stigga:

mo1965:

stigga:

mo1965:

stigga:

mo1965:

 

2006

WilliamsF1 and Cosworth entered a partnership agreement where Cosworth would supply engines, transmissions and associated electronics and software for the team.^[37] Major sponsors Hewlett Packard(HP) concluded sponsorship agreements one year before their official end of contract. The WilliamsF1 team also switched to Bridgestone tyres.

The season started well, with both drivers scoring points in the opening race of the season, and Nico Rosberg setting the fastest lap at theBahrain Grand Prix. However, the rest of the season was very disappointing, with 20 retirements out of 36 starts for the two cars. The team failed to finish on the podium all season, the first time since Williams’ first season in 1977. The team eventually finished eighth in the constructors’ championship, with only 11 points. 

Source: Wikipedia.

I cant see anywhere in there where it says Williams dropped Cosworth  "due to lack of performance and unacceptable reliability".

Source: SIDEPODCAST

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

Many drivers and champions attribute their successes over the years to the power in their cars, names such as Sir Jackie Stewart, Graham Hill, even Michael Schumacher.

However, as the decades wore on, the big name manufacturers began to enter and dominate the sport. Companies such as Honda, BMW and Toyota had bigger brands and bigger budgets, and teams switched allegiances all too easily.

When Jackie Stewart set up his own team in 1997, he decided to try and repay the favour to Cosworth, snapping them up as engine suppliers. The results didn’t follow, though, and after the team changed hands through Ford and Red Bull, Cosworth’s options within the sport began to run out.

In 2006, their final year, Cosworth supplied both Williams and Toro Rosso, but Williams were the first to admit it was their worst season in decades. However, not all of this can be blamed on Cosworth, as they were first on the grid to successfully make a modern V8 F1 engine rev all the way up to 20,000rpm.

Williams quickly signed Toyota as a supplier, and the fate of Cosworth appeared to be sealed. They announced that 2006 was the end for their name in the sport, and bowed out quietly in Brazil.

Afterwards, 200 staff were laid off. The company a lacked a bit of direction. The future looked bleak.

Nowadays, Cosworth say they have learnt a valuable lesson not to keep all their eggs in one motorsport basket. They are now concentrating more on the air industry with contracts including Airbus and Boeing. A return to Formula 1 is not impossible, especially as they have a homologated FIA engine sitting idle. Sadly with the wealthy domination from suppliers like Ferrari and Mercedes, that seems highly improbable. 

..................................................

There is a very good article on "F1Technical" an interview with the boss of Cosworth (Tim Routsis), he was so excited and happy for supplying engines to williams, but unfortunately only lasted 1 year! 

If you are looking for the exact words to put your mind at rest, then call "Williams F1", you may get the answer you are looking for. Or Search the net!!!

If you still can't see it, then question yourself as why a manufacturer after spending all the time and money would change one engine for another???? 

 

 

Mo, I dont need to question myself, you stated quite categorically that Williams dropped Cosworth,

"due to lack of performance and unacceptable reliability".

Its the vaildity and accuracy of your statement that I needed to question.

I've asked you for proof of that, I haven't asked you any other questions, other than to prove that what you said was factual, once again, when asked for proof to back up what you said you're unable to provide it. you provide links to or quotes from sidepodcasts and Wiki, yet neither of them back up what you stated, and yet you pull katie up on apparently "changing tune".

 

No hard feeling, as always, you are welcome to disagree with what you want to disagree. 

On the basis of what I heard, I'd drawn a conclusion, rightly or wrongly (Williams dropping Cosworth due to poor performance etc). Now you don't agree, so be it.

No disrespect, but I stand by what I say and state it where necessary, and I suggest you stand strongly by your disagreement. It is really simple, isn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I didn't need to resort to wiki and other sources to back my claim, I only got them for you to read! 

And they might have been helpful if they'd backed up your claim.

A quote from Webber, from the official FIA press conference of 08/06/2006

Q: It’s said that the deal is done between Toyota and Williams. What are your feelings about a possible change of power for next year?
MW: Well, there’s loads of speculation but as usual, until it’s all done, you never never know. But first of all Cosworth have not let us down anywhere this season in terms of… we had the one rear of the field at the start of the race in Nurburgring, but the pace of the engine has been absolutely phenomenal for us all year. It’s one of the best V8s if not the best V8 ever. It’s an incredible engine and there are some very good guys there. So if we do change, there’s a big set of shoes to fill, to fill Cosworth’s role that they’ve done for us this year.

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Information/F1/Press_Conferences/2006/Britain/gb_conf1.html

Fastest Lap: Nico Rosberg, 1:32.408 (Lap 42)

Malaysia Results

mo1965:

katiekutie:

I am not changing tune, I have never changed tune, I have always said WITHIN THE BUDGET CAP, check my posts. Are you saying it's not possible to carry out engine development within the budget cap? What about engine suppliers like Cosworth and Mercedes who are not subject to the cap? What teams have spent in the past is irrelevent, we are talking about the capped future. In respect of gifted engineers, only one team needs one to lead the others - think about air operated valves, there was only one engineer who got that to work, quickly copied by many others. It's not true to say Williams dropped Cosworth because of reliability issues, they struck a better financial arrangement with Toyota - and they are a low budget team. I don't accept what you say about F1 manufacturers saying RPM should be limited, please refer me to the relevant documentation. I am well aware of Ilmore's involvement in F1, the current Mercedes HPE evolved from them - but even Ilmore acknowledge that MotoGP development has outstripped F1.

 

Engine details are very closely guarded and no one person even within design or production of a company has full access to its complete details (let alone an outsider). So when someone come up with an idea (i.e. your air operated valve), these companies still need their everyday manpower to investigate the application, gains, then possibilities of implementing it, design it, build it, and test it.

The following is extracted from FIA website published on 27th of March 2009:

When we first had a meeting with all the teams to talk about this, in May 2004 in Monaco, the manufacturers admitted they were collectively spending €1.4 billion a year on engines and that this expenditure could not continue. 

So we asked them to produce regulations to prevent it. The result was a set of highly restrictive engine regulations that were very carefully crafted with precise metallurgical and dimensional requirements. 

To our amazement, though, whilst the expenditure stabilised, it was not reduced. Not one manufacturer reduced the size of its engine department. Even when we went from that to the ‘frozen’ engine used today, only one manufacturer really decreased its manpower. Instead the major teams, which continue to employ 700 to 1,000 staff at their factories, utilised their extra engineers to finding tiny incremental gains in the performance of their cars.

----------------------------------------------------------------- 

I hope above clarifies, where some of FIA's technical regulations come from. 

Cosworth do make good engines but not competitive F1 engine. Their records are public information and I leave that to you to workout why none of the F1 teams presently use them. (Wikipedia is a good source). In case of Williams, in 2006 Webber and Roseberg were their drivers, look at their data and see why they did not finish a race!!! 

I am not into motorbikes, so I can't make any comments on motoGP. The only thing I say is this, don't underestimate the current F1 manufacturers, they may be a bit on the dodgy side(!) but when it comes to technical expertise, they are second to none (obviously within wheel based racing industry).

"Engine details are very closely guarded and no one person even within design or production of a company has full access to its complete details (let alone an outsider). So when someone come up with an idea (i.e. your air operated valve), these companies still need their everyday manpower to investigate the application, gains, then possibilities of implementing it, design it, build it, and test it."

Thats not true. The Engineering Manager of any project has full access to everything to do with that project.

I've seen what the FIA have to say, it's common knowledge.

I'll leave you to argue your case about Cosworth reliability with others on this site. I don't agree with you.

You still totally evade my original point. Why have a rev limit when you have so many other restrictions? What purpose does it serve? Why stiffle innovation?

In any case, much of this discussion is pointless. Companies like Mercedes have set up sub companies like Mercedes High Performance Engines (Mercedes HPE) to manufacture F1 compliant engines. This company - and any other similar company that Ferrari, Toyota, BMW, Renault et.al. - want to set up and run are totally free from FIA interference, if they want to supply F1 compliant engines to teams for the regulated limit (assuming a capped F1 goes ahead) they can. What they decide to spend on development has nothing whatsoever to do with the FIA. Maybe we will get some innovation, but we don't need an FIA imposed rev limit, it is an Engineering restriction, a block to innovation - which Mosely has publicly said is not what F1 should be doing.

stigga:

stigga:

mo1965:

No hard feeling, as always, you are welcome to disagree with what you want to disagree. 

On the basis of what I heard, I'd drawn a conclusion, rightly or wrongly (Williams dropping Cosworth due to poor performance etc). Now you don't agree, so be it.

No disrespect, but I stand by what I say and state it where necessary, and I suggest you stand strongly by your disagreement. It is really simple, isn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I didn't need to resort to wiki and other sources to back my claim, I only got them for you to read! 

And they might have been helpful if they'd backed up your claim.

 

A quote from Webber, from the official FIA press conference of 08/06/2006

Q: It’s said that the deal is done between Toyota and Williams. What are your feelings about a possible change of power for next year?
MW: Well, there’s loads of speculation but as usual, until it’s all done, you never never know. But first of all Cosworth have not let us down anywhere this season in terms of… we had the one rear of the field at the start of the race in Nurburgring, but the pace of the engine has been absolutely phenomenal for us all year. It’s one of the best V8s if not the best V8 ever. It’s an incredible engine and there are some very good guys there. So if we do change, there’s a big set of shoes to fill, to fill Cosworth’s role that they’ve done for us this year.

 

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Information/F1/Press_Conferences/2006/Britain/gb_conf1.html

It is very professional of Mark Webber to make the above statement. In fact if williams had said any different publicly, I would question their professionalism. F1 is a small family when it comes to major suppliers.

The point is, you don't need someone to write a big article, their action is the best proof. You know if Cosworth engine could have performed as well as other F1 engines, and williams were happy with it, then they must be out of their mind to change the engine for another one.

There are still 5 customer cars in F1, and if Costworth could give signals to any of these teams that their engine is better than the one they are using, I assure you the "customer cars" will snap the Cosworth engines.  

Cosworth used to produce very good and competitive engines, but after mid 90s they haven't quite kept up with the F1 manufacturers. I am sure they are a proud company and they have every right to be.

It is fair to say that, the last F1 engine they produced, value for money would have outperformed Ferrari and Mercedes (I do acknowledge this, although this is a known fact within F1 and doesn't need me stating it). Again, basing selection on performance, for Cosworth to keep up with Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Renault and Toyota, they will have to comeup with something a bit more powerful and reliable. 

By the way,  if a failure comes from gearbox, drive shaft, hydraulic system, electrials or some other faults, it was still blamed on the engine supplier!!!

mo1965:

stigga:

stigga:

mo1965:

No hard feeling, as always, you are welcome to disagree with what you want to disagree. 

On the basis of what I heard, I'd drawn a conclusion, rightly or wrongly (Williams dropping Cosworth due to poor performance etc). Now you don't agree, so be it.

No disrespect, but I stand by what I say and state it where necessary, and I suggest you stand strongly by your disagreement. It is really simple, isn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I didn't need to resort to wiki and other sources to back my claim, I only got them for you to read! 

And they might have been helpful if they'd backed up your claim.

 

A quote from Webber, from the official FIA press conference of 08/06/2006

Q: It’s said that the deal is done between Toyota and Williams. What are your feelings about a possible change of power for next year?
MW: Well, there’s loads of speculation but as usual, until it’s all done, you never never know. But first of all Cosworth have not let us down anywhere this season in terms of… we had the one rear of the field at the start of the race in Nurburgring, but the pace of the engine has been absolutely phenomenal for us all year. It’s one of the best V8s if not the best V8 ever. It’s an incredible engine and there are some very good guys there. So if we do change, there’s a big set of shoes to fill, to fill Cosworth’s role that they’ve done for us this year.

 

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Information/F1/Press_Conferences/2006/Britain/gb_conf1.html

It is very professional of Mark Webber to make the above statement. In fact if williams had said any different publicly, I would question their professionalism. F1 is a small family when it comes to major suppliers.

The point is, you don't need someone to write a big article, their action is the best proof. You know if Cosworth engine could have performed as well as other F1 engines, and williams were happy with it, then they must be out of their mind to change the engine for another one.

There are still 5 customer cars in F1, and if Costworth could give signals to any of these teams that their engine is better than the one they are using, I assure you the "customer cars" will snap the Cosworth engines.  

Cosworth used to produce very good and competitive engines, but after mid 90s they haven't quite kept up with the F1 manufacturers. I am sure they are a proud company and they have every right to be.

It is fair to say that, the last F1 engine they produced, value for money would have outperformed Ferrari and Mercedes (I do acknowledge this, although this is a known fact within F1 and doesn't need me stating it). Again, basing selection on performance, for Cosworth to keep up with Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Renault and Toyota, they will have to comeup with something a bit more powerful and reliable. 

By the way,  if a failure comes from gearbox, drive shaft, hydraulic system, electrials or some other faults, it was still blamed on the engine supplier!!!

Check the results I've posted, they contain all the Cosworth engine failures for Williams 2006 season.

katiekutie:

"Engine details are very closely guarded and no one person even within design or production of a company has full access to its complete details (let alone an outsider). So when someone come up with an idea (i.e. your air operated valve), these companies still need their everyday manpower to investigate the application, gains, then possibilities of implementing it, design it, build it, and test it."

Thats not true. The Engineering Manager of any project has full access to everything to do with that project.

I've seen what the FIA have to say, it's common knowledge.

I'll leave you to argue your case about Cosworth reliability with others on this site. I don't agree with you.

You still totally evade my original point. Why have a rev limit when you have so many other restrictions? What purpose does it serve? Why stiffle innovation?

In any case, much of this discussion is pointless. Companies like Mercedes have set up sub companies like Mercedes High Performance Engines (Mercedes HPE) to manufacture F1 compliant engines. This company - and any other similar company that Ferrari, Toyota, BMW, Renault et.al. - want to set up and run are totally free from FIA interference, if they want to supply F1 compliant engines to teams for the regulated limit (assuming a capped F1 goes ahead) they can. What they decide to spend on development has nothing whatsoever to do with the FIA. Maybe we will get some innovation, but we don't need an FIA imposed rev limit, it is an Engineering restriction, a block to innovation - which Mosely has publicly said is not what F1 should be doing.

 

I 'd never heard of an "engineering manager" within a manufacturing company. I guess this is a newly created position which you know about and I don't (I am used to chief engineer but not "engineering manager")!

I agree lets forget about Cosworth as they are not even there. I am sure if they come up with a descent engine, customer cars will switch to cosworth.

Reducing RPM will extends the life expectancy of an engine. It makes a difference between a reasonable guarantee to finish a race or an unexpected failure. 

You can compare the time difference between 2006 or 2007 car and this year on a track like silverstone. This year's car is restricted to 18000 RPM but the overall performance is a little bit better than those 2 years, so overall there has been gain on engine life and a little bit of performance improvement, so hopefully you see the logic behind it?

If you genuinely want to learn why there is so much foss over engine restriction, you need to have a good understanding of engine limits and if technology can extends beyond its present limit. If it can, how much gain, for what price and then is it worth it?  You need to workout if there are other alternative ways of achieving the same gain. It is all about maintaining balance. At some point it may be more practical to remove the engine restriction, as it is already planned.

I wouldn't call spending millions and millions on improving something Innovation, formula one has past that phase!!!

Have a look at Rolls-Royce Merlin and Griffin engine (aviation engines) they were designed 70 years ago, see what they had then. 

mo1965:

katiekutie:

"Engine details are very closely guarded and no one person even within design or production of a company has full access to its complete details (let alone an outsider). So when someone come up with an idea (i.e. your air operated valve), these companies still need their everyday manpower to investigate the application, gains, then possibilities of implementing it, design it, build it, and test it."

Thats not true. The Engineering Manager of any project has full access to everything to do with that project.

I've seen what the FIA have to say, it's common knowledge.

I'll leave you to argue your case about Cosworth reliability with others on this site. I don't agree with you.

You still totally evade my original point. Why have a rev limit when you have so many other restrictions? What purpose does it serve? Why stiffle innovation?

In any case, much of this discussion is pointless. Companies like Mercedes have set up sub companies like Mercedes High Performance Engines (Mercedes HPE) to manufacture F1 compliant engines. This company - and any other similar company that Ferrari, Toyota, BMW, Renault et.al. - want to set up and run are totally free from FIA interference, if they want to supply F1 compliant engines to teams for the regulated limit (assuming a capped F1 goes ahead) they can. What they decide to spend on development has nothing whatsoever to do with the FIA. Maybe we will get some innovation, but we don't need an FIA imposed rev limit, it is an Engineering restriction, a block to innovation - which Mosely has publicly said is not what F1 should be doing.

 

I 'd never heard of an "engineering manager" within a manufacturing company. I guess this is a newly created position which you know about and I don't (I am used to chief engineer but not "engineering manager")!

I agree lets forget about Cosworth as they are not even there. I am sure if they come up with a descent engine, customer cars will switch to cosworth.

Reducing RPM will extends the life expectancy of an engine. It makes a difference between a reasonable guarantee to finish a race or an unexpected failure. 

You can compare the time difference between 2006 or 2007 car and this year on a track like silverstone. This year's car is restricted to 18000 RPM but the overall performance is a little bit better than those 2 years, so overall there has been gain on engine life and a little bit of performance improvement, so hopefully you see the logic behind it?

If you genuinely want to learn why there is so much foss over engine restriction, you need to have a good understanding of engine limits and if technology can extends beyond its present limit. If it can, how much gain, for what price and then is it worth it?  You need to workout if there are other alternative ways of achieving the same gain. It is all about maintaining balance. At some point it may be more practical to remove the engine restriction, as it is already planned.

I wouldn't call spending millions and millions on improving something Innovation, formula one has past that phase!!!

Have a look at Rolls-Royce Merlin and Griffin engine (aviation engines) they were designed 70 years ago, see what they had then. 

 

Manufacturers, generally, manufacture something that has already been designed and tested. If there is something new required it's normal to set up a Project Team to undertake the new project, a Project Team would have an Engineering Manager among the team, it's common practice.

If you extend your arguement we should limit the engins to 6k and make them last an entire season. Thats not what F1 is about, or should be about in my view, it's about pushing boundaries, innovation, experimentation and exploring new technology. The rev limit is pointless, there are other performance related restrictions already in place in the form of reliability requirements and design criteria, thats all that is neccessary, the rest is up to the Engineers and Designers, dont stiffle them, give them freedom to excell.

I think you'll find my understanding of engines and engine technology is greater than you think. Yes, I know about Rolls-Royce supercharged aero engines, read about them before I was a teenager. By todays standards they are heavy, not very fuel efficient and do not produce as much power per litre as modern designs, great in their day but now largely outdated, thats where todays F1 engines are heading if there is no development.

katiekutie:

Manufacturers, generally, manufacture something that has already been designed and tested. If there is something new required it's normal to set up a Project Team to undertake the new project, a Project Team would have an Engineering Manager among the team, it's common practice.

Obviously semantics change between different traditions and cultural backgrounds, but usually you would only have lead engineers, lead architects and lead designers in a project. A project is only managed by the project manager.

justrace:

katiekutie:

Manufacturers, generally, manufacture something that has already been designed and tested. If there is something new required it's normal to set up a Project Team to undertake the new project, a Project Team would have an Engineering Manager among the team, it's common practice.

Obviously semantics change between different traditions and cultural backgrounds, but usually you would only have lead engineers, lead architects and lead designers in a project. A project is only managed by the project manager.

As you say, semantics change and, for a smaller project I'm sure that model would work fine. I'm currently involved on the outside edges of a big project led by a Project Director (probably the Project Manager in your model) who has reporting to him an Engineering Manager, Financial Manager, Planning Manager and Quality/Environmental/Safety Manager. Reporting to the Engineering Manager are the Senior Engineers (Lead Engineers?) for Aero, Engines, Electronics, Hydraulics and Assurance, each of these then has their respective teams of Engineers. It just depends how big the project is.

katiekutie:

justrace:

katiekutie:

Manufacturers, generally, manufacture something that has already been designed and tested. If there is something new required it's normal to set up a Project Team to undertake the new project, a Project Team would have an Engineering Manager among the team, it's common practice.

Obviously semantics change between different traditions and cultural backgrounds, but usually you would only have lead engineers, lead architects and lead designers in a project. A project is only managed by the project manager.

As you say, semantics change and, for a smaller project I'm sure that model would work fine. I'm currently involved on the outside edges of a big project led by a Project Director (probably the Project Manager in your model) who has reporting to him an Engineering Manager, Financial Manager, Planning Manager and Quality/Environmental/Safety Manager. Reporting to the Engineering Manager are the Senior Engineers (Lead Engineers?) for Aero, Engines, Electronics, Hydraulics and Assurance, each of these then has their respective teams of Engineers. It just depends how big the project is.

 

Bigger jobs as I know them are split into programmes, with an overall programme manager, who manages the various project managers for the different projects.

I am not disagreeing with you, katie. I know engineering managers, but engineering manager would usually be a job title, while projects (try to) get the right people for specific job. So you might get an engineering manager being the technical lead, or lead designer, just as an example.

But I guess we both can agree that it can be different from company to company, so while one might call it "lead" the other might call it "manager". Whatever makes people feel more important, I guess 

katiekutie:

 

Manufacturers, generally, manufacture something that has already been designed and tested. If there is something new required it's normal to set up a Project Team to undertake the new project, a Project Team would have an Engineering Manager among the team, it's common practice.

If you extend your arguement we should limit the engins to 6k and make them last an entire season. Thats not what F1 is about, or should be about in my view, it's about pushing boundaries, innovation, experimentation and exploring new technology. The rev limit is pointless, there are other performance related restrictions already in place in the form of reliability requirements and design criteria, thats all that is neccessary, the rest is up to the Engineers and Designers, dont stiffle them, give them freedom to excell.

I think you'll find my understanding of engines and engine technology is greater than you think. Yes, I know about Rolls-Royce supercharged aero engines, read about them before I was a teenager. By todays standards they are heavy, not very fuel efficient and do not produce as much power per litre as modern designs, great in their day but now largely outdated, thats where todays F1 engines are heading if there is no development.

A car manufacturer, manufacture a car that has already been designed and tested?????? Generally speaking A manufacturer can have their own design and development department. As many do. I am not sure what you mean by this statement!!!

I have already said that, "at times it may be more practical to remove the RPM restriction", as they have already planned to remove it in a few years!!!!!!!!!!

The main financial problem in F1 is this, F1 manufacturers rely on sponsors money, sponsors pay to be advertised throughout a race. If cars keep breaking down, what do you think is going to happend to the sponsorship?? Would you pay millions for a car to be parked in a garage because of failure????

I don't look at F1 as a leading technology that can benefit car industry anymore.  Infact can you name a single part of an F1 car that you believe is genuinely at forefront of technology (i.e. engine, gearbox, chassie, aero parts, composite material, break system, electronics, communication devices, tyres, suspensions etc)?

I am now very happy that you confirmed you know about aero engines, as I am trying very hard to learn a little bit about aviation engines. So I have a few questions for you if you don't mind me asking you.

Lets take the Rolls-Royce Griffin engine, you mentioned it being heavey and not fuel efficient, so could you help me with the following questions:

1) Why did Rolls-Royce made that engine so heavey? 

2) what sort of fuel consumption did it have?

3) So what is today's standard for an engine to be classed as fuel efficient?

4) Could anyone do anything to improve the fuel efficiency?

I do have a few more questions, so I hope you don't mind helping me with the answers. Thanks.

stigga:

Check the results I've posted, they contain all the Cosworth engine failures for Williams 2006 season.

Stigga, you have gone through alot of effort for printing these results, so thank you for that. 

I have made a copy of it for reference.

Mo 

mo1965:

stigga:

Check the results I've posted, they contain all the Cosworth engine failures for Williams 2006 season.

Stigga, you have gone through alot of effort for printing these results, so thank you for that. 

I have made a copy of it for reference.

Mo 

 

 

It was no effort, but Thank You

It has been a while since I have been here. 

katiekutie justrace  neracer

I read your posts at the beginning of the thread.  Lots of information there and a good knowledge of the FIA set-up.

Stigga

Glad to read your posts once again.  I really enjoyed your posts during the Ferrari v McLaren era  - that seems such a long time ago.  Still enjoy them of course.

I only have to say what many people have said about the question posed in the title of the thread is that the clue is in his title "President of the FIA" and he was elected. 

John

mo1965:

katiekutie:

 

Manufacturers, generally, manufacture something that has already been designed and tested. If there is something new required it's normal to set up a Project Team to undertake the new project, a Project Team would have an Engineering Manager among the team, it's common practice.

If you extend your arguement we should limit the engins to 6k and make them last an entire season. Thats not what F1 is about, or should be about in my view, it's about pushing boundaries, innovation, experimentation and exploring new technology. The rev limit is pointless, there are other performance related restrictions already in place in the form of reliability requirements and design criteria, thats all that is neccessary, the rest is up to the Engineers and Designers, dont stiffle them, give them freedom to excell.

I think you'll find my understanding of engines and engine technology is greater than you think. Yes, I know about Rolls-Royce supercharged aero engines, read about them before I was a teenager. By todays standards they are heavy, not very fuel efficient and do not produce as much power per litre as modern designs, great in their day but now largely outdated, thats where todays F1 engines are heading if there is no development.

A car manufacturer, manufacture a car that has already been designed and tested?????? Generally speaking A manufacturer can have their own design and development department. As many do. I am not sure what you mean by this statement!!!

I have already said that, "at times it may be more practical to remove the RPM restriction", as they have already planned to remove it in a few years!!!!!!!!!!

The main financial problem in F1 is this, F1 manufacturers rely on sponsors money, sponsors pay to be advertised throughout a race. If cars keep breaking down, what do you think is going to happend to the sponsorship?? Would you pay millions for a car to be parked in a garage because of failure????

I don't look at F1 as a leading technology that can benefit car industry anymore.  Infact can you name a single part of an F1 car that you believe is genuinely at forefront of technology (i.e. engine, gearbox, chassie, aero parts, composite material, break system, electronics, communication devices, tyres, suspensions etc)?

I am now very happy that you confirmed you know about aero engines, as I am trying very hard to learn a little bit about aviation engines. So I have a few questions for you if you don't mind me asking you.

Lets take the Rolls-Royce Griffin engine, you mentioned it being heavey and not fuel efficient, so could you help me with the following questions:

1) Why did Rolls-Royce made that engine so heavey? 

2) what sort of fuel consumption did it have?

3) So what is today's standard for an engine to be classed as fuel efficient?

4) Could anyone do anything to improve the fuel efficiency?

I do have a few more questions, so I hope you don't mind helping me with the answers. Thanks.

I suspect you know a lot more about aero engines than you say and that you are playing games with me, nomatter.

I agree with what you say about reliability and sponsors. Thats the whole point, the Engineer needs the technical freedom to innovate, to improve performance and reliability, you dont do that by stiffling innovation, by having over restrictive rules - and a super reliable car that always finishes the race but in last place will not attract too many sponsors.

Car Manufacturers tend to separate R&D from production and to treat a new car as a project, thats what I meant when I refered to manufacturers manufacturing.

One of the reasons F1 is falling behind in terms of leading technology is the over restrictive rules that are being imposed upon it, in lots of ways it's not at the forefront of technology now - but I believe it should be.

Rolls Royce aero engines.

RR did not have the kind of design capability now available, there was no CAD, no 3D modelling, the technology was not available to them. Knowledge of materials was not as good as it is now although they did use the best available to them at the time. The ability to machine metals to very tight tolerances was not as good as it is now so designs had to build in a bit of over-engineering to allow for production errors. Unlike the Merlin, which had external oil lines, the Griffon had oil galleries cast into the block which increased it's weight. All of this led to a heavier engine than would be produced now if you were starting from a clean sheet of paper. Of course, thats never likely to happen. Once the jet engine came along there was no need, and no money, to continue the development of large piston aero engines. The Griffon produced around 2000 bhp from it's 36.7 litres - it varied dependant upon the conditions it was used under, as you know - so thats around 55bhp/litre. There's no modern aero piston engine to compare that to but a modern road car engine will happily produce around 100bhp/litre. Fuel consumption depends on a lot of factors but at very best it was likely to use fuel at the rate of 60+ gallons an hour, at worst around 100 gallons an hour. A modern jet engine with similar output would probably be twice as fuel efficient but it's unfair to compare the two types of engine and there's no piston aero engine of modern design and similar size so far as I am aware that you can compare it with. Improvements in efficiency? Fuel injection would have helped, they did do a lot of work with multi-stage and multi-speed superchargers, improved porting, improved burn within the cylinder - all the things you get with a modern high performance road car engine really - electronic engine management was a long way away when this was designed.