Engine Unfreeze

[GitanesBlondes]

They are not coming back because they are not allowed to compete, what's the point of developing new engines with a freeze?

What freeze? They get to modify the engines on a yearly basis up to 2018 or whatever the number is.

So far Honda has signed up to these non-freezed regulations, they left when the engines actually were freezed.

As I mentioned in another topic, I don't believe Honda has even started from scratch on their engine. There's a strong possibility that all of the research that was done by PURE and Gilles Simon was simply handed over to Honda with Simon coming along with it.

While components can be changed, the design of the engines was severely limited, and does not allow for much in the way of different approaches. This isn't like the days of TAG, Renault, Ferrari, etc. in the 1980s where the engines were vastly different.

[xpensive]

Indeed GB, what's the point with rules like this?;

5.3.3 Valve stem diameter must not be less than 5mm.

[Moose]

Indeed GB, what's the point with rules like this?;

5.3.3 Valve stem diameter must not be less than 5mm.

Off the top of my head, I don't know - but I'd bet you heavily that if that rule didn't exist next year, suddenly you'd see a lot of teams doing something very clever that neither you nor I have thought of.

[xpensive]

Indeed GB, what's the point with rules like this?;

5.3.3 Valve stem diameter must not be less than 5mm.

Off the top of my head, I don't know - but I'd bet you heavily that if that rule didn't exist next year, suddenly you'd see a lot of teams doing something very clever that neither you nor I have thought of.

Strangely enough, they didn't put an upper limit to the diameter of said stem, neither on the surface roughness?

[sectionate]

Indeed GB, what's the point with rules like this?;

5.3.3 Valve stem diameter must not be less than 5mm.

I asked Andy Cowell at an IMechE event why some parameters where fixed like this, and his responses was that as part of the RRA, the FIA didn't want teams spending millions deciding if changing such parameters is worth it

[SectorOne]

As I mentioned in another topic, I don't believe Honda has even started from scratch on their engine. There's a strong possibility that all of the research that was done by PURE and Gilles Simon was simply handed over to Honda with Simon coming along with it.

While components can be changed, the design of the engines was severely limited, and does not allow for much in the way of different approaches. This isn't like the days of TAG, Renault, Ferrari, etc. in the 1980s where the engines were vastly different.

All up for speculation then i suppose.

[diffuser]

They are not coming back because they are not allowed to compete, what's the point of developing new engines with a freeze?

What freeze? They get to modify the engines on a yearly basis up to 2018 or whatever the number is.

So far Honda has signed up to these non-freezed regulations, they left when the engines actually were freezed.

As I mentioned in another topic, I don't believe Honda has even started from scratch on their engine. There's a strong possibility that all of the research that was done by PURE and Gilles Simon was simply handed over to Honda with Simon coming along with it.

While components can be changed, the design of the engines was severely limited, and does not allow for much in the way of different approaches. This isn't like the days of TAG, Renault, Ferrari, etc. in the 1980s where the engines were vastly different.

Remember that the rules stipulate that every year between 2015 and 2018 they're allowed to make 50% of the changes they were allowed to make the previous year.
So
2013-14 - 100.00%
2014-15 - 50.00%
2015-16 - 25.00%
2016-17 - 12.50%
2017-18 - 6.25%

[Richard]

Indeed GB, what's the point with rules like this?;

5.3.3 Valve stem diameter must not be less than 5mm.

To avoid an arms race with teams using expensive unobtanium to get to a 4mm diameter valve stem. IMHO that's a sensible rule, it's the teams agreeing that some things are silly and a waste of money. (the teams have a hand in writing these rules)

[turbof1]

Important for next year is that concerning teams Mercedes as engine manufacturer has 3 votes in the strategy group. With 2 teams on the brick of liquidation, and other teams too at risk, the fia will want to avoid to raise costs through allowing additional engine development.

I previously claimed that mercedes will not be able to stop the inseason development in 2016. However if they can succesfulmy lobby the fia at their side, a majority vote will not be possible.

However, one most remind itself that the fia has voted in favour a few weeks ago, or at the very least witheld itself from voting.. So it'll require some convincing.

[bhall II]

...the fia will want to avoid to raise costs through allowing additional engine development.

[...]

The current state of the rules should really be called an "update freeze," because "engine freeze" seems to have some folks under the illusion that engineers are resting on their laurels, waiting for the end of the season to begin work on next year's PUs, thus not yet incurring costs for the development of them. A good example of this confusion can be found in a recent ill-informed op-ed written by Keith Collantine and then triumphantly promoted by Mercedes.

I think it needs to be clear that the defrost under discussion amongst the teams would simply allow manufacturers to take advantage of development work that is ongoing within the framework of rules that already exist.

I also think it's important for folks to realize that the cost of being uncompetitive is very real.

