new engine rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brad Erman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V12

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DBell

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. :)

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 :

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.

Quote:

---

“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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :

---

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.