Imminent F1 shakeup?

[FoxHound]

I'm your friend, I myself being one narrow minded, stubborn person.

When shown evidence, you deliberately ignore it and ask me to read between the lines? Show me verifiable evidence that Renault cannot make performance gains with its engine this year.


I've got a couple of very good links from good reputable agencies you should read.

This from autosport
http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113001
"In the power unit we're running we already have the necessary components to achieve this recovery, it's just a matter of optimising everything and using everything to the full power.We just have to fix the reliability and fix the way we use all these things together and try to make them work." Taffin

Then racecar engineering did a fantastic piece which smashes the idea that Renaults hands are tied.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/blog ... -too-late/

But at the opening test in Jerez, Spain it became clear that enforcing this so strictly would lead to an almost comical level of unreliability for some cars. As a result a new paragraph was quietly inserted into the 2014 sporting regulations that allowed the power units to be modified during the season. However this can only be done for one of the following reasons Cost, Safety or Reliability.
If it is modified on the grounds of reliability, which one assumes the Renault RS34 will be, then the manufacturer must prove to the FIA clear evidence of failures and unreliability, something that Renault clearly can do. However the requested changes are then circulated to the other engine suppliers, in 2014 that will be Mercedes and Ferrari, in 2015 Honda and possibly Ford as well. This means that the rival engine suppliers get detailed information on each other when one wants to change, something they all want to avoid.
But in short this does mean that Renault could almost redesign the power unit at any point this season as long of none of the changes are made primarily for performance reasons. If a change to the turbo system makes the RS34 more reliable and just happens to make it a lot more powerful then that is fine

.

More emphatic evidence that you will probably denigrate in favour of crystal balls and hocus....oops sorry...reading between lines.

[SectorOne]

If the quote by Taffin doesn´t end the discussion then i don´t know what will.

[Andres125sx]

You do have a point. Many motorsports categories have saving fuel as an important part (or even saving the car itself). F1 though, has reached a point were most of the race you are saving fuel and the cars go simply too slow. Someone made the maths here, in saving fuel mode they go slower than GP2.

I´ve not seen those numbers, but who cares, that will be for one track, as the percentage of saving fuel mode needed depends on the track.

Marc Gene said in Monaco they only put 85kg of fuel into the car, so obviously no saving fuel mode there, full pace for the whole race. On some other tracks they need it just for a small part of the race, and if there´s any SC period, then no saving fuel mode needed either

People like to exaggerate thing quite a bit. They don´t need so much time at saving fuel mode, just a small percentage of the race or not even so, but never most of the race as you state

If it keeps that way, F1 is probably gonna have an imminent shakeup as well. My prediction is Renault and Mercedes or Mercedes and Honda being the only ones left. Redbull, McLaren and Merecedes will be those remaining as teams, all others getting out or being costumers teams (like in WRC). Free TV coverage is to be doubted to continue.

Agree, but the engines have no responsability here. TV coverage is falling down for some years now, it´s not something new of this seasson

It´s lack of competitiveness what is killing F1, not the new engines. This seasson is the sixth consecutive where everybody knows who will be the champion just after first race. Since 2009 with BrawnGP there´s no competition at all. That´s killing F1, not the engines or the saving fuel mode.

Imagine this seasson without Mercedes... It would be awesome, I don´t remind any other seasson with that parity. Half a second can be the difference between a pole or falling out at Q2 (without mercedes).

That would be awesome, with that competitiveness nobody would care about the sound, fuel economy or any other "detail". We would still need cars a lot easier to overtake, but with that level of competitiveness I think everybody would be happy

[FoxHound]

If the quote by Taffin doesn´t end the discussion then i don´t know what will.

Amen.

[jz11]

Foxhound, your argument is - non mercedes teams can do whatever to close the lap time gap, including modifying the engine as they please (you supply Newey quote here), because they have done it in the past (you refer to Horner quote of 2010)

you also claim that engine reliability updates are essentially power output updates

in real world - engine manufacturer makes an engine, does the testing, mapping etc, produce a power curve, write the literature for it and then homologate that particular hardware + software at FIA
Mercedes homologated their power unit at lets say 650hp+K, which is quite a bit more powerful than the rest (there is ZERO argument about that it has a power advantage, not just delivery)
Renault/Ferrari homologate their power unit at 560hp+K

now under "development freeze" and regulations you CANNOT make straight forward power output gain updates to that homologated engine, you can tweak it here and there, smooth out some sawtoothing on the torque curve, adjust software, replace some not-so-dependable electronic components, but you cannot turn that renault 560hp engine into a 650hp engine during a season under "development freeze" regulations!!!! and this is EXACTLY what your last quote was about

and you CANNOT homologate a 1000hp engine while while it can reliably produce only 500, and then, during season, develop it into reliable 1000hp engine like you're suggesting, that is not how homologation works! it was exactly the case when Redbull mapped their Renault engine to be a bit down on power so it is more driveable in a rainy Silverstone (if I'm not mistaken) and got called on it by FIA - saying - you are not conforming to homologation rules for accelerator-pedal-engine-mapping, +/- doesn't matter - they were using nonhomologated engine mapping, wasn't there even a clarification later by how much your current output must be within the homologated power curve?

so your point about teams being able to close the engine power deficit is simply false, they cannot do it under the engine development freeze regulations! what they can do is make those same 560hp very reliably, using less fuel etc, make the power delivery of the unit super smooth and easy to control for the driver - that is what Newey means by - there is room for development, NOT that they can gain 20% or so more extra power through reliability tweaks

even the blown-of-throttle-exhaust mapping was allowed to Redbull only on the grounds of the claim that it was necessary to cool the exhaust valves down, that was the basis for "exploit" of the time, while Ferrari and Mercedes couldn't claim that same thing because they could reliably make same power without this effect, which put them in a serious disadvantage

now on more current events - we can all see that RB are at the same pace in the aero dependent parts of circuits (which used to be part where they outclassed everyone) while not being fastest in the speed traps, but the delta on that long straight leading to speed trap was still very high - because they come out of the previous corner much faster than any other - low-downforce-high-straight-line-speed car, but this year you can see that the car has to be run in not-as-much-downforce setup to have at least some chance of overtaking/defending on straights and still not being anywhere near as fast as leading car - which unarguably means - their power unit cannot deliver! it is not driveability/reliability problem - it is a pure max output power problem - which, to repeat, is not fixable (your last quote again) because the engine is homologated that way!

I also understand that this year they have not homologated the power output curve, but replaced it with the fuel flow regulation, but it doesn't change anything - if you cannot prove that X part on the homologated engine is failing while making "normal" amounts of power - you cannot be allowed to replace it, simple as that, that is what "development freeze" means in terms of ICE power output, that is why the freeze rule is killing competition this year and should not be implemented in the first place after so many changes regarding power units on 2014 cars

I don't even need to quote anything, because all this is common sense.

p.s. posting animated gifs doesn't do any good in the grown up people conversation

[FoxHound]

Foxhound, your argument is - non mercedes teams can do whatever...

No Jay-Z, had you followed my posts you'd see why I take exception to Cam's initial post on the matter.

Mercedes PU is ahead no questions.
But Renault's hands are not tied in this area contrary to yours and a couple other posters view. I've provided evidence, damning and irrefutable evidence to bury that notion.

You cannot start blaming the rules as the reason for failure or for another teams success.


Red Bull owe most of their success to rule changes. Mclaren and Ferrari were instantly hamstrung by the testing ban, as they utilised this tool as their most used means of developing their car.

In 2007/8 Red Bull embarked on their project of relying less on physical testing and invested heavily in state of the art CFD and simulation, as well as retooling to take advantage of the new hardware.
Red Bull technology also has access to 2 teams data.
Who knows how that data is used?

Come the testing ban, Ferrari and McLaren were found wanting in areas Red Bull now had a distinct advantage.
The 2 teams most capable of challenging Red Bull were neutered instantly. Allied to the RRA, teams could not mount a challenge and rebuild by spending the money Red Bull had already done prior to the RRA.

We gonna blame the FIA for that too?

All thats happening now is a continuation of the theme with different protagonists.

So, as I've said...no point crying about it now when the wheels of this machine have been turning like this for years.

[flyboy2160]

Stop explicitly calling each other liars. Say "you're wrong" or "that's a non sequitur." This is an interesting discussion; I'm going to edit out the personal sniping

[jz11]

Foxhound, please do explain then

Mercedes PU is ahead no questions.
But Renault's hands are not tied in this area contrary to yours and a couple other posters view. I've provided evidence, damning and irrefutable evidence to bury that notion.

what evidence? press talk? which for "modern" F1 is always the same from the loosing side - we work really hard, we are not giving up, there is room for improvement, stay tuned! <- this is your evidence?

the current situation is nowhere near comparable to testing ban or having a great aero designer on the team, because the locked variable was very similar for all teams, and this year it clearly is not, and 7 races in - no improvement from competition, still 1-2sec a lap slower during the race

how does your "irrefutable evidence" hold up to that?

I would assume that within "development freeze" regulations you can work on power delivery, which can influence lap time just as much as top end power could, but keep in mind that Mercedes are also improving there, and they have the top end power on top of that.

So I will continue to blame FIA and FOM for poor decision making regarding power unit and fuel regulations which greatly benefit one manufacturer so far and are tying hands to others at the same time and are pretty much ruining competition in general in this 2014/15 season, which had such a great potential to revive the interest, but instead with this - kill any and all innovation, that they carried from previous years, seem to have even pushed one great designer out of the series altogether.

[FoxHound]

I have given you:

Remi Taffin head of Renaults track operations view.
Adrian Newey's (no intro required) view.
Race car engineering's Editors view.

Development is possible. If a Turbo can be proven a) too costly b) unsafe or c)unreliable it can be changed.
My, how difficult can it be to prove that in a first season!

The FIA changed the ruling to the above to allow greater freedoms for development.

You have given me your view and nothing to substantiate it but "read between the lines".
Simply, you have no facts to back up your claims.

Provide testimony from the people involved with Renault and the FIA that contradicts anything I have written to be factually incorrect.

If you can't, perhaps its best to take leave of the thread until you can. You've had your opinion, I have given you the resources to help you change that view, and you are still offering the same.

I've done what I can to help you compadre.

[jz11]

Foxhound, are qualifying times, race events and result not evidence? can't you make your own opinion about matters from what you see there and have to believe press talk by anyone and accept that as truth, just truth and the only truth?

in your own quote of racecar engineering it says that any change will pretty much become common knowledge, would you yourself spend time and money, develop a solution and then give it for free to anyone just because of some "development freeze" which-doesn't-even-mean-anything rule? Not even talking about potential HUGE (10+%) power output gain upgrades that you need to lie to FIA and call them reliability/cost/safety upgrades (which you consider to be the same anyway) would be given away for free, does that sound a reasonable trade-off to you? Or possible=reasonable, just as performance=reliability in your world?

none of the 7 races that have gone by after that comment by Taffin - which you call - irrefutable evidence, has convinced me that there was any truth in it, if anything, Williams, another Mercedes powered team has started to seriously threaten top Renault teams position

[GitanesBlondes]

Development is possible. If a Turbo can be proven a) too costly b) unsafe or c)unreliable it can be changed.
My, how difficult can it be to prove that in a first season!

Yes is possible subject to certain terms and conditions being met.

Good luck trying to prove any of those qualifiers as it's still down to a FIA decision.

For all intents and purposes, anyone running a Ferrari or Renault PU has no chance of developing the engine in any meaningful sense to close the gap to Mercedes.

It's going to be a sham championship. Engines never should have been homologated as anyone with eyes and ears could see this sort of situation happening before it did. Funny though how it took this kind of a rule to help Mercedes actually create a car.

[Cam]

Took a few pages, and some emotion, but we got there.

Exactly GitanesBlondes. An extraordinary one dimensional position is not required to see this, common sense is.

[mrluke]

Too many posters stating what they think the rules mean rather than looking at what they actually say.

[Cam]

That has come from years of the FIA writing rules they did not mean. What we've all (well most) learned is that the rules are a 'guide' and that the strict interpretation can be overruled.

No wonder everyone is confused.

Fundamental to this years regulations is that any power unit with a significant deficiency, cannot be modified sufficiently to overcome said deficiency. There is simply no way to add 120hp. Zero. Regardless how many 'reliability' changes you make. That is how I see 2014.

[Cam]

Let's try the reverse and see what answers come.

I have entered an F1 team into the 2014 series and Cosworth supplied the power unit. The power unit was designed under their interpretations of the rules. During testing it is discovered that the Cosworth power unit is down 300hp. This is a combination of small turbo, small ERS, incorrectly structure thermal recovery position and too small exhaust. The power unit is homologated.

Demonstrate how, under the rules, my team can gain the 300hp required to compete on equal terms.