Max proposes 2008 rules change

[Forza Lancia]

Has anyone seen this? According to the Official Formula One site (http://www.formula1.com/race/news/1456/717.html), the era of the V10 may be coming to an end (although not for a few years, yet):

"The FIA dropped a bombshell in the Formula One paddock on Friday morning, when they released details of the proposed rule changes which would take effect from January 1 2008.

"Engines would be 2.4 litre V8s with a maximum of four valves per cylinder and would have to be used for two races not one."

And there's more -- control tires, etc.

Actually, three liters probably is too large an engine in the 21st century, as the cars keep going faster every year. Nothing about grooved versus ungrooved tires, though.

[pchall]

That sounds like the most reasonable thing ever to spring from the twisted mind of Max Mosley.

A lot of good ideas on engine, gearbox, differential, brakes and tires. The more flexible chassis sounds rather stupid, though.

[Cam]

Here is the list of proposed changes I just recieved. :shakehead

Preliminary Proposals for New Rules to Take Effect on 1 January 2008.

Engine

# 2.4 litre V8;

# maximum of four valves per cylinder;

# two-race engine (fool-proof method for ensuring this rule is observed, plus carefully calculated penalty system for unscheduled changes);

# list of components which must be made from a specific material and/or using a specified manufacturing process;

# ban on variable geometry inlet and exhaust systems;

# standard ECU (under FIA control)

# ban on ultra high pressure (direct injection) fuel systems enforced by means of FIA ECU;

# maximum modulus of elasticity (stiffness) of materials reduced from 40 Gpa to 32 Gpa (throughout car).

Transmission, braking and steering

# manual gearbox with electronic over-rev safeguard;

# manually operated clutch;

# ban on electronically controlled differentials;

# ban on power steering systems;

# standard brake discs, pads and calipers.

Chassis

# weight limit reduced by at least 50 kilos (to eliminate ballast and thus reduce kinetic energy in an accident);

# a combined tyre and aerodynamic package to be published no later than 31 December 2004 to achieve specific targets for cornering speeds, straight-line speeds, grip and braking performance, taking weight reduction into account;

# tyre (wheel) width reduced at front, increased at rear to allow weight distribution consistent with no ballast and to give greater drag (total of front +rear widths to stay same).

Sporting

# no spare car allowed during entire Event;

# cars to be held under parc ferme conditions during entire Event;

# one tyre supplier only, all sporting aspects of supply contract under control of FIA;

# drastic restriction on private testing, limited by mileage rather than number of days, enforced by means of FIA ECU;

# two (identical) sets of tyres for qualifying and race;

# Friday practice: package to ensure cars run, possibly to include a qualifying session;

# new qualifying system to be discussed with commercial rights holder (broadcasters), teams and race promoters;

# if qualifying continues to be with race fuel, consider whether amount of fuel in refuelling rig before race should be fixed annually in sporting regulations with amount of fuel in car for qualifying and race free (to encourage fuel efficiency);

# no tyre change during race (except genuine puncture), refuelling to stay;

# consider if constructors' points should be scored by a maximum of four specified cars (two teams) per constructor (to encourage major teams to make cars and information available to teams coming into Formula One, see below);

General

# no restriction on the sale, loan or exchange of chassis and components between teams or to new entrants in the Championship;

# twelve entries to be accepted each year, entries to close on 1 July for following season;

# guaranteed entries each year for teams with long-term contracts to compete in Championship;

# technical and sporting rule changes for future seasons to be subject to a majority vote of the teams already contracted to compete during the season in which the rule changes will apply;

# technical rule changes concerning Formula One to be announced in June to take effect on 1 January of the second year following the announcement (for example, a technical rule change for 2012 would be announced no later than 1 July 2010, having first been approved by a majority of the teams already contracted to participate in 2012);

# no rule changes after entries close for a given Championship without consent of all accepted teams.

[Dirty Sanchez]

On the question of 2.4l V8 formula...

Q: Now, can I ask you all your comments on the FIA proposals regarding engines, particularly their viability, if you feel that they are applicable?

Otmar Szafnauer (Honda): Generally, I think the gist of the proposals was to slow the cars down and we at Honda are in favour of having a very safe formula but at the same time, allowing the design freedom and technical challenges that Formula One poses today. So in general, we would be against any changes that take away the technical challenges from our engineers. I think there are things in there like the rev limiters and things of that nature, and I think those things are an anathema to Formula One in general. But making the formula safer? We’re definitely for that. Reducing engine size? I think it said 2.4 litre V8. We’re not against that as long as the design freedoms remain open and Formula One remains the pinnacle of motor sport.

Norbert Haug (Mercedes): I try to explain it like this. I think there are three main criteria that we have to face. I think we should think about creating a better sport for the spectator. That, for me, is the most important point. It is very important to save costs, because otherwise I think we will all be in trouble in a couple of years, even the companies who could basically afford to spend a lot of money, but why spend more money than necessary? I think that has to be the process and the third point is slowing the cars down. I think they’re going quicker and quicker, which is normal in a tough competition, but first of all we all need to realise that this sport is made for spectators, for spectators here at the race track and mainly for spectators watching on television. And we are very open to every discussion in that direction, and we are certainly open to the proposals laid down in what Max Mosley, the FIA President, wrote to the teams and to us, and we certainly will join in the meeting and build a constructive part of it. My personal view is that a change of rules, in terms of the engine, doesn’t help to save money, not at all. It’s quite the opposite in that case. And I think we cannot justify saying that a new engine has eight cylinders so we save a lot of parts. I just don’t think that’s the right process. We should constructively think about what we have and what we can reduce in terms of speed and in terms of costs and that will be a better approach. But as I said, Mercedes Benz and McLaren will be a very constructive part of these discussions.

Reading between the lines: "We can barely build a competitive, reliable 3.0l V10 now. What makes you think we'll be able to build a brand new engine!?! This sucks :cry: :rofl:

Rob White (Renault): I think everybody appreciates the magnitude of the subject, everybody appreciates that it’s important for the future of the sport and we at Renault certainly support the orientation of the proposals. Clearly, we’ve all just seen them today and there’s little to say about the detail of them but we’re pleased that there’s something concrete to discuss and we will play an active part in discussing it as the details emerge and the process continues.

Paulo Martinelli (Ferrari): We think the aim of the proposals is very positive. We have to consider what we can do for the future of the sport. We have to give priority to safety, to maintain or improve the spectacle and to design a formula that still allows for the peak of technology but at reasonable cost. I think we are pleased at the approach. In my opinion, it’s difficult to go into detail on any of the proposals but in general, we favour these proposals and I think that in the medium term, a displacement reduction is the best way to limit the power performance without artificial tools like speed limiters etc. It’s the best idea, so we are in favour of considering a formula with a 2.4 V8 in the future, and also to consider how to extend engine life.

Mario Theissen (BMW): If you look at the proposal to me it consists of two parts. The first part is the objectives. We fully support the objectives. There is one thing on the objectives, which is a technical solution already, which I would be careful to keep this really apart. First talk about the objectives and then the solutions. Main objectives are safety and cost reduction and in my view the cost reduction is the most urgent one. If we think we need to do something about it I think we should try and get it done before 2008 and not as late as that. On the specific engine proposal, as I’ve said in my view cost reduction is the most urgent thing and this is why we would not propose a different engine format. It is clear to us that if you change from a 3-litre V10 to a 2.4-litre V8 you have to do for at least one year two separate engines in parallel which would be a massive cost increase. We calculated in the past that a 2.4 V8 would be five percent lower than a 3-litre V10, no more than five percent, so in total it would be a real cost reduction. We would be happy and support extending engine life, maybe even beyond two race weekends because that would take power down and at the same time would be a massive cost cut and that is what we need. So I think we should spend some more thoughts on that direction.

Source FIA

[TrueBrit]

I agree that these are the most sane suggestions coming from Max (Brownshirt) Mosley, well....basically, ever. I still think they need to go back to slicks though...

[JT265]

On the question of 2.4l V8 formula...


Norbert Haug (Mercedes): I try to explain it like this. I think there are three main criteria that we have to face. I think we should think about creating a better sport for the spectator. That, for me, is the most important point. It is very important to save costs, because otherwise I think we will all be in trouble in a couple of years, even the companies who could basically afford to spend a lot of money, but why spend more money than necessary? I think that has to be the process and the third point is slowing the cars down. I think they’re going quicker and quicker, which is normal in a tough competition, but first of all we all need to realise that this sport is made for spectators, for spectators here at the race track and mainly for spectators watching on television. And we are very open to every discussion in that direction, and we are certainly open to the proposals laid down in what Max Mosley, the FIA President, wrote to the teams and to us, and we certainly will join in the meeting and build a constructive part of it. My personal view is that a change of rules, in terms of the engine, doesn’t help to save money, not at all. It’s quite the opposite in that case. And I think we cannot justify saying that a new engine has eight cylinders so we save a lot of parts. I just don’t think that’s the right process. We should constructively think about what we have and what we can reduce in terms of speed and in terms of costs and that will be a better approach. But as I said, Mercedes Benz and McLaren will be a very constructive part of these discussions.

Reading between the lines: "We can barely build a competitive, reliable 3.0l V10 now. What makes you think we'll be able to build a brand new engine!?! This sucks :cry: :rofl:

Source FIA

Crapus you hata!!! :D

What Norbert needs to be reminded of is this.

Dear Norbert, the new formula is a winner for you, and here's why. A 2.4L V8 has two less liners and pistons to score, and two less rod bearings to turn, sending the remnants of your crank out the side of the engine cover. And Norbert, a rev-limiter for your product can only be construed as a good thing.

Warm regards, JT

;)

[ilferrari]

This is just more damaging meddling by him. Apart from banning traction control nothing listed in the changes will restore the influence of the driver in the sport. Grooved tires, the narrow track and stepped bottom should have been at the top of his list for change. F1 will be constructor dominated and therefore predictable until they reintroduce a spec that is far more difficult for the drivers to put on the limit.

[scanman]

I know the basics of motors, but with a 2.4 and rev limited to get the H.P.
and longevity would they have to go the turbo route ala Champcars :confused:

[Dirty Sanchez]

I know the basics of motors, but with a 2.4 and rev limited to get the H.P.
and longevity would they have to go the turbo route ala Champcars :confused:Who said anything about rev limits? :confused: Expect these guys to hit 16,000rpm within a couple of years of the new formula... :thumbup: