is it just me or is the new engine formula announcement basically just not much.....??? can a manufacturer actually get interested in this formula is it is laid out???
Printable View
is it just me or is the new engine formula announcement basically just not much.....??? can a manufacturer actually get interested in this formula is it is laid out???
In 2012 it looks like multiple engines, up to 6 cylinders and 2.4 L. That says to me a far more interesting formula maybe be in the offing. They say 550 to 700 hp but if they are smart, they allow the engine manufacturers a little more room. Once upon a time 1500 cc turbo's were pushing 1000 hp in F1, so I think what may be coming may be a very interesting engine package. It is on the IRL webpage, but the details are not finalized yet....Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris R
NO, another losing proposition but they cannot blame TG now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris R
But, some still will. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Right. We should keep the same crap. No need for any industry relevance. Nothing to see here, move along. You could have had a future in the previous IndyCar adminstration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
New crap verses old crap, it is all crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Erman
Try again.
Old crap, no industry and little fan relevance. New crap perhaps. Same old crap, no way, your words right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
If they think the new formula is going to bring Detroit back to Indianapolis, or the fans they have lost will give a damn about quasi-spec. four-bangers and six-poppers, they are idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Erman
Now wait, the past ten years have already shown that.
Can we agree that spec racing, as we've seen since the split, hasn't kept or captured the public-at-large's attention? If so, why isn't an open rule formula good news for the IndyCar series? What would you propose as an option?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Erman
Go back to the rules CART inherited from USAC-- revise, as need be-- (allowing as Gurney fought for, true stock blocks, along side racing engines) and allow what ever chassis makers that want to race, to race.
No spec. tires or single tire company, and leave the damn pits open, always.
What a display of indecision. While I've advocated such a formula for years that allows some measure of run whatcha bring, at least have the balls to say You were afraid of totally losing the only two companies even remotely interested in participating so we said fine, we'll allow both suggestions and everything in-between.
Perhaps I've misjudged you Bob. I read often but rarely post. And I don't research the previous posts of posters. I'm all for open rules, chassis, tires, engines, fuel etc. and it sounds like you are too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Mr. Bernard, Randy, please continue to move in this direction. Without industry relevance, dollars will be hard to come by and fan interest will follow industry innovation.
Perhaps should re-phrase m question/concern.. I think an more open formula is a great idea. The problem is that if they are too vague is anyone going to "bite" for fear of their innovation being squashed???
I think we can all agree that the various powers that be in AOWR for much of the past 50 years have left a lot to be desired and much of the success has been in spite of their best efforts rather than because of them......
F1 is a free for all within a given set of specifications. There certainly seems to be commercial interest in that formula.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris R
Well I guess the choice is clear. Nominate Bob to be the new President of Indycar and the sole member of the advisory board. Seems you have all the answers yes?
Please correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't you effectively saying go back to technology and specs that were used in the 90's...and that'll bring all the Detroit manufacturers back in the game? If that is correct, you're past your prime!
I don't know the details of the prop yet but, anything that leaves innovation to incorporate new technologies, and especially green technologies, is a step in the right direction. Why? Because the way back into the mainstream is to become a proving ground for relevant technology to what consumers can see in their products. I don't give a rats behind if these engines come from Detroit your FakeDanicaFan's painted room...point is they are leaving room for multiple manufacturers, new technology, and allowing space for those manufacturers to demonstrate at the edge...which is what auto racing was invented for to begin with.
I'm pretty sure I agree with thisQuote:
Originally Posted by TURN3
[quote="TURN3"]Well I guess the choice is clear. Nominate Bob to be the new President of Indycar and the sole member of the advisory board. Seems you have all the answers yes?
[b] IF you do not like what I wrote, do not read it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't you effectively saying go back to technology and specs that were used in the 90's...and that'll bring all the Detroit manufacturers back in the game? If that is correct, you're past your prime!
No. There were no specs. in the seventies, eighties when CART took over.
There were boundaries, between which any one could build a car to fit his won magic potion.
Spec. racing is for SCCA week-end warriors, (and for decades most of those classes were more open than they are now) not for professional racing that is supposed to show who builds the best. Spec. racing proves nothing.
Why would anyone have to use only tech. from that era.
By what dim thoughts do you think one cannot build a new car to those basic rules using new tires, engine components, chassis materials etc.
If you would read, you would see I said revise as need be.
ummm, I am not sure that is a good example these days... the specs are very tight and they have been losing sponsors and manufacturers at a pretty good rate.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Erman
This is the "press release" on the IRL's upcoming engine platform. Hard to make heads or tails of what it really means in brass tacks, but I do like the sound of it.
http://www.indycar.com/news/show/55-...all-inclusive/
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeTURN3
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 (!!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Erman
This announcement by IndyCar is a step, however small, in the right direction. Allowing different engine configurations is more than F1 has done since they mandated V10s somewhere in the late-90s, which of course morphed into the "frozen" V8s of today, I use "frozen" in quotation marks because the engines are subject to NASCAR-style (before the CoT came about anyway) performance balancing, which of course is a load of nonsense but that's what we have.
With F1 becoming more and more standardised (I predict spec F1 cars in the next decade or so if the trend is not reversed), it's refreshing to see somebody else attempt to go the other way. There's still a long way to go, will the engines be frozen/homologated/approved, will there still be a spec chassis, and so on, but it's still a good thing.
And to hell with cost cutting (there, I said it). I'd rather see a field of 15-18 varied and interesting machines than a pack of 25 or so cars that are only differentiated by their colour scheme. And who knows, maybe, just maybe, even if it's a 0.0001% chance, some more interest in the technological side might bring a few extra fans, and dare I say it sponsors, to the table.
I agree, but I think F1's move in this direction goes back to the late 90's when they mandated how many cylinders an engine could have. It's been a steady diet of restrictions since.Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
On the Indycar engine, I like the idea overall, but I want to see more specifics before I make up my mind.
I agree that the V10-only rule in F1 was a significant backwards step, one of the most significant in the evolution of the F1 rulebook, but you could just as easily go back to the late 70s/early 80s when they mandated how many wheels a car could have (4). Rules saying what you can and can't do with your design, are fundamentally OK, although of course the freer they are, then the more fun/interesting/intriguing it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by DBell
When the line is crossed, for me anyway, is when you either mandate spec components (apart from for things like safety equipment, or for admin purposes like on-board cameras, transponders and so on). Or when you say certain components, or even the whole car cannot be developed within a certain time-frame, which is all a bit arbitrary especially when someone who was trailing a bit in development when the "freeze" took place starts arguing for special dispensation to catch up, etc.
So while I agree F1 had been going backwards, technically, for quite a while before, it stopped being a "free for all within a given set of specifications" in 2007. :)
Ah, good old Bob. :)
Still 'fighting the good fight' for those dinosaurs (stock block V8's), I see. Looks like the proposals that Indycar have drafted just aren't your cup 'o tea, eh? :p :
I have been a racing fan since 1959, so that shows you what I have seen over the years.
While I always enjoyed the "open" rules, I also remember how the upsurge in technology in the 70's changed some of the foundation of racing. I really enjoyed the CanAm series and even liked the Porsche panzer. But the Porsche did bring a demise to CanAm because of it's dominance.
In Indy racing we have seen periodic dominance by such as the Mercedes "stock block" that Penske had one year. He had that dominance because of finding loopholes in the rules. That is fine with me because the rules quickly change to level the playing field.
The problem today is that technology, mainly in the form of the ECU is a radical departure from the engine and car management of old. A simple program change can alter horsepower by the hundreds, on the fly. So once again rules had to be put in place.
See where I'm going with this?
If I understand this latest policy, it was derived using feedback from the manufacturers. They are the ones who wanted to see smaller (cylinder wise) turbo engines because that is their preference for street engines. Allowing anything up to 6 cylinders still gives them the opportunity to come up with any configuration they want. I guess the only restriction I would put on these engines (besides the cubic inch limit) would be that they all have to use the same ECU. A standard ECU would then have to be fairly open in order to allow the various configurations, but still prevent tampering.
As for the chassis, I would open it up to anyone who wants to build one. My restrictions would be to limit the aero package to the minimum needed for safety. You need to have strict rules on this otherwise we would see a regression back to the ground effects, etc. that got us to where we are now.
While everyone wants to see large horsepower numbers bandied about, we have to remember that before the extreme aero came into being, all the HP in the world was useless without good mechanical grip. There used to be concerns of too much HP at times in the past. I can remember the likes of one A.J. Foyt struggling to make a success of the Hussein CanAm car. It had gobs of power but could not harness it because the chassis was crap!
I would love to see the old Novi engine in action again, but unfortunately those days are long gone. Now I would like to see 1000hp turbos pushing a chassis that requires a driver to lift and use the brakes to make it through turn 1 at Indy.
This sets of my alarmbells. I hope this "evaluating" will not be as in ALMS, were at one time they changed the formula every single race. Make a set of rules, build something to it, let the best one win, is my opinion. Equalising = specracing = not good. Were will the innovation be if BB will "evaluate" your advantage all away??Quote:
“We will continue to evaluate rules that will keep a level playing field across the board with the various engines that could enter our sport,” said Brian Barnhart, president of competition and racing operations. “For example, we could see a V-6 competing against an Inline 4 at all IZOD IndyCar Series events in the future. We will require reference engines as a benchmark in performance while looking at sonic air restrictors, fuel flow restrictions and more as key criteria for competition.”
I agree. The worst culprit for this (that is contemporary and springs to mind, anyway) is the new FIA GT1 Championship, where the 6 different manufacturers (sorry Ratel, I'm not calling them "brands") are equalised by all sorts of arbitrary measures known as "Balance of Performance" rules, which include a (human) driver taking all six cars out for timed laps (obviously not at the exact same time, so will track conditions be the same?) - an 11-year old school kid who has studied the fundamentals of performing a controlled experiment in Science class could spot the holes in that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
"Equalising" by pegging back certain cars/engines/whatever just because they are better is, of course, fundamentally wrong and flies in the face of everything competition should be about, a bit like getting Usain Bolt to run with lead shoes, Roger Federer to play with a broken racket, or FC Barcelona to play with 9 or 10 men every match.
But there is a difference between that, and having measures that equalise the inherent advantage/disadvantage between say diesel or petrol (Le Mans), turbo or non-turbo (pre-1989 F1), and maybe this is what Barnhart has in mind for 4s and 6s, although I don't think it's necessary (see bottom).
However I strongly believe this shouldn't be done on a whim and not only applied equally to all cars of a given configuration regardless of how fast or slow that makes them, and backed up by painstaking scientific analysis, which is then published in a report in the public domain for any competitor, fan or interested party to look at should they have the mind to.
Of course even this scientific approach wouldn't be perfect and wouldn't correlate 100% on the track, and it would be a VERY difficult job to get right, but there's a huge difference between the intentions of this approach and the GT1 example I gave above, since the aim is to have a broad variety of machinery, rather than to artificially equalise things.
In an ideal world, using the IndyCar example, they should say yeah, maximum displacement, maximum of 6 cylinders, simple as that, if that means everyone finds a 4 or 6 is the optimal solution and gravitates towards that then fine, providing the option is there to do either.
The Barnhart quote doesn't specify which of the two approaches he means, although since there is no NA/forced induction or petrol/diesel type of equivalency that needs to be reached, I do share your concerns.
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...
And then every race becomes a fuel economy run? No Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by e2mtt
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
When Detroit told the IRL where to stick its head the result is what we have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by veeten
Dan Gurney thought it was a good idea.
If the Indianpolis race wants to be what it once was, they had better give Detroit a reason to show.
Four-poppers and six-bangers, which will have the HP level- adjusted- to make them go only as fast as the IRL thinks they should, is only a slightly different version of the dung-heap it is now.
IF I remember correctly, this proposed formula was floated to "five" auto companies already several years ago, and four of the five said-- don't waste my time.
It actually sound a lot like the crap that has been foisted on the F-1 builders.
A fuel flow & air restricter? That might lead to a rev-limiter style parade. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
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.
The former is what the IMSA did.Quote:
Originally Posted by e2mtt
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.
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 Bob Riebe
I like both points, and I agree to with eliminating gimmicks like PTPQuote:
Originally Posted by Starter
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 anthonyvop
OK, an overstatement, but F1 compared to the dalarra/honda...Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
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.