60 replies to this topic

[SCHUEYFAN]

This has been brought up in various threads and perhaps this may be a solution.  The engine manufacturer with the most success should be given the least development tokens for the following year.  This will limit the potential gain of the leading team, i.e. Mercedes, over the other teams.  One year old engines are roughly 50% the cost compared to new engines based on recent reports but with less tokens there will be a smaller performance spread so there is less than an advantage of wanting to spend a fortune for a works engine, i.e. Red Bull.  In addition one year old engines should have zero tokens so eventually the cost and performance differential between both engines will be minimal.

 

The worst performing engines, i.e. Honda, should get the most tokens, Renault less and Ferrari somewhere in the middle.  Yes it will take a few years to bring real costs down and even out performance but maintaining the same amount of tokens for every manufacturer will ensure a perpetual arms spending race and hence the ridiculous FIA client engine is a suggestion to cure their completely obvious lack of foresight.  It will take a few years to bring parity but a much smaller token system should be kept to keep some innovation. The new engines are generally unloved but we're stuck with them and for the good of the sport they really need to implement a gradual cost reduction glide path.  Your thoughts?

Edited by SCHUEYFAN, 16 November 2015 - 00:15.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Why should the team that does the best job be penalised for doing so?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 15 November 2015 - 16:38.

[pdac]

Sigh.

 

There are umpteen solutions possible, but the people that hold the power (and a lot that do not) have no intention of changing anything. The only change that might happen before 2019 will be a slight reduction in the cost.

[SCHUEYFAN]

Why should the team that does the best job be penalised for doing so?

 

Performance equalization is used in other series and drastic action is needed to solve the woes in F1, the client engine is a disaster in the making.  The FIA created this monster mess and this just a solution, the V8's were allowed to get near equal before they stopped development.   

[KingTiger]

Performance equalization is used in other series and drastic action is needed to solve the woes in F1, the client engine is a disaster in the making. The FIA created this monster mess and this just a solution, the V8's were allowed to get near equal before they stopped development.

If you want performance equalization there is GP2 and Indycar for you.

[maximilian]

Unify the engine rules for IndyCar, F1, and WEC.  Shouldn't this be possible?

[EvilPhil II]

How can WEC with higher levels of technology and more open tech rules have as many manufacturers.... more power..... sound better.... and have more or less equal performance over a race distance? 

[maximilian]

How can WEC with higher levels of technology and more open tech rules have as many manufacturers.... more power..... sound better.... and have more or less equal performance over a race distance? 

 

And cost less, too?

[TennisUK]

Ask Toyota about equal performance this year in WEC. They have been outspent and out performed by their rivals. Just like everyone in f1 who aren't Ferrari.

[EvilPhil II]

Ask Toyota about equal performance this year in WEC. They have been outspent and out performed by their rivals. Just like everyone in f1 who aren't Ferrari.

 

 

Perhaps so but they are still competing. I dont hear them saying they are in 10million debt and struggling to feed their staff.  Something just doesnt add up in this F1 picture. 

[Nathan]

Perhaps so but they are still competing. I dont hear them saying they are in 10million debt and struggling to feed their staff.  Something just doesnt add up in this F1 picture. 

 

Name me an auto maker in F1 struggling with debt and paying their racing bills.

Edited by Nathan, 15 November 2015 - 19:44.

[EvilPhil II]

Name me an auto maker in F1 struggling with debt and paying their racing bills.

 

My point being they are saying they cant deliver it for less... yet there appears to be a way just over the fence in another championship. 

[TennisUK]

Perhaps so but they are still competing. I dont hear them saying they are in 10million debt and struggling to feed their staff. Something just doesnt add up in this F1 picture.

I think VAG got a bit of a wake up call this year with the ongoin emissions scandal. I doubt the insane spending war in WEC will continue past this year. Audi and Porsche are spending north of $100m EACH this year in WEC which cannot be sustained, regardless of emissions scandal. If they do continue it will kill the series. Just like will happen to F1 unless it's wrestled away from CVC which will be impossible if Jean Todt continues being so careless.

Edited by TennisUK, 15 November 2015 - 20:32.

[Scotracer]

How can WEC with higher levels of technology and more open tech rules have as many manufacturers.... more power..... sound better.... and have more or less equal performance over a race distance?

Becuase of balance of performance? The fact the cars are mostly equal is artificial. And has been for a very long time - look how often they have to tweak the gas vs diesel allowances for air Restrictor and fuel tank size.

And to this day:



Call that simple and racing-orientated?!

[Paco]

Keep it simple stupid applies.

No customer engines, just works. Engines are given to fia for distribution, randomly assigned serial numbers for each engine pu to the teams with a contract for them at each gp. Fia release spec of engine and number of races prior to Saturday qualifying and teams must used the same engine all weekend - unless of an issue and can only use a same spec or older design for the entire weekend.

Let teams decide if they want to barter latest spec for an old spec or used engine. Like the 70s and 80s where teams would give other teams parts to help them over a weekend,

For example. 5 new engines per year. Let's say there is 5 updates thought the season so labeled series 1-5.

Manor for example could sell a new series 3 engine half way through season for a MGP 3 raced used series 1 engine for compensation 5 million compensation. The series may not be of much use to them but could make a difference for MGP. Thereby offsetting of their engine pu costs with little impact on their standings, Manor could end up using used engines all season, maybe even series 1 all year through bartering and even turn a profit off engine bartering...

Zero need for a new spec engine idea,
Zero red bull moaning and all teams have the ability to use current spec engines if they want to..
Levels playing field a bit and

helps smaller teams profit a bit and offset their PU costs..

Adds a element of interest to the season watching how teams barter..

To me, it's the only fair thing to do.. Helps smaller teams financially and adds to the show and prevents the absurd from happening of a new engine spec idea.

Edited by Paco, 15 November 2015 - 21:21.

[Paco]

Plus all the cost issue is smoke and mirrors, the pu is still just 20% or less of the teams budget down the grid and probably 5% for a top team. Pay drivers less.. Spend less on aero..

[foxyracer]

One really simple rule could solve all this.  It would need careful design but the principle would be that teams pay into a central fund for just about everything that is currently banned or incurs grid penalties.  So charge the teams for a test day, a windtunnel day, an extra engine or gearbox above quota, extra tyres, engine tokens (well no, better to get rid of them altogether) and so on.  Get the idea?  Then after every race share out the fund that has accumulated since the last race to all the teams, the most going to the team lying bottom in the constructors championship and the least to those at the top.  This means that any team can spend as much as it likes on what it likes but they also help teams lower down in the championship to make progress.  The financial playing field is levelled.  If a team improves it gradually gets less and vice versa.  No need for budget caps.  No more silly grid penalties, wherever a car qualifies will be where it starts.  Teams will be charged rather than drivers and will have more chance to improve during the season.  No driver suffers directly.  It's so simple that I bet not one team would agree to it.......!

[Fastcake]

Unify the engine rules for IndyCar, F1, and WEC.  Shouldn't this be possible?

 

Indycar can't afford to be on the same level as F1 and WEC, particularly if there is to be engine development.

[Pingguest]

Performance equalization is used in other series and drastic action is needed to solve the woes in F1, the client engine is a disaster in the making.  The FIA created this monster mess and this just a solution, the V8's were allowed to get near equal before they stopped development.   

 

Renault was allowed to near equal performance after the V8-engines were homologated.

[SCHUEYFAN]

Renault was allowed to near equal performance after the V8-engines were homologated.

 

That is correct, all in the interest of maintaining a level playing field.  I wasn't happy at the time and neither were a lot of people but the precedent was set.  

[pdac]

Plus all the cost issue is smoke and mirrors, the pu is still just 20% or less of the teams budget down the grid and probably 5% for a top team. Pay drivers less.. Spend less on aero..

 

Exactly. It's not the cost that is worrying the powers that be, it's the availability - specifically the lack of availability of Mercedes PUs for Red Bull

[Myrvold]

Call that simple and racing-orientated?!

Yes I do!

You have multiple choices, and you know about the advantages/disadvantages before you start, I actually don't see the problem there...

[ardbeg]

Unify the engine rules for IndyCar, F1, and WEC.  Shouldn't this be possible?

I think the "FiA Client Engine" is a step in that direction.

Could be a good thing. We have had so many years now where 90% of the competitors hardly even have a chance to win. 

[Wuzak]

I think the "FiA Client Engine" is a step in that direction.

Could be a good thing. We have had so many years now where 90% of the competitors hardly even have a chance to win. 

 

And that has little to do with the engine/power unit.

[Wuzak]

And cost less, too?

 

Both Audi and Porsche (with teh same parent company) spent more on WEC (well, Le Mans) than Mercedes does in F1.

[Wuzak]

How can WEC with higher levels of technology and more open tech rules have as many manufacturers.... more power..... sound better.... and have more or less equal performance over a race distance? 

 

I would argue that the WEC cars don't have higher level of technology.

 

They are allowed bigger electrical motors, more storage (in the top Hybrid division).  And more variety in the solutions.

 

Sounding better is subjective. I would accept the Toyota sounding better, but have serious doubts about the Audi (Diesel) and Porsche (which uses two turbines in its exhaust).

 

More or less equal performance to each other or to F1?

[Wuzak]

Unify the engine rules for IndyCar, F1, and WEC.  Shouldn't this be possible?

 

F1 engines would be eligible for WEC, just need to adjust fuel flow rate to the FIA/ACO's schedule.

[V8 Fireworks]

If you want performance equalization there is GP2 and Indycar for you.

Mercedes fans are intolerable. 

[Knot]

Both Audi and Porsche (with teh same parent company) spent more on WEC (well, Le Mans) than Mercedes does in F1.

 

They spent over a billion on their engines alone?

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

OK, what are the core problems to this current Formula One engine set of regulations? Of course they are freaking expensive. But what impacts the "show" and it's impact on the fans is the incredibly restricted allowances for development. One team builds a killer power unit, good for them. But in the last two years no one has been able to close the gap, not because of money or lack of motivation, but because they are not allowed to develop the engines as they wish.

 

You want to fix the lack of parity between the different types of engine? Just allow the manufacturers to test them more and develop them faster instead of hobbling them with tokens and other crap.

 

And dump all the regenerative and ERS crap, go back to pure internal combustion engines. No one cares if they save gas. All this ERS and hybrid technology crap was supposed to attract engine manufacturers. Just look at them lining up.

[Nemo1965]

OK, what are the core problems to this current Formula One engine set of regulations? Of course they are freaking expensive. But what impacts the "show" and it's impact on the fans is the incredibly restricted allowances for development. One team builds a killer power unit, good for them. But in the last two years no one has been able to close the gap, not because of money or lack of motivation, but because they are not allowed to develop the engines as they wish.

 

You want to fix the lack of parity between the different types of engine? Just allow the manufacturers to test them more and develop them faster instead of hobbling them with tokens and other crap.

 

And dump all the regenerative and ERS crap, go back to pure internal combustion engines. No one cares if they save gas. All this ERS and hybrid technology crap was supposed to attract engine manufacturers. Just look at them lining up.

 

I love these new engines. The hybrid-technology has gotten my interest BACK in F1. I thought the out-developed V8 screamed nicely but was boring as hell. They were restricted in another way: stretched out like a rubber band...

 

And - I know this is a way of false reasoning, argumentum ad populum - all the people I know - students, friends, acquaintances - who are not REALLY into F1 but catch a glimpse of the races now and then, are fascinated by the hybrid-engines. They ask me, the F1-nut, to explain the technology. I do that to the best of my abilities. And then these friends always sight: 'Just imagine to have THAT in your road-car.'

 

In that sense the current engines are doing exactly that: showing road-relevance.

[Fatgadget]

^This.
I just dont get the negativity about these engines and the clamour of going back to engines of yesteryear .I love the concept of harvesting and regen and everything about them..dont care about the noise as I never listen to them in the flesh!

[pdac]

There seems to be a blind belief in the "if you build it they will come" concept. Well ...

 

- First they have to build it (that's a COMPETITVE ENGINE at a MUCH REDUCED PRICE for the teams - and consider here Monisha Kaltenborns comments about the additional costs involved in introducing refueling)

 

- Then, even if they build it they need teams to take it. It seems to me that teams that already have Ferrari and Mercedes PUs are happy to keep them but only really want the costs to come down. That just leaves Red Bull and Toro Rosso. How do you think a manufacturer would feel about the FIA if they won the tender, spent a ton of money on designing and building the engine and then the existing PU suppliers reduced their prices and no-one wanted the new engine?

Edited by pdac, 16 November 2015 - 11:20.

[Ferrari2183]

Mercedes fans are intolerable. 

He is right though... When has there been a level playing field in F1?

 

You want level, then watch a spec series.

[MikeMM]

Why should the team that does the best job be penalised for doing so?

 

Strictly speaking the best team is not penalised. It will recieve the amount of tokens it is  due.

 

Its just that the worst engine manufacturers are being given additional tokens.

 

You can call it a charity.

Edited by MikeMM, 16 November 2015 - 11:58.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Keep it simple stupid applies.

No customer engines, just works. Engines are given to fia for distribution, randomly assigned serial numbers for each engine pu to the teams with a contract for them at each gp. Fia release spec of engine and number of races prior to Saturday qualifying and teams must used the same engine all weekend - unless of an issue and can only use a same spec or older design for the entire weekend.

Let teams decide if they want to barter latest spec for an old spec or used engine. Like the 70s and 80s where teams would give other teams parts to help them over a weekend,

For example. 5 new engines per year. Let's say there is 5 updates thought the season so labeled series 1-5.

Manor for example could sell a new series 3 engine half way through season for a MGP 3 raced used series 1 engine for compensation 5 million compensation. The series may not be of much use to them but could make a difference for MGP. Thereby offsetting of their engine pu costs with little impact on their standings, Manor could end up using used engines all season, maybe even series 1 all year through bartering and even turn a profit off engine bartering...

Zero need for a new spec engine idea,
Zero red bull moaning and all teams have the ability to use current spec engines if they want to..
Levels playing field a bit and

helps smaller teams profit a bit and offset their PU costs..

Adds a element of interest to the season watching how teams barter..

To me, it's the only fair thing to do.. Helps smaller teams financially and adds to the show and prevents the absurd from happening of a new engine spec idea.

No, just no!

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Strictly speaking the best team is not penalised. It will recieve the amount of tokens it is  due.

 

Its just that the worst engine manufacturers are being given additional tokens.

 

You can call it a charity.

still a bad idea in my opinion.

 

I am not saying nothing needs to be done, just that idea is a bad one, but not as bad as the client engine!

[maximilian]

Indycar can't afford to be on the same level as F1 and WEC, particularly if there is to be engine development.

 

The point isn't to bring IndyCar up to the ridiculous cost levels of F1, but to bring F1 down to the sustainable cost level of IndyCar.

[maximilian]

He is right though... When has there been a level playing field in F1?

 

You want level, then watch a spec series.

 

 

Engine-wise, there has been a level playing field during the great Cosworth era, no?

 

And yes, that's exactly what's happening... people are looking away from F1 and into other series where there is actual racing going on...

[GTRacer]

The point isn't to bring IndyCar up to the ridiculous cost levels of F1, but to bring F1 down to the sustainable cost level of IndyCar.

That goes on the assumption that cost levels in Indycar are sustainable. Lot of teams in Indycar (Including at least 1 top team) are struggling just as much as some of the teams in F1.

 

Mercedes fans are intolerable. 

But what he says is 100% right.

 

F1 has never been & never should be about performance parity, Teams build dominant cars at times (As Red Bull did in 2011/2013) & likewise sometimes an engine supplier builds an engine that outclasses the rest (The Cosworth DFV, Renault V10, Mercedes V8 for example)... Thats the way F1 has always been & should/will continue to be.

[GTRacer]

Engine-wise, there has been a level playing field during the great Cosworth era, no?

 

The only reason there was a more level playing field during the Cosworth-era (Although not everyone had the exact same spec as there was plenty running engines a year or more older) was because Cosworth were supplying 90% of the grid because there was no manufacturer interest in F1 at the time for various reasons.

[Nemo1965]

Engine-wise, there has been a level playing field during the great Cosworth era, no?

 

And yes, that's exactly what's happening... people are looking away from F1 and into other series where there is actual racing going on...

 

Aha. I am glad you mention this. (And you won't be).

 

The Cosworth-era was great... but it was never such a level playing-field as perception has.

 

First of all: the Ford-Cosworth in the beginning WAS an experimental, superdooper, state-of-the-art new engine intended for ONE team. It was very, very expensive for its day (late 60's). Let us say it was the Mercedes-engine of it's day. It was especially developed for the Lotus-team of Colin Chapman. And despite the fact that the Lotus 49 was a car plagued by teething problems  it was immediately dominant.

 

Chapman could have monopolised the engine but he asked (or allowed) Ford to sell it to other teams... very grand of the old man, but it was less philanthropical than one might think. 'Chunky' was so convinced that he was the best designer, that even if other teams 'nicked' ideas from him, he always thought he could build a better version and could beat the others AGAIN with his newer, better version. Never the less: it was a godsend that he didn't bogart the engine. We still have to applaud him for it... 

 

So then the era of 'the best engine for everyone' began? Of course not. The best teams always got the best Cosworths, or the newest Cosworths with new parts. For example: in 1977 Walter Wolf (of Wolf F1) almost had a heart-attack from anger that Ford build a special, more powerful Cosworth for Lotus... Mo Nunn, Frank Williams in his poorer years knew that the best engines, the best blocks would always go to the best teams. There was always much rumble and grumble about it. 

 

Never the less: the Ford-Cosworth meant that even back-marker teams could run a little with the big teams. But let us not idealise it. 

[Fastcake]

The point isn't to bring IndyCar up to the ridiculous cost levels of F1, but to bring F1 down to the sustainable cost level of IndyCar.

Indycar isn't sustainable. I'm not sure what the actual cost of the engines are, but it's far in excess of the capped cost the two manufacturers have to charge. And that's with engines at a lower technology and performance level than either F1 and WEC, and little development allowed.

You could potentially have unified F1/LMP1 engine rules, because they're both FIA, they both want hybrids, and they both have money however badly distributed it may be, but Indycar couldn't get on board without dragging the other two down.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

I love these new engines. The hybrid-technology has gotten my interest BACK in F1. I thought the out-developed V8 screamed nicely but was boring as hell. They were restricted in another way: stretched out like a rubber band...

 

And - I know this is a way of false reasoning, argumentum ad populum - all the people I know - students, friends, acquaintances - who are not REALLY into F1 but catch a glimpse of the races now and then, are fascinated by the hybrid-engines. They ask me, the F1-nut, to explain the technology. I do that to the best of my abilities. And then these friends always sight: 'Just imagine to have THAT in your road-car.'

 

In that sense the current engines are doing exactly that: showing road-relevance.

 

OK, I respect your opinion and what you say makes sense. But how many of your casual friends were drawn into becoming regular race watchers only because of the hybrid technology? Yes, it is an interesting talking point, makes the juices flow for us tech weenies, and projects the perception that Formula One is socially responsible and attempting to be green.

 

Racing and Formula One are socially irresponsible, people risking their lives for ego and money. Huge amounts of gas is burned by fans driving to races, insane amounts of jet fuel is burned by transporting teams and their equipment around the globe. Multiple millions of dollars are spent without any return on society, racing is just boys with toys on a grand scale. And the amount of research done for hybrids within Formula One is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money spent by auto manufacturers. Formula One is not the research center for advanced auto technology, it is the withered appendix.

[oetzi]

Perhaps so but they are still competing. I dont hear them saying they are in 10million debt and struggling to feed their staff.  Something just doesnt add up in this F1 picture. 

Aero costs.

 

But aero knowledge is where much of the value of the customer teams lies.

 

So they don't want to change that.

 

Even if it means they're rubbish then go broke.

[ray b]

so dyno test the motors before Q with out el power added

and adjust the added  el power up or down

so all cars make the same rear wheel HP

 

eazy cheap fair and good for close racing

so ''they'' will never allow it

[oetzi]

so dyno test the motors before Q with out el power added

and adjust the added  el power up or down

so all cars make the same rear wheel HP

 

eazy cheap fair and good for close racing

so ''they'' will never allow it

You'll just get Formula E with a range extender if you do that.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

so dyno test the motors before Q with out el power added

and adjust the added  el power up or down

so all cars make the same rear wheel HP

 

eazy cheap fair and good for close racing

so ''they'' will never allow it

 

Is this fair to any engine manufacturer? Obviously few feel any sympathy for Mercedes because they are dominating so much. But they didn't cause the problem, they are just the symptom.

 

Making each engine equal to everyone else will drive engine manufacturers out of the sport, they are in it to look good against their competitors.

 

The problem is parity, many fans would like to see engines at least close to each other in performance. And the reason why there is no parity is because engine manufacturers are crippled in what they can improve, and at what rate. Right now Renault are spending huge amounts of money in a futile attempt to get close to Mercedes. At least allow them to spend those huge amounts of money in something where they can actually see the gap close to a reasonable level. Engine manufacturers are going to spend a lot of money, no matter what size of engine of configuration.

[Paco]

No, just no!

Why... In your opinion what is wrong with every team getting equivalent works engines and bartering theor allotment.. Vs this era of customer engines retuned and works team all the advantage,

[Timstr11]

^This.
I just dont get the negativity about these engines and the clamour of going back to engines of yesteryear .I love the concept of harvesting and regen and everything about them..dont care about the noise as I never listen to them in the flesh!

 

Agree. I also love the concept of these engines.

 

 

Giving teams a fixed amount of energy (100, 110 120 KG...don't care if it's a bit higher compared to now) to complete a race and see who comes out on top. This makes F1 a bit more appealing in these modern times if you ask me. It's a pity that FOM isn't pitching the sport with this feature. 

 

I want design freedom for all teams. At the same time I realize an arms race cannot be avoided if that's the case.

 

The solution in my opinion should be for engine manufacturers and the FIA to accept and agree on an engine cost cap one way or another.

Manufacturers will have to absorb more of the cost, but have to demand continued road relevance in the regulations as that will help them recoup some of the R&D costs.