new engine rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e2mtt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V12

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.