183 replies to this topic

[pdac]

Anyone can share some light on Why Renault is not developing their engine?

 

Maybe it's not worth the money. They go to Red Bull and the sister team Torro Rosso. Whether they do a good or bad job, if it's not up to Mercedes then they'll just be slated in public. So why spend more money when there's no reward.

Edited by pdac, 29 September 2015 - 20:53.

[tagy22]

Anyone can share some light on Why Renault is not developing their engine?

 

They are, given that this season is a write off, might as well spend as much time as possible developing and deciding where to commit to using the tokens. Otherwise you change a part and later realise you need to change it again and use more tokens.

[V8 Fireworks]

here's a clue, it because the likes of Red Bull use influence to take a huge chunk of the limited available funds (thanks to CVC),

 

and Ferrari and Mercedes and Williams too 

 

They should all be given an EQUAL share of revenue IMO.   

[l8apex]

The token system is a failure.

 

The top teams are now trying to ban wind tunnels.  The tokens already lock in their advantage.  The whole system is broken.

 

They need to open the rules up completely on engines.  If they want to save money, banning one technology is a joke.  They need a budget cap, but the richest teams have too much influence.  Things will only change when a major recession hits and many teams go bankrupt or pull out of the sport, which might just happen soon.

 

While my favorite driver is dominating, my interest in the sport is waning ... something doesn't feel right to me.  I also love many of the mid pack teams which are constantly on the brink of bankruptcy.

Edited by l8apex, 30 September 2015 - 02:49.

[ardbeg]

how has it failed ferrari and Mercedes?

I intended to disagree when I hit "quote", I wanted to say that what happened with them is what the tokens should have prevented. I then realized that only reason token system failed is because Renault and Honda failed to build a decent base. Had it been the "old" V8 engines, the token system would have worked and probably saved money just as it intended.

But they introduced it too early on new, untested technology. It had no chance of being a success.

[KingTiger]

Token system is fine.

No manufacturer wants to get into a spending war over the engines, so some type of a limited development is the best way to do it.

[Peter Perfect]

I intended to disagree when I hit "quote", I wanted to say that what happened with them is what the tokens should have prevented. I then realized that only reason token system failed is because Renault and Honda failed to build a decent base. Had it been the "old" V8 engines, the token system would have worked and probably saved money just as it intended.

But they introduced it too early on new, untested technology. It had no chance of being a success.

 

Exactly, it was always going to be the case that some got it right straight away and others would make fundamental mistakes with the new PUs. Introducing the token system from the start just locks in that advantage. There should have been a period of at least a year for PU manufacturers to get the basics right before limiting their ability to develop. As Ron Dennis has said, it's difficult to develop yourself out of a hole with the token system in place.

[aguri]

Token system is fine.

No manufacturer wants to get into a spending war over the engines, so some type of a limited development is the best way to do it.

 

They are already in a spending war.

Limiting the development just means they then have to devote resources to calculating how much of the available development (that they have already done) can be applied through the rules.

The token system has actually meant that in practice the manufacturers now run two engine development teams - one that develops the current engine and one that develops next seasons engine (built under the same rules with more tokens).

[SenorSjon]

Token system is fine.

No manufacturer wants to get into a spending war over the engines, so some type of a limited development is the best way to do it.

 

It was spend up front by at least Mercedes. And you only have four engines and limited tokens to use them. So they keep testing and discarding parts before any of them make it to the track. You used to see incremental updates for the engines. Perhaps only 5-10 hp with each update, but 20 races later it is 100-150 hp improvement. Now it is zero and in the Renault case you wait until the end of the season to have perhaps 75 hp. Because using tokens for bad parts is more of a problem since you need to stick with it.

[Rinehart]

Of course it's failed. The costs, the sounds, the tokens, the complexities and the fact that one manufacturer invested so heavily in the technology, they've literally bought half a dozen world titles. 

[Rinehart]

Token system is fine.

No manufacturer wants to get into a spending war over the engines, so some type of a limited development is the best way to do it.

There was already a spending war within the engine divisions of Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault to get to the point where they had engines at the start of 2014. That was totally unrestricted. Mercedes spent by far the most and they won.

 

The token system is literally preventing other manufacturers from spending the relatively small incremental amount efficiently - that Mercedes have already spent - in order to catch them up.

 

If it's about cost why not look at what Mercedes have spent in full (lets say its $1.2bn) and say that you can't spend a cent more than that...

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Of course it's failed. The costs, the sounds, the tokens, the complexities and the fact that one manufacturer invested so heavily in the technology, they've literally bought half a dozen world titles. 

And that is Mercedes's fault - WHY?

 

Maybe Mercedes understood the challenge and spent the right amount of time on it?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 30 September 2015 - 08:47.

[OilFour]

If you ask me, the problem isn't the engine but all the technology around it, Batteries / ECU / MGU-K / MGU-H / ERS ( and whatever ), one can build a good engine but completely mess up with its electronic department.

 

I think i read a few weeks back that the Renault and Honda PU's dont differ that much in HP output.

 

Maybe it's just time to get rid off ERS and other cr@p and get back to GBW ( for the nobs, that is Gas-By-Wire   ) and with all this energy storage cr@p ( start a new FG - Formula Green serie for that, GreenPeace will be main sponsor ), and get back to real racing on tyres that enable a driver to go flatout.

 

Or standardize, like the ECU, all other components ( except for the turbo ).

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Formula 1 should be a prototype serious and not a spec series... IMO...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 30 September 2015 - 09:01.

[Rinehart]

And that is Mercedes's fault - WHY?

 

Maybe Mercedes understood the challenge and spent the right amount of time on it?

Good username for someone looking for a fight when there isn't one! 

I'd agree Mercedes did exactly what they should do in order to win. It's not their fault others didn't. But it's the fault of the engine rules that, that's that! 

I place the failure of the current engine regime at the feet of a collective body I call the F1 circus, where teams, bernie and the FIA are all culpable. 

[pUs]

And that is Mercedes's fault - WHY?

 

Maybe Mercedes understood the challenge and spent the right amount of time on it?

 

It doesn't matter one bit whose fault it is. Faults should be addressed, even it means your favorite team no longer enjoys a built-in advantage..

[Jimisgod]

Of course it's failed. The costs, the sounds, the tokens, the complexities and the fact that one manufacturer invested so heavily in the technology, they've literally bought half a dozen world titles. 

 

Not only that, they've gamed the system so much that we'll be fortunate not to have 3 car teams by next year due to the loss of everyone else.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Good username for someone looking for a fight when there isn't one! 

I'd agree Mercedes did exactly what they should do in order to win. It's not their fault others didn't. But it's the fault of the engine rules that, that's that! 

I place the failure of the current engine regime at the feet of a collective body I call the F1 circus, where teams, bernie and the FIA are all culpable. 

I'm not looking for a fight lol! Not sure how you formed that opinion...

[AGP]

It's very clear that Mercedes and Ferrari want to lock in there advantage for as long as possible even if it brings the sport to its knees. What a mess we have at the moment only 3 teams seem happy 2 are taking matters to court,2 drivers are extremely unhappy with there cars performance and 2  teams are left without an engine supplier. If all the unhappy teams band together F1 would be stuffed.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

It doesn't matter one bit whose fault it is. Faults should be addressed, even it means your favorite team no longer enjoys a built-in advantage..

 

And Mercedes have openly said they will help address the issues, but probably not at the total expenses of there advantage... and who can blame them, they have worked hard to get what they have...

[GrumpyYoungMan]

It's very clear that Mercedes and Ferrari want to lock in there advantage for as long as possible even if it brings the sport to its knees. What a mess we have at the moment only 3 teams seem happy 2 are taking matters to court,2 drivers are extremely unhappy with there cars performance and 2  teams are left without an engine supplier. If all the unhappy teams band together F1 would be stuffed.

Only because that team threw there PU supplier under the bus publicly... ... and as a result I am sure the other PU manufactures wouldn't want to work with them...

 

Are they that arrogant that they thought they would be welcomed with open arms?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 30 September 2015 - 10:33.

[AGP]

So Redbull are responsible for the other teams frustrations as well.

 

[discover23]

They are, given that this season is a write off, might as well spend as much time as possible developing and deciding where to commit to using the tokens. Otherwise you change a part and later realise you need to change it again and use more tokens.

There is a direct correlation between use of tokens and engine performance gains outise of Honda who dont have a clue what they are doing.
Those who have used tokens have gained (Ferrari, Merc) and those who have not (Renault) have remained stagnant.
Is really that simple. No maybes

[OilFour]

Only because that team threw there PU supplier under the bus publicly... ... and as a result I am sure the other PU manufactures wouldn't want to work with them...

 

Are they that arrogant that they thought they would be welcomed with open arms?

I guess so, and even when there isn't something on parer they are bringing an possible supplier in discredit.

 

RBR has already decided to pull out of the sports but they are just looking for an excuse, if, what Lauda has said about Mercedes willing to supply engines to RBR is true.

[DILLIGAF]

So Redbull are responsible for the other teams frustrations as well.

It appears that way! Some on here think Red Bull is the devil incarnate.

[BoschKurve]

The smart play would have been simply to mandate a fuel flow rate, and let the manufacturers come up with their own engine designs. Would have allowed for creative solutions that in turn would have allowed for the opportunity to improve much easier than what the current system allows for.

 

Of course, this being F1, the smart play is off the table before it ever gets there.

[ardbeg]

They have all invested a lot and they all want payback for their investment. Problem with cost cutting measures is that "cost" is often a very complex calculation. How much have Renault saved on the token system? How much did it cost them? What is the price that Renault and Honda have to "pay" in order to save money on engine development? 

 

Cost saving is a bad idea if the object of the game is return of investment.

[AustinF1]

The smart play would have been simply to mandate a fuel flow rate, and let the manufacturers come up with their own engine designs. Would have allowed for creative solutions that in turn would have allowed for the opportunity to improve much easier than what the current system allows for.

 

Of course, this being F1, the smart play is off the table before it ever gets there.

Exactly.

[KingTiger]

They are already in a spending war.

Limiting the development just means they then have to devote resources to calculating how much of the available development (that they have already done) can be applied through the rules.

The token system has actually meant that in practice the manufacturers now run two engine development teams - one that develops the current engine and one that develops next seasons engine (built under the same rules with more tokens). [source needed]

 

Are you saying that calculating their development path costs as much as unlimited spending on building brand new engines from the ground up?

 

It was spend up front by at least Mercedes. And you only have four engines and limited tokens to use them. So they keep testing and discarding parts before any of them make it to the track. You used to see incremental updates for the engines. Perhaps only 5-10 hp with each update, but 20 races later it is 100-150 hp improvement. Now it is zero and in the Renault case you wait until the end of the season to have perhaps 75 hp. Because using tokens for bad parts is more of a problem since you need to stick with it.

 

If development wasn't limited Mercedes would be forced to spend that amount every year, instead of only up to 2014. There's zero improvement for Renault/Honda because they don't have the funding/facilities/experience to compete with the big boys, not because tokens aren't allowing them to improve. I seriously doubt they have Mercedes beaters on the dyno that they can't use because they lack the tokens.

 

There was already a spending war within the engine divisions of Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault to get to the point where they had engines at the start of 2014. That was totally unrestricted. Mercedes spent by far the most and they won.

 

The token system is literally preventing other manufacturers from spending the relatively small incremental amount efficiently - that Mercedes have already spent - in order to catch them up.

 

If it's about cost why not look at what Mercedes have spent in full (lets say its $1.2bn) and say that you can't spend a cent more than that...

 

What costs more, spending war for 2 years or spending war for 8-10 (assuming FIA decide on new PUs for around 2020 or so)? 

 

I think a budget cap for engine manuacturers would've been swell, but it's too late for that. 

 

The smart play would have been simply to mandate a fuel flow rate, and let the manufacturers come up with their own engine designs. Would have allowed for creative solutions that in turn would have allowed for the opportunity to improve much easier than what the current system allows for.

 

Of course, this being F1, the smart play is off the table before it ever gets there.

 

They all would've converged to a similar design, while spending triple the money they are now. And I think it wouldn't have been a huge fire spitting V12, but a tiny inline 4 with a huge boost. 

Edited by KingTiger, 30 September 2015 - 15:35.

[BoschKurve]

They all would've converged to a similar design, while spending triple the money they are now. And I think it wouldn't have been a huge fire spitting V12, but a tiny inline 4 with a huge boost. 

 

Mercedes spent over $1 billion Euros just to design and develop their 2014 engine.

 

Don't kid yourself into thinking the current system somehow saves money because it doesn't. While the engine manufacturers are limited in what changes they can make during the season, it creates the illusion of a cost cap tool. They are free to spend as much money on R&D, and they are spending money. Just because it doesn't show overtly doesn't mean the money is not being spent. Everyone thought locking the V8 engine development would somehow save money, it never did. All of the money was just diverted elsewhere, and teams continued spending the same amounts in the end.

 

If F1 is supposed to be some sort of pioneering series with regard to technology --regardless of road relevancy-- letting different approaches to engine design be allowed would have been the pertinent approach.

[Tuxy]

F1 is stupid.  The series should be renamed to "F-wuh?"  

 

It's dangerous, elitist, expensive, inaccessible, archaic, and irrelevant.

 

Maybe the fans see that more clearly, and there's nothing the FIA can do to address it, besides making it MORE obvious.  

 

There is no fixing it, unless the powers that be just say "**** it."

 

Race what you bring; too expensive, too bad; open media platform; **** tradition; WE dictate humanity's engineering prowess.  The end.

Edited by Tuxy, 30 September 2015 - 17:01.

[BillBald]

The tokens really do work to cap costs. Each engine manufacturer counts their tokens and if they have 3 tokens left over - for example - they will only do 3 tokens worth of work. Not a pennies worth more.

 

They certainly won't go guns blazing developing all sorts behind the scenes at huge cost and then at more cost workout how to implement those excess upgrades as quickly as possible through a token system.

 

It's clear to me that you are joking, but it won't be clear to everyone, so   or needed here!

[F1Champion]

I find it all a silly situation. Say you're Renault or Honda and have taken a beating over 3-4 years and you finally come up with an engine design that will take you to the top of the grid but you can't implement because of a lack of tokens or areas of the PU which are now frozen under the regulations. It's bizarre, you don't even get your chance to have a crack at winning a championship. Every year is a diminishing return for engine manufacturers like Renault and Honda, the longer they can't get the PU right, the harder it will be to change and they are fixed into a non-competitive position.

[Peter Perfect]

Are you saying that calculating their development path costs as much as unlimited spending on building brand new engines from the ground up?

 

I couldn't say it cost as much but given that the avenues for upgrades are restricted due to the token system it means that development has to be approached in a different way. Mistakes can't simply be undone because there are only so many changes that can be made. That means all developments paths really have to be explored (not just on paper) to make sure the upgrade is the right path.

 

If development wasn't limited Mercedes would be forced to spend that amount every year, instead of only up to 2014. There's zero improvement for Renault/Honda because they don't have the funding/facilities/experience to compete with the big boys, not because tokens aren't allowing them to improve. I seriously doubt they have Mercedes beaters on the dyno that they can't use because they lack the tokens.

 

Bit confused by this. You're saying that Renault/Honda don't have the resources to compete with the 'big boys' but if there was no token system Mercedes would be forced to spend big bucks a year to stay ahead?

 

What costs more, spending war for 2 years or spending war for 8-10 (assuming FIA decide on new PUs for around 2020 or so)? 

 

Wouldn't development meet the law of diminishing returns in the same way as the V8s? Besides which the whole of F1 is a spending war, why make engines a special case? Is the Manor budget comparable to Mercedes? It's always been the case teams spend as much as they can without going bust.

 

I think a budget cap for engine manuacturers would've been swell, but it's too late for that. 

 

A budget cap is unenforceable IMHO given the multiple funding sources and spending avenues. I agree with the poster (sorry, forgotten who it was) who suggested no token or budget limits but the engine manufacturers forced to sell their PUs for a sensible price to anyone who wants one. 

 

 

They all would've converged to a similar design, while spending triple the money they are now. And I think it wouldn't have been a huge fire spitting V12, but a tiny inline 4 with a huge boost.