Engine homologation: complete cost control failure

[timbo]

This seem stange. Maybe they counted their V6 programs in?

It's probable, but they were also developing new engines at the time they were debating the engine freeze, so the two time periods should be comparable.

And they are, so I'm not sure what exactly is surprising.

[WhiteBlue]

It is debatable how effective those regulations are. At least there is a form of cost control which is not available for aerodynamics and the chassis side. So once again the teams continue the policy of shooting themselves in the foot by failing to apply cost control to the most important sector of spending and restricting cost somewhere else where fans want to see more development. A great shame.

I presume though that this is only enforceable as a "you must race with this engine" not "you are not allowed to develop this engine at the factory". I would expect that they will still do all of the possible developments they can, then assess what they get and spend their points on the best bang-for-their-buck ones. So in effect, it will save nothing.

I think you are wrong with that assumption. A manufacturer will not develop assemblies of an engine unless it is legal to race the modified design. Hence there will be no developments of restricted assemblies. The scheme freezes certain assemblies sequentially over the period of four years. So it will have a cost restricting aspect. Additionally the scope for spending money is continually reduced by the reduction of points that you can spend your development program on. I also see this second mechanism work to reduce the development cost until the costs are finally reduced to a small residual amount in 2018 with the full freeze. The cost reduction may not be linear but I'm sure it will be felt. The main point is that power trains will be cost restricted and chassis (aero) will be not. That is not an attractive situation for manufacturers to join F1 in the future. Unless it is balanced by an appropriate mechanism on the chassis and aerodynamic side it will continue to distort the balance between chassis and engine as generators of competitiveness. It is wrong for F1 to generate competitiveness almost completely from the aerodynamics of the chassis. If there are no budget restrictions for the chassis F1 needs to freeze aerodynamic development as well to balance the different technical fields. IMO Aerodynamics should be important for F1 but they should not get more than 20% of the development cost. Something should be done to fix it.

[Lca1443]

It is wrong for F1 to generate competitiveness almost completely from the aerodynamics of the chassis. If there are no budget restrictions for the chassis F1 needs to freeze aerodynamic development as well to balance the different technical fields. IMO Aerodynamics should be important for F1 but they should not get more than 20% of the development cost. Something should be done to fix it.

Remove the front and rear wings.

[MOWOG]

Remove the front and rear wings.

YES!!!! =D>

[dragosmp]

[...]
The scheme freezes certain assemblies sequentially over the period of four years. So it will have a cost restricting aspect. Additionally the scope for spending money is continually reduced by the reduction of points that you can spend your development program on. I also see this second mechanism work to reduce the development cost until the costs are finally reduced to a small residual amount in 2018 with the full freeze.
[...]

I found this thread with the search function.

What do you think / know, will the ERS H,K or the ES be under the scope of the engine development freeze? All reference point out there will be limits on ICE development, but the electric systems don't seem to be concerned.

[Blanchimont]

Look at page 88 of the 2014 Technical Regulations

[kalinka]

I know it's impossible , but > There is one solution to keep the development race, while keeping the costs low:
If FIA could become a contractor ( customer ) for the engines, and not the teams. They could make contracts with 3-4 engine manufacturers. Then teams could get these engines at fixed price/season, and they could choose which design is best suited for them. Every team would pay the same amount to FIA every year for the engines, and that will be the cost cap. The development freeze would still be applied, and would be lifted only between seasons for a few months to allow development, but the manufacturers wouldn't get more money for that. Then if one team thinks that other engine will be better next year for them, they would have a fixed period when they can choose.
They could apply this rule to tyre suppliers too..It could bring the competition in, and keeping the costs low.
Yes, it could happen that one given year, one of the engine manufacturers makes much better engine then others, leading to domination of some teams, but next year others would have another shot to match that.
Yep, I know... just an idea...nothing to see here..carry on

[munudeges]

Homologation. No meaningful engine development whatsoever, no innovation, complete lock-in for the existing players and ridiculously expensive even for those existing players. Sounds like a great combination to me.

[kalinka]

No lock-in, I didn't say that. Engine manufacturers can join any time if they want. Costs would be high, but fixed at least. Engine manufacturers still can compete, and use the results for marketing.
I didn't propose that because I like it. Better than a multiple-year engine freeze IMO. We have to be realistic - the golden age of engine development race is equally impossible to happen again sadly.

[Moxie]

Remove the front and rear wings.

YES!!!! =D>

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010 ... 7.1-lg.jpg

I must agree!!! I am flexible to the use of strictly defined small front wings for the purpose of balancing.

[Moxie]

I question the continued use of pneumatic valves, especially when taken in the context of F1's stated goals of relevance and cost control. Seriously, how likely is it that road cars will be using pneumatic valves? Granted I am not an engineer, but in this layman's view, engine revs would be more or less limited by the valve springs, thus have a great influence in defining the diminishing returns of many other avenues of development.

Sorry for the double post, but I decided to separate the unrelated thoughts of agreeing with MOWOG's post and my question about pneumatic valves.

[munudeges]

No lock-in, I didn't say that. Engine manufacturers can join any time if they want.

I don't care whether you said it or not.

No they can't. Practically speaking it's impossible and it was already tried with VW. The regulations are weighted in favour of those already in the sport, the costs are still astronomical which is why Cosworth couldn't continue, and they're astronomical because engine manufacturers have to spend to get around the homologation rules to gain an advantage. That weighs very heavily against new entrants because they can't come in with anything new. Frankly I think that is far, far worse than having a genuine engine development race that would be just as expensive except with the possibility of innovation and actual development.

The only reason Honda came back in is because an engine fell into their lap from PURE via the guy who actually wrote the engine regulations. Had that not happened I could never see them doing it.

[langwadt]

I know it's impossible , but > There is one solution to keep the development race, while keeping the costs low:
If FIA could become a contractor ( customer ) for the engines, and not the teams. They could make contracts with 3-4 engine manufacturers. Then teams could get these engines at fixed price/season, and they could choose which design is best suited for them. Every team would pay the same amount to FIA every year for the engines, and that will be the cost cap. The development freeze would still be applied, and would be lifted only between seasons for a few months to allow development, but the manufacturers wouldn't get more money for that. Then if one team thinks that other engine will be better next year for them, they would have a fixed period when they can choose.
They could apply this rule to tyre suppliers too..It could bring the competition in, and keeping the costs low.
Yes, it could happen that one given year, one of the engine manufacturers makes much better engine then others, leading to domination of some teams, but next year others would have another shot to match that.
Yep, I know... just an idea...nothing to see here..carry on

The engine manufacturers could sell at a loss, which I'm sure they already do in exchange for their name on the car

The rules already specify many things like CG, mounting points etc. that I can only assume is there to, at least in theory, make it easy to swap engine manufacturer

[GitanesBlondes]

I know it's impossible , but > There is one solution to keep the development race, while keeping the costs low:
If FIA could become a contractor ( customer ) for the engines, and not the teams. They could make contracts with 3-4 engine manufacturers. Then teams could get these engines at fixed price/season, and they could choose which design is best suited for them. Every team would pay the same amount to FIA every year for the engines, and that will be the cost cap. The development freeze would still be applied, and would be lifted only between seasons for a few months to allow development, but the manufacturers wouldn't get more money for that. Then if one team thinks that other engine will be better next year for them, they would have a fixed period when they can choose.
They could apply this rule to tyre suppliers too..It could bring the competition in, and keeping the costs low.
Yes, it could happen that one given year, one of the engine manufacturers makes much better engine then others, leading to domination of some teams, but next year others would have another shot to match that.
Yep, I know... just an idea...nothing to see here..carry on

This sort of thing goes against the spirit of F1.

Not to say the current approach hasn't already done this, but idea of contracting the engines is more foolishness.

What should have been done if the necessity of turbocharged engines was so great, was to simply specify a 1.6L turbocharged formula...sort of like the old 3.5L formula 25 years ago. Let the engine manufacturers do whatever they like. To address fuel consumption issues, giving the teams a set amount of fuel to work with for the duration of the race weekend would have been the way to go.

[piast9]

This sort of thing goes against the spirit of F1.

Why?

Not to say the current approach hasn't already done this, but idea of contracting the engines is more foolishness.

They do contract the tyres so why not engines.

Actually I was thinking about the same thing. Absolute freedom for engine manufacturer. Any engine, any fuel (with the excpetion of poisonous substances), only with the limit of the energy of the fluid in the tank. And strict control over the price of the engine which is easiest to do with the contracting.

I am pretty sure that if rules weren't so strict it should be possible to manufacture powerful and economic engine at a much less cost than of the engines today.