10 year engine freeze as of 08.

[Sleeper]

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41179

Quite frankly I find this ruleing to be a load of rubbish.

[Corny]

I can hardly believe it. They call this manufacture competition :p ?

[wmcot]

Sounds really, really boring!!!

[Crypt]

Zzzzzz. Let's just turn this into a spec series with same engines, ECU, tires, Aero packages and run on slicks only (no rain races). I might as well watch NASCAR.

[Robinho]

WTF?

i'm all for some consistency and equality in the rules, but the one area where manufaturers can differntiate has been engines.

sure they spend stupid money, and yes, i see the arguement that ultimately there is not much to choose between the top engines, but a complete freeze is insane. they'll only spend the money on Aero, designers, drivers, wind tunnels etc.

a complete freeze for minimum of 5 years mystifies me

[yodasarmpit]

Am I understanding this wrong ?
So a team who currently has a crappy engine is stuck with it for the next ten years unless they buy from one of the other manufacturers.

[passmeatissue]

Facing 10 years of the least powerful engine, Honda will pull out. Car sales will not fall, they will finally realise motorsport fans read car reviews when choosing their road cars (Alfa). Then Toyota, then Renault.

[hmmm - donuts]

My understanding is that an engine freeze allows limited development of certain components, so that reliability issues, for instance, can be sorted out. However, it seems to me (as alluded to in a previous post) that if you have a fundamentally flawed engine then you're stuck with it for a long time, so what incentive is there to remain in F1? Especially since F1 is a meritocracy, and few points means low income. Conversely, a new team could join F1 in, say, nine years' time with an engine far more developed than the 'frozen' ones already in the sport, and start winning right away. Doesn't sound right to me.

F1 always used to be about innovation; now it seems to be about standardisation which to my mind goes against the original ethos of the sport. Remember cars like the six-wheeled Tyrell, or the twin chassis Lotus? Would this kind of inventiveness or innovation be allowed now? Personally I'd like to see V8s, V10s, straight 6s, 17 cylinder 3 strokes, whatever, and for them to be allowed to rev to F sharp above high C. The only rules should be on engine life, and either displacement OR specified amount of fuel per race.

[AndyRAC]

My understanding is that an engine freeze allows limited development of certain components, so that reliability issues, for instance, can be sorted out. However, it seems to me (as alluded to in a previous post) that if you have a fundamentally flawed engine then you're stuck with it for a long time, so what incentive is there to remain in F1? Especially since F1 is a meritocracy, and few points means low income. Conversely, a new team could join F1 in, say, nine years' time with an engine far more developed than the 'frozen' ones already in the sport, and start winning right away. Doesn't sound right to me.

F1 always used to be about innovation; now it seems to be about standardisation which to my mind goes against the original ethos of the sport. Remember cars like the six-wheeled Tyrell, or the twin chassis Lotus? Would this kind of inventiveness or innovation be allowed now? Personally I'd like to see V8s, V10s, straight 6s, 17 cylinder 3 strokes, whatever, and for them to be allowed to rev to F sharp above high C. The only rules should be on engine life, and either displacement OR specified amount of fuel per race.

I agree with you, at the moment there is no room for innovation regarding engines, all V8's, slightly boring. Whats wrong with V10, V12, V6,etc. What about allowing turbos? What a shambles of a governing body the F1A are.

[Hawkmoon]

This has to be some kind of bad joke right? This is why Mosely has to go. Not for any perceived bias or vendetta against Ron, but for the idiotic path he seems intent of pushing the technical and sporting regulations.

The top teams aren't going to have any less money to spend. All they will do is spend it on something else that is probably totally frivolous, like "Paragon" or their 23rd windtunnel.

This is a pathetically stupid idea.

[tinchote]

This absolutely ridiculous! :mad:

And this is the same FIA that a couple years ago was doing polls with the fans regarding what F1 needed :s

[wedge]

On the whole it kinda sucks but their is still some scope for development because they've extra increments of 10BHP or so, here and there. I remember some years ago Eddie Irvine saying the FIA would mandate V6 turbos. It shows you the pace of technology. The latest V10s could do well over 900BHP, ten years ago it was about 7-800BHP.

Same with road cars. A NA 2.0L engine can easily achieve 200BHP today, would've been a shocking number ten years ago.


Facing 10 years of the least powerful engine, Honda will pull out. Car sales will not fall, they will finally realise motorsport fans read car reviews when choosing their road cars (Alfa). Then Toyota, then Renault.

No they won't. Kinetic energy storage cells is mandated in a couple of years and the big car manufacturers are using similar technology in cars today.

Honda's two biggest expenditures is F1 and hydrogen fuel cell R&D technology (they have an island in Japan that's run completely on hydrogen).

[Valve Bounce]

This is a very interesting concept. But before I buy into the negative aspects of this proposed regulation, I would like to know, firstly, the power of the different engines.

As far as reliability is concerned, I think there has been tremendous improvement in this area from the days where engines, especially Honda's, seem to explode regularly.

There does seem to be one advantage here as it could pave the way for a customer engine to be manufactured and supplied to several teams. At present, Ferrari, Renault and Toyota are successfully supplying a competitive customer engine, and maybe more teams can benefit from this arangement.

Honda's are a mystery because they appear to be supplying their own B team which they then want to hobble, but that's another story.

[Roamy]

Sh!t in 10 years we may not even has gas!!!

[Valve Bounce]

Sh!t in 10 years we may not even has gas!!!


Don't worry, I got gas!! Especially when I eat those Chili Beans. :eek:

[wmcot]

I wonder if we'll see the scenario where one manufacturer (say Honda) finds themselves with a weak engine becomes a customer for another manufacturer's engine (Mercedes, for example) and re-badges it as a Honda? Could be like a bunch of Cosworth's running around like the '70s and early '80s. :(

[ShiftingGears]

What a crock of ****. Engine development is pretty much the only outlet that can be innovated that actually contributes to the spectacle of racing. Why not use the PR-friendly KERS system AS WELL AS engine development?

[fan-veteran]

Well guys,the development of F1 engines can be very, very expensive. Or let's say it in another way - FIA must make a very complex and comprehensive engine rules to limit the expenditures and performance. In this case there will be a little place for innovation, but the expenditures will be high. Not to mention reliability issues.
You cannot simply free some part of the engine regulations - it's a matter of parts of a second to be first or third and everybody will spend money to achieve a supremacy. At the end, after years of development (and really enormous expenditures) a limit of engine development under current regulations will be reached - and then what - change the rules to start a new very expensive rivalry?

[wroom]

While I'm all for cutting costs in F1, this particular ruling sounds odd.

Can someone explain what this means for new teams? Let's assume car manufacturer X wants to join F1 in 2012. If they spend the next 5 years working and spending hard on the engine, won't that give them a potentially huge advantage on teams that have engines dating back to 2007?

Or let's say someone buy's up the assets of an existing team, slams in the development version of the engine (that has never been raced in F1 but has been developed all along since 2007) and returns under a different name and ownership. Will that let them race with essentially the same car, team and drivers but with a developed engine?

I don't know.. it sounds very hard to regulate. Can anyone make any sense of it?

Thanks,

[Ranger]

The word MOTOR racing should prevail in a decision like this... but it seems not.

[passmeatissue]

Bernie said the top teams are spending half a billion dollars a year, that's after all the various cost saving ideas Max has introduced over the last few years. If one thing is frozen, they just spend the money on something else.

[Azumanga Davo]

Bloody hell, it's going to become Formula 3 and a bit, is it? :(

And think of all the Engine R&D people that will have to leave the sport and end up at the bottom of the food chain, i.e. design a poor SUV concept car. Oh the agony...

[SteveA]

And think of all the Engine R&D people that will have to leave the sport and end up at the bottom of the food chain, i.e. design a poor SUV concept car.

