Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 6 Apr 2009, 21:27 (Ref:2435486)   #1
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
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
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
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."
Quote
Old 6 Apr 2009, 21:49 (Ref:2435506)   #2
Born Racer
Race Official
Veteran
 
Born Racer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,974
Born Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBorn Racer will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Single spec in F1- yuck. I don't think that's what Grand Prix racing is about, but people may beg to differ.
Born Racer is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Apr 2009, 21:52 (Ref:2435510)   #3
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
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.
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
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."
Quote
Old 6 Apr 2009, 23:15 (Ref:2435545)   #4
Dead-Eye
Veteran
 
Dead-Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Estonia
Posts: 2,348
Dead-Eye should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridDead-Eye should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
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.
Dead-Eye is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Apr 2009, 23:25 (Ref:2435550)   #5
Joe Taylor
Veteran
 
Joe Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
United Kingdom
Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 544
Joe Taylor should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Joe Taylor is offline  
__________________
Louise: Is the track Slippery when Wet?
DC: I didn't know you were a Bon Jovi fan
Quote
Old 6 Apr 2009, 23:26 (Ref:2435551)   #6
cptkablamo
Veteran
 
cptkablamo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Australia
Posts: 1,203
cptkablamo should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridcptkablamo should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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...
cptkablamo is offline  
__________________
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...
Quote
Old 6 Apr 2009, 23:34 (Ref:2435554)   #7
Burnsie
Official Timekeeper!
Veteran
 
Burnsie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,420
Burnsie should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridBurnsie should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridBurnsie should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
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.
Burnsie is offline  
__________________
I wasn't speeding, officer. I was qualifying.
Quote
Old 6 Apr 2009, 23:43 (Ref:2435557)   #8
Dead-Eye
Veteran
 
Dead-Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Estonia
Posts: 2,348
Dead-Eye should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridDead-Eye should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
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.
Dead-Eye is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 07:31 (Ref:2435690)   #9
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Pingguest is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 08:01 (Ref:2435711)   #10
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
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.
I inherently agree with the first part about the common rules, and an amount of latitude in deciding what style of engine to have, however I don't think either a fuel formula or qualifying engines would be a good idea. Fuel formulea can lead to a bit too much spending, and qualifying engines (for example), and may not be appropriate for a GP2 replacement, not even for F1. Not even F1 will have a 26 car grid, all with manufacturer budgets.

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
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
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."
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 09:50 (Ref:2435779)   #11
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke_toaster View Post
I inherently agree with the first part about the common rules, and an amount of latitude in deciding what style of engine to have, however I don't think either a fuel formula or qualifying engines would be a good idea. Fuel formulea can lead to a bit too much spending, and qualifying engines (for example), and may not be appropriate for a GP2 replacement, not even for F1. Not even F1 will have a 26 car grid, all with manufacturer budgets.
A fuel formula would allow manufactures to develop whatever they want. Compared to nowadays development costs will rise, but every new set of engines rules will result in that. In fact, until the current economic crisis started manufactures still spend millions to the development of something quite unrelevant as the exhaust, resulting in a 4 bhp increase per year and hence an increditable low return on investments.

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 hard limit on power, a limited off-the-shelf price per engine and incentives for fuel economy in addition to the natural ones
That hard limit on power is very hard to successfully enforce. If possible, in can only be done with a mid-season ban on engine development. But last year's controversy on the engine freeze showed such a rules is not good for the sport.

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:
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.
I think its impractical to have the same engins in both Formula 1 and WRC/WTCC. I think Formula 1 should share its engines with LMP1. Formula 2 should share them with LMP2, although they might be more or less the same as the F1/LMP1-combination (same engine rules but with a lower fuel consumption). WTCC and WRC should be another combination to make.
Pingguest is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 10:01 (Ref:2435788)   #12
the.cosmic.pope
Veteran
 
the.cosmic.pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Scotland
Arbroath
Posts: 538
the.cosmic.pope should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridthe.cosmic.pope should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
the.cosmic.pope is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 11:29 (Ref:2435842)   #13
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
A fuel formula would allow manufactures to develop whatever they want.
I didn't really outline my ideas, but I think a fuel formula backwards would work - instead of liming fuel and making them design power, I propose limiting power and incentivising fuel economy and reliability. Also, I feel that a large amount of latitude on selecting size, cylinders and technologies should be a given but they should have to be representative of a manufacturer's technologies - allowing them to develop what they want.

Quote:
Compared to nowadays development costs will rise, but every new set of engines rules will result in that. In fact, until the current economic crisis started manufactures still spend millions to the development of something quite unrelevant as the exhaust, resulting in a 4 bhp increase per year and hence an increditable low return on investments.
Which would be helped by a power cap, as the development taking place would either be about fuel economy which can be transferred to the road cars, or about reliability which can help.

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.
Agreed, but I propose doing that in reverse rather than a fuel limit.

Quote:
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!
Is there any reason to even allow them? It's not road relevant at all to have engines that last at most 84 km.

Quote:
That hard limit on power is very hard to successfully enforce. If possible, in can only be done with a mid-season ban on engine development. But last year's controversy on the engine freeze showed such a rules is not good for the sport.
Standard ECU hardware would be required, as well as all software on the ECU to be open source. A centrally approved data logger would be fitted to the cars, to either be used for the telementary (F1, and lower levels for other series) or just log it (most series). Check these against the homologated figures at the start of the year, and if anything suspicious happens select that car for testing - run the top few cars and random checks on rolling roads.

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:
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.
Not really, if the FIA were to act as the clearing house for engine purchases. CC the order form and cheque to the FIA, if the engine isn't delivered it's ban hammer time.

Quote:
I think its impractical to have the same engins in both Formula 1 and WRC/WTCC. I think Formula 1 should share its engines with LMP1.Formula 2 should share them with LMP2, although they might be more or less the same as the F1/LMP1-combination (same engine rules but with a lower fuel consumption). WTCC and WRC should be another combination to make.
I largely agree - I'd carve them up like this

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the.cosmic.pope View Post
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.
You are certainly not alone, there should be diversity within classes but it does not hurt to share components between classes.
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
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."
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 12:16 (Ref:2435867)   #14
johntt
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
England
England
Posts: 1,244
johntt should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
johntt is offline  
__________________
"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
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 14:15 (Ref:2435922)   #15
Mekola
Veteran
 
Mekola's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Kiribati
Atlantis
Posts: 6,635
Mekola should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridMekola should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridMekola should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid

Quote:
Originally Posted by duke_toaster View Post
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.
But in 1970s and early 1980s were about 20 cars with DFV Cosworths... and those years were well remembered AFAIK.
Mekola is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 17:51 (Ref:2436061)   #16
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekola View Post
But in 1970s and early 1980s were about 20 cars with DFV Cosworths... and those years were well remembered AFAIK.
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.
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
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."
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 18:36 (Ref:2436090)   #17
bodgit
Racer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
United Kingdom
durham
Posts: 174
bodgit should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Loeb going through the monte carlo with massive horsepower and no torque should be fun
bodgit is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 19:01 (Ref:2436106)   #18
johntt
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
England
England
Posts: 1,244
johntt should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodgit
Loeb going through the monte carlo with massive horsepower and no torque should be fun
They would not be taking F1 engines and putting them straight into the front of rally cars, they would probably be taking the basic engine block and changing the torque and power to suit different forms of racing.
johntt is offline  
__________________
"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
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 19:20 (Ref:2436123)   #19
Alex Hodgkinson
Veteran
 
Alex Hodgkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
England
Derby
Posts: 1,010
Alex Hodgkinson should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Alex Hodgkinson is offline  
__________________
Keep living the dream!
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 19:34 (Ref:2436138)   #20
Pingguest
Veteran
 
Pingguest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Netherlands
Heemstede, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,191
Pingguest should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke_toaster View Post
Also, I feel that a large amount of latitude on selecting size, cylinders and technologies should be a given but they should have to be representative of a manufacturer's technologies - allowing them to develop what they want.
Any sort of requirement of using 'production-based' technologies is against the spirit of the sport. In fact, it may even harm the sport. Yet, we don't know how the car of the future will look like and what kind of technologies it will have. Maybe hybrid gas turbines have the mid-future. If that's the case the manufactures should be allowed to do so. But any sort of requirement as you described above, would outlaw it.

Quote:
Which would be helped by a power cap, as the development taking place would either be about fuel economy which can be transferred to the road cars, or about reliability which can help.
I disagree. Fuel efficiency is needed. But that efficiency can work on way or another: more power with the same amount of fuel, or the same amount of power with a lower fuel consumption. Allow teams to find what's best. It doesn't matter for the fuel efficiency but would do create a natural technical variation.

Quote:
Is there any reason to even allow them? It's not road relevant at all to have engines that last at most 84 km.
A race car will never last the needed distance to be road relevant. And there's a reason to allow qualifying engines: it would be add a variation and the starting grid is not to be ordered to the race pace.

Quote:
Standard ECU hardware would be required, as well as all software on the ECU to be open source. A centrally approved data logger would be fitted to the cars, to either be used for the telementary (F1, and lower levels for other series) or just log it (most series). Check these against the homologated figures at the start of the year, and if anything suspicious happens select that car for testing - run the top few cars and random checks on rolling roads.
The ECU can't measure BHP. And time will make the engine lose power. In other words: a power cap is too hard to enforce. But a power cap is not only highly impractial, it might have devastating consequences for the racing too as another natural variation will become fixed.

Quote:
You wouldn't be able to get more power out of the engines anyway
We will see.

Quote:
Not really, if the FIA were to act as the clearing house for engine purchases. CC the order form and cheque to the FIA, if the engine isn't delivered it's ban hammer time.
And what if teams would give another cheque to the manufacture without noticing the FIA? Nobody would ever know.
Pingguest is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 19:36 (Ref:2436144)   #21
Canada ALMS fan
Veteran
 
Canada ALMS fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Canada
Calgary, Canada
Posts: 2,296
Canada ALMS fan should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridCanada ALMS fan should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridCanada ALMS fan should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by the.cosmic.pope View Post
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.
You are not alone!
Canada ALMS fan is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 19:43 (Ref:2436151)   #22
duke_toaster
Veteran
 
duke_toaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
European Union
Englandland
Posts: 5,100
duke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridduke_toaster should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest View Post
The ECU can't measure BHP. And time will make the engine lose power. In other words: a power cap is too hard to enforce. But a power cap is not only highly impractial, it might have devastating consequences for the racing too as another natural variation will become fixed.
Dynos measure BHP, not ECUs. ECUs do control power to an extent, and by making the engine a unit that cannot have electronic jiggery pokery

Quote:
And what if teams would give another cheque to the manufacture without noticing the FIA? Nobody would ever know.
They would know when a team submits the cheque to the FIA and the engine isn't delivered within the required 14 days, causing the manufacturer to be fined or, possibly, banned
duke_toaster is offline  
__________________
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."
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 19:48 (Ref:2436158)   #23
Sodemo
Veteran
 
Sodemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
United Kingdom
Solihull, West Mids, UK
Posts: 11,147
Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!Sodemo has a real shot at the podium!
Hah, and how exactly are they going to fit a V8 into a Fabia or Pug 206 WRC car?
Sodemo is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 20:11 (Ref:2436186)   #24
Teretonga
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!Teretonga is going for a new world record!
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.
Teretonga is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Apr 2009, 20:42 (Ref:2436213)   #25
DanJR1
Racer
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 248
DanJR1 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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?
DanJR1 is offline  
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:32.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.