Alternative engine configuration

[gridwalker]

The FIA has confirmed that its plans for an alternative engine for 2017 have been rejected by the F1 Commission.

Ferrari's decision to veto a planned ¬12 million cost cap on customer engines prompted the FIA to pursue a budget engine in an attempt to balance the budgets for smaller teams. The current cost of a customer engine is believed to be in the region of ¬20 million.

The FIA has revealed there have been "four credible Expressions of Interest" from manufacturers about becoming the budget engine supplier. However, following separate meetings of the Strategy Group and F1 Commission in Paris on Tuesday, those plans have been shelved, with manufacturers promising instead to address four key areas around power unit supply.

Those four areas are:

Guarantee of the supply of power units to teams

The need to lower the cost of power units to customer teams

Simplification of the technical specification of the power units

Improved noise

The manufacturers will present a proposal by January 15, 2016 that will "seek to provide solutions to the above concerns". It will include the establishment of a minimum number of teams that a manufacturer must supply, ensuring all teams will have access to a power unit -- an issue which has been prominent this season with Red Bull and Toro Rosso yet to confirm an engine for 2016.

The FIA has confirmed it will meet with the current engine manufacturers to discuss this topic for the first time at this weekend's Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. The governing body says the budget engine solution "may be reassessed" once it has heard the proposal of the manufacturers next year.

I am not surprised by this. It always seemed like this budget engine was a bargaining chip designed to push the manufacturers back to the negotiation table. So, the next question is what "simplified" configuration will the manufactuers propse in January?

[turbof1]

Bhall, I wouldn't go that extreme - I agree the chances for development are severely hampered. Especially given there's little to no opportunity to test out new engine parts on track, without putting atleast a quarter of your season at risk.

However, we do have the worst behind us. In 2014, we were facing a situation where everybody would be locked in from late February onwards, year after year. Combined with progressively decreasing amount of tokens plus progressively decreasing amount of parts that can be updated, year after year. All of that got scrapped.

The biggest issue you are facing now, is that you only have 4 PUs to update throughout the year before hitting penalties, combined with no on-track-testing moments. Testing was banned as a cost saving measure. In this case it heavily increases costs because on track testing would expose issues before the engines are used in sanctioned events. The non-competitive setting would allow to test it properly too. Bringing in a malfunctioning PU into the official season will force the manufacturer to divert a massive amount of resources to fix the issues, with added risk that the inability to fully test the PU will stretch issues further out. So I would go as far as proposing in-season testing for manufacturer teams as a cost saving measure; in return the manufacturer needs to be able to deliver the updated PU as soon as the customer requires them, when the manufacturer deems the updated PU raceable.

Currently, F1 is going through the pains of a too complex engine formula. With the rules as they are now, it'll take a few years for the manufacturers to close the gap to eachother. But I do think the gap will be closed.

[FoxHound]

Without a mechanism for improvement during the season - like last year - the World Championship is over before the first race.

There is a mechanism, Ben.....

With only a limited opportunity for development - "tokens" - it takes years for less fortunate teams to recover.

Tokens are a "mechanism for improvement". There is no argument I've come across that can dispel tokens as anything but.

Is the system ideal? No. Very far from it, but it does have potential for improvement.
If we compare that to an all out engine war, or a frozen engine formula it's the happy medium.

We must also account for the first year syndrome of technical regulation change. In 2009(aero rehash) Brawn walked it and would've nailed it earlier if they had more money to throw at their car.
In 1998, McLaren cantered to the double when cars were made narrower and grooved tyres were introduced.
In 1992 Williams crushed ass with electronics until 1994.

And then we also have to look at the improvements made by Ferrari within this current remit.

As an aside, I'm told that the seasonal allowance of 32 tokens will be enough to change around 60% of the engine and energy recovery systems.
When you view this allied to Mercedes engine development from around 1995 to 2007(I'm most familiar with Merc than the others) They introduced "spec A-B-C-D-E" etc. throughout this time.
These were staged development processes that built on what worked to what could be improved.

In an entire season, I believe that on only 2 occasions in 12 years did Mercedes ever introduce completely new engines.
1998, and after the Beryllium ban of 2001. So to my mind, they were regulation induced changes.
Had they not been forced, Mercedes would've maintained the step by step improvements which put emphasis on evolution rather than revolution.

We must also factor in the complexity. If regs were unrestricted, would there be a guarantee that Renault and Honda would catch up? And if so, how much quicker to the problem of excessive costs associated with unrestricted regulation?

There is a solution....simpler-cheaper-louder engines. But I'd still like to see some potential for development, which needn't be complex.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication, no?

[dren]

And development was wide open for reliability fixes.

[FoxHound]

And development was wide open for reliability fixes.

True dat...
And if a part can be proven cheaper to make....the "reliability and cost" clause.

[bhall II]

There is a mechanism, Ben.....

Not last year, which is why I said, "like last year." Were it not for the homologation loophole, it would have been the case this year, too.

And, yes, I understand that the "token" system is better than nothing. But, do you honestly think that limiting the scope of what's allowed to be introduced and raced from year to year has much of an impact on development costs? Or is it more likely the manufacturers develop various combinations of allowable upgrades in order to introduce and race the most effective of the bunch? Let's be realistic here.

The problem, in my view, is that the regulations are naive and short-sighted (and often contradictory). As such, they reflect the image of a sport that has no --- clue what it is. Its only strategic vision is aligned strictly with the marketing interests of manufacturers for whom large racing budgets are pocket change, and every penny spent can be turned into increased sales.

Daimler AG revenues for 2014: $137 billion
Mercedes AMG Petronas budget for 2014: $517 million

Mercedes' team budget is less than 0.5% of its parent's yearly revenues, and most of it comes from sponsors anyway. (I'm not necessarily picking on Mercedes; those numbers were just the easiest to find.)

It would be one thing if the result of the manufacturers' interests put on a compelling show. However, that's decidedly not the case, and it means everyone is spending beaucoup money on a formula most fans oppose. For anyone without a vested interest in promoting hybrid technology, that makes as much sense as tits on a bull.

As an aside, I'm told that the seasonal allowance of 32 tokens will be enough to change around 60% of the engine and energy recovery systems.
When you view this allied to Mercedes engine development from around 1995 to 2007(I'm most familiar with Merc than the others) They introduced "spec A-B-C-D-E" etc. throughout this time.
These were staged development processes that built on what worked to what could be improved.

In an entire season, I believe that on only 2 occasions in 12 years did Mercedes ever introduce completely new engines.
1998, and after the Beryllium ban of 2001. So to my mind, they were regulation induced changes.
Had they not been forced, Mercedes would've maintained the step by step improvements which put emphasis on evolution rather than revolution.

Incidentally, that's an excellent argument for ditching the token system.

[FoxHound]

Ahhh but I didn't say how much Mercedes spent on propping up McLaren and running Ilmor/brixworth in those years.
Billions.

It would be one thing if the result of the manufacturers' interests put on a compelling show. However, that's decidedly not the case, and it means everyone is spending beaucoup money on a formula most fans oppose. For anyone without a vested interest in promoting hybrid technology, that makes as much sense as tits on a bull.

There has to be a good show, it's in everyone's interests. I'm not so sure we can apportion much blame on hybrids anymore than we can on one team doing a better job than others.
If the manufacturers had their own F1-esque racing series, there would more proclivity in fan based feedback. They are the customers, fans and buyers and one thing car makers excel at, is to listen to what people want.
Ok, sometimes you are left with the hideousness that is the X6 BMW and GLE Mercs, but you also get GT AMG's and i8's.

I'd say that sort of ear to the ground is exactly what F1 needs. Yet it is shunned week in and week out by the FOM and the FIA. How would they know what we want?
They may have a very murky idea of what we don't want....but how does this sound for a sporting strategy....
GIVE THEM LESS OF WHAT THEY DON'T WANT!

Fans may very well have wanted to see more advanced engines, I know I did. We got that.
But when they turned up, they sounded underwhelming. What's changed? Why was the FIA not able to see that a turbo engine will not sound the same as a naturally aspirated unit, or be as loud?
That a fuel flow limit would reduce revs even further, compounding the sound problem.

And that is one of F1's easier to solve issues.

There needs to be foresight, understanding and good planning. And that just ain't gonna happen, so it's fairly moot us talking about universal constants like the FIA and their ineptitude.

[wuzak]

That a fuel flow limit would reduce revs even further, compounding the sound problem.

To be fair, teh fuel flow formula most likely pushed the rpms up from where they would be under a flat fuel flow formula.

[bhall II]

If the manufacturers had their own F1-esque racing series, there would more proclivity in fan based feedback. They are the customers, fans and buyers and one thing car makers excel at, is to listen to what people want.
Ok, sometimes you are left with the hideousness that is the X6 BMW and GLE Mercs, but you also get GT AMG's and i8's.

I'd say that sort of ear to the ground is exactly what F1 needs. Yet it is shunned week in and week out by the FOM and the FIA. How would they know what we want?
They may have a very murky idea of what we don't want....but how does this sound for a sporting strategy....
GIVE THEM LESS OF WHAT THEY DON'T WANT!

I couldn't disagree more.

“I am being paid to deliver as many wins and as many championships for Mercedes as possible,” [Toto Wolff] said in a wide-ranging interview in the team’s hospitality suite at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve on Friday.

“If I were to take my Mercedes hat off I would be saying, yes, it would be more exciting for Formula 1 if you had many teams fighting and many drivers fighting for wins and championships, that is obvious.

“But that is not what I get paid for.”

While I sincerely respect the hell out of his honesty, Wolff's statement emphatically underscores the stark reality that it's a terrible idea to give competitors an abundance of control over the rules. It was an undue deference to non-sporting matters and a complete disregard for obvious conflicts of interest that created the sport's current mess, and more of the same won't help.

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

I think the rules should be devised in consultation with competitors, but ultimately published as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition based solely upon what's best for the sport's long-term health.

As you noted, that means anticipating development trends so rules won't have to be reversed after a few years (see: Overtaking Working Group). New ideas need to be thoroughly vetted to accurately quantify any potential side effects (see: V6T noise, unchanging competitive balance due to homologation, tortoise-like performance due to aero restrictions/fuel-saving/tire-saving, etc). Finally, the rules should reflect an honest appraisal of the issues rather than apocryphal evidence that quickly crumbles under scrutiny (see: bizarre beliefs that restrictions reduce costs, and refueling bans increase overtaking).

I feel like these things should be unmissable. But, it seems everyone is so focused on their own piece of the pie that they haven't noticed it's been served up on a plate of pure bullshit.

[Just_a_fan]

New ideas need to be thoroughly vetted to accurately quantify any potential side effects (see: V6T noise, unchanging competitive balance due to homologation, tortoise-like performance due to aero restrictions/fuel-saving/tire-saving, etc). Finally, the rules should reflect an honest appraisal of the issues rather than apocryphal evidence that quickly crumbles under scrutiny (see: bizarre beliefs that restrictions reduce costs, and refueling bans increase overtaking).

The big issue is that the FIA, who should be writing the rules, don't have any technical expertise. This is an organisation that doesn't understand that tyre pressures change with temperature FFS. How can they be expected to write meaningful technical regulations? That's why we're in the situation we're in now; the teams are the only ones with the required technical knowledge.

[turbof1]

New ideas need to be thoroughly vetted to accurately quantify any potential side effects (see: V6T noise, unchanging competitive balance due to homologation, tortoise-like performance due to aero restrictions/fuel-saving/tire-saving, etc). Finally, the rules should reflect an honest appraisal of the issues rather than apocryphal evidence that quickly crumbles under scrutiny (see: bizarre beliefs that restrictions reduce costs, and refueling bans increase overtaking).

The big issue is that the FIA, who should be writing the rules, don't have any technical expertise. This is an organisation that doesn't understand that tyre pressures change with temperature FFS. How can they be expected to write meaningful technical regulations? That's why we're in the situation we're in now; the teams are the only ones with the required technical knowledge.

They don't have technical expertise, and now they don't the control over the sport either.

That aside, so let's assume the FIA is in charge: What does any authoritive entity do when it does not have any specific expertise inhouse? What will it do? Simple: it orders a study. There are enough audit companies around the globe to have quantitative and qualitative research into any matter. If not an audit company, you can knock on the door of any university to do the research. And those researches are very accurate despite not inmediately involved into the sport.

It's stubborness from an entity that thinks it knows everything after ruling the sport for decades. It tells you a lot when the most technical inclined person is Charlie f*cking Whiting (yeah, I'm a bit dramatizing now for effect) in your organisation.

FIA: F*cking Incompetent Assh*les. No don't upvote this.

[trinidefender]

New ideas need to be thoroughly vetted to accurately quantify any potential side effects (see: V6T noise, unchanging competitive balance due to homologation, tortoise-like performance due to aero restrictions/fuel-saving/tire-saving, etc). Finally, the rules should reflect an honest appraisal of the issues rather than apocryphal evidence that quickly crumbles under scrutiny (see: bizarre beliefs that restrictions reduce costs, and refueling bans increase overtaking).

The big issue is that the FIA, who should be writing the rules, don't have any technical expertise. This is an organisation that doesn't understand that tyre pressures change with temperature FFS. How can they be expected to write meaningful technical regulations? That's why we're in the situation we're in now; the teams are the only ones with the required technical knowledge.

They don't have technical expertise, and now they don't the control over the sport either.

That aside, so let's assume the FIA is in charge: What does any authoritive entity do when it does not have any specific expertise inhouse? What will it do? Simple: it orders a study. There are enough audit companies around the globe to have quantitative and qualitative research into any matter. If not an audit company, you can knock on the door of any university to do the research. And those researches are very accurate despite not inmediately involved into the sport.

It's stubborness from an entity that thinks it knows everything after ruling the sport for decades. It tells you a lot when the most technical inclined person is Charlie f*cking Whiting (yeah, I'm a bit dramatizing now for effect) in your organisation.

FIA: F*cking Incompetent Assh*les. No don't upvote this.

I would be pretty sure that the FIA would have at least a few race car engineers and aerodynamicists on its payroll to pass new ideas through. You guys are making claims that they don't have any technical expertise based on what information?

I don't agree with many of the decisions they have made but it doesn't mean baseless statements like "they have no technical expertise" should be made.

[turbof1]

What do you amount as technical expertise? Let me put it this way: they probably will have technical expertise as in a few engineers. Based on their decisions however, I will claim they do not have the technical expertise REQUIRED to make decent decisions.

Which I could still understand. And which they do not. Any entity aware of his shortcomings in terms of expertise, will seek professional and independent help on the matter. However, the FIA couples it with flawed decision making.

[FoxHound]

New ideas need to be thoroughly vetted to accurately quantify any potential side effects (see: V6T noise, unchanging competitive balance due to homologation, tortoise-like performance due to aero restrictions/fuel-saving/tire-saving, etc). Finally, the rules should reflect an honest appraisal of the issues rather than apocryphal evidence that quickly crumbles under scrutiny (see: bizarre beliefs that restrictions reduce costs, and refueling bans increase overtaking).

The big issue is that the FIA, who should be writing the rules, don't have any technical expertise. This is an organisation that doesn't understand that tyre pressures change with temperature FFS. How can they be expected to write meaningful technical regulations? That's why we're in the situation we're in now; the teams are the only ones with the required technical knowledge.

Thats my reasoning here too.

But also that the FIA in general, do whats best for them.
They also have a track record of poor rule enforcement.

If competitors had some domain in regulations, as one voice, you have to say they'd also get the fans say of what they'd like to see.

FOTA did so on various occasions, but had the power of a neutered toad.

While I sincerely respect the hell out of his honesty, Wolff's statement emphatically underscores the stark reality that it's a terrible idea to give competitors an abundance of control over the rules.

Wolff is responsible for his team. He has no responsibility to F1 other than his team winning, and maybe give a couple teams his engines.
That's the problem Ben, there is no incentive to increase anyone's responsibility to other than their own.

Is it any surprise each team follows their own path of interests?

Why not let the people that design and build these things also have a say in what would be better, cheaper, faster and more entertaining?
No organisation with multiple entities will ever always agree completely, but at least in the teams case, it would be like countries voting for a UN binding resolution rather than Turkeys voting for Christmas.

[FoxHound]

So the alternative engine plan is effectively dead before it gained any traction....good job too.

AMuS are reporting a new engine formula could be agreed by all parties as soon as January 2016, with the date of introduction mooted as the 2018 season.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 54999.html

It seems a bit of a contrived translation, but did I read that of the voters for the alternative engine...only Torro Rosso and Red Bull voted in favour?

Although the Formula 1 Commission has the alternative to hybrid drive clear deselected surprising. There were 13 votes against. Although Force India and Manor were included and the two Red Bull teams were in favor. Surprisingly, the sponsor representative Philip members Morris and the Rolex cheap motor a rejection