2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Dragonfly]

I think it's more to the fact that they cannot implement their own technological achievements, which they have made following own strategy and investments, but have to spend a lot to build what is an alien engine far away from what they do. And therefore they cannot make a showcase of their brand.

[WhiteBlue]

Let me ask the proponents..
WHY,,Should we have a budget cap at all?

To stop car makers coming in and doing a BMW/Toyota/Honda and then vanishing - if a sensible budget cap is in place (eg 150 million) it makes the sport more sustainable and you dont end up with Ferrari etc spending 400 million per year!

I'd like a budget cap and more technical freedom to spice things up.

The point about sustainability is the main issue here. At the height of the cost race top budgets were four times of what they spend now and the average team budget was 40% higher. There is no way such expenditure could have been maintained. We would have lost Merc and Renault unless cuts had been made and Cosworth would not have come back.

In a "what if" scenario we would not have only the whole field powered by Ferrari engines but also perhaps half the field driving old Ferrari chassis and one or two other constructors surviving. The whole field of cars would be down to 16 cars with many nations not having teams or drivers of their own on the grid.

Do we want such a development in F1? LMP1 shows us what unrestricted Darwinism does to top racing series. F1 did so much better than other series because they understood that an unlimited cost race is simply not sustainable.

[bhall]

Sure it is. LMP1 is still around. It may not be what some want it to be, but it's still here, nonetheless.

And the "what if" scenario of a field of Ferraris is quite simply preposterous, though I know exactly why it's portrayed as a sort of nightmare scenario. However, until the rules are changed to allow it, it simply cannot happen.

With one, and only one, exception, teams come and go in F1. That's been the case in the past; that's the case presently; and that will be the case well into the future. Participation in F1 is not a requirement for anyone, nor is there a mandate that any particular cross-section of nations or companies be represented.

The parting shots from teams that have withdrawn should be taken with a bit more than a grain of salt, because there's no way of really knowing if they left because of escalating budgets or due to a lack of success. With regard to recent history, I'd say it's likely more to do with the latter.

I guarantee that Honda would have stuck around for at least one more year had its board known that Brawn and the gang had a big time winner on their hands. Otherwise, Toyota and BMW left, because, frankly, they sucked. Terribly. They spent a lot of money to be that bad, too.

In fact, I submit that Toyota is the perfect example of why a budget cap in F1 is completely unnecessary. They were F1's biggest spender, and they still sucked.

Most importantly, I think, is the fact that it would never work anyway. Not in a million years. There's a reason why the FIA codifies the ban of a device by altering the specific regulations that govern the device, rather than just simply stating, X is prohibited." It's because the value, composition, purpose of X will always be subject to debate.

What's a budget cap? What's an expenditure? Can a team hire a driver with a contract worth $1 and then "donate" the rest of his pay to the "Driver X Foundation"? Can a team create a company, a la Red Bull Technology, that designs, builds and then licenses an F1 car to its parent company? What's a PR expense?

This is just how I see it. And this particular discussion should probably be split from the thread's topic.

[strad]

I think like so many things in today's world, it caters to the weak.

[Giblet]

Let me ask the proponents..
WHY,,Should we have a budget cap at all?

Well we could just have everyone develop their own engine, then abandon it and copy the best design. Ford stopped developing the V8, and Ferrari stopped developing the V10 so everyone would have the best engine design.

Why bother with that process and losing a couple of teams/manufacturers at the same time?

If BMW,Honda, and Toyota can't afford to race, few can.

[Pierce89]

Sure it is. LMP1 is still around. It may not be what some want it to be, but it's still here, nonetheless.

And the "what if" scenario of a field of Ferraris is quite simply preposterous, though I know exactly why it's portrayed as a sort of nightmare scenario. However, until the rules are changed to allow it, it simply cannot happen.

With one, and only one, exception, teams come and go in F1. That's been the case in the past; that's the case presently; and that will be the case well into the future. Participation in F1 is not a requirement for anyone, nor is there a mandate that any particular cross-section of nations or companies be represented.

The parting shots from teams that have withdrawn should be taken with a bit more than a grain of salt, because there's no way of really knowing if they left because of escalating budgets or due to a lack of success. With regard to recent history, I'd say it's likely more to do with the latter.

I guarantee that Honda would have stuck around for at least one more year had its board known that Brawn and the gang had a big time winner on their hands. Otherwise, Toyota and BMW left, because, frankly, they sucked. Terribly. They spent a lot of money to be that bad, too.

In fact, I submit that Toyota is the perfect example of why a budget cap in F1 is completely unnecessary. They were F1's biggest spender, and they still sucked.

Most importantly, I think, is the fact that it would never work anyway. Not in a million years. There's a reason why the FIA codifies the ban of a device by altering the specific regulations that govern the device, rather than just simply stating, X is prohibited." It's because the value, composition, purpose of X will always be subject to debate.

What's a budget cap? What's an expenditure? Can a team hire a driver with a contract worth $1 and then "donate" the rest of his pay to the "Driver X Foundation"? Can a team create a company, a la Red Bull Technology, that designs, builds and then licenses an F1 car to its parent company? What's a PR expense?

This is just how I see it. And this particular discussion should probably be split from the thread's topic.

This was particularly well said. I give it the ridiculously overused and uncool +1 =D>

[rjsa]

Sure it is. LMP1 is still around. It may not be what some want it to be, but it's still here, nonetheless.

And the "what if" scenario of a field of Ferraris is quite simply preposterous, though I know exactly why it's portrayed as a sort of nightmare scenario. However, until the rules are changed to allow it, it simply cannot happen.

With one, and only one, exception, teams come and go in F1. That's been the case in the past; that's the case presently; and that will be the case well into the future. Participation in F1 is not a requirement for anyone, nor is there a mandate that any particular cross-section of nations or companies be represented.

The parting shots from teams that have withdrawn should be taken with a bit more than a grain of salt, because there's no way of really knowing if they left because of escalating budgets or due to a lack of success. With regard to recent history, I'd say it's likely more to do with the latter.

I guarantee that Honda would have stuck around for at least one more year had its board known that Brawn and the gang had a big time winner on their hands. Otherwise, Toyota and BMW left, because, frankly, they sucked. Terribly. They spent a lot of money to be that bad, too.

In fact, I submit that Toyota is the perfect example of why a budget cap in F1 is completely unnecessary. They were F1's biggest spender, and they still sucked.

Most importantly, I think, is the fact that it would never work anyway. Not in a million years. There's a reason why the FIA codifies the ban of a device by altering the specific regulations that govern the device, rather than just simply stating, X is prohibited." It's because the value, composition, purpose of X will always be subject to debate.

What's a budget cap? What's an expenditure? Can a team hire a driver with a contract worth $1 and then "donate" the rest of his pay to the "Driver X Foundation"? Can a team create a company, a la Red Bull Technology, that designs, builds and then licenses an F1 car to its parent company? What's a PR expense?

This is just how I see it. And this particular discussion should probably be split from the thread's topic.

Don't try common sense here. This is screw Ferrari territory.

One might even argue ruling red as a banned livery color and find a reason why it's a good idea and would be beneficial to the sport and to the world. Pageant speech style.

[bhall]

(I'm occasionally given to speeches.)

I think like so many things in today's world, it caters to the weak.

When it comes to folk's lives and well-being, I'm all for such catering. In fact, the more the better. But, in sports? Please.

A budget cap is just a futile attempt to turn back the clock, and it's silly. You can't undo what's been done; you can't unlearn what you've learned; you can't (insert additional cliches here). You just can't.

You want to bring down budgets? Let's start from the top and work our way down. Let's lobby FOM to lower its fees, which would, in turn, limit payouts at the end of the year. That might put a dent in team spending, and you don't have to change one rule to accomplish it. It might even lower ticket prices so folks don't have to mortgage the house to take in a grand prix.

And how about prying those rules open just a tad? Today's game of never-ending refinement all but ensures relative success for the bigger spenders. That's how it works when race shops are essentially assembly lines.

Thoughts, on the other hand, are free. But, what good are they if the rules disallow most creative thinking?

(And, hey, if we're so concerned about the smaller teams, let's give them more money. Similarly-minded concessions have been made in the past, e.g., Friday drivers, STR V10 in 2006. Montezemolo* has suggested that new teams be given access to chassis from the bigger teams until they become established in their own right. Let's give them money instead. You can't build infrastructure with a chassis, but you sure as hell can with money. I'm positive someone could find a way to make such an idea viable without it necessarily being tantamount to catering to the weak. Anything is better than tying the other teams' hands behind their backs in the name of fairness.)

It seems to me that whenever F1 tries to rectify a problem through radical change, it just makes the problem worse. The 2009 aero formula was supposed to improve overtaking, but it didn't. That didn't happen until Pirelli gave us silly-putty tires. So, now we have butt-ugly cars that still can't overtake without the assistance of rubber bands, DRS and a ban on refueling. And on top of that, the teams have spent truckloads of money developing these new nightmares.

Do we really want the logic that prompted all of that to define even more of the future?

If F1 wants to put its house in order, it needs to stop being so short-sighted. The idea of a budget cap - and the 1.6L turbo, for that matter - is a study in short-sightedness, because it falsely assumes that trends are somehow destined to go on forever, and that's just stupid. There's no way in the world to know what lies ahead unless someone really figures out the flux capacitor.

(Ok. I have to stop writing. This has gotten ridiculous.)


* That's the first time I've spelled his name correctly without looking it up.

[WhiteBlue]

...A budget cap is just a futile attempt to turn back the clock, and it's silly...

What a convincing argument! Perhaps we can now switch back to the issue of the 1.6L V6 turbo engine formula which is supposed to be the issue of this tread.

[bhall]

...A budget cap is just a futile attempt to turn back the clock, and it's silly...

What a convincing argument! Perhaps we can now switch back to the issue of the 1.6L V6 turbo engine formula which is supposed to be the issue of this tread.

You're far too kind. It was nothing compared to your exquisite rebuttal.

That said, there was a bit more to my statement than that which you quoted. Then again, I can see how it might easily go unnoticed.

When I was a kid, one of my father's favorite ways to describe his pestilent coworkers was to say, "They can't see the ******* forest for all the damn trees!" Then he'd laugh and laugh. He has a very hearty laugh. I don't know what made me think of that just now.

At any rate, please accept my deepest apologies for veering off-topic. I don't know what came over me. I'll try not to be so selfish in the future.

The point about sustainability is the main issue here. At the height of the cost race top budgets were four times of what they spend now and the average team budget was 40% higher. There is no way such expenditure could have been maintained. We would have lost Merc and Renault unless cuts had been made and Cosworth would not have come back.

In a "what if" scenario we would not have only the whole field powered by Ferrari engines but also perhaps half the field driving old Ferrari chassis and one or two other constructors surviving. The whole field of cars would be down to 16 cars with many nations not having teams or drivers of their own on the grid.

Do we want such a development in F1? LMP1 shows us what unrestricted Darwinism does to top racing series. F1 did so much better than other series because they understood that an unlimited cost race is simply not sustainable.

[agip]

I have a question...

Initially they said that 2014 cars won't be much slower than the current ones despite having less power. But that was including the ground-effect (less drag) aproach.

So, with ground-effects canceled, how much slower will the cars be?

[Agerasia]

Not sure how much slower they will be as aero regs will change as well.
One things for sure though, it will be a LONG, LONG time before any of the lap records set by the mid 2000's cars are broken,

[Nando]

should have developed new V10's instead. im sure they would be more fuel efficient then todays 6-7 year old engine designs.

[xpensive]

...A budget cap is just a futile attempt to turn back the clock, and it's silly...

What a convincing argument! Perhaps we can now switch back to the issue of the 1.6L V6 turbo engine formula which is supposed to be the issue of this tread.

I don't have a problem with the new 1.6 V6 turbo formula with fuel-flow limit, h*ll, I've been advocating that myself.

But what I do have a problem with is the detailed rules with vee-angle, cylinder spacing, turbo location and what not.
All that is likely to lead to zero engine-variety with the real competition be on the recovery systems, KERS and HERS?

[Agerasia]

It's pretty much a 1 spec engine, built by different manufacturers. Isn't that what Bernie wanted in the first place?