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

[FoxHound]

you mean like when Mclaren used to wipe the floor with Mercedes for two whole years in the V8 days?

3 years

[SectorOne]

Oh, yea my bad.

But hopefully someone will bring at least something that can be considered evidence for this claim.
I've yet to see any unfortunately.

[FoxHound]

Oh, yea my bad.

But hopefully someone will bring at least something that can be considered evidence for this claim.
I've yet to see any unfortunately.

It will never happen.
Simply, having different engine parts means testing and developing different parts. That is more of an expense.
And the FIA would know that the engines are different.


If there is a difference it will not be found in the hardware.
In Software I fully agree there are differences.
This stems from each team having their own requirements. Case in point was McLaren and their blown diffuser software made it useable to them from the off.
Mercedes team proper struggled to effectively utilise it as it burnt too much fuel in their car with their own software.

Another snippet of evidence!

[Gaz.]

Oh, yea my bad.

But hopefully someone will bring at least something that can be considered evidence for this claim.
I've yet to see any unfortunately.

It is quite telling that RBR or any other team for that matter have not protested the difference in spec between the Mercedes and their customer teams, That's all the evidence I need that this claim is desperate grasping at straws.

As Enzo said, "aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines," Christian.

[Sevach]

The only thing i know is that if Mercedes is giving Williams, Lotus and FI a different engine they are breaking the rules.

And it's "amazing" no one caught such obvious cheating.

[SectorOne]

As a customer, what is the feedback you get from Mercedes? Surely they are working on a lot of things specific to their package.

"It's not particularly specific. Because all the hardware has to be the same all the base mapping will be very similar. There might be a little bit of individual tuning we do for our own cars but I'm very happy with the way we work with them."

- Pat Symonds, March 7th.

Read more at http://en.espnf1.com/williams/motorspor ... ud5DMPV.99

[H2H]

Lets not get too sidetracked about what costumer teams are achieving to either proclaim the Mercedes power unit to be substantially ahead or not. Lets take a look at who those customer teams are:

Williams struggled quite a bit the year before, so their budget was probably quite limited for 2014. In 2013 when engine performance was more or less equal and aero/chassis more important, Mercedes was good, Williams and Force India were way down in the midfield. So was McLaren too, who again in 2014 (and probably also due to the fact that they were leaving, so very limited inside to the power unit itself) struggled on the aero/chassis side. So while Mercedes clearly has the best chassis among the teams that run Mercedes power units, it's not exactly as if the customer teams are in the same league budget wise as their main rivals (Redbull + Ferrari + Mercedes).

Indeed. It is important to point out a very simple fact - only four teams have right now the ressources to develop the best chassis. Over the arc of the season this becomes generally more visible since a longer development phase means the effect of those ressources becomes more pronnounced. The diminishing marginal returns on the chassis side, the relatively small impact of engine performance and bans never allowed a single team to pull far ahead for long.

In this new F1 the four teams with the ressources to fight for the championship are now split by big gaps while having four different PU. The vastly increased performance impact of the PU does logically spread the field if the PU differ greatly in performance.

In short the performance situation we are seeing is a logical result. The worksteam with the best PU which has also done a fantastic job on the chassis dominates as we haven't seen in many many years before the big rule change. It's costumers have not the financial muscle to compete and are far behind on the car side. The other true worksteam is still behind in terms of the PU and the chassis which together results in a massive gap. The other two big teams have massive problems with their PU, to say the least given them no chance to fight for the championship.

To sum it up the new engine formula made it possible to have utter domination if one PU dominates and is just inside one of the big teams which also did a great job with their chassis. This wasn't possible in a long time when just area mattered, but if you combine great aero with the best engine a massive gap is now a matter of fact...

P.S: I have no doubt that Mercedes treats it's costumers fairly.

[Phil]

@Phil

Your argumentation about engines are not built by the team so the team can´t do anything to reduce the gap is right, but that´s how racing works. If we start that route, then we could say the same with any other part of the car

F1 teams don´t build batteries, they don´t refine their own fuel and looks like that is a huge factor wich harmed McLaren in 2014, they don´t build brakes either...

I think there's a bit of a difference between comparing a battery (essentially a spec part that is messured by a few simple attributes) and an engine, that costs millions and is a substantial part of the car that a team gets and builds in. It's not something they can change from race to race either. Most engine deals are likely very complex too, not just on a year-by-year cycling contract. If it was, then I'd probably be expecting more teams to want a Mercedes PU. But the McLaren situation proves that it's not like that this (McLaren I hear wanted a one-year contract for 2015 to allow Honda more time, but didn't get it).

Also, the engine formula was changed to precisely lure more engine manufacturers to the sport (Honda), because they also bring in subtantial cash to the sport and in that sense a bit of stability. For at least 4 teams (the 4 works teams), they are more than just simple suppliers.

The issue at large is that the engine needs to be a differentiator. Why should it not be? Aero has dominated for years, and greasy oily bits have had to take a back seat.

My overall impression of Red Bull is that they feel they have a divine right to win.
Renault is in the way of that, not the rules.
Renault will sort their problems, I have faith they will anyway. The only problem is that nobody knows when.

And this is motivating Red Bull to pressure the FIA into a change that suits them. Impatience allied to astonishing arrogance.

I'm not arguing in RedBulls favour, so the talk about hyprocicy or arrogance is lost on me. Even if you are right, it doesn't invalidate the points they make IMO.

Why should the engine be the differentiator? If we had 10 engine suppliers creating a 20 car grid, I'd agree with you that the engine should be the performance differentiator. Because then, we'd actually have a sport where the engine manufacturers are competing in our little rich game of who makes the best engines. But we don't have that - we have ~10 teams by 4 engine manufacturers, so like it or not, the performance of the engine supplier makes or breaks the team.

When we had an aero formula, at least one could say that the team - who builds the race cars - either have the necessary competence to compete in the formula or not. RedBull excelled here, and McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes (the teams with the highest budgets and the best engineers) weren't far behind. Even the midfield teams with substantially lower budgets had a reasonable chance to surprise. If we rely too much on an engine dictated formula, that all doesn't matter because the Neweys aren't the differentiator anymore - it's essentially an externally developed part, the PU.

What we need is the situation where the engine can be a differentiator, but can be leveled by chassis/aero. Essentially meaning that the engines need to be closer in performance among suppliers, so that aero/chassis can be more revelant. If the engines are too big a factor, it's like the tyre era all over again where being on the wrong tyre ment you lose out irregardless how well you designed your car.

This being F1T where we are more obsessed about wing and aero elements (that we can actually see) than what is happening inside an engine... yet, when it comes down to it, it's actually the engine that is the crucial factor in how well a car seems to performe. Doesn't that take a bit of the fun away in studying the ins and outs of the aero/chassis bits of the car? It's a bit like obsessing over the McLaren and how tightly packaged it is - yet, thanks to the problems with the PU, it's way behind on the grid. If this were 2013, it might actually be somewhere.

[Andres125sx]

@Phil

Your argumentation about engines are not built by the team so the team can´t do anything to reduce the gap is right, but that´s how racing works. If we start that route, then we could say the same with any other part of the car

F1 teams don´t build batteries, they don´t refine their own fuel and looks like that is a huge factor wich harmed McLaren in 2014, they don´t build brakes either...

I think there's a bit of a difference between comparing a battery (essentially a spec part that is messured by a few simple attributes) and an engine, that costs millions and is a substantial part of the car that a team gets and builds in. It's not something they can change from race to race either. Most engine deals are likely very complex too, not just on a year-by-year cycling contract. If it was, then I'd probably be expecting more teams to want a Mercedes PU. But the McLaren situation proves that it's not like that this (McLaren I hear wanted a one-year contract for 2015 to allow Honda more time, but didn't get it).

RBR is free to build their own engines. If they don´t want to and prefer to use other´s engine, they assume engine perfomance is not dependant on them.

Now crying because the engine is not as they´d like it to be is childish.

What we need is the situation where the engine can be a differentiator, but can be leveled by chassis/aero. Essentially meaning that the engines need to be closer in performance among suppliers, so that aero/chassis can be more revelant. If the engines are too big a factor, it's like the tyre era all over again where being on the wrong tyre ment you lose out irregardless how well you designed your car.

They aren´t, situation is exactly as you hope it to be.

Look at Ferrari, they´re on par with Williams thanks to chasis/aero

Force India is quite far, behind some Renault and Ferrari powered cars despite using the best engine

But if you have best engine, best chasis and best aero (Mercedes) you obviously beat your competitors too easily


Or you think Mercedes advantage is only due to the PU?

[Phil]

RBR is free to build their own engines. If they don´t want to and prefer to use other´s engine, they assume engine perfomance is not dependant on them.

Now crying because the engine is not as they´d like it to be is childish.

This topic isn't about RedBull or Mercedes, it's about comparing a formula in which the engine plays a significant role, to a formula where aero/chassis is the prevailing factor. Essentially, we could pick Sauber, Torro Rosso, or any other team who does not have the expertise or resources to build their own competitive engine. The only reason why we have engine manufacturers in F1 is because they are supplying more than a single team; because the R&D that went into these new engines are substantial, so splitting it among multiple customers makes the effort whortwhile. It being somewhat road-relevant also helps, which is why we have Honda joining in light of the new V6 turbos.

While RedBull is at the center of this entire topic, the discussion and arguments shouldn't center around them as a team, but around the arguments that are being raised.

I am yet to hear any arguments on how an engine dominated formula is different to one when we were to have different tyre suppliers and tyres end up being the biggest performance differentiator. How is this not relevant to teams with hundreds of employees who's expertise is in building cars (not tyres or engines), but in the end are reduced to the competitiveness of the tyre they have to run (or in today's sense, the engine through the contracts they signed)?

[H2H]

Or you think Mercedes advantage is only due to the PU?

Please let us have a discussion without using a straw man questions. Nobody in the last posts questioned the quality of the Mercedes chassis nor it's importance on that smashing performance...

F1 Technical is a great place exactly because overall it is about the arguments and the technical aspects which we all love.

I am yet to hear any arguments on how an engine dominated formula is different to one when we were to have different tyre suppliers and tyres end up being the biggest performance differentiator. How is this different to teams with hundreds of employees who's expertise is in building cars (not tyres or engines), but in the end are reduced to the competitiveness of the tyre they have to run (or in today's sense, the engine through the contracts they signed)?

Indeed. Personally I post in this part of the forum even more rarely then overall. However personally I think the topic highlights one of the biggest puzzles the sport faces and merits much attention.

[alexx_88]

Regarding the difference between the Merc PU and what their customers get. HW-wise, I'm pretty confident that they get the same package, as a previous poster said, it wouldn't make sense to develop different specs for each part.

HOWEVER, whereas mapping a NA V8 is something that any F1 team could do and probably get very close to the manufacturer's output, doing it on the V6 PUs is a totally different task, probably by some orders of magnitude. You don't just have the ICE to map, but boost maps, brake-by-wire maps, MGU-H maps, MGU-K maps and probably a bunch of GPS-track-related data that influences those maps. I can easily see how a customer team would have lots of difficulties in matching the works team.

[FoxHound]

.....

Aero has had it good for too many years, Phil.
In my view the balance needed addressing, it's still not a perfect balance I have to agree with you.
But if the engine was the sole reason for success, other Mercedes powered teams would have finished 2, 3 and 4 in the constructors standings.

As it happens, a Renault powered team finished 2nd, and a Ferrari powered team 4th.
If we take the Mercedes team proper out of the equation, Red Bull would have won the championship.
In one fell swoop, all this talk of engines being dominant falls flat.

The point I want to make here is that engines are now important in the full equation of a race car.
in 2010/11/12/13 it was not a decisive factor in 95%+ of the races.
My personal opinion is chassis development now needs to come into this equation, making a race car one of a triumvirate.

Chassis, Aero, and Engine.

Right now, I couldn't hazard a guess as to what the balance is. But I would propose the engine is not as prevalent in this equation as you would think, if it was...Williams and McLaren and Force India would have beaten Red Bull last year.

And just as a side not, before the engine freeze in the V8 era...there was alot of discussion surrounding the oily bits on these very threads.
Some people actually worked in high end motorsport, like 747heavy and a few others.
The freeze left aero dominant and engines a mere anomaly. What interest do these guys now have in coming here to discuss things that are largely redundant and archaic?
It's a shame.

[Andres125sx]

Or you think Mercedes advantage is only due to the PU?

Please let us have a discussion without using a straw man questions. Nobody in the last posts questioned the quality of the Mercedes chassis nor it's importance on that smashing performance...

Maybe my poor english is the cause, but I´d say this statement does imply Mercedes engine is so much better to their competitors that they can´t level that difference with aero/chasis

What we need is the situation where the engine can be a differentiator, but can be leveled by chassis/aero. Essentially meaning that the engines need to be closer in performance among suppliers, so that aero/chassis can be more revelant.

Wich IMO is far from accurate, so no straw man questions, but fair argumentation. Looks like FoxHound think the same, so I guess it´s not my english

[Andres125sx]

I am yet to hear any arguments on how an engine dominated formula is different to one when we were to have different tyre suppliers and tyres end up being the biggest performance differentiator. How is this not relevant to teams with hundreds of employees who's expertise is in building cars (not tyres or engines), but in the end are reduced to the competitiveness of the tyre they have to run (or in today's sense, the engine through the contracts they signed)?

Because it´s not different, but this is how racing works.

There are two options, current situation or convert it to a spec series so there´s no differences

As I previously explained, this is exactly the same as it has always been. Can you imagine HRT complaining because their engine (Cosworth) was not competitive enough and they can´t fight Ferrari/Renault/Mercedes? It would be crazy, and that´s what Horner is doing right now

There have always been differences between engines, tires and whatever piece teams don´t build theyselves. FIA is always trying to match perfomances, wich is nice for the show, but when some team do it so good as Mercedes currently and they build the best engine, the best aero and a great chasis, FIA can do nothing

You always put the example of tires... Do you want FIA to standarize engines so they all use the same and there´re no differences? IMO that´s not the route

As I said in my first reply in this thread, at least when it´s the engine wich makes the difference there are more than one team using that engine, so the season is not that boring, you see some fight. But don´t get me wrong, that´s not the situation today, Mercedes has best engine, but also the best aero and a great chasis, that´s the reason Williams can´t fight with them despite using the same engine, so you can´t use current situation to compare this season to those where some team (RBR) dominated thanks to aero, because today no team dominates thanks to the engine, but to the whole package

IMHO when aero makes the difference the season is boring because aero is the most important factor with current cars and only one team use that aero, while engines can´t make such a big difference despite being noticeably more powerful, and if they would, more than one team use that engine so there still will be some competition. Ask Williams-BMW, they had best engine and won nothing more than some races, but when it´s aero what makes the difference that team will win easily

So I prefer an engine formula hands down.