F1 now & then: engine vs aero formula pro/contra

[alexx_88]

Please just stop thinking about the engine as a big lump of metal and electronics. It's so much more than that, the control strategies are incredibly complex and I think there are big differences in performance between the PU that Merc uses and what Williams use.

[Moose]

Please just stop thinking about the engine as a big lump of metal and electronics. It's so much more than that, the control strategies are incredibly complex and I think there are big differences in performance between the PU that Merc uses and what Williams use.

Do you have any evidence for that?

[alexx_88]

Several.
1. Ron Dennis and various other Mclaren figures said that Mercedes didn't provide them with all the data that the works team had and also that it's impossible to win the championship as a customer team.
2. Packaging and cooling of the PU and its ancillaries is always optimized for the main team's aero and packaging, as well as their choice of radiators.
3. The mapping process, as I said in the first post, is MUCH more complex than with the previous V8s. That makes it extremely hard to get 100% in absolutely all conditions, compared to the main team, simply because you don't have the required information of how everything works together. Various people from within the teams mentioned the difficulty of mapping these PUs.

[SectorOne]

1. Nullified by another Mercedes powered team namely Williams, Pat Symonds.
Mclaren was switching engine as well, what do they expect? They announced their Honda plans in 2013.
nobody in their right mind would cater to mclaren in that situation.

2. Packaging and cooling is up to each competitor to solve.

3. Base mapping is provided. Teams like Williams said they do some minor tweaks to the software and are gnerally very happy with the cooperation, again source, pat Symonds, Williams.

[SectorOne]

Basically your evidence consist of 1 team that was going to switch engine before they even got their Mercedes V6 engine.
The rest is not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

[Phil]

Right now, I couldn't hazard a guess as to what the balance is. But I would propose the engine is not as prevalent in this equation as you would think, if it was...Williams and McLaren and Force India would have beaten Red Bull last year.

I think it is, and I think the ability (or lack of) of the Mercedes customer teams have somewhat muddled the picture. As I mentioned in a previous post, Mercedes has evolved as a team to the point that it is very good at chassis and aero. Perhaps not as good as RedBull used to be under the old set of regulations, but with all the bans related to EBD, the sport moved away from where RedBull excelled and closer to Mercedes. In 2013, Mercedes finished 2nd. If it wasn't for their tyre issues, I think they could have given RedBull a run for their money. The point being that Mercedes had a very good car. Force India (6th), Williams (9th), even McLaren (5th) were all in the midfield. The 4 top teams of 2013 were clearly RedBull, Ferrari, Mercedes and Lotus - as the points show - as after those 4 teams, there is a huge drop-off to the best of the rest. 4 Teams, with 3 different engines. They were also the only 4 teams to win races. This is, mind you, from what was still a very much dictated aero formula with frozen engines.

2014 comes - and every Mercedes engined team on the grid managed to improve or keep their position, even the struggling McLaren teams whos issues are well documented. I actually made a post on this with the stats: Link.

Code: Select all

2010 (+/- equal PUs, aero factor huge):
1.) RedBull (Renault)
2.) McLaren (Mercedes)
3.) Ferrari (Ferrari)
4.) Mercedes (Mercedes)
5.) Renault (Renault)
6.) Williams (Cosworth)
7.) Force India (Mercedes)
8.) Sauber (Ferrari)
9.) Torro Rosso (Ferrari)

2011 (+/- equal PUs, aero factor huge):
1.) RedBull (Renault) --
2.) McLaren (Mercedes) --
3.) Ferrari (Ferrari) --
4.) Mercedes (Mercedes) --
5.) Renault (Renault) --
6.) Force India (Mercedes) +1
7.) Sauber (Ferrari) +1
8.) Toro Rosso (Ferrari) +1
9.) Williams (Cosworth) -3

2012 (+/- equal PUs, aero factor huge):
1.) RedBull (Renault) --
2.) Ferrari (Ferrari) +1
3.) McLaren (Mercedes) -1
4.) Lotus (Renault) +1
5.) Mercedes (Mercedes) -1
6.) Sauber (Ferrari) +1
7.) Force India (Mercedes) -1
8.) Williams (Renault) +1

2013 (+/- equal PUs, aero factor huge)
1.) RedBull (Renault) --
2.) Mercedes (Mercedes) +3
3.) Ferrari (Ferrari) -1
4.) Lotus (Renault) --
5.) McLaren (Mercedes) -2
6.) Sauber (Ferrari) --
7.) Toro Rosso (Renault) +2
8.) Williams (Renault) --

2014 (different PU, aero factor less)
1.) Mercedes (Mercedes) +1
2.) RedBull (Renault) -1
3.) Williams (Mercedes) +5
4.) Ferrari (Ferrari) -1
5.) McLaren (Mercedes) --
6.) Force India (Mercedes) +3
7.) Toro Rosso (Renault) --
8.) Lotus (Renault) -4
...
10.) Sauber (Ferrari) -4

Applying simple maths and Mercedes teams cumulated +8 positions by 4 teams, Ferrari -5 (by 2 teams) and Renault -5 as well. If you don't like the math, fair enough, but what is undisputed is that not a single Ferrari or Renault engined team actually improved their position. They all lost out relative to the Mercedes engined teams. If this doesn't highlight significant differences, I'm not sure what does.

Yes, RedBull did manage to win 3 races and finish 2nd in 2014. If we backtrack the 2014 season, I think you will see that their 3 wins were achieved by flawless execution on the teams behalf of making the best out of their situation. If we compare them to Williams, I think it's also quite clear that RedBull had a much better car, but struggled due to their power unit. Williams performed as well as they did especially due to the engine. From a chassis/aero perspective, I think they weren't particularly at the top-end, as they faced tyre-wear issues and clearly lacked downforce. The PU advantage ment that they rarely got overtaken in DRS zones (not even by the mighty Mercedes) either. Not to take anything away from Williams, they did well - but I think the PU is flattering their overal performance. And it wouldn't be too surprising either, as they effectively are run on a much smaller budget, coming off disastrous 2011-2013 seasons. It was only in 2014 in which their situation greatly improved, both on the track and financially - even the Martini deal was only done in March of 2014.

But Williams IMO is performing above their chassis/aero (again thanks to the engine) and I think as we move into the 2015 season with the resurgence of the Ferrari power unit that seems to have clearly narrowed the gap to Mercedes, we will see how they might move backwards. Although if Renault is really struggling as much as they are, Williams might actually be able to hang on to 3rd at the expense of RedBull. Just a hunch.

Anyway, these are the arguments I think highlight the power unit factor quite nicely. The stats show this. They also show that engine isn't the only factor, as, as you put it, as RedBull wouldn't have finished 2nd otherwise. But I think RedBull, coming off 4 consecutive seasons of aero/chassis domination, have as always excelled at producing a very very strong car. They've only been let down by the PU.

It would be fun to put that Mercedes PU inside that RedBull (assuming equal packaging) and see which car is quicker; the Mercedes or the RedBull. Or put the Renault PU inside the Mercedes in that sense. Or if simply assume that Mercedes has done a killer of a job on the chassis/aero front (which I'm actually sure that they have), compare the Williams with the RedBull by putting the same PU inside both cars. My bet would be on the RedBull.

And just as a side not, before the engine freeze in the V8 era...there was alot of discussion surrounding the oily bits on these very threads.
Some people actually worked in high end motorsport, like 747heavy and a few others.
The freeze left aero dominant and engines a mere anomaly. What interest do these guys now have in coming here to discuss things that are largely redundant and archaic?
It's a shame.

I agree. I admit I'm playing a bit of devils advocat here. I'm not even close to being a RedBull fan (I think it's clear I'm in the Mercedes camp and am happy as the next guy that RedBulls endless domination has ended) - but these arguments extend beyond the point on who deserves to win, or if it is time for change. I do agree that it's a shame that aero has been the prevailing factor for quite a few seasons now - and for that, I am quite happy. I like the variables the new engines have introduced. The only problem I see is that the engine plant is outside the expertise of the actual race teams. This may not be a problem for the 'works-teams', but we have customer teams to think and worry about too. And as an engine manufacturer, I think I'd be very unpleased about joining this rich mans game of building expensive engines, falling short, but then being limited through tokens to actually be able to fairly compete.

I understand that the tokens are necessary though, as not having them would mean that the engine development would quickly reach heights not sustainable by the lower tier teams anymore. But it has also created a situation where it is unlikely that we will see parity anytime soon - although, to be fair, that Ferrari engine has made significant improvements.

It's hard to compare the chassis/aero strength of the Ferrari with the Mercedes though - I think there's still quite a difference in engine performance that Mercedes is using to create even more downforce (and drag) which makes them a lot better. Comparing Ferrari to the Williams though, I think Williams has the better PU but worse chassis and in the Ferrari it is somewhat the opposite; making both cars rather similar in ultimate pace. My hunch is that the Ferrari, while very good (perhaps nearly as good as the Mercedes in raw power) has higher cooling demands, which is limiting it. From what I understand, my guess would be this is due to the difference in setup between the compressor and the turbine, which makes the Mercedes extremely efficient, and the Ferrari more conventional. But for now, it's great that they have upped the power.

In regards to the situation; I think it's a bit of complicated situation. Remove the token limitation and you might achieve parity quicker (as all engine manufacturers will move closer to the point of dimishing returns on what can be achieved using the constraints of the engine regulations), but it would also lead to significantly higher costs - which of course isn't a problem for RedBull, but is for the customer teams. F1 needs the engine manufacturers, which is why them being road relevant is important. If they limit how these engine manufacturers can compete fairly though, you are only pushing them out of the sport again.

As a F1 fan, I don't want to see race teams ruined by the engine plant they signed up to use on a multi year deal (case in point; Sauber, Lotus in 2014). But I also don't want the sport to go back to a exclusively non-road-relevant aero formula. So for me, the solution is simple in that an optimum balance between engine performance and chassis/aero superiority should be found. It's a bit late to change the rules on engine development, as it's already too late for that. IMO, they should have fixed the price on what these engines should cost for customer teams and let that dictate how much improvements can be made. Although, what's stopping the works-teams (i.e. Mercedes/Ferrari, to some degree Renault) investing more money but selling at a loss to gain an advantage over their rivals? In the end, we are back to square one in the reality that cost-caps are nigh on impossible to enforce. So perhaps the token limitation isn't such a bad idea at all - and it's at least enforcable.

So, perhaps this is a no win situation if the engines never gain parity to the point that chassis/aero which is in the race-teams hand is more relevant. Or it will - the question is only how long will it take to get there? What will the sport have lost until then?

[CBeck113]

1. Nullified by another Mercedes powered team namely Williams, Pat Symonds.
Mclaren was switching engine as well, what do they expect? They announced their Honda plans in 2013.
nobody in their right mind would cater to mclaren in that situation.

And Williams, the B-Team from Mercedes and partially owned by Toto Wolff, is an unbaised source for informaiton here, right?

2. Packaging and cooling is up to each competitor to solve.

Correct

3. Base mapping is provided. Teams like Williams said they do some minor tweaks to the software and are gnerally very happy with the cooperation, again source, pat Symonds, Williams.

See the first quote.

The software is the key to getting any usable power from these engines, and the manufacturers can design the engines to fit their needs - therefore there will be no customer team that wins a title (mark my words!) with this engine formula, because they will never have the understanding necessary to optimize them, especially with the lack of testing.

alex_88, you shot yourself in the foot by choosing McLaren as your example - FI would have been a more neutral choice. They have shown over the previous seasons (pre 2014) that they can design a chassis, just didn't have the funds to keep up with the development. Why should they be so far off the pace now? I am certain that they get the same hardware, but not enough info to make their installation & configuration as fast as Merc's. On the other side: would the manufacturers screw themselves over by a) not abiding to the rules or b) not securing an advantage by producing their own engines? No and nope.

[PlatinumZealot]

My two cents on this. The regulations should be written to allow a strong engine design to make up for an aero-deficit and likewise a strong aero design to make up for an engine deficit. I have no idea if this would lead to increased spending, but if the rules are tight enough each department, engine or aero would have equally high ceilings in terms of development. This ceiling of limiting returns will ultimately equalize the competitors. When compared to this year's complex regs where only one manufacture has got it right and the spec is frozen, hence locking in that manufacture to sure unrivaled success, the new direction would over a short period of time allow even midfield teams to come to the forefront, leading to a more sustainable F1.

[SectorOne]

And Williams, the B-Team from Mercedes and partially owned by Toto Wolff, is an unbaised source for informaiton here, right?

Does Toto own Force India as well? Maybe he has rigged their HQ with portable nukes?

He owns around 10% today,
Frank owns 52%
Head owns 9%
Hollinger 5%

See the first quote.

See this quote instead,

"There might be a little bit of individual tuning we do for our own cars - Symonds"

The software is the key to getting any usable power from these engines, and the manufacturers can design the engines to fit their needs

And yet no proof of the software coming with the engine is vastly different to what Mercedes run their cars with.
Nor any complaints from either Williams or Force India about the driveability of the Mercedes engine and how they struggle with the software for the engines.

Haven´t heard anything from Sauber either, the Ferrari upgrade seems to have worked on both cars brilliantly wouldn´t you say?

- therefore there will be no customer team that wins a title (mark my words!) with this engine formula,

Probably right, but i doubt it will be because "the software is too complex even though our engines are obviously running splendid together with excellent fuel consumption right on par (sometimes better) then Mercedes"

because they will never have the understanding necessary to optimize them, especially with the lack of testing.

According to whom? It´s probably a complex system but according to whom will the most intelligent engineers in motorsport never understand the engine they are running? Especially considering they collaborate with Mercedes in pre-season testing.

[alexx_88]

1. Nullified by another Mercedes powered team namely Williams, Pat Symonds.
Mclaren was switching engine as well, what do they expect? They announced their Honda plans in 2013.
nobody in their right mind would cater to mclaren in that situation.

2. Packaging and cooling is up to each competitor to solve.

3. Base mapping is provided. Teams like Williams said they do some minor tweaks to the software and are gnerally very happy with the cooperation, again source, pat Symonds, Williams.

1. Williams are punching above their category thanks to the Mercedes engine and getting tenths of millions of euros. Do you really think they'd say anything against? Those few percent that separate their PU from Merc's is irrelevant to them, but it's very relevant if you're a team that wants to fight Merc for victories.

2. Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that the PU will be more optimized for the aero of the works team.

3. Even at amateur level base mapping is something that only helps you get the car started, so you can properly tune it on a rolling road. We are not talking about simply getting the engine to run, but the fact that 20HP only represents ~2% out of the total power of the PU. Does it seem so far-fetched to think that a separate entity, that doesn't direct access to the people who built and tuned the PU, could only get 98% of the performance that a much bigger entity, with more people and direct access to all that information, gets?

[dans79]

1. Williams are punching above their category thanks to the Mercedes engine and getting tenths of millions of euros. Do you really think they'd say anything against? Those few percent that separate their PU from Merc's is irrelevant to them, but it's very relevant if you're a team that wants to fight Merc for victories.

2. Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that the PU will be more optimized for the aero of the works team.

3. Even at amateur level base mapping is something that only helps you get the car started, so you can properly tune it on a rolling road. We are not talking about simply getting the engine to run, but the fact that 20HP only represents ~2% out of the total power of the PU. Does it seem so far-fetched to think that a separate entity, that doesn't direct access to the people who built and tuned the PU, could only get 98% of the performance that a much bigger entity, with more people and direct access to all that information, gets?

Basically all you've said, is "Theoretically" (and that's the important part), customer teams are at a slight disadvantage to a works team. Just a few years ago Mclaren proved this isn't necessarily true, when they wiped the floor with the Mercedes works team.

2012 poles:
Mclaren - 8
Mercedes - 1

2012 fast laps:
Mclaren - 3
Mercedes - 3

2012 wins:
Mclaren - 7
Mercedes - 1

[alexx_88]

Ok, take it the other way around. Do you think that, in a very aero-limited formula, Mercedes has 1 second worth of aero advantage over Williams?

[SectorOne]

1. Williams are punching above their category thanks to the Mercedes engine and getting tenths of millions of euros.

How are they punching above their weight? The "getting tenths of millions of euros" i don´t understand one bit.
you´re saying Mercedes pays Williams to have their engines? News to me.

Those few percent that separate their PU from Merc's is irrelevant to them, but it's very relevant if you're a team that wants to fight Merc for victories.

Which is exactly what Williams intends to do. But what are they missing? Just downforce really.

2. Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that the PU will be more optimized for the aero of the works team.

Are you just making stuff up by now? Please expand a bit on this please.

Does it seem so far-fetched to think that a separate entity, that doesn't direct access to the people who built and tuned the PU, could only get 98% of the performance that a much bigger entity, with more people and direct access to all that information, gets?

I´m not interested in how something seems in this case.

[SectorOne]

Not directly related to Mercedes but Horner was asked during the race:

"are you and toro rosso both running the same software, the same hardware, it´s exactly the same kit you´re running?"

"yep yep very much so"

Now i know for our discussion Renault is not in F1 with their own team but posting it in case i need to go back to it some time.

[Moose]

Ok, take it the other way around. Do you think that, in a very aero-limited formula, Mercedes has 1 second worth of aero advantage over Williams?

Why would that be surprising at all? Only 2 years ago, again, in a very aero limited formula, Mercedes had 4 seconds worth of aero advantage over Williams, and RedBull had multiple seconds advantage over every other renault runner.