Fil wrote:(Unlike WB) I'm not so sure that there is a feasible way of achieving the road-relevant/future-driven tech desired, without it being an arms race. Certainly, there's no such speak from any engine manufacturer. Even Cosworth haven't mentioned a specific desire for a RRA for engine development (please point me towards anything to the contrary).
Your memory is short if you forgot the position of Cosworth that has been published several times by Tim Routsis and documented in the previous 2013 engine thread. If I find the time I will research the thread and give you the quotes that show exactly what you think they have not said. On top new engine technology at affordable cost is exactly the Merc position. They have always asked to limit the development spending to a point that the new development would have a pay back of less than five years with the same or lower customer prices. It appears that people do not listen to the statements that do not fit their preconceptions.
Jimi_Hendrix_1967 wrote:Given that most KERS systems are very fragile pieces of machinery, I wonder if it is wise to put a 250hp system wich can break down during a race in the 2013 cars. Imagine if Red Bull suddenly lost 250hp during a race vs a battle with mclaren...they would probably be lapped twice by the HRT's and the Virgins.
Every new tech has it's teething problems. There are plenty of people who complain that F1 has become too reliable to deliver a good show. In the past there was more heart braking drama with last lap break downs they say.
xpensive wrote:Mind you WB, but all of those manufacturers mentioned are releasing new models with 8, 12 and even 16 cylinders all the time.
I don't think that's the point here. There are many different markets in automotive products and naturally the successful manufacturers will try to serve them all. This includes cars for niche purposes, but even those are being redesigned for improved efficiency all the time. My example with the S-class shows that even in the luxury segment it becomes increasingly sensible to downsize and cut cylinder number by turbo charging.
One trend that goes along with downsizing and petrol turbos is the reduction of engine platforms. Increasingly different power and torque variants are being generated by a different level of blowing. You can run single, twin scroll and double sequential turbo chargers to derive different power and cost levels from one base engine instead of fiddling with three or four basic engine designs. This saves complexity cost and is attractive to the manufacturers. It will support the trend towards fewer cylinders as many engine configs like I5, I6 or V10 will slowly die out. Even V12 will be a questionable decision pretty soon as the new generation of turbo V8s gather momentum.
Jimi_Hendrix_1967 wrote:On top of that, I dont see VAG putting a Lamborghini tag on an inline 4 engine
Audi made it clear this week that they have no interest in F1: "F1 does not have any relevance to road cars." I guess that includes the 2013 engine rules.
Apples and bananas again! Surely VW would enter F1 today if Piech was convinced that Bernie/CVC would run the sport with fair value to the manufacturers. As it stands the policy was closer to highway robbery than a fair deal.
