Riddle Me This, Turbophiles

[call_me_andrew]

Let's say that in 2010, the IndyCar Series does switch to turbo engines. What engine formula could they use? We know that with out the governance Champ Car gave after Honda and Toyota left, the Ford-Cosworth engines would have been putting out well over 900 horsepower. 900 is not going to cut at oval tracks anymore. And when (God willing) an engine war breaks out, the 2.65 liter engines are not going to stay at 700-750 horsepower.

It seems logical to me that if turbos came back, the engines would have to be downsized. 2-2.3 liters would probably be ideal with turbos, but it seems silly to build a V8 that small. An inline 6 would probably be the better choice. So I have to ask, would you want your series to have a tiny six-cylinder when all other major series run big(ger) V8s?

[DN5]

Didn't Honda and Mercedes try to strongarm CART into a sub-2.0 formula before they left?
Sounded good to me, but what do i know.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

I would actually prefer small turbos, too. Hoop-98 proposed a 2.25 Turbo V6 last week. The FIA has proposed 2.2 Turbo V6's with 10,000 rpm limit or 1.3-1.5 four cylinder turbos without rev limit for Formula 1 in 2013.

To handle the engine war, Indycar could use energy flow/fuel consumption limitation. Also worth thinking about is the idea of a hybrid boost system similar the KERS if F1, only with heat recovery instead of kinetic energy because of the ovals.

Who cares if other series' engines will be bigger? If you want to see big engines, watch NHRA. For Indycar, it's time to move on to the technology of the 21st century.

[Civic]

Honda wanted a 1.8 turbo if I remember correctly. Look what they did with 1.5 turbos in F1. Didn't those engines make more than 1000hp?

[BenRoethig]

Honda wanted a 1.8 turbo if I remember correctly. Look what they did with 1.5 turbos in F1. Didn't those engines make more than 1000hp?

Yeah, but they probably cost more than the budgets of TCGR, AGR, and Penske combined.

[fan-veteran]

There was a BMW 1.5 liter, 4 cylinder, in-line turbo engine in F1 in mid 80s yielding at best 1500 HP (!!!) in qualification setup. Well, it is fact that the life of this engine was only one qualification .

An issue i can see is the RPM and number of cylinders. These two numbers should be high enough to sound good , with high pitch. And that is how many..., maybe more than 10 000rpm and V8. Well, V6 is closer to serial production engines. But i would propose 2.5 V8 turbo engine, around 700hp/10500rpm for superspeedways, and at least 800hp for street/road circuits.

[DBell]

IMO, the next engine formula will have to be set up to make lesser HP on an oval than on road courses. How much HP an engine is capable of making isn't an issue as this will have to be governed by rules no matter what direction they go. The 3 liter na V10's in F1 were making over 900 hp before the rules changed. The Honda engine is certainly capable of making a lot more hp if the rules let it.

My thought with bringing in the turbo is that Honda could bring their's back and a manufacturer could badge the Cosworth, then you have 2 engines available with a fraction of the cost that it would take to develop a new engine program. I think cost is still going to be a big issue for teams in 2010.

[SarahFan]

for being a race junky I don't know the first thing about engines..

but what i do know is the engines have been detuned in both series and it has IMO negatively effected the racing.....

and we haven't heard the words 'a new track record' in a long time..I know flirting with the mid 230's and looking to get to 240 is friggin nuts...but isnt that (speed) what the sport is ultimatly about


questions for hoop.....or anyone else

1. when they adopt a new engine formula how easy/hard would it be to allow N/A and turbo?.....is there a simple equivalancy formula?...or is it just a tangled web of worms?

2. how would changing undertray and wing size effect racing?.....I'm assumeing that adopting a formula that produceing less downforce (requiring lifting into the corners) effects safety..?....again is there a happy medium?

[keysersoze]

If the logic for having turbos is the "better" engine note, can that not be addressed by the exhaust system?

I agree, the 4.0 IRL formula was too throaty, but the current engine note is quite good. Not as lovely as the 2.65 turbo, but like I said above . . .

[DBell]

for being a race junky I don't know the first thing about engines..

but what i do know is the engines have been detuned in both series and it has IMO negatively effected the racing.....


questions for hoop.....or anyone else

1. when they adopt a new engine formula how easy/hard would it be to allow N/A and turbo?.....is there a simple equivalancy formula?...or is it just a tangled web of worms?

2. how would changing undertray and wing size effect racing?.....I'm assuming that adopting a formula that producing less downforce (requiring lifting into the corners) effects safety..?....again is there a happy medium?

I think an equivalency formula can be done. Sports cars and touring cars do it. Some would argue that turbos made na engines obsolete in F1 in the '80s. But that was a different era with, other than displacement, unlimited development rules. I think the real problem would be the constant politicking by the engine makers. The "we need more air through the air box" or "we need more boost" refrains would get old real quick.

The down force thing has been discussed on several other threads. I seem to remember Hoop saying, in effect, that reducing the downforce on big ovals with banking wouldn't make the drivers have to lift. They would still be able to go through flat and with less drag, I assume that would mean higher speeds.