Imminent F1 shakeup?

[FoxHound]

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.

Odd that you agree there are avenues for development, then call it a sham championship on the basis of homologation. I see some people thought that "interesting" or "factually correct" too....

Anyway, in the first races of a season, a better PU is going to be better regardless of which rules are in place.
You are running the assumption that if engine builders had an issue they could resolve it by the next race which is grossly incorrect.

Renault can easily order a supplier to cut the price of a new part by 1% and it fits into the FIA cost criteria.
Renault can easily demonstrate(we have proof from their issues) that some parts are unreliable and change it accordingly thereby fitting into the FIA reliability criteria.
Renault can demonstrate very easily that a part could be unsafe for following cars in the event of failure.
If they are overruled the FIA become liable...think they want that on their hands? Thereby fitting into the safety criteria.

It doesn't take a genius to work out. And we have historic precedent to show that when Renault are behind, they can catch up using solely the reliability criteria.

So, quite simply Gitanes... I don't see why you thinks its a sham championship when even more avenues are open to Renault now than there has been in the previous 5 years when they showed they could catch up.

Or do you want them to have a leg up?

[FoxHound]

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.

What business has any engine builder turning up to series 300bhp down?
Lets cut this juvenile tripe and discuss what we have rather than fictitious bullshit.

[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.

What business has any engine builder turning up to series 300bhp down?
Lets cut this juvenile tripe and discuss what we have rather than fictitious bullshit.

Nice answer. Is that what you take to the FIA?

That premise is the sole context of the many pages of discussion. A team finds itself down on horsepower, with a homogolated power unit - how can they find gains?

I'll ask again - demonstrate it for me FoxHound.

[FoxHound]

What you are asking for is a leg up.

A supplier turning up to the grid with a 300bhp deficit has no right to be on the grid.
It could never overcome the deficit in a month of Sunday because they are not up to task to begin with.

I reiterate, enough with the juvenile tripe of non existential circumstances.

[Cam]

So again, I have asked you to demonstrate your position - that a team can make gains. Again you have refused.

I'll leave you with this.

When asked how much could be done to close the gap to Mercedes thanks to the freeze, Ferrari team principal Marco Mattiacci said: "You know a lot about F1, I don't know why you say 'close the gap to Mercedes'.

"The regulations do not allow you to work radically to close the gap, so it will not be true to say that we can close the gap. What you can work on is reliability."

Mattiacci's doubts were echoed by Fernando Alonso, who agrees there is no scope for catching Mercedes.

"There's too much difference," he said. "We cannot touch the engine, we cannot make big changes."

Unless you know more than Ferrari, I'm suggesting you are wrong and the fact you fail to demonstrate your position, leaves me with no other alternative but to believe you are just mouthing off for the sake of it.

I'm out. Happy to discuss to any topic, with anyone, but I'll be bypassing you know FH. It's impossible to get a straight simple answer from you.

[FoxHound]

So it is your view that a business man and a driver, have more knowledge on the matter than an engine man and a an aero genius.

You do realise that Renault turned up to Canada with several new engine parts right?
What's Mattiaci's view on that? Perhaps Domenicalli wasn't so bad after all.

http://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2014/ ... -mercedes/

[Cam]

So it is your view that a business man and a driver, have more knowledge on the matter than an engine man and a an aero genius.

You do realise that Renault turned up to Canada with several new engine parts right?
What's Mattiaci's view on that? Perhaps Domenicalli wasn't so bad after all.

http://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2014/ ... -mercedes/

What parts did Renault turn up with? What did they do? What was the reason they were changed?

What I saw in Canada was a car made by an "aero genius", with DRS open, was unable to pass a Mercedes PU with DRS closed. So again, what parts did Renault bring that allowed them to increase the performance of the Renault PU to close the performance gap to mercedes?

That article states the parts were to bring the PU to it's maximum. But what good is that if the PU is still 100HP behind the Merc? How can that gap be closed? That question is still awaiting an answer.

And I've done it again...... FH, we can't agree. We look at the rules very differently and I guess that's at the crux of the problem with F1. Your Merc will win this year, enjoy.

[Vettel Maggot]

Foxhound you have failed to answer a pretty simple question, like a politician in fact, using spin. I agree with Cam on this one, the Championship (it is an engine championship this year) has already been decided months ago, if not a year ago because Mercedes built a better PU.

[flyboy2160]

I asked to stop personal sniping. Those who refused got a Timeout and the posts got deleted.

[pob]

With regards to the arguments about engine development, the engine freeze is actually policed by the engine manufacturers. When e.g. Renault want to make a change to the PU under the guise of reliability, they make a proposal to the FIA, which is then passed on to Ferrari and Mercedes who can protest if they think they can prove it will provide a significant performance advantage. Basically, this leads to the relative performances of the PUs being roughly the same throughout the season, even if all three are bringing what are really performance upgrades. An engine manufacturer would only protest another's upgrade if they were significantly unable to keep up with the development rate themselves; protesting would bring some bad PR to both engine manufacturers (e.g. if Renault protested against a Mercedes upgrade: "Mercedes are only winning by cheating"; "Renault make a bad PU, so can only keep up by complaining".)
All three know how to play this game now, although Renault have been bad at it before and had to be allowed to make performance upgrades for fairness.

[FoxHound]

What parts did Renault turn up with? What did they do? What was the reason they were changed?

What I saw in Canada was a car made by an "aero genius", with DRS open, was unable to pass a Mercedes PU with DRS closed. So again, what parts did Renault bring that allowed them to increase the performance of the Renault PU to close the performance gap to mercedes?

That article states the parts were to bring the PU to it's maximum. But what good is that if the PU is still 100HP behind the Merc? How can that gap be closed? That question is still awaiting an answer.

And I've done it again...... FH, we can't agree. We look at the rules very differently and I guess that's at the crux of the problem with F1. Your Merc will win this year, enjoy.

So effectively what you are asking for is not development, but parity. A leg up.
If engines can have free reign in development as you are clearly demanding in Renault's case, why not have free reign in Aerodynamic development?

Or alternatively, get Aero parity along with engine parity.
That way you can have your spec series and all innovation goes out the window as happened in the V8 freeze years.
Note with the exception of burning fuel to create downforce.

[Cam]

So effectively what you are asking for is not development, but parity. A leg up.
If engines can have free reign in development as you are clearly demanding in Renault's case, why not have free reign in Aerodynamic development?

Who's asking for a leg up? Honestly FoxHound, what the petrol are you talking about? All anyone is asking for, is regulations that allow equal and on-going development. We currently do not have that.

White said: "The possibility to change the specification of the engine during the season is extremely limited. We are pushing for next year," he is quoted by Italy's Autosprint, "in order to have a greater scope of development. At the moment it is not possible to change the specification of the power unit without the permission of the FIA, and the federation does not give any permissions for performance reasons," White explained.

So that's both Ferrari and Renault saying the same thing.

That way you can have your spec series and all innovation goes out the window as happened in the V8 freeze years.

What F1 series did you watch? I saw plenty of innovations - which I've listed before for you, ready, here we go again:
• Double Diffuser
• Exhaust Blown Double Diffuser
• Hot / Cold Blowing
• Throttle maps
• F-Duct
• W-Duct
• D-DRS (and extensions of this to blow various wings etc)
• Passive D-DRS
• Coanda, ramps and tunnels blowing starter hole, slots, winglets and hubs... etc

All of these are... yep, "innovations". Most of the teams took turns in... yep, "innovating", with many teams coming up with these concepts first. They could then... yep, develop, during the year. How? Because the regulations allowed it. The regulations also allowed other teams to copy and develop their own systems based on what they'd seen on the innovative car.

This all happened in an "aero" dominant formula.

Skip to 2014 - an "Engine PU" dominate formula, guess what... yep, teams can't develop because of the "freeze". They can't bridge the gaps. Renault say, Ferrari say it, the fans say it.... it's just you champ. But you're welcome to your view. Its wrong, but you're welcome to it.

[FoxHound]

Deary me cam,

Coanda, EBD and hot or cold blowing are tantamount to the same thing (using the exhaust gases)...that you list them as separate is telling.
Passive DRS...hmmm who got it to work? Was this truly an innovation that was copied by all teams? No. Dispelling your assumption that in aero everyrhing is equal...it aint.
F/W XYZ ducts again are all pretty much the same thing with legislative difference. Again, not every team could take advantage of it in spite of trials and millions spent chasing it.

As for the FIA ruling, it is the same as the 2009 reliability ruling which Renault used to get more performance from the engine. A fact. Acknowledge it.

Now they can not only use the reliability ruling, but also change on the basis of safety AND cost.
What makes you think that in 5 years, Renault have regressed in spite of greater freedoms to change parts?

[FoxHound]

Interesting chat with a client has also raised an interesting question regards an "imminent f1 shakeup".
The team that starts the season with an aerodynamic advantage has won the championship the last 5 years.

[Cam]

Not being able to get something to work is separate from not being allowed to get get something to work.