A wing makes the car faster around the circuit, the same with a turbo, and a gearbox and a mirror. They're managed just as much as any other part on the car, but they do not "manage competition" as a function of their design. That, however is what the rev limiter, the hanford device, minimum wing angles, etc. etc. all do.
Wings are an advancement in technology. The series telling the designers a wing can't be bigger than X nor be moveable would be a gimmick.
Unobtainum connecting rods are an advancement in technology. Series limiting connecting rods to steel is a gimmick.
ad nauseaum for any number of items that have rules limitations applied....
Just as many as can be called gimmicks can also be called cost control
new sig pending
The Hanford Device was there to slow the cars on big ovals because nothing else worked. The leapfrog passing it created was an accident and no one predicted it before it was used at Michigan.Rev limiters are not at all advances in technology, they're in place to "manage competition". Same with the Hanford device,
All racing manages competition. Otherwise we'd be doing 300 at Indy and NASCAR would be seeing 250s at Daytona.
Racing: there is no substitute.
I agree. I think the low power is needed on big ovals if you are going to open competition. A car that is optimized for big ovals with low downforce will go as fast as they want to see (230) with 500 HP, maybe less. I believe that would produce better racing than 700 HP cars that are glued to the ground to slow them with aero drag.Agreed, however, it's about a balance between managing competition and letting the race teams race. I personally think that the low-HP, high-DF formula we're using currently is a little too biased toward managing competition.
My comment was aimed at the notion that all regulation is stage management. The flip side, that everything is a gimmick that adds nothing but expense and needs regulation is equally bad for the sport. The series needs to find leverage points to control speed, like fair ways to control power and limiting very expensive technologies, yet allow people to work on making the car go faster by the usual massaging of the equipment. IE, managed competition. Personally I feel that we currently have too much management and not enough competition. I would like to see a return to formula racing be one of the five year goals.
I thought, "You've got a point there, Mr. Foyt." Kevin Jeannette
Lying was a no-brainer for me. Robin Miller
"I thought they booed [Danica] because she was being a complete jerk, but then they applauded for A.J. Foyt. Now I'm just confused."
Common Sense Says:
1.) Give them an engine size limit
2.) Give them x amount of fuel
Let them build any engine they want, and put a claiming rule on it. That way if RP or CG want to spend millions to build a one off engine, they just might me lining up behind it at the next race.
3.) Take all the aero crap off and let the real drivers drive. It used to be fun watching someone past others while drifting through a corner. (Why do you think drifting is so popular) Flat footing it around an oval doesn't prove anything if everyone is doing it.
Keith Koether http://www.kkraceshots.com
Ex ARCA, ASA and local bullring crewdog. I remember when racing was really racing and the Talladega Express!!!
I don't believe that is true.I miss those days. But I'm afraid they'll not be seen again in my lifetime.....
We now have displacement, boost, and rev limits. That pretty well limits how much power the motors can make and reduces the value of engine development. It does not reduce the value of working on drivability and fuel mileage. If you limit exotic materials and technologies, engine prices will stay in the reasonable range. The whole rest of the car can be opened to development. Computers lower the cost of playing what if and testing ideas before you build parts and that will only improve. In the end, smart people will make the big difference.
Again, we can look to F1. Adrian Newey and Ross Brawn have demonstrated that clever design can trump the massive resources of Ferrari and McLaren. If Indycar teams were free to innovate beyond moving the mirrors and different shape end plates we might see more teams able to challenge P&G. Spec has demonstrated that it does not level the playing field, but rather locks in the advantages of the large rich teams by locking out innovation and reducing the value of cleverness.
Of course, all these "define the box and let them build to fill it" arguments ignore the fact the RoI on IndyCar right now is so low that the series can't even get factories to build enough engines for all the cars. No companies were willing to build chassis at a price point the teams could afford.
Sure, open up everything ... except the tracks, because with only Ganassi and Penske able to afford to run, there would be no series.
Right now the series is taking a plainly compromised short route out of its grave towards health. All of these "Great" ideas about "making it like the old days" would knock the series back into that grave and shovel dirt on it.
Hopefully the series will someday soon have the sponsor cachet, the TV appeal, the fanbase and the team budgets to let the teams really go racing (and then you can all complain because Penske and Ganassi still win much more than everyone else, because really, most of you just like to complain.)
For now, I am happy that there even is an IndyCar. Four years and two months ago there were two competing series, neither of which could fill a grid or make a buck. Maybe you don't recall that ChampCar actually raced after St. Pete in 2008? If TG hadn't opened his mind and his checkbook one last time to bring the remnants of ChampCar into the then IRL, we might be watching NASCAR right now.
people who enjoy complaining wil always find reasons to complain. And I can see reasons for complaint: right now IndyCar is Not where any of us want it to be. Thing is, it really hadn't been since the late '90s. I'd say the prognosis now is better than at any time this century. People who complain and ignore that context are ... ignorant.
The RoI sucks right now, so what does IndyCar do? they charge millions to manufacturers to badge engines.
Indy Car isn't short on engine builders wanting to build engines. They're short on Manufacturers willing to give millions to IndyCar just to badge an engine they don't build.
When your RoI is too low to attract interest, you have two options. Reduce the investment, or increase the return. Increasing the return is the only long term answer.
How about making your product more interesting?When your RoI is too low to attract interest, you have two options. Reduce the investment, or increase the return. Increasing the return is the only long term answer.
The arguments about nuts and bolts is meaningless without customers. I believe all roads lead back to our crappy TV shows, which are the real advertising for the series. I watch F1 and usually watch The Daytona 500. Both have TV shows that are several orders of magnitude better. I don't even think it needs more money, just different people doing the same jobs for the same pay. We need to make the story of each race and the larger tale of the championship into compelling TV. Do that and the money will be there. Don't do that and it won't matter what we race, where, or who the drivers are.
Agreed, this is what made Group C awesome.2.) Give them x amount of fuel
This is where I disagree. They spend the money, they should get to use it.Let them build any engine they want, and put a claiming rule on it. That way if RP or CG want to spend millions to build a one off engine, they just might me lining up behind it at the next race.
Speeds would drop. No thanks.3.) Take all the aero crap off and let the real drivers drive. It used to be fun watching someone past others while drifting through a corner. (Why do you think drifting is so popular) Flat footing it around an oval doesn't prove anything if everyone is doing it.
We drive 800 miles every year to see them go 500 miles. And we're glad to do it.
But then of course, the whole thing about the "haves and have nots", well that's the way it is. Some teams have more resources and can afford the better or more up to date equipment. Go spec-racing and the teams with more resources can afford the better engineers, mechanics and drivers, end result the same.
And it's not like the Penske and Ganassi teams were created with silver spoons up their rears anyway, they got to where they are by being good at what they do. My first season of watching IndyCar racing Ganassi was running a single customer Lola-Ford and came eighth in the championship. But a series of shrewd moves - being the first to gamble on the new Reynard, seeing the potential in the Reynard/Honda/Firestone combo that Tasman were running, hiring Zanardi when his F1 record was hardly great, set themselves up for a period of success that meant that they could build a relationship with Target that kept the money and in turn success flowing...
But it's not a circle that can't be broken - Newman/Haas didn't stay on top forever, or in F1 look at the respective directions that Red Bull (formerly Stewart/Jaguar) and Williams have gone in.
Total fuel limits made Group C possible (take whatever engine you have, make it work, and get to the end of the distance as best you can), but they didn't make it great. The long distance races from the Group C period were dramatic, but they didn't have wheel to wheel racing. Derek Bell said that it was not much fun to drive and not entertaining for the fans in shorter races when he had to switch to conservation settings in his 956 and putter around to the finish.Agreed, this is what made Group C awesome.
IMSA sprint races with Group C cars weren't regulated by fuel consumption.
I think that total fuel consumption gives turbos an advantage in sprint races, because you can briefly up the boost a few times in the race to avoid being passed, but atmos don't have that resource. I'd prefer not to do that.
If you had fuel flow limiters (maximum rate), I think you might be on to something. You might be able to take all other rules off the engine, unless there are specific technologies you want to prohibit or require for business reasons.
Last edited by atrackforumfan; 07-27-2012 at 11:22 PM.
The secret to beating Penske....same as beating anybody at anything: get more money than them!
See NASCAR for proof/ideas
I Love May!