[/godwins law or whatever it is]

http://www.f1technical.net/news/12085

Quote :

While visiting the new Algarve racing circuit, Max Mosley has revealed that the FIA are looking into the possibility of having a single engine formula across Formula One, WRC and Formula Two. The formula would make its entry in 2013, when the current engine regulations would stop to exist.

Hmmm, this seems a bit too unrealistic, but god please don't let this happen.

At the end of the day, manufacturers are still important to racing, showing them the door be not a good idea in my opinion.

He's getting more senile each second that passes...

Original source:

http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacent ... Pages/wrc_conference.aspx

Quote :

Q: Reiner Kuhn, Motorsport Aktuell, Switzerland: On one hand you speak about future technology in 2013, when the 1.6 turbo-charged engines will come. Is this too late? Everybody is talking about downsizing and smaller engines.

MM: Whatever we do has to fit with the future product range of the manufacturers. It’s no good doing something outside of that. We’re looking at the moment at a world engine for 2013. That’s to say an engine that would work in turbocharged form for F1 and then all the way down to naturally aspirated form for the lesser categories and in a turbocharged or naturally aspirated form for the World Rally Championship. It’s very early days. We are doing this in consultation with the manufacturers. In all probability, this will be 2013, that’s the timescale which with manufacturers tends to be relatively long. Therefore, if we do something at short notice it could cause problems. We will go to Super 2000 in 2011, and 2013 will be on us before we know it. There’s no question of us doing something between now and 2013, it’s simply too short a period. What will happen in 2013 if the idea of a world engine really starts to work remains to be seen.

What we would like to do is have an engine, take F1 for an example, where the base engine is not the subject of development; it’s the peripheral areas which are the subject of the development. An obvious area is KERS, that’s very much a peripheral area, also energy recovery from the exhaust and cooling systems, Also elements like direct injection and all sorts of others that we need to discuss with manufacturers. But our basic objective is that the money spent in motorsport on research and development should be relevant and useful to the car industry rather than a highly specialised area which has no relevance to anything else, and if we can - and I’m not sure we can - find a way of combining all forms of motorsport in that system then this would be useful because of the huge sums spent on motorsport. It’s not beyond our possibility that those sums could produce something useful for the future - even if it’s long time in the future.

"Single formula" is not same as standard engine, altough Max is talking about some standardized parts... boo.

And you can hate Mosley but I bet there aren't many manufacturers in the world who would NOT love this idea. Build one base engine and select couple of series that suits their brand from a catalogue...

Anyway, something similar might happen without FIA's involement. WRC is going back to turbos (2011-2012 NA S2000 rules) in 2013, probably same for F1, IndyCars are looking at turbos maybe 2012, Le Mans prototype regs are changing in favour or small capacity turbos and then all the one make formula series.

Last time FIA tried same engine in different series, that worked really great :rolleyes:

Use of one set of (new and sensible) engine rules between F1, a new Formula Two and LMPs could be sensible, but standard engines or sticking those engines in the WRC is laughable.

A lot of people say its all ok because it worked with the DFV/L/X in the 70's, but then it was the team's choice, they weren't pushed into it by an interfering governing body that tries to fix things that aren't (or at least weren't, in the case of Group C sports cars) broken. And given the choice (and a good budget), teams such as Renault, Matra and Ferrari (and well you could say BRM), built their own engines that beat the rest.

Part of what makes racing interesting (well for me anyway), is the variety, how a field of teams will often go about things in completely different ways to achieve the same goals, V8s vs V12s for example. In more recent times, any development or clever idea is soon stamped out: mass dampers, Mclaren's two brake pedal system, BAR's front differential and plenty more that I haven't thought of, what next? Probrably the clever diffusers we've seen this season. And so racing no longer improves the breed.

It's sad to see the individuality slowly stamped out of racing by Max Mosely and his master race of engines.

It could work, I suppose it depends how it is done.

Some large diesel engines (in ships etc) can come in a variety of sizes, from 8cyl to 16cyl but share a lot of the internal parts across the engine range. Obviously some parts are specific to a certain size.

If they go the same way and have a base for an engine that can then be used in a 4cyl format for Rallying, with and without turbo, and more cylinders for higher spec series then it could actually work and decrease costs. They could also add in that F1 teams could pick between a boosted 8cyl or NA 12cyl as long as power output was limited.

Quote :

He's getting more senile each second that passes...

Yeh, he really is Gil...

-Maz

Quote from Bean0 :

They could also add in that F1 teams could pick between a boosted 8cyl or NA 12cyl as long as power output was limited.

Dream on When F1 goes turbo (in 2013 then?), only realistic formula is <2.0 litre I4 or V6.

Quote from Bean0 :

It could work, I suppose it depends how it is done.

Some large diesel engines (in ships etc) can come in a variety of sizes, from 8cyl to 16cyl but share a lot of the internal parts across the engine range. Obviously some parts are specific to a certain size.

If they go the same way and have a base for an engine that can then be used in a 4cyl format for Rallying, with and without turbo, and more cylinders for higher spec series then it could actually work and decrease costs. They could also add in that F1 teams could pick between a boosted 8cyl or NA 12cyl as long as power output was limited.

What about for F1, a new F2 and LMP1 a system of basically free engines, but with a power cap and engines per season limitations?

Quote from 5haz :

plenty more that I haven't thought of,

...like the 787B and wankels at al? Or Audis IMSA/DTM Quattros?

I want a racing series that has everything from Turbo I4s to V12s and 3-rotors, only thing that comes close is the VLN

Quote :

Max Mosley and his master

I stopped right after that.

It can work but they should relax the KERS restrictions a bit more allowing more power and the manufactuers can design there own that way atleast they will have a reason to stay.

Quote from ACCAkut :

...like the 787B and wankels at al?

It's not like wankels were banned immediately for "potential competition killing" (which they weren't). Actually wankels alone were not literally banned. Everything else than 3.5 litre NA piston engines were simply outlawed.

Quote from deggis :

Dream on When F1 goes turbo (in 2013 then?), only realistic formula is <2.0 litre I4 or V6.

why would they need anything more than 2l anyway? the most powerful f1 engines were tiny little 1.5l i4s

I am the only one who like that idea ?

Quote from Shotglass :

why would they need anything more than 2l anyway? the most powerful f1 engines were tiny little 1.5l i4s

Of course not for turbo. But Bean0 was talking about turbo V8s and NA V12s...

Quote from Shotglass :

why would they need anything more than 2l anyway? the most powerful f1 engines were tiny little 1.5l i4s

The problem was that the engines weren't reliable or for that matter condusive to things like lasting a weekend without replacement. Not appropriate for now.

My first choice would be a power limit and a fuel economy test for WCC points. The concept of Group C in reverse. To make things interesting, an engine of the same size, number of cylinders and similar gimmick technologies must be used in a manufacturer's road cars, but not a stock block or anything.

Engines should last six races in F1, but would be detuned for Le Mans, a new Formula Two and other uses where would have longer usage periods. Then create a single set of engine rules for a faster WTCC, a new Formula 2000 (to replace World Series Renault et al) and LMP2.

Engines in F1 should be free. There should be no minimum life limits, or other stupid rules. Just let them do what they want - if someone wants to match a 2000hp 1 litre inline 4 turbocharged monster against a V16 NA then they can.

Remove some of the restrictive chassis rules too, so that uber V16 and teeny I4 also end up with wildly different chassis yet give the same race times after two hours.

And increase the race length to MINIMUM 2 hours. Otherwise F1 will become a nancy sport.

It already is Tristan. Fair enough, the drivers need to be kept safe, but F1 seems 'sterile' currently

I love your idea of F1 though, V16s against V6 turbos against V10 NA and V12s. But it (Mosely's) idea mostly done for cost and control.

Quote from duke_toaster :

The problem was that the engines weren't reliable or for that matter condusive to things like lasting a weekend without replacement. Not appropriate for now.

20 years ago
has it occured to you that engine technology and reliability has improved over that period?

also as usual your ideas are horrible

Quote from tristancliffe :

Engines in F1 should be free. There should be no minimum life limits, or other stupid rules. Just let them do what they want - if someone wants to match a 2000hp 1 litre inline 4 turbocharged monster against a V16 NA then they can.

what would keep them from building a 5000hp v16 turbocharged sillyness?
im all for openness but there has to be some way to regulate power

personally id be for completely open engine regulations with a fuel limit so that automatically the most efficient design will float to the top which would also give f1 back some of its supposed relevance for the mass production cars

Shot, if you have a fuel limit, eventually everybody is going to do the same design, and we'll be back at square 1

Yes, I should have mentioned the fuel limit (or, rather, the energy flow limit). That way people will come up with different ways of trying to extract as much energy from the flow as possible whilst maintaining driveability and reliability without making the car weigh 9 tonnes or being 160ft long...

It'd be ace!

Might cost a bit though. But that's part of the fun. To an extent F1 SHOULD be about spending silly amounts of money

Quote from DieKolkrabe :

Shot, if you have a fuel limit, eventually everybody is going to do the same design, and we'll be back at square 1

yes and no
yes its likely that everybody will end up with similar designs in the end (im guessing small diplacement turboed cars with properly done kers that works on all 4 wheels) but the difference is
1) theyll likely all start out with completely different ideas and converge to a single point
2) the design will be the best design instead of some randomly numbers chosen by someone who doesnt know the first thing about engines

=> it will be a true master race of engines

and if you limit the materials theyre allowed to use to those that can be profitably used in mass production cars you have a good chance of ending up with a design that is very relevant in the real world
not to mention that the oh so important car manufacturers would have a chance to really show off their engineering abilities as opposed to fidling around with tiny bits that hardly make a difference

Fuel limit worked fairly well in Group C, although it did cause some frustrations early on, what with people running out of fuel and having to coast to race finishes, but limits were adjusted and efficiency improved.

And there was still variety, Porsche had a 2.6 litre engine with big turbos, Sauber/Merc had a 5 litre with smaller turbos, and Jag had a massive 7litre with no turbos, and that was in 1988, after a few years, so nobody really ended up with the 'same' design, did they?

Last time there was a fuel limit in F1 it was brought in to try and rein in the turbos, but perhaps if the limit had stayed long enough, it would have spurred teams into developing better engine management, which could 'improve the breed' by being brought into road cars, rather like Porsche and Bosch in group C with their Motronic system.