Engine Unfreeze

[Glyn]

This is another case of Ferrari attempting to divert the blame for the problems onto the rules instead of addressing their own problems.

As someone in the industry I can without doubt say that claiming that engine development cannot happen mid-season is absurd. All three manufacturers are allowed to make changes for "reliabilty, longevity cost etc" during the season as long as the other two agree, this system is completely flawed though as no manufacturer ever says "no" to a change as they know for sure that if they do that the other manufacturer will just say "no" to their next change and then nobody will be able to change anything, so loads of peformance improvements are being run through this system as well. Also its such a grey area, if you develop something that gives you more power but also costs less is that fine? The information given on these change submissions is tiny as they are crippled by a fear of giving anything away, thus a close up picture of the corner of a cap head bolt is about all they'll submit with a vague description of the change (I know as I have been involved in there creation).

This statement from Mattiaci is particularly ludicrous: "The starting point was that in Formula One I cannot wait one year to work on the engine and the power unit"
Maybe its just poor translation but if they're waiting a year to work on the engine thats the problem right there.
Even if not, nearly every component of the PU can be changed for next year so Ferrari (like Merc and Renault) will have a brand new engine in the works, the only thing the engine freeze is stopping them doing is changing it in the last few races of this season, which is a good thing as Marrusia and Sauber wont have the money to be changing there installation mid-season so stopping a two tier engine formula.

Essentially Ferrari have messed up this years engine and are blaming the rules for the fact that they can't catch up when in actuallity its the fact the basic layout is flawed which they couldnt change anyway due to them and their customers needing a whole new rear end to change the layout.

Renault on the other hand appear to be working flat out and making good progress, I expect the Renault unit to be very close to Mercedes for next season as this years problems are being ironed out and no doubt the lessons fead into the 2015 design.

Is that so?

Isn't it the customer's teams problem to sort out. They don;t have to use the newer designed engine.

A bit like the Mercedes engine and Mclaren this season, they were given an updated version which was smaller etc without any notice.

[Facts Only]

Yes it is so. The Mercedes unit has not had a fundemental change in layout, just incremental phase updates for reliability. Mclaren have a legacy clause in their contract with Mercedes to receive priority supply of the latest engine phases over FIF1 and WF1. I would like to know the source of you information on the latest phase being smaller and largely different as it's not the information I have.

In contrast the Ferrari unit appears to be hampered by its overall layout which would require a major rear end package change.

The contracts between customer teams and Ferrari will be a little more in depth than just "bung us whatever engine you have" for their millions£ there will be plenty of clauses about receiving certain phase, regular updates and engines not forcing changes to the chassis mid-season.

[diffuser]

it would do more for F1's marketing if engine development were allowed in-season.

I don't disgaree with you, but changing the rules that dramatically mid-season would seem like the FIA were trying to rig the competition. I'd thought we'd left that sort of meddling back in the history books with Moseley and Ferrari International Assistance.

They already did that last season with the Pirelli tire construction change.

Good point! oddly enough that had the opposite effect of competition.

[bhall II]

...the only thing the engine freeze is stopping them doing is changing it in the last few races of this season, which is a good thing as Marrusia and Sauber wont have the money to be changing there installation mid-season so stopping a two tier engine formula.

Essentially Ferrari have messed up this years engine and are blaming the rules for the fact that they can't catch up when in actuallity its the fact the basic layout is flawed which they couldnt change anyway due to them and their customers needing a whole new rear end to change the layout.

[...]

For what it's worth, mounting points are standardized by the regulations, and suspension pickup points are located on the transmission case. Hypothetically, Mercedes and Ferrari could swap engines right now, and only relatively minor ancillary changes would be required to make it work. Beyond that, it was pretty much standard procedure back in the days of unlimited engine updates for manufacturers to upgrade them without making any modifications whatsoever to their "footprints."

[...]

"It would not cost more money," he is quoted by Germany's Auto Motor und Sport, "because the scale of the development remains the same."

Customer teams have also argued that even if the extra development is allowed, any cost increases should not be passed onto the already high price of their 'power units'.

Mattiacci said: "If you are a customer and you have to stay with the same engine from the end of February, then you have little chance to improve yourself.

"At the end that can cost you even more money."

The Italian insists Ferrari made the proposal not for the benefit of Maranello or fellow engine straggler Renault, but for F1 as a whole.

"We stand by it because it is good for the sport," said Mattiacci.

"For Ferrari it is an opportunity but also a risk. Maybe Mercedes will develop their engine even better. It is not a unilateral advantage for us," he insisted.

"At the moment the work of the engineers and suppliers is focused on the winter months. But F1 should be about constant innovation."

Mattiacci said the freeze is also bad for the fans, with a static balance of power affecting the "entertainment on the track."

[...]

Mattiacci is 100% correct. F1's continually declining ratings speak to the loss of "entertainment on the track;" the imminent collapse of both Caterham and Sauber speaks to the true cost of uncompetitiveness incurred by smaller, customer teams; and the ever-present reality of behind-the-scenes development speaks to the absurdity of this entirely cosmetic development freeze.

Homologation saves costs only when its duration is indefinite. Otherwise, development is ongoing, and it's subsidized by everyone involved...but the fruits of that labor can only be reaped once a year. What sense does that make?

[xpensive]

Forcing the smaller teams to pay 20 MEUR per season for uncompetitive engines, without any chance for improvement,
was a doomed concept from the start and now we see the result, at least two teams will be no shows next year.

Formula 1 has lost its lure to all but the Mercedes and Williams fans.

[FW17]

Why should engine unfreeze cost more money? The developments happening in the factory through the year is going to be deployed on track through the year unlike only during the off season.

[Facts Only]

...the only thing the engine freeze is stopping them doing is changing it in the last few races of this season, which is a good thing as Marrusia and Sauber wont have the money to be changing there installation mid-season so stopping a two tier engine formula.

Essentially Ferrari have messed up this years engine and are blaming the rules for the fact that they can't catch up when in actuallity its the fact the basic layout is flawed which they couldnt change anyway due to them and their customers needing a whole new rear end to change the layout.

[...]

For what it's worth, mounting points are standardized by the regulations, and suspension pickup points are located on the transmission case. Hypothetically, Mercedes and Ferrari could swap engines right now, and only relatively minor ancillary changes would be required to make it work.

I know that the mounting points are standardised but what you are saying is still incorrect. A change from a Ferrari to Merc engine now would require a massive change as the layout is completely different. The Intercooler/CAC is chassis side and front exit on the Merc cars which I know encroaches into the fuel tank area whereas the on the Ferrari it is V mounted CAC requiring completely different cooling, the oil tank is at the other end meaning different feed and fill systems, the Compressor inlet is at the opposite end of the engine so the AirTray and inlet tract are completely different, the turbine layout on the Ferrari drives a much lengthened clutch and gearbox input, I could go on but in summary if say Marussia changed from Ferrari to Merc right now they would at least need a new fuel tank, new oil system, new Intercooler/CAC, new side pod packaging, new gearbox, new inlet tract and AirTray, and probably a new hydraulic pump,ERS module mounting and more. Add to this that the weight distribution would also be massively changed and it's no so simple.

[xpensive]

I think that is a long list of details really,there is reason why the rules make all ICEs clones, even the mounting points.

There is no reason why a MHPE engne in a Ferrari would need to have all the ancilleries in the same position as the Mercedes.

[bhall II]

Indeed. The regulations aren't very forgiving in this area, especially 4.2, 5.1.6, 5.1.7, 5.3.2, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.6, 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 (and a partridge in a pear tree). A massive change is going from a 60-degree vee to a 90-degree vee, or something along those lines; it's not going from one engine that has to fit within a narrowly defined regulatory box to another engine that has to fit within the exact same space.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 1-23_0.pdf

Regardless, making changes to improve the performance of a car is the very definition of development. So, it's kinda tough for me to follow a line of logic that effectively says PUs shouldn't be developed because PUs shouldn't be developed.

[GitanesBlondes]

...the only thing the engine freeze is stopping them doing is changing it in the last few races of this season, which is a good thing as Marrusia and Sauber wont have the money to be changing there installation mid-season so stopping a two tier engine formula.

Essentially Ferrari have messed up this years engine and are blaming the rules for the fact that they can't catch up when in actuallity its the fact the basic layout is flawed which they couldnt change anyway due to them and their customers needing a whole new rear end to change the layout.

[...]

For what it's worth, mounting points are standardized by the regulations, and suspension pickup points are located on the transmission case. Hypothetically, Mercedes and Ferrari could swap engines right now, and only relatively minor ancillary changes would be required to make it work.

I know that the mounting points are standardised but what you are saying is still incorrect. A change from a Ferrari to Merc engine now would require a massive change as the layout is completely different. The Intercooler/CAC is chassis side and front exit on the Merc cars which I know encroaches into the fuel tank area whereas the on the Ferrari it is V mounted CAC requiring completely different cooling, the oil tank is at the other end meaning different feed and fill systems, the Compressor inlet is at the opposite end of the engine so the AirTray and inlet tract are completely different, the turbine layout on the Ferrari drives a much lengthened clutch and gearbox input, I could go on but in summary if say Marussia changed from Ferrari to Merc right now they would at least need a new fuel tank, new oil system, new Intercooler/CAC, new side pod packaging, new gearbox, new inlet tract and AirTray, and probably a new hydraulic pump,ERS module mounting and more. Add to this that the weight distribution would also be massively changed and it's no so simple.

It wouldn't be anywhere near as difficult as you're making it out to be. Yes some things would have to be changed, but nothing drastic.

This isn't the days of when you had the MP4/8 chassis lengthened to fit the Lamborghini V12 instead of the Cosworth V8. That was a tremendous change...and they did it in a few weeks IIRC, and that was in a more wide open formula. If it could be done quickly with an engine that had 4 more cylinders, why are you going on that it might be massive difficult in an engine formula where everyone has the same number of cylinders, and a number of other standardized components that don't allow for much deviation?

[thisisatest]

has anyone mentioned the idea of allowing a certain number of "points" of changes per month, per race, etc? they already have the weighted chart for allowed changes per year.
to me, this seems like a sensible way to allow development on the engines without making it as much of a "race". it's a "paced race"?

[Sevach]

Ferrari's suggestion was 8 points during the season.
For the record between Abu Dhabi and the next season's freeze? 48 points.


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116231

Up to vote in Russia.

[FW17]

has anyone mentioned the idea of allowing a certain number of "points" of changes per month, per race, etc? they already have the weighted chart for allowed changes per year.
to me, this seems like a sensible way to allow development on the engines without making it as much of a "race". it's a "paced race"?

Making complicated rules just takes the fun away from the fans and makes things a lot more expensive.

Rules should be simple; development of the engine open 5 # ICE's cannot be upgraded once raced. Other 5 components can be upgraded race by race.

Setting tokens would mean working to fixed number of targets which means more resources to meet those targets.

I still remember the words of Mario Ilian when he mentioned that the cost of development and production of 100 v10 engines during the days of open development were still cheaper than the cost of 8 V8 units during the engine freeze era post 2007

[thisisatest]

The rules are already like that, with set number of points available, etc. It's just at yearly intervals now. While I agree that adding complex layers of rules can cheapen the sport, this is a very small addition to rules that are already present.

[OrangeArrows]

Outcome of the meeting?