Standard Engine (Bernie's latest ploy to destroy F1)

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by ScionDriver

If you want to make F1 cheaper for teams why not just implement some sort of salary cap? Just figure out what the average team spends so that it's not too low or too high and then the big guys can't outspend the little ones anymore. Also you'd have to figure whether that includes the whole team, just the car, the car and drivers, etc.

Ferrari, McLaren and Toyota spend 400-450 M $ a year

Originally Posted by Kitdy

I think this is the best choice.

I would also like to see freer regulations to allow for more innovation in engine tech and the like - maybe this would make the racing more spread out and maybe that's bad but the technological innovation is lacking in my eyes these days,

unfortunately, freer regulations will raise costs at a higher level, so they should need to revise a lot of other things at the same time, but I basically agree.

And if they are going to allow higher costs just for safety, teams (car makers) would mask performance improvement with safety ones.
Bernie is getting old and confused, but teams are bitches too.

[culver]

There is actually some merit to the idea. I am not at all for it. I think it sucks that IRL has been running a defacto standard engine (Honda) for a while. At least in the case of the IRL the rules don't technically require you to use that motor.

Anyway, the merit I see is a return to the days when we had more chassis makes who more or less had access to the same level of engine performance. Look at the number of teams who competed and won races with the Ford-Cosworth DFV. Teams like Tyrrell. Do you think they could have competed had they added engine development to their list?

An somewhat affordable (by F1 standards) engine which all teams could work with could be great for many of the smaller teams who are almost certainly down on power.

Now before any thinks I am for this... I said I wasn't and I mean it. In the 1970s it was good because one company was providing a customer engine to anyone who wanted it. I would like to see something like that again where the chassis and engine maker aren't quite as tied together. A single standard engine would really hurt the series. I can't imagine Ferrari ever using a non-Ferrari engine (that really is just wrong). As the same time why would someone like Ford or Honda or Renault even bother with a spec engine from another make. The name of the automaker on the side of the car has everything to do with the engine under the hood, not the chassis manufacture. So which ever company got the contract, the others would as likely as not pull out and take their money with them. Who would blame them?

The question is how could we make the current situation more like it was in the 70s. How can we make sure smaller teams aren't simply priced out. It would be sad to see a truly innovative chassis completely fail because Ferrari's customer engine is down 50hp on the factory motor. Wide ranging access to competitive motors and tires is IMHO very good for a racing program so long as things aren't "spec".

BTW, I would be extremely wary of ALMS type engine rules. The problem they have is balancing out all the different types of motors. Eventually they have to resort to equivalency formulas (how many liters of pushrod V8 = 1 liter of turbo DOHC = x liter of diesel = y liters of normally aspirated DOHC = z liters of Wankel). Those are always dangerous as it's almost impossible to truly come up with a fair formula that doesn't inherently favor one engine type in the end.

[pimento]

One thing that does puzzle me a little bit.. why ban customer chassis if he wants more teams and lower development costs? Case in point: Red Bull have to get rid of STR because they can't afford to run two separate chassis development programs.

[culver]

Yes, I really disagree with the customer chassis bit. Was that always illegal? Seriously, if F1 is truly "best of the best" then why can't I buy the best chassis and pair it with the best motor? Why am I allowed to buy a motor but not a chassis. That was one of the things I liked about Indy in the past (not now). You could build your own chassis or race a factory chassis. It allowed for innovation as well as a full field. It also allowed lesser teams to run last years hardware. Sure they aren't likely to win with year old equipment but the price allows more people to run.

If F1 is truly the best of the best they shouldn't be afraid of allowing any "legal" car to run at any race it shows up at.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by culver

If F1 is truly the best of the best they shouldn't be afraid of allowing any "legal" car to run at any race it shows up at.

if it only were that simple, in F1 you have to commit yourself to a full season beforehand. It is not that you can decide, OK the next race will be round the corner so lets field an entry.....(crashtested?)

[Wouter Melissen]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

I shoulda nuanced it better. For the WSC, I mean a worldwide LMS - but not run by the FIA.

By LMP racing I guess I meant endurance racing as I enjoy the ALMS.

Have you actually watch a proper endurance race? Say the most recent editions of Sebring, Petit and of course Le Mans?

[LeonOfTheDead]

Since there are a lot of official teams in F1, I would be fine with the possibility for smaller teams to buy both chassis and engine. We could have more teams and cars, and that's always good.
But in the moment that bigger teams would leave the series, we would face the reality of a championship with a lot of almost identical cars.

[Wouter Melissen]

It has now been officially announced:

The Official Formula 1 Website

In 2013, Formula 1 will merge with the IRL and A1GP.

[LeonOfTheDead]

oh dear...

can't think of a Ferrari using another engine. hope everybody would be able to use its own engine as the statements says, but I have some doubts.
this is a very stupid decision. they cut costs destroying the design/creation part, while charing license with absurd costs. good job Bernie.

[Wouter Melissen]

I think all previous cost cutting attempts have shown that the teams will figure out new ways to spend the money.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I'm not sure if all those attempts were for real. obviously, FIA knew they were going re-invests the money somewhere else too.
but this is a complete no-sense. I would have prefer the possibility for teams (presumingly the minor ones) to purchase the chassis and the engines they want, bounding chassis and engines makers to make them available for others (the first problem is a sort of espionage, but it could be fixed controlling relationships between teams).
I'm fine with the no-choice of just one tires maker, since there are no points assigned for the tires manufacturers, but the wrong tire can destroy the performance of the car.
For these reason, the points could be assigned in this way: points to the driver, to the team, and to the constructor (eventually to the chassis constructor and engine constructor), GT style.
I would also consider assigning points to fast laps, pole positions, laps while leading and other performance, but that's a little off-topic.

[Ferrer]

At this point they might as well promote Formula Ford to world status.

[cmcpokey]

so here's my theory.

this is just a ploy by bernie to get his disenfranchised friends at cosworth some business. because as we all probably know there are very for companies capable or really doing what they are saying, providing engines and transmissions for the entire grid. pretty much cosworth.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by cmcpokey

so here's my theory.

this is just a ploy by bernie to get his disenfranchised friends at cosworth some business. because as we all probably know there are very for companies capable or really doing what they are saying, providing engines and transmissions for the entire grid. pretty much cosworth.

well, not only Cosworth, but your's another good argument.

[cmcpokey]

i guess ferrari or toyota could do it as well, but i dont think that either comapny would. cosworth wants back in to F1, so it makes sense.