How will the FIA make each F1 teams’ engine performance equal in 2009?

Posted on

| Written by

Will all F1 teams have to use the same engines?
The FIA World Motor Sports Council confirmed yesterday it will take steps to ensure all engines used in F1 have equal power outputs in 2009. Rumours about this have been buzzing around since June.

This brief statement marks an utterly radical change for Formula 1 and a major step away from being a series where car builders compete to create the fastest machine, and towards becoming something closer to a ‘spec series’, where all the cars are identical.

What are the implications of this change – and how will the FIA ensure all power units used in F1 give the same power?

F1 engine specifications were ‘frozen’ in 2007 in an effort to curb the amount being spent on engine development. However some manufacturers have improved the performance of their engines in other ways.

That led Renault’s Flavio Briatore to complain his team had been disadvantaged by obeying the ‘spirit’ of the rules and not chasing further performance from their V8.

The FIA’s decision to force all engines to have equal power outputs is an attempt to resolve this and allow teams to make further cost savings, as president Max Mosley explained:

The engine and gearbox together for an independent team is upwards of ??30m a year. That could be done for probably 5% of that cost without the person in the grandstand noticing any difference at all. Even those big spenders, if they are given the opportunity to save ??100-200m a year will do so.

But it raises some difficult questions:

How will equal engine power be achieved?

It seems to me there are two ways the F1 might achieve this:
1. Set maximum outputs for power and torque.
2. Have each F1 team use the same engine.

More technically-minded people might be able to give more insight into how these could work in the comments.

Option two would obviously be much more radical and I wonder if this is what the FIA already has in mind in terms of ‘future cost cutting measures’. Their reasoning being, if all engines are to have the same power output and power delivery, then what’s the point in having different designs at all?

How will equal engine power be enforced?

Presumably the FIA intends to monitor engine output using the standard ECU.

But having ‘identical’ engines can bring its own problems. In other series where participants have to use the same specification of engines it is not common for wealthier teams to acquire batches of engines and compare each one to find the most favourable unit – even if the differences are tiny.

What will the teams have to say about it?

Max Mosley originally tried to press the teams into agreeing to new regulations on engines at Monaco, during the height of the scandal over his involvement in sadomasochistic sex orgies. The teams asked for that meeting to be deferred, and subsequently set up their own body, FOTA, to respond to a request made by Mosley during the British Grand Prix to propose new engine rules.

We have not yet heard what FOTA wishes to propose. Last month I wrote, “the idea that six car manufacturers are all going to be happy to use the same engine just doesn’t seem realistic to me” and I still hold that thought.

Will FOTA fall in line with Mosley’s thinking? Or is he trying to pre-empt them to force them to agree to his own solution?

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

50 comments on “How will the FIA make each F1 teams’ engine performance equal in 2009?”

  1. What a complete and utter waste of time. I really don’t understand why they bother with this.

    Just like the UK government who want to pretend they aren’t banning smoking while taking more and more measures to put people off.

    Why doesn’t Mosely just cap the budget and let them do whatever they want within that instead of messing about with minor measures?

  2. What a complete joke. Let’s save 400 million of Toyota’s 401 million budget and just all use the GP2 cars and engines. No one will notice.

    F1 is quickly becoming the antithesis of all that was once great about the sport.

    Very sad.

  3. I hate this idea, but if I fantasize about a season where Vettel, Lewis, Alonso and Raikkonen have similar equipment in the teams/environments of their choice, I can only hope for great races.

    But just to make it clear, I think the idea stinks. The teams spend millions on research every year, and these technology advances in engines, etc are what sets them apart from other motorsport series. It’s not just driver vs driver, it’s team vs team – and that’s the way I like it.

  4. I agree with Andrew, if the only reason for this insane idea is to cut costs then a budget cap would work much better!

  5. Cameron aka. SkinBintin
    8th October 2008, 8:16

    Wow! What a terrible idea! If Formula 1 ever became a spec series with all teams using identical chassis and engine packages then I probably wouldn’t watch it. Instead, I’d just follow A1GP and the New Zealand team that participates in that championship.

    F1 is the pinacle of motorsport, and it really needs to stay that way. Yes, the teams do spend a fortune, but for the manufacturers, a lot of the technology eventually finds it’s way into road cars. Which is what I always thought was part of the point of Formula 1.

    Ahh well. I guess all I can do is look forward to the day when Bernie and Max finally move on.

  6. Yet another reason why the FIA has lost the plot. I don’t need all the teams to be the same; I’d rather see one team invent something fantastic and pull away into the distance than to see a parade of 20 cars unable to overtake each other because they are equal. Teams spending lots of money for no noticeable gains– that’s just because there’s no innovation allowed and everyone’s already forced to build similar engines anyway.

  7. I don’t want to see a spec series or an engine freeze. If we let these teams find their own way, maybe one day I’ll be driving a super efficient road car with an engine the size of a matchbox. Yes, an extreme view, but this is the pinnacle of engine development.

    Man didn’t start racing motorcars to save money. He raced them to prove they were reliable and quick. Now we need roads into efficient \ reliable \ powerful engines. F1 needs to lead the way in this and they need to compete for the best engine.

    Imagine where all our road cars would be now, if F1 had banned engine development in 1965 (pre 3.0l engine change rule).

  8. When will Max learn?

    The big teams will still spend as much as they can even if everything else is equal. What would be to stop the Mclaren’s and Ferrari’s spending bucket loads of money to make sure that their air filters were better or their paint was smoother than the next teams – extreme examples I know but the point is – if the want to cut costs, cap budgets. No other method will work.

    If you limit the areas in which the teams can find performance gains, then all the bigger teams will do is spend ridiculous amounts of money on the tinyest details just to gain hundredths of a second over their competitors.

    As far as I can see, the best way to cut costs and improve racing would be to free up the regs to what they were years ago and impose budget caps on the teams…

  9. Chalky’s comments got me thinking:

    How would people feel if the FiA did impose a standard engine (and let’s be fair this does happen between car manufacturers at the moment – a MINI Cooper S has the same engine as a 207GTi…) then I would want to see the regs freed up so that the teams could inovate in other ways – let them use hybrid technologies if they want.

    Oh, and I would add that in the above situation I would see the engine being provided by someone independent of the F1 Teams and Manufacturers…someone like, oh I don’t know….Cosworth!!

  10. If either happens the car manifacturers will have very little motivation to be in F1 at all.
    If the Merc engine is not dominating the BMW, why should Merc bother producing one at all? And be in F1 at all?

    This is all silly!
    As Andrew said in #1 – if you want to cut the budget – cut the budget, not the reasons to spend it! People with money will always find what to spend them for.

  11. I don’t see why this needs to be done. I don’t see why we even needed the engine freeze, because Cosworth proved that a powerful and useable engine could be produced with a fraction of the bigger teams budgets.

    With more restrictive aero rules coming in next year (which I’m in favor of) engine performance will separate the cars performance, like in China ’06 where Honda’s chassis was performing fantastic, but the engine was underpowered so the team suffered until Brazil when the new spec came.

    That’s what I want, not even more restrictive regs were they might as well have the same engine. Bring on those new tiny turbo engines, so it can become a competition again!

  12. It sounds rather like Max is going to push for the single standard engine, which obviously none of the manufacturer teams will accept.

    It also looks like standard gearboxes could be on the cards, as a less contentious area for standardisation. The problem is that after the introduction of a standard ECU, supported by ‘the fans’, the FIA will pursue standard parts as a means to reduce cost and keep the ‘racing’ close.

    For what it’s worth, I think budget caps are totally unworkable, and couldn’t be policed.

  13. I just read a piece over on another F1 site quoting Mario Thiesen as saying that he sees the future of the F1 powertrain as being very different with small capacity internal combustion engines, mixed with hybrid technologies and a very different type of transmission. Technologies that would then find their way into road cars.

    What Mad Max risks doing if he forces through standard parts is to limit the amount of F1 tech that can be used on road cars, and in the process limiting the level to which F1 can be considered “worthwhile” in a business sense…

    I suspect though that he is suggesting these draconian ideas in order to prompt the teams to come up with their own, more realistic, plans.

  14. In my honest and rather extreeme opinion, F1 should:

    have a reasonably competitive budget cap (say 200 Mil)

    give manufactureres Zero Regulations in term of power and torque.

    keep competitive and increase overtaking chances (aero limitation+slicks)

    F1 should also look at it’s past and learn from there,

    re-intorduce the 1 hour 12 laps qualification session, i love this idea, the current knockout system is rubbish in my opinion.

    and please stop penalising people the minute they touch, this is racing people, when the moment is charged with a nano second decision, s… happens, just like life, so deal with it. don’t punish those who attempt to overtake and then commit an error.

    yeah one more thing, the points system should be reviewed, and i think the old 10-6 system was better, and encourages people to race not just drive.

    and as for the engine limitation way, i say to mosley, go get your self a spec series and leave F1 to those who know what it’s all about. No limits racing

  15. Where to start still trying to recover from Max’s interview on bbc last night bleating about his privacy – saya he hasnt changed his habits either?? – with a huge model ferrari prominently in the background – mans a first class loony who says he is retiring next year – hope its sooner

  16. Hmmm, but aren’t the KERS engines going to be delivering the same power anyway? Isn’t that the point? And then use the ‘boost’ button to overtake?
    Or is this Max gradually building up to saying that KERS is too expensive to run as a racing engine?
    So he has to find other ways to make all the cars exactly the same?
    But this still won’t make the sport any less expensive to a new team trying to join, get its drivers licenced, find transportation, and all the other things that Bernie, Max and now FOTA charge them for…..

  17. I wouldn’t be happy to see F1 becoming another spec series!!! Bad move Max.

    In my opinion, if thing go this way soon F1 will just become a driver’s event where teams play supportive role. Don’t really want to see such a thing happening to F1.

  18. Could Max Mosely please do the honourable thing & resign.

    His reign as FIA President has been an unmitigated disaster.

    If he wants a new set of rules for F1 then how about:

    No wings & spoilers allowed
    Massive slick tyres introduced
    Ban carbon & ceramic brakes
    Ban traction control & other electronic driver aids
    Cars given a maximum/minimum height, length, width & weight
    Bring back low fuel qualifying
    Cars given a set amount of fuel for each race, each season this amount is reduced to encourage fuel economy
    Cars must comply with crash test regulations

    That would be it, just let the teams build what they want & get on with racing.

    It’s bad enough that the cars are almost indistinguishable on the outside, if you make them all the same underneath too then what’s the point ?

    If we wanted to watch a spec series then we’d all watch GP2 etc, F1 is meant to be the peak of racing technology.

    The teams will always spend more than they earn & the smaller teams will always struggle, that’s life.

    You can’t cap budgets as the manufacturers just do work in their production factories and have it “off the books” on their F1 accounts.

    Let’s hope FOTA fight this & have some better ideas themselves.

  19. I don’t know why people commenting above me feel that putting a “budget cap” will solve all problems.

    A budget cap is probably the most obvious solution; but also the most difficult one to implement. How are you to find out; what amount was spent when & when. There will be no secrecy between teams anymore then, as everyone will know; who is spending how much in what area.

    About equalizing engine performance; the aim of of the 2007 freeze was the same; but the 2007 freeze has failed to achieve its purpose. So, Max is making a 2nd attempt I guess.

