[Purist]

jag, we probably won't agree on this, but I'll put it out here anyway.

It's no mystery that I'm not greatly enthused by the idea of a field of little, turbo, for-bangers running around as the engines for Indy Cars. So, I'll lay that aside for the moment.

First, how do we work out an amicable equivalency? Even if hp values for the two types of engines can be roughly equalized, or equalized based on power-to-weight, the Honda V8s still are going to make substantially more torque than the little turbo engines. This has been one of the real nightmares of trying to "equalize" the turbo diesels and the petrol engines at Le Mans.

Passing is most often performed on the straights or into braking zones. However, if you get blown away by the other guy coming out of a corner, you need MORE top-end than that guy has to claw back the distance down the straight to be in a position to even try and outbraking maneuver. if you can't claw back the distance there, even if you're quicker through the corners, you're far less likely to be able to make the pas going through a sequence of corners, and you just get held up until the next straight, at which point, the superior torque lets your competitor pull away again on corner exit.

Another thing is just the American mindset. A lot of people over here think bigger is better, and if they think they can afford the big vehicle, they'll try to buy it, and the banks definitely haven't been very responsible in reining in these bad financial decisions for some time now. Also, there are certainly some who, for practical reasons, are worried about having a small engine, because they want to have the necessary grunt to pull onto the highway with a minimum concern of getting run over by a truck coming up behind them. It will take quite a bit of time for this mindset to be reset, so in the meantime, I just don't see those small engines catching on in a big way here in the States. This rather defeats the relevancy argument for the engines, since if they don't catch on here, American won't care, because they won't see this technology as really relevant to them.

Now that I've gotten all of that out, I like most of the rest of what you posted there, Jag. The engine summit as you proposed how to do it is even something I agree with.

The power boost does need to be more significant; the extreme example was CCWS at Mexico City in 2007, where base output was 725hp, with the boost button giving you a burst of 800hp. That 75hp jump was VERY apparent, and quite useful. It was also enough of a jolt that, if the guy behind got on the button first, it was virtually useless as a "power-not-to-be-passed" button.

Maximum allowed aerodynamic downforce definitely needs to be reduced on the ovals, and as you said, options need to be opened up to run the cars in different trims, on all tracks. I'd be inclined to say that base power output should be increased for the road courses, so as to provide more of a gain and incentive to run a lower downforce set-up on the road courses and street circuits.

I like the general idea of how to reduce blowover potential. I have to say though, it's a difficult balance, and you want to be careful how you reshape the bodywork and undertray. That curve may help air evacuate out the back, but beyond a point, you run the risk of packing more air underneath the leading edge of the car in adverse yaw conditions.

All-in-all though, very good and well thought out, Jag. I'm glad you were able to at least get it to some of the head sheds. Hopefully, they pay your proposal some attention.