OT: Is that the nail in the coffin for CART?

ESPN is reporting that Honda is jumping to the IRL, in partnership with Ilmore. The article is at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/motorsports/news/2002/05/23/honda_irl_ap Is that it? Will CART run another season? Note, in the same article, that the IRL will run in Japan next year, and is considering running a road course. I think Asshole Georgie, with his xenophobic bigotry and all, won. And I'll miss the CART tracks. I only wish we had gotten a decent sim before it all ended. -Tim

"The Enigmatic One" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2QiH8.3144$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > ESPN is reporting that Honda is jumping to the IRL, in partnership with > Ilmore. > > The article is at > http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/motorsports/news/2002/05/23/honda_irl_ap > > Is that it? Will CART run another season? Note, in the same article, > that the IRL will run in Japan next year, and is considering running a > road course. > > I think Asshole Georgie, with his xenophobic bigotry and all, won. And > I'll miss the CART tracks. I only wish we had gotten a decent sim before > it all ended. > > > -Tim

CART already has engines lined up for next year. While having honda would be nice, it isn't the last nail by any means. dave henrie

More like a nail in the foot of Honda..

There was just a blurb on Autoweek the other day where Honda was discussing doing BOTH series in '04 due to the similar engine formulas. CART will have higher rev limits and more tech bits, but the incremental development costs should be minimal (which was the reason for the formula change). From IRL through CART to F1, Honda should have a pretty broad base of *somewhat* similar naturally-aspirated engines to share development costs, with varying degrees of technology to suit the sanctioning bodies. IRL = detuned CART = detuned F1(minus 2cyl). They were gone from CART for '03 anyway, as much for political reasons as any, and the obvious choice was to go IRL in '03 unless they wanted to bail from the U.S. racing scene altogether. The market's too big to ignore, and it's not like they're gonna go WC racing. If Pook pulls CART together, they're set with a base engine package to develop from; if not they're good to go as-is. SB "Annes Notrya" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C8rH8.36979$[email hidden]... > More like a nail in the foot of Honda..

In article <5BtH8.7061$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... >They were gone from CART for '03 anyway, as much for political reasons as >any, and the obvious choice was to go IRL in '03 unless they wanted to bail >from the U.S. racing scene altogether. The market's too big to ignore, and >it's not like they're gonna go WC racing. If Pook pulls CART together, >they're set with a base engine package to develop from; if not they're good >to go as-is. But you forget Honda's huge sponsorship dollars. That's much of CART's income, and it's leaving. The danger is that it pushes some more CART teams to the IRL, leaving CART way too thin. -Tim

Not to say it's not a loss; certainly it is. Just not necessarily a terminal one. CART definitely has some damage repair to do in '03, but they have too viable a niche to be abandoned entirely in the long term. At least I hope so! ;-) SB "The Enigmatic One" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NguH8.3152$[email hidden]... > In article <5BtH8.7061$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > >They were gone from CART for '03 anyway, as much for political reasons as > >any, and the obvious choice was to go IRL in '03 unless they wanted tobail > >from the U.S. racing scene altogether. The market's too big to ignore,and > >it's not like they're gonna go WC racing. If Pook pulls CART together, > >they're set with a base engine package to develop from; if not they'regood > >to go as-is. > > But you forget Honda's huge sponsorship dollars. That's much of CART's > income, and it's leaving. The danger is that it pushes some more CARTteams > to the IRL, leaving CART way too thin. > > -Tim >

On Fri, 24 May 2002 16:09:37 GMT, "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>There was just a blurb on Autoweek the other day where Honda was discussing >doing BOTH series in '04 due to the similar engine formulas. CART will have >higher rev limits and more tech bits, but the incremental development costs >should be minimal (which was the reason for the formula change). From IRL >through CART to F1, Honda should have a pretty broad base of *somewhat* >similar naturally-aspirated engines to share development costs, with varying >degrees of technology to suit the sanctioning bodies. IRL = detuned CART = >detuned F1(minus 2cyl). >

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

> 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. All that, and I'm not sure a F1 engine would last under constant throttle for a race that is generally twice as long as a F1 race (in real time). So, not a big CART fan here, but, which engine builder is left in CART?

> > So, not a big CART fan here, but, which engine builder is left in CART? > Judd for sure, not sure what it will be badged yet tho...and probably Ford(but I'm not sure there either) dave henrie

"jlohman" > > So, not a big CART fan here, but, which engine builder is left in CART? > > Ilmor could be the Judd badge or they could have their own package. Ford is definate

"jlohman" Ilmor could be the Judd badge or they could have their own package. Ford is definate

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > So, not a big CART fan here, but, which engine builder is left in CART? > > > Judd for sure, not sure what it will be badged yet tho...and probably > Ford(but I'm not sure there either) > dave henrie Judd badged as MG (great) and Cosworth has confirmed so far. Ilmor (maybe badged as Crysler) are speculated. Olav

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "jlohman" > > > > So, not a big CART fan here, but, which engine builder is left in CART? > > > > > Ilmor could be the Judd badge or they could have their own package. Ford > is definate

John Judd building engines for Mario Illien....that would be a bit like asking Saleen to build the Callaway C5 :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

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 "Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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

