Has Max Mosley lost it?
 

Part of me says yes he has lost it and another says well....

The 4WD part makes me think he is insane.

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2133954,00.html

Yes, yes. Thats what auto racing fans want. Slower, quieter, eco friendly cars.

WTF?!?!?!?!

DUMB.

What ever Max is taking its gotta be pretty ****ing strong, hasn't it? He has lost it big time.

Its time for Max to go to pasture. Racing breeds new tech and Max wants Nascar style limits.

Aint gonna work I hope...

I won't totally bash Mad Max, he occasionally gets a good idea, like a return to proper manual gearboxes with clutches (sorry, I hate flappy paddle gearboxes).

Probably a good play to highlight the eco side of things to, good PR for the auto industry means more money to play in F1. Why he wants to go AWD, I can't really imagine.

The FIA has always been looking for ways to cut performance in F1, as its an ongoing battle where the FIA takes steps to slow the cars down, and the engineers quickly overcome those hinderances. Without that, F1 machines would be so fast they couldn't safely exist on a racetrack.

Equally, the FIA tries to reduce costs (not always successfully), because otherwise the manufacturers keep trying to outspend each other until F1 isn't viable, and then they leave...

Mosley believes that by extending the life of the engine, it will save the teams money, but the cost of building the engines is probably going to be a lot less than designing race engines that will last 5 races.

did max ever have it?

you need to have it to have lost it

all down hill ever cence they banned turbo's

is nitro a eco fuel?

I've thought the rules makers in F1 were insane for a while now, so this is nothing new.

But I think it's great news! All these years the F1 technology has trickled down to cars but very little has gone to my daily driver, a truck. So maybe I can look forward to a half ton BMW 4WD truck with a 400hp V6 turbo diesel that runs on biofuel!!! YeeeeHaaa

Racing is racing isn't it? Or would people prefer these ground-based aero planes go airborne at 300 mph? I thought racing was just as exciting 30 years ago when there was NO aero and the size of the driver's cajones was then as now still the common denominator among the best drivers.

Here's an excerpt from a GP race from years back (writer unknown):

"Arnoux blasted past the French-Canadian on that lap but then his engine started to misfire. Maybe the turbo wasn't as perfect as everybody thought? Villeneuve, despite his Ferrari now handling atrociously, slipped back ahead on lap 79. The last lap would go down in legend, as corner after corner the pair raced flat out, two-abreast for the majority of the lap. Tyres touching, both cars bumping around over the rumble strips, millimetres away from causing an accident, both drivers wanted second place and neither would give up. As the sparks flew, the fans held their breath in awe, anticipation, fear and excitement. If either driver made a mistake, the ending was unlikely to be a happy one."

Those same cars might be equivalent to current backmarkers, but would the racing be any less spectacular if repeated today? I say no.

Sherwood

Brilliant. Keep slowing down the F1 cars until they are slower than the CART and Indy cars.
Take away the only thing that makes F1 better, (the technology and performance) and then wonder why no one wants to watch.

If they slow down the F1 cars any more I will loose interest, as will many others.
I like F1 because of the power, the technology, the unbelievable performance. Take that away and it might as well be nascar. Who cares?
If max is serious then he's a freaking tool or a fool, maybe both.

AUTO RACING IS BORING....Quiet frankly I get dizzy watching them go around and around. Then I fall asleep.

I love the way 19,000 rpm sounds I really hope that part of the sport never goes away.

M.S. was blindingly fast, but with no competition it was sleepy time. I doubt many spectators can see the difference in 2 or 5 sec/lap. Power, technology and unbelievable performance are all relative. What would you give to see Senna and Schumacher head-to-head in cars 2 secs. slower? Would the showdown be spoiled because of it? I think not. Besides, Mosley isn't legislating away technology and performance. Sounds like he's merely introducing another format for teams to develop. I wouldn't be concerned with what race teams can create with a budget of 50-100 mil.

BTW, NASCAR mainly goes around in circles. It only gets interesting when they have to turn left AND right.

Sherwood

What they should do, if they want to go down the environmentally-friendly road, is allow x gallons of 91 pump gas for the race, and give the engineers free reign on displacement etc to achieve the minimum required mpg (15 mpg, for example).

This could truly give the manufacturers some technological advances that would trickle down to street cars.

Crap, beat me to it. I would do that, but make it 87 octane gasoline. Alternative fuels could be used, but the amount of fuel has to be BTU balanced.

Say someone wants to run ethanol. They would get more gallons, because it is a lower BTU/gallon fuel. If someone wants to run diesel, they get a cut due to its higher BTU/gallon.

The only reason I would pay any attention to auto racing is for the crashes.

Exactly. The quoted excerpt is only part of that article:

"We are in active discussions with the major manufacturers to ensure that, in future, research and development relevant only to Formula One will be discouraged, whereas that which has relevance to road-car development will be encouraged," Mosley told F1-Racing magazine.

"We understand that such an approach has broad support from the competing manufacturers and we will work closely with them to ensure that, in particular, the new environmentally relevant technologies that many of them are developing are made our priority.

"Whilst aiming to achieve these goals we will ensure that the sporting spectacle of F1 remains the same or is even improved by the new developments."

Max has been saying for a long time that F1 needs to stay relevant and to use competition to drive technology and vice versa. As a full-on F1 fan that's fine by me, the drivers and teams will be just as interesting with different rules.

Also what he is saying now is a proposal to take effect from 2011 and it has a long way to go before it hits the grid. The Technical Working Group will whack any 4wd idea over the head with a carbon driveshaft for a start.

Smaller cars are lighter cars, and the technology will probably move forward between now and 2011 so that these 2.2 V6 Turbo biofuel engines develop over 800bhp - who does that not excite then?

I have been thinking about this issue these last few days. I thought about Audi and their TDI R10. Anyone want to say its not an exciting car to watch race?

I think it will be neat to see what technology can com efrom a 2.2 liter Turbo, we could see some real rocketships.

As far as the AWD goes, who knows right now I think its stupid, but as time goes by we may see it is the way to go as AWD technology advances.

I agree Jim, but it still needs a diff and where do you put that in terms of crash protection - and what benefit does it bring to the car on track? Unless you have some sort of flat diff under the car in a +30mm raised-height wet setup scenario, or a fluid transfer system to drive the fronts or something, who knows. This is why the Tech Working Group exists ;)

Anyone remember the Audi AWD cars in SCCA racing a few years ago? They could go anywhere they wanted in a corner and ate up the RWD cars. Same with current AWD cars in the WRC series. Same with an AWD F1 car. It would be safer due to the control from 4 driving wheels, and at the same time faster due to better traction. Perhaps aero aids wouldn't be as necessary as they are, resulting in more restrictions in this area for closer racing.

Even though technology changes, there will still be a disparity between teams that have a larger budget, conduct better R&D and have more talented designers, engineers and drivers.

Sherwood