59 replies to this topic

[ForeverF1]

They really were in 1961/1962!

Also in 1960, 1963.

[scheivlak]

Also in 1960, 1963.;)

Not with a F1 car in 1960 but with a F2.
There was no factory involvement in 1963.

[ForeverF1]

Not with a F1 car in 1960 but with a F2.
There was no factory involvement in 1963.

I guess you missed the *wink*

[frp]

They really were in 1961/1962!

...and as an engine supplier in 1991.

Andy

[chris72]

OTOH, look at how incredibly turbo engines were developped from Renault's first try until they were banned. And from 1989 to 1995 the 3.5 engines were some amazing works as well with V8, V10 and V12 architectures winning titles. And from then on engine development was slowly being curbed and restricted until decades of development were first nulified and then frozen, except for the adoption of KERS. F1 survived it.

I loved the times when there were different types of engines on the grid and they actually had different qualities as well. Some where stronger than others, some used less fuel, some had good lower torgue, some revved really high. Then there was a serious effort to make their engines better. Now it's like everyone has a homologated engine and in the race you see no difference between them. Even overtaking is done using the DRS, it has nothing to do with a good engine.

Only difference between cars nowadays comes from aero side and all the effort is in that area. Best car is defined by finding a best shape and position of flaps and wings within given regulations. All that is specific to Formula 1 only and has no connection to other car types and especially not to road cars. I see a point why big car manufacturers are not so keen to take part in F1.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You won't have different engines just for the sake of it. Everyone was running V10s(except for backmarker teams that had to use old V8s) by 1996 because it was the best option. They only locked in V10s as a rule because Toyota was making noises about developing a V8, V10, and V12 to see which one was best.

[PayasYouRace]

You can tell that to purists, not a board of directors about to decide what to do with a billion dollars over the next 5 years.
Unless they all leave and only garagistes remain.

I think many will point to a "golden era" of F1 (1960s-1970s) that was pretty much that. I wouldn't object to it either, because in a way I'd rather see racing teams than car manufacturers in F1.

OTOH, look at how incredibly turbo engines were developped from Renault's first try until they were banned. And from 1989 to 1995 the 3.5 engines were some amazing works as well with V8, V10 and V12 architectures winning titles. And from then on engine development was slowly being curbed and restricted until decades of development were first nulified and then frozen, except for the adoption of KERS. F1 survived it.
It could also survive the curtailing of chassis development. Not by giving everyone a spec car a la Indy, but by simply enabling customer chassis. I understand why it is not allowed, but I really think banning customer chassis is a huge missed opportunity.

The latter can often lead to the former. At first you have a number of chassis which are competitive. Then one will inevitably become the favoured option and most of the teams will gravitate toward using it. Eventually only a few lower teams will struggle with the outsider chassis and only one serious contender is left. This serious contender can then cut down their development because they have no competition and the series becomes spec. Eventually a new car will be needed and it becomes a problem for the series.

This happened with Champcar and IRL Indycar. In CCWS it was the Lola which became favoured over the Reynard until everyone was using it. Then they went with Panoz for the new design. In ICS is was Dallara and Panoz, and Dallara won out. This kind of thing happened in F3000 and F3 and others too.

The best way to prevent this is to maintain F1 as a competition between constructors with severe limits on customer chassis, the most obvious limit being none allowed at all.

[Atreiu]

You won't have different engines just for the sake of it. Everyone was running V10s(except for backmarker teams that had to use old V8s) by 1996 because it was the best option. They only locked in V10s as a rule because Toyota was making noises about developing a V8, V10, and V12 to see which one was best.

Of course. But at least it gives manufacturers the possibility of joining and actually trying to out develop one another without "reliability" upgrades. And with KERS being so recent, there's a whole new scope for development which is basically wide open.

Payas, McLaren could win ten titles ina a row, Ferrari would buy off all their engineer and staff, but they would never race a McLaren chassis. I believe the competitive nature between the current constructors is strong enough to prevent a march towards spec cars.

Anyhow, it won't happen. But whenever Porsche or another company says they do not plan on joining or returning I have to agree. The regulations do not encourage it and F1's political environment and constant uncertainty just make it a terrible idea.

[yoyogetfunky]

Which comes at a price of ending decades of Formula One teams able to design and construct their own cars. It will mean teams would be sorely reliable on their engine suppliers to improve their form, rather than being able to design better cars to beat their rivals, and technical development is something I do watch F1 for. Also, much of the money will simply be transferred to the engine manufacturers, now that they would have to cover the costs of their increased development.



Well, whatever the rules end up being, there will continue to be "reliability" updates, and the FIA aren't going to let a large portion of the grid suffer from a vastly inferior or unreliable engine.

See thats the point. Thats exactly whats gonna happen, with the difference on this years exhaust development race that nobody can catch up. It took quite a while before other teams found out some manufacturers used 'reliability' to enhance their engines in 2008, and to this day there is still no equality. And even if the FIA would allow mid season changes, that would create a storm with the guys who are ahead that its going to that 2nd objection of Porsche: politics. Teams accusing eachother over this and that and this and this.

What boschkurve and I suggest is not taking any integrity away from a car: bolt on some super simple, standard front and rear wings and youll get rid of a lot of downforce and aero tweaks, or need for a very expensive team of aero wizzards. Im saying that as a huge Newey fan too. Besides theyl still have areas to fiddle around.

The thing is what Porsche says now, is something we heard before from others. If other teams are so precarious with money and future, this is not what you want to get some big names back, even if it was only as part owner of a team like Merc/McLaren. And that Porsche is prepared to say it out loud, should be a reminder to the bosses F1 is not the holy grail they sometimes think it is.

[KnucklesAgain]

They really were in 1961/1962!

Yeah, that's such a short time so long ago that it's not actually really ;)