Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Should F1 adopt NASCAR style inter-team engine supply regulations?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 aguri

aguri
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:56

An interesting point was raised in the Williams thread and it deserves a bit more discussion.

 

In NASCAR a given engine manufacturer supplying 3 teams will build a pool of identical engines, from which the teams will randomly select a few engines for their cars and install them etc.

 

The idea being that it somewhat nullifies the advantage of works teams. 

 

Applying this to F1 would of course be more complicated but not unachievable. Take for example Mercedes next season. They are supplying 4 teams, therefore they would build a pool of 32 (4 teams, 2 drivers a team, 4PU per driver) race power units, and these would be randomly divided between the teams they supply. Regulations would have to be written in such a way so that 'Power Unit' covers MGUK, MGUH as well as gearboxes, ecu and cooling system of course.

 

A simple, elegant regulation solution which would serve to bring up the general competitiveness of backmarker and midfield teams IMO.

 

Thoughts? 



Advertisement

#2 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 07 August 2014 - 15:29

Interesting, but how would they get around packaging and cooling demans for different cars?


Edited by Atreiu, 07 August 2014 - 15:30.


#3 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 07 August 2014 - 15:32

Why would Mercedes supply engines to anyone else if they were at risk of being consistently beaten by the person they supplied the engines to?

 

It works in NASCAR because the engine manufacturer and the car manufacturer are the same brand.

 

Neil



#4 Briz

Briz
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 August 2014 - 15:42

Why would Mercedes supply engines to anyone else if they were at risk of being consistently beaten by the person they supplied the engines to?

 

It works in NASCAR because the engine manufacturer and the car manufacturer are the same brand.

 

Neil

 

Err... that's exactly the reason to propose such a rule?



#5 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 07 August 2014 - 18:36

And again I ask, why would Mercedes want that?  .  Well fvck no, not if I was Mercedes.  Introduce such a rule and I'd suddenly find I only had enough engines for Mercedes.

 

I'm not sure what you fail to see in that.

 

Neil



#6 aguri

aguri
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 07 August 2014 - 23:25

And again I ask, why would Mercedes want that?  .  Well fvck no, not if I was Mercedes.  Introduce such a rule and I'd suddenly find I only had enough engines for Mercedes.

 

I'm not sure what you fail to see in that.

 

Neil

 

Engine supply contracts are worth huge amounts of money per team per year. If mercedes wasn't supplying 4 teams they probably couldn't afford to spend as much money developing an engine as they currently do. 

 

Besides, if merc only wanted to supply their own team, than that is fine, someone else would pick up the vacuum.

 

If Cosworth had 5 or 6 engine supply deals (because the works teams refused supply to extra teams) they would suddenly have significantly more R&D money than their competitors, and a much more sustainable business model to boot. 



#7 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 12,106 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:27

 

 

In NASCAR a given engine manufacturer supplying 3 teams will build a pool of identical engines, from which the teams will randomly select a few engines for their cars and install them etc.

 

 

Where did you get that idea?  They aren't randomly selected. While they are built to the same specs the engines are assigned to where they are going to be used.  In some cases the customer engines may not have all the latest tweaks or for lower cost options may have more miles on them.   There aren't any engine distribution rules and the practice of leasing engines is governed largely by the law of supply and demand.



#8 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 7,073 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:36

Where did you get that idea?  They aren't randomly selected. While they are built to the same specs the engines are assigned to where they are going to be used.  In some cases the customer engines may not have all the latest tweaks or for lower cost options may have more miles on them.   There aren't any engine distribution rules and the practice of leasing engines is governed largely by the law of supply and demand.

I'm pretty sure the blocks and head castings come from a pool, and some other 'stock bits', maybe cranks? The McLaren bits are also pool sourced no matter whether it's Ford or Chevy as well. I think.

Yes you can flow/dyno your own team heads, valve trains and manifolds within very strict parameters.

I also believe that back in the day the CART engines were crate supplied from a pool by the manufacturers. I definitely remember seeing the MB/Ilmor transporter with about a dozen crated motors in the CART pits with no team X marked on them.


Edited by whitewaterMkII, 08 August 2014 - 04:42.


#9 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:48

I don't believe it's a rule... but it's a common agreement to guarantee "equality" between "equals" like Stewart Haas and Hendricks racing when the former has purchased engine supply from the latter.

 

Whilst of course a "back shed" team buying a second hand engine from Hendricks and trying to qualify for the Daytona 500, it's a different situation entirely. :)



#10 Briz

Briz
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 08 August 2014 - 05:54

And again I ask, why would Mercedes want that?  .  Well fvck no, not if I was Mercedes.  Introduce such a rule and I'd suddenly find I only had enough engines for Mercedes.

 

I'm not sure what you fail to see in that.

 

Neil

 

Why would Mercedes want to limit themselves to 1.6 litre turbo and not, say, 4 litre turbo? Why would they not use 200kg of fuel instead of 100kg? Why would Mercedes not have the series called Formula Mercedes instead of Formula 1? Why?



#11 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:34

Doesn't the current engine homologation achieve this anyway?



#12 warp

warp
  • Member

  • 1,437 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:48

No.

 

As said, current rules keep sort of a level field regarding power units with the advantage gained in integration of the whole package.

For that idea to be applicable to F1, you would have to have engine manufacturers that are not (at the same time) chassis manufacturers.

 

As said, works teams will always have and edge because they get the best and latest from the PU manufacturer or at least before anyone else.

 

I think they should allow more testing in season and do not block PU development as much as it is now, while reducing dependency on aerodynamics.

 

Development of PU's/gearbox/braking systems, etc is more relevant to road cars than aero. It's technology teams can put money on and trickle down technology to their road divisions.



#13 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,945 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:53

test the gas power-unit and only allow the el-trick part to bring all units to the same total power

at every race before the track opens

 

if the gas motor makes 650 hp allow 150 el power added

if the gas unit makes 700 only allow 100hp added

ect



#14 Sennasational

Sennasational
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 08 August 2014 - 13:12

Are you suggesting that Mercedes are providing their customer teams with second rate, underpowered power units? Because if that was the case, then Mercedes wouldn't have many customers for long. I'm not sure what the point of this is. Mercedes use the same engines as they provide to their customer teams, the advantage of being a works team is not that you get to keep all the best engines you make. Engines are built to a standard, and it is in the best interest of an engine supplier to provide the best engines possible to their customers.

 

Mercedes GP have had the most mechanical failures of all the Mercedes powered cars this year, if I'm not mistaken. If they were keeping all the best power units and handing out defective garbage this certainly wouldn't be the case.

 

Or maybe I've missed the point entirely.



#15 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 08 August 2014 - 13:53

Why would Mercedes want to limit themselves to 1.6 litre turbo and not, say, 4 litre turbo? Why would they not use 200kg of fuel instead of 100kg? Why would Mercedes not have the series called Formula Mercedes instead of Formula 1? Why?

:cry:   You realize kittens died as a result of that answer?  So very sad seeing their faces go all WTF?! and then their fluffy little heads exploding.

 

At least warp gets it.

 

Neil



#16 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 12,106 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 08 August 2014 - 18:26

I don't believe it's a rule... but it's a common agreement to guarantee "equality" between "equals" like Stewart Haas and Hendricks racing when the former has purchased engine supply from the latter.

 

Whilst of course a "back shed" team buying a second hand engine from Hendricks and trying to qualify for the Daytona 500, it's a different situation entirely. :)

The engines are to the same spec but it's not random. They are specifically built and configured for each team.  All of the parts, including the blocks and the cranks are inspected and measured prior to use to insure they are rules compliant and that they are within a performance spec.  Before the engine leaves the engine shop it's been tested and they know not only exactly what went into it but what sort of performance they should expect from it.  SHR is a Hendrick satellite ost hey will get not only equal parts but there is also data and engineering cooperation as well.  It's the model on which Haas is building his F1 team.  The notion that the engines are distributed in a random manner is simply not correct.



#17 aguri

aguri
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 08 August 2014 - 23:46

Are you suggesting that Mercedes are providing their customer teams with second rate, underpowered power units? Because if that was the case, then Mercedes wouldn't have many customers for long. I'm not sure what the point of this is. Mercedes use the same engines as they provide to their customer teams, the advantage of being a works team is not that you get to keep all the best engines you make. Engines are built to a standard, and it is in the best interest of an engine supplier to provide the best engines possible to their customers.

 

Mercedes GP have had the most mechanical failures of all the Mercedes powered cars this year, if I'm not mistaken. If they were keeping all the best power units and handing out defective garbage this certainly wouldn't be the case.

 

Or maybe I've missed the point entirely.

 

There is obviously a difference in quality between the works team engine (at Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari) and the customer engines. 

 

For example:

  • Mercedes started the season with an extra power qualifying mode on their engine that FI and Williams didn't get until a few races into the season. 
  • Likewise RB and STR are getting engine updates much faster than Caterham are. 
  • Ferrari has even started getting Marussia to test experimental parts on their engines.

The current regulations leave customer teams (the vast majority of the grid), no choice but to accept this situation. If they are lucky like McLaren they will pick up a works deal. 

 

Mercedes mechanical failures are hardly statistically significant to the discussion, especially considering they are overwhelmingly a mechanical problem relating to the braking system. 

 

 

No.

 

As said, current rules keep sort of a level field regarding power units with the advantage gained in integration of the whole package.

For that idea to be applicable to F1, you would have to have engine manufacturers that are not (at the same time) chassis manufacturers.

 

As said, works teams will always have and edge because they get the best and latest from the PU manufacturer or at least before anyone else.

 

Ofcourse works teams always have an edge because they can better design the whole car around the PU. But they also currently have the added advantage of receiving new engine developments at earlier races than the customer teams. 

 

Surely if F1 is to maintain decent size grids there needs to be safe guards in place to protect midfield and backmarker teams in instances like this?



#18 Sennasational

Sennasational
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 09 August 2014 - 12:17

There is obviously a difference in quality between the works team engine (at Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari) and the customer engines. 

 

For example:

  • Mercedes started the season with an extra power qualifying mode on their engine that FI and Williams didn't get until a few races into the season. 
  • Likewise RB and STR are getting engine updates much faster than Caterham are. 
  • Ferrari has even started getting Marussia to test experimental parts on their engines.

The current regulations leave customer teams (the vast majority of the grid), no choice but to accept this situation. If they are lucky like McLaren they will pick up a works deal. 

 

Mercedes mechanical failures are hardly statistically significant to the discussion, especially considering they are overwhelmingly a mechanical problem relating to the braking system. 

 

 

 

Ofcourse works teams always have an edge because they can better design the whole car around the PU. But they also currently have the added advantage of receiving new engine developments at earlier races than the customer teams. 

 

Surely if F1 is to maintain decent size grids there needs to be safe guards in place to protect midfield and backmarker teams in instances like this?

 

I don't know whether that is true or not, but it sounds like it would not be with the homologation and all. I can't dispute the engine modes, but I would guess that customer teams are capable of running their engines at full power, which is all a super special quali mode would have to be - if you're telling me customer teams have to wait an arbitrary amount of races until they can use 100% engine power, well, it doesn't sound logical, and if something isn't logical it's usually not true. Although in F1 there are certainly exceptions. If this was the case though, I'd expect Mercedes to be fastest in every speed trap, and they simply aren't, I really don't see any hinderance.

 

As for the 'updates', like I said...the homologation takes care of that, no teams are just bolting updates to their engines willy nilly and seeing how they go. Finally, Mercedes' mechanical failures are fairly relevent, actually. They have had many power issues, not just relating to the braking system. Not all of them have caused retirements, but an issue is an issue nonetheless. Again, if there was a substantial difference in quality, the customer teams would be having more issues, not less.



#19 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 10 August 2014 - 01:15

Maybe F1 should just use Nascar engines! Then they will sound good. And a 5 speed manually shifted transaxle with a 9" ring and pin!



Advertisement

#20 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 7,073 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 10 August 2014 - 04:10

Maybe F1 should just use Nascar engines! Then they will sound good. And a 5 speed manually shifted transaxle with a 9" ring and pin!

Don't forget the rock hard tires either...