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. "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YrOI8.47340$[email hidden]... > My thinking is that the powertrain similarities to F1 will be greaterwith > the new formula than with the current turbos. More similardisplacement and > naturally aspirated, but with a couple less cylinders, lower revlimits, no > pneumatic valvesprings (not needed at -15K). Some F1-style tech, like > traction control, etc., but not the full ticket; a solid mid-pointbetween > IRL and F1, which seems like how CART's trying to position itself.Less > costly, more standardized equipment than Bernie's circus, but stillthe

Quoted text (12 lines)

> fastest, highest-tech US-based open wheel series. > > Could be wrong, of course... ;-) > > SB > > "Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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 > >

In article <ad0jdc$s51tj$[email hidden]>, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes: >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. Easy regulation is one of the reasons CART has kept the turbos this long. The amount of boost pressure they use is closely controlled by a CART issued pop-off valve which is calibrated, sealed, and issued to the team before each session. The boost pressure has dropped constantly over the last ten years or so until it is now very low. Don McCorkle

The valve is controlled but the air passages to it are not. That was the whole scandal last year with Toyota (or was it Honda?) - they were alleged to have used a manifold design that reduced the pressure seen by the pop-off valve, which allowed them to run at a higher pressure. Anyway, not to change the subject but IMO the only thing you can regulate, and the only thing you need to regulate, in any engine formula, is fuel usage. Regulate the amount of fuel they can use during a race, and if somebody comes up with a magic way of getting more ft-lbs of work out of that fixed amount of fuel, well then good for them. Racing is about competition isn't it? "Woodie 83" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Easy regulation is one of the reasons CART has kept the turbos thislong. The > amount of boost pressure they use is closely controlled by a CARTissued > pop-off valve which is calibrated, sealed, and issued to the teambefore each > session. The boost pressure has dropped constantly over the last tenyears or > so until it is now very low. > > > Don McCorkle >

"Haqsau" < > Anyway, not to change the subject but IMO the only thing you can > regulate, and the only thing you need to regulate, in any engine > formula, is fuel usage. Regulate the amount of fuel they can use during > a race, and if somebody comes up with a magic way of getting more ft-lbs > of work out of that fixed amount of fuel, well then good for them. > Racing is about competition isn't it? But that is 180 degrees opposite of the current direction CART is moving. For years they limited the fuel and we got more and more races where a guy hung around the back, pitted, pitted, pitted, pitted and then won when the leader made ONE pitstop(see Detroit last year) The current CART rules have thrown away the fuel limitations to encourage full bore racing....They have also implemented a mandatory number of laps between pitstops to keep teams from trying to sneak the fuel mileage gambit back into the race. dave henrie

If that happens then the implication is that they weren't allotted enough fuel for a normal race pace. If sufficient fuel is available, there is nothing to prevent one guy from getting so far ahead of the pack that that strategy is impossible. So the fuel rules would have to be realistic. Admittedly, I don't know where you would draw the line - to some extent if you keep increasing the fuel allotment they can keep turning up the boost. It would take some thought to prevent the kind of situation you are talking about, but I still think it could be made to work. Maybe you limit the number of pitstops. Or do like the LeMans series does and prevent them from fuelling and changing tires simultaneously. I believe it can work. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JHhJ8.10621$0A2.15399@rwcrnsc54... > > But that is 180 degrees opposite of the current direction CART ismoving. > For years they limited the fuel and we got more and more races where aguy > hung around the back, pitted, pitted, pitted, pitted and then won whenthe > leader made ONE pitstop(see Detroit last year) The current CART ruleshave > thrown away the fuel limitations to encourage full bore racing....Theyhave > also implemented a mandatory number of laps between pitstops to keepteams > from trying to sneak the fuel mileage gambit back into the race. > dave henrie > >

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ad6fds$umhjm$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> If that happens then the implication is that they weren't allotted > enough fuel for a normal race pace. If sufficient fuel is available, > there is nothing to prevent one guy from getting so far ahead of the > pack that that strategy is impossible. So the fuel rules would have to > be realistic. Admittedly, I don't know where you would draw the line - > to some extent if you keep increasing the fuel allotment they can keep > turning up the boost. It would take some thought to prevent the kind of > situation you are talking about, but I still think it could be made to > work. Maybe you limit the number of pitstops. Or do like the LeMans > series does and prevent them from fuelling and changing tires > simultaneously. I believe it can work. >

There have been a few dramatic finishes because of the previous fuel strategies, but lately, as in last year, several winners(Max Papis) wouldn't even be close to a race winning pace, but would pop up near the end when the leaders made thier last stops...very frustrating. I remember last year at Cleveland, Memo Gidley in a Target car was driving with full boost, while most of the pack was dialed back for fuel conservation. HE made his last stop and was quite some distance behind the leaders...But because he was still on full rich, he blitzed through the field and almost caught the eventual winner...(some team blocking 'may' have held him up just enough) The reason you can't get away with that full speed strategy is the yellow flag. Doesn't matter how fast you are going, if you can't lap the field before a yellow flag is thrown then you lose all your advantage. That's why the new rules seem to have invigorated the racing. Fuel conservation runs are gone and the 'pedal to the metal' style of racing has returned. dave henrie