Whats the cheapest route to performance convergence, Aero or PU development?

[SR71]

I decided to make this question into a poll because I want F1T's vast technical user base to use the poll as a way to vote their take on the industry.

Basically, if we froze the PU's but opened Aero, would performance convergence cost more than if we did the opposite, froze aero and opened up the PU/mechanical development window.

Appreciate everyones input.

Thanks,
SR71

[bhall II]

This is from 2006.

[rscsr]

This is from 2006.

http://i.imgur.com/pcuX4FS.jpg

This might be true for a small team like Manor. But it can't be true for a team like RBR. The engines for a customer cost about 20Mio or so and RBR (and other top teams) have a way higher budget than 40Mio per year.

[mrluke]

Its a trick question.

Which is heavier 100kg of rocks or 100kg of feathers?

The teams won't have more money if we pick engine or aero, they will still have the same amount to spend on the development of either therefore the cost of both options is the same.

[bhall II]

I think the above is the correct answer.

This might be true for a small team like Manor. But it can't be true for a team like RBR. The engines for a customer cost about 20Mio or so and RBR (and other top teams) have a way higher budget than 40Mio per year.

There were no cost controls in 2006, and over half the teams were works outfits of major automakers.

The point being: "pound for pound," engine costs dwarf aero costs.

[rscsr]

I think the above is the correct answer.

This might be true for a small team like Manor. But it can't be true for a team like RBR. The engines for a customer cost about 20Mio or so and RBR (and other top teams) have a way higher budget than 40Mio per year.

There were no cost controls in 2006, and over half the teams were works outfits of major automakers.

The point is that, "pound for pound," engine costs dwarf aero costs.

That is just an assumption without any argument. And what should pound for pound mean if the top F1 teams have budgets bigger than 300Mio. Do you expect the engine manufacturers to spend more than a Billion a year on F1 engines?

[rjsa]

I think the above is the correct answer.

This might be true for a small team like Manor. But it can't be true for a team like RBR. The engines for a customer cost about 20Mio or so and RBR (and other top teams) have a way higher budget than 40Mio per year.

There were no cost controls in 2006, and over half the teams were works outfits of major automakers.

The point is that, "pound for pound," engine costs dwarf aero costs.

That is just an assumption without any argument. And what should pound for pound mean if the top F1 teams have budgets bigger than 300Mio. Do you expect the engine manufacturers to spend more than a Billion a year on F1 engines?

Assumption based on outdated information. 2006 was the year of the introduction of the V8. Even if that chart had any resemblance with reality at all- what I can't tell since I can't see a source for it - it was before the homologation and falls outside the scope of the question.

2015 Numbers according to crash.net

The full breakdown is below - the figures in brackets show income from sponsors, then partners and then from TV/FOM...
F1 2015 team budgets:

1. Red Bull Racing (€266m + €35.7m + €167m) = €468.7m
2. Mercedes (€122m + €212.4m + €133m) = €467.4m
3. McLaren Honda (€144.5m + €216.5m + €104m) = €465m
4. Ferrari (€208.5m + €34.5m + €175m) = €418m
5. Williams (€52.5m + €22.9m + €111m) = €186.4m
6. Lotus (€69.5m + €13.6m + €56m) = €139.1m
7. Toro Rosso (€68m + €9.45m + €60m) = €137.45m
8. Force India (€49.5m + €12.2m + €68m) = €129.7m
9. Sauber (€44m + €9.25m + €50m) = €103.25m
10. Manor (€0.5m + €32.5m + €50m) = €83m

[bhall II]

Assumption based on outdated information. 2006 was the year of the introduction of the V8. Even if that chart had any resemblance with reality at all- what I can't tell since I can't see a source for it - it was before the homologation and falls outside the scope of the question.

It's apparently from F1 Racing (Autosport).

And it's perfectly valid, because the development costs associated with an engine that would be frozen is literally half the --- question.

[rjsa]

2015 data according to http://raconteur.net/business/how-much- ... 1-car-cost



I can't see how that much is spent on track testing these days but that's what I was able to find.

Windtunnel time alone almost matches the engine cost. That's not counting how much of the "other R&D" (CFD?) salaries and fabrication budget goes into the aero development race. And all of this for lets say Williams. RBR was three times the budget and runs on a customer engine. Numbers will look way heavier on the aero side for them.

[Greg Locock]

" I want F1T's vast technical user base " Good to see an American employing irony.

Why is performance convergence a good idea? If that is what you want just have a one-design series.

[Just_a_fan]

As above, if you want convergence of performance at minimal cost, you need to have a spec series. Everyone with the same engine and chassis/aero bits. You'll still have people spending big money to find the small margins though.

[FoxHound]

I think the above is the correct answer.

This might be true for a small team like Manor. But it can't be true for a team like RBR. The engines for a customer cost about 20Mio or so and RBR (and other top teams) have a way higher budget than 40Mio per year.

There were no cost controls in 2006, and over half the teams were works outfits of major automakers.

The point being: "pound for pound," engine costs dwarf aero costs.

We've sorta, maybe kinda in a roundabout way, discussed this previously, Ben.

I still don't see how PU's are "pound for pound" more expensive than aero costs. My comparison here is illustrative, but pick the bones if you wish.

Red Bull have a 400+ million dollar budget, and pay 22Million for their engines. 5% of their total budget.
Williams have a roughly 190 Million budget and pay 21 Million for their engines. 11% of their total budget.
Ferrari Mercedes and Renault have costs configured into their mothership budgets, as well as earning money through sales.
McLaren Have a 460 million budget and pay nothing for engines. 0% of their total.

On the other end of the spectrum you get the likes of Force India and Torro Rosso with a budget of roughly 140 million apiece, paying 21 million for their engines, which is about 15% of their total budget.
I have no info on Haas, but then they didn't have to design their 2016 car....

Sauber and Manor are the 2 teams which you plausibly say that PU costs are maybe on a par with aero costs.
100 and 85 million budgets respectively means 20% of Sauber cash goes on engines, and about 24% of Manor's.
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/221835/1/f ... -most.html

To put all of this into perspective, Adrian Newey alone earns 10 million dollars a year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... ation.html

His able lieutenant, Peter Prodromou was on roughly 5 Million a year until McLaren poached him for 9 million.
http://www.thepodiummagazine.com/christ ... -interview

That's 15 million dollars on 2 guys, plus you need a department of 100 plus personnel, CFD costs, windtunnel costs, model makers, materials...All high end stuff that costs a bundle of cash.
Au contraire, in most cases in the pitlane, aero costs dwarf engines costs, and by a large margin.

[rjsa]

" I want F1T's vast technical user base " Good to see an American employing irony.

Why is performance convergence a good idea? If that is what you want just have a one-design series.

Performance divergence is surely a bad idea. As is a stable gap in performance. It leaves convergence as the only desirable option, IMO.

[Just_a_fan]

Ferrari Mercedes and Renault have costs configured into their mothership budgets, as well as earning money through sales.

But how much did the engines cost to develop? Mercedes will not have spent £10million developing the engine; they'll have spent 10, 20 or even 30 times that amount.

If we went back to the days of any number of engines, developed how you like within the basic rules set out in the regulations, the engine costs would be much higher than now. Aero is reasonably unfettered by the rules - so long as you stay in the boxes. Allow the teams to run a new engine each weekend (or even go back to qualifying and race engines) and see where the money goes.

[mrluke]

Ferrari Mercedes and Renault have costs configured into their mothership budgets, as well as earning money through sales.

But how much did the engines cost to develop? Mercedes will not have spent £10million developing the engine; they'll have spent 10, 20 or even 30 times that amount.

If we went back to the days of any number of engines, developed how you like within the basic rules set out in the regulations, the engine costs would be much higher than now. Aero is reasonably unfettered by the rules - so long as you stay in the boxes. Allow the teams to run a new engine each weekend (or even go back to qualifying and race engines) and see where the money goes.

Which suggests that engine power is a bigger performance differentiator than Aero. The teams are deciding that an additional £50m on the engine is going to give them a better laptime than £50m of aero.