Talk:Porsche 3512

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)

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)
• Oppose, for the reasons outlined by Formulanone and 4u1e above, i.e. the engine wasn't only used in the FA12. DH85868993 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

I would like to propose a radical suggestion - take both pages and shove em up onto the Arrows page (lol if you though I was going somewhere else with that one).

It seems to me it's better to have one good page than 6 or seven not so good ones. My reasons are as follows (not in any particular order)

The engine didn't do anything special - apart from go slow and break

The other cars the FA13, FA14 and FA15 are stubby redirects so why should this car be any different

The point is that the Footwork page is fairly small, the FA12-15 pages are very small, and the engine was not successful, only competed for 6 races and didn't finish half of them, and failed to qualify in most of them. Wouldn't it be better to have a section on the Footwork page for each car and engine ?

Foootwork FA 12 - viewed 142 times Jan - 130 in Dec 2008

Porsche 3512 - viewed 22 times Jan - 3 in Dec 2008

Footwork team page - 970 times Jan 09 - 1020 Dec 2008

so basically if you want your article read, you got more chance by putting it there than leaveing it where it is--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of merging the FA12-FA15 pages into the Footwork Arrows article, for the following reasons:

• Although the FA13-FA15 pages are currently very small (I disagree that the FA12 page is "very small"; I'd describe it as "small"), I think it's likely that they will be expanded in the fullness of time (at the very least, I'd expect someone to add a results table to each at some point).
• If we merged the current content of these articles into Footwork Arrows, then due to the presence of the "19xx Formula One season cars" templates, we'd end up with Footwork Arrows included in Category:1991 Formula One season cars, Category:1992 Formula One season cars, Category:1993 Formula One season cars and Category:1994 Formula One season cars, which would be a bit non-standard/yukky.

I'd probably be more receptive to the idea if the individual car articles hadn't already been created, but I don't think it's enough of an improvement over the current situation to bother making the change. And as for the engine's lack of success, that's the whole point of its notability - it was so bad that the team changed engine manufacturers mid-season - by my recollection the first time that had occurred since Tyrrell migrated from Cosworth to Renault in 1985, and hasn't happened again since! DH85868993 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the merge, very small isn't a reason really to merge the FA13-FA15 articles. Over time, I'm certain they will be improved to a good standard. D.M.N. (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect results

It is completely reverse for Alboreto in the first four qualifyings of 1991: he failed in Brazil, and at Imola (including a heavy shunt at Tamburello), but made the field at Phoenix and for the Monaco Grand Prix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.46.241.230 (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Power take-off

The article describes the engine as having centre power take-off. However, the picture shows an engine to which one could bolt a conventional flywheel. I reckon that the camshafts have some sort of "centre drive-train" to avoid torsion found in a conventional belt-drive at the engine's front, because this "centre drive-train" would allow higher camshaft (and thus higher engine) speeds, useful if the engine has no turbocharger and power has to be generated from the crankshaft's angular velocity. Just saying, but the pictures don't show the engine's underside, and I haven't read the cited book. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)