Zaku-8

I posted this on nopistons, but I wanted to see what you all thought

I still don't see why a rotary entry is precluded from Formula 1, even after reading this entire thread. Most of the proposals for the 2006 rules change involve optional engine transitions, so teams can either run a restricted V10 or the new V8. There seems to be some idea in this thread that engine rules are totally unchangeable and only allow the 3.0v10, which is untrue.
Sure, a single engine type rule for a 3.0 v10 has been good for some sort of equal footing between teams, but it hasnt always been the case in F1; 1966 rules allowed for 3.0 NA or 1.5l turbos even though it wasnt effectively used until the 80's, and back then I think the teams could choose between different flat 12's, v12's, and v8's at their whim. The turbos received restriction regulations when they became too powerful.

So what's the point of all this? Rules change and do so in order to better the sport. What better time than now, when you can't even term it a Ferrari dominance because they basically can lock up both championships by the third race, and have done so for the last two or three years.
(maybe not so much in 2003 but they still won and were the favorites. It was only Williams' (god bless them :D ) return at Monaco that took points away from Ferrari enabling a near-Raikonnen win).
Ferrari, by most accounts has a one to 1.5 year technical superiority in aerodynamics and engine power/reliability. With no real battles or competition for top place going on, viewership and prominence among races is nowhere near what it could be.

Not only that, but speeds are again getting ahead of drivers. Crashes are getting more serious (refer to Ralf Schumacher's crash this year, Button's last year, and Villeneuve running away from the sport for a year).

Both of these reasons call for a rules change. I don't think anyone really knows what these new rules are actually going to be, as they are still in debate. But as far as rotaries are concerned, I think the best thing the changes can do would be to increase competition, specifically through engine choices. Ecclestone wouldnt be a problem because with proper restriction regulations, engine choice can balance the competition. The teams I think would agree to a rotary that either offers them much cheaper engine replacement costs (along with all the chassis packaging benefits) or an engine that is conceivably weaker than their own 2.4 v8. Who knows, we might even see a ferrari 3-rotor.

I'd kind of like to see a 2.4l 2-rotor (or 1.2, depending on how you count) or a 3-rotor alongside the 2.4 v8 and 3.0 v10's for 2006. I'm not sure if this is the case but with the proper materials and R&D, F1-level RPM's might make the engine competitive in terms of power. A Ford/Mazda team (buy out Jordan, F3000 team, or even Minardi and give them proper funding, Mazda as engine supplier for multiple teams) alongside corporate research would bring tangible marketing/technology benefits to Ford, and give widespread F1 exposure and viewership to the US. In a best case scenario this results in a second US race (I vote Laguna Seca).

Will this ever happen? I doubt it. I've probably made a mistake in my "reasoning" somewhere and its tough enough to make any sort of business case for racing. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't happen. By all means it can and should.

Dark8

Too many piston engine producing companies are sponsoring F1 for that to ever happen. But a series like CART with their spec engine might be a better place to start and prove the rotary in high HP race applications and build exposure. Too bad Speed Channel is owned by NASCAR and not showing CART anymore. The Star Mazda series just isn't big enough. Now if we could convince Mazda to buy a chasis and develope an engine for CART and prove that it would work and the monetary advantages of using the rotary in racing....

RX-Hachi

Has Mazda even indicated an interest in getting into F1? (Sorry, haven't been following F1 this year that closely. Kind of boring with the dominance of Ferrari & M. Schumacher.)

To compete effectively in F1 requires HUGE sums of money, far more than any other form of motorsport (including Le Mans). F1 really is in a different league compared to everything else. Regardless of the rules, as the original poster "jeff48920" points out, Ford has withdrawn from F1. Mazda is barely getting its head above water, there's no way they could take on F1 without Ford's backing. So its probably moot to even debate if the rules could allow for a rotary engined entry.

rotarygod

In every type of racing that the rotary has ever been involved in, restrictions and rule changes have always given it a bigger and bigger disadvantage until there were no more rotaries in those classes. Mazda ran the rotary in LeMans for years. They won their class in 1984 with the Kudzu but it wasn't until 1991 that they finally won it overall. People cried foul that they were using variable length intake manifolds so they banned those. The next year they banned rotaries altogether. Why? It took 20+ years to win once and that is unfair? If F1 were like this, Ferrari wouldn't be there anymore. That in itself would probably be good for F1.

Import drag racing is the same way. Rotaries are slowly being pushed out of certain classes as more and more restrictions are being imposed against them. It's the piston loving fwd crybabies that cry the hardest. It's the people that are now winning that are the biggest wimps about it. None of those guys, regardless of how fast they run get any form of respect from me.

Whoever thinks the rotary will ever be a big part of F1, Cart, IRL, etc, is severely missing info from the past. It won't happen, ever. Even if it did, the rotary would only be permitted until it won. Then it would be outlawed. No one wants to drive a car that can't win. That takes us full circle back to F1 and Ferrari. Everyone else is starting to get out.

Zaku-8

...which is exactly why a rotary should be allowed. Ferraris dominant, and self-defeatingly high engine costs are the result of stagnant and narrow rules that have allowed a single team to obtain essentially a monopoly on wins. This has caused loss of revenue to all teams, and the smaller teams who share disproportionately small portions of that revenue are leaving or about to. With Jaguar gone and even Renault considering leaving, F1 won't be able to fill the grid with more than 18 cars. Now this might be good for the first corner of a race, but I don't think it's ever been that small. There is a need for more teams, who can operate at lesser cost.

With Ford gone, and Cosworth no longer providing engines, there is also a need for engine suppliers by *3* of the 10 teams. While this situation will probably be remedied somewhat for 2005, I doubt that they will get engines more cheaply, if at all, and so costs remain the same. Of course F1 is the most expensive form of racing short of a shuttle launch, but no rule has ever said that costs should be so high that only 4 or 5 teams can compete at a financial loss.

I guess I'm assuming that a near-competitive F1 rotary will be cheaper to operate (in purchase costs and reliability) than an F1 piston engine, I'd be interested if anybody can comment on the engineering aspects of this. The basic question is this: how powerful and reliable could a rotary be if season engine contracts are valued at $10 million? (Note that this price is an absolute lowball minimum. No current manufacturer is willing to provide engines at that cost) So assuming there are three teams interested, how powerful and reliable could a rotary be developed to, for $30 million?

I agree that the larger teams and companies would probably resist a rotary unless it was clear that piston engines could mostly win. This is what restriction regulations are for. I don't know what happened in '92 as to why LeMans rotaries were fully banned, but in between that and no restrictions I think there is a gray area, a middle room that would provide solutions to all sorts of problems. Suppose rotaries were regulated as a performance baseline (a cheap one at that) for the bottom and middle teams that could be kept relatively low but raised to provide more motivation to front runners than today. These teams as they stand today, Minardi, Jordan, whoever buys Jaguar, are nothing if not lap fodder and would benefit from regulated-as-such rotaries.

Although it makes sense that no one wants to drive a car that can't win, that doesn't explain these teams in contemporary F1. I'm pretty sure Minardi's goals for a race weekend are to run the race distance without mechanical breakdowns (not a joke). The only time in memory Jordan won a race was literally by an act of God, at Interlagos last year when most of the other teams spun out due to rain. It was the only time Giancarlo Fisichella was able to demonstrate what many in the press consider incredible driving skills.

Given their funding levels relative to frontrunners, these teams know that they cannot compete. But it seems possible that they would jump at the chance of being able to use cheap engines of potential that is variable through regulations as baseline performance. By baseline I mean at a level competitive enough such that a Schumacher-type rookie could make his mark but not as powerful as frontrunner engines. This allows for more exposure to drivers, yet another way to increase viewership. If enough of the bottom teams support it, and if it has no effect on the top tier manufacturer teams, then it seems more feasible.

Yes, Ford has withdrawn Jaguar and Cosworth, but they still own 20% of the GPWC!, or the teams committee. If Mazda were to become an engine supplier, they gain revenue for that (which may actually be profitable), and the same benefits they drew from Cosworth. Every rotorhead on the planet will glue their eyes to TV or live races every other Sunday, more Japanese auto enthusiasts will watch, and if Ford runs their own race team and chassis, then they get US attention and followings too. If Ford buys Jaguar and runs UK personnel, they might keep British respect out of all this. So whatever benefits they drew from running Jaguar and Cosworth, they would get all that and more if they run a rotary supplier. Yes, Ford has withdrawn but if they could smell money, it doesn't matter if they withdrew last year or in 1966, they would jump back in like snap. If any of this could be demonstrably proven, that is.


And as Dark8 pointed out, maybe it could be proven with a Mazda CART engine or chassis. It worked for Montoya. (using CART to get into F1, that is)



Furthermore if only theoretically, Ford's support would ensure that regulations maintained a rotary's existence in F1

Dark8

And isn't Ford Cosworth the spec engine supplier for CART? Hmmm... Wonder where CART will be next year?

RX-Hachi

It would take years and vast fortunes of money to make the rotary anywhere near the level of the Cosworth. The Ford Cosworth has such a proud F1 history, and was only recently surpassed by Ferrari for having the most race wins. What kind of logic would see Ford pull out the Cosworth, only to run Mazda Rotaries at the back of the pack?

The car makers race on Sunday to sell their cars on Monday. But the rotary is such a small niche that it's hardly worth Ford's effort. Only if Mazda themselves were independent and strong like Honda or Toyota, could a real effort be made out of pride for their rotary jewel.

I'd love to see the rotary in F1 as much as the next rotor head. But it just ain't going to happen. This discussion is nothing more than a pipe dream.