    But as fans; I don’t think it is a matter of grave concern; teams found way around the 2007 freeze; and something similar will happen now; the ban will become a cavil issue soon

  20. If he wants a new set of rules for F1 then how about:

    No wings & spoilers allowed
    Massive slick tyres introduced
    Ban carbon & ceramic brakes
    Ban traction control & other electronic driver aids
    Cars given a maximum/minimum height, length, width & weight
    Bring back low fuel qualifying
    Cars given a set amount of fuel for each race, each season this amount is reduced to encourage fuel economy
    Cars must comply with crash test regulations

    There are some very good ideas in there beneboy. I particularly like the second last one about fuel economising. However there are a few points that I find questionable:
    1. Cars being given set dimensions to work with: I thought the F1 regs already stated that cars needed a max/min height/width, etc.
    2. Banning carbon/ceramic brakes: The only option left after these are taken out of the equation is drum brakes, which are extremely dangerous when worn out.
    3. No wings and spoilers: Without these aerodynamic devices, F1 would no longer be the fastest motorsport in the world and the cars would look like lumbering dinosaurs compared to other racing series.

    But other than that, I like your set of rules. I would go for them any day. :)

  21. @Stealthman

    You can still have disk brakes with steel, lots of other race series do. They increase the braking distance giving drivers the chance of outbraking each other.

    As for dimensions, I just mentioned it as that is my complete list of rules, I don’t think we need any more than those given.

    If we got rid of most of the aerodynamics the grip could be replaced with mechanical grip.
    Bigger, slicker tyres, ground effect, active suspension & other methods could give the cars more grip than they currently get with wings etc.

    The cars following would not be effected by the car in front, they’d just get the tow so you’d get more overtaking.

  22. Many years ago (if I’m not wrong it was during the Piquet/Jones championships era), one of the Cosworth founders, can’t remember if it was Mike Costin or Keith Duckworth, came with what was in my view, a terrific idea: a fuel-consumption formula, based on a (standard) limiter valve that allowed only a predetermined amount of fuel to enter each cylinder per second. Teams would be free to use whatever device they could figure out to extract the maximum power they could get from that amount of fuel. It would be a great source of economy solutions for everyday’s cars. Really great idea! Of course, it fell on deaf ears and was never suggested again…

  23. All this talk about equalised engines, budget cuts and other regs that are difficult to write up and enforce, but banning refuelling? Oh no, that rule would be too easy.

    Max isn’t going to resign next year, you just know he isn’t.

  24. A different idea: Force every engine manufacturer make their engines available to every other team, for a set (reasonable, but low) price, but allow the manufacturers much more leniency in how they make the engines – i.e. go back to a simple “3.0L n/a or 1.5L turbo” rule model.

    The “engine” for the purposes of discussion here will include all ancillaries, the gearbox and all electronics needed to control the engine.

    Some pitfalls:
    1) Top teams would not want their technology getting into the hands of other teams:
    Fix: Seal and secure engines in such a way that the customer cannot open or modify the engine in any way post-delivery.

    2) Top teams will not willingly give their competitors “equal” engines.
    Fix: Do some sort of random “lottery”, where the manufacturer won’t know which particular engine their cars will get – thus they will want to make them all as equal as possible.

    3) Manufacturers can’t be expected to make 20 engines every weekend, only to have 18 go unused, if everyone picks a different manufacturer.
    Fix: The unused engines can be saved for subsequent weekends, so they aren’t a complete waste. Also, teams could be required to ‘declare’ their engine a few weeks in advance, to give the manufacturer’s time to build the engines.

    4) Engines aren’t 100% interchangeable
    Fix: Make a defined set of guidelines for the important measurements (size, mounting points, etc.), which all engines must conform to.

  25. I guess an adaptation of Max’s proposal that the manufcaturer teams might find stomachable would be for them to provide the independent teams with the engine and powertrain (as defined by the above poster Scottin159) free of charge. In return the manufacturer gets technical feedback from that engine user and also still gets the publicity when their engine wins.

    But at the same time they should relax the engine rules a little. Okay, stipulate that it must be a small capity turbo-charged engine etc, but other than that allow the teams some room for innovation. Allow them free-reign so far as Hybrid technology is concerned and limit the amount of fuel they’re permitted to use during a race.

  26. I just wondering why F1 is still a FIA sanctioned series. FIA desperately need F1 to have glamour race event. Just imagine if WTCC or WRC suddenly was the highest ranked auto event for Max to show his face at! But, F1 clearly do not need FIA. With the same teams, the same drivers, people would still watch even if F1 wasn’t a FIA event. So why do they put up with FIA and their ideas?

