Return to turbos

[russd]

Looks like F1 and Indycars will be turbos again. Thats going to make detailing an engine a lot harder.

Rusty

[harveythedog2]

I for one welcome the turbo scream back at Indy. It's what I remember most about my first race in 87. I can still remember the hair on the back of my neck standing up and the my heart pounding. Hooked forever...

[indycals]

I'm just the opposite. Not a fan of turbos.

[stuboyle]

Turbos seem like an easy way to dial-in the horsepower depending on the track. You can different boost levels at every track.

That's the only benefit I really see.

[indy]

I grew up on turbo IndyCars so I miss those days. Not sure how this will compare but I do miss that turbo sound!

Jordan

[stonecold44]

I must be tone deaf or stupid. Is there that much of a sound difference when an engine is turbocharged?

[indy]

Not stupid - you might not just remember ;D

Jordan

[Calvin]

It doesn't matter to me what they do. But I'd rather see F1 stay with N/A and have Indycars go to turbos just so there is some differences between the two series.

[Deleted]

I loved the turbo days at Indy as well. Plus, those low profile Indycars to me looked a lot better than the big air scoop sitting behind the driver that both the IRL and F-1 did. The cars just looked better IMHO. Now if only there were no USAC mandated pop-off valves to blow when you least expected it, that would be even better. You would figure with today's onboard telemetry, there might be some better way to monitor boost pressure to make sure a team isn't using too much.

[indycals]

Jun 23, 2011 20:43:52 GMT -5 stonecold44 said:

I must be tone deaf or stupid. Is there that much of a sound difference when an engine is turbocharged?

There can be. To me the cars today sound similar to the turbo Cosworth days. Conversely the turbo Offy's in the 70s were much more deep in their sound.

My dislike for turbos comes from all the problems they used to have with pop-off valves. And while turbos can be used to vary horsepower from track to track, they can also be used to vary horsepower from car to car.

I don't remember the exact details but I know the final outcome. In 1995 Menard was caught cheating in qualifying. I don't recall the exact infraction, but as a penalty - instead of fines or withdrawing the qualifying time, they were given pop-off valves for race day that were significantly more restricted than what the rules allowed - I want to say 50" when they were allowed 55". They never stood a chance on race day.

[harveythedog2]

From 87 to 95 turbos were all I knew. I returned to Indy in 97 and only saw the first two or three laps before the rains came. That was enough for me. Indy wasn't the same anymore and everything sounded like a dump truck on steroids. Instead of YEOWWW it was ROOWWW. (I am making the sounds as I write this, ;D)

Anyway, maybe the new engine will sound completely different than what I remember. The engines today sound completely different than in 97.

[macsparty]

While given my druthers, I'd probably prefer to stay with the N/A engines, my main hope is that the engines will sound different from each other. Unlikely, I suppose, but one can hope. Remember when you knew when a Buick was coming down the stretch before you saw it? Such a different sound than that pack of Cosworths.

[Chris]

One thing that also helped define the engine sounds in the sixties and early seventies, and my father being an early drag racer knew alot about, was the use of Nitro in the fuel in various percentages.... I do know when he went to work on the crew of AAR at Indy, that he added the "POP" to the fuel for the team. He talked about it a lot, being able to tell what kind of a "Load" a car was running based on engine note... Chris

[russd]

I seem to remember the reason that Indycar and F1 scrapped turbos the first time was the cost factor. Aren't NA engines more reliable? and more economical?

Rusty

[mrindy77]

I can go back as far as turbo 4 cammers, tubro offy's. I liked the sound of different engines not all the same. I really liked Jerry Karl's snarling small block in a pack of Cosworths. Variety is the spice of life! Unfortunately, the days of who could build a better mousetrap are gone.

[Chris]

The F1 Turbo Era was spurred on by the crop of passenger cars at that time that were begining to use Turbos on just about everything inc. Chevy v8 Monte Carlos...YUK!!!! the decision to get rid of them was not cost but excessive speed and horsepower.. Let face it 1500hp 1.5L 4 cylinder cars were a bit excessive.. I loved it and I think eventually it would have lead to aternative technologies to Turbos, isnt that what F1 is supposed to be about??? The most Technologically Advanced Racing cars in the world? Chris

[Deleted]

I miss the alternative engine notes as well. Granted I never saw a turbo Indy race in person, but the low notes of the Buicks as they drove by sounded great compared to the screaming of the other engines, be they Cosworths, Ilmor Chevies, Judds or whatever. Of course, the high pitched scream was also neat to listen too, especially during qualifying when you get the sense that they really were "...on it!"

I don't think the days of innovation are behind Indy, its just that teams with smaller budgets just can't think outside of the box as much. When Penske did their stock block stuff at Indy in 1993, it showed that if a big team threw their efforts behind something different and had the data to back it up, they were more likely to succeed than a smaller effort with less funding (such as the Buick project). Menard got the closest to success with both the Buick and the Menard V6, but he was up against the march of time to the engine and car package for 1996 when he rolled out those Menards V6 monsters in 1994 and 1995. Maybe they didn't win, but they were still some of my favorite Indycars of all time.