Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[flynfrog]

Sorry. Double post

you just double agree with me

[WhiteBlue]

the capability of engineers to make cars faster and faster in undisputed. since 100 years in reality restrictions have to be imposed to keep speed manageable. why not make such restrictions that benefit the consumers?

[ISLAMATRON]

I was thinking of an engine formula that could please the car manufacturers, what about this:

3L V12 revving 16700 RPM (just to get the noise from the 20k V10's back).

FIA provided block, crankshaft, rods, pistons, head, valves & ECU.

Teams can opt to buy complete engines.

Teams can use their own exhaust, intake, fuel injection, cam shafts, cooling & lubrication systems. And valve covers with their brands obviously.

It wouldn't be in fact much different from what happens today, with many of these to be standard items being outsourced. The teams that choose to assemble their own engines will rightfully be able to brand them.

There will be room for some tweaking, but eveyone should fit into a small margin. If somethinhg starts to get odd just freeze that one system.

How in the world is a 3L V-12 even close to road relevant? No team would go for that, not even Ferrari. I think Its absurd for them to change the engine formula for only 3 years (2010, 2011, 2012) and then change it again in 2013. I thought they were gonna stick with the 2.4 liter V-8's and make all the internals stock
that would be the cheapest option. The R&D needed for that would be Minimal.

If they were to go with a all new formula I think they should go with a 2L straight 4, turbocharged, 10-12K RPM Limit, running on celluostic bio-fuel. It would work towards the greener image they are looking for and decrease costs with a 4 to 6 race engine/gearbox combo. The decreased output would put more empahsis on KERS. CVT's would be nice too since the gearboxes are almost sutomatic as it is. That formula would be extremely road relevant, I could see more factories jumping in if that were the formula.

[ISLAMATRON]

the capability of engineers to make cars faster and faster in undisputed. since 100 years in reality restrictions have to be imposed to keep speed manageable. why not make such restrictions that benefit the consumers?

Bcuz it makes too much sense and is far too reasonable.

[Scotracer]

There is no real need for the engine to be road relevant as development wont be an issue (it's only construction really).

[rjsa]

How in the world is a 3L V-12 even close to road relevant? No team would go for that, not even Ferrari. I think Its absurd for them to change the engine formula for only 3 years (2010, 2011, 2012) and then change it again in 2013. I thought they were gonna stick with the 2.4 liter V-8's and make all the internals stock
that would be the cheapest option. The R&D needed for that would be Minimal.

If they were to go with a all new formula I think they should go with a 2L straight 4, turbocharged, 10-12K RPM Limit, running on celluostic bio-fuel. It would work towards the greener image they are looking for and decrease costs with a 4 to 6 race engine/gearbox combo. The decreased output would put more empahsis on KERS. CVT's would be nice too since the gearboxes are almost sutomatic as it is. That formula would be extremely road relevant, I could see more factories jumping in if that were the formula.

Well, it will be track side revevant, I can assure that.

Don't dream of road relvance, it is the way around on almost every aspect. Road cars used turbos much before F1, same with EFI, ABS, and what so ever. Active suspenions were a F1 development, completelly irrelevant for read cars. The areo aspect is also completelly irrelevant for road cars as it is used on open wheel racing.

F1 aint boy scout, F1 audience either.

Ethanol should be there already, there I agree with you. Just to look a tad better.

[ISLAMATRON]

There is no real need for the engine to be road relevant as development wont be an issue (it's only construction really).

But why go thru all this engine redesign for only a 3 year usage? either design an engine to be used from 2010 o, or use the V-8's till 2013. those 2 options would make the most sense, but no one has ever accused the FIA of making sense.

And yes the teams want road relevance, even if it is only for the engine ancilaries.

[WhiteBlue]

the main issue seems to be the unavailability of affordable and competitive engines to the privat teams. they are supposed to get such engnes for 10 m $ for both cars. then they can spend money on HERS and KERS as the FiA has decided as the development objective.

the FIA has been talking to the manufactring teams about this problem for many years. but the manufacturers prefer to see engines an a competitve advantage and want to maximise it.

I'm afraid this issue will only be resolved with a high amount of pressure. as soon as the manufacturers agree to supply customers at manufacturing cost + 15% the issue is much more flexible I think. they should not have a problem to agree to development aimed at better fuel efficiency.

[flynfrog]

the main issue seems to be the unavailability of affordable and competitive engines to the privat teams. they are supposed to get such engnes for 10 m $ for both cars. then they can spend money on HERS and KERS as the FiA has decided as the development objective.

the FIA has been talking to the manufactring teams about this problem for many years. but the manufacturers prefer to see engines an a competitve advantage and want to maximise it.

I'm afraid this issue will only be resolved with a high amount of pressure. as soon as the manufacturers agree to supply customers at manufacturing cost + 15% the issue is much more flexible I think. they should not have a problem to agree to development aimed at better fuel efficiency.

sorry this is racing not socialism

manufacturing cost has very little to do with the cost of an engine. You have to figure engineering time development ect. In the real world manufacturing only accounts for 30% of the cost of a good depending on what it is.

If private teams want to race you have to pay to play. If the FIA would stop wasting time with gimmicks like HERS and KERS they would have most to spend on engines.

[ISLAMATRON]

sorry this is racing not socialism

manufacturing cost has very little to do with the cost of an engine. You have to figure engineering time development ect. In the real world manufacturing only accounts for 30% of the cost of a good depending on what it is.

If private teams want to race you have to pay to play. If the FIA would stop wasting time with gimmicks like HERS and KERS they would have most to spend on engines.

First of all there is nothing wrong with Socialism, secondly....

The R&D costs would be incurred by the manufacturers whether they sold their engines or not. Ferrrai would never buy a customer engine, they will allways produce their own, so it makes sense that they sell their engines for the price of manufacture. If a 3rd party like Cosworth were to provide engines to an independent team, then yes the R&D costs must be factored into the price of the engines for Cosworth to remain solvent, not so so Ferrari or Honda, Toyota, & Renault.

Current F1 engines are running on 1990's technology. It would be foolish to fund obselete technology and ignore the future. HERS & KERS are not gimmicks, they are the future of the Auto industry, but you dont seem to have the forsight to be able to recognize that.... you must work for Chrysler or GM or Ford.

[flynfrog]

sorry this is racing not socialism

manufacturing cost has very little to do with the cost of an engine. You have to figure engineering time development ect. In the real world manufacturing only accounts for 30% of the cost of a good depending on what it is.

If private teams want to race you have to pay to play. If the FIA would stop wasting time with gimmicks like HERS and KERS they would have most to spend on engines.

First of all there is nothing wrong with Socialism, secondly....

The R&D costs would be incurred by the manufacturers whether they sold their engines or not. Ferrrai would never buy a customer engine, they will allways produce their own, so it makes sense that they sell their engines for the price of manufacture. If a 3rd party like Cosworth were to provide engines to an independent team, then yes the R&D costs must be factored into the price of the engines for Cosworth to remain solvent, not so so Ferrari or Honda, Toyota, & Renault.

Current F1 engines are running on 1990's technology. It would be foolish to fund obselete technology and ignore the future. HERS & KERS are not gimmicks, they are the future of the Auto industry, but you dont seem to have the forsight to be able to recognize that.... you must work for Chrysler or GM or Ford.

why would it make sense for Ferrari to sell there engine to a team giving them free engineering work. It would make more sense not to sell the engine and force the other team to develop there own engine. Sounds like punishing to good teams to help the weaker teams. Sounds pretty socialist to me. HERS and KERS are gimmicks in racing. Give the teams the option to have a larger displacement engine or HERS and KERS. They will take the larger engine. This whole thing is to get publicity to try to look green while you have cars burning large amounts of fuel for no reason other than entertainment.

[WhiteBlue]

The federation has the responsibility as an owner to set policy gidelines for the health of the sport. When the age of the garagistas ended with Mercedes starting to pour hundreds of millions of $$ annually into F1 everybody knew that the privat teams were in trouble.

The Japanse manufacturers followed and it was immediately clear that survival was not depending of the better team capabilities but from decisions of the money men in the auto industry. I'm talking about Jordan versus BAR and the sorry spectacle when they let Jordan fail and waisted Billions on a team that is still a joke. They followed it up some years later with the Super Aguri drama. Aguri Suzuki is 500% more of a competent racer than the usless Nick Fry.

There is now a situation where the survival of a substantial part of the grid is threatened by loss of manufacturing teams and privat teams unless action is taken. By consent or by force they have to prevent that the survival of the sport is decided by uncontrollable financial circumstances.

The political direction is allways for the ownership to decide. if they decide that application of energy friendly technology and driving talent should play a bigger role then the depth of the pockets it is entirely their priviledge to do so. It has nothing to do with socialism.

[flynfrog]

The federation has the responsibility as an owner to set policy gidelines for the health of the sport. When the age of the garagistas ended with Mercedes starting to pour hundreds of millions of $$ annually into F1 everybody knew that the privat teams were in trouble.

The Japanse manufacturers followed and it was immediately clear that survival was not depending of the better team capabilities but from decisions of the money men in the auto industry. I'm talking about Jordan versus BAR and the sorry spectacle when they let Jordan fail and waisted Billions on a team that is still a joke. They followed it up some years later with the Super Aguri drama. Aguri Suzuki is 500% more of a competent racer than the usless Nick Fry.

There is now a situation where the survival of a substantial part of the grid is threatened by loss of manufacturing teams and privat teams unless action is taken. By consent or by force they have to prevent that the survival of the sport is decided by uncontrollable financial circumstances.

The political direction is allways for the ownership to decide. if they decide that application of energy friendly technology and driving talent should play a bigger role then the depth of the pockets it is entirely their priviledge to do so. It has nothing to do with socialism.

show me one racing series that is not controlled by money

Requiring well funded teams to provide engines at cost of manufacture and not cost of production is the racing equivalent of socialism.

I have race probably the most energy efficient cars on earth I have no desire to see F1 progress to that its a bunch of cars trying to average 45mph over 2500 miles F1 is not about and never has been about the environment. If you want to see environmental race cars might I suggest shell eco challenge or world solar car challenge or north American solar car challenge

[timbo]

So, the truth been told)))

The new rules will exclude all the barge boards, the radiator air extraction chimneys, flick-ups, nose horns and all the rest of it. The plan is for the cars to be smooth between the axles.

"There is a small overtaking benefit attached to that," Lowe admitted, "but it was mainly done in response to demands from the team principals for cleaner advertising areas."

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft20831.html

[WhiteBlue]

The federation has the responsibility as an owner to set policy gidelines for the health of the sport. When the age of the garagistas ended with Mercedes starting to pour hundreds of millions of $$ annually into F1 everybody knew that the privat teams were in trouble.

The Japanse manufacturers followed and it was immediately clear that survival was not depending of the better team capabilities but from decisions of the money men in the auto industry. I'm talking about Jordan versus BAR and the sorry spectacle when they let Jordan fail and waisted Billions on a team that is still a joke. They followed it up some years later with the Super Aguri drama. Aguri Suzuki is 500% more of a competent racer than the usless Nick Fry.

There is now a situation where the survival of a substantial part of the grid is threatened by loss of manufacturing teams and privat teams unless action is taken. By consent or by force they have to prevent that the survival of the sport is decided by uncontrollable financial circumstances.

The political direction is allways for the ownership to decide. if they decide that application of energy friendly technology and driving talent should play a bigger role then the depth of the pockets it is entirely their priviledge to do so. It has nothing to do with socialism.

show me one racing series that is not controlled by money

Requiring well funded teams to provide engines at cost of manufacture and not cost of production is the racing equivalent of socialism.

I have race probably the most energy efficient cars on earth I have no desire to see F1 progress to that its a bunch of cars trying to average 45mph over 2500 miles F1 is not about and never has been about the environment. If you want to see environmental race cars might I suggest shell eco challenge or world solar car challenge or north American solar car challenge

Well I guess we can honestly agree to disagree on the topic. In the meantime AMuS reports further developments in the engine saga. http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/spor ... _13987.hbs

They say that Fota will take a uniform position at the Geneva talks and will be represented by Montezemolo and Howett only. The teams will be negotiating with a view to keep individual engines but increase the durability in steps from 3 races to 6-10 races and lower cost to 5 mil € per team when a new engine design is done. they are looking at a four cylinder turbo charged 1.4 L engine according to AMuS.

That is pretty much what I expected and it should be possible to come to a compromise depending obviously of the power restrictions that are planned.

At this moment confirmation of the FiA letter to Fota came from Autosport.

The full letter to FOTA from Max Mosley

Monday, October 20th 2008, 12:29 GMT

Costs

The FIA believes that Formula One costs are unsustainable. Even before current global financial problems, teams were spending far more than their incomes, insofar as these consist of sponsorship plus FOM money. As a result, the independent teams are now dependent on the goodwill of rich individuals, while the manufacturers' teams depend on massive hand-outs from their parent companies.

There is now a real danger than in some cases these subsidies will cease. This could result in a reduction in the number of competitors, adding to the two team vacancies we already have and reducing the grid to an unacceptable level. The FIA's view is that Formula One can only be healthy if a team can race competitively for a budget at or very close to what it gets from FOM.

We should like to hear the teams' views on this together with comments on the FIA's proposals (set out below) and other suggestions for the measures which will be necessary if major reductions in cost are to be achieved.

Power train

2013
The FIA would like to see a modern high technology power train in 2013. We envisage a down-sized DI engine with exhaust energy and heat recovery, coupled to an electrically actuated gearbox.

However, we are completely open to new ideas. The only preconditions are:

(i) that the costs of development, maintenance and unit production for the power train must be an order of magnitude lower than is currently the case and
(ii) power trains must be available to independent teams at minimal cost.

2010- 2012 inclusive
At present we can offer three options.

Option 1
A homologated engine produced by a single supplier after an invitation to tender, with the current suppliers free to build an identical engine themselves (but not the gearbox), subject to rigorous controls.

Option 2
A consortium of teams obtains an engine to current rules but at much lower cost from a single supplier. Engines from other sources to be subject to rigorous controls to eliminate differences in performance.

Option 3
A proposal from FOTA, backed by solid guarantees, for the supply of complete power trains to independent teams for less than €5 million per team per season to include 30,000 km of testing and all on-track assistance.

2009
When the decision was taken to "freeze" the engines, certain teams asked for and got a period of time in which to address reliability problems and re-tune for 19,000 rpm. Some teams took advantage of this period to improve the power output of their engines. This was not intended. Other teams did not improve their engines, believing performance to have been "frozen".

This has produced unfair and inequitable differences in performance. The World Motor Sport Council has therefore decided that engine performance will be equalised in accordance with the 2009 Sporting Regulations in order to re-establish the position as it was when the freeze was agreed.

The FIA would like to discuss with FOTA technicians how best to achieve equalisation in a way which is fair to all and involves minimal cost.

The Chassis

The FIA envisages common parts for numerous areas of the chassis. For example, standard suspension and wheels (ie standard "corners"), a standard underbody and other parts which are currently the subject of major expenditure but add nothing to the spectacle or to the public interest of Formula One.

Other measures, such as a minimum height for the centre of gravity, restrictions on the use of certain materials or the homologation of certain major components (eg the "tub") for a period of time, may also be appropriate.

We invite FOTA to make proposals together with a time scale for introduction.

Race procedures

The FIA would welcome suggestions for changes to the rules for going racing, with a view to reducing costs. We believe that priority should be given to things which the public cannot see (eg telemetry) rather than visible parts of "the show" (eg refuelling during the race).

The FIA would also like to hear teams' views about the distribution of garage space and space in the pit lane

This is pretty much what I thought was happening. This isn't about unfreeze. It's about levelling power and making engines affordable.