Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] - New CART rules?

http://www.cart.com/News/Article.asp?ID=5306
This week it's back to thinking about what CART's rules should be in 2005. 
Sharing his thoughts with us this week is Tom Anderson, who has run Adrian
Fernandez's team the last two years following a very successful tenure
with Chip Ganassi going back to 1989 when Ganassi bought his team from Pat
Patrick. 
Anderson's career in CART started with Jim Hall's championship-winning
Chaparral team in 1980, but his life in the sport extends back even
further to 1969 when he began his career as a race mechanic with the
McLaren Can-Am team in the days of the "Bruce & Denny Show." 
Anderson is a laid-back, deeply practical man who's seen and done it all
in racing. He was a rock for Ganassi for more than 10 years, as well as
for champion drivers Jimmy Vasser, Alex Zanardi and Juan Montoya, and
provides the same solid foundation these days for Fernandez. 
However, Tom takes a radical view of 2005, believing that a whole new
formula for chassis, aerodynamics, engines and tires is required as well
as a fresh approach to pit stops. 
"With the majority of the racetracks that CART runs on being road courses
and street circuits," Anderson ruminated, "if it's a clean sheet of paper,
which I hope it will be in 2005, the car wants to be smaller than the
existing Champ car. It needs to be narrower by at least 12 inches and with
the narrow car you've made every racetrack wider so there's more room for
passing. 
"I also think a four-cylinder engine with a turbocharger makes a lot of
sense. It's a lighter package, fewer pieces, and goes along with the
narrower car, which would be a smaller car. I would regulate the
horsepower by a sonic orifice rather than a pop-off valve or rev limiter
because the sonic orifice can produce a perfectly smooth torque range for
road racing. 
"The horsepower of the engine needs to be such that you have more
horsepower than you have tire so the wheel and tire sizes would have to
change. This would take a group of engineers to figure out mathematically
exactly what those numbers should be. But the bottom line is you need more
horsepower than rubber." 
Anderson believes a four-cylinder, turbocharged engine would be simpler
than today's powerplants while retaining the relatively inexpensive means
of reducing increases in horsepower by cutting back on boost rather than
requiring a whole new, smaller capacity engine. 
"If you look at the current CART formula, the 2.65-liter engine size has
been in existence since the '60s," Anderson noted. "And the longevity of
that engine formula is only down to one thing and that is controlling the
boost with the turbocharger. It's very easy to change. 
"When you have a turbocharged engine with a sonic orifice, you can say the
orifice will be a little smaller next year. To change that is much simpler
than when you have a certain size engine and then you have to build a
smaller engine because then you've obsoleted a hundred percent of
everything and in a lot of cases you might have obsoleted your chassis. 
"Depending on the weight of the car, you're probably going to want between
600 to 700 horsepower. You want something that's reliable and you want
something that has a good sound. V-6s don't sound like race engines and
normally-aspirated V-8s, unless they're ridiculously small, have way too
much power. 
"But a four-cylinder has less moving parts and theoretically less cost.
Turbochargers are starting to come back in favor in production cars, and
the turbo is an excellent way to control the horsepower and give a 10- or
12-year lifespan to the basic formula and engine. Cost is at the back of
my mind on that and the technology that now goes into four cylinders is
the same as the technology that goes into V-8s. It's just got less moving
parts." 
Anderson also wants to see a move to gasoline to eliminate refueling and
make tire use and conservation a more important factor. 
"I would run the engine on gasoline rather than methanol because I would
eliminate refueling," he said. "A gasoline engine will give you in the
four- to five-mpg range which would allow you to run a 200-mile race with
roughly 40 gallons of fuel onboard. And because you would have to start
the race full and end empty with pit stops only for tires--which you're
going to use up because your engine is going to kill the tires--then you
would bring the art of driving back to the sport. 
"And with a car that's going to weigh roughly 250 pounds more at the
beginning of the race than at the end of the race, the handling
characteristics have got to be a balance. It wouldn't be an optimum like
we have now. It would be a balance for an entire run and this would make
it much more interesting over the course of the race as the car gets
lighter. The car is also going to get further back up in the air as the
fuel load lightens and that would bring the driver much more into the
program than he is today." 
He believes a change from methanol to gasoline would bring a number of
benefits. 
"Every manufacturer in the world uses a gasoline engine so it would be
open to everybody and by eliminating the refueling equipment that we take
to the races there would be a big cost reduction," he said. "And with pit
stops for changing tires, you would still have the drama of pit stops
without the problem of refueling." 
Tom has thought out a method of regulating tire stops. 
"There would be some type of mandated use of tires to where we knew there
was going to be 'X' number of stops per race based on the distance and the
only ones that would count would be under the green flag," he said. "That
would stop everybody waiting for the yellow. If it's yellow, you can come
in and change tires, but it wouldn't reduce your number of mandated stops.
Once the capacity of the car and the fuel mileage of the motor was
determined, you could then figure out what would be required for tire
stops based on the distance of each race." 
Anderson is implacably opposed to traction control. 
"I would find a way to eliminate traction control," he declared. "I'm fine
with sequential shifts and lift-without-shift. If they want to do that
fine, because that's not really where the big technical advantages are.
Traction control is a huge technical advantage that needs to be neutered." 
He is convinced that CART will need to write extremely strict rules to
eliminate traction control if multiple engine manufacturers return in
2005. 
"Obviously, there's going to have to be restrictions in electronics and I
don't know if it's with some sort of common pieces," he said. "There are
ways to restrict electronics and it would have to be set in stone before
any engine manufacturer agrees to participate. I believe it's possible to
do, but I also believe it's very difficult. But I think if you start at
the beginning, then there are possibilities." 
Anderson believes the overall influence of aerodynamics should be reduced
to enable the drivers to pass more easily and race closer together. 
"You want to have a less aerodynamic percentage than you have now," he
said. "I can't pick a number out of the air because again, that would be
in proportion to the size of the new car, but the car needs to be more
dependent mechanically than it is now. That would allow the drivers to get
closer to each other without much aerodynamic disadvantage. For sure, more
mechanical grip needs to be available." 
Anderson thinks a greater percentage of downforce should come from the
underbody and less from the external wings, and he also wants to eliminate
front wing assemblies costing more than $20,000. 
"I would like the underbody be a bigger percentage of the overall aero
package than it is today," he said. "We need to keep the wings, but they
need to be a lesser percentage of the aero package. We need to keep the
look, but we need to get away from front wings that have several hundred
parts in our inventories. 
"To hold sponsor logos, there needs to be a single mainplane in the rear
that has a Gurney Lip. Maybe it needs to be a two-element rear wing. I'm
not an aerodynamicist, but the biggest percentage of the aero needs to
come from the floor, which is less affected by traffic. It is affected,
but not nearly as much as taking the air off the front and rear wings. 
"This would enable people to pass and to run closer together so that a
driver can work on somebody from behind and not be at a great
disadvantage. They could play with each other and have a proper dice and
if the guy behind is clever enough to outfox the guy in front, he'll be
able to pass him." 
Anderson also wants to see less effective brakes, again to increase the
chances of passing. 
"I would go to a smaller brake--reducing its capability--to make the
braking zone longer," he said. "By making traction more difficult so that
the driver's got to do it with his right foot and by making the braking
zone longer, you would increase the opportunity for overtaking." 
The argument against going to a narrower car and tires is that it would
enable the cars to accelerate faster and reduce the chances for passing,
although if the braking zones could be made longer there would be a bigger
difference between maximum speed and corner entry speed and therefore more
chance to pass. 
"The first time I went to Indianapolis," Anderson recalled, "they were
letting off at the start/finish line so the longer the braking zone, the
more opportunity you've got to pass. The braking zones need to be
increased. The technology of the brakes is phenomenal, but it's taken away
from the ability to race." 
Anderson believes that having multiple engine and tire manufacturers is
the right way to go, but he's very wary about writing effective rules to
restrict the manufacturers. 
"From a competitor's standpoint, I'd rather see a single tire make
because, as we see in other series, tire advantages are nearly impossible
to overcome," he said. "But from a marketing standpoint, you want
competition among tire companies. In a perfect world, I would say you
would only have one tire manufacturer, but commercial considerations
probably prefer to see two or more. 
"I'd like to see multiple engine manufacturers. I think the rule book we
have today in CART allows for too much technology. I think a serious look
needs to be taken at the chance to spend a tremendous amount on engines.
You obviously want auto manufacturers involved, but you don't want them to
have to spend space shuttle budgets." 
In closing, Anderson wants to see some serious, immediate plans to debate
the 2005 rules. 
"Some very clever thought needs to be put in by engine people on what in
reality does contain costs," he said. "You need a committee of engine
people to discuss the engine rules and a comittee of aerodynamicists to
discuss the aero rules, and now is the time to put this into action. We
can't wait until the end of next season because the longer and more
difficult it will become." 
Plenty of food for thought from another of the sport's veterans. 
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 chances of passing. 
Anche questa è stata proposta ma bocciata dai team in F.1....
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (o_        Vinci                     registered Linux User #276630
 //\           " I find your lack of faith disturbing "
 V_/_            Darth Vader, Star Wars : A New Hope

 Plenty of food for thought from another of the sport's veterans. 
Non ho parole: quest'uomo ha detto quello che noi stiamo dicendo sulla
formula 1 da anni!
Meno ali, niente traction control, niente rifornimenti ma solo cambio
gomme (e pure solo sotto bandiera verde)...
Poi vuole stringere le vetture ma considerato che parecchi circuiti sono
cittadini, con strade strette, la cosa e' comprensibile.
Poi vuole ridurre il numero dei cilindri del motore a 4 e passre
all'utilizzo della benzina, questo per ridurre i costi visto che le
tecnologie per motori del genere sono molto piu' accessibili di quelle
per motori al metanolo.
Che ne dite? 
Voglio Anderson alla guida della F1. ;-)
-- 
Un Ciao in DO Maggiore!
-=) Sbaturzio (=-

 Voglio Anderson alla guida della F1. ;-)
Purtroppo anche in F.1 queste proposte (più o meno) sono state fatte e
"rifiutate" da chi doveva poi correrci, quindi dagli stesso concorrenti.
Certo che se con queste modifiche cominciano a venire a correre su
circuiti europei tipo Brands Hatch e Spa c'è da sperare che qualcuno
trasmetta le gare anche in Europa... :-)
