http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/101544-6878-037.html

3.5 to 3.0 liters.

They expect speeds to drop by 10 to 15 mph at indy (215 top qual
speed?)

I guess sarahs 2002 kentucy track record is safe. I am guessing that
tracks like that with 220 or so this year will drop to something like
206

Where I expect the least speed drop is richmond where power is way way
less important. Heck, they may still hit 170 there.



--
David Eckard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rot13 this address fjbeqrqtr (AT) rneguyvax (DOT) arg
Webmaster http://www.billswoodshed.com <- currently unavail
Webmaster http://home.earthlink.net/~swordedge
-----------------------------------------------------------

"David Eckard" <fjbeqrqtr (AT) rneguyvax (DOT) arg> wrote

TJMC was one of the guys around here asking for the 3 liter quite awhile
ago.
Good move on the Speedways part.
The narrower tire will be another good move.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:00 GMT, "Smokey" <BDGIT (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Along with a few others.

Still dunno why it took Tony so long and why he didn't make the change
last year with the arrival of the Japanese. I mean if Brayton's 231/233
and Arie's 236s were too fast in 1995-96, then Bruno's 231 was too fast
in 2002.

FTR, I do like the 3.0L atmo just for the fact it melds that
displacement with the world's top-ranked open wheel series.

I don't think so. Wide tires are *the* most important component of
mechanical grip and since high-speed, rear-engine race cars are prone to
losing it ass-end first, I think any reduction in grip is far too
dangerous to experiment with. Slowing speed is the way to go.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:10:19 -0600, tjmc <tjmc.enteract (AT) rcn (DOT) com>
wrote:

[snip]
I thought WoO ran 410 ci, not 3.0 L. IIRC, Silver Crown runs 350 ci.

The idea is to cut cornering speeds. Reducing tire width does that.
They need to reduce downforce, too. Looking forward to seeing what
their aero changes are.

Ken Plotkin

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:50:42 -0500, Ken Plotkin
<kplotkin (AT) nospam-cox (DOT) net> wrote:

Lemme restate: ....it melds that displacement with the world's
top-ranked, rear-engine open wheel series.

Zat better?

I understand where everyone's coming from. On the other hand I think
there are steps a sanctioning body needs to take to help protect drivers
from their own aggressiveness. The maintained bit of width does that as
long as it's accompanied by an overall reduction in speed. In other
words, it's safer, surer and easier to slow the cars than it is to slow
the drivers.

Not sure downforce is the bugaboo so many believe it to be. Personally
I think there's something almost magical about a car that adds grip with
every increase in MPH. Again, if you want to reduce the downforce,
simply slow the cars.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:09:53 -0600, tjmc <tjmc.enteract (AT) rcn (DOT) com>
wrote:


Yes - that clarifies it.


Downforce is one of the reasons cars go fast. The essence of good
racing is Chris Economaki's mantra: the cars have to be faster than
the track. Cutting engine size without reducing tires and aero
loading makes them slower than the track. Things have to be balanced
so that drivers have to lift somewhere during a lap. Otherwise you
wind up with something like restrictor plate racing.

Maybe the key is the track, not the cars. Remember how they fixed the
high grip, high speeds at Darlington? Bear grease! IMHO, they need
to get rid of the excessively high grip track surfaces. Maybe even
remove that hard coating, and run on the natural surface.

Ken Plotkin

"Ken Plotkin" <kplotkin (AT) nospam-cox (DOT) net> wrote



Yeah but...

if by reducing tire width, straight away speed is increased,
combined with reduced cornering speed, I don't like it.

"Schnorky McDoogle" <schnorky (AT) stthomas (DOT) com> wrote in news:brfrgr$2pkol$2
@ID-177840.news.uni-berlin.de:

It sounds like an incomplete solution ... but then, from what's
been posted, not all the details have been made public.

IMHO, slowing the cars is a good thing, if for no other
reason, than it helps reduce impact forces in the
event of a crash.

However, it will be interesting to see whether
the new regs address the propensity for the
cars to launch themselves. To me, this
is really the primary issue ...

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:08:39 -0500, "Schnorky McDoogle"
<schnorky (AT) stthomas (DOT) com> wrote:

Good to not like. It finally dawned on me - is that why F1 uses
grooves to cut the tires down, instead of making them narrower?

Speed reduction can't be just one thing. Engines, tires, aero all
have to change to bring everything down. Cornering speed has to be
less than straightaway speed, but (IMHO) not so much less that drivers
have to shift.

Ken Plotkin

Ken Plotkin <kplotkin (AT) nospam-cox (DOT) net> wrote in
news:2asmtvg3eh92l4aq9ul2hc7b0seka5ba6b (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:

I thought it was also to be able to limit and/or
evaluate tire wear ... I believe there's a regulation
that indicates how deep the grooves must be both
before and after the tires have been used.

As well, it was a means to limit grip .. though the wording
of the regulation (area of the contact patch) was just
ambiguous enough for Michelin to take advantage of it
during the season ... Michelin tires were exactly the
right size when they were new, but apparantly expanded slightly
after several laps of wear.

Well, it'll be interesting to see what the implications
are, once the full changes are known.