Engine
What a difference an engine makes. Reading veteran journalist Gordon Kirby’s latest column for Motor Sport Magazine, I was reminded of just how disparate F1 and Indycar are. Sure, they are both open-wheel racing series but that’s, by some measure, where the similarities end.

F1 recently announced its plan to return to a 1.6-litre 4-cylinder turbo engine in 2013 while Indycar has taken a more robust road in their quest for more horsepower with a 2.4-litre twin turbo 6-cylinder specification. Both engines are to produce approximately 700-750 bhp with F1’s spec targeting 12,000 revs while Indycar’s lump will contain a boost button for oval versus road course work.

Two engines producing similar performance in two different series. If I’m honest, I would rather have seen F1 go with a twin turbo V6 instead of the 4-cylinder turbo but I understand that F1 and the FIA’s goal here is to lure manufacturers back into the sport and using a ubiquitous engine specification that many car makers are already producing is better bait than Indycar’s V6 option. While car makers are certainly still making V6 engines en mass, it is the 4-cylinder that seems to be the most cherished amongst several of the marques as they combine these with their hybrid technology. Weight and performance are key to a hybrid succeeding in the global market or not.

Indycar, as evidenced by Kirby’s story, is desperate to find horsepower in the series. Many drivers claim it is the missing element to exciting racing returning to the series but some drivers, such as Scotland’s Dario Franchitti, suggest that this isn’t the magic bullet that some may believe it is as he shared with Kirby:

“Having more power obviously makes the straights shorter so it’s harder to pass,” he observes. “That’s the downside. It’s easier to pass on tracks we’ve been going back to with today’s car that we used to race on with 900-1000bhp CART cars, because you get a longer draft with this car. With the CART cars the straight was over so quickly that you couldn’t make those passes.”

You’ll deduce from Franchitti’s statement that Indycar has its own “passing” struggles similar to those bemoaned in F1 and while more power is certainly desired from the Indycar camp, it is the ill effect of sweeping change Franchitti is prophetically speaking of that pragmatism is usually bereft of.

F1 has argued less wing and more ground effect to combat the wake left by a leading car which makes a trailing cars hopes of passing near impossible. It remains to be seen what Dallara’s new Indycar chassis will provide but suffice to say, F1 may have a better angle on this subject. Ultimately you can suggest it is a parallax at best and both series are looking at the same object from galactically different positions while the object remains the same.

How do we interpret the two approaches? Indycar is not wooing manufacturers as ardently as F1 and the use of a twin turbo V6 is purely intended to increase the value of the racing within the series. It is attempting to fix a wound that has been festering in the series for quite some time. To those ends, Indycar may be rounding the corner of tedious, wrist-cutting racing and I am the first to support that notion. I would love nothing better than to see Indycar rise from the flaming heap of ashes to return to its glory but I would be remiss in not mentioning that I am optimistically cautious.

As for F1? They have their own cross to bear in the goose chase that is exciting racing. Passing, aero-effect, downforce, power plants, weight, fuel, rubber compounds, money and politics will always be a part of the series and depending on which side of the coin you have chosen, it either marred the series irreparably or it is an exciting part of the machine that is F1.

If I juxtapose the two decisions, I sense that F1’s message is that to improve the F1 entertainment value, the series need serious participation from serious car manufacturers and will change their milieu in order to accommodate even the most persnickety of car makers in order to get their cash, engineering prowess and sponsors in the sport. This has been ignobly labeled as being “Green” and “technologicaly challenging”. A nice bow and ribbon on an otherwise brown paper box.

Indycar has chosen to shoe-gaze by seeking to suture the wound regardless if it is a car maker-friendly specification or not. It doesn’t seem as important that the V6 twin turbo may not be as ubiquitous of a specification as the 4-cylinder because what Indycar really needs is a power plant that fits their chassis and produces the horsepower they feel they need to improve the show. A noble cause but I would be shortsighted if I suggested there weren’t politics, money and manufacturer wooing involved as well.

And before we leave this notion, we also can assume F1’s rebuke could easily be argued that the V6 doesn’t allow room for the KERS unit and thus renders F1 less environmentally conscience and that is antithetical to their entire notion…it has nothing to do with wooing car makers. Sure, whatever. Maybe this story will help shed some light on where car makers are heading with subcompact, small engines and why F1 is seeing the trees, forest and all the peat moss in between.

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
5 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Anthony MalinMattDownforce1galernaubergreg Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
brianpmack
Guest
brianpmack

F1 is doing their best to go green, and this article clearly points out what type of green they are aiming for. What color is the money in your country?

Monad
Guest
Monad

Well Indycar is more free to go to it’s activities because unlike F1 is not a global sport so it doesn’t have to worry about giving a bad picture universally.
Does 4 cylinders sound lame? Yes they do but we already went over this and no matter what we say that’s what we are going to get. Maybe if the racing becomes awful that engines sound completely horrible resulting in the TV ratings falling to the bottom, maybe they will changed it. But don’t get your hopes up.

Anthony Malin
Guest
Anthony Malin

No one really watches F1 in the U.S.. They already sound like Kawasaki’s so they should just call it what it is, a motorcycle race. I used to respect F1 until I found out that half the driver field pays to get a ride. How can anyone worship a sport that depends more on Duddies Trust Fund and less on talent. OK, I realize that the other half of the field are drivers with real talent, but what does that say about the series.when your wallet can buy you a spot on the starting grid. This kinda of reminds me… Read more »

ubergreg
Guest
ubergreg

As someone who grew up in North America, but has been living in Europe for the last several years, I see this partly as a cultural thing. In N. America, it’s incredibly common to specify a car/minivan/SUV with a V6 engine. So perhaps for Indy car, anything less than six cylinders might have presented the sport with a serious credibility issue (especially with a competitor series like NASCAR running V8s). Since F1 will be making the same power from an I4, there’s no reason Indycar can’t do it as well… except that in America, four cylinders has often been seen… Read more »

Downforce1
Guest
Downforce1

Just to be clear IndyCar is going with both 4 and 6cyl engines-2.2l spec not 2.4 and not just v6. There is options with both engine and areo packages. I love both series but the pure racing is better with IndyCar and it has do do with it being more of a driver rather than a machine series.

Anthony Malin
Guest
Anthony Malin

Ubergreg, a few comments on the green thing, In the U.S. most 4 cylinders do not get great fuel miles as one would think. I am not just saying U.S. engineered cars but Japanese and German cars also. I know this is going to sound condescending but it is true, Europeans buy cars because they are fast, Americans will buy a car and make it faster by tinkering and making adjustments. Just look at some of the 4 bangers kids will bring to the drag strips. Some will be putting out as much horsepower from a old Toyota as F1… Read more »

galerna
Guest
galerna

In Europe we have the problem of the petrol price. So we have devenloped for many years, more compact engines with less consuption and high power perfomance. The result of those yeears devenloping these high efficient technology is that, our cars don´t need as petrol as Americans but of course, are more expensive. As Ubergreg said, in America a motor less than V6 160CV 3.5 litres is more or less ridiculous, while in europe to get the same power we use (My car spec) a 2.5 Litres 4 cylindres, 160CV and diesel, not gasoline. The conclusion is that the same… Read more »

Anthony Malin
Guest
Anthony Malin

Let me know when F1 starts racing those fuel efficient diesel engines. Oh, yes, kudos to the Germans for developing such efficient diesels, lets face it, it not the French or British that are coming up with these engineering marvels let alone the 4 mile to the gallon Italian cars, Ok, to be fair, Fiat does make a car with fairly good MPG. To say in America that a engine that is less than a V6 160VC 3.5L is ridiculous tells me your knowledge of Americans comes from TV or the internet. Perhaps you get your cues from Jeremy Clarkson.… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

Not all Americans feel that way. Typical motorsports fans are blissfully unaware of Indy. The “no replacment for displacement” crowd are very focused on NASCAR. These people don’t want to talk about aero, tire management, fuel management etc. They are in it for the roar, the soap opera that is NASCAR, and sorry to say but the crashes. Are there more sophisticated fans? Of course, but if you look at a packed NASCAR crowd on race day maybe 1 out of 10 could tell you the displacement of a NASCAR motor. Maybe. Americans tend to gravitate to the extremes of… Read more »