Fuel injection expensive? What the...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

Yeah, it's entirely feasable to use fuel injection as a means of concealing traction control.

The easiest way to prevent this is to just have one common PCM. These would be controlled by the sanctioning body and could not be purchased from third party suppliers. NASCAR would only have to issue them in the same manner that they would issue wings or restrictor plates and require that each team change PCMs between practice(s), qualifying, and the race.

Grand AM does this and they're NASCAR's puppet. F1 did this and it eliminated traction control.

---

I don't know about the expense and the common, sealed computer would certainly eliminate the traction control concern.

Maybe NASCAR just figures it wouldn't add to the show or the appeal of the sport... I don't know. But I think with what's happening in automotive, NASCAR's hand is going to be forced. Without something more that applies to the consumer market (engineering wise), it's going to be harder and harder to get the OEM's to justify the expenditures, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chaparral66

Larry Mac said that the reason why NASCAR sticks with carbs is that the development of fuel injection would be very expensive almost to the point of being cost prohibitive.

Huh?
I don't buy this for a minute. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, tell me why.

---

"the development of fuel injection would be very expensive"? Ha! and Ha!

No wonder you don't buy this. This statement ranks very highly on the bullometer.

The last new car sold in North American using a carburettor was the 1991 Ford Crown Victoria, and the last new car in the world was the 1996 Lada Niva. Heck even the Tata Nano which is aiming for a new car price of US$2013 uses Bosch multi-point injection - you'd be lucky to buy a set of race tyres for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Without something more that applies to the consumer market (engineering wise)

---

And carburettors do? We're talking ancient technology here. My Remington typewriter might be fun to use, but I'd find it very difficult to do a refresh on a webpage with it.

The racing in NASCAR is very good with the current technology ...
NASCAR is popular & has a large fanbase, in other words NASCAR is a success ...
I don't care that fuel injection isn't used. http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...ongue-anim.gif

(1 point has not been made, a carburetor has better throttle response !
this is done with the use of a fuel bowl & fuel squirters to give a fuel reserve ...
when the butterflies are quickly opened wide, a massive amount of fuel is introduced into the engine ...
extra fuel is squirted into the intake to mix with the increased air flow ...
it is old technology but it is very effective & BETTER than fuel injection IMO !) http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...ongue-anim.gif

No one argues with NASCAR's success, that's not the issue. The issue is about keeping up with current trends in technology that can benefit the consumer. For instance, my impression is that the Audi R10's incredible success at Le Mans, Sebring, etc. has had a big impact on the impression people have of diesels, which prior to that wasn't very good. They, along with Peugeot have probably wiped that away forever. This is a clear case where a manufacturer's success in racing has helped its consumer cars.

Thanks for the explanation on throttle response with carbs, Jag, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone else gets on and advocates for FI. But FI for the most part, is more efficient in a variety of situations in the "real world", such as high altitudes, up and down grades, cold starting, etc. I'd like to see NASCAR work with this and give Detroit an opportunity to use their techincal know to work with NASCAR in developing even more efficient FI designs. That way, Detroit can get more out of it's NASCAR involvement (and The Big Three needs all it can get right now outside of gov't bailouts).
I'm inclined to agree that carbs give better throttle response, but I don't think FI would retard performance even on a small scale on the big NASCAR V8 engine, and this certainly doesn't seem to be an issue with the other series we mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chaparral66

No one argues with NASCAR's success, that's not the issue. The issue is about keeping up with current trends in technology that can benefit the consumer. For instance, my impression is that the Audi R10's incredible success at Le Mans, Sebring, etc. has had a big impact on the impression people have of diesels, which prior to that wasn't very good. They, along with Peugeot have probably wiped that away forever---(IF one is a moron. That engine and fuel are as closely related to street diesels as AA/F Hemis are to street engines)--- THis is a clear case where a manufacturer's success in racing has helped its consumer cars.

Thanks for the explanation on throttle response with carbs, Jag, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone else gets on and advocates for FI. But FI for the most part, is more efficient in a variety of situations in the "real world", such as high altitudes, up and down grades, cold starting, etc. I'd like to see NASCAR work with this and give Detroit an opportunity to use their techincal know to work with NASCAR in developing even more efficient FI designs. That way, Detroit can get more out of it's NASCAR involvement (and The Big Three needs all it can get right now outside of gov't bailouts).
I'm inclined to agree that carbs give better throttle response, but I don't think FI would retard performance even on a small scale on the big NASCAR V8 engine, and this certainly doesn't seem to be an issue with the other series we mentioned.

---

THere would be ZERO benefits to consumers as a spec. FI unit has less connection to the consumer market than a Holley carburettor.
One can buy a similar carb, no could buy or want the FI unit.

You boys are in the fairy land where if one one says fuel injection you all weak kneed an starry eyed.
The original timed, mechanical, injection system used by Bosch was developed by Bendix for AMC, in the fifties. That is half a century ago.
Bendix sold it to Bosch because AMC could not see it being worth the money to perfect it, so Bosch spend decades develping it.
But its electronic.
So what, the computer goes dead, you walk.

For a vehicle that has a limited prime power band, and carburetor is every bit as good as FI, and is still safe from the world of hackers.
If you think someone could not hack the unit, they YOU ARE naive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...s/viewpost.gif
Without something more that applies to the consumer market (engineering wise)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

And carburettors do? We're talking ancient technology here. My Remington typewriter might be fun to use, but I'd find it very difficult to do a refresh on a webpage with it.

---

That's not what I meant. NASCAR is currently more of a marketing exercise. It currently has very little to do with developing or testing road car technology(s). The whole point of the CoT and the (fairly recent) specness of the series is to prevent one manufacturer from gaining a competitive advantage over all others. That, in theory, makes NASCAR more about the drivers and less about the car (or brand). So what I meant was, in order to justify these heavy budgets, the manufacturers might have to have more consumer oriented engineering feedback from their NASCAR participation.

Everything I see in automotive says that the worst is yet to come in North American automotive... and the economy on whole. So we'll just have to wait and see how NASCAR deals with what is to come. I think it will certainly survive and be OK. But I think the NASCAR of 2010 or 2011 will be quite different from the NASCAR of 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

THere would be ZERO benefits to consumers as a spec. FI unit has less connection to the consumer market than a Holley carburettor.
One can buy a similar carb, no could buy or want the FI unit.

You boys are in the fairy land where if one one says fuel injection you all weak kneed an starry eyed.
The original timed, mechanical, injection system used by Bosch was developed by Bendix for AMC, in the fifties. That is half a century ago.
Bendix sold it to Bosch because AMC could not see it being worth the money to perfect it, so Bosch spend decades develping it.
But its electronic.
So what, the computer goes dead, you walk.

For a vehicle that has a limited prime power band, and carburetor is every bit as good as FI, and is still safe from the world of hackers.
If you think someone could not hack the unit, they YOU ARE naive.

---

There are plenty of things can go wrong in an engine if the compter dies, so I'm not sure what that point is about.

My question is, how many times have you heard of anyone hacking into an engine computer? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't hear about it on enough of a scale to be concerned about. True, you can't hack into a carb, but I'm certainly not aware of EFI hacking to be a major issue.

And Bob, NO ONE said anything about putting an F1 EFI unit in a regular consumer car. The point is that things learned in F1 racing (and sports car racing) often find themselves going into passenger cars, albeit scaled down to suit a regular passenger car's needs. A good example of this is paddle shifters, which you now see in passenger cars from a Ferrari to a Pontiac. Other things, like balance shafts, aerodynamics, sequential tranmissions, traction control, etc. were used to great extent in F1 (and other racing) and found form in passenger cars at a later date. It's not as if we're saying put a current Bridgestone F1 tire on a Honda Civic. But you can take what you learn from tire wear characteristics and use it on developing a tire for the Civic.

You're overlooking the costs that go into carburetor developement. These aren't off the shelf carbs we're talking about. Teams spend a lot of money improving on them. I mentioned the possibility of a spec carb, but since that wouldn't curb testing it makes a better short-term solution than long term solution.

And computers don't just die on their own, they only break as a response to something else breaking (like a fuel injector shorting out).

Carby's are just old technology, not saying they are no good, just that they are old.

Fuel injection with computers brings a heap of new variables into the fold. There are more areas to cheat and more dollars that can be spent to improve performance.

I love the idea of fuel injection and computers but will be against it on the side of parity and keeping costs down. If we introduce FI and computers then the team with the most dollars wins.

Ray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raybak

Carby's are just old technology, not saying they are no good, just that they are old.

Fuel injection with computers brings a heap of new variables into the fold. There are more areas to cheat and more dollars that can be spent to improve performance.

I love the idea of fuel injection and computers but will be against it on the side of parity and keeping costs down. If we introduce FI and computers then the team with the most dollars wins.

Ray

---

That's already happening; in just about every racing series, and certainly in NASCAR. Again, looking at other series such as the IRL, ALMS, and Grand Am just to name a few, I don't see outrageous spending going on just with EFI. If the sanctioning body specifies a certain type with a feasable set of restrictions, like they have in those series, I find it hard to believe it couldn't work.