ALESI wrote:
Well it looks like Ross is not going to be browbeaten by the teams...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41986411"The current engine is an incredible piece of engineering but it's not a great racing engine," he said. "It is very expensive, it doesn't make any noise, it has componentry that in order to control the number of uses is creating grid penalties that make a farce of F1, there are big differentials of performance between the competitors and we are never going to get anyone else to come in and make engines."
Couldn't agree more.
I also agree, wholeheartedly. But a bit further in the article there's this:
The engines must be:
- less expensive to develop and produce
- simpler
- road-relevant and hybrid
- have a better sound
- fitted with some standard parts
-used by a driver at its full potential all of the timewhich I'm less sure about. I really don't get why those who run the sport insist that anything in F1 has to be road relevant. Why? What is the benefit to the racing? It's a ridiculous obsession that serves absolutely no purpose. same with having to be hybrid. Whatever for?
I'm also a bit hesitant about the standard parts bit. Manufacturers should be free to develop their own concepts, not be saddled with ones which may not suit their design philosophy. I want an engine in a Ferrari to be a Ferrari engine, not some lovely individual love child of different manufacturers.
Finally, "used by a driver at its full potential all of the time" seems diametrically opposed to the obsession with reducing the number of units every year. If you want an engine you can push constantly, then I don't see how you can expect it to last several races at the same time. There's bound to be some nursing involved the longer the expected shelf life of the unit.