Does F1 need to relax engine develpment limitations?

[emaren]

The best outcome from this would be a relaxation of the stupid and restrictive engine development rules, I cant see how they have been good for the sport.

I really could not agree more.

But getting agreement to do so, is a whole other thing.

[bauc]

The best outcome from this would be a relaxation of the stupid and restrictive engine development rules, I cant see how they have been good for the sport.

I really could not agree more.

But getting agreement to do so, is a whole other thing.

Yes, I agree, as my discussion on this thread earlier the main problem here is the lack of development freedom which will allow Reno & Honda to catch up with Ferrari and possibly Mercedes, and by having this stupid token system teams are spending far more money in R&D trying to find a way to fix their issues and gain performance by implementing super complex solutions instead of going with the more simple but brute fix.

[Phil]

and by having this stupid token system teams are spending far more money in R&D trying to find a way to fix their issues and gain performance by implementing super complex solutions instead of going with the more simple but brute fix.

That's pretty much speculation. You are saying the token system generates more costs than if we didn't have any tokens at all and any engine manufacturer was free to spend as much money and man-power as they want. The key point here is that the token system isn't to protect the [engine] manufacturers who are obviously willing to spend an infinite amount of money to do the best job; it's here to protect the sport and those of the smaller teams - the customer teams - of not having to bear these costs. At least the token system should in theory prevent a customer team to have to foot the bill of 'limitless [R&D] development that leads to no result', but only the actual one beneficial solution that is implemented through the token that is used.

In other words - without the token system, an engine manufacturer would likely test all the likely possibilities anyway (to find the best one, because only 4 engines can be used per season), so how is 'no tokens' supposed to be cheaper than having tokens that limit on which areas can be effectively worked and developed inside that PU?

[bauc]

and by having this stupid token system teams are spending far more money in R&D trying to find a way to fix their issues and gain performance by implementing super complex solutions instead of going with the more simple but brute fix.

That's pretty much speculation. You are saying the token system generates more costs than if we didn't have any tokens at all and any engine manufacturer was free to spend as much money and man-power as they want. The key point here is that the token system isn't to product the [engine] manufacturers who are obviously willing to spend an infinite amount of money to do the best job; it's here to protect the sport and those of the smaller teams - the customer teams - of not having to bear these costs. At least the token system should in theory prevent a customer team to have to foot the bill of 'limitless [R&D] development that leads to no result', but only the actual one beneficial solution that is implemented through the token that is used.

In other words - without the token system, an engine manufacturer would likely test all the likely possibilities anyway (to find the best one, because only 4 engines can be used per season), so how is 'no tokens' supposed to be cheaper than having tokens that limit on which areas can be effectively worked and developed inside that PU?

Very simple, the areas allowed to be changed on the engine/parts are limited, so you might (in theory) have a far simple solution and much less expensive one, but due to the strictly limited area on which you can work on especially as the number of tokes available gets reduced year by year you are trying to find new ways to fix things & improve performance by going into this super complex solutions. Sometimes the answer is right in-front of you, but you don't see it...well in this case you see it but you cant touch it.

[miguelalvesreis]

and by having this stupid token system teams are spending far more money in R&D trying to find a way to fix their issues and gain performance by implementing super complex solutions instead of going with the more simple but brute fix.

That's pretty much speculation. You are saying the token system generates more costs than if we didn't have any tokens at all and any engine manufacturer was free to spend as much money and man-power as they want. The key point here is that the token system isn't to product the [engine] manufacturers who are obviously willing to spend an infinite amount of money to do the best job; it's here to protect the sport and those of the smaller teams - the customer teams - of not having to bear these costs. At least the token system should in theory prevent a customer team to have to foot the bill of 'limitless [R&D] development that leads to no result', but only the actual one beneficial solution that is implemented through the token that is used.

In other words - without the token system, an engine manufacturer would likely test all the likely possibilities anyway (to find the best one, because only 4 engines can be used per season), so how is 'no tokens' supposed to be cheaper than having tokens that limit on which areas can be effectively worked and developed inside that PU?

