2010 Cosworth Engine. [Archive]

Ranger

20th July 2009, 13:27

I'd also point out that Cosworth has to run an 18000RPM engine next year.

Since its going to be effectively the same thing used in 2006 with updated periferals then it shouldnt be a problem.

It isn't as easy as you think.

Mercedes-Benz spent an awful lot of money developing the 19k rev-limited engine for 2007. Even after then, there has been development on the engine before and during the drop again to 18000RPM.

Cosworth has neither the time nor the money that everyone else had to re-tune a 20000+RPM engine to a limited 18000RPM engine.

Apparently before he reneged on letting Cosworth run a 20000RPM engine, Max even said so himself.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090720110651.shtml

ioan

20th July 2009, 15:08

Who cares?
Cosworth only gets this chance because Maxie wanted a spec engine for F1, and Cosworth happened to want to play and be his tool.

Lennat

20th July 2009, 18:42

I've been thinking about this for the last couple of days and I'm pretty sure that a 2006 spec Cosworth would not be better than a rev limited Merc or Ferrari. But then I realised that it would still be a two tier system, and I am totally against that. F1 is not supposed to be about artificial equivalency, those who makes a better engine or car should not be punished for it!

DexDexter

20th July 2009, 20:21

I'd also point out that Cosworth has to run an 18000RPM engine next year.

It isn't as easy as you think.

Mercedes-Benz spent an awful lot of money developing the 19k rev-limited engine for 2007. Even after then, there has been development on the engine before and during the drop again to 18000RPM.

Cosworth has neither the time nor the money that everyone else had to re-tune a 20000+RPM engine to a limited 18000RPM engine.

Apparently before he reneged on letting Cosworth run a 20000RPM engine, Max even said so himself.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090720110651.shtml

The engine will not on be on par with say Merc, but if it's quite close, well that's enough. Cheap customer engines need not to be the class of the field.

Nikki Katz

20th July 2009, 22:01

Wow, the rev limit is a bit mean - this engine was rubbish 3 years ago, how on earth are the new teams going to be anywhere near Force India & Toro Rosso?

christophulus

20th July 2009, 22:30

Sounds like they have some freedom to improve it that the other manufacturers don't

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=46413&PO=46413

“So what we did was produce a complex model of the engine’s performance as it will be in 2010 and gave it to a third party agency with the largest body of data.

“We asked the question, ‘If you were to take all the results this year of the top three teams and substitute this engine into their cars, would it have affected the outcome of any of the races?’ Because that’s the ultimate measure of the competitiveness of the engine.

“The result that came back was that if the engine we are proposing for next year had been in any of the winning cars, the winning car would have still won. If it had been in any of the second place cars they would still have been second, or in one or two cases, would have won.”

If that's true, for £5m a year... why use anything else??

Sleeper

20th July 2009, 23:01

^Beat me to it.

That article doesnt specify what is being worked on, so we have no way to know whether they are outside of the rules or what.

ioan

20th July 2009, 23:22

Sounds like they have some freedom to improve it that the other manufacturers don't

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=46413&PO=46413

If that's true, for £5m a year... why use anything else??

I doubt it's true.
No agency has all the data needed about the competitors engines and chassis, but maybe the FIA. And if the FIA gave such info away than the other teams should sue the crap out of them.

ioan

20th July 2009, 23:24

^Beat me to it.

That article doesnt specify what is being worked on, so we have no way to know whether they are outside of the rules or what.

Let's be honest, Cosworth were not in F1 during the last 2 seasons because they were not good enough and also they were expensive for what they offered.

I highly doubt they will be able to offer an engine good enough to compete with the top manufacturers engines, and also develop and produce it (plus make a profit) with only 15 millions.

christophulus

20th July 2009, 23:27

I doubt it too. As long as the engine doesn't turn out to be the weak link for any of the new teams (reliability mainly) it'll be job done.

Sleeper

21st July 2009, 13:27

Well it wont beat the Mercedes or Ferrari thats a guarante, but I'd say the BMW was fair game.

jens

21st July 2009, 14:18

For me there is little doubt all three new teams (provided they make it to the grid) will be left trailing behind all other teams and with Cosworth engines their chances will be even smaller. We may have those rev-limiters and freezes, but Cossie is still behind development, because as we know that even since the engine freeze from 2007 onwards engines have been "silently" improved, which for example left Renault powerplant fall behind others. Cosworth presumably hasn't developed at all, and already by the end of 2006 they had dropped behind others, so they have a lot of catching to do.

As pre-2009 in winter Renault was allowed to upgrade its engine to reach the level of others, then I wonder if Cosworth will be allowed the same. But they need to put in way more effort to actually catch others.

I am evil Homer

21st July 2009, 14:38

So long as it's not handicapping the teams it may work and with a decent chassis and aero Top 12 could be possible. After all I think in their first season it's all about not trailing round the back losing 2-3 seconds a lap.

But my recent memories of Cosworth are of an under powered unit that was far the worst engine on the grid.

ShiftingGears

21st July 2009, 14:39

The Cosworth at the start of 2006 was one of the best engines on the grid.

jens

21st July 2009, 14:50

The Cosworth at the start of 2006 was one of the best engines on the grid.

True, but in the end they weren't as factory teams had more finances to develop their V8 engines during the season.

V12

21st July 2009, 16:34

Sonic

21st July 2009, 17:17

I'm so with you on that V12. F1 is becoming more and more an off the shelf formula and IMO it is worse off because of it.

ioan

21st July 2009, 18:30

I miss the days when they just specified a maximum capacity and maximum number of cylinders and then just let them get on with it :(

All this talk of engine freezes, homologation, equalisation and performance balancing just becomes more of a turn-off every day :(

That's you and me who love to see technical excellence.

Sadly enough it's Clueless Joes who are important for the rule makers as they are more than 70% of those who watch F1, and all they care about is show, like overtaking maneuvers, no matter how contrived they are.

DexDexter

21st July 2009, 20:02

That's you and me who love to see technical excellence.

Sadly enough it's Clueless Joes who are important for the rule makers as they are more than 70% of those who watch F1, and all they care about is show, like overtaking maneuvers, no matter how contrived they are.

The manufacturers are at fault as well since they started to invest too much into F1 and the engine development costs went up the roof and no independent or semi-independent enginge builder could match them. In the old days we used to have these semi-manufacturers like Lamborghini, customer engines and few manufacturers, some of whom (Ford) didn't take F1 too seriously. Those were the good old days, though only in that sense. Nowadays technical excellence is just too expensive.

jens

21st July 2009, 21:44

The manufacturers are at fault as well since they started to invest too much into F1 and the engine development costs went up the roof and no independent or semi-independent enginge builder could match them. In the old days we used to have these semi-manufacturers like Lamborghini, customer engines and few manufacturers, some of whom (Ford) didn't take F1 too seriously. Those were the good old days, though only in that sense. Nowadays technical excellence is just too expensive.

Hmm... some say manufacturers are bad for F1, now it's even said they are bad as engine manufacturers...

Well, in order to develop quickly and beat the opposition it's needed to spend a fair amount too, so can't blame them. Manufacturers with Renault spearheading the process brought F1 into a turbo-era, a brilliant era in my opinion with very powerful engines. When talking about engines, then I would say that era was what I would call the "good old days". Can't blame "manufacturers", they have brought some brilliant innovations and more diversity. The goal of F1 is not to be "cheap" as such IMO, it's meant to be the pinnacle of motorsports, including technology and it's innovations.

DexDexter

21st July 2009, 21:50

Hmm... some say manufacturers are bad for F1, now it's even said they are bad as engine manufacturers...

Well, in order to develop quickly and beat the opposition it's needed to spend a fair amount too, so can't blame them. Manufacturers with Renault spearheading the process brought F1 into a turbo-era, a brilliant era in my opinion with very powerful engines. Can't blame "manufacturers", they have brought some brilliant innovations and more diversity. The goal of F1 is not to be "cheap" as such IMO, it's meant to be the pinnacle of motorsports, including technology and it's innovations.

I basically agree with you, it's just that when you have for example a company like Toyota coming in and putting enormous amounts of money into the team/engine, it simply raises the bar too high and people cannot compete. A good example are sport prototypes which were very advanced in late 80's early 90's but the racing became so expensive with all the technology that in the end there was basically only Toyota left. In the old days the manufacturers didn't put in as much money as today, so it was easier for entrepreneurs etc. to compete against them. A series with only manufacturers will not work, remember DTM/ITC mid 90's.

ioan

21st July 2009, 22:26

I basically agree with you, it's just that when you have for example a company like Toyota coming in and putting enormous amounts of money into the team/engine, it simply raises the bar too high and people cannot compete.

Those who can't compete in F1 should take up F2, F3000 etc.
McLaren, Williams and Ferrari were outspending the small teams in the 80's and 90's too,, it's not like Toyota brought spending into F1. :\

jens

21st July 2009, 22:49

Heh, true that. I remember endless accusations on Ferrari for outspending everyone in their attempts to win - Schumacher's $24M salary being one example of that. I even vaguely remember a phrase "Ferrari is winning just thanks to money" being used. :p :

Sonic

21st July 2009, 23:25

ClarkFan

22nd July 2009, 00:37

ioan

22nd July 2009, 00:37

Here's a thought. Now Max has suggested F1 bring costs down to mid '90's levels (who knows if it will actually happen) could we see the return of the true independant engine builders? Hart anyone? They could build a seriously decent engine in the early/mid 90's.

I'm afraid that nowadays, when the difference between being 5th and 15th on the grid is around 2 tenths of a second, a decent engine will not be enough anymore.

DexDexter

22nd July 2009, 08:37

Those who can't compete in F1 should take up F2, F3000 etc.
McLaren, Williams and Ferrari were outspending the small teams in the 80's and 90's too,, it's not like Toyota brought spending into F1. :\

We will end up with 10 manufacturer cars if the cost of racing is not controlled at all, and manufacturers tend to quit if they are not succesful. Toyota (and Honda) didn't bring spending into F1, they just took it too far. The amount of money used to develop this year's Brawn car must be enormous, because they just leapfrogged everybody, including all the previous top teams. In a free-spending environment, other manufacturers would start to do the same thing, even more windtunnels etc. which would lead to increased spending and withdrawals. Ferrari etc. have had big budgets for years but they were more based on sponsorship, not manufacturer support.

ioan

22nd July 2009, 10:36

We will end up with 10 manufacturer cars if the cost of racing is not controlled at all...

Not really.
Since the manufacturers considered entering F1 here was always a Minardi, Arrows, Jordan, Prost, Spyker. Midland, STR, Williams, Force India around, some of them changed owners a couple of times but they are still there.

DexDexter

22nd July 2009, 11:01

Not really.
Since the manufacturers considered entering F1 here was always a Minardi, Arrows, Jordan, Prost, Spyker. Midland, STR, Williams, Force India around, some of them changed owners a couple of times but they are still there.

Yes, but if the cost keep getting higher, they will not be there in the future. Let's make this clear though, I'm not a supporter of Mad Max :) .

ioan

22nd July 2009, 11:23

Yes, but if the cost keep getting higher, they will not be there in the future. Let's make this clear though, I'm not a supporter of Mad Max :) .

I know you are not a supporter of Max.

As for the costs, they aren't getting any higher, not with the financial crisis. Teams have been reducing their spending last year and this season too even without rules being put in place and even though Mosley came up with plenty of measures that were pushing them to spending more.
The only team that spent more last season than in 2007 was Honda.