Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2006
My Photo

« Trackside Rolls LIVE Tonight | Main | PG-13 Snake Pit Returns to Indy 500 »

April 11, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c53c653ef016303fbdce8970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Barfield Says Rule Penalizing for Engines Blown During Tests Will be Reviewed:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Julie P

I think the rule is fair. We need to remember that the teams do not own the engines...they lease them.

The manufacturers have to eat the cost to rebuild or replace a blown engine. Several people have said that the manufacturer should be the one penalized not the team....but in a way they are. The have to either repair or replace the blown engine in the pool at their own expense. The penalty is meant to discourage teams from tearing up engines or pushing them beyond the limits during testing because they could without penalty.

This is no different then leasing a car. If you bring it back damaged, you pay a penalty regardless of how the damage occurred. The way to solve the problem is to require teams to buy the engines then you can remove the penalties because all the expense is on them.

Dylan

The engine rules aren't very good. I really dislike engine limits/mileage rules. A lot of racing series have some type of engine rule (MotoGP, WSBK, Indycar, f1, NASCAR's 2nd tier series) but they don't seem to do a lot of positive things for the series. Same with testing bans/limits. they may reduce costs but a lot of times they make costs worse, as teams have to use even more expensive and difficult ways of getting information if testings banned and making engines last longer and still be fast is also expensive. Worse, they hurt the parity in a racing series (see Ducati being prevented from testing in MotoGP) and potentially cause teams and drivers/riders to have to take it easy to preserve equipment which hurts the product the fans see on track. Including testing in the engine limits makes even less sense. And Indycar's engine limits compared to GP/F1 is harder on teams because they're limited to 1 engine at a time, where as in those series teams are given an amount of engines for the year. So often they'll swap an older engine in for non qualifying/race use. I would hate to see the title decided based on a testing incident and that's the situation that Indycar is setting up with handing out a ten spot penalty for engine changes.

I don't really get how Indycar plans to make their engine policy work long term, either. They don't want development costs but they don't want to force-equalize the engines the way NASCAR does, so what's going to happen? Are they going to end up with each engine stuck at wherever it starts the year at, and those teams are just out of luck? At least in other series there's a chance a less than competitive car/bike can improve over the year.

bradman

We're already seeing that the new car and engine(s) has about the same power to weight ratio as the old car and engine. This is not good. Another 100 hp would have breathed fresh life into the old package, but Honda refused because they didn't want even a single engine failure to tarnish their ever so carefully crafted golden luster. The new engines will simply have to generate more power than they do now. At this point the new chassis is basically sorted, so any further incremental tweaks to spring rates, dampening rates, ride height, toe, camber, etc. isn't going to deliver significant speed. This limit on the number of engines, penalties for swap outs, etc. discourages the very sort of hp war in IndyCar that we have all longed for for, well, decades now. The real upcoming test for the new car and engines will be Indy. If the new car and engine is not faster than the old car and engine, that will be a huge embarassment and will leave everyone wondering what all the fuss was about in having a new chassis and engine formula anyway. Safety? Engineering more hp from smaller displacement? Still needing to fully sort the new car and engine combination? Yeah, I can hear the excuses coming from the front office already. Can't wait for qualifying weekend this year!

redcar

I understand cost controls, especially considering the excesses of F1 and some of the Tony George era. But then I also like the idea of mechanics and engineers tinkering to make engines faster, at least within reason. It's less spec and more olden days of yore. So I got no answer, I think they're doing there best, I guess. And I do appreciate Beaux Barfields transparency and question-answering-efficiency.

Miller Robbins

The 10 grid penalty might be the dumbest rule in the history of Indy Car Racing.

And that's saying something.

How about this? Come up with a few rules at the beginning of the season and actually STICK WITH THEM. It seems like they change rules every race now. We have some races with 2 wide restarts. And some without. We got too many stupid-ass rules, that even the most diehard of fans can't figure out or keep track of.

Lets figure some stuff out, fellas. We come off looking like a bunch of amateurs just making things up as we go.

Ramblinman

I agree whole-heartedly with Miller Robbins' post above.

Give me a break IndyCar. We don't need more rules that takes away the driver's desire to race to the front of the field in a no-holds-barred fashion.

This rule seems to only help cover the behinds of the engine manufacturers and takes away from the competitive nature of the sport.

No fuel knobs, no dumb ass rules, and less strategy. Just old fashioned, hard-nosed racing.

Just my two cents....

cartracer20

Miller Robbins, eh? Sounds vaguely familiar...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Get the Indy Inside Scoop!


pressdog® Merchandise


Subscribe

  • Get notified by e-mail when
    the blog is updated.

    Name:
    Email:
    Subscribe 

    Your e-mail address won't be shared/sold/rented/loaned etc.