Printable View
Contrived competition is contrived competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-914
They had to skew the rules so a P2 could run with a P1, or it would have been a freight-train parade a short time ago.
When that was killed Porsche said, bye-bye.
GT2, well if cars that make less horse-power than some of the street versions is exciting, I would say some people are easily entertained.
Well Ford money and engineering help, put Cosworth on the map; then Ford owned Cosworth; then Ford sold Cosworth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbles
I don't think Ford really needs Cosworth anymore.
2.4L V-6 with turbos? Sounds like fun, but name which current road car has just such a powerplant. It seems that if Indycar wanted more manufacturer involvement a non-turbo 3.5 liter V-6, which is closer to something that nearly every auto manufacturer uses in its production cars would have been a better choice. These engines limited by fuel rate, air flow to cap horsepower, and rev limited would be more commercially viable to manufacturers.
IMO a good Indy racing engine should be one that automobile manufacturers one day COULD use, not currently DO use. A 2 liter V6 turbo is something that in 5-10 years could be a popular engine design. IndyCar does not need to be promoting current-car technology, that's what NASCAR is for (or at least what it WAS for).
Nascar promotes more old technology then anything. Their technology compares to what was run 15 years ago on street going cars. They are looking at switching that up though in the near future, and getting closer to the present in terms of technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickFalzone
An exhaust driven blower on any car, it not a good choice unless one has no other choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickFalzone
Heat destroys, turbos are hot.
It is not if a turbo goes out but when, and is the resale value of the car lower than the repair bill.
Blowers are old tech; OHC engines are an older design than push-rods; anyone who writes about supposed "old" tech had best read-up first on the history of automobile mechanics.
It is not old verses-new, it is Return on Investment, Margin of profit after tooing and building, Cost to operate; real world street driving horse-power and torque figures verses, dream car/car show bs.
In a country the size of the U.S. strung out six-bangers and especially four-poppers are fine only if every one drives econo-boxes and never has to carry anything bigger than a lap-top.
15 years ago? It's 2010, who was selling selling carbureted engines in 1995?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chamoo
The engine spec needs to stay as open as possible. Let them run 4s 6s 8s 12s whatever they want. Put a maximum displacement on them and let's see who comes out to play. Don't use a rev limiter, if Mazda wants a 10,000 rpm rotary then let them. Chevy a 6,500 v-8 fine by me. The ALMS has it right with the air restrictors as I see it. But as someone else pointed out, the race motor needs more hp than the street version. The manufacturers need to be able to use their own DNA in the product. The F1 engine equality farce proves that where there is a will there is a way. By using a "frozen" rule all you get is someone building in the cracks of the rules. With a clearcut outline ( air restrictors) the development is allowed and encouraged. Only then it can be put towards "street car technology". If a turbo 4 can make 700 hp but use say 10 gallons less over a race, it has a weight advantage over the NA V-8. The rules work to keep it from a hp race towards more of a consumtion race. Racing is sport and I'm not a tree hugged greenie but the PR for corporations is all abou that. So set the rules to where it's more sponsor friendly if it doesn't hurt the end product.
Oh and hi everyone!
The only way to allow equal or greater hp in the race version is to increase weight. Imagine: Street ZR1 has 640hp in a 3300 lb car. GT2 min. weight is 2500 lbs! That would be a dangerously fast GT car and also destroy competition.
So, we're left with a choice of balancing through power or weight. I think the engine is just easier to do. A restrictor size can be changed in between races...there is almost nothing to it. Weight would be more difficult since the engineers would want to place the weight in the most strategic location, requiring significant redesign.
Is it compromise? Sure...but one I'll live with.
I'm only talking of using an ALMS-like equality system in Indycar. The "race motor needs more hp than street motor" was to say that if Ford runs a turbo 4, the Indycar version needs 700+hp wiu the street version 300 or so. Wasn't meaning a GT car, that would be nuts.........hey, a new CAN-AM series! You are a genius! Lol