FIA announces ten-year engine freeze for F1.......wtf???

This article on Mosley may have been posted, I can't remember. If not, take a look. It's a good read.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_item.php?fes_art_id=33198

 

What is the point to this at all, saving costs? Yeah BS.

 

saving costs, making it more boring, losing fans, ahh..typical.

 

there is one interesting thing here.
an F1 engine is about as far removed from a road car as you can possibly get yeah ?
i mean how many road cars rev to 19,000 rpm
a few years ago (ok more than a few) there were links between an F1 engine and a road engine.
stopping the focus being on higher and higher revs is i feel a positive step - how may countries are going to allow cars that make massive noise because they need to rev to 19,000rpm ???


maybe this means they will be able to concentrate on reliability ???
i never liked the 2 race meeting engine rules - i felt they took an aspect away from the drivers with the chance they would blow etc and a grid penalty if they needed to be changed.
but how about no grid penalty - but you can only change an engine (early) if it def blows.
and you get extra constructor point if your engine lasts 2 races ?

 

Since they are freezing engine development, I expect that F1 ticket prices will be frozen for the next 10 years too!

 

PhilNotHill Since they are freezing engine development, I expect that F1 ticket prices will be frozen for the next 10 years too!


Now that comment I like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I was hoping Turbo Engines would be coming back, as Ferrari has stated that is the way of the future with their own next Supercar. Therefore, why not revert to a 1.2 L Inline 4 or V6 Turbo?

This whole Engine Freeze and Max knows it himself, he is as usual trying to play hardball with the Manufacturers. Unfortunately, Bernie runs the commericial side and lets Max get away with this stuff. I actually agree that there should be cost savings but not with an Engine Freeze, there are other ways. Not to mention as many of you have said, there is a reason it is called F1.

 

HUBBSTER, I've been saying that for YEARS.

It's a shame they can't bring back fast, AFFORDABLE racing like Can-Am (pre-Porsche 91710 & 30), let alone the F-5000 Series.

It's ALL about c-o-n-t-r-o-l, and some guy ALWAYS has to be in complete control, name a series that isn't run by a dictator....

 

Well hey: the new Civic Si delivers 197 horse - at 7,800 rpm.
I don't think I'd take it to 7800 as a rule....

 

The answer is easy! Max and Bernie are money grubbing, power hungry jagoffs!

 

Well Bernie is the Money Grubbing one, Max is the Power Hungry Jackoff...

 

Because they don't control the FIA, which is involved in all forms of motor sport, and more besides, not just F1. However, as I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread the F1 teams could leave the FIA and run their own show free from any regulation by the FIA. Some teams wanted to do that a couple of years ago but it didn't happen.

 

Ian I can agree with you well no what you mean: but given the choice which would you want in your drive..

All down to tastes the Enzo horse for me..though

 

Steve

Yesterday I was looking at a 30+ year old 246 with about 10k miles on the clock and in mint condition. The 246 is, IMHO, possibly the most beautiful car ever made and I'd take that particular one over an Ultima or Enzo. Power and speed aren't everything.

 

It's a beauty cannot argue with that pure class..

As with this one..
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

F1 should be as unregulated as possible. I think the best thing that could happen to the sport is to remove all restrictions except those related to safety. That will mean (among other things):

- With no restrictions on engine design (except broad ones for safety reasons), you will see 4s, 6s, 8s, 10s, 12s and who knows what else

- With no restrictions on aero (except broad ones for safety reasons), you will see moveable and immovable aero parts, covered and uncovered wheels, etc. = all sorts of new innovative car designs

- With no weight restrictions (except broad ones for safety reasons), you will see light agile cars mixed with heavy(ish) muscle cars

- With no restrictions on tires (except broad ones for safety reasons), you will see each team looking for and striking equitable deals with a tire manufacturer to tailor tires to their specific chassis and engine (could be exclusive, could be non-exclusive (and hence cheaper), let the market decide)

- With no restrictions on fuel (except broad ones for safety reasons), you will see each team looking for and striking equitable deals with a fuel supplier to tailor fuel to their specific chassis and engine = gasoline, hybrid, whatever

This will let only technology and budget dictate what you see on the cars: for example, if a “push-to-pass” hybrid technology makes sense from a competitive standpoint, you will see it, if not, then it (rightfully) will not be there.

You will also get a much broader spectrum of compromise available for engine and chassis designers in each team. This will result in a high variability in performance of each team from one track to another, much more so than now. This could result in an unpredictable mix of relative advantages for every team in every race and hence unpredictable results every racing weekend.

Trying to centrally plan everything that happens in F1 (example: the environment is important so let’s have hybrids) reminds me of communism. New technological ideas often come to life in unpredictable ways; sometimes just letting teams innovate in order to win races will result in new and unimaginable advances in relevant everyday technology.

This unregulated environment was how the series started. There should be no compromise on safety, but other than that, PLEASE open it up.

So what if this approach will require teams to have big budgets, , or will reduce the number of teams, how else should a team at the “pinnacle of motorsport” operate, except with a gigantic budget?

 

I can already see the cost skyrocketing with teams trying to squeeze out every thousandth of a second out of each possible area other than the engine. Its going to get harder and harder to be more competitive and that equals costs.

 

In principle that sounds great, but I don't think it would work well.

F1 is a sport that must attract a large audience and to do that there needs to be relatively close competition. No one will come to races, or watch them on television, if the results are more or less predictable before they start. Look at how excited many posters here and fans in general have been because of the closeness of this season's competition and how they compare it favourably to some 'boring' previous seasons. To turn the sport into a free for all would make the potential for one team to dominate greater than it is at present and potentially kill F1.

 

A lovely car, but maybe a bit unsafe??

 

Indeed

 

Hauntingly lovely, to be sure.

Happy Halloween.

 

Let's hope the ghost of JD doesn't come back to haunt us on the night!

 

Now back to your regular programming -

I for one find it a continuing amazement that it seems every rule "proposal" coming forth from Paris is even more outrageous than the last!

For the crying out loud, F1 racing took a little "sabattical" during 1939 to 1945 but they sure had some new engines running by 1955!!!

Also for the crying out loud - remember how sick everybody got of the Indy cars running that 4cyl alky Offenhauser for all those years? And how glad that we were to see the Lotus cars, the Turbines, the rear engines, etc.?

And I also was of the theory that Max desperately wanted hybrids - is this his perhaps just a childish little passive-agressive pout at the manufacturers because he does not think he is getting his way?

 

James Dean?

 

Nah, that's just down to Global Warming Hysteria rampant in Europe.