77 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

I think we will only have three different F1 engines for 2014: Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari. But why? What are you thinking about?

My suggestions:
1) F1 is very expensive of course. In such different times not many want to spend their money on that.
2) The withdraw of Honda, BMW and Toyota was a warning signal for other interests: They had not much success. My personal opinion: It was not good to have an own racing teams. Better to supply racing teams as Renault is doing now.
3) With the homologated F1 engines the innovative part is not very much – and so many engine suppliers are not very happy with the frozen F1 engine technique. I think when the new F1 engines are running in 2014, there will be more interests for 2015 or 2016.
4) For private engine suppliers like Judd, Cosworth or of course Pure F1 is too expansive – although there is not much development.
5) The economical situation since 2008 was and is very difficult especially for the automobile firms.

[TFLB]

They're too expensive to develop and there is not enough freedom for engine manufacturers who want to try new things. They are also not close enough to road car engines and are far to complicated for small companies to make. Also I suppose it's a big risk to go to all the expense when the engine could be a flop. In the current financial climate that is not a risk worth taking. Finally, I'd guess some companies would see it as bad pr in these times of extreme environmentalism.

[TecnoRacing]

Considering the engines are effectively equalized, there's no real incentive to enter the championship as an engine manufacturer.
It's sad engines have effectively been taken out the equation...used to be fun watching cars with different power characteristics competing against one another...

[Fatgadget]

They might as well come up with a 'spec' engine and be done with it.We already have a spec tyre, so?

Edited by Fatgadget, 02 August 2012 - 20:40.

[pacificquay]

Under the skin stuff like engines is boring. The interest is in car shapes and drivers.

[AlexS]

It's sad engines have effectively been taken out the equation...used to be fun watching cars with different power characteristics competing against one another...

Oh memories!
The very drivable, reliable Ford Cosworth but lacking power compared to an Alfa Romeo or BMW that also broke almost every race. The Ferrari was something in between. The Renault with turbo albeit Ferrari won the first turbo WCC.

Then we had slow tracks and very fast one and some engines that were good in one were inferior in the other type. Now with circuits almost all the same - except some historic ones- obviously every manufacturer bets in sameness...

[carbonfibre]

Or the amazing blowups we used to have. Remember Fisichella at spa 2002 with the Jordan Honda damn what a bang that was.

[Peter Perfect]

While I understand the reason for the engine freeze it has taken a while area of interest and drama away from F1 for me. Like has been said pushing the engines to the limits, efficiency, power characteristics,development... are the things that made a huge difference to the season. With the engine freeze and equalisation that's happened it just seems like a featureless box stuck to each car now that has no personality.

[Kingshark]

For the sake of someone who dislikes Mclaren as much as myself, it'd be hilarious if Mercedes pulled out of F1 and took their engine supplies with them.

Edited by Kingshark, 02 August 2012 - 21:25.

[BRG]

For the sake of someone who dislikes Mclaren as much as myself, it'd be hilarious if Mercedes pulled out of F1 and took their engine supplies with them.

Why, what have you got against Force India?

[spacekid]

Under the skin stuff like engines is boring. The interest is in car shapes and drivers.

I actually disagree with this.

A large part of what used to make the racing in the formula interesting for me was the different characteristics of the whole package, which can also lead to interesting racing, or at least design philosophies. We've lost so much of that now.

[ch103]

F1 - 24 cars, 3 engines
Nascer - 43 cars, 4 engines

it seems like # of engines is independent of size of the field

[V8 Fireworks]

Under the skin stuff like engines is boring. The interest is in car shapes and drivers.

Really?

The engine is kind of important isn't it?

Are you suggesting fans can't notice or care about the difference between 6L Auto Union V16 and 1.5L TAG-Porsche V6 some 50 years later?

[pingu666]

nascar has different engine builders, so chevy for example has atleast two big builders. toyota had 2, ford has one (now maybe 2) and dodge had one and abit.

i think the big bucks are needed to have a chance to be competative, but you could get a working engine far cheaper if you wanted to

[loki]

F1 - 24 cars, 3 engines
Nascer - 43 cars, 4 engines

it seems like # of engines is independent of size of the field

It might look that way but in F1 each engine type comes from its own factory shop. In Cup there are a good 7 to 8 engine builders though the power seems to gravitate to the engine shops the front runners use. There are some builders that build more than one make.

Edited by loki, 03 August 2012 - 02:17.

[Wingcommander]

- it's too expensive
- the engines are too similar, impossible for a newcomer to make an impression
- no relation to production engines

--> F1 is a very expensive marketing exercise that offers very little techical benefits or research opportunities for engine builders. LMP for example is a more interesting concept

[HistoryFan]

nascar has different engine builders, so chevy for example has atleast two big builders. toyota had 2, ford has one (now maybe 2) and dodge had one and abit.

i think the big bucks are needed to have a chance to be competative, but you could get a working engine far cheaper if you wanted to

can you explain that a little bit more? Who are the two builders from Chevy and so on?
I'm not very good informed about Nascar.

[HistoryFan]

- it's too expensive
- the engines are too similar, impossible for a newcomer to make an impression
- no relation to production engines

--> F1 is a very expensive marketing exercise that offers very little techical benefits or research opportunities for engine builders. LMP for example is a more interesting concept

But why? Why are they so expensive when there is no developments are allowed?
And why is it not interesting for engines builder when the engines are quite equal. Because then they are not very bad and can fight with the others in a world wide stage,

[Wingcommander]

But why? Why are they so expensive when there is no developments are allowed?
And why is it not interesting for engines builder when the engines are quite equal. Because then they are not very bad and can fight with the others in a world wide stage,

Development not being allowed has nothing to do with the costs a new engine builder would face. Just to create a competitive engine from a scratch is very expensive, because the existing engines are already so refined.

Most of the engine manufacturers want to be the best. The current rules make it almost impossible for any one manufacturer to get a clear advantage over the others. I don't know if the 2014 rules could change this, but somehow i doubt that the days of engines being able to make a difference are long gone. And that raises the question why would anyone want to invest hundreds of millions just to be on par with the others. Would it benefit someone like VW to invest huge amounts of money just to be an also ran?

[HistoryFan]

perhaps that will change if there are only two or three engine suppliers...

[dau]

Really?

The engine is kind of important isn't it?

Are you suggesting fans can't notice or care about the difference between 6L Auto Union V16 and 1.5L TAG-Porsche V6 some 50 years later?

The majority won't.

[Atreiu]

F1 is compleely upsides down.
Chassis should be spec or customer allowed, engines should be completely free for development except for the most simple restrictions. For example, 100l fuel limit for the races, and something else to avoid qualifying specials, which are fantastic but too expensive for their own good.

Edited by Atreiu, 03 August 2012 - 12:33.

[finignig]

F1 - 24 cars, 3 engines
Nascer - 43 cars, 4 engines

it seems like # of engines is independent of size of the field

Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes and Cosworth = 4 not 3?

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

The majority won't.

I disagree. FOM is making a mistake in assuming small changes to the nature of F1 doesn't affect a fan's perspective, but there is a threshold where the cumulative effect of said changes can suddenly make F1 pointless.

Case in the point, the V6's - I am no overly enthusiastic about the notion of being an F1 fan post 2014. When they changed from V10's I *did* hear a difference, and there *will* be a difference both in sound and nature of the way they run. High torque coming out of corners is missing from F1 in my opinion. Combined with all of the other "little" changes - restrictions, it may cross that threshold for me in 2014.

The philosophy of F1 is what it's about, and FOM doesn't get it.

[dau]

I disagree. FOM is making a mistake in assuming small changes to the nature of F1 doesn't affect a fan's perspective, but there is a threshold where the cumulative effect of said changes can suddenly make F1 pointless.

Case in the point, the V6's - I am no overly enthusiastic about the notion of being an F1 fan post 2014. When they changed from V10's I *did* hear a difference, and there *will* be a difference both in sound and nature of the way they run. High torque coming out of corners is missing from F1 in my opinion. Combined with all of the other "little" changes - restrictions, it may cross that threshold for me in 2014.

The philosophy of F1 is what it's about, and FOM doesn't get it.

But the majority of F1's fans are not hardcore fans like yourself and likely most others on this forum. They won't reminisce about the V10s because they never even heard one in anger. And while a V6T may be less spectacular than a V8, just like the latter was less spectacular than the V10s, i'd be surprised if it wouldn't still deliver a great show.

And even out of the hardcore fans, how many did really stop watching the day we lost the V10s? Or the V12s? Or the turbo monsters? I remember countless discussions about how the frozen V8s will kill F1 in just a few years time and how everyone would stop watching this "quasi-spec" series. Six years later, the fan base seems larger than ever. Most people obviously just don't care, as long as the racing is decent.

Also, FOM has nothing to do with this. Bernie is actively opposing the new engine regs and has even threatened to sue FIA over the V6Ts.

[carbonfibre]

I think a lot do care but what else are you going to watch? F1 still is the best of the best, It's just sad that F1 is slipping into a spec series more and more.

Edited by carbonfibre, 03 August 2012 - 19:40.

[Ickx]

[...]

And even out of the hardcore fans, how many did really stop watching the day we lost the V10s? Or the V12s? Or the turbo monsters? I remember countless discussions about how the frozen V8s will kill F1 in just a few years time and how everyone would stop watching this "quasi-spec" series. Six years later, the fan base seems larger than ever. Most people obviously just don't care, as long as the racing is decent. [...]

Brick by brick... I agree with Rubens Hakkamacher.

I actually more or less didn't care about F1 from mid 07 until mid 11 because of everything that happened to the rules from -03 and onwards. V8, RPM-limit, spec rubber and most of all the iterations of sporting regs they tried. I couldn't belive my ears when I heard about DRS. Still a little pissed that I fell off the wagon during end of last year...

[V8 Fireworks]

can you explain that a little bit more? Who are the two builders from Chevy and so on?
I'm not very good informed about Nascar.

There must be two engine builders who make the "good stuff"... An F1 or LMP level engine development organisation specialising in NASCAR engines.

However I'd imagine that essentially any engine shop can order the basic block and so forth from the Ford Racing or Chevrolet parts catalogue (well more or less, they are allowed to design new old-style engines incrementally). A backmarker can get a basic engine dirt cheap, so to speak.

It may even be an old engine that a backmarker buys old motors from a top team for their use. For example, how Minardi purchased their own supplies of old generation Cosworth V10s and maintained them themselves as "Fondmetal" engines.

[loki]

There must be two engine builders who make the "good stuff"... An F1 or LMP level engine development organisation specialising in NASCAR engines.

However I'd imagine that essentially any engine shop can order the basic block and so forth from the Ford Racing or Chevrolet parts catalogue (well more or less, they are allowed to design new old-style engines incrementally). A backmarker can get a basic engine dirt cheap, so to speak.

It may even be an old engine that a backmarker buys old motors from a top team for their use. For example, how Minardi purchased their own supplies of old generation Cosworth V10s and maintained them themselves as "Fondmetal" engines.

Hendrick, Childress and Earhardt/Ganassi all build Chevrolet engines at the top level. Roush-Yates build Fords, TRD/Gibbs build Toyotas plus there are several others building for the various levels and makes. The lease programs are tiered so the low buck teams can lease a less expensive piece but there is a max life for the engines once the bore wears to a specific size. Some of the teams buy older engines but as Carl Long found out, if it's out of spec the penalties will be severe. It's easy to get off the shelf parts but putting a complete competitive program together take millions at the Cup level.

[Bleu]

I found it very disappointing that those three manufacturers (everyone should know which three I am talking about) withdrew totally from F1. Even if they had not continued as their own team, I would have liked to see them continuing as engine manufacturer only.

[GS1]

It costs too much to develop/supply f1 engines. Mercedes is there because they bought out Ilmor who used to prepare and build their F1 engines, Ferrari is there as they are the richest team in F1 and have always built their own engines. and Renault is there because it wants to remain a toehold in F1 for marketing purposes even though not talked about, Meccachrome prepares the engines at viry-chilton-its in their annual shareholders report.

Edited by GS1, 05 August 2012 - 18:02.

[Jimisgod]

> Only economically viable to sell to multiple teams. I imagine 4 engines with 3 teams each is about as many as could be run these days.
> Not so much room for innovation, so the established builders have the upper hand.
> Unproven engine builders will not be able to secure multiple teams.
> Little relevance to what car companies are doing in their production car engines as the regulations are too restrictive. Why bother putting money into what is essentially only marketing?

BMW up and sulked out of F1 when in reality their engine was not so poor, but they were - of course - only building engines for 2 cars.

Edited by Jimisgod, 05 August 2012 - 18:51.

[BRG]

> Little relevance to what car companies are doing in their production car engines as the regulations are too restrictive. Why bother putting money into what is essentially only marketing?

There has never been any real relevance to production engines, with the possible exception of Ferrari. Ford learnt nothing from the DFV - at the time, they were still building cast iron push rod engines. Likewise Renault, Toyota, Honda, Alfa, and so on.

[loki]

I found it very disappointing that those three manufacturers (everyone should know which three I am talking about) withdrew totally from F1. Even if they had not continued as their own team, I would have liked to see them continuing as engine manufacturer only.

Those companies decided it was a poor return on the investment. It's as simple as that. Other forms of racing are better platforms for those companies.

[itsademo]

There has never been any real relevance to production engines, with the possible exception of Ferrari. Ford learnt nothing from the DFV - at the time, they were still building cast iron push rod engines. Likewise Renault, Toyota, Honda, Alfa, and so on.

so clearly you were/are a manager at Ford? (Cosworth) to make such a bold claim?
and trying to justify that with they were still building cast iron push rod engines ignores the fact information does not have to have a commercial use right now to be worth the investment to gain such information, otherwise most universities would have almost no funding from business for reseach which can take decades before any commercial use is found for it.
Besides lets not forget its cylinder head design became a major influence on designers of most modern engines, so clearly not only DID Ford but most other maunfactuers also learnt lots from it

Edited by itsademo, 05 August 2012 - 23:09.

[V8 Fireworks]

Case in the point, the V6's - I am no overly enthusiastic about the notion of being an F1 fan post 2014. When they changed from V10's I *did* hear a difference, and there *will* be a difference both in sound and nature of the way they run. High torque coming out of corners is missing from F1 in my opinion. Combined with all of the other "little" changes - restrictions, it may cross that threshold for me in 2014.

A <2L turbo V6 is classic F1 tradition though, it's really not a problem in that sense.


It's just so casual... This is an F1 car, it has a V12 of course, journalists (very deliberate choice of who is behind the wheel of each! ) can drive it.

V10 is very well known sound attributed to f1 for a decade, but it is very hard to argue that V12 is the superior almost magical sound. Bloody Renaults winning every thing.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 06 August 2012 - 10:20.

[GotYoubyTheBalls]

Fans can blame themselves for this mess F1 is in in terms of engines.

Ive said it before that these F1 cars are too safe on reliability these days. Reliability means teams are not pushing.

But what can you say when most idiots on here would rather see all 24 cars pounding around meaninglessly rather than engines being pushed to the max and blowing.

This forum asked for this so no one can complain. Engine regs have thus become about reliability and nothing else. Engine companies quite rightly find this boring and dont compete.

[Clatter]

Fans can blame themselves for this mess F1 is in in terms of engines.

Ive said it before that these F1 cars are too safe on reliability these days. Reliability means teams are not pushing.

But what can you say when most idiots on here would rather see all 24 cars pounding around meaninglessly rather than engines being pushed to the max and blowing.

This forum asked for this so no one can complain. Engine regs have thus become about reliability and nothing else. Engine companies quite rightly find this boring and dont compete.

What absolute rubbish.

Can you provide any proof that the engine rules are in anyway tied to the fans wishes? And when did this forum ask for these regs?

[GotYoubyTheBalls]

What absolute rubbish.

Can you provide any proof that the engine rules are in anyway tied to the fans wishes? And when did this forum ask for these regs?

There have been numerous threads on here about whether people thought reliability was a good or bad thing.

The standard response from this forum was " Yes its a good thing because i enjoy seeing every car finish the race" or "Fans miss out when cars are unreliable because they dont get to see racing"

I have always argued that a bit of unreliability was a good thing because it indicated that the sport was healthy and pushing the limits. In years before these stupid engine and gearbox rules teams were pushing to the max. I loved it. It really showed how on the edge these cars were, which i think F1's should be. They way they are now are just ridiculously tame. Id rather watch cars on the edge and some not finish than 24 cars pounding around safely and well within its limits.

A lot of people argued that unreliabilty ruined championships. I say it added to the drama. And these pathetic rules still have the same effect anyway because if your engine or gearbox doesnt last then you are penalised in the NEXT race which is absurd.

So yes, a lot of this forum like racing this way and in turn the rules are developed along this path.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Clatter]

There have been numerous threads on here about whether people thought reliability was a good or bad thing.

The standard response from this forum was " Yes its a good thing because i enjoy seeing every car finish the race" or "Fans miss out when cars are unreliable because they dont get to see racing"

I have always argued that a bit of unreliability was a good thing because it indicated that the sport was healthy and pushing the limits. In years before these stupid engine and gearbox rules teams were pushing to the max. I loved it. It really showed how on the edge these cars were, which i think F1's should be. They way they are now are just ridiculously tame. Id rather watch cars on the edge and some not finish than 24 cars pounding around safely and well within its limits.

A lot of people argued that unreliabilty ruined championships. I say it added to the drama. And these pathetic rules still have the same effect anyway because if your engine or gearbox doesnt last then you are penalised in the NEXT race which is absurd.

So yes, a lot of this forum like racing this way and in turn the rules are developed along this path.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Just because many prefer to see cars on track racing and not broken at the side of the track has nothing to do with the the reason the rules were changed. The rules have not been changed due to fan pressure, so your previous post is still nonsense.

[GotYoubyTheBalls]

Just because many prefer to see cars on track racing and not broken at the side of the track has nothing to do with the the reason the rules were changed. The rules have not been changed due to fan pressure, so your previous post is still nonsense.

The point is the fans want it this way. They want reliability and therefore tame racing. Its not what F1 used to be about.

Fans cant complain when they take the above attitude. They got what they deserve.

Its also obvious that engine makers dont see any challenge in designing engines which have next to zero effect on the overall performance of the car. Hence not many are interested.
But as you say, you prefer reliability. Its dull, but i guess that suits some types...

Edited by GotYoubyTheBalls, 07 August 2012 - 13:26.

[Clatter]

The point is the fans want it this way. They want reliability and therefore tame racing. Its not what F1 used to be about.

Fans cant complain when they take the above attitude. They got what they deserve.

Its also obvious that engine makers dont see any challenge in designing engines which have next to zero effect on the overall performance of the car. Hence not many are interested.
But as you say, you prefer reliability. Its dull, but i guess that suits some types...

There is nothing wrong with reliability. What most fans are unhappy with is the spec state of the engines. The current rules are not what the fans asked for, they are what the teams\manufactures wanted to cut costs.

You might think reliability dull, but I see nothing exciting in a car sitting at the side of the road. It's certainly spectacular when an engine blows, but that's not the same as exciting, but I guess that suits some types.....

[GotYoubyTheBalls]

There is nothing wrong with reliability. What most fans are unhappy with is the spec state of the engines. The current rules are not what the fans asked for, they are what the teams\manufactures wanted to cut costs.

You might think reliability dull, but I see nothing exciting in a car sitting at the side of the road. It's certainly spectacular when an engine blows, but that's not the same as exciting, but I guess that suits some types.....

I dont find reliabilty dull. If teams can push the limits and have reliability then all well and good. But the two rarely go hand in hand. If you dont want spec engines then engines will start becoming unreliable and you will have more failures. If more failures mean the engines are a more important part of the package than they are now i can definetly live with a few cars sitting beside the track every race. Its been part of F1 since the start. The fine line between building a fast car and getting it to last the whole race. That was F1 for 50 years....

If you dont want spec engines then you have to be prepared that some cars are going to have failures. I just hope that as soon as that starts to happen you wont start getting your panties in a bunch.

[Clatter]

I dont find reliabilty dull. If teams can push the limits and have reliability then all well and good. But the two rarely go hand in hand. If you dont want spec engines then engines will start becoming unreliable and you will have more failures. If more failures mean the engines are a more important part of the package than they are now i can definetly live with a few cars sitting beside the track every race. Its been part of F1 since the start. The fine line between building a fast car and getting it to last the whole race. That was F1 for 50 years....

If you dont want spec engines then you have to be prepared that some cars are going to have failures. I just hope that as soon as that starts to happen you wont start getting your panties in a bunch.

I've never said I wanted spec engines in the first place, and there is no reason why development and reliability cannot go hand in hand. Looks to me that you have no idea about the relationship between what the fans want and what the manufacturers want and how the rules are developed to suit the latter. You can keep your "it's all the fans fault" argument, but just keep adjusting your underwear as they must have ridden well up by now.

[GotYoubyTheBalls]

I've never said I wanted spec engines in the first place, and there is no reason why development and reliability cannot go hand in hand. Looks to me that you have no idea about the relationship between what the fans want and what the manufacturers want and how the rules are developed to suit the latter. You can keep your "it's all the fans fault" argument, but just keep adjusting your underwear as they must have ridden well up by now.

If engines are ever unfrozen and allowed to be developed during the season with rev limits and restrictions dropped i think you will be severely dissapointed that some cars arent going to finish. I wont be because im a fan of authentic F1.

You are one of the group of fans who want the best of both worlds and it just isnt going to happen. The whinging will start as usual if ever a few cars start blowing themselves to bits when running up front. I say it shows F1 is in good shape.

If you want to see 24 cars start and finish the race then F1 has never been better. I dot particularly find that interesting either. You do.

Dont get bitter, get better.

[Clatter]

If engines are ever unfrozen and allowed to be developed during the season with rev limits and restrictions dropped i think you will be severely dissapointed that some cars arent going to finish. I wont be because im a fan of authentic F1.

You are one of the group of fans who want the best of both worlds and it just isnt going to happen. The whinging will start as usual if ever a few cars start blowing themselves to bits when running up front. I say it shows F1 is in good shape.

If you want to see 24 cars start and finish the race then F1 has never been better. I dot particularly find that interesting either. You do.

Dont get bitter, get better.

When you start trying to pass yourself off as an authentic fan, and by implication anyone who doesnt hold your view as something lesser then no argument you make will ever hold water. Go away, read what people are really saying, and come back when you have a better understanding.

[Wingcommander]

The increased reliability & engine freeze have nothing to do with the fans.

[loki]

I wont be because im a fan of authentic F1.

(snip)

Dont get bitter, get better.

So you're the arbiter of what constitutes "authentic" F1? I see. How did that happen? Oh, you simply appointed yourself as such. I see.

That part about not getting bitter, it's good advice. Too bad your posts don't follow it...

Edited by loki, 08 August 2012 - 05:38.

[GotYoubyTheBalls]

Clearly some above cannot follow the argument and have a lack of understanding of the sport. Ive tried to help... but you cant help everyone.

[seahawk]

While the rules are not really invting a new manufacturer at the moment even the up-coming rule change did not attract any new players.

F1 is expensive, if you fail the negative headlines are bad, if you win the question is how many buyers really care. Renault had a dominating engine for 2 years, yet they are selling less, while VW (not in F1) are increasing their market share. I personally think for the big car makers joining F1 is not worth the effort.