It certainly would spice it up a bit. But I still think that F1 becoming more relevant will appeal to more people, and by that I mean manufacturers and teams. Whilst turbos may not be cheaper initially they ultimately will be, and they will offer more transferable technology to road cars - including the obvious increase in fuel efficiency.

Fuel Saving ? what a Hypocrisy

FIA and FOTA should think about real problem , which is shipment , one airplane from Europe to Asia burns more fuel than all F1 teams in all season

Force alternative shipment routes on teams .. even with possiblity of making the time distance between races longer , that's actually gonna save fuel

There's nothing to do for F1 when it comes about "green engines" , F1 is about 10 years late , Big manufactures like BMW / Toyota / Honda already has thier cars with "green engines" , what's next , Eco-Diesel in F1 ?

Fair point, but I guess they look on it as F1 being a development tool for new technology that is immediately transferable to traditional cars. There has been a massive influx of turbos by all manufacturers recently in order to benefit emmissions targets. This surely will improve at an accelerated rate should F1 be utilising similar technology?

The argument about planes will not be solved (unless they use Zeppelins). The bigure picture would be about benefiting the road cars technology.

I disagree. If the cubic capacity, bore, number of cylinders and engine configuration are just secondary by nature, why still arguing on it? In fact, it can be argued that if these characteristics are just secondary any regulations isn't necessary. Teams won't be willing to waste money on something with very little return on investments, while other possibilities are available. The only possible conclusion is that the new regulations are mainly a geometric framework.

David1976, as you said, the technology is in road cars now and F1 is just going to start in 2013.
So,once again F1 is behind the curve, not ahead.
This whole idea that F1 racing (any racing) is, or should be, relevant to road cars is a naive notion. Sure dribs and drabs of tech stuff flows back and forth but that is more coincidental than anything else.

No, you don't understand power to weight. A 40% drop in power without a 40% drop in weight = slower.



If you haven't noticed, this isn't Nascar.

The road car relevance of KERS is incentive for the manufacturers, given the inevitable move towards electric cars.



Hmm. I don't think you know how much money is still being spent in F1, and how that relates to the scale of research budgets of the car manufacturers.



What is technically interesting in drag racing is the physics of the engines. It doesn't have to continue to develop, it is already astounding. F1 is going from "astounding" to "meh".




20,000 rpm, machining tolerances that don't require gaskets and preheating just to get the engine to unseize to start it, hand-welded inconel exhausts, 1,000 bhp out of 200 lbs. of metal - that's interesting not just to me, but quite likely, probably, I'm willing to bet, a few other people as well.

600 hp, old-school lower revs, low boost limits, 4 cylinders - not as interesting.

These would be the right rules for about 1982, when 4 cylinder cars were just beginning to take over the average road car.

I'm going to quote myself again: "there will be people driving to the races in electric cars while F1 pretends to be "cutting edge" fooling around with IC engines". It's sitting on the fence, one foot in the past, one foot in the future - and limiting how far that foot can step, even though home-grown electric drag racers are already pushing beyond the parameters F1 is limiting KERS to.





I have an expectation of entertainment. American football would be a lot more civil and 21st century if they played flag football rules instead - and some people would still watch, but obviously the entertainment aspect will be diminished. Soccer - make the ball out of some urethane material so it can be kicked farther - that's 21st century, but is that "soccer"?

Car racing is supposed to be loud, powerful, and high performance. That's got nothing to do with "realism" or not - it has to do with Entertainment Value, which is the basis for F1.

With the new rules, what exactly separates F1 from LMS, other than the drivers? Quite frankly, the technical side of LMS is as interesting as F1 these days, and with the new rules performance wise won't be much slower than a 2013 car. Oh yeah, they'll have closed wheel wells and canopies - safer than F1. Why will I be watching F1, again? To see Hamilton and Alonso (quietly) race in sort of mediocre, gimmicked up cars compared to today?

KERS should be wide open, an issue made of how to get the power down. Control top speeds with increasing drag, but don't neuter the performance.

You could also argue that NA engines used the last 20 years should have had an impact on road car engines. As it is we dont have pneumatic valves, rarely rev higher than 6 or 7000 as opposed to f1s 18.000, we dont have dry sump engines and flat crank solutions. Nevermind the eating away of clutches and gearboxes wich are changed in almost every race in the first, and every 4 races in the latter. Worse, the direct injection and double clutch systems were developed for road cars first and the adapted to F1 technology. Could F1 be beneficial in other areas then? Well, perhaps in packaging, anciliaries and weight. Ooops, forgot, that development has been frozen for a couple of years now, and engines have a mandatory weight, c of gravity, etc.

The KERS systems used in F1 this coming seasom cost someting to the tune of 7-10 million pounds. And need expensive battery changes almost every race. That stuff is never gonna end up in a Toyota Prius.


Edit: I also think that the big manufacturers today, have so much more research and design departments that even a big team like Mclaren could never compete in the sheer number of researched projects. Also, car manufacturers only do what the law dictates them. All that green woohaa wasnt there 5 years ago, but when faced with new emission rules suddenly they changed focus and now develop engines wich are much stronger and much more fuel economic than 5 years ago, without any KERS device or turbo. On top of that most road cars have mucn more sophisticated electronics already than F1 cars, wich deal with variable engine mappins, adjustable shock and suspension settings, etc.

Well, Mclaren werent exactly choir boys either back then, were they? They been caught snapping close up spy shots of Williams F1 cars in parc ferme, third brake pedals wich supposedly helped braking but were used exiting corners, thus emulating traction control, Newey put fins on top of his chassis to comply with height regulations while the nose itself was much lower, ran to the FIA screaming THEY CHEAT when a barge board stuck out half an inch, and beryllium was banned because of safety issues since an employee got sick when an accident happened processing that stuff. Mclaren also got in trouble over fuel samples not being correct and got disqualified from a race because they ran their front wing too low. And talk about imbeciles....Norbert Haug had a deal with Alain Prost for the free supply of engines in that midfield, no competition to Mclaren team, when Ron Dennis stepped in and closed the door on his friend and former advisor Prost, citing he demanded exclusivety. Then i remember all that buzz of collusion of Williams and Mclaren at Jerez 1997...

He who is without sin casts the first stone.

Manufacturers are in F1 (if they are in) for Marketing, not for technology.
They are ruled by Boards of Directors and when they want out they get out - it is as easy, and as complicated, as that.
Some folks seem to think that if, say, Toyota, is not in F1 they will just sit idly by and watch, say, Mercedes, who is in F1, conquer the world.
How naive.

No use trying to hammer this into some people's head. I was a teenager when I stopped believing this. That happened when I found out turbos where pre WWII technology during the 80's.

We will just have to wait another couple of years for things to start changing again. Then the 2008 crisis will be forgotten and the make F1 green thing will be sweeped under the rug.

I hope you are still there to answer.

I understand physics more than you think but that is not important now. The point I was making is that adding weight is good because it is simple cheap and effective. Of course this additional weight should not reach ridiculous limits. My point is that power should not be limited with fuel amounts, even when this is cheap simple and effective, because that would kill racing, cars would have a lot of power available but they would not be able to use it. Just as when you drive your car slower so that you won't spend too much in fuel. That is NOT racing for me and many more. But of course power should be limited somehow, and the proposal is to limit the size of engines. Engines would be limited in the space they occupy and freed in the power they can achieve. It should be well calculated. For example: the engine or engines (kers) can not exceed a total volume of 12 liters including all subsystems. This will surely make it impossible to reach very high amounts of bhp. But if a team finds the way then it's OK. If speeds reach dangerous levels then AND ONLY THEN weight should be added in the same amounts for everyone. This would be cheap simple and effective. When there is too much ballast a different speed reducing solution could be introduced like an extra reduction in engine size, aero or whatever. The idea is to keep things simple enough for teams and spectators.

