Is it more plausible to see an assassination soon? Some crazed motorsport fan that just snaps?

Jeez. Max is totally obsessed with KERS.

It was nice when the teams decided what technology they would work on rather than the governing body.

If he's that obsessed with green he should be mandating turbo diesel and an even smaller fuel alottment for the weekend.

Mind you, it is interesting to watch McLaren reel in the overtaking with KERS...

If Max is obsessed with green then he should be introducting ridiculously tight CO2 emissions tests. KERS is just greenwankery without proper thought processes.

I don't know how they would police it though as car manufacturers could easily hide development in thier road car divisions. KERS is a giant white elephant as it stands.

Afff...

Have you ever heard about Fuel Injection?

Cheap for F1 standards, not by mine, at least.

Before my time but yes I can see why passive suspensions are pretty archaic.

I just can't dream of losing the high-output high-noise engines that make motorsport what it is. F1 would be A LOT less enticing to go see Live if they didn't make the noise they do (which is slowly being castrated with downsizes and rev limits).

Archaic, it's 1960s tech, and we're laughing about NASCAR and their carburetors.
F1 used to have active suspensions, ABS, TC-LC, 2 way telemetry, turbos, ground-effects, fully adjustable wings, aero bodies enclosing the wheels, all witch would have easily solved the issues with KERS.

You have to moderate between safety levels and driver-input and the technology involved. I don't really like TCS/LCS & ABS because they remove some of the effort away from the driver. They don't actually IMPROVE the cars, they just remove some of the driver error.

Ground effects? Well, the cars still use that but to a limited degree. Safety.

Turbos? Safety (I'm actually glad they got banned - turbo engines never did stir my giblets like NA screamers do)

Active Suspension? Williams dominance & Cost

Enclosed wheels? F1 is an open-wheel series (I wouldn't be against this returning but it goes against the spirit of the series)

I know we could go on all-day about what was removed from F1 and how it is definitely not the most advanced motorsport on earth anymore, but the one thing that shouldn't be removed is what makes it a car in the first place - the engine. Let's leave them to be works of art, not just another component. When Ferrari used to wheel out their latest evolution of the V12 symphony orchestra on-track the entire county the circuit was in would sizzle with the demonic howl. That's what I want back - it's what makes going to races worthwhile.

>
^ The safety issues would easily be dealt with by banning the drivers and banning spectators.

As to the Williams domination, so what ?!
Now we have the Brawn domination. Motorsport will always has periods of domination, else it wouldn't be motorsport.

Exactly. And how many times have we seen Max do this in the last 10 years? Too many to count.

This is beyond old and Max needs to go. Todt, Dennis, practically anyone would be better for motor sport.

Thank you. Max does NOT say that it would be from a single make, he only says that series would share engine rules. I interpret this as being a way to bolster the dying series like WRC and LMS by getting Ferrari/Toyota/Mercedes/Renault/BMW to say "Hey we've already got an engine that is legal for this class.. why not?".

It's really not a bad idea if it is a compact, portable engine like a turbo I4 which would fit in a number of different cars.

More than that, he wants to be the manufacturer of motorsports. A monopoly. World domination via motorsports. Heil Mosley.

lol, thanks for that

Why end here in standard motor for all series...
We could use standard monococ for F1, GP2 and WRC, also standard tyre for all series, and also we could recycle drivers so that they run one series per weekend, that would save us a hell of a lot money and time... I want the same stuff that Max is smoking

Nobody has suggested a STANDARD or SPEC engine. He's suggesting that the engine regs be aligned. What would be so bad about that?

And what HE has said is left out from standardation, engine name???
F1 and WRC with Turbo and GP2 not and that's it, they just repadge the engines so that Ferrari could still say its Ferrari...

I'm having trouble reading your English.

I'll just say this. Can you show me a screencap or quote something from that article where he mentions using a single make? Standard? Spec? Anything of that nature?

I haven't said it will be single maid. They will only leave "peripheral" areas open for development. With FIA's record that is not promising much. Clear enough for you now

>
^ Motor racing needs a series that is actually about motor racing.
No spec crap, no freezes BS, no formula, just let the teams innovate.

Its actually a good idea. However, I don't think it'll be a single engine type. I would think its already starting to happen with the 2.0l I-4 and the 3.4L V-8:

>> It would have the benefit of having manufacturers compete in more forms of motorsports. Audi/VW/Porsche& Peugeot that run teams in LMP1 could also run teams in F1 or IRL using the same engine, and investments in F1 could be carried over to other motorsports. German DTM cars could be raced in Japanese SuperGT, etc. In addition to engines, associated components such as the gearbox could also be used between series.

>> For the 3.4l V-8, starting 2011 it'll become standard on LeMans, and is already standard in Japanese series like SuperGT and Formula-Nippon. Moreover, the 3.4L V-8s that the Japanese run are based of the 3.5l V-8s from the IndyCars. If standardization does happen, the 4.0l V-8 in DTM and GP2 could easily be adapted to 3.4l V-8s, much like F-N and SuperGT were; or perhaps everyone could move to 2.0L I-4s and 4.0L V-8s.

>> On the other end the S2000-spec is becoming the rallying and standard in touring cars, it would be interesting if the spec would further spread to other forms of racing such as open-wheeled racing. The engines should keep the maximum price of €168,00.

>> The standardization of high-cost components between different forms of motorsports makes sense, especially being that a lot of lower-tier sports don't get high viewership, or attention; lowering the cost of participation for teams and manufacturers is nothing but a good thing.

>> Its a huge cost benefit that would insure investments are wisely made. Also, it will increase competitiveness, as teams from other series would be able to compete in F1 if they could carry-over major components like engine/gearbox between sports. For instance, s Penske team would be able to participate in F1, or Williams in IRL. These teams can gain additional revenue streams without the huge investment needed.

Anyone else think this world engine nonsense is the biggest load of shite ever?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/77996

Have any manufactures criticised it?

It is a load of nonsense, but thankfully, for now, it's optional. What I fear though is that the FIA will use special methods of coercion in order to make the championships use this engine formula.

Best thing to do is free up the engine regulations and give them only a certain amount of fuel to play with. It worked brilliantly for Group C, until a certain someone mucked it up.

They've tried similar things in karting. Was a complete disaster.

Max can't leave too soon.
But it would be interesting to know how many manufacturers were present. Both or all three?

I'd be inclined to say "both".

How would the World Engine be much worse than the near-spec V8s of today?

This is about the most dumb-assed idea i've ever heard of.

Talk about taking the wind out of the sails of technology.

The big appeal to me is having all the engine builders having the freedom to maximise.

Max must go, along with all his arcane ideas.

Like this is gonna fly in the rest of the world.....

"Er excuse me chaps (he turns to Nascar fans) would you mind if we threw out that big lump of pig iron and put in this nice clean, 2Litre engine....???"
I would expect the next thing to be heard would be the dropping of beer cans and the reloading of a pump action shotgun!!!

Ditto down in Oz to replace the V8's there, or the DTM for that matter....

However, the only thing I will support is the 2L engine as the base for rally championships both national and world, rather than that bloody 1600cc Turbo crap they are talking about for 2011...

Yes there is no doubt.... It is time for a very large broom to sweep the cabinet of morons in Paris, who have all become far too comfortable in their Ivory tower!

I fear DTM is done already. I can bet when they get new regulations in 2011 there will be something like 4-cylinder diesel with hybrid drive and compulsory use of biofuel.
But it is ridiculous anyway. If motor racing is a SPORT then there's no need for racing cars to be similar to street cars. Originally javelin was a weapon designed to kill other humans or animals. It more or less went out of date about 500 years ago. Still javelin throw is a part of modern athletics and nobody complains it is too old-fashioned or too violent.

A conveniant thing about a world enigne is it locks a lot of manufacturers and competitors into the FIA program reducing the threat of any breakaways

Absolutely ridiculous - Max needs to stop telling fans what they want (re. the quotes about "fans don't care about technology they can't see etc.).

Max - this is motorsport, the operative part of the word being SPORT, i.e. competition. Any form of standardisation flies completely in the face of what the sport was originally conceived as. Most fans (as in proper fans, not fair-weather "entertainment" junkies) won't stand for it, these "initiatives" are going to kill motorsport. Although Max is being clever and rather than throwing the frog into boiling water, he's gradually heating up the water a degree at a time until the frog is dead before it even realises.

-Tightly specced V8 engines, 2006
-Engine freeze, end of 2006
-Control tyres (unofficially), 2007
-Control ECUs and control tyres made official, 2008
-And now this

Next we'll have common parts like gearboxes, wheel hubs, and even bodywork all over the place, all introduced gradually.

And that's just F1. F3000 was killed at the end of 1995, F3 is probably living on borrowed time, and the less said about this centrally prepared, so-called "Formula 2" the better.

They need to keep it simple, draft a set of open, but clear technical regulations saying what you can and can't do, then let competitors (be they manufacturers, constructors or privateers) do whatever the hell they want within them. F1, F2 in place of GP2 and the current so-called "F2" and other similar level series, F3, then F4 replacing the likes of FRenault and FBMW

Not that I hold out too much hope for a revolution. Max just needs to remind people of his best friend, "cost-cutting", and then everyone seems to fall back in line

Well naturally with the lack of evolving technology in motorsport, engineers and designers will be drawn away to other projects and employers. Maybe it's one big conspiracy by their manufacturers to get their best engineers working on other more profitable projects

The world engine concept will never take to Formula One. The teams will fight it every step of the way.

May I ask what's wrong with a 1.6 Turbo? They'd produce plenty of torque and power - easily equalling the current 2.0T units if restricted correctly.

I don't mind one set of regulations crossing a number of series. Say F1 adopting the 2011 LMP1 regulations (3.4 Litre NA engines or 2.0 Litre turbos). But one engine for a wide range of motorsports? No. The engine formula does need changing though, the current formula of 2.4 Litre V8s is expensive, basically spec and pointless.

COST!

We have many manufacturers happy to have and have produced a good base 2L engine... why firk that all up with the insistance of a new engine!?!

I am quite well aware of the power capability of small capacity engines with monster turbos and super chargers... but the principle behindthe whole idea is to reduce costs. NO ONE is currently running a 1600cc Turbo engine.

Thus it simply adds more cost and expense to develop one, just because some arse at the FIA decides that is the size the engine should be.

Makes ZERO sense whatsover to introduce this in 2011.

First of all, I am not in favour of this "new engine" malarkey.

But, why can't they keep the 2L lump and just re-sleeve it and re-work the head, leaving the crank the same?

On the contrary, true motorsport is about automotive relevancy, without it, it's not a sport. Motorsport was conceived to improve the breed and sell (the winner's) cars.
True automotive racefans will never compare motorsport with other forms of sport, only the casual comatose driver fanboys will do that.

I'm glad DTM is finally waking up.

For some series it appears the the nightmare of irrelevant racertainment if finally coming to and end.

I am in no way an engineer so there are others much better suited to answer this one. But it does strike me that its more cost/work/effort than is actually needed?

I always thought it was Max who originally pushed for the the basic 2 Litre engine as the base engine of choice from which all derivitives could be created, so I have no idea where this damn 1600cc idea for rallying came from? If it was that fool Chandler then he needs to go when Max does.... the guy has done ZERO to help increase the exposure and coverage of top level rallying, in fact it could be argued that he and his team are the very reason the championship is in the crap right now!

Can I get an amen to that.
Unfortunately it won't happen.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this should be the way round it, only that it might be possible without mega cost. Although, as you rightly say, why mess with engine regs in the first place.

It's a manufacturer that first proposed the idea. First after that it was investigated by the FIA, by FIA consultant Tony Purcell, former Cosworth engine designer Alex Hitzinger, and the automotive engineering consultant firm Ricardo. As NASCAR also seemed to be interrested their needs were also considered in the investigation. The question now isn't so much if it should be done, but how it should be done. It should however be clear that it isn't about a one-make engine which most people in this thread seems to assume.

Today different racing series are using different racing engines based on different regulations, and as a result of that, a manufacturer that want to compete in a certain sport must start a costly development program in order to produce an engine that is only useful in that particular racing series. As Ulrick Baretsky, Audi Sport, put it:
"If you imagine that I go to my board of directors and ask for $8 million to develop a rally engine and they say, "Well, what else can it be used for?", and I say "Nothing, that's it", they would say "You are mad!" But if I can go and say to them that I need $8 million to develop an engine that can be used for rallying, Formula 3 and Touring Cars, then it is much easier to get agreement on that."

It is also important that the race engine use technology that is relevant for road cars today and in the near future and with the inline four being the most common production engine it is the logical choice for an engine configuration, and it's an engine that can be installed in almost any chassi. In order to offer the required power range of about 200-700 hp there will likely be two engines, a 1.6 litre engine and a 2.0 litre engine using the same engine block and cylinder head. For the more powerful versions turbocharging will be used, and it's reasonably easy to control the output of such an engine by means of boost, engine speed, fuel limitations and/or the use of air restrictors. The use of direct injection has also been suggested as that is the future of the production engine.

For marketing reasons the car manufacturers also need an engine that is 'theirs', so hopefully FIA will give the manufacturers the freedom to design their own engine, as opposed to a FIA spec block and head kit even if that could be offer as an alternative. It is also important that the manufacturers are given the opportunity to develope engine technology that is roadcar relevant, FIA should for instance not ban technologies like variable valve timing, low friction coatings or new materials that can be applied on engines elsewhere. But I also think it's reasonable to force the manufacturers to sell cylinder heads and engine blocks in a rough machined state for a certain maximum cost for anyone that wants to make their own engine.

First off I cant stand what max moseley stands for.

But, after reading the article I agree with some aspects of a "common" or "standard" baseline for engines. Hear me out for a sec.

A 1.6L and 2.0L engine is common in many road cars and gives manufacturers/shareholders a more rational reason for spending money on racing R&D. Thus, having events like Honda 2008, BMW 2009 and probably Toyota 2009 decreases. Having more stable grids adds to the credibility of the Formula.

Form a performance stand point a 2.0L Turbo will make an ultra fast F1 car. I believe 1.5L Turbos were raced before, someone can answer on that if they know.

The end of the article referenced Subaru and their unique Boxer engine. While it wasn't the "Standard" V8 configuration, it would have to conform to either the 1600cc or 2000cc regulations. So teams can develop their engines to gain a performance advantage so long as they comply with the CC regs. An engine which has better fuel consumption with everything else equal is a better engine then one with worse fuel economy. These can be non horsepower adding enhancements.

However, allowing for further developments in devices like KERS costs will not go down but racing will be entertaining. But by creating a baseline Formula for the primary categories of motorsport the lower tier series will have to fall in line. I can envision 250cc Formula Fords in the future. This can be affordable, fast, racing for everyone.

Performance enthusiasts will always want free regulations but in the history of the internal combustion engine, what different approach can be taken?

The next step is solar power engines.

Well said. The idea of using the same engine regulations across as many formulas as possible is a great idea. If we had this engine now teams in F1 could be looking at Porsche, Audi, Subaru, Ford, Seat etc for an engine deal. Rather then the possibility of just 3 engine suppliers if the rumours of Toyota and Renault pull outs are true. I don't think we're going to be looking at a single engine built to a spec supplied by the FIA rather a set of engine regulations that at their core are common across formulas. Kinda like the Cosworth DFV was used in F1 and with some modification F3000, LeMans and CART.

The World Engine is actually a pretty decent idea, but I'm not completely convinced it'll actually bring more manufacturers to WRC, WTCC, etc. Many racing categories (rallying, touring cars, GTs) are supposed to be based on actual cars. Its possible to be just an engine manufacturer in ow categories, but obviously Seat can't install a Toyota world engine in its WTCC car, can they.

Now think of Mr. Baretsky before the Audi Board:
-We need 8M to develop a rally engine.
-Well, what else can it be used for?
-For rallying, touring cars and F3.
- -
-We need 15M to develop a rally car for the engine.
-Well, what else can it be used for?
-Nothing, it's a rally car. By the way, we would need another 15M to develop a touring car...

Well since the rally car will be S2000 it should be quite a bit cheaper to create a WTCC version. Or at least I think that was the idea.