Sunday test times

[rabbit]

AM session

http://www.cart.com/Content/PDF/Results/2003/20030126PDFR_0003.pdf

1. Pat, 2. Bore-day, 3. Bruno, 4. Mario D.

Combined PM/AM

http://www.cart.com/Content/PDF/Results/2003/20030126PDFR_0004.pdf

1. Bruno, 2. Bore-day, 3. Pat, 4. PT

[nrc]

Brunos fast time of 69.172 was faster than last year's pole time at Laguna and only a couple of tenths of da Matta's fast time at last year's Sneak Preview.

I wonder whether difference from the lower horsepower is being made up by improvements in the car or whether the higher boost Ford Cosworth is just more drivable on the road course.

[Paddockrat]

The drivers that I talked to on Saturday all said that the new engine is more difficult to drive. It comes on the power harder and is more difficult to get the power to the ground. More difficult, but apparently faster! One test does not a season make, but Bordeaux is impressive. I am really beginning to get excited about this season.

[Lizzerd]

Originally posted by Paddockrat
The drivers that I talked to on Saturday all said that the new engine is more difficult to drive. It comes on the power harder and is more difficult to get the power to the ground. More difficult, but apparently faster!

In a way, that's good news. No traction control, "faster" engine, more difficult to drive... Should make for some exciting racing, and a lot more passing. The cream will rise.

[RaceChic]

Originally posted by Lizzerd
In a way, that's good news. No traction control, "faster" engine, more difficult to drive... Should make for some exciting racing, and a lot more passing. The cream will rise.

Ha....Watch this Tony George!!!!! :rofl:

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by nrc
I wonder whether difference from the lower horsepower is being made up by improvements in the car or whether the higher boost Ford Cosworth is just more drivable on the road course.

I really didn't pay that much attention when they instituted the spec engine, but does it have less HP? They were going to decrease RPM in order increase engine longevity, but increase boost to make up for (some of or all of?) the lost HP due to lower RPM (which BTW would account for the comment about getting power to the ground).

Could it be that the engines are not that much less powerful then loast year.

[Railbird]

750 hp with roadcourse boost.

700 hp for ovals.

[Gurneyflap]

OK. 'bird, help me understand this, then... (because I was going to ask the same question)...IF revs are down, power is down, and there is no traction control...why is speed up? a) the drivers have improved over last year b) the tires are obviously better c)weather/climate/track conditions were optimal d) boost is up and the engines are producing more than 750hp? No crapwagons here!

[Warlock!]

I'm guessing the added boost allows for bigger torque throughout the rev range. Peak torque may be similar (or less) but average torque may be up.

I am, however, talking out of my ***. :saywhat:

Winter Warlock!

[JT265]

Well, your *** is pretty close to what they wanted to accomplish at Cosworth ol hoss.:p

Bigger torque curve throughout the power band.:cool:

[turn1]

Zoom Zoom! This year should bring a bit more excitement, through both visual and audio means.

[Peter Venkman]

Keep that *** talking, I think that you're right.