2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

I think the cost discussion is a kind of trap that Montezuma and Bernie have sprung. Their only chance to stop the I4 turbos is to make them more expensive than they would naturally be. By themselves I4turbos would be a lot less expensive to manufacture as long as you apply reasonable resource or budget restrictions to the development. The problem is that Ferrari have no interest to agree on restrictions that would enable Cosworth to develop a competitive engine. That way they can blackmail the FiA into a change of plan.

Unfortunately the small turbo plan massively hinges on Cosworth to be able to supply three, four or five teams with reasonably competitive engines. So there is the obvious opportunity for Ferrari to screw the engine plan. Cosworth according to Autosport article are still dedicated to the 2013 plan but they fear that Ferrari will trigger a cost race unless budget or resource restriction apply for the engines similarly as they apply to the chassis development.

It is now quite open how this will pan out, but I have a lot of faith in J. Todt to sort this out. After all it just needs a majority vote by the teams to apply some sensible form of cost control for the new engines. They are likely to sign up for something like this in order to get cheaper and greener engines.

[Mysticf1]

But how would any budget restrictions work if design and development is well under way, as i would assume it is?

[xpensive]

I think the cost discussion is a kind of trap that Montezuma and Bernie have sprung.
...

I agree and I don't WB, I'm afraid that the FIA made way for a money-race with all the recovery systems added to the formula,
if it had been just the I4 turbo stright off the bat, it would certainly made it much less xpensive than the V8.

But the proposition of developing direct injection and the other gizmos suggested would make it difficult for Cosworth.

All in all, with the prospect of Cosworth and possibly Renault falling out, I think Todt is left with little choice but to stick with the xisting V8s, you know what you got, but not what you will get, simple as that.

[Fil]

Cosworth.. ..fear that Ferrari will trigger a cost race..

After all it just needs a majority vote by the teams to apply some sensible form of cost control for the new engines. They are likely to sign up for something like this in order to get cheaper and greener engines.

It's a cost race because there are engine manufacturers in competition with each other.
They will all spend what they can to ensure they are not just competitive, but winners.
Cosworth's sole fear is their inability to be competitive (not even about winning), in that they don't have the same $$$ to spend. Nothing else.

As for a majority vote, that's all well and good for the FOTA signatories in Mercedes & Ferrari.

What about the independent engine suppliers in Renault Sport, Cosworth, PURE? Or any other engine manufacturer who may decide to supply engines in 2013?
Anything by FOTA won't be binding outside of their own membership.

[WhiteBlue]

All in all, with the prospect of Cosworth and possibly Renault falling out, I think Todt is left with little choice but to stick with the xisting V8s, you know what you got, but not what you will get, simple as that.

Renault are adamant that the I4 turbos will come. I have not heared a single word that questions their determination. In fact they are quite advanced and have already published a first test date for the engines. Cosworth, as I have already pointed out is a matter of sensible cost control. There is no point to restrict resources for chassis design and development and give a free reign to engine development. It kills the indendent engine makers equally as it kills the chassis constructors if unrestricted spending applies.

Cosworth.. ..fear that Ferrari will trigger a cost race.. After all it just needs a majority vote by the teams to apply some sensible form of cost control for the new engines. They are likely to sign up for something like this in order to get cheaper and greener engines.

It's a cost race because there are engine manufacturers in competition with each other. They will all spend what they can to ensure they are not just competitive, but winners. Cosworth's sole fear is their inability to be competitive (not even about winning), in that they don't have the same $$$ to spend. Nothing else.

As for a majority vote, that's all well and good for the FOTA signatories in Mercedes & Ferrari. What about the independent engine suppliers in Renault Sport, Cosworth, PURE? Or any other engine manufacturer who may decide to supply engines in 2013? Anything by FOTA won't be binding outside of their own membership.

I don't see the logic in your post. Ferrari, Merc and Renault are huge operations with massive profits and cash flow compared to Cosworth. For F1 it is a matter of principle if they want the bigger engine manufacturers to be able to outspend small engineering specialists who may be more inventive and creative on a lower budget.

In my view there is no fundamental difference between the benefit of independent constructors and independent engine manufacturers. Both are beneficial for F1 to have. The constructors ought to realize that. Once Ferrari have pushed the little guys out of the game they will screw the customers to the hilt as they have always done. So the constructors need to set F1 up in a way that prevents an unrestricted arms race in engine design. The constructors have the ultimate power to write the rules by their majority in the F1 commission. They can simply decide to impose a budget or resource restriction to engine development which will be policed by FOTA or the FiA.

[xpensive]

I believe it's all but decided to stick with the V8s now, when I think it would be difficult indeed to go against MrE, Montezuma and the only independent engine manufacturer in F1? That is of course if Cosworth really have had a change of heart.

And why not, I guess that you can apply similar fuel restrictions on the V8 as intended for the I4 turbo if you wish?

[Pierce89]

I think the cost discussion is a kind of trap that Montezuma and Bernie have sprung. Their only chance to stop the I4 turbos is to make them more expensive than they would naturally be. By themselves I4turbos would be a lot less expensive to manufacture as long as you apply reasonable resource or budget restrictions to the development. The problem is that Ferrari have no interest to agree on restrictions that would enable Cosworth to develop a competitive engine. That way they can blackmail the FiA into a change of plan.

Unfortunately the small turbo plan massively hinges on Cosworth to be able to supply three, four or five teams with reasonably competitive engines. So there is the obvious opportunity for Ferrari to screw the engine plan. Cosworth according to Autosport article are still dedicated to the 2013 plan but they fear that Ferrari will trigger a cost race unless budget or resource restriction apply for the engines similarly as they apply to the chassis development.

It is now quite open how this will pan out, but I have a lot of faith in J. Todt to sort this out. After all it just needs a majority vote by the teams to apply some sensible form of cost control for the new engines. They are likely to sign up for something like this in order to get cheaper and greener engines.

In the autosport article you mention, Gallgher never mentions Ferrari or fearing that Ferrari will trigger a cost race. Just the costs

[WhiteBlue]

In the autosport article you mention, Gallgher never mentions Ferrari or fearing that Ferrari will trigger a cost race. Just the costs

Lol, and which engine manufacturer remains if you take a way Renault, Mercedes and Cosworth? Those have all publicly come out and voted for cost restrictions. Only Ferrari have said from day one of the discussions that they intend to spend north of €100m for the development. Cosworth were aiming for 20-30m.

[donskar]

None of us are truly unbiased, no use pretending. As a Ferrari fan, I see their point, but surely all of us know that Ferrari road cars and F1 are inextricably linked -- and Ferrari road cars have never run a turbo four and no 4s at all for decades. Ferrari sees no gain for them in building a turbo 4. Naturally, they are in F1 to win. Who isn't?

The underlying, inescapable reality is that F1 is one of the pinnacles of sport. Winning makes you a lot of money (PR, advertising, branding); losing has the opposite effect. If you CHOOSE to compete, you better go all out -- or get out. Anyone NOT realizing that F1 is very expensive, very difficult, very competitive is an idiot. No competitor -- entrant, sponsor, or manufacturer -- should be subsidized or supported.

If Cosworth is truly more creative and efficient than the big boys, then they will be competitive. If they design a truly competitive engine, then they don't need massive resources to build and develop it -- if they are really creative they'll get sponsorship/partnership (think of Chevy and Mercedes badging Ilmor engines). If they are creative, their engine will be good. If they're really efficient, it will be cost-effective. If it's cost-effective, they'll sell enough of them to make a good profit. And if they can't? Then they'll fail and disappear from F1. Like Auto Union, Cooper, Gurney, Porsche, Vanwall, Alfa Romeo, Brabham, Honda, Toyota, BRM, BRP, AGS, ATS, etc, etc, etc.

[WhiteBlue]

If Cosworth is truly more creative and efficient than the big boys, then they will be competitive. If they design a truly competitive engine, then they don't need massive resources to build and develop it -- if they are really creative they'll get sponsorship/partnership (think of Chevy and Mercedes badging Ilmor engines). If they are creative, their engine will be good. If they're really efficient, it will be cost-effective. If it's cost-effective, they'll sell enough of them to make a good profit. And if they can't? Then they'll fail and disappear from F1. Like Auto Union, Cooper, Gurney, Porsche, Vanwall, Alfa Romeo, Brabham, Honda, Toyota, BRM, BRP, AGS, ATS, etc, etc, etc.

With all due respect that's not making sense. If you have two competing engineering projects on a reasonable competence level and one team has thrice the resources of the other one no inventiveness will prevent the big team to run away with it. Do you honestly think Merc could compete with their C-class against BMW's 3-class if they were spending only 33% of what BMW spends? Get real!

Same applies to F1 engines. Ferrari are simply trying to get back into the arms race that they are denied in the chassis competition and the race team. That is the underlying issue here.

[WhiteBlue]

I believe it's all but decided to stick with the V8s now, when I think it would be difficult indeed to go against MrE, Montezuma and the only independent engine manufacturer in F1? That is of course if Cosworth really have had a change of heart.

And why not, I guess that you can apply similar fuel restrictions on the V8 as intended for the I4 turbo if you wish?

Todt has refused to give up the I4 turbos and offered to allow V8 alongside for one season. As history shows that has never been a solution for a top team. Inevitably the turbos will be more competitive.

The existing power trains will never get anywhere close to the efficiency of the new engines. I thought that all expert discussions have made that clear. We are talking of cutting fuel use by 50% in just two or three years from now.

[rjsa]

With all due respect that's not making sense. If you have two competing engineering projects on a reasonable competence level and one team has thrice the resources of the other one no inventiveness will prevent the big team to run away with it. Do you honestly think Merc could compete with their C-class against BMW's 3-class if they were spending only 33% of what BMW spends? Get real!

Same applies to F1 engines. Ferrari are simply trying to get back into the arms race that they are denied in the chassis competition and the race team. That is the underlying issue here.

So why Toyota, BMW and Honda have have failed so miserably with their full branded F1 teams?

Williams, strugling for money as they where, was consistently faster than Honda and Toyota (which had a monster budget, matched by Ferrari alone). BMW did a tad better.

[WhiteBlue]

Don't use flawed reverse logic. We are talking about well established engine makers who have spend decades in the sport and know their engineering. Cosworth have hundreds of GPs and a bunch of championships to their name.

Anybody can spend tons of money to no purpose like BAR demonstrated with Pollock and Villeneuve, but that's no replacement for competence which I assumed in the first place.

Would you deny that guys like Mario Illien (given equal money) would be able to take the competition to the likes of Ferrari? That's something I would like to see and that's why I want budget or resource restrictions for engine development.

[rjsa]

Nobody wants the four-pot formula in 2013, why it will not happen, or I'll eat an entire Caterham vehicle.

You can start eating. P.U.R.E.'s launch has cemented the legality of the engine rule. Todt will fight very hard to stop Ecclestone and Ferrari, who are the only opponents.

It's not my logic that is flawed. Look who exactly you claimed to be the bastion of the I4 new career.

Wanting something really bad does not make it right or true. It just impairs your perception.

[ringo]

The I4 turbo can be cheap, though not cheaper than the v8 if it is highly restricted, but with an intro of a completely new engine, engine makers will definitely spend though the eye balls to ensure they have an advantage that will be locked in.
A turbo engine has more variables to consider and will no doubt cuase a space race between manufacturers.

White Blue's additional technologies such as TERS, turbo compounding etc. will definitely balloon costs. It's a good initiative but it's not realistic in one year's time, or even 2.

A simple turbo I4 with both engine and turbine management restrictions would be the best path to follow. Simplicity is key in keeping down costs.
Sadly creativity and ingenuity go hand in hand with excessive spending, so tight restrictions must be applied.