http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...406144247.shtml
Seems that Max now wants a single engine to cover most forms of motorsport... when is this absurdity going to come to an end???
Full Version: FIA "world" engine?!
October 2009?
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
Originally posted by Phucaigh
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
Next we'll be hearing how the FIA are manufacturing cars to their own specifications because no-one did it properly.. Just another twisted attempt at making lots of $$$...
Seriously - who in their right mind would even consider this as a good idea for motorsport..
Whats next - standard tyres for all forms of motorsport?
It's another stick to beat the manufacturers with. Very old political trick - put out a terrifying, unacceptably awful headline, then sneak the real thing in behind it - by the time anyone notices, you can sell it as a better alternative, having listened to your constituency etc etc, insert load of bollocks here.
Originally posted by Phucaigh
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
After practically shaping the sport to thier demands to get them in, but now they've sold the sport and made their profits who needs 'em anymore, eh Maxxie?
Originally posted by Phucaigh
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
I think that may well be the case, and it makes sense. There's no stability with the manufacturers, they all hanging on by their fingernails. The finance houses came and crashed, tha manufacturers are busy crashing, whats left? Tycoons and oil companies but only if motorsport becomes affordable. And a "base" engine for F1, LMS etc with different variations for different series aint that stupid. A Base 4 cyl 2 litre motor for junior rally, f3 etc, higher spec with simple turbo and you have something for LMP2, GP2/formula 2 etc and a top of the range motor with variations for F1, LMP1, WRC etc.
It's actually not an inconceivable idea.
Originally posted by kar
October 2009?
October 2009?
if gangbangs, wife cheating, and mock torturing prostitutes didn't get him out, a bit of common incompetence isn't gonna make a blind bit of difference.
still glad you supported him?
Originally posted by Gilles4Ever
I think that may well be the case, and it makes sense. There's no stability with the manufacturers, they all hanging on by their fingernails. The finance houses came and crashed, tha manufacturers are busy crashing, whats left? Tycoons and oil companies but only if motorsport becomes affordable. And a "base" engine for F1, LMS etc with different variations for different series aint that stupid. A Base 4 cyl 2 litre motor for junior rally, f3 etc, higher spec with simple turbo and you have something for LMP2, GP2/formula 2 etc and a top of the range motor with variations for F1, LMP1, WRC etc.
I think that may well be the case, and it makes sense. There's no stability with the manufacturers, they all hanging on by their fingernails. The finance houses came and crashed, tha manufacturers are busy crashing, whats left? Tycoons and oil companies but only if motorsport becomes affordable. And a "base" engine for F1, LMS etc with different variations for different series aint that stupid. A Base 4 cyl 2 litre motor for junior rally, f3 etc, higher spec with simple turbo and you have something for LMP2, GP2/formula 2 etc and a top of the range motor with variations for F1, LMP1, WRC etc.
the manufacturers bring hassle but they also bring close grids and genuine unpredictability. In the good old days there was Williams and McLaren and no one slse could get close
Originally posted by Phucaigh
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
Except for the one that "wins" the tender to build the "world engine"...
Cosworth.
Originally posted by Phucaigh
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
I guess Mosley wants the manufacturers out of motorsport.
Weird then that Volkswagen suggested this very idea recently so they could have the same engine power their F3, Le Mans, and Indycars.
Who said it has to be a spec engine? Why not just have the rules such that the manufacturers can all build their own engines but they are pretty similar, much like F1 engines at the moment.
If this is to be, then all teams and manufacturers should have unlimited free reign on energy recovery systems.
That way the piston engine is just a default generator, and the manufacturers, or teams, can make their car more powerfull by having better or more efficient energy recovery systems. They could use heat from exhaust and coolant as mentioned, along side the normal KERS.
Because how is KERS relevant, and how will F1 drive KERS, if they are limited to a specification, and there's no fierce competition, or massive gains to be had from it?
If it was free reign, you could have someone go to town, and put 90% focus of their car in to it, and start a revolution.
What they've done now is like going back to the dawn of the Piston engine, and saying "right, now the camshaft has to be in the crank-case, you're only allowed 2 valves per cylinder, and fuel must be drawn in naturally". Motorsport played a big role in developing normal engines exactly because of fierce competition.
That way the piston engine is just a default generator, and the manufacturers, or teams, can make their car more powerfull by having better or more efficient energy recovery systems. They could use heat from exhaust and coolant as mentioned, along side the normal KERS.
Because how is KERS relevant, and how will F1 drive KERS, if they are limited to a specification, and there's no fierce competition, or massive gains to be had from it?
If it was free reign, you could have someone go to town, and put 90% focus of their car in to it, and start a revolution.
What they've done now is like going back to the dawn of the Piston engine, and saying "right, now the camshaft has to be in the crank-case, you're only allowed 2 valves per cylinder, and fuel must be drawn in naturally". Motorsport played a big role in developing normal engines exactly because of fierce competition.
Originally posted by RoutariEnjinu
If this is to be, then all teams and manufacturers should have unlimited free reign on energy recovery systems.
If this is to be, then all teams and manufacturers should have unlimited free reign on energy recovery systems.
The idea is to kill the development race and bring costs down.
Originally posted by kar
October 2009?
October 2009?
Dream on, he is not leaving until his job is done and he will find excuses until he is alive and kicking.
Turbo sounds indeed nice! 
An ecological turbo engine without any development limits (except cost limit) would be ideal in my opinion. I think it wouldn't be impossible to actualize.
An ecological turbo engine without any development limits (except cost limit) would be ideal in my opinion. I think it wouldn't be impossible to actualize.
Originally posted by Gilles4Ever
The idea is to kill the development race and bring costs down.
The idea is to kill the development race and bring costs down.
I know. Which just shows KERS is nothing more than a token gesture amid the taboo of wasting oil and pollution.
Perhaps free reign on energy recovery could go with the £30m proposed budget cap.
It doesn't seem so bad. If 'mass' producing engines can reduce overall costs, what is so bad about it?
Of course, it rermains to see what engine this is afterall, but it might even put the manufacturers into more racing as the development, costs and benefits might be shared through more than F1 alone.
Of course, it rermains to see what engine this is afterall, but it might even put the manufacturers into more racing as the development, costs and benefits might be shared through more than F1 alone.
Max should leave... 
I'm not for one spec engine for every FIA series, but I do think it would make sense to have the same but open engine regulations in a number of series.
I think they tried this before with the 3.5 liter engine. It was regulated for F1 and sportscar racing.
What it did was kill off sportscar racing.
What it did was kill off sportscar racing.
Oh, and just to add more fuel to the fire - Mercedes are re-considering their involvement in F1...
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...406161822.shtml
LOL great - just what we all need... another "proof" to back up Max's "theories"....
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...406161822.shtml
LOL great - just what we all need... another "proof" to back up Max's "theories"....
They aren't re-considering it, they are continuining to consider it just as they have since they returned to racing 
Originally posted by rdebourbon
Oh, and just to add more fuel to the fire - Mercedes are re-considering their involvement in F1...
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...406161822.shtml
LOL great - just what we all need... another "proof" to back up Max's "theories"....
This is journalism at it's lowest level. Haug did not say Mercedes are reconsidering their involvement.
Oh, and just to add more fuel to the fire - Mercedes are re-considering their involvement in F1...
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...406161822.shtml
LOL great - just what we all need... another "proof" to back up Max's "theories"....
If you read the original article in http://www.gpweek.com/PDF/GP040.pdf, you will see this is just a sensationalist fabrication (also thanks to that disingenuous GP Week headline).
What does Max care, he's got his $300M.
Originally posted by rdebourbon
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...406144247.shtml
Seems that Max now wants a single engine to cover most forms of motorsport... when is this absurdity going to come to an end???
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...406144247.shtml
Seems that Max now wants a single engine to cover most forms of motorsport... when is this absurdity going to come to an end???
Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Motor, denken Sie sMax?
Bonkers.
Wasn't the concept of a spec engine pretty much accepted by the manufacturers a while ago when they went for engine homologation and then actually accepted by them recently when FOTA agreed the future plans on engines with the FIA?
And once you've got a spec engine, where's the disadvantage to F1 if that same engine is also used in other series?
And once you've got a spec engine, where's the disadvantage to F1 if that same engine is also used in other series?
Originally posted by rdebourbon
Seems that Max now wants a single engine to cover most forms of motorsport... when is this absurdity going to come to an end??? [/B]
Seems that Max now wants a single engine to cover most forms of motorsport... when is this absurdity going to come to an end??? [/B]
Yes, because spending $1Billion/yr per team to keep up development is far less absurd.
I wonder how fired RBA employees and British taxpayers enjoy watching the Williams drive around on their jobs and money?
Of course Mosley is going to ignore engine manufacturers..if costs continue like this, they will all go anyway.
Get a clue. The current top team in F1 has no permanent sponsor...nothing.
I don't see Jenson and Reubens getting rich on those driving suits...
Even Ferrari will have it's purse tightened by Fiat.
The idea of the major forms of racing all using a 2.0l engine in turbocharged and non-turbocharged forms is an interesting one.
The ACO's 2011 P1 engine rules have a 2.0l turbo engine with a maximum of 6 cylinders as their turbo option alongside NA (3.4l, maximum 8 cylinders) and diesel (3.7l twinturbo maximum 8 cylinders) options
The future Indycar engine is a 2.0l turbo though they are undecided on the layout; Audi want an inline 4, Honda want a V6. I'd say let them both use whichever layout they want, there has been talk of them trying to work out an equivalency.
Super 2000 rally and touring cars use normally aspriated 2.0l inline 4s, as does Formula 3.
Formula One wants to move to a small turbocharged format around 2012.
What I would suggest is that erach manufacturer is allowed to build a 2.0l engine of whichever confuiguration they want, be it V, inline, flat and 4 to 8 cylinders. I would elave the technology nice and open to things like direct injection, variable valve timing etc.
They can then adapt these engines to the various series, in turbo/non turbo form. and badge them differently i.e. VW in Indycar, Audi in sportscars/F1.
The ACO's 2011 P1 engine rules have a 2.0l turbo engine with a maximum of 6 cylinders as their turbo option alongside NA (3.4l, maximum 8 cylinders) and diesel (3.7l twinturbo maximum 8 cylinders) options
The future Indycar engine is a 2.0l turbo though they are undecided on the layout; Audi want an inline 4, Honda want a V6. I'd say let them both use whichever layout they want, there has been talk of them trying to work out an equivalency.
Super 2000 rally and touring cars use normally aspriated 2.0l inline 4s, as does Formula 3.
Formula One wants to move to a small turbocharged format around 2012.
What I would suggest is that erach manufacturer is allowed to build a 2.0l engine of whichever confuiguration they want, be it V, inline, flat and 4 to 8 cylinders. I would elave the technology nice and open to things like direct injection, variable valve timing etc.
They can then adapt these engines to the various series, in turbo/non turbo form. and badge them differently i.e. VW in Indycar, Audi in sportscars/F1.
The days of passion in motorsport sure are numbered 
Why not just use the Gp2 cars for the F1 race. They are already on location at some circuits. Save even more money! save save save!
Originally posted by vmk
Why not just use the Gp2 cars for the F1 race. They are already on location at some circuits. Save even more money! save save save!
Why not just use the Gp2 cars for the F1 race. They are already on location at some circuits. Save even more money! save save save!
Because the GP2 race would be seen as "in season testing" - and the young driver initiative only allows for 4 test days / 2 years in an F1 car
Originally posted by Scotracer
The days of passion in motorsport sure are numbered
The days of passion in motorsport sure are numbered
And I am astonished that there are people who actually support this mad idea.
Originally posted by Boing 2
if gangbangs, wife cheating, and mock torturing prostitutes didn't get him out, a bit of common incompetence isn't gonna make a blind bit of difference.
if gangbangs, wife cheating, and mock torturing prostitutes didn't get him out, a bit of common incompetence isn't gonna make a blind bit of difference.
a) private life has nothing to do with how well he does his job
b) dosen't fit the definition of incompetant
Originally posted by David M. Kane
What does Max care, he's got his $300M.
What does Max care, he's got his $300M.
he's *far* from the only one making money out of F1
Maybe they can get a deal on some of those new cars that aren't selling. Just swap out the V8 engines and hand them out to the teams.
Originally posted by johnap
The idea of the major forms of racing all using a 2.0l engine in turbocharged and non-turbocharged forms is an interesting one.
The ACO's 2011 P1 engine rules have a 2.0l turbo engine with a maximum of 6 cylinders as their turbo option alongside NA (3.4l, maximum 8 cylinders) and diesel (3.7l twinturbo maximum 8 cylinders) options
The future Indycar engine is a 2.0l turbo though they are undecided on the layout; Audi want an inline 4, Honda want a V6. I'd say let them both use whichever layout they want, there has been talk of them trying to work out an equivalency.
Super 2000 rally and touring cars use normally aspriated 2.0l inline 4s, as does Formula 3.
Formula One wants to move to a small turbocharged format around 2012.
What I would suggest is that erach manufacturer is allowed to build a 2.0l engine of whichever confuiguration they want, be it V, inline, flat and 4 to 8 cylinders. I would elave the technology nice and open to things like direct injection, variable valve timing etc.
They can then adapt these engines to the various series, in turbo/non turbo form. and badge them differently i.e. VW in Indycar, Audi in sportscars/F1.
The idea of the major forms of racing all using a 2.0l engine in turbocharged and non-turbocharged forms is an interesting one.
The ACO's 2011 P1 engine rules have a 2.0l turbo engine with a maximum of 6 cylinders as their turbo option alongside NA (3.4l, maximum 8 cylinders) and diesel (3.7l twinturbo maximum 8 cylinders) options
The future Indycar engine is a 2.0l turbo though they are undecided on the layout; Audi want an inline 4, Honda want a V6. I'd say let them both use whichever layout they want, there has been talk of them trying to work out an equivalency.
Super 2000 rally and touring cars use normally aspriated 2.0l inline 4s, as does Formula 3.
Formula One wants to move to a small turbocharged format around 2012.
What I would suggest is that erach manufacturer is allowed to build a 2.0l engine of whichever confuiguration they want, be it V, inline, flat and 4 to 8 cylinders. I would elave the technology nice and open to things like direct injection, variable valve timing etc.
They can then adapt these engines to the various series, in turbo/non turbo form. and badge them differently i.e. VW in Indycar, Audi in sportscars/F1.
Yep, that's what I thought too. If theyre gonna spend (at least) 50 million a year developing engines, give them more room to show them off and race these engines. I don't see why people think it's so bad. All that is needed is a specification which can be easily tuned and de-tuned for different racing series.
If you can't make engines any cheaper, then make their use more widespread to justify the costs and investment.
The problem as I see it is that unless you enforce an engine freeze per manufacturer as per F1, or have a single engine supplier - rather than cut costs, you'll get into a situation where manufacturers are spending exponentially more and more money to gain less and less performance. Such is the nature of diminishing returns.. the first 90% of performance comes at a much lesser cost than the last 10%...
Also even if you freeze the engines - how much money is going to be spent per manufacturer in developing and testing their engine prior to the freeze? It may cut costs in the medium term, but in the short term it increases costs due to timelines -and in the long term means that engine manufacturers have little to no incentive to enhance their designs....
Also even if you freeze the engines - how much money is going to be spent per manufacturer in developing and testing their engine prior to the freeze? It may cut costs in the medium term, but in the short term it increases costs due to timelines -and in the long term means that engine manufacturers have little to no incentive to enhance their designs....
Cheap underpowered non-efficient engine = NASCAR.
Originally posted by ATM_Andy
It's actually not an inconceivable idea.
It's actually not an inconceivable idea.
Are you serious???
At least what the FIA should do is to start looking for a common set of engine rules for both Formula 1 and LMP1. The FIA and ACO should work together with the manufactures to make proper rules.
My proposal: allow any engine configuration and any number of engines to be used during the events, reduce fuel consumption to no more than 15 litres per 100 kilometres.
My proposal: allow any engine configuration and any number of engines to be used during the events, reduce fuel consumption to no more than 15 litres per 100 kilometres.
Same engine specs for F1, LMP1, WRC and possibly other top categories? That sounds great. Just make it a spec that isn't "freezed" for development.
Originally posted by Barramut
Cheap underpowered non-efficient engine = NASCAR.
Cheap underpowered non-efficient engine = NASCAR.
Underpowered?
You surely don't know WTF you are talking about.
You are wrong about cheap,too.
Call these guys for a quote on a turnkey motor.
Richard Childress Racing
425 Industrial Drive
Welcome, NC 27374
336.731.3334
Originally posted by Scotracer
The days of passion in motorsport sure are numbered
The days of passion in motorsport sure are numbered
The died with the active ride cars.
Originally posted by rdebourbon
The problem as I see it is that unless you enforce an engine freeze per manufacturer as per F1, or have a single engine supplier - rather than cut costs, you'll get into a situation where manufacturers are spending exponentially more and more money to gain less and less performance. Such is the nature of diminishing returns.. the first 90% of performance comes at a much lesser cost than the last 10%...
Also even if you freeze the engines - how much money is going to be spent per manufacturer in developing and testing their engine prior to the freeze? It may cut costs in the medium term, but in the short term it increases costs due to timelines -and in the long term means that engine manufacturers have little to no incentive to enhance their designs....
The problem as I see it is that unless you enforce an engine freeze per manufacturer as per F1, or have a single engine supplier - rather than cut costs, you'll get into a situation where manufacturers are spending exponentially more and more money to gain less and less performance. Such is the nature of diminishing returns.. the first 90% of performance comes at a much lesser cost than the last 10%...
Also even if you freeze the engines - how much money is going to be spent per manufacturer in developing and testing their engine prior to the freeze? It may cut costs in the medium term, but in the short term it increases costs due to timelines -and in the long term means that engine manufacturers have little to no incentive to enhance their designs....
True, very true.
WRC related press conference held at Portugal:
http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressrele...conference.aspx
http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressrele...conference.aspx
Q: Reiner Kuhn, Motorsport Aktuell, Switzerland: On one hand you speak about future technology in 2013, when the 1.6 turbo-charged engines will come. Is this too late? Everybody is talking about downsizing and smaller engines.
MM: Whatever we do has to fit with the future product range of the manufacturers. It’s no good doing something outside of that. We’re looking at the moment at a world engine for 2013. That’s to say an engine that would work in turbocharged form for F1 and then all the way down to naturally aspirated form for the lesser categories and in a turbocharged or naturally aspirated form for the World Rally Championship. It’s very early days. We are doing this in consultation with the manufacturers. In all probability, this will be 2013, that’s the timescale which with manufacturers tends to be relatively long. Therefore, if we do something at short notice it could cause problems. We will go to Super 2000 in 2011, and 2013 will be on us before we know it. There’s no question of us doing something between now and 2013, it’s simply too short a period. What will happen in 2013 if the idea of a world engine really starts to work remains to be seen.
What we would like to do is have an engine, take F1 for an example, where the base engine is not the subject of development; it’s the peripheral areas which are the subject of the development. An obvious area is KERS, that’s very much a peripheral area, also energy recovery from the exhaust and cooling systems, Also elements like direct injection and all sorts of others that we need to discuss with manufacturers. But our basic objective is that the money spent in motorsport on research and development should be relevant and useful to the car industry rather than a highly specialised area which has no relevance to anything else, and if we can - and I’m not sure we can - find a way of combining all forms of motorsport in that system then this would be useful because of the huge sums spent on motorsport. It’s not beyond our possibility that those sums could produce something useful for the future - even if it’s long time in the future.
MM: Whatever we do has to fit with the future product range of the manufacturers. It’s no good doing something outside of that. We’re looking at the moment at a world engine for 2013. That’s to say an engine that would work in turbocharged form for F1 and then all the way down to naturally aspirated form for the lesser categories and in a turbocharged or naturally aspirated form for the World Rally Championship. It’s very early days. We are doing this in consultation with the manufacturers. In all probability, this will be 2013, that’s the timescale which with manufacturers tends to be relatively long. Therefore, if we do something at short notice it could cause problems. We will go to Super 2000 in 2011, and 2013 will be on us before we know it. There’s no question of us doing something between now and 2013, it’s simply too short a period. What will happen in 2013 if the idea of a world engine really starts to work remains to be seen.
What we would like to do is have an engine, take F1 for an example, where the base engine is not the subject of development; it’s the peripheral areas which are the subject of the development. An obvious area is KERS, that’s very much a peripheral area, also energy recovery from the exhaust and cooling systems, Also elements like direct injection and all sorts of others that we need to discuss with manufacturers. But our basic objective is that the money spent in motorsport on research and development should be relevant and useful to the car industry rather than a highly specialised area which has no relevance to anything else, and if we can - and I’m not sure we can - find a way of combining all forms of motorsport in that system then this would be useful because of the huge sums spent on motorsport. It’s not beyond our possibility that those sums could produce something useful for the future - even if it’s long time in the future.
Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Weird then that Volkswagen suggested this very idea recently so they could have the same engine power their F3, Le Mans, and Indycars.
Weird then that Volkswagen suggested this very idea recently so they could have the same engine power their F3, Le Mans, and Indycars.
Porsche on the same boat... research and development board member Wolfgang Durheimer (Dec 2008) :
"We are evaluating world motorsports racing engine concepts because many rules at present are going to be written in a new form [soon]. It starts with the Formula One of the future, Le Mans, IndyCar. If we would be successful to suggest one engine base that fits different series, it would be much easier for us to go into different series because you wouldn't have to develop everything from scratch. If you have a base engine, one team can race Indy, ALMS, F1, and if you always have four cylinders, turbocharged, 2.X-liters, I think it would be a big chance for us. And this is the way we are working in some roundtable discussions, but it is not likely we are showing up in IndyCar in the next few years."
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20081210/FREE/812109984
Originally posted by Mika Mika
Are you serious???
Are you serious???
Yes, it has the potential to work very well if done properly. That said, I can't for the life of me see it happening any time soon.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.