175 replies to this topic

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Limited HP?

Seriously?

 

Maybe speed limits on the tracks would be even easier.

I was offering an (possible) suggestion to the problem raised - I didn't say I wanted that.

[maximilian]

My proposal is, allow Renault and Honda to make changes freely.  But every time something outside the homologation specifications are changed, DQ the highest finishing car for that race, but obligate them to finish (barring any mechanical issue).  That way, the team cannot win the race in which the change is introduced and the points they will earn in the race will be more than halved.  This penalty would hopefully discourage free spending.  It should also allow them to catch up within a reasonable amount of time.

 

 

Soooo... DQ the highest finishing car >> if they finish 1-2, car 2 would still win the race?   Also, DQ in race X due to revolutionary changes that can wash them to the front, but in race X+1 they'd be free to legally compete with that same change?

[trogggy]

I was offering an (possible) suggestion to the problem raised - I didn't say I wanted that.

I took it that the idea was to suggest things you think are a good idea - not what you think Bernie might suggest... otherwise we're into water sprays and cherry bombs.

[LuckyStrike1]

Whatever they decide is fair if all manufacturers agree on it. 

Edited by LuckyStrike1, 22 June 2015 - 15:25.

[Lopek]

How about letting them freely upgrade any parts on the basis of reliability, cost or safety and then other parts that don't fall into that in a limited way to avoid spending getting out of hand. 

 

Considering the reliability of the Honda & Renault right now I doubt there is much they can't upgrade freely! And they still have available tokens for those parts if there are any. This whole thing is a big smokescreen - particularly by RBR/Renalt. I don't think there is anything regulatory that is stopping them catching up, it is basically that they don't know how (or don't have the finances) to make a power unit as good as the Mercedes & Ferrari. 

 

The only way to help Renault & Honda catch up is to regulate that some Mercedes engineers have to go work for them for a few weeks!

[cas422]

I really don't hate the token system as a way to control development/costs but they needed to implement it after everyone got on the same page. These engines were a totally new concept and it was a stretch to think everybody was going to get it right the first time. It isn't fair to Mercedes, they did a truly heroic job,  but what's going on now is just pathetic. I think the development rules need to be relaxed somehow without penalizing Mercedes.

[Atreiu]

What about a proportional token system? The ammount of tokens a manufacturer has in one year is directly related to his victories the year before. The more a manufacturer wins, the less tokens it has.

 

With 19 being the base number, one for each GP in 2014. This year:

- Ferrrai would have all 19, since least year they won nothing.

- Renault would have 16.

- Mercedes, 3.

- Honda, being a new entrant, would be limited to 10 (since there is no 9,5 tokens) because their development during 2014 was entirely unrestricted (I assume) yet one can't entirely ignore the challenges of new entries.

 

And the score would be reset in 2016 according to 2015 results.

 

There you go. Simple and fair.

 

All manufacturers would have room to develop their engines constantly, but only according to their recent success, or lack of. In a long enough time frame, it would naturally create parity without the downsides of the engine freeze. Potential new entrants could join knowing they would have room to develop a winning package and justify their investment.

 

If it were already in place, Honda and Renault would not rely on the benevolence of anyone to be allowed development for 2016. Ferrari could keep improving. And we could be assured sooner or later someone would catch up with Mercedes, who deserve their success but not at the cost of driving everyone out and away of F1.

 

What do you guys think?

Edited by Atreiu, 23 June 2015 - 22:23.

[KingTiger]

What about in the situation where one engine is very quick but not reliable, and loses multiple races after retiring from a winning position? The year after they'd have many tokens and a very quick engine, while the other team would be down on power and no tokens to use.

[Mat13]

I think the engine rules being CHANGED would be taking Mercedes advantage away (potentially, they might nail the next regs too). But I'm not saying that.

What I am saying is, to de-restrict manufacturers ability to develop their engines doesn't take Mercedes advantage away, it just allows competition. There is every possibility that Mercedes would stretch even further ahead. That is completely fine. The fact there would be the possibility of Mercedes increasing their advantage OR other manufacturers catching up would be inherently exciting as it would be possible as well as unknown. What is not exciting is the fact that Mercedes current advantage is LOCKED. That is a first and frankly, I couldn't give a **** what is fair or not. It needs to be changed in the name of SPORT.

I agree with you, it needs to change. And I say that as a Hamilton fan. But de-restricting the ability to develop is changing the rules, whichever way you look at it.

Mercedes may well increase their advantage, although then you get into performance ceiling discussions which we'll never make any sense out of. But what I'm saying is their position is locked under the current rules, they developed the best engine under the current rules, therefore they have earnt their position and to open up the possibility of losing it through changing the rules is unfair.

I'll say again, though, it needs to happen. I deliberately missed a race for the first time in eight years on Sunday.

[Atreiu]

What about in the situation where one engine is very quick but not reliable, and loses multiple races after retiring from a winning position? The year after they'd have many tokens and a very quick engine, while the other team would be down on power and no tokens to use.

 

What about it? Fast and unreliable doesn't cut it anymore. The last time that combination won a title was back in 1999 with Hakkinen, by the skin of his teeth. Every WDC and WCC since that has had exceptional reliability. Even in 2010, Vettel only had two mechanical DNFs.

 

Take 2009, for example, Red Bull/Renault were faster but less reliable. In 2010 Renault would have 11 tokens, Mercedes would still have 7 to improve on their already competitive engine. Ferrari would have 16 and neither manufacturer would jump to an unassailable advantage.

[KingTiger]

What about it? Fast and unreliable doesn't cut it anymore. The last time that combination won a title was back in 1999 with Hakkinen, by the skin of his teeth. Every WDC and WCC since that has had exceptional reliability. Even in 2010, Vettel only had two mechanical DNFs.

Take 2009, for example, Red Bull/Renault were faster but less reliable. In 2010 Renault would have 11 tokens, Mercedes would still have 7 to improve on their already competitive engine. Ferrari would have 16 and neither manufacturer would jump to an unassailable advantage.

Fast, unreliable and tokens will eventually lead to fast and reliable. Slightly slower and reliable won't have tokens and will not be able to catch up until the following year. Why make it so complicated? Everyone has a bunch of tokens now, they can use them whenever they want and whoever does the best job will win.

[surbjits]

They need to poach engineers from merc  

[surbjits]

What about in the situation where one engine is very quick but not reliable

 

lol already had this situation numerous times a decade+ ago

[Atreiu]

It's not complicated at all, just simple result based arithmetics.

 

Your scenario is utterly unrealistic and will never happen unless there are different engine formulas competing simultaneously. Circa 1982.

[surbjits]

Limited HP?

Seriously?

 

Maybe speed limits on the tracks would be even easier.

 

lmao imagine that

[chhatra]

Just let then spend money and develop what they want for 1 year. Limit the amount customers pay for engines.

[drag]

If all parties agree maybe free from tokens engine development until the first race next year ( but they should decide fast on this ) and give them a number of tokens available for the season ( like this year but pre-agreed same number for all )

[Fisico54]

If all parties agree maybe free from tokens engine development until the first race next year ( but they should decide fast on this ) and give them a number of tokens available for the season ( like this year but pre-agreed same number for all )

And then we can repeat the process when one (probably Renault again) fails to produce anything decent

[drag]

And then we can repeat the process when one (probably Renault again) fails to produce anything decent

 

Well if history teach us before they freeze the V8`s they were pretty even , so timed free development can level things up ... then further agreed number of tokens for the next year ( if someone is still behind ) .

We still need to wait and see will Renault commit for the future , if they commit ( and this sort of timed free development will only help ) I think they will do their best and catch Merc and Ferrari , same for Honda.

[LuckyStrike1]

I think they freezed these engine regulations way too early. It was too advanced and should have been allowed to be more open for development for a few more seasons until everyone was on a more even development curve and it could then be freezed. 

 

The way Mercedes are dominating at the moment I think it's only a matter of time before that becomes more negative than positive even for them and their brand. We already see signs of less TV-exposure for Mercedes during the races. 

 

Yes, Mercedes did a far better work on the new engines than anyone else but the way they are ahead of everyone else and little chance for Renault, Honda and Ferrari to catch up I believe even Mercedes has to realize they need to agree on opening up the development again. 

 

If they all could just agree on that and allow the others a bit more of a chance to catch up developing or build brand new engine concepts then this could be solved, and thus it wouldn't be unfair. 

 

But it needs everyone agreeing and that never seems to happen in F1 and in those rare occasions when it does happen we get DRS, tarmac run offs, races in the Far East, ban on changing helmet designs and much to complicated engine regulations that isn't allowed time to work properly plus unfair income distribution to teams that put a majority of the teams on the brink of collapse. 

[Timstr11]

Today, Jean Todt has given his view on how Renault and Honda will catch up: ''with time''

https://uk.eurosport...719702--f1.html

 

I agree with him.

[DILLIGAF]

Today, Jean Todt has given his view on how Renault and Honda will catch up: ''with time''
https://uk.eurosport...719702--f1.html
 
I agree with him.

He didn't actually go out on a limb by saying that Honda & Renault just need time. He says it'll take 2-3 years. How does he know that for sure? I hope he's right but fear he's just guessing. Under the current token system Mercedes may well keep their advantage for a lot longer that 2-3 years imho.

[Rurouni]

Today, Jean Todt has given his view on how Renault and Honda will catch up: ''with time''

https://uk.eurosport...719702--f1.html

 

I agree with him.

I don't agree with him on the engine thing. I ask you this, if an engine manufacturer enter in 2017 and their design isn't competitive, how can they fix it? Sure there is some token, but the number of tokens and the development area is getting smaller every year. I think one of the reason Honda entering in 2015 (I think for a while it was rumored to be in 2016) is that they need the track time in a real F1 car to test everything and to confirm the development path. If they enter in 2016, the engine might be more reliable, but it would be harder for them to catch up, especially if the thing that they need to "fix" is restricted. Basically if an engine manufacturer want to enter this late in the game, they need to make sure that their engine is on par with the best, otherwise they are 2nd at best.

 

Again, imagine if some other engine manufacturer enter F1 but with Honda development schedule, but move that to 2017. Probably that is the worst case scenario, but it can happen. I don't think other engine manufacturer would be interested entering F1 looking at how hard Honda have to struggle and the limited development scope in the future.

 

For me, I rather they do an arms race, but limit that only to the engine manufacturers, meaning put a cap on the engine price. There is a limit on how you can develop an engine where you can't really make it faster by throwing more money. I believe those manufacturers wouldn't really mind, as long as the tech is something that can be somewhat useful for the current market (which is why we have 1.6 Turbo in the first place), although it would be better to do LMP style engine regulation.

 

So to answer the original question, the fair way is to open the development for all the engine manufacturers (not just Renault and Honda).

[Peter0Scandlyn]

Toss the tokens in the kahzi and let all manufacturers start afresh.

 

Immediately. Even Merc. The 2015 season is sufficiently advanced that quantum leaps are not going to be visible.

 

BUT, freeze customer on-cost of the redeveloped unit to whichever is the lower price across the board from all suppliers for p/u supplied season 2014 or 2015, through to end of season 2017.

 

That way we'll see who is seriously in play of the current 4 pretenders.

 

New entrants? Open slather but cost capped from the get-go to that same lowest priced 2014 entry unit.

[KingTiger]

I don't agree with him on the engine thing. I ask you this, if an engine manufacturer enter in 2017 and their design isn't competitive, how can they fix it? Sure there is some token, but the number of tokens and the development area is getting smaller every year. I think one of the reason Honda entering in 2015 (I think for a while it was rumored to be in 2016) is that they need the track time in a real F1 car to test everything and to confirm the development path. If they enter in 2016, the engine might be more reliable, but it would be harder for them to catch up, especially if the thing that they need to "fix" is restricted. Basically if an engine manufacturer want to enter this late in the game, they need to make sure that their engine is on par with the best, otherwise they are 2nd at best.

Again, imagine if some other engine manufacturer enter F1 but with Honda development schedule, but move that to 2017. Probably that is the worst case scenario, but it can happen. I don't think other engine manufacturer would be interested entering F1 looking at how hard Honda have to struggle and the limited development scope in the future.

For me, I rather they do an arms race, but limit that only to the engine manufacturers, meaning put a cap on the engine price. There is a limit on how you can develop an engine where you can't really make it faster by throwing more money. I believe those manufacturers wouldn't really mind, as long as the tech is something that can be somewhat useful for the current market (which is why we have 1.6 Turbo in the first place), although it would be better to do LMP style engine regulation.

So to answer the original question, the fair way is to open the development for all the engine manufacturers (not just Renault and Honda).

No the manufacturers have no interest in getting into a huge spending war with each other, while selling the engines at a huge loss to customers. Why would anyone?

[f1RacingForever]

No the manufacturers have no interest in getting into a huge spending war with each other, while selling the engines at a huge loss to customers. Why would anyone?

The prospect of having the best engine? If they fail it will be their own fault, not influenced by overrestricting regulations. The 25 million Ferrari get from Sauber and Marussia is peanuts on their overall budget. They could keep the price the same and upgrade for their own personal gain.