|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
12 Jan 2016, 03:55 (Ref:3603918) | #301 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
|
Quote:
I think you are picking the wrong horse. At least the manufacturers have interests beyond a quick quid. |
|||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
12 Jan 2016, 05:33 (Ref:3603952) | #302 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Quote:
So the deadline for a counter proposal by the manufactures is Friday. I will have to put my thinking cap on to try to guess what they will propose. The article above sounds like no parallel engine solution, but rather for BE to subsidize those who want "cheaper" engines. Basically set whatever price he wants for them, but for him to pay the difference between his fixed price and what Mercedes, Ferrari, etc. are saying is the "true" or "actual" cost. Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
12 Jan 2016, 15:31 (Ref:3604062) | #303 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
in a round about way, is Marchionne suggesting that the smaller teams should be getting more money?
for the truly small teams thats great and something most if not all of us have been saying for some time...so a) its surprising that Ferrari would be the ones to suggest it but b) im surprised that Marchionne would make a suggestion that would seemingly imply that if Red Bull chose a 'cheaper' engine from Merc, then Ferrari has made a proposal that would essentially free up more money for RB to spend in other areas (aero) while directing these FOM subsidies towards Merc who can then spend that subsidy money as they see fit (presumably on their engine department). since when was Ferrari so magnanimous towards its competition? always games within games so naturally there is an aspect here that i really do not understand. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
12 Jan 2016, 16:11 (Ref:3604082) | #304 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Chilibowl, I think what Marchionne is saying is that if BE or the FIA want to have a second tier engine then he is sure that Ferrari or Mercedes would happily supply it as long as Ecclestone is picking up the tab for developing it and subsidising them for use by the minor teams.
He appears to be saying in an oblique way that it would be totally wrong for the FIA/FOM to now introduce an "inexpensive" PU, when the manufacturers, following the dictat of the FIA, spent a fortune developing the current units and are now possibly going to be punished for it. I have some sympathy for his point of view, because the manufactures invested heavily, especially Mercedes, in producing the PUs that propel today's cars, using technology that may well be the short to medium future for road going vehicles only for the regulators to try turning the clock back to encourage the use of older technology. |
||
|
12 Jan 2016, 16:17 (Ref:3604087) | #305 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Interviewer: "Will the McLaren F1 be your answer to the Ferrari F40?" Gordon Murray: "Hmm... I don't think we have anyone at McLaren who can weld that badly..." |
12 Jan 2016, 18:09 (Ref:3604119) | #306 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
It appears that there are moves among the PU manufacturers to reduce the cost to customers. This might be partly achieved through standardizing some of the components. It would however kill off demands for new engines or Bernie's 2.4 V6's.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016...nt-of-engines/ It will be interesting to see how all the other the unequal payments to teams will be solved as that will have to come from Bernie's coffers. |
|
|
12 Jan 2016, 18:55 (Ref:3604126) | #307 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
Quote:
hence my question, what are Ferrari playing at now? Quote:
beyond that, i also question to what extent Ferrari and Merc's R&D programs should be subsidized by its F1 customers vs its customers for its future road car offerings. typically speaking, R&D investments are long term in nature. requesting short term repayment of investments from R&D without distributing the IP rights associated with said R&D is kind of unheard of in most industries no? |
||||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
12 Jan 2016, 19:02 (Ref:3604128) | #308 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Quote:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fi...turbo-package/ |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
12 Jan 2016, 20:18 (Ref:3604156) | #309 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
chillibowl, I think that you need to seperate in your mind the present PUs that are being used, and a possible 2nd tier that BE/FIA are talking about. It seems to me that Ferrari's position currently (and possibly Mercedes') is that they are happy to continue as is, and that they would welcome any other PU manufacturer that were providing units that comply with the rules/regulations that came into force in 2014 and were due to remain until 2020 at the earliest.
However, if FOM/FIA decide to impose a second tier PU, then Ferrari (and he believes Mercedes) would be prepared to provide those new units providing that FOM pay for the development costs for the new 2nd tier units, and that they should also subsidise the lower order teams that want to use those less complicated units. In other words, Ferrari is happy if nothing changes, but all bets are off if the new old style units are imposed on F1. These are really just gentle warning shots across the bows of the good ship FOM that the manufacturers are not going to take the imposition of the 2nd tier units lying down. As Ferrari have already made clear, there are other racing series that could take the place of F1; I am sure that the WEC would warmly welcome them, and that is probably more relevant to the road car business than GP racing. And the same applies to Mercedes when you think about it. And further, there seems to be more rule stability in WEC at the moment, and the rules don't suddenly change at the whim of an 84 year old patriarch. |
||
|
12 Jan 2016, 20:41 (Ref:3604171) | #310 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
This can solve the need for the smaller teams, but they would be hobbled from a performance perspective and this would not be a solution that RBR would like (if they are looking for a competitive customer engine) Quote:
I know there has been much talk of "breaking the stranglehold" that the manufactures have. I think that needs to be done, but I am doubtful this is the vehicle that will do it. Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
12 Jan 2016, 22:43 (Ref:3604202) | #311 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
Quote:
they were not happy to continue as is. they lobbied to have the rules changed (successfully) to allow for the sale of prior year engines so its already a two tiered system. if Marchionne had suggested that the small teams get more money then that one thing but since when did anyone ask Ferrari to run a parallel engine program...as far as i recall BE's suggestions always involved an independent supplier coming in to provide the cheaper supply. surely Ferrari are not advocating subsidies to a 3rd party? anyways who knows what the final list of proposals will be come friday? but if it involves subsidizing Ferrari then they should call it by its technical name...corporate welfare! |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
13 Jan 2016, 02:07 (Ref:3604239) | #312 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
|
Quote:
The people most likely to be able to do it are the Manufacturers. That is the only reason Bernie is talking the show down instead of promoting as you would think he should. Todt and the FIA are powerless. (and gutless). The EU will take for ever if they can ever get a committee to agree. The circuits and promoters don't seem to be able to talk to each other. Who else but the manufacturers is in a position to push through any reform? |
|||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
13 Jan 2016, 07:15 (Ref:3604290) | #313 | |||
Race Official
1% Club
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 47,177
|
Quote:
Isnt Le Mans the place to go playing with different powerplants & equivalencies of performance? |
|||
__________________
Go woke, Go broke… Here’s hoping a random universe works out in your favour… The meaning of life… ENJOYING THE PASSAGE OF TIME! #CANCERSUCKS |
13 Jan 2016, 12:13 (Ref:3604348) | #314 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
15 Jan 2016, 13:52 (Ref:3605059) | #315 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Since the introduction of the current power units, the smaller teams complain about the engine costs. This has led to a widespread criticism about the current power units. It is said they are too expensive and too complex. However, I think most criticism is largely misplaced.
The former, 2,400cc normally-aspirated V8-engines were heavily subsidized, outdated and no longer a part of the competition, as they were equalized and 'freezed'. The engine situation was simply becoming untenable, if not untenable already. Renault and Mercedes-Benz were considering a withdrawal from the series. Hence, a change of engine regulations had become a necessity. As the power units had to be developed, it was simply inevitable that costs would rise. However, the current power units cost about US$ 20 million a year, an increase of US$ 15 million compared to the former engines. But this does not necessarily make the current power units too expensive. Teams spend a lot more on aerodynamics, an area that is largely irrelevant and makes close racing virtually impossible - especially with the current set of rules. In this context, how could anyone maintain the current power units are too expensive? The current power units are indeed very complex. But Formula One has always been about cutting-edge and therefore complex and experimental technology. When Renault introduced turbo-charged engines in 1977, those engines were considered to be far too complex. Six years later, however, no-one could win races with a normally-aspirated engine and manufacturers started to use turbo's for their road cars. It must be admitted that the current set of engine regulations are far from ideal. They are too restrictive in terms of design and development; its penalty system for exceeding power unit usage erodes Formula One's reputation. Regulations are necessary for the purpose of safety, competition and relevance. Ideally, any power train design should be allowed. Fuel-flow and/or fuel consumption limits, emission standards or a power out limit could be used to meet the aforementioned targets. Any of these option have their pro's and con's, but it would certainly allow more diversity and thereby more creativity, intelligence and relevance for a specific manufacturer - what's relevant to Ferrari is not necessarily relevant for Renault. Passionately, I would love to see a true arm race. This includes an unrestricted power unit usage and development throughout the season. In fact, it would mean the return of cars specifically set-up or even developed for qualifying, resulting in the return of real qualifying laps. But such is undesirable from both an ecological and a financial point of view. Limiting power unit usage is sensible, but it should not effectively prohibit in-season development. |
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
15 Jan 2016, 15:05 (Ref:3605078) | #316 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
while i believe that engine costs coming close to doubling without seeing a doubling of revenues (prize monies etc) and a decrease in available sponsorship dollars means that the current engines are both absolutely and relatively too expensive for the small teams imo.
that said i largely agree with the latter portion of your post...if regulations were opened up to allow for new ideas to be tried then, just speaking for myself, i would have far fewer problems with the costs associated with the power units. certainly i would think that if manus could directly purse the technology paths that they wanted (within the constrains you mention) and that they considered relevant to their own road car departments, i think (or rather would like to believe) that they would see the possibility to recoup those expenses in the long run and without the need to justify offsetting their R&D costs in the short run by charging such high prices to their F1 customers. actually think such a course could satisfy both ecological and financial concerns. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
15 Jan 2016, 15:56 (Ref:3605095) | #317 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, therein lies the rub. Whilst the mass car/van/truck producers may well be able to recoup some or all of their R & D expenditure from their vehicle sales, the niche producers such as Ferrari possibly may not be able to do so. Also, although the likes of Mercedes, Honda and Renault need to follow an ecological path, the same imperative is not a priority for Ferrari. Even though Ferrari and their ilk do/will use hybrid technology in their power trains, this is almost all to do with performance gains and the associated bragging rights, and nothing to do with their green credentials. And this is why, IMHO, Ferrari have been so vocal about the cost issue, and why they used their veto over that issue. With their limited road going sales, they cannot realistically recoup the costs from those customers; so, the racing teams have had to cover them. |
|||
|
15 Jan 2016, 16:24 (Ref:3605103) | #318 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
but surely as emission standards, vehicle regulations, and purchasing patterns change in Europe and the USA (although China might be the bigger market for Ferrari now), Ferrari will also have to change what they are selling? of course the do still have a few V12 road cars (LaFerrari i believe) but for the most part are they not already moving more and more to various V6 configurations?
now that they have gone down the IPO route and will probably be ramping up to sell more road cars perhaps they will be willing to change even more going forward. its a rub all right though! |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
15 Jan 2016, 18:32 (Ref:3605145) | #319 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
http://www.autonews.com/article/2014...os-and-hybrids In short, it talks to how Ferrari will be implementing a turbo on all future V8 projects and hybrid on all future V12 projects. Here are some quotes from the article (from Vittorio Dini - Ferrari's powertrain director)... Quote:
Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
16 Jan 2016, 01:40 (Ref:3605253) | #320 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
|
Does anyone else get the feeling that we are victims of a giant snow job?
Certainly the current complex power units are costly when compared with the old lumps, but how costly are they when compared with the amounts being paid out to run aero computer and wind tunnel developments? The current rules certainly present some very stupid regulations related to component changes and in season development. They in fact increase the costs they are supposed to limit, and stifle the efforts of those trailing to catch the leaders. There is far more likelihood that personal transport systems will be improved by F1 being involved in Power Unit development than in seeking an extra couple of kilos of down-force. Pinguest got it about right in his post, we need to free up the area of power systems within fuel flow, capacity, safety and cost limits. Why not apply a freeze to aero to finance that freedom. At present this whole "gotta look after the small teams" seems to be an effort by FOM and the financiers to cover their rip offs and maintain the power they have become accustomed too. |
||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
16 Jan 2016, 09:59 (Ref:3605301) | #321 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
I tend to agree with Pinguest and Tony, it is straight logic that the more freedom the designers have the more innovating they can be. Are the LMP 1 regulations not more relevant to this R&D development?
As to the relative budget spends on aero and PU, it is a fact that, as DC puts it, the teams will spend what they got! When testing was restricted the big teams just developed more and more sophisticated simulators. But, as has also been said above if the cost of meeting regulations doubles and the rewards stay the same why would anyone accept the new rules, yet they have and we are now painted into a corner. I can only see that the FIA must somehow take control and alleviate the problem but I fear the Todt is too much part of the establishment to take firm control. |
||
|
16 Jan 2016, 10:16 (Ref:3605311) | #322 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
The cost of the new power units would not be such a big issue if there was a fairer distribution of the FOM $$$$$$$$. Ferrari gets from FOM, more than about half of the rest of the grids budget almost regardless of where they finish.
If my memory serves me correct Williams total budget is less than that which Ferrari gets from FOM. I suspect the Ferrari take from FOM is more than the combined FOM money for 3 or four of the bottom teams |
|
|
19 Jan 2016, 15:17 (Ref:3606228) | #323 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Grandprix dot com is quoting a German publication that says that FIA (Todt) has now agreed terms with the 4 power unit suppliers over the PU costs, and that a proposal to maintain the current hybrid units until 2024 will be put forward. It would seem as though BCE's idea for a return to the older technology was not adopted, which seems to have upset Horner somewhat.
I believe that the Strategy Group is meeting today, and the above should go through with the vote at 11-7 in favour. The reduced cost is said to be €12 million per season, and I assume that that is per team not car. I wonder if Red Bull have any agreement in place with Honda for 2017, as they would seem to be running out of otherwise? |
||
|
19 Jan 2016, 16:53 (Ref:3606252) | #324 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns32905.html It seems to be inline with what was talked about by Joe Saward on the previous page of this thread... https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016...nt-of-engines/ Items of note (quotes from the Grandprix.com article)... Quote:
As mentioned this does little for RBR (nobody is going out of their way to help them and I am not surprised), but this quote is interesting... Quote:
In my opinion the largest roadblock to RBR having their own home grown PU solution was the complexities of the hybrid side. They would have to partner up with other vendors and the R&D could be costly to create a unique solution. But... the more of the hybrid components that are homologated, the cheaper it is to jump in because you have fewer problems to solve. So maybe RBR will give it a go alone, or partner with someone to create a bespoke RBR solution. Maybe those watch experts at TAG Heuer?! They seem to know something about F1 engines. But I also agree with the post above that 2017 is not far away. And is to soon IMHO for RBR to build a competitive F1 PU. I had also speculated in the "Mindless Speculation" thread that RBR may be partnering with Honda in 2017. Richard |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
19 Jan 2016, 16:57 (Ref:3606253) | #325 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
Do we expect the works team to be the only Renault-engined cars on the grid in 2017, then?
|
||
__________________
Interviewer: "Will the McLaren F1 be your answer to the Ferrari F40?" Gordon Murray: "Hmm... I don't think we have anyone at McLaren who can weld that badly..." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2014 Power Units | Mike Harte | Formula One | 1 | 21 May 2014 19:20 |
What is the true revs and power output of the current MotoGP 990cc four stroke engine | Robin Plummer | Racing Technology | 4 | 26 Mar 2004 12:23 |
Current Power | Robin Plummer | Formula One | 41 | 27 Sep 2003 16:38 |
CURRENT POWER OUTPUTS OF GP AND SUPERBIKE ENGINES? | Robin Plummer | Racing Technology | 3 | 12 Oct 2000 11:15 |