FOTA is dead

[Raptor22]

F1 cars are designed to be slippery in some areas and create low drag high downforce in others. Overall understanding of aerodynamics will benefit the real world market.

The level of understanding that can be useful is reached many years ago in my opinion. Nowadays it is the race of who can make bendy wings and tune complex vortex structure. It also seems that while the general understanding of how it works is good, when it comes to practice it is trial and error, and I doubt it make any sense for real word cars.

Ya but its F1 remember, its not supposed to be relevant. Even Ferrari said that less than 2 yrs ago. Now they face stagnant car sales and suddenly Ferrari needs a road car relevant formula

F1 needed to be road relevant 6 yrs ago. To little too late.

[timbo]

Now Ferrari uses a thinly veiled tactic to attempt to swing the rules in their favour and everyone is talking about how relevant F1 needs to be to road car technologies. =D>

They used this rhetorics for a long time.

Hence a 4 cyclinder 1,6 Turbo would have been ideal. But Ferrari opposed that because their pride says a Ferrari can't have 4 cyclinders... to hell with whats good for the sustainability of the osport/business.

And how many Merc 4-cylinders are around?

[Raptor22]

Plenty
C180
C200
are very popular Rep mobiles in Europe.

The 4 cyclinder is a global volume best selling configuration across many brands.
Thats far more relevant to the man in the street isn't it.

also what has a Mercedes F1 car have to do with a V6 3.0L luxury Limo?
They're about as relevant as a VW Polo Rally car is to a Bentley

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Familial technology or the perceived filter down to bread and butter models is what all manufacturers want.
Mercedes also sell a hell of a lot of V8s and probably make more money on them too...
But what if there was a tangible link form what raced to what we could drive?
Wouldnt that add more Kudos to the sport?

The argument that aero should remain "because its F1" is not a good one.
F1 is about cutting edge technology, not aero dynamics. This is one facet of the sport that has been overblown and needs to be redressed.
I mean come on, We all love cars and these have more in common with aeroplanes than they do cars.

Im not saying ban aero totally, but it should not be the single biggest defining performance differentiator.

Domenicalli should drive the point home.

[WhiteBlue]

WB

You fail to see the relevance of why its ridiculous to spend 100 million on aero every year?

You are barking up the wrong tree. I'm firmly in the camp of people who think that aero is currently over rated. I have even posted specific proposals how to remedy that in the future and restrict aero research to the reduction of drag.

[Boost]

And how many Merc 4-cylinders are around?

Virtually all C and E class Merc (plus the equivalent BMW 3 and 5 series models) will have 4 cylinder engines, admittedly diesels.

[WhiteBlue]

And how many Merc 4-cylinders are around?

Virtually all C and E class Merc (plus the equivalent BMW 3 and 5 series models) will have 4 cylinder engines, admittedly diesels.

Even the S-class is available with a four cylinder diesel. BMW will push 3-cylinders from next year.

[Raptor22]

well one of my well beaten drums is being implemented from 2014; the reintroduction of ground effect + smaller wings.
I'd still prefer fan car technology but that' an admission the FIA is never going to make

[Raptor22]

And how many Merc 4-cylinders are around?

Virtually all C and E class Merc (plus the equivalent BMW 3 and 5 series models) will have 4 cylinder engines, admittedly diesels.

Even the S-class is available with a four cylinder diesel. BMW will push 3-cylinders from next year.

And looking at the Ricardo trends presentation, 3 and 4 cylinder DISI low pressure Turbo charged engines are very much in our future. And the bulk of these are sub 2000cc.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

WB

You fail to see the relevance of why its ridiculous to spend 100 million on aero every year?

You are barking up the wrong tree. I'm firmly in the camp of people who think that aero is currently over rated. I have even posted specific proposals how to remedy that in the future and restrict aero research to the reduction of drag.

It was a question. No barking.... just asking if you think spending 100 million to get as few points extra downforce is ok?

[Pandamasque]

I don't remember how many years ago I asked if it's possible to cap DF, so that the engineers would spend resources on aero balance drag reduction solely which is relevant outside F1. F1T members came up with a few technical solutions to police such a rule. Including the possibility to measure it in real time.

[wesley123]

Then I am more for limiting consumption, which causes the same thing

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Teams met up on Monday and talks were said to be "positive" although no agreement has been reached.


What perplexes me is Horners continued rhetoric.

"there's a willingness from all teams to cuts costs, it's just the manner of how we do it. Engines cannot be excluded from it with some teams producing their own engines so it's important to look at the team as a whole rather than cherry picking the chassis."

My main concern here is that Renault are now officially part of red bull racing. So red bull aren't deemed customers by Renault as this relationship is infact similar to the one McLaren enjoyed with mercedes.
Secondly we have had an engine freeze for the last few years, so engine development, while still existent, is stifled far more than chassis development.

If this is the sticking point, why have McLaren not jumped into bed with red bull? As they find themselves in a worse postion regarding engines, albeit still with mercedes.

[WhiteBlue]

Horner said:

It (RRA) needs to encompass all aspects of the car," said Horner. "Dealing with equivalence is always quite dangerous. Each of the teams has a different make up, different ownership.

"Some belong to motor manufacturers and some are independent and, if you look at the things that work, like the testing, like the wind tunnel hours, like the restriction in personnel, the things that you can touch and feel work quite well. But as soon as you start trading equivalence of hours versus external spend, that's where it seems to run into some difficulty.

"There's a willingness from all of the teams to try and contain costs, it's just the manner that you do it. And you can't exclude the engine from that with some teams producing their own engines, so it's important to look at the teams as a whole rather than cherry-picking the chassis."

This is very much in contrast with the official statement by Mercedes. They say that the power train needs no inclusion in the RRA.

In my opinion, according to the FiA expert group and according to all announcements of FOTA between summer 2010 and November 2011 an engine RRA is needed to prevent a cost race.

Simple logic will tell you that there will be massive engine cost increases if there is unrestricted development again. Unless you actually define a control engine supplied by one supplier you will always have cost escalation without cost control.

Red Bull and Ferrari are both promoting something that I think is correct. Power train RRA is necessary but there should also be a reduction of the competitive advantage from aero. The sooner they start to recognize that both points need to be accepted the better for F1.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@WhiteBlue

You really should include statements as that gives us an idea of what people are trying to say..

I read the mercedes AMG powertrains heads interview, and he is right in saying that an RRA on powertrains would be superfluous.
Why?
The restrictions on engines and development is so confined right down to materials and dimensions that it is a resource restriction in itself. Mercedes arent against a restriction on powertrains, they simply see that the freeze on engines has ultimately achieved it's target of bringing down costs. They laid off over 150 staff at MBHPE over the last 3 years, most of which are now currently in cosworths employ.

So what is the point of further restricting engines? To solidify red bulls aero advantage?

In the end, Renault supply red bull top notch engines that red bull didn't have to develop. Mercedes had to develop their own, abd the costs would naturally be higher, Horner should either understand that or ask his employers to build their own engine.