Talk:Porsche 3512

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Formula One This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Merger proposal

Porsche 3512 → Footwork FA12 — Much of the information in this article would be better suited in the Footwork FA12 article that I've just created. —Davnel03 09:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  • Support, as nom. Davnel03 09:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The engine was only used in the Footwork FA12, so this article would be better off being adapted and added as a section of that article. AlexJ 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although the Porsche 3512 engine and the Footwoork/Arrows FA12 are invariably linked, it should be noted that the Porsche 3512 engine also appeared in the A11C. This particular V12 engine wore the Porsche badge (a significant marque in historic and modern racing) and the V12 design was unique for a Porsche engine. The FA12 was part of the Arrows line of F1 racing cars, and it is widely felt (I know it's a weasel word, thus, I have not used it in the article) that the engine, not the chassis, was to blame for the lack of results. Formulanone.one.two 12:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment re Formulanone's vote above: The Porsche engine seems have also been used in the Footwork A11C for the first two races of the year and the FA12 also ran with a Cosworth DFR for the second half of the year, which means points (1) and (2) aren't quite right (And that the article is incorrect). See www.grandprix.com. To my mind though that strengthens your oppose, rather than weakening it. 4u1e 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment Another suggestion would be to merge some of the material here into the Porsche in motorsport article. 4u1e 08:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

I put information about the drivers in this article to give the article more information, if it is unnecessary, then it could be removed. I wanted to state how the lack of pace form the drivers were likely not the cause of the "disappointment" of this particular engine. Formulanone 13:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there enough information about the engine itself to justify it having it's own article? A lot of the present engine article details the results of the FA12 as a whole. If we were to ignore these bits (as it will duplicate the FA12 article), I can't see how more than four paragraphs could be written about the engine itself . If it was widely believed (and that's weasely, so we'd have to attribute it to someone) that the engine not the chassis was at fault, then it's probably easier (and neater) to explain this in an article where both aspects are covered. Brabham BT19 is a good example of an article where the chassis and engine were manufactured by two different companies but are neatly included in the same article. AlexJ 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
As always, it's best if engine and car articles are about the engines and the cars (!). The present articles perhaps focus too much on the team and drivers. You'd need a good source on the Porsche engine, though. The rumour was that the block was more or less two of the 1986 1.5 litre turbo units back to back. I doubt that is literally true, although I also seem to remember mention of central power takeoff, which would fit. The only other thing I recall about it is its enormous size and weight - the probably apocryphal story goes that the minute the wraps came off the mock-up Footwork knew they were screwed. Sounds a bit unlikely to me - I imagine drawings would have been shared before that point! 4u1e 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)