Max Mosely wants action to "save F1"

[ISLAMATRON]

Mosley will ose them all, the only one who still trust the fia is ferrari.

Mosley wants to make the racing green with his kers, but he hasnt thought that all those energy that they save will be used then for those lights in the singapore gp.
So they dont gain anything from it.

They just have to change the engines.
Like a V4 BiTurbo Diesel powered. Limited to 10000RPM, that will take a loss in consumption and the amount of power will be the same or a little bit lower. Due to this changes the car can be uild more compact wich reduced drag.

Up that to 15k RPM (top end of spring valves), and lower the weight to 515kg. With the weight loss, KERS implementation and weight savings, the racing may get more exciting. I would imagine the 80HP boost from next years KERS would have more effect on overtaking with a 515kg car than the 605kg one!

OR they could implement a rule next year that kinda takes advantage of what the teams have already used, and that is running the current V8's next year on 4 cylinders at a time, but allowing 2BAR turbos. I dont know if it would make the engine last longer tho...

What Diesels run 10K RPM? and you wanna raise it to 15K? I think the R10 Audi's redline at maybe 6K RPM. A 2L diesel diesel stright 4 would probly be the best comprimise since pretty much every manufacturer uses one in their lineup(except Ferrari of course). I'd actually prefer to see a bio-fuel gas engine in the back of the F1 cars, that turbo diesel stuff is way too quiet for me, as a matter of fact they should run rotories just to make it louder!

[ISLAMATRON]

Well making the cars lighter would be really cool and also good for engineers as the car will react more on air from the side.
I dont know either if it would make the engines more reliable but im sure it is possible.

Lighter would mean even faster cornering speeds, I dount that Max and the FIA would go for that.

[ISLAMATRON]

I too fail to see what exactly costs so much. You have material restrictions, fixed bore centres and many other components specified, you have no variable intakes/exhausts, you have no direct injection, you have no variable valve timing, you have no forced induction...you just have a small engine revving itself to pieces.

Since the engine freeze they really dont cost "so much", not nearly as much as B4, but the tight tolerances and the very tight quality control lead to alot of refused parts, that certainly drives up the cost.

[Rob W]

Precision machining to the .000001in is purely dependant upon the accuracy of the cutting machines.

I imagine F1 teams spend just as much time designing and building ultra-precise machines..

This leads me to a thought on having engines supplied by a single maker. A1 Grand Prix was been fraught with problems from teams who claimed their supplied engine wasn't as powerful as other's. I recall two seasons ago the New Zealand team said their engine was down on HP so the makers took it back to dyno it.. and came back and said "no, it's fine" - yet in all speed-traps it was consistently down on other teams. The evidence in RPMs even supported them but to no avail.. the only way to get a new engine would be to destroy the one you have.

This is the sort of problem you get with 'provided' equipment and it doesn't take a genius to predict that the political nature of F1 would immediately see teams claiming other cars have 'different' engines. This is the sort of thing F1 desperately needs to avoid given the already routine claims of favouritism/bias.

Letting them build their own engine may not even it up, but at least they are 100% masters of their own destiny and will (in theory) make them to the best of their skills/budget.

R

[Project Four]

However you restrict car development, teams will spend their budget on chasing infinitesimal gains, in what ever areas they see will give them a gain over the other teams.

I do feel that the area of engine and drive-train and electronic technology holds more relevance to road cars and to future developments, than aero or suspension developments. And , therefore this is an area that shouldn’t be so heavily restricted.

Although it is a driver and a team (technology) sport, F1 can show the world technological leadership in engine/drive-train/ electronic development, which can be a benefit for all. The rules could be framed around a limit on fuel flow, but become more open on what engine type can be used and how the engines can be designed and developed, gasoline, ethanol, KERS, diesel, syngas, even gas turbines. Engines could be developed using ceramic, ethanol powered aluminium engines, electronic solenoid valves, etc

In this way any potential eco/green wars on F1 could be mitigated against due to the fact that F1 developments are helping in reducing pollution and improving vehicle efficiencies.

[WhiteBlue]

Technical limits were introduced for 50 years to curb power and every time the teams and their engine suppliers made incremental changes that rebuild the performance and gave an advatage over other teams. that is the principle of F1. For the last 15 years we have seen that this rat race can be done with engines, aero, gear boxes, tyres and a lot of other components. so the whole curbing policy is a bit ambigeous and purely coincidental. there was no executed strategy behind it because it was generated by negotiating between multiple parties in a chaotic environment.

If you have to introduce limits to curb performance it makes sense to freeze those areas of development that are not going to help with the over all objectives. people want a great show with close racing on track and ambitious moves that produce heroes and zeroes. the money spenders in the auto industry want R&D funds spend in such way that road cars benefit. which means consumption comes down and cost of ownership. everybody wants to drive an exciting car that is cheap to buy and to fill up.

In my view the FIA is not going to achieve their goal by freezing development on the drive train. Promoting drive train efficiency would be best done by fixing a power ceiling. That would promt the competitive spirit of the teams to gain performance from operational means. If you drop refuelling rates significantly in order to create higher rewards for fuel efficiency or require the cars to run without refuelling it would do the trick. You would see teams pushing like hell on gaining performance by higher efficiency. This is what engineering is all about. If we want a certain performance level that is fine but we should still reward those who reach the performance with the minimum capital outlay and maximum of grey matter.

the latter issue really is the bone of centention I have with the current top teams. They do not necessarily achieve all their successes by ingenuity. a lot of flops are covered because they play in a league of their own. the rules should be tweaked in such a way that innovative thinking in engineering and operating an F1 team is rewarded. money should be less of an issue than it is today. therefore I agree with most of the FIA objectives proposed by Max Mosley. He may be a sex fiend but he is a clever sex fiend.

[pipex]

I think that if they want to do cost cutting measures then they should be attacking the root of the problem, instead of patching it. As many have said before restricting development in one area will only move the costs to another area, and in this way the ruling becomes ineffective. Maybe the way to go is directly limiting the budgets of the teams, for example in a per-area basis: 3 millions for the engine, 2 millons for suspension, or things like that. That is what engineering is all about IMHO. That will make sure that only the best design will win...

[alexbarwell]

Is this where A1GP comes in with their standard chassis, standard engines and the teams work on the setup as opposed to millions spent on the finest tweaks? Maybe not this far, but a standardised framework and some standardised components - we have already seen it become necessary with engine management in part due to some suspicions over mwhat the software was doing.
I might be reading this wrong, but weren't a number of teams willing to honour a gentlemans' agreemnent to kerb costs and reduce development excesses until a certain team reneged on it?

[pgj]

This is all a long way away from the statement made by Max when he said that the Williams business model was obsolete. It seems to me to be an attempt to break the the 'manufacturer wars' that we have in F1 where manufacturers throw eye watering amounts of money to achieve the tiniest performance gain.

At first I was opposed to the idea of a standard engine, but I am warming to the idea. It seems to be an attempt to return to the Cosworth days, when F1 was still F1. It is only relatively recently that exotic engines have entered F1 again. It just part of a cycle that sees trends change in F1. If this change is made in isolation from road car R&D, it will be a wasted opportunity. If is is made by tapping into road car technologies and technological development, it can the beginning of a new golden period for F1. F1 will still find technological loopholes to exploit, as it always has.

The most significant statement that I have read is the one that states that an independent engine will be made available to independent teams without a works deal of any kind. A sure invitation to the likes of Prodrive IMO.

[timbo]

At first I was opposed to the idea of a standard engine, but I am warming to the idea.

So, can you imagine something like Ferrari-Cosworth?
I think standart engines швуф is ridiculous. Standart parts of engine, like pistonsб crankshafts may work but I think that manufacturers would oppose idea of standart engine. Why would they want to advertise someone else? Like BMW powered by Judd...

[modbaraban]

This is complete nonesence. F1 is a competition of manufacturers and with specced cars it's only worthy a place in a garbage can!

[pgj]

At first I was opposed to the idea of a standard engine, but I am warming to the idea.

So, can you imagine something like Ferrari-Cosworth?
I think standart engines is ridiculous. Standart parts of engine, like pistonsm crankshafts may work but I think that manufacturers would oppose idea of standart engine. Why would they want to advertise someone else? Like BMW powered by Judd...

No but Ferrari could still produce their own race engine. You seem to have misunderstood what is being proposed. We are not talking about a badged engine, we are talking about a standard engine specification that manufacturers can produce if they choose.

The situation will not be too far away from the one that existed when Cosworth did provide most of the engines to F1. If manufacturers decide to walk away from F1 then engines will be supplied from another source. That it the way that F1 has always operated.

People are obsessed with manufacturers in F1 at the moment. I have been saying for several years that whilst accepting the present business model for F1, there is no guarantee that it will continue forever. If the model changes, teams and F1 will adapt and survive. This initiative could drastically change the business model and for once, I fully agree with Max.

Using Dawinian principles, F1 has gone off at such a tangent from mainstream motorsport that it is in danger of costing itself into extinction. This proposal will merely bring F1 closer to mainstream motorsport. F1 will always be too extreme to support mass road car developments directly. Although if F1 grasps the opportunity to realign itself with road car R&D technologies it can have a secure and meaningful future.

[modbaraban]

Honestly, I don't think it's a worthy way of survival. maybe it's better for motorsports that Formula1 should try and stay what it should be until it dies gradually and disappears. Why should we tolerate them extincting Formula1 manually (trying to "save" their profits)?

[timbo]

People are obsessed with manufacturers in F1 at the moment. I have been saying for several years that whilst accepting the present business model for F1, there is no guarantee that it will continue forever. If the model changes, teams and F1 will adapt and survive. This initiative could drastically change the business model and for once, I fully agree with Max.

Don't you think it would hurt image of F1? For years there was a progression from sport run by enthusiasts to what we have now, and I think that if Bernie and Max want to reverse it, it would be a hard thing to do. Some other series might want to catch up (eg endurance racing). Basicly, without manufacturers F1 would be overshadowed by any other racing series they might want to join.