Alternative engine configuration

[FW17]

Well rules change like the exhaust blowing, double diffuser, F duct, FRIC, engine maps, mass damper, Michelin tyres etc.


When manufacturers go around saying we will not supply another team that is competitive with an engine or same engine then if the rule maker sits idly by then we are in for bigger problems.

[turbof1]

To be honest it is weird. Since the fia is talking about a budget engine, altough there are no budget teams who cannot procure an engine.

On the other hand, we have Redbull, to good, to procure a competitive engine. Who doesn't need a budget engine, but seems to want to run this standard engine.

Most are bound by contract, which is true. I will not be as blatant to deny the FIA has accelerated the plan for Red Bull (even though it would not have mattered at all for next year since they still need to procure a PU for next year). However, let's not blame Red Bull for the alternative engine the FIA itself proposed as a reaction to Ferrari vetoeing the cost cap.

Furthermore, the current contracts can always be broken or expire in time. Maybe other independent teams will join it.

When manufacturers go around saying we will not supply another team that is competitive with an engine or same engine then if the rule maker sits idly by then we are in

I agree with you, but you cannot blame them. From their eyes they are protecting the company image. They were intructed to create these PUs under a certain set of sporting and technical regulations. Changing the condition afterwards is highly unfair. Hence why I find the fia highly incompetent to not have incooperated these measures during 2011.

The FIA is also very hypocrite to complain that the manufacturers have taken control over the sport, when the FIA sold 2/3 of the decision making power back in 2013.

[FoxHound]

How is costs of any relevance for Red Bull to go barking for an alternative engine? They cannot use this, as it has no relevance to them!

You are trying to change the subject. The fact of the matter is, the FIA wants to introduce an alternative engine and red bull saw an oppertunity in that. What reason they have for the alternative engine is irrelevant in a discussion where you blame red bull for forcing the fia into it, while it is the fia who only introduced this plan as a reaction to Ferrari.

Did the FIA have to allow an alternative engine? There is no legislative document I'm aware of that lead them being blind sided to having to do this.

You are speaking as if they had no choice. The cards were on the table, and I'm telling you now, the only reason these engines will see the light of day is because Red Bull forced it through by threatening to quit.
You may disagree, saying it's the FIA's fault, but then you'd blame the FIA for Red Bull leaving too.

The trigger was not the FIA, accept this and we can move on.

[turbof1]

The cards were on the table, and I'm telling you now, the only reason these engines will see the light of day is because Red Bull forced it through by threatening to quit.

And I'm telling you the FIA decision for the the alternative engine has nothing to do with Red Bull. Accept that not everything that goes wrong in F1 is to blame to Red Bull, and we definitely can move on. I will anyway; I came to this topic originally to discuss the alternative engine, not another polemy about Red Bull.

Did the FIA have to allow an alternative engine? There is no legislative document I'm aware of that lead them being blind sided to having to do this.

You should ask the FIA if they considered alternatives and if they really needed to allow an alternative engine. I cannot speak for a corrupt and incompetent organ.

[Pierce89]

The cards were on the table, and I'm telling you now, the only reason these engines will see the light of day is because Red Bull forced it through by threatening to quit.

And I'm telling you the FIA decision for the the alternative engine has nothing to do with Red Bull. Accept that not everything that goes wrong in F1 is to blame to Red Bull, and we definitely can move on. I will anyway; I came to this topic originally to discuss the alternative engine, not another polemy about Red Bull.

Did the FIA have to allow an alternative engine? There is no legislative document I'm aware of that lead them being blind sided to having to do this.

You should ask the FIA if they considered alternatives and if they really needed to allow an alternative engine. I cannot speak for a corrupt and incompetent organ.

C'mon, Turbo. Are you really claiming that Red Bull isn't the main driving figure behind the "alternative" engine? Marko claimed it was a condition for them to stay.

[turbof1]

C'mon, Turbo. Are you really claiming that Red Bull isn't the main driving figure behind the "alternative" engine? Marko claimed it was a condition for them to stay.

I am not going to claim Red Bull does not have a hand in it. I am claiming this mess is not their fault.

[FW17]

This is the problem of letting manufacturers owning there own teams

Should be like Indy where manufacturers are just suppliers. 2012 and 2013 Chip Ganassi Racing was a Honda front running team they dropped Honda for Chevrolet for 2014, did we here Penske complain? This is spirit of racing that is lacking in F1.

[FoxHound]

C'mon, Turbo. Are you really claiming that Red Bull isn't the main driving figure behind the "alternative" engine? Marko claimed it was a condition for them to stay.

I am not going to claim Red Bull does not have a hand in it. I am claiming this mess is not their fault.

And yet there is nothing forcing the FIA to supply alternative engines other than Red Bull's exit threats.

That's the prime motivator. It's clear as day Turbo, and while the FIA is pretty inept as a governing organ, it certainly isn't to blame for Red Bull demanding engine parity, or threatening to pull they plug. That is Red Bull, and it is completely by design.

[FoxHound]

This is the problem of letting manufacturers owning there own teams

Should be like Indy where manufacturers are just suppliers. 2012 and 2013 Chip Ganassi Racing was a Honda front running team they dropped Honda for Chevrolet for 2014, did we here Penske complain? This is spirit of racing that is lacking in F1.

Manufacturers owned teams from the formation of F1 and GP racing...they were in fact catalysts for the global sport as we know it, Ferrari? Mercedes? Maserati? Alfa Romeo? Auto Union?

The issue is, if something you run on your car isn't good enough, find someone who can do it better, quit, or quit moaning about it.

[turbof1]

C'mon, Turbo. Are you really claiming that Red Bull isn't the main driving figure behind the "alternative" engine? Marko claimed it was a condition for them to stay.

I am not going to claim Red Bull does not have a hand in it. I am claiming this mess is not their fault.

And yet there is nothing forcing the FIA to supply alternative engines other than Red Bull's exit threats.

That's the prime motivator. It's clear as day Turbo, and while the FIA is pretty inept as a governing organ, it certainly isn't to blame for Red Bull demanding engine parity, or threatening to pull they plug. That is Red Bull, and it is completely by design.

Again, if you want motives, contact the FIA. They have their reasons, which in my eyes involves pride and not acknowledging they are not in control despite selling off their power, but you should ask them .

Back on topic: does anybody why the FIA asks more then 640kw, but notes they can limit it to 530kw? Is this perhaps to compensate weight advantages?

[FW17]

quit, or quit moaning about it.

Why should this be when it is not your fault?

The status the privateers agreed to was for an engine freeze from day one (a form of BOP) that is why different teams signed up different engine manufacturers under the presumption that the performance between then engines would not be wide and be similarly bunched to V8 days.

If they knew there would be a wide difference everyone would have signed up for a Merc engine leaving Ferrari to there own team and Renault out of the sport.

FIA has done nothing to bridge the gap between the engines or had been blocked, the alternate engine being proposed is a probable solution.

[FoxHound]

Again, if you want motives, contact the FIA. They have their reasons, which in my eyes involves pride and not acknowledging they are not in control despite selling off their power, but you should ask them .

The FIA are at fault for one reason, pandering to the whims of a single entity. That it did is bad enough for me to lambast them, but the fault lies in the entity blackmailing the sport. That is what it boils down to.

Back on topic: does anybody why the FIA asks more then 640kw, but notes they can limit it to 530kw? Is this perhaps to compensate weight advantages?

Covering their arses in the likely event a cheapo one race 2.4 litre V6 Turbo engine annihilates half the grid of manufacturers with 2nd 3rd or 4th race 1.6 litre V6 Hybrid engine's.
This....won't .....work.

[FoxHound]

quit, or quit moaning about it.

Why should this be when it is not your fault?

Read the sentence in it's entirety.

The issue is, if something you run on your car isn't good enough, find someone who can do it better, quit, or quit moaning about it.
If you cannot do any of the above, it is your fault.

[turbof1]

Covering their arses in the likely event a cheapo one race 2.4 litre V6 Turbo engine annihilates half the grid of manufacturers with 2nd 3rd or 4th race 1.6 litre V6 Hybrid engine's.

The interesting bit here is they ask atleast 640 kw, which amounts for around 859 horsepower, with the lower range being 530 kw, which is 710 hp. I can't imagine that even Honda only has 710hp. If they feel the engine needs atleast 860hp, it means Mercedes must be around there or even slightly above it. More if you consider weight.

[FoxHound]

That 860 figure is all the time in the alternative engine as there is no energy recovery(KERS).

Therefore it has the advantage when the other PU's are out of battery energy, and it runs the advantage of not having to run batteries and the ancillaries associated with energy recovery(lower CoG + better aerodynamic possibilites).
There will be big advantages aerodynamically, and with minimum car weights allowing them to use ballast strategically from race to race(better tyre management)

Basically, even if that engine is limited to Renault's level, the payoff will be huge advantages in chassis and aerodynamics.
Simply, it's a different engine specification that operates under different rules and way more than just engine advantages.