No tokens but only 4 PUs for the whole season, how will that work?

[Andres125sx]

I was wondering about this, token restriction has been removed, but since teams can only use 4 PUs that´s actually a development restriction

My question is, will that really prevent teams and PU manufacturers from developing their PUs to any point? Or they might accept some penalty to introduce some more upgraded PU?

I guess it will depend on each PU perfomance and expected improvement for each particular development, so if Mercedes continue as the reference they probably will comply with the 4 allocations rule, but what about the rest if they continue a step (or several) behind?

I think as soon as they see some margin for improvement they´ll go for it even if that brings toghether a penalty, because currently grid position is not that important. Well it is if you´re fighting for victories, but for those who dont I think a better PU might be a bigger advantage than a better grid position. Depending on the improvement obviously.

So it will depend on each PU perfomance and manufacturer work at factory to find new improvements. For example I´d be surprised if Honda only use 4 PUs for the season, as they´re changing the whole layout (or a big part) and that means their learning curve is still on an abrupt ascend, so for them a penalty will probably be worth.

About Renault and Ferrari, I´m not sure, probably it will depend on how good their PUs are at the start of the season, but if I had to place a bet (and I have to, winter is boring ) I´d say Renault might be ok with 4 PU while I won´t be surprised if Ferrari need some more to reduce the gap

Toughts?

[nevill3]

Don't forget also that the practice of stockpiling engines and components in one weekend and effectively receiving only one penalty has now been prohibited in the new regulations. So no more 50 place grid penalties will be seen, I think the main reason for the token removal was to enable all the engine manufacturers to make wholesale changes to their engines in a bid to bring them all to a similar level. Honda, Ferrari and Renault knew how to improve things but were unable to due to the tokens.

Time permitting any major engine flaws found in this winters testing should be ironed out by Australia, if not maybe we will see teams taking penalties later in the year if they need to upgrade early. With a relatively long lead time to develop and test new engine components a planned upgrade throughout the season when a new engine would normally be taken is the obvious path.

[void]

I don't like this kind of rule, is not road relevant and it is not good for sport.
It's racing, not Engine Manager 2017, I want to see drivers and cars racing on the edge, not saving engines.

[Sevach]

I think the current set of rules favor planned upgrades over a "throw crap in the wall see if it sticks" approach.

I expect most teams to essentially adhere to the limit, bring a raft of upgrades with each new engine rather than small upgrades pushed ahead of schedule.

The exception to this is if a team has serious reliability problems, in this case caution to the wind.

[krisfx]

I don't like this kind of rule, is not road relevant and it is not good for sport.
It's racing, not Engine Manager 2017, I want to see drivers and cars racing on the edge, not saving engines.

It's not road relevant and isn't designed to be. It's to stop the smaller teams being priced out of the sport by the top guys throwing an engine in every session.

This kind of thing happens down the ladder in lower forms of motorsport including karting and it really reduces the competition to "being able to afford to win" as opposed to being the fastest on the grid.

[godlameroso]

Most teams don't have a say in what engine upgrades they bring to each race, seeing as most teams are customers. Much like the non works Mercedes teams just ran their allocation without worry, I suppose a similar strategy will play out for most customers next year.

Depending on each manufacturer's situation they may not have an upgrade ready and go 2 engine cycles without an update, some may not need to(Mercedes), others may bring aggressive upgrades every cycle, while some may introduce upgrade after upgrade despite penalties because having a race winner is more important than hoping for podiums and playing in the midfield, who knows.

[dans79]

It's to stop the smaller teams being priced out of the sport by the top guys throwing an engine in every session.

This kind of thing happens down the ladder in lower forms of motorsport including karting and it really reduces the competition to "being able to afford to win" as opposed to being the fastest on the grid.

That's how a design series works, doesn't matter if its cars boats or planes. If someone can't afford to win, then they should go race a cheaper one design series.

All the stupid cost savings and limitation rules ever do is make everything more expensive, as those with money will find other more obscure areas to spend it in to gain an advantage.

[thisisatest]

I think the 4 engine rule is road relevant, to the point of increasing longevity and limiting performance degradation from age.
I don't think the 4 engine rule limits development necessarily, but it definitely adjusts their roll-out timing.
Don't forget that for 2017 (and again for 2018 I'm sure) more parts are dimensionally restricted, such as MGU weight. That definitely limits development in those particular areas.

[notsofast]

How about a different variation on this rule: you can use as many engines as you want, but only 4 of your engines can earn points. How would that play out?

[dans79]

How about a different variation on this rule: you can use as many engines as you want, but only 4 of your engines can earn points. How would that play out?

Still bad, an engine is made of components, and just because one goes bad doesn't mean they all are.

[zac510]

That's how a design series works, doesn't matter if its cars boats or planes. If someone can't afford to win, then they should go race a cheaper one design series.

All the stupid cost savings and limitation rules ever do is make everything more expensive, as those with money will find other more obscure areas to spend it in to gain an advantage.

They probably make things more expensive, but what they also do is make the extra spending bring diminishing performane gains. If Force India or STR can get 99.5% (that's around ~0.5 second on a 90 second lap) of the performance of a top 2 team for 25% of the annual cost then there's a good balance of allowing the richer teams to go spend to go faster but keeping the mid-field teams nipping at their heels, which is good for quality of the racing.
If it were an outright spending war then Force India might only be able to get to 98-99% of the performance for 25% of the cost and then that's just going to be a boring race to watch.

Finally, F1 shouldn't lose 1 or 2 more teams and drop to 20 cars just to satisfy this purist view that it should be a design spending war and if you can't afford it go home. Having more cars on the grid makes F1 look healthy.

[henry]

That's how a design series works, doesn't matter if its cars boats or planes. If someone can't afford to win, then they should go race a cheaper one design series.

All the stupid cost savings and limitation rules ever do is make everything more expensive, as those with money will find other more obscure areas to spend it in to gain an advantage.

They probably make things more expensive, but what they also do is make the extra spending bring diminishing performane gains. If Force India or STR can get 99.5% (that's around ~0.5 second on a 90 second lap) of the performance of a top 2 team for 25% of the annual cost then there's a good balance of allowing the richer teams to go spend to go faster but keeping the mid-field teams nipping at their heels, which is good for quality of the racing.
If it were an outright spending war then Force India might only be able to get to 98-99% of the performance for 25% of the cost and then that's just going to be a boring race to watch.

Finally, F1 shouldn't lose 1 or 2 more teams and drop to 20 cars just to satisfy this purist view that it should be a design spending war and if you can't afford it go home. Having more cars on the grid makes F1 look healthy.

Totally agree except for the point about making it more expensive.

The teams spend what they have. The things they spend it on whether by choice or regulation makes no difference. As you point out, what changes is the rate of return on that spending.

[Jolle]

4 PU's per season means around 3500-4000 km per PU. For a racing engine that is a lot! With the stress of racing that's around road spec. I recon that the tech to have a relative fresh PU after 3000 km is quite impressive. So that part is road relevant.

In the good old days, for instance, the TAG engines were rebuild after each weekend. The engines were over engineered and Porsche only build around 30 engine blocks for 3 seasons for two cars (around 70 races). Now there is enough tech and money to produce engines with, lets say, 20% more output if they only had to endure 320km. but that would also mean, per team, 80 PU's per year. Porsche only had maybe a hundred people working on the design? and 20 in the workshop servicing the engines? Mercedes has at least a 1000 working on the design, if they would need to build 400 PU's per year (5 teams and 80 PU's per team) this would mean a few thousand more.

Another solution is using road tech, like in SBK, were ducati used to bring a truck full of engines and they had to put in a new one in every session. This was more burning engines then good design and against the moral of the series.

So, my conclusion is that with the advantages in design and understanding of materials going back to "the old days" is impossible.

[krisfx]

If people want to go back to the "Good old days" they can go on Youtube

I'd rather see a decent midfield race, than have 4 teams in the sport because they are the only ones that can afford to be throwing a new engine in every session.

On the other hand of my argument, I can see that 4 engines per season isn't too appealing in the current regs when there's one engine manufacturer absolutely hanging the others out to dry and I think it should have been kept at 8 for a few years until the technology matures but that's how it is and I think it's remarkable how far these engines are being pushed.

[ME4ME]

My guess:

-Spec1 2017 PU + Spec1 fuel for pre-season testing.
-Fuel upgrade to Spec2 for the Australian GP.
-PU spec2 + fuel spec3 at Canada
-PU spec3 + fuel spec4 at Monza
-No further updates, just new parts at Suzuka (Focus on 2018).