Craig Cod is Back!/PURE Engine

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

Pollock to return to F1 as PURE engine supplier
PURE engine 'on test bed by year's end'

[GroupLotusRenault]

Always good to have new fresh blood in the series, but one question, have ithe FIA comfimed about the 1.6L Turbo engines yet?

[Captain Hammer]

If Pollock is building it, then the basic engine formula has been confirmed. The teams will likely debate the finer points of the engine layout.

[Faustus]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[DanielPT]

My, my... Wouldn't be something if engine rules were to be postponed and all blew up in Pollock face? (this is because there is the chance (albeit small) of postponing the whole thing...)

[Enforcer]

Reading the article, I see the following:

"Mecachrome"
"Worked on Renault's first turbo-charged engines in the '70s" (And weren't they really really reliable?)
"Was responsible for Peugeot's F1 engines in the '90s" (Also renowned for their truly exceptional performance and especially their reliability)

Could blow up in Pollock's face in a different way...

[Cynon]

My, my... Wouldn't be something if engine rules were to be postponed and all blew up in Pollock face? (this is because there is the chance (albeit small) of postponing the whole thing...)

I'd say those chances are more than small. It just depends a lot on whether or not the FIA acts as Ferrari Internal Assistance or if they continue the stance of Ferrari Is Annoying. Then again, the teams do have a point when they say that changing the rules like that will drive costs up, but at the same time, I remember seeing a graph on this forum showing that engine costs were a good 50% of the costs of running a Formula 1 team... which are already outrageously high anyway...

Also, unreliable engines = exciting.

[DanielPT]

My, my... Wouldn't be something if engine rules were to be postponed and all blew up in Pollock face? (this is because there is the chance (albeit small) of postponing the whole thing...)

I'd say those chances are more than small. It just depends a lot on whether or not the FIA acts as Ferrari Internal Assistance or if they continue the stance of Ferrari Is Annoying. Then again, the teams do have a point when they say that changing the rules like that will drive costs up, but at the same time, I remember seeing a graph on this forum showing that engine costs were a good 50% of the costs of running a Formula 1 team... which are already outrageously high anyway...

Also, unreliable engines = exciting.

I believe that an engine change is due now. We are stuck with a decade old V8's (essentially). Todt wants to attract new manufacturers (even though his mind wasn't originally in these kind of PURE initiatives) and he showed a "I couldn't care less for what Ferrari thinks" attitude and Ferrari already started weaving the "breakaway series" flag, so I'd say they are small.

Sure, engine costs are high, but building a smaller lump wouldn't bring them down? After the initial research investment?

[Myrvold]

Reading the article, I see the following:

"Mecachrome"
"Worked on Renault's first turbo-charged engines in the '70s" (And weren't they really really reliable?)
"Was responsible for Peugeot's F1 engines in the '90s" (Also renowned for their truly exceptional performance and especially their reliability)

Could blow up in Pollock's face in a different way...

Well Mecachrome had the responsibility for the Renault engines that Williams and Benetton used (oh, and Ligier). The 98-engine was the same engine they had developed in the years past, just now without Renault backing.

I feel quite sure about this!

[AndreaModa]

Reading the article, I see the following:

"Mecachrome"
"Worked on Renault's first turbo-charged engines in the '70s" (And weren't they really really reliable?)
"Was responsible for Peugeot's F1 engines in the '90s" (Also renowned for their truly exceptional performance and especially their reliability)

Could blow up in Pollock's face in a different way...

Well Mecachrome had the responsibility for the Renault engines that Williams and Benetton used (oh, and Ligier). The 98-engine was the same engine they had developed in the years past, just now without Renault backing.

I feel quite sure about this!

Yeah I think you're right, the Meccachrome/Playlife engines were just rebadged Renaults right?

About PURE though, I think it's great for the sport and entirely justifies the change in formula. The FIA would also do well to de-restrict some development on the engines too so at least we don't end up with the same old ones used every bloody year, plus it might reduce the super-reliability that we've become fairly used to now with the freeze on engine developments. Fingers crossed a couple of other manufacturers step into the ring too!

[DanielPT]

Reading the article, I see the following:

"Mecachrome"
"Worked on Renault's first turbo-charged engines in the '70s" (And weren't they really really reliable?)
"Was responsible for Peugeot's F1 engines in the '90s" (Also renowned for their truly exceptional performance and especially their reliability)

Could blow up in Pollock's face in a different way...

Well Mecachrome had the responsibility for the Renault engines that Williams and Benetton used (oh, and Ligier). The 98-engine was the same engine they had developed in the years past, just now without Renault backing.

I feel quite sure about this!

Yeah I think you're right, the Meccachrome/Playlife engines were just rebadged Renaults right?

Yes they were. Although Renault was still involved providing maintenance to the engines, the research and development was entirely made by Meccachrome. Obviously it became outdated rather quickly.

[Enforcer]

That kind of backs up my point, though. Starting with the best engine on the grid in 1997 and a tried and tested formula, Mecachrome quickly fell away from Mercedes and Ferrari.

Starting from scratch with a new engine formula, unless IFP Energies Nouvelles or Pollock's other partners have some serious cash or expertise, you have to wonder will the other manufacturers make mincemeat of them this time...

[mario]

My, my... Wouldn't be something if engine rules were to be postponed and all blew up in Pollock face? (this is because there is the chance (albeit small) of postponing the whole thing...)

I'd say those chances are more than small. It just depends a lot on whether or not the FIA acts as Ferrari Internal Assistance or if they continue the stance of Ferrari Is Annoying. Then again, the teams do have a point when they say that changing the rules like that will drive costs up, but at the same time, I remember seeing a graph on this forum showing that engine costs were a good 50% of the costs of running a Formula 1 team... which are already outrageously high anyway...

Also, unreliable engines = exciting.

I believe that an engine change is due now. We are stuck with a decade old V8's (essentially). Todt wants to attract new manufacturers (even though his mind wasn't originally in these kind of PURE initiatives) and he showed a "I couldn't care less for what Ferrari thinks" attitude and Ferrari already started weaving the "breakaway series" flag, so I'd say they are small.

Sure, engine costs are high, but building a smaller lump wouldn't bring them down? After the initial research investment?

The running costs might come down - the proposals for the new turbo engines included a clause that said the engines should last for even longer than they do currently (I think the proposal was five engines per season, down from eight at the moment). Potentially good news for the teams, but not necessarily for those hoping for more unreliability and volatility in the field.

As for whether the proposals will go through, I think that they will, but might have to be forced through. We know that the WMSC has already passed a resolution agreeing to the new rules, so, as Captain Hammer suggests, you would assume that most of the deal making will be centred around what ancillary technologies (from variable turbine geometry, as used by the turbo diesel engines in Le Mans and some of the petrol turbo charged Porsche 911's, to more exotic solutions like turbo compounding).
Of course, we know that only Renault are truly happy with the decision at the moment, with Mercedes and Cosworth concerned that they'll make a loss on the new engines (particularly Cosworth, since they can't reply on their parent company subsidising the program) and Ferrari, as we know, against the idea. However, given Todt's determination to push through the proposals as part of his first wave of major reforms, I would suspect that he might have the upper hand at the moment.

Coming back to Pollock and PURE - whilst additional potential competition for 2013 is welcome, my main concern is whether they have sufficient funding to develop their proposals into a competitive package. Whilst starting this far in advance does give you a potential advantage (at least in the short term), there is the downside that any late changes to the regulations could leave you with a very expensive redesign required.

On top of that, there is the problem of who would want to buy your engines? I know that, in theory, there are a fair few potential big names out there which might need a new engine for 2013 - McLaren's current engine deal with Mercedes expires very soon, and Red Bull might look to switch from the Renault engine to another supplier - but it sounds more like Pollock is pitching his engine at the lower end of the grid (his emphasis on the cheapness of the engine suggests that is the case).
In that case, he is probably going to be treading on the same ground as Cosworth, which could be a tricky battle - yes, Pollock had some very respectable backers behind him, but Cosworth has a pretty strong track record and, crucially, is already building up a commercial partnership with its current clients (Williams, Virgin Racing and HRT). Perhaps one of the smaller outfits might gamble on his engine, reasoning that it has little to loose if it's already at the back, but I expect that the bigger outfits will steer clear of his engines until they have proven their competitiveness.

[Jordan192]

in theory, there are a fair few potential big names out there which might need a new engine for 2013 - McLaren's current engine deal with Mercedes expires very soon, and Red Bull might look to switch from the Renault engine to another supplier

I thought part of the McLaren/Mercedes buyback was that McLaren had engine agreements in place up to 2015? How much longer do Red Bull's Renault and Ferrari deals have to run?

[Faustus]

On top of that, there is the problem of who would want to buy your engines? I know that, in theory, there are a fair few potential big names out there which might need a new engine for 2013 - McLaren's current engine deal with Mercedes expires very soon, and Red Bull might look to switch from the Renault engine to another supplier - but it sounds more like Pollock is pitching his engine at the lower end of the grid (his emphasis on the cheapness of the engine suggests that is the case).

I heard an interesting rumour a while ago when BMW announced that they were pulling out of Formula 1, at the end of 2009. Apparently McLaren was going to hire a bunch of BMW people to set up their own engine division. This supposedly would be the engine division that manufactures the engine that powers the MP4-12C road car, although I understand that the engine is built by Ricardo. Also, most of those BMW people ended up being re-assigned to the DTM project and for road car projects. If McLaren can design a high-perfomance road car engine (in cooperation with suppliers), than there is no reason why they can't do the same thing for a Formula 1 of their own.

[DanielPT]

in theory, there are a fair few potential big names out there which might need a new engine for 2013 - McLaren's current engine deal with Mercedes expires very soon, and Red Bull might look to switch from the Renault engine to another supplier

I thought part of the McLaren/Mercedes buyback was that McLaren had engine agreements in place up to 2015? How much longer do Red Bull's Renault and Ferrari deals have to run?

On top of that, there is the problem of who would want to buy your engines? I know that, in theory, there are a fair few potential big names out there which might need a new engine for 2013 - McLaren's current engine deal with Mercedes expires very soon, and Red Bull might look to switch from the Renault engine to another supplier - but it sounds more like Pollock is pitching his engine at the lower end of the grid (his emphasis on the cheapness of the engine suggests that is the case).

I heard an interesting rumour a while ago when BMW announced that they were pulling out of Formula 1, at the end of 2009. Apparently McLaren was going to hire a bunch of BMW people to set up their own engine division. This supposedly would be the engine division that manufactures the engine that powers the MP4-12C road car, although I understand that the engine is built by Ricardo. Also, most of those BMW people ended up being re-assigned to the DTM project and for road car projects. If McLaren can design a high-perfomance road car engine (in cooperation with suppliers), than there is no reason why they can't do the same thing for a Formula 1 of their own.

Yes they can, but the question that will be answered in a few years is:
Will they do it?

As jordan192 said, they have contract with Mercedes until 2015 and, if desired, an extension is possible. Although I expect to Mercedes wanting to avoid this extension, it makes sense for McLaren to perhaps keep going. The engines they fit on McLaren super cars aren't much like 1.6L straight-4's. Obviously McLaren can come up with a car that uses this type of engine, but if you got great engines at a fraction of the price you would have to spend if you want one made in-house and, at the same time, the chance to peek at a rival company engine why would you want to change it? And let's not speak the costs of adapting the rest of the powertrain to the new units. Unless Mercedes pulls out or loses the engine battle with the other manufacturers McLaren will probably get to the end of the deal. Which, at the same time, makes one less team for PURE to sell their engines. They could sponsor Virgin with engines, making the team, yes you've guessed it, PURE Virgin!

[Debaser]

Craig Pollock is not a guy I trust to provide with a successful and reliable product. He got given the biggest budget in F1 history at BAR, a World Champion driver and couldn't lead the team to a single point. Funny though that was and great for Minardi and for us, that should never happened. He made poor appointments (Malcolm Oastler anyone???), rubbed Bernie and Mosley the wrong way over sponsorship and was for the most part a liability. That's not to mention his butchering of Tyrrell in 1998 which drove Ken Tyrrell to resign.

[Waris]

Inb4 Villeneuve Racing.

Also, YAY!! NEW engine suppliers! That was long overdue. If I'm not mistaken, the last new engine supplier to come into the sport was Toyota in 2002! That's quite a long while ago! I hope PURE become the new Judd/Ilmor/Hart etc. I also hope more will follow! \o/

[TomWazzleshaw]

1-0 to Mr Pollock.

[the Masked Lapwing]

1-0 to Mr Pollock.

...and Bernie Ecclestone's dislike of the change because he does not think the engines will sound very good...

Way to make Bernie sound like a whiney old man.

[Ferrim]

I wouldn't say the Renault-based, Mecachrome-developed engines were that outdated. They propelled Benetton to 4th in the constructors and Arrows to some very good results as late as 2000, the later under the "Supertec" name. And unless I'm very much mistaken, Renault heavily relied on data from that engine when they were developing their 2004 unit.

[mario]

Well, since Pollock's announcement, it looks as if things are increasingly uncertain for the post 2013 engine regulations, with the current engine suppliers raising more and more objections to changing the engine format.

Whilst Ferrari had already made their opposition clear, it now seems that Mercedes and Cosworth are increasingly supporting their position, with Renault increasingly isolated in their support for the switch. Whilst Ferrari, unexpectedly, have complained on grounds of performance, Mercedes and Cosworth are complaining about the cost of the proposed changes, with the latter two increasingly concerned that the cost of the new engine program is far in excess of any potential benefit.
For example, this is Cosworth's recent take on the matter:

Gallagher said: "The one aspect of the 2013 regulations that concerns us - and it is a significant concern – is that when we look at our customers and we consider the future from the point of view of business in F1, that we are here to service customers and we know customers don't have appetite to spend money on F1 engines.

"Costs remain an issue and regulations as currently drafted do leave a number of options to spend a great deal of money.

"With new regulations, while being welcome from the point of view of innovation, what would never be welcome is creating a financial space race. That is not what we want at a time when we are emerging from the most difficult economic time for many, many teams."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91544

Haug has also been pretty blunt:

"We support the four cylinder only if there is a guarantee that the costs will be reduced by 30 per cent over a period of five years."

http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/Manu ... 23501.html

To make matters worse, there are a few suggestions that the only manufacturer supporting the deal - Renault - might withdraw from the sport before 2013, amid speculation over Renaultsport's commitment in the long term.

Pollock might have thought that the FIA had the matter done and dusted, but the problem is that he was not the target of the new four cylinder regulations - what the FIA really wanted was to entice manufacturers like Volkswagen (they even invited a representative from VW to the discussions on the new engine regulations), Honda, Toyota and BMW with promises of road relevant technology. But, with most major manufacturers outside the sport either cutting back (see Honda rather brutally axing development of the Acura 01-e), or disinterested, there are no new competitors willing to enter the fray.
Pollock's proposed new company is likely to become a very important pawn in the attempts by the FIA to entice new manufacturers into the sport, since the FIA is in an increasingly uncomfortable position: they face having to postpone the new regulations - or risk seeing the remaining manufacturers and the sole independent engine supplier walk out of the sport.

[Phoenix]

They can always cap the costs and the workforce to contain costs, even delay the introduction a few years. But this change, in my opinion, has to be done sooner or later. I believe that maybe in a few years, hopefully with a better economic situation worldwide, some manufacturers may be interested in these rules.

[GroupLotusRenault]

Its very hard to cap sports (in aussie the NRL are having problems with overspending) and Formula One is no different, in fact could be the hardest thing to do. PURE does sound legit and I am all for new engines in the sport as we havent had a new engine maker for a while now (2002 toyota was the last new one)

[Phoenix]

Well if they're always complaining about costs the manufacturers should be grateful for cost capping measures to be introduced. They just have to be enforced more seriously, that's it. It may be a bit hard but it can (and it should) be done.

[GroupLotusRenault]

But putting a cost cap on the sport, would that attract new teams and manafactors? Im not againest it, but F1 is sadly about money always has been.

[DanielPT]

My, my... Wouldn't be something if engine rules were to be postponed and all blew up in Pollock face? (this is because there is the chance (albeit small) of postponing the whole thing...)

I'd say those chances are more than small. It just depends a lot on whether or not the FIA acts as Ferrari Internal Assistance or if they continue the stance of Ferrari Is Annoying. Then again, the teams do have a point when they say that changing the rules like that will drive costs up, but at the same time, I remember seeing a graph on this forum showing that engine costs were a good 50% of the costs of running a Formula 1 team... which are already outrageously high anyway...

Also, unreliable engines = exciting.

I guess the chances are higher than smaller. You were right. What a mess these negotiations are... I think that the teams change their mind more often than not.

[mario]

Ladies and gentlemen, excuse me for digging this thread back up, but I thought that it might be appropriate given that the FIA have, unsurprisingly, backtracked on the proposed turbo engines.
Now, according to Autosport, the new engine regulations are set to be revised again - although the capacity will remain the same, and the plans for increasing the amount of waste energy that can be harvested via assorted hybrid power system, the engines will have a V6 configuration instead of the originally proposed straight four engine. Furthermore, the introduction of the new engines is being pushed back until 2014, ostensibly to give the manufacturers more time to develop the engines. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92513

So, you have to wonder what Pollock and his P.U.R.E. corporation are going to make of the changes - Renault are thought to have spent $10 million in initial research for the original straight four proposal, and you have to assume that P.U.R.E., if they are a serious concern, would have spent a not inconsiderable amount of money on preliminary design work that now mostly has to be scrapped.
Of course, a few million dollars for Renault Sport is a noticeable, and painful, loss, but not critical; P.U.R.E., being a start up company, would not have anywhere near the same capital reserves and might find the costs of a redesign much more difficult to swallow.

[DanielPT]

So, you have to wonder what Pollock and his P.U.R.E. corporation are going to make of the changes - Renault are thought to have spent $10 million in initial research for the original straight four proposal, and you have to assume that P.U.R.E., if they are a serious concern, would have spent a not inconsiderable amount of money on preliminary design work that now mostly has to be scrapped.
Of course, a few million dollars for Renault Sport is a noticeable, and painful, loss, but not critical; P.U.R.E., being a start up company, would not have anywhere near the same capital reserves and might find the costs of a redesign much more difficult to swallow.

Pollock has been in F1 before. He should have known better than to invest in something FIA promised it would happen. As usual this backtracking left some companies hanging... I wonder if all this do-don't do-do have something to do with the lack of sponsorship and outside investment in F1. This whole affair is very much ridiculous and, compounded with the Bahrain saga, makes this a bad year for FIA in general and Todt in particular.

[mario]

So, you have to wonder what Pollock and his P.U.R.E. corporation are going to make of the changes - Renault are thought to have spent $10 million in initial research for the original straight four proposal, and you have to assume that P.U.R.E., if they are a serious concern, would have spent a not inconsiderable amount of money on preliminary design work that now mostly has to be scrapped.
Of course, a few million dollars for Renault Sport is a noticeable, and painful, loss, but not critical; P.U.R.E., being a start up company, would not have anywhere near the same capital reserves and might find the costs of a redesign much more difficult to swallow.

Pollock has been in F1 before. He should have known better than to invest in something FIA promised it would happen. As usual this backtracking left some companies hanging... I wonder if all this do-don't do-do have something to do with the lack of sponsorship and outside investment in F1. This whole affair is very much ridiculous and, compounded with the Bahrain saga, makes this a bad year for FIA in general and Todt in particular.

I think that you are right about the effects of external investors. Newey, for example, has recently made some comments about the original proposal for a four cylinder engine being effectively forced on the teams by the VW Group as a condition of entry - only for VW to backtrack almost immediately and withdraw their proposal. As it stands, it seems that the chassis manufacturers were pretty upset about that, complaining that an inline four cylinder engine was awkward to package (and could not be easily used as a load bearing member) - so I think that VW's decision to backtrack might have cost them quite a fair bit of goodwill with the current teams, albeit making the current designers much happier.

Still, it seems that the designs for the engines is shifting around as we speak - the teams are thought to have written to the FIA requesting that the rev limit for the V6 engines is raised from 12,000 to 15,000 rpm. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92664
It's an interesting decision by the teams - increasing the revs is likely to come at the price of higher fuel consumption (due to greater frictional losses), although it might be because there was a recent, and surprising, complaint from the circuit owners that they were worried that the new engine rules might lead to a drop in attendance figures.

[RAK]

Still, it seems that the designs for the engines is shifting around as we speak - the teams are thought to have written to the FIA requesting that the rev limit for the V6 engines is raised from 12,000 to 15,000 rpm. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92664
It's an interesting decision by the teams - increasing the revs is likely to come at the price of higher fuel consumption (due to greater frictional losses), although it might be because there was a recent, and surprising, complaint from the circuit owners that they were worried that the new engine rules might lead to a drop in attendance figures.

I'm just thinking about that. Didn't the turbo engines of the '80s produce peak power at something like 12,000rpm anyway? If I remember correctly, turbo engines don't like to rev as much as the current highly-strung naturally-aspirated engines, so I'm just wondering what they'll do with those extra 3,000 revs per minute. As well as that, are they going to be limiting power using a pop-off valve, like they did in 1986 and 1987? I presume so, because otherwise, you could easily be outperforming the current 2.4L V8s.

[Faustus]

Still, it seems that the designs for the engines is shifting around as we speak - the teams are thought to have written to the FIA requesting that the rev limit for the V6 engines is raised from 12,000 to 15,000 rpm. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92664
It's an interesting decision by the teams - increasing the revs is likely to come at the price of higher fuel consumption (due to greater frictional losses), although it might be because there was a recent, and surprising, complaint from the circuit owners that they were worried that the new engine rules might lead to a drop in attendance figures.

I'm just thinking about that. Didn't the turbo engines of the '80s produce peak power at something like 12,000rpm anyway? If I remember correctly, turbo engines don't like to rev as much as the current highly-strung naturally-aspirated engines, so I'm just wondering what they'll do with those extra 3,000 revs per minute. As well as that, are they going to be limiting power using a pop-off valve, like they did in 1986 and 1987? I presume so, because otherwise, you could easily be outperforming the current 2.4L V8s.

You know, I was thinking the same exact same thing. A 1.6 V6 turbo could easily pump out 800 bhp. There must be something being discussed to restrict the engine power. Wasn't there something about a fuel flow-restricting device being fitted? Or was that at one point being discussed as an alternative to the 1.6 litre engines? I can't remember.
Obviously, the best way to do it would be to restrict the size of the fuel tank.

[Faustus]

Newey, for example, has recently made some comments about the original proposal for a four cylinder engine being effectively forced on the teams by the VW Group as a condition of entry - only for VW to backtrack almost immediately and withdraw their proposal. As it stands, it seems that the chassis manufacturers were pretty upset about that, complaining that an inline four cylinder engine was awkward to package (and could not be easily used as a load bearing member) - so I think that VW's decision to backtrack might have cost them quite a fair bit of goodwill with the current teams, albeit making the current designers much happier.

I once helped a mate work on the setup for a fully-stressed four-cylinder engine in a Formula 3 car. It can be done, but it's not a simple thing. The weight distribution is also a bit of a pig, because invariably the engine ends up being fairly tall and the sidepod arrangements can become very asymmetrical. It was an absolute bastard, but then again it was a production engine not a purpose-designed racing block.
The project never happened due to lack of funds, unfortunately.

[mario]

Still, it seems that the designs for the engines is shifting around as we speak - the teams are thought to have written to the FIA requesting that the rev limit for the V6 engines is raised from 12,000 to 15,000 rpm. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92664
It's an interesting decision by the teams - increasing the revs is likely to come at the price of higher fuel consumption (due to greater frictional losses), although it might be because there was a recent, and surprising, complaint from the circuit owners that they were worried that the new engine rules might lead to a drop in attendance figures.

I'm just thinking about that. Didn't the turbo engines of the '80s produce peak power at something like 12,000rpm anyway? If I remember correctly, turbo engines don't like to rev as much as the current highly-strung naturally-aspirated engines, so I'm just wondering what they'll do with those extra 3,000 revs per minute. As well as that, are they going to be limiting power using a pop-off valve, like they did in 1986 and 1987? I presume so, because otherwise, you could easily be outperforming the current 2.4L V8s.

You know, I was thinking the same exact same thing. A 1.6 V6 turbo could easily pump out 800 bhp. There must be something being discussed to restrict the engine power. Wasn't there something about a fuel flow-restricting device being fitted? Or was that at one point being discussed as an alternative to the 1.6 litre engines? I can't remember.
Obviously, the best way to do it would be to restrict the size of the fuel tank.

It seems that, for now at least, a number of the original restrictions that were proposed for the original four cylinder design will be carried over to the V6, and IIRC that included limitations on both the fuel flow rate (something like 100kg/hour) and the fuel tank size will also be cut. I expect that we will also see limitations on the boost pressure that can be used as the regulations are effectively filled in - for now, that is still unrestricted, it seems - although the combination of fuel restrictions and extended engine lives (we'll probably see just five engines a season) seem to be the preliminary methods of keeping the power in check.

And, as an aside, RAK, the turbo engines of the 1980's were generally producing their peak power at around the 12,000rpm region - the last generation of Honda turbo engines (the RA 168E designed for the 1988 season) produced its peak power closer to 13,000rpm, and a few other engines (the EF15B, the last Renault turbo engine) were peaking around the 12,500rpm region. That said, the four cylinder engines that BMW and Zakspeed produced, for example, would produce their peak power much lower down the rev range - the BMW engine produced its peak power around the 10,000rpm region, as did Zakspeed.
Also, Faustus, interesting reading mentioning that project you were co-working on in F3 - it sounds as if, despite having the difficulties you mentioned, you'd got the engine to work judging by that slightly wistful comment at the end. Just out of curiosity, what production engine were you working with?

[Faustus]

Also, Faustus, interesting reading mentioning that project you were co-working on in F3 - it sounds as if, despite having the difficulties you mentioned, you'd got the engine to work judging by that slightly wistful comment at the end. Just out of curiosity, what production engine were you working with?

It was a Ford block prepared by Swindon. The block was a modified Ford Zetec-S 1.7 block bored to 2-litre. 2 or 3 teams were using it, including Motaworld, who decided to try something different with it and commissioned Pilbeam (who my mate worked for) to come up with a design proposal, to be followed by a full-scale mock-up, of the installation of the engine. Never went past the design stage, unfortunately, as Motaworld then decided they couldn't afford it.

[dr-baker]

Gilles Simon, formerly of Ferrari and latterly of the FIA constructing the 2014 engine rules, is to join PURE.

[DanielPT]

So, changing rules didn't stop Craig Cod plans... Anyway, it is a good name for the project. Maybe we can expect his engines to be moderately competitive after all.

[Klon]

So, changing rules didn't stop Craig Cod plans... Anyway, it is a good name for the project. Maybe we can expect his engines to be moderately competitive after all.

Or it might just turn out to be PURE bulls**t...

[Faustus]

Gilles Simon, formerly of Ferrari and latterly of the FIA constructing the 2014 engine rules, is to join PURE.

Interesting. This finally gives some credibility to this project. I still don't get where the initial funding is supposed to come from, but from now on I'll actually pay attention to the PURE thing.

[Debaser]

I thought Gilles Simon played tennis rather than helped design F1 cars.