Formula One with ten-year-old engines

[zac510]

ok I'll include more Maddy sightings and exclusive DNA tests in my future posts.

[rubystone]

zac510 said:

andyps said:

I can't figure what the appeal of F1 would be for the engine manufacturers if they were not allowed to develop the engines. One part of the reason for them taking part is to demonstrate to potential car purchasers that the manufacturer produces a car/engine which competes, and hopefully wins, at the top level of motorsport. Whether this has any relationship to the car/engine which is then bought by the public is pretty irrelevant as long as they make a connection - it is a marketing promotion exercise in this respect.

I interpreted so, and tried to explain above but nobody listened, that Purnell's point is that with a 10 year development block the signifcance of engines will decrease, but instantaneously be taken in place by interest in KERS systems. In response to the OP, punters will say "Who has the best KERS, Mc, BMW or Ferrari?" Sounds kinda lame now but it'll be no more factual than how people argue over engines now.
With the corresponding rule change this could leap F1 into the environmental spotlight far above any other racing series as people view KERS produced by manufacturers in a competitive environment. In the same way aerodynamics has become as narrow scope with intensive investment by the nature of the rules, so will KERS. This retains the interest for manufacturers and gives the 'road car' filter down that spectators whine about all the time.

I think that the FIA's competence to set such far reaching rules may be measured by its initial proposal on KERS. These allowed individual units for each wheel....until it was pointed out to them that this solution would permit the teams to utilise the KERS units as traction control devices....

On KERS, some whle back Racecar Engineering had an interesting article on the options for KERS. There was a number of routes and each was more or less relevant to the real world. I think that the argument that KERS could benefit road car development is bound to be impacted by the constraints to be placed on the efficiency and operation of the KERS units.

[andyps]

zac510 said:

andyps said:

I can't figure what the appeal of F1 would be for the engine manufacturers if they were not allowed to develop the engines. One part of the reason for them taking part is to demonstrate to potential car purchasers that the manufacturer produces a car/engine which competes, and hopefully wins, at the top level of motorsport. Whether this has any relationship to the car/engine which is then bought by the public is pretty irrelevant as long as they make a connection - it is a marketing promotion exercise in this respect.

I interpreted so, and tried to explain above but nobody listened, that Purnell's point is that with a 10 year development block the signifcance of engines will decrease, but instantaneously be taken in place by interest in KERS systems. In response to the OP, punters will say "Who has the best KERS, Mc, BMW or Ferrari?" Sounds kinda lame now but it'll be no more factual than how people argue over engines now.
With the corresponding rule change this could leap F1 into the environmental spotlight far above any other racing series as people view KERS produced by manufacturers in a competitive environment. In the same way aerodynamics has become as narrow scope with intensive investment by the nature of the rules, so will KERS. This retains the interest for manufacturers and gives the 'road car' filter down that spectators whine about all the time.

Sorry - I did read your comments and agree with them in some respects. I do not, however, think that development of KERS and engines should be mutually exclusive.

[RobbieMeister]

I very much doubt whether any of this has anything to do with engines.