Pook's Mistake

[RaceGrrl]

Saw this story posted at Crapwagon.com

Apparently Pook has taken responsibility for the Brands pit stop decision. Good to see him acknowledge that fuel economy races are not what we want in CART.

Link here (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/champcar/6279/)

[pchall]

That's an interesting admission.

Now we can all return to grousing about how great CART was before the split. ;)

By the way, does anyone have a map to CART Neverneverland? You know, the place where the regs were perfect and the drivers never grew old?

[Treeface]

Pook addresses that place.
Same author wider range of subjects: (http://www.cart.com/News/Article.asp?ID=6044)

"If we keep going down the road believing there’s a pile of gold over the hill if we just hang in there long enough, I think we’re just kidding ourselves. We have to be realistic and we have to understand that we are in a different world now in 2002 and 2003 going forward than we were in the ‘90s and even the year 2000. This is a different world.”

Still talking up V-10s but with no mfg announcements. I wouldn't hold on to my socks waiting for one.
The ideas for improving Atlantics are spot on.
Not spending 850K for the long course at Brands Hatch. With no track/race sponsor that's no suprise.
Doesn't sound good for the ovals. Not enough marketing muscle to fight NASCAR.

[turn1]

There is an interesting article on cart.com that contain several interesting comments from Mr. Pook, including this one.

[ChrisB]

Good to see him acknowledge that fuel economy races are not what we want in CART.

from the article:

and when we got to Brands every bloody radio was saying, ‘Conserve. Don’t pass anybody. Conserve fuel; conserve fuel; conserve fuel.’

For the last year or so, some of us have sat back and listened to a buncha folks complain about the mandatory pit stop rules, knowing that as soon as that rule was removed we'd be right back to fuel economy runs. At least this was a reminder for those with short memories of why the manditory pit rule was created.

Here's a humble suggestion I've posted before... CART should establish a target mpg rating and then have manditory pit stops at fixed intervals as if the race were a rally where the fuel pumps are at fixed points (instead of traditional circuit racing where an imaginary fuel stop exists on every lap... which doesn't happen in the real world)

Example:
200 mile std. road-race length (plus 1 or 2 warmup laps)
17gal gasoline tanks
~4mpg target
mandated fuel stops for everyone at mile markers 67 and 134

For ovals, the mpg rating could be a little less, say ~3.75mpg which would put the pit stops for everyone at mile markers 62, 124, 186, etc... This would also eliminate the luck factor of some catching a yellow while others pit under green. Everybody pits for fuel at the same time.

[nrc]

Blah. It's not rocket science and there's no need to make it so complicated. The only problem with the way they handled it at Brands was that they required only two green flag stops instead of three.

Simply require a minimum number of green flag stops higher than the worst mileage anyone will get and there will be no benefit to conserving fuel.

[Kate]

My thoughts exactly. Remember that we lost the Vietnam War because of micromanagement from afar. Let the generals fight the war and let the people on track do the race management. And why try to eliminate luck from racing? Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good; Prost won at least one WDC because his two rivals had bad luck during the last race.

[rabbit]

Originally posted by nrc
Blah. It's not rocket science and there's no need to make it so complicated. The only problem with the way they handled it at Brands was that they required only two green flag stops instead of three.

Simply require a minimum number of green flag stops higher than the worst mileage anyone will get and there will be no benefit to conserving fuel.

Bingo.

Keep it simple, stupid.

[pchall]

Originally posted by nrc
Blah. It's not rocket science and there's no need to make it so complicated. The only problem with the way they handled it at Brands was that they required only two green flag stops instead of three.

Simply require a minimum number of green flag stops higher than the worst mileage anyone will get and there will be no benefit to conserving fuel.

nrc is a rocket scientist! when can we get him Chris Kniefel's job?

[ChrisB]

Simply require a minimum number of green flag stops higher than the worst mileage anyone will get and there will be no benefit to conserving fuel.

Wait a minute... the worst mileage anyone will get is dictated by a combo of the tank size and how fast you need to go to stay close to everyone else. In a roundabout way, fuel mileage is dictated by the sanctioning body based on how fast the cars need to go for the fans to be "entertained". Think about that. It's kinda like how the IRL designs their cars to go ~230mph at Indy.

All I'm saying is that if the tank size were 17gals gasoline, and the mpg target was ~4mpg, it would be pretty much the same speed and range (between stops) as we have now with the 35gal methanol tanks... so the same speed/entertainment value remains.

Sooo... each F1 race is a standardized 300km/190miles. CART should probably follow F1's example and make 200 miles the standard length for road/street races. The 1/3 and 2/3 marks of 200 miles are at mileposts 67 and 134... and 17gal * 4mpg just happens to make 68 miles. (and an oval version of this could be worked out too)

How does this change the game? Luck is reduced and skill is increased. Eveybody now drives as fast as possible and *just* makes it to the next fuel stop (or the finish) without running outta fuel. Now that's racing!

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by pchall
nrc is a rocket scientist! when can we get him Chris Kniefel's job?

As soon as we dress him up like a clown.

[RaceGrrl]

Originally posted by Napoleon
As soon as we dress him up like a clown.

NEVER gonna happen. I hate clowns.

[Gurneyflap]

Ahhh...the old clown phobia thing! You know what THAT means, don't you?

[rabbit]

Originally posted by Gurneyflap
Ahhh...the old clown phobia thing! You know what THAT means, don't you? She's afraid of clowns?:confused:

[JLMannin]

Originally posted by ChrisB
[i]
All I'm saying is that if the tank size were 17gals gasoline, and the mpg target was ~4mpg, it would be pretty much the same speed and range (between stops) as we have now with the 35gal methanol tanks... so the same speed/entertainment value remains.



Huh??? Current mileage is ~1.85 mpg, I think. At a mandated 4 mpg, these cars would be sssssssllllllloooooooowwwwwwwwww.

If you set the pit stop interval to a mileage that corresponds to a fuel consumption that could never be attained, no matter how fast the car goes, that takes fuel ecomomy runs off the table completely. That's the point that is being made.

[ChrisB]

Huh??? Current mileage is ~1.85 mpg, I think. At a mandated 4 mpg

I meant if they switch over from methanol to gasoline... which has just a little over twice the btu's per gallon... they'll be able to get about 4mpg doing about the same speeds as now... which means they'll be able to reduce the fuel tanks by about half.

[RaceGrrl]

Originally posted by rabbit
She's afraid of clowns?:confused:

I wouldn't say that I'm afraid of clowns. They just freak me out a little. Can you say "John Wayne Gacy?"

[JLMannin]

Originally posted by ChrisB
Huh??? Current mileage is ~1.85 mpg, I think. At a mandated 4 mpg

I meant if they switch over from methanol to gasoline... which has just a little over twice the btu's per gallon... they'll be able to get about 4mpg doing about the same speeds as now... which means they'll be able to reduce the fuel tanks by about half.

I did not catch the gasoline bit. Just for a reference point, what kind if mileage to current F1 engines get?

[oddlycalm]

For me the bottom line is that Pook is aware of it and talking about it openly. I'm sure they will address it, and if they don't, I'm sure that several thousand people will remind them.:D