whats wrong with the renault engines?

[MOWOG]

Well thought out and presented, 321. I agree with all your points.

Your only failing is assuming that the PTB in Formula One act rationally. There is ample evidence to suggest that they do not. :-"

[Pup]

Instead, this expensive technological hurdle may do in the F1 as we know it.

If that's the F1 where most every race is decided in the first corner, then I say bring on the detonations.

The remarkable engine reliability of the past few years is an anomaly in F1's history. There have regularly been seasons full of races where less than half the field finished. I'll gladly welcome some small suspense in not knowing whether the front runner will make it to the end of the race.

[321apex]

I'll gladly welcome some small suspense in not knowing whether the front runner will make it to the end of the race.

Not wanting to side track too much from the subject of this post I will add:
Going forward, I am afraid the matter may get critical from the teams financial standing point of view. Racing venues in 3rd world countries have not generated the sort of marketing potential once expected. So it becomes clear that while the populations of first world countries remain interested in F1, they get poorer each year. Just look what is happening to the wallet of Joe Lunchbox in Europe and US.

Clearly, the marketplace is not going to have the means to fund F1 with expensive, scientific technology for too much longer. Resulting in less fortunate teams dropping out altogether and manufacturer teams with their whimsical nature of participation (Honda, Toyota, BMW to name few recent comings/goings) too unreliable in the long term. In short term, 3 car teams will be a necessary band-aid solution, making entry into the series even more difficult for any new prospectors.

Finally I must add that personally I relish the new F1 science, but see numerous pitfalls up ahead which may contribute to it's destruction in the end. This statement coined during the 1950's US space program is quite fitting here: "no bucks, no Buck Rogers".

[Mysticf1]

Instead, this expensive technological hurdle may do in the F1 as we know it.

The expensive technological hurdle is what once made F1 special, what we have now pales in comparison.

[321apex]

The expensive technological hurdle is what once made F1 special, what we have now pales in comparison.

What criteria do you base your statement upon? Objective financial information is hard to come by in tightly lipped world of F1, however a simple rule still applies. If we agree that last years engine made approx. 720hp out of 2.4L displ. yielding around 300hp/L, then the power density in theory this year is going to be 375hp/L or in practice closer to 400hp/L. This power density alone increases net cost 30-50% plus you have the expensive and uncharted territory of ERS hardware and pricey learning curve.

Here you may view an estimated "average" F1 budget split from 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F1_te ... _split.svg
which for lack of any better data we can assume as nearly valid in 2013. In it you will see that engine costs 50% of the annual budget. I believe, the power unit portion of the overall cost will be substantially higher this year and Renault, Mercedes or Ferrari are not there to give out presents.

Ever noticed that big and well known names such as GE and Intel and Airbus are with Caterham and not with McLaren and others? Well, these rather very major companies can't afford McLaren advertising fees, while still requiring a "large font".

[WillerZ]

From 2010 to 2013 the engine price was standardised at €5M per year for customer engines: this was agreed by the manufacturers in exchange for the FIA dropping a plan to introduce spec engines in 2010.

I suspect that this year's cost is going to be closer to the 50% 321apex suggests and this jump in price is a big problem for the smaller teams.

[321apex]

From 2010 to 2013 the engine price was standardised at €5M per year for customer engines: this was agreed by the manufacturers in exchange for the FIA dropping a plan to introduce spec engines in 2010.

Thanks for bringing this up and clarifying it. I had forgotten the 5M cost ceiling.

[dans79]

Enough with the smaller teams stuff already. Throughout it's history f1 has always had small teams that couldn't afford to compete at a high level. all the fear mongering about cost is just plain retarded. If you want to decrease costs, open up the rules and bring back testing, so that teams have more than one avenue to gain a competitive edge.

[Mysticf1]

The expensive technological hurdle is what once made F1 special, what we have now pales in comparison.

What criteria do you base your statement upon?

Until relatively recent times F1 allowed teams / manufacturers to push the envelope, not because the rules said too use a particular technology, they did it to win. The first run of turbos in the 80s, active suspension, qualifying engines the list goes on. The major difference we have here is a sudden fundamental change in technology. If teams were free to go in the turbo / hybrid direction for performance reasons without being forced, it would have been a more incremental change. No testing and homologation certainly doesn't help either.

[Sebp]

Interview with Rob White from Renault:

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3061 ... rob-white/

[bosanac1]

^^^^^
repost.

............


stupid question can they build shell of f1 car around the engine on dyno?

[tuj]

There was a time when engines like the Cosworth DFV came out and remained on the grid for surprisingly long periods of time. Of course the rules weren't fluctuating as dramatically as they are now. The only thing I can say is that I hope the new powerplants will be used for a significant period before they change the rules again. Developing complex, untested technologies is part of F1's ethos but at the same time mandating such technologies is a major hindrance for the backmarkers.

[321apex]

Has anyone come across any publicly announced data regarding planned budgets ($) by the three distinct F1 engine suppliers?

If I could make a loosely based silver bullet prediction it would go like this:

Mercedes and Ferrari had HIGHER motivation to succeed in the new F1 engine formula than Renault. Why?
- Mercedes has deep pockets and has to be the BEST- so they spared no expense at doing this
- Ferrari is also well funded and their F1 sporting prestige is fundamental to their very existence

This leaves Renault, whom is no longer a team, just a parts supplier.

In my speculative theory, of those three, Renault budgeted least amount of money to do this new F1 engine program and it begins to show.

[mkable1370]

Has anyone come across any publicly announced data regarding planned budgets ($) by the three distinct F1 engine suppliers?

If I could make a loosely based silver bullet prediction it would go like this:

Mercedes and Ferrari had HIGHER motivation to succeed in the new F1 engine formula than Renault. Why?
- Mercedes has deep pockets and has to be the BEST- so they spared no expense at doing this
- Ferrari is also well funded and their F1 sporting prestige is fundamental to their very existence

This leaves Renault, whom is no longer a team, just a parts supplier.

In my speculative theory, of those three, Renault budgeted least amount of money to do this new F1 engine program and it begins to show.

Pure Speculation.

[RZS10]

Has anyone come across any publicly announced data regarding planned budgets ($) by the three distinct F1 engine suppliers?

If I could make a loosely based silver bullet prediction it would go like this:

Mercedes and Ferrari had HIGHER motivation to succeed in the new F1 engine formula than Renault. Why?
- Mercedes has deep pockets and has to be the BEST- so they spared no expense at doing this
- Ferrari is also well funded and their F1 sporting prestige is fundamental to their very existence

This leaves Renault, whom is no longer a team, just a parts supplier.

In my speculative theory, of those three, Renault budgeted least amount of money to do this new F1 engine program and it begins to show.

Pure Speculation.

yep, just that.
I believe they are all equally motivated and have their reasons to build the best package...Mercedes want to be the best (premium car manufacturer)... Ferrari , well Ferrari is Ferrari ...Renault being the turbo pioneer (heritage) etc.
There's just too much at stake and too much money involved to cut corners and for money saving, escpecially since Renault is "just a parts supplier" - they won't have huge running costs in Formula1 compared to Mercedes and Ferrari (well except for updates to the power unit and building it), and they will get back the money they spent on R&D by supplying it to four teams for some years.