Will McLaren survive their Honda contract?
Discussion
aeropilot said:
Vaud said:
aeropilot said:
If you got rid of the stupid eco hybrid nonsense and just had engines, you'd remove most of the complexity and expense - and probably remove the manufacturer interest as well 
which would seem to be a win-win situation IMHO.
But you wouldn't - at least not directly. Couldn't go back to 2.4 v8s easily so you would be looking at another generation of engines. which would seem to be a win-win situation IMHO.You have the base engine design already - you'd only be stripping away the eco nonsense and changing to suit them running as IC only with associated revisions to ECU's and such like. So need to go back to square one so shouldn't be a huge cost - in relative terms.
As someone else posted - we could go back to having some proper F1 turbo nutterness again
How hard would it be to ditch the batteries, ditch KERS, ditch the hybrid crap, and revert to engines designed to race not to sell hybrid saloon cars? I don't remember any fans complaining about engines prior to these hybrid units being intrtoduced, whatever problems F1 had they weren't engine related.
RYH64E said:
How hard would it be to ditch the batteries, ditch KERS, ditch the hybrid crap, and revert to engines designed to race not to sell hybrid saloon cars? I don't remember any fans complaining about engines prior to these hybrid units being intrtoduced, whatever problems F1 had they weren't engine related.
the current V6 IC engines were designed as part of the hybrid package, on their own they would require yet more design work.Probably cheaper to start again.
Vaud said:
If we were having a new engine I'd go for 1.5l turbos with unlimited quali boost and limited race boost?
I'd rather have regulations even less prescriptive - give them a race fuel allowance where the total energy onboard the car is equivalent to 150litres of the current fuel and leave it up to the teams/engine manufacturers how they use it. The 'total energy' bit allows the use of alternative fuels such as diesel or hydrogen.Scuffers said:
RYH64E said:
How hard would it be to ditch the batteries, ditch KERS, ditch the hybrid crap, and revert to engines designed to race not to sell hybrid saloon cars? I don't remember any fans complaining about engines prior to these hybrid units being intrtoduced, whatever problems F1 had they weren't engine related.
the current V6 IC engines were designed as part of the hybrid package, on their own they would require yet more design work.Probably cheaper to start again.
Scuffers said:
as opposed to what?
wait and see which ones give up till your left with one engine supplier?
But let's face it, Ferrari and Merc aren't going to give up in the near term, Ferrari have never quit, even when running in the second half of the grid.wait and see which ones give up till your left with one engine supplier?
So you will have 2 at least.
Vaud said:
But let's face it, Ferrari and Merc aren't going to give up in the near term, Ferrari have never quit, even when running in the second half of the grid.
So you will have 2 at least.
even if that were true, you want F1 to go forward with only ever 2 engine suppliers?So you will have 2 at least.
The cost of entry for a potential engine supplier now is stupid money, to the point that no sane organisation with shareholders could even think about jumping in.
this is a totally unsustainable position.
this also ignore the simple supply/demand issues with only 2 suppliers, the teams will simply not be able to pay for them.
$30M+ for an engine deal is stupid money.
Vaud said:
Going back in time will help no-one.
You'll end up with one spec engine - a Ferrari - or do you imagine the boards will allow €300M+ to be written off?
Why so? There's plenty of recent V8 designs in the F1 archives, I'm sure that Cosworth would be pleased to come back and it's cheap advertising for any of the manufacturers who already have existing designs (and most of them do).You'll end up with one spec engine - a Ferrari - or do you imagine the boards will allow €300M+ to be written off?
Scuffers said:
Vaud said:
But let's face it, Ferrari and Merc aren't going to give up in the near term, Ferrari have never quit, even when running in the second half of the grid.
So you will have 2 at least.
even if that were true, you want F1 to go forward with only ever 2 engine suppliers?So you will have 2 at least.
The cost of entry for a potential engine supplier now is stupid money, to the point that no sane organisation with shareholders could even think about jumping in.
this is a totally unsustainable position.
this also ignore the simple supply/demand issues with only 2 suppliers, the teams will simply not be able to pay for them.
$30M+ for an engine deal is stupid money.
I believe that manufacturers (with the exception of Renault) have looked at the teams run in the 2000's by Toyota, BMW and Honda and decided that owning an entire team is a billion-dollar moneypit with the potential for zero return.
By making an engine, if successful, your technology is relevant to road cars and gets good publicity as a key component of a championship winning car.
By tying in closely to an existing team, like Honda have done with McLaren, you get almost as much publicity as winning with your own team, for half the cost.
I read on Joe Saward's blog that VW are spending $37m a day on R&D. Toyota spend £25m a day
$300m on an engine programme for F1 is chicken feed, if they want to get in to it, so money is not a problem.
The problem is that if your engine isn't good enough, the rules don't allow you to develop it to make it win. This is the problem Honda and Renault are facing.
If they solve the testing/development issue, the engines will improve and we will have a proper championship battle on.
jammy_basturd said:
All it needs it is another shake up with the regs, then another manufacturer or team will be dominant. It's been quite a long while since we had two (or more) truly dominant teams, going all the way back to maybe the late 90s.
Well, in 2012, we had six different race winners in the first six races (IIRC)...Including Maldonado.I think it was the year before that Alonso would have grabbed the WDC for Ferrari had the team not gaffed one of the pit stop calls.
Vaud said:
RYH64E said:
Why so? There's plenty of recent V8 designs in the F1 archives, I'm sure that Cosworth would be pleased to come back and it's cheap advertising for any of the manufacturers who already have existing designs (and most of them do).
"F1 goes back to 1990s tech". Great. Personally, I couldn't care less about fuel economy and hybrid technology, not in my personal cars and even less in F1. Apart from better MPG (and who really cares if the cars return 5mg or 7mpg), what do these engines add to the sport?
Muzzer79 said:
Developing an engine is still cheaper (and more relevant for a manufacturer) than running a team.
I believe that manufacturers (with the exception of Renault) have looked at the teams run in the 2000's by Toyota, BMW and Honda and decided that owning an entire team is a billion-dollar moneypit with the potential for zero return.
By making an engine, if successful, your technology is relevant to road cars and gets good publicity as a key component of a championship winning car.
By tying in closely to an existing team, like Honda have done with McLaren, you get almost as much publicity as winning with your own team, for half the cost.
I read on Joe Saward's blog that VW are spending $37m a day on R&D. Toyota spend £25m a day
$300m on an engine programme for F1 is chicken feed, if they want to get in to it, so money is not a problem.
The problem is that if your engine isn't good enough, the rules don't allow you to develop it to make it win. This is the problem Honda and Renault are facing.
If they solve the testing/development issue, the engines will improve and we will have a proper championship battle on.
Hogg-wash.I believe that manufacturers (with the exception of Renault) have looked at the teams run in the 2000's by Toyota, BMW and Honda and decided that owning an entire team is a billion-dollar moneypit with the potential for zero return.
By making an engine, if successful, your technology is relevant to road cars and gets good publicity as a key component of a championship winning car.
By tying in closely to an existing team, like Honda have done with McLaren, you get almost as much publicity as winning with your own team, for half the cost.
I read on Joe Saward's blog that VW are spending $37m a day on R&D. Toyota spend £25m a day
$300m on an engine programme for F1 is chicken feed, if they want to get in to it, so money is not a problem.
The problem is that if your engine isn't good enough, the rules don't allow you to develop it to make it win. This is the problem Honda and Renault are facing.
If they solve the testing/development issue, the engines will improve and we will have a proper championship battle on.
for starters, it costs a s
t load more than $300M, try 3 times that amount and rising.As for the team costs you really having a laugh now, just what do you think Sauber/Manor/Hass annual budgets are?
as for Honda, honestly? I would put good money on them bailing out as soon as they can, the negative publicity alone is costing them big time, especially in the US.
With respect to Joe, he's talking crap, yes the big car companies spend billions on R&D but that's on real stuff that they then use in mass produced cars that sell and make them profits to pay back the R&D, NOTHING of these F1 PU's will ever be used in road cars (that's not already being used!)
Anybody that believe this crap needs to get a reality check.
I think whether Honda bail out will depend on whether they genuinely believe they can solve their problems and become competitive next season. Personally I think it's optimistic to believe they can even match this year's Mercedes power unit by the start of next season let alone whatever improvement Mercedes have come up with by then but then they always appear to have had more optimism than realism in this project.
I agree with the lack of relevance to road cars though, although that doesn't only apply to the power units. The simple fact seems to be that the regulations have become so restrictive that revolutionary innovation is basically banned; if anyone does come up with anything genuinely revolutionary it just gets explicitly banned a few races later. The chasing tiny details that they're forced to focus on these days is never going to be relevant to road cars.
What was the last piece of technology which was first developed for F1 to filter down into mainstream road cars?
I agree with the lack of relevance to road cars though, although that doesn't only apply to the power units. The simple fact seems to be that the regulations have become so restrictive that revolutionary innovation is basically banned; if anyone does come up with anything genuinely revolutionary it just gets explicitly banned a few races later. The chasing tiny details that they're forced to focus on these days is never going to be relevant to road cars.
What was the last piece of technology which was first developed for F1 to filter down into mainstream road cars?
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 8th September 18:29
Vaud said:
Viewers are widely defined... my aged mum still watches - she was asking me if she should get a hybrid car... but probably the exception (you can discuss tyre wars with her)
If we were having a new engine I'd go for 1.5l turbos with unlimited quali boost and limited race boost?
There isn't any boost limit with the current engines either.If we were having a new engine I'd go for 1.5l turbos with unlimited quali boost and limited race boost?
kambites said:
I think whether Honda bail out will depend on whether they genuinely believe they can solve their problems and become competitive next season. Personally I think it's optimistic to believe they can even match this year's Mercedes power unit by the start of next season let alone whatever improvement Mercedes have come up with by then but then they always appear to have had more optimism than realism in this project.
I agree with the lack of relevance to road cars though, although that doesn't only apply to the power units. The simple fact seems to be that the regulations have become so restrictive that revolutionary innovation is basically banned; if anyone does come up with anything genuinely revolutionary it just gets explicitly banned a few races later. The chasing tiny details that they're forced to focus on these days is never going to be relevant to road cars.
What was the last piece of technology which was first developed for F1 to filter down into mainstream road cars?
Merc have said they will leave if F1 went back to V8s as I agree with the lack of relevance to road cars though, although that doesn't only apply to the power units. The simple fact seems to be that the regulations have become so restrictive that revolutionary innovation is basically banned; if anyone does come up with anything genuinely revolutionary it just gets explicitly banned a few races later. The chasing tiny details that they're forced to focus on these days is never going to be relevant to road cars.
What was the last piece of technology which was first developed for F1 to filter down into mainstream road cars?
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 8th September 18:29
they have no relieves to the future.
So this new tech must mean alot to Merc for the future mainstream cars. ?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff