reasons do not hold up.

Sounds more like they got tired of the continual sanctioning body screwing with the rules, deciding who would win, (remember they could and did adjust the rules as they felt to slow a car down, or speed another up) in the U.S. and finally said to hell with it.

As an aside, this very rule dickering is the only thing that made the prototype class not a boring runaway, when they changed the rules so the p2 Porsche could equal and beat, the P1 Audi.
Of course Audi bitched loudly about the unfair rule dickering.

[Lousada]

I just saw the details (or lack thereof) of the new engine formula on Versus. Other than Honda, who is still at the table? Unless one of those that crossed it off the list last year comes back (or someone new shows up), aren't we still just looking at Honda?

VW seemed the best bet, but they didn't seem to leave any doubt about where they stood once they left the table. So Honda and...??? Any ideas or rumors?

It looks obvious that Honda is the only one with a commitment. They were the ones who pushed for V6 2.4L. It seems that the world engine will be the I4 so they tried to include it with these rules. So before the worldengine is announced I don't expect any commitments from any other manufacturers than Honda and Cosworth.

[Mr-914]

1. I wish the reg writers had 1/2 the intelligence shown in the majority of these posts!

2. I like the new regs. It invites a lot of new marketing. Ford could run Ecoboost turbo V6s, Chevy turbo 4s (Buick Regal, Cobalt SS), Subbie flat 4s, Porsche flat 6, etc, etc.

I think one thing that IRL has learned is that it saves a little money doing specs, but loses the money on marketing. When you have three makes competing, they all run commercials bragging and also selling the series (as in NASCAR). When you have one spec engine, why should they bother advertising?

As for "performance balancing", look at the ALMS as a good example. Has anyone watched the races this year? Laguna Seca was a 6 hour sprint race in the GT2 category between 4 makes. Even the prototypes were running close. I think they are doing a great job making sure everyone has a chance at winning. BTW, they use air restrictors to limit HP, but no rev limits. Hence, the Corvette revs to 7k and the Ferrari to 10k+

As an aside, the 1100hp BMW F1 engine was only reliable for a few qualifying laps and ran on exotic custom fuel. It is from a completely different era.

Another aside: Interesting about Khalkoven and Lotus. However, note that the street cars Lotus does not own the Lotus F1 rights. Also, Lotus street cars use Toyota engines, but are owned by Malaysian car maker Proton. Very confusing family tree.

[Mr-914]

One more thing: get rid of push to pass. I haven't seen a pass that was made because of it and the annoying announcers just keep talking about it because the racing is so bad. Let's just leave the passing to the drivers!

[V12]

One more thing: get rid of push to pass. I haven't seen a pass that was made because of it and the annoying announcers just keep talking about it because the racing is so bad. Let's just leave the passing to the drivers!

I agree, push-to-pass is to overtaking what prostitution is to sex. If you can't do it on merit you might as well not do it at all.

[Jag_Warrior]

In addition to Honda... Ford, Renault and Audi, says Robin Miller. :confused:

[Marbles]

In addition to Honda... Ford, Renault and Audi, says Robin Miller. :confused:

I'd love to see Ford badge a Cosworth again because then all would be right with the world... my world, anyways.

[Bob Riebe]

As for "performance balancing", look at the ALMS as a good example. Has anyone watched the races this year? Laguna Seca was a 6 hour sprint race in the GT2 category between 4 makes. Even the prototypes were running close. I think they are doing a great job making sure everyone has a chance at winning. BTW, they use air restrictors to limit HP, but no rev limits. Hence, the Corvette revs to 7k and the Ferrari to 10k+

Contrived competition is contrived competition.
They had to skew the rules so a P2 could run with a P1, or it would have been a freight-train parade a short time ago.

When that was killed Porsche said, bye-bye.

GT2, well if cars that make less horse-power than some of the street versions is exciting, I would say some people are easily entertained.

[Bob Riebe]

I'd love to see Ford badge a Cosworth again because then all would be right with the world... my world, anyways.
Well Ford money and engineering help, put Cosworth on the map; then Ford owned Cosworth; then Ford sold Cosworth.

I don't think Ford really needs Cosworth anymore.

[theseismicguru]

2.4L V-6 with turbos? Sounds like fun, but name which current road car has just such a powerplant. It seems that if Indycar wanted more manufacturer involvement a non-turbo 3.5 liter V-6, which is closer to something that nearly every auto manufacturer uses in its production cars would have been a better choice. These engines limited by fuel rate, air flow to cap horsepower, and rev limited would be more commercially viable to manufacturers.

[NickFalzone]

IMO a good Indy racing engine should be one that automobile manufacturers one day COULD use, not currently DO use. A 2 liter V6 turbo is something that in 5-10 years could be a popular engine design. IndyCar does not need to be promoting current-car technology, that's what NASCAR is for (or at least what it WAS for).

[Chamoo]

IMO a good Indy racing engine should be one that automobile manufacturers one day COULD use, not currently DO use. A 2 liter V6 turbo is something that in 5-10 years could be a popular engine design. IndyCar does not need to be promoting current-car technology, that's what NASCAR is for (or at least what it WAS for).

Nascar promotes more old technology then anything. Their technology compares to what was run 15 years ago on street going cars. They are looking at switching that up though in the near future, and getting closer to the present in terms of technology.

[Bob Riebe]

IMO a good Indy racing engine should be one that automobile manufacturers one day COULD use, not currently DO use. A 2 liter V6 turbo is something that in 5-10 years could be a popular engine design. IndyCar does not need to be promoting current-car technology, that's what NASCAR is for (or at least what it WAS for).
An exhaust driven blower on any car, it not a good choice unless one has no other choice.
Heat destroys, turbos are hot.
It is not if a turbo goes out but when, and is the resale value of the car lower than the repair bill.
Blowers are old tech; OHC engines are an older design than push-rods; anyone who writes about supposed "old" tech had best read-up first on the history of automobile mechanics.
It is not old verses-new, it is Return on Investment, Margin of profit after tooing and building, Cost to operate; real world street driving horse-power and torque figures verses, dream car/car show bs.

In a country the size of the U.S. strung out six-bangers and especially four-poppers are fine only if every one drives econo-boxes and never has to carry anything bigger than a lap-top.

[call_me_andrew]

Nascar promotes more old technology then anything. Their technology compares to what was run 15 years ago on street going cars. They are looking at switching that up though in the near future, and getting closer to the present in terms of technology.

15 years ago? It's 2010, who was selling selling carbureted engines in 1995?

[Redstorm]

The engine spec needs to stay as open as possible. Let them run 4s 6s 8s 12s whatever they want. Put a maximum displacement on them and let's see who comes out to play. Don't use a rev limiter, if Mazda wants a 10,000 rpm rotary then let them. Chevy a 6,500 v-8 fine by me. The ALMS has it right with the air restrictors as I see it. But as someone else pointed out, the race motor needs more hp than the street version. The manufacturers need to be able to use their own DNA in the product. The F1 engine equality farce proves that where there is a will there is a way. By using a "frozen" rule all you get is someone building in the cracks of the rules. With a clearcut outline ( air restrictors) the development is allowed and encouraged. Only then it can be put towards "street car technology". If a turbo 4 can make 700 hp but use say 10 gallons less over a race, it has a weight advantage over the NA V-8. The rules work to keep it from a hp race towards more of a consumtion race. Racing is sport and I'm not a tree hugged greenie but the PR for corporations is all abou that. So set the rules to where it's more sponsor friendly if it doesn't hurt the end product.

Oh and hi everyone!

[Mr-914]

The only way to allow equal or greater hp in the race version is to increase weight. Imagine: Street ZR1 has 640hp in a 3300 lb car. GT2 min. weight is 2500 lbs! That would be a dangerously fast GT car and also destroy competition.

So, we're left with a choice of balancing through power or weight. I think the engine is just easier to do. A restrictor size can be changed in between races...there is almost nothing to it. Weight would be more difficult since the engineers would want to place the weight in the most strategic location, requiring significant redesign.

Is it compromise? Sure...but one I'll live with.

[Redstorm]

I'm only talking of using an ALMS-like equality system in Indycar. The "race motor needs more hp than street motor" was to say that if Ford runs a turbo 4, the Indycar version needs 700+hp wiu the street version 300 or so. Wasn't meaning a GT car, that would be nuts.........hey, a new CAN-AM series! You are a genius! Lol

[Bob Riebe]

The engine spec needs to stay as open as possible. Let them run 4s 6s 8s 12s whatever they want. Put a maximum displacement on them and let's see who comes out to play. Don't use a rev limiter, if Mazda wants a 10,000 rpm rotary then let them. Chevy a 6,500 v-8 fine by me. The ALMS has it right with the air restrictors as I see it. But as someone else pointed out, the race motor needs more hp than the street version. The manufacturers need to be able to use their own DNA in the product. The F1 engine equality farce proves that where there is a will there is a way. By using a "frozen" rule all you get is someone building in the cracks of the rules. With a clearcut outline ( air restrictors) the development is allowed and encouraged. Only then it can be put towards "street car technology". If a turbo 4 can make 700 hp but use say 10 gallons less over a race, it has a weight advantage over the NA V-8. The rules work to keep it from a hp race towards more of a consumtion race. Racing is sport and I'm not a tree hugged greenie but the PR for corporations is all abou that. So set the rules to where it's more sponsor friendly if it doesn't hurt the end product.

Oh and hi everyone!

Intake restrictors are rev. limiters.
An engine can only reach X rpm if it has a good enough fuel mixture.
When the mixture get too thin due to being strangled by a restrictor, the engine can rev no higher.
Minus restrictors, small-block push-rod V-8s can now easily get into the 10,000 rpm range.
Even very large big-blocks live easily now in the 9,000 range.

Special small port cylinder heads are the best way to cheat the effect of restrictors within the revolution range possible.
Just like the Chevy IMSA cylinder heads, they are worthless on the street as they are horribly inefficient needlessly strangling the street engine.

[Redstorm]

In effect air restrictors are rev limiters. But they are according to the limitations of the design of efficiency of a given motor. It is not some arbitrary number that the powers that be come up with. Even though the V-8 and the turbo 4 will be restricted to have very similar outputs, the way in which each engine ultimately gets to that power leads to differing power bands ect. Take the F1 saga for instance. Since all motors are of the same layout and displacement, the actual characteristics of the different manufacturers in powerband is quite similar overall. Yes, one is better at -A- vs -B-, but those differences are minute compared to how a 4 vs 8 or 6 vs 12 would look. That difference is where opportunity arises to overtake. With all engines basically the same they all hit the sweetspot together , hence not a big enough advantage to overcome aero ect....

[Jag_Warrior]

IMO, they better pick whichever formula that will attract the most manufacturers. You might (big "might") find a formula that everyone here could agree on. But if Honda is the only one willing to build it, the IRL will be in the same spot in 3 years as they're in now. I'd say there are VERY few people who've decided to turn the Indy 500 off because they're running this type of engine, rather than some other type of engine.

Unless enough higher profile sponsors/manufacturers take this on, and activate that sponsorship, they could run the most exotic engines on the planet and still no one would know it. What does the market want? OK, just deliver that! Simple, right? :p

[Bob Riebe]

Unless enough higher profile sponsors/manufacturers take this on, and activate that sponsorship, they could run the most exotic engines on the planet and still no one would know it. What does the market want? OK, just deliver that! Simple, right? :p
But the print magazines that cover such tech. articles would, just a they did in the sixties to nineties.
That gets peoples attention, across the oceans.

[anthonyvop]

But the print magazines that cover such tech. articles would, just a they did in the sixties to nineties.
That gets peoples attention, across the oceans.

Print magazines? You said it. The 90's! Because to rely on print today is ridiculous.

Name me one Automotive print magazine that is increasing in circulation! Name me one that is even maintaining it's circulation at the key demo!

I only still get a few Automotive magazines and I get those because they are free.

[Lousada]

Print magazines? You said it. The 90's! Because to rely on print today is ridiculous.

Name me one Automotive print magazine that is increasing in circulation! Name me one that is even maintaining it's circulation at the key demo!

I only still get a few Automotive magazines and I get those because they are free.

Racecar Engineering (http://www.racecar-engineering.com/). Although it is not exactly aimed at ordinary consumers.

[Bob Riebe]

Print magazines? You said it. The 90's! Because to rely on print today is ridiculous.

Name me one Automotive print magazine that is increasing in circulation! Name me one that is even maintaining it's circulation at the key demo!

I only still get a few Automotive magazines and I get those because they are free.
That is you.

Hot Rod; Popular Hot Rodding; Car Craft; Autosport; Autoweek; Motorsport amongst others all had articles on the power plants of Indy cars in the past fifteen years.
All of these magazines are quite well.

There are others but if you do not read, you are simply not one of the people the tens of millions of dollars spent on advertising in thses magazines care about.

[Marbles]

With all engines basically the same they all hit the sweetspot together , hence not a big enough advantage to overcome aero ect....

Don't forget, since they seem to intend to have different H.P. outputs for road and ovals, then that's one mighty fine balancing act the series would have to pull off to keep everybody happy. Slide rules don't lie? Throw in electrical assist and you have the equivalent of juggling a bowling ball, a peanut, a kumquat and two raw eggs.

Green issues are hot! If they want Jack-a-root to awe people with his 60" LCD monitor in the pits then it needs to be something that is currently relevant. Turbos vs. big displacement vs. cylinder count is old. Some electric boost or assist systems and the difference of the systems and how effective they are would be pointer worthy.

Everybody on the planet makes a 1.8 to 2.5 litre 4 cylinder engine, or close to it, let's go with that and Krazy glue a turbo on it.

"Yes, ladies and gentleman, that Indy 500 winning engine is the same engine that powers your Ford Fusion to work every day!"

Kind of...

[call_me_andrew]

An electric boost you say? Go on the F1 forum and ask them about KERS. Everyone there loves to talk about KERS.

[Chris R]

That is you.

Hot Rod; Popular Hot Rodding; Car Craft; Autosport; Autoweek; Motorsport amongst others all had articles on the power plants of Indy cars in the past fifteen years.
All of these magazines are quite well.

There are others but if you do not read, you are simply not one of the people the tens of millions of dollars spent on advertising in thses magazines care about.

I think "quite well" is a huge overstatement.... Motorsport is an awesome magazine but it barely survived the Haymarket era... I suspect when Bill Boddy moves to the great typewriter in the sky the mag will have serious problems within 2-3 years.... Autoweek still does a decent job but it is now Auto-bi-week and they freely have mentioned several times how tough the print business is now....

Print media was suffering before the bad economy due to the internet. The economy has made it worse (I dropped Autoweek after 26 years and will not likely renew Motorsport (for $80+ per year!!) mostly due to economic concerns combined with loss of relevance for the product....

I have also noted that the trust factor of print media over internet media has faded dramatically - autoweek used to be a far more reliable source of info than the internet - now it is about the same and significantly slower.... Pretty much now you can cruise multiple sites for info and cross reference it with a known entity like Autosport and you can get pretty close to the "truth"...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just know this will be a football we will kick around forever.

How well the engine formula is received will depend on the number of manufacturers who jump in, and how competitive and exciting the show is, and THAT is going to be balanced by a new chassis at some point...

[Bob Riebe]

I just know this will be a football we will kick around forever.

How well the engine formula is received will depend on the number of manufacturers who jump in, and how competitive and exciting the show is, and THAT is going to be balanced by a new chassis at some point...
One big question Mark, is why would any manufacturer spend money for the proposed formula?
The general populace is not as mechanically smart as it once was, but neither is it as obtuse as some with a superiority want to paint the stock-car crowd as.

Now yes there are near totally ignorant effete snob, road racing fans, and more money than brains NASCAR wannabes, but they are not the majority.

[Bob Riebe]

I think "quite well" is a huge overstatement.... Motorsport is an awesome magazine but it barely survived the Haymarket era... I suspect when Bill Boddy moves to the great typewriter in the sky the mag will have serious problems within 2-3 years.... Autoweek still does a decent job but it is now Auto-bi-week and they freely have mentioned several times how tough the print business is now....

Print media was suffering before the bad economy due to the internet. The economy has made it worse (I dropped Autoweek after 26 years and will not likely renew Motorsport (for $80+ per year!!) mostly due to economic concerns combined with loss of relevance for the product....

I have also noted that the trust factor of print media over internet media has faded dramatically - autoweek used to be a far more reliable source of info than the internet - now it is about the same and significantly slower.... Pretty much now you can cruise multiple sites for info and cross reference it with a known entity like Autosport and you can get pretty close to the "truth"...

I agree and thought I had deleted "quite" but apparently did not send the correction.
At the same time, gear-head magazine may not be the bibles they once were, but they draw a crowd that at one time did cross genres concerning racing.
Drag racing is doing very well, and sprint car/short track is getting bigger once again.
In my "yout" I could speak of racing, especially Indy, with gents whose main interest was one of the two above, they are the, paying customers, who have abandoned both Indy car and road racing because both have become contrived competition events.
Create a formula that makes the editors of these magazines interested (I cannot remember which, but one of the hot rod type magazines, had an article about a gent who put a ex-Indy car engine in a hot-rod) and you will put curiosity back into some fans minds that gave it up years ago.

Four-bangs and six-poppers are not the way to do it.
Some of the gear-head magazines try to slip in a car with one of the two, because it is tech. interesting oddity, and usually end up answering letters saying "get that crap out of my magazine". At the same time their readers support a multi-billion dollar after-market engine component industry.

[anthonyvop]

That is you.

Hot Rod; Popular Hot Rodding; Car Craft; Autosport; Autoweek; Motorsport amongst others all had articles on the power plants of Indy cars in the past fifteen years.
All of these magazines are quite well.

There are others but if you do not read, you are simply not one of the people the tens of millions of dollars spent on advertising in thses magazines care about.

Quite well. Everyone you listed have seen drops in circulation. The only one doing well are Autosport and motorsport due to their on-line presence. I have accounts with both.

Add revenues in automotive magazines have dropped significantly. Rates have also dropped as they scramble to save their mags. A full page add in Road & track costs less today than it did 10 years ago.

And no, I don't read popular hot rodding or Car craft. I already know how to rebuild a Holley 4 barrel.

I do read Racecar engineering, Race Tech, Autosport, Motorsport, and various racing trade magazines.

[Bob Riebe]

And no, I don't read popular hot rodding or Car craft. I already know how to rebuild a Holley 4 barrel.


See the post-- right above this one -- about the "quite".

If that is what you think the hot rod type magazines dwell on, you have not read either in a long, long, long, long time.

[anthonyvop]

See the post-- right above this one -- about the "quite".

If that is what you think the hot rod type magazines dwell on, you have not read either in a long, long, long, long time.


http://www.popularhotrodding.com/index.html

You have to look really hard to find a single car made in the last 20 years on their home page.

http://www.carcraft.com/index.html

Ditto.

Look at their project cars.
http://www.carcraft.com/project_cars/index.html

The newest one is a 1991 Pontiac Firebird!

Old style cars and those who still either drive them or wish to own them is their market.
Not the demo Indy Car wants or needs to proceed into the future!

[anthonyvop]

Now yes there are near totally ignorant effete snob, road racing fans, and more money than brains NASCAR wannabes, but they are not the majority.

Aside from the product Indy also has to deal with the above old-time fan base who actually think that way.

So I am a "totally ignorant effete snob"?

Ignorant? This from a guy who thinks Car Craft magazine is relevant to the future of Indy Car?

Effete? I really doubt you would say that to my face if you met me.

Snob? OK, maybe I am but for good reason!!!!

One thing I do know. I would trade 3 old time Indy500 fans (The ones who think that Indy is still the most important race in the world, Think Jim Nabors singing is major attraction for new fans...ect) for 1 totally ignorant effete snobbish typical road racing fan.

[veeten]

I'm sorry, Bob, but this is why I felt that USAC 'missed the boat' and should've bought up the rights to Formula 5000 when SCCA let it die to recreate Can Am.

With the rules as they stood, it would've been the best chance to utilize a small block 'stock block' engine formula, and still have the ability to out-CART CART before it even had a chance.

That's USAC's fault for not working towards the future and being a slave to the past, and it's cost them dearly.

[Bob Riebe]

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/index.html

You have to look really hard to find a single car made in the last 20 years on their home page.

http://www.carcraft.com/index.html

Ditto.

Look at their project cars.
http://www.carcraft.com/project_cars/index.html

The newest one is a 1991 Pontiac Firebird!

Old style cars and those who still either drive them or wish to own them is their market.
Not the demo Indy Car wants or needs to proceed into the future!
If that is what you wish to think, fine. c

Sonny Leonard and Jon Kasse, who have been written about in these magazines have both created and produced, in the last five years, new generation engines for Chevy and Ford respectively.
Kasse has been a multi-winner of the Popular Hot Rodding engine masters series.

You have your opinion of them and I have mine.

[Bob Riebe]

Aside from the product Indy also has to deal with the above old-time fan base who actually think that way.

So I am a "totally ignorant effete snob"?

Ignorant? This from a guy who thinks Car Craft magazine is relevant to the future of Indy Car?

Effete? I really doubt you would say that to my face if you met me.

Snob? OK, maybe I am but for good reason!!!!

One thing I do know. I would trade 3 old time Indy500 fans (The ones who think that Indy is still the most important race in the world, Think Jim Nabors singing is major attraction for new fans...ect) for 1 totally ignorant effete snobbish typical road racing fan.
Show me where I said that about you, please.

If you think that was about you, you are both a bit paranoid and self-centered.
But you are welcome to your opinions.

[Bob Riebe]

I'm sorry, Bob, but this is why I felt that USAC 'missed the boat' and should've bought up the rights to Formula 5000 when SCCA let it die to recreate Can Am.

With the rules as they stood, it would've been the best chance to utilize a small block 'stock block' engine formula, and still have the ability to out-CART CART before it even had a chance.

That's USAC's fault for not working towards the future and being a slave to the past, and it's cost them dearly.
I regret that to a strong point I agree, but it was the SCCA who running the cluster-f. at that point in time with
Formula A and the pathetic new Can-Am.
As if putting on fenders and changing the name was going make things better.
Only the fact that Porsche walked from the IMSA, saved the Trans-Am, at that point in time.
Remember USAC did bring back road-racing in 1977, including in the U.K., but sadly the BOD who instituted that, died the next year.
At the same time, it was USAC, and later CART, who both refused to give the stock-block the extra thirty-five inches Gurney said they needed to be competitive with the blown engines.

Of course had USAC banned the blowers, kept the 355 inch stock-blocks, and dropped the DOHC racing engine size from 256 down to 183 or three liters as the F-1 cars were using, THAT, could have been very interesting.

[anthonyvop]

Show me where I said that about you, please.

If you think that was about you, you are both a bit paranoid and self-centered.
But you are welcome to your opinions.


I am a road racing fan....so.......?????

[Bob Riebe]

I am a road racing fan....so.......?????
Road racing was always my favorite type of motorsports.
I used to attend from four to six races every year, but that does not mean if one likes road racing one is an effete snob; or if one likes stock cars, one is a red-neck Earnhadrt wannabe; or if one likes sprint cars, one is a red-neck Kinser wannabe; etc.

At least in the real world.

[Jag_Warrior]

If Miller (and that's a big IF!) is at all correct, that Ford, Renault (Nissan?) and Audi have some interest in this engine formula proposal, I don't think their decisions will have much to do with what the editors of "gearhead" magazines think. It's more likely that the BoD's at these companies will review the costs of R&D for various engine configurations, the stability of the rules, the health of the series in question and then weigh the risks against the ROI they can potentially get by participating with a given engine in a given series. Unlike 10-15 years ago, no CEO or BoD is willing to spend gobs of money just to look cool and impress their fellow golf buddies these days.

It mainly comes down to what appeals to 18-34 year olds. Whether it's V8 muscle cars, tuner imports or whatever... that's the demographic that speaks the loudest.

[anthonyvop]

It mainly comes down to what appeals to 18-34 year olds. Whether it's V8 muscle cars, tuner imports or whatever... that's the demographic that speaks the loudest.

Actually it is 15-34 year olds. The kind who wouldn't even give a 2nd look at his grandfather's copy of Popular Hotrodding.

[Jag_Warrior]

Actually it is 15-34 year olds. The kind who wouldn't even give a 2nd look at his grandfather's copy of Popular Hotrodding.

I'd say there are very few in that demographic who have any real awareness of Popular Hotrodding, Hot Rod or Car Craft (which I didn't know was still in existence - even though I subscribed to it as a kid). But my impression is that most of the people in that younger demographic subscribe to tuner magazines... if they subscribe to mags at all.

[Bob Riebe]

Actually it is 15-34 year olds. The kind who wouldn't even give a 2nd look at his grandfather's copy of Popular Hotrodding.
Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance:
http://pixel.quantserve.com/r;r=20507;a=p-9fYuixa7g_Hm2;labels=click.id.trafficChartEmbedded Link*http://www.quantcast.com/hotrod.com

http://pixel.quantserve.com/r;r=7291;a=p-9fYuixa7g_Hm2;labels=click.id.trafficChartEmbedded Link*http://www.quantcast.com/popularhotrodding.com

http://pixel.quantserve.com/r;r=82535;a=p-9fYuixa7g_Hm2;labels=click.id.trafficChartEmbedded Link*http://www.quantcast.com/carcraft.com

Buy you are exceptional at both.

[Bob Riebe]

I'd say there are very few in that demographic who have any real awareness of Popular Hotrodding, Hot Rod or Car Craft (which I didn't know was still in existence - even though I subscribed to it as a kid). But my impression is that most of the people in that younger demographic subscribe to tuner magazines... if they subscribe to mags at all.
You have to get out more.

Tuner cars are a West Coast thing at best.

Here are some , as of 2009, paid subscription numbers, from the Audit Bureau of Circulations that go along with the demographic charts in the above post.

Automobile--571,321

AutoWeek--279,705

Car Craft--227,611

Forbes--920,873

Hot Rod--657,151

Popular Hot Rodding--104,905

Road & Track--719,811

Scientific American--599,840

[nigelred5]

You have to get out more.

Tuner cars are a West Coast thing at best.




Really?? Who needs to get out more.?

[Hoop-98]

And no, I don't read popular hot rodding or Car craft. I already know how to rebuild a Holley 4 barrel.



That gave me a mental image :)

http://aviewfrommybalcony.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/car_fire.jpg

[Bob Riebe]

Really?? Who needs to get out more.?

REALLY!

You do.

Import Tuner--54,000

[anthonyvop]

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance:
http://pixel.quantserve.com/r;r=20507;a=p-9fYuixa7g_Hm2;labels=click.id.trafficChartEmbedded Link*http://www.quantcast.com/hotrod.com

http://pixel.quantserve.com/r;r=7291;a=p-9fYuixa7g_Hm2;labels=click.id.trafficChartEmbedded Link*http://www.quantcast.com/popularhotrodding.com

http://pixel.quantserve.com/r;r=82535;a=p-9fYuixa7g_Hm2;labels=click.id.trafficChartEmbedded Link*http://www.quantcast.com/carcraft.com

Buy you are exceptional at both.

Thanks for the links. After going over them I am even more convinced that those magazines are of no use to the Future of Indy Car.

Over 50% of the readership average No College and Over 34 years of age.

60% have no children.

[anthonyvop]

REALLY!

You do.

Import Tuner--54,000

Well......Duh. That highly desirable market is solidly on-line.
They don't buy archaic forms of media like Magazines.

[Jag_Warrior]

You have to get out more.

Well, I can't disagree with that, Bob. Now that I'm with a company that doesn't hound me 24 hours a day, maybe I can do that. Plus, if someone will step up and meet my price for this timber I've had for sale, early retirement gets that much closer to reality. I'm holding onto that white "Sonny Crocket" Armani in anticipation of being able to "get out" whenever I want to. Maybe soon?


Tuner cars are a West Coast thing at best.

Like most automotive trends, I'd say they're bigger on the West coast, but no, tuner cars are everywhere. Years ago I went to NOPI events in several southern states. I would go to a southern Hot Import Nights, but I'd probably feel out of place. Getting old(er) sucks. :(



Here are some , as of 2009, paid subscription numbers, from the Audit Bureau of Circulations that go along with the demographic charts in the above post.

Automobile--571,321

AutoWeek--279,705

Car Craft--227,611

Forbes--920,873

Hot Rod--657,151

Popular Hot Rodding--104,905

Road & Track--719,811

Scientific American--599,840

I appreciate the above information. But let's get back to what I said: "But my impression is that most of the people in that younger demographic subscribe to tuner magazines... if they subscribe to mags at all." From the links you provided I just looked at the demographic percentages. It appears that roughly 28% of the visitors to Hot Rod.com are 18-34 and 34% for CarCraft.com, while 48% of the visitors to ImportTuner.com are 18-34.

If my impression is wrong, I'm fine with that. But so far, I haven't been shown that it is.

Look Bob, I like cars in general. Hot rods, (some) tuners, exotics and quasi-exotics and luxury GT's. I like pickup trucks too. So I'm not trying to beat down anyone's favorite type of automobile. But it's no secret which demographic most sponsors pay the most attention to. And yeah, it depends on the product (marketing for Viagra and Depends undergarments aren't focused toward 18-34 year olds, for example). But 18-34 year olds, especially those who are not hardcore gearheads, I don't think know or care much about cars from the 60's and 70's. And for that reason, I don't think the OEM's are going to choose an engine platform which would mainly appeal to people over the age of 40.

Personally, I don't care if they go with turbo V8's, turbo 4's & 6's or N.A. V12's. Just so a couple of better known makers step in and market their participation in the series, I'm good with whatever. :)

[Bob Riebe]

I appreciate the above information. But let's get back to what I said: "But my impression is that most of the people in that younger demographic subscribe to tuner magazines... if they subscribe to mags at all." From the links you provided I just looked at the demographic percentages. It appears that roughly 28% of the visitors to Hot Rod.com are 18-34 and 34% for CarCraft.com, while 48% of the visitors to ImportTuner.com are 18-34.

If my impression is wrong, I'm fine with that. But so far, I haven't been shown that it is.


I going to round this off but- fifty percent of 54,000 is 27,000 people age 18-34 paying for a subscription.

Thirty percent of 600,000 paying subscribers 18-35 is 200,000.

Read it as you will but more people of that age bracket are interested in standard mode of high performance vehicles, than are interested in tuner style cars.

Not a big deal to us, either way, but it is to those who are trying to sell a motorsports product to those people.
Who would you rather have reading info on your product, 27,000; or 200,000?

I have read some tuner magazines, and some of the tech. items in there are fascinating.
One gent, who went against the trend in his group by hot rodding, but not drastically a vintage Nissan RWD luxury sedan. Not a big thing except they were never sold here, so it had to be brought over some how .
The more things change, the more things stay the same.

[Bob Riebe]

They don't buy archaic forms of media like Magazines.
Ah, Eki speak, brilliant.

[nigelred5]

S
I going to round this off but- fifty percent of 54,000 is 27,000 people age 18-34 paying for a subscription.

Thirty percent of 600,000 paying subscribers 18-35 is 200,000.

Read it as you will but more people of that age bracket are interested in standard mode of high performance vehicles, than are interested in tuner style cars.

Not a big deal to us, either way, but it is to those who are trying to sell a motorsports product to those people.
Who would you rather have reading info on your product, 27,000; or 200,000?

I have read some tuner magazines, and some of the tech. items in there are fascinating.
One gent, who went against the trend in his group by hot rodding, but not drastically a vintage Nissan RWD luxury sedan. Not a big thing except they were never sold here, so it had to be brought over some how .
The more things change, the more things stay the same.

There's an entire genre of Modding big old Japanese sedans. I still fail to see what magazine circulation has to do with anything in 2010. Lets talk about unique hits to tuner oriented websites if you want to gauge interest in tuner cars. The tuner crowd wouldn't waste $7.00 on a print may when they get far more info for free online.

As far as tuner cars being a west coast thing, the 600 tuner cars that showed up o the last informal get together at my local dragstip would beg to differ. I couldn't go 30 seconds around here without seeing a modded Honda or Mitsubishi or Subaru or even a cobalt
if I tried.

[e2mtt]

Ideally the engine should be a engine with similarities to street cars - not old tech. Beyond that, it doesn't matter as long as manufacturers or builders are willing to get on board.

I don't think the performance market is quite as split up as you may think... it just boils down to what you can afford. The little 4-banger tuners are inexpensive. Mustangs also have a huge youth following, & they have 5 liter V8s. The guys with a little more money are running BMWs & 350zs. The older guys have the Vettes & Porches. Everybody dreams about Ferraris. In most of the country, they are all part of the same car culture.

One thing to keep in mind... the more expensive the cars they are driving, the more money they have to spend on racing stuff.

[nigelred5]

S
That is you.

Hot Rod; Popular Hot Rodding; Car Craft; Autosport; Autoweek; Motorsport amongst others all had articles on the power plants of Indy cars in the past fifteen years.
All of these magazines are quite well.

There are others but if you do not read, you are simply not one of the people the tens of millions of dollars spent on advertising in thses magazines care about.

All of those magazines are just as much about lifestyle as they are about the cars these days, and most of them are either trying to dosomething on the cheap, or spending what's left of their funds so they don't leave it behind.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out exactly What You are advocating? Domestic manufacturers are a huge longshot for returning. I won't lay my retirement on that happening. That leaves import manufacturers and 21st century hotrodding, I mean tuners, not all of which are nitrous injected fiberglass encased econorockets.

[Bob Riebe]

I still fail to see what magazine circulation has to do with anything in 2010.

The turn this thread took has nothing to do with tuner cars, Tony has that fantasy, but with how to get a product in front of people who might use (attend) that product, and what that product should be.

Advertisers pay dollars, now who gets the most bang for the buck; those who advertise in Hot Rod that has a minimum of six hundred thousand readers a month; or those who advertise in a magazine that has fifty thousand readers a month?

The vacuous cry of "no one reads anymore" is only made by those who do not.
It makes a showy head-line, (if it were true,perhaps linked to the dropping intellect of the U.S.), but is not based on reality.
It is not what it once was,ibut is still a multi-million dollar industry.

[Bob Riebe]

S

All of those magazines are just as much about lifestyle as they are about the cars these days, and most of them are either trying to dosomething on the cheap, or spending what's left of their funds so they don't leave it behind.


I am trying x,y, or z, I am answering Tony's vacuous statements.

Similar to Tony, you seem to be stating absolutes about something you know little about by your remarks who and why people read the magazines mentioned.

As for tuner cars, they are at their best on the west coast where they truly were born.
Elsewhere they exist, but compared to standard forms of high performance vehicles. as covered in most high performance magazines, they are a small sub-group, less common than low-riders, on a national scale.

Back to thread topic.
Fini.

[Bob Riebe]

Thanks for the links. After going over them I am even more convinced that those magazines are of no use to the Future of Indy Car.

Over 50% of the readership average No College and Over 34 years of age.

60% have no children..
I see why you do not like reading, your skills are lacking.

NO children 0-17.

Over fifty percent no college degree, hmmm, the average on no college is less than fifty percent, do the math.

Now try harder next time.

[anthonyvop]

Not a big deal to us, either way, but it is to those who are trying to sell a motorsports product to those people.
Who would you rather have reading info on your product, 27,000; or 200,000?

27,000 or 200,000 what? People who a magazine claims read their dying media?

What about Websites?
Popular Hotrodding magazine Daily Pageviews: 4,435
133,050 a month.
http://www.cubestat.com/www.popularhotrodding.com

Vs
Import Tuner magazine Daily Pageviews: 15,549
466,470 a month
http://www.cubestat.com/www.importtuner.com

Where do you want your money to go?

Don't forget that the Demo for Import Tuner magazine is the target for Indy Cars.

[e2mtt]

27,000 or 200,000 what? People who a magazine claims read their dying media?

What about Websites?
Popular Hotrodding magazine Daily Pageviews: 4,435
133,050 a month.
http://www.cubestat.com/www.popularhotrodding.com

Vs
Import Tuner magazine Daily Pageviews: 15,549
466,470 a month
http://www.cubestat.com/www.importtuner.com

Where do you want your money to go?

Don't forget that the Demo for Import Tuner magazine is the target for Indy Cars.

That 466,470 a month number is probably pretty young. As they get older, they will buy more expensive & non-ricer cars. If they become Indycar fans now, good chance they stay fans for a long time. Its a good Demo to target...

How to target them best is the big issue.

I think any fast engine could appeal to this crowd - but Indycar needs a lot more than the right engine. What could be proposed that would do better in drawing in the young car & racing nut?

Is there any reason NOT to target this crowd?