FIA announces standard engine tender!

[Teretonga]

Yes Tony, we have had the discussion before and I said then that the manufacturers needed to be in LMP1 if they wanted unfettered development options.

I still believe that the WDC is basically for drivers and the manufacturers would be better off developing technology in sports/GT racing.

I think we've agreed on that point.
However as long as the FIA insists on a contructors championship and promotes F1 to teh detriment of all the other categories the manufacturers will want to be there.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

With your proposal they can only say "we have the lowest fuel consumption with a fixed power output of 750bhp (or any other number". But wouldn't it be much better if they could say "we have the lowest fuel consumption and still the most powerful engine"?

F1 and fuel economy don't mix and they never have done. We don't want to see cars running out of fuel at the end of races, nor drivers in cruise mode trying to eek the last fumes out. F1 is first and foremost sports entertainment for a TV audience and not a place for manufacturers to fiddle with their politically correct agenda.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I honestly think they'd be better off using a 2 litre 4 pot or 6 pot motor, sans turbo, derived from a manufacturer's road car and chucking out 300bhp to 400bhp. They need to harden the tyre compounds - which would increase the life, reduce the adhesion and reduce the physical load on the driver. Couple that with reduced aero effect and reduced weight and you'd have cars that were exciting to watch and demanded more driver skill to control.

That'll be F3 then. 2litre 4 pots, based on road car engines (usually), bit less HP (230ish??) but they run restrictors. Less aero, less grippy tyres.

[SALEEN S7R]

Originally Posted by JamesH

That'll be F3 then. 2litre 4 pots, based on road car engines (usually), bit less HP (230ish??) but they run restrictors. Less aero, less grippy tyres.

Not really no, the teams could use engines from the WTCC or any series running to Super 2000 regulations. Currently engines in the WTCC produce 270-300bhp, and they are restricted. With some small development by a specalist such as Cosworth these engines could produce 400bhp fairly easily.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

Not really no, the teams could use engines from the WTCC or any series running to Super 2000 regulations. Currently engines in the WTCC produce 270-300bhp, and they are restricted. With some small development by a specalist such as Cosworth these engines could produce 400bhp fairly easily.

Thought I may have underestimated the power - comparing with a friends Club F3 which is just over 200 I think.

All other points still apply - in fact more so since F3 engines are already near 300.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

Not really no, the teams could use engines from the WTCC or any series running to Super 2000 regulations. Currently engines in the WTCC produce 270-300bhp, and they are restricted. With some small development by a specalist such as Cosworth these engines could produce 400bhp fairly easily.

Agreed... and probably a very reliable 400bhp too. You'd have road car relevance, a very cheap engine and something that could truely be a manufacturer motor. In fact the manufacturers could badge evo versions of their high performance cars as being Formula One powered... and they would be.

With low weight and tyre/aero limits, you could have the Formula One cars behaving quite lively without the ridiculous G on the corners too. It would mean drivers wouldn't need to be so fit and the focus would be squarely on skill.

Max... can you hear any of this above the spanking ?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by davyboy

F1 and fuel economy don't mix and they never have done. We don't want to see cars running out of fuel at the end of races, nor drivers in cruise mode trying to eek the last fumes out. F1 is first and foremost sports entertainment for a TV audience and not a place for manufacturers to fiddle with their politically correct agenda.

I don't see why fuel economy and Formula 1 don't match. I've all races from the 1980's on DVD. And the races during the 'fuel economy'-era were really fascinating. Nowadays if a driver has a ten seconds lead with only eight laps to go the race is done. Back in the 1980's the race could turn until the very end.

But if you didn't like to see the drivers running out of fuel, what do you think about a finish like we had during the 2005 European Grand Prix?

Originally Posted by davyboy

Agreed... and probably a very reliable 400bhp too. You'd have road car relevance, a very cheap engine and something that could truely be a manufacturer motor. In fact the manufacturers could badge evo versions of their high performance cars as being Formula One powered... and they would be.

With low weight and tyre/aero limits, you could have the Formula One cars behaving quite lively without the ridiculous G on the corners too. It would mean drivers wouldn't need to be so fit and the focus would be squarely on skill.

The current 'power-to-weight ratio' approximately is (750bhp / 605kg =) 1.24. So, suggesting we should keep the same ratio it would require the car to weight no more than 323kg. Any weight above that 323kg would result a lower power-to-weight ratio and hence cars behaving easier than the current one. Of course, we could still reduce downforce and tyre grip. But a less powerful engine already doesn't require the current grip levels.

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Yes Tony, we have had the discussion before and I said then that the manufacturers needed to be in LMP1 if they wanted unfettered development options.

How on Earth can you say LMP offers "unfettered development options"? There is certainly more to play with, but the ACO has a definite love of its own particular brand of fetters.

[Oldtony]

Dutton, I think Tt mean't that the non spec nature of everything in LMP1 gave manufacturers the right to use any form of technology that fitted within the rules, and that the ACO seems to (mostly) be looking at the relevance of the rules to the development of technology which has use outside the narrow field of their races.
F1, by contrast, has increasingly limited technical and engineering development to (supposedly) maintain parity and cut costs. Not sure that has improved the racing, but it has developed a situation that means say the name "Hamilton" is better known among non-core viewers than the name "McLaren".
Hence the suggestion that manufacurers would get much better value from competing in LMP1 if that was for the recognised World Manufacturers Championship.

[Dutton]

Well, the manufacturers tend to compete in F1 because it is an effective marketing tool as opposed to using it as part of its development programme (in this respect, F1 is the better option). The engines are the only thing the manufacturers are that bothered about in F1, I feel. Chassis wise, I expect they wouldn't really mind if they were pretty common. The non-manufacturer teams, I imagine, would be more inclined in the opposite direction.

[Marbot]

If it were only the engines they were bothered about how do you explain Toyota?

Even when the engines weren't frozen,nobody actually knew who had the best one anyway.

[Dutton]

The teams would've known, for sure. I seem to remember we as viewers ended up with a reasonably good idea?

What about Toyota? I don't know what you are refering to.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If it were only the engines they were bothered about how do you explain Toyota?

Even when the engines weren't frozen,nobody actually knew who had the best one anyway.

Under normal circumstances engine development would play an important rule in the fight for the world championship. And at the end everybody knows who has won the championship.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Under normal circumstances engine development would play an important rule in the fight for the world championship. And at the end everybody knows who has won the championship.

There were many times when Ferrari always had the best engines,but never won a damn thing.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

What about Toyota? I don't know what you are refering to.

See post above with regards to Ferrari.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Dutton

How on Earth can you say LMP offers "unfettered development options"? There is certainly more to play with, but the ACO has a definite love of its own particular brand of fetters.

I was well aware of the consequences of my phrasing Dutton but compared with F1 there are a lot more technical options to play with.
You are correct in saying the ACO has its own brand of fetters but its nothing like what we have in F1 nor what is proposed for F1.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

There were many times when Ferrari always had the best engines,but never won a damn thing.

Indeed, but that counts for all aspects. Ferrari had the best driver in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2005 and 2006 and they didn't win the world championship. Renault had the best chassis in 2003, but where were they? McLaren had the best chassis and engine in 2005, but where were they?

Any way, this can't be an argument in favour of standardising any component and/or freezing the development.