Despite what people would like to believe F1 has never been a development tool for road going technology.

You are the person who needs history lessons. From the 1997 Concord agreement regarding the voting mode of the F1commission.



And this is the comment of the race-fax web site that published the 1997 Concord agreement.



It is clear that the F1 commission voted with majority and not with unanimity. The unanimity votes were later added to provide stability of the regulations against short term changes by request of the teams.

I do not agree with your theory and I will not repeat my explanation why you are wrong on the suitability of the proposed method of power and cost control. I will simply say that the F1 legislators selected the more logical and effective way to control power and cost.

Fuel limitation might be the most logical solution but as far as I see it, a) the limit is too low and b) from our experience in the mid-80s, this type of Formula led to precessional fuel-save 'races'.

This is a very relevant point. There will be at least two very important technologies that F1 will be pushing and that will be beneficial for road cars. One is the direct spray guided injection of petrol with more than 200 bar pressure. Such systems are not available on the market for now. They will help with extending stratification for road cars. The other is the power density of batteries. The weight of batteries is currently limited by power density and not by energy density. F1 places the highest demands on KERS systems which will be directly useful to road cars as new battery technologies become available. Any progress in just these two fields will yield massive fuel reductions in the automotive industry if they are applied sooner due to intensified R&D.


Because fixing these parameters to sensible values means valuable progress in cost control. Some dumb team will always get it wrong like Ferrari in 1995 with their decision to make the 3.0L engine a V12. All other top teams went V10 and within three years the whole grid had only V10 engines. But it cost Ferrari a fortune to scrap their 3.0L V12 and make a V10 after only one year. The data were also pegged at that point because it will allow all GRE manufacturers and customers to use their base engine design in F1 which also helps with cost control and maximizing competition. The geometric data have no impact on the power limitation which is the main point of an engine formula. This is why I call them secondary parameters. I suggest we agree to disagree on the issue if you continue to refuse my explanation.

This is not going to be an issue in 2013 as new technology will be launched to limit fuel flow. This will avoid the situation that fuel limitations are primarily set by the fuel tank size as in the '80s.

Bullshit! How about Ferrari's 2.4L V6 Dino engine. It ran for the first time in the 1958 246 F1 Dino and was used for 25 years in four different road cars by Ferrari, Fiat and Lancia in that configuration.



The Ferrari Dino 246 was the most iconic sports car of the seventies in my view. It was the first Ferrari sports car with mid engine and a true example of road going F1 technology in many regards. I loved it every time I saw Danny Wilde in it.

I'm not in favour of the F1 engine being a GRE or GRE derivative. F1 should remain a stand alone series, and if it shared with anything it should share with Le Mans and Indy, not touring cars and WRC. Sure the GRE will be legal in Le Mans, but so would any other config of that capacity.


I also feel it is bad to make it too easy for manufacturers to enter F1 - because it also makes it too easy for them to leave too. There is less need for a manufacturer to fully comit to an F1 program - they can dip their toe in and when they find they can't win they can just drop out.

How about the Ferrari F50? It's engine was based on the F1 V12 from 1989.

The Ferrari 250 V12 started out as a 125 (1.5l V12) for racing and was supercharged for F1 competition (prior to the world championship series), and was used in road cars in capacities from 1.5l (125) to 3.3l (275).

But it is rare that F1 engines find applications in road cars, and it was easier in the '50s and '60s where the difference in requirements and emissions legislation weren't as wide as today.

Thank you.
The revs are also being lowered from their current statospheric highs so should fall even further in line with road car technology. A top line race engine will never be the same as a road cars, but the technology could be, and that is surely good as far as the bigger picture is concerned. It will encourage more of the worlds top engine technology firms and manufacturers to become involved in F1 because what they learn will benefit them on a bigger scale at a later date with road cars.

Yes, F1 engines may be behind the curve today (being high revving NA engines) but that could change and be reversed very very quickly.

Ill admit it remains a muddy area, that concord agreement, yet these are some of Mosleys quotes on it:

''The current Concorde Agreement comes to an end in 2008 when Mosley says the kind of unanimous voting required for rule changes will no longer be required.''

http://www.f1db.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1612

And while the 97 concord agreement was published, you didnt add that it was not signed by mclaren, Jordan an Tyrrell. In fact, they only signed up for a new concord agreement in 98 when changes were made, wich made the 97 one redundant.

The whole FOTA/FIA war on a new one also revolved partly on those unanimous vote settings. Even BMW alone was able to delay the implementation of a new one untill they made it clear that they would leave.

Anyway, you can believe what you want..the fact remains Ferrari, like the rest of FOTA, has backed the plans for the new engine format in 2013. So it really makes no sense to bash Montezemolo or Ferrari that they use special veto rights they never had. They signed up for the engine but are not happy with it.

And besides Ferrari BMW has also taken the V10 to the road.

Can you see the irony? The currently running team that has brought a racing engine to the road is the one that is complaining about the new rules. The other one got really pissed off when the V10 was dumped.

It seems Bernie Ecclestone now also voices concerns about a V4 engine. Im looking up the source.

here it is
http://www.motorline.cc/formel1/index.php/.../article=161028

Thanks.

Perhaps for a more audible experience for what the FIA has in store you should play this video without sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwmvVWSvSpg

And put the sound of this 4cylinder turbo engine on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QWPAEHpID0...feature=related

When youre done crying, you could watch the first video with sound on again.

Just because an F1 engine is a V10 and a road engine is a V10 doesn't mean they are sisters.
Holy cow, people. F1 stuff going to road cars is very rare, far more common is F1 adopting road technology.

You make good points. Longish post coming up, which is basically me trying to (further) develop your more theoretical points...

Do cars with electric motors have the performance to put on a viable racing series yet? You mention dragsters, but my experience of watching all-electric racing (TTXGP, TT Zero, whatever it's called), the competitors look like they're travelling in slow-motion. The sound is eerie but I think not unpleasant. The engineering (and driving) demands are alien to internal combustion, and it would be foolish to say that Going Electric would be a natural transition or progression. It will be the biggest change motor racing has ever experienced. So the institutional dislike of electric racing will likely be greater even than that during the front-engine/rear-engine development, which Enzo Ferrari and numerous Indy 500 entrants derided, and which USAC and NASCAR simply refused to acknowledge. So I think 15 or 20 years down the line we'll see an enormous battle, and there'll be plenty of one foot in the past and one foot in the future, as you put it. As NASCAR and, for its last couple of decades, GP500 bike racing has shown, a static and irrelevant technical formula can be attended with popularity and general interest. But they're exceptions to the rule -- NASCAR keeps on top of the competition with protectionist management, strict cost-management and what might be termed genuine cultural insight; Grand Prix bike racing eventually realised it had to adapt to the Japanese manufacturers' demands or face obliteration from four-stroke production-based Superbike racing.

If motor racing is essentially 'entertainment', I think we have to use a more expansive definition of entertainment than many are familiar with. There's a powerful school of thought in F1 that entertainment is in some way directly correlative with the number of overtakes per race, or the number of cars within a second of the fastest laptime, or the number of outrageous slides performed a lap. These are entertaining, but a more fundamental source of entertainment is, I think, the spectacle of the cars themselves, and the spectacle of engineers and designers doing things and building things that us car-owners or engineers can only dream of. Can-Am and Group C weren't some historical anomaly of technical freedom, engineering diversity, close competition and high popularity. They're prime examples of how spread-out, 'dull' races could generate enormous excitement simply from the automotive escapism of an 8-litre Mclaren or a Porsche 962. The competition was fierce and endlessly intriguing, but it was hardly the kind of competition that the current conception of F1 would recognise. The 2010 Le Mans 24h, for example, was the most absorbing car race of the year. But it wasn't exactly Villeneuve vs. Arnoux.

You linked soccer's entertainment to a static and historic set of rules, which is certainly true, and gives real meaning to a team like Barcelona, who only look like losing in one or two of sixty games a year. But their enormous appeal comes from their playing within the same rules as everyone has for decades, but exemplifying tactics and technique of the highest and most cutting-edge level.

I'm asking myself why we cannot have a structured discussion in this place. People make dodgy claims about F1 technology transfer to road cars and I give examples of historic and future worthy transfers. They should accept the point and we can move on with other points.

Then we have the question of opposition to the L4 format. It is known that Bernie and Montezemolo were against it but they were defeated in the F1Commission because the commission now votes with majority on questions of regular issues as it always did. Someone makes the assertion that the F1commission votes with unanimity which is clearly false by looking at the published 1997 concord agreement. Then we talk about Ferrari's scandalous U-turns and their opposition to valid decisions of the rule making bodies. I point out that Ferrari had a secrete veto from 2005 to June 2009 which they got as a bribe for signing against the GPMA with Bernie. There even is a letter by Montezemolo to the FiA complaining that his veto was not observed in spring 2009. What is the point of disputing this if there are published letters about it. Ferrari are destroying the unity of FOTA over an issue which is clearly decided and should be implemented now. F1 needs to get on with the business of developing the chassis rules for 2013 and not to go back on the engine.

To those who sympathize with Ferrari against the new engines there is only one recommendation: When your horse is dead, get off! The issue is decided and no amount of moaning over it will stop the development unless J. Todt drops dead and gets replaced by Momtezemolo in the next few months. But how likely is that?

No we wont get off. We will keep crying out loud until the damned thing hits the road. Then we will star saying I told you so.

You produce one example and expect to dislodge the claim that F1 technology doesn't dissipate to road car technology? Come on. Also, I highly doubt they are even comparable given that an F1 engine is required to last a matter of a few hundred kms (or a few thousand kms at most) compared with a road engine designed to go for over 200,000km. I might sound cynical here but I would hazard a guess that they made it a 2.4 V6 as a marketting tool, rather than a direct transfer from F1 technology. In essence, the size or configuration of an engine has little bearing on how much of it was derived from racing given that the technologies can be compartmentalised in to combustion chambers, intake designs, exhaust designs etc.

There is no structured discussion with you. You post a statement and expect everybody to roll over and play dead and agree to it. When pres
ented with facts that difuse your point you simply ignore it. So why not take a piece of your own medicine and really participate in the discussion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niQ26ASiVT4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIo-aRFg6XE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abFsKeNKMMc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGEqlNU30Tg

Lol, you are the person who has been wrong on all counts that matter. Naturally I will ignore ramblings on issues that have nothing to do with the 2013 turbo engine decision. Your pathetic moaning about the big naturally aspired engines not being approved for 2013 only shows that you don't understand the new technology and the requirements of the decision makers.

You can ignore my ramblings all you want, but why ignore former FIA boss max mosley, who stated in a link I provided that all changes need unanimous approval? Anrd your only example that road car makers follow F1, is a Ferrari roadcar engine of the seventies? You could do with more examples to convince me.

They could've done the same on a M12, but they were probably too busy racing.

Nobody can know how the 2013 engine will sound exactly and picking lesser and older engines for comparison is just speculation and nothing else. The Ferrari F1 412T2 V12 from 1995 is a particularly ridiculous example. That is probably the worst engine development Ferrari ever did. It was a huge failure. All top level competitors build V10 engines for the new 1995 3.0L formula except Ferrari who thought V12 was the way to go. They were crushed and won only one of seventeen GPs of the season ending up third in the championship. They decided to retire the V12 in the middle of the season and build a V10 as their competitors for 1996. So they basically spend the money of designing the 3.0L engine twice because they build a piece of glorious sounding junk that was over weight and thirsty. If it shows anything it is the fact that Ferrari can be completely incompetent when it comes to making good decisions about an engine formula.

WhiteBlue, you obviously put a lot of thought and effort into your posts. your discussions of technical issues are well reasoned and presented.
However, with opinions you cannot expect everyone to just "agree and get on with it."
There's a little truth in everything that's been said here and a lot of truth in some things.

I think F1 has made a lot of errors in the past but I am still here.

How much money did Ferrari spend on the 3.0l V12? Was it a totally new development, or did they just downsize the cylinders of the 1994 engine a bit, trying to keep their existing designs in place?

Why did Toyota decide a fresh-designed V12 was the way to go in 3l F1 in 1999? Why did the FIA ban it? To save Toyota some money, or to maintain the competitive advantage of the rest of the field, which had all agreed on V10s?

[All questions ]

Wow, you managed to find one engine that might resemble the F1 engine out of 50 years of F1. I'm now utterly convinced that F1 is indeed a test bed for all road going technology.

Excellent reply. See whiteblue, i think sometimes you reason well but most of the times you only say half truths, like the 97 concord agreement wich inly lasted less than a year and was rewritten and resigned in 1998.

And i cant believe that you dare to call the v12 of Ferrari as sound example ridiculous. Furthermore youre not telling the whole truth as risil showed.
The reason no v12s were build was because of Mosleys rule that all engines should be v10, at a time when both Ferrari and Honda already had V12's on the test bench for 1999. Mosleys idea was to curb engine design costs.

I have told you the back ground to Max Mosley's comment but you choose to ignore it. There is a difference between regular changes to the rules which are agreed sufficiently ahead of the season in which they are applied and ad hoc rule changes. Ad hoc rule changes can be anything even two years away as the 2013 engine rule. It was settle with majority in December 2010 but to change it now would require a unanimous vote. The same would apply to the 2012 Pirelli tyres. Tyres by definition need to be fixed before the 1st of January of the year prior to coming into effect. So the next time a tyre rule can be changed with majority is 2013 as well and many people actually expect that to happen with the introduction of 18" tyres.

I'm not saying that F1 has dominated road car technology in the past, I just showed that it is wrong to say F1 technology was never used. There has always been a transfer of thinking. Another good example is the philosophy of middle engines for expensive sports cars to get similar performance aspects as F1 race cars in terms of weight distribution or the use of paddle shifting and different engine mapping. Another example is the use of carbon fibre chassis as we see in the MP4-12C or prior to that in cars like the Ferrari Enzo. Engineers try to transfer some principles or material selection where they can justify it for the performance benefits.

Another area of future applicability beside battery development and spray guided high pressure injection technology could be turbo compounding for road cars. Today nobody uses the technology but F1 will do it from 2014. It could be an option like turbo is for top end models at Porsche today. If you are selecting a top end model with maximum power you could be offered a choice of turbo compounding above turbo charging for your muscle road car.

I refuse to further discuss the concord agreement here because it is off topic anyway and second you have your preconceptions that cannot even be overcome by quoting from originally published documents. Further debate is pointless.


It shows that one cannot have a coherent discussion with you because you turn every argument into a hotchpotch of time references. We started to discuss the merits of the 1995 Ferrari V12 which you praised for it's wonderful sound. Undeniably is wasn't competitive and was promptly replaced in 1996 by a V10. It must have been humiliating and very expensive for Ferrari to design a completely new engine that lasted only 17 races. That is fact and simply undeniable!!

Next you make up a theory that Max Mosley created the rule that V10s were mandatory from the year 2000. This is completely fabricated and plugged from the free air. The only thing that is true is the introduction of the rule as a measure to curb cost which makes excellent sense. As we have seen from the 1995 example the re optimization of engine configurations was a costly exercise and the 2000 introduction of a mandatory configuration surely saved the participants money. It is a well known fact that the FiA had a policy of consulting the technical working group from the teams technical directors and offering different alternatives. Typically the recommendations and selections of the working groups were adopted in the rule changes. So the first assumption about the 2000 cost saving rule would be a regular decision of the F1commission on that matter and not an FiA dictate. If you still think otherwise please provide a source supporting your claim.

Posts deleted.

Please stop discussing each other.

The M5 V10 bore no relationship to the F1 unit other than they were both V10s. BMW were angry because they wanted to use F1 to market their road V10.

Ferrari did modify the engine from the 640/641 for use in the F50.

Some engine features may have been transferred from F1 to the road, but mot have gone the other way.

See, this is a bit contradictory. In the first comment you conclude the development of the 1995 V12 was a total failure, a showcase how terribly wrong Ferrari could be on engine design while in reality, the car and engine were top 6 most of the time and only suffered bad reliability. And in the second post you suddenly go on about how fixing the V10 format was a cost saving rule. If your glorified V10 format was the one to have, why did other teams investigate its return less than 3 years after Ferrari quit? Why did Mosley suddenly decide this would save costs? Because 'if the V12 were to be dominant again, then other teams would have to develop one too' his words around that time. And did it save costs in the end? The top teams were building up to 100 engines a year, at a cost of nearly 100 million dollars annualy untill 2004. With that in mind I think you should revise your judgement on Ferrari using that V12 a bit.





Sofar ive only seen expensive sportscar like you say, take advantage of the things you say, with manual paddle shifting nowadays being slower than pure automated boxes. Obsolete, in other words. And, like someone else already mentioned, Ieven if F1 uses one engine a year, wich does 16.000 kms...do you really think that engine will end up in production cars for Joe Bloke, who wants 200.000 kms?




I also believe that 92 V12 was modified for the 333 SP sportscar, and after that transferred to the F50. A very distant relation to the actual F1 engine.

In reality there is nothing contradictory. There is one person who simply will not understand because he does not want to. I'm not going to waste time and bandwidth to argue in circles. You don't seem to understand that designing an engine for just 17 races and dropping it then for a completely different configuration means an R&D disaster for Ferrari on an unprecedented scale.

Everybody else understands what convergence to an optimum solution means and how the evolution of the rule set can cause re optimization after five years with some significant changes.

You fail to see the need for cost saving measures in 2000 while valuable teams were going bust in the cost explosion following the wave of manufacturers entering the sport. According to your theory big bad Max Mosley imposed a rule to fix the config to V10. The problem for rational people is that there is no source for your opinion. It is well known that the F1commission made those decisions and not the FiA president. As always the FiA simply compiles the rule book and issues it. That does not tell us who initiated a rule change and who approved it by his vote. I have invited you to provide a source for your erroneous assertions. You have not complied.

So where does that leave us? I say it is a typical situation where the best thing to do is to agree to disagree. I have provided enough facts for the users of this BB to make up their mind what to think about the issue of convergence and why the engine expert group did the right thing in 2010 to fix a configuration to save cost. The 2010 config fix follows the same logic as the 2000 config fix. The industry experts were intelligent enough to realize the need. I agree with their thinking, you do not. For my part I will not continue to argue with someone who cannot be convinced by reason.

Fernandes applauds 'green' engines

There goes Monezemlo's chances of getting full support from FOTA members.



This sounds like an argument for toruing cars. Or rally cars. Not for F1.

Of course he likes the rules because it may be cheaper to him.





Are we going to have all weather tyres now too?

Not sure that F1 sharing stuff wih common Hyundai, Toyotas or even Renaults is such a great thing. It makes F1 more common, less special.

And sharing things with such brands is better for touring cars and WRC than F1.