Jump to content


Photo

PURE Pollocks [Merged]


  • Please log in to reply
188 replies to this topic

#1 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,872 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 May 2011 - 22:45

Pollock to return to F1 as engine supplier

Craig Pollock has founded Propulsion Universelle et Recuperation d'Energie (PURE), a company which will produce engines for the inline-4 turbo formula set to be introduced in 2013. I didn't see this one coming!

The company has close ties to Mecachrome, which is itself a descendent of the Renault V10 engine programme from 1989 to 1997 (the Williams team's Renault engines were badged as Mecachromes in 1998 when Renault withdrew factory support), and employees engineers who have worked on Renault and Peugeot's F1 engines in the past.

It will be interesting to see if this project succeeds, and if it attracts any customers. Perhaps some of the Cosworth-powered teams might be attracted to switch, or could it even be an option for McLaren if the Mercedes engines are eventually withdrawn?

EDIT: Additional information: Joe Saward article, first dyno tests planned for the end of this year.

Edited by midgrid, 04 May 2011 - 22:48.


Advertisement

#2 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 04 May 2011 - 22:54

That is odd on a number of levels!

#3 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,447 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 04 May 2011 - 22:56

Didn't expect this one.

#4 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 May 2011 - 22:56

So if Mecachrome owns half of it, that means Flav's on board, which means we're pretty much sure to get the little turbos. Sounds quite a tight business model. Wonder how they'll react when they need to invest to be competitive?

Without meaning to derail the topic, makes me wonder if there's any place for a non-constructor engine supplier in F1. What's their motivation to spend the extra needed to compete? Or should I say, improve their reliability.

#5 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 May 2011 - 23:01

Without meaning to derail the topic, makes me wonder if there's any place for a non-constructor engine supplier in F1. What's their motivation to spend the extra needed to compete? Or should I say, improve their reliability.


The fact that if they're not competitive no one will buy the engines? Pride of having the best engine?


Good news, the more engines the merrier :)

#6 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,447 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 04 May 2011 - 23:02

So if Mecachrome owns half of it, that means Flav's on board, which means we're pretty much sure to get the little turbos. Sounds quite a tight business model. Wonder how they'll react when they need to invest to be competitive?

Without meaning to derail the topic, makes me wonder if there's any place for a non-constructor engine supplier in F1. What's their motivation to spend the extra needed to compete? Or should I say, improve their reliability.


Cosworth is a non-constructor.

#7 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 May 2011 - 23:05

That was pretty much my point. Even Lotus think they're too good for Cossies.

#8 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 May 2011 - 23:13

Weird, I wouldn't put my own money in that venture though, I reckon Ferrari will throw their toys out of the pram over the 2013 engine rules...

#9 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 May 2011 - 23:18

Bernie doesn't like them. Ferrari doesn't like them. But Flav must be well aware of what both of them are really up to, so if he's put his money in then it looks like they're coming.

Of course, it could all be a very cunning plan to keep everyone but Ferrari focused on the turbos while Ferrari plough limitless resources into developing their V8 and thereby gain an unbeatable advantage for the next 3 years. Or maybe forever.

#10 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 May 2011 - 23:27

Bernie doesn't like them. Ferrari doesn't like them. But Flav must be well aware of what both of them are really up to, so if he's put his money in then it looks like they're coming.

Of course, it could all be a very cunning plan to keep everyone but Ferrari focused on the turbos while Ferrari plough limitless resources into developing their V8 and thereby gain an unbeatable advantage for the next 3 years. Or maybe forever.


If anything, it would be a good strategy for anyone with enough leverage to push for a late change in the rules to prevent any competitor getting too much of a head start..

Ferrari has tons of leverage, and quite clearly the new engine formula isn't exactly tailored for them... personally I find it understandable they aren't happy.

#11 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 May 2011 - 23:32

I'd agree with you that Ferrari have a right to be pissed off. Maybe it all ties back to the proposed EXOR bid, that could provide a nice bit of extra leverage. It's a funny old game.

At least this year there's some overtaking to talk about to fill the gaps in the real action, eh?

#12 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,872 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 May 2011 - 23:45

PLUS interview with Pollock

No prospective customers yet. PURE would be willing to build a V8 if the freeze is extended.

#13 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 160 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:08

Good news, the more engines the merrier :)


+1. :clap:

#14 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:11

The fact that if they're not competitive no one will buy the engines? Pride of having the best engine?


Good news, the more engines the merrier :)


Missed this one til I saw it quoted.

Point I was trying to make was that with such a reductionist approach to costs, development may well be restricted and if they fall behind it could be terminal. But at least they've got a head start.


#15 jonnoj

jonnoj
  • Member

  • 1,114 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:27

If this unknown company can make a 2013 spec engine, it adds weight to the possibility that McLaren will be building their own as well.





#16 TurboF1

TurboF1
  • Member

  • 748 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:39

If this unknown company can make a 2013 spec engine, it adds weight to the possibility that McLaren will be building their own as well.


Mechachrome aint unknown bub...

Look into f1 pre 2000, they were around. (Renault tie-in etc)

Edited by TurboF1, 05 May 2011 - 00:40.


#17 AMG FAN

AMG FAN
  • Member

  • 890 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:48

That was pretty much my point. Even Lotus think they're too good for Cossies.

But Williams think they are good enough.

#18 Nustang70

Nustang70
  • Member

  • 2,411 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:48

Pollock to return to F1 as engine supplier

Craig Pollock has founded Propulsion Universelle et Recuperation d'Energie (PURE), a company which will produce engines for the inline-4 turbo formula set to be introduced in 2013. I didn't see this one coming!

The company has close ties to Mecachrome, which is itself a descendent of the Renault V10 engine programme from 1989 to 1997 (the Williams team's Renault engines were badged as Mecachromes in 1998 when Renault withdrew factory support), and employees engineers who have worked on Renault and Peugeot's F1 engines in the past.

It will be interesting to see if this project succeeds, and if it attracts any customers. Perhaps some of the Cosworth-powered teams might be attracted to switch, or could it even be an option for McLaren if the Mercedes engines are eventually withdrawn?

EDIT: Additional information: Joe Saward article, first dyno tests planned for the end of this year.


This was unexpected. 5 engine for 12 teams. Hmm. 3 of the teams are customer providers only--no factory team. I wonder how long all three of them will last.

#19 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:48

So if Mecachrome owns half of it, that means Flav's on board, which means we're pretty much sure to get the little turbos. Sounds quite a tight business model. Wonder how they'll react when they need to invest to be competitive?

Without meaning to derail the topic, makes me wonder if there's any place for a non-constructor engine supplier in F1. What's their motivation to spend the extra needed to compete? Or should I say, improve their reliability.


Mecachrome part owns a subcontractor that will build the powertrains, as far as I can understand it Mecachrome isn't involved in PURE

But Williams think they are good cheap enough.


fixed it for you :)

Edited by engel, 05 May 2011 - 00:49.


Advertisement

#20 Nustang70

Nustang70
  • Member

  • 2,411 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:50

That was pretty much my point. Even Lotus think they're too good for Cossies.


It's pretty well-known that Lotus switched because of their gearbox issues, not because of the Cosworth engines. If Cosworth was really that uncompetitive, Williams would have switched to Renault as well. Renault has been pretty open about its willingness to take on more customers.

#21 AMG FAN

AMG FAN
  • Member

  • 890 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:51

Mecachrome part owns a subcontractor that will build the powertrains, as far as I can understand it Mecachrome isn't involved in PURE



fixed it for you :)

aren't they all about the same price? 5.5mill or something?

#22 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:53

aren't they all about the same price? 5.5mill or something?


nope Cosworth are the only ones bound by the tender rules Mosley set out, the rest aren't ... whole point of the tender was to bring in a cheap engine

#23 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:54

Mecachrome part owns a subcontractor that will build the powertrains, as far as I can understand it Mecachrome isn't involved in PURE


Pollock made it sound like they do: 'This is a brand new engine designed by a company which is half-owned by Mecachrome'



#24 Nustang70

Nustang70
  • Member

  • 2,411 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 05 May 2011 - 00:54

Mecachrome part owns a subcontractor that will build the powertrains, as far as I can understand it Mecachrome isn't involved in PURE



fixed it for you :)



Williams aren't so broke that they would stick with an engine that would guarantee them backmarker status. Besides, their Cosworth-powered car last year was one of the quickest best-of-the-rest cars by the last third of the year.

Also, I'd like to add that editing other posters' words--"fixing it"--is ****ing obnoxious.

Edited by Nustang70, 05 May 2011 - 01:04.


#25 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 May 2011 - 01:21

Pollock made it sound like they do: 'This is a brand new engine designed by a company which is half-owned by Mecachrome'


it's the equivalent of TAG going to Porsche and telling them hey dudes, build us an F1 engine. Doesn't mean Porsche has any financial stake in TAG, they are just paid to do a job ie build engines

#26 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 01:34

it's the equivalent of TAG going to Porsche and telling them hey dudes, build us an F1 engine. Doesn't mean Porsche has any financial stake in TAG, they are just paid to do a job ie build engines


Not sure it is. We could always mail and ask them TEOS Press Release

#27 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 1,845 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 05 May 2011 - 01:44

What's this pure compagny's input if it's neither building nor designing the engine ?

#28 jonnoj

jonnoj
  • Member

  • 1,114 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 01:47

Mechachrome aint unknown bub...

Look into f1 pre 2000, they were around. (Renault tie-in etc)



Pollock is another nearly man in F1. What he allegedly said was

PURE has contracted TEOS Powertrain Engineering - which is half-owned by Mecachrome and half by IFP Energies Nouvelles - to help design and produce the engine


Note the word *help*. Mecachrome build their own F1 engines, I can't see them needing to build 2 different or even 2 identical engines. Mecachrome could well be supplying valve springs and nothing else.






#29 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 01:51

Pollock is another nearly man in F1. What he allegedly said was



Note the word *help*. Mecachrome build their own F1 engines, I can't see them needing to build 2 different or even 2 identical engines. Mecachrome could well be supplying valve springs and nothing else.


It sounds to me like PURE is just a front to take the flak if the engine's crud, while TEOS will use the engine to demonstrate their expertise and technology to companies outwith F1.

Edited by oetzi, 05 May 2011 - 01:56.


#30 UPRC

UPRC
  • Member

  • 4,620 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 05 May 2011 - 02:13

Wow, this came out of absolutely nowhere.

#31 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 05 May 2011 - 06:42

...
Also, I'd like to add that editing other posters' words--"fixing it"--is ****ing obnoxious.


+1

It was 'fun' the first 1 million times. Now it's just annoying.

As for the thread. Did not see it coming either. And wondering who the takers will be. I believe that even if they have a head start on the other manufacturers, Cosworth is equally capable of producing a competitive engine for the independents.

Edited by jcbc3, 05 May 2011 - 06:44.


#32 Altitude

Altitude
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:19

I'm surprised that Craig Pillock isnt claiming that they will win their first race yet.

#33 blackhand2010

blackhand2010
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:54

I'm surprised that Craig Pillock isnt claiming that they will win their first race yet.


To be fair that was Adrian Reynard that said that before the BAR debut.
Still a smug tosser though.

#34 Matt Somers

Matt Somers
  • Member

  • 558 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:04

My initial reaction to this is, its posturing from Todt at the derision of a new engine from both Bernie and Ferrari. Basically trying to show that people are prepared to look into the new regs as a positive. I personally feel the new regs will not detract from F1 afterall we have already had one turbo era so why not another. I however do believe it will be 2015 when we see the new engines rather than 2013.

#35 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:10

Hmm, following in the footsteps of Brian Hart...

Edited by Tombstone, 05 May 2011 - 08:13.


#36 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:29

My initial reaction to this is, its posturing from Todt at the derision of a new engine from both Bernie and Ferrari. Basically trying to show that people are prepared to look into the new regs as a positive. I personally feel the new regs will not detract from F1 afterall we have already had one turbo era so why not another. I however do believe it will be 2015 when we see the new engines rather than 2013.


Didn't Pollock say they would be prepared to manufacture V8s if those stay? Can't be bothered to reread ...

#37 roadie

roadie
  • Member

  • 1,844 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:57

Could be interesting having a range of independent engine manufacturers on the grid again. However, I think it will be tough for PURE, as the circumstances surrounding their entry are very different to say Cosworth, who launched with a bunch of new teams.

#38 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:00

Hmm, following in the footsteps of Brian Hart...


Brian Hart didn't have a company like Mecachrome behind him.

#39 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 09:23

Brian Hart didn't have a company like Mecachrome behind him.


And Mecachrome powered cars didn't exactly star without La Regie's direct input.

One wonders if Mecachrome are still "in default of their publicly held debt obligation" too...

From Wiki

Advertisement

#40 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,708 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:33

Virgin-PURE? :)

#41 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,688 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:51

nope Cosworth are the only ones bound by the tender rules Mosley set out, the rest aren't ... whole point of the tender was to bring in a cheap engine


Don't know how much Cosworth charge but I believe all the engines cost the same.
http://news.bbc.co.u...one/7718682.stm

Edited by Clatter, 05 May 2011 - 10:51.


#42 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,688 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:56

My initial reaction to this is, its posturing from Todt at the derision of a new engine from both Bernie and Ferrari. Basically trying to show that people are prepared to look into the new regs as a positive. I personally feel the new regs will not detract from F1 afterall we have already had one turbo era so why not another. I however do believe it will be 2015 when we see the new engines rather than 2013.


I'm sure people will look on any change as positive if there is money to be made from it, but that doesn't mean it's good for the sport. I personally feel the new regs will detract from F1. Although we had a turbo-era in the past it was not compulsory, nor was it so rigidly defined.

#43 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 722 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:03

I'm sure people will look on any change as positive if there is money to be made from it, but that doesn't mean it's good for the sport. I personally feel the new regs will detract from F1. Although we had a turbo-era in the past it was not compulsory, nor was it so rigidly defined.

Not to mention they had more power (a HELL of a lot more in qualy) which was much less usable due to the insane lag + much less grip, and most manufacturers converged towards the V6 rather than the I4 which it being forced on everyone for 2013.

#44 tweiss

tweiss
  • Member

  • 391 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:42

Virgin-PURE? :)


:rotfl:

#45 bauss

bauss
  • Member

  • 5,067 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:44

Virgin-PURE? :)


or Sauber-Pure

(Sauber means clean in german)

#46 UprightRacer

UprightRacer
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:49

Pure virgins on the track....

#47 Red17

Red17
  • Member

  • 3,449 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 05 May 2011 - 12:18

I had to read that newspost twice, THE BAR Pollock??? Really unexpected.

Seems like a giant step without support from a manufacturer (Cosworth lives on it's own universe so ). I wonder if he is making this early annoucement in hopes of atracting manufacturer money.

But the name... it's awfull!!!

#48 Altitude

Altitude
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 May 2011 - 12:55

PURE - Pollock Unveils Racing Engine.

If only it was April 1st.

#49 MaxCrazyEddieCayer

MaxCrazyEddieCayer
  • Member

  • 91 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 13:09

Its just Good Old Craig Making Big Announcements Just because he need To be In the Spot Light Again.... what a Prick...I Don't belive a single word he is saying, Its Just Hot Air....

#50 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 May 2011 - 13:38

If whichever team uses it has a number of problems be prepared for the "it's because my engine is a load of old pollocks" excuse.