Jump to content


Photo

Engine usage going into Abu Dhabi (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#51 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 10 November 2010 - 18:21

The cost per unit goes down significantly when the number of units built are increased for an advanced low volume production like F1 engines. When the design is finalized and all the manufacturing equipment is in place, the costs for manufacturing additional units is small. You probably need more people for the assembly, and perhaps an extra shift in the machine shop, and of course more raw materials and parts from suppliers. But aside from that, there aren't any significant costs of larger production series.

It makes no sense to talk to you guys as long as you mix up apples and bananas. We were talking manufacturing cost before people were making all sorts of useless comparisons. Manufacturing costs do not include design and development and no deployment cost. A comparison with nation funded defense projects is totally ridiculous as the business practices and economic frame work in that sector is completely different. The development cost are a given thing that competing companies incur regardless of how many units they build. They commit to those cost to win championships and not to sell engines to other teams.

I repeat that manufacturing cost degradation is insignificant between 36 unit runs and 120 unit runs of F1 engines. You may get 10% off the price per unit but the absolute cost increase would be staggering and that is what it is all about.


Advertisement

#52 shanser

shanser
  • Member

  • 240 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 November 2010 - 14:32

Q: To the remaining four title contenders. If I might ask your engine position as, of course, one or two of you have had engine problems in the last couple of races. Have you got one engine to use for the whole weekend or are you going to be chopping and changing? Lewis, what is the situation?
LH: We are in quite a strong position with engines. Mercedes have done a great job. We have worked very hard over the last few years with the engines, so we have been very, very fortunate this year. The reliability has been fantastic. Hopefully that will continue this weekend. We have got quite a fresh engine that hasn’t done many miles, so hopefully in a slightly better position than the guys in front.
SV: We have a Friday engine and spares if something goes wrong. Then for the weekend we have the one that was in the car in Suzuka for one race, so it should be fine but probably a bit similar to Fernando if something goes wrong it is not looking too good.
FA: We have one of the eight engines on Friday and one for Saturday and Sunday.

Q: So it has still got some mileage?
FA: Plenty.

Q: Mark, what about the engine that you had in for Brazil which was overheating?
MW: Yeah, that was a big concern in that particular event. We are going to use that engine again in the first part of the weekend. Have a look at it. Also just for a bit of peace of mind to understand what the problem was, so we are going to do that. Then for Saturday and Sunday we have a pretty decent engine ready to go. It should be alright.



#53 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 11 November 2010 - 16:01

The interview is consistent with the known facts.

Vettel will use #8 with only the Suzuka race from FP3 and probably #6 or #5 for FP1/2.

Webber will use #7 with two races from FP3 and another one for FP1/2

Same for Alonso only that the Ferrari engines have a higher km limit. We know that they run them close to 3,000 km if they need. Still nobody knows what Alonso's situation is going to look like.

#54 Cplus

Cplus
  • Member

  • 558 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 11 November 2010 - 16:10

you do realise they can play merry go rounds with engines don't you?

just because they put say, engine number 5 in for a race one week that they would use it automatically for FP1 the next race....

#55 Cplus

Cplus
  • Member

  • 558 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 11 November 2010 - 16:26

for example;

rather than as you have said;

Three: first use FP3 China, quali + China race, FP3 Spain, quali + race Spain, FP3 Monaco, Quali +Monaco race + unknown laps FP1/2 > 1700 km

it is VERY unlikely that it was used for all those sessions in a row. engine 1 or 2 was most likley put back in for the practice sessions.

he could have used engine 1 or 2 for any of the above sessions (assuming new spark plug fitted :). engine 3 was put in in china, but it could have been taken out again immediately after the session when it was first put in, or at the very least, removed during any of FP1/2/3 at Spain to sub in an older engine to do some of the worl.

what it means is that we have no idea how many miles the individual engines have in them and no way of knowing either. the FIA tracks only when a new engine is taken - not when it is swapped out for an older one. even engines changed in post qualifying parc fermé are free to be used for any future practice session.

Edited by Cplus, 11 November 2010 - 16:28.


#56 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 11 November 2010 - 20:50

We know positive when Vettel's individual engines were used for the first time by the FiA technical reports. Engines #5-8 are fully documented regarding their race use. Also all races since Spa are fully documented from team statements and statements by Renault.

#57 FerrariF1Fan

FerrariF1Fan
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 November 2010 - 23:29

To make a long story short. It was not the manufacturing of the engines that were that costly. It was the continuous research and development on those engines and the subsequent remanufacturing that drove costs to an unacceptable level.

The engine homologation is the big money saver.


Exactly! :up:

#58 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 11 November 2010 - 23:37

To make a long story short. It was not the manufacturing of the engines that were that costly. It was the continuous research and development on those engines and the subsequent remanufacturing that drove costs to an unacceptable level. The engine homologation is the big money saver.

Not exactly true. Both the large number of engines used and the unlimited development pushed the cost beyond reasonable levels. When there were no limits in 1983 teams used qualifying engines that would do three laps and blow up if you did one more. They actually often blew up in lap one or two. That clearly made no sense. The RRA and the engine limitations are needed for F1 to work in a reasonable way. There are many comments by very senior participants to confirm that.


#59 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,874 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 November 2010 - 23:53

Not exactly true. Both the large number of engines used and the unlimited development pushed the cost beyond reasonable levels. When there were no limits in 1983 teams used qualifying engines that would do three laps and blow up if you did one more. They actually often blew up in lap one or two. That clearly made no sense. The RRA and the engine limitations are needed for F1 to work in a reasonable way. There are many comments by very senior participants to confirm that.

Engine limitations just detract from the spectacle. Let these guys drive the engine to a standstill by race end so we can see who the faster driver is. Now we hear, please save the engine we need to race it again. Give the drivers one engine for both quali and the race at each event and keep the homologation in place. There is enough cost saving going on to afford teams to do this.

And please don't get me started on the RRA. As I've said before... Asking someone not to spend his own money is like asking a gay to sleep with a woman.

Edited by Ferrari2183, 11 November 2010 - 23:57.


Advertisement

#60 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 12 November 2010 - 00:11

Engine limitations just detract from the spectacle. Let these guys drive the engine to a standstill by race end so we can see who the faster driver is. Now we hear, please save the engine we need to race it again. Give the drivers one engine for both quali and the race at each event and keep the homologation in place. There is enough cost saving going on to afford teams to do this.

And please don't get me started on the RRA. As I've said before... Asking someone not to spend his own money is like asking a gay to sleep with a woman.

We will have to disagree on both counts. Engine number limitations make sense if you look at F1 from an over all perspective and the RRA as well. Of course fans would like F1 to be a contest of teams spending a billion dollars each but that is just a pipe dream with no foundation in reality. At the moment only four of twelve F1 teams have really solid budgets. Another two teams have the benefit of a billionaire owner but six teams can go broke without much warning from one month to the next.


#61 bobqzzi

bobqzzi
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 12 November 2010 - 00:52

I think the engine restrictions are okay, but I do think 8 engines is too few. If they rasied it to 10, the savings would still be there, but finishing the season wouldn't be quite as dicey

#62 Reinmuster

Reinmuster
  • Member

  • 644 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 12 November 2010 - 02:06

Exactly. Having a set number of engines also ensures a level playing field; you cannot buy yourself reliability by replacing the engine as many times as your team budget allows. Everyone has 8 engines, and costs are hugely reduced. It's by far the fairest and cheapest way of doing things. Very good regulation in my opinion.


The downside is, the engine is rev limited. if they allow unlimited revs, it probably spice-up things lil bit.





#63 anbeck

anbeck
  • Member

  • 2,021 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 12 November 2010 - 06:25

It destroys the racing imo. You never know when someone is pushing. I'd much rather have them driving flat out as opposed to look after your engine we have another race in two weeks time.


You should watch a sportscar race these days :stoned:

Funny how things have changed...

Anyway, it would be cool if the teams were asked to publish their engine statistics before each race week-end. I agree that the engine rule adds lots of strategic choices to a race-weekend, but as this thread has shown, even the biggest nerds do not have reliably sources for engine statistics. In order to fully appreciate engine management, it would be nice if the fans could rely of official data.