What about limiting PU power instead of fuel flow?

[hurril]

Wolff:

I think this would be the beginning of the end. I cannot comprehend that any car manufacturer that trusts in its abilities to develop a power unit and a chassis would want some kind of mechanism that would balance the power units out. I don’t think that anybody would accept such a humiliation in public.

Binotto:

Certainly, the easiest one is by managing or adapting the fuel flow, but I don’t think that there is a conclusion yet.

Budkowski:

A safety net mechanism to prevent someone to be at a massive disadvantage for three years is worth discussing.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/wolff-en ... nd-for-f1/

The wrongness of Wolff's statement in an era where cost-cutting is number one priority defies belief!

It's almost as if Mercedes-Benz do not understand the importance of slashing obscene & irrelevant power unit development costs.

Wolff is not the one not understanding something here.

The car and engine manufacturers raison d'être is producing a difference in performance. Do you understand this?

If you take that away, they will leave because that is why they're here.

[dave kumar]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/wolff-en ... nd-for-f1/

The wrongness of Wolff's statement in an era where cost-cutting is number one priority defies belief!

It's almost as if Mercedes-Benz do not understand the importance of slashing obscene & irrelevant power unit development costs.

There was also this quote from Wolff that confused me

Wolff rejected that view, saying he doesn’t “see any difference” between ‘convergence’ and ‘balance of performance’. Introducing such rules would be “the beginning of the end” for Formula 1, Wolff warned.

“The power unit is not only measured by the sheer max power but it is subject to driveability, to weight, to cooling. Introducing a simple formula that fits all is impossible and it’s not something that Mercedes would endorse.”

If the PUs were artificially converged by altering fuel flow limits, then some PUs would still have an advantage in the other areas Wolff mentions - diveability, CoG, cooling, etc. So if the best PU would still be the best because of these other advantages, what is Wolff's point here?

Also is Wolff worried that other PU manufacturer's would be able to game the system as happens with balance of performance seen in other categories?

[hurril]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/wolff-en ... nd-for-f1/

The wrongness of Wolff's statement in an era where cost-cutting is number one priority defies belief!

It's almost as if Mercedes-Benz do not understand the importance of slashing obscene & irrelevant power unit development costs.

There was also this quote from Wolff that confused me

Wolff rejected that view, saying he doesn’t “see any difference” between ‘convergence’ and ‘balance of performance’. Introducing such rules would be “the beginning of the end” for Formula 1, Wolff warned.

“The power unit is not only measured by the sheer max power but it is subject to driveability, to weight, to cooling. Introducing a simple formula that fits all is impossible and it’s not something that Mercedes would endorse.”

If the PUs were artificially converged by altering fuel flow limits, then some PUs would still have an advantage in the other areas Wolff mentions - diveability, CoG, cooling, etc. So if the best PU would still be the best because of these other advantages, what is Wolff's point here?

Also is Wolff worried that other PU manufacturer's would be able to game the system as happens with balance of performance seen in other categories?

If they were equalised then no, there would be such other advantages. That is what equalisation means. The best strategy in such a system is to spend the least amount of money and effort and have the "government" reduce the best while subsidising you. Sound familiar from somewhere else?

Do you think such an environment is one where a company would want to go and compete?

[JordanMugen]

Do you think such an environment is one where a company would want to go and compete?

The four manufacturers in DPi vs the one in LMP1 suggest such an approach is very popular with manufacturers indeed! Companies are loathe to pour money down the drain with little chance of success.

The car and engine manufacturers raison d'être is producing a difference in performance. Do you understand this?

If you take that away, they will leave because that is why they're here.

To the contrary, the reason the likes of McLaren do not produce Formula One power units is because it is too expensive and too difficult.

Haas do not even produce their own car. Companies do not go into Formula One because they enjoy spending hundreds of millions of dollars on MGUH strategies or new bargeboards respectively!

If anything the entrants would be glad when those money pits are done away with, and they can go racing with a chance to win for a sensible budget.

The notion Renault as a constructor are in Formula One because they enjoy racing for five years with no chance of winning, or because they enjoy sinking $250m+ into an upgraded factory seems fundamentally incorrect IMO. IMO, Renault would by far prefer to obtain better marketing outcomes for less investment!

To the contrary the raison d'être for the Renault Formula One team was to unlock those marketing and business-to-business opportunities for a sensible budget. Yet, Renault have had to spend more than what they wanted to spend but only have one podium in five seasons to show for.

[dave kumar]

If they were equalised then no, there would be such other advantages. That is what equalisation means...

Just to take issue with this one point. As I understood the proposed convergence mechanism, it was to increase the fuel flow so that the PU development freeze wouldn't lock in a large disadvantage for a particular PU manufacturer. In the quote below Binotto specifically says the objective is not to bring all the PUs to the same level of performance, that is why it is 'convergence' not 'balance of performance'.

So again I am a bit confused by Wolff's comments that this proposal would undo all Mercedes gains. They would still have the most powerful PU (by whatever measure) and their investment over the years means it will probably remain the best integrated and packaged PU. So what's the problem here?

https://www.racefans.net/2020/11/27/fer ... rformance/

Binotto believes it will not be difficult to introduce a freeze. “It’s only a matter of deciding what we intend to do,” he said. However he pointed out that one consequence of the freeze could be to lock in any disadvantage a manufacturer has. He said a mechanism to equalise the performance of the different power units should be considered.

“We have some discussions at the moment with the FIA and F1: Should we consider a mechanism of engine convergence if there is any situation where eventually a manufacturer is really down on performance compared to the others? Because [otherwise] it’s freezing for three years the relative performance within manufacturers.”

Such rules would not be the same as the ‘balance of performance’ regulations seen in other categories, Binotto insisted.

“I certainly don’t think it is ‘balance of performance’ because I don’t think that the aim or the objective is to somehow bring all the manufacturers to the same level of performance,” he said. “That’s not the case.

“That’s why I call it engine convergence or power unit convergence. It’s only a way of trying to help a manufacturer which is really down on performance, compared to the others. But I don’t think that if we are helping that manufacturer, we should bring him to be the best manufacturer at all, just allow them to try to catch up and being a lower level compared to the others but still not too distant.”

Imposing different fuel flow rates for different engines would be one means of levelling the performance between each, said Binotto.

“I don’t think that there is a solution [yet]. Certainly the easiest one is by managing or adapting the fuel flow but I don’t think that there is a conclusion yet. It’s all part of discussions we are having.”

[hurril]

Do you think such an environment is one where a company would want to go and compete?

The four manufacturers in DPi vs the one in LMP1 suggest such an approach is very popular with manufacturers indeed! Companies are loathe to pour money down the drain with little chance of success.

The car and engine manufacturers raison d'être is producing a difference in performance. Do you understand this?

If you take that away, they will leave because that is why they're here.

To the contrary, the reason the likes of McLaren do not produce Formula One power units is because it is too expensive and too difficult.

Haas do not even produce their own car. Companies do not go into Formula One because they enjoy spending hundreds of millions of dollars on MGUH strategies or new bargeboards respectively!

If anything the entrants would be glad when those money pits are done away with, and they can go racing with a chance to win for a sensible budget.

The notion Renault as a constructor are in Formula One because they enjoy racing for five years with no chance of winning, or because they enjoy sinking $250m+ into an upgraded factory seems fundamentally incorrect IMO. IMO, Renault would by far prefer to obtain better marketing outcomes for less investment!

To the contrary the raison d'être for the Renault Formula One team was to unlock those marketing and business-to-business opportunities for a sensible budget. Yet, Renault have had to spend more than what they wanted to spend but only have one podium in five seasons to show for.

Your examples of others that "can't afford it" aren't that relevant though. You and I cannot afford it either, should measure be taken on our account so that we may? Of course not. Hyperbole? Sure. So let's take Volvo then? Is it unfair that they cannot afford to join? They would have to spend quite a lot of money to even get a racing department going but surely we owe them that too then?

The text in bold text is not my point, it's in fact yours. You are the one, _indirectly_, claiming that since the ultimate reason and purpose behind entering and staying in F1 is just so that they can enjoy some racing, we should basically sponsor anyone that would to a level they can afford.

What I'm saying is that the manufacturers are here/ there because they make (or think they can) make a net profit from it. That and/ or for marketing and branding purposes which is also ultimately about making money, albeit down the line some.

It's not not Haas' right to be here, they choose to do so for reasons that they own themselves.

[J.A.W.]

F1 is a 'premium brand', ah, sorry, I mean: 'Premium Brand!!!' - so a mere 4 cylinders, just like what
the peasants in lower classes must race, is simply 'beyond the pale' - & duly, right out of consideration..

4-cylinders seems completely fine to me?

That was way 'back in the day', when F1 was far more of a 'run what you brung' deal,
(so long as it was fast enough to qualify & met the fairly basic 4T/cc rule limitations),
& AFAIR, that BMW engine was based on a 'stock-block' regular production unit, no?

No way that kind of plebian 'common or garden' mill would 'pass muster' in F1 today..

[Jolle]

F1 is a 'premium brand', ah, sorry, I mean: 'Premium Brand!!!' - so a mere 4 cylinders, just like what
the peasants in lower classes must race, is simply 'beyond the pale' - & duly, right out of consideration..

4-cylinders seems completely fine to me?

That was way 'back in the day', when F1 was far more of a 'run what you brung' deal,
(so long as it was fast enough to qualify & met the fairly basic 4T/cc rule limitations),
& AFAIR, that BMW engine was based on a 'stock-block' regular production unit, no?

No way that kind of plebian 'common or garden' mill would 'pass muster' in F1 today..

It's always a problem when people start saying stuff like "lets get back to the good old days", which days were that? F1 had a vast amount of different engines and configurations. Even V12 maestro's Ferrari didn't really made that many V12 Formula one cars. "back in the day" they did four in line, V6, V8 and recently of course the V10.

And those BMW engines smoked the competition. They are cool.

[smellybeard]

If you're going down that route, the easiest way to do things is give equal points for all finishing positions (including retirements) and rotate the actual results so as every one wins and gets other good results. To preserve a sense of excitement, ban spectators and TV coverage so the game isn't given away.

[nzjrs]

I suggested a while ago for a form of open scrutenteering where the engine performance is measured and disseminated to competitors every homologated spec. With better targets the field would converge as the efficiency of RnD dollars spent could be normalized.

[djones]

Why is there even a fuel flow limit. That would be my question.

If you have a set amount of fuel before the race... what does it even matter how it's used?

I'd even go as far to say why even dictate ANYTHING about the engine architecture.

Just say you have 90kg of fuel for the entire race, do whatever configuration you want. That would arguably be more relevant to road car development too.

[rscsr]

Why is there even a fuel flow limit. That would be my question.

If you have a set amount of fuel before the race... what does it even matter how it's used?

I'd even go as far to say why even dictate ANYTHING about the engine architecture.

Just say you have 90kg of fuel for the entire race, do whatever configuration you want. That would arguably be more relevant to road car development too.

Because with Turbo engines your power becomes "unlimited".
That is what happened back in the day, the qualifying engines had at least 50% more much power as the race engines.
Ok, you might say they have to race with the same engines so can't do that.
But what happens if they have to run a significant of time behind the safety car during the race? They suddenly are not limited by total fuel anymore, i.e. now they can run the engine at a way higher power. And they even can use fuel to cool down the combustion chamber.

[gruntguru]

Yes the intent of the flow limit is to limit power. There has always been a "power limit" in formula 1.

For NA engines it was originally a displacement limit, then an rpm limit had to be added and finally a limit on the number of cylinders.

For supercharged engines it was originally a (smaller) displacement limit, then they added a boost limit and a total fuel limit, then banned forced induction entirely for a couple of decades.

In every formula the engine rules have become increasingly prescriptive as teams found new ways of increasing power.

[godlameroso]

The same biofuel requirement can serve as a BOP can it not? Forcing an OEM to run 10% Methanol vs 10% something else closer to gasoline would alter engine power.

[Jolle]

BOP in F1? what is this? a hobby club?