F1technical.net

Im sure youre correct...just like the other manufacturers. Ford does have a few 2.X liter ecoboost engines, but theyre all rather anemic compared to current racing engines in single seater series. The 3.5 liter v6 slated for the gt is a beast though! But i cant imagine ford wants to walk into direct competition with chevy knowing they will lose for a few years.

As exciting as the new technology is...i still love the sound of the 5.0 V8s.

I was under the impression that aero kits can be made by anyone and is to be available to everyone.

When did it become a Chevy vs Honda in the aero department?

Why is Indycar still not open to independent engine manufactures like AER, Judd and Cosworth

Indycar should also jump on the opportunity of DTM and Japanese GT merging by modding the engine rules to allow for 2.0 liter I4s into the competition.

Part of the reason for the aero kits was to provide manufacture differentiation. Be able to look at the car any say Chevy, instead of getting to spot the logo. AFAIK, any engine manufacturer is allowed in so long as they agree the can supply their proportion of the field plus one. After the Lotus fiasco, Indycar is rightly a little gunshy about smaller manufacturers. Inline fours would require heavy reengineering of the car or even a whole new chassis. The current car is designed to use the V6 as a stressed member. I4s don't have the same structural properties.

I'd like to see an opening of the rules, 3.5 stockblocks like the Ecoboost vs current bespoke 2.2L engines vs World Car 2L engines. Each would have strengths and weaknesses. Won't happen.

hpras wrote:Part of the reason for the aero kits was to provide manufacture differentiation. Be able to look at the car any say Chevy, instead of getting to spot the logo. AFAIK, any engine manufacturer is allowed in so long as they agree the can supply their proportion of the field plus one. After the Lotus fiasco, Indycar is rightly a little gunshy about smaller manufacturers. Inline fours would require heavy reengineering of the car or even a whole new chassis. The current car is designed to use the V6 as a stressed member. I4s don't have the same structural properties.

I'd like to see an opening of the rules, 3.5 stockblocks like the Ecoboost vs current bespoke 2.2L engines vs World Car 2L engines. Each would have strengths and weaknesses. Won't happen.

Indy car trying to control and ensure supply is robbing the series of verity. If they are just the regulatory body then teams would be forced to find their own engines within the rule from any supplier.

Indycar as a regulator should just be focused on a balance of performance that would keep cars close but distinct.

PS- All the stock blocks would not be a stressed member and would need a frame to strengthen the car as in LMP2. The same can be done to I4 engines. Even F1 engines sometimes do not have the required stiffness that they run additional frames around engines. The current DW12 is quiet generic and modifications can be made quiet easily.

Indycar is pretty big on controlling costs too. Thats one of the key reasons CART and Indy split. So a lot of the rules will be there to control costs foreach team....and allowing teams to develop aero or engines would bump costs and spread the field out. Sure other manufacturers can jump in...but the cost controls are tight and it can just be a team making their own special engine and aero.

When “Code 5” came over the radio on May 18 from Safety 2 leader Roy Spielmann, Mike Carey mashed the throttle on his Safety 1 truck and sped around the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to the scene of James Hinchliffe’s accident. Riding shotgun, Holmatro Safety Team leader Mike Yates tried to envision what he was dealing with since that code’s protocol is urgency and calls for the rapid extrication of the driver.

In his 30-plus years of working on the IMS, Indy Racing League and IndyCar safety teams Yates had pretty much seen it all. But nothing could have prepared him for what he and his squad encountered that afternoon.

http://www.racer.com/more/viewpoints/it ... inchcliffe

Everybody should read this full article on the safety teams saving the life of Hinchcliffe =D>

sgth0mas wrote:Indycar is pretty big on controlling costs too. Thats one of the key reasons CART and Indy split.

Sorry but it had zero to do with the split! Tony George and the Hulmams wanted to control open wheel racing in the USA, end of story.

djos wrote:

sgth0mas wrote:Indycar is pretty big on controlling costs too. Thats one of the key reasons CART and Indy split.

Sorry but it had zero to do with the split! Tony George and the Hulmams wanted to control open wheel racing in the USA, end of story.

It goes without saying that george wanted control...but the reason he wanted to control the series is because he didnt agree with cart. And one of the main disagreements was cost control. Cart was becomming what f1 is now. Ands thats why ive been saying over the past few years that i wint be surprised when some smaller teams or a redbull start a new series.

Luckily we dont have just ovals in IRL, and hopefully we will see the cars start to race on more premium road courses.

Cost control was nothing more than an excuse.

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/columns/s ... id=5195237

This is the best article I know about the so-called "American open-Wheel civil war". Sad story.

djos wrote:Cost control was nothing more than an excuse.

If it was just an excuse then why are costs still strictly limited?

That was the point of IRL to begin with. It was created because the founder did not like the costs, and limited contracts one single bit. Thus opted to create an CART competitor which would eventually consume CART(at that point Champcar).

wesley123 wrote:

djos wrote:Cost control was nothing more than an excuse.

If it was just an excuse then why are costs still strictly limited?

That was the point of IRL to begin with. It was created because the founder did not like the costs, and limited contracts one single bit. Thus opted to create an CART competitor which would eventually consume CART(at that point Champcar).

Read the article sombrero posted, in a nutshell it was about making Indy racing more American (particularly drivers) and less international with greater emphasis on oval tracks than street circuits and road courses.

wesley123 wrote:

djos wrote:Cost control was nothing more than an excuse.

If it was just an excuse then why are costs still strictly limited?

That was the point of IRL to begin with. It was created because the founder did not like the costs, and limited contracts one single bit. Thus opted to create an CART competitor which would eventually consume CART(at that point Champcar).

Cost control is there as it is the only way for it to survive.

But they have also been restrictive in letting vendors enter. They could have cost control without restriction on entry while ensuring that availability to all without bias and certain balance of power.

Indy is still a spec series when it has the opportunity for greater variety to make it healthier financially and more popular.

Those full course yellows has to go and race penalties has to increase for contact

djos wrote:

wesley123 wrote:

djos wrote:Cost control was nothing more than an excuse.

If it was just an excuse then why are costs still strictly limited?

That was the point of IRL to begin with. It was created because the founder did not like the costs, and limited contracts one single bit. Thus opted to create an CART competitor which would eventually consume CART(at that point Champcar).

Read the article sombrero posted, in a nutshell it was about making Indy racing more American (particularly drivers) and less international with greater emphasis on oval tracks than street circuits and road courses.

If you read that article you would see that it specifically mentions cost controls and his goal was to get rid of the teams need of pay drivers. Yes he does want to bring up american drivers, but he also doesnt want costs to run out of control.

Read all of the objectives george wanted to accomplish and it starts to line up with a lot of the current f1 complaints with the exception of bringing up local talent. How many times have we heard that it would be great to see properly talented drivers getting the seat instead of pay drivers that dont belong? Without cost control you will always have pay drivers.

Texas Race