coupe3w Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Congratulations on the win for Ford Eco-Boost. Way to go Ford! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catan70 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Great day for ford racing! Congrats to ford!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catan70 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 What's the difference in the LeMans race where the gt is racing bs this one at Daytona? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bifs66 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Apparently that V-6 Eco Boost is both powerful and durable. IMO, they went just fast enough to win. If they had showed too much speed, IMSA would probably try to slow them down (in the interest of competition). This race was good preparation for the future Le Mans effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Apparently that V-6 Eco Boost is both powerful and durable. IMO, they went just fast enough to win. If they had showed too much speed, IMSA would probably try to slow them down (in the interest of competition). This race was good preparation for the future Le Mans effort. What a load of BS. I'm so sick of fixed racing........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catan70 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 What a load of BS. I'm so sick of fixed racing........ You think that the ford car could have gone faster?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bifs66 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 What a load of BS. I'm so sick of fixed racing........ What do you mean by BS? Didn't the V6 run at race speeds for 24 hrs? Didn't the engine run without problems? Isn't this engine configuration being groomed for an LeMans effort? Didn't the car win? Those facts appear true to me. However, if you mean the BS is because IMSA "equalizes" various car/engine configurations by restricting power, adding weight, etc. then I agree with you. I would prefer a series with minimum weight; and run whatever engine type you want, as long as it uses your current stock block and heads. \? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Fuzzy55 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Way to go FORD!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Ford at Daytona: Ford won the first Daytona 24 (1965), but not the first endurance race at Daytona. Ford is the *distant* #2 in overall wins by engine (6 vs. Porsche's 22) Ford Mustangs also won eleven consecutive GTO/GTS classes (1985-1995) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 lol However, if you mean the BS is because IMSA "equalizes" various car/engine configurations by restricting power, adding weight, etc. then I agree with you. I would prefer a series with minimum weight; and run whatever engine type you want, as long as it uses your current stock block and heads. \? THISSSSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The problem with open rules is that inevitably you'll have a mfr or team that decides to spend enormous amounts of money to end up dominating the field. Then the other teams have to match it and pretty soon you're looking at F1 type spending. Meanwhile, the races are terrible for the spectators both live and on tv. If this were a simple engineering competition that would be fine, but it's entertainment and as long as it's entertainment you need a somewhat level playing field. Not NASCAR level, but varying weight still lets the vehicles be individualized and provides a much more entertaining product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajvolpe Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Theoretically everyone is at least playing by the same rules, so hats off to Ford. If one team was allowed to compete differently, or do whatever they want, the results would not be competitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 It's not that. If one team found a way to generate a lot more power than the other teams, or one car body was vastly superior in aerodynamics to the other vehicles, they would be penalized with additional weight to make it more competitive. So in that case the weight requirements are not equally applied. I don't think they were holding back for that reason - if anything it was just playing it safe. Reliability wins 24 hour races, not pure speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaZor Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The only way that 'run what you brung' - as long as it fits inside a 'box' - would provide a good competitive race - is if they added a few tweaks to it. Like you are allocated only a specified amount of fuel (be it a gasser or an oil burner) for a race. Even then, a formula would be required to equalize the thermal properties of said fuel (and balance the differential b/w them). Problem is that the sanctions are way too influenced by manufacturers and have been historically. Porsche was saved from bankruptcy when the Euro sanctions outlawed the engines that powered the GT40 (and others) to dominance (they couldn't have that!) and then gave them the inside track for the next 30-40 years. Of course, Porsche had to pay for that inside track - which they did. Who do you think wrote the rules for the diesel for the ACO/FiA? Audi engineers. Of course, we could all watch bowling . . . and die from boredom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bifs66 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 When I became aware that motorsports existed in some form or another, the Ford flathead V8, with few exceptions, was pretty dominant. When the OHV V-8s came on the scene, the Flathead was history. There were no "adjustments" to ensure that the Flathead remained competitive. Within the ranks of the OHVs, the Chrysler and SBC ascended to the top based on their performance potential. There were no "ajustments" to keep the others (as in Y-block) competitive. Ultimately, the SBC went into most all forms of motorsports. We Ford fans bided our time waiting for Ford to wake up and produce a small block competitive product. The answer cam with the 221,260,289, 302 series; and ultimately the 351C. All of a sudden, sanctioning bodies started adding weight, making adjustments, banning Cleveland heads, etc...seemingly to keep the SBC out front. When Ford ran the little pushrod Indy V-8 in 1963, it had to compete on equal terms with the Offys. Later the rules were changed to allow more displacement for pushrod engines. With the introduction of the new Ford GT, there has been much discussion and hand wringing over the engine choice. In today's motorsports world, with diverse designs brought to a common denominator through rules, determining the technically superior product is a mystery. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.