Is anyone else as pissed off about this as I am? I feel like many of the teams have said that the engine is the heart and soul of the car. If you take that way and make them all the same why would teams like Toyota stay in it because the car is no longer a toyota. Just my 2 cents.

To quote Daffy Duck: "Shoot me, shoot me now."

You guys don't remember the "Cosworth Era" of the late 60s and 70s. Back then, there were at least eight different makes of chassis (including several customer cars) on the grid at any one time, but only two or three engines. Most of the field ran Cosworths, with the occasional Ferrari, BRM or Matra to break the monotony. And until 1970, even Matra (Tyrrell) used a Cosworth.

I agree that having one specific engine design handed to all the teams, as is done in the IRL and other series, is not a great idea. Forumula One has always been about who could come up with the best package of cars and engines, not a cookie-cutter series where the winner was the one who could make the best of what everyone had. That's the danger of a "common design" series -- some teams can develope the "standard" engine to produce more power than others.

Trust me -- if Ferrari can get an advantage out if it, they will, rules be <<<<<Removed by Admin>>>>>

Instead, I've proposed a "common mounting points" formula, where only the engine and transaxel mounts have to be the same. That way, anybody could buy any engine from any supplier. I would also require that an engine builder be able to supply anyone and everyone who wants their powerplant, the same way Cosworths were available to all teams. What goes in the gap between those mounts is up to the engine builder. It could be anything from a turbocharged 4 or V-6 on up to a V-12, H-16 or W-24, if that's what you've a mind to build.

All this discussion about the Cosworth era; I remember that era, and Cosworth was dominant simply because it was available and, by far, the best solution to the formula. Also, remember that the teams were racing teams, not manufacturer teams. There were Lotus, BRM, Tyrrell, Brabham, McLaren, and Ferrari. These were race car makers. Only BRM and Ferrari made their own engines. Even Honda were not the giant manufacturer they are today.

Modern F1 is so dependant on the manufacturers, that a common engine would be disasterous. I can't imagine why Bernie would even mention the idea. It's ridiculous.

I've got an idea to reduce the cost. Try this on for size. Maybe it's just a dumb idea, but what if we went back to the national and team colors for the paint jobs - i.e. no sponser paint jobs with the 150 MPH billboards. That might reduce the amount of money the sponsers are willing to pay and that would, of necessity, drive down the costs.

Or, if it is really the cost that Bernie is worried about, why not just have the FIA, or FOA run all of the teams books and directly limit the amount of money that can be spent. Maybe FIA should form a common expense fund to which each sponser can contribute and from which all teams would be allocated equal share of money. The contributions could be strictly limited, the field would be completely level, and Bernie would have to take a big cut in pay

I'm Confused about Engines. At the Test 10 Cars were Tested. M.W. Racing Had the Most Power. Than Jack. Ford Rouch Had the Most. Than the Toyotas. OK they said that they had 4 to 7 hp More. So the Tooth Ferry took 16 hp away. Now all of the Other cars say they have More Power Now. Your Given a Box of Paper work telling you how many ci Motors you can Have. So the Masters Made More Power in that Box than anyone else did. So what. Thats called Racing. When you go Drag Racing do they tell you only to make 800hp. Hell no. Make 1800 hp if you can. They also forget that Jibs has the Best drivers Out their. Kyle I think could win with a go-cart. So whats the Bid deal. It's to bad. Toyota Built a Motor for 2007 and NASCAR made them Trash it. Start over. It was way to big for the BIG 3. That's the " REAL PROBLEM." The Big 3 Suck so bad. Wait till Honda Gets into NASCAR. That will really Hurt. Everyone forgets who's Motors run the INDI Series. All run Honda Motors. I know I would Like to find a 2 door Camery, Fusion, & the Chevy for my Home. SoCal Poor Boy

Oops!

It appears I've made a mistake, here.

In paragraph three of my first reply to this thread, I suggested that Ferrari might do something illegal to gain an advantage. The monitors removed the offending words.

My apologies to the monitors for a misstatement and thanks for the correction.


-- GW74 --

I think a single engine rule would be the end of F1. BMW, Ferrari and all the other engine manufacturers will go for it. Moseley needs to go and take Mini E with him.

jacngille - 09 October 2008 09:11 AM

To quote Daffy Duck: "Shoot me, shoot me now."

Does this make Max Elmer Fudd? It somehow seems appropriate.

GreyWolf74 - 09 October 2008 09:28 AM

I would also require that an engine builder be able to supply anyone and everyone who wants their powerplant, the same way Cosworths were available to all teams.

