Ferrari wants F1 engine freeze lifted to improve competition
Discussion
RYH64E said:
should Williams, Force India and McLaren* continue to have an advantage over Red Bull, Ferrari etc just because of their engine supplier?
Yes.Merc, Williams & Red Bull have done a better job on the aero side than say, McLaren and Sauber.. so should we take their wings away to level the field ?
How about the chassis ? maybe we should add ballast to the better cars to level the field ? Even better we could place the ballast strategically to screw up the balance of the car?
Merc/RBR pit stops are quicker, so lets add a delay on their stops
Fast cars conserve their tyres better, so lets make them use half worn tyres only
We could go on forever, but when it comes down to it the technical side of racing is about making the best car possible, not being dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
Scuffers said:
Last time i looked, F1 is supposed to be as much a technical competition as a driver's.
But a technical competition between whom? Red Bull, Ferrari, Mclaren, Lotus, Mercedes, Sauber etc as constructors, or Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari as engine builders? If Mercedes come up with an engine that's significantly better than that of Renault and Ferrari it significantly disadvantages two thirds of the field through no fault of their own.RYH64E said:
But a technical competition between whom? Red Bull, Ferrari, Mclaren, Lotus, Mercedes, Sauber etc as constructors, or Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari as engine builders? If Mercedes come up with an engine that's significantly better than that of Renault and Ferrari it significantly disadvantages two thirds of the field through no fault of their own.
It is their fault, they didn't do a good enough job.Go listen to this : http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/audio-podcast...
In there somewhere Frank basically says its about getting s
t on or stting on others, you all have to take your turn.RYH64E said:
Whose fault? Red Bull, Sauber, Lotus?
Renault & Ferrari.But the teams too as their chassis & aero isn't up to the Merc and RBR.
Its in the last 5 minutes or so of the podcast. Its worth listening to the whole thing when Roebuck starts on his "don't you think its all too expensive/difficult nowadays" crap. Williams simply tells him "if you don't like it, leave. I don't want to leave, I want to win".
Crafty_ said:
Renault & Ferrari.
But the teams too as their chassis & aero isn't up to the Merc and RBR.
Red Bull have done a very good job on their aero and chassis but can only win when Mercedes make a mistake, and Williams resurgence is largely down to the Mercedes engine. Mercedes deserve a temporary advantage because they've come up with a better engine and chassis than the rest, but the regulations shouldn't mean that that engine advantage lasts forever, and their engine customers deserve no such advantage over the other constructors.But the teams too as their chassis & aero isn't up to the Merc and RBR.
RYH64E said:
Scuffers said:
Why the hell not?
Because it's not just an engine formula?Seriously, listen to yourself, you should like the child crying its not fair!
Renault and ferrari did a s
t job, they have to live with that.I th7nk merc should be allowed to sell engines to whoever want them, if renault can't make decent engine, then they wont have any customers, simples
RYH64E said:
Scuffers said:
Why the hell not?
Because it's not just an engine formula?Maybe we can give one car the left part of a front wing and the other the right hand part, that should level it up nicely right ?
The idea of racing is you work hard to win. If you are going to consistently level the field whats the point ?
That has to be balanced by the costs.
Mercedes could simply out develop everyone if the regulations were unlimited. Certainly on the engine front.
Could Renault afford to keep up ? probably not.
With aero its much more difficult to control - but the in season testing bans and restrictions on wind tunnel use / computing power (for CFD) are all designed to try and restrict it.
In any case in season development is permitted - you can develop all year for next year.
On top of that there are always "reliability" upgrades which everyone knows is a cop out.
Mercedes could simply out develop everyone if the regulations were unlimited. Certainly on the engine front.
Could Renault afford to keep up ? probably not.
With aero its much more difficult to control - but the in season testing bans and restrictions on wind tunnel use / computing power (for CFD) are all designed to try and restrict it.
In any case in season development is permitted - you can develop all year for next year.
On top of that there are always "reliability" upgrades which everyone knows is a cop out.
Simple thought - would Ferrari have said this if they had the advantage over the others that Mercedes have at the moment?
And as has been pointed out, what is to say that Mercedes don't already know what they could do to move as far forward as they currently are if the others were allowed a so called catch up provided all manufacturers had the same restriction lifted, which would have to be the case otherwise it would be even more rigged for results than F1 already is.
And as has been pointed out, what is to say that Mercedes don't already know what they could do to move as far forward as they currently are if the others were allowed a so called catch up provided all manufacturers had the same restriction lifted, which would have to be the case otherwise it would be even more rigged for results than F1 already is.
Scuffers said:
So, using that logic, are you going to suggest red bull get a handicap as it's not just a chassis formula?
Seriously, listen to yourself, you should like the child crying its not fair!
Renault and ferrari did a st job, they have to live with that.
I th7nk merc should be allowed to sell engines to whoever want them, if renault can't make decent engine, then they wont have any customers, simples
The point that I'm making is that chassis and aero design is within the teams control, engine design isn't. It doesn't matter how good the car design is, if the engine is under powered the car is going to struggle. If the current Mercedes engine advantage is locked in then Mercedes have a well deserved advantage, Williams, McLaren and Force India have an advantage that they don't deserve, and all the other teams are penalised not because they've done a poor job but because Renault and Ferrari have.Seriously, listen to yourself, you should like the child crying its not fair!
Renault and ferrari did a s
t job, they have to live with that.I th7nk merc should be allowed to sell engines to whoever want them, if renault can't make decent engine, then they wont have any customers, simples
F1 has a drivers championship and a constructors championship, they don't yet have an engine championship but the way it's heading they might as well replace constructors with engine.
Gaz. said:
Renault virtually wrote the rule book for the engines, so given all of that rope they have provided they have now hanged themselves. We seem to have to repeat this point every other weekend since Jerez.
Hanging themselves is good, Renault deserve it for their part in the costly engine debacle that's ruined F1 for me, but I don't think Red Bull, Lotus, Sauber and Torro Rosso deserve the same fate.Scuffers said:
Remind me again who wanted the new powertrains?
You talk about costs, merc alone have spent more than $1bn so far...
And in the next breath you go on about cost cutting.
You talk about costs, merc alone have spent more than $1bn so far...
And in the next breath you go on about cost cutting.
Show me where I mentioned cost cutting ?
I didn't.
All I'm saying is that regs that are in place have stopped Merc (and others) spending twice what they have.
RYH64E said:
The point that I'm making is that chassis and aero design is within the teams control, engine design isn't. It doesn't matter how good the car design is, if the engine is under powered the car is going to struggle. If the current Mercedes engine advantage is locked in then Mercedes have a well deserved advantage, Williams, McLaren and Force India have an advantage that they don't deserve, and all the other teams are penalised not because they've done a poor job but because Renault and Ferrari have.
F1 has a drivers championship and a constructors championship, they don't yet have an engine championship but the way it's heading they might as well replace constructors with engine.
Disagree, RBR just won 4 championships on the trot with a very good chassis and (at best) an average engine.F1 has a drivers championship and a constructors championship, they don't yet have an engine championship but the way it's heading they might as well replace constructors with engine.
Besides, lets think back to the "good old days" when the DFV won a lot of races.. some teams didn't have that engine, did you complain then that it was unfair ?
Thinking about it the 60s was even more of an engine formula than it is now really.
RYH64E said:
The point that I'm making is that chassis and aero design is within the teams control, engine design isn't. It doesn't matter how good the car design is, if the engine is under powered the car is going to struggle. If the current Mercedes engine advantage is locked in then Mercedes have a well deserved advantage, Williams, McLaren and Force India have an advantage that they don't deserve, and all the other teams are penalised not because they've done a poor job but because Renault and Ferrari have.
F1 has a drivers championship and a constructors championship, they don't yet have an engine championship but the way it's heading they might as well replace constructors with engine.
Who said they don't deserve the advantage?F1 has a drivers championship and a constructors championship, they don't yet have an engine championship but the way it's heading they might as well replace constructors with engine.
The team buys what they think is going to be the best engine available using the given information. No different to buying what they believe is the best braking system, etc.
For this first year, my opinion is that the FIA shoould have allowed unlimited development and had a freeze at the beginning of next season.
The limited testing allowed was always going to throw up anomalies, which could be developed away. F1 is about competition and development. If a team are behind they have to work harder to catch up and then pass, artificially limiting this is to my eyes against the ethos of the sport. However, since that appears to be irrelevant, then no-one cares about how they win, just that they win.
The limited testing allowed was always going to throw up anomalies, which could be developed away. F1 is about competition and development. If a team are behind they have to work harder to catch up and then pass, artificially limiting this is to my eyes against the ethos of the sport. However, since that appears to be irrelevant, then no-one cares about how they win, just that they win.
IforB said:
For this first year, my opinion is that the FIA shoould have allowed unlimited development and had a freeze at the beginning of next season.
The limited testing allowed was always going to throw up anomalies, which could be developed away. F1 is about competition and development. If a team are behind they have to work harder to catch up and then pass, artificially limiting this is to my eyes against the ethos of the sport. However, since that appears to be irrelevant, then no-one cares about how they win, just that they win.
That wouldn't work and would be arguably worse than the situation now. All would happen is the manufacturer with the largest budget would be further ahead by the freeze point, locking in a larger advantage. The other manufacturers will have spent a load more cash for a larger disadvantage. With the larger disadvantage locked in, their power units become less attractive and thus they will have less customers and cease to exist because it is not economically viable. Then we have less engine manufacturers and less competition. Counterproductive to the aims of the sport to get more manufacturers involved.The limited testing allowed was always going to throw up anomalies, which could be developed away. F1 is about competition and development. If a team are behind they have to work harder to catch up and then pass, artificially limiting this is to my eyes against the ethos of the sport. However, since that appears to be irrelevant, then no-one cares about how they win, just that they win.
What we have now is the best of a set of options. You can bet your bottom doller that Renault and Ferrari are putting more resource in to engine development than last year right now. All of the areas which can be changed before next season will be changed. Merc will also be developing their engine for next year, but the law of deminishing returns would suggest that they have less to gain.
WRT the comparison of chassis/aero development vs power unit development. With chassis/areo, the team has full control of the decisions on development direction and resource allocation. With the power unit, the choice is limited to what they choose (can afford) based on the date provided by the manufacturer. If the manufacturer underperforms on this data, which is an issue they need to take up with the manufacturer. If they don't resolve it, then market forces will come in to play. If the manufacturer delivers on the promises and subsequently the performance deficit of the team is due to incorrect selection of power unit, then the team has to carry the can. Also, the non-works customer teams will know that the packaging will not be optimised for their usage. This will have a less significant effect the longer the teams are in partnership with the manufacturer as the design philosophy will have to merge in order to get best usage from the power unit.
The rules are the rules. That is what they all signed up to. If Ferrari or Renault had the advantage this year, they would not be pushing for an unfreeze. All we have is sour grapes at the moment. Put up or shut up.
Next year will be closer.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff