new engine rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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.

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...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Assuming a non-spec chassis...

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 (!!)

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.