Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

"Easier for new manufacturers to enter" - Cowell


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

Poll: Will any new manufacturers enter the sport in the next 4 years? (65 member(s) have cast votes)

Will any new manufacturers enter the sport in the next 4 years?

  1. Nah (44 votes [67.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.69%

  2. Yes my friend... I believe it will happen (12 votes [18.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.46%

  3. I don't care MERC POWER!!!!!!!!!! (1 votes [1.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.54%

  4. Honda sucks, nothing to do with the poll, they just suck and McLaren too (8 votes [12.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.31%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 FullThrottleF1

FullThrottleF1
  • Member

  • 3,449 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 11 February 2016 - 12:01

Interesting opinion from Andy Cowell: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/122770

 

He claims that the V10/V8 engines were more specialist (so not important to car makers) and harder to design.

 

Edit: Poll added


Edited by FullThrottleF1, 11 February 2016 - 12:03.


Advertisement

#2 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 7,934 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 11 February 2016 - 12:07

That pretty much flies in the face of what a lot of others have been saying

#3 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 11 February 2016 - 12:11

I agree with the headline. The token system was certainly a barrier for any new entrant, but to claim that it's easier with these PU's compared to the V10's & V8's is laughable. 



#4 Joseki

Joseki
  • Member

  • 4,142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 11 February 2016 - 12:14

I think Mercedes is simply trying to protect their power units and saying a lot of half truths and total crap. Just my opinion.

Edited by Joseki, 11 February 2016 - 18:48.


#5 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 11 February 2016 - 12:21

I think a lot of people just read the headline.



#6 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 February 2016 - 13:01

He is kind of missing the point.

Sure it's easy to hit up all the right suppliers and buy all your parts if you're Mercedes or Ferrari who sell **** loads of high end sports cars and have a spare $500million to spend.

The problem is there aren't a lot of car companies that are interested in doing that.

The sport just isn't interesting to companies likes of VW, Toyota, GM or Ford who just want to advertise their average road cars.

#7 kraduk

kraduk
  • Member

  • 696 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 February 2016 - 13:43

I agree with the headline. The token system was certainly a barrier for any new entrant, but to claim that it's easier with these PU's compared to the V10's & V8's is laughable. 

 

Depends on how you look at it. Technically it's hard yes, however its probably easier to sell something that's inline with your marketing strategy to your board than an old fashioned dirty tech....


Edited by kraduk, 11 February 2016 - 13:58.


#8 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 11 February 2016 - 14:46

Well, Cowell seems a real article and topic generator. ;) 

 

In the V10 era we had seven(!) different engine makes. 

 

But comments like these... yuck


"If we go back to 2000 the regulations fitted on one page, and now it's about eight pages, but it actually prescribes a lot of it.

"Twenty years ago you used to spend days working out what the bore size should be, or how many cylinders you should have, but now it's in the regs, so I think it's easier."

 

That is despite the fact a current power unit comprises around 10,000 individual parts, compared to the old V8's 3-4000 components.

"There's no 'unobtainium' in there, no Kryptonite. You don't need to travel to Mars," argued Cowell.

Really, WTF. It is cheaper to travel to Mars than to build a Mercedes F1-engine. The ship probably has less parts as well. How could any engineer like that many rules insteead of finding their own optimum? If they were in the state Renault is in now, he wouldn't be trumpetting this around.

 



#9 ConsiderAndGo

ConsiderAndGo
  • Member

  • 9,683 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 February 2016 - 14:50

I think this guys full of shite.



#10 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 February 2016 - 15:23

He's not saying it's easier from a technical point of view.

 

He's saying it's easier from a synergies point of view.

 

The concept of the current V6T Hybrid has much more relevance in terms of what manufacturers are doing or are planning to do commercially.

 

Do we have road cars revving to 19000 RPM to make power? No.


Edited by Timstr11, 11 February 2016 - 15:28.


#11 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 February 2016 - 15:28

PR spin. Move on.

#12 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 February 2016 - 15:40

In the V10 era we had seven(!) different engine makes. 

 

 

If that was so great, why did it not last?



#13 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 11 February 2016 - 15:50

Because FIA was afraid cars got to fast and F1 to expensive. The V12 was banned to prevent an arms race, while at least two manufacturers were nearing completion (Ferrari/Toyota) at the end of the nineties.



#14 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 11 February 2016 - 15:56

It makes it certainly more likely (nowadays and also if the token system will be dropped), but I really doubt that (much) more engine manufacturers will enter. The engines are stil extremely overegulated, so that it doesnt make much sense for them to enter.

Edited by Marklar, 11 February 2016 - 15:57.


#15 blacky

blacky
  • Member

  • 2,360 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 11 February 2016 - 15:59

Another example that this guy (Mercedes) tries to hype this product as much as possible.

 

But I can understand him: Mercedes is winning everything, so there should be big publicity, a mega advertising value, but everybody is just talking about a sport that is not wide away from coma. And Mercedes with their dominance is a not unimportant factor therefor.


Edited by blacky, 11 February 2016 - 15:59.


#16 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 11 February 2016 - 16:07

Real headline:

"Man who works for company that produces best F1 engine says F1 engine rules are very good."



#17 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 11 February 2016 - 16:17

If that was so great, why did it not last?

 

Nothing lasts forever... Certainly not great times!  :p


Edited by sopa, 11 February 2016 - 16:17.


#18 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 11 February 2016 - 16:41

Cowell actually says that Formula One has become more accessible for engine manufacturers because of the very strict regulations. However, the entering of Honda proved otherwise. The regulations force manufacturers to go into the same direction and development is effectively curtailed by the banning of in-season testing and mileage that the power units have to cover.

 

Formula One justifiably decided to change its engine regulations to become more relevant. However, what is relevant to one manufactures, may not be that relevant to another. That is why WEC is able to attract new manufacturers and Formula One is not.



#19 Joseki

Joseki
  • Member

  • 4,142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 11 February 2016 - 16:47

Cowell actually says that Formula One has become more accessible for engine manufacturers because of the very strict regulations. However, the entering of Honda proved otherwise. The regulations force manufacturers to go into the same direction and development is effectively curtailed by the banning of in-season testing and mileage that the power units have to cover.

 

Formula One justifiably decided to change its engine regulations to become more relevant. However, what is relevant to one manufactures, may not be that relevant to another. That is why WEC is able to attract new manufacturers and Formula One is not.

 

LMP1 cars are going all in the same direction in 2016, small turbocharged ICEs and 8 MJ hybrid class, so in the and is more open to diversity than F1 but the winning solution is clearly the one Porsche choose.



Advertisement

#20 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 11 February 2016 - 17:55

WEC to F1 move is certainly easier now that the engines regs are more similar. Road relevance argument WEC manufacturers like to use against F1 is weakened.



#21 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 11 February 2016 - 17:58

Depends on how you look at it. Technically it's hard yes, however its probably easier to sell something that's inline with your marketing strategy to your board than an old fashioned dirty tech....

Maybe, but his suggestion is that it is technically easier, and I don't believe that for one minute.



#22 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 11 February 2016 - 18:06

If that was so great, why did it not last?

 

Because the FIA decided the cars needed to be slower not because there was anything wrong with the V10.


Edited by Clatter, 11 February 2016 - 18:06.


#23 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 February 2016 - 18:51

I think he misses the fundamental point of F1. Sure, if the regs are so tight, a manufacturer knows exactly how to go about making an F1 PU. But the point is that they want to make a competitive or even winning PU and tight regulations make that so much more difficult for a new entrant. No, it's not easier for a new manufacturer. Quite the opposite 



#24 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 11 February 2016 - 19:23

One would imagine that it should be easier now to convince a manufacturer to compete in F1 given the road relevance marketing angle, so Cowell does have a point.  From a technological standpoint, Mercedes invested heavily and got it right.  Ferrari initially pursued an aero focused philosophy for 2014, which caused them to compromise their PU.  In 2015 they epitomised diligence, showcasing how it was possible to make large development strides.  Renault failed to grasp the magnitude of their endeavour, they under-invested and are suffering for it.  Honda were forced down the 'size zero' route by McLaren, causing them to compromise their PU design (A similar decision had plagued Ferrari in 2014 remember).  McLaren are forcing the Japanese manufacturer down this literally 'narrow' avenue.

 

2014 - 2015 should have educated interested manufacturers, that heavy investment, commitment and little/no compromise on the PU is the best way to challenge.



#25 eriknpf1

eriknpf1
  • New Member

  • 6 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 11 February 2016 - 19:51

When engine cost go from $5 million a year to $40 someone missed the point with the rule changes.  We also know it was Merc that fought hardest for the changes and benefited most from them.  I think (keep Ross Brawn in mind) that F1 should not specifically define the engine.  The rules should read something to the effect that the cars require a power unit not to exceed X Kilos, it will have some form of an energy recovery system or not, but if it does, it will have a well defined safety rule for it) not to exceed X kilos and that the manufacturer must supply a minimum of 2 teams. 

 

With that, let the fun begin.  V10s, V8s, etc.  Hybrid fuel, whatever.  Le Mans allows for a wider engine rules, why not F1.  I would also use a "success" weight penalty like DTM and some other series use or at least consider it.



#26 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 February 2016 - 20:20

If that was so great, why did it not last?

Rules

#27 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 February 2016 - 21:15

I should've phrased my question differently.

Why would a high revving V10 be more attractive to manufacturers than the current technology of the V6T Hybrid?

And really, try to think as a manufacturer when you answer that question.



#28 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 February 2016 - 21:54

I should've phrased my question differently.

Why would a high revving V10 be more attractive to manufacturers than the current technology of the V6T Hybrid?

And really, try to think as a manufacturer when you answer that question.

 

People are looking at it wrong if they think the sport should only be looking to attract the really big road car manufacturers.

 

Wouldn't it be really great if someone like Christian von Koenigsegg could set up a team and show off some innovative technology?

 

Bugger all chance of that happening under the current system, the only way you can enter right now is to be a huge company like VW or be a billionaire like Gene Haas and buy your way into the system with parts from one of the other teams.



#29 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 February 2016 - 22:30

Koenigsegg?

The days of small garagiste teams and engine builders are long long gone.

You'd need to dumb down the sport drastically with highly restrictive rules for them to have a chance.

Or find a way to ban large corporations to participate.

 

It would do nothing for me.


Edited by Timstr11, 11 February 2016 - 22:30.


#30 Prost1997T

Prost1997T
  • Member

  • 8,379 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 11 February 2016 - 22:49

A whopping one new manufacturer (which really just replaced the loss of Cosworth) since the V6 hydrids were introduced. F1 (Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, Honda) has one more manufacturer than Nascar (Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota), to put it in perspective.



#31 travbrad

travbrad
  • Member

  • 1,058 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 11 February 2016 - 23:52

With less restricted engine development supposedly starting in 2017 I think that will be more likely to attract other manufacturers,  The restricted token system right now is probably scaring off manufacturers more than anything.  You'd have to be crazy to enter F1 under the current regulations after looking at what happened to Renault and Honda the last couple seasons.

 

I really doubt the V6 Hybrid Turbos are easier to develop than a NA V8 or V10, but on the other hand some manufacturers do see marketing appeal in having "efficient/green" engines, since that is one of the main selling points of road cars nowadays.  In reality F1 cars/engines don't have a whole lot to do with road cars, but marketing isn't about reality it's about perception.

 

That being said the biggest name in F1 (Ferrari) probably doesn't care at all about efficiency.  No one is buying a Ferrari for an efficient engine.  Fiat might care about that stuff but I doubt most people even associate Ferrari and Fiat.



#32 Vettelari

Vettelari
  • Member

  • 1,564 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 12 February 2016 - 00:00

For the good of the sport, F1 needs at least 2 more manufacturers the way I look at it. That would improve the future outlook dramatically. The powers that be should be doing EVERYTHING possible to attract big time auto makers like VAG, BMW, Toyota, GM, Ford, etc. I fear that is not currently going on & the sport will continue to suffer from it. Instead we are seeing manufacturers decide to enter Formula E. That should be a massive red flag to anybody involved in F1. With Jaguar entering FE, they are already on par with F1 in only their 2nd season with 4. If the rumors are true, Formula E will have as many as 6 manufacturers by their 3rd season next year. That would be a crying shame.


Edited by Vettelari, 12 February 2016 - 00:16.


#33 Vettelari

Vettelari
  • Member

  • 1,564 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 12 February 2016 - 00:14

I wish this quote I recently found were referring to F1 instead of FE...

 

"More big brands are already signed up, Agag went on to say: “I have another two that I cannot tell yet. So you have seven – there are only three [teams] left so OEMs better hurry up. I think Formula E will have 10 manufacturers in season four.”"

 

Volvo via Polestar, Honda via Mugen, & BMW are possibilities. The fact that 2 more are already signed up is exciting as hell for FE, but doesn't bode well for the future of Formula 1, in my worthless opinion. In 2018 there's a real possibility that Peugeot, Renault, Audi, Jaguar, Volvo, Honda, & BMW will be racing in FE while F1 still boasts Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes, & Honda. The giant red light should be flashing as the air raid sirens roar in the Formula 1 offices right now.


Edited by Vettelari, 12 February 2016 - 01:28.


#34 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 February 2016 - 01:24

OEMs are highly overrated.

#35 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 12 February 2016 - 06:00

He claims that the V10/V8 engines were more specialist (so not important to car makers) and harder to design.

 

 

Jagsfan.jpg



#36 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 12 February 2016 - 06:14

Jagsfan.jpg

"If we go back to 2000 the regulations fitted on one page, and now it's about eight pages, but it actually prescribes a lot of it.

"Twenty years ago you used to spend days working out what the bore size should be, or how many cylinders you should have, but now it's in the regs, so I think it's easier."

"There's no 'unobtainium' in there, no Kryptonite. You don't need to travel to Mars," argued Cowell.

"There are steels and aluminiums that are used in aerospace and the automotive industry, the fasteners are unremarkable, and while the shapes are evolved, they are all shapes everybody else can come up with.

"Electrical machines are also evolved, but there aren't any magic magnets in them. They are all magnets you can read about on Wikipedia and source from three or four manufacturers around the world.

"The cables have copper in, the connectors are unremarkable, so it's all doable.

 

 

I think he is right. There a lot more guys doing batteries, turbos, electric motors etc than there ever were companies that were building 20000 rpm V10s. Nobody is changing the bore size and stroke every year or looking for the next beryllium, because it is in the rules. 


Edited by Gorma, 12 February 2016 - 06:22.


#37 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 12 February 2016 - 06:19

No beryllium alloy in there for example, but that's old tech anyway.



#38 TF110

TF110
  • Member

  • 3,068 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 12 February 2016 - 06:21

Gotta disagree with the wec going the same route comments. You still have a 4L turbo diesel v6 with front kers. Toyota probably using a petrol ~2.5L tt v6 with front&rear kers, Porsche a 2L turbo v4 with front kers and ers-h. Three very different technologies. Even though all are turbo, they're all different sizes and shapes with different hybrid drivetrains. Not to mention two different fuels. Even with that lack of variety, f1 pales in comparison. 


Edited by TF110, 12 February 2016 - 06:23.


#39 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 12 February 2016 - 07:25

Because the FIA decided the cars needed to be slower not because there was anything wrong with the V10.

 

 

 

Eh.. there was something wrong with the V10.

 

It had become too powerful, hence why the cars had become too fast and in need to be slowed down.....

 

Henri



Advertisement

#40 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 12 February 2016 - 07:52

That is what he said? The oddity is the return to a V6T. The engine configuration that was banned in the first place because it became too powerfull in the past... If you skip all the added weight due to batteries and stuff, you could have a fine racecar. I wonder what a 550 kg non-Hybrid would do against these cars.



#41 Joseki

Joseki
  • Member

  • 4,142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 12 February 2016 - 07:56

That is what he said? The oddity is the return to a V6T. The engine configuration that was banned in the first place because it became too powerfull in the past... If you skip all the added weight due to batteries and stuff, you could have a fine racecar. I wonder what a 550 kg non-Hybrid would do against these cars.


With 100 kg of fuel or unlimited fuel?

#42 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 12 February 2016 - 08:58

That is what he said? The oddity is the return to a V6T. The engine configuration that was banned in the first place because it became too powerfull in the past... If you skip all the added weight due to batteries and stuff, you could have a fine racecar. I wonder what a 550 kg non-Hybrid would do against these cars.

 

Do I read this right, You want a 550 kg non-hybrid V6T engined car gaing against the current cars with the same IC engine and hybrid tech?

 

In that case, It all depends on the fuel allowance you give the non-hybrid car. It certainly will need more fuel to make up for the loss of power the hybrid tech squeeze out of what is wasted on the non hybrid car. Corner speeds for the non hybrid car may be a tad faster due to less mass wanting to go straight.

But I doubt if it would be possible to race the current V6T without all the hybrid stuff, I suppose that a lot of the design of the engine is directed into the path of it being assisted by hybrid power ar certain moments and the engine being less than perfected without it. Some modifications might be needed to make it run without Hybrid power assistance, certainly with respect to the building up of torbo boost without the MGU-H technology.

