F1 now & then: engine vs aero formula pro/contra

[Phil]

F1 now and then: aero vs engine formula...

All this talk in the Australian 2015 grand-prix about the domination Mercedes is showing and the overal criticism towards Horners quotes about how this is bad for the sport has prompted me to create this topic.

Lets start with the relevant quotes from Horner on this subject:

Horner claimed that rule changes were regularly made to hold his team back during its years of dominance in 2010-13, so the same should be done to Mercedes.

"When we were winning, and we were never winning with the advantage they [Mercedes] have, I remember double diffusers were banned, exhausts were moved, flexible bodywork was prohibited, engine mapping mid-season was changed," said Horner.

"Anything was done, and that wasn't unique to Red Bull.

"Whether it was Williams in previous years or McLaren, I think it is healthy to have a situation [of closing the field up].

"The FIA, within the rules, have an equalisation mechanism; I think it's something that perhaps they need to look at."

Horner further justified his position by stressing that the dominance of Mercedes is bad for F1.

Now, I am fully aware that Mercedes AMG Petronas is not dominating only because of their engine advantage. I think after 2014 and after this first race in Melbourne, they have proven somewhat that they also have an excellent chassis and aero that is just as much a factor in their advantage. Yet, despite all this, we also can't ignore some of the arguments Horner is bringing up, namely;

• the domination of a singular team [now Mercedes] could be bad for the sport
  -
• the engine is a huge factor - if not perhaps the biggest differentiating performance factor between teams
  -

On the contrary, we have the argument:

• RedBull dominated the sport for 4.5 years despite various rule changes - why should Mercedes be artificially be held back because they did a better job?
  -

What do you think? While we had an aero dominated sport for many years in which RedBull excelled, we now arguably have an engine formula, where significant differences between engines has resulted in big performance differences between teams. Arguably, the engine is now a bigger factor than the aero (not last, because a stronger engine also influences how much aero/downforce you can run)...

Pro / contra - your view on what is good for the sport, is Horner just a hyprocrit or are we in danger of running the sport into the ground after what looks like another year of utter Mercedes domination?


DISCLAIMER; Please stay contructive and objective.

[Andres125sx]

Ignoring I do hate any sort of domination wich makes racing boring, I do prefer current situation because of multiple reasons

1- Engine should always be (IMO) more relevant than aero. These are cars not planes, and aero doesn´t have road relevance, and even when F1 has never been that road relevant people (fans) and manufacturers do prefer if they can see any conection between road cars and F1. You can convice people current V6 hybrids have some relevance for production cars, while you can´t convice people EBD have any relevance. Rocket science vs real world technology. P1, LaFerrari, etc use turbo hybrid engines, while I´ve never seen anyone using EBD or flexible wings/noses

2- I don´t think it´s fair to say Mercedes advantage is due to the PU itself, last season proved even on tracks where engine is not that important they still dominate easily, so the car is just better at any aspect, PU, aero, balance, handling.... RBR also proved this to be true, their PU was far from Mercedes one, but they managed to win some GPs while any other Merc powered team didn´t

3- An aero dominant car has no competitors because they´re the only one using that aero. An engine dominat car is not the only one using that engine, so if that´s the main factor for domination, you still should see some competition between teams using that engine, so this formula should be less prone to produce boring races compared to an aero dominant formula. If Mercedes is dominating is because their car has the best engine, the best aero, the best balance.... You can´t avoid a team dominating if they do it this good.

4- An aero dominant formula usually bring an unintended (or inteded) problem, overtaking becomes more difficult because cars can´t chase each other too close so you get a faster car you can´t get too close wich means racing will be boring. Engine differences also makes overtaking more difficult, but slipstream can compensate this to a certain extent so it doesn´t ruin overtaking chances as an aero dominant formula does

[Juzh]

4- An aero dominant formula usually bring an unintended (or inteded) problem, overtaking becomes more difficult because cars can´t chase each other too close so you get a faster car you can´t get too close wich means racing will be boring. Engine differences also makes overtaking more difficult, but slipstream can compensate this to a certain extent so it doesn´t ruin overtaking chances as an aero dominant formula does

This remains to be seen with the new, seemingly more durable rubber.

[SiLo]

It would be difficult because Mercedes don't appear to be doing any ONE thing a lot better than everyone else. Ferrari have made significant steps with their engine to a point where they are of very similar performance.

The difference is the chassis, and because we can't see anything on the car that really stands out, it would be hard to penalise Mercedes, there isn't anything on there that looks like "grey area" aero. If they get penalised and they haven't done anything wrong in any way, I feel it would be a little unfair.

[FoxHound]

At no point in Red Bull's domination, was any team as vocal or negative towards the Sport. We must recognise that Red Bull's domination was borne out of the in-season testing ban.

Between the negotiations for the testing ban and it's inception, Red Bull built state of the art CFD model and simulations at Red Bull technology centre.
From 2009, it's no coincidence that Ferrari and McLaren could not hold a candle to Red Bull in terms of Aerodynamics.

Immediately Red Bull had a frozen in advantage. Mercedes, McLaren, Ferrari and even lesser teams were forced to spend millions on CFD simulators, in attempt to nullify the massive advantage Red Bull had.
All the while, engine manufacturers were hamstrung to do anything engine wise. The EBD was an aerodynamic masterstroke, that was initiated in the engine, but realistically it's an aero concept made real in a windtunnel and computer system....Not a bench.

Even in these rules, no engine is truly frozen. Up to 80% of the engine can still be changed, on top of that further changes are permissable if new components can be proven more reliable, or cheaper to produce.
My question to Red Bull is simple. Why was it good enough to have such a locked in advantage then, but not allowable for competition to have an advantage for themselves?

It is simply juvenile hypocrisy to complain of unfairness now.

[Juzh]

Even in these rules, no engine is truly frozen. Up to 80% of the engine can still be changed, on top of that further changes are permissable if new components can be proven more reliable, or cheaper to produce.

And in spite all this renault is utterly incapable of producing a competitive PU which, if anything, is getting worse and worse.

[Phil]

My question to Red Bull is simple. Why was it good enough to have such a locked in advantage then, but not allowable for competition to have an advantage for themselves?

It is simply juvenile hypocrisy to complain of unfairness now.

Presumably, there are two sides to the argument:

1.) RedBull is of course on that side of the argument because they are struggling and can't compete, despite arguably having a very good chassis (at least in 2014). This would be the side of the argument that is rather hyprocritical.

2.) The other side of the argument is in light of what is good for the sport and isn't, irregardless who is winning and benefiting from current regs vs who isn't. Allowing the engine to be such a huge factor introduces some real issues to the sport: development of the engine is expensive, which is why there are tokens to limit the amount of development and keep it controlled (not to benefit the team that has done the best job). If you open it up completely, you run the risk of increasing the development race, which might reduce or increase the gap, but most definately push the required costs over the edge on making it suistanable for most teams - thus break the sport completely.

One of the biggest point is - and why RedBull is that vocal IMO; If so much depends on the performance of the engine, how is this different to the days when we had two different tyre manufacturers that ended up being a huge performance differentiator but was crucially, completely outside the teams control? How does one with a team of 300+ employees, specialized in everything from designing a car to packaging, aero, windtunnel etc compete when the underlying biggest performance differentiator is completely external? E.g. differing tyres like in those seasons in some races or today through an engine supplier who's hands are tied due to the restrictions of tokens?

At least during the aero formula of RedBull/Newey domination; One could say that the biggest reason why RedBull was ahead was because they also did the best job internally? (ignoring the fact that to some degree, the frozen engines helped with off-throttle blowing)

[Moose]

You guys are all getting distracted by RedBull's assertion that Mercedes' engine is what is dominant. I don't think that's true - I'm pretty confident in fact that it's all in aero/grip.

In 2013, at Australia, Mercedes (with an engine known to be roughly the same power as everyone else's, but heavier) qualified:
0.5 seconds faster than Ferrari
1 second faster than McLaren
1 second faster than Force India
In Q1 were 3 seconds faster than Williams

Basically, the gap between Mercedes and other top teams then was between 0.5 and 1 second. The gap between Mercedes and a mid fielder was 1-3 seconds. That's pretty similar to what we're seeing today.

The difference is that in 2013, RedBull pegged the Mercedes with a very similar lap time. Basically, what we're observing is not Mercedes having an engine that's way better than everyone else, it's RedBull having an engine that's way worse than everyone else (except McLaren obviously). The gap between Mercedes and Ferrari, or between Mercedes and Williams I believe is entirely aero/mech grip.

[FoxHound]

Even in these rules, no engine is truly frozen. Up to 80% of the engine can still be changed, on top of that further changes are permissable if new components can be proven more reliable, or cheaper to produce.

And in spite all this renault is utterly incapable of producing a competitive PU which, if anything, is getting worse and worse.

They have potential to improve their engine within the current rules. Why is this a problem?

When Mercedes/Ferrari suffered an aero deficiency to Red Bull, did they ask for aero equalisation?

[Just_a_fan]

Even in these rules, no engine is truly frozen. Up to 80% of the engine can still be changed, on top of that further changes are permissable if new components can be proven more reliable, or cheaper to produce.

And in spite all this renault is utterly incapable of producing a competitive PU which, if anything, is getting worse and worse.

But that isn't the fault of the rules or the other, more successful, teams.

Basically Horner wants to go back to 2010-2013 when his team was dominant. He's like a spoilt child at the moment stamping his feet because he can't have his ice cream.

[Phil]

You guys are all getting distracted by RedBull's assertion that Mercedes' engine is what is dominant. I don't think that's true - I'm pretty confident in fact that it's all in aero/grip.

I think what we are seeing is a simple case of "cause and effect". The effect is that Mercedes is currently the quickest car. The effect is also that Mercedes has probably the best aero and grip. The cause of this? I think it has a lot to do with the engine advantage.

A simple example: If you have two identical cars - but one with engine A at full power and engine B at 80% of A - how does car with engine B compete with car with engine A? You run different setups, because downforce (aero) also costs power. Having more power allows you to focus your strengths to create more aero and grip. Less power means you are likely compromising to make up the deficit; I.e. using less wing/drag to keep up on the straights because a race track is a mixture of corners and straights. So there's always a certain trade-off, hence why some tracks like Monza demand very different set-up choices to tracks that have opposite characteristcs. With more engine power, you have more options in regards to the trade-offs you pick.

It's not all engine - but the engine difference is there...

[FoxHound]

@Phil

The problem is that engines are an integral part of F1. During the V8 years they barely registered in terms of any importance at all.
If F1 mandates an equalisation, then Audi or any other potential outside engine supplier will lose interest overnight.
what if Mercedes lost interest, and Renault and Honda too.
You'd also have a loss of genuine development, in spite of the supposed freeze. Literally any part of the engine can be changed if the (ad nauseam) reliability or costs are improved.
Renault already has a history of this in the V8 era.

So, with all this in mind....why should F1 move mountains for 1 team when it stands to lose more? Not forgetting that when this team was winning, nothing was done to redress the balance.

[Moose]

It's not all engine - but the engine difference is there...

Honestly, I think you're doing a huge disservice to all the non-engine engineers at Mercedes. They've built a car that's seconds clear even of the cars with the same engine, and of cars that are acknowledged to have an engine that's as good as theirs. Yet even with all of this, you still assert that it's all down to the engine.

Aside - ultimately, if FOM/FIA want equal engines, they can do it trivially. They approach all of the engine suppliers and say "how much would you charge teams per year to be the sole engine supplier", and then pick the cheapest.

[goonerf1]

I think F1 would do itself a massive favour if it appointed a board of independent engineers to regulate the sport, much in the same way the ACO do in the WEC. The FIA are incompetent. We all know that. They couldn't even specify a clear date for engine homologation this year. I think a set of entirely independent engineers leading the sport, in partnership with the FIA if needs be, together with the WEC's "equivalence of performance" regulations, would at least solve this area of F1's problems relatively quickly, from costs, development and racing perspectives. Let's not forget, we hear next to sod all from Audi, Toyota, Porsche and Nissan in the WEC, so that championship must be doing a lot right. Surely all F1 has to do is copy it?

[SectorOne]

It´s like if a team buys wheel rims from a company which breaks constantly and then this team starts screaming about changing the regulations even though the rest of the F1 paddock has fully functional wheel rims.

Utter nonsense.

Red Bull has three options:

1. Stay with Renault and work through it.

2. Outsource the engine to another manufacturer.

3. Build your own engine, they´ve got two bloody teams for god sake.