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

[SR71]

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.

My question and curiosity isn't around what a customer pays for an engine.

It's also not about the fact any team could spend a billion if they wanted to.

The question is if we froze engines and a team was 3 seconds behind, would making that 3 seconds up through aero development cost most than a PU manufacture needing to make up 3 seconds with power and frozen aero.

I hope that makes sense.

Also I believe Mercedes PU team has a few hundred more personal than RB's aero.

[FoxHound]

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.

To address your first point, the cost of development is encompassed in the budget they saw fit to spend. Regardless of how much it actually cost Mercedes, no customer team has had to pay more than 21 million to use it. In a year or so, that will become 12 million.
Your second point I cannot answer for certain, as F1 does not race to that rule set.
It is also a comparison of apples and pears, as the 2 disciplines(aero/engines) have little crossover point other than placement within the car(packaging) and perhaps to EBD, which is now banned.

But.....let's see what's been happening the last year or so politically.
Currently a team has a 500 million dollar budget and spends 5% of that sourcing engines instead of seeking a holistic entity, which over the course of say 3/4 years can be done by saving 100 million a year.
Instead of taking this route, it maintains an exorbitantly high aerodynamic spend knowing that it's main competition need to compete on competitive terms aerodynamically.
However, as they do not build engines they could request and push for "equalisation" for a discipline their competition has more expertise, as well as cover the costs for.

So we equalise the engines, and we are not guaranteed performance convergence as 1 team will still be spending near half billion dollars on it's aero without any white elephant engine operation to pay for.
Meanwhile, Sauber, Manor et al still have financial issues as lower fixed price engines will only save them roughly 7% of it's total budget.
This saving will be applied to their competition too, who will divert these savings into aero and chassis development. Thereby increasing the risk that the backmarkers could actually flounder even further from the midfield pack.

[Just_a_fan]

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.

Engine power enables aero to work. With engine power comes the ability to run downforce. With engine power comes the ability to run slightly "dirtier" downforce too. RedBull have obviously chosen to spend their massive budget on aero. And doing that it has taken them three years to get close to the second-best aero-engine combo on the grid: Ferrari. The race in Spain showed that the good aero on the RedBull gave it enough lead out of the last corner to prevent the slightly better power of the Ferrari out dragging it to the first corner. A couple of times, if the straight had been a hundred metres longer, Kimi might have got by Max. Most of the time, the RedBull's superior low/mid speed grip and traction gave Max enough margin in the drag race.

That means that RedBull spent much the same on aero as Ferrari did on aero+engine development and got to much the same place. I.e their $/lap time ratios are much the same.

Bear in mind that in this context, "engine" means the whole hybrid PU. A much more complicated animal and much more expensive to develop than a straight petrol burner - although there are more avenues to develop in the hybrid so early development gains are relatively cheap. Soon we will see the gains becoming much smaller and much more expensive to find. Aero is the same in this regard - as the teams develop to the rules, the aero gains get smaller and thus more expensive ($/second gained). In 2017, the aero gains will be big and "cheap" ($/second gained) in the first season or two. Then diminishing returns will kick in.

However you look at it, the teams are spending $500m a year to drive two cars around a circuit within an eye blink (3/10s - 4/10s) of each other.

[mrluke]

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.

Engine power enables aero to work. With engine power comes the ability to run downforce. With engine power comes the ability to run slightly "dirtier" downforce too. ............

Wouldn't disagree with anything you have said in your post.

Its great that teams can pursue different avenues to get to the same lap time, this is something F1 should be pushing for. Makes for a much better show.

[FoxHound]

My question and curiosity isn't around what a customer pays for an engine.

It's also not about the fact any team could spend a billion if they wanted to.

The question is if we froze engines and a team was 3 seconds behind, would making that 3 seconds up through aero development cost most than a PU manufacture needing to make up 3 seconds with power and frozen aero.

I hope that makes sense.

Also I believe Mercedes PU team has a few hundred more personal than RB's aero.

You want the cheapest measure of convergence.

By a long chalk....a Spec series. Neither discipline to make any difference, inclusive of chassis. If like alot of F1 fans you value innovation, it is not an avenue worth exploring.

But by asking the question of Aero or PU, neither or both, but never either.

[SR71]

My question and curiosity isn't around what a customer pays for an engine.

It's also not about the fact any team could spend a billion if they wanted to.

The question is if we froze engines and a team was 3 seconds behind, would making that 3 seconds up through aero development cost most than a PU manufacture needing to make up 3 seconds with power and frozen aero.

I hope that makes sense.

Also I believe Mercedes PU team has a few hundred more personal than RB's aero.

You want the cheapest measure of convergence.

By a long chalk....a Spec series. Neither discipline to make any difference, inclusive of chassis. If like alot of F1 fans you value innovation, it is not an avenue worth exploring.

But by asking the question of Aero or PU, neither or both, but never either.

I was just trying to understand costs in this highly charged atmosphere of anti-aero commentary and I appreciate your input.

[notsofast]

The question is if we froze engines and a team was 3 seconds behind, would making that 3 seconds up through aero development cost most than a PU manufacture needing to make up 3 seconds with power and frozen aero.

What you said here helped me understand the question. If a team like Manor could spend their money on aero or on PU, but not both, which one would get them up to par with Mercedes at the lowest cost?

It's an interesting question, but I don't think there's a universal answer. Manor has the fastest car in the speed trap. It seems to me that they would get the biggest bang for the buck if they were to spend their money on aero. For Red Bull, it is the other way around. They have good aero and can get a bigger bang for the buck by getting a better Renault engine.

I suppose you would then rephrase the question, like, what if a team was not deficient in aero and not deficient in power, and they simply wanted to gain 3 seconds. Where should Mercedes spend their money if they want to gain another 3 seconds? I don't think there's a universal answer for that either. Because, if you think you can gain 3 seconds, you must believe you're deficient somewhere. So, that's where you'll spend your money.

[SR71]

The question is if we froze engines and a team was 3 seconds behind, would making that 3 seconds up through aero development cost most than a PU manufacture needing to make up 3 seconds with power and frozen aero.

What you said here helped me understand the question. If a team like Manor could spend their money on aero or on PU, but not both, which one would get them up to par with Mercedes at the lowest cost?

It's an interesting question, but I don't think there's a universal answer. Manor has the fastest car in the speed trap. It seems to me that they would get the biggest bang for the buck if they were to spend their money on aero. For Red Bull, it is the other way around. They have good aero and can get a bigger bang for the buck by getting a better Renault engine.

I suppose you would then rephrase the question, like, what if a team was not deficient in aero and not deficient in power, and they simply wanted to gain 3 seconds. Where should Mercedes spend their money if they want to gain another 3 seconds? I don't think there's a universal answer for that either. Because, if you think you can gain 3 seconds, you must believe you're deficient somewhere. So, that's where you'll spend your money.

I'd up-vote you if i could

[bhall II]

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

I've really got to break my habit of saying ---. The opinionated asshole facet of my being - ego - isn't quite in-tune with other facets of my being that genuinely hate F1 these days - politics finally killed it for me - and it's turned me into a sort of zombie that...blah, blah, blah

Seriously, I've tried to write something a half-dozen times since yesterday. That's the best I can do.

So, pretend the rest of this is a beautifully-versed treatise on how even large capital expenditures like wind tunnels, CFD, etc., and the upkeep thereof, end up being cheaper than maintaining expansive supply chains comprised of specialized companies - like AVL, Mahle, Mario Illien, etc. - that do resource-intensive, expedited work for profit on behalf of the manufacturers. (Not so much Honda, and it shows.)


A little video scrapbooking for rjsa

It's why engines were homologated at the end of 2006. The other stuff didn't get expensive until teams had massive budgets and nothing else to do with them.

And that's why the real answer to this question is whatever you want it to be. But, I think most people would agree that the performance hierarchy for motorsport is engines, tires, aero in that order, and budgets tend to reflect that if teams are left to their own devices.

[SR71]

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

I've really got to break my habit of saying ---. The opinionated asshole facet of my being - ego - isn't quite in-tune with other facets of my being that genuinely hate F1 these days - politics finally killed it for me - and it's turned me into a sort of zombie that...blah, blah, blah

Seriously, I've tried to write something a half-dozen times since yesterday. That's the best I can do.

