Engine regs: Bring back the "formula" in Formula 1

[onelapdown]

I simply cannot believe the shortsightedness of the FIA in banning all engine development for 10 years. What is the point? How is a car manufacturer supposed to pretend that F1 inputs their road cars when they bring out a new road car every three years, four in the course of a single design engine lifespan???

Now my point is this: It's not well known but the name "Formula One" refers to a formula which was devised to match normally aspirated and supercharged cars. This dates back before the Second World War, lasting until 1952, followed by a similar formula in the mid-50s, and again in 1966 the engine regs allowed normally aspirated cars to compete with turbos until the end of 1988. Renault only took up the Turbo gauntlet in 1977, but within two years they were winning races. It's about time we got this multiple-formula idea back.

Nowadays in F1, every car is a 2.4 litre normally aspirated V8 petrol engine, which in the current climate is so short-sighted as to be criminal. What about the diesels that are winning Le Mans? What about the biofuel-powered Aston Martins in sportscars? what about hybrids? What about fuel cells? what about hydrogen power? What about simply allowing any engine configuration, not just V8s?

The FIA, if it had any sense, would instead of narrowing engine development open it up to all these new possibilities, with a different formula (possibly covering chassis as well as engines) for each one. In this way manufacturers could quite easily justify an F1 project as a genuine branch of their R&D project, and get fantastic publicity from what the achieve, as Audi and Peugeot are with their deisel Le Mans entries. I doubt it's a coincidence that neither of these manufacturers or their parent companies are in F1 as it happens...

I really wish I had any trust in the FIA to think like this, but...

[Woodchip]

"FIA" and "think" in the same paragraph. Enough of this crazy speak, fool!!!!!

[texasmr2]

I wish they would go back to the one displacement rule and allow an unlimited number of cylinder's and let forced induction back in also.

[phren]

I simply cannot believe the shortsightedness of the FIA in banning all engine development for 10 years. What is the point? How is a car manufacturer supposed to pretend that F1 inputs their road cars when they bring out a new road car every three years, four in the course of a single design engine lifespan???

Now my point is this: It's not well known but the name "Formula One" refers to a formula which was devised to match normally aspirated and supercharged cars. This dates back before the Second World War, lasting until 1952, followed by a similar formula in the mid-50s, and again in 1966 the engine regs allowed normally aspirated cars to compete with turbos until the end of 1988. Renault only took up the Turbo gauntlet in 1977, but within two years they were winning races. It's about time we got this multiple-formula idea back.

Nowadays in F1, every car is a 2.4 litre normally aspirated V8 petrol engine, which in the current climate is so short-sighted as to be criminal. What about the diesels that are winning Le Mans? What about the biofuel-powered Aston Martins in sportscars? what about hybrids? What about fuel cells? what about hydrogen power? What about simply allowing any engine configuration, not just V8s?

The FIA, if it had any sense, would instead of narrowing engine development open it up to all these new possibilities, with a different formula (possibly covering chassis as well as engines) for each one. In this way manufacturers could quite easily justify an F1 project as a genuine branch of their R&D project, and get fantastic publicity from what the achieve, as Audi and Peugeot are with their deisel Le Mans entries. I doubt it's a coincidence that neither of these manufacturers or their parent companies are in F1 as it happens...

I really wish I had any trust in the FIA to think like this, but...

What a great post,
Says everything and says it well.
To be the pinnacle of motor sport the formula has to have relevance to the design/build of production cars. How does that happen if FIA ban R+D?

[madbrad]

Well I know their goal is to reduce the cost for small teams, but I think they're barking up the wrong tree. There are other ways of handling it. You're right, they should revert to that original formula.

[7UpJordan]

I wish they would go back to the one displacement rule and allow an unlimited number of cylinder's and let forced induction back in also.

I miss the old shrieking V12's, one of the things that I used to associate with Ferrari.

Also bring back the 3.5L engines, they produced the best noise.

[darwin dali]

Formula yum!

[Rivelution]

I llike your post onelapdown, but I would never like to see a diesel F1 car.

[McLaren Fan]

I simply cannot believe the shortsightedness of the FIA in banning all engine development for 10 years. What is the point? How is a car manufacturer supposed to pretend that F1 inputs their road cars when they bring out a new road car every three years, four in the course of a single design engine lifespan???

Now my point is this: It's not well known but the name "Formula One" refers to a formula which was devised to match normally aspirated and supercharged cars. This dates back before the Second World War, lasting until 1952, followed by a similar formula in the mid-50s, and again in 1966 the engine regs allowed normally aspirated cars to compete with turbos until the end of 1988. Renault only took up the Turbo gauntlet in 1977, but within two years they were winning races. It's about time we got this multiple-formula idea back.

Nowadays in F1, every car is a 2.4 litre normally aspirated V8 petrol engine, which in the current climate is so short-sighted as to be criminal. What about the diesels that are winning Le Mans? What about the biofuel-powered Aston Martins in sportscars? what about hybrids? What about fuel cells? what about hydrogen power? What about simply allowing any engine configuration, not just V8s?

The FIA, if it had any sense, would instead of narrowing engine development open it up to all these new possibilities, with a different formula (possibly covering chassis as well as engines) for each one. In this way manufacturers could quite easily justify an F1 project as a genuine branch of their R&D project, and get fantastic publicity from what the achieve, as Audi and Peugeot are with their deisel Le Mans entries. I doubt it's a coincidence that neither of these manufacturers or their parent companies are in F1 as it happens...

I really wish I had any trust in the FIA to think like this, but...

If the FIA really wanted to implement their credo of Formula One being relevant to normal road-going cars and get serious about climate change they could promote development of, say, hydrogen power etc. Once again, there is a clear incongruity in FIA policy.

[madbrad]

Foot powered Fred Flintstone cars FTMFW!

[darwin dali]

If the FIA really wanted to implement their credo of Formula One being relevant to normal road-going cars and get serious about climate change they could promote development of, say, hydrogen power etc. Once again, there is a clear incongruity in FIA policy.

I've been saying this for years...

[McLaren Fan]

If the FIA really wanted to implement their credo of Formula One being relevant to normal road-going cars and get serious about climate change they could promote development of, say, hydrogen power etc. Once again, there is a clear incongruity in FIA policy.

I've been saying this for years...

Yes...?

I was merely saying it because there was a thread on Formula One engine regulations. I was not trying to ingratiate myself or whatever.

[texasmr2]

I was not trying to ingratiate myself or whatever.

Hey what's up with all the big word's???

[darwin dali]

If the FIA really wanted to implement their credo of Formula One being relevant to normal road-going cars and get serious about climate change they could promote development of, say, hydrogen power etc. Once again, there is a clear incongruity in FIA policy.

I've been saying this for years...

Yes...?

I was merely saying it because there was a thread on Formula One engine regulations. I was not trying to ingratiate myself or whatever.

And I was merely supporting your point of view and acknowledging your apparent eventual coming around on this topic

[McLaren Fan]

If the FIA really wanted to implement their credo of Formula One being relevant to normal road-going cars and get serious about climate change they could promote development of, say, hydrogen power etc. Once again, there is a clear incongruity in FIA policy.

I've been saying this for years...

Yes...?

I was merely saying it because there was a thread on Formula One engine regulations. I was not trying to ingratiate myself or whatever.

And I was merely supporting your point of view and acknowledging your apparent eventual coming around on this topic

My views haven't changed: I care about the environment, believe climate change is occurring, although think the issue is being exaggerated and manipulated by some as means to raise revenue, and that we can not suddenly go back several hundred years overnight and have no carbon footprint, so making Formula One more green is not going to save the planet (although it could be used to research new green technologies). My point was that the FIA believe in climate change but their policies has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. But thanks for supporting my view on the FIA nonetheless. I was just uncertain as to the tone of the post given the ellipses at the end of the sentence.