Current F1 Power Supply Units

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

interesting discussion in light of the Paris talks and how that relates to the future of racing in general

now this might be the elephant in the room (or my imagination running away from me) but thinking past the short term (the next 50-100 years) does anyone really expect to still be watching cars (either ICE or electric or something else even) that only connect to the ground with rubber racing one another?

im sure we will have some historic/hobbiets still around but short of aliens showing up and fixing everything surely the larger issue here (as it relates to F1/motorsports) is that the age of the personal automobile is coming to an end.

looking to the future anything connected with using traditional transportation routes (concrete roads) is at best a stop gap until we figure something better out.

we are already seeing cities where traffic is out of control and once you add a few extra billion extra people to it one has to question the logic of developing any sort of engine (petrol/hydrogen/electric/hybrid) meant for a small non mass transportation vehicles.

I agree with your line of thinking. While there are exceptions, most sports boil down to competition between living beings. We can see that on the horizon people will not be required to drive moving vehicles (automobiles, boats, planes, spaceships, etc.). Take out the human factor and I expect that for the most part racing of those vehicles will go away (I don't see remote control, or AI based racing being that entertaining). I think that sports and competition fill some human need, so I expect the void will be filled by something that is still human based, but who knows what (maybe VR based experiences?)

I think the tipping point will be when automated automobiles become mainstream. Automation will be the final nail on the coffin of the personal automobile. They will be the linchpin for "door to door" public transportation. Think Uber but with automated cars. So why own your own? Maybe the ultra wealthy will keep that alive (think of the private jet crowd today).

Ultimately racing will be like a number of other antiquated sports. It will hang on for awhile as a niche sport. Probably for and by the wealthy who can afford it. At some point (hundreds of years from now), it will be viewed as overly quaint and will disappear to the history books and museums.

Richard

[wnut]

Oh come on guys!






As long as there are humans there will be motor racing!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

As long as there are humans there will be motor racing!

I think you are somewhat (but not totally) joking. I personally hope that my predicted demise will happen well after my passing!

Anyhow I ALMOST includes talk of some niche racing today. I think the various forms of animal based racing (horses, dogs) are an example of that. While not absolute, I think a common element (at least here in the US) is that these exist as commercial enterprises on the backs of gambling (Jai alai is similar, but with people). Just as F1 struggles with "sport vs. entertainment" those sports have likely lost that battle. I am not saying they don't fight to win, but its staged competition. While you may hear about various winning horses or jockies, the point is how much money they have brought in with a tiny bit of glory. Few would watch or dump money into it if you couldn't bet on it. Or those that might survive on their own are tied to the wealthy (who support it financially) as it fits into some type of aristocratic lifestyle...





Richard

[GTRMagic]

So.. will the Alfa Romeo brand be involved in F1 in the near future?

Wonder if the '15 Ferrari engines destined for STR might be rebadged as Alfa...

Money from Alfa Romeo might just cover the lease costs too...

[lukej]

GTR I picked up on that story too and it got me wondering, why not rebadge year old engines from all manufacturers as subsidiary company engines.

Ferrari have Fiat, Maserati and Alfa to choose from iirc, we know what their preference would be already but it works in two ways, giving the teams that run them the cost break they need but also giving the manufacturers scope to promote other brands with a specific product.

The engine manufacturers may have to sign design rights for the PU over to their subsidiary as a result, but it'd also give that brand a platform to develop new ideas concurrently to their parent. Perhaps this would lead to a bigger pool of companies teams could choose from?

Just some thoughts.

Luke

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by wnut

Oh come on guys!...As long as there are humans there will be motor racing!

that image of 'modern chariot racing' compared to what chariot racing looked like in the in the days of the Circus Maximus (as i know it from Ben-Hur) kind of proves the point i think. it might still be around in the future but will it be recognizable as the sport it used to be?

tongue and cheek but applying the chariot analogy to compare what auto racing looked like in its heyday compared to what it 'might' look like in a zero emission future then images like this one spring to mind.



but hey, at least it will still be processional!

anyways back on topic...Saward talking about branding and possible engine deals in F1 along the lines of what GTRMagic and lukej had just mentioned.

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/finally/

[Casper]

Jaguar have taken a decision to use FE as a motorsport/development platform

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/j...15-gloi7s.html

The thinking behind it (according to the reporter) is saying that the ICE is dead for all intents and purposes. I know a lot of what we finally read in the press is all headline and superficial but the fact is that a prominent manufacturer is going to join FE with the view that all electric is the future. BMW have done a limited production prototype, Porsche have said they have a production car under way and it seems that a tipping point may be close or have been reached in the automotive world thinking. It is ironical that Williams is at the centre of FE with their all electric technology and they must be eyeing their future with a foot in both camps.

I don't know if this deserves its own thread or not, i will let the mods decide that.

[wnut]

Marchionne on warpath with Bernie

http://www.pitpass.com/55371/Marchio...-at-Ecclestone

and shows exactly why the costs are allowed to get out of control.

"The problem is that in trying to create a power unit that is more affordable for smaller teams, we are in a way taking away from those organisations that are able to develop. And that is the reason why we go racing," he continued.
"We go to the track to prove to ourselves and to everyone our ability to manage the power unit. If we begin to undermine this advantage, Ferrari has no intention of racing."



"The problem of this sport is that the regulator cannot impose conditions on the economic management of the team."

to wit:

the problem with this sport is that those with the money will continue to try and make it nothing but a spending war!

[Casper]

The last para from Wnut's link.....

"The climate summit in Paris has shown all of us where the path leads," he said. "We cannot ignore a technology that is relevant to production vehicles. In five to 10 years, the majority of all vehicles will be equipped on the road with hybrid technology."

Would Ferrari have been espousing this approach six months ago? I think not. I know he is trying to back BE into a corner and whether he actually believes what he is saying is another thing altogether but I tend to think he might given his background and where he came from before Ferrari. At best Hybrid is a stop gap measure and he would know that.

I can see a long and serious period of upheaval in F1, get the popcorn and drinks, grab a seat and sit down for the show. This coming twelve months might be a watershed in F1 but whatever happens it is going to be good to watch.

[wnut]

Engines from a driver perspective, sporting perspective.

Daniel Ricciardo on V8s

http://www.f1technical.net/news/2020...980cc93e3192ce

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

Engines from a driver perspective, sporting perspective.

Daniel Ricciardo on V8s

http://www.f1technical.net/news/2020...980cc93e3192ce

Whooooossshhhhh, ..................!!! Words fail me and that view is so obviously out of step with reality it is off the planet. Best of luck with that one Daniel, it ain't gonna happen and those days are finished. Has he been talking to BE?

[wnut]

More on why Ferrari's veto may fail

http://www.pitpass.com/55372/Doubts-over-Ferraris-veto


The veto can only be used if "Ferrari reasonably considers that the new regulations are likely to have a substantial impact on its legitimate interest" and must not be "prejudicial to the traditional values of the Championship and/or the image of the FIA".

[Casper]

Don't believe everything you read. I know you are hoping for a return to a normal IC motor but it seems unlikely to me. Even Joe Saward has changed his tune in respect to the future, he thought FE was a joke a short while ago but not any longer.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Engines from a driver perspective, sporting perspective.

Daniel Ricciardo on V8s

http://www.f1technical.net/news/2020...980cc93e3192ce

Ricciardo is not forward (or backward) thinking enough! Why go back to just the recent V8 engines? Shouldn't he be pushing for everyone to be using clones of the BRM V16? Clearly by all counts "twice" as good at the V8.

Originally Posted by wnut

More on why Ferrari's veto may fail

http://www.pitpass.com/55372/Doubts-over-Ferraris-veto


The veto can only be used if "Ferrari reasonably considers that the new regulations are likely to have a substantial impact on its legitimate interest" and must not be "prejudicial to the traditional values of the Championship and/or the image of the FIA".

I am still confused as to what proposal a veto might fail on?

1. A single provider engine that will be balanced to challenge the existing spec?

2. A single provider engine that will be balanced to NOT challenge the existing spec?

I can imagine a veto for #1 might be hard to challenge given the rights that Ferrari have (because they invested a bunch of money in an engine that will be beaten "by definition"). #2 would not break the backs of the manufactures because they would continue to dominate, but a veto could potentially be overturned.

I am not a fan of the "veto" that Ferrari has. I also don't like the current stranglehold that exists due to how the sport is setup with respect to making decisions. I am on the fence as to what will happen and IF it will be beneficial to the sport in the long run.

Richard

[wolfhound]

From the recent press conference in Maranello it appears that Ferrari are working very closely with Mercedes and Renault look seem to be joining them. No mention of Honda. I wonder are we going to see a split in the paddock between the manufacturers / works teams and the customers over the next year or so. It will be interesting to see which side McLaren and Red Bull end up on.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122264

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

From the recent press conference in Maranello it appears that Ferrari are working very closely with Mercedes and Renault look seem to be joining them. No mention of Honda. I wonder are we going to see a split in the paddock between the manufacturers / works teams and the customers over the next year or so. It will be interesting to see which side McLaren and Red Bull end up on.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122264

I think the ball is in the manufactures hands right now. They owe a counter proposal back to FIA/FOM right?

This may sound counter to some of my prior comments (I am a fan of the march of progress and technology), but... I can envision a refocus on the "constructor" part of the championship being directed back to the chassis and becoming less about the powerplant. Not to say that the powerplant is not modern, but it is not THE differentiating factor as it has been recently.

My crystal ball is cloudy, but I can imagine them coming back with a proposal to keep the core of what we have today (ICE based hybrid) but with movements to both stop being locked into poor solutions (Honda and Renault) but at the same time stop the development war (money being spent in areas teams don't care to continue to spend in). The prior V8 engines were at the point at which large amounts of money were not going to result in any real gains even with unlimited development. They may want to replicate that scenario somehow. So imagine the current ICE solutions, but with maybe simplified turbo/hybrid solutions. Some solution to help teams catch up to Mercedes as well (likely free development), but also some type of agreed upon benchmark (could they make that work???) To satisfy FIA/FOM, the customer solutions would be cheaper for everyone (manufacture does not create at a loss which is a concern for Ferrari and customer teams pay less which is a concern for many). I suspect the potential for haves and have nots with regards to the manufacture teams having a spec unto themselves will continue. But that generally speaking there should not be a large difference between the slowest customer spec and the fastest manufacture spec.

I am surprised McLaren/Honda don't have a seat at the table. I expect RBR would come out a winner in this scenario, but maybe not as much of a winner as they would like.

Richard

[wolfhound]

In reply Richard I can see RBR losing some of their power unless they get into bed with a manufacturer soon but who will given the situation with Renault.
I have been reading what Joe Saward has to say on the subject today and he has a slightly different view.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015...uiet-conflict/

I can see his analysis of how the power is with the manufacturers if they can bring the customers with them, then they are in a position to control the whole show. If the manufacturers stick together then Bernie /CVC could be in a very difficult situation. Bernie's traditional tactic to break any alliance might be more difficult to achieve. He has Renault on board until about 2024 but no one else as yet beyond 2020.
Another thing I read somewhere recently is that Bernie is even getting fed up with CVC's avarice for $$$$$$$$$$$ but can't remember where.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Ricciardo is not forward (or backward) thinking enough! Why go back to just the recent V8 engines? Shouldn't he be pushing for everyone to be using clones of the BRM V16? Clearly by all counts "twice" as good at the V8.

In fairness I think only the designers thought that thing was any good!

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am still confused as to what proposal a veto might fail on?

1. A single provider engine that will be balanced to challenge the existing spec?

2. A single provider engine that will be balanced to NOT challenge the existing spec?

I can imagine a veto for #1 might be hard to challenge given the rights that Ferrari have (because they invested a bunch of money in an engine that will be beaten "by definition"). #2 would not break the backs of the manufactures because they would continue to dominate, but a veto could potentially be overturned.

I am not a fan of the "veto" that Ferrari has. I also don't like the current stranglehold that exists due to how the sport is setup with respect to making decisions. I am on the fence as to what will happen and IF it will be beneficial to the sport in the long run.

Richard

I think that the Ferrari veto will fail because it has been promised that the engines will be equalised, so Ferrari can not be disadvantaged by the supply of cheaper engines to other competitors.

The second ground the veto should fail on is that Ferrari may not veto anything that will be beneficial to the sport in the long run, and the supply of cheaper engines will ensure more teams are able to survive, so it is for the benefit of the sport.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

In fairness I think only the designers thought that thing was any good!



I think that the Ferrari veto will fail because it has been promised that the engines will be equalised, so Ferrari can not be disadvantaged by the supply of cheaper engines to other competitors.

The second ground the veto should fail on is that Ferrari may not veto anything that will be beneficial to the sport in the long run, and the supply of cheaper engines will ensure more teams are able to survive, so it is for the benefit of the sport.

Any engineer worth of the name will tell you it is impossible to equalise two units having such different characteristics. It will be a shambles if the IC motor is introduced as one or the other is going to be the loser. They can promise what they like and wish what they like but it won't happen.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

In fairness I think only the designers thought that thing was any good!

Well... It does sound good.

Originally Posted by wnut

I think that the Ferrari veto will fail because it has been promised that the engines will be equalised, so Ferrari can not be disadvantaged by the supply of cheaper engines to other competitors.

The second ground the veto should fail on is that Ferrari may not veto anything that will be beneficial to the sport in the long run, and the supply of cheaper engines will ensure more teams are able to survive, so it is for the benefit of the sport.

An equalized solution (of which I am not convinced they can do) would be IMHO, an argument for Ferrari being able to have a veto that might sustain scrutiny. My argument would be...

1. Ferrari is expected to play via a specific set of rules (current regulations)
2. Ferrari can say it costs them X amount per unit to create a PSU that is close to competitive (measured against Mercedes). Effectively the cost of doing business as a PSU supplier in F1.
3. FIA/FOM will introduce a new unit that by definition will be equal to, or better than their unit, but for a cost (again by definition) that will be less than theirs.
4. The goal is to provide customer teams with a cheaper unit pulling customers away from Ferrari, but at the same time providing Ferrari with no way to produce a cheaper solution that maintains performance.

How will that not impact their interests? Again, I am not supporting Ferrari's position and the veto, but how I think it could play out.

Richard

[chillibowl]

2 is an interesting point.

engine manu's like Ferrari have goals for their engines not limited to F1. like Merc there is hope (probably borne out via memos to shareholders justifying the expense of F1) that the F1 PUs will have commercial applications in their road car divisions as well as a training ground for their engineers.

an independent builder will, for the most part, only be selling engines to other F1 teams.

i am not a lawyer, but i would think there is an argument to be made that since F1 is not the only stream of income for Ferrari and they already receive well above fair compensation for their participation, the actual cost of their engine program is not a relevant matter.

actually if Ferrari does make the case that it is a real factor and their veto is justified, then i wonder if that can be then used against Ferrari in another way with respect to the EU Anti Trust case against F1...if Ferrari can block an independent supplier, then they are in effect guaranteeing themselves a fully subsidized R&D program which would then give them an unfair advantage in their road car development and sales...which in and of itself could be seen as an unfair and anti competitive advantage being granted by FOM to Ferrari.

just speculating and as Casper says get the popcorn ready because this really is a battle with so many wonderful and complex layers. it really is a show within a show!

[Casper]

I would think the manufacturers fund the PU R&D and production separately from the costs of running the racing team and this in theory puts the PU outside the the payments that are received from the FIA. I am not a lawyer or accountant but that must have some impact on how Ferrari are looking at it.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Casper

I would think the manufacturers fund the PU R&D and production separately from the costs of running the racing team and this in theory puts the PU outside the the payments that are received from the FIA. I am not a lawyer or accountant but that must have some impact on how Ferrari are looking at it.

I suspect the teams will use whatever accounting method that suits their purpose. However the Mercedes motors are built in a separate factory from the cars whereas Ferrari has it all in one place.

[old man]

I have just read through the last few pages of this debate and the comments generated by the Paris Agreement, intelligent comments and I think a general acceptance that we have a problem that is wider than motor racing but in which our sport must play a part.

We had a canter through this theme under global warming some years ago in the sports and GT racing forum. At that time some very "hostile" comments were posted and it was generally dismissed by most contributors so it seems to me the overall mood is changing.

[Casper]

Maybe. I read one other forum on F1 but do not contribute and to read what is written there you would wonder if the mood has changed. It seems they do not even know what has transpired in Paris and what the global implications are on all our lives. The motor industry has to take a bet, will the IC engine be viable in about 35 years? The way things have gone in recent years and even weeks the answer should be no. Will the hybrid be viable, the answer should be the same.