Exactly what I think. Indy racing is a specs series, like a close shop; I cannot see any constructor entering it as a factory team. Simply endorsing an existing team, like McLaren does, would do nothing for Ferrari's image. Ferrari going back to endurance racing to complement its F1 participation would make more sense, IMO. They could be building an Hypercar, join the WEC championship and aim for Le Mans, Sebring, etc ... where the Scuderia would win. It would make more sense to race in a series where their racer could be identifiable with their street cars.
... and risk being found out cheating and severely fined for it ? Come on. If it was that simple, other F1 teams would do it already. Wait ... McLaren perhaps ?
I like the way you think. Didn't Alfa Romeo essentially copy an Ilmor V8 when they competed in Indycar?
The rule book is always, always open to interpretation. If you're not occasionally accused of cheating, you're not trying hard enough.
Being accused is one thing, but being found out is different. Ferrari is already under a cloud of suspicion following the "deal" made with the FIA about potential engine irregularity. They certainly don't need to add to that.
I presume this was meant to be a question because it starts with "Is it possible that Ferrari could use an "Indy Car" project as a way of testing F1 parts on track...." then continues with "(outside of the F1 testing restrictions) and not labeling them as F1." without question a mark. No. Testing things on totally different platforms does not produce information intended to be gleaned as the interaction of the whole systems are different. The proof of this, for a layman, is that it doesn't happen already. Foe the amount that would be spent, teams would have been doing this years and years ago. Indy car racing would have been a drop.....nay, a very small drop......in the budget "bucket" to even actually have run full seasons if it would have been productive so to do. Especially back in the CART and even USAC days when teams could develop their own parts (chassis or engine). The strict spec/kit car IndyCar regs. (all parts; chassis, body, and engine) does not allow for any development. Controlled to "level the playing field" for a better "show". 'Why IndyCar budgets are in the very low millions per raced car vs. the mega millions for F1.
I presume this was meant to be a question without question mark. No. Testing items on totally different platforms does not produce information intended to be gleaned, as the interaction of the whole systems are different. The proof of this, for a layman, is that it doesn't happen already. For the amount that would be spent, teams would have been doing this years and years ago. Indy car racing would have been a drop.....nay, a small drop......in the budget "bucket" to even actually have run full seasons as ongoing test sessions if it would have provided good feedback for the F1 team. Especially back in the CART and even USAC days when teams could develop their own parts (chassis, body or engine). The strict spec/kit car IndyCar rules (all parts, chassis and body are regulated, if not mandated; the engines are not owned, they're leased, and sealed) does not allow for any development (Hell, the same Dallara DW12 chassis is in it's ninth year, 2012-present). Controlled to "level the playing field" for a better "show". 'Why IndyCar budgets are in the very low millions per raced car vs. the mega millions for F1, there is no development. Testing , in IndyCar, is for setup with what is allowed, not development of new parts/systems. edit: I see I'm still having posting problems here on FC (only) as I never hit "reply to thread" for the above as I wasn't finished posting (multi-tasking).
That's enuff out of you, smarty pants!!! Anyhow, if it floats your boat, go watch it.....leave F1 alone!!!
I'm not suggesting they would actually build an Indy car, just create a project on paper that they could hide F1 R&D and testing in.
Paybacks are a beach..... (A) How can you be so sure.....you're wonderful, "level the playing field" BoPing is at work in WEC. (B) Then why the heck is it in F1???
A) It worked for Audi, and Porsche, and even Toyota. I'm sure it would work for a Ferrari work effort. And Ferrari would have no problem selling their Hypercars to private teams either; remind me, how many F1 do they sell ? B) Because Ferrari got more exposure in F1 than in endurance, thanks to Bernie promoting it better. I'm sure you remember the time when endurance was more popular and faster than F1.
On Instagram... Is this Piero Ferraris official account Image Unavailable, Please Login Sent from my SM-G973F using FerrariChat.com mobile app
Seems to be a "photo.formula" instagram account, "pieroferrari" is just used as a hashtag. The text is a copy from this article: https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/fr/formule-1/le-personnel-ecarte-de-ferrari-en-f1-pourrait-bien-rebondir-en-indycar,148594.html
Tanks for the link! I also realized it's not official, lets wait and see.. Sent from my SM-G973F using FerrariChat.com mobile app
"E" for Effort....... A-1) They didn't f... with LMP1H so much with the BoPing. They will with Hyper/D...(whatever it is called) 2) Don't be. Not with what they're going to be doing with the BoPing. 3) Aie yi-yi. Clueless. How many could they sell to other teams? I'll help you with this one....NONE. It's not allowed. Check the regs.; each team MUST construct it's own cars. That's why there's a constructor's championship. F1 is not IndyCar. B) No, as a matter of fact I don't. Please link me to same circuit/same season evidence of the same. I remember it otherwise. (Now, Can Am cars on the other hand.....)
Mssr william - B) More help....Fastest laps, every ten years, same track, length, and dry weather. World Sportscar Championship (WSC), WEC, and Formula One (F1): Fastest lap at Sebring, 1959, length 8.369 km for both. F1 - Trintgnant, Cooper Climax, 3 min 5 sec, 162.9 kph WSC - Behra, Ferrari 250, 3:21.6, 149.439 kph Watkins Glen, 1969, 3.701 km for both F1 - Rindt, Lotus Ford, 1:04.34, 207.08 kph WCC - Elford, Porsche 908, 1:09.13, 192.76 kph Silverstone, 1979, 4.719 km F1 - Regazzoni, Williams Ford, 1:14.4, 228.34 kph WCC - Mass, Porsche 936, 1:23.25, 204.07 kph I grow tired of this research, but I hope you get the picture..... (Aaah, just one more for recent reference......) CotA (Austin, Tx, USA), 2017, 5.513km (Qualifying, I don't have fastest lap for WEC) F1 - Hamilton, Mercedes, 1:33.11, 213.159 kph WEC - Bernhard, Porsche 919H, 1:44.685, 189.586 kph No mas. I'm done! Now I've got a headache. That was a lot of work. If you find otherwise, let me know.
The 637 from 1986 was a mule for a possible CART series contender. I think this came about during one of Ferrari’s frustrations with F1 regulations. Image Unavailable, Please Login
You've got it...that's what I was referring to. It was their bargaining tool that had to cost a mint just ro threaten F1/FIA regarding the rules change. (That's why I said they'd get off easy this time...just buy a DW12 Chevy/Honda and paint it red...instant threat for budget cap discussions.) At least Alfa got to use the 637 for testing it's CART engine later on, iirc.
I understood that only recognised car manufacturers could homologate Hypercars, not that they couldn't sell them. ByKolles was turned down for that reason, but SCG was accepted; they are a registered street car manufacturer. The idea was to accept a category of top production street cars like Bugatti, Ferrari SF90, Aston Walkyrie, McLaren Speedtail, etc ... Hypercars are meant to be different from the prototype category LMH, above the GTE, but like them based on production street cars. Maybe you have different information.
Thanks for the effort. I was specifically refering to the 1961/65 period, where sports cars became faster than the 1500cc F1. Also, I was thinking about top speed on some circuits, like Monza or Spa, not lap time. All the examples you gave me were outside that period. I remember the first time a Ford MKII did 190mph on the Mulsanne straight during test at Le Mans in 1965. By comparison a F1 could barely reach 170mph. Don't forget that at that time, a F1 was less powerful that today's F3 !!! Drivers who did both F1 and endurance, were saying they were going faster in a sports car.
What has any of the above to do with my answer to your question......? You ask a question. I answer. You quote my answer and go on about something totally irrelevant. Image Unavailable, Please Login I surrender. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Constructors MUST build their own Hypercars. You say they can't sell them to private teams. Maybe you can quote the regs that say that?