|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
6 Apr 2009, 21:27 (Ref:2435486) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Max Mosley "wants" a single spec engine for F1, WRC and Super Duper Palmer Audi?
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headline...06144247.shtml
OK, it's not from the best source so I'd want to take this with a 747ful of salt, but if he actually wants this he's got a faintly sensible idea if implemented in a completely different manner. On this forum we have come to the conclusion that a spec engine for Formula One is a great method of driving manufacturers out, and if F1 is in a bad state for that the WRC really needs that like a hole in the head. But a spec engine is different from a single set of rules for multiple formulea. F1 and WRC have totally different requirements, that cannot be achieved with one engine unless both areas of the sport are changed radically. F1 cars need a 750hp unit with practically no torque, the WRC is all about torquey 300hp motors. However, sharing of technologies, if you are sensible about partnering series for a set of engine rules you could have great success. Formula One should have engines that last six to eight race weekends without a rebuild, that's a sensible engine life in mileage for sports car racing - with sportscar engines needing a bit less power. A resurrected Formula Two (not as in Super Formula Palmer Audi, as good an idea as it is) could use that set of engine regulations, but detuned further. IndyCar racing ... that should use the same rules as Formula Two. Different series, different power caps - I mean actual limits on maximum power to make the engines be designed to last long and not go on Stars in Their Eyes as hand grenades; whilst cutting costs. At a lower level, the WTCC could do with a bit more sparkle - turbos. Two litres of 'em. Stick those turbos on rallycross cars, possibly rally cars and also a new replacement for the whole WSR level of superfluous series - Indy Lights, EuroSeries 3000, WSR, FIA F2 (as in the FPA type thing), to be joined by GP3 in this new CVC-FIA war plus many I can't remember at this time of the day. Play around with the rev limits to make things sensible - one engine, but different power limits. Repeat principle for 1600cc turbos for Rallying, touring car racing and Formula 3. However, Max is clearly misguided in this idea, as F1, WRC and F2 have different demands for the same engine. One engine builder would have far too much power. Ramble over. Good night, you've been a wonderful audience |
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
6 Apr 2009, 21:49 (Ref:2435506) | #2 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,974
|
Single spec in F1- yuck. I don't think that's what Grand Prix racing is about, but people may beg to differ.
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 21:52 (Ref:2435510) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
20 F1 cars with the same engine would not be good for the sport, as it would drive the manufacturers out - however, I strongly support common engine rules between different series.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
6 Apr 2009, 23:15 (Ref:2435545) | #4 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,348
|
Something like that is going on right now on a lower level, you could say having developed naturally. Super GT and Formula Nippon are sharing the same 3.4l V8 engine formula from this year on, and the same size has been announced for LMP1 from 2011 onwards. It will be interesting to see if any manufacturer decides to capitalize on that.
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 23:25 (Ref:2435550) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 544
|
Sounds like he's stolen Ulrich Baretsky's idea of each manufacturer using the same engine (2L 4 cylinder) for F3, F1, Indycar and sportscars using various states of turbo tune.
|
||
__________________
Louise: Is the track Slippery when Wet? DC: I didn't know you were a Bon Jovi fan |
6 Apr 2009, 23:26 (Ref:2435551) | #6 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,203
|
I seem to remember last time they tried to put F1 engines in other cars it ended up with an embarrassingly small Le Mans grid...
|
|
__________________
Careful. We don't want to learn from this - Bill Watterson I'd hate to read what the people who hate the sport have to say... |
6 Apr 2009, 23:34 (Ref:2435554) | #7 | |
Official Timekeeper!
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,420
|
Some of the best racing that I have seen (either at the track or on television) has come from series with a single-spec engine, but it is definitely not something that I would want to see in Formula One. As Born Racer says above, it's not what Grand Prix racing is all about.
I know it's far too idealistic to think that the design and production of Formula One cars should be completely unrestricted, but isn't F1 supposed to be the series which has the world's greatest drivers racing on the world's greatest circuits in the world's greatest machinery designed by the world's greatest engineers...? I don't necessarily agree with any one of these statements, but to introduce a standard engine across the entire grid would contradict the generally accepted view that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. |
|
__________________
I wasn't speeding, officer. I was qualifying. |
6 Apr 2009, 23:43 (Ref:2435557) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,348
|
Having read the article now, there's no mention of it being a spec engine. Just a single set of engine rules for several series.
|
|
|
7 Apr 2009, 07:31 (Ref:2435690) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
A spec engine for all series would make manufactures to leave. But the same engine rules for a number of series would make sense.
My proposal: allow any engine configuration and any number of engines during the events, reduce fuel consumption to 15 litres per 100 kilometres for LMP1 and F1. And less for the feeder series. |
||
|
7 Apr 2009, 08:01 (Ref:2435711) | #10 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Quote:
A hard limit on power, a limited off-the-shelf price per engine and incentives for fuel economy in addition to the natural ones (eg WCC bonus points for a road car style economy test) could encourage more reliable engines (better for costs, better for us, better for everyone). A ruleset like that with 750/675*/600* hp for F1/LM/Resurrected Formula Two would require one engine with a bit of fiddling with rev limits, turbo pressures and the like. Similar for different levels of single seaters, touring cars and rallying. Why have about ten different sets of engine rules when three would do? Maybe apply the same principles for chassis, too. *Could be more or less as appropriate |
|||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
7 Apr 2009, 09:50 (Ref:2435779) | #11 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
However, with a fuel formula and massive reduction of fuel consumption the production costs will decline. As pointed out by the Motorsport Industry Association, competition engine makers will start to focus more on improving specific fuel consumption than on specific power output, and this has considerable relevance to production engines. Engine rpm will be reduced in order to improve specific fuel consumption, engine noise will improve as frequency is lowered and engine life and durability will also improve with reduced rpm. And with a proper set of rules qualifying engines will be allowed but most teams would use a race engine configurated for qualifying only. I'd like to make my point by referring to the mid 1980's. McLaren became world champion in three consecutive seasons due to having the best fuel economy and despite lacking qualifying engines. In 1984 Lauda won five races and he won only one of them after starting in the top-3! Quote:
A price cap isn't going to work either. Teams and manufactures could easily agree on a higher price and in that case the FIA will face the same problems as with enforcing the budget cap. Quote:
|
|||||
|
7 Apr 2009, 10:01 (Ref:2435788) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 538
|
Maybe I'm alone on this, but for me part of the beauty of motorsports is variety, especially in sportscar racing. Le Mans wouldn't be as fun if a Corvette, Porsche, Ferrari and Lambo sounded all the same.
|
||
|
7 Apr 2009, 11:29 (Ref:2435842) | #13 | |||||||||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The handling of the F1 engine freeze was farcical, as some measures clearly were for power not reliability. However, under my system engines would be rehomologable at any time, but the engines must come online within the engine replacement rules. You wouldn't be able to get more power out of the engines anyway Quote:
Quote:
Evolution (basically what I outlined) for F1 (750hp), F2 (600hp) and LMP1 (700hp) 2.0 turbos for a series between F3 and F2 (420hp), WTCC (420hp), LMP2-Heavy and possibly WRC (300hp more torque) 1.6 turbos for F3 (220hp), other touring cars (300hp), LMP2-Light and rallying. You are certainly not alone, there should be diversity within classes but it does not hurt to share components between classes. |
|||||||||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
7 Apr 2009, 12:16 (Ref:2435867) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,244
|
The idea of the major forms of racing all using a 2.0l engine in turbocharged and non-turbocharged forms is an interesting one.
The ACO's 2011 P1 engine rules have a 2.0l turbo engine with a maximum of 6 cylinders as their turbo option alongside NA (3.4l, maximum 8 cylinders) and diesel (3.7l twinturbo maximum 8 cylinders) options. The future Indycar engine (when it arrives) will be a 2.0l turbo though they are undecided on the layout; Audi want an inline 4, Honda want a V6. I'd say let them both use whichever layout they want, there has been talk of them trying to work out an equivalency. Super 2000 rally and touring cars use normally aspriated 2.0l inline 4s, as does Formula 3. One manufacturer's engine can be chosen for FIA F2. Formula One wants to move to a small turbocharged format around 2012. What I would suggest is that each manufacturer is allowed to build a 2.0l engine of whichever configuration they want, be it V, inline, flat and allow 4 to 8 cylinders (though I can't see many going above 6 cylinders). This would allow the likes of BMW to make an inline 6, and Porsche a flat 6. I reckon that Honda, Toyota, Mercedes and GM would lean towards a V6. I would leave the technology nice and open to things like direct injection, variable valve timing etc. They can then adapt these engines to the various series, in turbo/non turbo form. and badge them differently i.e. VW in Indycar, Audi in sportscars and so on. |
||
__________________
"On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And you then go for this limit and you touch this limit, and you think, 'Okay, this is the limit.' And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high." -Ayrton Senna |
7 Apr 2009, 14:15 (Ref:2435922) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 6,635
|
But in 1970s and early 1980s were about 20 cars with DFV Cosworths... and those years were well remembered AFAIK.
|
||
|
7 Apr 2009, 17:51 (Ref:2436061) | #16 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Yes, but Renault, Alfa Romeo, Ferrari and Ligier weren't forced to run Ford-Cosworth engines. This would ram a spec engine down everyone's throats in two predominantly manufacturer based series.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
7 Apr 2009, 18:36 (Ref:2436090) | #17 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 174
|
Loeb going through the monte carlo with massive horsepower and no torque should be fun
|
||
|
7 Apr 2009, 19:01 (Ref:2436106) | #18 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And you then go for this limit and you touch this limit, and you think, 'Okay, this is the limit.' And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high." -Ayrton Senna |
7 Apr 2009, 19:20 (Ref:2436123) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,010
|
Wrong wrong wrong wrong! It's all so so wrong...
I totally despise the idea of "spec" parts, let alone spec engines. Especially for these "premier" classes such as the LMS, F1 and WRC. I'm sure that these changes actually will spell the end to some of these series, because people will have the idea to set up rival series which do allow free thinking and free action. The cars will look and sound different and thus attract the general public, leaving the others to simply die out.. I can't understand why this "speccing" of late has been going on. I mean are all the F1 teams on the telephone to the FIA every morning saying "yeah, we've been in this business years and basically we've had enough of developing parts. Can't you just make everyone use the same equipment so we can sell off our wind tunnel, CFD computers and sack half our staff but keep our sprey booth?" I mean, are they?? Or maybe the engine manufacturers have decided they simply can't be bothered to develop the internal combustion engine any more? Somebody before mentioned how SuperGT has standardised it's engine with that of Formula Nippon, a 2.4L V8.. well look what's happened there. Only one SuperGT team (AFAIK) is running that engine this year when they were all supposed to be using it.. why? Well quite a few of the teams have reported that they can't afford to develop them in these troubled financial times.. So, they must be expensive then? Erm... I thought that they were introducing them to cut costs??? There's also an idea flying around that they're introducing these standardised parts to equalise the cars to benefit the drivers. Well, motorsport is not and should not be all about the drivers, that's just bull****. There are thousands of people working in formula one for example, and only 20-something of those are drivers. That's 2% of the people involved. It really saddens me to see motorsport in the self destruction mode that it's in. Karting went from exotic 100cc 23,000rpm screamers to crap workhorse Rotax Maxes.. club racing has become diluted with one make series and now all major international motorsports are about to become identicle under the skin. |
||
__________________
Keep living the dream! |
7 Apr 2009, 19:34 (Ref:2436138) | #20 | ||||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
|
7 Apr 2009, 19:36 (Ref:2436144) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,296
|
|||
|
7 Apr 2009, 19:43 (Ref:2436151) | #22 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
7 Apr 2009, 19:48 (Ref:2436158) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
Hah, and how exactly are they going to fit a V8 into a Fabia or Pug 206 WRC car?
|
||
|
7 Apr 2009, 20:11 (Ref:2436186) | #24 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
|
What Max is suggesting:
The same basic naturally aspirated engine for F2 and rally/touring cars. A turbocharged version of the same engine for F1. Technical allowances for options such as KERS etc in individual formulae. Then it would be possible to produce and enduro version for sports cars, endurance racing etc. That would virtually be the equivalent of LMP1 and LMP 2 (Some restrictions on 'LMP2') In effect a manufacturer would run the same basic engine architecture across the motorsport programme, and could have respresentation in areas the 'works' ran in plus customer representation in areas where no 'works' team ran. Private organisations could also then build an engine of one basic type and run it across a variety of programmes which would make everything more viable for organisations such as Zytec, Judd and Cosworth. Some manufacturers may also run rebadged engines by those organisations. |
|
|
7 Apr 2009, 20:42 (Ref:2436213) | #25 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 248
|
i always thought the plan was for:
F1 to have spec engine with a turbo, kers etc etc WRC to have spec engine with a smallish turbo touring cars to have spec engine with possibly some energy recovery lower series to run the spec engine in NA with various levels of tuning ACO and Indycars are going to be running 2 litre turbos as their top class engine in next couple of years as well the problem seems to be the "spec" bit of the engine, will it be a specified set of dimensions or an actual crate engine? |
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mad Max brands Sir Jackie Stewart a "certified half-wit" | duke_toaster | Formula One | 1 | 26 Sep 2007 17:23 |
F1, super fitness and going to "green power" | DanJR1 | Formula One | 19 | 20 Aug 2006 04:16 |
Mighty Max: "Here I come to save the day." | eatapc | Formula One | 17 | 5 Mar 2003 16:08 |
Mosley says "its time to slow the cars down" | Sodemo | Formula One | 10 | 19 Dec 2001 14:33 |