So, pretend the rest of this is a beautifully-versed treatise on how even large capital expenditures like wind tunnels, CFD, etc., and the upkeep thereof, end up being cheaper than maintaining expansive supply chains comprised of specialized companies - like AVL, Mahle, Mario Illien, etc. - that do resource-intensive, expedited work for profit on behalf of the manufacturers. (Not so much Honda, and it shows.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN8bIyc3JKg
A little video scrapbooking for rjsa

It's why engines were homologated at the end of 2006. The other stuff didn't get expensive until teams had massive budgets and nothing else to do with them.

And that's why the real answer to this question is whatever you want it to be. But, I think most people would agree that the performance hierarchy for motorsport is engines, tires, aero in that order, and budgets tend to reflect that if teams are left to their own devices.

Thanks! Again, I'd upvote if I could.

[Just_a_fan]

What you said here helped me understand the question. If a team like Manor could spend their money on aero or on PU, but not both, which one would get them up to par with Mercedes at the lowest cost?

Manor can't catch Mercedes with either PU or aero. They'd need to do both. However, assuming their engine is close to Mercedes' unit, Manor should spend on aero as that is where the biggest gains would be found in their car. Manor have less downforce than Mercedes and downforce is the key to good lap times. The key to excellent lap times is PU+aero.

It seems to me that they would get the biggest bang for the buck if they were to spend their money on aero. For Red Bull, it is the other way around. They have good aero and can get a bigger bang for the buck by getting a better Renault engine.

Indeed so.

Where should Mercedes spend their money if they want to gain another 3 seconds?

I don't think there is another 3 seconds to find in that car. They are getting pretty close to what the rules will allow now. 3 seconds would require tyre changes too.

[Just_a_fan]

It should be noted that aero isn't cheap anyway. I remember speaking to a Renault wind tunnel guy back when Alonso was winning titles with them. He showed me a part, I think it was a turning vane of some sort, and they had tried over 100 variations of it. 100+ versions of one component. That's a lot of money to spend on something that might not give any measurable lap time improvements on its own. It would work in combination with other parts to give an improvement, of course.

Modern CFD helps with this iterative process, of course, but it's not enough on its own. Wind tunnel time along with track time are also needed. All three are expensive.

[FoxHound]

I've really got to break my habit of saying ---. The opinionated asshole facet of my being - ego - isn't quite in-tune with other facets of my being that genuinely hate F1 these days - politics finally killed it for me - and it's turned me into a sort of zombie that...blah, blah, blah

Seriously, I've tried to write something a half-dozen times since yesterday. That's the best I can do.

It's not only you....I've not the grace to admit it.

So, pretend the rest of this is a beautifully-versed treatise on how even large capital expenditures like wind tunnels, CFD, etc., and the upkeep thereof, end up being cheaper than maintaining expansive supply chains comprised of specialized companies - like AVL, Mahle, Mario Illien, etc. - that do resource-intensive, expedited work for profit on behalf of the manufacturers. (Not so much Honda, and it shows.)

By referencing 2006, we are comparing an all out war between Honda, Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Ferrari, Renault and Cosworth. Engines were disposable items, unlike today and engines are tasked with reving to 12k, unlike the good ol days. A 12,000rpm limit is attainable in a (tuned) Toda racing Honda S2000, 5 years ago... innards changed for around £5k of our English sterling.
Obviously, the cost lies in the Hybrid part of these engines.

With customers having to fork out 20 million on an average budget of around 140 million, where do you suppose the other 120 million goes?
Engines are accounted for, meaning the 120 million has to be divided between Chassis and Aero.
You will of course have to pay expenses for items/people not relating directly to performance.

For a thoroughly inefficient organisation, of about 350 people, perhaps 100 would not have anything to do with the car.
If we then take the average wage of said persons, likely to be admin, cleaners, chef and maintenance as an exorbitant $40,000, their wage costs come in a $4 million. For sundries, materials and company cars for all you can add another 2 million.

So 6 million all in, and your cleaners are paid $40k and get company cars....

That leaves 250 people involved with aerodynamics and chassis to deal with the rest of the 114 million budget, and as you raised the valid point of suppliers, chassis and aero suppliers will also be privy to this slice of the cake.
Even if we divide the 2 other disciplines equally, 57 million for aero and 57 for chassis still compares very unfavourably to 20 million for engines.

[mrluke]

What you said here helped me understand the question. If a team like Manor could spend their money on aero or on PU, but not both, which one would get them up to par with Mercedes at the lowest cost?

Manor can't catch Mercedes with either PU or aero. They'd need to do both. However, assuming their engine is close to Mercedes' unit, Manor should spend on aero as that is where the biggest gains would be found in their car. Manor have less downforce than Mercedes and downforce is the key to good lap times. The key to excellent lap times is PU+aero.

It seems to me that they would get the biggest bang for the buck if they were to spend their money on aero. For Red Bull, it is the other way around. They have good aero and can get a bigger bang for the buck by getting a better Renault engine.

Indeed so.

Where should Mercedes spend their money if they want to gain another 3 seconds?

I don't think there is another 3 seconds to find in that car. They are getting pretty close to what the rules will allow now. 3 seconds would require tyre changes too.

I think the key point here is that this is all within the limits of current regulations. Therefore to get the best laptime you need to push every single area of the car as close to regulatory limits as you can. This is why one team may stand to gain more from an investment in say Aero than another team.

If you put the regulations to one side and asked where the best bang for buck would come from I would suggest you are in line with Bhall's statement of engine, tyres, aero. Although weight saving probably sneaks in there somewhere.

We have spent probably Billions on aero in F1 and we are supposedly at (or as near as) the highest levels of downforce ever seen in F1. Yet we dont have the best lap times.

The teams will all spend their budget regardless, they won't ever hold any back and they cant spend more than they have. The FIA via regulation decide where each team should invest there money by allowing technical freedom. At the moment the FIA are directing teams to invest in engine tech (probably good) and aero refinement (probably wasted money).

[SR71]

I've really got to break my habit of saying ---. The opinionated asshole facet of my being - ego - isn't quite in-tune with other facets of my being that genuinely hate F1 these days - politics finally killed it for me - and it's turned me into a sort of zombie that...blah, blah, blah

Seriously, I've tried to write something a half-dozen times since yesterday. That's the best I can do.

It's not only you....I've not the grace to admit it.

So, pretend the rest of this is a beautifully-versed treatise on how even large capital expenditures like wind tunnels, CFD, etc., and the upkeep thereof, end up being cheaper than maintaining expansive supply chains comprised of specialized companies - like AVL, Mahle, Mario Illien, etc. - that do resource-intensive, expedited work for profit on behalf of the manufacturers. (Not so much Honda, and it shows.)

By referencing 2006, we are comparing an all out war between Honda, Mercedes, Toyota, BMW, Ferrari, Renault and Cosworth. Engines were disposable items, unlike today and engines are tasked with reving to 12k, unlike the good ol days. A 12,000rpm limit is attainable in a (tuned) Toda racing Honda S2000, 5 years ago... innards changed for around £5k of our English sterling.
Obviously, the cost lies in the Hybrid part of these engines.

With customers having to fork out 20 million on an average budget of around 140 million, where do you suppose the other 120 million goes?
Engines are accounted for, meaning the 120 million has to be divided between Chassis and Aero.
You will of course have to pay expenses for items/people not relating directly to performance.

For a thoroughly inefficient organisation, of about 350 people, perhaps 100 would not have anything to do with the car.
If we then take the average wage of said persons, likely to be admin, cleaners, chef and maintenance as an exorbitant $40,000, their wage costs come in a $4 million. For sundries, materials and company cars for all you can add another 2 million.

So 6 million all in, and your cleaners are paid $40k and get company cars....

That leaves 250 people involved with aerodynamics and chassis to deal with the rest of the 114 million budget, and as you raised the valid point of suppliers, chassis and aero suppliers will also be privy to this slice of the cake.
Even if we divide the 2 other disciplines equally, 57 million for aero and 57 for chassis still compares very unfavourably to 20 million for engines.

what would the numbers be for PU suppliers only? I think that would actually interesting and relevant. A customer team really isnt included in the OP.