Engine Unfreeze

[astracrazy]

Well there are two options, ditch the engines that hundreds of millions have been spent on and go back to far cheaper alternatives, or continue to throw more and more money at the engines, passing that cost on to customers.

One option is better for the small teams, one option better for Mercedes, so it's a touch disingenuous for Wolff to claim a desire to help smaller teams whilst wishing to proceed with the V6 development.

which option would you say is better for red bull and ferrari?

[turbof1]

No engine manufacturer will be able to justify that to the shareholders. "Hey guys, remember that new engine we asked a raise in commitment for a few years ago, which also caused that the past few terms the divident were a bit on the low side and all in all costed us a few hundred millions? Yeah in 2016 we will not be racing that."

Red bull can obviously claim that f1 needs to return to V8's. They are just simply costumers and have no investment in the development in the engine, other then the price stipulated in the contract. They have no single responsibility towards renault's shareholders.

I think Renault will never make the same claim. Allowing V8s alongside the current engine is a good compromise, but outright dropping will not happen. Mercedes has 3 teams in the commission; the fia will very likely also block it from happening, which makes a majority impossible.

[ian_s]

if they brought back the v8s to run in parallel, i wonder how they'd work the rules on things like brake by wire, fixed gear ratios, energy recovery and fuel flow?

[Javert]

Well allow them to race the v6 or the v8 (unlimited flow and gears) + little upgraded kers ...

In some races, it will be better the v6, in other it will be better the v8

Obviously, I would say Mercedes will opt surely for the v6, while Ferrari and Renault would opt for the v8

Same aero, different cars

Alessandro

[Hovepeter]

Well allow them to race the v6 or the v8 (unlimited flow and gears) + little upgraded kers ...

In some races, it will be better the v6, in other it will be better the v8

Obviously, I would say Mercedes will opt surely for the v6, while Ferrari and Renault would opt for the v8

Same aero, different cars

Alessandro

if you have unlimited fuelflow on the v6 turbo engine, you would have an powerunit with 1000+ horsepowers, so the fuel limit is gonna need to stay

[bhall II]

Aero costs far more than engines/power trains ever could. Why is no one in the sport talking about the 800 pound gorilla in the room?

[...]

I don't believe you can curb aero costs without complete standardization, and that cuts very deeply against the grain of Formula One. Otherwise, teams will spend money refining whatever is allowed to be refined.

Standardization would also make customer teams wholly reliant on their engine suppliers for performance upgrades, because they'd be left with virtually no scope for independent development.

And keep in mind that aero costs didn't overtake engine costs until the V8s were homologated in late 2006. Prior to that, engine costs were far and away the biggest drain on budgets.


2006 budget allocation

With no room for engine development, teams simply diverted that money toward aerodynamic development, and within two years, cars went from this...


F1.06

...to this.


F1.08

Besides, F1 aerodynamic development is just as road relevant as powertrain development, which is to say, not at all.

[Juzh]

Well allow them to race the v6 or the v8 (unlimited flow and gears) + little upgraded kers ...

In some races, it will be better the v6, in other it will be better the v8

Obviously, I would say Mercedes will opt surely for the v6, while Ferrari and Renault would opt for the v8

Same aero, different cars

Alessandro

if you have unlimited fuelflow on the v6 turbo engine, you would have an powerunit with 1000+ horsepowers, so the fuel limit is gonna need to stay

He means unlimited flow on V8s.

[astracrazy]

if we ever, and its unlikely, go back to the v8's i hardly doubt it will go back to what we had prior to 2014. F1 would try and keep some face. Every effort will be made to make it as fuel efficient as possible. We'd have the same max 100kg and the current ers system. All which will obviously cost to get the V8 to fit that profile. Again we could end up with 1 manufacturer doing it better and along come the arguments we have now.

[GitanesBlondes]

I'd like to put an end to the myth that F1 has ever had anything to do with road relevancy.

The current talk of switching back to V8's comes from two engine manufacturers --forget whether the reasons are valid or invalid because that's not my point-- which would indicate that road relevancy matters less than many here would like to imagine.

F1 allowed for V10 engines to be run from the start of the 1989 season till the end of the 2006 season with the Cosworth-powered Torro Rosso.