  27. I just wondering why F1 is still a FIA sanctioned series. FIA desperately need F1 to have glamour race event. Just imagine if WTCC or WRC suddenly was the highest ranked auto event for Max to show his face at! But, F1 clearly do not need FIA. With the same teams, the same drivers, people would still watch even if F1 wasn’t a FIA event. So why do they put up with FIA and their ideas?

    Yep, they could even call it GP1….

    Though some would argue that it’s better the devil you know than the devil you don’t and there needs to be some regulatory body…

  28. HounslowBusGarage
    8th October 2008, 17:06

    In some ways it does seem that Max wants to get rid of the Manufacturers from F1 racing. I can’t really imgine that Toyota, BMW, Renault et all would continue shoving in hundreds of millions each year if the engines that powered their cars were ‘spec’ engines from a central supplier, whoever that turned out to be.
    But maybe that’s what Max now wants to do – getting rid of the largescale, argumentative manufacturers who currently stand up to the FIA’s imperiousness (eg Mercedes Benz) might prove to be a big advantage . . . and, as Ferrari aren’t a manufacturer (I remember it being argued), who better to supply a spec engine than Ferrari?
    Thus Max gets rid of big-spending manufacturers and is able to control the smaller, independent teams who build cars around the single spec engine. And Ferrari wins every time.
    F1 would be smaller without the manufacturers, but the sponsors would still pay mega-bucks to place their logos on the cars and Max wouldn’t have so many headaches.

  29. I have a good suggestion to make;

    Two or three engine makers (Mercedes, Ferrari and BMW…or Renault) will be forced to sell their engines to whatever team demand it. The price will be standard for all tree engines and will be set by FIA.The engines will be the same ,for example Ferrari will have the same ferrari engine with Force India or Williams or someone else and McLaren will have the exact same mercedes engine with let’s say Honda or Super Aguri.It’s odd I know to hear Honda Mercedes or Toyota Ferrari But with this metre F1 will achive 3 things;
    1)The costs for smaller teams will be reduced beacause only the top 3 manufacturers will spend money to improve their engine
    2)The big manufactures will be dissapointed by the small space(only 3 teams) for their cars.Toyota will never be in F1 if Its name appeared as Toyota Ferrari.
    The car companies will give a strong fight in order to be in F1 as chassis and engine manufactors like Honda, Toyota, Porsche, Reanault e.t.c.. So the independent teams ,which are the very soul of Formula 1, will be increased(big space for them) without keeping the money of car companies for research and evolution out of the game.
    3)The engine will be constructed by the top 3 manufacturers so they will be pretty much the same and if they aren’t only two teams will struggled because the others will prefered the ‘good’ engine

    I imagine a grid like this; (it’s just an example)

    McLaren Mercedes
    Williams Mercedes
    Ferrari Ferrari
    BMW Ferrari …or Sauber Ferrari(BMW out of the game in order to build a better engine which will be valued as top 3 by FIA)
    Renault Reanault
    Toyota Renault…or Jordan Renault
    Honda Ferrari…or BAR Ferrari
    Force India Ferrari
    Prodrive Mercedes
    Red Bull Renault
    Torro Rosso Ferrari
    Super Aguri Renault

  30. I wish I could be around another 50 years to see where the state of racing is. My guess? extinct.

    Max is the harbinger of death for all competitive racing that has anything to do with internal combustion engines. And the bugger may be right, we race fans just can’t drink the Kool-aid just yet.

  31. Ok, meetings are useful to the people agree in what is a common sense and was discussed sometime ago. I suppose that Mario Theissen already knew about the unfreeze thing:

    He stated some weeks ago:

    “The downside is if you unfreeze the engines, the cost race will resume immediately and that will be done on engines that will be used for three or four years,” said Theissen.

    “So I would favour not to spend any money on developing these engines any more, keep them in place as they are, but focus on next generation engines.”

    When asked by if felt there was any other way to equalise the engines, Theissen said: “Very difficult. I am not sure if it is really necessary. I think the issue has been exaggerated in the past weeks.

    “I don’t think the difference between the individual engines is that big and is a decisive factor in terms of performance.”

    So, I suppose that NO chances of each F1 team use the same engine.

  32. Budget caps should be in place and the teams should be given a free rein to use it as they please. This would promote efficient spending as well…

  33. Andy – nope! Thanks for posting it.

  34. I know exactly what has caused this whole engine homologation disaster. Carlos Ghosn (CEO of Renault) has said that Renault will only stay in Formula 1 if Renault are winning and it doesn’t cost much money. He’s not an F1 fan at all. Now then, Flav Briatorre is very good mates with Bernie and Max, together with any other billionaire. It was Flav who insisted the engine homologation idea go ahead otherwise Renault were out of F1. Flav then laid off all the Renault engine people. He is now obviously shocked that other teams have still spent millions developing what they can e.g. exhausts, pumps, inlets and Renault are 30 bhp down with no engineers left to improve the engine.
    So it’s back to threatening Max with Renault leaving F1 again resulting in a possible standard engine – made by a company that Flav has an interest in natch!

  35. Budget Cap…..

  36. i assume evry1 here has seen this

    Oh dear. A standard engine. :(
    That isn’t what I like about F1. Didn’t the FIA do a fan questionnaire a couple of years ago. I remember saying that I really like the fact teams can pretty much build their cars from scratch. That unique thing that made F1 the pinnacle of motor sport.

    With aero being reduced and standard engines, they’ll all be in solar powered go-karts by 2020.

    Standard engine design is not what I want. Well that’s the same as any other racing series then. Oh hold on, no we still have LMS and ALMS.
    And MotorsTV is showing all 2009 rounds of ALMS Live.

  37. 2nd thought. If costs do dramatically come down, as Bernie suggests, will we end up with a bigger grid?
    Bigger grid (standard engine) vs Same or smaller grid (any V8 you want to build).

    Even if I don’t like the idea, it may be required to save F1 from running a reduced grid.

  38. Alianora La Canta
    9th October 2008, 10:05

    I don’t see how a budget cap is going to restrict costs, except for the independent teams who have no way of hiding inconvenient extra expenses as road car R&D or marketing or such. It will simply give the appearance of restriction to make it that much easier for the manufacturer teams to keep the status quo going, and hit their lesser-backed rivals at the same time.

    The development restriction route is the same path as the FIA have already taken, which has already increased costs. There is no reason to believe that developmental restrictions will do anything other than make development more expensive, which will favour the rich teams and increase costs for everyone.

    Both of these are counterproductive. Leaving things as they are would be less costly than either of the paths Max has so far suggested that he is willing to take.

  39. OK a standard engine, which might as well be built by the ‘independant’ supplier and issued to all the teams. Goodbye Manufacturers, hello Independant teams. Thats what Bernie and Max are after!
    That would certainly bring the costs down for each team, and I suppose like in GP2 there would only be one lot of engineers around to look after the engines.
    But what about KERS? Have the teams been developing it for just next season? It doesn’t make any sense, or does this mean that the KERS engines all have to be the same spec? And as I mentioned before, we know that already!

  40. I don’t like the idea of a spec series either. But I was not too keen on Manufacturers taking over either. In the 70’s almost every F1 car ran with Ford Cosworth engines and teams tuned them, but there was only 5 to 10 BHP difference across the grid. If we went back to that (single engine supplier) and teams were able to develop their own KERS and tune their engines this could give a team a temporary advantage. This would cut costs and free teams from the manufacturers. I think it would even encourage private teams back into the sport, at least when we come out the other side of this recession.

  41. Dont suppose it will be Ferrari building the engines eh!. Dont know which is worse, Max and Bernie slaughtering F1, or the feeling of helplessness that accompany`s it.

  42. Give us back Champ Cars

  43. @ beneboy: Ah okay. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

  44. This is all about getting the big sponsors in and removing the annoying manufacturers. Give it 5 Years and you’ll have the Coca-cola team racing the McDonald’s team, all using the same engine produced by who cares. Max is cleverer than me (I couldn’t get away with what he did!) and there is always a 5 to 10 year plan. The manufacturers have always been puppets to the FIA but recently the manufacturers have been flexing their muscles a little too much so Max will eliminate them…


  46. this idea stinks.Why do you whant to make f1 car the same.It is being to much focus on the public but!!!!!! if you making the cars similar to the other classes i think the public is going to watch the cheaper classes .WHY becuse the cars are the same the only difference is the engine power butt in this pace you problebly taking down the engine power to around 500bhp then it is boring.The fun whit f1 is that the teams are building different cars and engine those who make the best car and having the drivers that can setup the car to win offcourse it takes time for the underdogs but they are cathing up.So please let f1 be as it should be fast and alot off different cars setup and drivers that s what f1 is about

  47. it all flies in the face of common sense.

    They should limit annual spend on development (including wage bills, resources and where the big teams have fantastic facilities allow the lesser teams equal access).

    Limit engine size – say 4.0litres, 17k rpm limited.

    Thats it – let the engineers get on and wow us with what they can do.

    Might add in manual gear change as how often did we see missed gears when under pressure?? in the good ole days

    F1 is meant to be a technological show piece. With no regs on fuel stops or tank size – questions for teams -do you carry the weight, will the tyres last – or do you keep pitting.

    Torquey engine for twisty circuits or mad top end power etc.

    slicks – yes – downforce – how much do you want –

    the cars would have different advantages and it would be fantastic to seewhat free hand creativity produces.

    The likes of Colin Chapman would not exist in the current regulated environment and look what he bought to motorsport.

  48. I think the FIA have completely lost the plot. How can any team make a competetive car with equalized engines? The fact is they can reduce costs by:
    1) Reduce the wages of the drivers and mechanics (sorry Lewis)
    2) Limit the amount of horsepower that each engine produces
    3) Limit the capacity of each engine to a standard size (e.g. 3.5ltr V6)
    4) Rather than use tyres with a white line here, or a green line there, just use the same manafacturer (e.g. Bridgestone) and standardize the tyres to slicks, wets and intermediates – and that’s it
    5) Have the main parts of the chassis and wings made by an independant manufacturer to maintain safety regulations, but allow the teams to make aerodynamic changes, provided they don’t exceed length, width and weight rules
    6) Have the gearbox and differential the same on all cars to eliminate massive torque advantages
    7) Have a fuel restrictor rule implemented so that each engine can only use so much fuel per race. That will give the teams incentive to build their engines with more economic characteristics
    ….and that’s it!!

    What’s the point of having a Constructor’s Championship if the teams can’t construct anything? At the end of the day, the FIA will destroy the heart and soul of F1 if they keep bombarding the teams with limitations. They will end up having a championship fought by Kia and Daihatsu because the world’s top manufacturers won’t want to race part-built cars in what is supposed to be a championship at the pinnacle of motoring’s elite.
    I agree that cost of F1 is well above a reasonable mark, but trying to remove the heart of each manufacturer’s car for a substitute is not the way to bring costs down. Firstly, the FIA should look at what abysmal rules they have implemented in the last few years, such as:
    1) The 3-pronged qualifying setup. What was wrong with the old system? They should give all the teams 1 hour on the track, with each driver limited to 6 laps and only a specified amount of fuel per car, then let them duke it out – easy!
    2) Remove ALL penalty decisions from the trackside stewards, and place them in the hands of an independant video panel who can review the evidence of any controversial incidents, then penalize any guilty driver a specified amount of time for a specified offense AFTER the race. This saves time and reduces arguments and controversy.

    I think I’ve covered most of the bases. In a perfect world the FIA would actually listen to us hardcore fans to see what WE want, as it’s us paying millions each year to come to the tracks and watch the races, but not so. Moseley – time for you to go buddy.

Comments are closed.