PU development frozen this season and limited until 2026
Discussion
This isn't 'new news' but on a few other threads I've noticed many people don't seem to be aware of these rules. Probably because so much has happened and changed in the sport so far this year...
Anyway, here is an outline of how limited PU development is this season and at least until we get the new PU rules for 2026 onward:
(Source of chart and full explanation: https://the-race.com/formula-1/the-full-extent-of-... )
A main factor I see is that this has a broader limiting factor on some areas of car development, as certain PU revisions force revisions of the car design and vice-versa. The PU freeze this year combined with the limitations of car development going in to next year closes off some of what the teams could normally change for effectively both seasons. A lot can still be done to develop the existing cars, but nothing radical enough to require a new car and new PU design can happen simultaneously until at least 2022.
This is, naturally, a cost saving measure. And the effects of that are also broader than just saving PU development costs. It will mean the customer teams have longer to live with each PU iteration, which in many cases will help them budget more effectively and get more shelf life out of their bespoke components that are PU design dependent.
It's not so good news for Ferrari and their customers this year, and probably they'll all be back footed by this one way or another next year too.
Is this news to you? Discuss..
Anyway, here is an outline of how limited PU development is this season and at least until we get the new PU rules for 2026 onward:
(Source of chart and full explanation: https://the-race.com/formula-1/the-full-extent-of-... )
A main factor I see is that this has a broader limiting factor on some areas of car development, as certain PU revisions force revisions of the car design and vice-versa. The PU freeze this year combined with the limitations of car development going in to next year closes off some of what the teams could normally change for effectively both seasons. A lot can still be done to develop the existing cars, but nothing radical enough to require a new car and new PU design can happen simultaneously until at least 2022.
This is, naturally, a cost saving measure. And the effects of that are also broader than just saving PU development costs. It will mean the customer teams have longer to live with each PU iteration, which in many cases will help them budget more effectively and get more shelf life out of their bespoke components that are PU design dependent.
It's not so good news for Ferrari and their customers this year, and probably they'll all be back footed by this one way or another next year too.
Is this news to you? Discuss..
Edited by TheDeuce on Thursday 16th July 00:41
sparta6 said:
Good news for Mercedes.
For this year definitely. Good news for Williams too - now Ferrari have relegated the entire bottom half of the grid to such an extent that Williams can start to go looking for the odd scrap perhaps. Any team that enters 2024 with a PU that has an inherent and undetected flaw would be totally stuck for two years though..It’s ridiculous, F1 never learn. Every couple of years they mix up the rules to try and remove a team’s advantage or achieve closer racing.
The stupid part is that static rules means everyone eventually catches up, to the point that you usually get close racing and a couple of teams in the hunt in the last year of those static rules.
Post cost cap, engines should be free to develop but allocated from a random pool for a fixed cost for anyone to buy.
If one engine is so special, a rival can buy one and reverse engineer it.
(That’s if you buy into this new idea of a spec series, cost capped F1 which I personally don’t).
The stupid part is that static rules means everyone eventually catches up, to the point that you usually get close racing and a couple of teams in the hunt in the last year of those static rules.
Post cost cap, engines should be free to develop but allocated from a random pool for a fixed cost for anyone to buy.
If one engine is so special, a rival can buy one and reverse engineer it.
(That’s if you buy into this new idea of a spec series, cost capped F1 which I personally don’t).
ash73 said:
Which is why they need to scrap these insane rules.
Who thought it was a good idea to make it harder for the chasing pack to catch the leader?
The justification is cost saving. However, it does rather give the impression of one group of people working hard to find ways of making the racing closer and more exciting, with another group working out ways to make it cheaper. On this occasion it looks like the two didn't communicate very well!Who thought it was a good idea to make it harder for the chasing pack to catch the leader?
Ferrari and their customers are effectively taken out of the development race for this season and next. That's the extreme opposite of bringing the field closer to promote more racing. Mercedes and Red Bull now have a clear road ahead, hey have the best PU's and they're 'stuck' with them
TheDeuce said:
Ferrari and their customers are effectively taken out of the development race for this season and next. That's the extreme opposite of bringing the field closer to promote more racing. Mercedes and Red Bull now have a clear road ahead, hey have the best PU's and they're 'stuck' with them
While true it's not actually related to either the "make it cheaper" or "make it closer" rule makers though is it. Quite clearly Ferrari WERE doing something dodgie with their engines upto last year and we just unfortunate to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar just as these rules come in.For me it's telling that we've not heard Ferrari shouting, screaming, and throwing their toys out the param about this. Almost like there's something in that report that Ferrari would rather keep sealed, even at the cost of being hamstrung for a few seasons...
//j17 said:
While true it's not actually related to either the "make it cheaper" or "make it closer" rule makers though is it. Quite clearly Ferrari WERE doing something dodgie with their engines upto last year and we just unfortunate to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar just as these rules come in.
For me it's telling that we've not heard Ferrari shouting, screaming, and throwing their toys out the param about this. Almost like there's something in that report that Ferrari would rather keep sealed, even at the cost of being hamstrung for a few seasons...
One wonders what the driving force for these reg changes was, it would be deeply amusing if Ferrari had tried to capitalise on their illegal advantage by hamstringing the other manufacturer's only for it to blow up right in their faces. Either this or they have been found out to be cheating for much longer than just last season (which also seems plausible).For me it's telling that we've not heard Ferrari shouting, screaming, and throwing their toys out the param about this. Almost like there's something in that report that Ferrari would rather keep sealed, even at the cost of being hamstrung for a few seasons...
//j17 said:
TheDeuce said:
Ferrari and their customers are effectively taken out of the development race for this season and next. That's the extreme opposite of bringing the field closer to promote more racing. Mercedes and Red Bull now have a clear road ahead, hey have the best PU's and they're 'stuck' with them
While true it's not actually related to either the "make it cheaper" or "make it closer" rule makers though is it. Quite clearly Ferrari WERE doing something dodgie with their engines upto last year and we just unfortunate to get caught with their hands in the cookie jar just as these rules come in.For me it's telling that we've not heard Ferrari shouting, screaming, and throwing their toys out the param about this. Almost like there's something in that report that Ferrari would rather keep sealed, even at the cost of being hamstrung for a few seasons...
ds..) and at the same time Ferrari choose not to object to PU and chassis development rules that will leave them floundering for two years...? I think it's quite likely that Ferrari 'choosing' to play nice over the new rules WAS their effective punishment. They definitely made their bed..
thegreenhell said:
TheDeuce said:
Mercedes and Red Bull now have a clear road ahead, hey have the best PU's and they're 'stuck' with them
Have Red Bull switched to Mercedes engines then?As others have sauid, I don't think this is going to help the sport much.
I would prefer a system whereby if you are at the back of the grid, you get more avenues to improve, such as additional test sessions, additional tokens for PU upgrade etc.etc. All of these aids would be dished out according to inverse championship order.
I would prefer a system whereby if you are at the back of the grid, you get more avenues to improve, such as additional test sessions, additional tokens for PU upgrade etc.etc. All of these aids would be dished out according to inverse championship order.
It's interesting that this was considered a way to make things 'cheaper'.
The reality is that if you can't introduce changes easily over time then you have to engineer and test your product to death to make sure it's perfect first time and reliable long term. So huge amounts of testing, endless prototypes and pre-production, massive investment and all with a huge risk of still having a problem at the end that you're then stuck with.
Or you allow for things to evolve with time as required, subject to the design meeting the regulations. You know, like every engineered product on the market from kettles to aircraft.
But this was always about PR - the perception of the old way of constant change and engines being disposable being 'expensive' - not about actual real cost savings.
If they really wanted to mix things up you'd put a cost cap on the combined cost of development & manufacture, allow unlimited design revisions within that budget, and make all design & production details for the units open source after 12 months to level the playing field between suppliers.
The reality is that if you can't introduce changes easily over time then you have to engineer and test your product to death to make sure it's perfect first time and reliable long term. So huge amounts of testing, endless prototypes and pre-production, massive investment and all with a huge risk of still having a problem at the end that you're then stuck with.
Or you allow for things to evolve with time as required, subject to the design meeting the regulations. You know, like every engineered product on the market from kettles to aircraft.
But this was always about PR - the perception of the old way of constant change and engines being disposable being 'expensive' - not about actual real cost savings.
If they really wanted to mix things up you'd put a cost cap on the combined cost of development & manufacture, allow unlimited design revisions within that budget, and make all design & production details for the units open source after 12 months to level the playing field between suppliers.
HustleRussell said:
Is anybody in a position to comment on the relative performance of the PUs in qualifying and race this year?
Apart from Ferrari being found out, it looks as though Mercedes, Honda and Renault continue to converge as you would expect.
last season various people in the teams that would know better than the rest of us said that the power units effectively had entered a period of convergence with power output probably within 10hp between them (with the caveat that ferrari 'Appeared to have a little more...). I don't think we'll ever get a more accurate summary than that, as the margin for error in making such a guesstimate is itself at least 10hp. The only people who know the exact figures don't know anyone else's exact figures.Apart from Ferrari being found out, it looks as though Mercedes, Honda and Renault continue to converge as you would expect.
The biggest distinguishing factor is probably reliability, and simply looking at how many PU and component changes each team suffers each season doesn't give an entirely accurate view on that. For example, last season the Honda PU could be said on paper to be about as (un)reliable as the Renault PU. But that's skewed somewhat as it looked to me that RB with the Honda were running the engine in very high modes for extended periods in order to help Max out, whereas I never saw Renault doing the same, other than in Q3 very briefly.
Catatafish said:
I would prefer a system whereby if you are at the back of the grid, you get more avenues to improve, such as additional test sessions, additional tokens for PU upgrade etc.etc. All of these aids would be dished out according to inverse championship order.
So do you also want each team to have a completely independent engine manufacturer, or somehow think Merc./Ferrari can or would spend engine development money that somehow only benefited Williams/Haas? Or to have Racing Point have a bad year, so get lots of engine development points, then come back the following year with another 'Pink Arrow' but with a more developed Merc. engine than the one in the back of that years Merc. cars?Evangelion said:
Just shows what utter bks F1 has become.
My personal opinion is, and always has been, that there should be NO engine restrictions whatsoever - anything from a diesel to a rocket, any size, any number of cylinders, turbo or non turbo, hybrid or pure ICE, etc.
So you want to see an F1 with say 4 teams, of which only 1 or maybe 2 have any chance of winning because they are happy to spend $100m on an engine for each race and have 3x the BHP of everyone else?ks F1 has become.My personal opinion is, and always has been, that there should be NO engine restrictions whatsoever - anything from a diesel to a rocket, any size, any number of cylinders, turbo or non turbo, hybrid or pure ICE, etc.
It's a good job hardly anyone seemed to be aware of these new rules - they don't appear very popular...
I wonder what this means for HAAS? Gene seemed to be losing interest in F1 even before his cars engines downgraded and locked in for an entire season. Not exactly the season of improved results that he demanded the team must achieve.
I wonder what this means for HAAS? Gene seemed to be losing interest in F1 even before his cars engines downgraded and locked in for an entire season. Not exactly the season of improved results that he demanded the team must achieve.
TheDeuce said:
I wonder what this means for HAAS? Gene seemed to be losing interest in F1 even before his cars engines downgraded and locked in for an entire season. Not exactly the season of improved results that he demanded the team must achieve.
What about a switch to Honda power for '21? Might get a good deal as there's some PR points in the headline "Haas switch from Ferrari to Honda power".//j17 said:
TheDeuce said:
I wonder what this means for HAAS? Gene seemed to be losing interest in F1 even before his cars engines downgraded and locked in for an entire season. Not exactly the season of improved results that he demanded the team must achieve.
What about a switch to Honda power for '21? Might get a good deal as there's some PR points in the headline "Haas switch from Ferrari to Honda power".Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff