- 27 Dec 14, 22:42#430591
Very good write up, it seems some people don't like the facts of the matter!
Good writeup on the who/where/what that got Horner and Ferrari in a tizzy about being left behind.Bleacher Report From the moment the first of Formula One's new hybrid "power units" fired up at the season-opening test at Jerez, they've faced a never-ending barrage of criticism. Some said they were too quiet. Others that they were too complex, too gimmicky, too computerized or too green.
The chorus of opposition has waxed and waned throughout the year, but it has been matched by a more sustained, growing chorus of approval. Though not everyone's cup of tea at the start of the year, they seem to have gained the acceptance of most.
But as the 2014 season drew to a close, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner and F1 commercial rights boss Bernie Ecclestone started to publicly go against the grain. They not only publicly stated their disapproval for the hybrids, but also went so far as to suggest they should be scrapped altogether in 2016.
The 1.6-litre V6 turbo engines, mated to an energy-recovery system drawing power from two sources and returning it to the driver via an electric motor, represented the biggest shift in engine regulations since the world championship began in 1950.
The new "power units" were introduced at the behest of the manufacturers that supply engines to the sport's teams. They wanted greater road relevance—technology which could be developed for F1, then later used in their road cars.
Rising energy costs and environmental concerns have pushed nearly every carmaker towards greater fuel efficiency. Most accept the future lies with, at the very least, hybrid technology—a fusion of traditional petrol or diesel engines and electrical energy systems. These were the areas targeted by the changes.
Motorsport magazine reported Renault made the hybrid switch a condition of their continued participation, while Honda, returning next season, only came back because of the new regulations. Mercedes have said, per the Guardian, that they would also leave if the V6 turbos were scrapped, and even the Volkswagen Group are, per BBC Sport, conducting a feasibility study with a view to a future entry.
After less than a year of existence, the new regulations have done their job by keeping two suppliers and attracting one, potentially two, more.
But they've also created problems, because not everyone did a good job on their new hybrid lumps. With a change of this magnitude, it was inevitable that some of the manufacturers would do better than the others. Mercedes were the winners in 2014, producing an excellent power unit which was the class of the field from the first race to the last.
Renault and Ferrari lagged behind, the knock-on effect being that the teams using their engines were less competitive. This has seen Red Bull, constructors' champions for the last four years, adopt an especially unhappy demeanour all season long. The Austrian team, powered by Renault, kicked off the campaign way behind Mercedes. Little changed throughout the year. Red Bull, Ferrari and all the teams sharing their engines finished up almost as far adrift as they had started.
Part of the reason for this is that engine development is "frozen" during the season. Upgrades are banned between the first race and the last, and can only be applied during the winter break.
These upgrades are applied according to a "token" system. Each engine component is worth a certain number of tokens, of which each manufacturer has a certain number to spend. Despite agreeing to and supporting this cost-saving measure when it was enshrined in the regulations, some of the suppliers developed self-interest led opposition.
Renault (via Red Bull) and Ferrari, aware they would not be able to do all they wanted to during the winter, demanded some tokens be made available for changes during the season.
BBC Sport's Andrew Benson reported in November that Mercedes had agreed to allow a small window of opportunity in July 2015 to spend five tokens. Renault and Ferrari refused to accept the offer, wanting to use 13.
Neither side would budge, so Red Bull's Horner moved on to questioning whether a total change to the engine regulations—including a new type of engine—was needed. He first suggested a return to V8s, then came up with a new type of V6. He wrapped this up in a "cost-cutting" message, saying (h/t BBC):
If we simplified the engine, perhaps retain the V6, but have a twin turbo and maybe a standard energy-recovery system, it would dramatically cut the costs.
It's unsustainable for any of the manufacturers to keep spending at the level we are. So we should maybe look at simplifying the engine because if the development costs stay as they are then we won't attract new manufacturers in. We have to ensure the sport is attractive to new manufacturers.
ESPN reports he repeated his suggestions early in December. On the balance of probabilities, one would have to say he's bluffing to try to scare Mercedes or win a bit of public support, but there's a chance he could actually mean it.
If so, he has an ally in F1 commercial rights boss Bernie Ecclestone. As far back as 2011, The Independent reported he threatened to sue the FIA over the new engine plans, claiming the reduced noise levels would harm gate revenues.
Ecclestone kept up his opposition throughout the season, making frequent Gerald Ratner-style outbursts against his own product. At the United States Grand Prix he told Sky Sports F1, "We need to change the regulations. Get rid of these engines because they don’t do anything for anyone. They are not Formula One."
One could argue that revenue-stripping and short-sighted profiteering isn't "Formula One" either, but regardless of what the sport is or isn't, getting rid of them would be a terrible decision.
The current regulations were agreed by all the current engine manufacturers, with input from potential future arrivals.
Some, like Renault, would have left without the switch. For Honda, they were the reason they decided to come back. Mercedes are here to stay because of the rules, the Volkswagen group is considering an entry and Ferrari had previously seemed supportive as well. The FIA were key in their implementation.
Everyone agreed this was the correct path to take, and a change of heart at this stage would be both weak and self-destructive.
These manufacturers want to develop their own hybrid systems and turbos, not work with a standard version of either. Mercedes have already said they would go, Honda and Renault would almost certainly follow and whatever feasibility study VW are conducting would suddenly vanish into the ether.
And for what? To please a team which got used to winning and now can't handle coming second? So some investors can cream an extra few million pounds off the gate receipts?
Mercedes did the best job under rules that everyone agreed to. They earned their advantage and are more than entitled to benefit from it until at least the end of next season. There's no reason to suggest what had become an aerodynamic formula cannot spend a couple of years as an engine formula as well.
Agreeing to and sticking to rules—whether you win or lose—is a fundamental part of competing in any sport. Shunting the power units aside because one or two participants don't like them would be both unfair and ridiculous. But that's not the only reason they need to stay.
F1 should always be about the cutting edge and beyond—bringing through and developing new technologies which then filter down into everyday life. Active suspension, sequential gearboxes, disc brakes, tyres, vehicle aerodynamics, hybrid systems and fuel technology all owe their existence or current level of advancement to their use in racing cars. And they only came about because of the never-ending quest to be better than the other guy.
As Formula1.com reports, Mercedes say the trickle down from their 2014 efforts has already started. Renault are seeing similar progress as they push on toward greener, cleaner road cars.
Go forward 10 years into the future and buying a full-on hybrid won't be a slightly eccentric, environmentally driven choice—it'll be normal. And the better batteries, more efficient energy-recovery systems, lower fuel consumption and reduced emissions will be in part down to what you see the manufacturers doing in F1 today.
Yes, they're expensive, but the cost of engines is not the problem, so far as F1's finances are concerned. Revenue distribution is.
Yes, they do sound a bit puny—but they're quicker and harder to drive than the old V8s, which more than makes up for their auditory failings.
And yes, maybe they don't suit an energy drinks company which can't deal with losing, or a billionaire whose primary interest is how much money he can transfer from the sport into his own pocket in the next three to four years. But it doesn't really matter.
Ecclestone has done a lot for the sport and Red Bull are unquestionably a valued part of the field.
Are you happy with the current F1 engines?
Yes
55.3%
No
32.1%
Indifferent
12.6%
Total votes: 530
But if they wish to act like transient visitors with selfish short-term goals, let them. If they don't like the way the sport is heading they can go elsewhere and leave Formula One in the hands of those who treat it the right way.
Not as a business or a marketing tool, but as a sport—the most majestic, advanced, important and relevant motorsport in the world.
Very good write up, it seems some people don't like the facts of the matter!
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abe Lincoln
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. Abe Lincoln
Abe Lincoln
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. Abe Lincoln
am I going mad here?