Very simple, the areas allowed to be changed on the engine/parts are limited, so you might (in theory) have a far simple solution and much less expensive one, but due to the strictly limited area on which you can work on especially as the number of tokes available gets reduced year by year you are trying to find new ways to fix things & improve performance by going into this super complex solutions. Sometimes the answer is right in-front of you, but you don't see it...well in this case you see it but you cant touch it.

Nevertheless, that's still pretty much speculation!!

IMO, without the tokens, you would see 4 new engines per season per engine supplier. It would be a frantic race to increase efficiency and power. I would welcome this if there was a upper limit on the price of the engines for costumer teams and an obligation to use/sell always the last homologated version

[Phil]

Very simple, the areas allowed to be changed on the engine/parts are limited, so you might (in theory) have a far simple solution and much less expensive one, but due to the strictly limited area on which you can work on especially as the number of tokes available gets reduced year by year you are trying to find new ways to fix things & improve performance by going into this super complex solutions. Sometimes the answer is right in-front of you, but you don't see it...well in this case you see it but you cant touch it.

I think it's important to realize that the tokens are here to limit what can be changed on the actual engine that is built to be used as one of the 4 PUs for a season, not what an engine manufacturer can think up in a lab, a simulation or an R&D exercise.

This means that any engine manufacturer can think and dream up millions of exciting areas of how to improve the engine (irregardless if there are tokens or not), but the token system limits which ideas can actually be implemented - which directly results in the cost that can be relayed to customer teams. Again: if you don't have tokens, an engine manufacturer will bring out 4 new engines which then customer teams will either have to pay up or stay on an older, insufficient spec. It's not faultless, especially in regards to achieving engine parity [the fuel flow limit etc should have taken care of that, at least put them closer], but the token system does serve a purpose, one that was discussed at length by all engine manufacturers before it was agreed on and to suggest it has achieved the opposite is rather preposterous IMO.

[ChrisF1]

So really we should have seen a staggered Token system introduced, with engines getting some kind of rating by the FIA based on power output, fuel efficiency, reliability etc and the best engine gets less tokens, with the worst getting more.

I don't like handicapping, but is it any more artificial than some of the crap we have in F1 now?

[adrianjordan]

I honestly think the simple solution is to open up development a little but cap the amount manufacturers can charge customer teams. Perhaps even stipulate that they have to offer the latest spec, but allow them to charge a premium for it (again an agreed amount).

[djos]

I honestly think the simple solution is to open up development a little but cap the amount manufacturers can charge customer teams. Perhaps even stipulate that they have to offer the latest spec, but allow them to charge a premium for it (again an agreed amount).

Agreed, 4 new PU refreshes per year and customers must get full factory spec for say 10 million per year.

[Cold Fussion]

and by having this stupid token system teams are spending far more money in R&D trying to find a way to fix their issues and gain performance by implementing super complex solutions instead of going with the more simple but brute fix.

That's pretty much speculation. You are saying the token system generates more costs than if we didn't have any tokens at all and any engine manufacturer was free to spend as much money and man-power as they want. The key point here is that the token system isn't to protect the [engine] manufacturers who are obviously willing to spend an infinite amount of money to do the best job; it's here to protect the sport and those of the smaller teams - the customer teams - of not having to bear these costs. At least the token system should in theory prevent a customer team to have to foot the bill of 'limitless [R&D] development that leads to no result', but only the actual one beneficial solution that is implemented through the token that is used.

In other words - without the token system, an engine manufacturer would likely test all the likely possibilities anyway (to find the best one, because only 4 engines can be used per season), so how is 'no tokens' supposed to be cheaper than having tokens that limit on which areas can be effectively worked and developed inside that PU?

The problem with the token system is that if you are willing to spend infinite money then your only currency are the tokens themselves. I don't see how the token system would increase absolute costs compared to not having it but I can see how every upgrade is relatively more expensive because incremental upgrades are not efficient with the token system. The decreasing amount of tokens further discourages it because a particular upgrade may become to expensive (token wise) in future years to upgrade.

I would be surprised to see costs increase if the token system was scraped all together so long as the 4 PU per year rule remained in place, perhaps extending it allowing only 4 PU homologations per year. I think doing it this way will give the engine manufacturers more value for money since I don't believe the token system will limit spending.

[iotar__]

and by having this stupid token system teams are spending far more money in R&D trying to find a way to fix their issues and gain performance by implementing super complex solutions instead of going with the more simple but brute fix.

That's pretty much speculation. You are saying the token system generates more costs than if we didn't have any tokens at all and any engine manufacturer was free to spend as much money and man-power as they want. The key point here is that the token system isn't to protect the [engine] manufacturers who are obviously willing to spend an infinite amount of money to do the best job; it's here to protect the sport and those of the smaller teams - the customer teams - of not having to bear these costs. At least the token system should in theory prevent a customer team to have to foot the bill of 'limitless [R&D] development that leads to no result', but only the actual one beneficial solution that is implemented through the token that is used.

In other words - without the token system, an engine manufacturer would likely test all the likely possibilities anyway (to find the best one, because only 4 engines can be used per season), so how is 'no tokens' supposed to be cheaper than having tokens that limit on which areas can be effectively worked and developed inside that PU?

The problem with the token system is that if you are willing to spend infinite money then your only currency are the tokens themselves. I don't see how the token system would increase absolute costs compared to not having it but I can see how every upgrade is relatively more expensive because incremental upgrades are not efficient with the token system. The decreasing amount of tokens further discourages it because a particular upgrade may become to expensive (token wise) in future years to upgrade.

I would be surprised to see costs increase if the token system was scraped all together so long as the 4 PU per year rule remained in place, perhaps extending it allowing only 4 PU homologations per year. I think doing it this way will give the engine manufacturers more value for money since I don't believe the token system will limit spending.

I think you might be trying to re-invent the wheel with all the cost theories. Firstly tokens are more expensive as is any development. Ask FI, Lotus and check what Merc said when this system was introduced to help Ferrari and Red Bull Renault. It was real world voting with your money. Unlimited development would have elevated high engine costs even further, that's why it was prevented - another real world voting with money. Had they decided in favour of it could have been the difference not for RB but between bankruptcy or surviving for teams like FI (missed tests) or Lotus in '15 on top of other F1 costs. Some things are not complicated, engine cost control is for customers and therefore the whole F1 not Merc or Ferrari.

[Cold Fussion]

Token's do not limit development in beginning, they only limit the introduction. It's not until when the manufacturers have few tokens available in the forthcoming years will that limit development, and even then there is no guarantee they wont just redeploy the development resources into the areas they can develop.

[Phil]

I would be surprised to see costs increase if the token system was scraped all together so long as the 4 PU per year rule remained in place, perhaps extending it allowing only 4 PU homologations per year. I think doing it this way will give the engine manufacturers more value for money since I don't believe the token system will limit spending.

Assuming 4 different engines a year, how do you stop an engine-manufacturer and works-team, such as Ferrari, changing the layout of their engine completely (i.e. knowing that the path or alignment of components wasn't perhaps the most efficient) without causing a complete meltdown for one of the customer teams, like for example Sauber, who would then have to throw aboard certain chassis design choices to the point they would have to design a completely new car? Will the engine-manufacturer come up for these costs, simply because they as a works-team want to do what is best for them while using customer-teams to regain some of that investment?

Lets not forget that for example; McLaren designed their car around a very tightly packaged engine. That was the design they and their engine-manufacturer [Honda] chose to focus on. That clearly went into the process of designing the aero and chassis of the car. What if, without the token system, Honda would just admit defeat, change it's layout completely to the direction their other competitors have focused on and realign their engine significantly, changing the packaging around it and therefore the space requirements. This would mean that the whole car and its chassis and aero direction would have to be changed, rethought. For a team like McLaren who is effectively in a works-relationship with their engine-manufacturer and still have a high budget and sees itself as a front-running team, it's doable. Now wonder how a Sauber, a Williams, a Torro-Rosso, Force-India... even a RedBull who is very specialized into the design choices of their car would react if somewhere mid-season, the engine manufacturer (with nearly infinite resources) started to change its engine in a magnificent way that would have a huge impact on the chassis built around it.

The costs would spiral out of control. The token system at least limits the area of where the engine can be changed and it also limits the speed at which certain changes are carried out. Fact is; The engine-manufacturers care about their works team. Mercedes doesn't care one ounce about Williams beyond the point that they represent competition and to recuperate some of their investment. Same applies to Ferrari; They are happy to supply engines, but their main goal is to work and perform as a works-team, so they will do what is right for them. Thanks to the token system - this rate of development, the areas that can be changed and worked-on are severely limited, which makes the whole process of upgrading the engine through using tokens rather consistent, predictable and controllable.

[wickedz50]

[quote="Phil"]Fact is; The engine-manufacturers care about their works team. Mercedes doesn't care one ounce about Williams beyond the point that they present competition and to recuperate some of their investment. Same applies to Ferrari; They are happy to supply engines, but their main goal is to work and perform as a works-team, so they will do what is right for them.

This make the current F1 a 2 or may be 3 way fight for the title. Are the customer team not aware of this basic fundamental issue? whats the point to race when they will never have a chance to win? Does Bernie understand this now that how much of a Frankenstein has he created out of this stupid rules in F1?

[Phil]

We should be careful while pointing the finger at Bernie: Renault [among others] wanted more road relevant engines because in a world where motorsport (F1) becomes more difficult to justify due to rising costs, more and more teams are finding themselves struggling. The rich teams are becoming more rich as they not only attract a higher share of price-money, they are also attracting the more valuable sponsors. Case in point: Petronas who used to be a major Sauber sponsor but moved to Mercedes. They were already struggling way before these V6 engines came about. So were ForceIndia and Lotus too.

With the move to new high tech futuristic engines, the sport made itself a bit more relevant to engine-manufacturers. Its goal was always to attract more engine diversity, perhaps lure VW/Audi and others into F1 in light of future developments of hybrids etc. These big car manufacturers have lots of money (relatively, because they are backed by outside markets, not only how they perform inside motorsport) and by luring them into the sport, you potentially bring in more money too. That's the reason you want them - not to rely on struggling race teams that are there simply for the reason of 'racing' like Sauber, Williams, Force-India, even Ferrari to a degree.

The only problem in 2014 was that Mercedes did a fantastic job, while Ferrari and Renault didn't. 2015 is on paper a good season, Ferrari is significantly closer, but Renault has gone backwards and Honda is nowhere. If Mercedes wasn't that dominant, we'd actually have quite a close 3 way championship between the top 3 engine manufacturers.

I agree, it's bad for the sport that customer teams or engine-manufacturers with underperforming engines are very limited in changing their faith - but the sport was in trouble before too. Long term, it made sense to go to new engines because the sport can not live in its vacuum forever. It obviously can not sustain itself, so to gain relevancy, it needs to evolve. The rules were written in a way in order to make parity achievable and likely, but reality has showed us that one manufacturer seemingly made all the right choices and is way ahead, not only performance wise but also in regards to reliability. This year, that gap has closed quite a bit and if next year, that gap can be closed further by diminishing returns, we will have a much closer fight as a result. It's important going into next year that RedBull finds itself a competitive engine and that there is no 2-tier system where we have higher specced engines at the front, vs lower specced/older engines at the back. At the same time, the sport needs to continue to attract newer engine manufacturers willing to invest more money into F1 and to keep it interesting, the rate of development for engines must be controllable. At the same time, a way must be found to enable engines that are further behind to close that gap without giving them any unfair advantage.