Ferrari wants F1 engine freeze lifted to improve competition
Discussion
JonRB said:
Oh, they'll be working like crazy, for sure. But they can't try out any of their ideas outside of a computer. So next season they will get another one-shot go at applying all they have learned over the course of this year.
Why can they only try out new ideas on a computer? Are there any rules about running the engine in a development car? They can surely run new engines on a test bed, and I'm unaware of any restrictions around using a non-F1 development car.Jabbah said:
JonRB said:
Oh, they'll be working like crazy, for sure. But they can't try out any of their ideas outside of a computer. So next season they will get another one-shot go at applying all they have learned over the course of this year.
Why can they only try out new ideas on a computer? Are there any rules about running the engine in a development car? They can surely run new engines on a test bed, and I'm unaware of any restrictions around using a non-F1 development car.no development means just that, they cannot physically change any part without FIA acceptance (for reliability or cost reasons etc).
IforB said:
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.
I agree. In fact it is against the ethos of ANY sport. If the weaker team or athlete gets his arse handed to him he always has the opportunity to go away and work harder, train harder, get better and come back and win the rematch. The engine freeze in F1 is basically saying "you didn't get it right first time, now you are going to be unable to compete forever more...". In the long run it will be bad for the sport. The Mercedes engine is simply far too dominant, there is no way for the non-merc runners to catch up unless their engine suppliers are allowed to develop their engines. Gaz. said:
The manufacturers should have thought of that when dreaming these rules up. If they play snakes and ladders do they ask to throw the dice again if there turn lands them on the head of a serpent? Not only did they know the rules, they wrote them.
exactly, they had 2+ years to work on it, and Renault droped the ball big time.if you open up the regs to to allow continual development, quite apart from the budgets getting even more out of hand than they currently are (and where's the money going to come from?), what makes you think Renault will be any better off? Merc/Ferrari/Honda will just move even further ahead.
realistically, it would take a few years for the natural equilibrium to be found, and that's just not practical.
Scuffers said:
exactly, they had 2+ years to work on it, and Renault droped the ball big time.
if you open up the regs to to allow continual development, quite apart from the budgets getting even more out of hand than they currently are (and where's the money going to come from?), what makes you think Renault will be any better off? Merc/Ferrari/Honda will just move even further ahead.
realistically, it would take a few years for the natural equilibrium to be found, and that's just not practical.
People go on about cost cutting, but conveniently forget the monumental cost in R&D that these new engines have represented. If they'd *really* been interested in cost-cutting we'd have stuck with the stable fully-developed V8s. It's the same spurious argument for selling a perfectly good older car that has done all its depreciating, and spending tens of thousands of pounds on a "green" car in the belief that it will save you money. if you open up the regs to to allow continual development, quite apart from the budgets getting even more out of hand than they currently are (and where's the money going to come from?), what makes you think Renault will be any better off? Merc/Ferrari/Honda will just move even further ahead.
realistically, it would take a few years for the natural equilibrium to be found, and that's just not practical.
So given that all the money has been spent on developing the new engines, it seems rather silly to say that they shouldn't be honed and developed because it will cost money.
Not only that, but it seems like the FIA can just 'clarify' rules mid-season that incur extra costs on the teams - like the infamous linked suspension change this year. Just throw away a load of R&D money you spent developing the system and come up with an alternative with a couple of weeks' notice. I bet that cost plenty in overtime alone.
The whole "cost cutting" thing is a farce almost as big as "green" is. It's not a case of doing something but being seen to be doing something even if it's merely paying lip service to it.
JonRB said:
People go on about cost cutting, but conveniently forget the monumental cost in R&D that these new engines have represented. If they'd *really* been interested in cost-cutting we'd have stuck with the stable fully-developed V8s. It's the same spurious argument for selling a perfectly good older car that has done all its depreciating, and spending tens of thousands of pounds on a "green" car in the belief that it will save you money.
So given that all the money has been spent on developing the new engines, it seems rather silly to say that they shouldn't be honed and developed because it will cost money.
Not only that, but it seems like the FIA can just 'clarify' rules mid-season that incur extra costs on the teams - like the infamous linked suspension change this year. Just throw away a load of R&D money you spent developing the system and come up with an alternative with a couple of weeks' notice. I bet that cost plenty in overtime alone.
The whole "cost cutting" thing is a farce almost as big as "green" is. It's not a case of doing something but being seen to be doing something even if it's merely paying lip service to it.
yup. 100% with you on all of this....So given that all the money has been spent on developing the new engines, it seems rather silly to say that they shouldn't be honed and developed because it will cost money.
Not only that, but it seems like the FIA can just 'clarify' rules mid-season that incur extra costs on the teams - like the infamous linked suspension change this year. Just throw away a load of R&D money you spent developing the system and come up with an alternative with a couple of weeks' notice. I bet that cost plenty in overtime alone.
The whole "cost cutting" thing is a farce almost as big as "green" is. It's not a case of doing something but being seen to be doing something even if it's merely paying lip service to it.
it's a joke, talk about cost cutting and looking down the barrel of loosing maybe 2 teams due to lack of money, yet commission new powertrains that costs billions.
really is all a sick joke.
Gaz. said:
That was Ferrari's argument all along, it was cheaper to keep the V8s. Renault were desperate to change to 4cyl hybrids and said they would quit the sport if the V8s weren't replaced.
That's what it all came down to really. The car manufacturers were finding it increasingly hard to justify investment in something that was seen to have no relevance to the average car buyer. Make the engines *hybrids* and ker-CHING!! - Marketing dept are back on board and ready to spend.
JonRB said:
Make the engines *hybrids* and ker-CHING!! - Marketing dept are back on board and ready to spend.
And promote the fuel efficient ethos of F1 whilst at the same time flying god knows how many people, cars and equipment all the way from Japan to the back end of Russia for a few hours racing round a track. Then USA, Brazil and Abu Dhabi, how green is that?zac510 said:
RYH64E and Scuffers, have you guys given up on complaining about the sound? Storm in a teacup that was, everyone's used to the sound now.
Now you're attacking the cost as an aside to your complaint about the noise?
Not at all, just pointless to keep going on about what's obvious.Now you're attacking the cost as an aside to your complaint about the noise?
I still think they are too expensive, to prescriptive, not enough power, and sound s
t.The new engines are good, the economy they get is massively impressive.
Despite many claims we'd never see them do over 10k RPM I often see them doing in excess of 12-12.5k RPM from onboards.
The sound is quite good, different from a V8 or V10, granted - that doesn't automatically make it st.
More importantly due to the completely different torque curve and having more torque further down its actually making the drivers have to drive them. With the V8s they could exit a corner and go WOT - they simply can't do it now, it'll swap ends on them.
It will be interesting to see what innovations come along next year (engine freeze or not) and how far they can refine the designs. The V8s improved quite a bit in the 8 years we had them, I expect the V6s to do the same.
Despite many claims we'd never see them do over 10k RPM I often see them doing in excess of 12-12.5k RPM from onboards.
The sound is quite good, different from a V8 or V10, granted - that doesn't automatically make it s
t.More importantly due to the completely different torque curve and having more torque further down its actually making the drivers have to drive them. With the V8s they could exit a corner and go WOT - they simply can't do it now, it'll swap ends on them.
It will be interesting to see what innovations come along next year (engine freeze or not) and how far they can refine the designs. The V8s improved quite a bit in the 8 years we had them, I expect the V6s to do the same.
Scuffers said:
zac510 said:
RYH64E and Scuffers, have you guys given up on complaining about the sound? Storm in a teacup that was, everyone's used to the sound now.
Now you're attacking the cost as an aside to your complaint about the noise?
Not at all, just pointless to keep going on about what's obvious.Now you're attacking the cost as an aside to your complaint about the noise?
I still think they are too expensive, to prescriptive, not enough power, and sound s
t.t. It baffles me that teams are going bust because f1 is too expensive but billions of pounds have been spent making the sport worse in the hope that the viewers are stupid enough to buy into the green s
t, and some still think it's a good thing. So no, I've not given up complaining about the noise, or the rest of the crap.RYH64E said:
They've also led to a position where two thirds of the grid are uncompetitive because they don't have a Mercedes engine, reliability is going to mean more penalties towards the end of the season and could well determine the outcome of the drivers championship, the drivers need a team of engineers telling them what engine settings to use to make sure they don't run out of fuel and what buttons to press to reset the damn things when they throw a wobbly, and they sound st.
It baffles me that teams are going bust because f1 is too expensive but billions of pounds have been spent making the sport worse in the hope that the viewers are stupid enough to buy into the green st, and some still think it's a good thing. So no, I've not given up complaining about the noise, or the rest of the crap.
The only things that baffle me are t. It baffles me that teams are going bust because f1 is too expensive but billions of pounds have been spent making the sport worse in the hope that the viewers are stupid enough to buy into the green s
t, and some still think it's a good thing. So no, I've not given up complaining about the noise, or the rest of the crap.- teams (who ultimately provide the show and bring in the income) are going bust but CVC are still raking in millions simply for putting on the show, which requires the teams to be taking part
- that people who have had the chance to watch the races this season say that the sport is worse, or maybe they have just watched different races to me.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff