Bernie. Engines. Again.
Discussion
How can you "spread across a season" if it's all at once? The PU is also in several parts - it means they could e.g concentrate on the ICE at season start, then mgu or whatever at a later date. It allows several different steps between 2014 and 2015 homologations, without making a major impact on part lifecycles.
Either way, the fact thatFerrari has lobbied for this so hard shows they plan to use it - why make a fuss if they were going to have final spec for melbourne?
Either way, the fact thatFerrari has lobbied for this so hard shows they plan to use it - why make a fuss if they were going to have final spec for melbourne?
I would be very surprised if any of the major teams delayed homologate of engines for the following reasons.
The Merc engine was unique to the others by way of the turbo's being positioned at each end of the head, thus allowing a very low packaging height, enabling the aero at the rear of the car to be very efficient. Merc took full advantage of this when designing the rear of the car as they new what they were getting from the outset, the customer engine supplied teams were a bit in the dark and did not have enough time to change the basic car design once the units were completed.
Renault and Ferrari had the turbo's on the top of the engine in the more traditional place, making them unable to follow the tight packaging of the rear end.
If they delay, and run 2014 engines they will have to run 2014 rear ends and be unable to take advantage of the better aero.
And aero is king - look at pre turbo Renault Team - lowest engine power, but drivable delivery and great aero efficiency.
IMHO
The Merc engine was unique to the others by way of the turbo's being positioned at each end of the head, thus allowing a very low packaging height, enabling the aero at the rear of the car to be very efficient. Merc took full advantage of this when designing the rear of the car as they new what they were getting from the outset, the customer engine supplied teams were a bit in the dark and did not have enough time to change the basic car design once the units were completed.
Renault and Ferrari had the turbo's on the top of the engine in the more traditional place, making them unable to follow the tight packaging of the rear end.
If they delay, and run 2014 engines they will have to run 2014 rear ends and be unable to take advantage of the better aero.
And aero is king - look at pre turbo Renault Team - lowest engine power, but drivable delivery and great aero efficiency.
IMHO
Considering the amount of debate single or multiple homologations appears to have generated amongst the technical regulation quoting occupants of F1 Technical. I suspect this will end up going legal to clarify exactly what the technical regulations mean.
Personally I see the regs as having intended only a single homologation per season per manufacturer. ICE, MGU etc are all defined as part of PU so have to homologated together.
I'd guess that Ferrari are somewhat behind on their '15 PU and need the additional time to implement whatever improvements they've planned.
Could a '14 specification chassis with minor modifications to incorporate the revised anti-intrusion panels and new noise be effectively run as a '14-B specification car by a team that doesn't have a 15 specification improved engine?
I'm thinking could Ferrari for example introduce their real 15 spec car mid season complete with narrowed rear section and revised 15 specification engine allowing time for more radical PU redevelopment e.g. split turbo, cassette gearbox etc.
By only having half as many tokens to spend next year and half again the following surely means that any significant redevelopment needs to be done this time round even if you compromise this years campaign to get it done.
Personally I see the regs as having intended only a single homologation per season per manufacturer. ICE, MGU etc are all defined as part of PU so have to homologated together.
I'd guess that Ferrari are somewhat behind on their '15 PU and need the additional time to implement whatever improvements they've planned.
Could a '14 specification chassis with minor modifications to incorporate the revised anti-intrusion panels and new noise be effectively run as a '14-B specification car by a team that doesn't have a 15 specification improved engine?
I'm thinking could Ferrari for example introduce their real 15 spec car mid season complete with narrowed rear section and revised 15 specification engine allowing time for more radical PU redevelopment e.g. split turbo, cassette gearbox etc.
By only having half as many tokens to spend next year and half again the following surely means that any significant redevelopment needs to be done this time round even if you compromise this years campaign to get it done.
andyps said:
Scuffers said:
andyps said:
One thing I read which could partially explain the McLaren situation with the Mercedes engine was that they were the only team using the engine who didn't use the fuel and oil it was designed for due to contractual reasons and as a consequence started the 2014 season with a 60bhp (I think it was) deficit.
based on what?Link?
Scuffers said:
andyps said:
One thing I read which could partially explain the McLaren situation with the Mercedes engine was that they were the only team using the engine who didn't use the fuel and oil it was designed for due to contractual reasons and as a consequence started the 2014 season with a 60bhp (I think it was) deficit.
based on what?Link?
Mark Hughes - Motorsport magazine said:
But it wasn't only the W05's engine. Near-identical units were in the back of the Williams and Force India, after all (McLaren's engine was the same, too, but the team was contracted to run on a fual other than the Petronas around which it had been designed, initially costing as much as 40bhp).
This was in the January issue of the magazine.The latest wheeze is 1000bhp engines, apparently.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117300
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117300
JonRB said:
The latest wheeze is 1000bhp engines, apparently.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117300
My concern in that article is that it says they are also discussing "the possibility of ramping up downforce". At the same time as giving more power to make the cars harder to drive and therefore more attractive to fans this seems completely wrong. Cars with lower downforce are almost always more entertaining to watch as it increases the chance of power exceeding grip. And also from a safety perspective higher downforce means higher cornering speeds and therefore higher energy to be absorbed when limits of the grip/downforce are exceeded and cars leave the intended lines.http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117300
from the bbc f1 site ...
''Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari are allowed to change up to 48% of the engines they used in 2014 by the end of the 2015 season.
This is defined by a number of 'tokens', which are assigned to parts of the engine on the basis of their influence on performance.
Out of a total of 66 tokens, Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari can modify 32 through 2015.
Previously Honda had been barred from changing any of its engine after it was approved for competition on 28 February.
Friday's ruling will allow Honda to change a given amount of its engine calculated by the average of the number of tokens unused by the other manufacturers by the time of the first race in Australia on 16 March.''
is it me,or does his mean that the more the other engine manufacturers modify and improve their engines ,the less honda can do the same ?
doesn't that seem topsy turvy?
hopefully i have misunderstood it .
''Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari are allowed to change up to 48% of the engines they used in 2014 by the end of the 2015 season.
This is defined by a number of 'tokens', which are assigned to parts of the engine on the basis of their influence on performance.
Out of a total of 66 tokens, Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari can modify 32 through 2015.
Previously Honda had been barred from changing any of its engine after it was approved for competition on 28 February.
Friday's ruling will allow Honda to change a given amount of its engine calculated by the average of the number of tokens unused by the other manufacturers by the time of the first race in Australia on 16 March.''
is it me,or does his mean that the more the other engine manufacturers modify and improve their engines ,the less honda can do the same ?
doesn't that seem topsy turvy?
hopefully i have misunderstood it .
It seems pretty fair to me - if the manufacturers hadn't appealed against what they knew the intention of the rules was then Honda wouldn't have had any chance to apply updates this year. Because they have forced an outcome then Honda can develop slightly through the year. It may have been fairer to say they could have as many credits as the worst performing manufacturer had left on Feb 28th to force them to work together to homologate by then leaving Honda no development but that would never happen.
Have there been any NSX prototypes running 1.5 V6 engines with full hybrid systems over recent months?
Have there been any NSX prototypes running 1.5 V6 engines with full hybrid systems over recent months?
Totally fair imo.
That rule is saying "if you want more time to develop, then Honda gets more time to develop. If you don't choose to have more time, Honda doesn't get the option." Perfect imo to not only deter current manufacturers using the loophole to avoid the spirit if the rules, but also to give a level playing field for Honda. I'm far from a honda fanboy, but was quite unhappy at the idea they had an extra hurdle this year by people reinventing rules at the 11th hour...
That rule is saying "if you want more time to develop, then Honda gets more time to develop. If you don't choose to have more time, Honda doesn't get the option." Perfect imo to not only deter current manufacturers using the loophole to avoid the spirit if the rules, but also to give a level playing field for Honda. I'm far from a honda fanboy, but was quite unhappy at the idea they had an extra hurdle this year by people reinventing rules at the 11th hour...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff