Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Marussia wants own F1 engines in 2016


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 11 October 2013 - 05:42

But, citing the Russian edition of Autosport, the Russian news agency Ria Novosti quotes Fomenko as saying: "If we survive to the 2016 season, then I hope Marussia will have its own engines. We're moving towards that. It's our main aim."

 

http://www.motorspor...ngines-by-2016/



Advertisement

#2 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,523 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 October 2013 - 05:51

Talking about survival and building engines in the same sentence. That makes sense.



#3 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,337 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 October 2013 - 07:28

It's heroic, if nothing else...



#4 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 11 October 2013 - 07:37

Why stop at engines? They could build their own tyres, refine their own petrol . . .

#5 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 11 October 2013 - 07:39

Talking about survival and building engines in the same sentence. That makes sense.

 

This. They would need to spend maybe hundreds milions to develop one that will be fairly competitve. 



#6 Slackbladder

Slackbladder
  • Member

  • 1,170 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 11 October 2013 - 07:58

Ummm yeah... whatever you say Marussia..



#7 Tron

Tron
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:00

I hope the idea of having their own engine, isn't that of rebranding an existing one???



#8 Tron

Tron
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:01

This is most likely minor stunt to get some sponsor's attenton that don't know much about F1.

 

Already by saying if they survive by 2016, is a massive red flag of their current state...


Edited by Tron, 11 October 2013 - 12:01.


#9 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:13

Well, their roadcars are powered by Cosworth V6s already. They could probably commission a V6t and have Cosworth sell that thing under their own name to F1 or LMP customers.



#10 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,189 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:38

With the price tag on developing an engine, it can only be a branding exercise and I do not see Ferrari selling rights to their engine being renamed, I do not see Mercedes doing it either. We have heard for quite some time rumbles about Red Bull running an Infinity branded Renault, which I can not see any commercial upside for on behalf of Renault. Honda have same setup as Renault, different brands, different names, same engines so could be an Acura, Lexus in theory of setting up with them, however same argument as for Renault, if they make the engine why disappear even more than they already have by becoming 'just' a supplier.

 

Can not take the comment as any indication that this will happen.

 

:cool:



#11 Tron

Tron
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:50

With the price tag on developing an engine, it can only be a branding exercise and I do not see Ferrari selling rights to their engine being renamed, I do not see Mercedes doing it either. We have heard for quite some time rumbles about Red Bull running an Infinity branded Renault, which I can not see any commercial upside for on behalf of Renault. Honda have same setup as Renault, different brands, different names, same engines so could be an Acura, Lexus in theory of setting up with them, however same argument as for Renault, if they make the engine why disappear even more than they already have by becoming 'just' a supplier.

 

Can not take the comment as any indication that this will happen.

 

:cool:

 

The only way I could see Redbull running Inifinity, which is a possibility due the Nissan string between them and Renualt, is if Renualt returns as a works team and sells the customer engines at a higher price.

 

Honda won't run Acura or Lexus, unless their second team will get the motors at a cheaper price so they can field two of their brands???



#12 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,772 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 October 2013 - 13:16

Honda and Lexus? Uh.

Marussia is dreaming unless they mean the name changing deals that saw Mechachrome and Mugen-Honda on the grid.

#13 Tron

Tron
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 11 October 2013 - 13:32

So right, my blunder about Lexus... LOL :rotfl:



#14 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,930 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 October 2013 - 13:33

Like Arrows had their "own engines" in 1998?



#15 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,541 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 11 October 2013 - 13:37

Developing the ICE per se is perfectly doable with a moderate budget (relative - of course!). It's all of the other gumph that comes with it that'll be the killer. Then again - you could probably procure that stuff from Magnetti Marelli for example.

Sounds a bit nuts though!

Edited by maverick69, 11 October 2013 - 13:48.


#16 Baddoer

Baddoer
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 October 2013 - 14:39

That is a little bit too ambitious for a backmarker.



#17 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,604 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 11 October 2013 - 15:53

This demented piece of overblown ambition reminds me of the Life V12.



#18 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,189 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 11 October 2013 - 16:04

This demented piece of overblown ambition reminds me of the Life V12.

 

But Life happened, was just very good.

 

:cool:



#19 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,876 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 11 October 2013 - 16:24

But Life happened, was just not very good.

 

:cool:

I think you missed out a word!



Advertisement

#20 ElDictatore

ElDictatore
  • Member

  • 885 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 11 October 2013 - 16:39

Coming from the same team that tried to design a car without the wind-tunnel and with CFD only?



#21 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,656 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 October 2013 - 17:05

But Life happened, was just very good.
 
:cool:

To be accurate, it didn't happen as it was a W12, not a V12.
I did get to see it 'run', It at least managed to get past our flag point a Club Corner at Silverstone in pre-qualifying - cannot remember if it managed many laps though.

#22 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,589 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 11 October 2013 - 17:11

This news about Cosworth probably isn't anything to do with this....



#23 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,075 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 11 October 2013 - 17:16

Maye P.U.R.E. resurrected :D



#24 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 October 2013 - 17:20

That's a brilliant catch BRG. Wonder if it is them or whether it's someone else like Caterham i.e. Road car division?



#25 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 1,493 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 11 October 2013 - 17:30

Wow, meanwhile they can barely afford to stay on the grid. Let alone funding hundreds of millions into engines.



#26 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,172 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 11 October 2013 - 17:57

This news about Cosworth probably isn't anything to do with this....

 

Marussia's initial road car engines have been produced by Cosworth, so if they are starting to seriously produce cars it's not a stretch to think they are the "unnamed performance vehicle builder". Theoretically at least, as Marussia's cars are meant to use a V6 turbo engine, one could see them also "producing" F1 engines from the Cosworth factory - especially since they already have expertise in the sport.

 

It's easy to forget the team has Russian oligarch money behind them.



#27 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,189 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 11 October 2013 - 20:04

I think you missed out a word!

:stoned:

 

Indeed

 

:cool:



#28 Tron

Tron
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 11 October 2013 - 22:46

Interesting reminder about this thread.

 

When F1 stopped with the Turbos for 89, there was a flood of engine entries with unique designs, Ferrari V12, Honda V10, Renault V10, Ford V8, Judd V8, Ilmor V8, Lamborghini V12, this Life w12, and I there was also a unsuccessful flat 12.

Which were later on followed by Yamaha, Merc, Peugeot, BMW and Toyota.

 

Now that F1 is going back to turbos, specs are standard and it's left with surviving engine suppliers, Ferrari, Renualt, Merc, and Honda returning... Tragic...



#29 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,189 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 12 October 2013 - 13:04

Spece series, spec series, spec serries.....

 

There should not be a regulatory enforcement of engine configuration, make it 1, 2, 4, 10 or 16 cylinders, make it turbo, non turbo, wankel what ever you as a manufacturer wants. There should be conversion formulas for the various mode of aspiration, and the cars could carry anything from 2 liters to 1000 if they wanted, should just meet a minimum weight at the start and no refueling during the race.

 

As other threads allude to, the regulatory body and the teams have made F1 a closed franchise with a very clear distinction of who are running "Animal Farm", F1 remain a great and my favorite sport but it could be so much better without even trying hard.

 

:cool:



#30 CatInTheBag

CatInTheBag
  • Member

  • 322 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 12 October 2013 - 14:46

Rebadged engine, why not ? Like Petronas engine on the Sauber previously.

#31 natureboy

natureboy
  • Member

  • 72 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 12 October 2013 - 14:50

It's nice to want things.

 

I would be amazed if Marussia is still in F1/called Marussia in 2016.



#32 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 October 2013 - 15:34

Talking about survival and building engines in the same sentence. That makes sense.

 

Sounds a lot like TWR Arrows in 1997... buying out Hart to build their own engines. Look how well that went...



#33 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 October 2013 - 15:42

Spece series, spec series, spec serries.....

 

There should not be a regulatory enforcement of engine configuration, make it 1, 2, 4, 10 or 16 cylinders, make it turbo, non turbo, wankel what ever you as a manufacturer wants. There should be conversion formulas for the various mode of aspiration, and the cars could carry anything from 2 liters to 1000 if they wanted, should just meet a minimum weight at the start and no refueling during the race.

 

As other threads allude to, the regulatory body and the teams have made F1 a closed franchise with a very clear distinction of who are running "Animal Farm", F1 remain a great and my favorite sport but it could be so much better without even trying hard.

 

:cool:

 

One solution would end up being the best and every manufacturer would migrate to it. Same thing happened with the V10's... As soon as Ferrari, the great bastion of the V12, went to a V10 in '96 the notion of engine variety was dead in the water.

 

The only reason there was so much variety in engines in days gone by was that no-one had found the ultimate solution for that era. Engine-making was still very much trial-and-error, and ideas in designers heads rather than more scientifically-tested plans. Look how Keith Duckworth struggled to build the Ford 1.5 V6 for 1986 at first because it was an alien idea to him, but the DFV was a stroke of genius!

 

Look at Audi and (previously) Peugeot at Le Mans... the rules still inherently favour diesels (despite what Toyota think and their own admirable efforts with the petrol engine) so to win you need a diesel.

 

Praying for variety in an age where most of the ideas have been narrowed down to a select few is folly. What you should be looking at is the finer details where manufacturers still have their own ideas and designs for certain elements.


Edited by DanardiF1, 12 October 2013 - 15:43.


#34 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,189 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 12 October 2013 - 16:57

I am not sure that one engine would end out being advantageous to the others, as long as the equivalency formulas were set / worded correctly. The problem with turbos against normally aspirated, were the presumption that 3 liters normal = 1.5 liter turbo, that was clearly not the case.

 

I have not idea of how to calculate a formula making 2.8 liter normal equal to 'something diesel', 'something hybrid', 'something turbo', 'something wankel', 'something else completely''. I can not think other than they all have inherent advantages and disadvantages when measured against each other,

 

Re-do the aero rules so it is taken out of the equations as THE parameter, and make mechanical grip more important and let the engines free. I continue to insist that most of the 'ills' of F1, can be fixed through writing better rules.

 

:cool:



#35 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 October 2013 - 18:47

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you. There will always be an ultimate solution regardless of how well the equivalency is setup. Some combination will be better in fuel economy, torque, power, heat management... something.

 

Also ponder this... if all these engines are equalised to produce the same characteristics... isn't that still a 'Spec' formula? The formula being instead of engine size, configuration etc. the power/torque output, fuel economy and so on. Instead of speccing the engine type, you'd be speccing the engine output.



#36 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,189 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 12 October 2013 - 20:02

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you. There will always be an ultimate solution regardless of how well the equivalency is setup. Some combination will be better in fuel economy, torque, power, heat management... something.

 

Also ponder this... if all these engines are equalised to produce the same characteristics... isn't that still a 'Spec' formula? The formula being instead of engine size, configuration etc. the power/torque output, fuel economy and so on. Instead of speccing the engine type, you'd be speccing the engine output.

 

I agree with the 'ultimate solution', however question that 'ultimate solution' have ever been reached, so that would not be a huge concern of mine. And the manufacturers would have to balance the various strengths and weaknesses against each other and decide which way to go for best possible technical evolution. I do not see setting up the equalized formula as a 'spec' series, it would open for the manufacturers to pursue what they need for PR and Marketing, and for others to pursue sheer power and grunt.

 

I can see how KERS, and ERS an be incorporated into the formula as well, leaving us with a Honda turbo ERS, battling a Ferrari W12 and a Renault straight 10, I agree that one solution will eventually be the one, but looking at the heyday of the DFV (which I roughly make the 70ies) then a 8 cylinder was NOT the only configuration being tried, so if the engine specs would have to be re-set every 10 years then that would be fine.

 

Anything to get away from the locked down B.S. we are currently stuck with would be good.

 

:cool:



#37 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,172 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 October 2013 - 20:59

I agree with the 'ultimate solution', however question that 'ultimate solution' have ever been reached, so that would not be a huge concern of mine. And the manufacturers would have to balance the various strengths and weaknesses against each other and decide which way to go for best possible technical evolution. I do not see setting up the equalized formula as a 'spec' series, it would open for the manufacturers to pursue what they need for PR and Marketing, and for others to pursue sheer power and grunt.

 

I can see how KERS, and ERS an be incorporated into the formula as well, leaving us with a Honda turbo ERS, battling a Ferrari W12 and a Renault straight 10, I agree that one solution will eventually be the one, but looking at the heyday of the DFV (which I roughly make the 70ies) then a 8 cylinder was NOT the only configuration being tried, so if the engine specs would have to be re-set every 10 years then that would be fine.

 

Anything to get away from the locked down B.S. we are currently stuck with would be good.

 

:cool:

 

You can't really compare what worked in the past to the situation now. The much smaller budgets involved meant it was much more likely for someone to build an engine and stick with it, and nowadays manufacturers have more expertise, and better facilities for simulation and testing, that they should be able to arrive at the "ultimate solution" a lot sooner.

 

 

What I would do in an ideal world is simply set a fuel limit of say 100l and let them come up with whatever they want. That would save the futile task of trying to come up with an equivalent rule set and give genuine diversity. However, we're not in that ideal world, and there is not the money available to spend on engines.



#38 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,521 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 12 October 2013 - 21:28

This. They would need to spend maybe hundreds milions to develop one that will be fairly competitve. 

On the other hand they could save money and still be last. 'Anyone' can build an engine in garage. But maybe not within 107% :blush:

 

Do they build own engines for their road cars? If not, this makes no much sense...


Edited by Mauseri, 12 October 2013 - 21:29.


#39 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,189 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 12 October 2013 - 22:02

You can't really compare what worked in the past to the situation now. The much smaller budgets involved meant it was much more likely for someone to build an engine and stick with it, and nowadays manufacturers have more expertise, and better facilities for simulation and testing, that they should be able to arrive at the "ultimate solution" a lot sooner.

 

 

What I would do in an ideal world is simply set a fuel limit of say 100l and let them come up with whatever they want. That would save the futile task of trying to come up with an equivalent rule set and give genuine diversity. However, we're not in that ideal world, and there is not the money available to spend on engines.

:)

 

If they were all that great, they would not get whupped by Red Bull 4 years running. I think the truth lies somewhere between your positive / negative and my negative / positive.

 

:cool: