FIA Thread

[Bill]

Beyond ridiculous.

Four years off, nbd. Merc (engine side) were always going to have the upper hand developing an engine like that compared to Renault and Ferrari, imo. Bigger company, more diesel and EV tech to draw upon in-house. In these senses Merc had 30-50+ year head starts. They had direct Injection in the 1950s you'll recall! The complexities of the regs made it difficult for Renault, Honda and Ferrari to compete, while they could during the NA era; while the German engineering powerhouse of Mercedes took it in stride. The split turbo alone was a brilliant interpretation of the rules.

Any team would be angling for their best outcome within their ability to influence the FIA and best leverage the rules. This is what you refer to as "cheating" in other threads, you'll recall; so chrisc90 not totally out in the woods with his implications.

you do realise that ferrari also had a split turbo but their version didnt run the entire length of the engine

[CMSMJ1]

Beyond ridiculous.

Four years off, nbd. Merc (engine side) were always going to have the upper hand developing an engine like that compared to Renault and Ferrari, imo. Bigger company, more diesel and EV tech to draw upon in-house. In these senses Merc had 30-50+ year head starts. They had direct Injection in the 1950s you'll recall! The complexities of the regs made it difficult for Renault, Honda and Ferrari to compete, while they could during the NA era; while the German engineering powerhouse of Mercedes took it in stride. The split turbo alone was a brilliant interpretation of the rules.

Any team would be angling for their best outcome within their ability to influence the FIA and best leverage the rules. This is what you refer to as "cheating" in other threads, you'll recall; so chrisc90 not totally out in the woods with his implications.

Come on.. let's have some citations for these claims - Was Merc a large company in 2013 than Renault? Did the powertrains division have anything, at all, to do with core DaimlerBenz? Why does diesel or EV matter?

It's smelling of hyperbole up in that post mate

Developing the best engine is not cheating. We're not saying that anyone who does a better job is a cheat are we?

[mendis]

Beyond ridiculous.

Four years off, nbd. Merc (engine side) were always going to have the upper hand developing an engine like that compared to Renault and Ferrari, imo. Bigger company, more diesel and EV tech to draw upon in-house. In these senses Merc had 30-50+ year head starts. They had direct Injection in the 1950s you'll recall! The complexities of the regs made it difficult for Renault, Honda and Ferrari to compete, while they could during the NA era; while the German engineering powerhouse of Mercedes took it in stride. The split turbo alone was a brilliant interpretation of the rules.

Any team would be angling for their best outcome within their ability to influence the FIA and best leverage the rules. This is what you refer to as "cheating" in other threads, you'll recall; so chrisc90 not totally out in the woods with his implications.

Come on.. let's have some citations for these claims - Was Merc a large company in 2013 than Renault? Did the powertrains division have anything, at all, to do with core DaimlerBenz? Why does diesel or EV matter?

It's smelling of hyperbole up in that post mate

Developing the best engine is not cheating. We're not saying that anyone who does a better job is a cheat are we?

I don't think he means to say Mercedes were cheating, but they had a head start for hybrid engines. Credit to them for making all the right moves in 2011/12. Ferrari wanted a new formula which was more mechanically dominant as RB was head and should above them in aero. Mercedes played along and provided direction for the new hybrid engines as they had prototypes running already in bricksworth.

Regardless of the company size, Mercedes spent over a billion USD to build the hybrids!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2019 ... dfe1882755

The financial statements of Mercedes’ engine division reveal that since development began on the V6 engine, its costs have come to a total of $1.2 billion (£914.4 million).

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/02/01 ... ince-2007/

Former Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has revealed that Mercedes F1 chairman Niki Lauda informed him that the German team began work on their all conquering power unit a decade ago, long before the new turbo era kicked off.

Montezemolo told La Repubblica, “Lauda recently confessed to me that Mercedes were already working [on their hybrid engine] since 2007 and that’s why they so adamant during the negotiations to introduce V6 engines from 2014.”

Montezemolo also admitted that he erred in accepting the new F1 regulations, “Yes, I made a mistake. But I felt I could not put Ferrari in a position that would we would be seen as anti-development. A fearful Ferrari could not be my Ferrari.”

The biggest gray area they exploited was the lack of coverage on oil burning in the regulations as they could burn as much oil as they can as there were no specific regulations banning oil entering the combustion chamber. Fuel was the focus.

[ValeVida46]

Four years off, nbd. Merc (engine side) were always going to have the upper hand developing an engine like that compared to Renault and Ferrari, imo. Bigger company, more diesel and EV tech to draw upon in-house. In these senses Merc had 30-50+ year head starts. They had direct Injection in the 1950s you'll recall! The complexities of the regs made it difficult for Renault, Honda and Ferrari to compete, while they could during the NA era; while the German engineering powerhouse of Mercedes took it in stride. The split turbo alone was a brilliant interpretation of the rules.

Simple obfuscation doesn't excuse the implication whatsoever. It was Renault that wanted small turbo hybridised engines to replicate their car range. It was Ferrari that wanted V6's. It was the FIA that mandated the change with Norbert Haug(Mercedes Boss) himself preferring to keep the V8s. You have the references I don't need to keep making this point.

"It would have been better to extend the V8 phase a bit," Haug told auto motor und sport. "This is a low-cost engine."

If you are reaching for "powerhouse" engine houses, Honda missed the boat completely and they make the finest engines in the world. Beyond that, they even had hybrid tech in mass production well before Mercedes(1999 Honda Insight etc).
Why would you overplay Mercedes prowess and underplay the rest?
https://greenfleet.net/road-tests/22012 ... da-insight

Ferrari produced the La Ferrari with hybrid tech back in 2012 with a 3 to 4 year lead development time(2008-) that had direct F1 tech applied and a process of learning gleaned from this.
https://www.just-auto.com/news/italy-hy ... -revealed/

The split turbo idea has been around for years, and was even common knowledge in and around the pitlane in very early 2014. As shown by even Jalopnik articles from 2014(provided). If it was merely the split turbo, Ferrari and Renault would've adopted it identically within the 2015-21 timescale. That they didn't suggests different to this being the magic bullet you are painting it as.
https://jalopnik.com/mercedes-f1s-secre ... 1558154190

Any team would be angling for their best outcome within their ability to influence the FIA and best leverage the rules. This is what you refer to as "cheating" in other threads, you'll recall; so chrisc90 not totally out in the woods with his implications.

Cheating, such as breaking the budget cap for example, is cheating. As reflected by the 7 million dollar fine and cuts to development resources.
Participation in rule making processes, as every single team does, is not cheating.
As reflected by numerous meetings the FIA has with teams and engine manufacturers when forging new rules.
I don't understand your desire to conflate the two

[vorticism]

you do realise that ferrari also had a split turbo but their version didnt run the entire length of the engine

No one referred to it as that for nine seasons, though. Split turbo in these circles is generally understood to mean the Merc design i.e. compressor by the fuel tank. It is worth noting that the Ferrari design is still quite long, maybe 80% of the length of the Merc split turbo shaft. The key different being the placement of the compressor in front of the engine. This is a packaging victory whether people want to admit it or not; the pluses are obvious and Honda said, "I'll have that, thank you." I'd have done the same. Brilliant design. Amusingly the Merc driver fans don't appreciate it. They despise seeing discussion of how good the powertrain was. I only criticize these engines because I don't think they ever should have been installed in F1 cars, amazing as they were technically.

Come on.. let's have some citations for these claims - Was Merc a large company in 2013 than Renault? Did the powertrains division have anything, at all, to do with core DaimlerBenz? Why does diesel or EV matter?

It's smelling of hyperbole up in that post mate

Developing the best engine is not cheating. We're not saying that anyone who does a better job is a cheat are we?

Fighting fire w fire; hyperbolic warfare. Merc makes everything from economy cars to supercars to luxobarges to lorries to race cars. They were investigating hybrids and EVs in the 70s and 80s. DI in the 50s in F1. Performance diesel experience in their road cars. They were even developing 'green' racing concepts fifty years ago with the C111-III. Merc is an Teutonic engineering behemoth; the other teams should have had a sense of foreboding prior to 2014 when the regs increased in complexity severly. Process maturity is an underestimated value. As for cheating, depending upon which side of the fence you are on for a specific debate, doing a cost benefit analysis of the rules and their consequences is something that every team is doing.

If you are reaching for "powerhouse" engine houses, Honda missed the boat completely and they make the finest engines in the world. Beyond that, they even had hybrid tech in mass production well before Mercedes(1999 Honda Insight etc).
Why would you overplay Mercedes prowess and underplay the rest?
https://greenfleet.net/road-tests/22012 ... da-insight

Ferrari produced the La Ferrari with hybrid tech back in 2012 with a 3 to 4 year lead development time(2008-)...

The split turbo idea has been around for years, and was even common knowledge in and around the pitlane in very early 2014.
...
If it was merely the split turbo, Ferrari and Renault would've adopted it identically within the 2015-21 timescale. That they didn't suggests different to this being the magic bullet you are painting it as.
...
Cheating, such as breaking the budget cap for example, is cheating. As reflected by the 7 million dollar fine and cuts to development resources.
Participation in rule making processes, as every single team does, is not cheating.
As reflected by numerous meetings the FIA has with teams and engine manufacturers when forging new rules.
I don't understand your desire to conflate the two

ValeVida, you are too much fun. At least you are trying, +1.

LaFerrari was 6.0L NA.

Split turbo had not "been around" (split about block as I noted above). It took people by surprise.

Honda didn't mass produce turbochargers in great numbers until the past decade (we recall the halcyon days of VTEC-kicking-in-ness); might be why they had their HondaJet dept involved. They've made diesels although they're not exactly known for them. They don't make lorries, for Western markets at least. Etc. Honda are not in the same league as Merc in some regards (this is not an insult). They mastered the NA engine rules in F1; part of why I think F1 engines should be ICE alone--they were a more realistic engineering prospect for the participants. Cosworth, Honda, Toyota, Ferrari, Renault, Merc and others could supply. Post 2014 in ten years only one additional (1) manufacturer chose to join the sport: Honda.

As for cheating vs ingenuity, it's generally semantics as I've said. It's all gaming the rules. A 7 mil fine and dev cuts in exchange for the "magic million" they overspent were apparently worth it, or at least, inconsequential. (These figures being about 1% of yearly budgets?) RB were going to trounce this formula in the same way Merc were going to trounce the 2014 engine regs. No one should act surprised. "Ooh, if RB had spent 1-2 mil less their car would be very different." lol. No. Newey still would have drawn the same car. Complete misunderstanding of what money is and what money does and what money is capable of achieving; and indicative of failures in the West at large right now. You can't just throw money at a problem and expect magic to happen. Europe learning this lesson the hard way rn and in the coming years.

[ValeVida46]

Split turbo had not "been around" (split about block as I noted above). It took people by surprise.

Again, false. With added semantics "split about block"... more added layers now.
It's been around alright, all the way back to at least 1940's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine

ValeVida, you are too much fun. At least you are trying, +1.

LaFerrari was 6.0L NA.

It was a hybrid, as this too was where many suggested Mercedes advantage was. Yet Ferrari were producing these Hypercars before the onset of the Hybrid engines and you are solely focusing on 1 aspect of the Mercedes PU.
How come Mercedes invoke your criticisms for turning up with a split turbo, but Ferrari who made the Hybrid La Ferrari, who themselves said it helped them enormously with Hybrid tech don't get any scrutiny?
Perhaps because it was Mercedes who did the winning, right? I guess that's where the contentious issue is.

As for cheating vs ingenuity, it's generally semantics as I've said.

It really isn't mate. But if you're happy with your summation then fair dinkum to you.

[vorticism]

Split turbo had not "been around" (split about block as I noted above). It took people by surprise.

Again, false. With added semantics "split about block"... more added layers now.
It's been around alright, all the way back to at least 1940's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine

You're embarrassed? Shouldn't be. Yes, when talking F1 cars for the past several years when someone said "split turbo" they were referencing the Merc design, believe it or not. Welcome to F1 discussions on the internet. That block spanning design had not been seen in the auto world and not in the aircraft world really either. The Wright is well known in these discussions as well. It has PTO off the shaft center which is similar but it's not longer than the block sitting inside a vee. The Merc design is/was unique and it provided intrigue when it was discovered.

[ENGINE TUNER]

You know how it goes, story twisted multiple times and gets tweaked.

EngineTuner… a lot of stories seem to suggest otherwise. Care to share your thoughts on why merc didn’t begin to develop prior to anyone else?

Because those of us who were on f1technical at the time know how it went down, and it is all pretty much documented in those threads(you can go read them instead of spouting nonsense) and we know why the turbo hybrid formula was pushed from 2013 to 2014 to accommodate the late push from Ferrari to switch from I4 to V6. We also know that McLaren/Mercedes had been pushing electrification/hybridization/regeneration to be added into F1 as early as 2000(first Toyota Primus sold in 1997). We also know that every engine manufacturer has a plethora of single cylinder test beds running many different technologies and conditions. And we also know that McLaren Mercedes debuted the most effective KERs in 2009 and it makes sense that they could continue to build on that strong platform. And lastly, the split turbo that was a huge part of the Merc advantage was important specifically because of chosen engine type was a V6 rather than the previously agreed upon(including by Merc) I4 that was switched at the last possible moment(necessitating a push back from 2013 to 2014) by a veto threat from Ferrari.

Those who were paying attention back then, especially those of us on this technical site, knew what was going on.

Plus Bernie is a sheisty clown and a habitual liar.

[ValeVida46]

You're embarrassed? Shouldn't be. Yes, when talking F1 cars for the past several years when someone said "split turbo" they were referencing the Merc design, believe it or not. Welcome to F1 discussions on the internet. That block spanning design had not been seen in the auto world and not in the aircraft world really either. The Wright is well known in these discussions as well. It has PTO off the shaft center which is similar but it's not longer than the block sitting inside a vee. The Merc design is/was unique and it provided intrigue when it was discovered.

The emoji was related to the split turbo you intimated had never been seen, which clearly has.
Semantics for thee but not for me?

Because here's the thing, through that attempt to derail the original comment of the "FIA and Mercedes developed an engine together" to which you validate by conversing about the West, Europe, Mercs clever Turbo, Teutonic behemoths...you bypass every timeline and link I provide to continue down the garden path away from the original point as predicated by the post I've quoted.

Ignoring team financials, team member statements, timestamped stories, rival team quotes to assert that something nefarious was afoot because....Mercedes had a clever turbo.
C'mon man. Perhaps there's a dislike of Mercedes that is tainting your judgment here, I don't know.

But when you have Cowell himself saying they were peeved they had to bin the 4cylinder in 2011 as per:

We did a four-cylinder engine that we’d got head castings for and a crankcase ready for, which we threw in the skip. When it changed from the inline-four to the V6…yeah, we went home, we were grumpy, we had a glass of wine. But we dusted ourselves down and we came back the very next day, and we said ‘We’re going to have a V6 running before Christmas’. And we did have a V6 mule engine running before Christmas. So, we reacted with action

How does this marry up with the conspiracy theory?

The other pointers of them "running an engine" before anyone else is also totally dispelled by Cowell.
Read the full story here:
https://the-race.com/formula-1/the-incr ... es-f1-era/


So they ran a single cylinder concept for a year or 2 in studies for the 4 cylinder era. This is not a full engine. It's not even remotely close to being a full engine, nor does it require the budget, manpower and resource. But it is due diligence for any engine supplier to explore concepts in the lead up to a reg change. It's a great and cheap(er) way of R&D.
How do I know this?
Red Bull commissioned Mario Illien to do a single cylinder concept to compare to the Renault PU in 2016.
Funded by Red Bull of course, to which they found a 4% improvement over the Renault.
Link here:
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... 16-engine/


So make of it what you will vortex, cool to share opinions as ever, glad you can have a laugh too... but making or defending grand claims requires grand evidence as they say.

[hollus]

Guys, don't go personal. Discuss the subject all you want, but stop going at each other's throats.
Discuss the post, not the poster.

[vorticism]

ValeVida, look through my last few posts again, you're reading in too much. To summarize them: 1. Any team will be looking to influence rule writing to their benefit, this should be expected. 2. Regardless of point 1, no one should be surprised Merc (engine side) walked into 2014 strong, given their track record with associated tech. 3.Merc split turbo was/is unique and effective and Honda & Renault rightly emulated them eventually. You seem to be playing "I'll take the opposite stance of whatever's posted" to no net benefit for yourself. I'm complimenting Merc a dozen times ITT and you respond "Well, uh, maybe you just don't like Merc." Do you understand how that looks?

[ValeVida46]

Not at all.

I find contentious unsubstantiated remarks of FIA and Mercedes developing engines together be ...contentious.
Hence my objection to that. I've offered my side to that with references. It's a technical forum after all.
Part of this all is also a learning process too, as some little bits in the stories I posted I was unaware of.
Further, I find the attempted equivalence of ingenuity and cheating to be contentious. Again offered my side, heard yours and we agree to disagree. Onwards upwards and hopefully the racing improves so that FIA thread can go back to being the graveyard for posts to die.

[Wouter]

Very interesting article this morning from:
Damien Smith
Motor racing editor, writer, journalist, sub-editor and director of Tuco Media
West Sussex, England, United Kingdom.
.

Blame teams who've failed horribly'

As Red Bull looks to be walking away with the Formula 1 title this year, Damien Smith says it's not the rules that are to blame, but underperforming rivals who have failed to mount a challenge — and that's what really makes racing compelling

Imola’s next – no celebrity noise at this proper old-school race circuit. Every grand prix has its own flavour, which is entirely the point, and this one is more attuned to our traditional tastes.

Have the new regulations introduced last year failed in their ambition to improve the racing spectacle? Discontent loaded with agenda has rumbled from within the cloistered paddock, in a year of Red Bull domination.

But blaming the rules has always been a default setting in F1. Much like the showbiz noise, it’s a distraction from a stark and simple reality as to why this season has been lacklustre so far: not only is one team operating at a level far beyond its opposition, four of the most established, respected and best funded are currently failing horribly, performing way below where they should be.
Collectively, blame Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren and Alpine for the anti-climax that is 2023 so far, not the rules or the showbiz fluff.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Is it coincidence that four well-funded teams packed with talent and know-how should be failing so spectacularly – or is it a product of how difficult these new rules are to nail, within the restrictions of a budget cap?
If the latter is the case, Aston Martin’s upswing from a lowly seventh in the 2022 standings to a monumental best-of-the-rest status behind only Red Bull, thanks to Fernando Alonso’s four podiums in five races, is an awkward inconvenience. Clearly, big gains can be found, even if Aston is not yet ready to tackle Red Bull.

Read here the whole article.

[chrisc90]

I think a lot is the ground effect understanding that Adrian and RB have.

Then again, RB were always well ahead with their aero

[SiLo]

I think RB just figured out the key to the current regs is the suspension system, which is a massive enabler for for a stable aero platform.

RE: the Merc engine chat, the split turbo design came from their truck division, and it was Renault pushing hardest for the V6 design. I believe Mercedes actually wanted I4.