"If we're at the back I don't think I'm going to carry on. Nothing is set in stone but after five years with no points there is a limit to one's patience, money, motivation, etc, so it's an important year.

"I need to feel like we're going somewhere. If I feel we can compete, then great but if we're not competing then we have to seriously examine ourselves and ask 'does this make sense?' If we're not competing, two seconds behind everybody else, then we haven't made any progress.

[Richard]

The piece by Keith Collantine very eloquently explains the rules and why it is not an engine freeze.

The bit that might trigger an argument is "Taking the lid off engine development would lead to a huge increase in costs which few teams can bear at the moment." Yes it would cost more to implement updates from the lab into real race engines, but we don't know how much. Of course the solution is to mandate a flat fee for customer engines. Then we don't need to care how much Ferarri, Renault and Merc spend in their arms race because the other teams get a flat rate.

ps - I see Max has been stealing my ideas ...

The mistake was not saying to the big manufacturers that you can spend as much as you want on research but the maximum you can charge per season is something like £3-4m instead of the £15-20m, which I believe it is now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29789233

[bhall II]

The problem is the way Collantine frames the discussion. Not only does he take the following out of context, he states it as if it bears any relevance to the issue.

Teams can gain performance without an ‘unfreeze’

Away from the PR war, Ferrari’s own technical staff admit the current staged engine freeze is not a serious obstacle to them being able to catch Mercedes. “It’s true you can’t change every part of the engine,” said technical director James Allison in September, “but the regulations say the majority of parts that can make a difference in terms of performance on the engine are still free.”

“The 48% is not a binding figure and can be misleading compared to what are the real opportunities to improve the power output of the power unit. The way is completely open when it comes to the rules.”

That teams have latitude when it comes to how they update their PUs has never been in doubt; like everything else, the rules are very explicit in that regard. Moreover, and this is very important, no one is asking that those particular rules be changed.



The question concerns when updates should be introduced.

As seen above, manufacturers have 32 "points" to "spend" from the available list of allowed updates. Does anyone think that any manufacturer will fail to "spend" the allowed "points" from year to year? Does anyone think that research and development into those components is confined to the offseason? If the answer to those questions is no - and I really hope we can all agree on that one - how will it significantly increase costs to allow in-season updates to components that will be updated regardless?

[...]
Of course the solution is to mandate a flat fee for customer engines. Then we don't need to care how much Ferarri, Renault and Merc spend in their arms race because the other teams get a flat rate.

[...]

Works for me. It's not like customer teams get equal equipment from their suppliers anyway.

[djos]

To avoid an arms race with teams using expensive unobtanium to get to a 4mm diameter valve stem. IMHO that's a sensible rule, it's the teams agreeing that some things are silly and a waste of money. (the teams have a hand in writing these rules)

I've always wondered why the FIA banned specific materials, imo it would make a lot more sense to ban materials that cost more than say X dollars per kilo on the open market.

That way when exotic new materials start to become available in commercial quantities and at more reasonable prices F1 teams can start using them.

Iirc there are a number of light weight alloys not allowed in F1 today (banned in the 90's or 2000's) that are showing up already in road cars.

E.g. beryllium is now about $40p/kg vs $800p/kg in the 80's

[GitanesBlondes]

The piece by Keith Collantine very eloquently explains the rules and why it is not an engine freeze.

The bit that might trigger an argument is "Taking the lid off engine development would lead to a huge increase in costs which few teams can bear at the moment." Yes it would cost more to implement updates from the lab into real race engines, but we don't know how much. Of course the solution is to mandate a flat fee for customer engines. Then we don't need to care how much Ferarri, Renault and Merc spend in their arms race because the other teams get a flat rate.

ps - I see Max has been stealing my ideas ...

The mistake was not saying to the big manufacturers that you can spend as much as you want on research but the maximum you can charge per season is something like £3-4m instead of the £15-20m, which I believe it is now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29789233

Let's engage in economic central planning, because that always works out so well for everyone involved in the long haul.

I'm not really sure I'd be bragging about "Max stealing my ideas" as Max had a lot to do with running F1 into the ground with his ill-conceived "technical" ideas like 3 groove tires, 4 groove tires...and so on.

[Richard]

If the goal is to ensure a certain number of teams are able to compete then the costs have be managed to ensure that happens. Otherwise the small teams go bust.

If however that has too much of stench of communism then forget about aiming to have a full grid and allow survival of the fittest. There will be fewer teams on the grid who'll form a cosy cabal because they're the only people who can participate in the arms race.

Reality needs to lie somewhere between those two extremes. Reward success but also give a helping hand to those small teams that are trying to get a foothold in the sport.

ps - There is a wonderful irony that much of this conversation has an undercurrent that people who don't care for racing are ruining the sport. However the biggest advocates for maintaining the engine freeze are the employees of Ron Dennis, Frank WiIliams and Nicki Lauda.