l was thinking, in the late 60s the Cosworth DFV was pretty much standard equipment and the 60s is regarded as a pretty exciting time for F1. So why are so many people up in arms at the though of standard engines, or at the very least a standardised design?
Lets face it the DFV was in F1 from 1967 to 1985. Would the option for smaller teams, or anyone who wanted it for that matter, therefore help create a system where good chassis design can shine over poor chassis design and seemingly infinite power?
l understand your point completely Firefox, but I am not going for the pro standard engine stance. Indeed, what l was hoping to suggest was that rather than kill F1 like so many people claim it will, it could encourage more competition. Especially with the simplified areo rules.
l agree with one point in particular, that the manufacturers such as Mercedes or Ferrari wo not be happy, but there could be an opt out clause. Many different engines went up against the DFV and some beat it.
Admittedly the DFV was amazing, but a standard engine could be offered as a comprimise. Buy the standard cheap not quite so amazing engine and spend more on the chassis/aero perhaps?
l still think as an option it is a feasible option though. Especially for the mid field battles.
Good point from Tim R too. If it is an option, then a few years down the line at least. Need to see what the new areo packages will be like first.
Smooth Liar you are indeed correct. Ferrari must be so thrilled to have acquired the somewhat dubious and occasional talents of Felipe Massa. Just imagine if they'd got someone who could actually drive?
Just out of curiosity, why did someone give Firefox a thumbs down? I am not one to mention this usually but it is not like he is written anything that is either a) false or b)stupid.
There sure are some strange people out there.
This portion needs a reply l think ''how would you feel if you buy a high performance car with exactly the same power as your neighbor?''
Of all the vehicle manufacturers on the grid l would break them down thusly;
I'd never willing spend money on a BMW or a Mercedes as they just plain ugly. Sure they have nice engines but so do Audi's, and they look better. Even worse, of all the cars produced by Mercedes BMW and Audi I'd still ignore them and buy the Jaguar XF, a team no longer assosiated with F1 so F1 has a marketing failure there.
l would not buy a Ferrari if l had the money. I'd go for either an Aston or a Jaguar XK. In fact, Ferrai themselves have not made any really sexy cars since the 60s, and then all they did was break.
l would not buy a Toyota cos they're dull. Renault is are French and therefore notoriously expensive to maintain.
Which leave us with Honda and guess what, l would actually like a Honda Civic.
As l say Firefox, I am not pro standard engines as such, l do, like you and so many others, yearn for the days of 100 million plus dollar bombs strapped to the back of F1 cars.
It is just that with the cost cutting regime over the past few years doing dreadful things to a sport that l loved then l feel some form of comprimise should be looked into.
Standard engines are not ideal, but they are a damn sight better than the no tyre change rule of recent years.
l still agree with you fully about the manufacturers rights though. If anything it should be an option engine.
I am hot happy with the situation like many might think, but as far as spectacle goes, but anything to move us away from the muck we've had to endure for the past six years or more is a good thing.

HIghly doubtful. The same 3 or 4 teams that have dominated the F1 series for years now will still find ways to be better than the competition. Unfair comparison, but the IRL cars all use the same engine, and it is still Penske, Andretti Green, and Ganassi racing that dominate the races. Teams like Ferarri and McLaren have money and talent that other teams just do not have. They will continue to find ways to remain on top.

Too much fiddling going on right now for my liking. l would like to see where the new aero regs take us before any more changes were made to the rules.
l would also guess that it will not be a popular idea amongst the manufacturer teams plus, unless the engine comes from outside the current teams there are going to be all the usual accusations of bias and cheating that went on with the introduction of the standardised ecu.

A1 GP if u know something about it. have-
same engines for all cars,
same aerodynamic package
same engines


but still there are back markers there..we have distance between the person winning the race and the person finishing last of 30+ seconds !!..

With all due respects for ur noble cause of equality, I'd opine that it might prove to be counterproductive. The appeal of F1 is a combination of speed, extreme skills & technology. Its a race between leading car manufacturers too. Take out the engine factor, the competition is between the driver & the aerodynamists & aerodynamists dont have names like Ferrari, BMW, Honda or Mercedez. The glamour associated with these names r gone & so does a significant fan following.

Though not so glamorized as the drivers, the engines r key players in a race. Let them retain their individualities.
------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------- --------------
Edit: Your point is excellent Derek Smith, but in the last two seasons we have been seeing cars with customer engines still running at the back of the pack. With the exception of Vettel is miracle, the reasonably cheap engine availability has not quite boosted these teams.

Like it or not, it is money that decides a lot (Not applicable for Toyota & Honda). When standard engines stop draining the budget, the big teams too would spend filthy millions on chassis & aerodynamics, once again the small players will find themselves at the shallow end. Its a capitalist world, communism wont work here ;-)

If u want an even playing field, think of means to improve the tail ender is revenues.
----------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- ------------- ------------ --------
Edit 2: Thanks for the support Derek Smith, l have a theory that the TD might be due to the usage of the word ''communist someone obviously missed its metaphorical sense. No worries.

Now that u have won (Max is inviting tenders for 2010) how would u feel to watch a sport that is powerd by the lowest bidder?

No,the new engines are just so teams wo not end up like Super Aguri.
It is just because of the credit crunch.
What is next,FIA.
The winner of each race gets to clean the toilets.
Honstly,it is madness.

l do not feel it would be like the DFV days. Back then, rules allowed for huge ( compared to today) chassis& body variations, these could make or break any team depending on how adventurous they were.
Now, really all that would separate the cars would be the aerodynamic packages/ set ups. So the team that would spend the most would win and the least loose IMO.

do not u think that a team that consistently bolts an engine on it is chassis that is a bit more powerful than the others would attract drivers, & make drivers compete for a drive in that team?
a highlight of F1 is an unrelenting battle between engineers of the top sports car manufacturers in the world, as much as it is a battle between drivers. that is why there is a constructor is championship.
how would u feel if u buy a high performance car with exactly the same power as ur neighbor?

.

All good and reasoned arguments have been made.. l am with the ''against'' because l enjoy more permutations.

Caterham Challenge anyone?

.