2392 replies to this topic

[pdac]

KWSN - DSM's suggestion were in vein with what Ben1445 say.

 

I am looking to set a cost-cap on the engines, where it becomes a decision from the manufacturer how much they will spend on developing the engines, held up against what they get back from their customers - For easy round numbers, I would peg it at $5 million, a number which will not be changed until next engine rules come in to play, be that 1, 5 or 15 years.

 

Toyota decided to spend about $1.5 billion getting nothing out of F1, this is a decision a global manufacturer can make, since the actual cost have to be measured against more than just what happens on track, losing $21 or 30 million on engine income will mean nothing for Daimler Group, will mean a LOT to Williams, Racing Point and McLaren.

 

I'd peg them at $2m

 

Thinking about it, if F1 were to relax the technical regs and just say that each team were pegged to a specific spend on certain parts, that could make for a much more interesting and diverse field of cars.

Edited by pdac, 23 August 2020 - 15:15.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I'd peg them at $2m

Thinking about it, if F1 were to relax the technical regs and just say that each team were pegged to a specific spend on certain parts, that could make for a much more interesting and diverse field of cars.

What about teams that make both chassis and PU? They would always have a built in advantage?

[Squeed]

Depends on who is in control...

in the US, both mainstream GOP and Dems understand that a strong economy and stock market are important. There are plenty of bad ideas on both sides of the aisle, but ultimately if you tank too many jobs or 401k’s, the voting public will come after you with pitchforks.

[KWSN - DSM]

What about teams that make both chassis and PU? They would always have a built in advantage?

 

Yes good for them.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Yes good for them.

My point was how you would police the budget cap?

My guess is you feel you teams shouldn’t make both?

[pdac]

What about teams that make both chassis and PU? They would always have a built in advantage?

 

Then remove that option - the teams will have to separate from the PU manufacturing side and buy PU's just like the others.

[richardprice]

Then remove that option - the teams will have to separate from the PU manufacturing side and buy PU's just like the others.

 

Bye Bye Ferrari.

Bye Bye Mercedes.

Bye Bye Renault.

Who's left?  

[KWSN - DSM]

My point was how you would police the budget cap?

My guess is you feel you teams shouldn’t make both?

 

No I think it is fine for a team / manufacturer to make their own engines, throwing the money after doing that, while taking a loss through selling cheaply, and having optimum packaging since they actually build the darn thing.

 

So yes good for them.

 

The FIA will police budget caps, I presume or personally think the penalty for braking those would be draconian, as in losing all points and all money won in a season.

[pdac]

Bye Bye Ferrari.

Bye Bye Mercedes.

Bye Bye Renault.

Who's left?  

 

It does not mean that Ferrari PU's cannot supply the Ferrari team. Simply that they have to operate as independent companies and so the Ferrari team will have to buy Ferrari PU's at the going rate and so the cost is wholly in their accounts to be perused to ensure they are adhering to the budget cap. That's all.

[richardprice]

It does not mean that Ferrari PU's cannot supply the Ferrari team. Simply that they have to operate as independent companies and so the Ferrari team will have to buy Ferrari PU's at the going rate and so the cost is wholly in their accounts to be perused to ensure they are adhering to the budget cap. That's all.

 

If they went with separating out the PUs from the chassis manufacturers, then they wouldn't stop at just the cost basis - you can bet your pinky sitting cheeks that there would be a restriction that forbids the PU manufacturer from giving any specific customer team special service.

 

Right now, where the manufacturer builds both a PU and a chassis, the PU is built for the manufacturers chassis and customer teams get to suck it - this means cooling, fixtures and fittings, size, packaging, power requirements etc etc for Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault are built around those manufacturers chassis.  In any situation where the PU has to be divorced from the chassis in terms of manufacturer relationship, I can see that special relationship being forcibly cut as well, probably with more standardisation so any team can move to any PU unit and it will be as simple as any other engine swap on a race weekend (Liberty love to make this a spec sport) - the PU manufacturers would probably have to develop without input from any team, and deliver the same thing on the same day to all chassis builders.

[Alfisti]

There is going to be a lot of discussion about hydrogen and bio/synthetic fuels here and in F1’s direct stakeholder boardrooms, so here’s my typical problem statement:

Firstly, we all need to be aware that over 95% of current global hydrogen supply comes as a by-product of the fossil fuel industry (natural gas, oil and coal). 'Green hydrogen' can be created through processes such as electrolysis of water but requires renewably generated electricity as an input. Corollary is that a solution reliant on hydrogen also requires mass adoption of renewable energy if we truly wish to move away from fossil fuel sources.

Biofuels derived from biomass are, in theory, carbon neutral almost by definition; plant takes carbon out of the atmoshpere, plant is turned into usable fuel, carbon gets re-released into atmosphere. However, emission considerations as a result of land use changes, farming/harvesting, transportation and processing into biofuel also need to be factored in. And that’s before you start worrying about how agriculture can support a growing population size and food production alongside biofuel production.

Synthetic fuels are made from the combination of a hydrogen and carbon feedstock to be combined together to make a usable hydrocarbon. These feedstocks usually come from fossil fuel industry, but can come from a combination of ‘green hydrogen’ and biomass. This therefore shares the same issues as the two previously mentioned cases to produce as well as the extra process of energy input while converting to a new synthetic hydrocrbon.

Conclusion is that there isn’t a magic bullet solution on any front. Solving the problem of how to power our transportation needs without the carbon impact being too high (short of rationing their use) is a complicated and nuanced debate which needs to take into account the entire impact. And yes, that goes for battery electric vehicles too.

I've been here 20 god damnded years and that is the best post have seen.

[pdac]

If they went with separating out the PUs from the chassis manufacturers, then they wouldn't stop at just the cost basis - you can bet your pinky sitting cheeks that there would be a restriction that forbids the PU manufacturer from giving any specific customer team special service.

 

Right now, where the manufacturer builds both a PU and a chassis, the PU is built for the manufacturers chassis and customer teams get to suck it - this means cooling, fixtures and fittings, size, packaging, power requirements etc etc for Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault are built around those manufacturers chassis.  In any situation where the PU has to be divorced from the chassis in terms of manufacturer relationship, I can see that special relationship being forcibly cut as well, probably with more standardisation so any team can move to any PU unit and it will be as simple as any other engine swap on a race weekend (Liberty love to make this a spec sport) - the PU manufacturers would probably have to develop without input from any team, and deliver the same thing on the same day to all chassis builders.

 

You are probably right. But, in the long run, would that a) be a bad thing and b) discourage the likes of Ferrari or Mercedes or Renault from taking part?

[Marklar]

I have no clue where else to post this but Volkswagen's chairman wrote a piece where he is massively praising F1 for going for e-fuels and co2 neutrality and that F1 would be "more thrilling, fun, (real) motor racing and more about technical competition than Formula E that is only doing some laps in gaming mode in the city"

bit astonishing really considering that he has two teams entered in Formula E, but may or may not be a indicator for future interest ig

https://www.motorspo...chnisch-besser/

cue the annual VW rumours

[richardprice]

You are probably right. But, in the long run, would that a) be a bad thing and b) discourage the likes of Ferrari or Mercedes or Renault from taking part?

 

In my opinion, yes it would be a bad thing, and yes I think it would discourage manufacturer teams - why spend the money on both engine and team if the two cannot work together?  Why not instead save the investment and any potential embarrassment and just enter an engine instead?  Everyone knows Renault powered RedBull to WDCs and WCCs four times, as does everyone knows who powered Hamilton to his first WDC in 2008 with McLaren, so the PR aspect is still largely there - and everyone considers it an amusing situation when Renault-the-team are outscored by another Renault powered team in the championship, that would become the situation we would see with all the engine suppliers...

[Ben1445]

I have no clue where else to post this but Volkswagen's chairman wrote a piece where he is massively praising F1 for going for e-fuels and co2 neutrality and that F1 would be "more thrilling, fun, (real) motor racing and more about technical competition than Formula E that is only doing some laps in gaming mode in the city"

bit astonishing really considering that he has two teams entered in Formula E, but may or may not be a indicator for future interest ig

https://www.motorspo...chnisch-besser/

cue the annual VW rumours

I was reading about this last night on a considerably more sensationalist (and journalistically terrible) English language article, so I went and found his original words on LinkedIn to get the full context. There's more to it than his motorsport comments in my view.

He calls for electric vehicles wherever possible, qualifying that as including 'all passenger cars, most delivery vans, most of public transportation and garbage collection'. That’s pretty conclusive. The use of biofuels he would then see as applicable for longer haul delivery/mass passenger transit - such as heavy goods vehicles, coaches and aircraft. We can also fairly safely assume that these will be increasingly hybrid (and probably say tending towards series hybrids rather than parallel).

Where things take an interesting turn is that he reiterates VWs official position that hydrogen fuel cells do not make sense for the transport sector because of their 'low efficiency and the 3 times higher energy demand compared to EVs' before launching into his support of bio/synthetic fuels. Important to note here, I believe, is that VW has invested huge sums into EV tech and comparatively little into hydrogen. They also have decades of experience, knowledge and IP in combustion engine production which they will want to avoid becoming stranded assets. I agree with the position that green hydrogen is an inefficient use of electricity compared to small scale battery electric… but I don't think it should be ruled out quite so quickly for all larger transportation needs.

He recognises that synthetic fuels are also highly energy intensive to produce but states that they will be required for transportation with can’t be electrified ‘like planes’. Synthetic fuels require a combination of green hydrogen and biomass to approach carbon neutral, thus sharing the same issues of hydrogen which he so readily dismissed (I believe I’ve already covered why that may be). I’ve yet to form a firm opinion myself over the trade off between hydrogen against bio/synth and in reality it depends on the use case. An advantage bio/synth should have over hydrogen is energy density in storage, hence his specific mentioning of aircraft actually being fairly on the mark in that regard.

His comments about motorsport, as he says himself, are his personal views - not that of VW. He is entitled to have that opinion of course and express it wherever he feels to be appropriate. Based on his comments elsewhere about electro-mobilty being such a huge future business, I don’t believe that the VW Group’s brands in Formula E are in immediate trouble unless a better/more enticing EV series comes along to disrupt the disruptors - it could happen, and I’d go as far as to say I’d almost welcome it. He may well be personally unconvinced by Formula E in its current form (again, valid) but its relevance building brand appeal to younger demographics is good foundation work to be involved in for what might come next. In 2023 we will see Gen3 cars take another leap forward in technology, which may change a fair few opinions.

With new F1 regs set to be decided for 2026 there’s still plenty of time for opinions and situations to change by the time firm first decisions and commitments need to be made circa 2024. We don’t even know if Herbert Diess will heading up VW Group by then. F1 still needs to decide how it will pitch itself if it wants to entice engine manufacturers, like the VW Group, who are targeting life yet in combustion technology (albeit in a shrinking market) for certain transportation sectors (Scania F1 Team anyone? I kid…I think).

Personally, I still think that all of the above means F1 ought to work towards an indisputable reduction in the importance of the combustion part of the car and increase focus on electrification. It still means using as little fuel (fossil, bio or synth) as possible and it still means things like EV only drive capability (in the pits or on outlaps say). I’m struggling to see any way around that which keeps F1 in the same sphere of advanced technical development that we understand it to represent.

I also don’t think this signals cold feet from VW Group about electrification or in their brand’s presence in Formula E. What we learn is that Herbert Diess personally isn’t too keen on Formula E’s current product and sees some potential for continuing relevance in F1. How exactly F1 seeks to make the most of that (or to ignore it completely) remains to be seen.

[Ben1445]

So, Honda is out after 2021 with this forming the core of their rationale: 
 

In the meantime, as the automobile industry undergoes a once-in-one-hundred-years period of great transformation, Honda has decided to strive for the “realization of carbon neutrality by 2050.” This goal will be pursued as part of Honda’s environmental initiatives which is one of the top priorities of Honda as a mobility manufacturer.

Toward this end, Honda needs to funnel its corporate resources in research and development into the areas of future power unit and energy technologies, including fuel cell vehicle (FCV) and battery EV (BEV) technologies, which will be the core of carbon-free technologies. As a part of this move, in April of this year, Honda created a new center called Innovative Research Excellence, Power Unit & Energy. Honda will allocate its energy management and fuel technologies as well as knowledge amassed through F1 activities to this area of power unit and energy technologies and take initiatives while focusing on the future realization of carbon neutrality. Toward this end, Honda made the decision to conclude its participation in F1.

(https://global.honda...201002aeng.html)

 

F1's current technological bet on reaching net zero centres on the development of 'advanced sustainable fuels', and here's Honda saying they're betting on a push of investment into batteries and hydrogen fuel cells.

[shurajan]

Considering the bombshell from Honda may be its time to move toward electric?

I mean power units and batteries can compete in power and capacity. This can be attractive from marketing perspective.

Edited by shurajan, 02 October 2020 - 08:32.

[Goron3]

I think it's fair to say that the 2026 engine regulations need to be perfect. F1 seems to have gone down the route of advanced and sustainable fuels. Here's hoping it's attractive to manufacturers.

[ARTGP]

I don't get it. These reg are what the manufacturers asked for.

 

Why is the FIA responsible for coming up with the regs? Why don't Mercedes, Renault tell them exactly what they want. We had Porsche for a minute.

[Ben1445]

Problem is they're chasing a moving target. What the manufacturers wanted in 2018 isn't what they wanted in 2020 and won't be what they want in 2022. 

 

Automotive industry is in a turbulent transitional phase and so rules need security. 

 

Placing a large developmental focus on combustion tech is not a secure bet. 

 

Personally, I still think hybrids can be rescued if the combustion side becomes a control unit which has to meet a performance spec. If the manufactures have to spend very little on the ICE because it offers no advantage to them but channel everything into making the electric side of the PU more competitive, perhaps we wouldn't see the likes of Honda choosing to leave. 

 

Unless they're through with ICE completely and don't want to be seen racing them at all ... which it doesn't look to be the case just yet... 

Edited by Ben1445, 02 October 2020 - 09:10.

[KWSN - DSM]

Go full petrol, stop catering to the manufacturers.

[PayasYouRace]

I'd say a spec ICE would be the way to go. In the same way that the TOCA engine is available for BTCC, allowing manufacturers to enter their own but balanced to the spec unit. Have the hybrid system as a performance differentiator. I'm only suggesting having the spec unit as an option is because I simply can't see Ferrari running whatever Cosworth or similar standard engine.

[krapmeister]

^
Was just thinking that myself - a 'built to spec' ICE as it seems most manufacturers aren't interested in those any more apparently, but is something that a supplier like Cosworth can undertake. Although Ferrari and others can still make the ICE if they want to but it is under heavily prescribed rules. And then let the manufacturers play with the development of the ERS instead, with more freedom.

Edited by krapmeister, 02 October 2020 - 10:33.

[Ben1445]

Craig Scarborough is on board with the spec ICE idea 

 

 

[Kalmake]

Wont be spec, but will be frozen and equalized. That's close to what the plan always was anyway.

[PayasYouRace]

Craig Scarborough is on board with the spec ICE idea 

 

 

 

...and I reckon he knows a lot more about it than us. I'm just glad we've got a halfway decent idea.

[noikeee]

It has to be either something partially spec, totally spec, or equalised in some manner. No way we can just keep manufacturers piling hundreds of millions of dollars into either tech that's likely going to be quickly outdated (hybrids), or tech that's still too much in its infancy (electric/hydrogen) and therefore too much of a risk.

[AustinF1]

What form the 2026 PU regs will take has not yet been decided, but talks have started up. I'm guessing Honda's departure might affect how that looks...

 

No new manufacturer is coming to F1 until at least 2026, and only then if there's a sane PU formula. What F1 does with their next PU formula will be critical.

[AustinF1]

I don't get it. These reg are what the manufacturers asked for.

 

Why is the FIA responsible for coming up with the regs? Why don't Mercedes, Renault tell them exactly what they want. We had Porsche for a minute.

That's how F1 got in the mess it's in now, and is why Porsche isn't in...

[AustinF1]

I remember when F1 went to this formula, so many people were saying then that ICE development and combustion research were dead ends, with no gains to be made. I and others said at the time abandoning that research and devoting everything to one path of development was folly. Turns out that under this formula, huge gains were made in combustion. IF we must insist on some road-relevance link for F1, it seems to me that since ICE hybrid engines aren't going anywhere anytime soon, a focus on further combustion efficiency research and alternative fuels would be a very viable path to go down...

[pdac]

...and I reckon he knows a lot more about it than us. I'm just glad we've got a halfway decent idea.

 

Surely the elephant in the room is Ferrari, though. It is abundantly clear now that they still hold sway with the powers who think they are the ones in control of F1. So anything that Ferrari don't want will never happen. From my view, Ferrari do not want spec. So, whilst it may be the most sensible idea, I don't think it will every get past Ferrari (which means it won't happen).

Edited by pdac, 02 October 2020 - 20:46.

[Alburaq]

Ferrari do not want spec. So, whilst it may be the most sensible idea, I don't think it will every get past Ferrari (which means it won't happen).

 

It's the most lousy idea and sensible F1 connoisseurs too do not like it. There are alternatives to make these engines less complex and less costly.
Let's start with the electric energy management rules and simplify them. 

Edited by Alburaq, 02 October 2020 - 20:56.

[Ben1445]

I don't think a "spec" or "control" combustion engine formula need to be totally devoid of engineering gains in the field. 

 

Let's just say we had F1 contract an independent engine builder to make the control unit (a la BTCC). In the tender for supply they could require the engine builder to work with the fuel supplier to keep cutting fuel burn or increase the 'sustainable' fuel in the fuel blend by 5% year on year throughout the supply contract. OEMs taking the option of running their own ICE would be required to keep up with any gains.

Edited by Ben1445, 02 October 2020 - 21:14.

[Ben1445]

Surely the elephant in the room is Ferrari, though. It is abundantly clear now that they still hold sway with the powers who think they are the ones in control of F1. So anything that Ferrari don't want will never happen. From my view, Ferrari do not want spec. So, whilst it may be the most sensible idea, I don't think it will every get past Ferrari (which means it won't happen).

I agree, Ferrari will never run anything but a Ferrari engine. 

 

This is where the BTCC's TOCA engine model could offer a solution.  

 

A spec or 'control' engine available to all would be there to use, but an OEM (like Ferrari) could bring their own engine design provided that its performance is tuned to equal that of the control engine. 

 

If Ferrari could be persuaded to agree to this compromise, it could go a long way to making the PUs cheaper (which we almost universally agree they now need to be). 

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I agree, Ferrari will never run anything but a Ferrari engine.

This is where the BTCC's TOCA engine model could offer a solution.

A spec or 'control' engine available to all would be there to use, but an OEM (like Ferrari) could bring their own engine design provided that its performance is tuned to equal that of the control engine.

If Ferrari could be persuaded to agree to this compromise, it could go a long way to making the PUs cheaper (which we almost universally agree they now need to be).

That makes ZERO sense why would any manufacture do and agree to that?

[w1Y]

Everyone is getting a bit worried about Tesla and their positioning for huge future market share gains.

[Ben1445]

That makes ZERO sense why would any manufacture do and agree to that?

Firstly, these rules are not set to be introduced now but in 2026 and should be able to carry the sport through to the mid 2030s. We need to think about the regs within that time frame.  

 

Between now and 2035 manufacturers are, generally speaking, likely to be winding down combustion engine R&D and ramping up spending into electrification (literally the reason Honda are saying they're leaving F1). 

 

If there is little desire to spend mega bucks developing a combustion engine then such a route as described would described allow combustion engines to be used for a far lower price than today. You can bring independent engines builders back into the fray who currently have no hope of rejoining. 

 

With the combustion engines neutralised as a performance differentiator, advanced regen braking systems would become the primary focus of PU design - the reason a manufacturer would be in the sport. It also broadens out the appeal of the regs not just to more manufacturers but also to independent electrification experts like WAE or STARD, who could work with a control engine supplier as a platform. 

 

The goal of the 2026 regs should be to lower the PU costs and to broaden both the financial and technological appeal beyond a select group of rich OEMs. It will also need to be done with as smooth a transition as possible so that stability can be maintained. I think a control engine plan can offer that to the sport in a way that the other options of merely evolving the current regs, making the ERS spec or going back to no hybrid altogether cannot deliver to the same extent. 

Edited by Ben1445, 03 October 2020 - 08:00.

[Clatter]

That makes ZERO sense why would any manufacture do and agree to that?

For the greater good? The alternative could be to kill the golden goose.

[RA2]

For starters they should move the mugk to the front as soon as possible

[GrumpyYoungMan]

For the greater good? The alternative could be to kill the golden goose.

The greater good won't sell Ferrari cars... I would imagine...

 

Also I can not Mercedes or Renault agreeing to that either to be honest...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 03 October 2020 - 08:54.

[Aaaarrgghh]

Personally, F1 having a spec engine might actually finally kill my life-long interest in the sport. As always, I suggest a lot freer regulations, but of course that's not going to happen. Whatever they will be in the end, I hope that Honda's exit makes FIA take these regulations even more seriously and that they don't panic and implement some arbitrary knee-jerk reaction.

[Ben1445]

Personally, F1 having a spec engine might actually finally kill my life-long interest in the sport.

If not a spec engine (which Ferrari would never agree to anyway), what about a control engine? A unit for everyone to match such that any engine used, no matter who brings it or how it achieves it, is a black box which delivers the same performance to every car. Wedded to that being open engineering of energy recovery systems as a performance differentiator.

[PayasYouRace]

That makes ZERO sense why would any manufacture do and agree to that?

 

Perhaps you should ask Honda, Toyota and BMW who have manufacturer teams in BTCC, racing their engines against a lot of TOCA engines.

 

See, Ben1445's comprehensive reply for the rest of the reasoning as to why they would.

[Clatter]

The greater good won't sell Ferrari cars... I would imagine...

 

Also I can not Mercedes or Renault agreeing to that either to be honest...

 

I seriously doubt it would have any effect on Ferrari sales. They may not agree with it, but then, in being stubborn, they could be hammering in the final nail of F1's coffin.

[RA2]

Ferrari road car is going to fall the hardest but McLaren is going to beat them to it.

[pdac]

I seriously doubt it would have any effect on Ferrari sales. They may not agree with it, but then, in being stubborn, they could be hammering in the final nail of F1's coffin.

 

Yes, Ferrari sell cars because they are Ferraris. People buy them because that's the brand people in their target market have bought in the past and now it's established that they are the brand to go to if you are now in their target market. As long as they maintain that image and keep down new upstarts that might challenge their market, then they will continue to sell. They don't need to be F1 champions, but they do need to keep people mentioning the name Ferrari when they talk about their aspirations.

[KWSN - DSM]

There is nothing critical, there is no death kneel for F1. There are different views and opinions on the power source for the cars, petrol, hybrid, full electric.

 

If they can not match or get close to

 

Average speed 260 kilometres per hour

One lap completed in 1:20:000

Race completed in about 1:20:00

 

At Monza, then full electrical is a no-go.

 

They need to cover 300 kilometres in 2 hours, that is the bench mark, which currently is far away.

[pdac]

There is nothing critical, there is no death kneel for F1. There are different views and opinions on the power source for the cars, petrol, hybrid, full electric.

 

If they can not match or get close to

 

Average speed 260 kilometres per hour

One lap completed in 1:20:000

Race completed in about 1:20:00

 

At Monza, then full electrical is a no-go.

 

They need to cover 300 kilometres in 2 hours, that is the bench mark, which currently is far away.

 

This is probably true. Really, all that matters is that there is at least one manufacturer that is willing to supply F1 (whatever the engine formula). A caveat to that is that F1 really wants to have Ferrari on board - so they have to be happy with whatever the solution is too. But that's about it.

[Sterzo]

If they can not match or get close to

 

Average speed 260 kilometres per hour

One lap completed in 1:20:000

Race completed in about 1:20:00

 

At Monza, then full electrical is a no-go.

 

They need to cover 300 kilometres in 2 hours, that is the bench mark, which currently is far away.

Why?

[SenorSjon]

Bring what you want, but HP is capped at 850 or so. Why lower? It forces teams to drop DF to gain top speed. Now cars have both due to the engine power dragging the longboats forwards on the straights.

Gains can then be made with lighter engines (no longer minimum engine weights) and more freedom on a hybrid system if so desired.

If you can build a 50kg engine making 850 hp, you could have an advantage over others needing 75kg. Ditching car weight is very road relevant, since cars (road and racing) get heavier every year. It creates more wear on brakes, tires and infrastructure.