Title: Engine Proposals Sent to F.I.A.
Description: Want continuity till 2013
everythingoes - October 19, 2007 11:22 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
Formula One's manufacturers have submitted a package of future engine regulations to the FIA that they hope will be rubber stamped by the governing body.
Representatives of BMW, Ferrari, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Renault and Toyota have agreed on rules for engines from 2010 that they hope will fulfil the FIA's desire to be environmentally friendly, but will also help reduce costs for the competitors.
Rather than create all-new power units for 2011, the engine manufacturer want the current engine rules to remain similar to now until 2013 - in exchange for introducing Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) and a fuel-flow restrictors for 2010. The engines would also be used for four races.
BMW motorsport director Mario Theissen confirmed that the document signed by all the engine manufacturers had now been submitted to the FIA for approval.
"The manufacturers' proposal went to the FIA last week," he said. "We don't have a response so far."
Toyota's Luca Marmorini was hopeful that the engine rules would satisfy the FIA's desires.
"This is a good compromise solution," he said. "It achieves all the objectives the FIA wants: the four-race engine will help the independent teams and introduce cost-cuts while also keeping F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport. We do hope the FIA accepts it."
As well as proposing the engine rules from 2010, the manufacturers have also suggested they agree on a more radical overhaul of the regulations for 2013 by the end of the 2009 season. |
Paul_Murtagh - October 19, 2007 11:23 AM (GMT)
Good decision by the engine manufacturers. It's good to see them working together for the good of the sport
everythingoes - October 19, 2007 11:25 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Paul_Murtagh @ Oct 19 2007, 04:53 PM) |
| Good decision by the engine manufacturers. It's good to see them working together for the good of the sport |
You're absolutely right, Paul. A lot of daft FIA rules have derived from the fact that the manufacturers and teams could never arrive at any sort of consensus <hitwall>
u4coffee - October 19, 2007 11:37 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (everythingoes @ Oct 19 2007, 12:25 PM) |
| QUOTE (Paul_Murtagh @ Oct 19 2007, 04:53 PM) | | Good decision by the engine manufacturers. It's good to see them working together for the good of the sport |
You're absolutely right, Paul. A lot of daft FIA rules have derived from the fact that the manufacturers and teams could never arrive at any sort of consensus <hitwall>
|
now just watch as the FIA rip it apart
Paul_Murtagh - October 19, 2007 11:47 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (u4coffee @ Oct 19 2007, 12:37 PM) |
| QUOTE (everythingoes @ Oct 19 2007, 12:25 PM) | | QUOTE (Paul_Murtagh @ Oct 19 2007, 04:53 PM) | | Good decision by the engine manufacturers. It's good to see them working together for the good of the sport |
You're absolutely right, Paul. A lot of daft FIA rules have derived from the fact that the manufacturers and teams could never arrive at any sort of consensus <hitwall>
|
now just watch as the FIA rip it apart
|
<doh> Unfortunately this is probably what will happen
Red Andy - October 19, 2007 05:13 PM (GMT)
You can just imagine Max Mosley going through this lot with a big red pen....
"Four-race engines? Absurd!" (scribbles) "How about twelve?"
"Kinetic Energy Recovery in 2010? That's just silly!" (more scribbles) "We want it in 2009! Preferably by the 2008 Canadian GP if possible."
"Mercedes-Benz? Don't be ridiculous!" (further scribbles) "Audi. That sounds better."
safc_fan89 - October 19, 2007 05:59 PM (GMT)
Their plans actually make sense. Hopefully the FIA will allow this.
Next step, sort out the chassis regulations!
flood1 - October 19, 2007 08:54 PM (GMT)
First, one point that we can all agree on is that cooperation between the manufacturers can balance the monopoly control of the FIA.
But, it is the manufacturers that have forced the sport toward road relevant technology, not the FIA.
If I read the comments correctly, F1 would have the same engine in 2013 that it had in 2006! That's d'avant garde technical progress. <sarcasm>
I am 100% behind KERS. I think that's the way to go.
I ask this question: Do these recommendations match the FIA's goals as stated in the "Framework of Discussion?"
Steelstallions - October 20, 2007 04:14 AM (GMT)
Did anybody else pick up on F1 engines lasting FOUR races? They are obviously confident they have engines that will never give up?
What change from just a few years ago when engines blew up as regular as ITV adverts in the last 20 minutes of the race.
Norbert - October 20, 2007 06:54 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Steelstallions @ Oct 20 2007, 05:14 AM) |
| Did anybody else pick up on F1 engines lasting FOUR races? |
Well, that will make it nice and dull...
"Yes Max, our engine will do four races, unfortunately to do this it revs to 52 rpm and produces 18 bhp..."
<roflmao>
Actually, if they can make engines last 24 solid hours at Le Mans, then 8 hours in F1 ought to be fairly easy, although for a 2.4 to do that I'd reckon you wouldn't see much more than about 400-450bhp....?
safc_fan89 - October 20, 2007 10:21 AM (GMT)
Considering that most last for 2 race weekends without a problem, it shouldn't be too bad. I think the grid penalty should be reduced though, maybe to 5 positions. Fine the team.
Red Andy - October 20, 2007 10:28 AM (GMT)
I think grid penalties are a bit unfair anyway, given that they tend to hit top teams harder than the slower ones (see 2005, where Kimi had several races ruined by engine changes, whereas Jordan and Minardi tended to change engines every race and suffered very little). The punishment should be changed.
safc_fan89 - October 20, 2007 10:43 AM (GMT)
You don't get teams just changing engines all the time now though, most likely because it's a lot closer and the engines are more reliable now still.
It's always the same, unless it is a financial penalty, the higher drivers are punished more. But that's life. If they want to swap with the drivers at the back, let them! If not, they have to get on with it.