Ferrari wants F1 engine freeze lifted to improve competition
Discussion
According to Autosport anyway.
Ferrari wants F1 engine freeze lifted to close up competitive order
The Ferrari Formula 1 team wants rules that prevent engine manufacturers tweaking their designs during the season relaxed in order to help close up the competitive order.
Ferrari and Renault have built engines down on power compared to the leading Mercedes unit under F1's new turbocharged V6 hybrid regulations introduced for this year.
The rules permit alterations to engine mapping and software, but forbid manufacturers from changing mechanical parts on their units unless they make a special request to make alterations for reasons of reliability, safety or cost.
Team principal Marco Mattiacci told reporters after the recent Belgian Grand Prix, where Kimi Raikkonen finished fourth but complained of a lack of straightline speed, that F1 should be less restrictive in its engine regulations.
I have to say that I actually agree with Ferrari (rather surprisingly). I've always thought that the new engine regulations of "get it right first time, and then that's it - no tweaking allowed" was somewhat unreasoable.
One of the things that geeks like me enjoy about F1 is the evolution and continuous improvement. The forward march of technology and all that.
You could argue that the engine freeze is a cost-cutting measure, but in all honesty the best way of cutting costs (realistically and actually, rather than pandering to the greens with hybrids and *being seen* to be cutting costs rather than *actually* cutting costs) would have been to freeze the very well-developed V8s.
Anyway, given we have gone to the enormous R&D expense of creating these new hybrid power units it seems rather stupid not to allow the engine manufacturers to hone them and get them right before freezing their development.
Ferrari wants F1 engine freeze lifted to close up competitive order
The Ferrari Formula 1 team wants rules that prevent engine manufacturers tweaking their designs during the season relaxed in order to help close up the competitive order.
Ferrari and Renault have built engines down on power compared to the leading Mercedes unit under F1's new turbocharged V6 hybrid regulations introduced for this year.
The rules permit alterations to engine mapping and software, but forbid manufacturers from changing mechanical parts on their units unless they make a special request to make alterations for reasons of reliability, safety or cost.
Team principal Marco Mattiacci told reporters after the recent Belgian Grand Prix, where Kimi Raikkonen finished fourth but complained of a lack of straightline speed, that F1 should be less restrictive in its engine regulations.
I have to say that I actually agree with Ferrari (rather surprisingly). I've always thought that the new engine regulations of "get it right first time, and then that's it - no tweaking allowed" was somewhat unreasoable.
One of the things that geeks like me enjoy about F1 is the evolution and continuous improvement. The forward march of technology and all that.
You could argue that the engine freeze is a cost-cutting measure, but in all honesty the best way of cutting costs (realistically and actually, rather than pandering to the greens with hybrids and *being seen* to be cutting costs rather than *actually* cutting costs) would have been to freeze the very well-developed V8s.
Anyway, given we have gone to the enormous R&D expense of creating these new hybrid power units it seems rather stupid not to allow the engine manufacturers to hone them and get them right before freezing their development.
Jasandjules said:
Well, they knew the rules before this season didn't they? So they had the opportunity and resources to sort their engine out.
That wasn't my point. My point was that I agree that teams (as in all teams, not just Ferrari) should have a little more latitude for evolution than this season's rules of "get it right first time and no second chances". Of course Ferrari knew the rules before the season started - all the teams did - but that's hardly the point.
IainT said:
Are they assuming that Merc would not use such a relaxation of the ban to improve their engine further?
Almost certainly not. I think it's more a case of voicing the opinion that the engines should be allowed to evolve and stabilise over the course of the season, rather than the rather artificial situation we have this season where Merc got it more right than Ferrari and Renault on the initial design, and now the latter two are pretty much buggered (or, at least, severely limited) for the rest of the season. Scuffers said:
Renault and ferrari did a s
t job, they have to live with that.
But that was the point of my original post; yes, they do have to live with that because those are the regulations this year - pretty much no in-season development or evolution allowed. In previous years we'd have seen a race-by-race Continuous Improvement programme that would see the season evolve in a more organic way. t job, they have to live with that.People keep getting fixated on the fact it's Ferrari who said this. Put that aside for a moment, and all the historical baggage that comes with it, and ask yourself the question which is better: one shot at getting it right, and then live with it for the rest of the season, or have latitude to evolve your package during the season?
Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 3rd September 09:44
RYH64E said:
Market forces would surely mean that the best engine supplier becomes dominant and the others fold, so a single engine supplier series. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing because the the engines will become ever more similar in time to maximise the power available within the requirements of the regulations. Ultimately, the only difference between engines will be the name on the badge, the only question is how long it takes to get there.
Well, we already have regulation ECUs...But that does beg the question as to how much of a Formula series F1 should be. Do we really want a regulation chassis and a regulation engine, like other formulae do? I don't believe so, personally.
I'd like to see *more* latitude for designers to be creative. Then maybe the likes of Adrian Newey, Gordon Murray, etc. wouldn't get bored and look for other things to interest them.
robinessex said:
And of course, the engine suppliers aren't doing ANY developing of the engines at all at the moment, are they ? Ha Ha .............
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. 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.
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.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff