New IndyCar engine ??

[CamKing]

Here's an example of why we don't talk "torque curve" above 5,252rpm.

Restrictor plate engine, where we're trying to make it hold on to the power longer.

Engine A Torque
8,000 rpm: 295.43 ftlbs
8,200 rpm: 285.02 ftlbs

Engine B Torque
8,000 rpm: 292.14 ftlbs
8,200 rpm: 288.21 ftlbs


Engine A HP
8,000 rpm: 450 BHP
8,200 rpm: 445 BHP

Engine B HP
8,000 rpm: 445 BHP
8,200 rpm: 450 BHP

If you look at the torque numbers, both engines are falling off.
If you look at HP, you can see engine B is still gaining power.

[CamKing]

What we could of had

[RV]

Do you mean something like this?

[sneva33]

Enjoying this thread tremendously. Thanks to all, especially CamKing

[CamKing]

Do you mean something like this?

Not too far off from that.
I'd go with a 4 valve, double overhead cam setup.
The block would be much beefier, because it would have to hold twice the HP, and be a stressed member.

[irlrules98]

Esslinger?

[flatlander_48]

Not too far off from that.
I'd go with a 4 valve, double overhead cam setup.
The block would be much beefier, because it would have to hold twice the HP, and be a stressed member.

Cradle...

[RV]

Esslinger?

Yes.

Here's another.

[flatlander_48]

I'd love to say Rotors instead of Pistons, however, 33 of them would probably cause instant deafness in the whole of Marion County...

[CamKing]

Here's a Fontana block with a Ford C3 head.

[CamKing]

Here's a cosworth block for a overhead cam 4valve, so you can see how simple the block can be.

[RV]

That would have been perfect!
Oh well.

[Crash]

Man, I am no tech expert, but I have always thought that genius is the ability to make something look easy. And that is just what the King did in this thread. Great reading.

So what would be the rebuttal to this plan from INDYCAR?

[CamKing]

So what would be the rebuttal to this plan from INDYCAR?

Their problem would be that they would lose million$ from the mandatory engine badging.

[BADGER]

I've given my thoughts before.

1) I'd go with a turbo inline 4 loosely based off of the current USAC midget engines.
2) I'd have a common block designed that will fit the popular V8 heads(kinda like the Gearte or Pink midget engines). Each team would have to buy the blocks from the IRL. All the chassis would be designed around the block.
3) Any manufacturer would be able to design their own head and components to fit the common block, but there would be a minimum weight rule, and a max bore size.
4) I'd have a rev-limit and a boost limit.
5) The IRL would own the electronics.

Their problem would be that they would lose million$ from the mandatory engine badging.

Above are your ideas. 1 and 2 were not done. I believe 3 was done minus the common block, but minimum weight and bore size I believe are specified. 4 was implemented as you suggested. 5 was done as suggested. So other than not having a common block and having v6 designs, the league went with rules similar to what you suggest except there is a large discrepancy in the engines hp, contrary to your statement they wouldn't be much difference. I seem to recall a simlilar claim about early IRL engine rules and we soon saw big power descrepancies back then. Why the hp descrepancies or why aren't they very minor?

[ventman]

How about a displacement limit, an rpm limit, and an air intake limit? All comers welcome.

[jnormanh]

The more extensive the rules, the more advantage the deep pockets guys have.

The more extensive the rules, the more alike and boring the cars are.

The more alike the cars are the harder the drivers have to push the envelope, and the more dangerous the racing becomes.

Proposed Rules: 1. Safety equipment, mandatory. 2. Engine, internal combustion, unlimited. 3. Chassis, four wheels, unlimited.,

They'd be too fast, too dangerous?

Nonsense. Indy cars were far, far more dangerous at 150 mph than they are at 220.

[Jag-lover]

Their problem would be that they would lose million$ from the mandatory engine badging.

An unfortunate by-product of manufacturers IMHO. I would have liked to see an I4 2.0 liter turbo spec with production based engines. Let the various tuners and builders have at it. I would set a boost and rpm limit, but that would be about it.

[Motie]

The fastest IMSA GTP cars were using turbo 2-liter fours. At Portland, the Toyota Eagle was 1 second faster than a CART car. I don't know if they would have survived an oval race.

http://www.allamericanracers.com/eagl_mkIII_gtp.html

[flatlander_48]

The fastest IMSA GTP cars were using turbo 2-liter fours. At Portland, the Toyota Eagle was 1 second faster than a CART car. I don't know if they would have survived an oval race.

http://www.allamericanracers.com/eagl_mkIII_gtp.html

Not exactly. Gurney's Toyotas were that fast due to superior aerodynamics as the cars generated amazing downforce.

The I-4 turbo Toyota engine was not the most powerful. The earlier V-6 turbo Buicks, the V-6 turbo Nissans and the V-6 turbo Chevys at qualifying boost put out over 1000hp before IMSA started to restrict them. The GM engines were pushrod type and I believe the Nissan was an SOHC.

[jnormanh]

Keep the rules simple, keep the costs down. Engines: No superchargers, one cam per engine, no other limits. You can run a small but sophisticated engine in a small lightweight car, or a huge engine in a larger, heavier car. Cars: 4 wheels plus specified safety designs, no other limits. You can run high downforce flat through the corners, or low downforce and make it up down the straights.

A 632 inch Hemi in a Lotus 56 sounds about right.