This thread will probably be drowned with the Renault crap, but I'll give it a crack. Sorry for the long post, but this has bothered me a while and wanted to make sure I explained myself properly.
I read once again we are going to 'equalise' the engines to make it 'fair' for everyone. I have to say upfront, I was opposed to the engine freeze from the word go and remain more convinced now than before. I am against standardisation of F1 cars in any form but appreciate it is the only way we can keep some control on costs, particularly in the current financial climate.
I understand the driving force of the engine freeze was to cut costs. Wonderful idea, except all I noticed was teams that had the money put it into aero or other area's instead. Did it really
save that much money?
In the mean time, much has changed in Formula One. We have more independent teams than ever before, a budget cap of sorts (can someone please show me the details of that BS agreement), and a financial crisis that is likely to see more manufactures depart rather than join. We also have new rules next year that will see fuel economy became a major factor, something the manufactures and the FIA can brag about to the eco friendly.
So I put this idea to our wonderful forum. Would we be better off removing this ridiculous engine power freeze and exchanging it for a fixed aero package (that actually assists overtaking)?
Engine Suppliers
- Manufactures can use engine success to sell cars (I think this may have be done with great success in the past)
- Keep the multiple race engines to add to the balance they must achieve between power and reliabilty
- Current and potential manufactures can remain/join in F1 in a much more cost/benefit effective way without having to start an entire team.
- Currently no benefit for Honda as an example to stay on as an engine supplier if it is identical to the Toyota unit.
- Build a successful unit that is powerful, fuel economical and reliable and success will easily transfer from F1 success to showroom.
- Engine R&D is more transferable to road cars than clever wings and defusers (Yet to see a Ferrari wing package on a road going version, but sure the engine R&D has some influence)
- Manufactures could once again dabble in F1 via engines (BMW) before making the full plunge into F1. Not possible with engine freeze.
Spicing up the show
- The average Joe cant tell the difference between a Ferrari and a McLaren except for the paintwork
- Different engines would give benefit to cars at different tracks = more potential race/team winners through the season
- Races wont be over at Turn 1. Engine A may be more powerful but wont see the benefit until the weight of the fuel comes down
- Fixed Aero (done correctly) with different engines more likely to result in overtaking than fixed engine power and double defusers.
- With no refuelling, Engine suppliers will have to balance engine power/fuel economy (weight carried) which could vary from track to track (spicing things up)
Cost Cutting
- Engines can still be limited as they are now to size, weight, displacement and materials.
- Teams spend small fortunes on Wind Tunnels and other aero work so cost cutting benefits would remain.
Constructors/Teams
- Teams can still focus on packaging, suspension and getting the right driver in the seat to gain advantage
- Easier for new teams to join the grid, knowing they don't need access to a $600 Million wind tunnel just to get started.
Sporting
- While personally I think this would result in better competition, I have no issue with a engine supplier than has a cracker engine dominating. This is what F1 is all about, pushing the limits and winning.
I have to assume this has already been thought of by the powers that be, and therefore there are valid arguments against it. So please convince me I am way off the mark here, or have a valid point.