20 engines per season ? Great. Now you've easily tripled the cost(maybe even quadrupoled).
So change the way prize money is distributed.marmer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:12 pmThe only problem with limiting points going to the team or taking them away would affect the smaller teams much more. The bottom 3 teams last year had less points than a race win. With Haas not many more. The top 5 teams could survive a punishment of 25 points and it not affect there positions. You take points away from the lower teams and it could really affect the money they would get. while the big teams have the gaps in points to take the hit and can afford more engines as they get more prize money
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
And then all the manufacturers starts to cry again about road relevance and such nonsenseflynfrog wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:56 am
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.
To add to that and as mentioned before by others. Merc got the turbo from the truck team and then developed it. If F1 was road relevant they would have made it from scratch and it trickle down to the sports cars and the like the only think road relevant about the current formula is the fact that it's a V6 with some electronic assistance. But underneath it's far from a road going version until Mercedes make the thing with the F1 engine but it's not exactly a daily driver is itManoah2u wrote:If i'm not mistaken, Mazda's SkyActive and the now following newest 'active' engine system where a gasoline engine is able to work like a diesel engine is enormeously efficient and powerful without even the slightest influence of F1 technology whatsoever.
Same for Ford's Ecosport technology, boasting amazing horsepower figures out of 1 litre-turbo engines, without being stressed to even remotely the figures F1 engines get to.
Then there's Nissan's 1.5 litre 88-pound DIG-T R engine producing 400 hp.
production engines that are amazingly advanced and work like a charm, producing incredible power outputs without even being remotely under the stress levels F1 engines endure.
The problem is the world of F1 is vastly restricted due to the 'budget' restrictions or lets say resource restrictions , as if it works. F1 engines are complex and very advanced, but they bare no resemblance to the real world, and the automotive industry does not need F1 racing for electric turbo development. They can do that without F1 just as much, all they need is the idea.
So hundreds of millions of dollars get invested in engines that make no connection to the real world.
It looks like most relevant technological advancement has been gained in fuel science, where somehow Petronas for example is able to make a fuel / gasoline / oil mixture that gets a vastly better result with the engine it is developed for compared to other market leading lubrificants like Mobil1, Esso, etc.
There is still an amount of road relevance technology in F1 that gets translated to the real world, but the engines itself per sé are not in that category at all.
The misplaced idea that forcing working on engine wear is road relevant is a huge mistake as the teams are not now getting engines that live longer, they're simply taking the penalties for not being able to deliver, so there's literally no progress.
I don't like it at all. Take this season as a prime example - what if Ferrari decide to throw their weight behind Vettel, knowing that Merc will win the WCC anyway, and just take the constructor's hit? Something about that doesn't sit right with me.eyalynf1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:42 pmI like the penalty points idea, but applied to the constructor's table alone. It could even provide and opportunity for midfield teams to make steady progress through the table. For example if a top team gets a points penalty, but wins the race, lower placed teams could still make progress against them in the constructors table. Also, a strategy could be to provide latest spec engines to customer (typically lower in table) to test. If it works, they get an early performance boost that spices up the racing. If it fails, a top team has minimized the risk of a failure hurting their championship bid.
For this to work, the penalty has be be meaningful and simple enough for fans to understand. So let's say an engine replacement makes a first place score like a fourth place, or perhaps whichever the highest placed non-works customer team scored. So if Lewis finished first but replaced Lewis's PU, and a Force India finished 6th, Mercedes gets 8 constructors points instead of 25 from the win.
Now if a Williams was testing the latest spec unit from Mercedes and it didn't fail they could perhaps jump Force India in the race, or if it did fail, Mercedes dodged a bullet to the tune of a 17 point swing. Its a gamble but it enhances the chances for the mid-field teams to qualify well race with the top teams depending on the performance increment of the upgrades. You could maybe even increase engine allotments for non-works teams to enhance this dynamic, or minimize/eliminate the penalties for non-works team engine failures.
marmer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:12 pmThe only problem with limiting points going to the team or taking them away would affect the smaller teams much more. The bottom 3 teams last year had less points than a race win. With Haas not many more. The top 5 teams could survive a punishment of 25 points and it not affect there positions. You take points away from the lower teams and it could really affect the money they would get. while the big teams have the gaps in points to take the hit and can afford more engines as they get more prize money
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
Users browsing this forum: aral, CCBot [Bot], Phil and 5 guests