Why Indy Car Racing Is Failing

"slow Eddy" Huntress posts to this newsgroup for many years have shown beyo nd a shadow or a doubt that the immense popularity of IMSA racing in the 80 's, where the rules and interest in getting as many manufacturers to compet e was the key to it's popularity with sports car racing fans, is completely beyond his grasp.

I use to love going to Lime Rock, CT, Riverside, CA, Watkins Glen, NY, etc. to see IMSA GTP cars race. Being able to talk to drivers, mechanics and ow ners in the paddock was also awesome.

"slow Eddy" has made it clear over the years that he disdains stock block, push rod engines in favor of underpowered SCCA "sports cars". Back in his d ay the SCCA was largly made up of pompous stuck up assholes wearing Bermuda shorts.

Now one of the most respected men in Indy car says stock block engines are a big part of what Indy car needs to save it. I couldn't agree more. Indy c ar racing is so lame that I don't even bother to watch it anymore.

formatting link

71.html

"It's sad to see what's happened over the past ten or more years," McGee re marked. "The way it's going, sooner or later it's going to crater, and it m ay be sooner rather than later.

"It's a shame. It just makes you sick when you think about it. There are so many people I've known for so long who are very worried about the sport's future. We've all spent most of our lives in it and it's sad to see the tro uble it's gotten itself into. Indy isn't Indy anymore. A lot of people have tried hard to bring about some change, but I'm afraid it's not going to ch ange."

McGee has no doubts about the roots of IndyCar's failure.

"Indy car racing has gotten away from what made it successful, which was in novation and diversity," he observed. "For most of the forty-five years I w orked in Indy car racing you couldn't wait to see what your competition was going to come up with for new cars and new ideas. That was the way the spo rt was from the beginning back in the early 1900s. Now, there's no exciteme nt because you know what's coming and nothing is coming.

"I think the new car was a big mistake. They need diversity rather than jus t another uninteresting spec car. By going down the spec car road they've k illed the thing that always made the sport what it was. Another thing that' s a big mistake is the engine leasing program. That was a big mistake from the start."

McGee believes CART and then IRL/IndyCar made tremendous blunders by going to engine leases and sealed engines.

"That's one thing you have to say about NASCAR, they've kept it so that ind ependent engine builders continue to be involved in the sport," McGee comme nted. "In the CART days we used to have guys like Franz Weis who would rebu ild your engines, or you could do it yourself, and that was the way it was for many years through the AAA and USAC days when the Offy was king.

NASCAR has been able to keep that criteria and that was a big mistake in In dy car racing when they went to engine leasing and drove out the independen t engine builders. The powers-that-be in CART decided they didn't want anyb ody looking at the technology from Ilmor and Cosworth. That was one of the reasons for going to engine leasing.

"Well, NASCAR has taken the engines apart in front of everybody for years a nd laid them out on the table so everybody could see. NASCAR's attitude alw ays was, if you wanted to bitch about it, that's tough. Then go somewhere e lse to race. And that's been one of NASCAR's strengths. You can't cater to the owners and the engine manufacturers. You've got to stake out your own g round and do what's best for the business."

McGee believes IndyCar should switch to stock-block engines given its weak position in the contemporary sports market and the difficulties in selling sponsorship.

"I think it's just plain stupid for them to say they don't want to run stoc k-block engines," McGee remarked. "You've got to do what the times require. There are a lot of different engines out there from different manufacturer s that you could run that would fit the bill. There are plenty of engines o ut there today that put out 700, 800 or even 900 horsepower that you could buy from a car company. You can buy a Corvette engine that puts out 800 hor sepower and there are many other manufacturers with similar engines.

"Why are they spending all this money on these so-called racing engines whe n there are other engines out there that would produce the same or even bet ter performance at a cheaper price? You could get a bunch of the car manufa cturers involved and the cost to the competitors would be a third or less t han it is right now."

Very gullible, plain stupid and often a liar is exactly what "slow Eddy" Hu ntress is.

Reply to
jon_banquer
Loading thread data ...

Jon, since you brought it up, what class did you say you used to race in? Was that Barcalounger Prototypes or La-Z-Boy GTs?

For an armchair racer, at least you seem to agree with McGee:

"In the CART days we used to have guys like Franz Weis who would rebuild your engines, or you could do it yourself, and that was the way it was for many years through the AAA and USAC days when the Offy was king."

Offy, being a purpose-built, one-design racing engine with four valves per cylinder and dual overhead cams that absolutely dominated Indy races for decades, through the AAA and USAC days, to the exclusion of EVERYTHING else.

Almost all of the IMSA GTP championships also were won with multi-valve OHC engines -- Porsche, Toyota, Jaguar and Nissan.

What was that you were saying, Jon? And hey, Jon, while we're at it, what are you doing for a living these days? Do you actually have a job?

Ed Huntress (former CART tech inspector and SCCA racer)

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Maybe I should have been more explicit about what's wrong with your pitch about pushrod engines and IMSA GTP: They lost the championship, almost every year.

Or maybe I should have been more explicit about what's wrong with your cut-and-paste from Jim McGee. Here's a McGee quote that you chose:

"In the CART days we used to have guys like Franz Weis who would rebuild your engines, or you could do it yourself, and that was the way it was for many years through the AAA and USAC days when the Offy was king."

Since purpose-built racing engines -- all-out, DOHC, quad-valve Offy's

-- won Indy every year from 1947 through 1968, and since you plucked other quotes from McGee about "diversity" and "stock-block" engines, one might think that McGee is a little senile, pitching for variety and then calling the days of absolutely uniform winners, '' the days when Offy was king," the good old days.

But that's not the case. That's because McGee's complaint is not about the lack of pushrod engines, but rather the *leased* engines, all the same, and the standardized chassis, all the same, that have taken a lot of interest out of Indy.

And I agree with him completely. You might say that all those years of absolute uniformity in Offy wins belies what McGee is saying, but that's because it's not what he said. You screwed it up. He said the fact that fans know that no one can touch those leased engines takes away from the competition. Likewise, other chassis builders are not invited to the party.Italian builder Dallara is the only one allowed to build chassis, and, for 2013, there were only two leased engines allowed, both OHC V6s: Honda and Chevy.

Indy used to encourage stock-block engines and individual development. They were given a huge handicap advantage over the Offies, but they were never very competitive. That could be fixed with a bigger handicap advantage.

In any case, you twisted McGee's statements to argue against something I've never said. I fully agree that Indy would rekindle interest by going back to individual engine and chassis builders. They should handicap them like they used to do. Stock-block engines should have a big displacement advantage. They'll need it.

And if they're pushrod engines, they'll need a bigger displacement advantage to be competitive.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

They're running away so they don't have to listen to you, Jon. That's why you're reduced to talking to yourself.

I just have great patience and forbearance. d8-)

Now, if I had CNC services to sell, I'd go to your LinkedIn "group," where I could promote myself at your expense, talking about my own products and services, like most of your "members" do.

Sucker. d8-)

Oh, listen to that, from the notorious Usenet attack weasel!

You may talk to yourself a lot, Jon, but you apparently don't listen to yourself much.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

=============================================

Ed,

The newsgroup badly needs someone who is as articulate as you are.

Keep me on my toes and correct me where ever you think it's appropriate, as I respect what you have to say based on what you have already posted. I will certainly take the time to think about whatever correction, advice, etc. you post. -- Jon Banquer, post to Ed Huntress, Jun 23, 2002

=============================================

Okeydokey, Jon.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Not for 500 miles continuously.

and there are many

This I agree with. Should be a teardown rule, also. 1st through 5th winning engines specs to be made public. Cam specs, etc. Improve the breed each year.

Reply to
Steve Walker

....to himself...

formatting link

Ed,

The newsgroup badly needs someone who is as articulate as you are.

Keep me on my toes and correct me where ever you think it's appropriate, as I respect what you have to say based on what you have already posted. I will certainly take the time to think about whatever correction, advice, etc. you post. -- Jon Banquer, post to Ed Huntress, Jun 23, 2002

Reply to
Ed Huntress

??? From whom? I'm on LinkedIn? Why?

How does my photo look?

===========================================

.

formatting link

Ed,

The newsgroup badly needs someone who is as articulate as you are.

Keep me on my toes and correct me where ever you think it's appropriate, as I respect what you have to say based on what you have already posted. I will certainly take the time to think about whatever correction, advice, etc. you post. -- Jon Banquer, post to Ed Huntress, Jun 23, 2002

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Holy cow! Don't lie, Banquer. You Photoshopped that one -- your body and my dick.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

With even a couple seconds extra in a pit stop potentially costing a race, wouldn't such bigger engines have a disadvantage due to fuel consumption? Can't see them allowing extra fuel capacity on the car due to possible safety concerns.

Jon

Reply to
janders

An interesting question, but fuel consumption in a race engine depends mostly on how much fuel-air mix you run through the engine, and the amounts will be the same, more or less, for smaller race engines running at higher rpm, versus larger stock-block pushrod engines running at lower rpm. That is, if they're all normally aspirated.

Indy has, over the years, allowed a variety of engine types and sizes, and I don't recall fuel consumption being a big issue, except with supercharged and turbocharged engines, which, in racing form, typically burn a great deal more fuel. Unlike the street turbos that give greater efficiency, race turbos typically are set up to produce some blow-down, which wastes fuel but increases horsepower. They burn some fuel in the exhaust that way.

To give you an idea of how those breakdowns used to go, here are the displacement limits for the 1969 Indy 500:

Supercharged/turbocharged race engines: 155 cu. in. Normally aspirated race engines: 255 cu. in. Supercharged/turbocharged stock-block: 200 cu. in. Normally aspirated stock-block: 320 cur in.

Those rules and ratios changed constantly for a number of years, and today's turbos would be/would have been much smaller, because of advances in turbocharging.

I could be way off on the relative fuel consumption of normally-aspirated race engines versus stock-block, but I don't recall it being an issue.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Ah, ok, thanks for the explanation. Makes sense. I was thinking of is essentially an apples/oranges comparison between older muscle car engines which suck gas like it was still .48/gallon, and modern high tech car engines that offer good performance and decent mileage. Neither of which means anything with respect to race engines. Obvious once pointed out...

Jon

Reply to
janders

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.