FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[overboost]

Ahead of the Jan 15 meeting when the engine manufacturers are supposed to present their ideas on engine costs and options (after the FIA's arbitrary $12M engine cost cap idea was veto'd) the players are taking their positions!

Ferrari:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122346

"However, Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault - which is returning to running a works team in 2016 after taking over Lotus - are unhappy with the suggestion that Bernie Ecclestone and FIA president Jean Todt should be given more power to make key decisions about F1.
When asked what Ferrari would be without Formula 1, Marchionne said: "Ferrari is likely to find other ways to provide its ability to win and to race. This is so easy.

"That would be a great pity of course - nobody wants Ferrari out of F1.

"F1 would change [without Ferrari]. It would be something else.

"Nobody would be interested in Formula 1 without Ferrari, not even Mercedes. We are all there to compete."

Marchionne, who added it would be "highly improbable" that Ferrari would walk away, strongly believes F1's participants should be involved in discussions over major decisions.

"It is something is going to happen can't be debated, we do not agree with this position," said Marchionne.

"This is something we are inline with Mercedes and also with Renault.

"We spend a hundreds of millions every year so these are heavy investments.

"The issue is trying to come up with power units which are affordable to all teams.

"The teams that are able to develop their own engines are being deprived of the reason why to go on track during every race.

"We race during every grand prix to improve ourselves, so we should try to improve our cutting edge and this is a different approach to the one which wants to be imposed.

"If F1 is going to become like NASCAR in the US, well I'm not interested in that.""

Red Bull:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122346

"Plans by Bernie Ecclestone and Jean Todt to introduce a competitive budget engine from 2017 have been put on hold while manufacturers come up with an alternative suggestion.

But Horner, whose team is interested in going down the independent engine route, thinks the original plan is still the best one.

“You need a competitive independent engine,” explained Horner. “That is what will bring balance back in to the whole system.

“We have a situation in the sport, and forget Red Bull a little bit, because just like the double diffuser was a battle between FOTA and FOM, the engine is a very powerful tool for who has control of F1.

“Is it the promoter and the FIA? Or is it the manufacturers? We find ourselves unfortunately caught in the middle of that power play.""

Mercedes:
http://www.f1today.net/en/news/207805/w ... ritten-off

"Toto Wolff has tipped Red Bull to commence a process of rebuilding as the brand races back to the front in formula one. The energy drink company's premier F1 outfit dominated the sport with every title between 2010 and 2013, faltering only when engine supplier Renault struggled at the commencement of the new 'power unit' era.

That new era has been dominated from the first lap by Mercedes, who this year ruled out supplying Red Bull with its impressive turbo V6 technology for 2016.

So 2015 ends with a sense of palpable tension between the two camps, with Red Bull's Christmas card featuring Mercedes boss Wolff being mowed down by Daniel Ricciardo and Daniil Kvyat driving a foot-powered Flintstones car.

"If everything is peace, love and pancakes, that's just not formula one," Wolff is quoted by the Austrian newspaper Salzburger Nachrichten.

He insisted sport is not the most important thing in the world, so "You have to take it with humour".

And he warned that Red Bull, although to be powered by Tag Heuer-branded Renault engines next year, regards 2016 as a transitional year on the road back to recovery."

[overboost]

The plot thickens ahead of the Jan 15 meeting:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/01/05/f ... ers-newey/

Speaking to The National, Newey pointed out that while some manufacturers provide their customer teams with the same hardware, their engine buyers often cannot obtain the same software and fuel as those used by the factory team.

“If you take the engines built by Mercedes or Ferrari, when they supply those engines to their customer teams, the customers don’t get the same engine – not in the software anyway,” said Newey. “The software becomes very important now.”

“So we are in this position where Mercedes have a very good, very powerful engine. Their customer teams don’t get the same specifications. So it is difficult for their customer teams to beat the Mercedes team.”

Newey believes the rules could be changed to make F1 more competitive. “The actual physical engine has to be the same, the ones supplied to the customer teams,” he said. “But it’s not just the physical hardware, it’s also the petrol and the software.”

“So the first thing you can do is to change the regulations so that customer teams have the same software and the same fuel, if they wish to, as the works team.”

[darwin dali]

The plot thickens ahead of the Jan 15 meeting:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/01/05/f ... ers-newey/

Speaking to The National, Newey pointed out that while some manufacturers provide their customer teams with the same hardware, their engine buyers often cannot obtain the same software and fuel as those used by the factory team.

“If you take the engines built by Mercedes or Ferrari, when they supply those engines to their customer teams, the customers don’t get the same engine – not in the software anyway,” said Newey. “The software becomes very important now.”

“So we are in this position where Mercedes have a very good, very powerful engine. Their customer teams don’t get the same specifications. So it is difficult for their customer teams to beat the Mercedes team.”

Newey believes the rules could be changed to make F1 more competitive. “The actual physical engine has to be the same, the ones supplied to the customer teams,” he said. “But it’s not just the physical hardware, it’s also the petrol and the software.”

“So the first thing you can do is to change the regulations so that customer teams have the same software and the same fuel, if they wish to, as the works team.”

Hm, I think I disagree with AN here. There's nothing (or there shouldn't be anything) preventing a customer from tinkering themselves with the software and come up with their own solutions for how they want to run the engine based on their own chassis. I believe that this should be included as a requirement for engine customers on par with the requirement to build their own chassis. Same with the fuel: they should do their own research with their fuel supplier.

[sagi58]

It does seem fair that a customer should get the "same" product, especially for the crazy prices these engines are demanding and I do agree, that they should have options to "tinker" with their software.

However, here is some food for thought:

If the software is considered "intellectual" property, are manufacturers obligated to share that edge, if they don't want to? What if a customer asks for something that will bring them in line with what the builder feels is their "edge", is the manufacturer obligated to make those changes? Will the manufacturer charge exorbitantly high prices to accommodate their customers? And, what if a customer can't afford the price demanded to make changes, what's to stop the manufacturer from using those options for themselves?

It sure does seem that F1 cars are becoming more about "gadgetry" than guts, do we want to stay on that road?

[stonemonkey]

If you were a manufacturer of a piece of hardware that your company reputation depends on the reliability of in a very public manner would you want someone else tinkering with it's software?
Also, the engine supplier would have to have detailed knowledge and understanding of any changes made by the customer otherwise they couldn't offer the support they do, and even then it might not be easy.

[darwin dali]

If you were a manufacturer of a piece of hardware that your company reputation depends on the reliability of in a very public manner would you want someone else tinkering with it's software?
Also, the engine supplier would have to have detailed knowledge and understanding of any changes made by the customer otherwise they couldn't offer the support they do, and even then it might not be easy.

With the current regs (max. number of engines) it is in every customer's interest not to screw up their software/engine. And if they end up in a cul-de-sac, they can always revert to the manufacturer's default settings/software. So, if you don't feel comfortable tinkering, then stick to the default. But if you have the expertise in your team, then by all means go for it - you might show the manufacturer a thing or two...

[sagi58]

... if you have the expertise in your team, then by all means go for it - you might show the manufacturer a thing or two...

Exactly, DD!! It's not like all the "best" minds can be on one team!
Wouldn't it be ironic if an idea/insight/improvement comes from a competitor's
staff member who is a former employee of the manufacturer's!!

[sagi58]

James Allen wrote:">PEACE FOR NOW: REGULATORS, MANUFACTURERS AND TEAMS AGREE F1 ENGINE PLAN

POSTED: 19 JAN 2016

The last two days have seen meetings at the FIA headquarters in Geneva aimed at securing cheaper engines for F1 teams from 2018, guaranteed supplies for teams and stability to the end of 2020. It means that the hybrid turbo engines are here to stay for the next five seasons.

The F1 Strategy Group met yesterday and the F1 Commission today. Although there are no official communications on the matter from manufacturers or regulators, it seems that some real progress was made, staving off the threat made by Bernie Ecclestone and FIA president Jean Todt at the end of last season to introduce a new specification cut price engine, moving away from hybrid turbos, which would have undermined the manufacturers.

The details are still being finalised and will emerge in due course, but the price has come down from the €20m per year plus, which was being charged by manufacturers, to something more like €12m a year, partly by simplifying the engines, introducing common parts across all units. This means that it’s still a business for the manufacturers, but it also makes the smaller teams more sustainable. But the measures go beyond just the engines to other components, like gearboxes, where there will be a limit of three per driver per season.

The definitive regulations will be voted through the World Council this year, will come into force in 2018 and will be stable until 2020.

The detail of the guaranteed supply will be interesting. There was a logical push to stipulate a minimum number of teams a manufacturer must supply. Currently there is a maximum but no minimum. The feeling was that the rules should require a manufacturer to supply at least two teams.

So there is peace, for now. 2020 is an important date as that is when the current bilateral agreements between F1 and the teams are due to expire.

Part of the game with this battle over engines was to clip the wings of the manufacturers, to curb their power. The plight of Red Bull, which found itself with no manufacturer willing to supply it for 2016, highlighted some fundamental problems with the structure of F1, some of which have now been addressed.

But two things linger: first the threat from the manufacturers after 2020 to flex their muscles in negotiations with the F1 commercial rights holder (currently Ecclestone and CVC Capital Partners). There is concern that Sergio Marchionne of Ferrari, Dieter Zetsche of Mercedes and Carlos Ghosn of Renault, see a pathway for a post Ecclestone post CVC Formula 1 and will form an alliance to bring that about. That threat has not gone away, even if this current skirmish has now been headed off.

Second, Ecclestone’s gripes about these hybrid turbo engines have not gone away, but Todt has managed to find a way to preserve them for five years, while reducing the costs by aligning with Ecclestone. When the pair aligned last November to take on the manufacturers, there was concern in some FIA circles that Todt may risk undermining the hybrid turbo, which was his baby, as Ecclestone would find a way to manoeuvre them out of the sport.

Hopefully now the sport can do a better job of telling the story of the technology without undermining its own achievements. If everyone has decided that hybrid turbos are the future then they should act like they believe in them.

[overboost]

No more of the now admittedly flawed 'token' system starting in 2017.

Sadly however this is not soon enough to save 2016 which will suffer the same fate as 2014 and 15 as forgotten seasons. Just 32 tokens to spend this season virtually handcuffing Honda, Ferrari and Renault.

It defies belief that it took these FIA geniuses so long to see the mess that they had created when it was apparent to everyone after just one day of testing in 2014.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-to ... 17-671488/

"Formula 1's power unit token system will be scrapped from 2017, Motorsport.com has learned.

The move means the four manufacturers will face no limits on development, other than the fact that they can only introduce upgrades when a driver uses new elements.

The change was one of the key concessions made when the manufacturers agreed to cut their prices to customers in 2017.

All four now have works teams and will justify their spending in terms of making their own squads competitive, without the cost being passed on to the teams they supply.

This year the manufacturers still have 32 tokens, but that was due to drop to 25 in 2017, 20 in 2018, and then 15 from 2019 to the end of the current formula.

Just three per year were to be allowed for the last two years of the formula, on the basis that manufacturers would have to develop an engine to new rules.

"The token system is being removed," Renault's Cyril Abiteboul said today. "One of the reasons we have all agreed to do this is that we all need the performance of the engine to converge.

"An F1 that is dictated by the performance of the engine is not good for anyone.

"You see it is not good for Mercedes, it is not good for Renault, Ferrari – we all have interest to change that.

"We have decided, also for the public, to stop the public being confused between the penalty system, the token system – we have decided to simply remove the token system."

It had already been agreed to scrap for 2016 the 'black and white' parts system, which specified that some elements could not be updated after a certain points.

That means items that were previously going to be fixed this year – such as upper and lower crankcase dimensions – have been freed up."

[darwin dali]

Finally some good news

[myownalias]

Better late than never I guess, in my view, F1 and cost cutting are not compatible concepts, to push the technical aspects of the sport forward, development needs to happen constantly and that creates massive cost. If we are to keep multiple engine makers, there needs to be a more open system for development and hopefully from 2017, that is what we will have.

[overboost]

The irony here is that these were and will remain the most expensive engines in F1 history! And billions spent in development. Cost cutting?

[myownalias]

The irony here is that these were and will remain the most expensive engines in F1 history! And billions spent in development. Cost cutting?

But now we can all have 800hp 2.4L Turbo V6's in our roadcars now...

[sagi58]

...But now we can all have 800hp 2.4L Turbo V6's in our roadcars now...

Considering some drivers on the roads, we need to be careful what we wish!!

[overboost]

The irony here is that these were and will remain the most expensive engines in F1 history! And billions spent in development. Cost cutting?

But now we can all have 800hp 2.4L Turbo V6's in our roadcars now...

Yes we have the relevance to the auto industry!

However I have been driving 2.3L turbo's since 2000 so they are a little bit behind the times, at least in my case.