 

But if you keep fuel allocation on 100 kg for both, my money will be on the hybrid being the faster option.

 

 

BTW, the once banned V6T configuration was primarily because there simply was not done enough to keep the power race under control. About the only thing they did was fule amount restricted to 220 liters but look at what kind of fuels they introduced. And with chilling fuel they got more than 220 in the tank and OK, that was banned but otherwise....

Personally, as for a technical and practical point of view, I liked the 1988 turbo rules qute a bit. Had manifold pressure been maximized much earlier the kneejerk reactions we got in 1986 to get rid of the insane powerful turbos had not been necessary. As much as I disliked the 1988 season, it doesn't take away that even nowadays I am still in awe about what the McLaren-Honda of that year was capable of in sheer ourtight lap speeds compared with cars that were much more powerful several years before.

 

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 12 February 2016 - 08:58.


#43 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,143 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:00

The difficult bit is another manufacturer sanctioning a budget on a par with Mercedes, which is much higher than they were in the old days. 



#44 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:02

Old turbo's (1988) had a fuel limit as well (155 liters x 0,7 = 108,5 kg) and turbo pressure limits. That is only 8,5% more fuel. Min. weight 540 kg. I wonder what almost 30 years of engine development would have done to that.  ;) Atmospheric engines had ~600 hp back then out of 3,5 liters, while the latest V10's are rumoured to have 950 hp out of 3 liters. 

 

Don't forget a car that weighs almost 200kg less could get at least an extra lap out of the squishy Pirelli's.

 

See: http://www.formula1-...es_history.html


Edited by SenorSjon, 12 February 2016 - 09:03.


#45 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:08

Old turbo's (1988) had a fuel limit as well (155 liters x 0,7 = 108,5 kg) and turbo pressure limits. That is only 8,5% more fuel. Min. weight 540 kg. I wonder what almost 30 years of engine development would have done to that.  ;) Atmospheric engines had ~600 hp back then out of 3,5 liters, while the latest V10's are rumoured to have 950 hp out of 3 liters. 

 

Don't forget a car that weighs almost 200kg less could get at least an extra lap out of the squishy Pirelli's.

 

See: http://www.formula1-...es_history.html

 

 

I've seen that page you listed befor and it still contains that annoying error; Fuel allocation for the turbos in 1988 was not 155 liters as stated: it was less: 150 liters.

 

I also wonder what would have happened had development of those turbo's being continued after 1988.

 

 

Henri



#46 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 7,115 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:11

With 100 kg of fuel or unlimited fuel?

to be honest, the 100 kg limit rule cannot be considered a huge restriction when they put less fuel in the cars in most of the races.



#47 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:14

Eh.. there was something wrong with the V10.

It had become too powerful, hence why the cars had become too fast and in need to be slowed down.....

Henri

I already said they wanted to slow the cars down, but that wasn't an inherent fault. They could have continued with the same engine but rev limited rather than the more expensive route of designing a new V8 which they then rev limited anyway.

#48 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:18

to be honest, the 100 kg limit rule cannot be considered a huge restriction when they put less fuel in the cars in most of the races.

But that is probably because there is a fuel flow limit as well. Get rid of that and they would use the full allowance.

#49 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:30

"Twenty years ago you used to spend days working out what the bore size should be, or how many cylinders you should have, but now it's in the regs, so I think it's easier."

Easier to do what? Have someone else tell you what to do? That's true, I guess.

 

That so much of F1 is prescribed in great detail by the regulations doesn't actually make it easier to compete, it means that the number of fields in which one team can differentiate itself from the other team has become ever smaller. The result is obvious: teams can no longer compensate for their lack of efficiently in one area with a better performance in another.
 

LMP1 cars are going all in the same direction in 2016, small turbocharged ICEs and 8 MJ hybrid class, so in the and is more open to diversity than F1 but the winning solution is clearly the one Porsche choose.

 
The LMP1 regulations have not been a free-for-all though, but written with that variety in mind. Like in F1 the teams aren't trying to build the best engine per se, just the best one within the regulations.

 

If the regulations, for whatever reason, no longer support that variety then it's little surprise that the big teams will converge on one solution.

 



#50 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:36

Don't forget lawyers design engines now to find loopholes in the rules.