183 replies to this topic

[Jimisgod]

So, throughout the whole period of V8 engines there were...

 

Wins (out of 142 races):

• 57 - Renault - 40%
• 44 - Mercedes - 31%
• 39 - Ferrari - 27%
• 1 - Honda - 1%
• 1 - BMW - 1%

And in the turbo era out of 33 races so far:

• 27 - Mercedes - 82%
• 3 - Ferrari - 9%
• 3 - Renault - 9%

So Mercedes has racked up nearly half the total of the most successful engine of the V8 era (7 seasons)... but in less than 2 seasons. In 2014 it won 16 races, which is two more than the most successful engine of the V8 era did in its best season. In 33 races there has been a single non-Mercedes pole.

 

If the token system is maintained, is F1 just keeping an unequal situation in stasis for the foreseeable future by stifling development of any non-Mercedes rival?

[RedBaron]

Yes. Any limitation on implementing upgrades is a fail. Chances are someone will get it more right than the others, leaving them with little to no chance of catching up that season or multiple seasons.

[DS27]

Yes, of course. It's clear to everyone except those who run F1.

[KingTiger]

No. Honda and Renault are just not funded properly. Just look at how Honda's tokens have been completely ineffective, with free development they would likely be further back. 

[Peter Perfect]

Yes. Any limitation on implementing upgrades is a fail. Chances are someone will get it more right than the others, leaving them with little to no chance of catching up that season or multiple seasons.

 

True. Now, the teams only have themselves to blame for agreeing to the rules in the first place but it's pretty clear that development restrictions have effectively killed off any form of competition over the season. Is it still the case that next year there'll be no in-season PU development allowed? (as was originally intended) In which case it won't be a 20 (21?) race season but the same race repeated 20 times. 

[Jon83]

I accepted it a long time ago.

 

None of this is good for F1. From the introduction of these ridiculously expensive power units to everything that has come with them to where we are now. 

[SCHUEYFAN]

Agreed, the token system and new engine formula is a farce which I have posted in other topics.  The only way this will be fixed is if Renault leaves the sport and if Honda pull the plug if next year is just as bad, then the FIA will be forced to rewrite the rules.      

[F1Champion]

The token system has to go, freezing in an advantage or disadvantage is ridiculous in the pinnacle of motorsports. Manufacturers are taking a beating in the press and PR wise and its making the title race boring and unattractive to them. The FIA needs to act. If you can't freeze aero then why the PU in an age where the PU is the most dominant performance factor?

[RealRacing]

Yes, it's an imposed monopoly. They're wasting fans' time and drivers' talent. Mercedes will probably reach a point soon, if they haven't already, where the domination will hurt their brand more than it helps it. 

[Nonesuch]

 

With all this excitement, who needs other manufacturer's to develop their engine?

 

On a more serious note, limiting the development so soon into an entirely new formula has to rank up there as one of the dumbest F1 regulations ever.

[SCHUEYFAN]

....if you look at the threads in this forum, several stem from this lousy engine formula, for those who think the new engine regulations are great, open your eyes and accept the strife this has caused.  

[Seanspeed]

Well I think it has failed, but not for the reasons you listed. Mercedes building such a dominant engine, they were inevitably going to be able to ride that success for a while. Even with no token system, it's quite likely we'd still be in a similar position in terms of the general hierarchy.

But they do need to find some way of allowing others to catch up. The way the current token system works, it's just not enough scope for development. I think token system could be alright, but possibly reworked. Maybe make allowances to give extra tokens based on lack of performance. I know that is easier said than done, especially with 'measuring' performance capabilities, but I think something like this should be looked into. Locking things down further is going to create a real joke of a situation given the current gaps between engine manufacturers. And I wouldn't blame the likes of Renault or Honda quitting because there's no use trying to compete while at the same time making it entirely unappealing for any other manufacturers to want to try.

It's like locking down the aero regulations in 2010. Sure, Red Bull were still the best and they deserved their success, but at least teams had the opportunity to try and beat them.

Edited by Seanspeed, 27 September 2015 - 12:44.

[MrAerodynamicist]

The token system is only really holding a manufacturer back if they have an far superior engine running on the dynos and they're unable to introduce it. I really don't think Renault or Honda would be any closer with free-upgrades.  Renault have failed because their programme is a mess and I don't believe they have a firm rasp on how to fix the system, and Honda's programme is simply not mature enough due to lack of time since committing to McLaren  (the tokens might start to hurt them next year).   Quite frankly, with free development I think Mercedes' well-oiled programme would have increased their advantage over those two. 

Edited by MrAerodynamicist, 27 September 2015 - 12:46.

[Graveltrappen]

The problem stems from folk who think f1 has to somehow be 'relevant' to road cars.

For me it doesn't have to be, I'd prefer it to be power led, rather than these over complicated yet weaker engines.

Would be amazing to see fastest laps tumble again, Raikkonen still holds the Suzuka lap record from a decade ago...

[Jimisgod]

No. Honda and Renault are just not funded properly. Just look at how Honda's tokens have been completely ineffective, with free development they would likely be further back. 

 

Ignoring Honda because they don't have any really great recent history; you're telling me the only reason why two engine makers (Ferrari and Renault) who could make engines roughly equal to Mercedes under the last round of regulations now can't -- not because of a brand new token system -- but because they suddenly have poor funding structures?

Edited by Jimisgod, 27 September 2015 - 12:45.

[np93]

They should never have frozen the power unit from it's introduction, especially considering the complexity of the energy recovery systems. It's guaranteed 2 titles for Mercedes, and I'd be amazed if they didn't win next year. But then they were forced into doing something by the absurd cost of just competing in the sport.

[shmoo]

Ferrari has caught up engine wise. Its up to the others to do a better job. 

[Tourgott]

Yes, of course. It's clear to everyone except those who run F1.

 

This!

[Graveltrappen]

They should bring back testing, but limit it to within 100 miles of your base or whatever. I think letting mclaren trundle round silverstone or wherever is just fine to properly test bits and pieces and try out new drivers.

Problem is now everything has to last for 1/4 of the season which is ironic as we live in such a disposable world where we replace rather than repair most of the time.

[Jon83]

....if you look at the threads in this forum, several stem from this lousy engine formula, for those who think the new engine regulations are great, open your eyes and accept the strife this has caused.  

 

Won't matter as long as Hamilton is dominating. 

[Seanspeed]

Ferrari has caught up engine wise. Its up to the others to do a better job.

Ferrari made a good improvement from 2014 to 2015, but they haven't caught up completely. And there is less scope for development next year.

Renault and Honda doing a bad job have certainly not helped the situation, but they shouldn't be punished for it for years to come. That is not a viable model and could be disasterous if they keep to it.

[Peter Perfect]

The token system is only really holding a manufacturer back if they have an far superior engine running on the dynos and they're unable to introduce it. I really don't think Renault or Honda would be any closer with free-upgrades.  Renault have failed because their programme is a mess and I don't believe they have a firm rasp on how to fix the system, and Honda's programme is simply not mature enough (the tokens might start to hurt them next year).   Quite frankly, with free development I think Mercedes' well-oiled development programme would increase their advantage over those two. 

 

Quite possibly, but at least there'd be a chance to catch up. Without a change to the token system that advantage will definitely stay.

 

It was mentioned in the McLaren thread that Ron Dennis had suggested that Honda now had a good idea of what they needed to change to become competitive but that the current token limit over the winter wouldn't be enough to achieve it. It could well be Ron trying to PR manage the current situation a bit but worrying for the sport if true.

 

 

[SenorSjon]

Ron Dennis had a bright moment on BBC this morning.

The MP4/4 was tested on track 3 days/week. That is why it was such a dominant car. He was pretty fed up with all the limits on testing and developing, stating that you can't develop out of a hole if you find yourself in one at the start of the season.

Edited by SenorSjon, 27 September 2015 - 12:51.

[Jimisgod]

Ferrari has caught up engine wise. Its up to the others to do a better job. 

 

I don't believe that for a second, otherwise Seb would be dueling Lewis for every pole. Instead his only pole was on one of the least engine dependent tracks and most front rows are a Merc lockout.

[Graveltrappen]

Perhaps a mileage limit on testing rather than specific days might be a good idea if they wish to restrict it... Then they can use their miles whenever/wherever they so wish.

[shmoo]

Ferrari made a good improvement from 2014 to 2015, but they haven't caught up completely. And there is less scope for development next year.

Renault and Honda doing a bad job have certainly not helped the situation, but they shouldn't be punished for it for years to come. That is not a viable model and could be disasterous if they keep to it.

 

They have imo. The are no slower top line speed. Ferrari need to work on their chassis thats all. Also, the OP cites a 7 year period. Merc would have reached the ceiling by 2017. No doubt Honda and Renault would have caught up by then in terms of performance. People need to suck it up. Unlimited development means more costs and we all saw it was cost that drover BMW. Toyota, Honda away the last time. 

[MrAerodynamicist]

Ignoring Honda because they don't have any really great recent history; you're telling me the only reason why two engine makers (Ferrari and Renault) who could make engines roughly equal to Mercedes under the last round of regulations now can't -- not because of a brand new token system -- but because they suddenly have poor funding structures?

 

Mercedes were concerned that Renault had more experience and understanding of building a decent  turbo engine than their group at Brixworth, so threw a ton of resources at it. Renault didn't do the same to counter Brixworth's far greater experience of energy recovery technology. It's the ERS side of things that have really hurt Renault and Honda more than the traditional ICE part.

[Jon83]

Ron Dennis had a bright moment on BBC this morning.

The MP4/4 was tested on track 3 days/week. That is why it was such a dominant car. He was pretty fed up with all the limits on testing and developing, stating that you can't develop out of a hole if you find yourself in one at the start of the season.

 

I don't like the guy but agreed with every word from him.

 

Something badly needs to change and fast. 

[Seanspeed]

I don't believe that for a second, otherwise Seb would be dueling Lewis for every pole. Instead his only pole was on one of the least engine dependent tracks and most front rows are a Merc lockout.

Mercedes are still ahead with the chassis/aero, but they still have an obvious powerplant advantage as well, yes.

[RedBaron]

Ferrari have improved their engine and it has taken them a season and a half to do so. They are not on par with Mercedes still engine wise.

[Jon83]

They have imo. The are no slower top line speed. Ferrari need to work on their chassis thats all. Also, the OP cites a 7 year period. Merc would have reached the ceiling by 2017. No doubt Honda and Renault would have caught up by then in terms of performance. People need to suck it up. Unlimited development means more costs and we all saw it was cost that drover BMW. Toyota, Honda away the last time. 

 

Not a chance. 

 

You mention BMW and Toyota - can you see, under these regulations, them returning or any new manufacturer entering the sport?

[Seanspeed]

They have imo. The are no slower top line speed.

For one, yes, they are still slower in top speed more often than not.

But more than that, there is more to top speed than just engine power. Before 2014, we often saw teams like Toro Rosso topping speed traps despite having known weaker engines.

And of course there is more to these powerplant's capabilities than just peak power figures(even though I'd guess Ferrari are still not at Mercedes level there, either).

I am also not arguing for unlimited development.

Edited by Seanspeed, 27 September 2015 - 12:57.

[pdac]

Trying to control costs by stifling development is plain wrong in F1. The token system (along with many other regulations) was wrong from the moment it was dreamt up.

 

I still say just control costs of PU development by forcing manufacturers to sell their PUs at a controlled price (i.e FIA sets the price for all) to anyone who wants them. If they want to spend significant sums on development, they will have to absorb the cost themselves. The exact price should be agreed through consultation with ALL teams and ALL interested manufacturers.

[SCHUEYFAN]

They have imo. The are no slower top line speed. Ferrari need to work on their chassis thats all. Also, the OP cites a 7 year period. Merc would have reached the ceiling by 2017. No doubt Honda and Renault would have caught up by then in terms of performance. People need to suck it up. Unlimited development means more costs and we all saw it was cost that drover BMW. Toyota, Honda away the last time. 

 

Nobody is asking for unlimited development costs and Honda, BMW and Toyota because their entire F1 expenditure was outrageous and they had poor results.  Had they waited for a few years for the economic downturn to pass and for the new cost introduction rules to have an effect, we would have an entirely different picture today and likely a much different engine formula too.

Edited by SCHUEYFAN, 27 September 2015 - 12:59.

[MrAerodynamicist]

 

Quite possibly, but at least there'd be a chance to catch up. Without a change to the token system that advantage will definitely stay.

 

It was mentioned in the McLaren thread that Ron Dennis had suggested that Honda now had a good idea of what they needed to change to become competitive but that the current token limit over the winter wouldn't be enough to achieve it. It could well be Ron trying to PR manage the current situation a bit but worrying for the sport if true.

 

The FIA should have put Honda on their own homologation calendar, one that is effectively 12 months behind the existing manufacturers. 

[shmoo]

Ferrari have improved their engine and it has taken them a season and a half to do so. They are not on par with Mercedes still engine wise.

 

In what way are they are not on par. People keep saying they are not on par well explain. I guess speed traps mean nothing anymore right? 

[ElJefe]

Allow for some in-season testing would also help a great deal, me thinks. 

[Seanspeed]

In what way are they are not on par. People keep saying they are not on par well explain. I guess speed traps mean nothing anymore right?

Read my post above. Downforce, drag, traction and gearing can all contribute to top speed figures.

Edited by Seanspeed, 27 September 2015 - 12:59.

[shmoo]

Not a chance. 

 

You mention BMW and Toyota - can you see, under these regulations, them returning or any new manufacturer entering the sport?

 

Yes VW have been sniffing around. Only thing stopping them is their current crisis. 

[Marklar]

It has failed combined with the hybrid formula in general because Mfrs are not coming into the sport and even think to leave after getting embrassed (because the token system doesnt allowed you to catch up properly)

[Seanspeed]

Yes VW have been sniffing around. Only thing stopping them is their current crisis.

VW thing is still an unsubstantiated rumor. A rumor that we seem to hear every year...

[RedBaron]

Not a chance. 

 

You mention BMW and Toyota - can you see, under these regulations, them returning or any new manufacturer entering the sport?

 

 

Agreed.

 

There will be no new manufacturers entering Formula 1. Honda are the guinea pigs and look how badly that has turned out. Renault may be forming a team, but they've been here since the new PSU came into play in 2014.

 

While we have these engine rules that's it. 

 

 

Yes VW have been sniffing around. Only thing stopping them is their current crisis. 

 

 

VW have been potentially 'sniffing around' for many many years. To think they were definitely planning on entering F1 with Red Bull if it wasn't for the recent debacle is naive. 

[Jordan44]

In what way are they are not on par. People keep saying they are not on par well explain. I guess speed traps mean nothing anymore right? 

 

The speed traps from this weekend suggest that the Ferrari works engine is on par with the Mercedes customer engine, as Brundle said. They aren't quite there yet.

 

Even if the Ferrari engine was on par, right now, Mercedes would still be winning. It's clear they have a better chassis than Ferrari, and people seem to ignore this. 

Edited by J0rd4n, 27 September 2015 - 13:04.

[YoungGun]

For one, yes, they are still slower in top speed more often than not.

But more than that, there is more to top speed than just engine power. Before 2014, we often saw teams like Toro Rosso topping speed traps despite having known weaker engines.

And of course there is more to these powerplant's capabilities than just peak power figures(even though I'd guess Ferrari are still not at Mercedes level there, either).

I am also not arguing for unlimited development.

 

Ferrari is evidence that significant progress can be made in 1 short year. Renault can too, Honda maybe an exception considering their late start.

[MrAerodynamicist]

In what way are they are not on par. People keep saying they are not on par well explain. I guess speed traps mean nothing anymore right? 

 

Well there's more to engines than top speed. The ERS side of things helps to boost initial acceleration so you'd need to compare that out of every corner on a lap.

[Sarkis]

I think the issue with tokens is quite fundamental. In a way, it's an indirect attempt at controlling the costs of F1, rather than a direct budget ceiling. As Ron Dennis pointed out in his BBC interview as well, teams with money will find ways to spend it anyways in an attempt to apply their money to improve performance, and costs are through the roof.

 

So the bottom line of the whole mess is that money is still being spent at increasing rates, yet competition and ability to catch up with it are suppressed. I consider the system failed; if you want to limit the budget, implement hard budget measures or just accept that budget limitations aren't doable. 

[MrAerodynamicist]

Of course the reason we have these tokens is because certain teams/manufacturers won't accept a budget cap as the solution to a sustainable F1.

 

edit: beaten by Sarkis.

Edited by MrAerodynamicist, 27 September 2015 - 13:05.

[shmoo]

VW thing is still an unsubstantiated rumor. A rumor that we seem to hear every year...

 

And for the first time ever confirmed by an F1 team. 

[Atreiu]

I already suggested this.

 

The token system should be based on previous results. Every race a manufacturer wins one season means a token less for the next year. So, based on 2014 results - 19 tokens max, one per GP - Mercedes would have had only 3 tokens this year, Renault would have 16, Ferrari and Honda would have 19.

 

And so on.

 

Going by the 2015 results so far, Mercedes would have lost 11 tokens already, Ferrari would have lost 3 for 2016.

 

In a few seasons it would have allowed development and parity for all manufacturers without the pitfall of unlimited escalating costs. I'm sure the racing would already have been better this year if the system were in use.

Edited by Atreiu, 27 September 2015 - 13:10.

[paulogman]

how has it failed ferrari and Mercedes?