Engine Unfreeze

[GitanesBlondes]

The people who advocate for an engine freeze crack me up...it's even worse that you advocate for such a thing on a site named F1Technical. They're also the same mouthbreathers who whine about the lack of technological development in F1.

Newsflash: You can't have it both ways. If you want mostly bunched up fields, then you need to watch spec-series racing. If you want to see F1 as a true technological breeding ground --no matter if the tech makes it to everyday world applications-- then you cannot have the series exist as a combination spec-series conducted on low grip tires. Guess what, if you want technical development, then you are going to have to get back to not penalizing on the limit driving, and accept that fields will spread out.

It's a total sham that was never a part of what F1 was about.

F1 was very much about in-season development, as it was what made F1 such a unique race series. The clock on development never ran out. From Brazil to Adelaide in another era, it was all about trying to improve design as long as you had the cash. It also was a hell of a lot more interesting in those days, as the news wasn't a constant circle jerk of rumors and innuendo because nothing else goes on.

[xpensive]

Yea agree with u guys, why would Merc suffer for doing a better job?

Suffer? The unfreeze should benefit them too obviously.

[dans79]

The people who advocate for an engine freeze crack me up...it's even worse that you advocate for such a thing on a site named F1Technical. They're also the same mouthbreathers who whine about the lack of technological development in F1.

I'm not advocating an engine freeze for the sake of no development. I'm advocating not changing the rules just because some teams/manufactures are embarrassed by how poorly they are doing. They did a half a** job and now they should have to deal with the consequences.

[turbof1]

Suffer? The unfreeze should benefit them too obviously.

I agree. If Mercedes gets beaten due the unfreezing of engines, it simply means an other manufacturer did a better job.

[dans79]

suffering might be the wrong word with regards to Merc.

let me put it another way, why should all the hard work & money Merc put into it's engine development just be thrown out the window? They got the same Rule book as everyone else, and tried to get everything as close to perfect as they could the first time around, because they knew it would be harder to catch up after the fact.

It's was blatantly obvious that the current engine regulations would benefit the team that does the best job initially the moment they where finalized. This push for change is nothing but sore loosers asking for a hand out.

[xpensive]

For crying out loud, nothing is thrown out the window, a rule change will be equal for all!

A completely new engine formula was introduced and this didn't match well with an engine freeze,
now we have all learned that the hard way and the FIA should realize this, that's all there is to it.

[dans79]

For crying out loud, nothing is thrown out the window, a rule change will be equal for all!

A completely new engine formula was introduced and this didn't match well with an engine freeze,
now we have all learned that the hard way and the FIA should realize this, that's all there is to it.

I think you are missing the point.

The new engine regulations where designed to penalize manufactures that did a crap job initially, Hence the reason with each subsequent year manufactures are allowed to modify the engine design less and less. All the teams knew this years ago. Thus it is throwing Merc's hard work out the window, because it gives other manufactures more chances to catch up.

[SectorOne]

The thing is, had Renault produced an engine like Merc, they would have zipped it.
Har Ferrari done it they would have used every single veto they could possibly get their hands on to stop the other teams.

It all boils down to the fact that Ferrari and Renault was caught sleeping.
It's not about allowing in season development "like the good ol days" its only about cutting Mercedes advantage.

[GitanesBlondes]

The people who advocate for an engine freeze crack me up...it's even worse that you advocate for such a thing on a site named F1Technical. They're also the same mouthbreathers who whine about the lack of technological development in F1.

I'm not advocating an engine freeze for the sake of no development. I'm advocating not changing the rules just because some teams/manufactures are embarrassed by how poorly they are doing. They did a half a** job and now they should have to deal with the consequences.

Except this would be a step back to the days when F1 was about developing an engine as much a chassis over the course of the season.

So they did a half-assed job. But I'd rather see how they would dig themselves out of the hole as opposed to having to watch the season unfold as nothing more than a mere formality because an engine constructor has their hands tied behind their back due to an idiot rule that Mosley thought up years ago that did nothing to drive costs down. Don't you think that might be interesting to see what Ferrari would do with their existing layout in terms of components, or if they would do a complete redesign in the middle of the season? That was part of the fun of F1; how many versions of an engine would a manufacturer design?

That aside, a more general thought one is left with is simply...20 MEUR per season for homologated engines.... =D>

[Juzh]

It's not about allowing in season development "like the good ol days" its only about cutting Mercedes advantage.

Yes,
however lets not forget:
DDD, Diffuser height, OT EBD, EBD all together, flexi wings part 1, flexi wings part 2, rubber noses, extreme engine maps...
All banned because other teams couldn't get them right. Now the avalanche is coming down on you and you don't like it.

[GitanesBlondes]

The thing is, had Renault produced an engine like Merc, they would have zipped it.
Har Ferrari done it they would have used every single veto they could possibly get their hands on to stop the other teams.

It all boils down to the fact that Ferrari and Renault was caught sleeping.
It's not about allowing in season development "like the good ol days" its only about cutting Mercedes advantage.

I could care less what the reasons are.

Point is, from a sporting perspective, it's better to allow engine development in the long run.

That is the only thing on a modern F1 car that has any semblance of road relevance. If you're at least attempting to pretend your road relevant, then allow for engine development.

[dans79]

It takes a special kind of stupid to think that is good for a sport whose been trying to sell itself as being on the technical cutting edge for years.

And now we have resorted to mud slinging......

[bhall II]

The new engine regulations where designed to penalize manufactures that did a crap job initially.
[...]

Nonsense. The homologation regulations were put in place to save costs, and teams knew as early as October of last year that such rules were probably ill-considered.

"I think one of the concerns for the sport is that it becomes a powertrain race," Whitmarsh added. "We are mindful of the fact that we currently have three and will shortly have four auto manufacturers. If one of those manufacturers doesn't do a good enough job at the start of next year, and doesn't have the scope by which they can become competitive, then there's a pretty good chance they won't be in Formula One for very long, which wouldn't be good for the sport.

"There is lots of speculation over who will have the most competitive engine next year, we'll see. But I think the sport has got to act responsibly. We must manage the situation to retain as many OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] in the sport as we can; they bring a lot of money and they bring a lot of stability to the sport. We have to make sure we act sensibly and that the teams feel the engine manufacturers can provide a level playing field."

[GitanesBlondes]

Bingo....this has always been about pretending to cut costs even as engine costs were higher than they've ever been.

[dans79]

The new engine regulations where designed to penalize manufactures that did a crap job initially.
[...]

Nonsense. The homologation regulations were put in place to save costs, and teams knew as early as October of last year that such rules were probably ill-considered.

Read between the lines..


Think of it this way:
1) assume an engine has 100 parts
2) each year 20 parts become unchangeable unless its for reliability or cost savings

Thus if you are behind at the beginning it will be harder and harder to catch up with each passing year, because you have fewer things you can change. It's kind of like the law of diminishing returns.