from the current Champcar engine formula. What would happen if they did
this?
Would the engines blow and how much speed would this eliminate.
I am just thinking about Michigan and California. There always seems to be
about a 5 mph increase in speed from the time they run at Michigan to the
time that they run at California.
I would think — right now — that they are going to run 240 at Michigan and
thus 245 at California for qualifying speeds. I base that on last year,
when they qualified 236 at Michigan and 241 at California.
Will running a reduction to 36 inches of boost be enough to slow the cars
down sufficiently. Or should the boost be eliminated al together.
In article <tf03uep09f0…@corp.supernews.com>,
JT Shell <jtshel…@charter.net> wrote:
>from the current Champcar engine formula. What would happen if they did
>this?
It’s not something that could be done overnight. The best they could do
on a short-term basis is drop the boost by a few inches. And depending
on how much lead time they gave the engine builders, it might not have
much effect! Last year’s boost was 40"; they cut it by 3" this year
(approx. 1/10 bar for those of you with sane measurement systems), but
the engine builders and aerodynamics wizards have already regained much
of the difference. That’s racing.
>I am just thinking about Michigan and California. There always seems to be
>about a 5 mph increase in speed from the time they run at Michigan to the
>time that they run at California.
In part, that’s because California’s pavement is so much smoother and
newer (thus grippier) than Michigan. The banking at California is
actually 4 degrees less than Michigan’s.
>Will running a reduction to 36 inches of boost be enough to slow the cars
>down sufficiently. Or should the boost be eliminated al together.
I don’t think a 1" reduction is enough; CART’s officials decided it was
certainly not enough at TMS.
I do think the TMS incident, in conjunction with Toyota’s Indy engine
program, are going to force CART into a normally aspirated formula for
the future.
– Chuck, non-partisan race fan
I think you are probably right.
But it seems rather odd they could determine their proposed changes for
Sunday weren’t enough, but after months of knowing they were coming to TMS,
they were (apparently) caught off guard.
"Chuck Fry" <chu…@best.com> wrote in message
news:9cpdid$1gkr$1@nntp1.ba.best.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I don’t think a 1" reduction is enough; CART’s officials decided it was
> certainly not enough at TMS.
If they go to a small displacement, but highly turbo-boosted engine, the
turbo isn’t a problem. The turbo itself isn’t the problem. The problem is
they’ve already reached its lower limit. The turbo really can’t be used to
limit power anymore.
They have waited too long to get their new formula in place.
"Chuck Fry" <chu…@best.com> wrote in message
news:9cpdid$1gkr$1@nntp1.ba.best.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I do think the TMS incident, in conjunction with Toyota’s Indy engine
> program, are going to force CART into a normally aspirated formula for
> the future.
> – Chuck, non-partisan race fan
Here’s what would happen;
I would equate CART with the irl and quit watching. Shit I’m allmost there
already.
JT Shell <jtshel…@charter.net> wrote in message
news:tf03uep09f0r0f@corp.supernews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> from the current Champcar engine formula. What would happen if they did
> this?
> Would the engines blow and how much speed would this eliminate.
> I am just thinking about Michigan and California. There always seems to
be
> about a 5 mph increase in speed from the time they run at Michigan to the
> time that they run at California.
> I would think — right now — that they are going to run 240 at Michigan
and
> thus 245 at California for qualifying speeds. I base that on last year,
> when they qualified 236 at Michigan and 241 at California.
> Will running a reduction to 36 inches of boost be enough to slow the cars
> down sufficiently. Or should the boost be eliminated al together.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <tf03uep09f0…@corp.supernews.com>, JT Shell wrote:
>from the current Champcar engine formula. What would happen if they did
>this?
>Would the engines blow and how much speed would this eliminate.
>I am just thinking about Michigan and California. There always seems to be
>about a 5 mph increase in speed from the time they run at Michigan to the
>time that they run at California.
>I would think — right now — that they are going to run 240 at Michigan and
>thus 245 at California for qualifying speeds. I base that on last year,
>when they qualified 236 at Michigan and 241 at California.
>Will running a reduction to 36 inches of boost be enough to slow the cars
>down sufficiently. Or should the boost be eliminated al together.
Doubtful, as they were running only 37" (down from 40" last year, which
should help at Michigan and Fontana). I suspect they will try to run
34" (which is scheduled for next year) and add aero tweaks. In other words,
again throw a bandaid on a hemorage (much like the wheel tethers on
high-banked ovals). The only real solution is to admit that the cars have
no business running the oval. Atlanta and TMS should have been sufficient
warning. But they will probably be ignored once again.
—
James C. West (Jim) jw…@okstate.edu
Professor jw…@emag.ecen.okstate.edu
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University
I was just wondering whether it would burn up the engine if the boost were
eliminated on this engine.
I do know that this would be a very temporary reduction of power.
Eventually the speed would increase back to it’d current level. Probably
before the 2002 season is over.
Would these cars have to have air intake boxes to wor?. Or could they run
under normal atmospheric conditions. Would they get so hot without the
turbos that they would blow up.
I do agree that the 1.8L V-8 is the way to go and that will eventually have
to be replaced also.
I don’t — nor did I ever — believe that the Handford device was the
answer. It does nothing but give trailing cars a free aerodynamic ride to
the front of the pack. I also don’t think that taking downforce away from
cars with this power is a safe thing to do. Especially with the
turbulence — the wake — created by cars at this speed. The only answer is
horsepower reduction.
These drivers are in this sport to push the limits of these cars. Reducing
aerodynamics forces drivers to hold back. Which we know that they are not
going to do. This becomes an ever more dangerous game in those conditions.
I don’t want to see CART do this by using Speed — Rev — Limiters. Revs
equal speed and this puts a ceiling on how fast a car can go under the
specific conditions dictated by the sanctioning body. That should not be
the job of the sanctioning body.
The sanctioning body should set the big picture. Defining parameters that
will achieve safety without destroying competion. A team should not be
penalized when they have tuned and tweaked the car to perfection. They
should be able to run away from the field.
The sanctioning body should not micromanage every race to create "balanced
competion." Balanced competion is artificial competition. Races such as
the 1982, 1986, 1989, 1991 and 1992 Indy 500′s were much more exciting than
the current versions. The races the last few years did feature more cars on
the lead lap, but those races were "mano y mano" without spec engines and
the trailing car had every chance to make the pass for the win.
The newer versions seem so srtificial. Hearing all those cars hitting the
Rev — Speed — Limiter going down the straights is really irritating.
Because you can assume that if the done will do it for them. Spinning the
rev cycle down to a level that will take some distance to re-achieve the
maximum revs and at the same time damaging the engine. How does having a
rev-limiter make sense.
Sorry for the rant, but all the stuff has had me thinking about how some of
these concepts must be addressed.
In article <tf0s2o9jdjg…@corp.supernews.com>,
JT Shell <jtshel…@charter.net> wrote:
>I do agree that the 1.8L V-8 is the way to go and that will eventually have
>to be replaced also.
Like it or not, the Indy 500 is — and always has been — the tail that
wags the open-wheel racing industry’s dog. I would be very surprised if
the next CART engine formula was turbocharged.
>I don’t — nor did I ever — believe that the Handford device was the
>answer. It does nothing but give trailing cars a free aerodynamic ride to
>the front of the pack.
The Handford Device does two things: it creates substantially more drag
and about the same amount of downforce as the old "speedway" wings,
slowing the cars down, and it punches a bigger hole in the air to, as
you say, give trailing cars a free ride.
The latter effect is probably far more important than the former. It
improves the "show" at the superspeedways. Considering that CART has to
compete for race fans’ dollars with NASCAR, this effect has significant
financial implications. And as a Fontana season ticket holder, frankly
I like the results.
> I also don’t think that taking downforce away from
>cars with this power is a safe thing to do. Especially with the
>turbulence — the wake — created by cars at this speed. The only answer is
>horsepower reduction.
I disagree. We’ve seen what happens when horsepower is cut back but
aero isn’t: look at the NASCAR restrictor-plate races for a clue. The
"race" becomes a parade whose outcome is determined solely by strategy
and luck, not driving skill.
Between the tire wars of a few years ago and the ever-advancing
aerodynamic technology, the cars (both CART and IRL) are too well stuck,
and can be driven wide open at too many tracks. The IRL cars are more
so, with their big wings and significantly lower HP. Cutting power will
only aggravate the problem. I say cut the grip — either with less
downforce or narrower/harder tires, or both — and make the drivers
*work* for a living. Race cars *should* be difficult to drive fast.
Not treacherous, as the 4-liter IRL cars were, but difficult.
>These drivers are in this sport to push the limits of these cars. Reducing
>aerodynamics forces drivers to hold back. Which we know that they are not
>going to do. This becomes an ever more dangerous game in those conditions.
I think you’re reasoning from a flawed premise. Racing drivers are paid
to find the limits of the car, whatever they might be, and to operate
that car as close to those limits as possible. They’re only going to
drive as fast as the car will go safely. Changing the limits doesn’t
change the essential nature of the racing driver’s job.
Because aerodynamic grip increases with speed, the car sticks better as
. IMHO, when any half-competent driver can drive a Champ
it goes faster, until the tires start to give up from all the downforce,
or the engine power can no longer overcome the drag. Too much aero in a
power-limited car makes any driver look like a hero (or Hiro, as the
case may be
or Indy car around Indy, Michigan or Fontana wide open, the cars are too
well stuck.
Reducing aero grip brings down the limits of adhesion, requiring more
skill and finesse from the driver, and maybe even an occasional
application of the brakes. But it has to be done in a way that doesn’t
increase the likelihood of problems in traffic.
>I don’t want to see CART do this by using Speed — Rev — Limiters. Revs
>equal speed and this puts a ceiling on how fast a car can go under the
>specific conditions dictated by the sanctioning body. That should not be
>the job of the sanctioning body.
I agree with this. So do the CART engine suppliers, who prefer engine
rules that let them push technology without getting into the rarefied,
irrelevant heights of F1 engine tech (when was the last time you drove a
street car with a beryllium engine block and pneumatic valve springs??).
Rev limiters are the wrong answer.
But what’s the right answer? A turbo’d small V8 makes for easy HP
adjustment, which is why it had been the leading candidate for the next
CART engine formula, and race fans love the sound. But it’s irrelevant
to what the world drives on the street, and I don’t think it’s going to
fly in the current political climate. The engine builders (excepting
maybe Honda) want to get back to The Speedway, so IMHO look for a
package that has a fair degree of commonality with the IRL rules. Off
the top of my head, I think an unlimited NA 3.0 liter V8 might be one
way to go; it’s close enough to the IRL engine package to allow easy
adaptation to IRL rules, but offers some technological challenge to the
engine builders.
>The newer versions seem so srtificial. Hearing all those cars hitting the
>Rev — Speed — Limiter going down the straights is really irritating.
I agree. Sure, the low rev limits keep engine costs down, but there’s
no technical challenge in building such an engine. And what fan wants
to hear race engines farting as they bounce off the rev limiter?
But you know eventually the cars will be too fast again. How would you
limit the power of an "unlimited" race engine? How about stricter fuel
economy rules? That way the driver still has power to use to pass or
run away from the competition, but he can’t use it all the time or he’ll
run out of fuel. Maybe intake restrictors, as the endurance racing
series have used?
– Chuck, non-partisan race fan
Mark McCauley <sm…@hawkpci.net> wrote in message
news:m9XH6.27191$aW5.350541@dfw-read.news.verio.net…
> If they go to a small displacement, but highly turbo-boosted engine, the
> turbo isn’t a problem. The turbo itself isn’t the problem. The problem is
> they’ve already reached its lower limit. The turbo really can’t be used
to
> limit power anymore.
> They have waited too long to get their new formula in place.
Symptom of the split.
–
Ron Payne,
accipi…@usanospam.net
See my Field Guide To Open Wheel Race Cars:
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/cosworth/274/field_guide.html
………………………………………………………..~o^=o>
Reply to group or E-mail address in message text.
> >I don’t — nor did I ever — believe that the Handford device was the
> >answer. It does nothing but give trailing cars a free aerodynamic ride to
> >the front of the pack.
> The Handford Device does two things: it creates substantially more drag
> and about the same amount of downforce as the old "speedway" wings,
> slowing the cars down, and it punches a bigger hole in the air to, as
> you say, give trailing cars a free ride.
> The latter effect is probably far more important than the former. It
> improves the "show" at the superspeedways. Considering that CART has to
> compete for race fans’ dollars with NASCAR, this effect has significant
> financial implications. And as a Fontana season ticket holder, frankly
> I like the results.
There is a simple fix to the TMS speed problem that is readily
available: road course wings. Monster downforce, monster draft,
monster drag. The cars couldn’t lap faster than 220 with them
and the racing would be great because the cars could go anywhere,
the draft would be huge and the drivers could get creative in
passing maneuvers.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Marc P. Gregoire
E-Mail: marcgrego…@crosswinds.net
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/~marcgregoire
Fantasy Game: http://www.agt.net/public/pdgreg/
In article <3AF0A67B.4A31C…@crosswinds.net>, Marc P. Gregoire wrote:
>There is a simple fix to the TMS speed problem that is readily
>available: road course wings. Monster downforce, monster draft,
>monster drag.
More drag than the Hanford device? I’m not so sure about that, if the
road course wings can be trimmed out.
—
James C. West (Jim) jw…@okstate.edu
Professor jw…@emag.ecen.okstate.edu
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University
> More drag than the Hanford device? I’m not so sure about that, if the
> road course wings can be trimmed out.
Minimum wing angle possibly? 12-15 degrees.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Marc P. Gregoire
E-Mail: mgreg…@mailroom.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/~marcgregoire
Fantasy Game: http://www.agt.net/public/pdgreg/