Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising  
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: 7,586
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 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: 3,177
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: 3,177
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
Reply

Bookmarks




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 15:08
Mosley says "its time to slow the cars down" Sodemo Formula One 10 19 Dec 2001 13:33


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 23:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.