F1 engine note - Why all the haters?
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's all subjective isn't it. I thought the last race was excellent. F1 doesn't have the madness of a Ginetta Junior race, but it's a different thing isn't it. F1 also last for an hour and a half, so you're not going to get the same frantic stuff that you get from short races with cars with virtully no downforce. Some people like Nascar and hate F1. Some people like F1 and hate Nascar. Some people like both.mistakenplane said:
I think youll find some of this seasons GP's, including the last race in Montreal, have been excellent.
Pretending otherwise wont wash.
It all boils down to someone's particular definition of "excellent".Pretending otherwise wont wash.
I don't personally find terminally dull racing to be the pinnacle of excellence, but clearly to others it is.
"The tone in the F1 paddock this weekend is one of soul-searching, as people speak openly of a sport “in decline” and requiring a root and branch refresh."
I've never read a line like this ^, whether it's in print or otherwise since I started following F1 more closely (in about '85).
This year, AFAIC there was a definite line that was crossed which made me have a vastly diminished interest in the sport. The above J.A. article simply confirms that many other enthusiasts must feel exactly the same way. Hopefully there will be even more drastic changes for the better instead of for the worse in the very near future, or else I fear F1 will become an expensive joke.
I've never read a line like this ^, whether it's in print or otherwise since I started following F1 more closely (in about '85).
This year, AFAIC there was a definite line that was crossed which made me have a vastly diminished interest in the sport. The above J.A. article simply confirms that many other enthusiasts must feel exactly the same way. Hopefully there will be even more drastic changes for the better instead of for the worse in the very near future, or else I fear F1 will become an expensive joke.
zac510 said:
We can trust the regulators to keep the sport's DNA.
They've done a blinding job. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad, the sport has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on changes that weren't needed and aren't wanted by the teams or many (most) fans. Genius. All they needed to do was leave the engines alone (or for an improvement revert to the old V10s) and take away a big chunk of aero, all the artificial gimmicks (KERS/DRS) and most of the driver aids. Cheap and easy. Instead we get hideously expensive and ridiculously complicated engines (power units ffs) in overweight cars with poxy batteries just so that we can get excited because they're using less fuel, and so Mercedes can sell a few more road cars. Happy days.
As a contrast, some of the vintage Mercedes racers were brought to the factory at Brackley on Monday, following Goodwood.
One was fired up and just about deafened everyone!
Another had a mechanism to dump oil from the suspension hydraulics to lower the car as it lifted significantly once a lot of its 250 litres of fuel had been burned. The oil was just dumped on the track, regardless of anyone else. Try getting that one past Charlie.
One was fired up and just about deafened everyone!
Another had a mechanism to dump oil from the suspension hydraulics to lower the car as it lifted significantly once a lot of its 250 litres of fuel had been burned. The oil was just dumped on the track, regardless of anyone else. Try getting that one past Charlie.
The problem faced by F1 is basically the same as every other premier international motorsport series in that the series will due its public profile attract a selected number of sponsors/vehicle manufacturers prepared to basically spend whatever it takes to succeed.
WEC has Audi, Toyota and now Porsche with megasized and likely long term unsustainable budgets playing purely to win.
WRC went through a mega budget phase in the 90's and naughtys before a wilderness period dominated by Citroen who had the largest budget with VW now dominating again due to their budget dwarfing the rest of the field.
MotoGP has virtually F1 sized budgets to run a combination of "factory" and "satellite" teams with the factories playing purely to win and decent attendance, yet Suzuki exited and CRT had to be introduced to keep the grid healthy.
The F1 engine note isn't that bad honestly reverting to V10's will not solve the current problem. The engine development spending was after all by the engine manufacturers not the "teams" so for all the monetary problems faced by the teams having Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes drop a couple billion on engine development does not have any material effect on enabling or disabling Caterham or Lotus from remaining in the sport.
F1 historically since the 80's hasn't produced close racing all that often with the sport normally dominated for a particular period by a given team. The same is generally true in all other forms of premier motorsport and even sometimes in national clubman racing outside of specification series, look at Honda in BTCC or Chevy in WTCC.
How do you solve F1? honestly I don't know, maybe there is argument for throwing away the technical rulebook and letting the sport become a free-for-all limited by only energy usage per hour, allowable lateral G, overall car dimensions and effective rear drag/wake.
WEC has Audi, Toyota and now Porsche with megasized and likely long term unsustainable budgets playing purely to win.
WRC went through a mega budget phase in the 90's and naughtys before a wilderness period dominated by Citroen who had the largest budget with VW now dominating again due to their budget dwarfing the rest of the field.
