F1 engine tokens - new engine design

[andyps]

I've just read this article - http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-encoura... - about new developments Renault are making within the engine department. To me it reads like something very close to a completely new engine design so how does this fit within the restrictions imposed by the development token scheme? As a layman my understanding was that the basic engine design is fixed but modifications can be made to certain components. If it is only components being changed why go back to a single cylinder?

I would be interested in any knowledge anyone has.

[Megaflow]

Typically single cylinder work is when you have changed something fundamental, such as combustion system, and want to verify the CAE models before committing to a full engine.

[Firebox7]

I would guess that they can test a number of design elements that are repeated across cylinders, I totally agree with your sentiment however.

I'd like to know how retired engines are treated, JA mentioned that they are cycled for practice and testing but in what state? Rebuilt and updated with the new parts or left as is? In which case they'd either be practically new and completely defying the idea of the (stupid) token system, or old spec and useless for testing etc...

I agree with the new engines, But this token system is bks. Why not just give them 100kg and Xn Joules or whatever and let them get on with it? This is just stifling innovation, encouraging cheating and confusing fans. Who wants to see their drivers engine blow up every 5 mins!?

Between engines and tyres they're really fking this up. And their only response so far has been refuelling!? They keep telling us how boring the racing would be if we had tyres that weren't made of Weetabix and engines than internally combusted but at least the sport would make some fking sense! And I'm one of the geeks that loves the tech and strategy side.

/rant

[thegreenhell]

They can change anything in the engine design except the following:

Crankcase - Cylinder bore spacing, deck height, bank stagger.

Crankshaft - Crank throw, main bearing journal diameter, rod bearing journal diameter.

Air valve system - Including compressor, air pressure regulation devices.


The number of tokens they have this year allows them to change 48% of components, reducing to 38% in 2016, and reducing again year on year until they can only change 5% of the engine design, and then only very restricted components, from 2019 onwards.

That means in the next couple of years they actually still have a great deal of freedom to redesign the engines within the homologation framework, including combustion chamber design, cylinder heads and camshafts, turbos, rods and pistons, and ERS.

[Megaflow]

Firebox7 said:

I would guess that they can test a number of design elements that are repeated across cylinders, I totally agree with your sentiment however.

I'd like to know how retired engines are treated, JA mentioned that they are cycled for practice and testing but in what state? Rebuilt and updated with the new parts or left as is? In which case they'd either be practically new and completely defying the idea of the (stupid) token system, or old spec and useless for testing etc...

I agree with the new engines, But this token system is bks. Why not just give them 100kg and Xn Joules or whatever and let them get on with it? This is just stifling innovation, encouraging cheating and confusing fans. Who wants to see their drivers engine blow up every 5 mins!?

Between engines and tyres they're really fking this up. And their only response so far has been refuelling!? They keep telling us how boring the racing would be if we had tyres that weren't made of Weetabix and engines than internally combusted but at least the sport would make some fking sense! And I'm one of the geeks that loves the tech and strategy side.

/rant

In relation to the bit in bold. Because nobody can afford it.

[m444ttb]

Rules wise I quite like what the're doing in the WEC.

[Esseesse]

Megaflow said:

In relation to the bit in bold. Because nobody can afford it.

Nobody can afford a de-restriction on what you can change and how many times?

[Scuffers]

Esseesse said:

Megaflow said:

In relation to the bit in bold. Because nobody can afford it.

Nobody can afford a de-restriction on what you can change and how many times?

Like they can afford the current farce...

[Megaflow]

Esseesse said:

Megaflow said:

In relation to the bit in bold. Because nobody can afford it.

Nobody can afford a de-restriction on what you can change and how many times?

Nobody can afford a set of rules where they get a set amount of energy, be it petrol, diesel, electricity, etc and then go and do what you want with it. Because F1 teams being what they are will not do a study of the rules, some hand calculations and proceed with what they thing is they best, they will run in depth research programs on all of them and waste literally hundreds of millions on pounds.

[Scuffers]

Megaflow said:

Nobody can afford a set of rules where they get a set amount of energy, be it petrol, diesel, electricity, etc and then go and do what you want with it. Because F1 teams being what they are will not do a study of the rules, some hand calculations and proceed with what they thing is they best, they will run in depth research programs on all of them and waste literally hundreds of millions on pounds.

And they can afford the current situation?

[Esseesse]

Megaflow said:

Esseesse said:

Megaflow said:

In relation to the bit in bold. Because nobody can afford it.

Nobody can afford a de-restriction on what you can change and how many times?

Nobody can afford a set of rules where they get a set amount of energy, be it petrol, diesel, electricity, etc and then go and do what you want with it. Because F1 teams being what they are will not do a study of the rules, some hand calculations and proceed with what they thing is they best, they will run in depth research programs on all of them and waste literally hundreds of millions on pounds.

I don't see why this is a problem. If they can waste hundreds of millions of pounds they can afford it. If they can't they won't.

[thegreenhell]

Esseesse said:

I don't see why this is a problem. If they can waste hundreds of millions of pounds they can afford it. If they can't they won't.

Isn't that exactly the problem though? Look at the current situation. We're long past the technological point where a small low-budget effort can luck into a good design, so if one manufacturer has the resources to spend one Billion on developing a PU then everybody else has to spend similar amounts to remain competitive. Opening up the rules further will only exaggerate the situation, and the number of manufacturers who can and will spend ever increasing amounts is vanishingly small. That's not exactly good for competition. It would only take one open chequebook to effectively drive the others out of the sport.

[Firebox7]

There's more than enough money to go around, it's just gobbled up by secret deals and greedy suits. This should be about the racing.

Budget caps might be an option, or limits on numbers of staff. There has to be cooperation from the teams of course but they need to take their fair share of the blame for this mess too.

[Scuffers]

Firebox7 said:

There's more than enough money to go around, it's just gobbled up by secret deals and greedy suits. This should be about the racing.

Budget caps might be an option, or limits on numbers of staff. There has to be cooperation from the teams of course but they need to take their fair share of the blame for this mess too.

you're mixing two different problems here

the teams do not do the engine development (or pay for it)

[Firebox7]

Scuffers said:

you're mixing two different problems here

the teams do not do the engine development (or pay for it)

I'm sorry but I can't understand your point of view here.

Maybe you could elaborate on how the teams don't pay for the engines, therefore the costs involved in developing them?

I can't afford a lot of things, so I don't have them.

[Scuffers]

Firebox7 said:

Scuffers said:

you're mixing two different problems here

the teams do not do the engine development (or pay for it)

I'm sorry but I can't understand your point of view here.

Maybe you could elaborate on how the teams don't pay for the engines, therefore the costs involved in developing them?

I can't afford a lot of things, so I don't have them.

Do you think the money merc get from Williams, lotus, and force India in any way covers what they have spent developing the powertrain?

Really?

[Megaflow]

I'll bet it only just covers the tooling bill...

What's the hill for a Mercedes customer engine, $30m a season? 3 teams over 3 seasons, $270m in total.

I'd guess that is about 50% of what Mercedes have spent.

[Scuffers]

Megaflow said:

I'll bet it only just covers the tooling bill...

What's the hill for a Mercedes customer engine, $30m a season? 3 teams over 3 seasons, $270m in total.

I'd guess that is about 50% of what Mercedes have spent.

Nearer 25% if that...

[lee_fr200]

I believe if it improves reliability they can change things without using tokens, from what I gather tokens are for increasing the hp apparently teams will get 25 next year


They need to do away with it for a year let ppl develop the engines through 2016 then set it in stone for 2017