F1 » EXCLUSIVE Gascoyne admits Cosworth unknown is 'a concern'

Mike Gascoyne admits that of all the elements of the new Lotus F1 package for 2010, the Cosworth engine supply is the greatest unknown and 'concern'...

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest


October 18, 2009 4:25 PM

This is the frank and logic talk of an experienced man regardless if you like him or not.
When a man of his caliber undertakes to do something he's got to have full confidence and believe in what he's doing but the engine which has been imposed on them is going to be a new and unproved unit regardless of the Cosworth past. As I have tried to explain earlier detuning the CA from 20k plus rpm to 18k rpm means virtually a new engine, didn't I mentioned new castings? This is all apart from the all important reliability factor which lets say wasn't a strong point of the CA. and what about what the article calls the enforced used of the Cosworth on the new teams, is this going to be refuted by the FIA? Is it going to be used as proof in the French court by N TECH and in the complain at the EU by the Yugoslav would be team.

Randy - Unregistered

October 18, 2009 7:33 PM

Actually, I believe the applicant teams were required to have engine deals in place to be accepted. Cosworth had engine supplier status from the FIA so a deal from them was acceptable. As I understand it, none of the other applicants had signed contracts with engine suppliers, though they were having discussions, so this talk that they were required to have Cosworth engine deals to be accepted gives the whole affair an odd spin. Maybe the FIA realized that there wasn't enough time to conclude a deal with anyone other than Cosworth, but I wouldn't know about that.

YAY JB!!! :D

Randy - Unregistered

October 18, 2009 8:06 PM

I concede to your irrefutable evidence - lol.

Seriously, is that all you've got? Because I'd really like to know what's actually going on with this whole engine-deal controversy. I don't doubt that some potential teams really wanted Mercedes (or whatever) engines rather than Cosworths (I would, too - lol) but I don't believe they had contracts. Do you know that they did? Pony up, cowboy. Give us what you've got.



October 18, 2009 8:24 PM

Your hiding behind contracts doesn't hold water and it too can be called bul xxxx .
Contracts can be as contaminated as anything else and in this case it stinks a hell of a lot.
And anyhow by mentioning contracts who are you defending the FIA/MM or Cosworth?
Any which way they are both contaminated in this engine deal.

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.