|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
5 Dec 2008, 08:46 (Ref:2347888) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,900
|
Max's letter to the teams on the engine tender.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72325
So, the teams have three choices: 1. Sign up to the standard FIA Cosworth 2. Build their own engine identical to the FIA Cosworth. 3. Continue with their own engines, with the current parities still in place. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me? Manifacturers can build their own engines, smaller teams can have the FIA Cosworth... |
||
__________________
I can't drive 55. |
5 Dec 2008, 08:50 (Ref:2347891) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,760
|
In the context of having a spec engine formula, this situation is certainly the best option. At least the teams can still run with their own designs, albeit performance limited. I read the parity comment to mean parity with the standard unit, as opposed to current relative parity between the present engines.
I guess it will drive the teams which continue with their own designs to focus on designing their engines on the basis of gaining superior fuel economy to the spec units? Since, theoretically, they are not going to be able to have anything that produces a mentionable performance advantage, working to use less fuel for the same performance would seem to be about the only worthwhile thing to do? Last edited by Dutton; 5 Dec 2008 at 08:55. |
||
__________________
"The world is my country, and science is my religion." - Christian Huygens: 17th century Dutch astronomer. |
5 Dec 2008, 08:53 (Ref:2347892) | #3 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,840
|
I can see a can of worms though. Manufacturers can still retain their own present engine, but it's performance must not exceed that of the new Cosworth, there should be parity. As we know, there is always an unfair advantage - look at the engine freeze issue. How long before a manufacturer using it's own, finds a loophole somewhere where it meets the rules, but in reality has more power or reliability etc?
|
||
|
5 Dec 2008, 08:57 (Ref:2347896) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,760
|
If the FIA decides a team's engine ends up with superior performance, then they'll just peg them back. They'll do whatever they want to make them have less performance. They could do this at any given point in the season, and remain consistent to their regulations.
There is no doubt, whatever happens, the events, whatsoever they are, will be proof of some grand FIA conspiracy. I have no doubt about that. |
||
__________________
"The world is my country, and science is my religion." - Christian Huygens: 17th century Dutch astronomer. |
5 Dec 2008, 10:18 (Ref:2347954) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
|
It is a can of worms.
Just what do they mean by parity, Even if two engines produce exactly he same maximum Power and torque there are a whole range of perfomance and package variables: Economy: Distance between fuel stops or less weight to carry: Driveabilty: The spread of torque over the rev range. Weight: A lighter power unit gives more design freedom in placement for handling balance. Package Size: (and shape) Remember how Ferrari's flat 12 was very powerfull but it was difficult to design a workable aero package around. Accessory drives and placement etc. Sorry Max you might be a good lawyer, but a good engineer will find loopholes quicker than you can close them. Looks like F1 is going back to formula DFV and the "garageists". Will that keep a modern high tech world interested. Hope so because the departure of the major manufacturers will rob the formula of it's glamour and relevance to a large part of the audience. |
||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
5 Dec 2008, 10:27 (Ref:2347958) | #6 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
The "current parities" I reckon would mean that Renault will not get their hoped for performance equalization.Very clever Max.
|
|
|
5 Dec 2008, 10:40 (Ref:2347969) | #7 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,498
|
He has asked teams to sign up for the new Cosworth alternative by next Thursday.......6 days to make the decision?
Surely he is not for real..... |
|
|
5 Dec 2008, 11:09 (Ref:2347999) | #8 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
|
||
|
5 Dec 2008, 11:26 (Ref:2348012) | #9 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 591
|
Quote:
Losing the manufacturers at some point was always inevitable - they were only ever going to stay in F1 as long as it suited their needs. They are not racers, they are businesses, and F1 is nothing more than a marketing strategy. So who will survive? The independants like Williams are probably in the best position ultimately, provided they have the funding. In the late '60's it wasn't unheard of to see grids of 13 or 14 cars; this situation may recur. I don't believe losing the manufacturers will necessarily make F1 less relevant, and I think the sport was glamorous before the manufacturers came in and will continue to be once they have gone. The technical aspect, although appealing, isn't the reason most people watch F1 - it's the human aspect that attracts people, and that will remain. So, a second era of the 'garagistes' may be imminent. A shame in many ways, but I'd rather have a Formula 1 grid of customer chassis' and engines than no Formula 1 grid at all. |
|||
|
5 Dec 2008, 11:33 (Ref:2348023) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
I can only agree and have said this in the Honda thread, the problem lies in Bernie's contracts, particularly with the new circuits without a National racing heritage
Non auto sponsors are not going to be easy to find though and, sadly, lots of the staff in the oversized teams are going to lose their jobs |
||
|
5 Dec 2008, 11:50 (Ref:2348033) | #11 | ||
10-10ths official Trekkie
Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,297
|
F1 is slowly dying and it's being reanimated into the Champ Car World Series. I can imagine 2010; Bridgestone Presents the Formula One World Championship Powered By Cosworth.
|
||
__________________
One batch two batch, penny and dime |
5 Dec 2008, 11:56 (Ref:2348039) | #12 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
If something is done now as an interim measure,then maybe F1 can get back to it's usual 'just throw some money at it' ways in the not too distant future. |
||
|
5 Dec 2008, 11:57 (Ref:2348042) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,900
|
Perhaps I phrased my original post poorly. When I say the teams have a choice, the three above scenarios are not a case of "which of these will be the rules for 2010?", they are all options open to the teams. Some may (and will) choose to take option 3 and run their own engines, theirs will take option 1 and take the FIA Cosworth engine.
The standard engine is being offered as a choice, it is not mandatory. I think it's a fair compromise that will help the smaller teams keep on going and ensure F1 keeps its identity as the pinnacle of sport and technology... for those who can afford that is. |
||
__________________
I can't drive 55. |
5 Dec 2008, 12:05 (Ref:2348052) | #14 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
But the XR transmission will be,in all options,mandatory. Max is throwing a life-line,they'd be fools to ignore it. |
||
|
5 Dec 2008, 12:41 (Ref:2348093) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,120
|
This is a good compromise that must be embraced by the teams for the future of the sport.
|
||
|
5 Dec 2008, 12:48 (Ref:2348095) | #16 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
|
Sorry Nico, this is a dumb move that turns F1 into another spec series which will rapidly disappear from public view.
The question is will LMP or WRC become the premier form of motor sport? |
||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
5 Dec 2008, 12:59 (Ref:2348111) | #17 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
I don't think that just because the technology will not be dripping from every part of the cars that people will think that it's just another spec series. |
||
|
5 Dec 2008, 13:00 (Ref:2348114) | #18 | |
20KPINAL
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 29,853
|
WRC becoming the premier form of motorsport? You've seen their proposed future regulations?
Last edited by Knowlesy; 5 Dec 2008 at 13:06. |
|
|
5 Dec 2008, 13:05 (Ref:2348119) | #19 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
|
||
|
5 Dec 2008, 13:15 (Ref:2348127) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
|
Yeah sorry I forgot FIA was busy dumbing down WRRC as well.
Think back to the 50's and early 60's. F1 was a poor cousin to sports car racing because it was slower and less technically interesting and glamourous than the then F1 cars, That's whyF1 changed to the 3ltr formula at that time. Could easily happen again. |
||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
5 Dec 2008, 13:24 (Ref:2348136) | #21 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
Yesterday I was all against spec engines, but the Honda news came with a waft of coffee smell - it's wake-up time. So this letter now reads rather reasonably. Nice timing.
|
|
|
5 Dec 2008, 13:37 (Ref:2348146) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,246
|
Max might not even get 4 teams interested.
Force India have the deal now with McLaren, and unless they feel the low price of the Cosworth outlies the other positives in their technical alliance with McLaren, i cant see them switching. Williams are with Toyota and are enjoying alot of support, both from Toyota and simply by having a manufacturers name of the car so they might not see the benefit. Toro Rosso under new ownership might be saving their pennies and take up the option, they may do so even if Red Bull hold onto them. RBR could go either way - their marketing and sponsorship isnt hinged on them being backed by a manufacturer like Williams for example. Theyve simply wanted access to the best engine when signing deals with Ferrari and Renault. I dont think sales of Red Bull have dropped 40% so far this year either, unlike sales of cars for the manufacturers so they might not be feeling the pinch as much, and feel the trackside support from Renault is better than what Cosworth would supply. Renault themselves might consider it, as they were pushing for the standard engine after their homologated engine fell behind, but Meccachrome produces engines for alot more than Formula one, so it would make little difference to Renault whether they made their own engines or not. Any buyer for Honda might pick them up to keep the budget tight, but we dont know if it'll be another manufacturer or another billionaire who might take over there. I cant imagine the other manufacturers would consider it. |
||
|
5 Dec 2008, 16:23 (Ref:2348168) | #23 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Max explains letter.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72337 As an example: "I will give you one example. The suspension on one F1 car costs something in the order of £5 million to £10 million just to maintain because of the material. If it was made of steel, just like it was a couple of years ago, it would make absolutely no difference in the grandstand and would cost a few thousand a year rather than a few million." Last edited by Marbot; 5 Dec 2008 at 16:29. |
|
|
5 Dec 2008, 18:29 (Ref:2348300) | #24 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,606
|
Okay, okay, the F1 teams costs we can fix it. Easy.
Now, what about the sponsors, no more money. What about the tracks, too much expensive to keep up with F1 demands. It's a closing ring, a snowball. Apart from staying in front of a TV watching the cars circulating the track, F1 is an expensive sport in its present form. |
||
__________________
Show me a man who won't give it to his woman An' I'll show you somebody who will |
5 Dec 2008, 18:30 (Ref:2348304) | #25 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
I think the best way of dealing with the engines is rev limiting them extremely - 15-16K should do the trick. Testing the macarena dancing pink elephant in the room : I'd like to see a total testing ban and possibly some form of component adjustment to even up the grid. The purists will hate me for the latter, but I'd rather a bit of tweaking to make the grid a bit closer than teams bog off.
Last edited by duke_toaster; 5 Dec 2008 at 18:33. |
||
__________________
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." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FIA announces standard engine tender! | Marbot | Formula One | 191 | 31 Oct 2008 08:01 |
ECU's up for tender | Marbot | Formula One | 25 | 24 Feb 2006 00:53 |
Max's proposals - the whole letter | f1atic | Formula One | 9 | 14 Jul 2005 09:31 |
Max's letter to the constructors | Inigo Montoya | Formula One | 10 | 11 Feb 2003 08:17 |
Engine Regulations could bring new teams! | Invincible | Touring Car Racing | 14 | 29 Oct 2001 19:50 |