PDA

View Full Version : Pook interview in Autosport



ChrisB
01-09-03, 02:33 PM
There's a nice interview w Chris Pook in Autosport. The link is here, but registration is required to read it:

http://www.autosport.com/featuresitem.asp?id=21609&s=31

Some good comments on Brands as well as the Euro presence and new teams.

The last paragraph, when asked what changes are in store for the future:

We have got to go to the future. We are thinking for 2005. As far as we are concerned the days of methanol-powered race cars are over. We will be on gasoline power in 2005, in all probability with a normally-aspirated V10 engine and we'll control the electronic boxes to make sure that traction control doesn't creep back in. You will also probably see refuelling disappear. You will see tyre rules that provide hard and soft compounds and the 750bhp engines will have to run up to 800 miles between rebuilds. All those little bits and pieces will be brought in to bring racing back to racing.

ChrisB
01-09-03, 02:35 PM
My opinions...

Going to gasoline is a good move, but no refueling? Are we going to go back to the days of when F1 had 55gal tanks on-board? 55gallons of gasoline in a car that's going to run on concrete canyons and ovals? I think it would be better to keep the current "fuel window" way of doing pit stops now (or IMO mandated stops for everyone at the 1/3 and 2/3 mile markers).

And a V10 is all wrong. How are they going to get 750hp from a muffled rev-limited 3.0L V10? To do so would require the revs be fairly high... and you can't get 800 miles out of it doing that. Besides, who has a V10 in their garage? A turbo I4 is more relevant to what people are using today.... especially all the 4 cylinder hot-rodders out there.

Napoleon
01-09-03, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by ChrisB
Going to gasoline is a good move, but no refueling? Are we going to go back to the days of when F1 had 55gal tanks on-board?

IMO with todays technology a fire from having Gasoline on board is very unlikely in a crash. The likelyhood of a fire is in a refueling accident. By going from Methonal to Gasoline (which stores about twice the energy) you get rid of refueling and greatly decrease the likelyhood of a refueling fire, which is where something like %100 of the fires have happened in the last 10 to 15 years.

mnkywrch
01-09-03, 03:23 PM
55 gallons of gas impacting with a concrete wall at 230 mph?

:confused:

Even the stock cars have the occasional gas fire... with 22 gallon tanks.

But 55 gallons?

I like everything else he's saying...

JoeBob
01-09-03, 03:45 PM
Stock cars also back into the wall with very little between the wall and the gas tank. (Some of the fires have also been cut/broken fuel lines.

I would think that the odds of a gasoline fire due to an impact would be about the same as a methanol fire.

Also, the Infiniti Pro Series is running gasoline on ovals, and they're rather dinky cars that have had hard hits at all sorts of angles. There's been a variety of injury to those drivers, but none of them have been burns.

DaveL
01-09-03, 03:59 PM
This isn't 1964. Gas is not the hazard it used to be. Take a look at all of the wrecks in F1 in the past couple of years and count the times a car went up in flames. The fuel cell technology in Champ and F1 cars is such that a 230 mph impact will not cause a rupture. As it is, we've seen very hard hits in Champ cars on superspeedways and the cell remained intact.

I'm glad that Pook is thinking about 2005 already. I'm also glad that a formula remotely close to Formula {edit, sorry Dave, not here} is out of the question.

nrc
01-09-03, 04:02 PM
I still like the idea of a turbo 4 better than a V10. Unfortunately if the only deal CART can get is F1 hand-me-downs, that's what we'll be stuck with.

The switch to gasoline and no refueling would also pretty much eliminate the possibility of races over 250 or miles.

ChrisB
01-09-03, 04:31 PM
I have no problem with gasoline... my problem is the weight of a 55gal tank combined with a rev-limited, muffled NA 3.0L engine that I don't think is gonna make 750hp. (whereas an I4 turbo can make whatever power you want it to make)

If we consider 1gal of fuel weighs about 7lbs, that's about 385lbs for 55 gals vs only 126lbs that 18gals would weigh (considering a 2 stop race). Those cars are going to be very sluggish accelerating out of the corners for the first 2/3 of the race until the fuel load lightens.

A smaller 18gal tank also gives the designers more freedom in car design.

Hink
01-09-03, 04:32 PM
No refuelling emilinates 500 mile races for sure.

SteveH
01-09-03, 10:43 PM
In my mind, the biggest threat for fire is from pits stops themselves. Eliminate pit stops and the risk of fire is diminished greatly even if gasoline is used.

How many times can you recall a methonal fire following an accident?

How many pit fires can you recall?

RTKar
01-09-03, 10:50 PM
No refueling? (good point Hink regarding 500 mile races). I'm assuming pit stops for tires, so why have two compounds?

ChrisB
01-09-03, 11:25 PM
No doubt, the thought of eliminating refueling is the thing that's getting the most reaction out of this article.

