Formula One with ten-year-old engines
Discussion
What if a new team came in... and as mentioned they get to design an engine thats got 5 years technology gain on the 'old' ones, that's good, but as soon as they enter do they get to fully test then engine? If they find it's unreliable on race 1, tough luck boys you entered it into a race, now you can't change it.
It's madness I tell you!
It's madness I tell you!
Conian said:
What if a new team came in... and as mentioned they get to design an engine thats got 5 years technology gain on the 'old' ones, that's good, but as soon as they enter do they get to fully test then engine? If they find it's unreliable on race 1, tough luck boys you entered it into a race, now you can't change it.
It's madness I tell you!
Do you know any Cliff Richard?It's madness I tell you!
Edited by zac510 on Tuesday 27th November 09:58
The argument that freezing engine development for the next decade will somehow halt spending in F1 is absolute nonsense. As others have already pointed out, if the F1 teams can't spend money squeezing more rpm out of their V8s, they'll spend the same money on making their water pump/exhaust/inlet snorkel 0.1% more efficient, or failing that, some other minute component that might gain them 0.05sec/lap advantage over their rivals. That's just the way modern F1 is, and I for one love it that way.
Stifling engine innovation is contrary to everything that I find fascinating about the engineering in F1. KERS just ain't going to cut it as a replacement. Just another example of how wrong the FIA is getting things these days. Virtually everyone agrees that the current lack of overtaking is the fault of the hugely complex aero devices every car employs, so why not just ban bargeboards, triple-element/bridge front wings and the like?
I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir here. These arguments have been made over and over by the fans, and by many of the writers and journalists too. Quite why the FIA refuses to even consider these measures is beyond me.
Here's to a decade of domination, then...
Stifling engine innovation is contrary to everything that I find fascinating about the engineering in F1. KERS just ain't going to cut it as a replacement. Just another example of how wrong the FIA is getting things these days. Virtually everyone agrees that the current lack of overtaking is the fault of the hugely complex aero devices every car employs, so why not just ban bargeboards, triple-element/bridge front wings and the like?
I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir here. These arguments have been made over and over by the fans, and by many of the writers and journalists too. Quite why the FIA refuses to even consider these measures is beyond me.
HayRoger said:
As a passing thought, if the freeze happens today, which team currently has the best engines and is hence in a position to potentially dominate the next 10 years?
Well, the Mercedes-Benz FO 108T engine in the MP4-22 was nigh-on bulletproof, had extremely good heat rejection characteristics and by all accounts was one of the most powerful engines on the '07 grid.Here's to a decade of domination, then...
Thre's no such thing as a rubbish engine in F1 these days. With the 19,000 rev limit, those manufacturers chasing power on the back of revs (eg Mercedes) were able to catch up with the rest.
You'd think that the frozen regs would enable Cosworth to get back into the game, wouldn't you, but if anything, those regs offer more of an incentive for manufacturers to make their engines available to more teams for economy of scale reasons.
Perhaps the frozen regs might also enable the manufacturers to sell the engine production side of the business off wholesale should they decide to exit F1...or to scale back from full constructor to engine manufacturer.
In short...as others have said, teams will spend 100% of whatever budget they have...
You'd think that the frozen regs would enable Cosworth to get back into the game, wouldn't you, but if anything, those regs offer more of an incentive for manufacturers to make their engines available to more teams for economy of scale reasons.
Perhaps the frozen regs might also enable the manufacturers to sell the engine production side of the business off wholesale should they decide to exit F1...or to scale back from full constructor to engine manufacturer.
In short...as others have said, teams will spend 100% of whatever budget they have...
hostile17 said:
HayRoger said:
As a passing thought, if the freeze happens today, which team currently has the best engines and is hence in a position to potentially dominate the next 10 years?
Well, the Mercedes-Benz FO 108T engine in the MP4-22 was nigh-on bulletproof, had extremely good heat rejection characteristics and by all accounts was one of the most powerful engines on the '07 grid.Here's to a decade of domination, then...
McLaren's engine was, as you said, bulletproof. BMW's engines put up really well, as did Toyota's. Ferrari's was pretty good, but I think they could have done better. Not sure about Renault and Honda engines though.
Conian said:
I'm still confused......
so.... if you have a crap engine now.... you're forced to use the same crap engine for 10 years?
or can you abandon your engine and buy one in from a good team?
will there be 10 teams all running Fezza or Macca engines?
I am sure the red team will continue to develop their engine anyway, the FIA will just turn a blind eye to their advances.so.... if you have a crap engine now.... you're forced to use the same crap engine for 10 years?
or can you abandon your engine and buy one in from a good team?
will there be 10 teams all running Fezza or Macca engines?
Meanwhile everyone else will be stuck with old technology and the FIA will finally get the series it wants - Ferrari 1 & 2 for every race....
BigBen said:
Isn't it a fix on engine parameters such as V-angle, capacity, revs etc rather than engine design ?
Ben
Ben
Tony Purnell said:
"So we looked at that and saw that the only way to stop spending with finality is to prevent any changes whatsoever. Freeze the engine, freeze the peripherals as well, and do this long-term so there are no thoughts about retaining a department to develop future engines."
flemke said:
BigBen said:
Isn't it a fix on engine parameters such as V-angle, capacity, revs etc rather than engine design ?
Ben
Ben
Tony Purnell said:
"So we looked at that and saw that the only way to stop spending with finality is to prevent any changes whatsoever. Freeze the engine, freeze the peripherals as well, and do this long-term so there are no thoughts about retaining a department to develop future engines."
As others have said what if your engine is rubbish you have no chance of catching up so might as well retire from the sport for ten years. Seems crazy that the teams have allowed this.
Ben
BigBen said:
As others have said what if your engine is rubbish you have no chance of catching up so might as well retire from the sport for ten years. Seems crazy that the teams have allowed this.
Ben
It is not clear yet whether the teams allowed this, as you put it. It was a dictate from the rocket scientists at the World Motor Sport Council, the same group of wise men who fined McLaren £100M because of never-proved allegations from those paragons of intellectual honesty in Maranello and Geneva.Ben
One is not sure whether the teams were surprised by this. They might well have been, seeing as how the FIA has for the last two years supported the very different idea of taking the engine size down to 1-1.5L, allow turbos, and focus on KERS.
Since the FIA presented the idea/potential mandate of the freeze (for something longer than the competitive lifetime of almost all F1 drivers), however, one or two team bosses or senior guys have said that they were in favour of it, in principle. I couldn't say whether than approbation was genuine, or might possibly have been influenced by someone's whispering into someone else's ear, "If you'll help me with..."
flemke said:
BigBen said:
As others have said what if your engine is rubbish you have no chance of catching up so might as well retire from the sport for ten years. Seems crazy that the teams have allowed this.
Ben
It is not clear yet whether the teams allowed this, as you put it. It was a dictate from the rocket scientists at the World Motor Sport Council, the same group of wise men who fined McLaren £100M because of never-proved allegations from those paragons of intellectual honesty in Maranello and Geneva.Ben
One is not sure whether the teams were surprised by this. They might well have been, seeing as how the FIA has for the last two years supported the very different idea of taking the engine size down to 1-1.5L, allow turbos, and focus on KERS.
Since the FIA presented the idea/potential mandate of the freeze (for something longer than the competitive lifetime of almost all F1 drivers), however, one or two team bosses or senior guys have said that they were in favour of it, in principle. I couldn't say whether than approbation was genuine, or might possibly have been influenced by someone's whispering into someone else's ear, "If you'll help me with..."
I understand that currently to make a change to the engine within a season the teams must get the agreement of all the other teams. Currently they are all apparently play nicely and agree to changes on the basis they will probably require the same at some point, can't see that lasting either.
Ben
I can't figure what the appeal of F1 would be for the engine manufacturers if they were not allowed to develop the engines. One part of the reason for them taking part is to demonstrate to potential car purchasers that the manufacturer produces a car/engine which competes, and hopefully wins, at the top level of motorsport. Whether this has any relationship to the car/engine which is then bought by the public is pretty irrelevant as long as they make a connection - it is a marketing promotion exercise in this respect.
The second part, which may vary by manufacturer, is that putting engineers into the F1 field is very good for development of their people - they can use it to develop those with good prospects, and then take the overall skills gained through working in an environment with rapid development and quick returns in terms of seeing results (or not) to improve working practices elsewhere in the business - a human resource enhancing exercise in this respect.
If these two areas are lost because MM and the rest of the FIA have some strange agenda then I can imagine manufacturers leaving the series, particularly if their engine at the time of the freeze is not quite as good as others. Add to this the almost impossibility of a new manufacturer coming in as mentioned above and I hope the idea is a non starter. Trouble is, that would be logical, and this involves the FIA so logic almost certainly will not apply.
Is it what the GPMA members thought they would get when they abandoned their breakaway series?
The second part, which may vary by manufacturer, is that putting engineers into the F1 field is very good for development of their people - they can use it to develop those with good prospects, and then take the overall skills gained through working in an environment with rapid development and quick returns in terms of seeing results (or not) to improve working practices elsewhere in the business - a human resource enhancing exercise in this respect.
If these two areas are lost because MM and the rest of the FIA have some strange agenda then I can imagine manufacturers leaving the series, particularly if their engine at the time of the freeze is not quite as good as others. Add to this the almost impossibility of a new manufacturer coming in as mentioned above and I hope the idea is a non starter. Trouble is, that would be logical, and this involves the FIA so logic almost certainly will not apply.
Is it what the GPMA members thought they would get when they abandoned their breakaway series?
andyps said:
I can't figure what the appeal of F1 would be for the engine manufacturers if they were not allowed to develop the engines. One part of the reason for them taking part is to demonstrate to potential car purchasers that the manufacturer produces a car/engine which competes, and hopefully wins, at the top level of motorsport. Whether this has any relationship to the car/engine which is then bought by the public is pretty irrelevant as long as they make a connection - it is a marketing promotion exercise in this respect.
I interpreted so, and tried to explain above but nobody listened, that Purnell's point is that with a 10 year development block the signifcance of engines will decrease, but instantaneously be taken in place by interest in KERS systems. In response to the OP, punters will say "Who has the best KERS, Mc, BMW or Ferrari?" Sounds kinda lame now but it'll be no more factual than how people argue over engines now.With the corresponding rule change this could leap F1 into the environmental spotlight far above any other racing series as people view KERS produced by manufacturers in a competitive environment. In the same way aerodynamics has become as narrow scope with intensive investment by the nature of the rules, so will KERS. This retains the interest for manufacturers and gives the 'road car' filter down that spectators whine about all the time.
zac510 said:
I interpreted so, and tried to explain above but nobody listened...
We did listen, but there was nothing in it about Nigella Lawson, Maddie, MX5s or face kicking, so many of us didnt feel qualified to repsond to your 'reasoning' and 'logic'. You did make a valid statement though. Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff