Alternative engine configuration

[FoxHound]

F1 is an chassis formula and not an engine formula ie. You have to build a chassis yourself not an engine.

Could you please indicate me where in the F1 rules or elsewhere you find that?

It's been that way ever since they banned selling chassis to other teams, RBR got around it for a while using RedBull Technologies but the FiA closed the loopholes iirc.

Generally speaking it has been a Chassis Constructors series since the Concorde agreement in 1981 which has required all competitors to build their own cars.

Torro Rosso? Haas? Force India getting "input" from Mclaren? Manor input from Mercedes in 2016?

How much of the "chassis" is designed by independents is questionable. They build em ok though...

[scarbs]

Mecachrome joins AER and Ilmor with request

Will this exhaust-intake layout be legal in the low cost formula? It's not legal under the current rules.
http://fr.motorsport.com/f1/news/exclus ... -standard/

No, as the alt engine spec also demands the exhausts outside the V and the inlets inside.

[Tommy Cookers]

in principle it would presumably be cheaper and otherwise commercially better to use the existing transmissions ?
at each race the same 8 fixed for all time ratios crankshaft to axle

[lio007]

F1-commission rejected alternative engine.
Next step: world motor sport council in december.

http://m.sportbild.bild.de/formel-1/201 ... obile.html

[dren]

Well that was expected.

[PlatinumZealot]

F1-commission rejected alternative engine.
Next step: world motor sport council in december.

http://m.sportbild.bild.de/formel-1/201 ... obile.html

BOOO!!

Boorring!!

I was looking forward to it!

[ME4ME]

Aber: Offenbar aber sind sich die Hersteller einig, dass die Hybridmotoren nicht attraktiv genug sind für die Königsklasse. Deshalb steht ein kompletter Wechsel zu einem anderen Triebwerk im Raum, das mehr PR generiert, lauter und technisch weniger komplex ist. Ferrari hatte bereits die Idee eines Achtzylinders mit einfachem Hybridsystem (KERS) ins Spiel gebracht.

It basically says the manufacturers do not think the current V6 PU's are attractive enough, and could support dumping them for less advanced, more powerful and louder engines. Ferrari suggests a V8 with KERS (so basically what we had, maybe a bit more powerful).

I honestly can't see any such thing happening before 2018 .. not with the money invested in the current PU's.

[Thunder]

So it's over? I would be happy about it, i can't imagine the level of whining a Formula 1 with 2 different Engine Rules would have brought.
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/stat ... 0597758976

[Phil]

I like the current engines. I also like some idea that manufacturers might propose ideas for cheaper, simplified engines and more noise. That's good too. But I don't see much of the problem changing when we replace the current 4 engine builds with 4 different ones and still have them supply themselves and customers. It's still a conflict of interest for them to supply a team that could rival them with the same engine. How is this going to solve anything, unless we have 6 other car manufacturers willing to enter so that every team on the grid can be its own factory-team?

[FW17]

The manufacturers Ferrari and Mercedes should be breach of contract when they failed to provide same specification engines to their customer teams.

[bhall II]

Incoming mini-rant...

Whether Ecclestone and Todt [...] plead force majeure in order to save the [the client engine] is still unclear. But: Obviously, however, the manufacturers agree that hybrid engines are not attractive enough for [F1]. Therefore, there is a complete switch to another engine in the space that generates more PR, is louder and technically less complex. Ferrari had already brought the idea of ​​an eight-cylinder engine with a simple hybrid system (KERS) into play.

How is it possible for an organization be so woefully out of touch with reality? From the very beginning, this formula was destined to be the farce it's become.

As evidence, all you have to do is go through posts in the V6T thread from as early as 2010 to see how long this has been obvious to ordinary, semi-sentient beings. And F1 is only just now figuring it out?

I thought the U.S. Department of Defense had a monopoly on severe institutional dysfunction. I guess I was wrong.

[wuzak]

The manufacturers Ferrari and Mercedes should be breach of contract when they failed to provide same specification engines to their customer teams.

In breach of what contract?

[wuzak]

Incoming mini-rant...

Whether Ecclestone and Todt [...] plead force majeure in order to save the [the client engine] is still unclear. But: Obviously, however, the manufacturers agree that hybrid engines are not attractive enough for [F1]. Therefore, there is a complete switch to another engine in the space that generates more PR, is louder and technically less complex. Ferrari had already brought the idea of ​​an eight-cylinder engine with a simple hybrid system (KERS) into play.

How is it possible for an organization be so woefully out of touch with reality? From the very beginning, this formula was destined to be the farce it's become.

As evidence, all you have to do is go through posts in the V6T thread from as early as 2010 to see how long this has been obvious to ordinary, semi-sentient beings. And F1 is only just now figuring it out?

I thought the U.S. Department of Defense had a monopoly on severe institutional dysfunction. I guess I was wrong.

It is always a risk that one competitor gets it more right than the others when regulations change.

That does not define a mess in the regulations.

The real mess was how Red Bull has dealt with not being competitive.

[bhall II]

It is always a risk that one competitor gets it more right than the others when regulations change.

That does not define a mess in the regulations.

The real mess was how Red Bull has dealt with not being competitive.

There was no risk at all; it was virtually guaranteed.

• Without a mechanism for improvement during the season - like last year - the World Championship is over before the first race.
• With only a limited opportunity for development - "tokens" - it takes years for less fortunate teams to recover.
• Without an allowance for meaningful on-track testing, it becomes somewhat of a guessing game as to whether or not those limited updates will even work - latest Renault PU.

Those factors, combined with the introduction of elements that are arguably better suited for endurance racing, made it obvious from the beginning that the sport was being d̶r̶i̶v̶e̶n coasted into a brick wall.

[Phil]

Sadly, I think the FIA was banking on the fact that a fuel flow limit would produce close to equality on the performance front. If it had, the rest of the rules that would be a means to control development rate wouldn't even be half bad. It would have meant that more or less all would be on equal footing and would progress similarly. At least, that's what we kind of all expected prior to the first race in 2014.

I remember most posts claiming that Mercedes had a huge advantage to be quickly discarded as meaningless hype. On some level, I'm sure the FIA didn't expect that either. A small advantage maybe. But not as one sided as it turned out to be. And since this happened, how do you give the ones behind a chance to catch up without giving the same opportunity to the guy in front already and him not shouting foulplay? You can't - unless you are praying for a miracle on the premise on "diminishing returns" - meaning that the guy in front has already reached the end of the available potential and only the rest can catch up until they are on equal footing again. Which I think is probably not the case, not with engines this new in technology and complex to understand. So there is still scope for improvement by all of them and equal rules for everyone doesn't necessarily mean any one can close the gap in a meaningful way. They might, but it's not guarantee.

I'm still skeptical on the real PU difference between the Mercedes and the Ferrari. I think it's still significant and I think that will carry on into next year.