Formula One's Engine Crisis

[horse]

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

There is certainly something of a fan crisis going on at the moment as well (look at the decline of the German GP, particularly with a dominant German team). I really don't think it is fair to belittle fans that want to see close racing and an exciting championship. I don't see what is wrong with that?

Dominance is interesting, because it can both be exhilarating or off-putting. Take Usain Bolt - everyone loves him, but he turns the races into a farce. Still he has a charisma and style that outstrip all of that, and nobody cares, they just want to see him run.

I have never found an F1 driver to be so endearing, they are naturally disposed to being boring. So when dominance appears in F1, it requires two similarly skilled drivers to make it interesting. Watching Schumacher dominate Irvine or now Hamilton dominate Rosberg is no fun - you can occasionally marvel at the individual brilliance (Michael Schumacher, Spain 1996), but actually you get the most context of these guys skill when they are in battle, when they are working for their victories.

Anyway, to attempt to try to pull the ship back on course and away from the rocks of off-topic banning of unworthy punters, I do not like the concept of weight handicapped cars. I think engine performance parity is a totally different ideal, in that it still allows differentiation between the characteristics of an engine, but the way the team then exploits those characteristics is what makes winners and losers. I just think that defining what parity is for the current engines is an extremely challenging exercise in itself.

[Cold Fussion]

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.

The BOP in LMP1 only exists between Petrol and Diesel cars, you could even argue that balancing diesel and petrol is a requirement if you want to have both technologies represented. In LMP1, Toyota is as far away from Porsche as Manor is to Mercedes, and nobody seems to mind that. The BOP in LMP1 is not like in the GT categories where after you lose the first step is to complain to the FIA that the balance is all wrong.

I don't think dominance upsets F1 fans, if that were the case, then why are the 80s/90s/early 2000s constantly pinned for?

[dans79]

I don't think dominance upsets F1 fans, if that were the case, then why are the 80s/90s/early 2000s constantly pinned for?

less doom & gloom and hype web based media outlets string the pot?

I bet if you had a teenage boy who's into cars watch all the races this season he would tell you it was pretty exciting. If you exposed him to all the media and internet hysteria he'd probably tell you it sucks.

[sgth0mas]

That same teenage boy would get bored after 4 races and go back to soccer, football, rugby...or any other sport that offers better entertainment value than F1. A few decades ago, 700+ hp and big aero packages were new and couldnt be seen anywhere but the race track. Now its not special, and the spectacle is less entertaining than it was 2 years ago.

As sports like football and soccer maintain high levels of entertainment value, F1s backwards progress is accelerated.

Also...bernie doesnt want young F1 fans because they cant buy rolexs. Thus...no company that targets a young demographic cares for F1.

[graham.reeds]

In LMP1, Toyota is as far away from Porsche as Manor is to Mercedes, and nobody seems to mind that.

Except Toyota.

But the rules are such that Toyota can bin their current PU and start again pretty much from scratch. Not cheap but I bet it is less than an F1 engine.

So again: Why mandate the F1 PU so aggressively?

[Andres125sx]

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

I didn't.

I got that impresion after reading this

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.

If you say Mercedes is unstoppable because of the PU homologation, you´re assuming their main advantage is the PU, and I disagree with that... at least if that´s what you were saying.

PUs receive a lot of bashing, but Mercedes got 8 tenths advantage in Monaco, shortest track of the calendar where PU relevance is minimized, and 1.8 seconds to next Mercedes powered car. I´ll repeat it, 1.8 seconds per lap to next Mercedes powered car in Monaco when laptime is only 1:15.01 (vs 1:16.8.). To me this is mindblowing.

BTW, next Mercedes powered car was 7th, both Ferraris and both RBRs were faster than any other Mercedes powered car. If this is not a proof about how good are Mercedes aero and chasis I´m not sure what´s needed

Obviously their PU is great, but they´re getting as much advantage from aero and/or chasis as they get from the PU, IMO, probably more.

And there´s no homologation for aero and chasis, teams can develop both departments all they want, so blaming PU homologation as the responsible to Mercedes dominance saying teams can´t catch up, IMO is far from accurate. Problem is not homologation, problem is Mercedes is doing best job in all departments, that´s all. But this means teams actually can catch up, but they first need to start doing a better job than Mercedes, and they all are failing to do that.

[FoxHound]

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..

Ok, so we know engines are expensive. But we also know they take up less of a teams budget than either Aero or Chassis development. Are updates as restrictive on Aero and Chassis to reign in those costs to the same degree as engines?


Are PU's the performance differentiator conventional wisdom would have us believe?
Ferrari and Red Bull have won more than any Mercedes powered team, other than Mercedes proper since PU inception.
Is this a statistical anomaly, or does this bear out the point?

If we take Hungary and Monaco, gaps increase. Not only that, but gaps increase at points where the engine is doing the least of its work.

My opinion here, is that for years and with former partners McLaren, Mercedes were reliant as an engine supplier to make the difference. Bear with me. When the freeze came along and Brawn/Honda ended up on their lap, they found even with the same engine as McLaren, they were over a second a lap down on their former bed fellows.

Stuttgart threw 100s of millions turning the Brackley factory to upgrade CFD,Aero and Chassis development along with getting staff from Red Bull, Ferrari, Lotus and McLaren.
You could see the jump made by Mercedes between, 2012 and 2013 when the previous 2 years investments started to pay off.
The turnaround in deficit from 2012 to 2013 was 1.2 seconds average to the competition.
Stable rules, frozen engines, no great shift in tyre design, and they claw back 1.2 seconds in a single winter.
That is progress on an epic scale. And engines weren't even part of the equation in 2013.
In 2014 Turbo engines come along and are easily the best in the sport. But Mercedes transition from midfielders to winners was just as much to do with their mastery of CFD, Chassis and Aero as it was engines.

The monster was created out of the frozen engine formula, and unleashed into the Turbo era. If they hadn't gone to the extremes of investments they did in 2011/12 then I believe Ferrari could be looking at a title championship this year.

[bhall II]

There are too many points of contention in the last two posts for me to address them all. So, it's unlikely my reply will be comprehensive.

In no particular order...

1. "...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" ≠ "Mercedes' advantage is solely due to its power unit." It's more like, "Mercedes can't lose its advantage, because the progressively..."

Incidentally, why does that matter anyway? The arguments against such a statement ultimately boil down to "Mercedes' dominance isn't because of something Mercedes developed, it's because of something Mercedes developed," and that's just weird.

2. It's a mistake to measure any powerplant's value by raw output alone. Integration and consistency are just as important, which is why P1 through P6 on Monaco's starting grid were occupied by works teams that always enjoy integration advantages over customer teams. For the last two years on dry circuits, that's only happened in Monaco, because no other circuit rewards integration to such a degree.

3. Drawing conclusions about a power unit's relative strength through comparisons between a works team and its customers is invalid, because we all know customer hardware tends to be a step behind works hardware. For example, only Mercedes ran the latest spec at Monza, and it's worth at least 0.3s.

Plus, customers lack the aforementioned optimized integration, and some lack the right fuel, i.e. McLaren-Mercedes/Mobil 1 vs Mercedes/Petronas.

4. In terms of development, power units are less restricted than aerodynamics. The use of dynamometers, 7-post shakers, "dynamic platforms," etc., is unlimited; CFD/wind tunnel time is not.

5. The potential for aerodynamic development within the constraints of the current formula has largely been exhausted, as no team has managed to significantly improve its position through chassis development alone.

The "engineering masterpiece" Red Bull introduced in Barcelona did nothing. Ferrari's extensive upgrade for the same race - "It will be almost a SF15-T b... we are confident it will be a significant improvement" - triggered an investigation due to its scope; yet, its impact on performance was inconclusive. Force India introduced what's effectively a brand new car, but its results have thus far been consistent with the old one.

6. We don't know that chassis development is more costly than power unit development. For customer teams? Sure. Works teams? It's highly unlikely and would represent a massive shift from historical norms...


Figures from 2006 estimated by Autosport

[dans79]

This is the real problem, to many dumb people worried about their social status up and down the pitlane.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/09/18/t ... ous-route/

Being a second class team, with the chance to improve and become a first class team, is a lot better than not being a team at all because you went bankrupt.

[Andres125sx]

Incidentally, why does that matter anyway? The arguments against such a statement ultimately boil down to "Mercedes' dominance isn't because of something Mercedes developed, it's because of something Mercedes developed," and that's just weird.

Because of the thread we´re in. It´s about the engines, and we´re discussing if current lack of competitiveness is due to the new PUs. IMO that´s not true, or at least not completely accurate, so yes, for the matter of the thread it´s relevant if Mercedes dominance is due to something Mercedes developed (PU), or it´s about any other thing Mercedes developed

3. Drawing conclusions about a power unit's relative strength through comparisons between a works team and its customers is invalid, because we all know customer hardware tends to be a step behind works hardware. For example, only Mercedes ran the latest spec at Monza, and it's worth at least 0.3s.

Plus, customers lack the aforementioned optimized integration, and some lack the right fuel, i.e. McLaren-Mercedes/Mobil 1 vs Mercedes/Petronas.

Agree, but that´s worth some tenths, maybe one full second if you want and I´m conceding too much for a short track like Monaco, but it was 1.8 seconds to next fastest Mercedes powered team.

Sorry but I can´t buy it´s all about PU, integration and fuel. If true difference in Monza would have been bigger than in Monaco, but it wasn´t. Actually it was less than a third (0.5 seconds) so IMO chasis and aero are doing as much of a difference as PU, maybe even more looking at differences in Monaco (1.8] and Monza (0.5).

Hungary, another track where PU is not that relevant, Mercedes was 1.2 seconds faster than next Mercedes powered team. I can´t buy it´s a coincidence the biggest differences have been on tracks where PU is less relevant.

5. The potential for aerodynamic development within the constraints of the current formula has largely been exhausted, as no team has managed to significantly improve its position through chassis development alone.

That statement is a bit bold if you ask me. How do you know if Mercedes advantage is not related to that?

What about Red Bull not so long ago when engines were frozen and more or less matched in perfomance, but they still were around a full second faster than any other?

We´ve not changed from an aero dominated formula to a PU dominated formula magically, now PU is also relevant, but the key word here is also. Aero still is very very important and I think people is understimating Mercedes work in this department.

6. We don't know that chassis development is more costly than power unit development. For customer teams? Sure. Works teams? It's highly unlikely and would represent a massive shift from historical norms...

http://i.imgur.com/bQDf1rm.png
Figures from 2006 estimated by Autosport

F1 is a motorsport, so to me it´s fine if motor (engine) consume most resources. It´s aero what should be restricted IMO.

[bhall II]

Again, I never said Mercedes' success is strictly the result of its power unit. You're arguing with a phantom.

Here's a decent, if not quite complete, summation of my view in general...

Fernando Alonso thinks the restrictions on testing and development in Formula One are having a negative impact on the current spectacle.

Even though engine development was 'unfrozen' ahead of the 2015 season it is still limited to a token system limits changes to certain parts of the power unit. Next year, a further 23% of the power unit will be frozen in the regulations.

Honda has struggled for both performance and reliability since returning to the grid with McLaren this season. Alonso qualified 17th in Silverstone, just five seconds quicker than the quickest GP2 time, and he said that comparison is one of a number of problems that need addressing.

"Faster cars, because now we are a little bit too close to GP2 times," Alonso said when asked what he changes he would like to see in F1. "Probably more testing or little bit more freedom in terms of developing the car because right now, as you put the car in the first winter test, more or less you keep that position until the end of the year.

"You make progress, everyone makes progress, and that's it - the rules are very tight, so you cannot develop much in terms of engine, which is frozen, and aerodynamics is very restrictive. More or less what you have in the first test is what you have all season so that's making the races very predictable and very boring."

Alonso insists his optimism for the McLaren project remains undented from the start of the year, even though the current situation was something he did not anticipate.

"I think this is a question we need to answer in a few months or two or three years. It's true that the competitiveness we have now is not what we wanted or not what we expected, at least. We knew that this is the first year and quite a difficult time, but obviously going out in Q1 is a little bit more difficult than what we thought.

"I'm still optimistic, I'm happy with the progress of the car. [At Silverstone] I felt good grip, I felt confident in the corners, I was able to push to the limit and I was happy with the car. Looking at some comparisons with the other guys there are some corners that are quite interesting in our favour, so we need to fix some problems but definitely we are in the right direction.

"Unfortunately with the current rules everything requires a lot of time because you have tied hands for many things."

[toraabe]

Mercedes ready to help their partner Renault out of engine crisis.
For Mercedes keeping Renault in F1 is of vital interest and also keeping the current engine format.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 80955.html

[strad]

Thanks bhall II ,, This part I think sums up the total absurdity of the freeze and the current system.
.

"You make progress, everyone makes progress, and that's it - the rules are very tight, so you cannot develop much in terms of engine, which is frozen, and aerodynamics is very restrictive. More or less what you have in the first test is what you have all season so that's making the races very predictable and very boring."

[FoxHound]

Thanks bhall II ,, This part I think sums up the total absurdity of the freeze and the current system.
.

"You make progress, everyone makes progress, and that's it - the rules are very tight, so you cannot develop much in terms of engine, which is frozen, and aerodynamics is very restrictive. More or less what you have in the first test is what you have all season so that's making the races very predictable and very boring."

bollocks.

This works completely against laws of diminished returns, and the fact that Ferrari found a return and that the leaders extended their own.
I love Alonso, I really do. But drivers talk turd all the time, even Senna.

I think we are seeing that Mercedes were playing tricks with tyres, which was previously explained as "factory dominant equipment". They may just have been found out.
Either way, neat trick.

[bhall II]

How does that conflict with diminishing returns?

Listed below are the quickest qualifying lap times from circuits/conditions common to last season and this season (so far). The times in brackets for 2014 indicate the gap to P1. The times in parentheses for 2015 indicate the overall change from the previous year.

Code: Select all

2014 Bahrain

Merc: 1:33.185
RB: 1:34.051 [0.866]
Will: 1:34.247 [1.062]
Fer: 1:34.368 [1.183]

2015 Bahrain

Merc: 1:32.571 (-0.614)
Fer: 1:32.982 (-1.386)
Will: 1:33.381 (-0.866)
RB: 1:33.832 (-0.219)


2014 Spain

Merc: 1:25.232
RB: 1:26.285 [1.053]
Will: 1:26.632 [1.400]
Fer: 1:27.104 [1.872]

2015 Spain

Merc: 1:24.681 (-0.551)
Fer: 1:25.458 (-1.646)
Will: 1:25.694 (-0.938)
RB: 1:26.629 (+0.344)


2014 Monaco

Merc: 1:15.989
RB: 1:16.048 [0.059]
Fer: 1:16.686 [0.697]
Will: 1:18.082 [2.093]

2015 Monaco

Merc: 1:15.098 (-0.891)
Fer: 1:15.849 (-0.837)
RB: 1:16.041 (-0.007)
Will: 1:17.278 (-0.804)


2014 Canada

Merc: 1:14.874
RB: 1:15.548 [0.674]
Will: 1:15.550 [0.676]
Fer: 1:15.841 [0.967]

2015 Canada

Merc: 1:14.393 (-0.481)
Fer: 1:15.014 (-0.827)
Will: 1:15.102 (-0.448)
RB: 1:16.079 (+0.531)


2014 Austria

Will: 1:08.759
Merc: 1:08.944 [0.185]
Fer: 1:09.285 [0.526]
RB: 1:09.466 [0.707]

2015 Austria

Merc: 1:08.455 (-0.489)
Fer: 1:08.810 (-0.475)
Will: 1:09.192 (+0.433)
RB: 1:09.694 (+0.228)


2014 Hungary

Merc: 1:22.715
RB: 1:23.201 [0.486]
Will: 1:23.354 [0.639]
Fer: 1:23.909 [1.194]

2015 Hungary

Merc: 1:22.020 (-0.695)
Fer: 1:22.739 (-1.170)
RB: 1:22.774 (-0.427)
Will: 1:23.222 (-0.132)


2014 Italy

Merc: 1:24.109
Will: 1:24.697 [0.588]
Fer: 1:25.430 [1.321]
RB: 1:25.436 [1.327]

2015 Italy

Merc: 1:23.397 (-0.712)
Fer: 1:23.631 (-1.799)
Will: 1:23.940 (-0.757)
RB: 1:25.796 (+0.360)


2014 Singapore

Merc: 1:45.681
RB: 1:45.854 [0.176]
Fer: 1:45.907 [0.226]
Will: 1:46.000 [0.319]

2015 Singapore

Fer: 1:43.885 (-2.022)
RB: 1:44.428 (-1.426)
Merc: 1:45.300 (-0.381)
Will: 1:45.676 (-0.324)

Mean gap to P1 in 2014:

Merc: 0.023
RB: 0.667
Will: 0.847
Fer: 0.998

Average overall lap time change from 2014 to 2015:

Merc: -0.592
RB:
Will: -0.480 (-0.610 without Austria)
Fer: -1.270

The larger deficits saw greater improvements, and that's completely in line with diminishing returns.

Mean absolute deviation of the selected top starting positions in 2014:

Merc: 0.22
RB: 1.38
Will: 2.38
Fer: 0.88

2015:

Merc: 0.88
Fer: 0.63
Will: 2.19
RB: 2.66

There's not a great deal of change from race to race, which is in line with Alonso's comments (and mine).