Discussion
http://www.inautonews.com/2017-engine-to-be-2-5-li...
Don't know how close to the truth this article is and don't really fully understand Toto's concerns on equality, if its slower then they'll equalise it, if its faster then they'll slow it down, but my question is what's stopping merc or Ferrari doing away with theirs and building one of these, my guess is they'd get more than 870hp from it?
Don't know how close to the truth this article is and don't really fully understand Toto's concerns on equality, if its slower then they'll equalise it, if its faster then they'll slow it down, but my question is what's stopping merc or Ferrari doing away with theirs and building one of these, my guess is they'd get more than 870hp from it?
It isn't an alternative engine formula that the current engine manufacturers can use. It is an alternative engine formula exclusively for the supply of an alternative engine by parties unconnected to the current engine manufacturers.
Declaration C Appendix I of the FIA Calls for Expressions of Interest for the Supply of Alternative Engines for the FIA Formula One World Championship said:
The candidate declares to be fully independent of a major car manufacturer.
It's going to cause all kinds of issues.
How on earth can they equalise this?
No limit on revs, fuel flow, durability of engine (stick a new one in every session!), can mess around and get those exhaust gases blowing where we want them.
All of that will mean larger fuel tanks though so you'll be carring extra weight.
It'll be a nightmare and I can't see it happening. You'd then have Merc/Ferrari/Honda kicking up a massive fuss.
How on earth can they equalise this?
No limit on revs, fuel flow, durability of engine (stick a new one in every session!), can mess around and get those exhaust gases blowing where we want them.
All of that will mean larger fuel tanks though so you'll be carring extra weight.
It'll be a nightmare and I can't see it happening. You'd then have Merc/Ferrari/Honda kicking up a massive fuss.
Doink said:
OK so what's stopping merc saying 'we don't do engines anymore, we want one of those'?
Or what is to stop the boards of Mercedes and Renault saying 'what is the point of us spending millions on our complex hybrid engines when our competitors can use cheaper engines' and them deciding to leave F1 entirely ?Like Toto said,'you gave us a spec and asked us to build an engine' yet now that merc have and basically done too good a job and wiped the floor with everyone its somehow their fault, the FIA wanted these jewell's of engines yet didn't specify the maximum cost to a customer for one and apparently the merc is cheaper than a Renault!
johnxjsc1985 said:
Did I hear correctly that Ferrari have a Veto on anything and everything?
From what I understand, Ferrari get so much special treatment in terms of extra F1 handouts and veto rights that if I were the other teams, I'd threaten to quit unless it was a level playing field. If they weren't subsidised by the Italian government through FIAT for decades, they'd be 'just any other old team' like McLaren, Lotus, Williams etc.Some suggestions are that Mercedes supported Ferrari with the veto on supply of cheap engines.
The alternative engines idea is a further nail in the coffin of F1. There have been times when there have been two engine specs in the formula at one time (1.5 turbo and 3.0 NA being the most obvious) but never in as contrived a way as this.
If Mercedes, Renault and Honda can't win in a dual formula they will quit, as almost certainly will Ferrari. It either hasn't been thought through well by Ecclestone and Todt or it has been fully thought through and this is not the end game.
The alternative engines idea is a further nail in the coffin of F1. There have been times when there have been two engine specs in the formula at one time (1.5 turbo and 3.0 NA being the most obvious) but never in as contrived a way as this.
If Mercedes, Renault and Honda can't win in a dual formula they will quit, as almost certainly will Ferrari. It either hasn't been thought through well by Ecclestone and Todt or it has been fully thought through and this is not the end game.
When the new engine regs were introduced in 1966, you could use either a 3.0L NA or a 1.5 Forced induction engine. The rules were not changed, it just took over a decade for the Turbos to start to become a viable proposition and there was a period of transition to them all eventually running turbos, the choice of which way to go was free from 1966.
What we have now is a change in spec to introduce a new formula mid way through what was supposed to be a stable powertrain formula.
What we have now is a change in spec to introduce a new formula mid way through what was supposed to be a stable powertrain formula.
Not only was it supposed to be a stable formula but they're proposing to free up lots of things that were restricted for very specific reasons i.e revs, exhausts, durability.
I'm sure it suits a specific persons purposes to have this come in but it just looks bad. If you come up with a long term plan for regulation you stick to it, not just change it on a whim part way through because one of the players can't cope one year.
I'm sure it suits a specific persons purposes to have this come in but it just looks bad. If you come up with a long term plan for regulation you stick to it, not just change it on a whim part way through because one of the players can't cope one year.
This dual engine thing is just more Bernie the troll rubbish.
The engines themselves aren't the issue. Merc aren't the only ones using them are they? The issues with the "show" as such is the issues over taking. So bin the aero, and allow in season changes and testing. Allow the other engines manufacturers to improve over the year and with less dependency on aero, we might get a better, less DRS activated, race to watch surely?
The engines themselves aren't the issue. Merc aren't the only ones using them are they? The issues with the "show" as such is the issues over taking. So bin the aero, and allow in season changes and testing. Allow the other engines manufacturers to improve over the year and with less dependency on aero, we might get a better, less DRS activated, race to watch surely?
The other big issue here, is due to the testing and tokens controls, if you make a lemon (looking at you Honda) with an issue like the MGUK being too small, they're f
ked, as they simply aren't allowed to bin it and make a new one until next year, and even then its restricted. It means that Merc has a monster, Ferrari are sort of catching, but unless something weird happens, its the Mercedes championship for the foreseeable future.
Its not fair on merc, as they only did what they were entitled to, BUT the rules need tweaking to allow a bit more freedom to upgrade to at least allow another team to click, and then catch up, okay merc can upgrade too, but laws of diminishing returns will catch them all in the end.
Its why the racing was pretty good in the years before the turbos' (Yes red bull were away at the front, but not every season) there was close racing because the teams had been working on these designs for about 4 years and had started to equal out a bit, at the moment, apart from Ferrari, no one is close to Merc, and cant really catch up.
Id keep testing as it is, but free up the token thing a bit, otherwise Honda\Macca is fked for a long time.
ked, as they simply aren't allowed to bin it and make a new one until next year, and even then its restricted. It means that Merc has a monster, Ferrari are sort of catching, but unless something weird happens, its the Mercedes championship for the foreseeable future.Its not fair on merc, as they only did what they were entitled to, BUT the rules need tweaking to allow a bit more freedom to upgrade to at least allow another team to click, and then catch up, okay merc can upgrade too, but laws of diminishing returns will catch them all in the end.
Its why the racing was pretty good in the years before the turbos' (Yes red bull were away at the front, but not every season) there was close racing because the teams had been working on these designs for about 4 years and had started to equal out a bit, at the moment, apart from Ferrari, no one is close to Merc, and cant really catch up.
Id keep testing as it is, but free up the token thing a bit, otherwise Honda\Macca is f
ked for a long time.Rick_1138 said:
The other big issue here, is due to the testing and tokens controls, if you make a lemon (looking at you Honda) with an issue like the MGUK being too small, they're fked, as they simply aren't allowed to bin it and make a new one until next year, and even then its restricted. It means that Merc has a monster, Ferrari are sort of catching, but unless something weird happens, its the Mercedes championship for the foreseeable future.
Its not fair on merc, as they only did what they were entitled to, BUT the rules need tweaking to allow a bit more freedom to upgrade to at least allow another team to click, and then catch up, okay merc can upgrade too, but laws of diminishing returns will catch them all in the end.
Its why the racing was pretty good in the years before the turbos' (Yes red bull were away at the front, but not every season) there was close racing because the teams had been working on these designs for about 4 years and had started to equal out a bit, at the moment, apart from Ferrari, no one is close to Merc, and cant really catch up.
Id keep testing as it is, but free up the token thing a bit, otherwise Honda\Macca is fked for a long time.
Another big issue for close racing is the aero rules. You have Merc, FI and Williams all with decent cars and the same engine. Yes merc have way more money for sorting the car itself out, but if aero was more controlled, surely we would see closer racing?ked, as they simply aren't allowed to bin it and make a new one until next year, and even then its restricted. It means that Merc has a monster, Ferrari are sort of catching, but unless something weird happens, its the Mercedes championship for the foreseeable future.Its not fair on merc, as they only did what they were entitled to, BUT the rules need tweaking to allow a bit more freedom to upgrade to at least allow another team to click, and then catch up, okay merc can upgrade too, but laws of diminishing returns will catch them all in the end.
Its why the racing was pretty good in the years before the turbos' (Yes red bull were away at the front, but not every season) there was close racing because the teams had been working on these designs for about 4 years and had started to equal out a bit, at the moment, apart from Ferrari, no one is close to Merc, and cant really catch up.
Id keep testing as it is, but free up the token thing a bit, otherwise Honda\Macca is f
ked for a long time.spats said:
Another big issue for close racing is the aero rules. You have Merc, FI and Williams all with decent cars and the same engine. Yes merc have way more money for sorting the car itself out, but if aero was more controlled, surely we would see closer racing?
Brazil on Sunday showed the aero problem - Hamilton genuinely didn't seem to be able to get, and stay, close enough to Rosberg to have a chance to overtake. Reduce the reliance on aero, particularly that which causes the turbulent air which takes grip from the car behind, and the racing would be closer, at least between team mates.What about a handicap system either with weight or aerodynamics. the playing field is not level and if we want to see exciting racing we need to find a way for the teams at the back to able to compete as it is as soon as the lighst go out you have about 3 or 4 different races taking place. Having just 2 or 3 drivers capable of winning is killing it and when the most exciting things is the fallout from "Cap gate" then its in trouble in the long term.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns32494.html
Article said:
The specifications now say the new engine will be a 2.5 litre V6 or smaller, with one or two turbochargers producing "greater than" 870 horse power.
The engine will have no limits on revs, engine durability or fuel flow, freedom in the area of the exhaust and no hybrid power.
And no doubt a fraction of the cost of the current units, what's not to like (unless you're Mercedes)?The engine will have no limits on revs, engine durability or fuel flow, freedom in the area of the exhaust and no hybrid power.
The announcement is for expressions of interest only, by 23rd November. Everything else is conjecture (as always)
If there is a genuine interest, then a specification will be formulated.
Personally, I would like to see something happen. World Series, Lewis Vs Nico, is hardly the pinnacle of Motorsport.
If there is a genuine interest, then a specification will be formulated.
Personally, I would like to see something happen. World Series, Lewis Vs Nico, is hardly the pinnacle of Motorsport.
RYH64E said:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns32494.html
What's not to like...you mean apart from the fact that you'll have massively unequal engines you mean?Article said:
The specifications now say the new engine will be a 2.5 litre V6 or smaller, with one or two turbochargers producing "greater than" 870 horse power.
The engine will have no limits on revs, engine durability or fuel flow, freedom in the area of the exhaust and no hybrid power.
And no doubt a fraction of the cost of the current units, what's not to like (unless you're Mercedes)?The engine will have no limits on revs, engine durability or fuel flow, freedom in the area of the exhaust and no hybrid power.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff