CART to drop Turbo's in 2004

by **Olav K. Malm** » Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:27:25

> I tried this idea too and came up with this

> http://www.racesimcentral.net/~matt/cart2irl.htm

> See what you think.

Hmmm, It looked a bit bulky indeed :) Try to use this picture instead:

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> >IRL cars are probably some of the ugliest racecars on the planet. But
> >I did a little photoshop experiment and drew a line from the top of
> >the roll-hoop on a champcar to the engine cover a little bit behind
> >the pop-off valve. It actually didn't look that stupid. So imagine a
> >airbox not bigger than the current roll-hoop it wouldn't be too bad.

--
Olav K. Malmin
remove .spam when replying

by **Matt Smit** » Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:35:09

Okay. I tried it with Jimmys car too. Same URL.

>> I tried this idea too and came up with this

>> http://www.ias.uwe.ac.uk/~matt/cart2irl.htm

>> See what you think.

>Hmmm, It looked a bit bulky indeed :) Try to use this picture instead:

>http://www.champcar.com/races01/07milwaukee/sun_digital/image04.html

>> >IRL cars are probably some of the ugliest racecars on the planet. But
>> >I did a little photoshop experiment and drew a line from the top of
>> >the roll-hoop on a champcar to the engine cover a little bit behind
>> >the pop-off valve. It actually didn't look that stupid. So imagine a
>> >airbox not bigger than the current roll-hoop it wouldn't be too bad.

>--
>Olav K. Malmin
>remove .spam when replying

by **Olav K. Malm** » Fri, 08 Jun 2001 20:16:11

> Okay. I tried it with Jimmys car too. Same URL.

Great effort! Let the poll start. Do we really want a champar that
looks like this ? :) I don't.

> >> I tried this idea too and came up with this

> >> http://www.ias.uwe.ac.uk/~matt/cart2irl.htm

> >> See what you think.

> >Hmmm, It looked a bit bulky indeed :) Try to use this picture instead:

> >http://www.champcar.com/races01/07milwaukee/sun_digital/image04.html

> >> >IRL cars are probably some of the ugliest racecars on the planet. But
> >> >I did a little photoshop experiment and drew a line from the top of
> >> >the roll-hoop on a champcar to the engine cover a little bit behind
> >> >the pop-off valve. It actually didn't look that stupid. So imagine a
> >> >airbox not bigger than the current roll-hoop it wouldn't be too bad.

> >--
> >Olav K. Malmin
> >remove .spam when replying

--
Olav K. Malmin
remove .spam when replying

by **Dave Henri** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:04:09

The REAL problem with your ideas of how a champ car would look is you are
forgetting about the big helmet that would be blocking all that air they are
trying to force in. That is why the F1 and IRL cars have such a tall
airbox, it has to clear the driver or it's virtually useless.
dave henrie

> > Okay. I tried it with Jimmys car too. Same URL.

> Great effort! Let the poll start. Do we really want a champar that
> looks like this ? :) I don't.

> > >> I tried this idea too and came up with this

> > >> http://www.ias.uwe.ac.uk/~matt/cart2irl.htm

> > >> See what you think.

> > >Hmmm, It looked a bit bulky indeed :) Try to use this picture instead:

> > >http://www.champcar.com/races01/07milwaukee/sun_digital/image04.html

> > >> >IRL cars are probably some of the ugliest racecars on the planet.
But
> > >> >I did a little photoshop experiment and drew a line from the top of
> > >> >the roll-hoop on a champcar to the engine cover a little bit behind
> > >> >the pop-off valve. It actually didn't look that stupid. So imagine a
> > >> >airbox not bigger than the current roll-hoop it wouldn't be too bad.

> > >--
> > >Olav K. Malmin
> > >remove .spam when replying

> --
> Olav K. Malmin
> remove .spam when replying

by **Shaun Robinso** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:59:31

My thoughts quite the same. And just this second i thought of
something... this is all to reduce speed, on road courses speed is not
really a concern (well, without 180mph straights they might as well rip
the latter five gears from the transmission), anyway, drop the ovals!!!
I find it hard to believe that the spectator turn out justifies the
event on the roundy rounds. And there for, no ovals, no speed concerns
:)

Wow, i just solved all CARTs problems... (cough, cough)

> >Any good reason for waiting all the way till 2004???

> Yeah. Nobody wants to see the turbos go away!! I'm personally VERY F*CKING
> PISSED that CART has decided to drop turbochargers. TURBOCHARGERS ARE CART'S
> IDENTITY. The whine of a turbo is music to my ears...

> -----------------------------------------
> Dan Belcher
> Team Racing Unlimited
> http://simcrash.00game.com

by **Shaun Robinso** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 14:01:08

Wouldn't just be a cosworth F1 engine minus a pair of pistons?

> No Rev Limiter eh? Hmmmmmmm..........
> Interesting to see a Ford "Champ Car" engine pulling 18,000rpm...

> > >: Came across this at espn.com tonight
> > >:

> > >Toyota will love this... there will likely be a lot of parallel
> development
> > >of CART and F1 (LMP as well?) engine projects.

> > Toyota is probably the driving force behind CART's move away from the
> > turbo engine formula -- it was announced some time ago that Toyota
> > will be providing 3.5-liter normally-aspirated engines for the IRL
> > starting in 2003. They had said they would continue to provide
> > engines for CART through 2002, but beyond that, their turbo engine
> > program was dead, period.

> > http://irlinsider.adnetweb.com/0401toyota1.htm

> > CART's change

> > -- JB

by **RegularRace** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 14:11:05

Don't you think it be cheaper just to keep the other two?
<grin>

> Wouldn't just be a cosworth F1 engine minus a pair of pistons?

> > No Rev Limiter eh? Hmmmmmmm..........
> > Interesting to see a Ford "Champ Car" engine pulling 18,000rpm...

> > > >: Came across this at espn.com tonight
> > > >:

> > > >Toyota will love this... there will likely be a lot of parallel
> > development
> > > >of CART and F1 (LMP as well?) engine projects.

> > > Toyota is probably the driving force behind CART's move away from the
> > > turbo engine formula -- it was announced some time ago that Toyota
> > > will be providing 3.5-liter normally-aspirated engines for the IRL
> > > starting in 2003. They had said they would continue to provide
> > > engines for CART through 2002, but beyond that, their turbo engine
> > > program was dead, period.

> > > http://irlinsider.adnetweb.com/0401toyota1.htm

> > > CART's change

> > > -- JB

by **John Boo** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 15:36:47

I don't really care what they use (living at the bottom end of
Downunderland) but I hope they get a "nice" engine sound. When I worked at
Surfers Indy in '99 (trackside) I didn't need airplugs to work when the Cart
cars are out. F1 on the other hand is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too loud.

Book.

> My thoughts quite the same. And just this second i thought of
> something... this is all to reduce speed, on road courses speed is not
> really a concern (well, without 180mph straights they might as well rip
> the latter five gears from the transmission), anyway, drop the ovals!!!
> I find it hard to believe that the spectator turn out justifies the
> event on the roundy rounds. And there for, no ovals, no speed concerns
> :)

> Wow, i just solved all CARTs problems... (cough, cough)

> > >Any good reason for waiting all the way till 2004???

> > Yeah. Nobody wants to see the turbos go away!! I'm personally VERY
F*CKING
> > PISSED that CART has decided to drop turbochargers. TURBOCHARGERS ARE
CART'S
> > IDENTITY. The whine of a turbo is music to my ears...

> > -----------------------------------------
> > Dan Belcher
> > Team Racing Unlimited
> > http://simcrash.00game.com

by **Davi** » Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:14:38

I really hope they just go with the open injector intake that F1 used in the
late 70s. Much cleaner looking cars to me at least. Those big airboxes are
ugly to me.

Dave

> The REAL problem with your ideas of how a champ car would look is you
are
> forgetting about the big helmet that would be blocking all that air they
are
> trying to force in. That is why the F1 and IRL cars have such a tall
> airbox, it has to clear the driver or it's virtually useless.
> dave henrie

> > > Okay. I tried it with Jimmys car too. Same URL.

> > Great effort! Let the poll start. Do we really want a champar that
> > looks like this ? :) I don't.

> > > >> I tried this idea too and came up with this

> > > >> http://www.ias.uwe.ac.uk/~matt/cart2irl.htm

> > > >> See what you think.

> > > >Hmmm, It looked a bit bulky indeed :) Try to use this picture
instead:

> > > >http://www.champcar.com/races01/07milwaukee/sun_digital/image04.html

> > > >> >IRL cars are probably some of the ugliest racecars on the planet.
> But
> > > >> >I did a little photoshop experiment and drew a line from the top
of
> > > >> >the roll-hoop on a champcar to the engine cover a little bit
behind
> > > >> >the pop-off valve. It actually didn't look that stupid. So imagine
a
> > > >> >airbox not bigger than the current roll-hoop it wouldn't be too
bad.

> > > >--
> > > >Olav K. Malmin
> > > >remove .spam when replying

> > --
> > Olav K. Malmin
> > remove .spam when replying

by **Bill Met** » Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:20:10

>More importantl, the bigger motor will mean a higher C of G, so the cars
>won;t handle as nicely on road courses,... and the motors will be heavier
>and slower,....

One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned is will the new rule still
mandate 8 cylinders? If they allow V-10's, then that will obviously
reduce the engine's c/g height. Regardless of the engine design, I
would think that getting rid of all the exhaust plumbing and gearbox space
required for the turbos would allow the aerodynamicists to come up with
undertray designs that produce more downforce.

Although some of the news stories have contained the phrase "similar to
the IRL," I think V-8 vs. V-10 is a huge political issue. If they only
allow V-8's then it's an obvious gesture toward the IRL possibly helping
along an eventual reconciliation. On the other hand, if they allow
V-10's, there's even more potential for technology crossover with F1
engine programs which may entice more manufacturers to participate.

Just some random thoughts.
--
| "Instead of letting the moon be the
Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let
Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in our
| history." - Andrew Chaikin

by **Bill Met** » Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:28:43

>> As long as there's a standard fuel capacity and you're competing with
>another
>> person(s) there'll always be a fuel 'issue' surely??

>Not neccesarily,.... In Champcars today much of the race is dependent on the
>pilot controlling boost aduring the race, and thus fuel strategy. WIh the NA
>motors all of that MAY go out he door, and they can concentrate on driving
>as fast as possible, and fueling when the have to, not when they "want
>to"...

It's not boost they're contantly tweaking. It's the fuel mixture. It's
my understanding that F1 teams do the same thing these days. You
generally just don't here about it as much as you do with CART. From an
engineering point of view it's amazing technology. It just happens to
make the on track competition suffer to gain the competition in pit
strategy. Regardless of turbo/no-turbo, I've always wanted to see the
adjustable fuel mixtures eliminated.

--
| "Instead of letting the moon be the
Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let
Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in our
| history." - Andrew Chaikin

by **Dave Henri** » Sun, 10 Jun 2001 08:17:20

I would think V8 simply because it is a more familar format for American
fans. Except for the Viper and a couple of Pickup Trucks, there are no mass
produced V10's in the States.
dave henrie
">
ps...the latest IRL engine spec seems designed to LEAN toward CART by
producing more midrange power, that would facilitate(sp?) road racing.
dh

by **Dave Henri** » Sun, 10 Jun 2001 08:22:46

I seriously doubt the close-minded engineer first mentality of F1 would
ALLOW the driver to mess with fuel mixtures. I'm not trying to troll or
anything, it just 'seems' to me that the F1 car is much less adjustable
during a race than CART or Winston Cup cars are.
Even front wing adjustments are relatively new, courtesy of Jacques
Villenue. Since the quotes we here most often my engineers like Patrick
Head and Adrian Newy are usually disparaging of drivers that can't mesh with
THEIR engineering, I would think the last thing a modern F1 driver would be
allowed to do is adjust engine mapping. (now I wouldn't put it past the
teams to adjust that kind of function from the pits, during a race via
illegal telemetry transmissions...)
dave henrie

> >> As long as there's a standard fuel capacity and you're competing with
> >another
> >> person(s) there'll always be a fuel 'issue' surely??

> >Not neccesarily,.... In Champcars today much of the race is dependent on
the
> >pilot controlling boost aduring the race, and thus fuel strategy. WIh the
NA
> >motors all of that MAY go out he door, and they can concentrate on
driving
> >as fast as possible, and fueling when the have to, not when they "want
> >to"...

> It's not boost they're contantly tweaking. It's the fuel mixture. It's
> my understanding that F1 teams do the same thing these days. You
> generally just don't here about it as much as you do with CART. From an
> engineering point of view it's amazing technology. It just happens to
> make the on track competition suffer to gain the competition in pit
> strategy. Regardless of turbo/no-turbo, I've always wanted to see the
> adjustable fuel mixtures eliminated.

> --
> | "Instead of letting the moon be the
> Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let
> Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in our
> | history." - Andrew Chaikin

by **Alex Shirle** » Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:03:36

There aren't a great deal of cars (none that I can think of now) with V10s
produced anywhere else either, but F1 is still popular. I think I can see
your point though - Americans like their V8s.

Alex.

by **Alex Shirle** » Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:15:52

You've not seen an F1 steering wheel lately then? There are an unbelieveable
number of buttons and dials for making adjustments (including fuel mixtures)
and operating various gearbox functions. The only way I'd be able to drive
an F1 car would be of they gave me a QWERTY steering wheel :)

They've been adjusting the wings at both ends pretty much since the concept
was invented. At first they were adjustable by the drivers on the move
(banned) then they were fixed for a while, but they've been fully adjustable
since at least the end of the 70s. I believe JV was credited with bringing
experience of asymmetric setups to modern F1.

This used to be legal, but now only voice communication between pit and
driver and telemetry readings FROM the engine are allowed. I would think
it's pretty easy to police. If there was a way to get round it, I'm sure the
teams would though.

Alex