Ramifications and speculation around TD045 and how it affects team operations

[ValeVida46]

I would have my popcorn ready if Mercedes breaks the cost cap.

Well let's face it, the precedent has been set right?
You can't even call it cheating on F1technical without (tellingly) being censored by (some) mods.

On the off chance they do break the budget cap, I'd be disappointed though. However if they come up with a good excuse, the way the FIA has set it up would mean the popcorn remains in the cupboard.
The TD45 loophole change to outside projects might be of concern to Merc with the sailing ventures that Allison was part of.
But then I read a great piece on reddit last week that made a lot of sense. I'll try find the link, but the gist is simple enough.

Fluid dynamics helps a ton in sailing with the ethos vastly different from the ground effect biased F1 formula of today.
If we look at the issues Merc face and have face for the last 18 months, it revolves around the floor and the ground effect. They also had the Project one AMG hypercar. But the problem with that is it was signed off R&D aero development in 2019/20 and Production version was ready in June 2022 due to emissions regulations and idle modifications to the PU. The aero concept has remained the same as the mule version tested in 2019.

However, there are 2 other teams running ground effect based hypercar project developments right now.

[Cs98]

Fluid dynamics helps a ton in sailing with the ethos vastly different from the ground effect biased F1 formula of today.
If we look at the issues Merc face and have face for the last 18 months, it revolves around the floor and the ground effect. They also had the Project one AMG hypercar. But the problem with that is it was signed off R&D aero development in 2019/20 and Production version was ready in June 2022 due to emissions regulations and idle modifications to the PU. The aero concept has remained the same as the mule version tested in 2019.

However, there are 2 other teams running ground effect based hypercar project developments right now.

The contentious nature of the AMG One was never related to aero. It's the fact you have an off label F1 engine being designed, built and assembled under the same roof as the real thing. It poses the same problem as all these other projects. Who is really working on what? When they're all working and eating under the same roof it becomes hard to keep track of information. No wonder other teams wanted a piece of that action when they see stuff like this.

[ValeVida46]

The contentious nature of the AMG One was never related to aero. It's the fact you have an off label F1 engine being designed, built and assembled under the same roof as the real thing. It poses the same problem as all these other projects. Who is really working on what? When they're all working and eating under the same roof it becomes hard to keep track of information. No wonder other teams wanted a piece of that action when they see stuff like this.
https://youtu.be/CJhMOgzPRc0?t=1243

Engines can be tested 24/7 on a bench. New ideas can be tested to destruction. Anything can be changed on an F1 engine if it a) prolongs the life(reliability) or b) can be demonstrated as more economically beneficial.
Was there a cost cap on engines? Nope. .

Also, what you are positing as contentious, is actually quite transparent as each AMG one engine is built to a tight tolerance of same spec standard. It has to. Emissions are a fickle thing when you start messing around with it.
It will be almost impossible to change spec of engine passing the Emissions regs in 2021. Literally everything was delayed to get the catalytic converter to work and keep the emissions down.
If anyone wants to say that Mercedes gained an advantage from putting a catalytic converter on a 2016/7 phase 2 engine and keep it from stalling out on idle, I'm all ears.

Especially when ground effect hypercars are being ignored. That's ignoring the elephant in the room.

[Cs98]

Engines can be tested 24/7 on a bench. New ideas can be tested to destruction. Anything can be changed on an F1 engine if it a) prolongs the life(reliability) or b) can be demonstrated as more economically beneficial.
Was there a cost cap on engines? Nope. .

Also, what you are positing as contentious, is actually quite transparent as each AMG one engine is built to a tight tolerance of same spec standard. It has to. Emissions are a fickle thing when you start messing around with it.
It will be almost impossible to change spec of engine passing the Emissions regs in 2021. Literally everything was delayed to get the catalytic converter to work and keep the emissions down.
If anyone wants to say that Mercedes gained an advantage from putting a catalytic converter on a 2016/7 phase 2 engine and keep it from stalling out on idle, I'm all ears.

Especially when ground effect hypercars are being ignored. That's ignoring the elephant in the room.

