ECU's up for tender

Marbot · 22 Feb 2006, 11:43 (Ref:1528978)

The FIA (God bless'em) have put the electronic control units (all i might add) up for tender.http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...220206-01.html

ASCII Man · 22 Feb 2006, 11:49 (Ref:1528983)

Ah, I almost thought they (FIA) were selling ECU's, not placing an advert for companies to supply the teams with standard ECU's.

It's about time!

Marbot · 22 Feb 2006, 11:51 (Ref:1528985)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Ah, I almost thought they (FIA) were selling ECU's, not placing an advert for companies to supply the teams with standard ECU's.

It's about time!

They'll be selling the old ones.

ASCII Man · 22 Feb 2006, 11:52 (Ref:1528988)

Where?
I want one!

Marbot · 22 Feb 2006, 11:54 (Ref:1528991)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

They'll be selling the old ones.

.......To Super Aguri.

Marbot · 22 Feb 2006, 13:21 (Ref:1529050)

The ECU is also required to control a six or seven speed gearbox.....whos i wonder?

Dutton · 22 Feb 2006, 23:05 (Ref:1529429)

Um, presumably everyone's.

**Adam43** · 22 Feb 2006, 23:35 (Ref:1529444)

Everyone's gearbox will have to be designed to be controlled by that ECU.

Marbot · 23 Feb 2006, 01:49 (Ref:1529512)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

Um, presumably everyone's.

What Adam said.

So we might as well have a one make gearbox.

It's no point having a seamless shift gearbox if the ECU won't shift it!

Dutton · 23 Feb 2006, 02:27 (Ref:1529534)

I imagine the teams will want independence on the gearbox front due to the differnet engines and what not.

Marbot · 23 Feb 2006, 03:17 (Ref:1529544)

Or the FIA say "Here's a drawing and specifications for the gearbox".

Dutton · 23 Feb 2006, 03:21 (Ref:1529546)

They aren't going to do that though.

The FIA wants vagueness (and/or unpoliceableness <ssshhhh...it's a word>), so it can interpret the rules in response to changing environments.

Halsey · 23 Feb 2006, 03:30 (Ref:1529548)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

I imagine the teams will want independence on the gearbox front due to the differnet engines and what not.

To my limited knowledge, the ECU plays a fair role in the performance of the engine... So if you have a standard ECU, you might aswell have a standard gearbox too.

... That logic (if there is any) is really flawed, and didn't come out the way I'd hoped it would.

Dutton · 23 Feb 2006, 03:32 (Ref:1529550)

Then you may as well have standard engines.

WebberForWDC · 23 Feb 2006, 04:10 (Ref:1529556)

Hehe, then cue the inevitable complaints when Magneti Marelli wins the tender and is accused of inbuilding secret codes for Ferrari.........

WebberForWDC · 23 Feb 2006, 04:15 (Ref:1529560)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

Then you may as well have standard engines.

Why not? Slap a rev limit on the controlled V8s, what's wrong with making it easier for Cosworth to be competitive, yes it will become stupid that the only difference is that different engines have different badges but it's about ze show!

While your at it, control rear wings front wings, slash away all other aerodynamic add-ons.

Those small aero add-ons completely control the car aero, with hundreds of wind-tunnel hours to precisely position their vortices etc. to generate elaborate airflow about and especially under the car right? So slash em away, gone.

And plonk on some control slicks. It really won't be that bad.

Halsey · 23 Feb 2006, 05:02 (Ref:1529572)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

Then you may as well have standard engines.

Exactly. Then Formula One essentially becomes a glorified version of A1GP, which is certainly not a route I want it to take.

Raglanparade · 23 Feb 2006, 05:37 (Ref:1529577)

This is crap.

Let them have v8's v10's and v12's at the 2.4 limit.

Marbot · 23 Feb 2006, 08:40 (Ref:1529656)

Mosley says they can have what they like with a fuel limit.Diesels anyone.

Pingguest · 23 Feb 2006, 09:31 (Ref:1529686)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Mosley says they can have what they like with a fuel limit.Diesels anyone.

Altough I support this Group C-like proposal, I can't believe Mosley proposing this. It might raise the costs. I tought Mosley wanted to reduce the costs.

goforit500 · 23 Feb 2006, 09:52 (Ref:1529695)

The FIA are, presumably, specifying the inputs/outputs and overall parameters for the system and locking some of them (Such as rev limits) whilst allowing the engineers to modify some other params so their engines/boxes can actually run ??

This leaves considerable scope and does NOT by default create a case for a control engine / box....And lessens the ability of the said engineers to cheat...

Also allows the FIA to analyse a mass of data from all the ECUs quickly to police the formula etc etc...

Sounds OK to me....

Marbot · 23 Feb 2006, 10:13 (Ref:1529709)

Makes you wonder why we have to wait till 2008.

shambles · 23 Feb 2006, 11:51 (Ref:1529764)

I think the proposals to have standard ECU's are constructive. It ensures a level playing field in this area, whilst also - keeping the echelons of Formula One similarly composed, what with chassis performance gains, engines and tyres. It's a good idea, but - a return to slick tyres would make it all the more ingenious.

Marbot · 23 Feb 2006, 13:30 (Ref:1529835)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin-1

a return to slick tyres would make it all the more ingenious.

I don't think we'll have to wait too long,maybe next year (races) and testing at the end of this year.

shambles · 23 Feb 2006, 14:31 (Ref:1529878)

Finger Crossed eh!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Standard ECU's,for or against?	Marbot	Formula One	63	21 Apr 2006 01:37
ECU's	Redracer77	Racing Technology	26	20 Dec 2005 22:21
How to ban TC but not effect ECU's...?	RWC	Formula One	46	20 Jan 2003 10:55