Attn: Kellner, ChrisB, DaveL etc. engine formula

[oddlycalm]

Last night at the townhall meeting the subject of the V10 engines was raised a couple times as one can see in the written or audio transcript. How far along this decision is I can't say. When Pook speaks, it sounds like it's a done deal, but realistically, that may not be the case. One thing for certain, a decision will get made with this management team.

I spoke with Adam Saal after the meeting and made arrangements to forward a summary of our suggestions on this issue during the next few days. One thing I can say with certainty is that it will be seen and reviewed by those involved with making this decision. Feel free to send me an E-mail message or post here. I would like to address more than just the engine issue, I would like to address chassis issues as well. We have their attention, if only for a moment.

My feelings are that they are moving in a direction contrary to what makes the most sense with a V10. While NA V10's do sound good, who knows what they will sound like with their 'urban mufflers' attached. I can see the manufacturing cost argument, however I don't see a V10 an economical answer simply due to parts count.

I would like to see:
- 1.5L high boost turbo
- Lighter total weight
- Reduction in wing size
- Reliance on undertray downforce vs large wings
- Wider front tires for greater grip and drag
- Camless valvetrain (this is where production engines are heading)

I'll be submitting what I have by early next week. Comments?

[ChrisB]

The 1.5L turbo vs NA V10 comes down to which one would get the most manufacturers to particpate, and I have a gut feeling the V10 won.

As for the sound w a V10, I'm actually in favor of them using a high-flow muffler full-time to bring the db's down to about what the turbo engines are. Mufflers can be tuned to sound like whatever you want, and they could get close to the "muffled whoosh" sound of the turbo engine. The V10 @ 13k will actually have a higher pitch than the 2002 V8 @ 15k.

I'll make a big post on the V10 soon, but for now, look at this AR1 thread (http://autoracing1.motorsportforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=66450) Supposedly the V10 will be a 3.5L, which pretty much assures that it'll make the 750hp @13k rpm. I didn't think a 3.0L could, so this is good.

As for chassis, I'm convinced CART should go to a spec chassis, even if just for a few years. See my other big post of this here and 7G. (it didn't go over too well on TF)

[racer2c]

"I would like to see..."

Whatever formula buys another ten years of Champ Car.

Since when does a small liter, high rev turbo boost engine represent the best of Champ Car racing? Sounds more like early '80's F1 to me. Grenade city.
Hell, it wasn't that long ago we were running push-rod small-block V8's, a far cry from a 1.5 turbo.

Production cam-less valvetrians? Electric hybrids will be the norm before cam-less valve-trains.

Sorry to sound so contrarian, but the small liter, turbo mantra that some Champ Car fans are touting just seems to be a bit premature to me. I'll back whatever the manufactures agree to if it insures that my favorite series continues.

[nrc]

Originally posted by ChrisB
The 1.5L turbo vs NA V10 comes down to which one would get the most manufacturers to particpate, and I have a gut feeling the V10 won.

At the point where Pook started talking about a V10, I'm skeptical that he had really talked much with anyone but Cosworth. I think it was the result of a "what can you do for us when these blocks mileage out" discussion.

The V10 idea may make sense if manufacturers can really get some commonality of parts with F1 and still keep the costs much lower than they were in 2002, but based on some comments from the town meeting it sounds like they're talking about a different engine.

If you can't get commonality of parts and/or development with F1, then you may as well start from scratch, and ask what's the most cost effective way to create 750 reliable horsepower that both suits CART's high tech image and can also be controlled in both costs and power. To me that suggests a small displacement turbo.

[oddlycalm]

Well, we all have our preferences. The 1.5-1.8L turbo has been discussed for years, and some mfg's actually favored it at one point. Whether Cosworth or others would be interested is speculation. IMO it would tie in well with the direction of the current hottest automotive market, the high performance import market. If you want the young folks to get interested, give them 2L or under engines w/ boost. I see the guy with the slammed Civic being jazzed by this formula.

I could live with an NA V10, but it's not a very compelling engine to me, as it will simply be two more cylinders of the same as we currently have. Same sausage, different size. It's also inherently very noisy for a series that is aiming for an urban orientation. As you correctly point out, F1 was getting over 1000hp out of such engines 20yrs ago qualifying, and around 900hp in race trim with acceptable reliability. I submit that 800hp from 1.5-1.8L in today's world will be reasonably easy to come by. In the event even lower Rpm's are desired, the we go to the high end of the range, even to 2.0L. Parts count between an I4 and V10 are very different, and in the end that matters with regard to cost. This package would be very compact as well. The big issue will be if any mfg. is intersted in making one.


Originally posted by racer2c
Production cam-less valvetrians? Electric hybrids will be the norm before cam-less valve-trains.

I admit that this one caught me a bit by surprise as well. The Siemens camless system appears to be working well, costs will come down with volume, and others will follow. The diesels will come first, and of course the International 6.0L is already here. More diesels to make the change rather quickly it appears. The next gen gas engines look to be making this change, which is one gen ahead of original roadmaps. We will know more as we get into lineup meetings. The next gen Corvette engine will be camless (oops, you didn't hear that from me), and this will continue to be Holden's primary performance platform as well. That's significant, as GM is generally on the backend of any innovation curve.

You decide if these developments are related. Federal Mogul just sold off all three of it's camshaft mfg. businesses, and Ford is in the process of subcontracting out camshafts. Krup Presta is the only company actually investing in any new facilities (Danville, IL), and only to handle the Ford contracts.

[FortyOneFord]

Huh huh, oddlycalm said sausage.

[Foxman]

To me, a V10 would just make CART F1-Lite, a Turbo I-4 would keep a unique identity that CART has spent almost 25 years creating.

[Napoleon]

Although I am far from being the most technically knowledgeable on these forums, after seeing this issue kicked around for the last several years I have come to believe that the proposal Oddlycalm puts forward, as supported by Foxman (and I know PCHall is in this camp as well) is the superior proposal and I wholeheartedly agree in their reasoning and analysis which perfectly represents my beliefs. I think I finally came to this conclusion a year ago when I went to a car show which appeared designed to draw those who hot rod and customize 1950 American cars and was amazed to find that about half of the participants were customizing/hot rodding 4 cylinder, primarily late model foreign cars. There was a whole car culture out there that I was only vaguely aware of prior to that day. Additionally the fact that a 4 just has to be cheaper to make then a 10, and the fact that you actually see cars on the street with 4s also makes the 4 preferable.

A few caveats though. I know nothing about camless engines, but it is obvious from developments in the last several years that the introduction of electronic replacements for mechanical parts has quietly revolutionized many aspects of the internal combustion engine. For a technology, which is well over 100 years old, some of the improvements in emissions and improvement in performance is just stunning. This has been particularly true in diesel engines, which most Americans are not aware of since they are not as popular here as in Europe.

As to which engine, V10 vs. I4, would be more popular to the manufactures obviously time will tell (although I think for the reasons stated by OC it is the I4), but it is my belief that if C^RT can not get manufacturers to commit to making an engine not subsidized by C^RT in a time frame necessary to make a decision for the 05 season, then it will have to simply make a decision and pick between the 2 based on what appears to be the formula that over time is more likely to provide a platform of more interest to manufacturers and in addition is cost efficient. C^RT should then move forward with partnering/hiring/subsidizing a manufacturer who would produce an initial "spec" version of the formula. Once introduced and seen in action the new formula should then draw the interest of manufacturers.

Likewise if when the decision for 05 is to be made there is equal interest between the 2 different formulas I think C^RT would have a similar analysis, except there would be no need to subsidize development or make the engine "spec".

Oddlycalm, make sure you pass this site on to Adam and the rest at C^RT.

PS - added with edit, IMO the only reason to go with a 10 would be if it was in common with a F1 formulation of the engine which would be designed to make the engine very cheap (although from Pooks comments at Portland this did not appear to be the way he was thinking).

Other then that the only reason to go with the 10 almost seems to me to be a male response of "mine's bigger then yours" in that C^RT would have a 10 while the Indy Retirement League would have an 8 (and there is something to being able to claim we have one upped them on the engine).

[pchall]

Originally posted by racer2c


Since when does a small liter, high rev turbo boost engine represent the best of Champ Car racing? Sounds more like early '80's F1 to me.

There was a time when champcars ran 1.5l eight cylinder engines. They were high rev for thier time and ran considerable boost -- albeit with a supercharger.

This engine is often called the Miller 91.

[racer2c]

Originally posted by pchall
There was a time when champcars ran 1.5l eight cylinder engines. They were high rev for thier time and ran considerable boost -- albeit with a supercharger.

This engine is often called the Miller 91.

Yes, I know. But my point was rather that of Champ Car historical representation. Is that the reasoning behind us hardcores embracing the small liter turbo?
There have been many different configurations over the years. Is the V10 the engine best suited for the future? I don't know. Any differentiation between the CWS and the Earl is good to me. If adding two extra cylinders and writing the turbos to the history books will garner a few new manufactures then I'm behind the V10. I would love to see some exotic engine manufactures come to the CWS. Audi, Maserati, Woohoo!
Just to hold on to the turbos for historical purposes reminds me of turbo Offy's, which reminds me of Indy, which reminds me of Tony, which makes me angry.

[pchall]

Originally posted by racer2c
Yes, I know. But my point was rather that of Champ Car historical representation. Is that the reasoning behind us hardcores embracing the small liter turbo?

I would think so. Most of us who came to CART from formula cars and sports endurance racing grew up in a motorsports culture that emphasize high revs and small displacments.

The Miller 91 was from a period when the AAA championship was closely aligned to the then current Grand Prix formula. After that Indy ran the "Junk Formula" until they mimicked the Grand Prix regs of 1938 to get some better quality cars into the field. The displacement of the current champcar engine can be traced back to the equivalencies established in that formula.

[racer2c]

So do we stick with the roots of that Miller 91 who was aligned with the F1 engine or do we support the V10 with modern day F1 alignment?
I just want to know the party line. ;)

[Hink]

oc - FWIW I like everything you've got down but the camless valve train. F1 isn't even there yet. What they have is a springless valve train with pneumatics closing the valves rather than a spring. With the exception of the long rumored but still invisible (not released) Renault system they still have cams.

The main thing is turbos to allow for power reduction without a more expensive displavement change.

[pchall]

Originally posted by racer2c
So do we stick with the roots of that Miller 91 who was aligned with the F1 engine or do we support the V10 with modern day F1 alignment?
I just want to know the party line. ;)

I personally would favor the small displacement blown engine over a larger displacement NA.

My objections to the V10 NA are noise and needless parts and complexity. NA V10s are sweet to the ears of gearheads, but I wonder how they would play in the streets?

Heck, I really don't think I want a full field of V10s at Mid-Ohio. At the ALMS race the sound of one 4.0l Judd was sweet. A couple of dozen more would have been obnoxious.

In the end, I do side with North American champcar racing being aligned with Formula 1. It's just that I can think of better engine regs for F1 than those now used.

[Mike Kellner]

A few quick thoughts on V10s. I worry that using F1 cast off engines will be too expensive. The engines they have are so oriented to a series where you need a $50M engine budget to be a player that I wonder if it is possible to make a low cost competetive variant. It would be just as cheap to do a new motor. If the competition gets tough, they will need a new motor optimised for CART anyway. A few months ago, we were kicking around 2 liter turbo 4s, which I thought would have a lot of manufacturer appeal.

My real worry about a V10 is F1 is about to drop them. All the squawking about motor formula means a new F1 motor is in the offing. I would rather work out a common motor that was much lower cost. A longer stroke V8 perhaps, or the turbo 4. Perhaps a inlet restricted motor with any layout allowed. I just think this is the wrong time to hop on the F1 derrived V10 train.

[oddlycalm]

Originally posted by Napoleon
I have come to believe that the proposal Oddlycalm puts forward
Just to be clear, while I have engaged CART in the discussion and started this thread, these ideas were not original to me. Mike Kellner, ChrisB and DaveL have all had posted on this topic going way back, far in advance of my arriving one day a number of years back to (more or less) agree with their comments. Credit where credit is due.


Originally posted by Mike Kellner
I worry that using F1 cast off engines will be too expensive.
Pook made it clear that the V10 under consideration would be virtually identical to the current Cosworth V8 with the exception of two more cylinders and with the turbo charger removed. As a result the engine would be close to identical physical package, and outside of the block, cams, crank and current lower compression pistons, all parts are assumed to be the same. This would lower development and tooling cost on the front end. This also means that this engine would be a vastly different engine to those currently used in F1.

Pook's comments indicated that the path that led to this solution was both short and straight. When they discussed dropping the turbo with Cosworth, the response was that doing so would make room for another pair of cylinders at the rear of the engine, and that this coincidentally got them to where they wanted to be with regard to displacemement vs power vs Rpm.

The upside for Cosworth is clear, but what is less clear is what the upside for CART is. Presumably lower overall costs from the context of the remarks. Assuming 12% higher cost at each rebuild (more wear parts, but same fixed costs), Cosworth must have determined this would be more than offset by the reduced development cost on the front end. The cost of the turbo subsystem as a percentage over the life of the program must be considerably higher that my impressions of it have been. The drivability issues with regard to turbo lag are also obvious, but I consider lowering the level of driver skill required a negative. As it is, without traction control the cars are a handful.

In summary, I wouldn't characterize this as the disaster the adoption of the IRL spec would have been, however I also don't see it as much more that a marriage of convenience. While it hasn't exactly been presented in the context of an economic necessity, that's what I see when I read between the lines.

If this does comes down to being an economic necessity, then I'm on board without question, and that will be the thrust of my remarks to CART when I raise the issue of a small turbo I4. Presently an unrealistic or unreasonable proposal to CART is not what this is about. It's a group of suggestions to very busy people who may concievably have overlooked an idea or two.

[pchall]

Originally posted by Mike Kellner


My real worry about a V10 is F1 is about to drop them. All the squawking about motor formula means a new F1 motor is in the offing. I would rather work out a common motor that was much lower cost. A longer stroke V8 perhaps, or the turbo 4. Perhaps a inlet restricted motor with any layout allowed. I just think this is the wrong time to hop on the F1 derrived V10 train.


Excellent point. The 3.0 formula has been a poor compromise with limits on valve configuration and number of cylinders intended to reduced the development costs to compete with Ferrari.

Remember that F1 went from 3.5l with no valve or cylinder limits to a constrained 3.0l that pretty much dictated V10 and required a four valve head.

There needs to be a new F1 engine formula.

I prefer a 2.4l V8 NA, but a 1.5 turbo will work as well.

[Mike Kellner]

Interesting. I do think Tony had one thing right. (Broken clock theory?) Limit bore to create a natural rev limiter/restrictor plate. I could see the CART V10 being feasable, if steps were made to make the motors robust and cheaper to develop. If you placed a maximum bore and a minimum cylinder spacing, you would prevent the trend paper thin walls, nearly siameesed cylinders to create shorter/lighter motors.

The bore limit would place an absolute limit on power by limiting intake valve area. and requiring unreasonable piston speeds & crank stresses to rev beyond a givien point. I am not sure what the required bore would be to keep power where they preferred. a 0.6 stroke/bore would give a 3 liter V10 of 8.6 cm * 5.16 cm and would hit 5500 FPM piston speed at 16,250 rpm. That would mean a max of about 775 to 800 hp. (Well, at least that is my guess)

However, the same rules concept could be applied to a 2 liter 4 cyl turbo, which would have more marketing tie ins for the cars that are the middle of the world market.

Just my 2¢ worth.

mk

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by oddlycalm
Just to be clear, while I have engaged CART in the discussion and started this thread, these ideas were not original to me. Mike Kellner, ChrisB and DaveL have all had posted on this topic going way back, far in advance of my arriving one day a number of years back to (more or less) agree with their comments. Credit where credit is due.
Agreed, I was only referring to your initial post.

[nrc]

Originally posted by Mike Kellner
Interesting. I do think Tony had one thing right. (Broken clock theory?) Limit bore to create a natural rev limiter/restrictor plate. I've always considered legislating a bad engine design to be a bad way to control engine power. I guess you could argue that all engine limits do that, but to me the challenge of making power with a restricted air intake seems like a much more practical challenge for the engineer. Requiring an air intake restrictor could also prevent the dreaded airbox uglies.


EDIT: typo

[Mike Kellner]

Another thought. A muffler is a type of restrictor plate. If there was a club muffler, designed to both reduce noise and have a maximum flow rate, it would effectively control power.

The problem with any flow restrictor and open design formula, is the motors would require custom chassis. One of CART's advantages has been that the chassis and motors were more or less interchangable, reducing costs, and allowing easier changes of supplier.

A muffler along the lines of a large superbike muffler would still allow a great sound, but at a lower volume. Superbikes also show that a high revving 4 has a great sound.

[ChrisB]

I think the I4 turbo woulda been the best engine. You can make the Hp whatever you want, and it connects to the "Fast & Furious" demographic and the historic turbo Offy. If CART had decided on the 1.8L V8 turbo back in '97, an I4 would be easy to transition to now. Unfortunately, CART was run by a buncha guys who couldn't decide whether they wanted to be at the Indy 500 or not. As much as I'd want the I4 turbo to happen, I think the V10 won the contest for number of manufacturers willing to actually COMMIT (as opposed to those who thought a turbo was interesting, but wanted to wait & see) thus keeping CART alive. A V10 isn't so bad. Moving on...

Pook made it clear that the V10 under consideration would be virtually identical to the current Cosworth V8 with the exception of two more cylinders and with the turbo charger removed.

It seems like this is going to be a V10 version of the 3.5L XG they had sorta announced last year before the XFE turbo deal. The XG was itself an NA version of the XF turbo and intended to be CART's answer to the IRL dimension-restricted 3.5L V8 engine, but with a little more power & rpm.

I spoke with Adam Saal after the meeting and made arrangements to forward a summary of our suggestions on this issue during the next few days.

Getting back to the original topic, for posts to send to Adam Saal, here's some links...

I think a spec chassis for a few years is the basis to get some of the other radical chassis changes through in a more workable way.

Case for a spec chassis
link (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=718)

Less wings, more undertray,
link (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=125)

Wider tires
link (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=232)

Say No to airboxes
link (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=7688#post7688)


Aside from chassis, here's some thoughts regarding the V10
link (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=747)

[pchall]

Originally posted by nrc
I've always considered legislating a bad engine design to be a bad way to control engine power. I guess you could argue that all engine limits to that, but to me the challenge of making power with a restricted air intake seems like a much more practical challenge for the engineer. Requiring an air intake restrictor could also prevent the dreaded airbox uglies.

Good one. Isn't this exactly why fans of Real Racing and Real Sport gagged at the IRL formula?

[DaveL]

It's hard for me to add more to this thread than what is already posted. Many have made excellent points and anything I can write will be redundent.

My personal wish is to come up with a formula that does not rely at all on involvment by the auto manufacturers and are instead produced by firms like Judd, Cosworth, or Illmore. Auto mfgs are a fickle bunch to say the least, and this form of racing was able to exist in this country for decades without mfgs being involved. With mfgs, we use terms like "contract to supply" and those contracts typically come with many strings attached.

To me, the engine is nothing more than the spacer between the fuel cell and transmission. As long as what CART comes up with is unique to CART and not reliant on somone else making regs, and allows for enough mechanical pluralism and diversity to be interesting without making the cars so overpowered that barn doors and crazy wings have to be used to allow them race (see a short oval race from 1999-2001 for reference) then I'm all for it.

[nz_climber]

I got to go with the turbo!!

Any one ever thought of a turbo V6 or Inline 6 (as there are lots of 6's out there in cars these days - therefore the marketing potential to suppliers is increased!)

Just my thoughts

[nz_climber]

Some one please inform me if the idea of a 6 has been thrown out already - I see it as a nice comprimise between a 10 and 4!

Well call me stupid - but why try and fix wat isn't broken.. ie whats wrong with wat we got?? is it just the cost or is there somthing I havn't been told ??

sorry if these topics have already been talked about...

aaron

[Mike Kellner]

The V10 is on the table because that is what CART is talking about. The turbo 4 was just a taking point that got going here for a while. I still like the small high boost V6 idea, but that has been talked out, with little remaining to be said. Given the task of picking CART's engine formula, I would still go for a 1.5 L V6 with high turbo boost, but I doubt that is going to happen.

[formulaben]

Like nz_climber said, I really see nothing wrong with what we have now. Maybe this discussion will be better served after July, when we really have a better idea of what we have. I imagine Ford getting behind the program, to the point where it is marketed well, and after a 2 (possibly a 3rd) year trial, the bidding is opened up to other manufacturers to be the exclusive engine of CART. I know it sounds very spec, but just as a tire war can be very bad unless it is well regulated, I can see how the effects of the engine war were very similar. Let the "war" be between drivers and their teams and on the track.

[owfan]

NA 3.5L V10, 13K revs, putting out about 800hp. Each of these points, along with the fact that it will be nothing like the F1 engine, and what oddlycalm said about just adding two more cylinders, are all the things Pook has said about the engine.

With the predominant street courses a muffler will have to be added, so it can be tuned to sound like whatever is best.

[Jag_Warrior]

Originally posted by oddlycalm
Well, we all have our preferences. The 1.5-1.8L turbo has been discussed for years, and some mfg's actually favored it at one point. Whether Cosworth or others would be interested is speculation. IMO it would tie in well with the direction of the current hottest automotive market, the high performance import market. If you want the young folks to get interested, give them 2L or under engines w/ boost. I see the guy with the slammed Civic being jazzed by this formula.



As far as preference, Bruce Wood (of Cosworth) said that the normally aspirated route would be more compelling to them. Now the piece I read, in which that was said, is now dated (probably three, maybe four years ago). Between then and now, a lot of things have changed. I haven't read any recent interviews from Wood regarding preference lately.

That's also one of the reasons I like the smaller displacement turbo engines: it seems to more relate to real life and the current market. Pook said last night on Wind Tunnel that he would listen to all interested parties, including the fans. But we all know it'll come down to the manufacturers and how heavily they'll support the series, depending on formula.

I liked the small turbos in F1. I liked the V12's as much or more. I don't really care for the V10's anymore than V8's. No rational reason, just a personal thing I guess. But it would be nice to have a formula that would help draw people to the races.

[oddlycalm]

Originally posted by Mike Kellner
The turbo 4 was just a talking point that got going here for a while. I still like the small high boost V6 idea, but that has been talked out, with little remaining to be said. Agreed, but none of it was said directly to CART. For what it's worth, we have been given a direct pipeline to CART senior management at the moment, with a promise that all such commumications will be given full consideration. If we want to be heard on any topic, now is the time to speak up.

I can use the search function at 7G to bring up as much of those discussions as I can find, and will post my distillation here for suggestions and editing prior to sending it on to CART. I don't have any preference between a V6 or I4 myself. We saw both run in F1 during the 1.5L turbo era with equal success. Both topologies are common on street cars.

I always felt there were some rules short of detailed geometry and dimensional specs that would prevent paper thin wall thicknesses and the like. It seems like simply mandating a minimum engine overall length and width would remove any advantage from squeezing the package size.

I suspect in this cost conscious era that it will be hard for CART to contemplate a totally new engine, however simply doing a 3.35L V10 because that's what Cosworth feels like doing to save on tooling costs seems a bit weak. I agree that what we have currently has a lot going for it. The message seems to be from CART that it is still too expensive.

One point I would make with regard to mufflers is that it is a mistake to think that all engines can be tuned for sonic qualities with a change of muffler. While it is true that all can be effected to some degree, some are very resistant to changing their basic characteristics. None of us really knows what an NA Cosworth V10 would sound like.

I can tell you from, ahem, expensive experience that one can change everything from the exhaust port back on a 3.2L BMW S54 engine (current E46 M3) and the exhaust note will still be nasty and raspy at 5000-8000Rpm under full throttle. Kind of like a Ferrari w/ a Tubi exhaust. Some people like that nasty tone, but to others it's like finger nails on a chalk board. Fortunately, CART does seem to understand clearly that sound quality and quantity is an importan consideration.

I agree with DaveL's premise that Cosworth, Judd and Ilmor are where to go for engines, however there is no doubt that badging and sponsorship by auto companies provides a connection to the street for casual fans, as well as sponsorship dollars. However, I feel that the kind of take-no-prisoners competition that Honda and Toyota had going was not helpful to CART. Aside from the political struggles, we saw a large number of Honda grenades last season that took some of the better drivers out of races. At the very least engine failures most often mean a yellow flag.

Of the two listed, Cosworth and Ilmor already own tooling that could be employed to build the V10 as proposed by CART. Block and head casting patterns would need to be modified and cranks and cams would need to have additional length and pins or lobes, but everything from the stress/failure analysis to the machine programs to grind the pins and cam lobes already exist. A hundred other items would be unchanged. Pistons would be similar but crowned for compression. At the end of the day, this would be an inexpensive engine program, and hence an attractive one for both CART and those two suppliers. I suspect that these are the two suppliers that Pook referred to Wednesday evening. This is a natural progression, and we could do a lot worse, however I would still like to make the case for alternatives. For one thing, I think it would help attract a larger audience, where a V10 will not.

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by formulaben
Like nz_climber said, I really see nothing wrong with what we have now.

The problem with what we have now is that the formula has been unsuited for years for open competition amoung manufacturers. Last year the turbo all but acted as nothing more then a muffler. If it works this year it will be for the sole reason that its a spec class and C^RT can "artificially" retard development of the engine by simply having the manufacturer make changes. If C^RT wants to open things up they have to change the formula.

[Mike Kellner]

If I were to advise CART, it would be to use a small high boost turbo motor. A straight 4 or V6 would have a lot more marketing tie in with the vast majority of production cars than a V8 or even worse a V10.

The turbo gives a great sound, makes for a quiet motor which is important for urban races, is part of CART's identity and offers the lowest cost, least disruptive method of reducing power as revs go up. That is what CART started with in 79, and it worked for nearly 20 years before revs got to the point where the boost was too low to make further reductions. All that is needed to repeat that success is a much smaller engine formula, and a determination to keep power in the 750 - 800 hp range.

A V10 looks like a me too copy of F1, just as F1 is getting cranked up enough about engine program costs to change formula.

[racer2c]

I agree that the I4 or V6 has the obvious marketing tie in possibilities, but the V10 still carries an 'awe' factor.

If Ford would badge with Jaguar, Audi and Maserati you've got the beginnings of a true 'exotic' racing series.

It would be ironic if Audi entered with a NA V10, as they offer more turbos in their production line than anyone.

[ChrisB]

I may be the only one, but *my* ideal engine would be a V6 with a belt-driven rootes supercharger instead of an exhaust driven turbocharger. Considering that CART is mostly road-racing, rootes superchargers have better response at the low end (good for road-racing) than turbos which run better at the high-end which is better for ovals.

In defense of the V10 somewhat, the reason it came about (see this (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=170)thread) wasn't because someone thought it was "cool" but rather that 10 cylinders was the *sweet spot* for F1 racing when they went NA. 8 cylinders didn't make enough power, and the 12 had too much friction losses.

Maybe it's possible that CART's highly restricted V10 could be a stepping-stone to a common F1/Champ engine... maybe F1 is watching how the Champ V10 works out, and they would make theirs more like it on the next cycle, and the 2 engines might become variations of each other with common parts in a few years. If not, a V10 still probably makes it easier for an F1 manufacturer to come to Champ racing, as it has more similarities than a turbo I4.

But this is turning into an engine thread... anyone have any thoughts on chassis? IE: more undertray, wider tires, no airboxes, etc. How about a spec chassis for a few years to bring costs down and the field up?

(BTW Wickerbill... could you edit my spec chassis (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=718) post and chop out the first 2 paragraphs from "We've reached.." to "..for both)". This seemed to have confused a lot of people into thinking it was about a common CART/IRL spec chassis... which it wasn't)

[Napoleon]

OC

I would like to hear you expound on why you think CART should go with camless engines. Is it because you think it will be something that draws manufacturers or some other reason?

[Napoleon]

Interesting story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on the rising power of "ricers". I do not recall seeing this type of story in the mainstream press in the past.

http://www.cleveland.com/autonews/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business/1046628915147271.xml

[oddlycalm]

Originally posted by Napoleon
OC, I would like to hear you expound on why you think CART should go with camless engines. Is it because you think it will be something that draws manufacturers or some other reason? My reason is simply that I don't want CART to pull a NASCAR. I can't think of a single current production car that runs carburetors and I can't think of another serious race series that runs tube chassis. NASCAR is popular, but it's in a box of it's own making. Within 10yrs how many young folks coming up will even know what a carburetor is?

Same thing for CART. You put cams in an engine program that you want to last at least 10yrs and by the end of that 10yrs your race car engine is 10yrs hehind what people are running in their pickup trucks technically. I don't see CART as a technical development series, and it never really has been, but the equipment needs to remain current at the very least. GM is introducing this on a production platform around the time that CART wants to roll out it's new engine program. The International 6.0L is already reality. Siemens is tooling up to build a lot of these, which tells me a lot of companies are talking with them.

There is also a cost factor to consider. Four camshafts for a V10 as well as all the followers, springs and the associated drive pieces components represent a very significant cost. Initially, a camless engine may cost a bit more, but by the end of the design life you will have saved big on new part cost, rebuild cost and you will be able to squeeze better performance out of the same package as time goes on by very inexpensively altering the valve mapping along with fuel, spark and air flow. Even in a spec series this allows better tailoring of engine characteristics. Remember, you not only valve timing, but also lift, something mechanical varible valve timing can't do.

Bottom line is that strategic planning is about not getting painted into corners simply because you aren't paying attention. Just doing what Cosworth says they want to do is great for Cosworth, but what about being great for CART? There needs to be some input from CART other than a rubber stamp, and I get the feeling there is not at the moment. I suspect that Pook & company are just delighted to have Cosworth doing what they are doing at the moment. Once Cosworth and Ilmor have patterns made for head castings, the chances they will want to junk them and start over are nil.


Originally posted by Napoleon
Interesting story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on the rising power of "ricers". I do not recall seeing this type of story in the mainstream press in the past. I'm guessing but you don't live on the east or west coast. This may be big news in Cleveland, but the mainstream press has been all over this on both coasts, and companies like Toyota, Honda, Fuji (Subaru), Mitsubishi, Toyo Kogyo (Mazda), Nissan, VW/Audi, and Ford and paying market researchers a fortune to track the trends. It's the biggest thing to happen in automotive trends since the 1960's. GM will wake up to what's happening about the time it's over of course...:rolleyes:

[oddlycalm]

Originally posted by ChrisB
But this is turning into an engine thread... anyone have any thoughts on chassis? IE: more undertray, wider tires, no airboxes, etc. How about a spec chassis for a few years to bring costs down and the field up?

There doesn't seem to be a lot of controversy about undertray either here or with CART. Most seem to feel that reverting to more undertray downforce with less wing will help passing. Same with wider tires. More drag and either more mechanical grip or the same mechanical grip with harder compound/fewer marbles. I also haven't seen anyone championing big airboxes, but I could be wrong on that...;)

Speaking only for myself, a well concieved spec chassis would be fine for a few years. We have had good racing in the past with all Cosworth fields, and I suspect we will this year. If Reynard and Lola were working of the same page, I don't think the series would be hurt. I know that Reynard and Lola would benefit financially from not having to do development for a while, and just sell some chassis. Neither company is rock solid financially after all. This is a good period for all concerned to look at maintianing a sound financial standing while planning carefully for the future.

Fortunately, current CART management and Cosworth are thinking sanely, and I suspect Lola and Reynard will be receptive to any plan that seeks to make sense for them. At this point, it appears that the worst we will see will actually be quite good.