Current F1 Power Supply Units

[Paradise City]

Works engine hand me downs is nothing new. It's been there in the sport since year dot. It doesn't bother me.

Hopefully at the end of this ugly process we'll see price controls.

We're a little unlucky as Honda haven't their act together and Renault has been spotty so that's unduly given Mercs a bigger advantage in competitiveness than it otherwise might have. Both are showing an upswing in form though. Ferrari aren't in a bad place and are almost challengers. What's wrong with all that? Just part of the cycle of the sport to me.

What disturbs me is the backroom stuff -- but once Renault make their commitment clear - which seems imminent - then it's good in the respect of there being a competitive field with a good crop of engines. Hopefully price controls will then give the sport sustainability in terms of engine supply.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i thought the two tiered issue was settled when the rules were amended to allow for the sale of prior year spec engines?

Precisely!

[Paradise City]

If that's two tier than F1 already is multitier given that different engine manufacturers have capabilities. The essence of F1 is therefore multitier.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i thought the two tiered issue was settled when the rules were amended to allow for the sale of prior year spec engines?

For me many prior "two tier" talk was primarily around the car and not the engine (remember the customer car talks, and if they could develop the cars and if they would be considered "manufactures", etc.)

In this context, I view two tier as being multiple or parallel "technical specs". The new rule that allows prior year engines (an earlier homologation) still means all of the engines are built to the same technical spec. It just allows both an older and newer homologation to co-exist. Granted, it is implied that for a given source, the older homologation will be the "lesser" solution. But you may still have scenarios in which an older Mercedes homologation may still be better than a newer Renault homologation.

It's an interesting read, but the engine homologation rules (that wording lives in appendix four in the sporting regulations) was completely rewritten for 2016 and beyond. Some of that includes the clarification of a deadline for yearly homologation (which didn't exist for this year so you had teams delaying 2015 homologation.)

My concern is having parallel technical specs that they then try to balance for all scenarios (an impossible task).

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Don't forget that F1 has been two-tiered before, and it wasn't too successful from my dimming memory. It was when there were the normally aspirated engines versus the turbo jobs.

And didn't Renault, with their turbo engine, wipe the floor with the rest?

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Don't forget that F1 has been two-tiered before, and it wasn't too successful from my dimming memory. It was when there were the normally aspirated engines versus the turbo jobs.

And didn't Renault, with their turbo engine, wipe the floor with the rest?

Your memory may be getting dim alright as BMW were the first to win the drivers championship with a turbo but it was Honda who really were the dominant force after TAG(Porsche) scored with McLaren. Renault started it all mind you.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Don't forget that F1 has been two-tiered before, and it wasn't too successful from my dimming memory. It was when there were the normally aspirated engines versus the turbo jobs.

And didn't Renault, with their turbo engine, wipe the floor with the rest?

I thought it was pretty good. Initially the DFV had it over turbos, due to reliability but by the mid 80s running a DFV was pointless.

Renault always had the potential but reliability was always an issue. However, by the mid 80s, it was TAG-Porsche and Honda.

[Mike Harte]

My apologies. My memory, unfortunately, has been letting me down in the last couple of years. At least I got it right that the turbos had the upper hand.

[Paradise City]

You had the Jim Clark Cup and the Colin Chapman Cup for normally aspirated cars in an era of turbos getting out of hand. It was never meant to be permanent arrangement. This was always a temporary arrangement in the backdrop of the turbos eventually being phased out. And I think it was a "two tier" F1 did relatively well but if there's no need for a two tiered system of formal rules, then don't have it. And we don't need it.

Rules shouldn't mandate how old an engine is after it's been declared decisively safe to use. After that an engine unit should just met the stipulations laid down by the rules and be blind as to whether it's one or two years old or new.

Again, I don't see an independent engine being implemented as has been laid out with superior fuel efficiency and more power than the rest of the manufacturers. It's an uber troll, high stakes, hair raising neo-Mosleyite political ploy that would've driven out the manufacturers if they seriously implemented it and I don't think the sport wants to do that. Strong arming the manufacturers into price controls is the objective here I think.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

I detest "independent manufacturer" idea -- unless, they are multiple suppliers that can compete and win the tender.

No tender, set the outline spec and specifically no spec on layout and number of cylinders of the PU and let anyone who thinks they can build and supply it. Having said that there is no dominant reason for F1 to have a bespoke motor and using a stock block arrangement would bring the price down to a very low figure, the teams could build their own if they wanted but above all p*ss off the token system and let development happen inside the specs set. MB could pull a motor out of one of their road cars and make 1500hp if they wanted, it isn't rocket science these days with forced induction. In the old days it was necessary to have a bespoke motor as the technology, materials etc did not exist in production road motors. Apart from that does anyone seriously contend that hybrids are the future? They are a stepping stone to the future for maybe a couple of decades at the most I would say and that is why I see F1 going the way of FE or even merging with it as being inevitable.

[Casper]

My BS meter just went into the red. AS are reporting that Mercedes are losing considerable amounts of folding on every customer supply deal. Yeah, right!!

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by Casper

My BS meter just went into the red. AS are reporting that Mercedes are losing considerable amounts of folding on every customer supply deal. Yeah, right!!

Technically this could be true. Ferrari are saying something similar on their customer deals (not making a lot under the current contracts).

However, I think they are kind of missing the point. Ferrari argues why should they sell their engines at a loss to met a cost cap. This is not the idea, the idea is that a price is set and the manufacturers build to this price. If they want to spend a lot more money and lose on the contract, that is up to them.

This is one way to attempt to level the playing field, because the business case will be far more difficult to justify more money from the board. For example, if the maximum of 4 contracts per year will only bring in $80M erecedes bosses may justify $100M expenditure for research and development and manufacturing, wearing a $20loss for their own teams' PU's, but any more would be surely out of the question. Same goes I would assume for the other manufacturers.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

My BS meter just went into the red. AS are reporting that Mercedes are losing considerable amounts of folding on every customer supply deal. Yeah, right!!

I guess it is all up to the way you treat the sunk R&D costs.

If you are recovering the R&D from the suckers / customers, then Mercedes may be running at a loss, if you are looking at the marginal cost of an extra PU, then Mercedes are absolutely profiteering!

Mercedes also have the additional advantage of deciding who is allowed to be competitive, and just how competitive all the customers can be, which is just wrong, only one spec of the engine should be allowed to race and that should include the software.

Let the rest of the grid run 1.6 turbos with no KERS system at a 500kg weight limit and the manufacturers can run their hybrids at 700 kg, and we will see if hybrids have any future in racing or anywhere else.

I vote for Casper's rules as even better than the above rule, production blocks only, modify any component you like, but you may not add any material to anything.

[Pingguest]

It should be no problem of an engine manufacturer opting to run a production-based engine. However, regulations mandating the use of production-based engine goes against the very essence of Formula One. Apart from the principle, a production-based engine from Ferrari would be entirely different to one of Renault. Artificial equalization would be necessary to have some fair competition.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

I vote for Casper's rules as even better than the above rule, production blocks only, modify any component you like, but you may not add any material to anything.

Define "production based". Frankly... given the amount of money they are willing to spend you will be back to where we are today immediately. Create a bespoke F1 engine, then build a "production car" around it to satisfy homologation requirements. What has changed?

Mercedes has good experience exploiting rules that were designed to cater toward production based engines (1994 Indy 500 anyone?) Other manufactures have exploited "production based" rules before was well (Porsche 911 GT1).

IMHO it would be a huge mess to go down that path. If you wan to open it up, just use simple rules around fuel flow limits, displacement, rev limits, etc. to keep cost down and open development to prevent dominance via development freezes. Or as they recently tried, fixed costs for engines and an open market that allows anyone to lease a power supply. And a WEC style set of rules would be interesting.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Define "production based". Frankly... given the amount of money they are willing to spend you will be back to where we are today immediately. Create a bespoke F1 engine, then build a "production car" around it to satisfy homologation requirements. What has changed?

Mercedes has good experience exploiting rules that were designed to cater toward production based engines (1994 Indy 500 anyone?) Other manufactures have exploited "production based" rules before was well (Porsche 911 GT1).

IMHO it would be a huge mess to go down that path. If you wan to open it up, just use simple rules around fuel flow limits, displacement, rev limits, etc. to keep cost down and open development to prevent dominance via development freezes. Or as they recently tried, fixed costs for engines and an open market that allows anyone to lease a power supply. And a WEC style set of rules would be interesting.

Richard

Production stock block means to me a motor from a production line built vehicle and the old numbers I think was about 5,000 vehicles but let's make it 10,000 to prevent any shenanigans. It won't happen so tin foil hats can be put away but I think the idea has merit.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Casper

Production stock block means to me a motor from a production line built vehicle and the old numbers I think was about 5,000 vehicles but let's make it 10,000 to prevent any shenanigans. It won't happen so tin foil hats can be put away but I think the idea has merit.

That might be a problem for Ferrari who only produce about 7 or 8 thousand cars a year.

[Casper]

That wouldn't worry me, no one said it had to be a Ferrari. Anyway, aren't Ferrari going to jack up production to help pay dividends to the new shareholders? I'm not a cynic..............

[Pingguest]

It is not very likely Ferrari would want to use a production-based engine from another brand.
Really, I do not see any value of regulations mandating the use of production-based engine.

[Paradise City]

Ferrari aren't going to put a little Fiat Punto unit into one of their F1 cars, rest assured.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It is not very likely Ferrari would want to use a production-based engine from another brand.
Really, I do not see any value of regulations mandating the use of production-based engine.

Don't worry about it as it is not about to happen. On the other hand MB might be quite happy to use one out of their road cars.

[chillibowl]

sorry to go backwards here, but i still dont get what the benefit is of moving to a cheaper engine?

RBR racing were reportedly paying Renault 24mil a year for their supply. if the price dropped to 12mil then RBR would save at most 12 mil relative to a 400mil budget...a 3-4% savings. Williams are no doubt currently spending less on engines than RBR but a 12mil savings against a 200mil budget is only a 5% savings. Manor i suspect are already paying at the lowest end so with a budget about 100mil any savings represents a greater benefit but still how much would they save 10mil at the most but probably still closer to 5mil or 5% of their budget.

the savings are a drop in the bucket compared to how much is being spent and this is seemingly an issue that could easily be dealt with a slight increase in prize money.

saving 10mil sounds like a huge saving to everyone watching at home but i cant imagine the teams or the sport will notice any difference at all by costs going down 5% on average.

obviously a larger game is being played out here. maybe its just about control but with such a small savings it hardly seems worth it or that any point can be made by forcing the teams into submission.

unless top manus can be compelled to supply engines as close to what their factory team is currently running and cannot refuse supply deals based on competition grounds then the same issues will exist regardless of what type of formula they adopt.

anyways sorry for the rant

[wimiu012uk]

allow the engine manufactures an amount of fuel based on maximum calorific value allowed for a race distance, give them a maximum cc capacity with turbo, take away stupid energy recovery systems for the next 5 years at least, make the cars fit in a certain size box with a maximum of two elements on front and rear wings and steel brakes only. Most of these mentioned ideas are relevant to the vast majority of road cars and would enable longer braking zones, thus more overtaking.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wimiu012uk

allow the engine manufactures an amount of fuel based on maximum calorific value allowed for a race distance, give them a maximum cc capacity with turbo, take away stupid energy recovery systems for the next 5 years at least, make the cars fit in a certain size box with a maximum of two elements on front and rear wings and steel brakes only. Most of these mentioned ideas are relevant to the vast majority of road cars and would enable longer braking zones, thus more overtaking.

I think these ideas would make a great basis for F2 or LMP2 in the next few years but I think F1 should be a bit more cutting edge than that.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I think these ideas would make a great basis for F2 or LMP2 in the next few years but I think F1 should be a bit more cutting edge than that.

Hrm... But what we've got is "cutting edge", and, well, there's a lot of noise being made about that.