This video is from 2023, so it's going on as we speak. And there is both an engine cost cap and restricted dyno running since a while now. The synergies for such a project are obvious. Even something as simple as training staff. You can just pay them to work under the AMG One project until they are skilled enough to work on current F1 engines. Or keep staff jumping between the two. As the guy says in the video, the engines are basically the same.

If anyone wants to say that Mercedes gained an advantage from putting a catalytic converter on a 2016/7 phase 2 engine and keep it from stalling out on idle, I'm all ears.

So doing an off label F1 engine project in the same factory is not a concern, nothing to see there, no potential for abuse. But you do want us to be gravely concerned about the hypercar projects because they use some form of ground effect, yet to be competely revealed. I don't think I'm the one ignoring the elephant in the room TBH. I can see potential issues with both types of projects.

[ValeVida46]

This video is from 2023, so it's going on as we speak

I can show you a video of a 2010 Red Bull doing donuts in 2023. Doesn't mean the 2010 Red Bull is a 2023 development. Development of the engine for the Project one ended some time ago in 2021 while emissions were being tested.
The engine itself is derived directly from the the concepts of the the W07 implementation coded PU106C. Don't believe me? Check the plenum addition on the M09 variant and after which gained considerable efficiency and power(40bhp).
That does not exist on the Project One, because it's from an earlier iteration of the evolution.

Even something as simple as training staff. You can just pay them to work under the AMG One project until they are skilled enough to work on current F1 engines. Or keep staff jumping between the two.

I'm struggling to see an advantageous reasoning to having staff learn how to build a 2016 F1 engine. How does this become a net benefit to the performance? How do lower-end assembly nippers building a 106C translate into high end development M09 performance? Because what you are doing is conflating the build process to the development one.
Any time a team does a demo they have engines sent to their departments for maintenance. They all have dedicated staff outside the budget cap too. Heritage cars don't just show up and run on their own, and they are under the same remit as the Project 1. If you could make a discernible difference between those 2, I'm all ears again.

As the guy says in the video, the engines are basically the same

He said "they're similar".
And to produce a split turbo hybrid F1 engine, he's right. A 2016 PU106C is similar to a M14E variant to produce which is separate from development.
It would be logical for a Hypercar with a specialist 2016 derived F1 engine, to have it built where they build F1 engines.
The alternative is to have a 200 million euro F1 assembly line in Stuttgart. Of course, Mercedes should have known this way back in 2016 when the budget cap didn't exist, right?
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1534 ... -hypercar/

So doing an off label F1 engine project in the same factory is not a concern, nothing to see there, no potential for abuse. But you do want us to be gravely concerned about the hypercar projects because they use some form of ground effect, yet to be competely revealed. I don't think I'm the one ignoring the elephant in the room TBH. I can see potential issues with both types of projects.

Because engines are so wildly far apart? It's kinda bizarre to look at engines, when the top 3 engines are fairly similar in performance. Yet a PU106C is being dubbed "an off label F1 engine project"
You want to dissect this. When most teams have Hybrid PU's for heritage shows.

But dissecting a ground effect side project in the most dominant season in F1 history, in a ground effect formula....well this must be equivalent to a 7 year old catalytic converted f1 engine built by apprentices

[Cs98]

I'm struggling to see an advantageous reasoning to having staff learn how to build a 2016 F1 engine. How does this become a net benefit to the performance?

Simple. By externalising training costs you can reduce your cost cap costs, freeing up money for development. As the engineer in the video explains the engines are so similar that they can do both. Better to do your training then outside the cost cap.

Any time a team does a demo they have engines sent to their departments for maintenance. They all have dedicated staff outside the budget cap too. Heritage cars don't just show up and run on their own, and they are under the same remit as the Project 1. If you could make a discernible difference between those 2, I'm all ears again.

The discernable difference is heritage/demo operations don't have a 275 unit in-house production line for off label F1 engines. There is no design, production, or assembly, only maintenance for a handful of already built units. Tinkering with an engine is not the same as designing, producing and assembling it.

The alternative is to have a 200 million euro F1 assembly line in Stuttgart. Of course, Mercedes should have known this way back in 2016 when the budget cap didn't exist, right?

Doesn't matter what the original intention was. The only thing that matters is how it is being used now, in the CC era. Let's recall the AM Valkyrie was also conceived in 2016.

But dissecting a ground effect side project in the most dominant season in F1 history, in a ground effect formula....well this must be equivalent to a 7 year old catalytic converted f1 engine built by apprentices

Because it's an F1 engine, built in the same facility. Just knowing a car uses ground effect doesn't exactly make it an F1 car, or applicable to an F1 car. The FIA should have oversight over both, but there is no reason to fret hypercar projects for using ground effect and then pretend there is nothing to worry about with an in-house off label F1 engine project that is producing hundreds of units. You don't know exactly what kind of development they've done to that engine any more than you know exactly the sort of development being done in the hypercar space.

[AR3-GP]

Engines can be tested 24/7 on a bench. New ideas can be tested to destruction. Anything can be changed on an F1 engine if it a) prolongs the life(reliability) or b) can be demonstrated as more economically beneficial.

Engines cannot be tested 24/7 on a bench:

Appendix 8 of the Sporting regulations:
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -09-30.pdf

[taperoo2k]

I'm struggling to see an advantageous reasoning to having staff learn how to build a 2016 F1 engine. How does this become a net benefit to the performance?

Simple. By externalising training costs you can reduce your cost cap costs, freeing up money for development. As the engineer in the video explains the engines are so similar that they can do both. Better to do your training then outside the cost cap.

Any time a team does a demo they have engines sent to their departments for maintenance. They all have dedicated staff outside the budget cap too. Heritage cars don't just show up and run on their own, and they are under the same remit as the Project 1. If you could make a discernible difference between those 2, I'm all ears again.

The discernable difference is heritage/demo operations don't have a 275 unit in-house production line for off label F1 engines. There is no design, production, or assembly, only maintenance for a handful of already built units. Tinkering with an engine is not the same as designing, producing and assembling it.

The alternative is to have a 200 million euro F1 assembly line in Stuttgart. Of course, Mercedes should have known this way back in 2016 when the budget cap didn't exist, right?

Doesn't matter what the original intention was. The only thing that matters is how it is being used now, in the CC era. Let's recall the AM Valkyrie was also conceived in 2016.

But dissecting a ground effect side project in the most dominant season in F1 history, in a ground effect formula....well this must be equivalent to a 7 year old catalytic converted f1 engine built by apprentices

Because it's an F1 engine, built in the same facility. Just knowing a car uses ground effect doesn't exactly make it an F1 car, or applicable to an F1 car. The FIA should have oversight over both, but there is no reason to fret hypercar projects for using ground effect and then pretend there is nothing to worry about with an in-house off label F1 engine project that is producing hundreds of units. You don't know exactly what kind of development they've done to that engine any more than you know exactly the sort of development being done in the hypercar space.

If you cared to read a few interviews with the head of Mercedes High Performance Powertrains you'd know they are fully focused on the 2026 engine regulation changes. Where your whole thing comes crumbling down around your ears is the simple fact that all Power Units supplied no matter if it's to a works or customer team must be of the same specification. So if Mercedes makes reliability upgrades (if they get permission from the FIA to do so), it will filter through to the customer teams at a certain point (teams might have to modify cooling systems and what not).

You can bet your bottom dollar that Newey likely found some useful information from his hypercar project that translated to the current F1 aero regulations. As for Mercedes? They won't be wasting time upgrading the current specification Powerunit unless they have a real reliability concern. They will be focused entirely on 2026 regulations get those right and it's half the battle won.

[chrisc90]

I'm struggling to see an advantageous reasoning to having staff learn how to build a 2016 F1 engine. How does this become a net benefit to the performance?

Simple. By externalising training costs you can reduce your cost cap costs, freeing up money for development. As the engineer in the video explains the engines are so similar that they can do both. Better to do your training then outside the cost cap.

Any time a team does a demo they have engines sent to their departments for maintenance. They all have dedicated staff outside the budget cap too. Heritage cars don't just show up and run on their own, and they are under the same remit as the Project 1. If you could make a discernible difference between those 2, I'm all ears again.

The discernable difference is heritage/demo operations don't have a 275 unit in-house production line for off label F1 engines. There is no design, production, or assembly, only maintenance for a handful of already built units. Tinkering with an engine is not the same as designing, producing and assembling it.

The alternative is to have a 200 million euro F1 assembly line in Stuttgart. Of course, Mercedes should have known this way back in 2016 when the budget cap didn't exist, right?

Doesn't matter what the original intention was. The only thing that matters is how it is being used now, in the CC era. Let's recall the AM Valkyrie was also conceived in 2016.

But dissecting a ground effect side project in the most dominant season in F1 history, in a ground effect formula....well this must be equivalent to a 7 year old catalytic converted f1 engine built by apprentices

Because it's an F1 engine, built in the same facility. Just knowing a car uses ground effect doesn't exactly make it an F1 car, or applicable to an F1 car. The FIA should have oversight over both, but there is no reason to fret hypercar projects for using ground effect and then pretend there is nothing to worry about with an in-house off label F1 engine project that is producing hundreds of units. You don't know exactly what kind of development they've done to that engine any more than you know exactly the sort of development being done in the hypercar space.

If you cared to read a few interviews with the head of Mercedes High Performance Powertrains you'd know they are fully focused on the 2026 engine regulation changes. Where your whole thing comes crumbling down around your ears is the simple fact that all Power Units supplied no matter if it's to a works or customer team must be of the same specification. So if Mercedes makes reliability upgrades (if they get permission from the FIA to do so), it will filter through to the customer teams at a certain point (teams might have to modify cooling systems and what not).

You can bet your bottom dollar that Newey likely found some useful information from his hypercar project that translated to the current F1 aero regulations. As for Mercedes? They won't be wasting time upgrading the current specification Powerunit unless they have a real reliability concern. They will be focused entirely on 2026 regulations get those right and it's half the battle won.

You could say the same about every PU manufacturer on the grid then. Since you can only make reliability upgrades then why would any team "be wasting time upgrading the current specification Powerunit unless they have a real reliability concern. They will be focused entirely on 2026 regulations get those right and it's half the battle won"

There will still be finding ways to tweak the current PUs, most likely from mapping or energy deployment strategies.

[denyall]

Simple. By externalising training costs you can reduce your cost cap costs, freeing up money for development. As the engineer in the video explains the engines are so similar that they can do both. Better to do your training then outside the cost cap.
The discernable difference is heritage/demo operations don't have a 275 unit in-house production line for off label F1 engines. There is no design, production, or assembly, only maintenance for a handful of already built units. Tinkering with an engine is not the same as designing, producing and assembling it.
Doesn't matter what the original intention was. The only thing that matters is how it is being used now, in the CC era. Let's recall the AM Valkyrie was also conceived in 2016.
Because it's an F1 engine, built in the same facility. Just knowing a car uses ground effect doesn't exactly make it an F1 car, or applicable to an F1 car. The FIA should have oversight over both, but there is no reason to fret hypercar projects for using ground effect and then pretend there is nothing to worry about with an in-house off label F1 engine project that is producing hundreds of units. You don't know exactly what kind of development they've done to that engine any more than you know exactly the sort of development being done in the hypercar space.

If you cared to read a few interviews with the head of Mercedes High Performance Powertrains you'd know they are fully focused on the 2026 engine regulation changes. Where your whole thing comes crumbling down around your ears is the simple fact that all Power Units supplied no matter if it's to a works or customer team must be of the same specification. So if Mercedes makes reliability upgrades (if they get permission from the FIA to do so), it will filter through to the customer teams at a certain point (teams might have to modify cooling systems and what not).

You can bet your bottom dollar that Newey likely found some useful information from his hypercar project that translated to the current F1 aero regulations. As for Mercedes? They won't be wasting time upgrading the current specification Powerunit unless they have a real reliability concern. They will be focused entirely on 2026 regulations get those right and it's half the battle won.

You could say the same about every PU manufacturer on the grid then. Since you can only make reliability upgrades then why would any team "be wasting time upgrading the current specification Powerunit unless they have a real reliability concern. They will be focused entirely on 2026 regulations get those right and it's half the battle won"

There will still be finding ways to tweak the current PUs, most likely from mapping or energy deployment strategies.

Since there is more or less PU parity, probably not worth a PU arms race, especially since the details of "reliability" upgrades have to be approved by the other teams.

Basically team A invests in upgrading PU but has to tell team B, C,D how and why and they can bring the same update quickly with less investment than Team A.

[ValeVida46]

Simple. By externalising training costs you can reduce your cost cap costs, freeing up money for development. As the engineer in the video explains the engines are so similar that they can do both. Better to do your training then outside the cost cap.

You understand that these technicians are not designers right? Ferrari, Honda and Renault all run hybrid engine programmes, so they too would have trainees benefiting from this training you suggest Mercedes are benefitting from.

The discernable difference is heritage/demo operations don't have a 275 unit in-house production line for off label F1 engines. There is no design, production, or assembly, only maintenance for a handful of already built units. Tinkering with an engine is not the same as designing, producing and assembling it.

So those technicians in your 2023 video were responsible for design, production and assembly where they?
Because you see the concern as current. When the design of the road cars engine was 2016 derived, and delayed due to emissions regulations before being signed off totally in 2021 for testing. Where is the design benefit today? There's none I can think of, but perhaps you know more than me how a 2016 engine which was homologated for the road in 2021 can benefit the team in 2023?


Re: Valkyrie conception in 2016
Conceived yes, AMR pro still tests aero developments for customers. The Valhalla too, conveniently features ground effect and is in development today. A real, first hand net benefit to a ground effect formula. Now as I outlined, it is bewildering that this is pushed back or given equal billing to a bunch of mechanics building an old PU106 for some rich folk. Where is the tangible benefit that a team in a ground effect formula would get that is running ground effect concepts today?



How is having oversight of a defunct and now finished project, equivalent to a current hypercar project utilising the biggest performance differentiator technology today?
You can tailor a special project to to meet your ground effect requirements. You cannot tailor Euro6 emissions tests to meet your F1 engine development requirements.

[chrisc90]

Surely they could just stick the F1 engine back on the dyno and tweak it until they find a point of failure, or can find more power? Gets round the testing regulations and also finds the next weak point in the engine (same as F1 car) and also hope to get some extra power or torque at differing points in the RPM range.

You can tailor a special project to to meet your ground effect requirements. You cannot tailor Euro6 emissions tests to meet your F1 engine development requirements.

Technically you could just swap the exhaust and remove the cat. Who's regulating whether the testing is strictly Euro 6 stuff? nobody I guess. With the extra BHP the Merc engine(s) gained in 2021, with Bottas testing things first, then giving it to Lewis.....how much of that was founded through the AMGone project? Makes you think?

Guess its a seperate topic for all these side projects and what can be achieved from them rather than clutter up team threads. Could be a interesting discussion over the summer break if it can be kept clean and fair.

[ringo]

What's the point of the above. Is it being said that Mercedes are breaching the cost cap by commiting resources to developing a frozen engine under the guise of a super car project?
I do not see why they would do that.
The AMG 1 engines are old as said before. They only need to be manufactured. There is no R&D going into those engines anymore.
Also do engines fall into the cost cap?

[Just_a_fan]

What's the point of the above. Is it being said that Mercedes are breaching the cost cap by commiting resources to developing a frozen engine under the guise of a super car project?
I do not see why they would do that.
The AMG 1 engines are old as said before. They only need to be manufactured. There is no R&D going into those engines anymore.
Also do engines fall into the cost cap?

It's whataboutism. A way of deflecting from the elephant in the room that is the RB17.

[TFSA]

I've said this elsewhere and I'll say it again: It shouldn't matter that a team is doing R&D research outside of F1, as long as they aren't allowed to bring any concrete designs, plans or other data into the F1 production environment, without it fitting under the cost cap.

If we are gonna start policing knowledge, then we might as well ban Adrian Newey from F1. Anything that exists in peoples heads should be A-okay. If you want some of your engineers to go work on a Hypercar project outside of the cost cap in order for them to get smarter, and then use that knowledge later to help in the design of an F1 car, then that is just as okay as Newey using his 40+ years of experience and knowledge (including with ground effect cars in the 80s).

If people are working on side projects, they might get smarter - but they aren't spending that time working on the actual F1 car, which at the end of the day is what matters. Also, poaching is a thing. Someone working at Mercedes today might work at McLaren tomorrow, and vice versa.