Renault V10 engines were used in every single one of those seasons minus 2006 whether they were badged as Renault engines or Mechachrome or Supertec engines.

For all of the expertise Renault had with building V10 powerplants, they never developed and built a road car powered by a V10 engine over 16 years.

In fact, if you look at a list of the post-war vehicles that were powered by V10 engines, you'll notice something interesting.


Audi S6 (C6) - 5.2 liter
Audi RS6 (C6) - 5.0 L bi-turbo
Audi S8 (D3) - 5.2 L
Audi R8 - 5.2 L
BMW M5 (E60) - 5.0 L
BMW M6 (E63/E64) - 5.0 L
Bristol Fighter (Dodge V10)
Devon GT X (Dodge V10)
Dodge Viper - 8.0 L/8.4 L
Dodge Ram 2500/3500 Heavy Duty (pickup trucks)
Dodge Ram SRT-10 (pickup truck)
Ford E-350 (full-size van)
Ford Super Duty (pickup trucks)
Ford Excursion (3/4 ton SUV)
GTA Spano (Dodge V10)
Lexus LFA - 4.8 L[5]
Lamborghini Gallardo - 5.0 L/5.2 L
Lamborghini Huracán - 5.2 L
Lamborghini Sesto Elemento - 5.2 L
Lamborghini Urus - 5.2 L bi-turbo (SUV)
Porsche Carrera GT - 5.7 L
Volkswagen Touareg - 5.0 TDI PD
Volkswagen Phaeton - 5.0 TDI PD
Wiesmann MF GT 5 (BMW S85-B50)

You have the BMW S85 powered vehicles and the Lexus LFA which sported V10s that were claimed to be inspired by the F1 V10's BMW and Toyota built. The E60 M5 was the only car to be released during F1's V10 era while using an engine that could be said to be F1 inspired.

Renault never built anything with them.

Ferrari who had more reason than anyone to build a road car with a F1 inspired V10 never did it.

Mercedes never did in spite of building F1 V10's from 1993 thru 2005. In spite of their current protestations about the need to be road relevant, they had absolutely no problem having their name slapped on non-road relevant race engines for over a decade. They are absolute hypocrites who wanted these engines for no reason other than they knew it was the only way they could ever get the sort of advantage that would deliver them a world championship. That's why they don't want to unfreeze the engines, and are attempting to play hardball with the rest of the engine manufacturers. If anything they'd let every backmarker/midfield team go bankrupt so long as they maintain their advantage. It was also the only way they could prevent their customers from beating them all over the track; engine specs may be equal, software sure as hell is not. McLaren embarrassed them pretty consistently for a few years with the V8's. Works teams getting beat by customer teams doesn't make for good PR.

F1 can run whatever engines it so desires, they could run 4.0L V12's if they wanted to because at the end of the day, F1 has nothing to do with road cars.

[xpensive]

if we ever, and its unlikely, go back to the v8's i hardly doubt it will go back to what we had prior to 2014. F1 would try and keep some face. Every effort will be made to make it as fuel efficient as possible. We'd have the same max 100kg and the current ers system. All which will obviously cost to get the V8 to fit that profile. Again we could end up with 1 manufacturer doing it better and along come the arguments we have now.

What on the earth for, these are supposed to be racing engines?

[Richard]

Aero costs far more than engines/power trains ever could. Why is no one in the sport talking about the 800 pound gorilla in the room?

[...]

And keep in mind that aero costs didn't overtake engine costs until the V8s were homologated in late 2006. Prior to that, engine costs were far and away the biggest drain on budgets.

Yup, the evidence is that homolgation and limited engine development did reduce costs, especially for customer teams.

Also the aero bit of the budget is just about the only discretionary spending in the control of small teams. The PU & race logistics are fixed by external suppliers with locked in or exclusive contracts. Even the base cost of the chassis is fixed because the tub has to meet a minimum standard. So aero in a smal team isn't a 800lb gorilla, it's Oliver Twist with a begging bowl asking for some more.

Finally, I think Wolff is being misunderstood. His comments are that F1 has to learn from the collapse of Caterham and Marussia and not make decisions that result in more established teams going under too. Increasing the number of engines in a season would instantly put the engine cost up for customer teams, also upgrades would result in extra cost as customer teams learn how to work with the upgrades.

Perhaps someone can strong arm the suppliers to do that at no extra cost in return for being allowed to do a mid-season upgrade. Or to put it another way, if the suppliers charge more than the customers can afford then they'll end up with no customers. The suppliers are in danger of pricing the market out of existence. I wonder if Honda are sniffing around offering cheaper deals so they can add a customer team?

[Richard]

I'd like to put an end to the myth that F1 has ever had anything to do with road relevancy. ...

F1 can run whatever engines it so desires, they could run 4.0L V12's if they wanted to because at the end of the day, F1 has nothing to do with road cars.

I think the relevancy is to do with brand. Partly so the manufacturer can create a halo effect with the hybrid & turbo tag, and also so the F1 brand is seen as in tune with the zeitgeist for turbo & hybrid cars being perceived as cool.

The lesson for F1 is NASCAR's insistence on push rods in order to be the same as production cars while every kid in the rest of the world yearned for a Golf GTI. NASCAR just ended up looking like dinosaurs. Going back to NA engines will do the same for F1.

[bhall II]

[...]

The lesson for F1 is NASCAR's insistence on push rods in order to be the same as production cars while every kid in the rest of the world yearned for a Golf GTI. NASCAR just ended up looking like dinosaurs. Going back to NA engines will do the same for F1.

Toyota's WEC-leading LMP1 project runs 3.7L NA V8s, and I don't think anyone considers them relics. It's all about how they're used.

F1's problem was strictly stipulating the way forward instead of allowing the teams to forge their own paths according to their own strengths and weaknesses. I think that drove up costs as much as anything else.

[GitanesBlondes]

I'd like to put an end to the myth that F1 has ever had anything to do with road relevancy. ...

F1 can run whatever engines it so desires, they could run 4.0L V12's if they wanted to because at the end of the day, F1 has nothing to do with road cars.

I think the relevancy is to do with brand. Partly so the manufacturer can create a halo effect with the hybrid & turbo tag, and also so the F1 brand is seen as in tune with the zeitgeist for turbo & hybrid cars being perceived as cool.

The lesson for F1 is NASCAR's insistence on push rods in order to be the same as production cars while every kid in the rest of the world yearned for a Golf GTI. NASCAR just ended up looking like dinosaurs. Going back to NA engines will do the same for F1.

Except there is zero proof that any of this benefits any manufacturer.

Unfortunately Richard, you should probably refrain from commenting on what you think are NASCAR's woes, as it helps if you know something about NASCAR to begin with.

NASCAR's woes have nothing to do with the engines in play, and more to do with a number of other factors such as their Chase for the Cup format which has done a great deal to alienate many fans as it doesn't take wins into any account, only total points accumulated prior to the beginning of the Chase format. In addition, NASCAR tried to pursue many new geographical areas that were outside their traditional well-established venues in the Southeastern United States, such as Las Vegas, and other areas in an effort to cater to the nouveau rich. Sort of like what F1 opted to do. In addition, they also moved away from shorter oval tracks in favor of tracks over a mile in length which cut down on a lot of the action you would normally see on short ovals. NASCAR personalities also are a bit lacking as the drivers mostly don't possess the same grit that guys like Dale Earnhardt and others did years ago. NASCAR's 90s/00s boom was also a fad, so attendance is still equalizing out, but their ratings are still better than what F1 pulls in the USA. And before you say globally F1 beats them, NASCAR has never tried to be a global race series. Car changes hurt the on-track product as well.

Here's the bigger point too Richard, NASCAR has never claimed to be a true cutting edge series, which is what F1 has been claiming to be for awhile. You should try going to a race, the pushrod V8's are not technologically cutting edge, but at least they add the sound aspect, and also create the good of a race environment. Having 18 cars circle around the circuit sounding like one giant vacuum cleaner orgy isn't terribly exciting.

[xpensive]

...
The lesson for F1 is NASCAR's insistence on push rods in order to be the same as production cars while every kid in the rest of the world yearned for a Golf GTI. NASCAR just ended up looking like dinosaurs. Going back to NA engines will do the same for F1.

That is comparing apples with bananas, NASCAR is all about show and car-brand identity, F1 has a different audience
but that doesn't mean that the engines has to be bizarrely complicated and xorbitantly xpensive, that is just stupid.