60 replies to this topic

[Paco]

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

It's not just availability.. I know you get that clarifying what you meant.. It's availability of equivalent works engine vs. 2nd tier defined engines like non works teams are getting now..

F1 is now a 2 tier formula whether want to accept that fact or not simply because MGP and Ferrari are not giving the same spec engine to their customer teams... And red bull want to have a level playing field with their engine..

[Scotracer]

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.

 

This was avoided as it's simply more expensive than dictating the configuration. 

 

Spoiler: For a fixed fuel amount, a hybridised small-capacity turbo is the best option, hence why we have it. An N/A engine or even a non-hybrid Turbocharged engine wouldn't see which way the current V6T Hybrids went if you give them all the same amount of fuel.

 

Heck, the current engines get 80BHP for free from turning the turbos wastegate in to a generator! 

[Timstr11]

This was avoided as it's simply more expensive than dictating the configuration.

Spoiler: For a fixed fuel amount, a hybridised small-capacity turbo is the best option, hence why we have it. An N/A engine or even a non-hybrid Turbocharged engine wouldn't see which way the current V6T Hybrids went if you give them all the same amount of fuel.

Heck, the current engines get 80BHP for free from turning the turbos wastegate in to a generator!

I meant freedom within the boundaries of the preset configuration. I forgot to add this as I realize total freedom would lead teams to explore all sorts of things escalating costs further.

Edited by Timstr11, 16 November 2015 - 17:02.

[Ferrari2183]

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...

It just won't be F1 if all things are equal. The idea that F1 should be is ill conceived.

This all started with Red Bull demanding engine parity. I don't see anyone crying for chassis parity.

Edited by Ferrari2183, 16 November 2015 - 17:42.

[Nemo1965]

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.

 

The point is my dear friend: we, the people who know the first and last posthumous worldchampion died in 1970, who know how many cylinders the Ford-Cosworth had, the engine-capacity of the first turbo's in Formula 1, the number of Gilles Villeneuve's car in 1979, which world champion dived into the harbour at Monaco (with car, I might add), we are dinosaurs... We are going extinct. For Mercedes, for Ferrari, for Honda, were are not the people they are trying to reach... I get your longing for what F1 once was, I have had fantasies about banning graphite rackets and colourful clothes in tennis, just white, wood, white balls, lines made of chalk.

 

Those times were fantastic, but they are not coming back nor should they come back. As we read this now, there are young kids dreaming of becoming the next Lewis Hamilton, and in 20 years time they will admire the W06 in the same nostalgic way as we oldies now watch a BRM with a H16-engine at Goodwood...

 

The times we are nostalgic about NOW were once the cutting edge of automotive engineering. The Ford-Cosworth V8 was in 1969 the Cosworth-engine of its day, as I wrote. People in F1 back then would have reacted rather shocked if fans would have said: 'No, ban those rear-engined monstrosities! We want the front-engined REAL cars back!'

 

The solution I see for a cheaper engine would be that the block of the engine, the core, should be a production-engine, say a 1600 cc used for road-cars. And that the manufacturers get absolute freedom in what they want to add in ERS, MPHGHGEHPG(EHG(EHG(HEGFH-or whatever gizzmo's they want to add.

[Prost1997T]

There are ~8 cars in LMP1 and 2 of the teams are essentially the same manufacturer (VAG). Not a great example.

Edited by Prost1997T, 16 November 2015 - 18:18.

[noikeee]

I first posted this on the "simple weekend revamp" thread, but I think it's more fitting in a thread about engine parity, this is the most recent I could find:

 

 

If we must go down the path of equalization (in the context of the recent qualifying format changes, seemingly introduced at the request of the promoters fed up with boring domination), why not do it the other way around, and leave the sporting regulations alone but push F1 closer to a spec series? Equalize and freeze the engines, and introduce a spec front and rear wing. This way you save tons of money, and get close racing without turning the sporting regulations into a circus full of gimmicks.

 

 

Advantages:

 

- Manufacturers get to continue to promote their super innovative, green/efficient engines, which might not get any further developments but for all purposes have already been built.

 

- Mercedes get a fair deal for building the best engine, because they've won the 2014 and 2015 titles thanks to it (and likely 2016), and get bragging rights forever they've built the real best engine of this era.

 

- There's a precedent for equalizing engines, see the end of the V8 era. And Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda were all there and agreed to it.

 

- Manufacturers are still likely to outperform the other teams by investing more money into the few details that can still be developed in the car, so it's not like they lose that much power. Richer teams will always win more.

 

- However the smaller teams are now much likelier to be closer on pace, and are perfectly capable of producing an upset on a good day or a good season.

 

- With spec wings you can probably make a lot of the overtaking problems go away, and get rid of DRS, or at least tone down DRS to a point the purists are not as upset.

 

- With spec wings people don't need to be as scared of the Red Bull aero department, which to me seems to be the main reason the manufacturers are clinging on so much to the current engine-dominated formula.

 

 

Disadvantages:

 

- Makes F1 a lot less interesting from a technological point of view, obviously.

 

- The more spec F1 becomes, the more it strays away from the tradition that F1 is a sport where the winner is the team who builds the best prototype car. It becomes more of a sport where the winner is the team who best prepares an existing car, which is a different thing. F1 becomes less special, and more similar to IndyCar or GP2.

 

- Cars that are too similar to each other, may lead to slightly less dynamic / more predictable races, or smaller swings of form from circuit to circuit.

 

 

 

Hey, it's not perfect. But we can't have everything, we've got to make choices. I'd surely rather have this than lottery grids or success ballast...

[SenorSjon]

No.

 

Money is spend regardless. With engines and wings out of the equation, we get special halo's, and sidepods where 100m is spend a team developing them. Let that sink in. About a billion $ spend on the shape and form of a sidepod... We already spend that kind of amount on front wings in the past few years mind you. 

[Pingguest]

 

I first posted this on the "simple weekend revamp" thread, but I think it's more fitting in a thread about engine parity, this is the most recent I could find:

 

 

If we must go down the path of equalization (in the context of the recent qualifying format changes, seemingly introduced at the request of the promoters fed up with boring domination), why not do it the other way around, and leave the sporting regulations alone but push F1 closer to a spec series? Equalize and freeze the engines, and introduce a spec front and rear wing. This way you save tons of money, and get close racing without turning the sporting regulations into a circus full of gimmicks.

 

 

Advantages:

 

- Manufacturers get to continue to promote their super innovative, green/efficient engines, which might not get any further developments but for all purposes have already been built.

 

- Mercedes get a fair deal for building the best engine, because they've won the 2014 and 2015 titles thanks to it (and likely 2016), and get bragging rights forever they've built the real best engine of this era.

 

- There's a precedent for equalizing engines, see the end of the V8 era. And Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda were all there and agreed to it.

 

- Manufacturers are still likely to outperform the other teams by investing more money into the few details that can still be developed in the car, so it's not like they lose that much power. Richer teams will always win more.

 

- However the smaller teams are now much likelier to be closer on pace, and are perfectly capable of producing an upset on a good day or a good season.

 

- With spec wings you can probably make a lot of the overtaking problems go away, and get rid of DRS, or at least tone down DRS to a point the purists are not as upset.

 

- With spec wings people don't need to be as scared of the Red Bull aero department, which to me seems to be the main reason the manufacturers are clinging on so much to the current engine-dominated formula.

 

 

Disadvantages:

 

- Makes F1 a lot less interesting from a technological point of view, obviously.

 

- The more spec F1 becomes, the more it strays away from the tradition that F1 is a sport where the winner is the team who builds the best prototype car. It becomes more of a sport where the winner is the team who best prepares an existing car, which is a different thing. F1 becomes less special, and more similar to IndyCar or GP2.

 

- Cars that are too similar to each other, may lead to slightly less dynamic / more predictable races, or smaller swings of form from circuit to circuit.

 

 

 

Hey, it's not perfect. But we can't have everything, we've got to make choices. I'd surely rather have this than lottery grids or success ballast...

 

 

Equalization and convergence is exactly the opposite of what Formula One needs. The more cars tend to converge, the more identical lap times will be. The more identical lap times will be, the more difficult overtaking will be. In other words: how will a driver pass another one whose driving at the same pace. It will only result in a high-speed parade.

[noikeee]

No.

 

Money is spend regardless. With engines and wings out of the equation, we get special halo's, and sidepods where 100m is spend a team developing them. Let that sink in. About a billion $ spend on the shape and form of a sidepod... We already spend that kind of amount on front wings in the past few years mind you. 

 

Sure, teams will always spend everything they have to find the smallest of advantages, but are there full seconds to be gained in sidepod design? Maybe we'll get the Manor and the Mercedes separated by 1 second instead of 5.

 

Equalization and convergence is exactly the opposite of what Formula One needs. The more cars tend to converge, the more identical lap times will be. The more identical lap times will be, the more difficult overtaking will be. In other words: how will a driver pass another one whose driving at the same pace. It will only result in a high-speed parade.

I listed this as one of the possible disadvantages. But I'm not convinced the effect would be that severe - after all in Indycar and GP2 all the cars are the same, yet you don't see a lack of overtaking.

[Pingguest]

Sure, teams will always spend everything they have to find the smallest of advantages, but are there full seconds to be gained in sidepod design? Maybe we'll get the Manor and the Mercedes separated by 1 second instead of 5.

 

I listed this as one of the possible disadvantages. But I'm not convinced the effect would be that severe - after all in Indycar and GP2 all the cars are the same, yet you don't see a lack of overtaking.

 

In a (semi-)spec series, the drivers are the main, if not the sole cause of performance differences. This is particularly the case in a series with a widespread of talented and/or experienced drivers. However, still then, the consequences are as severe one might predict.

 

http://i.imgur.com/fDEqSiO.jpg

First race of the 2015 IndyCar season

 

http://i.imgur.com/FWSLM8C.jpg

Last race of the 2015 IndyCar season

 

Since a couple of years, Formula One has been using a mandatory tire compound switch as well as the drag reduction system - an aerodynamic manifestation of the push-to-pass system - to artificially create differences in performances. It goes without saying that those gimmicks originate from Indycar.