Pingguest wrote: However, the concept (of GRE)has failed: having purposely designed instead of production-based engines goes against spirit of series like WTCC and WRC. The proposed engine for Formula 1 isn't according to the GRE-concept either, but still based on this concept.
That is not correct in my view. The proposed F1 engine is based on the same block as other GRE engines would be, but it would not follow the additional restrictions for lower classes, where a lot more technical restrictions are set to make the concept very affordable to engine tuners and manufacturers alike. F1 is not in the same situation as some series that can only afford engines cost of some €100k per annum. They can easily absorb several million which leads to a wider technical scope than the GRE concept offers. To me the choice to use the same type of block makes sense as more manufacturers will be attracted over the long run and it is a very efficient concept.
Pingguest wrote:If this concept is to make Formula 1 more road relevant, shouldn't it count for all participants? As Formula 1 has a huge variety of participants - privateers, manufactures of common road cars and of sport cars - it could be argued that no single concept will be relevant to all of them. The question rises whether it fits the current situation to mandate one specific engine configuration. Wouldn't it be better to allow any engine configuration? Reduced grip and weight could be used to keep the performances in check and to have a set of rules lacking an absolute point of perfection, making the design of a car more a matter of human instincts and clever thinking instead of on-going development.
The analysis about the F1 participants is correct but the conclusion is somewhat short sighted. F1 has always had restrictions on engine configurations since the first Concord agreement in 1981. The restrictions have been tightened over the time to avoid unnecessary spending. The commonly agreed principle of the engine working group for cost restrictions was to select a relatively narrow technical concept, have resource or budget restrictions for development and homologation with annual freeing up in some areas of technology. This is a balanced approach which would bring back some innovation, some freedom and maintain affordability. Hence my support for the idea which was promoted by Cosworth and ultimately led to the selection of the I4 configuration.
Pingguest wrote:Lastly, a number of thoughts about Formula 1 aiming for lower fuel consumption and relevancy. If Formula 1 is really serious about this, it should reconsider its being as an open-wheel series and its regulations regarding active aerodynamics, active suspension and all wheel drive.
I don't agree with that view. We have sports cars for closed wheels. F1 should remain open wheel and open cockpit. The proper answer is to pursue a low drag, ground effect using, open wheel chassis as proposed by the FiA expert group for 2013. It is a shame that this plan was shot down by the teams because they fear that it will shake up the current performance order. Active aero, active suspension and AWD is something that I agree with. But it needs to be introduced in small homologation steps to keep the formula affordable.
