giantfan10 wrote:Moose wrote:Those are some pretty weird assumptions to make. It was clear that Mercedes' chassis had been getting better year on year for several years - from being a clear midfield runner in late 2009-2010 to being RedBull's only contender in 2013. It was also clear that RedBull were not bullet proof, and could certainly make mistakes in their car design - 2012 is a notable example, and the effect that Newey looking at the design for a short period in 2015 had suggests that they --- up again in early 2015
i disagree.... why do people still continue to insist that Mercedes has a chassis thats way better than the rest of the front running teams? Mercedes didnt suddenly discover the secret formula to creating downforce.... they just so happen to have the most powerful engine that also happens to have a qualifying mode that no other manufacturer can match at this time.....they can run more downforce than any other team because of their power advantage. I guess that equates to having a better chassis than everybody else. in 2 out of the 3 races where the power advantage is negated Mercedes was beaten soundly.
The only weird assumption is that Mercedes gained 1-2 seconds over the opposition on chassis/aero. They might have improved in the last few years leading up to 2014, but never at the rate they now enjoy that massive performance. Meanwhile, people pointing to Williams to downplay the 'engine factor' are forgetting how insignificant Williams has been under the frozen-engine formula where chassis/aero was important. They were 9th in 2013 with 5 points. In 2012 they were 8th. The year before, in 2011, they were 8th again with 5 points. Doesn't sound like a team that was a chassis/aero power house under a formula period where those strengths were important. 2014, they ended 3rd with 322 points. That in itself tells me how significant the engine aspect is.
Pingguest wrote:Not the engine being an important performance differentiator but Formula One's inability to attract new manufacturers seem to be the series' main issue. The root cause is, I believe, that the regulations do not allow much diversity. More relevant engines were needed but do not necessarily constitute hybrid power units, that very complex, if not too complex for some. The strive for more relevant power units could have been met without practically forcing manufacturers to use hybrids.
Excellent points. The only problem with diversity is that they encourage more possibilities. More possibilities in technical solutions mean potentially a wider field between 'adequate' and 'brilliant'. In other words - you are either on end of the spectrum where you limit the possibilities to one single solution (spec-engine) or on the other extreme end open reg that promote a wider degree of solutions resulting in different results from bad to better.
I think the rules were conceived with the best interest at heart. As I said, the tokens, the PU limit per year, the fuel flow limit and fuel race limit were all here to encourage engine parity to some degree. If they had been, the token system would have a brilliant means to limit development costs and control in what ways how quickly these new power units would develop. Control is important. You can't have an engine manufacturer go for a size-zero concept (like Honda) where the car is built around that concept from the chassis to the aero philosophy and then have that engine change completely mid year forcing the car to be rebuilt around any new concept. So tokens in itself were important and a good idea.
The only thing that made this concept fail is that one particular manufacturer did an extraordinary job and is in different league entirely. Now we have the problem that the tokens and engine restrictions mean that the engines that are not on par, can't be developed sufficiently and with enough freedom to close that gap. Meanwhile, it's also protecting the gap of that one manufacturer that is ahead of the rest.
If you throw all that overboard, of course the manufacturer who has done a better job and all the others will not be satisfied. It also creates the problem that smaller teams still face huge problems in paying for these new PU and their development. So opening up the regs are a dangerous game. On the other hand, leaving them closed is also dangerous, as it kills competition and with that, teams like RedBull, big players but uncompetitive, are questioning their participation in the sport under these circumstances.
If somehow these engines would reach parity or make big steps, like Ferrari have made, the problem would go away to a large degree by itself - although the complex rules might still discourage other engine manufacturers from joining.
If every team was backed by an individual engine manufacturer in a works-team relationship like McLaren-Honda, open regulations with a big expensive engine development race would not be a problem, since they'd be footing the bill themselves and not over struggling close to bankruptcy customers teams.