By 2018 Hybrid SUVs will be more powerful than F1 cars ;)

[Easy Drifter]

I suspect this will end up being another of Mad Max's floaters and another compromise will be reached. The way technoligy is developing 10 years is just not feasible.

[AAReagles]

Sh!t in 10 years we may not even has gas!!!

Don't you worry my friend, our beloved President is working on solving that problem by misleading the people... er, I meant informing the concerned public that the penguins in Antartica should be regarded as an element of the Axis of Evil since the administration is convinced that they are deliberately concealing huge quanitities of oil reserves, er... I meant WMDs underneath the polar cap. ;)





Could be like a bunch of Cosworth's running around like the '70s and early '80s.

Hey now that wouldn't be such a bad thing would it ?




This has to be some sort of a wind-up. All those (FIA) clowns have to do is look how Tony Georges' regulation decisions to water down the Indy car series was met with less than desired fan response; translation - less attendance.

Which could be the same result for GP racing if it doesn't shape up.

[aryan]

I agree with you, at the moment there is no room for innovation regarding engines, all V8's, slightly boring. Whats wrong with V10, V12, V6,etc. .

Indedd, or straight 6, or a straigt 12 for that matter, or a wonderful inline 4 turbo.

The only limit on the engine should on the flow of fuel it is allowed to have. Let the engineers free for god's sake.

Oh yes, it will disrupt the "show", cause someone might have a better engine in one year and win all race.

Well, wasn't that the whole idea of a competition? If I wanted superficial races, I would watch NASCAR or something...

[Malbec]

My understanding is that an engine freeze allows limited development of certain components, so that reliability issues, for instance, can be sorted out. However, it seems to me (as alluded to in a previous post) that if you have a fundamentally flawed engine then you're stuck with it for a long time, so what incentive is there to remain in F1? Especially since F1 is a meritocracy, and few points means low income. Conversely, a new team could join F1 in, say, nine years' time with an engine far more developed than the 'frozen' ones already in the sport, and start winning right away. Doesn't sound right to me.

Remarkably it looks like a 'total freeze' means just that. Designed a bad engine? Tough, guess you're stuck with it for the next decade:

"Total freeze means that there will be no exceptions for development of certain parts of the engine, as is the case under the current regulations."

from Autosport.

Another move by the FIA to hit the manufacturers who were willing to all spend quite a bit of money developing the next generation of engines, hence why they proposed some changes to the regs to allow development over the next few years.

My guess is, as with many an outrageous FIA proposal in the past, that this is simply something put forward to be bargained away later to get the manufacturers to accept another of Max's desires.

If this is real and done and dusted then I despair....

[jso1985]

I guess Toyota and Honda are screwed for the next 10 years then...

I still don't see how that helps to save money if the teams will have to spend even more to develop other parts of the car

[leopard]

In the event the talk between Alonso and the japanese car could meet, I think he would then be sort of fresh blood for either Toyota or Honda in the championship.
The possibility is still widely open, they have money and there must be a lot of thing they can do with it.

[wmcot]

I guess Toyota and Honda are screwed for the next 10 years then...

I still don't see how that helps to save money if the teams will have to spend even more to develop other parts of the car

It won't save money - none of the money saving ideas have reduced the cost of racing! All the money "saved" will be used somewhere else...

[Malbec]

I guess Toyota and Honda are screwed for the next 10 years then...

I still don't see how that helps to save money if the teams will have to spend even more to develop other parts of the car

I don't see how any particular car company will suffer, there isn't a significant difference in performance between the engines now anywhere partly because there simply isn't much scope for car makers to do things differently from one another.

I can see you could argue that the Japanese makers will be the ones who will lose out most because it looks like this power regeneration idea is out of the window and the Japanese are the most advanced in looking at alternative power storage methods.

I'd argue that the biggest losers are the engineers. All the car makers will do is divert cash from engine development to somewhere else but I suspect many engine designers can't transfer their skills to other departments quite as easily.