Formula 1 to become a spec series

[Pingguest]

Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley are making a plan to introduce a spec engine within two years.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2008/...-engine-plans/

I'm wondering how long we have to wait until the FIA comes up with plans for a spec chassis.

[Pingguest]

This is the result of the current standardization proces. With the spec tyres and spec ECU there are no arguments left against a full spec series. This slippery slope was one of the main reasons why I opposed the control tyre and spec ECU.

[mjstallard]

The sport really is moribund now.

I ended up watching the Singapore race (due to a hangover and lack of energy to do much else), but I really am past the point of genuine interest these days...

[Albeckinho]

Everyone's gonna murder me for this, but spec F1/GP1 could be great. Of course it would anger some people but let's face it: current finance "crisis" is a killing factor in contrast to ever-expanding giant budgets. Vijay Mallya has realized that he might not be able to run Force India much longer, Red Bull is considering selling Toro Rosso (if they can't get RICH buyer, STR could vanish), Super Aguri is already gone, there's been rumours that Toyota is on it's way out because their lackluster results compared to their budget and of course Williams is in trouble. So that could take Force India, STR, Toyota and Williams out and we'd be left with what? Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, Renault, Honda, Red Bull, 6 teams. Of course running 3 cars is a possibility, but that was idea of 2002 and nothing ever came of it. Now when tobacco sponsorship is gone, teams must find other sources for income and that's easier said than done. Costs are so massive that F1 can't go long like this. Wouldn't it be more clever to set sights on the future than keep it like this and then demolish the whole sport in few years?

Yet, it's hard to everyone to think that everyone's car would be similar. No more bashing of nosecones or futuristic front wings, no more sighs about the beauty of the new Williams car, no more excitement before the car launches. But you'll have to see the whole picture. What we lose off-track, we'll win on track: finally we'd see at least a bigger sign of who is the best driver in the field. It would also keep the costs down and I'd imagine that running a team would be something like 25-50 million euros per year at it's highest. So would it be so bad if F1 had spec chassis and teams could use whatever engine they like if it's legal under frozen rules? Look at WRC: they are most likely moving to S2000-rules in 2010, it's just the way it is, motorsport categories must evolve over the years and they must evolve in contrast to their enviroment and the whole world.

Just a thought, accepting murder threats.

[craigd]

I agree. Of course the more variables there are, the more interesting things are. But for me I care more about the driver's themselves being able to represent their ability than a 'lifeless' engine or other component being the 'star' of a team that ploughed more money and work into development than other less able teams. It's all very well people clamouring that F1 has to be the pinnacle of technology with teams free to push boundaries to the stratosphere, but with the difference in relative teams' budget, that's no good if we end up with just half a dozen teams, or no sport at all! It's ridiculous really that with today's climate so much money is spent on what is effectively a bit of fun!

Put it this way, i'd choose a more strcitly developed engine (or spec even) and having the super aguri team with sato and davidson back on the grid, over engines that cost 4-5 times more with a development of performance that i'm not even going to notice on track any day.

[Ogami musashi]

Let's not jump onto the wagon.

Teams are opposed to the single engine proposal (except force india) so the FOTa position won't be this one for long.

I suggest you to read the current issue of RCE were the future trend of thinking of FIA is explained.

Clearly: What is visible (aeros,chassis,drive train etc..): not standard, the rest standard.

Teams are keen on standardisation of gearboxes, brakes and brake ducts, but are opposed to engine, chassis and aero specs.

I don't think anybody would mind standard brakes. current F1 brakes are already brakes coming from the outside. Brake ducts are not to varying too, and i think gearboxes are kind of close in performance so that could be good.


Anyway, while i'm skeptical like pingguest i would not yet pronounce F1 a spec serie but for sure, standardization is underway.

[Born Racer]

But for me I care more about the driver's themselves being able to represent their ability than a 'lifeless' engine or other component being the 'star' of a team that ploughed more money and work into development than other less able teams.

But F1 is not just a driver series. It has always been about teams building their own cars. The fact they come up with similar cars after hundreds of days of development and testing is fascinating for me, not wasteful. Okay, things have got silly with costs but that's no reason to alter Formula 1's raison d'etre, and nor is the latest media buzzword 'credit crunch' a reason to. (Incidentally, I find 'credit crunch' only a marginally less irritating term than 'cabron footprint'.

[duke_toaster]

FOTA will throw this one out. IMO they should keep the current frozen engines, rev limit them further (17,000 or something), make them last for six races and say "right - we're keeping these V8s until we can come out of the economic bomb shelter. But when we do, get your engineers some new pencils".

F1 needs to survive this economic situation at all costs - I don't think a single engine is the answer.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

FOTA will throw this one out. IMO they should keep the current frozen engines, rev limit them further (17,000 or something), make them last for six races and say "right - we're keeping these V8s until we can come out of the economic bomb shelter. But when we do, get your engineers some new pencils".

F1 needs to survive this economic situation at all costs - I don't think a single engine is the answer.

And what about a spec fuel to equalize things, as I have suggested in the 'Engine Shenanigans' thread? If a single fuel kept multiple engine manufacturers involved, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Maybe E85 spec Ethanol/Petrol from a single supplier?

[nickyf1]

Why wont the FIA let F1 progress? I mean, look how the cars have changed due to innovation ever since the 1950's, F1 is unique because of its non spec format. IMO, the FIA should give each team a shed, some metal, fuel, tyres and tools, and see what they come up with.

[duke_toaster]

I agree with the principle that there should be some more engineering in F1 (IMO in fuel economy) but I think F1 needs to apply some realpolitik in this case. F1 needs to brace itself for the economic problems, I'm not sure how bad it will be.

Mods : could you rename the thread title as it's rather misleading and suggests it will happen : "Max suggests single kit engine" perhaps?

[johntt]

If F1 goes for a spec engine it will lead to the manufacturers going elsewhere. I can only hope that FOTA oppose such a move.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by johntt

If F1 goes for a spec engine it will lead to the manufacturers going elsewhere. I can only hope that FOTA oppose such a move.

FOTA will oppose it but in reality it is the entrance of the manufacturers that has pushed the price of F1 to its present ridiculous levels.

Cost spiralling has gone on in every form of motorsport lately, from karting to trials bikes,Seans/touring cars to GT and proptypes.
I would not want a spec engine but I can see a case for the standardisation of F1 parts: eg. Brakes, wings,gearboxes, drive train etc

Max seems to have a bee in his bonnet about reducing spending.... but they way he has gone about it shows a negative view about the sport, and a penchant for controling everything.

[chunterer]

I''m wondering if we will see something similar to GP2 but without the restriction on chassis and engine supply appear as 'F1' in 2010.........

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

This is the result of the current standardization proces. With the spec tyres and spec ECU there are no arguments left against a full spec series. This slippery slope was one of the main reasons why I opposed the control tyre and spec ECU.

I think youre going a little overboard with this whole slippery-slope argument. Tyres and ECU arent so bad to have as control units. How much control did teams have over tyres anyway? There were never any Williams branded tyres on the grid, and i cant recall anyone ever being supplied exclusively with a tyre brand. Standard ECU is an easy way to ban driver aids as well which i think is a concession most fans will accept.

Standard engines is a whole different kettle of fish to the current standard items.

[JamesH]

They already have spec engines. They have to be a certain capacity, non-forced induction reciprocating 4 stroke piston engines.

If you want F1 to have real relevance to future road cars, there would be no engine rules -anything goes - just specify a required fuel efficiency and make it tougher every couple of years. That way there at least would be some money put behind more off the wall engine designs, leading to better fuel economy/efficiency. There are a considerable number of designs out there desperate for money to put in to practice. F1 should show to way and allow them.

[RaiseYourFist]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I think youre going a little overboard with this whole slippery-slope argument. Tyres and ECU arent so bad to have as control units. How much control did teams have over tyres anyway? There were never any Williams branded tyres on the grid, and i cant recall anyone ever being supplied exclusively with a tyre brand. Standard ECU is an easy way to ban driver aids as well which i think is a concession most fans will accept.

Standard engines is a whole different kettle of fish to the current standard items.

Yeah, I think spec tyres were a great move, but spec engine or spec chassis is pushing it too far.

[Born Racer]

I was also pleased when the single tyre supplier rule came in because I think tyres were becoming too big a performance factor, and so some teams would have a bad weekend just because their tyre supplier didn't have on-form tyres at certain races.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I was also pleased when the single tyre supplier rule came in because I think tyres were becoming too big a performance factor, and so some teams would have a bad weekend just because their tyre supplier didn't have on-form tyres at certain races.

MotoGP are going down the same route.Probably because there was too much talk about the tyres and not enough about the bikes.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

How much control did teams have over tyres anyway?

How much control do teams have over their engine? Not very much eighter.

Standard ECU is an easy way to ban driver aids as well which i think is a concession most fans will accept.

The standard ECU was not necessary to ban traction control. It is an instrument to control and equalize the engine performances. If a spec ECU is really necessary to enforce the ban on traction control, how on earth can the FIA police the ban on traction control in WTCC? Ironically, most street versions of the WTCC-cars are standard fitted with traction control, fly-by-wire, clutch-assistance, ABS, etc.

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I was also pleased when the single tyre supplier rule came in because I think tyres were becoming too big a performance factor, and so some teams would have a bad weekend just because their tyre supplier didn't have on-form tyres at certain races.

That's what you get if tyres are more or less the only free area for a huge return on investmens. Back in the early 1980's we had four tyre manufactures and nobody ever complained about it.

[Yannick]

It will not happen unless the financial crisis were to drag on.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

How much control do teams have over their engine? Not very much eighter.

Only Williams, RBR, STR and FI dont have direct control over their engines. There's 6 other teams that are either manufacturer entries or partnered with a manufacturer, giving them 100% control over manufacturing and development of the engines.

The teams tested the tyres, but it was companies like Bridgestone, Michelin and Goodyear which researched and developed new compounds and constructions etc.

The standard ECU was not necessary to ban traction control. It is an instrument to control and equalize the engine performances. If a spec ECU is really necessary to enforce the ban on traction control, how on earth can the FIA police the ban on traction control in WTCC?

If that is to be the case, then why arent the engine performances equalized? Coincidently, alot of the increases in relative performance between some of the engines occured when the standard ECU was brought in.

[Casper]

Short memories, eh people. We have had a spec engine for all intents and purposes in the past, it was called a DFV and Ferrari and a few others were the only major competitors not to use it. There were other motors during this time but the DFV was the standard motor for the kit car manufacturers. During that time we had the best racing and there is no reason it could not occur again. Technology and large amounts of money have led F1 down a dead end street. No one forced this upon the sport but the sport got left behind years ago when the bottom line became the issue more than winning. I tend to think that the largese we have seen in the last 15 years which has been driven by the egos of the team principals in large part is about to come crashing down and those same people are going to have to accept that and change their ways if the "sport" is to survive. Motorsport is about to catch a cold but F1 is going to catch pneumonia. It will survive but it won't have the large amounts of money and Bernie E. just might have to eat a bit of humble pie.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

The DFV wasn't a spec engine, it was the best product for the money.

[johntt]

The problem F1 has is a dependence upon the big manufacturers; the Lolas, Dallaras and Judds of this world were driven out in trying to make F1 more professional.

Therefore when a series threatened to take manufacturer interest away from F1 (e.g. Group C, WRC) the FIA messed them up to keep F1 in one piece.

F1 needs to see a return to the mix of manufacturers and specialists we used to see. Sports prototype racing has a good balance of specialists and manufacturers. If the big carmakers were to cut back their involvement in LMPs then the sport would survive with the specialists that they have.