18 replies to this topic

[aguri]

An interesting point of discussion that has been popping up all over the forum over the season is the true cost of the token system.

 

Far from restricting costs, more and more what we are seeing is Renault, Ferrari, Honda and Merc continuing with open development and then spending a great deal of time + money to make this development fit into the framework of the token system and subsequent 'reliability' upgrades.

I suggest an engine formula whereby teams are allowed to homologate 4 (or 5 or 6 etc as long as it's the same for everyone) Power Units a season with no restrictions on the changes made between engines. This would be successful policy for few reasons:

1. It would do away with a deadweight loss of fitting upgrades around the regulations.
2. It would deliver more unpredictable racing across the season and breakdown ingrained early advantages.
3. It would place a higher importance on reliability as blowing an engine before the new one is fully developed would hinder later development.

The obvious drawback of such a plan is the potential for the engine customers to get shafted in relation to upgrades. As such the FIA would have to step in with some safeguards such that:

• New engines must become available to the customer teams at the same time they become available to the works teams.
• Engine manufacturers must notify customers in advance if there is going to be major changes to the PU specifications that will require redesigned rear ends etc.

Is this a better way forward?

[Peter0Scandlyn]

Well look at it like this....Exactly how many things do the people who make the rules get right??

Why should this issue be any different?

[Szoelloe]

No. It is not more expensive. What you described is more expensive. 4,5,6 homologations?? What the hell for? If there is more than one, there should be no homologation whatsoever. And that is how it should be. Renault, Honda, and Ferrari all cocked up in this engine formula - which, buy the way they all agreed to, most of all Honda - and seriously underestimated the technological resources and capability of Mercedes, and now they are the prisoner of their own stupid rules. Either a new rule-set is necessary, or lift the development ban and throw the token system in the trashbin for one year. Whatever the cost, because now this is disrupting the sport(if you can call it that anymore) and disaster is looming. They simply HAVE TO admit sooner, rather than later, that this is not working. This basically has no financial impact on the smaller teams, only the PU manufacturers, who should be capable of financing their own stupidity. If not, than it is time to quit. 

[ViMaMo]

Allow at least 2-3 years of free development with more track testing and THEN freeze the design. Am I sounding hoarse? Now its like a huge penalty for not getting it right the first time. There is hardly the time and limited scope to improve the faulty/inferior design. 

[realracer200]

in my opinion the engine development should either be completely free or alternatively the best engines (currently Mercedes and Ferrari) should be freezed allowing Renault and Honda to catch up. The situation as we have at the moment is not good for the show.

[redreni]

The restrictions make it more expensive in that it costs more to gain a tenth than it would if development were open. The reason being, with aero development open and engine development restricted, the aero development curve will, by now, be pretty flat and they'll be spending fortunes on changes that don't gain them very much. Whereas the more cost-effective route, which is to develop the engines as they're still on a much steeper development curve, is subject to greater restriction.

 

But the teams would still spend their budgets under either system. By reducing the effectiveness of the big teams' additional spend relative to the small teams, the restrictions at least mitigate to some extent the performance gap from the front of the grid to the back, and whilst I don't think it makes any difference in terms of total spend of most teams, it probably reduces the amount of development you have to do to remain competitive enough to make the Q1 cut.

 

In other words, if Mercedes and Ferrari could bring as many upgrades as they liked and gained loads of time, this could quite quickly have the effect of raising the 107% bar to a level Marussia might struggle to meet, since I'm sure Marussia are already doing all the development they can possibly afford.

Edited by redreni, 08 June 2015 - 07:42.

[aguri]

The restrictions make it more expensive in that it costs more to gain a tenth than it would if development were open. But the teams would still spend their budgets under either system. By reducing the effectiveness of the big teams' additional spend relative to the small teams, the restrictions at least mitigate to some extent the performance gap from the front of the grid to the back, and whilst I don't think it makes any difference in terms of total spend of most teams, it probably reduces the amount of development you have to do to remain competitive enough to make the Q1 cut.

 

In other words, if Mercedes and Ferrari could bring as many upgrades as they liked and gained loads of time, this could quite quickly have the effect of raising the 107% bar to a level Marussia might struggle to meet, since I'm sure Marussia are already doing all the development they can possibly afford.

 

This is only true if the Ferrari engine in the Marussia is different to the Ferrari engine in the Ferrari or the Merc engine in the Merc is different to the one in the FI or the Lotus.

 

If the FIA mandated the engine updates must be passed on to customers - the field would compact as the teams at the back would be receiving updated engines. 

[SenorSjon]

Free it up. They used 100 engines/season for the same money they are using for 6 engines now (including testing). When you have your expensive grandstand ticket, drivers opt to stay in the box because they don't want to use engine mileage. I still think this rulemaking is getting us nowhere.

[Jazza]

Tokens don't save any money at all. If a manufacture has a budget of $100 Million to design engines, then they will spend that much on design. If they have a hundred engineers and a state of the art complex, then whether they bring an upgrade every race or every 6 months doesn't reduce the cost. It is not as if they shut down for 6 months until they are ready to bring out their new parts, instead they are constantly working on them that entire time. When they finally bring a new part, that part itself may well be the 10th revision tested before being released, it is just that revisions 2-9 were never raced as they weren't worth burning a token on. In other words we basically have open development now, it is just that we only get to see new parts every half season instead of every race. So instead of getting lots of little evolutionary updates we get one substantial one half way though the season, but the same development work has being going on behind the scenes. 

[ViMaMo]

When a rule doesn't work as it was intended and is hindering the sport they need to take a sensible action and amend it quickly.

Edited by ViMaMo, 08 June 2015 - 09:15.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

You are missing the biggest thing here, what about all the money that has already been/being spent to develop these V6T's...

[SenorSjon]

Money spend on useless technology is the founding block of F1. There are more multimillion $$$ developments banned than used in F1.

[Rasputin]

Allow at least 2-3 years of free development with more track testing and THEN freeze the design. Am I sounding hoarse? Now its like a huge penalty for not getting it right the first time. There is hardly the time and limited scope to improve the faulty/inferior design. 

That would of course have been the sensible way to go, while I believe that MHPE were the only ones not to underestimate the challenge and as a consequence outspent the others,

 

I'm afraid that lifting the token-thing now won't change that much, Mercedes ar just way too far ahead fo anyone to catch up anytime soon, it's so obvious they are sandbagging, in total control.

 

I also believe that, just like Ron Dennis said last year, all MHPE-units are not equal.

[aguri]

That would of course have been the sensible way to go, while I believe that MHPE were the only ones not to underestimate the challenge and as a consequence outspent the others,

 

I'm afraid that lifting the token-thing now won't change that much, Mercedes ar just way too far ahead fo anyone to catch up anytime soon, it's so obvious they are sandbagging, in total control.

 

I also believe that, just like Ron Dennis said last year, all MHPE-units are not equal.

 

I think Ferrari would catch up by the start of next season given no restrictions. 

I don't say that because I am a Ferrari fan, but rather because I think they would spend the most money. 

[ViMaMo]

That would of course have been the sensible way to go, while I believe that MHPE were the only ones not to underestimate the challenge and as a consequence outspent the others,

 

I'm afraid that lifting the token-thing now won't change that much, Mercedes ar just way too far ahead fo anyone to catch up anytime soon, it's so obvious they are sandbagging, in total control.

 

I also believe that, just like Ron Dennis said last year, all MHPE-units are not equal.

 

Somewhere MHPE are going to be near the ceiling and gains will be smaller, while other manufacturers; who can afford to .... catch up at much faster rate than ever compared to today's rules. I don't think Renault, Ferrari and Honda will think twice before pumping in money in their engine department. 

Edited by ViMaMo, 08 June 2015 - 12:48.

[pdac]

When a rule doesn't work as it was intended and is hindering the sport they need to take a sensible action and amend it quickly.

 

Money spend on useless technology is the founding block of F1. There are more multimillion $$$ developments banned than used in F1.

 

Both of these.

 

The whole idea of the freeze was trying to patch up the failed budget cap initiative by trying to cut costs through reducing development. Clearly this has not happened and so the reason for the freeze is no longer valid. And yes, it's tough, but the money spent should be considered in the same light as so many other technological developments that have been confined to the bin.

[Paco]

Also you need to factor lost sponsorship or Diminished sponsorship teams are losing as a result of bad pu's.. Those are indirect costs that rarely get mentioned or factored in. redbull are super lucky that renault's issue don't have a direct impact on their ability to get sponsorship. Williams are probably only able to retain martini cause of Mercedes pu. So yes, the token system and slow updates does cost more. Plus, teams are chasing chassis mods to make up for traction etc spending money there when a lot of it could be pu related.

This token and freeze concept is soooooo stupid. Makes teams look stupid and has zero benefit, cost included. I don't see how it saves a single dollar. The pu manufactures are still spending money trying to understand what needs to be fixed for when they use a token.. So how it saving any money to anyone... Just stupid optics so f1 can pat itself on the back saying we are controlling costs... Bs.

Edited by Paco, 08 June 2015 - 16:48.

[Kalmake]

Let's not forget the long term plan is V8-like almost full freeze, which does save money. Doesn't look like they will get there on schedule, though.

[KingTiger]

We don't know but free development would be incredibly expensive.