Max's insanity waxes: "world engine"
Discussion
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/...
Does he have a clue? Am I the only person who is having difficulty understanding the logic behind this idea (or perhaps there is no logic behind the idea - which would explain why)?
Does he have a clue? Am I the only person who is having difficulty understanding the logic behind this idea (or perhaps there is no logic behind the idea - which would explain why)?
At the risk of being flamed within an inch of my like
, I actually don't have a problem with this at all PROVIDED that it's a set of rules to which manufacturers can build and develop engines, rather than it being an off-the-shelf single supplier engine.Go back a few years and you could find Cosworth DFVs in F1 and sports prototypes, various Cosworth BD derivatives in everything from rally cars, saloon cars, sportscars and F2 cars. Then you have the engines which are used in F3 cars, touring cars and rally cars (Vauxhall for example) and there has always been some cross-over between categories.
The original Group B regs were also designed, in theory, to allow a car to run in various categories such as rallying and sportscar races, although in reality they became a bit specialised for each discipline. I think one of the few cross-over cars was the Porsche 959.
So, it's not really anything new and IF it is done properly I think it could be good for motorsport in general, particularly if it attracts companies like VW into different areas of motor racing.
However, we do need to bear in mind that a) the FIA and b) more specifically Max are involved, hence it's likely to be a complete bloody shambles
Oh, and there's also the small issue of the regs for Le Mans which I suspect won't fit nicely with the FIA's plans, hence we'll still have limited crossover from the various FIA and ACO series.
Isn't there a big difference between:
- an engine that was so ingeniously designed that it has uses in diverse, unrelated racing applications, which uses develop naturally and in open competition against other designs, and
- an engine that is used in diverse, unrelated racing applications only because a self-appointed bureaucracy has decreed that it must be used, in exclusion to all other designs?
- an engine that was so ingeniously designed that it has uses in diverse, unrelated racing applications, which uses develop naturally and in open competition against other designs, and
- an engine that is used in diverse, unrelated racing applications only because a self-appointed bureaucracy has decreed that it must be used, in exclusion to all other designs?
flemke said:
Isn't there a big difference between:
- an engine that was so ingeniously designed that it has uses in diverse, unrelated racing applications, which uses develop naturally and in open competition against other designs, and
- an engine that is used in diverse, unrelated racing applications only because a self-appointed bureaucracy has decreed that it must be used, in exclusion to all other designs?
it very much depends on the structure of the rules as to how well this works. If the rules offer sufficient flexibility to allow engines to be developed then the first of your two options should apply.- an engine that was so ingeniously designed that it has uses in diverse, unrelated racing applications, which uses develop naturally and in open competition against other designs, and
- an engine that is used in diverse, unrelated racing applications only because a self-appointed bureaucracy has decreed that it must be used, in exclusion to all other designs?
But if the FIA try to be engineers and start specifying maximum bore and stroke ratios, inlet tract designs and anything else which would restrict development then it's likely to be doomed to failure.
Take the old touring car engine regs for example - very simplistically they allowed for a 2.0 maximum displacement but the number of cylinders wasn't restricted. Hence you had straight fours and V6 engines competing against each other. Teams were even allowed to do things like reverse the cylinder head to get a more favourable flow of air into the engine.
The outcome ? A number of very successful engines which were developed as a result of competition and which were used in a variety of disciplines.
Like I said, it depends on how far into the pie the FIA want to stick their grubby little fingers when it comes to defining the parameters for these engines, but it *could* be a good thing for motorsport if the cost to a manufacturer of developing one engine which can be used across multiple series is kept to a sensible amount. They'd then have a bigger potential market and competition would mean engine developments allow the cream to rise to the top.
The FIA seems to be suffering from massive mission creep (don't all governing organisations). This really does smack of communism for motorsport. If they continue along this line then race series will eventually just break away from them to escape their meddling. When there was talk of the common engine in formula one i was shocked, it's like the FIA do not actually understand the nature of the sports their involved with and how important/interesting the engineering side is to maintaining their entertainment value.
Actually it's not Max's idea, it's Volkswagens. They suggested it and want it based on a straight four. Honda have said they are not interested in a four but want a V6, they have also said they would settle for an equivalency formula S4 vs V6.
I was told some time ago that VW / Audi bought a lot of manufacturing kit from Cosworth and they are taking thier F3 effort very seriously so it could have legs.
And why not?
Remember the BMW 1.5L turbo F1 engine. There was sweet FA wrong with that.
RM
I was told some time ago that VW / Audi bought a lot of manufacturing kit from Cosworth and they are taking thier F3 effort very seriously so it could have legs.
And why not?
Remember the BMW 1.5L turbo F1 engine. There was sweet FA wrong with that.
RM
Alfie Noakes said:
Actually it's not Max's idea, it's Volkswagens. They suggested it and want it based on a straight four. Honda have said they are not interested in a four but want a V6, they have also said they would settle for an equivalency formula S4 vs V6.
I was told some time ago that VW / Audi bought a lot of manufacturing kit from Cosworth and they are taking thier F3 effort very seriously so it could have legs.
And why not?
Remember the BMW 1.5L turbo F1 engine. There was sweet FA wrong with that.
RM
I've long thought that a engine formula based on a road car block is the way to go. Road cars will never have a big bore small stroke 18,000revs engine so why use them in F1? If they use a block from a road car, allow the manufacturers to modify it, give them a very small fuel tank with no refuelling in the race and tell them they not only have to get the power but also work hard to get the fuel economy it would be technology that would find it's way to road cars quite easily, plus the little green men would be happy that they are using less fuel.I was told some time ago that VW / Audi bought a lot of manufacturing kit from Cosworth and they are taking thier F3 effort very seriously so it could have legs.
And why not?
Remember the BMW 1.5L turbo F1 engine. There was sweet FA wrong with that.
RM
Say they can use whatever engine block they like as long as they are in a road car selling more than a fixed number of units. Allow them to use V8, or V6s normally aspirated engines or smaller turbos with restrictions. With minimum weights of the cars dependent on the engine used. Surely easier rules to set up than the current restrictions.
FourWheelDrift said:
Alfie Noakes said:
Actually it's not Max's idea, it's Volkswagens. They suggested it and want it based on a straight four. Honda have said they are not interested in a four but want a V6, they have also said they would settle for an equivalency formula S4 vs V6.
I was told some time ago that VW / Audi bought a lot of manufacturing kit from Cosworth and they are taking thier F3 effort very seriously so it could have legs.
And why not?
Remember the BMW 1.5L turbo F1 engine. There was sweet FA wrong with that.
RM
I've long thought that a engine formula based on a road car block is the way to go. Road cars will never have a big bore small stroke 18,000revs engine so why use them in F1? If they use a block from a road car, allow the manufacturers to modify it, give them a very small fuel tank with no refuelling in the race and tell them they not only have to get the power but also work hard to get the fuel economy it would be technology that would find it's way to road cars quite easily, plus the little green men would be happy that they are using less fuel.I was told some time ago that VW / Audi bought a lot of manufacturing kit from Cosworth and they are taking thier F3 effort very seriously so it could have legs.
And why not?
Remember the BMW 1.5L turbo F1 engine. There was sweet FA wrong with that.
RM
Say they can use whatever engine block they like as long as they are in a road car selling more than a fixed number of units. Allow them to use V8, or V6s normally aspirated engines or smaller turbos with restrictions. With minimum weights of the cars dependent on the engine used. Surely easier rules to set up than the current restrictions.
I think you guys are making a link that isn't actually there.
In proposals I have seen there is no mention of road car engines. Only that a common basis of engine would be used for all the major formula.
A 2 litre S4 or V6 could be a racing engine. Remember Cosworth FVA and BDA. In fact don't AER make a racing engine that is available in several versions (edited to say "no they don't" but they might have. Interesting link at end of post).
It also seems that the proposal isn't for just one manufactuer but many.
It could make for an interesting diversity.
http://www.aerltd.com/index.html
In proposals I have seen there is no mention of road car engines. Only that a common basis of engine would be used for all the major formula.
A 2 litre S4 or V6 could be a racing engine. Remember Cosworth FVA and BDA. In fact don't AER make a racing engine that is available in several versions (edited to say "no they don't" but they might have. Interesting link at end of post).
It also seems that the proposal isn't for just one manufactuer but many.
It could make for an interesting diversity.
http://www.aerltd.com/index.html
Edited by Alfie Noakes on Wednesday 8th April 17:31
Lord Croker said:
Sounds good to me. The manufacturers would love the marketing opportunity of being able to directly relate their roads cars to their F1 cars, and the public would benefit from being able to buy a car with such a highly developed engine.
I can't remember BMW ever pushing their stock block in the 80s not suggesting that if you bought a 318 you were somehow benefitting from F1 technology.S2000 is a good model to look at for engine regulations that are shared across disciplines. It is used in rally, touring cars and mini-prototypes (a'la LMP3) to my knowledge. If they could plonk them into a F3-like open wheeler series then we'd just about already have what Max is calling for, albeit with smaller capacity and power.
Properly done, its not a bad idea at all.
If the different engine specs provides the performance required and encourages new or smaller teams to compete in all the different categories (whilst driving the costs down for those that are already in it) then it will serve the sport well.
If the different engine specs provides the performance required and encourages new or smaller teams to compete in all the different categories (whilst driving the costs down for those that are already in it) then it will serve the sport well.
Edited by touring fan on Wednesday 8th April 19:35
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff