F1technical.net

Gatecrasher wrote:

noname wrote: And waiting the whole year to start the work would put them, at least, a year behind the others.

I don't think the other teams will put in any major effort right now. They still have 2 more years of engines to build for. Any work tight now is purely R+D the timing of which is driven only by information turns and who you have working on it.

other engine manfacturers at least have single cylinder test mules now, probably prototype full engines. Renault hadf said they already had the four pot version up and running before the change to V6

WilliamsF1 wrote:I disagree

Even the recent BMW engines P84 used in 2004 were in design stage from 2002.

So by the same reasoning if they start design in 2012 they will be ready for the 2014 season.

As for Renault I would not be surprised that they are already actively working on it, their goals and budget dictate that.

Whether it is VW or Peugeot is irrelevant, but that's something most posters don't seem to get regarding this kind of debate because they like to points score - typical of these forums now really.

It's pretty clear that something has to be behind PURE, because they're not doing all that themselves. VW still is a sensible candidate because the whole four banger thing came about really to try and get VW into the sport. For whatever reason they were put off, we now have V6s instead and Jean Todt has decided to slap everyone in the face over that by allowing Simon to leave for PURE, no questions asked. On the other hand, the French connection and those from Jean Todt's past at Peugeot make them a pretty good candidate for a backer.

munudeges wrote:Whether it is VW or Peugeot is irrelevant, but that's something most posters don't seem to get regarding this kind of debate because they like to points score - typical of these forums now really.

Did your reverse namesake not indulge himself in these acts? I find it ironic that the moment someone stands corrected, they then feel the need to jump on the holy highground of forum etiquette.

If people operate in absolutes, be prepared to take some flak. In my opinion nothing is ever black and white.
So while some may think there are certainties in amongst the speculation, I choose to believe this is independant of any car maker.
Until the time comes, no one is right or wrong because there no facts forthcoming.

So, ideally I would say yes its fun to speculate. But to say it WILL be anyone is ridiculous as it is premature. Just my 2 cents there.
And if you read back, someone was very certain of a certain car maker being involved....
no browny points or cheap shots, just trying to point out that this is all speculation.

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote: ...
If people operate in absolutes, be prepared to take some flak. In my opinion nothing is ever black and white.
So while some may think there are certainties in amongst the speculation, I choose to believe this is independant of any car maker.
Until the time comes, no one is right or wrong because there no facts forthcoming.

So, ideally I would say yes its fun to speculate. But to say it WILL be anyone is ridiculous as it is premature. Just my 2 cents there.
And if you read back, someone was very certain of a certain car maker being involved....
no browny points or cheap shots, just trying to point out that this is all speculation.

They say that nothing is certain but death and taxes, but I wonder if JET should perhaps be added to that list of certainties?

Gatecrasher wrote:As for Renault I would not be surprised that they are already actively working on it, their goals and budget dictate that.

As I said here, Mercedes ran a Straight-4 engine and Ferrari received their blocks.
So Renault are not the only one to work on 2014 engine that, They all do.


BTW P84 was a V10, so a well known configuration. 2014 engine are totally new. So a lot more to do and a lot more to gain..

xpensive wrote:I believe that someone's comparison with USF1 is wide off the mark, just consider the individuals engaged in PURE;

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns23169.html

Gilles Simon, x-FIA and Ferrari.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Simon_(Formula_One)

Christian Contzen, x-Renault.
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-conchr.html

Jean-Pierre Baudy, x-Renault&Peugeot.
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-boujea.html

Whatever one might think of Graig Pollock, this looks serious, why it will be xtremely interesting to learn who pays for it?

It definitely seems serious, but so was BAR Honda. So I just don't see Pollock running a smaller operation tight and efficient with any positive result. The media story about BAR was he had an "unlimited" bbudget but still went over with NO GOOD RESULT to show for it.

Pierce89 wrote:It definitely seems serious, but so was BAR Honda. So I just don't see Pollock running a smaller operation tight and efficient with any positive result. The media story about BAR was he had an "unlimited" bbudget but still went over with NO GOOD RESULT to show for it.

But so was Honda, Toyota, ferrari, BMW. Why beat around saying it is the top managements fault for failure on track?

Money does not guarantee success, but it sure does help

Gatecrasher wrote:Money does not guarantee success, but it sure does help

I might disagree. Even though modern F1 is a huge money sport, I would still argue that the best teams are those that have the best chief engineers. With the best chief engineers being those individuals that have both a natural aptitude for understanding all aspects of race car design, as well as an innate ability to assemble the best team of engineers around him to flesh out his ideas. In other words, he may not be the engineer with the most impressive scholastic credentials. But he's the engineer that knows exactly who to hire, and can then get the most from those employees. Think guys like Newey or Brawn.

The problem with big budget factory teams like Honda, Toyota, or BMW, is that they are run by corporate types, who tend to take the most obvious approach, which is to throw money at the problem. They hire any available warm bodies, rather than constructing a small team of select engineers.

riff_raff wrote: ...
But he's the engineer that knows exactly who to hire, and can then get the most from those employees. Think guys like Newey or Brawn.
...

I beg to differ Terry, I don't think you can compare those two individauals at all.

On topic;
I've been searching the web high and low for more info on PURE, but come up empty handed, any Goole Ninja out there wo can help, or is the entire operation skunkworks for someone?

Any thing right now with PURE is speculation,

WilliamsF1 wrote:

Pierce89 wrote:It definitely seems serious, but so was BAR Honda. So I just don't see Pollock running a smaller operation tight and efficient with any positive result. The media story about BAR was he had an "unlimited" bbudget but still went over with NO GOOD RESULT to show for it.

But so was Honda, Toyota, ferrari, BMW. Why beat around saying it is the top managements fault for failure on track?

The point of the post was getting at the fact that Pollock has no credibility. Besides,over time, every outfit you've mentioned was better than BAR. But now that you mention it, when performance sucks, the buck stops with the top manangement.

Pierce89 wrote: ...
The point of the post was getting at the fact that Pollock has no credibility.
...

Pollock apparently still has enough credibility to engage the above mentioned people, including Gilles Simon and Mechacrome?

sure BAR was not winning as announced in their first season but that car made it into the top ten in Qualy more often than not and scored a stringof 8th spot finishes at the end of the season .
So it was fast but fragile...
To say it was a mess is not fair,compare this to Toyota who did score but were dead slow .