Real problem with this, as it will require the creation of engine mfg plants capable of producing far more F1 engines than anyone has been asked to make for about 30 years, all with the considerable risk that not enough teams will want to chose your engine. Put another way, how's this for a business proposition: "Build a plant capable of supplying up to 24 teams with a full year of F1 racing engines and if only one or two teams decide to use yours, too bad for you, you're money is gone."

The likely outcome would be that Ferrari would simply be priced out of the business, as it has never had that sort of capability, is too small to take the risk, and would NEVER run without a Ferrari engine. Since they thus could not meet the rules, they'd have no choice but to leave. We'd end up with Honda or Toyota power, as those mfg's are the only ones in a financial position to take the risk. Eventually, one engine would be shown to be superior, everyone would use it, and we'd have a spec engine series like the IRL.

Can't the FIA just face the reality that engine costs are not the driving force in an F1 budget? Last time I checked, a year's engine supply was in the $25 million range. A winning F1 budget is at least $200 million and closer to twice that.

TopKart - 17 October 2008 09:58 AM

GreyWolf74 - 09 October 2008 09:28 AM

I would also require that an engine builder be able to supply anyone and everyone who wants their powerplant, the same way Cosworths were available to all teams.

Real problem with this, as it will require the creation of engine mfg plants capable of producing far more F1 engines than anyone has been asked to make for about 30 years, all with the considerable risk that not enough teams will want to chose your engine. Put another way, how's this for a business proposition: "Build a plant capable of supplying up to 24 teams with a full year of F1 racing engines and if only one or two teams decide to use yours, too bad for you, you're money is gone."

First, I didn't say the teams couldn't have a "second-source" maker for their engines or cars. McLaren contracted their "customer cars" to Trojan, back in the late 60s and early 70s. The designs were the same, they were just built in a different place. If you remember the glory days of the Can-Am and Formula A/5000, Mclaren, Eagle and Lola built chassis for anyone with the money.

Remember, Cosworth and Ilmore both made their livings being the "second source" for everyone's engines for years in F-1 and Indy Car racing and occasionally teams in other series as well.

Second, look at the manufacturers involved: Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes, Honda and Toyota. All of them have production facilities capable of making hundreds or thousands of complete cars. Surely they could produce a few hundred racing engines, if need be.

Third, I didn't say the teams had to have all those engines built and carried on a truck to every race. I did say they had to be able to provide them to those who wanted. That means gearing up to build them for customers who have contracts to buy those engines. Remember, cars are still designed around engines, so this is not the same as, say, Red Bull visiting McLaren to borrow a couple of V-8s because their Ferrari V-12s aren't suitable to a particular track. It takes time to modify a car for an engine, so there's at least a one-race lead time to build the extra engines.

Thus, the teams wouldn't have to carry more than a couple of extra engines. Their customers would bring their own and their sub-contractor would provide them. And anybody who wants to change engines in mid-season would have to pay cash for them.

I think this idea does really suck, but on the other hand we basically already have standard engines in F1. We have 10 teams and 6 different engines, all the same size, producing roughly the same power? When they limited all engines to 19,000rpm, they pretty much destroyed any advantage in top end or out dragging a person down the straight. That was a real tech killer. I have posted many times here that no one has benefitted more than McLaren from that rule (BMW 2nd). Before the rev limit, Renault and Ferrari were capable of producing reliable engines that could go beyond 19,000...BMW and Mercedes were not! McLaren has had a great aero package and chassis (I think it's been the best) for a while...Kimi and JPM just didn't have a good engine. The "also rans" are much closer to the top teams thanks to this rule also.

The F1 cars we have now are so much more about the tires, chassis, aero, and weight distribution. This is why we ocassionally see an "also ran" battling with the front runners at circuits that suit their chassis. PLUS: they may also have a Ferrari, Renault or Toyota engine. Vettel...anyone???

The engine is still a vital part but with the rev limit and development freeze, it's almost standard anyway. I still don't like the idea, though.

... in my humble opinion, what is needed are rules that are long term and have taken into consideration what the participants want. I do not think the teams want to have a single engine, but want to show case their technology. As such, rules must stay in force for a long time. Here is how one can make it interesting though:
You could limit the amount of calories used (fuel) to finish a race. Every year, you allow a little bit less. This could go on for many years without making anyother changes, but would eventually drive technology where it maybe usefull for production cars and / or you could limit downforce at two or three windspeeds (50 mph, 100 mph and 200 mph) as tested in a wind tunnel. From there on, allowed downforces come down. This would give clarity to the technology departments and a clear focus for development.
Whatever the FIA come up with will only work if their "stakeholders" agree ... and right now, they dont!