new engine rules

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

4th June 2010, 15:53
Lousada

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigelred5

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.

Ford, GM and basicly any other major manufacterer produces turbodiesels... in Europe. For some reason Americans just don't seem to warm up to it.

Quote:

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.

I don't see where you read that. It will be turbos only and ethanol only and I don't expect to see hybrid engines.
4th June 2010, 18:01
Marbles

While I think it will open up the possibility of more manufacturer involvement, the bottom line is I feel this sort of formula is better left to sports cars. I can't even imagine the amount of griping that will be going on from race to race. Changes to air restrictors or revs when one manufacturer manages to get ahead of the others or when one manufacturer falls too far behind the pack. "We hope they'll give us a break". Add to that, with the series trying manage horsepower amongst the different configurations for different tracks. Are they going to manage the torque curve or drive-ability as well?

Even in the strict formula of CART I recall them crying about another manufacturer's placement of the pop-ff valve or turbo charger. Also, manufacturers like Honda and Toyota and to just stick it out until they caught up with the Benz and the Cosworth.

I'd rather see the innovation with a more open environment with regards to an energy recovery system similar to F1 with a 2.0 litre four cylinder engine and turbo for flexibility.
4th June 2010, 18:09
I am evil Homer

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigelred5

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.

I totally agree with you and would suggest that in order to attract manus they need to make it more in line with what can be transferred technology wise to road cars. I drive a TD and it's amazing. However watching the SEAT LEon TDI's or even the Peugeot LMS cars they don't sound right!

Biofuel is a no-no and a total non-stater in terms of a sustainable fuel source. KERS as energy re-use I would also agree with but not as some push to pass-lite system it became in F1.
4th June 2010, 20:16
Mark in Oshawa

Well We wont see Diesels. Indycars have traditionally been run on ethanol/methnanol and will continue to do so. That said, there is still a lot to be learned about fuel efficiencies and head design in racing, and I am sure that if the formula for engines is loose enough, manufacturers might just jump in to do R and D and do a little racing.....
4th June 2010, 20:39
nigelred5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Well We wont see Diesels. Indycars have traditionally been run on ethanol/methnanol and will continue to do so. That said, there is still a lot to be learned about fuel efficiencies and head design in racing, and I am sure that if the formula for engines is loose enough, manufacturers might just jump in to do R and D and do a little racing.....

They only went to methanol for safety reasons in the 70's, however I agre, they won't deviate from alcohols. Maybe the source of them may change. Diesel is much more stable as IM sure you are well aware, but cleanup from a spill is a potential nightmare

Lousada, I'm well aware of what is available IN EUROPE, problem is, those choices NEVER make it to the US market, even from the US companies. I've sent probably close to 100 letters to the various manufacturers begging for small and moderate sized TD's. We get VW TDI's and huge v10's from VW, a smattering of UP-Market luxury cars that cost over $45K from Audi, MERC and BMW, a POS jeep liberty with an italian sourced TD that was impossible to obtain, and pickups powered by backhoe motors. I"ve even gone as far as attempting to import a V6 TDI passat wagon, but it was just near impossible with current grey market laws. The oil companies and hte enviro's simply don't want them here.

I was more referring to the market than what has been announced as the the engine spec, however the engine spec certainly is more in line wiht the trend in the US market than 3.5L NA V8's.
4th June 2010, 21:33
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigelred5

They only went to methanol for safety reasons in the 70's, however I agre, they won't deviate from alcohols. Maybe the source of them may change. Diesel is much more stable as IM sure you are well aware, but cleanup from a spill is a potential nightmare

Lousada, I'm well aware of what is available IN EUROPE, problem is, those choices NEVER make it to the US market, even from the US companies. I've sent probably close to 100 letters to the various manufacturers begging for small and moderate sized TD's. We get VW TDI's and huge v10's from VW, a smattering of UP-Market luxury cars that cost over $45K from Audi, MERC and BMW, a POS jeep liberty with an italian sourced TD that was impossible to obtain, and pickups powered by backhoe motors. I"ve even gone as far as attempting to import a V6 TDI passat wagon, but it was just near impossible with current grey market laws. The oil companies and hte enviro's simply don't want them here.

I was more referring to the market than what has been announced as the the engine spec, however the engine spec certainly is more in line wiht the trend in the US market than 3.5L NA V8's.

the reality of diesels is simple. Until recently, the diesel in the US had too much sulphur and it would mean not many cars would pass emissions. Our emissions on this continent are tougher, and the higher sulphur numbers just meant all but a few cars could burn it clean enough. Now that the oil companies have started putting out enough low sulphur diesel at a good price, that diesels now make more sense, and they will come. That said, the VW Rabbit in the late 70's with 45 hp wasn't going to make any American ditch the gas version, much less his more powerful v8's.

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. I am going to assume (silly of me to do that I am sure) that the ICONIC committee talked to the manufacturers when they came to this recommendation...so This must be in the ball park for what manufacturers might find a tie in...
5th June 2010, 01:40
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by e2mtt

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.

You had best do some in depth reading into the history of Indianapolis and the sanctions that ran there, Especially the rules.

CART died by destroying what inherited from the USAC. They chopped, sliced and eliminated till blownd Ford were all that was left.

I.E. CART took rules that had basic boundaries and guidelines, and turned it into a spec. formula by elimination, till they eliminated Automotive builders interest.
George did the same thing only on a quicker scale and by killing the rules he created.
5th June 2010, 02:42
Mark in Oshawa

So Bob, when Mercedes, Honda and Cosworth were going at it with Ilmor in CART in the early 90's, the mismanagement of the series had NOTHING to do with those automakers leaving? It had little do with engine rules.....it had everything to do with the mess the whole OW world was going through in terms of two series fighting over a smaller and smaller group of race fans and destorying their TV product. I am sure THAT had a hell of a lot more to do with the loss of manufacturer interest than whether you could run 40 inches of boost or 43....
5th June 2010, 04:21
call_me_andrew

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

the reality of diesels is simple. Until recently, the diesel in the US had too much sulphur and it would mean not many cars would pass emissions. Our emissions on this continent are tougher, and the higher sulphur numbers just meant all but a few cars could burn it clean enough. Now that the oil companies have started putting out enough low sulphur diesel at a good price, that diesels now make more sense, and they will come. That said, the VW Rabbit in the late 70's with 45 hp wasn't going to make any American ditch the gas version, much less his more powerful v8's.

I think you underscore the damage done by GM's 4.3L and 5.7L diesel engines in the 1980's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e2mtt

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.

How old are you? It looks to me like most of what you know of engines comes from bad movies.

As to the push to pass button, multiple engine manufacturers will remove the need for push to pass as a TV gimic, but the new engine manufacturers will probably want their own versions of it so drivers can access extra power if they need it during a race. No one mentions that F1 cars have overtake buttons because that information isn't included in TV telemetry.

I don't think 4 cylinder engines have any real disadvantage over 6 cylinder engines. As long as displacement is equal top power output will be the same. I think the 4 bangers could have an advantage on ovals from having a lower rotating mass, but 6 cylinder engines would be better for road courses (especially if it rains) because of a smoother torque curve.
5th June 2010, 05:11
naracingfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

I don't think 4 cylinder engines have any real disadvantage over 6 cylinder engines. As long as displacement is equal top power output will be the same. I think the 4 bangers could have an advantage on ovals from having a lower rotating mass, but 6 cylinder engines would be better for road courses (especially if it rains) because of a smoother torque curve.

I've been told that 4 cylinders have more reciprocating mass compared to V6s, hence less power for a given displacement.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page