Formula One's Engine Crisis

[Phil]

You know it's always been this way right, I mean off the top of my head I can't think of a single customer team ever beating an established factory team.

No?

Just from the top of my head:
2009 - RedBull 2nd, Renault 8th
2010 - McLaren 2nd, Mercedes 4th / RedBull 1st, Renault 5th (although at this point the majority of team was already sold to Genii Capital)
2011 - McLaren 2nd, Mercedes 4th
2012 - McLaren 2nd, Mercedes 4th


(now I know the engines were frozen, so perhaps not quite what you meant, just naming examples. Or maybe the crucial part of your post is the word "established" but that can be molded into pretty much any definition, assuming you don't see Mercedes as a qualified "established" factory-team from 2010 to 2013, I'd argue however that the Brackley team was already well in place after winning the 2009 championship...)

[toraabe]

I have to say the way RB have treated Renault.. well let them fry in their own fat ......

The "F1 engine crisis" is really the RBR engine crisis, because lets be honest, most people wouldn't care one iota if it was Manor or Sauber having issues with a Renault PU.

But doesn't it strike you as odd in the slightest when a team like RB that has invested millions and among the highest of all, get reduced to a midfield team (which is where they have been most of the year, if not even further back!).

I also disagree with it not being an issue. I'm possibly the only one, but I for one have been mentioning in just about every 2nd post in the RedBull thread that the engine issue is not specific to RedBull but one every single customer faces. I also maintain that this is not healthy for the sport at all, as essentially it's being controlled by the two engine manufacturers that have built competitive engines. They are now in a situation where they can decide who they supply and what they supply. That is not the basis for a healthy competitive environment.

[Jonnycraig]

according to omnicorse ecclestone is exploring/sponsoring a coming back of renault engines for RB

http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/67201/ ... lo-renault

Abiteboul has already said it would be tricky to get the Renault board to approve supplying RB next year, so you would imagine Ecclestone will be offering some of those legacy payments for the Renault/Lotus team....

[Sevach]

Well behind Mercedes and Renault of that year. Average Benetton and McLaren chassis beat them at an engine track...
In 1998 and 1999 Mercedes were well ahead enough for Ferrari to make a few inquiries regarding the make up of the engine...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Italian_Grand_Prix

If Monza is the ultimate engine test that proves that Ferrari wasn't up to scratch, then i need to remind you who won Monza in 96? A certain Michael Schumacher, on a Ferrari V10...
I guess the power gap closed up earlier than i thought
Same guy also won 98 BTW, beating a Mercedes engine on a Newey chassis.

Sudden? That concept was on the bench for quite a while, and convergence brought them in line after what...3 years?
We aren't even through year 2 of the V6T....

For how long you assume Renault was testing it's 72 deg engine? They announced the shelving of the wide V mid way through 2004, so i assume at the point the 2005 prototype was running and showing good results.
After spending 3 years time and money trying to improve a certain concept and getting nowhere, the new concept made them competitive straight away, you could say the jump was even bigger then BMW since BMW still had some reliability issues.

They got 4 podiums in the first 5 races...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Formula_One_season

Also the only winless season for Mercedes between 97 and now.

Renault won 3 races last year and finished runners up in the constructors, their engine still wasn't good.

[dans79]

2009 - RedBull 2nd, Renault 8th

My question to you would be do you consider them a manufacture that was actually competing, or one that was riding out the year because they where selling the team?

2010 - McLaren 2nd, Mercedes 4th / RedBull 1st, Renault 5th (although at this point the majority of team was already sold to Genii Capital)
2011 - McLaren 2nd, Mercedes 4th
2012 - McLaren 2nd, Mercedes 4th


(now I know the engines were frozen, so perhaps not quite what you meant, just naming examples. Or maybe the crucial part of your post is the word "established" but that can be molded into pretty much any definition, assuming you don't see Mercedes as a qualified "established" factory-team from 2010 to 2013, I'd argue however that the Brackley team was already well in place after winning the 2009 championship...)

2013 is the first year, I would consider them established, but not because they beat McLaren. What took place in 2012 is what finally established them in my eyes. Hiring key staff, reorganizing, and most importantly finally upgrading the wind tunnel to 60%. after 2012 they had everyone working in harmony, the aero, chassis, and engine guys. That's why even with frozen engine regulations they went from an also ran midfield team in 2012 to p2 in 2013.

[FoxHound]

If Monza is the ultimate engine test that proves that Ferrari wasn't up to scratch, then i need to remind you who won Monza in 96? A certain Michael Schumacher, on a Ferrari V10...
I guess the power gap closed up earlier than i thought
Same guy also won 98 BTW, beating a Mercedes engine on a Newey chassis..

Nice research Sevach =D>

However, Hill crashed in 96, and Villenueve spun off. Both Mclaren were involved with collisions.

In 1998 Coulthards engine blew and hakkinen had brake issues from lap 4 along with a pit order to nurse the engine.

We are way off topic now, but please flesh the picture out before using it as some sort of reference

[NL_Fer]

Actually the pre 2000 Ferrari engines were never down on bhp. They just consumed allot of fuel, 20-40kg more per race,,doing so.

[Sevach]

Nice research Sevach =D>

However, Hill crashed in 96, and Villenueve spun off. Both Mclaren were involved with collisions.

In 1998 Coulthards engine blew and hakkinen had brake issues from lap 4 along with a pit order to nurse the engine.

We are way off topic now, but please flesh the picture out before using it as some sort of reference

Hill was going to win if he didn't throw it off, Villeneuve it's impossible to tell.
Schumacher was easily faster than Alesi however.

Talking of poorly researched BS, the 97 Benneton while it wasn't much pretty much anywhere else was superior to the mighty Williams on high speed tracks, it got pole/win Hockenheim and pole/2nd at Monza, the "average" chassis was actually the car to beat at that day.

Schumacher was on pole in Monza 98, got a horrible start,recovered to catch and overtake Hakkinen, Hakkinen's problems and fall down the order came much later in the race when the order was already Schumacher-Hakkinen.

[FoxHound]

So your assessment is that a car that achieves a good performance at 1 track is a better than average through a season?
The W02 Mercedes and countless other mediocre cars thank you unreservedly.

The point I made in reference to the thread, and one that you are obfuscating with juvenile glee, is that Ferrari at no point could say they had the best engine until at least 2000.

Brawn sums it up...
"We struggled, and we knew that with a longer stroke, the Mercedes reached the same revs. God knows how they do it."

And there it is. Not more Bennetton Bollocks, straight from the prancing horses mouth.

[zeph]

So RBR and Renault are back at the table. Called it two weeks ago.

[NL_Fer]

Eventually they found out it was the Beryllium alloy. So they asked the fia to ban it.

[Sevach]

So your assessment is that a car that achieves a good performance at 1 track is a better than average through a season?
The W02 Mercedes and countless other mediocre cars thank you unreservedly.

The point I made in reference to the thread, and one that you are obfuscating with juvenile glee, is that Ferrari at no point could say they had the best engine until at least 2000.

Brawn sums it up...
"We struggled, and we knew that with a longer stroke, the Mercedes reached the same revs. God knows how they do it."

And there it is. Not more Bennetton Bollocks, straight from the prancing horses mouth.

I said the Benettons were suited to that type of track, they weren't competitive anywhere else, but at high speed tracks they clicked they beat Williams fair and square at both venues, nothing happened to them, Benetton was simply faster at those venues.
The 2012 Mercedes was crap in general, but it worked well enough on China and Monaco.

No, you said Ferrari had "issues" with their V10 for 4 years, which isn't only BS it seemingly forgets that they already won constructors in 99(and challenged for WDC 3 straight years), pretty sure every team (other than Mercedes) would be content with that level of issues.

Second i never said "the best" i said quite good, which was the case, if anything their level of competitiveness didn't suffer any drastic change from Monza/Hockenheim and Spa to Hungary.

[olefud]

Is the problem with being noncompetitive or with the rules that pretty much limit improvements?

[dans79]

Is the problem with being noncompetitive or with the rules that pretty much limit improvements?

a lot of people are saying the latter, but IMO the underlying reason is the former.

[flmkane]

Wow there is a war going on in this thread... I'm gonna sidestep that for now.

I just want to share my opinion about the problem and how I think it can be fixed.

The problem with the current engine formula is simply the fact that development is locked. If you had free development, then you'd have engine designers being able to catch up with Mercedes. I'm sure Merc would also improve, but eventually they'd run into a wall. Each incremental improvement would be slower. To me, it really is that simple.

To save the smaller customer teams from having to bear the burden of higher costs, the FIA need a proper cost cap at least on engines. $10 mil -15 mil per season seems fair.

If you want to look at a slightly bigger picture, the entire fuel flow limit concept is flawed. It makes for boring races and kills the sound. They should relax it, since it has turned out to be a mistake.