Formula One's Engine Crisis

[Andres125sx]

cost cutting measures will never work in an open formula series. What they really do is raise the cost of entry, and thus squeeze out the little guys.

Can you elaborate this? I fail to see any logic in that statement

1. In season testing was done away with to limit costs.
2. requiring engines & transmissions to last multiple races (v8 era) was supposed to limit costs because you wouldn't need to buy as many.
3. equalizing the engines (v8 era) was supposed to lower cost, because development was severely limited.
3. freezing the engines during the season (v6 era) was supposed to lower costs, because it was supposed to prevent a development arms race.

In order to overcome the road blocks above the top teams/manufactures did the following.

1. spent vast sums of money on simulators, super computers, & wind tunnels.
2. The engine manufacture spent fast sums of money on R&D to come up with engines that last longer than the old throw away motors, but don't make any more power, and cost a astronomically more per unit lot more.


lets say a wind tunnel costs 20 million to build. None of the small teams have that kind of operating capital, so they are immediately handicapped because they will never be able to get a tunnel. Some of the mid size teams can afford it, but might not see any benefit from it for well over a year, so that hinders them as well.

Now consider what it was like when unlimited testing was still allowed. A small team could come up with a new front wing design that cost 200K to develop and build, spend another 25k to rent a track and test it. If it worked they could race it and move up the standings and get more prize money, or attract a new sponsor (more money), or entice a better driver/engineer to join the team etc etc.

All the cost cutting measures did was turn a lot of little individual bills spread out over time, into a few really large bills. It's easier/safer for a small team to make a lot of small cheap improvements, vs betting the farm on one or 2 really big ones.

Sorry but it was teams who agreed unlimited testing was way too expensive. In your example you fail to include one important point. While the small team is testing a 200k wing with a 25k rented car, top teams are testing 5 different wings, 3 different floors, 3 diffusers and two different suspensions, so no, the small team will not move up the standings, and costs will go up.

This was one of the few things all teams agreed, even Ferrari who had his own track for unlimited testing could have vetoed the rule, and didn´t.

[FoxHound]

Isn't what happens on track a byproduct of an automakers involvement? If that's the case, hasn't it always been the case?

What happens on-track is a byproduct of the rules, and the current rules are a byproduct of ill-considered decisions to increase automaker participation and reduce costs. Even if either one of those ideas was sensible given F1's history and machinations, they still constitute an impossible task.

"The man who serves two masters serves none."

Sure, but this is neither the Manufacturers or Independents fault. They go where they're told to...Oddly I can't think of one team who have ever gone directly against the FIA, ever. Spats yes, but no complete fallouts.

Most people don't care about the logos on the cars; they just want compelling racing, and this formula has been a disaster on that front. After all, who wants to watch a contest in which the outcome has already been decided due to rules that stifle efforts to shift competitive balance? The 2014, 2015, and 2016 World Championships were decided between 2011 and 2013, because the rules artificially accelerate the onset of diminished returns.

I dunno man, F1 was pretty popular in the foregone conclusion days of 2000-2004. Also, The 14, 15 and 16 championships are no more the result of the the rules than any other championship.
Some rules better than other rules, I get that, but still.

Give me 20 cars powered by Cosworth, Ricardo, etc, in a competitive environment that features relaxed rules centered around ideas focused solely on racing, and the resultant series would annihilate Formula 1, because that spirit is exactly what made Formula 1 special in the first place. (It would probably be cheaper, too.)

If we take Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes out the equation....what do you think happens to the F1 brand? It is also their cachet that adds gravitas to the spectacle as a whole. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say if we wanted the best racing, we wouldnt be watching F1. It has never been the most entertaining of series.

[Andres125sx]

Credit where credit is due, the W06 is the fastest car in this non-refuelling era of F1.

Huh? The W06 would have qualified P20 for the 2010 Spanish Grand Prix.

Comparing different season´s perfomance trying to compare different engines is flawed from the beginning for two reasons:

1- The whole car is different, not only the engine, so the comparison is absurd

2- Engine perfomance depends a lot more on the restrictions imposed by FIA, than type of engine itself, so even if you can compare only engines from different eras (and you can´t) it will mean nothing about the engine itself.

For example, in that comparison you both are doing, just remove fuel flow restriction and result will change dramatically.

F1 took a route some time ago, perfomance cannot increase anymore because no track is prepared for 400km/h topspeed or 7G cornering, apart that human body is not prepared for that, so instead of increasing perfomance as F1 had always been now it´s about reaching same pefomance with tighter regulations each season. This include limiting aero, and also limiting engines or PUs. But it also means to allow some develpment FIA must put more restrictions than needed, so when engineers manage to improve perfomance cars still are within the limits FIA want F1 to be. Once they reach that limit, more restrictions will be applied. At some point they went too far with restriction tough, that´s the reason they´re considering increasing engines power and downforce for 2017, and also the reason today cars are seconds slower than track records.

Comparing current cars with past eras is not fair. For example fuel restrictions, you can´t compare an engine without fuel restrictions with an engine with fuel restrictions, like comparing two runners, one of them with ballast tied to his ankles. But if you analyse times for that runner with ballast, heck, he´s doing quite good even if he´s seconds slower than the other.

But they put too much ballast, that´s true. I´d decrease engine displacement so they don´t need too many restrictions because engine size itself would be main restriction. Also rpm would increase and sound will improve. Problem is people is not willing to accept F1 with 1.0 or 1.2 engines as much, but that is what they should do to allow development, improve the show and stay withing the limits, IMO of course

[graham.reeds]

Toyota got battered in this years Le Mans and WEC championship (as did Nissan but that is a whole different thread). So they are moving from a 3.7l V8 + Supercapacitor to (iirc) 3l turbo + battery. The costs are mitigated somewhat by the 3l being and old engine being married to a motor & battery unit.

The rules allow them to take an existing engine, develop it and race, unlike F1, where you have to follow a strict system which if you take a wrong design decision you are screwed for two years. One to get back to where you should be and one to catch up again.

I think supplied engines should have a max cost limit applied regardless of who supplies them. The universal yoke should still apply and relax development.

As for F1 vs LM energy expenditure...its all just software.

[ChrisF1]

It's a pity we don't have a spare car any more in a way - the bottom 3/4 teams could run another car that is effectively sold to a driver, covering the costs of the team running the spare car or something. Vettel got his break this way...

[bhall II]

Comparing different season´s perfomance trying to compare different engines is flawed...

I didn't make a comparison; I refuted a spurious claim ("...the W06 is the fastest car in this non-refuelling era...") in the simplest way possible.

Context is important.

Sure, but...

C'mon, you know better than that. The manufacturers didn't just "go where [they were] told." Both Mercedes and Renault threatened to withdraw if the only alternative was to continue using V8s, and the initial scheme of four-cylinder turbocharged engines was adopted specifically to facilitate Audi's entrance into the sport. Far from being passengers, automakers drove the agenda.

I don't necessarily fault them for it, though, because I understand that companies will always advocate strategies that serve their own best interests. To expect otherwise is to expect pigs to fly.

Instead, I fault F1 and the FIA for capitulating to the demands. I further fault them for the convoluted formula that resulted from the decision.

Given a remit to introduce new technology and reduce costs, laudable ideas that are nonetheless mutually exclusive for most sane people, the idiots in charge sacrificed the sport's most fundamental tenant: competition. Where previous seasons have featured dominant teams that appeared unstoppable, the last season-and-a-half has featured a dominant team that truly is unstoppable, because the progressively tightening noose that is the PU homologation schedule simply does not allow for it. (And don't get me started on the moronic usage restrictions.)

From my point of view, the most anyone can hope to accomplish is to bridge the gap enough that an extraordinary chassis will have a fighting chance. Otherwise, everyone knows exactly how the rest of this season and all of next season will play out.

We're not watching Championships; we're witnessing coronations, and it's boring as hell.

[FoxHound]

C'mon, you know better than that. The manufacturers didn't just "go where [they were] told." Both Mercedes and Renault threatened to withdraw if the only alternative was to continue using V8 powerplants, and the initial scheme of four-cylinder turbocharged engines was adopted specifically to facilitate Audi's entrance into the sport. Far from being passengers, automakers drove the agenda.

I just don't see it that way. Any form of manufacturer involvement needs scope for engines in the same way it does for aero and chassis. It was not the case between 2009 and 2013. Frozen engines, no ability for a manufacturer to be able to develop other than to go through the avenues of Chassis and Aero.


And if we look at what led to the current engine formula, it was 4 cylinder turbo's that were originally mooted.
Why? To bring VW/Audi on board. Ferrari actually detested the idea as 4 cylinder engines have no home at Maranello.
http://www.formula1blog.com/editorial/f ... gine-plan/
Recall the "world engine" plan?
1 specification of engine to be used in F1 and Le Mans and other series. Lower costs, more opportunities for manufacturer and independent involvement. This was all very much driven by the FIA.

VW lost interest, and the V6 proposal was brought in to appease Ferrari(who wanted to keep the V8's). But none of Ferrari Renault or Mercedes drove these rules to be implemented. They wanted change. Hell, I wanted change. V8's frozen for 5 years and in service for 8 years. That sucks grizzly balls.

Then we need to look at the global trends in terms of racing series and the movement toward smaller forced induction engines. Everyone is at it, Indycars, Touring cars, prototype racing there is a shifting of philosophy towards these smaller and more efficient engines.
On top of that, when these engines were in planning phase...Oil was at around 120 dollars a barrel.

Which made the addition of energy recuperation as a no brainer. It's expensive, but my view here is a team with a 150 million dollar budget, paying 22 million a year for PU's leaves them with a further 128 million to blow on aero and chassis.
People will find fault with my crude calculus, but Aero and Chassis development is why the big factories containing 300 plus personnel exist.

Given a remit to introduce new technology and reduce costs, laudable ideas that are nonetheless mutually exclusive for most sane people, the idiots in charge sacrificed the sport's most fundamental tenant: competition. Where previous seasons featured dominant teams that appeared unstoppable, the last season-and-a-half has featured a dominant team that truly is unstoppable, because the progressively tightening noose that is the PU homologation schedule simply does not allow for it. (And don't get me started on the moronic usage restrictions.).

I'm not condoning the current rules as great, they aren't. The token systems are confusing, but we can see entire combustion chambers changed outside of this.
We can see Mercedes use their allocated tokens and gain 0.3 seconds from it. We see Renault who are well behind, use almost none of theirs....as if transfixed by what the mothership decides what to do with it's Viry plaything.

But Ben, when was there ever a perfect engine formula? V10's cost the earth. V8's were archaic. And there is no guarantee that any other initiative would've proved more or less successful.

So I ask this genuinely, what is the solution to correcting the problem and making it work for everyone?

[Andres125sx]

Comparing different season´s perfomance trying to compare different engines is flawed...

I didn't make a comparison; I refuted a spurious claim ("...the W06 is the fastest car in this non-refuelling era...") in the simplest way possible.

Context is important.

Fair enough. I only quoted your message because of the discussion

Where previous seasons have featured dominant teams that appeared unstoppable, the last season-and-a-half has featured a dominant team that truly is unstoppable, because the progressively tightening noose that is the PU homologation schedule simply does not allow for it.

But you can´t attribute Mercedes dominance only to PU. In that case the rest of Mercedes powered cars would be much more competitive

Tracks like Monaco, when Mercedes was 8 tenths faster than next fastest, prove Mercedes domination has more causes than just the PU.

[mrluke]

So I ask this genuinely, what is the solution to correcting the problem and making it work for everyone?

Honestly it is probably more open regulation to get differentiation between the teams and some kind of balance of performance (as much as it irks me).

Actually I cant think of a better way to limit costs than BOP as spending the extra on improving will just see you face a bigger handicap.

[FoxHound]

So I ask this genuinely, what is the solution to correcting the problem and making it work for everyone?

Honestly it is probably more open regulation to get differentiation between the teams and some kind of balance of performance (as much as it irks me).

Actually I cant think of a better way to limit costs than BOP as spending the extra on improving will just see you face a bigger handicap.

How is this workable?
I'm all for open regulations, but think costs.

[bhall II]

I just don't see it that way...

Don't read my criticism of the manner in which the power units were introduced as if it's criticism of the power units themselves. That's a different (and highly subjective) conversation.

Also, the plan to move to something other than V8s preceded Mosley's world engine...

During the first six months of 2007 the FIA have visited manufacturers active today in Formula One to garner views on regulation change for 2011 when the present power-train regulations expire.

So I ask this genuinely, what is the solution to correcting the problem and making it work for everyone?

I think attempts to answer that impossible question are what got us here in the first place. Nothing works for everyone, which makes it necessary to prioritize, and F1 placed marketing interests and cost-cutting ahead of competitiveness. The dysfunctional result is plain for everyone to see.

But you can´t attribute Mercedes dominance only to PU...

I didn't.

[Cold Fussion]

So I ask this genuinely, what is the solution to correcting the problem and making it work for everyone?

Honestly it is probably more open regulation to get differentiation between the teams and some kind of balance of performance (as much as it irks me).

Actually I cant think of a better way to limit costs than BOP as spending the extra on improving will just see you face a bigger handicap.

Balance of performance is just awful, actively penalising success is the antithesis of what F1 should be about.

[dans79]

I don't know of any other way of putting it, but cost caps don't work. MLB has workarounds, so does the NFL.

The only way to not squeeze out the small teams, and prevent the big teams from simply buying championships, is to have rules that are open enough to allow cheap innovation, yet tight enough to prevent someone gaining a huge lead.

[mrluke]

So I ask this genuinely, what is the solution to correcting the problem and making it work for everyone?

Honestly it is probably more open regulation to get differentiation between the teams and some kind of balance of performance (as much as it irks me).

Actually I cant think of a better way to limit costs than BOP as spending the extra on improving will just see you face a bigger handicap.

Balance of performance is just awful, actively penalising success is the antithesis of what F1 should be about.

Sadly I agree but when you look at LMP1 it begins to look very attractive.

What upsets the fans more than anything else in F1 is dominance.

We effectively have BOP anyway as when one team is winning the FIA try to ban anything that is seen as being the reason for their success.

[dans79]

What upsets the fans more than anything else in F1 is dominance.

I wish we could ban these fans.

I find it highly irritating that society wants everything dumbed-down to a toddlers intelligence level, and then filled with drama, because they loose interest otherwise (thanks to gnat like attention spans).