Hmmmmm... eliminating refueling really does change the way the game is played. No more "fuel strategy" ...the emphasis shifts to "tire strategy". Do you run a harder compound and/or save your tires to reduce pit stops? Or do you run a soft compound and/or run faster even though it means more stops?

And though Pook is saying they'll have hard and soft compounds, WHAT IF they went to a single spec compound? Eliminate BOTH fuel and tire strategy and everyone just runs flat-out for a more straightup fight... best driver and car/engine setup wins!

WickerBill
01-10-03, 07:28 AM
Perhaps this will be unpopular, but pit stops are essential to my enjoyment of racing.

Is that a weird statement or what?

And yes, I realize that "pit stop" does not equal "refuelling", but right now getting the fuel in the car takes longer than getting new tires on it; do we really want battles to see who made it out in 4.2 seconds and who took 4.7? Do we really want that much gasoline in the cars? What happens during that Australia wreck if you add a couple more THOUSAND pounds of gasoline to the equation? Do we really want our drivers to have to deal with a car that weighs 408lbs more at start than finish (60gal x 6.8lb/gal)?


I just don't know about that piece of Pook's comments.

WB

Napoleon
01-10-03, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by WickerBill
Do we really want our drivers to have to deal with a car that weighs 408lbs more at start than finish (60gal x 6.8lb/gal)?


Maybe we do. Think about how that scrambles the equation for the engineers. A car that is running great at the beginning of the race maybe a pig at the end if the driver and engineer do not stay ahead of the curve in making changes at pitstops for tires. It could make for some races which change significantly during the course of it.

cart7
01-10-03, 09:53 AM
originally posted by Wickerbill
Perhaps this will be unpopular, but pit stops are essential to my enjoyment of racing.

How about a tires and adjustments only pit stop?

JoeBob
01-10-03, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by WickerBill
And yes, I realize that "pit stop" does not equal "refuelling", but right now getting the fuel in the car takes longer than getting new tires on it; do we really want battles to see who made it out in 4.2 seconds and who took 4.7?

Right now, pit stop times are basically determined by how quickly the fuel man gets the nozzle into the car, and how quickly gravity can force fuel through the hose.

If you eliminate the fueling from the picture, and make the stops tires only, it makes pit stop times a lot more reflective on the quality of the teams. That could be good or bad.

It is good in that the best teams will have the quickest stops, but it is bad in that fast tire changers become a commodity. Currently you can have not-as-great tire changers, and be okay, since the time it takes to fuel the car will cover for them. I'm not sure I like the prospect of teams hiring extra guys just to do pitstops. Thats what has happened in NASCAR, and it seems like a big waste of money.

mnkywrch
01-10-03, 10:10 AM
I like the idea of no pit stops; it forces the team/driver to set the car up for both the start & end of the run.

So you'll see some guys whose cars come alive at the end of the race... while other guys taper off.

Combine that with harder tires capable of lasting the entire race and you're on to something, I think.

1964 or no, I'm not so sure about 60 gallons of gas behind the driver.

Yes, they do it in F1, but they're not running the speeds CART does on ovals, and they're not running as many street circuits.

ChrisB
01-10-03, 10:54 AM
AFAIK the Champcars have been getting 1.8mpg with alky, and since gas has slightly more than twice the btu's, the assumption has been that they'd go for about 4mpg with gas. F1 races are a standard 300km (190 miles) so I guess a Champ race would be 200miles. So 200 miles @ 4mpg needs 50gals + maybe a little extra for warmup laps. F1 was using 55gal tanks in the no refuel era, so were in about the same ballpark of distance and tank size again. (200miles w. 55gals)

Sound about right?

mnkywrch
01-10-03, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by ChrisB
Sound about right?

It does... but that pretty much means no more 500 milers.

Of course, if they want to do those twin 150 mile sprints...

WickerBill
01-10-03, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by ChrisB

Sound about right?


Yeah, but it sounds awful to this fan. No pitstops, no tire changes? You think there's no lead changes NOW on street courses?

WB

mnkywrch
01-10-03, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by WickerBill
Yeah, but it sounds awful to this fan. No pitstops, no tire changes? You think there's no lead changes NOW on street courses?


There will be when the guy in front burns his tires off trying to stay in front... and either loses the lead to pit for fresh tires or gets passed.

Gurneyflap
01-10-03, 11:20 AM
OK. Has anyone figured out how long the races can be with no fuel stops at current mpg figures? More fuel isn't the only way to go farther. How 'bout miles per gallon? A combo of SOME more fuel and MORE mpg could come close to a no-stop race. Of course the engines will of necessity produce less power, maybe WAY less power. We could be looking at V-10 Champcars in '05 with 600hp, in road racing form. Maybe? See, it looks like they might want to pick up some of that speed with tire strategy. Can anyone say "MARBLES", or 1 groove turns? I side with WB, we need at LEAST one good old-fashioned pit stop for the sake of tradition! I can't even imagine watching a race at Milwaukee without wondering how the field will get shuffled after stops, who will screw up their stop(s), who can make up time lost in the pits etc., etc. No stop Champcar races will greatly disappoint me.

WickerBill
01-10-03, 11:26 AM
I would have had so much less to root for on ovals in 2001... cause I was always rooting for Brack to stall it like he was apt to do.

WB

Gurneyflap
01-10-03, 11:29 AM
I mean, THINK about it. His "750hp" Champcar at THREE.6 mpg (double now) would still need 60 gallons of fuel to finish a 200 miler, (216) safely. How likely is THAT? Think they'll just shorten races, too?

mnkywrch
01-10-03, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by WickerBill
I would have had so much less to root for on ovals in 2001... cause I was always rooting for Brack to stall it like he was apt to do.

That's like rooting for Santa Claus to come. :D

RaceGrrl
01-10-03, 11:36 AM
I would miss the pit shuffle too. A slightly smaller fuel tank would allow for/require a fuel stop at some point during the race and would certainly make me feel better about the amount of fuel on board the race car. No mandated pit windows, no mandated tire changes, just the smaller tank requiring one refuel and then it's a crapshoot.

WickerBill
01-10-03, 11:43 AM
What it boils down to me is the question that didn't get asked of Pook: why? Safety? Less of the "crapshoot" that Grrl mentioned? Does he think that it would make better racing somehow? More "pure" racing?

WB

JoeBob
01-10-03, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by WickerBill
Yeah, but it sounds awful to this fan. No pitstops, no tire changes? You think there's no lead changes NOW on street courses?

WB

I think Pook said no refueling, not no pit stops.

With two tire compounds, you'd have an interesting choice. Even if the hard tires meant you could go the race without stopping, choosing soft tires and making a pit stop would likely be faster, and give you a better shot at making a late-race pass.

Most likely, it would be 1 stop for hard tires, 2 for soft tires. You'd probably also have a rule that you must run the same tire compound for the entire race. (Although it would be neat-o if you could switch. Make a late race stop to strap on the gumballs.)

WickerBill
01-10-03, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by JoeBob
I think Pook said no refueling, not no pit stops.



But I was referring to Chris' post, not Pook's. :)

WB

ChrisB
01-10-03, 12:05 PM
Here's something else to add to all this. They both (methanol and gas) weigh pretty close to about 7bs/gal. So 35gals weighs about 245lbs and 55gals would be about 385lbs... overall about 140lbs more at the start.

Though at the 1/3 mark when the first refueling w. methanol would take place, the gas tank would be down to about 36gals, weighing about the same as methanol at that point in the race. At the 2/3 mark when another methanol refill to 35 gals might take place, the gas tank would be down to 18 gals at that point to finish the race. So going to gasoline w. no refueling (compared to methanol) makes for a heavier car in the first 1/3 of the race, but generally lighter past that. Hmmmmm.

(although if you go to an 18gal gas tank, you get the drama of fuel stops plus an even *lighter* car)

nrc
01-10-03, 02:13 PM
The other 'benefit' of a larger tank would be more change in the car's handling through the race as the center of gravity shifts. It would be harder to have a perfect setup through the entire race which might again encourage passing.

But still, if we assume a huge 55 gal tank and a full tank distance of at least 225 miles, the new engines need to make at least 4 mpg on average. Are they really going to get 750 hp and 4 mpg out of a restricted 3.0 V10?

Hink
01-10-03, 04:54 PM
4 mpg doesn't seem all that outlandish if we're cooking with gas. It would never happen with methanol.

ChrisB
01-10-03, 06:43 PM
Are they really going to get 750 hp and 4 mpg out of a restricted 3.0 V10?

That's what I was wondering too.

1550lb chassis + 650~700hp NA motor + airbox = Indy car!

Uh oh. :eek:

Gurneyflap
01-11-03, 12:14 PM
Yup, see "Gurneyflap", post14...they're going to need double the mpg, bigger tanks and maybe shorter races. I don't like it. Make one HUGE pit window...say, after lap 10, to 10 laps from the end! (With NO yellow stops?) The sooner you stop the faster it'll be because you'll take on less fuel, but the later you stop the longer you get to run with a lighter tank. Hmmmm...I vote for one stop, big window, no yellow. Now, what about tires? Start heavy and hard, race your nuts off, past the 3/4 mark, stop late in the window, rip out the Wickerbi...uh, Gurneyflap, take on a fast light load, go soft and race to the win! One stop, please. (PS, how much does a team save in $$ if no stops are needed? Don't they have to have all the same personnel and equipment anyway, just in case?)