Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Engine freeze/unfreeze [merged]


  • Please log in to reply
1638 replies to this topic

#1601 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 January 2015 - 09:20

Ummm how about them asking for a delay in homologation?

Yes, but your conclusions need a bit more in the factual department before they can be seriously regarded



Advertisement

#1602 WOT

WOT
  • Member

  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 07 January 2015 - 09:25

Ummm how about them asking for a delay in homologation?

 

Ummmm...  I said factual source - and in particular referencing the bolded section...



#1603 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 3,944 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 January 2015 - 09:29

Ummmm...  I said factual source - and in particular referencing the bolded section...

 

Somebody comes up with guesswork, I will wait for their factual source first. In any case, try google or even Autosport or James Allen, they all confirm that Ferrari & Renault requested for extension in homologation dates.



#1604 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 January 2015 - 09:36

Somebody comes up with guesswork, I will wait for their factual source first. In any case, try google or even Autosport or James Allen, they all confirm that Ferrari & Renault requested for extension in homologation dates.

We know they want an extension, but you are telling us why. I'm confused, you say you wait for factual source for others guesswork but all I see from you is your guesswork. With no factual source. On top of that you accuse people (me) of speculating when I write about the actual rules. Are you living in a mirror of my universe? ɘɒɿƚʜ?



#1605 WOT

WOT
  • Member

  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 07 January 2015 - 09:38

Somebody comes up with guesswork, I will wait for their factual source first. In any case, try google or even Autosport or James Allen, they all confirm that Ferrari & Renault requested for extension in homologation dates.

 

I am well aware that the homologation date has been extended. I am more curious of your factual source regarding your statement "The teams that have screwed up are just behind on the timetable, nothing to do with getting mired in choosing which tokens to use"



#1606 WOT

WOT
  • Member

  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 07 January 2015 - 09:49

Somebody comes up with guesswork, I will wait for their factual source first. In any case, try google or even Autosport or James Allen, they all confirm that Ferrari & Renault requested for extension in homologation dates.

 

 
I am also curious as to what formula you used to calculate this statement - "Imagine if there were no restrictions on development, Ferrari & Renault havent found time to even develop 50% of their engine in the available time, the Merc may even have had time to improve the whole 100%". 
 
 Guesswork?


#1607 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 3,944 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 January 2015 - 10:06

 

 
I am also curious as to what formula you used to calculate this statement - "Imagine if there were no restrictions on development, Ferrari & Renault havent found time to even develop 50% of their engine in the available time, the Merc may even have had time to improve the whole 100%". 
 
 Guesswork?

 

 

These are all opinions, like every other post in this thread. Accept it or move on, nothing to see here.



#1608 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 3,944 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 January 2015 - 10:08

I am well aware that the homologation date has been extended. I am more curious of your factual source regarding your statement "The teams that have screwed up are just behind on the timetable, nothing to do with getting mired in choosing which tokens to use"

 

Well, given that you only got 32 tokens to play with and even then you are behind schedule, what does it tell you if they had all 66 tokens to play with? If this opinion isnt acceptable to you, disagree and move on.



#1609 WOT

WOT
  • Member

  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 07 January 2015 - 10:14

These are all opinions, like every other post in this thread. Accept it or move on, nothing to see here.

 

More like the rubbish category, but I move on. 
 
You are 100% correct - "Absolutely nothing to see here!!"


#1610 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 1,638 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 07 January 2015 - 10:35

In my opinion it is looking increasingly like we'll see constant evolution with engine development from all manufacturers during the 2015 season and to a point beyond that.

 

I cannot see Honda being left behind.  They will protest, like Renault and Ferrari did, until they get close to what they want.  And I foresee they'll be successful.  It is the only solution if the sport wants to attract other engine builders to the formula.  



#1611 MrWorldwideJr

MrWorldwideJr
  • Member

  • 110 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 07 January 2015 - 10:43

I think this argument belongs to the cost cutting thread, not here. There is a reason for an engine freeze, cost cuts!

 

And then why only moan about engine freeze, go ahead and join the bandwagon about restrictions on gearboxes and a million other things that already are tightly regulated in F1.

 

Mainly because as you may have spotted this is the engine freeze thread, not the gearboxes and a million other things thread.  Do I need to write a list of everything I'm opposed to in F1 before you'll listen to my opinions on any one aspect?

I stated earlier in this thread that I realise that a totally open competition is not possible on cost grounds however some cost cuts go too far in terms of getting in the way of competition and this is one of them.



#1612 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 07 January 2015 - 11:10

These are all opinions, like every other post in this thread. Accept it or move on, nothing to see here.

It's not reasonable for you to paint all posts with the same brush when it is yours which are making claims which cannot be justified or backed up with facts.



#1613 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 2,416 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 07 January 2015 - 11:29

lets not disturb the course of the world :smoking:, FIA reconsiders...

https://translate.go...t-text=&act=url



#1614 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 January 2015 - 13:07

... due to a threat from McLaren to screw Charlie's balls off for everything getting close to the PU from the other manufacturers. ;)



#1615 KjetilS

KjetilS
  • New Member

  • 23 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 16 January 2015 - 10:41

I'm trying to figure this out with the eyes of Renault and Ferrari.

As I read the regulation I can use the 2014 engine or a 2014 engine modified with max 32 tokens. Am I correct?

 

Does it say I have to homologate this modified engine before I use it?

 

Can I in the first race use a 2014 engine with 32 tokens modified, and when next time I change engine go back to the 2014 engine and modify it in a different way?



#1616 frosty125

frosty125
  • Member

  • 1,114 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 16 January 2015 - 11:07

So from how I remember that the rules are written, the interpretation that the FIA will use is.

You modify the 2014 engine say using 10 tokens this engine will be homologated lets call it 2015a. Now the engine manufacturer can modify the 2015a engine again using up to 22 tokens this egine wpuld be 2015b.

However from the top of my head there is another interpretation of the rules. That being each time the manufacturer homologates using tokens they are modifying against the 2014 engine. This would mean each time the team homologates a new engine it can use the 32 tokens how it wishes. However i don't think the FIA will use this interpretation as it would also imply that in 2016 the engine would be modified less because there are less tokens and it is against the 2014 engine.

#1617 paulogman

paulogman
  • Member

  • 2,642 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 16 January 2015 - 11:34

the concern now will be reliability.
if you lose a power unit before a new development is ready you're screwed out of the the next up grade and will continue to miss the following upgrade.
whoever manages reliability best will win the title.
I see renault losing even worse than before, but at least it will be fair lol

Edited by paulogman, 16 January 2015 - 11:34.


#1618 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 16 January 2015 - 11:49

I think both Renault and Ferrari would have preferred to be given the chance to start all over again, using the experiences they have learned this year,use whatever they have seen from the Mercedes and try to make up that gap. And if Mercedes then enlarges the gap, OK then they truly have an edge yet again and it is time to accept the fact that  F1 is a Mercedes Showcase from now on. But at least they have been given a chance to try something.

Your assumptions could also be wrong.

 

Henri

I think everyone would like this, but who is going to pay for it?



#1619 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 January 2015 - 19:47

I think everyone would like this, but who is going to pay for it?

 

That is indeed the problem.

Going back in time a but. In the days of the 3 liter engines, engines had much longer life times and certain Cossies were used after revisions for certain parts for a number of years. Certain engines were known to be bloody succesful over time.

One of the things that was not so bad about the past.

 

If it comes to costs: I also wonder about the following.

Because of so few parts made to build up engines, doens't make that the parts much more expensive per individual piece. If more engines were permitted would that be that more expensive? Most of the costs often goos to tooling, moulds, etc. But once these exits, the more these are used to make more parts, the cheaper they become. Are they saving so much money with restrincting the numbers so tight and keep the number of manufactured parts so low?

 

Henri



Advertisement

#1620 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 16 January 2015 - 21:15

If it comes to costs: I also wonder about the following.

Because of so few parts made to build up engines, doens't make that the parts much more expensive per individual piece. If more engines were permitted would that be that more expensive? Most of the costs often goos to tooling, moulds, etc. But once these exits, the more these are used to make more parts, the cheaper they become. Are they saving so much money with restrincting the numbers so tight and keep the number of manufactured parts so low?

 

Henri

Yes, the more engines that are built the cheaper they will be, one the reasons the USAFs F-22 fighters are so expensive.  On the other hand, assuming qualification and race engines (50 per team in a 20 race calender, including spares), teams would be paying more for engines over the course of a season than they currently do.  There is also ongoing development to consider.  These engines are expensive because they are very complex, prices across the board will reduce in time, however it is their sophistication and newness that has lead to the stratospheric costs.



#1621 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 30 January 2015 - 02:16

From 21:00 sounds familiar.



#1622 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 February 2015 - 17:42

Renault have announced that they may delay using their unused tokens till later in the season, to allow them to use them to help next winters development. I wonder if the FIA have considered this possibility and if there is a 'use it or lose it' end point for token use or is this just another loophole in the rules.

Abiteboul claims they believe they have made enough gains so far to help them take this strategic approach without impacting this season.

The cynic in me wonders if the real reason is they are giving up on this season.

#1623 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 16 February 2015 - 20:04

Renault have announced that they may delay using their unused tokens till later in the season, to allow them to use them to help next winters development. I wonder if the FIA have considered this possibility and if there is a 'use it or lose it' end point for token use or is this just another loophole in the rules.

Abiteboul claims they believe they have made enough gains so far to help them take this strategic approach without impacting this season.

The cynic in me wonders if the real reason is they are giving up on this season.

 

I think they're just forced to go down this route simply because Mercedes and Ferrari have indicated to do the same thing.

Development time is valuable apparently. If you implement early, your parts will not be as developed as your competitors'.



#1624 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 February 2015 - 21:39

I think they're just forced to go down this route simply because Mercedes and Ferrari have indicated to do the same thing.

Development time is valuable apparently. If you implement early, your parts will not be as developed as your competitors'.

Implement late and you will always be behind your competitor. 



#1625 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 February 2015 - 04:37

Implement late and you will always be behind your competitor. 

 

Implement late with a development that has better performance than when you would implement early. And it will benefit you into 2016 especially if it's an area that will be frozen as of 2016. That's the idea.



#1626 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 February 2015 - 07:26

Implement late with a development that has better performance than when you would implement early. And it will benefit you into 2016 especially if it's an area that will be frozen as of 2016. That's the idea.

Possible, but seems like writing off this season.
I guess it might be a concealed exit strategy by Renault - P**s Red Bull off by another season of down-on-power PSUs, so RB decide to break their contracts at the end of the season, especially if the Honda PSU works and they can get them for next year, and Renault can walk away as they have no customers.

#1627 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 15 March 2015 - 10:12

Frozen engines!  Ferrari seem to have done alright!

 

Renault need to pull there finger out.



#1628 matd81

matd81
  • New Member

  • 18 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 15 March 2015 - 10:30

Ferrari are still 8 tenths at least down.. I doubt they are in F1 to come third?

#1629 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 15 March 2015 - 10:37

Ferrari are still 8 tenths at least down.. I doubt they are in F1 to come third?

Mercedes' aero is very very good indeed.



#1630 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 15 March 2015 - 10:49

In this formula your engine manufacturer has to be on point e.g. fundamental good design, good funding and commitment. If your engine manufacturer isn't really up to competing at this level then they will make you look bad. After winter, Renault should have reset its design like Ferrari but it seems to have gone backward.



#1631 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 15 March 2015 - 11:49

From 21:00 sounds familiar.

 

Surprised to see F1 parts being made with tin snips and a hammer!  :eek:  :D



#1632 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 15 March 2015 - 12:13

 

Renault need to pull there finger out.

 

It will be a tall order for them to catchup. They are both down on output and reliability. The paradox is that if you chase power then you risk reliability to the detriment of losing an engine. And this year drivers only have 4 so there isnt a lot of room for going crazy performance upgrades.



#1633 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 29 March 2015 - 09:37

These engine regs are absolutely ridiculous, freezing the engines so a particular manufacture maintains an advantage and others can't catch up!!!  They seriously need to consider opening up the engine regs to allow total PU development and give Mercedes as well as Renault the opportunity to compete with Ferrari in this frozen formula!



#1634 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 29 March 2015 - 09:41

They seriously need to consider opening up the engine regs to allow total PU development and give Mercedes as well as Renault the opportunity to compete with Ferrari in this frozen formula!

 

I know you're just trying to cause a fuzz, but significant parts of the engines are frozen. The token system mitigates this somewhat, but it imposes very strict limits on the kind of development we'll see during a season.

 

Ferrari has done a good job - as was already evident in Australia - but it doesn't mean the engines are suddenly actually an unrestricted and open competition.



#1635 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 29 March 2015 - 10:04

I know you're just trying to cause a fuzz, but significant parts of the engines are frozen. The token system mitigates this somewhat, but it imposes very strict limits on the kind of development we'll see during a season.

 

Ferrari has done a good job - as was already evident in Australia - but it doesn't mean the engines are suddenly actually an unrestricted and open competition.

Ferrari's progress demonstrates that there is still plenty of scope for engine development, despite all the moaning we had all of last year and this year.



#1636 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 29,677 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 29 March 2015 - 10:12

It does seem that the engine teams have been smart enough to make use of tokens wisely. Development is still much much too restricted however.

#1637 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 5,618 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 March 2015 - 10:16

Ferrari's progress demonstrates that there is still plenty of scope for engine development, despite all the moaning we had all of last year and this year.

 

To me this proves that the limited development of PU over the year is definitely a bad idea. If in-season development were allowed last season would we have ended up with the bore-fest of Mercedes romping away? Ferrari had to wait until the end of the year to be able to do anything.



#1638 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 16 September 2015 - 11:50

Ferrari and Honda want apparentely to unfreeze the engines completely for an free development. Mercedes seems not to be completely against it anymore.

http://f1-insider.co...rei-entwickeln/

#1639 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 16 September 2015 - 12:01

Well, it is cheaper to bring developments to the track than have it run on the test bench for a year, just to find out it is incompatible with a real racing car.

 

While they are at it, lift the test ban as well. I would love to see McLaren at it again for example.