djos wrote:As much as I find 4cylinders engines to be boring as f'k, Ferrari used their turbo technology from the last turbo F1 era in the F40 and where able to credibly market the F40 as derived from F1 Racing Technology.
Europeans may find 4 cylinder and also diesel race tech interesting but the rest of us think it's pretty ho hum! An Aussie Journo was over in europe at a recent WTCC event and was offered a spin in a Chevy Cruze, once strapped in he was asked by the driver if he'd done any race laps before, he replied a few in a V8 SuperCar, the response from the Cruze race driver was "F'K, you're gonna hate this" - summs up 4cyl powered race cars nicely imo!
exactly!!
but, the F40 was a V8
also, from Autosport:
Given that retention of the current engine formula – as lobbied for by Cosworth, Ferrari and Mercedes – would include F1's infamous 'freeze' clause, probably in conjunction with retuning or one-off upgrading, the best engine would remain the best. Thus Mercedes would have an advantage. Why voluntarily relinquish that, particularly as the alternative is to spend at least $150m no guarantee of success.
Again, is Mercedes being selfish, or simply pragmatic? Equally, the company is doing everything in its power to remain in F1, and if that constitutes selfishness, so be it. In any event, F1 has never been an altruistic pursuit?
One to go. In Spain, during the Friday FIA press conference, it became clear that the only engine supplier marching in step is Renault. Its parent company has pinned its future on cars such as the quirky, battery-powered, Nissan Leaf recently launched by its Japanese sister, and sees a bright future in hybrid technologies. Thus the company intimated that it would depart the sport if the planned new regulations are scrapped.
Renault has sold its team, but is still an F1 engine supplier © LAT
Once again, that is its choice and its right should that come to pass, and yet one hears hardly a murmur of 'selfishness' about that possibility. And that's despite the company making it clear via a briefing by president Carlos Ghosn in Brazil last year that Renault views F1 very much as a profit centre, hence the sale of its resource-draining team to Genii Capital while continuing as engine supplier to three paying customers.
However, given the expected costs of the new formula, Renault faces two options. It can either ramp up its annual charges substantially – by between 300 and 500 per cent - or subsidise the units.
And then, rather conveniently, Craig Pollock arrived. The Scot recently announced plans for the PURE engine complying with the 2013 regulations. Many in the paddock are ultra-sceptical, pointing to the his previous F1 involvement as team boss of the ill-fated BAR team, which burnt through hundreds of millions of dollars from 1999-2001 and didn't even register a podium until its owner BAT appointed David Richards to restructure it following Pollock's departure.
With less than 18 months to go before the first 2013 tests, PURE has no factory, no engine and no infrastructure. Those canvassed in the Barcelona paddock were extremely sceptical about the company's ability to get off the ground. "Do you remember when Max Mosley was desperate to get entrants for his budget cap formula and pulled the entry closing date forward?" one team boss asked pointedly. "Suddenly he had 47 entries or whatever from paper companies. Convenient but pie in the sky, and this [PURE] strikes me the same way."
Is it really so difficult to understand that given two alternatives of equal entertainment value F1 should always look for the one which is the most fuel efficient? Some of you guys apparently want F1 to deliberately waste fuel for the fun of it or to please Ferrari's marketing scheme.
