Fuel injection expensive? What the...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raybak

If we introduce FI and computers then the team with the most dollars wins.

---

So... you're saying that nothing will change? :D

You guys don't get it do ya? The reason NASCAR has Carbs is because everyone in the sport understands them, there are no real ways to improve them and keep the carb a carb, and NASCAR has all the interest in putting on a great show, not to give anyone a platform to showcase their technology.

Fuel injection computers can be hacked and cannot be controlled. Carbs....well most of the ways to cheat with them have been well documented.

When Larry says FI would be expensive, what he really is saying is the money spent on trying to find gray areas in the rules would be expensive. No one can do much with the carb...and the racing is pretty damned close isn't it? THAT is the real reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You guys don't get it do ya? The reason NASCAR has Carbs is because everyone in the sport understands them, there are no real ways to improve them and keep the carb a carb, and NASCAR has all the interest in putting on a great show, not to give anyone a platform to showcase their technology.

Fuel injection computers can be hacked and cannot be controlled. Carbs....well most of the ways to cheat with them have been well documented.

When Larry says FI would be expensive, what he really is saying is the money spent on trying to find gray areas in the rules would be expensive. No one can do much with the carb...and the racing is pretty damned close isn't it? THAT is the real reason.

---

Well, nobody said it would be easy...

I am absolutely in agreement with Larry Mac, 100% against fuel injection, computers, and modern engines in NASCAR.



:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You guys don't get it do ya? The reason NASCAR has Carbs is because everyone in the sport understands them, there are no real ways to improve them and keep the carb a carb, and NASCAR has all the interest in putting on a great show, not to give anyone a platform to showcase their technology.

Fuel injection computers can be hacked and cannot be controlled. Carbs....well most of the ways to cheat with them have been well documented.

---

There are lots of ways to improve a carb. Do you think they just install them without modifications?

Computers can be kept out of the hands of teams when not in the cars. That's how you keep them from being hacked.

I'd also like to point out that an IndyCar team operates on one fourth the budget of a Sprint Cup team with fuel injection and modern technology. Even if you double the IndyCar budget to compensate for less races in a season, it's still cheaper.

Andrew, the engines of your IndyCars are sealed and controlled by Honda. Otherwise that budget would sky rocket. As for NASCAR, they police everything and the carb is basically a part that is not open to intrpretation by the rules. You can tweak the heads. You can use different cam settings and valve angles. You can massage the manifold passages and polish them. But you cannot touch anything but the jetting on the carb. Whatever R and D you could do with a Carb you might not get enough to make it worth your time..

I wouldn't object to a sealed and controlled engine as long as each manufactuer makes their own.

You would never polish the intake manifold passages with a carbureted engine, but you would still want to modify them. With fuel injection, you would just polish it and not think twice. With fuel injection, you can't improve on a polish job.

I'm talking about a sealed PCM that gets changed after every session on the track. How exactly is someone going to hack that? Formula One teams haven't figured out how to hack that yet. And you know they're trying. If they had succeeded, this wouldn't of happened last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekx5bTSXjos

I don't see a problem with carbs and old engines. On a smaller scale the series we race in uses GM engines from 1988 and carbs introduced in IIRC 1964 but it doesn't stop it being a close series...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

I wouldn't object to a sealed and controlled engine as long as each manufactuer makes their own.

You would never polish the intake manifold passages with a carbureted engine, but you would still want to modify them. With fuel injection, you would just polish it and not think twice. With fuel injection, you can't improve on a polish job.

I'm talking about a sealed PCM that gets changed after every session on the track. How exactly is someone going to hack that? Formula One teams haven't figured out how to hack that yet. And you know they're trying. If they had succeeded, this wouldn't of happened last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekx5bTSXjos

---

Andrew, you keep missing the point. If it AINT Broke...don't fix it!!! Why does NASCAR need to go to Fuel Injection. First off, you polish an intake manifold whether there is a Carb or FI. Smooth airflow in and out of the motor is always required no matter what sits on top of the motor.

Secondly, all the manufacturers and teams have been trying for years to gain any advantage and the racing is still close. Putting Fuel injection in just adds another variable not there now for the rich teams to find ways to pull ahead with; which the last time I looked is what NASCAR is trying to avoid. They WANT close racing and they get that now for the most part. Putting Fuel Injection on the motors would not help this and likely hurt it....

You don't want to polish a carubreted manifold because if the walls are too smooth, the fuel separates from the air and is no longer atomized. This isn't an issue with fuel injected engines because the fuel doesn't meet the air until just before the air passes through the valve.

I've always held the philosophy that if it ain't broke, you're not trying hard enough. I know the racing should be close, but it also has to be done on the cheap. I believe that in the long run, a sealed fuel injection system would be chaper than an open carburetor.