I think common engines would be cool but it's really a long shot. They
do seem to all be shooting for about the same amount of horsepower, but
they are getting there in different ways. Getting rid of the turbos
would be a good thing, I think, because they are impossible to regulate.
But there are other considerations. CART uses Methanol, and I think the
IRL does too, whereas everybody else uses some grade of petrol. That
means different seals in the engine, and probably different compression
ratios too. Plus depending on length of race and duty cycle they would
all have to run different compression ratios and rev limits to get the
engines to live. Once you make that decision, you no longer need or
want the same parts in each engine. No reason for a 15000 rpm engine to
use the same rotating parts as an 18000 rpm engine. In the end that
would require almost as much development as having separate engines to
begin with.
> My thinking is that the powertrain similarities to F1 will be greater
with
> the new formula than with the current turbos. More similar
displacement and
> naturally aspirated, but with a couple less cylinders, lower rev
limits, no
> pneumatic valvesprings (not needed at -15K). Some F1-style tech, like
> traction control, etc., but not the full ticket; a solid mid-point
between
> IRL and F1, which seems like how CART's trying to position itself.
Less
> costly, more standardized equipment than Bernie's circus, but still
the
> fastest, highest-tech US-based open wheel series.
> Could be wrong, of course... ;-)
> SB
> > I agree with your thinking on the reduced development costs by doing
> > both the IRL engine and the CART engine, they could almost use the
> > CART engine for IRL by just lowering the rev limit. But I don't see
> > any way that the F1 engine will have any similarities to the
IRL/CART
> > engines. They're way too different to be of any use, as well as far
> > too expensive.
> > Rafe Mc
