Formula One's Engine Crisis

[sgth0mas]

Like bernie said...they invested that money for road car relevance right? How is it unfair when it was intended to benefit the road car divisions?

Because it's not only for road car relevance. I think the biggest factor is the marketing behind it, which would be considerably hurt if a simpler engine can defeat a very complex and very expensive PU.

Still, I think it is worth a shot. The low cost engine should however be by default less powerful then the high cost manufacturer ones. I still advocate opening up aero rules to allow potentional compensation for the lesser PU.

Oh i totally agree with you that this had little to do with road car relevance on the design side. I just love that they finally get to eat their words after shaping the rules with this horrible engine formula.




And foxhound, why on earth would you not consider cost in the engine crisis thread? Economics are the biggest problem facing F1 currently.

[dans79]

The 2.2 V6. is just another desperate power play by Bernie trying to keep his grubby little troll fingers on the reins. It most likely won't make it into 2017 because if memory serves it requires a unanimous vote.

Honestly I'd rather have the manufactures in control than Bernie!

[turbof1]

The 2.2 V6. is just another desperate power play by Bernie trying to keep his grubby little troll fingers on the reins. It most likely won't make it into 2017 because if memory serves it requires a unanimous vote.

Honestly I'd rather have the manufactures in control than Bernie!

At this point it will only require a vote by majority. Only after february (or was it march?) it will require a unanimous vote.

[Juzh]

FIA + FOM = majority. So it's not completely out of the question.

[Phil]

Honestly I'd rather have the manufactures in control than Bernie!

You'd rather have the competitors controlling the sport they compete in? Look how that will turn out... At this rate, you're on the best path to have 3 car teams, then less teams because those pushed back further as a consequence will eventually leave or go bust... until you're down to one single competitor supplying the entire grid in its own utter meaningless sport? Really?

BTW: From what I read, it doesn't seem to be an impossibility, these new engines. The FIA and Bernie would require two teams to vote for it - arguably with TorroRosso and RedBull both being in doubt over their future would be those votes. Then you'd have Ferrari's veto, but in light of the EU commission looking into things...

[dans79]

FIA + FOM = majority. So it's not completely out of the question.

Thing is, the FIA hasn't said anything yet, it's just Bernie talking.

[dans79]

Honestly I'd rather have the manufactures in control than Bernie!

You'd rather have the competitors controlling the sport they compete in? Look how that will turn out... At this rate, you're on the best path to have 3 car teams, then less teams because those pushed back further as a consequence will eventually leave or go bust... until you're down to one single competitor supplying the entire grid in its own utter meaningless sport? Really?

If your the underdog, its your job to work harder, smarter and longer than the guy at the top if you want to beat them. The social engineering so many people here espouse is counter to everything i believe in. I'd rather see the entire thing circle the drain than become an automotive equivalent of the WWE.

[Phil]

No no no dans, that's not what the talk was about mate. You said you'd rather have the manufacturers in control. My post is a indirect question if you are aware of the conflict of interest when a competitor actively and directly has an influence of the sport it competes in.

I'll say it again; I'm not blaming the manufacturers to using their advantageous position they are in. Anyone in their position would. The question is what the sport as a whole needs to do in order to protect it. These alternative engines are a logical consequence to that question.

[Andres125sx]

To me the only way those 2.2 V6 would make any sense is if the rules are written for those to be second class engines. Otherwise if I´d be Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes or Honda, I´d be really upset.

Upset or not, if the consequence of each engine-manufacturer and competitor looking out for its own interest leads to teams ending without an engine and customer teams being handicapped even more than the benefit a works-team already has and enoys... the means of the sport (in this context Bernie and the FIA) to come up with solutions to level the game seems rather logical to me.

As Foxhound posted, that´s RedBull problem. They did it so bad I´m not the only one thinking they actually are willing to leave F1, so you can´t blame F1 for that.

There are many ways to level the field and solve the problem, but forcing big teams to invest huge amounts of money on a completely new PU and only two years later say those PUs will be useless because there will be new engines a lot cheaper and equally competitive is not serious.

But F1 is exactly that lately, so who knows...


BTW, I don´t think the cost cap is that necessary. This is F1, investing 5% of your budget into the PU is far from a problem, and small teams have never used top spec engines. Any reason now they should be using same spec engines than works teams at affordable prices?

The only problem is today the PUs are so new the perfomance from 2014 PUs to 2015 is huge, so using old spec engines is not doable, but once the PUs are developed further, perfomance between last spec PUs and past season specs will be a lot smaller and small teams will be able to buy competitive PUs at affordable prices. At least if rules allow it.

If rules don´t allow it then that´s a problem, but easy to solve, much more than introducing new engines again

[Phil]

As Foxhound posted, that´s RedBull problem. They did it so bad I´m not the only one thinking they actually are willing to leave F1, so you can´t blame F1 for that.

Foxhounds problem is that he's stuck in a circular argument since page 34. Back on page 34 of the RedBull thread, he openly argued that Mercedes was not afraid of supplying RedBull with engines. On those pages or there abouts within that time frame, there were various conflicting messages from Toto and obviously the higher up board that entertained the idea of supplying RedBull to some extent, but made it clear that they would not get involved in any collaboration before RedBull and Renault are officially "divorced".

If we conclude that RedBull was getting this vibe as well, and that the working relationship between Renault and RedBull, further fueled by Renaults inability and/or unwillingness to develop the 2015 PU hit rock bottom - they perhaps weren't that silly to end that agreement to get into "serious talks" with Mercedes. Only it was clear to us - well, me anyway, that Mercedes due to RedBulls likely competitiveness, would not want to supply them. Since then, Ferrari have joined this stance, and McLaren is stopping Honda from even contemplating this idea as it would put them at odds as well.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Fact is, one reason or another - RedBull and Renault at some point found that they can no longer work together. RedBulls criticism was/is in regards to their 2015 unit and their progress (lack of) and mixed signals of Renault either in buying a factory team or leaving the sport all together.


And the million question of all:

If we assume that Renault enters as their own factory team in 2016 which seems quite likely, who is to say they would be happy to supply RedBull and compete themselves by supplying them the same units, if both Mercedes, Ferrari and even Honda in their conflict with McLaren are not? Why would Renault?

This in itself underlines the crisis of this engine situation. And again; it's not one that is limited to RedBull and Torro-Rosso - it includes every customer who is reliant on their supplier. Another fact; At the moment, only Mercedes and Ferrari are driving the latest spec engines. Neither of the customer teams are. Talk about 'level playing field'...

[dans79]

No no no dans, that's not what the talk was about mate. You said you'd rather have the manufacturers in control. My post is a indirect question if you are aware of the conflict of interest when a competitor actively and directly has an influence of the sport it competes in.

No I have no problem with it. Here in the states it's very common actually. Teams in the MLB, NFL and I believe the other major sports all directly vote on rule changes, so all the teams have direct influence on the sports they are involved in. The teams with more money try and sway the rules in their favor, and the small teams do the same.

[Phil]

dans;

As I said, do this in F1 and the trend is very predictable as each will do what is in their best interest. This includes:

1.) the unwillingness to give a potential competitor competitive engines or not at all
2.) this will lead to RedBull and TorroRosso most likely leaving the sport (-4 cars)
3.) with 4 cars less, we're under 20, so we might see 3 car teams by Mercedes and Ferrari.
4.) Assuming Mercedes dominance, this will lead to probably front 3 lock-out by Mercedes more often that not. Even if we assume Ferrari can be competitive, it will further push down the remaining teams to probably position 7 and below. This will further increase the problems in the sport, possibly pushing out more teams until...
5.) Mercedes and Ferrari then have to supply 4 car teams?
6.) Rinse and repeat until the weaker remaining competitor(s) has/have enough and call(s) it a day.

My hunch is that way before that happens, the sport will have destroyed itself to the point no one will bother with it anymore. Or the sport will take measures before that happens, but at what cost? The cost of RedBull and Torro-Rosso first in line? Who's in 2nd? Sauber? Force-India?

[dans79]

dans;
1.) the unwillingness to give a potential competitor competitive engines or not at all
2.) this will lead to RedBull and TorroRosso most likely leaving the sport (-4 cars)
3.) with 4 cars less, we're under 20, so we might see 3 car teams by Mercedes and Ferrari.
4.) Assuming Mercedes dominance, this will lead to probably front 3 lock-out by Mercedes more often that not. Even if we assume Ferrari can be competitive, it will further push down the remaining teams to probably position 7 and below. This will further increase the problems in the sport, possibly pushing out more teams until...
5.) Mercedes and Ferrari then have to supply 4 car teams?
6.) Rinse and repeat until the weaker remaining competitor(s) has/have enough and call(s) it a day.

1.) this is how the free market works
2.) I personally don't care, and as polls has shown most people don't either.
3.) this is really only a problem for Bernie, as a fan having at least 6 competitive cars is better than only 4.
4. through 6.) Jesus man you are super pessimistic about this stuff.

Additionally, it's my opinion that RedBull and TorroRosso is the cause of the supposed crisis, not a symptom! If Renault had not failed to make a reliable engine this topic wouldn't even exist. Furthermore RBR specifically, has created this problem for themselves. More specifically the top 3 or 4 guys on the team have systematically and completely alienated the rest of the paddock, with their entitled, arrogant & generally whiny actions/personalities.

[Andres125sx]

And the million question of all:

If we assume that Renault enters as their own factory team in 2016 which seems quite likely, who is to say they would be happy to supply RedBull and compete themselves by supplying them the same units, if both Mercedes, Ferrari and even Honda in their conflict with McLaren are not? Why would Renault?

This in itself underlines the crisis of this engine situation. And again; it's not one that is limited to RedBull and Torro-Rosso - it includes every customer who is reliant on their supplier. Another fact; At the moment, only Mercedes and Ferrari are driving the latest spec engines. Neither of the customer teams are. Talk about 'level playing field'...

IMHO, if F1 has always been considered a team/manufacturer competition more than drivers competition, so you can´t get surprised if someone who need parts from third teams can´t compete with those teams.

Some teams are building everything on their own, that´s the spirit of the competition

It would be absurd for Mercedes or Ferrari investing that amount of money only to provide your rival with a PU good enough to beat you.

If you don´t build your own engines you must assume you have a disadvantage. If you find this unfair the solution is simple, invest same amount of money than your rivals and build your own engines.

But they were happy buying complete engines and investing all their resources in chasis and aero when it was worth 8 titles. It was great enjoying the advantages of not being an engine manufacturer, but now they must cope with the disadvantages.

That´s RBR problem, not F1 problem, you can´t change the whole sport because RBR can´t cope with the disadvantage of their strategy

[NL_Fer]

@Dans79

What you are basicly saying, that if you would be a wealthy sports fan, who is willing to invest 600 Million in the sport, hire the best designers, engineers and drivers. But never will be able to win the championship, for the simple reason you are not a manufacturer? And you are ok with that.