FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[sagi58]

...I find it a little ironic that the thing that is most hurting Lewis is that as soon as he has some bad luck it equates to 25 points to the Nico simply because no other team is allowed to improve their car's PU until next year...

Good point, spanky!! It's become a "default" situation, hasn't it?

[sagi58]

As suggested by What's Burning?, this discussion shouldn't be in the Jules Bianchi thread,
so I moved it here, where it is more apropos!!

Hindsight is 20/20...

NO one could have foreseen the difference in power units.

This is Ferrari you're talking about, you're saying they built such a poor engine? This is Ferrari you're talking about, ENZO Ferrari... you're making excuses for his namesake making a poor engine when the engine IS what Ferrari is about? Okay.

Your comment boarders on the condescending!! But, I will humour you.
This was a year of new regulations that were in the pipeline for a number of years,
I realize that. I also recognize the fact that whilst Mercedes wasn't doing well ON
the track, during that time, they were able to focus on THIS year's power unit.
For all we know, they were using the previous seasons' races to test bits and pieces
for THIS year's power unit.

Did they plan better than Ferrari and Renault? SURE they did!! And, they have
Ross Brawn to thank for that. The same Ross Brawn who was at Ferrari during
their time of domination. The same Ross Brawn who is no longer at Mercedes
to make the calls that will stop the team from imploding during this title fight.

p.s. I am NOT making excuses for Ferrari, any more than Hamilton fans make
excuses for him when he doesn't run off into the sunset.

NO one seems to have foreseen the disadvantage of the freeze.

What disadvantage of the freeze? Doesn't a freeze mean that ALL TEAMS are prevented from developing their engine? Or are you saying that Ferrari is more affected by the freeze because their engine is the most defficient... if so, see above. Or I guess, in the Ferrari club, the opinion is that only Ferrari would gain on engine power, Mercedes and Renault would remain completely idle, since after all they're not as good at making engines as Ferrari.

Again, your tone boarders on condescension. Again, I will humour you.
YES all the teams are prevented from developing their engines. NO I am
NOT saying that Ferrari is more affected, regardless of where their engine
does or does not fall on the spectrum of the current grid. NOR would I
expect that the other engine makers would sit around twiddling their
thumbs, the way EVERYONE is doing this year!!

What I am saying is that the ONLY team who is benefitting from this freeze
is Mercedes. There is NO disputing that they got it right, and a big "whoopee"
for them; but, let's face it, if the shoe were on the other foot, this discussion
would be about how Ferrari was being favoured by the FIA. Of course, as it
stands, with no development that's OK with all the Hamilton fans, right? That
way he'll have an easier ride into the sunset holding up his WDC, eh?

At the end of the day, this is not going to be a the "well-deserved" championship,
we all know he is more than capable of, since his "real" competition has been
effectively stifled!

NO one anticipated that only one team would get it right.

Have you seen Cookie's signature? Or the comments quite a few of us were making on the Kimi hire back when it was announced? We saw it, I guess Ferrari didn't. Oh well, let's go back to badmouthing the rules Ferrari agreed to and even lobbied to change to further suit them, like going from a straightline 4 cylinder, to a V6 and delaying it for an additional year.

Yes, I did see his signature. And, to be honest, coincidences like that always happen, in life.
It was little more than wishful thinking that just happened to come true. As for putting Kimi
down, that's pretty much expected from a lot of people, so no prize for clairvoyance!!

Again, there was NO way to know just how detrimental to competition this freeze was really
going to be, otherwise I would hope this rule would never have been written and enacted.

At the end of the day, it has worked out for Hamilton/Mercedes fans and that's just how the
season is going to finish. With ONE team in contention for both titles.

Enjoy!!

So, NO, it's not question of whether someone else could have
done better!! It's a question of why Ferrari didn't do better!

Finally you put the blame where it belongs... not Renault, not Mercedes, not the FiA but Ferrari. I hope they put a better car on the grid next year cause another year of moping and blaming from their fans would be too much for me to stand.

No, you do NOT hope they are better, what you hope is that Mercedes
has started a period of domination to rival that of Ferrari. You might
like to put that into your signature, in the hopes that neither Ferrari
nor Renault will give Mercedes a run for their money, next year. Of
course, you will also want to hope the rule doesn't get thrown out.

One last comment, just as so many people who derided Schumi and his
domination in F1 and, to an extent, Vettel, claimed an asterisk should
be put on the years that they were successful, so should an asterisk be
used for this season, as a reminder that teams were not allowed to
continue developing their engines during the season.

[spankyham]

Engine rule changes trough the years

So Spanky, I tried to find the previous rules regarding engine changes due to freezes and I haven't been able to find anything that is explicit. I linked to this page because it's very complete as far as the history. I reject your claim that Ferrari and Lotus not being allowed to develop their engines for "Performance" gains is unfair in any way, or is stifling the racing, in any way. Everyone got the same instructions, and had the same opportunities in developing the new specs engine....

You define a rule as fair if teams are told in advance. But I'm not saying the rules are unfair - I accept them. However, I am saying this rule is not good. I find it puzzling that some fans and teams can argue against rules, e.g. the double points, yet this rule was told to all teams in advance - as you say they got the same instructions and had the same opportunities. So why criticize Ferrari or Ferrari fans when they want to voice their opinion that a different rule is not good?

and as I've mentioned elsewhere specific concessions were made for Ferrari, 1, going from a 4 cylinder inline to a 6 cylinder V and raising the capacity from 1.2 to 1.6 liters. 2, extending the introduction of the new engines by one year. Both f those changes were specifically to help Ferrari since they were the team most resistant to the change.

I'd dispute your description of the genesis and history of the current turbo engine. Firstly, the original turbo was proposed to be a four cylinder because Audi had said they would enter F1 if they committed to 4 cylinder turbo units >>Source<<. Secondly, Ferrari were in favor of a GDI turbo power unit as the PU was originally proposed. It was Norbert Haug and Mercedes who wanted to change that and also wanted to slow down the introduction because they wanted F1 to move to "technological development" not just a turbo engine as had already been accepted >>Source<<. And here's another >>Source<< where Norbert and Mercedes are making it clear that there wont be a new engine unless they agree, and telling the FiA they must mandate a PU that was mostly hybrid and to their liking. It was confirmed by the Daimler board member who made it clear that Mercedes had the discussion to leave F1 if they weren't given a PU that suited them.

So there's a few points that I need to make that have been muddied in my opinion by your statements that engine development is frozen.
1, engines can be modified for reliability gain.
2, engines can be modified for cost reductions.
3, ECU software can be modified for performance and indeed had the lions share of the performance gains. In other words, you may be able to pick up small percentages of performance gains through hardware, but you will pick up large chunks of performance gains through software.

So there are a number of changes that can and have been made to this year's engine. I understand that you feel that Ferrari is on the back foot, but time and time again concessions were made and I can understand how perhaps Ferrari fell short when compared to the Mercedes juggernaut, but I can't understand how they'd fall short to Renault in making an F1 engine.

I have always conceded that Mercedes deserve full accolades for the car they turned out for the start of the season. They did the best job period.
Having said that, it is indisputable that the current rules state (for the first time in F1 history) that no changes are allowed to the PU to improve performance. The complete unit, including all the electronics are homologated so these too cannot be changed to in any way to improve performance.

I also don't understand the insistence that if Ferrari was allowed to develop their engine that we'd immediately see competition from them. It's not as if Mercedes or Renault would sit still if they were allowed to make engine changes for performance gains.

No-one can tell how much Ferrari might catch up if they were allowed to make performance changes. What we know is that it has happened in the past (2003 season). The Mercedes engine in the McLaren was definitely superior to the Ferrari 051 engine. Ferrari responded and set about building a completely new 052 engine and introduced it from the 3rd race of the season. It was an epic struggle through that year from thereon. I think Einstein has this scenario completely right "Insanity" might be described as forcing teams to turn-up to every event with the same power unit and expecting a different result is possible (ok so assuming they all can make it to the finish )

Lastly, there are specific provisions built into this years regulations (as there have been in previous engine freeze yeas) that are for teams that can demonstratively prove to the FiA that they are at a power disadvantage.

I think you're totally confused here. It was the previous 2.4L V8 engine rules that provided this outlet. This year no change is allowed to improve performance to the February homologated engines.

So can you provide something concrete to refute each and every of my claims or is this just you as a Ferrari fan having difficulty accepting the year's results?

Let's put this to rest once and for all please.

I hope the above has helped

An additional comment here, let's keep this strictly technical as there have been outlandish comments made about Mercedes having the time since they were so uncompetitive in previous seasons, to somehow manage test parts of their V6 1.6 liter Turbo engines in race situations with the V8 2.4 liter normally aspirated engines (that were also frozen for development). So you can see how I'd like to unmuddy the waters here, since it's gotten out of control.

Agreed, none of the 2014 engine could possibly be run in last years cars. What's more, there was nothing preventing teams from running their engines in "mule" vehicles prior to 2014 testing and engine homologation.

[sagi58]

Sheez, spanky, even I can understand all that!!

p.s. WB? Is this the post that you referred to in the engine turbo thread?

[What's Burning?]

Since I've been off this week, I looked at some of the sources you linked to and although they prove your point in some aspects, they also prove my point in others. For example Ferrari's GDI is a means to make use of efficient fuel utilization, something that you've been vociferously against. So the change to that request from Mercedes was to further expand the use of energy recovery. The problem with using half arguments is that isn't a black and white thing.

You're correct about the previous "exception" being made for Renault in their V8, but it doesn't negate the fact that a ton of improvement can and is being done to the existing engines via the three exceptions I noted above, and in fact the lion's share of gains is to be had with ECU refinements, not engine overhauls. Let's see what Ferrari put on the grid next year, but in this case of who said what and threats to leave if they don't get what they want, ALL engine manufacturers have stated such, and although I wasn't away of the Newey comments of Audi coming into the sport if the engines were made four cylinder turbos, I also recall commentary that the original intent of the FiA was to standardize and therefore increase the potential pool of engine manufacturers by having WRC and F1 share engine platforms, so you can't place this at the feet of any manufacturer. SOURCE

The point I've made is that a lot of the Tifosi are arguing both sides of the coin and you can't do that and remain credible. Ferrari missed an opportunity they shouldn't have missed. Why? Maybe Mattiacci will find out or will figure out, but the Tifosi et al have to stop with the blame every thing and everyone else mentality when it's clear their performance this year has everything to do with their failure to capitalize on the opportunity put before them.

[sagi58]

As you said, nothing is black and white. Not even the rules.

What I have a HUGE problem with is that there is no allowance for improvement to the PU.
As far as I'm concerned, regardless of which driver wins the WDC, it's a tainted title because
of that salient fact. Of course, there is always an outside chance that reliability or even tire
wear may become an issue in individual races; but, basically, it's a "one-horse" season.

[spankyham]

As you said, nothing is black and white. Not even the rules.

What I have a HUGE problem with is that there is no allowance for improvement to the PU.
As far as I'm concerned, regardless of which driver wins the WDC, it's a tainted title because
of that salient fact. Of course, there is always an outside chance that reliability or even tire
wear may become an issue in individual races; but, basically, it's a "one-horse" season.

To be fair, WB has raised a good point that I agree is correct. Some of the engine management (software) can be changed and this could change the engine performance. This can be done through the year. Of course how effective this can be is unknown. I think its fair to say that so far there has been no discernible change in PU performance, but that's not to say there is none to be achieved.

Still, it is also true that this is the first year in F1 history that engine cannot be structurally changed to improve performance and I'm confident this is a major barrier to teams catching up to Mercedes.

But, at the end of the day, it is also true, as I have said many times, that Mercedes are to be congratulated for their achievement at the start of this year - they definitely arrived with the best PU. I hope Ferrari are striving to match that and then some for the start of next year.

One thing that will be very interesting is how fans will react next year if a difference engine becomes dominant. This will be critical because this is the only year where teams are allowed to make big changes to their PU. So teams will still be prohibited from making performance improvements through the year, but, also at the end of the year, the changes they can make for performance will be very restricted. If for example Renault leapfrogs Mercedes and comes with a similar performance gap over the others, or if Honda does indeed get it completely right, then we will likely be faced with 4 years of that advantage set in concrete. I wonder how the fans on the receiving end will react.