Formula One's Engine Crisis

[flmkane]

I cant believe people are remember the Ferrari era as "banging wheels"

Talk about rose tinted glasses. More like "Marlborough Red" tint.

I actually watched a few old VHS recording of races from 2002-2004. There was very little wheel to wheel racing at all. Most times, Shumi was about 1 second a lap faster. This was going flat out on real racing tyres, not the Pirelli bubble gum safety hazards.

[djos]

The "crisis" appears to be boil down to "change the rules just enough to let my favoured team win" in many minds it seems...

Not at all, I'd like to see 3 or 4 genuinely competitive teams fighting each other every weekend and with a real shot at winning.

[Phil]

Phil: Do you believe that any engine manufacturer(ing team) should be forced to supply any team that ask with engines? If so, does the manufacturer get to set the terms under which they will supply their engine?

Edit: I think I misread part of your question. Sorry. *deletes post*

It's a good question and I fear there is no right way to answer it. The problem is; We have 4 engines with varying performance. Naturally, if it was that simple; Every team would want to be on the strongest at any given time. Because we only have 4 engine manufacturers in a pool of 10, this creates a very bad situation. Most teams are bound by contract, so they can't switch on a year to year basis. And then we have a team like RedBull who is deemed too strong and hence, no one wants to give engines there.

IMO - the problem is with the rules; If the engines were nigh on equal and therefore not the prevailing performance aspect, we'd be closer to the engine freeze times and then it would be irrelevant who they supply - because most performance gains wouldn't be made from the engine, but through the sum of all bits. So it would mean little if there's a Renault in the back, a Mercedes or a Ferrari.

I'll say it again; I like the engines, I like the engine development. But for it to work for all, we need more engine manufacturers and unfortunately, it's a pipe dream that suddenly all will jump in at the same time. And as long as that isn't the case - and sorry, there just aren't any signs that lots of car manufacturers are waiting to jump into F1 - I don't see it as a healthy practice to be prepared to lose teams, yes even RedBull and Torro-Rosso, without having adequate replacements up your sleeves.

[Miguel]

The "crisis" appears to be boil down to "change the rules just enough to let my favoured team win" in many minds it seems...

Not at all, I'd like to see 3 or 4 genuinely competitive teams fighting each other every weekend and with a real shot at winning.

In the last 20 years, that has only really happened in 2003. This is also the best season I remember, although to this day I can't understand how a Williams driver didn't win the title. You could argue that 1999 [1], 2010 [2] and 2012 [3] also had that. In 2001, the Williams was a ticking bomb. You will very very rarely have a season in which a 3rd team has a higher than 5% chance of winning a race. To be fair with RBR, this is even more unlikely to happen under the current rules.

[1] Schumacher's injury was probably key, but wins by Jordan and Stewart were great.
[2] The RB6 was really miles ahead of everybody else.
[3] Pirellottery. Wonder what would have happened with better drivers on the Williams.

[zeph]

Well, I suppose in 2010 both RBR drivers, Alonso (Ferrari) and Hamilton (McLaren) were still in contention for the WDC going into the last race. But I'd agree it is the exception rather than the norm.

BTW, even though my guy (Alonso) didn't win, I thought 2010 was one EPIC season.

[dans79]

Well, I suppose in 2010 both RBR drivers, Alonso (Ferrari) and Hamilton (McLaren) were still in contention for the WDC going into the last race. But I'd agree it is the exception rather than the norm.

BTW, even though my guy (Alonso) didn't win, I thought 2010 was one EPIC season.

I Think had RBR has a clear 1 - 2 they would have walked it.

[NL_Fer]

In 2010 Vettel was still seen as a rookie, Webber the experienced one. That was changed from 2011 onward.

[SKI2]

Maybe F1 could use an on-track results system that would allow in-season changes (tokens) for PU development:

Perhaps PU manufacturers could "earn" In-Season Development Tokens by averaging an indicated number of seconds (2 secs or more ?) behind the third place finishers average race lap. FIA could average together all PU specific teams to minimize the effects of sandbagging. They could determine a maximum time behind.

FIA could average a "time behind index" over the first five races to begin a season baseline and then average in each succeeding race to allow for differences in circuits, chassis, tires, weather, etc. Tokens would be available after the fifth race. A PU manufacturer would become ineligible for ISD Tokens once they were within 1 sec of the third place podium finishers average race lap.

As a control device which further punishes sandbagging or teams gaming the system, FIA could reduce the constructor point money an increasing percentage amount as tokens are used.

Such a system would allow those engine manufacturers that need development changes to do so yet not penalize the success of those in front simply through regulation. It would also allow for some PU development through the season while increasing fan interest in PU technical changes. And giving hope to fans of the teams that are far behind!

[mrluke]

The problem with that is the lead time. The time between being told you have the tokens available and actually being able to introduce the parts is probably 4-6 months which is going to be a bit late.

[djos]

Well, I suppose in 2010 both RBR drivers, Alonso (Ferrari) and Hamilton (McLaren) were still in contention for the WDC going into the last race. But I'd agree it is the exception rather than the norm.

BTW, even though my guy (Alonso) didn't win, I thought 2010 was one EPIC season.

Same for me, I was gutted Webber lost the title to Seb but the season was truly epic!

And that was before the Mickey mouse Pirelli tires turned F1 into a lottery!

[djos]

Had year 1 not had completely frozen development and a crazy low PU allowance with extreme penalties for swapping PU's, we wouldn't have an engine crisis act all imo.

When they wrote the rules, I don't think the envisioned all the manufactures but one, to have done such a horrible job.

Very true, however I can recall many of us on F1T predicting the 1st year engine freeze and low PU allocations causing issues - I just dont think any of us realised just how lopsided it would be.

[SKI2]

The problem with that is the lead time. The time between being told you have the tokens available and actually being able to introduce the parts is probably 4-6 months which is going to be a bit late.

Hasn't Honda improved its PU during this season through additionally "granted" tokens? (Proof of concept?)
Would Renault have improved it's current position within the season?

It's not just manufacturers doing such a bad job, it's the natural order of design competition. Some designs will be farther ahead, some will be more reliable, some will be both. And, obviously, some will lag behind. The real difference in this current design competition is the false barrier to improvement. Those who are (temporarily) behind are glued there except for a brief 60 day period. That's pretty unusual in most engineering, design, or commercial activities.

Granted tokens were introduced as a cost control system. But the unintended (or intended?) effect, as described by some drivers and team players, it's basically kind of a race to the first GP... after that, the pecking order is pretty much locked in.

Pretty boring for technically minded fans.

[graham.reeds]

Hasn't Honda improved its PU during this season through additionally "granted" tokens? (Proof of concept?)
Would Renault have improved it's current position within the season?

They all have under the guise of "Reliability and safety".

It was the "Reliability and Safety" clause that rankled Renault in the V8 era. They played ball while everyone else 'fixed' unreliable parts. Just happened that the increased reliability replacement parts gave additional horse power. They then spat their dummy, got a host of upgrades passed through and we got 4 years of domination.

[zeph]

Well, I suppose in 2010 both RBR drivers, Alonso (Ferrari) and Hamilton (McLaren) were still in contention for the WDC going into the last race. But I'd agree it is the exception rather than the norm.

BTW, even though my guy (Alonso) didn't win, I thought 2010 was one EPIC season.

I Think had RBR has a clear 1 - 2 they would have walked it.

In 2010 Vettel was still seen as a rookie, Webber the experienced one. That was changed from 2011 onward.

Funny that. I seem to remember Vettel as the chosen one. Even before the season he was hailed by RBR and Ecclestone as the champion-to-be. They had the merchandise ready and everything.

It's just that Webber threw a spanner in the works by having a great season.

[Jonnycraig]

Well, I suppose in 2010 both RBR drivers, Alonso (Ferrari) and Hamilton (McLaren) were still in contention for the WDC going into the last race. But I'd agree it is the exception rather than the norm.

BTW, even though my guy (Alonso) didn't win, I thought 2010 was one EPIC season.

I Think had RBR has a clear 1 - 2 they would have walked it.

In 2010 Vettel was still seen as a rookie, Webber the experienced one. That was changed from 2011 onward.

Funny that. I seem to remember Vettel as the chosen one. Even before the season he was hailed by RBR and Ecclestone as the champion-to-be. They had the merchandise ready and everything.

It's just that Webber threw a spanner in the works by having a great season.

Or Vettels cars threw a spanner in the works by failing and costing him 75 points