Jump to content


Photo

The 2010 Cosworth Units


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#1 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:23

DIdn't see anything regarding the Cosworth Power teams. however, I noticed this thing on www.grandprix.com regarding it.

Campos and Petrov

Adrian Campos was supposed to name his drivers during the Valencia weekend but he was unable to do so. The latest stories suggest that this was because the team's planned number one driver is Pedro de la Rosa - who is currently McLaren's test driver. He is believed to be waiting to see if Epsilon Euskadi gets an entry. This is entirely logical as Campos is committed to run Cosworth engines and Epsilon is likely to arrive with a much more competitive Renault deal (there will be some of the French engines available when Red Bull Racing announces its planned switch to Mercedes-Benz).

The word in F1 circles is that the Cosworth engine is not going to be very competitive. Designed several years ago, it is heavier and less fuel efficient than the current generation of engines and while this can be improved upon in the mid-term, it is not going to happen before the start of the 2010 season. It is reckoned that because there will be no refuelling next year, Cosworth cars will have to carry an additional 18kg of fuel. This will mean that the designers will have to build bigger fuel tanks and this will effect both the weight distribution of the cars and the handling. The result of all this will be that the cars will use their tyres less efficiently than the existing teams. Engineers from rival teams calculate that this will cost the three new Cosworth teams around three to four seconds a lap.

It is whispered that Campos has found the support of Telefonica, which was a sponsor of Renault until the start of 2007. The Spanish telecommunications giant then moved its support and became the title sponsor of the European GP. There is also talk of support from Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA), the second largest bank in Spain behind McLaren sponsor Santander. The bank has recently focused on overseas expansion, notably in Asia. Thus an F1 sponsorship makes a lot of sense. In addition there have been stories of a sponsorship involving El Corte Ingles, a highly diversified company, best known for its department stores. The company is also looking to expand internationally.

The latest rumours say that the second Campos seat would likely go to Russian Vitaly Petrov, who has been racing in GP2 in recent years with Campos's team (which is now owned by Alejandro Agag and renamed Addax). The 24-year-old Russian seems to have plenty of money behind him, although the identity of his sponsors is not really clear. He is rumoured to have as much as $15m to take to a Formula 1 team and, of course, the F1 world is keen to get more Russian involvement in the sport, as it is a country which has potential for many of the F1 sponsors.


I'm somwehat amazed that the people in Cosworth haven't been spending these past 6 months designing a brand new unit with the 2010 rules in mind.

Or are they running "under budget"?


Advertisement

#2 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:26

DIdn't see anything regarding the Cosworth Power teams. however, I noticed this thing on www.grandprix.com regarding it.



I'm somwehat amazed that the people in Cosworth haven't been spending these past 6 months designing a brand new unit with the 2010 rules in mind.

Or are they running "under budget"?



they are (under budget) considering they have to supply engines for 5.5m/season


#3 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:27

DIdn't see anything regarding the Cosworth Power teams. however, I noticed this thing on www.grandprix.com regarding it.



I'm somwehat amazed that the people in Cosworth haven't been spending these past 6 months designing a brand new unit with the 2010 rules in mind.

Or are they running "under budget"?


Maybe they don't want to spend too much in case these teams don't actually make it to the grid.

#4 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:34

the cosworth engine is Freezed back in 2006
they have to use that exact same engine with some minor adjustments allowed for everyone
thats why they are not working on it/cannot work on it


#5 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:36

the cosworth engine is Freezed back in 2006
they have to use that exact same engine with some minor adjustments allowed for everyone
thats why they are not working on it/cannot work on it



this is true for all current F1 engines ... all were frozen to 2006 specs and were only allowed "reliability" work

#6 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:36

How big is the evolutionary leap between the engines from 2007 to 2010?

#7 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:43

How big is the evolutionary leap between the engines from 2007 to 2010?


Bigger than most people think within an "engine freeze".

In terms of power outputs, the Cosworth will probably be something like 10-20BHP down on the Mercedes unit. But, I am bemused by the "heavier" remark - I thought they were all limited to 95kg min and the Cosworth unit was that weight?

#8 Spa95

Spa95
  • Member

  • 861 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:44

Engineers from rival teams calculate that this will cost the three new Cosworth teams around three to four seconds a lap.

Surely a typo - No? :|

#9 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:44

the cosworth engine is Freezed back in 2006
they have to use that exact same engine with some minor adjustments allowed for everyone
thats why they are not working on it/cannot work on it


I don't believe that's correct. They are effectively a new supplier and as such could redesign their engine and get it homologated, the same as any other currently non-participating company could if they wanted to join the party.

#10 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:47

I don't believe that's correct. They are effectively a new supplier and as such could redesign their engine and get it homologated, the same as any other currently non-participating company could if they wanted to join the party.


could have is more accurate, the tender they submitted was for a reworked 2006 engine. Anyways, like I said before they are limited in terms of how much they can charge for the engine supplies so that pretty much rules out a complete redesign on cost terms.

#11 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:49

Surely a typo - No? :|


That's what I thought. No way is that amount possible :rotfl:

#12 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,152 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 26 August 2009 - 14:53

One of the main performance differentiators of the engines is fuel efficiency these days. It means carrying less weight in fuel. That is a potential advantage that is going to be magnified next season without fuel stops. Imagine if say the Merc engine can complete a race distance off 5 laps less worth of fuel than the Cosworth. Its a big dissadvantage.

Something along those lines is the case.

#13 PNSD

PNSD
  • Member

  • 3,276 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 26 August 2009 - 15:02

Honda and Renault showed the difference in only one year of little 'freeze development' can be bad... But to be 3-4 seconds??!

Right now the field is spread by a max of 2 seconds on raw pace...

That is likley to shrink for the current teams next year, at least not getting any larger.

Are we going to see the current teams running within that pace, then the newcomers a further second back? Or do people think the new teams will be upto speed with the last 10 or so cars?

#14 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 August 2009 - 15:26

Bigger than most people think within an "engine freeze".

In terms of power outputs, the Cosworth will probably be something like 10-20BHP down on the Mercedes unit. But, I am bemused by the "heavier" remark - I thought they were all limited to 95kg min and the Cosworth unit was that weight?


95kg is the minimum weight, so it could weigh more.

#15 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 August 2009 - 15:31

could have is more accurate, the tender they submitted was for a reworked 2006 engine. Anyways, like I said before they are limited in terms of how much they can charge for the engine supplies so that pretty much rules out a complete redesign on cost terms.


Cost and time are the only reasons why they are going to continue using the 2006 engine. I don't think the tender comes into it all as that was for the standard F1 engine when that was proposed.

#16 stonebutter

stonebutter
  • Member

  • 697 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 26 August 2009 - 15:37

That's what I thought. No way is that amount possible :rotfl:


Unless Luca Badoer is driving your car. :drunk:

#17 UprightRacer

UprightRacer
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 26 August 2009 - 16:16

Quote on ITV F1 from cosworth, RE the cosworth units.

Cosworth fully expects its engines to be up to current standards of competitiveness in 2010, with the British firm confident it will return to Formula 1 in stronger shape than when it left.

The legendary engine maker will supply its V8 power units to new entrants Team US F1, Manor GP and Campos Meta next season, having last supplied F1 engines to Williams and Toro Rosso in 2006

Speaking in an interview with itv.com/f1’s James Allen, Cosworth CEO Tim Routsis acknowledged that the manufacturer engines currently in use on the grid had come a long way in terms of reliability in the last three years – but says Cosworth has made sure it will return with a competitive unit.


more on ITV, link

Cosworth units info




#18 FordFan

FordFan
  • Member

  • 3,456 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 26 August 2009 - 16:28

Not sure what's going on with this story.

Seems to be based on an interview with Patrick Head, which can be found in several places.

First, Head claims that the Cosworth teams may have to carry 15 kgs extra of fuel, and that it will add .5 seconds a lap, plus extra tire wear (which could add more). But that's a big leap to 3 to 4 seconds.

Second, Head's speculation about the weight assumes that the Cosworth will run unlimited revs (20K). The Cosworth people themselves have suggested de-tuning the engine for longevity purposes - which will reduce power, but also increase fuel-efficiency.

Third, Head is basing his claims on the 2006-spec engine that Williams ran. So far as I know, Head has no special insight as to what the 2010 engine will look like, other than that it is based on that platform.

4th, the Cosworth people have modeled their expected engine performance with this year's cars, and concluded there would be no appreciative difference in placings - which certainly wouldn't be the case with a difference of 3 secs a lap.

So, nobody really knows.

#19 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 1,799 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 26 August 2009 - 18:02

In an interview they did with autosport they say that their engine will be very competitive cause it wasn't concerned by the freeze and then they don't have to stick with 4 years old parts.

Advertisement

#20 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 839 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 August 2009 - 05:09

95kg is the minimum weight, so it could weigh more.

Back in 06 Cosworth was the lightest engine out there, right on the limit. It also revved the fastest. And blew up a lot.

Having it rev limited to the same level as the rest of the engines today should somewhat improve reliability as well as fuel economy.

It remains to be seen how much power can it deliver.

#21 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,534 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 27 August 2009 - 05:17

That's what I thought. No way is that amount possible :rotfl:


But it's on the internet, it must be correct!

#22 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 August 2009 - 08:38

Back in 06 Cosworth was the lightest engine out there, right on the limit. It also revved the fastest. And blew up a lot.

Having it rev limited to the same level as the rest of the engines today should somewhat improve reliability as well as fuel economy.

It remains to be seen how much power can it deliver.


It did not blow up a lot.

#23 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 August 2009 - 11:11

It did not blow up a lot.

It used a liner-less block, and I may, as is often the case, be mistaken, but I think that form of construction has been banned for reasons of cost. That would require a substantial re-design.

#24 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 27 August 2009 - 11:35

Cosworth should have no Budget, till they gets money from those three teams, so no money no work. Now that Campos said that his team spend some 8mil for nothing yet, I assume this went to Cossy, meaning some 5mil from three teams to Cosworth. Could some one tell us if Cosworth can design and build a strong bullit proof F1 engine with that kind of money?

#25 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 August 2009 - 11:52

Cosworth should have no Budget, till they gets money from those three teams, so no money no work. Now that Campos said that his team spend some 8mil for nothing yet, I assume this went to Cossy, meaning some 5mil from three teams to Cosworth. Could some one tell us if Cosworth can design and build a strong bullit proof F1 engine with that kind of money?


An engined based on their 2006 model should easily fit the bill, the question is how competitive it will be.

#26 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 August 2009 - 11:53

It used a liner-less block, and I may, as is often the case, be mistaken, but I think that form of construction has been banned for reasons of cost. That would require a substantial re-design.


No idea if that's correct or not, but Cosworth have said the engine will be based on the 2006 one. How much work they will need to do or indeed will do is anyone's guess.

Edit.
Think your wrong. Looking around it looks like Cosworth had already homologated the engine, so it must conform to the rules.
http://www.themotorr...ack-with-usgpe/

Edited by Clatter, 27 August 2009 - 12:16.


#27 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,333 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 27 August 2009 - 12:36

Woah, additional 18 kg's is a massive disadvantage.

#28 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 September 2009 - 14:50

Regarding the Cosworth engine there are a few points that is often overlooked, IMHO.

The current engines are often referred to as modern F1 engines and the Cosworth as a old engine (if the Cosworth is based on the CA from 2006). The point is that ALL the current engines are also based on their 2006 spec engines, admittedly having been fine tuned within the limits of the engine freeze. There are no engines on the track today that is of a completely new design since 2006. In fact all engine manufacturers had to submit their final spec engine for homologation during the 2006 season. Obviously there have been developments and adaptions to the new rev limits that has been imposed in 08 and 09 and Cosworth has got to catch up with that.

The 2006 Cosworth was built according to the minimum weight limit and CG rules. Cosworth even had to add artificial weight to components high up on the engine to meet the CG rule (they had no problems with the minimum weight but had to add material high up to meet the CG rule...). So the engine should be the same weight and CG as all the other engines.

In 2006 I remember reading articles both in Autosport, but not least in German magazines that reported the Cosworth as the:

-Most powerful engine
-Highest revving (first engine to achieve 20000rpm both on the dyno and in race situations)

One article with Alex Hitzinger (working with Cosworth in 06, came from Toyota) discussed the success of the 06 Cosworth and it was regarded as one of the best engines of the season whereas the Toyota was regarded as a dog (or one of the worst...). It seems like the Toyota still is the worst engine....

Mark Webber (who drove for Williams in 06) said that he would be missing the power of the Cosworth when Williams switched to Toyotas (for financial reasons I guess).

My point is that I think that Cosworth has a very solid and good engine to work on, whether they will be able to get good fuel consumption and power at 18000 rpm is another question obviously. Reliability is also an unknown but they only had one engine failure in 06 (at the 20000rpm limit) so the engine should be able to last I hope. In fact Cosworth ran the engine for 500km at 20000rpm and did 2000km on the dyno with reduced revs (one race is around 300km - not sure how many kilometers a car runs at a race weekend in total).

If the above is to be considered then Cosworth will have one of the best engines from when the engine freeze was introduced as a basis and Toyota have one of the worst engines. That the Toyota is struggling is commonly accepted and the FIA has also said that the other manufacturers have got to detune their engines to the Toyota level, this should also play into Cosworths hand as they don't have to beat the Mercedes engine, just get on the same level as the Toyota. The more I have read about the 2006 Cosworth engine the more I believe that the 2010 Cosworth is actually gonna be a pretty good engine.

I think that the Cosworth engine might actually surprise some people but Cosworths problem is probably the teams that use their engines. I guess that unless Williams also opt for Cosworths we will find most of the Cosworth powered cars at the back end of the grid, but my guess is that the cars wont be on the rear of the grid because of the engine but rather the chassis. But, hey someone migth "do a Brawn" and surpise everyone (which would be great).

Edited by DFV, 24 September 2009 - 14:54.


#29 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 September 2009 - 15:06

Nice post DFV :up:

#30 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 September 2009 - 16:32

Nice post DFV :up:

+1. Welcome to the boards also :wave:

#31 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,556 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 September 2009 - 16:35

Even is Cosworth is the worst in terms of power i think the recent FIA decision means that all the other engines have to be brought down to it's level of power.

Edited by Diablobb81, 24 September 2009 - 16:36.


#32 pgj

pgj
  • Member

  • 1,691 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 24 September 2009 - 16:36

Nice post DFV :up:


+1

:up:


#33 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 September 2009 - 16:59

Thanks for the kind words :)

#34 Callisto

Callisto
  • Member

  • 2,672 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 24 September 2009 - 17:09

i was just thinking about the cosworth block,we know it was reliable on the dynos doing 500k,but when the block is fitted to the car will the engine be under more strain,due to the fact that on a dyno no parts are touching the ground ,i.e (wheels).will the block be reliable when under race condition stress,i think we will only truly find out how good/reliable it is under tough conditions

#35 UprightRacer

UprightRacer
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 24 September 2009 - 17:21


Its fun to speculate, :) personally i would like the Cosworth engines to be strong next year, but without inside info i guess we can never be sure, however it did look strong in 2006, whilst the Mercedes was so so, the engine development since has been largely about making them more reliable, and consistent (Engines now loose less HP per mileage) over more race distances with a hidden agenda of power gain (Ferrari/Mercedes).

Don't know much, but I’m sure they’re addressing every avenue to build the engine up to spec, are they unrestricted in the means that they do this?

The issues that i think may occur are the loss of power over 3 races and unreliability over a lager race distance, not the HP.

Only time will tell,

UR



#36 alexbiker

alexbiker
  • Member

  • 583 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 24 September 2009 - 17:42

could have is more accurate, the tender they submitted was for a reworked 2006 engine. Anyways, like I said before they are limited in terms of how much they can charge for the engine supplies so that pretty much rules out a complete redesign on cost terms.


There really is no design freedom. The weight, v-angle, capacity, rev-limit, c-of-g, materials and ECU are all sepcificed. So, there's nothing but reworked 2006 engines out there.

The ridiculousness of the whole thing takes my breath away. It would be so much cheaper to stick with rev-limited, restricted 3.0L V10s. Instead, to please Ferrari's marketing department, the teams spent millions upon millions developing screaming V8s which then got limited down. Madness.

#37 Uppili

Uppili
  • Member

  • 31 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 September 2009 - 17:48

For what its worth....

Automoto365.com back in 2007 said that the current Mercedes engine is actually Cosworth in all but name. It said that back in 2006 when the V8's were launched, the original Mercedes designed engine was so bad (underpowered and unreliable....in pre-season testing Kimi kept blowing engines left, right and center) that at the end of 2006 they basically scrapped that engine and when Cosworth laid off the development guys (after Williams switched to Toyota), Mercedes HPE hired them and they developed a new engine around the CA2006 architecture.

Of course things have moved on since then and Mercedes has put in considerable development to the engine, but it must have been real good if a manufacturer like MB HPE got inspired by the Cosworth design.

#38 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 September 2009 - 17:55

i was just thinking about the cosworth block,we know it was reliable on the dynos doing 500k,but when the block is fitted to the car will the engine be under more strain,due to the fact that on a dyno no parts are touching the ground ,i.e (wheels).will the block be reliable when under race condition stress,i think we will only truly find out how good/reliable it is under tough conditions


They raced the block in 2006 and only had one engine failure (big end bearing in Malaysia) so I think the block will not be the issue, besides Cosworth has been making racing engines for a long time and should have a sufficient database and they possess quite advanced modelling tools as far as I know.

Frictional losses are obviously a major issue and pistons are of vital importance here. Cosworth is a renowned piston manufacturer and should be at the forefront of piston tech I guess.

Another point was also raised and that is that the engine equalisation for next year is to get all engines down to the level of the least powerful engine. I guess this would also include the output of the Cosworth? So ,anyway the Cosworths should have the same power as the rest of the field (maybe the FIA getting back at the manufacturers for not allowing Cosworth to run to 20.000rpm...). Driveability (in effect the shape of the torque curve and the area under it) and fuel consumption is another issue obviously.

I'm personally actually very excited about next season with 4 new teams and Cosworth back. I think (hope) it's good for F1, despite what Ferrari seems to think about which teams that the fans want in F1 (but sometimes they seem a bit larger than life...).

#39 Callisto

Callisto
  • Member

  • 2,672 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 24 September 2009 - 18:21

i agree with everything you posted,was the 2006 cossie block running with t.c?,would this limit the amount of torque/stress the engine was under?.

Advertisement

#40 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 September 2009 - 19:01

Last year IIRC, or 07 perhaps, Ferrari and Merc introduced upgrades that seemed to depend on new lubricants from Shell and Mobil. New pistons I think, with less friction - no rings? Or do they not have rings anyway?

What do you guys think about Cosworths with this lubricants issue? ATM the most powerful engines are linked with big lubricants companies.

#41 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 September 2009 - 21:02

As TC was legal in 2006 the Williams car (as all the other cars) had TC in 2006. I think that harmonic vibrations was more of an issue than torsional rigidity in the block.

I'm no expert but I suspect that cooperation with a major oil company does make a difference, but not sure how large the contribution would be.

#42 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 September 2009 - 00:47

I'm doubting these reports. The FIA is pinning a lot on the new teams joining, and if the teams had no option to run the Cosworth, there is no way the FIA would let them use it if it were so poor. Likewise, Cosworth have a name to protect, and so there is no way they'd let the new teams use their engine if it is so down on power. The Cosworth may not be the best engine in 2010, but three or four seconds off the pace? Not a chance.

#43 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 September 2009 - 07:05

I think it's highly unlikely that the Cosworths will be way down on power, but it's going to be very interesting to see how they are on fuel consumption.

Regarding power output I know that the CA had around 740HP when introduced in 2006 and made 755HP in it's final 2006 spec. The power level of the 2009 spec engines is believed to be around the 700+ I guess?

Re read the FIA's decision on engine equalisation:

Engine Performance

Following suggestions that there is a differential between the performance of engines used in Formula One, the World Motor Sport Council has decided that should this be the case, and should the teams wish to eliminate this performance differential, they may be allowed to do so by reducing the performance of the more powerful engines. However, no engine upgrades will be allowed.


This basically means that this is a voluntary equalisation and the manufacturers/FOTA has got to agree on it. Mercedes voluntarily giving up their engine advantage. Is this just one of FIA's attempts to create friction within FOTA...???? I agree that from a safety standpoint it makes sense, but...

#44 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 25 September 2009 - 07:12

I think it's highly unlikely that the Cosworths will be way down on power, but it's going to be very interesting to see how they are on fuel consumption.

Regarding power output I know that the CA had around 740HP when introduced in 2006 and made 755HP in it's final 2006 spec. The power level of the 2009 spec engines is believed to be around the 700+ I guess?

Re read the FIA's decision on engine equalisation:

Engine Performance

Following suggestions that there is a differential between the performance of engines used in Formula One, the World Motor Sport Council has decided that should this be the case, and should the teams wish to eliminate this performance differential, they may be allowed to do so by reducing the performance of the more powerful engines. However, no engine upgrades will be allowed.


This basically means that this is a voluntary equalisation and the manufacturers/FOTA has got to agree on it. Mercedes voluntarily giving up their engine advantage. Is this just one of FIA's attempts to create friction within FOTA...???? I agree that from a safety standpoint it makes sense, but...


How does it make sense from a safety standpoint?



#45 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 September 2009 - 07:41

In the same way that it made sense to decrease the rev limit or to go from a 3l engine with over 940HP to 2,4l V8 with less power....

If you decrease power, speeds will come down. The speed a car travels kind of has a influence on safety in my book.

#46 alexbiker

alexbiker
  • Member

  • 583 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 25 September 2009 - 22:16

In the same way that it made sense to decrease the rev limit or to go from a 3l engine with over 940HP to 2,4l V8 with less power....

If you decrease power, speeds will come down. The speed a car travels kind of has a influence on safety in my book.


Actually, bugger all difference. People don't often crash on straights. The overwhelming problem is corner speed, because that's where it all goes wrong. Terminal speed at the end of a straight has influence if something breaks, but that's rare compared with spins and tangles at corners, and Vmax can often be a function of corner exit speed. A prime example of this would be MotoGP, where power and torque have dropped, and so have lap times.

#47 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 25 September 2009 - 23:23

In the same way that it made sense to decrease the rev limit or to go from a 3l engine with over 940HP to 2,4l V8 with less power....

If you decrease power, speeds will come down. The speed a car travels kind of has a influence on safety in my book.


The only difference it has made is how quickly the cars reach their top speed, it makes no difference to the cornering speed (for the majority of corners), and thats where most crashes tend to happen.

#48 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 26 September 2009 - 10:55

I see your points but even though most accidents happen during cornering that's not a valid reason not to do something about top speed. The governing body has done lot's of regulatory changes to bring down cornering speed but have also done changes to bring down top speed (going down in engine size, banning turbos in the '80ies and the recent rev limits). What else, besides increased engine life in the case of reduced rev limits, was the reason for going down in engine size and rev limits these last years?

I agree that most accidents happen in corners (without having studied the statistics) but if you DO have a accident at top speed then the top speed makes a BIG difference. Just think about how big difference there is in stopping distance if you are going 80kph compared to 70kph.

I don't really think the difference between the engines is big enough to make a big difference in top speed, but the FIA obviously feels that it's correct to decrease the power of the strongest engines. This is probably just as much with regards to respecting the so called engine freeze I guess.

#49 alexbiker

alexbiker
  • Member

  • 583 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 26 September 2009 - 12:24

It is naive to expect the FIA to do anything for safety reasons only. The serious injury this year was caused by open bodywork letting a spring out, and an open cockpit letting it hit someone. This F1 serious injury - and we're yet to discover how bad it was - was mirrored by a death in F2. What safety measures are being taken to prevent it happening again? None whatsoever.

This is about politics and sticking the boot into FOTA. No teams will agree on equalising down, so Meredes carry an advantage and that will cause disagreement.



#50 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 26 September 2009 - 13:27

It is naive to expect the FIA to do anything for safety reasons only. The serious injury this year was caused by open bodywork letting a spring out, and an open cockpit letting it hit someone. This F1 serious injury - and we're yet to discover how bad it was - was mirrored by a death in F2. What safety measures are being taken to prevent it happening again? None whatsoever.

This is about politics and sticking the boot into FOTA. No teams will agree on equalising down, so Meredes carry an advantage and that will cause disagreement.


That was my original point as well. I also think it is more about creating friction within FOTA than anything else.