MotoGP has virtually F1 sized budgets to run a combination of "factory" and "satellite" teams with the factories playing purely to win and decent attendance, yet Suzuki exited and CRT had to be introduced to keep the grid healthy.
The F1 engine note isn't that bad honestly reverting to V10's will not solve the current problem. The engine development spending was after all by the engine manufacturers not the "teams" so for all the monetary problems faced by the teams having Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes drop a couple billion on engine development does not have any material effect on enabling or disabling Caterham or Lotus from remaining in the sport.
F1 historically since the 80's hasn't produced close racing all that often with the sport normally dominated for a particular period by a given team. The same is generally true in all other forms of premier motorsport and even sometimes in national clubman racing outside of specification series, look at Honda in BTCC or Chevy in WTCC.
How do you solve F1? honestly I don't know, maybe there is argument for throwing away the technical rulebook and letting the sport become a free-for-all limited by only energy usage per hour, allowable lateral G, overall car dimensions and effective rear drag/wake.
b0rk said:
The engine development spending was after all by the engine manufacturers not the "teams" so for all the monetary problems faced by the teams having Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes drop a couple billion on engine development does not have any material effect on enabling or disabling Caterham or Lotus from remaining in the sport.
yes and no.it's reported that the teams are being asked for:
Ferrari - $30 million
Renault - $40 million
Mercedes - $26 million
Now, obviously, Renault are trying to claw back some of the money they have spent more than Mercedes, but $26M is still not inconsiderable.
what's Marussia's total budget? $30m must be a pretty big chunk of it....
Scuffers said:
b0rk said:
The engine development spending was after all by the engine manufacturers not the "teams" so for all the monetary problems faced by the teams having Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes drop a couple billion on engine development does not have any material effect on enabling or disabling Caterham or Lotus from remaining in the sport.
yes and no.it's reported that the teams are being asked for:
Ferrari - $30 million
Renault - $40 million
Mercedes - $26 million
Now, obviously, Renault are trying to claw back some of the money they have spent more than Mercedes, but $26M is still not inconsiderable.
what's Marussia's total budget? $30m must be a pretty big chunk of it....
b0rk said:
The engine development spending was after all by the engine manufacturers not the "teams" so for all the monetary problems faced by the teams having Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes drop a couple billion on engine development does not have any material effect on enabling or disabling Caterham or Lotus from remaining in the sport.
It's a pretty expensive way to save a few gallons of fuel, adds nothing positive to the show and has alienated a lot of fans. Cheap, high revving engines and a significant reduction in aero would have made much more sense imo.Patrick Head said:
However, introducing the power units has been incredibly expensive, which, at a time when F1 is looking to cut costs, has put pressure on the teams.
“I think the engines are fascinating pieces of kit, but I think they are far too expensive for what they are supposed to be doing,” Head explained to the BBC in Monaco.
“You could produce 800 BHP for €2m ($2.7m) a team each year. I think the teams are having to pay about 10 times that amount. It’s a very expensive way of powering Formula One cars.”
“I think the engines are fascinating pieces of kit, but I think they are far too expensive for what they are supposed to be doing,” Head explained to the BBC in Monaco.
“You could produce 800 BHP for €2m ($2.7m) a team each year. I think the teams are having to pay about 10 times that amount. It’s a very expensive way of powering Formula One cars.”
Scuffers said:
yes and no.
it's reported that the teams are being asked for:
Ferrari - $30 million
Renault - $40 million
Mercedes - $26 million
Now, obviously, Renault are trying to claw back some of the money they have spent more than Mercedes, but $26M is still not inconsiderable.
what's Marussia's total budget? $30m must be a pretty big chunk of it....
Going back a few years to '11 the annual engine programme cost to Renault Sport for the V8 was put at €120m to supply three teams so that would translate to approx €40m per team. it's reported that the teams are being asked for:
Ferrari - $30 million
Renault - $40 million
Mercedes - $26 million
Now, obviously, Renault are trying to claw back some of the money they have spent more than Mercedes, but $26M is still not inconsiderable.
what's Marussia's total budget? $30m must be a pretty big chunk of it....
However it was also reported that Renault sport only received €60m in sales so approx €20m per team. Assuming that the engine manufacturers have used the new engine as an opportunity to cut the amount of cross subsidy the new units don't actually appear that expensive. Particularly considering you get the hybrid unit as part of the base price rather having to either develop one yourself or buy it in from somewhere.
I would be interested in the true engine costs (programme cost / supplied teams) rather than unit sale costs back before the development freeze of '08. As I suspect that "low cost" V8's where really a product of previously agreed supply deals based on below cost sales with the manufacturers marketing department picking up the difference. Had the engine programmes been covering costs there surely wouldn't have been a push for road relevance by certain manufacturers.
b0rk said:
I would be interested in the true engine costs (programme cost / supplied teams) rather than unit sale costs back before the development freeze of '08. As I suspect that "low cost" V8's where really a product of previously agreed supply deals based on below cost sales with the manufacturers marketing department picking up the difference. Had the engine programmes been covering costs there surely wouldn't have been a push for road relevance by certain manufacturers.
Patrick Head has said that engines could be sourced for around 2m euro per season per team. There's no need for F1 to use ridiculously complicated and hideously expensive engines, they don't add anything to the racing or to the show and have alienated a significant number of fans. What is their point?RYH64E said:
b0rk said:
I would be interested in the true engine costs (programme cost / supplied teams) rather than unit sale costs back before the development freeze of '08. As I suspect that "low cost" V8's where really a product of previously agreed supply deals based on below cost sales with the manufacturers marketing department picking up the difference. Had the engine programmes been covering costs there surely wouldn't have been a push for road relevance by certain manufacturers.
Patrick Head has said that engines could be sourced for around 2m euro per season per team. There's no need for F1 to use ridiculously complicated and hideously expensive engines, they don't add anything to the racing or to the show and have alienated a significant number of fans. What is their point?Renault, Mercedes and Honda have all made it clear that they are only committed to F1 because the sport involves technology they want to develop and ultimately showcase for future use in passenger cars.
F1 could evolve to a bunch of chassis with stock Cosworths in it ( like the old days ) but you wouldn't see works teams in the sport anymore.
toppstuff said:
Renault, Mercedes and Honda have all made it clear that they are only committed to F1 because the sport involves technology they want to develop and ultimately showcase for future use in passenger cars.
this keeps getting trotted out but I just don't believe it.yes, the F1 reps of said companies might well say that, but if you think about it, that's their job.
as for showcasing the tech for road cars, as has been said MORE THAN A FEW TIMES, road cars are already well ahead of what F1 had now.
rad cars requirements are also somewhat different to race car, just how much time does your typical road car run at WOT? how is turbo compounding going to help much on a road car? (it almost has a place on long-haul big trucks, but even that is marginal).
Scuffers said:
this keeps getting trotted out but I just don't believe it.
yes, the F1 reps of said companies might well say that, but if you think about it, that's their job.
as for showcasing the tech for road cars, as has been said MORE THAN A FEW TIMES, road cars are already well ahead of what F1 had now.
rad cars requirements are also somewhat different to race car, just how much time does your typical road car run at WOT? how is turbo compounding going to help much on a road car? (it almost has a place on long-haul big trucks, but even that is marginal).
Agreeing with Scuffers, for once. yes, the F1 reps of said companies might well say that, but if you think about it, that's their job.
as for showcasing the tech for road cars, as has been said MORE THAN A FEW TIMES, road cars are already well ahead of what F1 had now.
rad cars requirements are also somewhat different to race car, just how much time does your typical road car run at WOT? how is turbo compounding going to help much on a road car? (it almost has a place on long-haul big trucks, but even that is marginal).
Scuffers said:
toppstuff said:
Renault, Mercedes and Honda have all made it clear that they are only committed to F1 because the sport involves technology they want to develop and ultimately showcase for future use in passenger cars.
this keeps getting trotted out but I just don't believe it.yes, the F1 reps of said companies might well say that, but if you think about it, that's their job.
as for showcasing the tech for road cars, as has been said MORE THAN A FEW TIMES, road cars are already well ahead of what F1 had now.
rad cars requirements are also somewhat different to race car, just how much time does your typical road car run at WOT? how is turbo compounding going to help much on a road car? (it almost has a place on long-haul big trucks, but even that is marginal).
On a run the 620ti, MG Montego Turbo and MG ZT 1.8 Turbocharged cars all manage close to 40 mpg. I rarely achieve that and mid-late 20s mpg is the norm as I like to use that boost. My son in his 207,000 mile 620ti always gets better mpg than I in my 80,000 mile examples. Amazing how well his car ~ which is his daily work travel hack ~ still drives. He recently returned from a Continental touring trip covering over 2,000 miles. That's confidence in an old high mileage car for you.
Yes, I have owned and driven more modern Diesel Turbo cars ~ usually supplied by my employers ~ always nice to get back into the Petrol Turbos though after handing those Diesels back. OK the petrols use more fuel. Worth every penny though ...
So, maybe my change of Turbo mindset was based on a false premise of Turbocharger Development and reliability in F1 cars back in the 1980s. There was no trade off, all pure coincidence. Who knew ?
EDIT to add @ 12:08
Every time I drive my son's Lotus Elise S2, I again realise there are other trade offs in road cars from F1 ... and then some with the Lotus.
Edited by MGJohn on Thursday 3rd July 12:08
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff