F1 cancelled this year?

F1 cancelled this year?

Author
Discussion

TheDeuce

8,511 posts

29 months

Thursday 2nd July 2020
quotequote all
jsf said:
PU parts used at the start of the last race of 2019

ICE Internal Combustion Engine TC Turbo Charger
MGU-H Motor Generator Unit – Heat MGU-K Motor Generator Unit – Kinetic

N° Car Driver ICE TC MGU-H MGU-K
33 RBR Honda Max Verstappen 5 4 4 3 = 16
23 RBR Honda Alexander Albon 5 5 5 4 = 19
26 Toro Rosso Honda Daniil Kvyat 7 7 7 6 = 27
10 Toro Rosso Honda Pierre Gasly 7 5 5 5 = 22
Total Honda replacements = 84

03 Renault Daniel Ricciardo 5 4 4 4 = 17
27 Renault Nico Hülkenberg 6 4 4 3 = 17
55 McLaren Renault Carlos Sainz 6 5 5 5 = 21
04 McLaren Renault Lando Norris 4 4 4 4 = 16
Total Renault replacements = 71

Total ICE unit changes
RBR = 10
TR = 14
Renault = 11
McLaren = 10

Most reliable total units used over the season
Joint between Lando Norris and Max Verstappen = 16 units

Most reliable ICE over the season
Lando Norris = 4 units

Most reliable team ICE over the season
Joint between RBR and McLaren = 10 units
Thank you. I see where you're coming from. I do think there is more to read in to that though:

- The comparison between Renault and Honda PU's in 2019 isn't very useful, as Red Bull have been using TR to effectively see when it goes pop, to better judge their own usage. The sheer number of ICE and TC TR have burned through demonstrates as much. RB then also took a few penalties at circuits they had no real chance at - I think it's important to differentiate between a PU component swap, and a PU component melt down causing a DNF.

- The better comparison is directly between Renault's team and McLaren. As you point out, there isn't much in it - unless you look at the ES & CE figures. I did post those earlier, but here they are again:

Renault 5 x ES, 7 x CE
McLaren 9 x ES, 8 x CE



Those figures are excluded from your post yet are relevant - as part of handling the modern hybrid PU is the challenge of keeping all parts of an interdependent system cool and functional. The result of not doing so is generally a retirement DNF.

The partnership RB have with Honda allows them to deep dive in to all aspects of how both of these components are best supported and integrated, along with the specific Honda PU components, to limit the probability of DNF. McLaren don't seem to be able to yield the same results overall.

McLaren did DNF 8 times to Renault's 6 last year. Compared to I think 3 total for Red Bull, just for comparison - given that McLaren had far more in their first and second year with Honda.

You're right when you say I can't provide absolute evidence that McLaren continue to struggle with hybrid PU integration and management. But looking at the component usage and breakdowns, I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw. They have had more PU related failures than Renault.

Deesee

4,948 posts

46 months

Thursday 2nd July 2020
quotequote all
Nice discussion up there @duece & @jsf.. top posting, good reading.


TheDeuce

8,511 posts

29 months

Thursday 2nd July 2020
quotequote all
Deesee said:
Nice discussion up there @duece & @jsf.. top posting, good reading.
It's fascinating to look deeply at the PU component burn rate, and then consider how soundly McLaren managed to beat Renault in spite of the difference. It shows how far the McLaren car is ahead of Renault. And that is very poignant going in to this season, as the Renault car is one of the least evolved.


Deesee

4,948 posts

46 months

Thursday 2nd July 2020
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
Nice discussion up there @duece & @jsf.. top posting, good reading.
It's fascinating to look deeply at the PU component burn rate, and then consider how soundly McLaren managed to beat Renault in spite of the difference. It shows how far the McLaren car is ahead of Renault. And that is very poignant going in to this season, as the Renault car is one of the least evolved.
I have my views on the PU usage, as I said good discussion..!

Leithen

7,254 posts

230 months

Thursday 2nd July 2020
quotequote all
Deesee said:
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
Nice discussion up there @duece & @jsf.. top posting, good reading.
It's fascinating to look deeply at the PU component burn rate, and then consider how soundly McLaren managed to beat Renault in spite of the difference. It shows how far the McLaren car is ahead of Renault. And that is very poignant going in to this season, as the Renault car is one of the least evolved.
I have my views on the PU usage, as I said good discussion..!
Very interesting stuff - thank you. coffee

It does however dismay me slightly. Listening to Stefan Johansson describe the 80's turbo years and witnessing them at Brands Hatch, the brutal equation of extreme excess power over grip with limited aero - with manual gear changes so short that any slight miss meant a loss of place - I can't help thinking F1 has completely lost the plot.

Kraken

1,616 posts

163 months

Thursday 2nd July 2020
quotequote all
Leithen said:
Very interesting stuff - thank you. coffee

It does however dismay me slightly. Listening to Stefan Johansson describe the 80's turbo years and witnessing them at Brands Hatch, the brutal equation of extreme excess power over grip with limited aero - with manual gear changes so short that any slight miss meant a loss of place - I can't help thinking F1 has completely lost the plot.
Depends on what you think the plot is. If F1 was all about entertainment for the masses then you'd be spot on. If it's the pinnacle of motorsport engineering then you'd be way off.

My personal view is somewhere between the two but a long way towards being entertainment. I no longer watch F1.

TheDeuce

8,511 posts

29 months

Friday 3rd July 2020
quotequote all
Kraken said:
Depends on what you think the plot is. If F1 was all about entertainment for the masses then you'd be spot on. If it's the pinnacle of motorsport engineering then you'd be way off.

My personal view is somewhere between the two but a long way towards being entertainment. I no longer watch F1.
They're trying more than ever to make it 'entertainment' now (american influence..) and there is commercial mileage in that. There will likely come a time at which the cash cow has been milked for entertainments sake to the point that the sport doesn't really make very much sense anymore - after all, F1 was only popular in the first place as an engineering showcase and innovation hotbed. The more the sport is exploited for the casual masses, the less of what makes it unique remains.

I'd hold tight for a while, maybe in 5-10 years popularity will wane enough to raise some questions. But for now, we're not that far off the new regs/era and that could be good. It's also not just engineering and innovation that fuels this sport, it's the drivers too. If the new regs result in better racing, then the world class drivers giving good action will carry the sport.

Although personally I dislike the idea of standardised parts removing team ingenuity, but I get the reasoning.. It's commercial, the people making such judgement calls are no fools.