598 replies to this topic

[NoForumForOldPole]

Toto says they are bringing 'spicy' engine from Brazil to Jedda. Good for them, bad for Red Bulls if we see similar performance difference.

It is completely legal, as grid penalty for new engine was served according to the rules. Is it fair however? - is 5 place grid penalty in one race adequate to deterrent engine stocking?

[LightningMcQueen]

Give the 5 place penalty was introduced to save Honda from embarrassing themselves I’d say fair is fair.. certainly, neither RBR nor Honda can complain that’s for sure

Mercedes have clearly deprioritised reliability in search of performance known they will be able to retrospectively make reliability changes.. an approach used by many engine manufacturers in the past.

Edited by LightningMcQueen, 22 November 2021 - 16:53.

[Squeed]

Toto says they are bringing 'spicy' engine from Brazil to Jedda. Good for them, bad for Red Bulls if we see similar performance difference.

It is completely legal, as grid penalty for new engine was served according to the rules. Is it fair however? - is 5 place grid penalty in one race adequate to deterrent engine stocking?

 

The budget cap should limit this strategy to some degree, but I think they'll go back to 10-place grid penalties if Merc and RB don't fall back to the field under the new regs. 

[Requiem84]

The budget cap should limit this strategy to some degree, but I think they'll go back to 10-place grid penalties if Merc and RB don't fall back to the field under the new regs. 

 

PU's are not part of the budget cap I think....?

Edited by Requiem84, 22 November 2021 - 16:54.

[Squeed]

PU's are not part of the budget cap I think....?

 

I don't really know tbh.  If not, a fresh ICE should definitely be more than 5 places.  You can make up half that penalty before the first turn.  

[shure]

PU's are not part of the budget cap I think....?

I wonder.  I mean, I know that PU development is not part of the cap, but is that also true for PU purchase (for the purposes of argument, in this case the Merc racing team would be the customer of the PU supply org)?  And if so, is there any distinction between regular supply contract and additional, non-warranty units?  They didn't take a new PU because their existing one failed, but as part of a strategic objective

[ARTGP]

Give the 5 place penalty was introduced to save Honda from embarrassing themselves I’d say fair is fair.. certainly, neither RBR nor Honda can complain that’s for sure

 

To be clear, I agree with OP that Merc have paid their dues (the 5 place grid drop).

 

However, I disagree with arguing it's the same thing as RB/Honda and that they can't complain. Merc were stockpiling engines.  Honda was a new manufacturer replacing blown engines.  The rule was designed for the latter, not the former. So the former is a loophole that RB have a right to argue in future seasons that something like this needs to be scrutinized more closely. 

 

 

3 other manufacturers have just seen a massive loophole in how they design the engines for the upcoming engine freeze.  Clarity needs to be provided soon. Can manufacturers run sprint engines or not?

Edited by ARTGP, 22 November 2021 - 17:06.

[Calum]

They will use every loophole available in the search for performance, as it ever was.



Remember Spa 2016 when Hamilton banked a new engine in each of P1, P2 and P3 for a “plus 55” grid penalty?

That was 3 brand new powerplants to last 8 races… it should have been more than enough to last but one still went BANG.

It’s been at the back of my mind with the Brazil-spec needing to last 2 races.

[YamahaV10]

Toto says they are bringing 'spicy' engine from Brazil to Jedda. Good for them, bad for Red Bulls if we see similar performance difference.

It is completely legal, as grid penalty for new engine was served according to the rules. Is it fair however? - is 5 place grid penalty in one race adequate to deterrent engine stocking?

They are driving a truck through the spirit of the engine rules. But i don't think just the ice is the reason for the rocket ship anyway.

It would be different if it was a whole new power unit with new batteries and electric motor. But it isn't.

Toto is taunting fate by getting all cocky and that bodes well for Red Bull

[monolulu]

To be clear, I agree with OP that Merc have paid their dues (the 5 place grid drop).

 

However, I disagree with arguing it's the same thing as RB/Honda and that they can't complain. Merc were stockpiling engines.  Honda was a new manufacturer replacing blown engines.  The rule was designed for the latter, not the former. So the former is a loophole that RB have a right to argue in future seasons that something like this needs to be scrutinized more closely. 

 

 

3 other manufacturers have just seen a massive loophole in how they design the engines for the upcoming engine freeze.  Clarity needs to be provided soon. Can manufacturers run sprint engines or not?

Doesn’t a new PU have to replace an old one now though? Don’t think they can actually stock pile them anymore.

[Ivanhoe]

Fair play to Mercedes as they push the boundaries within the rules. Not that I particularly like it, but what can you say, other than it probably is against the spirit of the rules, but than FIA's lawyers just should have done a better job in writing the regulations. 

 

I can't describe the gutted feeling of frustration I'd have if this exciting season is gonna be decided by engine power though. Two more races with a dominant Mercedes like we saw the last two weekends would be a huge letdown for me. 

[Ivanhoe]

Doesn’t a new PU have to replace an old one now though? Don’t think they can actually stock pile them anymore.

No you can add the "old" engines to the pool. Like Mercedes has been using the Turkey engine in Qatar. It's just one of each PU element per weekend though, can't stockpile during a race weekend by changing several engines, they at least closed that loophole.

[Whitelightning]

Personal feel Honda should give Max a brand new engine in Jeddah as Lewis could be out of reach anyway by quite some margin. Then go into the last race with basically a new engine a give it full beans and try and win the race.

[Chmielinski]

I wonder.  I mean, I know that PU development is not part of the cap, but is that also true for PU purchase (for the purposes of argument, in this case the Merc racing team would be the customer of the PU supply org)?  And if so, is there any distinction between regular supply contract and additional, non-warranty units?  They didn't take a new PU because their existing one failed, but as part of a strategic objective

 

Come on, it's literally the factory Mercedes team. Do you really expect Mercedes HPP to be charging their own team extra for extra engines? Hell, they probably don't pay anything for them.

[flyboym3]

Fair play to Mercedes as they push the boundaries within the rules. Not that I particularly like it, but what can you say, other than it probably is against the spirit of the rules, but than FIA's lawyers just should have done a better job in writing the regulations.

I can't describe the gutted feeling of frustration I'd have if this exciting season is gonna be decided by engine power. Would be a huge letdown for me.

I've always disagreed with taking the motor out of Motorsport.

Absolutely it should be a performance differentiator, it's what got F1 here in the first place.

Ferrari is probably turning in his grave, it is in the DNA of this sport.

[Squeed]

Come on, it's literally the factory Mercedes team. Do you really expect Mercedes HPP to be charging their own team extra for extra engines? Hell, they probably don't pay anything for them.

 

I think Toto pays for the whole HPP operation by negotiating customer team sales.  I believe I've read that HPP actually turns a profit. 

[alframsey]

Toto says they are bringing 'spicy' engine from Brazil to Jedda. Good for them, bad for Red Bulls if we see similar performance difference.

It is completely legal, as grid penalty for new engine was served according to the rules. Is it fair however? - is 5 place grid penalty in one race adequate to deterrent engine stocking?

It probably isn’t a big enough deterrent for Merc, given how there engine degrades after a certain amount of mileage. It is probably enough of a deterrent for Honda though, given they don’t see substantial decreases in performance over time from what I am aware. Or do I have this wrong?

For what it’s worth I think it’s bloody ridiculous that they expect them to get by with only 3 PUs, silly.

[Ivanhoe]

I wonder.  I mean, I know that PU development is not part of the cap, but is that also true for PU purchase (for the purposes of argument, in this case the Merc racing team would be the customer of the PU supply org)?  And if so, is there any distinction between regular supply contract and additional, non-warranty units?  They didn't take a new PU because their existing one failed, but as part of a strategic objective

 

The cost cap only covers spending that is performance-related, therefore teams can spend much beyond that across its whole business. Among other things, the cap excludes:

Marketing
Driver fees
The wages of the team's three highest paid personnel
Employee bonuses
Championship entry fees
Engine supply deal
Travel and hotels
Purchase of superlicences
Non-F1 activities

https://www.autospor...982647/4982647/

[smitten]

Wolff clearly had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he said 'spicy engine'

[TheFish]

How many drivers have managed to get this far into the season without an engine penalty?

[alframsey]

I've always disagreed with taking the motor out of Motorsport.

Absolutely it should be a performance differentiator, it's what got F1 here in the first place.

Ferrari is probably turning in his grave, it is in the DNA of this sport.

This is pretty much how I feel. Aerodynamics being the differentiator is more ‘fake’ motorsports to me, i get that aero is probably the greater equaliser than one team getting the engine perfect but still. Engines are where our love with things that go started, at least mine did.

[Ivanhoe]

I've always disagreed with taking the motor out of Motorsport.

Absolutely it should be a performance differentiator, it's what got F1 here in the first place.

Ferrari is probably turning in his grave, it is in the DNA of this sport.

I agree, but it has been a too dominant factor in this hybrid era, it was just a bit too much of free laptime for me. In my opinion of course.

[YamahaV10]

Fair play to Mercedes as they push the boundaries within the rules. Not that I particularly like it, but what can you say, other than it probably is against the spirit of the rules, but than FIA's lawyers just should have done a better job in writing the regulations.

I can't describe the gutted feeling of frustration I'd have if this exciting season is gonna be decided by engine power. Two more races with a dominant Mercedes like we saw the last two weekends would be a huge letdown for me.

Honda sure won't regret leaving the sport with the ending we are getting.

If Renault doesn't make any progress against Mercedes next year , it wouldn't be surprising if they will be the next ones to leave.

[Ivanhoe]

How many drivers have managed to get this far into the season without an engine penalty?

Only the drivers of Haas and AR are without engine penalties.

[ARTGP]

I think Toto pays for the whole HPP operation by negotiating customer team sales.  I believe I've read that HPP actually turns a profit. 

 

I think that was a later development. As Lauda said, Merc started work on this engine in '07.  They've spent billions. I doubt they've recouped the full expense. It's very much a write off on the accounts in Stuttgart.  These are token profits now.

Edited by ARTGP, 22 November 2021 - 17:28.

[smitten]

I think that was a later development. As Lauda said, Merc started work on this engine in '07.  They've spent billions. I doubt they've recouped the full expense. It's very much a write off on the accounts in Germany.

Depends how you account for the media exposure they've had.

[TennisUK]

If it's not against the rules it's fine.

 

In this instance it's explicitly legislated, so it's absolutely fine. The fact the rule exists in this form because Honda's reliability was so hopeless a few years ago only makes it funnier.

 

They should change the rule next year, though.

[Spillage]

CN they actually run it in full spicy mode in Jedda? It's already done a load of mileage in Brazil.

[TennisUK]

I agree, but it has been a too dominant factor in this hybrid era, it was just a bit too much of free laptime for me. In my opinion of course.

I doubt HPP consider it to have been for free. They worked hard, and worked hard early. A lesson there for all the other manufacturers.

[Bliman]

Honda sure won't regret leaving the sport with the ending we are getting.

If Renault doesn't make any progress against Mercedes next year , it wouldn't be surprising if they will be the next ones to leave.

What with maybe a WDC and the team championship

[TennisUK]

CN they actually run it in full spicy mode in Jedda? It's already done a load of mileage in Brazil.

I imagine they will use a worn engine on friday and do as little mileage as they can with the Brazil spec.

 

And remember this engine only needs to run three races, not four.

 

I was wondering if they might consider switching Bottas's engine in Abu Dhabi. It's not like he is likely to finish second with out it anyway, might be worth giving him a mad engine that only needs to last one race to see if he can do something a bit odd.

[ARTGP]

The Merc engine technically has a little extra mileage on it because they ran the sprint race. So it would be more like 3 and a quarter races.

[alframsey]

I don’t see how people can complain about Merc doing this btw, it’s absolutely legal so what’s the issue? It always baffles me when people moan about teams just, erm, playing by the rules.

[P123]

I think that was a later development. As Lauda said, Merc started work on this engine in '07.  They've spent billions. I doubt they've recouped the full expense. It's very much a write off on the accounts in Stuttgart.  These are token profits now.

 

That was di Montezemolo, and smells like shite ... an excuse to reason away Ferrari's pathetic performance in 2014 (even though they have spent considerable sums too).  Do you think there is an engine manufacturer who will have been developing a particular engine since 2017 for the new 2025 regs?  Sounds quite far fetched.  Mercs engine spending during the life of the  V6s is over $1bn, but when you consider they spend $7bn+ per year on R&D and expect to spend $70bn between 2021 and 2025 on electrification, the F1 side of things is a small drop in the ocean, for quite a sizeable benefit.

[TheFish]

Only the drivers of Haas and AR are without engine penalties.

Thanks. Given it’s the 8th year of these engine rules and hardly anyone can survive the engine rules without a penalty, it seems the rules are too harsh. Especially as we move to more and more races. Give everyone 4 engines and harsher penalties for taking more seems fair for next year.

[ARTGP]

That was di Montezemolo, and smells like shite ... an excuse to reason away Ferrari's pathetic performance in 2014 (even though they have spent considerable sums too).  Do you think there is an engine manufacturer who will have been developing a particular engine since 2017 for the new 2025 regs?  Sounds quite far fetched.

 

Porsche have already been working on their F1 engine since 2017 and they are likely to be here in 2025.  And when I saying "working on", it doesn't mean it was a full time 24/7 dyno assault. But they've certainly done initial concepts, feasibility studies, and even bench tested an engine which would be the basis of an F1 power unit for 2025 when they are very likely to enter F1 again.  If Porsche are spectacular in 2025, it's because they've already been planning this for near a decade. Why do you think Porsche are also so eager to have the MGU-H dropped? Part of it is because the engine they were conceptualizing didn't have an MGU-H.  It's the same reason Merc wanted the hybrid regs. The engine they conceptualized already fit.

 

So yeah, these things are possible to conceptualize years and years in advance.  As for Montezemolo, he claimed that he was informed by Lauda.  It's possible that very similar rudimentary concept studies did take place, and of course the development picked up when the new regulations were actually confirmed.

Edited by ARTGP, 22 November 2021 - 18:08.

[YamahaV10]

I don’t see how people can complain about Merc doing this btw, it’s absolutely legal so what’s the issue? It always baffles me when people moan about teams just, erm, playing by the rules.

It probably isn't even the reason why they are so fast anyway.

If it was as simple as changing the ICE , they would have played this strategy all season long and won the championship already.

[Squeed]

Honda sure won't regret leaving the sport with the ending we are getting.

If Renault doesn't make any progress against Mercedes next year , it wouldn't be surprising if they will be the next ones to leave.

 

The PUs are all competitive at this point.  Whatever edge might exist for one PU vs another is negligible. Ferrari is P3 in the WCC after all. 

[suggerla]

It is legal as stated by many, however it is contradicting the idea of having a cost cap for more competition. So for the future regulations need to be changed in a way that what Mercedes has done will no longer be beneficial, but on the other hands teams who suffer from reliability or damage are not too much penalized.

 

Maybe just allow 1 additional engine outside the cost cap, maybe just harsher penalties. In the particular case it appears it was rewarding for Mercedes to introduce several new engines (on both cars) despite taking grid penalties according to the rules.

[Squeed]

 

https://www.autospor...982647/4982647/

 

 

thank you for finding that. 

[suggerla]

It probably isn't even the reason why they are so fast anyway.

If it was as simple as changing the ICE , they would have played this strategy all season long and won the championship already.

To me it seems they came up with the idea to run the engine much harder with less reliability, tested it with one car, and once it worked they implemented it on the other car. With great success I must admit.

[as65p]

How many drivers have managed to get this far into the season without an engine penalty?

Honda would have managed just fine without, lets's say, "external damage".

[as65p]

The PUs are all competitive at this point.  Whatever edge might exist for one PU vs another is negligible. Ferrari is P3 in the WCC after all. 

They were. Before Mercedes made that next step with the 3-race-special unit.

[ARTGP]

I think Merc's PR mistake here was letting the narrative leak that the engine guy made a "special PU" for Hamilton.

 

After all, no one can really prove that the Interlagos PU could not run 7 races. So it's presumptuous to assume it wouldn't. The only reason we are here on this topic is because it appears to have leaked from within Mercedes, that they were doing a "sprint spec" or "qualy spec" engine that would "only last 4 races".  

 

Why would they bother to let such a thing leak?   If they had simply turned up in Interlagos with more power, no one would be any wiser about it. They could argue they were nursing a reliability issue all season, and that the latest reliability tweak allowed them to run the power they should have had all season. That is a much less controversial narrative. 

 

But alas, the ego overrides. Engineers have to let everyone know they "found a loophole". It sounds far more clever than saying "we nursed a reliability issue all year".

Edited by ARTGP, 22 November 2021 - 18:22.

[Jordan44]

I think Merc's PR mistake here was letting the narrative leak that the engine guy made a "special PU" for Hamilton.

After all, no one can really prove that the Interlagos PU could not run 7 races. So it's presumptuous to assume it wouldn't at Interlagos power levels. The only reason were are here on this topic is because it appears to have leaked from within Mercedes, that they were doing a "sprint spec" or "qualy spec" engine that would "only last 4 races".

Why would they bother to let such a thing leak? If they had simply turned up in Interlagos with more power, no one would be any wiser about it. They could argue they were nursing a reliability issue all season, and that the latest reliability tweak allowed them to run the power they should have had all season. That is a much less controversial narrative.

It’s not against any rule. I’ve no idea where the idea has come from that you should only take a penalty for a new engine if it’s down to a reliability issue. It doesn’t say that anywhere in the regulations as far as I can see.

Ferrari also took penalties this year to get a new spec with more performance

Edited by Jordan44, 22 November 2021 - 18:22.

[ARTGP]

It’s not against any rule. I’ve no idea where the idea has come from that you should only take a penalty for a new engine if it’s down to a reliability issue. It doesn’t say that anywhere in the regulations as far as I can see.

Ferrari also took penalties this year to get a new spec with more performance

 

I think you misunderstood my post. I never argued they were breaking any rule. I simply argued that they could have avoided the controversial press by selling a different narrative about the PU performance but it appears they couldn't resist letting everyone know how clever they've been. Which is fine, but arguably generates different kinds of questions to if they had simply suggested a reliability fix unlocked more power.

 

Regardless, this is not a decision that will cost them the title. Merc will gladly sweep the titles and answer any questions about loopholes afterwards.

Edited by ARTGP, 22 November 2021 - 18:28.

[Tony Mandara]

Wolff clearly had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he said 'spicy engine'

That was pretty much how I read his comment too. Especially given the cheeky, wry grin on his face and the rest of the conversation.

But why stifle the art of miscomprehension..

Edited by Tony Mandara, 23 November 2021 - 09:10.

[TheFish]

Honda would have managed just fine without, lets's say, "external damage".

And that explains Gasly and Tsunoda needing new engines?

[TheFish]

I think you misunderstood my post. I never argued they were breaking any rule. I simply argued that they could have avoided the controversial press by selling a different narrative about the PU performance but it appears they couldn't resist letting everyone know how clever they've been. Which is fine, but arguably generates different kinds of questions to if they had simply suggested a reliability fix unlocked more power.

Regardless, this is not a decision that will cost them the title. Merc will gladly sweep the titles and answer any questions about loopholes afterwards.

I think you’re vastly overstating the negative press about a super engine. Non-Max fans are more likely to see it as a positive imo, look how good Mercedes really are when they’re allowed to be, that engine is a rocket.

[Squeed]

They were. Before Mercedes made that next step with the 3-race-special unit.

 

If you have a ICE designed to run 7 races that you only plan to run for 2-3 races, it seems pretty straight forward that you can run that unit harder.  

I don't know if other teams can do the same with their ICEs as it seems like Merc is the only one to try it.