Current F1 Power Supply Units

[Oldtony]

Well balanced article. Doesn't go into the potential for other manufacturers which may have happened with VAG if not for RBR's record of bad mouthing suppliers and the computer scandal at VW.

Originally Posted by wnut

At the end, sure the thermal efficiency of the engines has improved because of turbos, however the hybrid concept is still complete rot!

Even though Mercedes have adopted it as part of their road car marketing strategy I don't know whether the term hybrid is the right description for the current F1 Power unit.

The KERS section of the system is limited by the regulations but the harvesting of power from the turbo driven MGU-H is virtually unlimited and it is in that area that Mercedes have excelled. If you were using a description such as "Total Energy Recovery System" it would be far more accurate than Hybrid which suggest multiple sources of energy.

The other point is that the energy storage, while large, is for a very limited time which is rather different to the requirements of true hybrid plug in and charge or run on fuel units.

Round the tech. blogs it is interesting to follow the methods being tried by F1 to gain maximum energy recovery. Some quite old ideas being revived, some previously impossible problems being overcome and some very lateral thinking.

Much more interesting than drivers social lives!!!!

[Armco Bender]

They should attach a flux capacitor to the Total Energy Recovery System,when the car accelerates to 88ph would it will arrive at the finish line.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

They should attach a flux capacitor to the Total Energy Recovery System,when the car accelerates to 88ph would it will arrive at the finish line.

Turbo Brock Compound?

[wnut]

F1 technology to be included in Mercedes subsidiary Chrysler vehicles.

Description of unit and servicing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 technology to be included in Mercedes subsidiary Chrysler vehicles.

Description of unit and servicing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4

Chrysler is owned by Fiat now.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Chrysler is owned by Fiat now.

I thought Chrysler and Fiat merged to form a new holding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I thought Chrysler and Fiat merged to form a new holding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles?

BJ, taken from Wikipedia:

Through a combination of negotiations with creditors, filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization on April 30, 2009, and participating in a bailout from the U.S. government through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Chrysler managed to remain in business. On June 10, 2009, Chrysler emerged from the bankruptcy proceedings with the United Auto Workers pension fund, Fiat S.p.A., and the U.S. and Canadian governments as principal owners. The bankruptcy resulted in Chrysler defaulting on over $4 billion in debts. By May 24, 2011, Chrysler finished repaying its obligations to the U.S. government five years early, although the cost to the American taxpayer was $1.3 billion. Over the next few years Fiat gradually acquired the other parties' shares while removing much of the weight of the loans (which carried a 21% interest rate) in a short period. On January 1, 2014, Fiat S.p.A announced a deal to purchase the rest of Chrysler from the United Auto Workers retiree health trust. The deal was completed on January 21, 2014, making Chrysler Group a subsidiary of Fiat S.p.A. In May 2014, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, NV was born by merging Fiat S.p.A. into the company. This was completed in August 2014. Chrysler Group LLC remained a subsidiary until December 15, 2014, when it was renamed FCA US LLC, to reflect the Fiat-Chrysler merger.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

BJ, taken from Wikipedia:

Quote:
Through a combination of negotiations with creditors, filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization on April 30, 2009, and participating in a bailout from the U.S. government through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Chrysler managed to remain in business. On June 10, 2009, Chrysler emerged from the bankruptcy proceedings with the United Auto Workers pension fund, Fiat S.p.A., and the U.S. and Canadian governments as principal owners. The bankruptcy resulted in Chrysler defaulting on over $4 billion in debts. By May 24, 2011, Chrysler finished repaying its obligations to the U.S. government five years early, although the cost to the American taxpayer was $1.3 billion. Over the next few years Fiat gradually acquired the other parties' shares while removing much of the weight of the loans (which carried a 21% interest rate) in a short period. On January 1, 2014, Fiat S.p.A announced a deal to purchase the rest of Chrysler from the United Auto Workers retiree health trust. The deal was completed on January 21, 2014, making Chrysler Group a subsidiary of Fiat S.p.A. In May 2014, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, NV was born by merging Fiat S.p.A. into the company. This was completed in August 2014. Chrysler Group LLC remained a subsidiary until December 15, 2014, when it was renamed FCA US LLC, to reflect the Fiat-Chrysler merger.

Buying up another company's stock is consistent with merging two companies. After Fiat S.p.A. acquired Chrysler's stock, it then merged into into a new holding company FCA, or Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, NV.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Buying up another company's stock is consistent with merging two companies. After Fiat S.p.A. acquired Chrysler's stock, it then merged into into a new holding company FCA, or Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, NV.

BJ, that is not how I would understand a merger to happen. Chrysler goes bust, and is effectively "bought out" by Fiat, the Union and the two governments. Fiat then buys out the others, leaving it as sole owner, and then, instead of leaving it as an autonomous company, absorbes it into the rest of the Fiat empire. It was not as though two totally seperate, unconnected businesses merge to form one new company.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

BJ, that is not how I would understand a merger to happen. Chrysler goes bust, and is effectively "bought out" by Fiat, the Union and the two governments. Fiat then buys out the others, leaving it as sole owner, and then, instead of leaving it as an autonomous company, absorbes it into the rest of the Fiat empire. It was not as though two totally seperate, unconnected businesses merge to form one new company.

It's one way of merging companies Mike and it keeps the branding, products and workforce in place.

[TWRv12]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 technology to be included in Mercedes subsidiary Chrysler vehicles.

Description of unit and servicing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Chrysler is owned by Fiat now.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

BJ, taken from Wikipedia:

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
http://www.fcagroup.com

Daimler and Renault-Nissan Alliance
http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/COMP...T01/index.html

[Richard C]

If you are Fiat and you are absorbing Chrysler into your larger organization, there is no reason to try to tear down the brand and appear to be the victor with you standing over the body of your foe. You now own that mostly dead body, so you have to portray it as having value (not to say there wasn't value in Chrysler).

So the usage of the term "merger" and final combined name of Fiat-Chrysler is a PR exercise and a face saving gesture. In the end, Chrysler was on their knees. It was a distressed sell. Fiat, the US government and worker concessions saved Chrysler. To understand the balance of power, all you have to do is look at who is in charge today. The caretaker management that was in place at Chrysler during the bankruptcy and Fiat acquisition are gone by now, or left at the conclusion of that process. Sergio Marchionne was at Fiat prior to the Chrysler acquisition and he is now in charge of the combined company.

If you want to delve into crazy acquisitions and/or mergers, look into the very recent history of Porsche and VW. Nominally you hear about VW (VW AG) acquiring Porsche (Porsche AG which is the auto manufacture). But who owns the largest single chunk of VW and has the controlling (50+%) voting interest? The Porsche/Piech family (Porsche SE a holding company) is who. The point being that how things are named does not reflect ownership or control. VW was the right name to move forward for the larger company.

Richard

[Oldtony]

Not sure of the situation in the US where Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth etc may still have some street cred. but the brand name FCA has acquired that is going to help in the rest of the world is Jeep.
Seems that in most of the world outside the US and Europe Jeep outsells all other FCA brands combined.
Really is an iconic name, and is being used to badge SUV and similar categories of both Chrysler and FIAT heritage.
Do we get a Ferrari PU in a Hass chassis being badge engineered Jeep?

[BSchneiderFan]

I'm surprised that Ferrari don't sell some of their customers in F1 units badged as Alfa Romeo or Maserati.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Was or isn't there a plan to separate Ferrari from FCA?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Was or isn't there a plan to separate Ferrari from FCA?

I do believe that it is already done, ar at least has been partly completed. I think that a minority shareholding was kept by one of the Ferrari family.


p.s. The process was finally completed at the start of the year

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I do believe that it is already done, ar at least has been partly completed. I think that a minority shareholding was kept by one of the Ferrari family.


p.s. The process was finally completed at the start of the year

Thanks for that Mike.

[Mike Harte]

Well, well, well. It seems as though some sanity is returning to F1 from 2017. The ridiculous token system is being dropped completely, and the PUs' providers will be free to update their units as and when they please without limit, although any update/upgrade will only be allowed to be incorporated when the element of the unit is changed. The teams will still be restricted on the number of elements of the PU that can be used each season without penalty, but it means that, for example, they could incorporate upgrades in the ICE element upto 4 times (I think that's the number allowed, isn't it?) in the season without penalty.

There had already been agreement that certain parts were to be freed up this year, although I think that they kept that quiet - well, I'm admitting that that is yet another thing I didn't know!

See here: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...17-671488/?s=1

[chillibowl]

yeah i like it to. i just posted the same link in the rules change forum but this is the better place to discuss it.

was unclear what they meant by 'from 2017' though...start of the 2017 season or for the start of the 2018 season?

[Mike Harte]

I would say that if they say from 2017, then it includes the the 2017 season.

[Richard C]

BOOM! That is a big development assuming it is going to happen. It clearly is going to cost some extra money in the short term but the alternative is the status quo which is everyone but Mercedes suffering as they are unable to develop themselves out of their performance issues.

I know they just agreed to this, but I wonder if there are specific reasons they just didn't agree make it effective prior to 2017? I know that they are likely close to the point of homologating their 2016 PUs but if they could start to roll out changes in mid-season 2016... why not?

This also should make things easier for RBR to either (a) pick a partner in 2017 or (b) go on their own.

I also wonder if the proposals for more standardized parts (part of reduced cost for customer engine) is still being pushed forward or not or if that is stalled in the various 2017 rule changes.

Richard

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I know they just agreed to this, but I wonder if there are specific reasons they just didn't agree make it effective prior to 2017? I know that they are likely close to the point of homologating their 2016 PUs but if they could start to roll out changes in mid-season 2016... why not?

Any changes to the 2017 season that are made after March 1st 2016, must be made with the unanimous agreement of all teams. That is why they are rolling out the 2017 rules now, because they can ratify the changes without 100% buy in.

So, what that must mean is that changes to the 2016 season must be agreed upon unanimously now. Would Mercedes agree to the mid season development? Or even Ferrari for that matter, if they think they're going to be close to Mercedes and far ahead of Honda and Renault.

[Casper]

Can someone translate this into English please......

The move means the four manufacturers will face no limits on development, other than the fact that they can only introduce upgrades when a driver uses new elements.

An element is something I have always associated with Chemistry or a kettle.

[Oldtony]

The penalties for changing "elements" apply to the assemblies that comprise the principle sections of the turbo-compound Power unit.
ICE, Turbine, compressor, MGU-H and MGU-K and gearbox.
Replacing any above the limit set incurs a grid penalty.
A pretty sensible scheme.
Just hope this has been accurately reported.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I also wonder if the proposals for more standardized parts (part of reduced cost for customer engine) is still being pushed forward or not or if that is stalled in the various 2017 rule changes.

Richard

Richard, one of the main factors behind this change in the regulations is because the standardised parts is going to be introduce, also from 2017. It would appear that the two are inextricably linked because the standardised parts are the driver behind the PU providers being able to reduce the leasing costs to the teams, and that the providers would therefore have to absorb the extra costs of the PU research and development, not the teams.

I think that this will have answered two of your questions.