More engine talk!
Discussion
Gaz. said:
Horner is being a pillock, If Mercedes had pulled out of F1 before the start of the season not only would RBR have romped to the WCC, Ricciardo would need just three points to clinch it in Abu Dhabi from Bottas if nothing else had changed. A few strategy calls would have had him winning it in Texas or perhaps Sochi.
If the Merc engine was so f
king fantatsic, why is RBR 2nd and Ferrari 4th in the constructors? It is like RBR have a sense of entitlement to those titles, well bks to RBR this is F1 and titles do not grow on trees. Mclaren's last WCC was 1998 and Williams in 1997 and they haven't been pissing and moaning about technical regulations every fortnight for the last 15 years.
Give RBR their V8, but the same sporting regulations apply, 5 engines per season and 100kg for the race with a flow cap.
There's being a good loser/being a loser and there's just being a bad sport and RBR are increasingly easy to dislike.
I wish Christian Horner would keep his mouth shut on the subject of engines. I seem to recall when Red Bull was humping everyone out of sight, his stock response to proposed rule changes was to refuse on the basis that "it's the other teams' fault that they haven't done as good a job as Red Bull with the regulations." He doesn't seem to take well to the boot being on the other foot.If the Merc engine was so f
king fantatsic, why is RBR 2nd and Ferrari 4th in the constructors? It is like RBR have a sense of entitlement to those titles, well bks to RBR this is F1 and titles do not grow on trees. Mclaren's last WCC was 1998 and Williams in 1997 and they haven't been pissing and moaning about technical regulations every fortnight for the last 15 years.Give RBR their V8, but the same sporting regulations apply, 5 engines per season and 100kg for the race with a flow cap.
There's being a good loser/being a loser and there's just being a bad sport and RBR are increasingly easy to dislike.
Europa1 said:
I wish Christian Horner would keep his mouth shut on the subject of engines. I seem to recall when Red Bull was humping everyone out of sight, his stock response to proposed rule changes was to refuse on the basis that "it's the other teams' fault that they haven't done as good a job as Red Bull with the regulations." He doesn't seem to take well to the boot being on the other foot.
Except that in this case it isn't Red Bull who haven't done a good job it's one of their suppliers, over whom Red Bull have very little control. Red Bull have arguably done a very good job, they've won races despite having an engine that's very much less than best, as opposed to McLaren who are miles off the pace despite having the best engine available."For next year, 92% of the power-unit, including the internal combustion engine and hybrid system, is defined as able to be changed and manufacturers have to choose within that up to 48% that they will modify.
This 48% is designed as 32 "tokens", which are parts of the engine given a weighting on the basis of their relevance to performance, with 66 making up the whole engine.
Mercedes have reluctantly agreed to a proposal by Red Bull, Ferrari and Honda to introduce an extra development stage in July. But there is a row about how big this step should be.
Mercedes have agreed to allow the use of five tokens in a July update, but Red Bull and Ferrari are pushing for 13".
Ref. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfgRGW9Ghik
Piss-up. Brewery.
This 48% is designed as 32 "tokens", which are parts of the engine given a weighting on the basis of their relevance to performance, with 66 making up the whole engine.
Mercedes have reluctantly agreed to a proposal by Red Bull, Ferrari and Honda to introduce an extra development stage in July. But there is a row about how big this step should be.
Mercedes have agreed to allow the use of five tokens in a July update, but Red Bull and Ferrari are pushing for 13".
Ref. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfgRGW9Ghik
Piss-up. Brewery.
Gaz. said:
RYH64E said:
Except that in this case it isn't Red Bull who haven't done a good job it's one of their suppliers, over whom Red Bull have very little control. Red Bull have arguably done a very good job, they've won races despite having an engine that's very much less than best, as opposed to McLaren who are miles off the pace despite having the best engine available.
RBR are technical partners and the works team. They didn't even let Renault have full access to the RB10 in Jerez. Renault certainly ballsed the PU up, but RBR compounded the problems.caduceus said:
I couldn't give two sniffs of a rats ass what Merc & Honda do. If those beautiful howling v8's make a return, someone give me a nudge.
You are going to be sleeping for a long time. F1 would be dead if they tried to bring the V8s back anytime in the near future. Like it or not, the sport needs manufacturers for engine supply. All the current suppliers are using smaller turbo engines in their performance road cars (Merc AMG, Renault RS, Ferrari with the 458 update, Honda with the Civic Type R) because it is what they have to do. Cosworth were effectively out with the previous V8 anyway so there is no one going to want to do an NA engine for F1 now. And they didn't howl anyway, they wailed. There have been much better sounding engines in F1 than the last V8s, especially the noise made with the ludicrous exhaust blowing where they just sounded plain wrong.andyps said:
caduceus said:
I couldn't give two sniffs of a rats ass what Merc & Honda do. If those beautiful howling v8's make a return, someone give me a nudge.
You are going to be sleeping for a long time. F1 would be dead if they tried to bring the V8s back anytime in the near future. Like it or not, the sport needs manufacturers for engine supply. All the current suppliers are using smaller turbo engines in their performance road cars (Merc AMG, Renault RS, Ferrari with the 458 update, Honda with the Civic Type R) because it is what they have to do. Cosworth were effectively out with the previous V8 anyway so there is no one going to want to do an NA engine for F1 now. And they didn't howl anyway, they wailed. There have been much better sounding engines in F1 than the last V8s, especially the noise made with the ludicrous exhaust blowing where they just sounded plain wrong.This talk of going back to V8s is ludicrous. After the cost of the new powertrains has driven two team to the wall and cost the engine manufacturers collectively hundreds of millions, to shelve them now would be the final insult.
People fawning over the sound of the V8s are probably too young to remember any of the formats which went before. In my opinion the V8s were the least interesting sounding engines since the end of the last turbo era in 1989.
Progress, people. Manufacturers would have turned their backs on F1 if they didn't feel it supported their corporate image. Furthermore, the unfair distribution of wealth within the sport has been there all along and now the new formula has only been a catalyst not a cause for the st hitting the fan.
People fawning over the sound of the V8s are probably too young to remember any of the formats which went before. In my opinion the V8s were the least interesting sounding engines since the end of the last turbo era in 1989.
Progress, people. Manufacturers would have turned their backs on F1 if they didn't feel it supported their corporate image. Furthermore, the unfair distribution of wealth within the sport has been there all along and now the new formula has only been a catalyst not a cause for the s
t hitting the fan. andyps said:
Like it or not, the sport needs manufacturers for engine supply.
I don't know why you keep trotting out this ridiculous line. Do you really think that the F1 teams need the manufacturers for engine supply? GP2 cars use a perfectly adequate 4l V8 supplied by Mecachrome, Cosworth are still out there, Ricardo is another option, Ferrari would be happy to use their own, and if necessary the teams could commission their own designs. Getting a supply of engines wouldn't be a problem.edited to add: If you think that F1 needs batteries, KERS, MGU-H, MGU-K, fuel flow restrictions, turbos, hybrid electrical motors etc then getting a supply of 'power units' might be difficult. On the other hand, if you think a normally aspirated V8 or V10 of about 3l capacity, with a 20,000 rpm limit, producing about 700bhp, is all that's required then that's not only easy to source is very cheap (in F1 terms anyway).
Edited by RYH64E on Friday 14th November 08:46
RYH64E said:
andyps said:
Like it or not, the sport needs manufacturers for engine supply.
I don't know why you keep trotting out this ridiculous line. Do you really think that the F1 teams need the manufacturers for engine supply? GP2 cars use a perfectly adequate 4l V8 supplied by Mecachrome, Cosworth are still out there, Ricardo is another option, Ferrari would be happy to use their own, and if necessary the teams could commission their own designs. Getting a supply of engines wouldn't be a problem.edited to add: If you think that F1 needs batteries, KERS, MGU-H, MGU-K, fuel flow restrictions, turbos, hybrid electrical motors etc then getting a supply of 'power units' might be difficult. On the other hand, if you think a normally aspirated V8 or V10 of about 3l capacity, with a 20,000 rpm limit, producing about 700bhp, is all that's required then that's not only easy to source is very cheap (in F1 terms anyway).
BritishRacinGrin said:
...and there are still people nailing strips of rubber to wooden wheels out there, that'd fix the Pirelli tyres issue!
I accept that the current engines are superb technically, fantastic designs, unfortunately none of the design effort has gone into making a better and more exciting racing engine for F1 and the fans. Rather the design effort has been targetted at using less fuel, trying to fool people into thinking that F1 is 'green', and giving the car manufacturers something they can use to sell road cars. As a long term F1 fan, I couldn't care less how much fuel the cars use, have no interest whatsoever in green issues, and am not happy to see F1's interests become secondary to the marketing requirements of various car companies. These engines may be very interesting technically, but none of the design features translate into more excitement for the fans, nor do they add anything to the show. They cost a fortune without adding anything for the spectators who ultimately provide the life blood for F1.
RYH64E said:
andyps said:
Like it or not, the sport needs manufacturers for engine supply.
I don't know why you keep trotting out this ridiculous line. andyps said:
And they didn't howl anyway, they wailed.
Edited by caduceus on Saturday 15th November 09:00
RYH64E said:
BritishRacinGrin said:
...and there are still people nailing strips of rubber to wooden wheels out there, that'd fix the Pirelli tyres issue!
I accept that the current engines are superb technically, fantastic designs, unfortunately none of the design effort has gone into making a better and more exciting racing engine for F1 and the fans. Rather the design effort has been targetted at using less fuel, trying to fool people into thinking that F1 is 'green', and giving the car manufacturers something they can use to sell road cars. As a long term F1 fan, I couldn't care less how much fuel the cars use, have no interest whatsoever in green issues, and am not happy to see F1's interests become secondary to the marketing requirements of various car companies. These engines may be very interesting technically, but none of the design features translate into more excitement for the fans, nor do they add anything to the show. They cost a fortune without adding anything for the spectators who ultimately provide the life blood for F1.
You really think, if they'd stuck with the old engine formula, that the engine manufacturers wouldn't be spending similarly large amounts on those engines?
rscott said:
Personally, I think the new engines have massively improved the show over last year. By having far more torque available they're more difficult to drive and we've seen far more mistakes. Compare that to last year where many of the challenging corners could easily be taken flat without any issues. Yes, the reduction in downforce through some of the aero regs has helped as well, but the complete change in nature of power delivery has been the biggest factor.
less aero = less downforce = more moving around. Cheap and easy to implement.rscott said:
You really think, if they'd stuck with the old engine formula, that the engine manufacturers wouldn't be spending similarly large amounts on those engines?
Do you really think it costs no more to develop 'power units' from scratch with turbos, MGU-H, MGU-K, cope with fuel flow restrictions and all the rest of the bks, than it would to continue developing the old NA V8s? I would guess that there's a least an order of magnitude difference in cost.RYH64E said:
andyps said:
Like it or not, the sport needs manufacturers for engine supply.
I don't know why you keep trotting out this ridiculous line. To really understand the costs of power units have a listen to the Motorsport magazine podcast with Pat Symonds from this year where he says, more than once, that the engine bill for a team this year is lower than they have been at times in the past where there were no regulations about longevity.
And as for the racing being part of the marketing for manufacturers I guess "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" is a phrase only thought up in the last couple of years is it?
Gaz. said:
According to Jean Francois Caubet, who managed Renault’s F1 engine programme until he was sacked, Renault F1 spent €120 million a year on the V8 engines, half of which they clawed back through sales, so for Williams the cost has gone up a touch, from $18m per year for a Renault V8 to $24m for a Mercedes V6 and that assumes that RBR, Lotus, Williams & Caterham paid an equal amount. I thought Lotus had free Renault lumps and were RBR paying the full price to their technical partner? Assuming so takes Williams share of the Renault V8 lumps to $25m. The reducing amount of V8's eventually replaced the unlimited use V10's through cost.
In 2002 Sauber were paying Ferrari £10m, Arrows were paying Ford £13m- that was just over $20m at the time. In today's money Arrows engine deal is $26m.
humm... some interesting stuff in there...In 2002 Sauber were paying Ferrari £10m, Arrows were paying Ford £13m- that was just over $20m at the time. In today's money Arrows engine deal is $26m.
RE: Renault, although the team and engine maker were owned by Renault, I doubt the team got the engines free - it would have to be accounted for somewhere, ie, I very much doubt this was then loaded onto the customer teams.
Last thing I saw on current engine deals was the bit Joe did here:
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/the-onom...
which if right, makes the V8's look expensive, although I would suggest when the engine freeze was applied, the costs must have tumbled as what was there to develop? (although that did not seem to stop Renault from memory!)
Scuffers said:
humm... some interesting stuff in there...
RE: Renault, although the team and engine maker were owned by Renault, I doubt the team got the engines free - it would have to be accounted for somewhere, ie, I very much doubt this was then loaded onto the customer teams.
Last thing I saw on current engine deals was the bit Joe did here:
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/the-onom...
which if right, makes the V8's look expensive, although I would suggest when the engine freeze was applied, the costs must have tumbled as what was there to develop? (although that did not seem to stop Renault from memory!)
I'm pretty sure the figures Pat Symonds meant in the comment I made above related to engines before the freeze, but it was a comment I found very interesting when I heard it as it did go against the expectation and general view that the engines were very expensive this year. Everything is relative in reality, the cost per engine is almost certainly much higher, but total annual costs may not be. Need to listen to the podcast again.RE: Renault, although the team and engine maker were owned by Renault, I doubt the team got the engines free - it would have to be accounted for somewhere, ie, I very much doubt this was then loaded onto the customer teams.
Last thing I saw on current engine deals was the bit Joe did here:
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/the-onom...
which if right, makes the V8's look expensive, although I would suggest when the engine freeze was applied, the costs must have tumbled as what was there to develop? (although that did not seem to stop Renault from memory!)
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff