I have one suggestion to formula one seasons 2006 and futher. Let we make it a lot more interesting in Formula One to see other back runner surprise us by their race winning or pole position. 2006 rules says, all the manufacturer have to run their car with V8 engine 2.4 liters. Why don't we have a variety of 2.4 Litres engine? Like a V8 2.4L, V10 2.4L, V6 2.4L or maybe flat or boxer 2.4L engine. As long as they follow the rule 2.4 liters engine, they can compete in Formula One. The same 2400 c.c engine with difference cylinder configuration. Formula One needs "freedom" to gain a momentum in creating the best engine without breaking the rules.
That would be an excellent idea, something like in the beginning of the nineties with the 3.5l engines.
However, Max is obsessed by cost reduction at the moment. It is however questionable whether choosing an engine type is that much of a cost but apparently the FIA thinks so. Earlier on this forum I had suggested for the V angle to be allowed freedom, but then again this seems to be against cost cutting...
Location: Covilhã, Portugal (and sometimes in Évora)
Post
You'd see all of them would probably go for the higher number of ciliders possible in order to have max rpm....the regs for 2006 were made with the objective of reducing costs....that idea would raise them.
The engine rules for F1 used to be very liberal. They allowed N/A piston engines, turbo or supercharged engines, turbine engines or rotary engines. Until recently, the number of cylinders was not limited. Ever see the 3.0L, twin crank, BRM H16 engine?
The engine rules for F1 become more restrictive every year because that is the FIA's way of controlling costs. F1 racing is not the technical "free for all" it was 20 years ago. In 2005, the FIA tech reg's have basically made F1 racing a very expensive spec car series.
to be honest the rules in F1 are too limiting nowadays, I know we must keep driver & spectator safety as a prime concern....but surely we could allow SOME room for a team to have an individual design thesis.
I mean, having no limit on cylinders would be a fantastic Idea. A team could use a V8 for a short engine, a V12 for power (like Ferrari in the 90's) for use a V10 for a compromise. It would make some great racing seeing as different cars will have different capabilities. Like a car with a V12 could be really fast on a straight, but due to a lack of torque could be slower out of the preceeding corner.
And again, the FIA's idea of imposing a limit to the amount of downforce could yield similar results if they were to reduce the limitations of the rules regarding bodywork. Some teams could use lots of little winglets and other use just two big wings.
Real veriety in the sport could bring some really interesting designs and racing.
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.
As much as I hate agreeing with Max Mosley, I believe that if we stick with one specific engine format for a few years, costs will be reduced. Of course, the initial R&D dollars will be high as a completely new configuration is tried, broken, rebuilt, and retried. But as the years go on, teams will have a critical database to build on. Conditional as long as this specific format is held for a few years.
Personally, I would like to see a lot more freedom for the engineers, this is slowly becoming an open wheeler version of NASCAR.
Formula NASCAR, anyone?
What is the value of cost compare to the joy and advance technology we would achieve in Formula One. We cannot avoid cost will rise up..because Formula One is the highest division of motorsprts so does the cost.
Well it should be noted that max is correct with regard to his intent to reduce / limit the cost.
Have any of you guys played GP Manager? Have you seen how easy the game is if you spend like crazy? I won all races but 1 per season for three seasons....
What is important is that the cost increased dramatically each season, which is as can be expected. The problem is that there is a certain finite value attached to the advertising aspect of F1 - so there is a limit to the money which manufactures/sponsours will spend on F1. If the costs keep on increasing there will be a point where the sport is not sustainable....
So cost is an exceptionally important aspect to consider.
However i am not sure that is is indeed possible to 'reduce' the cost of the bigger picture. Sure you could make the running costs lower by making engines last longer for instance. The budget that the teams have will be spent on other stuff, like more employees or super computers....
I'm not really sure the V8 will reduce cost, but I think it is suposed to make the F1 cars a bit slower. The teams have tons and tons of data, information and knowledge about the V10's. The V8 are in fact totaly new. They'll need a lot of development (=cost) to make a realiable V8. But on the long term it will indeed reduce the costs a little.
Still I don't think this is a good way to reduce the costs. Even if you introduce 2.0L four cilinders the teams will spend a huge ammount of money on the development of that engine, because the engine with the most horses has the most chance to win. The more money you use to develop the engine, the better your engine will be and the more chance you'll have to win. And that's what it's all about in F1...
Show that you're a loser with a lot of money who can't get a racing license, drive the Gumball 3000...
I must agree that trying to prevent costs from becoming TOO high is a good thing. But also trying to cut costs is madness. This is the pinicle of motorsport...cant afford it? Then go.
Sure I'd like to see more cars on the grid. But I'd rather see a race with 10cars all wih a chance of winning than 30cars with only 6 with a chance of winning. And this is what happens when you try to reduce costs...the smaller teams can barely afford to run the team let alone challenge for wins. I do LIKE the minnows, dont get me wrong. But F1 IS the pinicle of motorsport...it cant be artificially restrained.
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.
If you want to reduce costs in F1, allow teams to buy engines and chassis from whom ever they choose. The current rule that requires each team to produce it's own chassis is ridiculous. The result is that 10 different teams spend 10's of millions of dollars each, to produce a chassis that is visually indistinguishable from any other one. It's a complete waste.
Why not allow teams to buy the best chassis, the best engine, and the best driver. Sort of like Champ Car.
Agree (for now )..........I see no reason why a privateer team buying a chassis devalues F1. It used to be done (Rob Walker ran privateer Lotus with Stirling Moss, Ferrari started by running Alfas).
As long as the chassis complies with the FIA regs it is an F1 car. Of course the works teams will always have an edge (they'd make damn sure of it ).
It's like a virtuous circle. Constructors can earn extra money by selling chassis and privateer teams can compete with a much smaller and cheaper organisation - so everybody has to find less external budget.
)..........I see no reason why a privateer team buying a chassis devalues F1. It used to be done (Rob Walker ran privateer Lotus with Stirling Moss, Ferrari started by running Alfas).
).