What a great idea!
Discussion
Yay, let's turn F1 into a single chassis Formula - that won't undermine it at all.
www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19163.html
GrandPrix.com said:
Mosley punts for new Formula 1 rules in 2011
According to reports in today's F1 Racing monthly magazine, the FIA is now making the first steps towards the introduction of 2.2-litre V6 turbocharged engines, running on biodiesel fuels, in F1 in 2011. The reports suggest that the engines will be restricted to 10,000rpm and that they will have to survive for five Grand Prix. The idea, which we suggested might happen back in November last year is being proposed to the automobile manufacturers. It remains to be seen whether the proposals will be embraced by the car companies. In addition the proposals include a number of other controversial ideas, such as traction-control, four-wheel-drive, power-boost buttons and identical bodywork for all the teams. Some of these are idea have been pushed by FIA President Max Mosley in the past and are probably included in the proposals to see what he can achieve by throwing the net wide and seeing what survives.
The basic proposals make some sense, not least because all the major car manufacturers have 2.2-litre turbo diesel engines in their ranges, which means that there can be some commercial relevance and will make F1 attractive to companies that are not currently involved. These include firms such as Peugeot-Citroen, Hyundai, GM, Jaguar and Volkswagen. The sport could advertise the products and perhaps offer new scientific developments that could be applied to production cars.
Ten years ago Mosley commissioned a study of the motorsport industry by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) which analysed how the ingenuity of the post-war engineer-drivers was translated into a vast and diverse industry as constant competition not only provoked continual technological breakthrough but also weeded out the companies which were not meant for success. As a result the industry was never able to stagnate. Each firm had to learn to master advancing technologies and those who could not cope failed. It was a question of the survival of the fittest as most of these firms were dedicated to motorsport and thus had to be competitive to survive as they had no other income on which to fall back.
Mosley's model for the future ties the hands of those who continue in that original tradition and, if accepted, would mean that much of their work, such as the building of vast and intricate windtunnels, will become irrelevant. It will thus be opposed with much vehemence. The most controversial proposal is the identical bodywork, something which undermines the foundations of pure competition on which F1 - and the entire motorsport industry - is based. Mosley argues that there can still be that kind of competition in other areas of machinery but that aerodynamic development is wasteful and has no relevance to the car industry.
Aerodynamics may be wasteful within the confines of the rules as they now are, as teams are forced to build cars that look similar to one another, but this is the factor that decides who wins and who loses.
The big question is whether or not the areas that are left open for development will ultimately soak up the same level of investment that the windtunnels now do. In all probability they will, because if racing teams can raise money, they will spend it in order to win.
If that spirit dies, the sport and the industry may die with it.
According to reports in today's F1 Racing monthly magazine, the FIA is now making the first steps towards the introduction of 2.2-litre V6 turbocharged engines, running on biodiesel fuels, in F1 in 2011. The reports suggest that the engines will be restricted to 10,000rpm and that they will have to survive for five Grand Prix. The idea, which we suggested might happen back in November last year is being proposed to the automobile manufacturers. It remains to be seen whether the proposals will be embraced by the car companies. In addition the proposals include a number of other controversial ideas, such as traction-control, four-wheel-drive, power-boost buttons and identical bodywork for all the teams. Some of these are idea have been pushed by FIA President Max Mosley in the past and are probably included in the proposals to see what he can achieve by throwing the net wide and seeing what survives.
The basic proposals make some sense, not least because all the major car manufacturers have 2.2-litre turbo diesel engines in their ranges, which means that there can be some commercial relevance and will make F1 attractive to companies that are not currently involved. These include firms such as Peugeot-Citroen, Hyundai, GM, Jaguar and Volkswagen. The sport could advertise the products and perhaps offer new scientific developments that could be applied to production cars.
Ten years ago Mosley commissioned a study of the motorsport industry by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) which analysed how the ingenuity of the post-war engineer-drivers was translated into a vast and diverse industry as constant competition not only provoked continual technological breakthrough but also weeded out the companies which were not meant for success. As a result the industry was never able to stagnate. Each firm had to learn to master advancing technologies and those who could not cope failed. It was a question of the survival of the fittest as most of these firms were dedicated to motorsport and thus had to be competitive to survive as they had no other income on which to fall back.
Mosley's model for the future ties the hands of those who continue in that original tradition and, if accepted, would mean that much of their work, such as the building of vast and intricate windtunnels, will become irrelevant. It will thus be opposed with much vehemence. The most controversial proposal is the identical bodywork, something which undermines the foundations of pure competition on which F1 - and the entire motorsport industry - is based. Mosley argues that there can still be that kind of competition in other areas of machinery but that aerodynamic development is wasteful and has no relevance to the car industry.
Aerodynamics may be wasteful within the confines of the rules as they now are, as teams are forced to build cars that look similar to one another, but this is the factor that decides who wins and who loses.
The big question is whether or not the areas that are left open for development will ultimately soak up the same level of investment that the windtunnels now do. In all probability they will, because if racing teams can raise money, they will spend it in order to win.
If that spirit dies, the sport and the industry may die with it.
www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19163.html
What an idiot. I hope this is from the same barrel of shite that most F1 technical related rumours are scooped. I may have been young, but I still remember the sound of the V12 Ferrari F1 engines blasting up the pit straight at silverstone. Somehow I doubt a V6 turbo diesel will have quite the same magnetism.
"Some of these are idea have been pushed by FIA President Max Mosley in the past and are probably included in the proposals to see what he can achieve by throwing the net wide and seeing what survives."
Something tells me he's the one who won't survive as FIA President if any of that is taken seriously.
Something tells me he's the one who won't survive as FIA President if any of that is taken seriously.
Nobody said that when the engines were 1.5 Turbos and revving to around 10,000/11.000 rpm.
Or when they were 2.5 litre or even when they were 1.5 litre - normally aspirated.
On second thoughts, there were many who criticised the 1961-65 1.5 litre formula on the basis of it being too "weedy". Ironically, it was the British teams who were the major compliainers but it was in the 1.5 litre era that Britain came to dominate F1.
Or when they were 2.5 litre or even when they were 1.5 litre - normally aspirated.
On second thoughts, there were many who criticised the 1961-65 1.5 litre formula on the basis of it being too "weedy". Ironically, it was the British teams who were the major compliainers but it was in the 1.5 litre era that Britain came to dominate F1.
Since when was F1 more about road-car development by major manufactures than racing!?
we've taken a step in the right direction banning driver aids for '08, and now they're looking to re-introduce them again??? firstly that makes no sense. secondly, even if it is a rule introduced purely for the manufacturers, we have traction control now - what more is there to learn!
then the 10,000rpm proposed limit. If there's one area that road car development could go, it would be higher revving, more efficient engines. so why is this being proposed?
making an engine last 5 grand prix? that's barely beneficial to road cars is it, it's not like we can learn anything about engine longevity from F1!!! and as for cost saving, it hasn't worked making them last 2 races, it won't work making them last 5.
i think power boost would either ruin the spectacle (by allowing the faster car to overtake simply on a straight, and then piss off into the distance) or not make any difference at all as they'll all have the same system, so this is purely a manufacturers development proposal, for no good of the sport whatsoever.
lastly, i don't understand why these increasingly manufacturer-led proposals are all slated for F1 when the cars bear no resemblance to road cars. Why not use touring cars instead?
we've taken a step in the right direction banning driver aids for '08, and now they're looking to re-introduce them again??? firstly that makes no sense. secondly, even if it is a rule introduced purely for the manufacturers, we have traction control now - what more is there to learn!
then the 10,000rpm proposed limit. If there's one area that road car development could go, it would be higher revving, more efficient engines. so why is this being proposed?
making an engine last 5 grand prix? that's barely beneficial to road cars is it, it's not like we can learn anything about engine longevity from F1!!! and as for cost saving, it hasn't worked making them last 2 races, it won't work making them last 5.
i think power boost would either ruin the spectacle (by allowing the faster car to overtake simply on a straight, and then piss off into the distance) or not make any difference at all as they'll all have the same system, so this is purely a manufacturers development proposal, for no good of the sport whatsoever.
lastly, i don't understand why these increasingly manufacturer-led proposals are all slated for F1 when the cars bear no resemblance to road cars. Why not use touring cars instead?
Mad Max said:
If adopted, radical new engine regulations could be set to change the face of Formula 1 from 2011 according to a document outlining the FIA’s proposals for the future of the sport which have been sent to all current F1 manufacturers, the latest issue of F1 Racing magazine (on sale from Tuesday) reveals.
As previously suggested by the FIA, the new rules, if adopted, would dramatically change the way the sport approaches engine technology and will rely heavily on renewable sources of energy to power F1.
The proposals outline potential regulations for 2011-2014 that have been designed with the FIA’s president Max Mosley’s stated long-term aims in mind – namely to reduce costs and make F1 more environmentally friendly and road relevant.
It was sent to the manufacturers by Mosley and former BMW CEO Burkhard Goschel, the chairman of the Formula One Manufacturers’ Advisory Commission, and was drawn up by the governing body’s technical consultants Tony Purnell and Peter Wright.
The proposals were sent to the manufacturers, and not the teams’ management, directly as they mainly concern powertrain (engine) regulations.
And these proposals include a turbo-compounded 2.2-litre V6 engine formula, with the power units to run on bio-fuel rather than the current unleaded fuel.
The engines would produce around 770bhp (including a kinetic energy recovery system) with the maximum revs limited to 10,000rpm.
Engines would be required to last five grands prix, as opposed to the two currently, with the fuel savings thanks to the lower revs expected to be about 30 per cent.
Further mooted proposals include cars to be fitted with traction control, four-wheel drive and a 13-second-per-lap, driver controlled, power-boost function in a bid to aid overtaking.
The document also states that all development that cannot be classified as powertrain development – for example aerodynamics – should be “severely constrained”.
In addition to all current F1 manufacturers, the document was sent to both Ford and Volkswagen-Audi, who may join the sport in the future.
The man has surely lost the plot on this one.......
I wonder how a 4wd F1 car would look - I'm guessing the driver would be pretty high up to clear the drive shafts etc.
Can we give Max a vote of no confidence????
Chris
Maybe the diesels would emit loads of black smoke instead 
Woody, 4WD was tried in F1 back in 1969. It was deemed to be a technological dead end as the extra grip gained with 4WD was much more easily gained using aerodynamic downforce techniques.
Lotus, McLaren and Cosworth all had a go but eventually gave up.
Woody, 4WD was tried in F1 back in 1969. It was deemed to be a technological dead end as the extra grip gained with 4WD was much more easily gained using aerodynamic downforce techniques.
Lotus, McLaren and Cosworth all had a go but eventually gave up.
woody said:
The man has surely lost the plot on this one.......
I wonder how a 4wd F1 car would look - I'm guessing the driver would be pretty high up to clear the drive shafts etc.
Can we give Max a vote of no confidence????
Chris
Plenty of 4x4 F1 cars in the past.
In 1969 There were a Lotus a McLaren and a Matra.
Eric Mc said:
It was in one of those Lotus 4WDs that poor John Dawson-Damer met his end (and the unfortunate marshall he took with him) at the 2000 Goodwood FoS.
Does anyone know what has happened to that car since?
Does anyone know what has happened to that car since?
Mentioned below (where I know you're a member too
) that the engine and mechanicals exist but not the rest. Atlas F1 link page 3
I don't understand how they can say aerodynamic development is irrelevant to road cars. If you want more efficient cars then you need them to have a lower drag coefficient and F1 aero development is all about making maximum downforce for minimum drag... will help make slippery road cars surely?
Low drag co-effcients are relatively unimportant to current F1 cars. Downforce is king and all else is subservient. In road cars, low drag co-efficients are much more important (for fuel economy). At the moment, there is very little cross-over between the aerodynamic requirements of an F1 car and a normal road car.
rubystone said:
The trick with Moseley's musings is to tease out which of the suggestions he actually wants adopted and those which are "smokescreens". The team principals known this and use the TWG to offer up their own suggestions and compromises.
Couldn't agree more, which is what pisses me off about Max. He's a politician not a racer
Let's forget all the smokescreens Max, cut to the chase and let us know what you are thinking?
Better still, I think it's about time you step down and let someone come on board to save F1 from your crazy ideas...
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff