Printable View
In that case, I am sure you may enjoy this. A fiercer race in desperately unpromising cars you will hardly ever see.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
BBC Rally Sprint 1983 - Race - YouTube
Now don't let anyone say that that wasn't racing, simply because it wasn't by a long way the fastest thing out there.
Enjoy it, I did! Cheers!Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Thanks,
Gary
What was the pole time 3 years after '79? 3 years after '93? That's the difference from then and now. Back then there was development and competition among chassis and engines. The rules were open to developing both. That is not the case today. No development allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
What do you think would have happened in '79 if they had introduced a spec chassis that would've been used for next 8 years and speeds stayed around 193 -198 mph during that time? Do you think it would've had an effect on the crowds and excitement at Indy? I can't believe it wouldn't.
Is a track record at Indy going to change everything? No. There was a lot more to the old formula than that. But in IndyCar, speed was a part old formula and dismissing it as unimportant misses the mark with a portion of the old fan base.
@BDunnell Comparing the fans of F1 to IndyCar fans is an apples and oranges comparison. F1 hasn't done to itself what IndyCar did to itself in the last 20 years. By comparison, F1 is very stable and has been able to pull itself out of the nosedive it occasionally finds itself in. IndyCar didn't and has been a smoldering wreckage since. If F1 fans have to endure a 12 year civil war that bitterly divides it's fan base and becomes stagnant series that uses the same spec car for nearly a decade, then it's time to compare notes. Different life experiences will create different perspectives.
If you want to shift this debate to the need for competition between chassis and engine manufacturers then I'll be right there on your side. I do think that is what this series needs. Next year qe get part of that with three engine manufacturers. Hopefully we will also get aero packages in 2013. And hopefully the league takes a fairly "hands off" approach to regulating them during the season (although I think I'll be disappointed on that)Quote:
Originally Posted by DBell
But this debate so far has been about SPEED plain and simple. That is a very different argument than the one you are making.
We just developed two engines from scratch with a third on the way. How many do you need?Quote:
Originally Posted by DBell
Re: BBC Rally Sprint -- Awesome race and announcer. If only IndyCar could find an announcer even half this good.
Lotus has said their engine is lighter by 20 pounds. IndyCar says it will have to add ballast to offset that. Horsepower is going to be kept at certain levels. So if Chevy, for instance, develops an improvement that gains horsepower, then IndyCar will do something something to put them back to where they are at the level desired by IndyCar. So where is the incentive for development of the engine? That is what I'm talking about. 3 engines is great, but if they are set to not exceed certain parameters, then all it is for the manufacturers is a marketing deal. They have no incentive to make improvements if the series will negate that work.Quote:
Originally Posted by call_me_andrew
Let view things in that way - is there a need for an ultimately fast racing cars series? One of these is Formula1. But i think some kind of alternative (to F1) is needed; in some aspects to NASCAR also. This is exactly what attracted an interest to CART in early 90s - an alternative, to fulfill things which F1 (back then, but now also) lacks, to present something different or supplementary. CART cars were powerful (a little bit more than F1), racing on street circuits (in F1 back then only two street races - Monaco and Adelaide), and with lightning speed on ovals - something F1 would never do.
Power delivery and torque curve. The max HP may be the same, but if one engine has a wider power range or a smoother torque curve, it will be faster on any track. Grand-Am is a perfect example. The engines are limited to a HP number, but some are better than others because of the torque curve.Quote:
Originally Posted by DBell
Fuel economy. An engine that burns less fuel has more options for fuel strategy. Many races have been won on fuel strategy
Cooling. An engine with better cooling can run different aero setups such as larger blockers for the radiators. That adds speed on ovals and in qualifying.
Weight distribution. Even if every engine weights the same, the weight may be higher or lower based on design. That is one advantage everyone suggests for the Lotus as the ballast will probably be very low.
Reliability. If you find a way to make more HP, you can detune the engine a bit, perhaps improving reliability. Development will also likely involve making lighter rotating parts and friction reduction. Neither may increase HP but should increase acceleration.
Lost of incentive for development. The engine that has the best compromises in all areas will be the one to have, even if that means its peak HP may not be the best
So they built an engine 20 pounds lighter, despite the fact that they're going to get a weight handicap? Either the people at Lotus are really dumb (which I doubt), or you're making these handicaps out to be worse than they really are.Quote:
Originally Posted by DBell