4 Power Units (engines) only in 2015 - Good luck McLaren Honda
#1
Posted 26 June 2014 - 19:12
Honda have a real challenge on their hands with these regs...
Advertisement
#2
Posted 26 June 2014 - 19:15
So by 2020 they will have to use a single engine (sorry, power unit) all through the year.
#3
Posted 26 June 2014 - 19:23
This isn't a new rule, they intended to move to four engines after a season right from the beginning.
#4
Posted 26 June 2014 - 19:28
So by 2020 they will have to use a single engine (sorry, power unit) all through the year.
No, by then the decade. When you swap a PU, you are banned for a season.
To bad the powers-that-be in F1 live in a hamster bubble. They can see the outside world, but they can't hear it.
#5
Posted 26 June 2014 - 19:33
This explains a lot more about frustrations of RBR with Renault... they're already on their 4th (most of things) for Vettel with half the season still to go.
#6
Posted 26 June 2014 - 19:35
This isn't a new rule, they intended to move to four engines after a season right from the beginning.
You mean the beginning of the current regs, right? Not from genesis of F1.
#7
Posted 26 June 2014 - 19:43
You mean the beginning of the current regs, right? Not from genesis of F1.
Indeed.
I would also add, as I did before this season started, should the engines prove to be so unreliable that most teams run through their allocation before the end of the season, the limit would probably be increased.
#8
Posted 26 June 2014 - 19:55
I guess Vettel will start giving them names. There's almost as much engines as chassis!
Edit: grammar.
Edited by 4MEN, 26 June 2014 - 20:57.
#9
Posted 26 June 2014 - 20:41
I guess Vettel will start giving them names. There's almost as much engines than chassis!
good one
#10
Posted 26 June 2014 - 21:19
At the rate we're going, teams will be required to complete a season on half an engine before long.
#11
Posted 26 June 2014 - 21:32
At the rate we're going, teams will be required to complete a season on half an engine before long.
HAHAHA! But it's true.
I'm all for modern technology and such, but F1 didn't needed to have such small, quiet engines. Nor does it need to "save" tyres & fuel and so on, nor to use less and less engines, become GREANER (god I hate this term!) etc. It's RACING for god sake! It should be about powerful, loud(er) engines, about drivers pushing to the limit! Not eco driving.
Edited by Heisenberg, 26 June 2014 - 21:33.
#12
Posted 26 June 2014 - 21:46
I would also add, as I did before this season started, should the engines prove to be so unreliable that most teams run through their allocation before the end of the season, the limit would probably be increased.
I wonder about this - if the races at the backend of the season turn into total chaos due to all the engine penalties and fans can't follow it I guess it is possible there will be a rethink (not that they ever listen the fans ) Its unlikely but you never know.
#13
Posted 26 June 2014 - 21:47
HAHAHA! But it's true.
I'm all for modern technology and such, but F1 didn't needed to have such small, quiet engines. Nor does it need to "save" tyres & fuel and so on, nor to use less and less engines, become GREANER (god I hate this term!) etc. It's RACING for god sake! It should be about powerful, loud(er) engines, about drivers pushing to the limit! Not eco driving.
i agree the concept of racing isnt meant to be green its a competitive sport.
F1 should be about getting the max performance possible where drivers compete in a sport that fans find entertaining not using gimmicks to spice up the show or to be saving engines and what not.
WEC has hybrid technologies because efficency and reliability is relevent for long races such as le mans and thats where the green stuff should stay(only the lmp cars gt cars are not green).
#14
Posted 26 June 2014 - 22:25
#15
Posted 26 June 2014 - 22:36
Engine that lasts 5 races. Around 20 hours then. 4 hours less than Le Mans. What's the problem?
That is a good point you make
It just concerns me what will happen when grid penalties for extra units start getting dished out - maybe it won't be as bad as I imagine?
#16
Posted 26 June 2014 - 23:48
Engine that lasts 5 races. Around 20 hours then. 4 hours less than Le Mans. What's the problem?
"Could an actual 2014 F1 power unit be viable to be used in the WEC?"
I asked that in the S.Q.T. topic. No answer yet.
#17
Posted 27 June 2014 - 00:13
Hmmm...seems a little unfair to Honda but if they already knew it was happening then fair game.
#18
Posted 27 June 2014 - 07:46
Just thinking...how much performance would they gain by producing an engine for just one race. I mean taking in consideration all the penalties for changing the PU every race, starting from let say P10 and winning from back?
Do rules allow it?
Edited by Krchan, 27 June 2014 - 07:54.
#19
Posted 27 June 2014 - 07:50
"Could an actual 2014 F1 power unit be viable to be used in the WEC?"
I asked that in the S.Q.T. topic. No answer yet.
Yes it complies with the rules, though it would be a very expensive way of going about things given there are far, far cheaper ways of going racing in LMP1 than an F1 engine which costs circa $40-50m year - which is a bit more than Toyota's entire budget including engine, chassis development and wages. Characteristics of the engine would need to be changed to suit endurance, too.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 27 June 2014 - 08:12
Just thinking...how much performance would they gain by producing an engine for just one race. I mean taking in consideration all the penalties for changing the PU every race, starting from let say P10 and winning from back?
Do rules allow it?
Yeah why not. Let's say 1-race engine produces 100 hp more (the current advantage Mercedes has over the rest ) then you may just as well start from P11 and P12 every race and make it to P1 with ease, only to hope to avoid a midfield start mayhem. Well, except winning at Monaco will be too hard...
#21
Posted 27 June 2014 - 08:19
HAHAHA! But it's true.
I'm all for modern technology and such, but F1 didn't needed to have such small, quiet engines. Nor does it need to "save" tyres & fuel and so on, nor to use less and less engines, become GREANER (god I hate this term!) etc. It's RACING for god sake! It should be about powerful, loud(er) engines, about drivers pushing to the limit! Not eco driving.
Greener was not a bad idea, it is the implementation that sucks. Imagine the fuel flow limitation would be higher, so that you would not make it the whole distance with 100kg when using it. Suddenly we would start to be interested in fuel usage, a less powerful but more efficient engine could be doing better in the race and saving fuel would mean a driver can use more power at times. And cars would have more max. power in qualy as well.
#22
Posted 27 June 2014 - 08:22
This sounds like its playing into Mercedes' hands very well for a long period of domination.
#23
Posted 27 June 2014 - 08:24
Is this potentially troublesome for Ferrari and Renault, who are going to be in a hurry to make their power units more powerful for 2015?
This sounds like its playing into Mercedes' hands very well for a long period of domination.
I'm right in saying that Honda have no testing restrictions until the start of next season. If so, Honda really need to get cracking and get their engine into a mule for testing as soon as possible.
#24
Posted 27 June 2014 - 08:26
I think if Honda does it right, they can take this opportunity to come out with something properly competitive and benefit from the knowledge McLaren have learned so far about how to operate these units.I'm right in saying that Honda have no testing restrictions until the start of next season. If so, Honda really need to get cracking and get their engine into a mule for testing as soon as possible.
If they don't take full advantage, then they will likely be jumping into an unwinnable formula as well.
EDIT: I'm really starting to wonder how long F1 is going to remain my favourite sport at this rate.
Edited by Seanspeed, 27 June 2014 - 08:27.
#25
Posted 27 June 2014 - 08:49
"Could an actual 2014 F1 power unit be viable to be used in the WEC?"
I asked that in the S.Q.T. topic. No answer yet.
If the Porsche 919 can be used as comparison: that has a turbocharged 2 liter combustion engine. I don't know if an even smaller engine gets an even better reak in KERS and other energy saving options but if not then I would think that giving away 20% capacitie is not really helpful for the F1 engine.
Henri
#26
Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:37
You mean the beginning of the current regs, right? Not from genesis of F1.
At the genesis of F1, it would have been deemed extravagant beyond belief to use four different engines over a season so no-one would have ever thought of needing a rule like this. One motor was often used for the whole season unless it blew up. Probably just an oil change and carb tune up between GPs. Fortunately, with modern technology, we have got away from such foolishness.
Edited by BRG, 27 June 2014 - 10:37.
#27
Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:42
I'm sure they'll be ok
#28
Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:45
Indeed.
I would also add, as I did before this season started, should the engines prove to be so unreliable that most teams run through their allocation before the end of the season, the limit would probably be increased.
Would never happen. The engines havent actually proved to be that unreliable (much to my surprise), but the sports masters would be more than happy to see grid penalties applied, especially if that were the championship leaders.
#29
Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:46
At the rate we're going, teams will be required to complete a season on half an engine before long.
In some years, a driver will have 1 chassis, 1 engine, 4 cilinders and 4 tires of each type (wet, inters, soft, SSofts...) for a season long.
I miss the 90s end 00s...
Edited by Cesc, 27 June 2014 - 10:50.
#30
Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:47
At the genesis of F1, it would have been deemed extravagant beyond belief to use four different engines over a season so no-one would have ever thought of needing a rule like this. One motor was often used for the whole season unless it blew up. Probably just an oil change and carb tune up between GPs. Fortunately, with modern technology, we have got away from such foolishness.
Same with tyres. They used the same set of tyres for several events and that's how the accidentally discovered slicks were better for racing.
#31
Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:57
Same with tyres. They used the same set of tyres for several events and that's how the accidentally discovered slicks were better for racing.
I thought this was done by Firestone when they went tyre testing? They were in a rush to get the car out so they sent it out on tyres that had not had grooves cut into them. Set some really fast times thinking wow just wait till we put some grooves in there and went slower.
#32
Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:01
In some years, a driver will have 1 chassis, 1 engine, 4 cilinders and 4 tires of each type (wet, inters, soft, SSofts...) for a season long.
Only with the obligatory mandatory pit stop or two to change your partially worn tyres for another set of partially worn tyres. We can't have "boring no-stop races" can we?
Edited by FerrariV12, 27 June 2014 - 11:03.
#33
Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:32
Love it.I'm sure they'll be ok
#34
Posted 27 June 2014 - 12:37
The real problem is that no one can develop engine. You can have an engine to last 10 years, but as long as you can change some parts, that's enough.
The problem is that basically after 3 races we are out of racing because the engines are fixed and chassis development has been cut off for 2,000 reasons.
#35
Posted 27 June 2014 - 13:21
Yeah why not. Let's say 1-race engine produces 100 hp more (the current advantage Mercedes has over the rest ) then you may just as well start from P11 and P12 every race and make it to P1 with ease, only to hope to avoid a midfield start mayhem. Well, except winning at Monaco will be too hard...
If one "normal" engine is expensive, imagine that 1-race engine! And then multiply it by 19. Let's say about 150 million. You better win the championship...
#36
Posted 27 June 2014 - 14:45
In some years, a driver will have 1 chassis, 1 engine, 4 cilinders and 4 tires of each type (wet, inters, soft, SSofts...) for a season long.
I miss the 90s end 00s...
Me to!
I blame that damn Kaiser Wilhelm fella for starting that silly war in '14. And I don't think that other German chappie, Adolf somebodyorother, is totally without blame for his war in '39.
NURRRSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEE, more gin!
Neil
Edited by Option1, 27 June 2014 - 14:45.
#37
Posted 27 June 2014 - 14:49
People used to have engines that wouldn't last for a qualifying lap.
Now they are arguing that a 3,000kms engine is less expensive than 5 600kms engines. This is utter BS. Ask any engineer.
#38
Posted 27 June 2014 - 14:57
Engine that lasts 5 races. Around 20 hours then. 4 hours less than Le Mans. What's the problem?
The difference is in F1 you have to start different weekends with engines with a different amount of mileage. ~1/5 of the time you will race with an engine that is at the last ~1/4 or so of it's life. Other than that, you are right, it is no big deal at all to have an engine designed to last that much or twice or ten times as much.
#39
Posted 27 June 2014 - 15:01
They may as well say "next year you can't change anything, build one car, that's it, good luck".
They'll no doubt dial the engines back further. Ultra mild racing.
I have to say, by all signs, I don't see F1 making it past 2017. It is effectively converging to what will end up being more on the Formula E side of things, which is what I think the intent secretly is.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 27 June 2014 - 15:42
Would never happen. The engines havent actually proved to be that unreliable (much to my surprise), but the sports masters would be more than happy to see grid penalties applied, especially if that were the championship leaders.
You think if multiple teams started running out of engines, and in particular a certain red team, the sport would just stand by? They should of course, but my confidence that the sport wouldn't change the rules for the show is very low. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some form of agreement pre-season to increase the limit this year, if the engines proved to be more unreliable.
If I recall correctly, this happened in Moto GP a few years ago.
#41
Posted 28 June 2014 - 02:54
HAHAHA! But it's true.
I'm all for modern technology and such, but F1 didn't needed to have such small, quiet engines. Nor does it need to "save" tyres & fuel and so on, nor to use less and less engines, become GREANER (god I hate this term!) etc. It's RACING for god sake! It should be about powerful, loud(er) engines, about drivers pushing to the limit! Not eco driving.
Precisely. Try telling the morons running the show that, though.
#42
Posted 28 June 2014 - 14:06
People used to have engines that wouldn't last for a qualifying lap.
Now they are arguing that a 3,000kms engine is less expensive than 5 600kms engines. This is utter BS. Ask any engineer.
Could you explain that? If true, I fail to see why the number of power units per season should be limited any way then.
#43
Posted 28 June 2014 - 15:05
Hmmm...seems a little unfair to Honda but if they already knew it was happening then fair game.
Not really. If it causes a redesign issue for them, then all the manufacturers will have the same issue.
#44
Posted 28 June 2014 - 15:11
You think if multiple teams started running out of engines, and in particular a certain red team, the sport would just stand by? They should of course, but my confidence that the sport wouldn't change the rules for the show is very low. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some form of agreement pre-season to increase the limit this year, if the engines proved to be more unreliable.
If I recall correctly, this happened in Moto GP a few years ago.
i don't think there will be any change in the allowance. It hasn't proven to be a problem thus far, and while I do expect teams to take penalties, it's not bad enough that they need to take panic measures.
#45
Posted 28 June 2014 - 19:15
This isn't a new rule, they intended to move to four engines after a season right from the beginning.
Yeah, there are things called "adapting". I don't think it is a realistic move and will be very frustrating, like the 2nd half o 2014 will be for the Renault and maybe some Ferrari teams.
They should have put this rule on hold until they had a clear picture about engine usage throughout 2014.
#46
Posted 29 June 2014 - 07:12
Is this potentially troublesome for Ferrari and Renault, who are going to be in a hurry to make their power units more powerful for 2015?
This sounds like its playing into Mercedes' hands very well for a long period of domination.
Well, not Renault if the rumour is true about RBR being considered as a new engine manufacturer should they buy Viry.
#47
Posted 29 June 2014 - 09:21
The real problem is that no one can develop engine.
The problem is that basically after 3 races we are out of racing because the engines are fixed
This! Competition without competition. But I haven't seen a race in many a year. F1 lost the plot a long time ago.
#48
Posted 29 June 2014 - 13:36
there is only one logical way to go on about this ... and many folks aint gonna like it ...
DIESEL POWER
4 pot with Turbo ... less rpm, more durability, more torque. maybe VW can come with their leman winning 6 pot turbo diesel in F1. i'm for it.
#49
Posted 11 July 2014 - 14:15
Same with tyres. They used the same set of tyres for several events and that's how the accidentally discovered slicks were better for racing.
I thought this was done by Firestone when they went tyre testing? They were in a rush to get the car out so they sent it out on tyres that had not had grooves cut into them. Set some really fast times thinking wow just wait till we put some grooves in there and went slower.
NO f-1 was slow to adopt slicks
quarter midgets used them in the early 50's [usac short track car ]
then drag racers got recapped slicks by the mid 50's
firestone INDY cars had semi slicks with a few cut grooves by the early/mid 60's
that maybe where the story comes from
but the junior 1/4 midgets had them many years before INDY cars did
F-1 was very slow to go with slicks
#50
Posted 11 July 2014 - 14:39
At the rate we're going, teams will be required to complete a season on half an engine before long.
Why go for half measures? I suggest a treadmill powered by a small child as the PU of tomorrow. I'm sure Bernie could arrange a deal with some third world sinkhole to provide the necessary manpower in exchange for a race or two.
I don't particularity like the change. We'll see less of Alonso vs Vettel (or Patented Hamilton Hammer Down Manoeuvre) and more cruising and coasting to get to the finish line. It will also make qualifying the more important part of the race weekend at a time when it could possibly become less representative due to extended park ferme rules and free practice cuts.
Not to mention the potential increase in technical DNFs.
Edited by SHODAN, 11 July 2014 - 14:41.