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

[FoxHound]

If I were to guess, I'd sum up 2014 like this:

Mercedes: very good chassis, very good aero, excellent engine
Williams: okay chassis, okay aero, excellent engine
RedBull: very good chassis, very good aero (though run compromised to limit the deficit of the engine), okay engine

Mercedes aced everything, which is why there was such a huge gap to the next performing Mercedes engined team. RedBull aced many things, apart from the engine that underperformed and forced them to compromise their aero.

Forget who won the races in 2014 - look at the qualifying pace of these teams. RedBull might have walked away with 3 wins, but Williams was closer to Mercedes over one lap than RedBull was.

And Torro Rosso?

They were nowhere with the same engine as Red Bull last year and in the V8 2013 season. Yet this year they appear nigh on as quick, leaving you to make different conclusions on Red Bulls aero and chassis performance.
This kinda dispels your assessment.

My summary is as follows.
Engines can be developed, there is a large scope to develop them within the remits we have gone over.

Should a competitor fall behind either to their own or their suppliers fault, it is for them to correct, not the sport or the competition.
There is enough scope for this to happen without the need for "equalisation". The only rule I would remove is the 4 engines per season, as this is poorly implemented when considering the amount of updates needed regularly.

Anything more drastic, and you leave the formula open to abuse from whinging and moaning competition as we have evidently seen from Red Bull.

[alexx_88]

@Alexgt

You agreed this has always been the case with Manufacturers/Customers. So can we can scratch this argument from debate?

Why would we? Just because it it common to all manufacturers/customers doesn't mean that it doesn't affect performance, does it?

We've seen no proof that engines can be developed to a sufficient amount in order to catch up Mercedes, especially given the token system and the limited number of engines. But yes, you are right, it is up to them and their supplier. However, nothing forces them to stay in the game, if it's not lucrative enough nor has the potential to become profitable again in the following years, they'll just leave. Less competition at the front will seriously undermine F1's future.

Regarding TR and RB, this is what Horner had to say:

“It [engine underperformance] masks so many things. Corner entry, corner exit, degradation, slip control of the tyre, you’re not able to drive the car properly,” he explained.

“You then start moving your brake balance around to try and compensate and you are so far away from optimum. They are struggling the same amount, it’s just having a more dramatic effect on our car.”

[Phil]

@foxhound,

Fair points, as always, but I've purposely limited my view on engine / chassis strength on the 2014 season, as 2015 has only just started and we have very limited data so far. Why bring in 2015 with a single race if we have a 2014 season with 19 races and lots of data to look at? In that sense, I don't see how any 2015 result can dispel what can be quantified from the 2014 results.

My view on 2015? Ferrari have made a big jump (at least raw power - but as a package and where efficiency is concerned, still behind Mercedes when executed flawlessly; i.e. the Mercedes Works team) and Renault possibly have some serious problems (though I'm hard put to point the finger at Renault, as RedBull are known to run things at the limit where packaging is concerned. I am still yet to see if it's Renault, RedBull or the combination... time will show). Anything beyond that is hard to messure right now. Then again, Australia is rarely a good indicator anyway. Lets re-assess the 2015 season once they get to Europe.

[turbof1]

@foxhound,

Fair points, as always, but I've purposely limited my view on engine / chassis strength on the 2014 season, as 2015 has only just started and we have very limited data so far. Why bring in 2015 with a single race if we have a 2014 season with 19 races and lots of data to look at? In that sense, I don't see how any 2015 result can dispel what can be quantified from the 2014 results.

I think that is a fair assesment. Let's not forget: Renault introduced hastingly a few updates which had a very negative impact on both driveability and reliability. Things are quite masked due a f*ck up of Renault. Horner & co trying to lead the F1 fans into a mass hysteria isn't helping either. Let's wait until they fixed that and see when they can run the engine in a higher setting.

Funny enough, things are very quiet at Ferrari's side. I've heard things regarding their stance for engine regulation changes: they suddenly would not be in favour anymore given that they managed to close a big part of the gap toward Mercedes.

I think Malaysia will be the true stress test for the power units. Hot and humid, and the track layout is more typical F1.

[Moose]

@Alexgt

You agreed this has always been the case with Manufacturers/Customers. So can we can scratch this argument from debate?

Why would we? Just because it it common to all manufacturers/customers doesn't mean that it doesn't affect performance, does it?

We've seen no proof that engines can be developed to a sufficient amount in order to catch up Mercedes

Of course we have - the proof is that Ferrari have caught up with Mercedes' engine performance.

[alexx_88]

@Moose: I think it's a bit extreme to think that Ferrari's PU is at the same level as Mercedes'. That would mean the Merc works team has found 1s worth of aero gains over Ferrari, from 2014 to 2015, since the gap between the two teams has pretty much stayed the same. I think it's safe to say that's impossible with the current aero restrictions.

[Phil]

Of course we have - the proof is that Ferrari have caught up with Mercedes' engine performance.

Perhaps this is a bit nit-picking, but "caught up" can mean many things. Narrowed the gap? Probably. Not sure if I call it proof yet though. From where I am sitting, Mercedes works-team is still way ahead. Perhaps if you limit your view to Williams vs. Ferrari as a means to messure engine performance. But doing that, you are comparing a customer-team (Williams) with limited budget with a works-team (Ferrari) with a significant higher budget. The difference being; I expect Ferrari as a team to actually build their car around the ins-and-outs of their power plant. The same applies to Mercedes. Williams, less so, because they are a customer team. They might have been able to re-adjust this year after extensive knowlege from the 2014 season, but in 2014, they likely lacked much information the works-team could build around. So perhaps, the differences between the engine is leveled to a fair degree thanks to the budget, chassis and aero. The Mercedes works team is way ahead though if qualifying from this one race is anything to go by.

[dans79]

Funny enough, things are very quiet at Ferrari's side. I've heard things regarding their stance for engine regulation changes: they suddenly would not be in favour anymore given that they managed to close a big part of the gap toward Mercedes.

I have a feeling this came from the very top. Look at the new team principles comments.

"Our job is to attack Mercedes on the track," Ferrari team principal Maurizio Arrivabene said, "not to change the rules."

I have a feeling ownership didn't like the fact that the team was becoming known as cry babies, and hence the reason the top brass got completely cleared out.

RBR's image is circling the drain right now, and it's not because of their on track performance, but the ludicrous comments being spewed by Horner & Helmut!

[Andres125sx]

This establishes that the engine must be indeed a significant factor.

We all agree on this I think, but significant, not decisive. Otherwise Williams would have been 2nd in WCC and FI would have been higher than 6th

In 2015, the good thing is that the rate of development of the engine isn't completely frozen. But it is yet to be seen if the token system allows for enough development to actually catch up and rival Mercedes. An aero dominated Formula doesn't have this problem, because it's essentially in the teams hands to dictate how competitive they are and remain over the course of a season.

Agree on this too, but then the question shouldn´t be aero vs engine formula, but frozen vs free development formula

Anycase one could argue free development formula doesn´t solve the problem either, as we saw in 2010-2013 with RBR. They had the best aero, there was free development, but none of their competitors managed to reduce the gap. At some parts of some season they did, but then RBR increased the gap again

I don´t think any of these solutions guarantee more competitiveness, it will always depend on the teams. With free aero we saw both scenarios, in 2009 Brawn dominated but then RBR managed to reduce the gap and became the team to beat, too late to fight for any championship but they dominated the last third of the season. In 2010-13 RBR dominated and none managed to reduce the gap.

With fronzen formula it´s the same, in 2014 Mercedes was the team to beat and the frozen formula didn´t allow anyone to reduce the gap, but if they wouldn´t have had such a good engine then there would have been a guaranteed parity as we saw in v8 era with frozen engines too, so you can´t ask for any specific solution hoping that will guarantee more competitiveness because it´s false, it will always depend on each team work, at any scenario


At least with frozen formula costs are kept under control, then we could discuss what´s better to be frozen, engine, aero, other.... IMO I´d prefer frozen aero than frozen engines, but for this solution to be really effective then aero should be standarized, and if studied to allow for closer battles reducing turbulence as much as posible that would be perfect. It would guarantee more competitiveness more than any other solution I think, but then teams would have to fire some dozen engineers, so I don´t think they will consider this route

[FoxHound]

Why would we? Just because it it common to all manufacturers/customers doesn't mean that it doesn't affect performance, does it?

Simply because it was never a problem before. Why should it now be a problem in microcosm, when you are making a point that can encompass 60 years of F1? We know the answer, it is insurmountable and there is nothing other than acts of god(genius, misfortune etc) that can topple it.

We've seen no proof that engines can be developed to a sufficient amount in order to catch up Mercedes, especially given the token system and the limited number of engines.

No. We've explicitly seen evidence that development can be made precisely because of the token system.
Perhaps the word "token" is what you are getting hung on? Ferrari are demonstrating it is more than a "token gesture"....
Remember the ICE of the PU is also encompassed as a large percentage % of the 100% of the PU.
Taffin of Renault even suggested that all the ICE's in this formula are very evenly matched.
Therefore your areas of development are exponentially increased when your token allowance only has to cater for a smaller portion of the percentage.

[H2H]

Phil has already woven the threads of arguments bettern then I could so I just want to add a couple of points.

a) I also played around with the stats and the relative progress in points scored and positions achieved of the Mercedes-powered teams is remarkable compared to the usual differences between stable years.

b) The absolute performance of Mercedes-powered car is also markedly superior to others seasons in which overall the points scored per team were far closer between the Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault engines.

To illustrate both a) and b):

Average points scored per supplied team over 10/11/12/13 timeframe which is a good cut-off date as many manufacturer left before and we had KERS:

Mercedes ~220
Renault ~252
Ferrari ~159

In 2014 we had the following outcome:

Mercedes ~339
Renault ~111
Ferrari ~73

Compared to 2013:

Mercedes ~186
Renault ~229
Ferrari ~148

c) There is no doubt that the advantage of the Mercedes is significant. Dominant may be a strong word but it is proper if placed into the right context. For example when explaining delta in performance in Red Bull and Mercedes there is little doubt that in 2014 the PU gap dominated the difference in chassis quality.


All in the stats point into the direction which has been the consensus of the last year: The Mercedes PU was by far the best and gave the teams it powered a considerable advantage. So far the status quo seems to differ little from last year but we will know better after each additional race of 2015...

[alexx_88]

Simply because it was never a problem before. Why should it now be a problem in microcosm, when you are making a point that can encompass 60 years of F1? We know the answer, it is insurmountable and there is nothing other than acts of god(genius, misfortune etc) that can topple it.

But these PUs are much more complex. After 20 years of tuning hybrid PUs, I am pretty sure customer teams will be as adept at extracting full performance out of them as they were after tenths of years of tuning ICEs. Until then, they need to experiment and test within the 8-engine and 12-days limits. Can you imagine what happens if Williams/FI/Sauber push the ERS just a bit more in the wrong direction? Busted component, grid penalty. On the other hand, you have Merc and Ferrari who probably have a line-up of engine dynos testing various control strategies. If one MGU-K goes bust, no problem, just replace it with a new one and resume. Gain a few percent like this, they have no obligation to pass the updated maps to their customer teams, especially if they are doing very well anyway.

No. We've explicitly seen evidence that development can be made precisely because of the token system.
Perhaps the word "token" is what you are getting hung on? Ferrari are demonstrating it is more than a "token gesture"....
Remember the ICE of the PU is also encompassed as a large percentage % of the 100% of the PU.
Taffin of Renault even suggested that all the ICE's in this formula are very evenly matched.
Therefore you ares of development are exponentially increased when your token allowance only has to cater for a smaller portion of the percentage.

The ICE was never a problem in being closely matched between three extremely experienced engine manufacturers. I can't be as optimistic, Ferrari were 1.5s behind Mercedes last year, they are 1.5s behind now. Why is everybody getting so excited? Yes, they've overtaken Red Bull who have made a big step backwards because of Renault and made just enough gains to go past Williams, but they were ahead of Williams last year in Australia anyway.

Look, I agree with you in some respect. Given the law of diminishing returns and that the engine regulations are pretty tight in what you can anyway, I expect that, as years pass, all manufacturers will get closer and closer until aero gains will become cheaper than PU gains, so we'll go back to an aero limited formula. However, what happens until then? Mercedes has a huge advantage by F1 standards and, by having a limited number of engines / season and a limited number of changes that manufacturers can do, catching them becomes almost impossible.

[dans79]

Until then, they need to experiment and test within the 8-engine and 12-days limits.

Excuse me? I haven't seeing anything in the rules preventing them from purchasing as many engines as they want.

[FoxHound]

But these PUs are much more complex. After 20 years of tuning hybrid PUs, I am pretty sure customer teams will be as adept at extracting full performance out of them as they were after tenths of years of tuning ICEs. Until then, they need to experiment and test within the 8-engine and 12-days limits. Can you imagine what happens if Williams/FI/Sauber push the ERS just a bit more in the wrong direction? Busted component, grid penalty. On the other hand, you have Merc and Ferrari who probably have a line-up of engine dynos testing various control strategies. If one MGU-K goes bust, no problem, just replace it with a new one and resume. Gain a few percent like this, they have no obligation to pass the updated maps to their customer teams, especially if they are doing very well anyway.

This has always been the case Alex. We can debate about the infinitesimal, but the result will always be the same.
Besides, each team has the option to build their own engine. But they don't because the arrangement works for them far better than building their own.

The ICE was never a problem in being closely matched between three extremely experienced engine manufacturers. I can't be as optimistic, Ferrari were 1.5s behind Mercedes last year, they are 1.5s behind now. Why is everybody getting so excited? Yes, they've overtaken Red Bull who have made a big step backwards because of Renault and made just enough gains to go past Williams, but they were ahead of Williams last year in Australia anyway.

Look, I agree with you in some respect. Given the law of diminishing returns and that the engine regulations are pretty tight in what you can anyway, I expect that, as years pass, all manufacturers will get closer and closer until aero gains will become cheaper than PU gains, so we'll go back to an aero limited formula. However, what happens until then? Mercedes has a huge advantage by F1 standards and, by having a limited number of engines / season and a limited number of changes that manufacturers can do, catching them becomes almost impossible.

The ICE is not where the difference lies. The ICE also makes up at least 70% of the PU would you agree?
I'll repeat, Taffin of Renault mentioned that with the actual ICE...there is not much difference at all between the Merc, Ferrari and Renault.
The difference lies elsewhere.

And in spite of all the negativity surrounding the tokens, we have Taffin saying this about the new Renault engine.

During the winter we have really been able to change everything we wanted to. The only limitation has been the number of parts, where the FIA has allocated a certain number of ‘tokens’ for what you want to change.For the existing manufacturers, we can change a lot of things, whether it is on the engine or the ERS system. In short, we can even build a completely new engine. You could say that, compared to last year, we have changed about two thirds of the parts, and certainly we will continue to progress throughout the season.”

It's pretty clear.

What is required is time. Not equalisation.
The one sticking point for me is the 4 engines per season rule, I repeat. This is the only thing freezing in performance, and it needs to be abolished for something more workable.
I agree it is ridiculous to penalise a team already behind, with having to use the same engine until the next allocation window pops up.
This rule can even be adjusted this year, I'm sure Mercedes and Ferrari would not mind this as an exception to Honda and Renault.

[Andres125sx]

Until then, they need to experiment and test within the 8-engine and 12-days limits.

Excuse me? I haven't seeing anything in the rules preventing them from purchasing as many engines as they want.

Yes, they can test as many engines as they want on a test bench

But you just have to look at Honda to realice how useful is testing an engine out of the car, they tested his engine on dynos quite a lot and it was supposedly prepared, but once they put it into the car...