Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

engine freeze


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 paulogman

paulogman
  • Member

  • 1,900 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 27 August 2014 - 15:31

If the engine rules are relaxed to allow for modification,
What's to say Mercedes won't kick the can even further down the road?

Advertisement

#2 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 August 2014 - 15:34

Why agree to rules that disallow modifications only to call for it to be relaxed when things don't work out? Don't agree to the rules in the first place - that's what all of the teams and manufacturers should have done.



#3 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,925 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 27 August 2014 - 15:56

If the engine rules are relaxed to allow for modification,
What's to say Mercedes won't kick the can even further down the road?

 

Yeah. What makes me think that the "certain way" Marco Mattiacci wants the engine freeze relaxed is the way that lets Ferrari and Renault work on their engines but not Mercedes. Or better still, just Ferrari.



#4 Goron3

Goron3
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:01

I don't understand the logic behind a freeze. Why make engines so important but only allow a month of testing before freezing them? What's next, freezing aero?

 

I get that it's there to save costs but the cars are so ridiculously slow and weak as it is. Give them 2 or 3 years to develop them before freezing parts. 



#5 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:06

I was just thinking about this. Now that the number of engines is strictly limited, why not allow development? It means only 4 updates during the season, which seams reasonable. Basically you can't alter individual engines, but when you change engine you can fit one with an upgraded specification. Keep the same penalties for using more engines than you're allowed.



#6 paulogman

paulogman
  • Member

  • 1,900 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:07

If I was Mercedes and the FIA told me that we are going to let the other teams develop their engines but not you I would pack my gear and leave

#7 tomjol

tomjol
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:09

Why agree to rules that disallow modifications only to call for it to be relaxed when things don't work out? Don't agree to the rules in the first place - that's what all of the teams and manufacturers should have done.

 

Xi9bWy3.png



#8 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,389 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:12

If the engine rules are relaxed to allow for modification,
What's to say Mercedes won't kick the can even further down the road?

 

No reason why they can't or won't.  It's just that it's natural as time goes on, for all teams to merge closer together.  Especially if the trailing teams copy the ideas of the leading team.  This relates to aero, tyre wear, engines or anything else.  Even just for two drivers in the same team, it's natural as time goes on the second driver will get closer to the first.



#9 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 1,496 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:12

I was just thinking about this. Now that the number of engines is strictly limited, why not allow development? It means only 4 updates during the season, which seams reasonable. Basically you can't alter individual engines, but when you change engine you can fit one with an upgraded specification. Keep the same penalties for using more engines than you're allowed.

You're using your brain. That kind of thing would never fly over at the FIA.



#10 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,389 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:15

I don't understand the logic behind a freeze. Why make engines so important but only allow a month of testing before freezing them? What's next, freezing aero?

 

I get that it's there to save costs but the cars are so ridiculously slow and weak as it is. Give them 2 or 3 years to develop them before freezing parts. 

 

This is what I couldn't understand in the first place in the winter.  It was bizarre because the previous freeze came after 2006, 2007, 2008 etc.. where there was plenty of development (based off of real races for feedback) and also inseason testing.  The freeze came at a point where they'd been developed to rev at 20k, but then locked at 19k or 18k.  So that further helped reliability and (less need for development).  But this freeze came after LIMITED winter testing from one winter.  And these engines are a lot more advanced than standard v8 engines, which weren't much different than the v10's except for being smaller and revving higher.  Bizarre.

 

But simulations and technologies have improved a lot because the reliability overall this season has been quite impressive for all teams.
 



#11 Tapz63

Tapz63
  • Member

  • 277 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:22

Why agree to rules that disallow modifications only to call for it to be relaxed when things don't work out? Don't agree to the rules in the first place - that's what all of the teams and manufacturers should have done.


It seemed to me that the engine manufacturer's were all hoping to have the best engine straight away, and were more than happy to allow no development as it would secure theie position at the top. None of them really thought about what would happen if their engine was a bit shit.

#12 GVera

GVera
  • Member

  • 297 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:24

Leaving aside Marco's agenda, I agree 100% with him, leave the manufacturers room to develop their engines.

I would just include a clause that warranties any development done must be included at the same time in customer team's engines at no extra cost over the inital engine deal.



#13 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,233 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 August 2014 - 16:37

Would have been nice if Ferrari were arguing this before the season when they and Mercedes seemed happy enough to watch Renault squirm with their reliability issues.

 

Having double standards and changing their mind to suit their own agenda isn't going to help them much now.

 

Reap what you sow.


Edited by johnmhinds, 27 August 2014 - 16:38.


#14 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,595 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 27 August 2014 - 17:00

A broken clock is right twice a day. In this case, Ferrari's ostensibly self-serving public moaning machine. They're absolutely right, it's a joke the engines are frozen despite being brand new technology. Everyone knew one of the manufacturers would get it right and completely spank everyone else ruining the competition, they just hoped it'd be themselves and not Mercedes.



#15 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 767 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 27 August 2014 - 17:38

All engine manufacturers have the chance to make some updates to their engines over the winter. I think Ferrari and Renault will make bigger improvements to their engines relatively to Mercedes; because Mercedes are further ahead and will have fewer options to persue. So next year I think it won't be as engine dependent as this year.



#16 Cacarella

Cacarella
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 27 August 2014 - 17:47

Doesn't engine development, coupled with limited numbers per season mean that at some point the engine customer could

potentially be given an inferior engine to the manufacturer?

 

I don't like the freeze at all, but I think it's a bit more complicated than just allowing a given number of updates.



#17 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 2,164 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 27 August 2014 - 17:49

I don't understand the logic behind a freeze.

 

The teams all deluded themselves / hoped / thought that they'd be in the position Mercedes is.



#18 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 August 2014 - 17:50

Doesn't engine development, coupled with limited numbers per season mean that at some point the engine customer could

potentially be given an inferior engine to the manufacturer?

 

I don't like the freeze at all, but I think it's a bit more complicated than just allowing a given number of updates.

 

That's something that will happen with engine development, no matter how many engines are involved.



#19 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 839 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 27 August 2014 - 17:51

Would have been nice if Ferrari were arguing this before the season when they and Mercedes seemed happy enough to watch Renault squirm with their reliability issues.

 

Having double standards and changing their mind to suit their own agenda isn't going to help them much now.

 

Reap what you sow.

Ferrari never wanted an engine freeze. If it was up to them there would be unlimited engine development.



Advertisement

#20 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,662 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 27 August 2014 - 18:05

I was just thinking about this. Now that the number of engines is strictly limited, why not allow development? It means only 4 updates during the season, which seams reasonable. Basically you can't alter individual engines, but when you change engine you can fit one with an upgraded specification. Keep the same penalties for using more engines than you're allowed.

By this you would render the cost saving aspect of the freeze pretty much ineffective.

 

Shortening your development time from 1 year to basically 3 months where achievable..

Teams would spend towards shortening the development lead times: more engineers, more ideas to try out, more tools (dynos, etc.) to trial and test ideas, more production capacity, in order to arrive at a faster turnaround time from-idea-to-implementation.


Edited by Timstr11, 27 August 2014 - 18:09.


#21 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 27 August 2014 - 18:06

Does anyone know how the engine regs work with freezing? It's actually really quite permissive.

 

http://joesaward.wor...gines-of-today/

 

Almost HALF the components in the engine can be changed for next year. It goes down by 9% a year until 2018.



#22 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,824 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 August 2014 - 18:40

By this you would render the cost saving aspect of the freeze pretty much ineffective.

 

Shortening your development time from 1 year to basically 3 months where achievable..

Teams would spend towards shortening the development lead times: more engineers, more ideas to try out, more tools (dynos, etc.) to trial and test ideas, more production capacity, in order to arrive at a faster turnaround time from-idea-to-implementation.

 

Possible, but before settling on an opinion I would like to see proof that Ferrari, for example, is actually saving anything with this freeze. I would assume that they are, right now, throwing everything they can afford at the development of the engine. Just because they cannot run updates on a current F1 car, but have to wait until winter to screw on the pieces, does not mean that they are not developing. In fact, not being able to test on a current car probably is driving costs for new advanced dynos through the roof.



#23 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,070 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 August 2014 - 19:34

quote myself from "magic paint allowed to ferrari engine" thread as this my opinion can apply here as well;

-----

I think they better free up in-season engine development more and rethink the yearly engine freeze as well. Otherwise engine too will go down the "aero route", where you end up spending huge resource into trivial things rather than what's essential and fundamental. This "paint" is very good sign for that.

 

Also I'm sure that with this engine freezing, their aim is to bring current PUs to "political parity" like V8 eventually. That's boring as hell. Any technology is progressing constantly. So why not constant development for F1 PU?

 

We already have this engine should last x races rule, so combine that with development, there should be good way to regulate and manage the pace and cost under control while allowing more development.

-----

 

one idea is allow certain amount of engine alteration, like twice or 3 times a year, and maybe only 10 % or only 1 or 2 components for each changes. And perhaps make the penalty for exceeding the engine number limit bit harsher. This way they can develop engine continuously but slowly. There can be good balance somewhere that's sustainable.



#24 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,747 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 August 2014 - 20:10

what the freeze did was i expect, make the teams front load there investment heavily, so spend the vast majority of your 3-5 year engine budget on the first year (pre racing)



#25 Watkins74

Watkins74
  • Member

  • 5,753 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 August 2014 - 20:18

I don't understand the logic behind a freeze. Why make engines so important but only allow a month of testing before freezing them? What's next, freezing aero?

 

I get that it's there to save costs but the cars are so ridiculously slow and weak as it is. Give them 2 or 3 years to develop them before freezing parts. 

 

Because engine costs used to be 50% of a teams annual budget. The engine wars were a huge expense.



#26 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 August 2014 - 21:20

Because engine costs used to be 50% of a teams annual budget. The engine wars were a huge expense.

 

Yes, but that could be solved with a budget cap



#27 andysaint

andysaint
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 August 2014 - 21:28

Same rules for everyone, others just happened to do a better job. Renault and Ferrari need to do a better job next time, smile as.

#28 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 27 August 2014 - 21:39

Yes, but that could be solved with a budget cap

It's exactly the area that shows the problems of a budget cap.

 

Take Renault - they're not even a Formula 1 team, so they don't even fall under any budget cap restrictions. You can say that the amount of money teams pay for an engine might fall under it, but it's Renault's own choice whether they put all the development costs in that bill or not. 

In a different way the same counts for Mercedes and, in a lesser degree, Ferrari who build not only F1 cars, so they can juggle a bit with development costs (including personnel costs!) for F1 and for their other divisions. Either a nightmare or a Walhalla for accountants.

They also have to juggle with the question how much they let their customers pay for their engines. Their own engine costs, including development, are a lot higher but if they spread it out over their customers you're getting in quite a grey area - especially when e.g. one engine manufacturer has 2 clients, another one 3 and a third one 4......



#29 kraduk

kraduk
  • Member

  • 256 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 August 2014 - 21:41

Yes, but that could be solved with a budget cap

or far more easily and effectively with a development freeze  :wave:



#30 hittheapex

hittheapex
  • Member

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 28 August 2014 - 04:00

The thing that grinds with me when a team that is getting whipped complains about their rivals and wants the rules changed in the name of closing up the performance gap, why not save a lot of money and have a spec series then? This attitude is not a new thing in F1 of course but it's very conspicuous how the leading teams over the years, not just Ferrari, talk about a pure formula and innovation when they are at the front and when they are struggling to break into the top 6 or worse suddenly the fans and the performance gap become important. The same fans of course, that they ignored on double points.



#31 boyRacer

boyRacer
  • Member

  • 644 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 28 August 2014 - 04:22

The freeze doesn't make sense during the first or even the second year of a new engine formula. That said, Ferrari obviously wouldn't be asking for change if they were in Mercedes' position.



#32 blub

blub
  • Member

  • 108 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 28 August 2014 - 05:18

I think Ferrari approached the engine design from a reliability point of view, as in, the season would be a bomb fest and Ferrari would win everything as all the other engines blew up. Their temps were lower, their turbo was smaller, everything was away from risk, and it is a reliable engine, not much of a racing engine but…

Now everyone is speaking of the car and the engine as far too conservative, I am convinced that Allison is going to create something special next year, as will Red Bull and Mercedes, but not McLaren, because, Goss…

For this year, they should have allowed all the development they wanted for the engines but only to be used in those engines past the limited allotments. It would have been a blast to see how fast Ferrari could burn through their engines and calculate the penalties for more ICE parts vs the value of greater speed gains. I still feel somewhat deprived that we have not had more explosions and fireworks from that thing in the back. Modern tech and all the computer sensors have taken more then the sound away from the game.
 

If you think about it, the FIA should have announced that one team, lets say Ferrari, will be allowed to further develop their engine during the year, because they are a more engine focused and less aero focused team. Just let the world howl. It might have been the only time the FIA was honest in 20 years.



#33 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 203 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 28 August 2014 - 05:33

Because engine costs used to be 50% of a teams annual budget. The engine wars were a huge expense.

 

The engine wars costs the same as the V8 engines that had to last for several races and these current PU cost a hell of alot more then the engines did 10 years ago.

Back then they built alot of engines for less money then what they do now.



#34 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 28 August 2014 - 05:35

This Akin to being allowed to mark your own homework ie cheat. Ferrari's engine man has delivered an F for effort and they want to crib off the smartest guy in the class ( Mercedes). In a competitive discipline failure can't be rewarded. The engine rules are not frozen. Manufacturers have 5, yes, Five years to get their sh1t together before the engines are locked down. If they can't do it by then they should not be in the sport. Mattiaci is trying it on. He would not be doing his job if he did not appeal to the FIA ( Ferrari International Assistance)

#35 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 28 August 2014 - 06:30

No testing. Engine freeze. Pinnacle of motorsports. 



#36 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,409 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 28 August 2014 - 11:29

Because engine costs used to be 50% of a teams annual budget. The engine wars were a huge expense.

 

The budgets have soared in the meantime and any leftover cash from cheaper engines went into aero. Problem is, all those constant rulemaking misery is more expensive than it used to be. Every development has to be reliable for 4-5 weekends. That requires more dyno testing, etc. So now they spend the money there instead of the track.

 

And I think the engine is one of the main parts of a car, worth a suitable price tag. 



#37 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:06

What is actually wrong with the present system? 

 

- If you budget cap this, then teams will front-load their dev and burn out all their cash at once. They will also work around it through subsidiaries, working on the engine through other series, or simply lying. Manufacturers like Renault who started behind would burn through their budget very quickly to try and make it back, and stagnate for the rest of the year.

 

- If you allow changes throughout the season with no limits engine manufacturers will smash their way through a HUGE amount of cash because they will manufacture hundreds upon hundreds of engines every race. I don't think FP sessions are covered by the engines rule, so these would be used up trialling these engines

 

- Just allowing SW dev is a good way of keeping the fans interested without spending the same amount of money. Reference: Vettel almost getting Hamilton on the first lap - that Renault unit has come on with only the one dispensation this year.

 

 

Limiting the amount of parts, homologation and decreasing the % parts possible to change each year is actually really sensible. It encourages the manufacturers to have time to develop and not burn up money rushing. It also incentivises decreasing costs over the life of the engine as well as forcing the manufacturers to make meaningful change rather than spend millions changing lots of little parts.

 

The only other thing which would be sensible on-top of this is mandating a maximum price for engines so the little teams do not find the cost bankrupting them or skyrocketing when their chosen supplier does a terrible job of developing and wants to pass the cost on disproportionately.



#38 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 1,311 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 28 August 2014 - 16:28

- If you allow changes throughout the season with no limits engine manufacturers will smash their way through a HUGE amount of cash because they will manufacture hundreds upon hundreds of engines every race. I don't think FP sessions are covered by the engines rule, so these would be used up trialling these engines

 

 Free practice sessions are included in the 5 engine limit per year so they don't have an option to trial loads of updates. (The pre-season and in-season tests are not included).



#39 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 August 2014 - 20:06

or far more easily and effectively with a development freeze  :wave:

 

How about a single engine supplier - just like tyres. If you're not going to allow development then you might as well just standardise. That would cut costs - the FIA could even stipulate the price.



Advertisement

#40 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 29 August 2014 - 02:22

So spec tires spec engines spec ecu.. Why not just go the cart route and have a spec chassis as well.. And sell it all as a 5m dollar car.

#41 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,244 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 29 August 2014 - 02:53

I wondered about that rule before the pre season started. It could hit any team. Even though the idea was kind of we'll sort out the issues as it goes. Mercedes had different ideas, Good for them, but still the rule didn't make sense to me.

 

Would have been nice if Ferrari were arguing this before the season when they and Mercedes seemed happy enough to watch Renault squirm with their reliability issues.

 

Having double standards and changing their mind to suit their own agenda isn't going to help them much now.

 

Reap what you sow.

Well Domenicali and Mattiacci are two different people, and in pre season Doenicali was stiil at the helm of the Ferrari F1 team.

 

I kind of expected Domenicali to agree with the existing rules, as he didn't seem to be interested into upsetting the established, but now with Mattiacci I'm not suprised that in order to establish himself will want no stone left unturned. After all Marmorini left the team already.



#42 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,244 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 29 August 2014 - 03:02

How about a single engine supplier - just like tyres. If you're not going to allow development then you might as well just standardise. That would cut costs - the FIA could even stipulate the price.

Don't refresh them with the same ideas they had under Mosley. That was the era where FIA seemed to want to go for total control in everything.

 

However F1 didn't suffer when almost everyone run Cosworths. Of course they had more freedom in other areas back then.

 

Also as this years proves with Mercedes, a good engine alone doesn't make a team win races. So far we only had 2 teams winning a race this year. Merc and RBR with their Renault. But what about the other Mercedes teams?

 

IMO aero/chassis is still more important than the engine. Especially since the contact between car and the road are all the same.

 

Right now I'm actually concerned that Pirelli bows out soon, as there is barely any mention about them tires.



#43 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 839 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 29 August 2014 - 04:39

Why not give teams an opportunity to change one or two different parts per year? May not level the playing field completely but it would go a long way to ensuring teams like Ferrari and Renault are not in a situation they are now. Handicapped with an uncompetitive engine with no hope of any significant improvement.

 

That is how the regulations should have been written from the beginning. Just like the in season testing ban, they've gone from one extreme to the other, which encourages a larger gap between the teams as they don't have a realistic propensity to catch up. They continue to shoot themselves in the foot.


Edited by f1RacingForever, 29 August 2014 - 04:44.


#44 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,824 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 September 2014 - 18:29

Merc :up:  Doing everything right, I'm really starting to like this team. Well ok, I should say "the direction Merc marketing is taking", but whatever.

 

Mercedes open to F1 engine freeze being lifted

 

The possibility of relaxing these rules was on the agenda in a meeting of F1's strategy group in the Italian GP paddock on Friday, during which the popularity of F1, rules on superlicences, cost control, and long-term technical changes to F1 cars were also discussed.

Speaking to the press later, Wolff suggested Mercedes might support a lifting of the engine freeze, if it was done in the right way.

"It's about defining what we want to do," he said. "Obviously we have a competitive advantage but we would take the challenge [of competition] on.

"Is it the time to change the rules to change something? Maybe. The discussions we've had so far were pretty open.

"There are various concepts on the table and if we decide to go completely in the opposite direction and open it up completely, this will increase costs quite dramatically.

"I'm not sure we could deliver all the same specification of engines to everybody - logistically it's not feasible - so the devil lies in the detail."

 



#45 Tapz63

Tapz63
  • Member

  • 277 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 05 September 2014 - 21:09

Merc :up: Doing everything right, I'm really starting to like this team. Well ok, I should say "the direction Merc marketing is taking", but whatever.

Mercedes open to F1 engine freeze being lifted


Well that completes it, all 3 engine manufacturers are open to lifting the engine freeze in some way, now they just have to agree on the details...

#46 Lennat

Lennat
  • Member

  • 489 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 September 2014 - 21:13

I HATE the freeze, and not only as a Ferrari fan, hated it also during the V8 era when there wasn't that big a difference between the engines. It's not exiting to use esentially the same engine for 8 seasons in a row!



#47 Nova

Nova
  • Member

  • 7,083 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 06 September 2014 - 07:38

How about a single engine supplier - just like tyres. If you're not going to allow development then you might as well just standardise. That would cut costs - the FIA could even stipulate the price.

 

Might as well. I have no interest following a series with an engine freeze. I put my fanboysim into manufactures, not drivers or teams, and where is the interest in a series where either your manufacturer are lagging behind and are not allowed to rectify it, or all engines are "the same"?

 

Haven't watched a race in years, are not about to.



#48 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 06 September 2014 - 07:51

I HATE the freeze, and not only as a Ferrari fan, hated it also during the V8 era when there wasn't that big a difference between the engines. It's not exiting to use esentially the same engine for 8 seasons in a row!

The current freeze is only until the end of the season - a completely different thing.



#49 fisssssi

fisssssi
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 06 September 2014 - 08:02

The current freeze is only until the end of the season - a completely different thing.

But isn't 50% of the engine still frozen for next year? They can only change half of it. And that percentage is meant to slowly increase year by year.

 

I say drop the engine freeze. Especially with new engines that no one has really got ontop of yet. The reason it worked at the end of the V8 era is because they had 8 years to develop them and all the manufacturers ended up with competitive engines. 



#50 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 06 September 2014 - 08:18

But isn't 50% of the engine still frozen for next year? 

Only 8%, see the technical regulations http://www.fia.com/s...014-01-23_0.pdf p.89.