Imminent F1 shakeup?

[FoxHound]

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

Are you suggesting HRT, Marussia, and Caterham along with Williams and Sauber weren't able?
Why weren't they able?
Surely, given the complexity...the FIA should just have equalised it or given special dispensation for more windtunnel time and more CFD allowances for these teams to be able to create an F-duct that actually works.
I'm using your logic here.

[Cam]

You are confusing competency with legality. Whether a team has the know how to fully develop something is distinctly separate from the same team being legitimately able to develop something, within a framework of regulations.

All teams had the legal option to develop aero. That some were better than others is irrelevant.

Now, engine PU competency is irrelevant, as it's illegal to develop.

[jz11]

Or more precisely - illegal to apply, develop all you want, you just can't use it if the benefit primarily is performance, and you have to get permission from FIA and have other teams, that get detailed information on this non-performance-upgrade, not protest it, because, if it is found to be a performance upgrade - they can veto it.

New season, homologate new engine which includes your performance upgrades - same story - if it is failing within its current performance parameters - apply reliability tweaks, but if you again lack top end power, wait for next season.

I don't think there is a way to explain this any more clearer, if the person doesn't understand the difference between reliability focused upgrade and performance focused upgrade, then there is nothing that can be done.

A famous Mark Twain quote would be in order here.

[FoxHound]

So its about know-how then?

Its not about regulation as we already know changes can be made if any one of the 3 criteria are met..reliability, cost and safety. This is a fact and needs acknowledgment.

And we know Renault have improved engine performance from using only 1 of the 3 criteria in the past(reliability).
This too is a fact and needs acknowledgment.

So if indeed it is about know how, and some teams can develop better than other teams aerodynamically, with better facilities bigger budgets and better staff, why should this advantageous position be solely for aerodynamics and not extended to engines?

[mrluke]

If renault's engine could unreliably make 1,000 bhp, what is to stop them making changes to increase the reliability? Afterall if you turn any engine down enough it will always be reliable?

[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.

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?

You're trying to perform mental gymnastics by using a scenario under which in-season development is allowed on strenuous circumstances, as proof that Renault and Ferrari can improve the design of their engines. I call it a sham championship because engine homologation is the antithesis of everything that F1 stood for, for decade upon decade. Even the switch to V8's in 2006 did not see this sort of moronic thinking for that first season.

If it was as simple as you put it for Renault to catch up, don't you think they might have applied for a special dispensation under the various criteria, by now Fox? Or Ferrari for that matter.

Renault also doesn't have the money to throw around anymore with the F1 engine program at Viry-Chatillon. The whole thing is turning into a money loser, and it's probably only a matter of time before Carlos Ghosn tells Renault Sport that they're done with F1.

I know it fills you with glee watching the B̶r̶a̶w̶n̶ ̶G̶P̶ 0̶0̶6̶ Mercedes W05 running away with it, but let's not call this impressive since it took them nearly 3 years to come up with an untouchable engine. Their chassis work sure as hell was never impressive.

[autogyro]

IMO this thread has descended yet again into a fan boy diatribe that has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread subject.
F1 has led the world of motor sport since the 1950's.
I firmly believe that its dominance is soon to run out.
Soon there will be City centre electric racing and although the marketing of this modern sport is as yet a small fraction of F1 marketing it will not be long before the money changes direction.
F1 has got until September to re-think its reasons for existence.

[FoxHound]

You're trying to perform mental gymnastics by using a scenario under which in-season development is allowed on strenuous circumstances, as proof that Renault and Ferrari can improve the design of their engines. I call it a sham championship because engine homologation is the antithesis of everything that F1 stood for, for decade upon decade. Even the switch to V8's in 2006 did not see this sort of moronic thinking for that first season.

If it was as simple as you put it for Renault to catch up, don't you think they might have applied for a special dispensation under the various criteria, by now Fox? Or Ferrari for that matter.

Renault also doesn't have the money to throw around anymore with the F1 engine program at Viry-Chatillon. The whole thing is turning into a money loser, and it's probably only a matter of time before Carlos Ghosn tells Renault Sport that they're done with F1.

I know it fills you with glee watching the B̶r̶a̶w̶n̶ ̶G̶P̶ 0̶0̶6̶ Mercedes W05 running away with it, but let's not call this impressive since it took them nearly 3 years to come up with an untouchable engine. Their chassis work sure as hell was never impressive.

I see you are trying to denigrate me as a fanboy. Bypassing the issue at hand and not acknowledging the facts I have presented.
So try again Gitanes.

Renault have proved capable of improving engine performance using reliability as the raison d'etre.

Do you agree with this fact?

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

Soon there will be City centre electric racing and although the marketing of this modern sport is as yet a small fraction of F1 marketing it will not be long before the money changes direction.
F1 has got until September to re-think its reasons for existence.

Think of the children! Running in the city centre is dangerous!

Seriously though, money is going nowhere. Either stays in F1 or will vanish completely. No one is interested in quiet racing around 90º corners in a city center. Could be interesting as some sort of disobedience, like running through the city. As a replacement for F1 or a real motorsport? Forget it.

[GitanesBlondes]

F1 has led the world of motor sport since the 1950's.

CART was far bigger in the late 1980s, early 1990s than F1 was.

Then there was the whole Group C thing.

[GitanesBlondes]

You're trying to perform mental gymnastics by using a scenario under which in-season development is allowed on strenuous circumstances, as proof that Renault and Ferrari can improve the design of their engines. I call it a sham championship because engine homologation is the antithesis of everything that F1 stood for, for decade upon decade. Even the switch to V8's in 2006 did not see this sort of moronic thinking for that first season.

If it was as simple as you put it for Renault to catch up, don't you think they might have applied for a special dispensation under the various criteria, by now Fox? Or Ferrari for that matter.

Renault also doesn't have the money to throw around anymore with the F1 engine program at Viry-Chatillon. The whole thing is turning into a money loser, and it's probably only a matter of time before Carlos Ghosn tells Renault Sport that they're done with F1.

I know it fills you with glee watching the B̶r̶a̶w̶n̶ ̶G̶P̶ 0̶0̶6̶ Mercedes W05 running away with it, but let's not call this impressive since it took them nearly 3 years to come up with an untouchable engine. Their chassis work sure as hell was never impressive.

I see you are trying to denigrate me as a fanboy. Bypassing the issue at hand and not acknowledging the facts I have presented.
So try again Gitanes.

Renault have proved capable of improving engine performance using reliability as the raison d'etre.

Do you agree with this fact?

No, I'm not attempting to denigrate you as a fanboy. I'm merely pointing out that you have a certain vested interest in engine homologation being what it is currently, as you're a Mercedes fan who wants them to do well. It's a fair point for me to make.

Again, why are they not doing so now Fox? If it is as easy as you are purporting it out to be, why do they, and Ferrari not both do the same thing? The landscape in F1 changes as you know quite drastically over a span over 5 years. This isn't the F1 that allowed them to do "reliability" upgrades, which was more of a polite way of saying, "Our engines are shite, and we need to upgrade them."

[FoxHound]

No, I'm not attempting to denigrate you as a fanboy.

What do you call this feeble attempt then?

I know it fills you with glee watching the B̶r̶a̶w̶n̶ ̶G̶P̶ 0̶0̶6̶ Mercedes W05 running away with it, but let's not call this impressive since it took them nearly 3 years to come up with an untouchable engine. Their chassis work sure as hell was never impressive.

BGP006? Chassis work never impressive? Took 3 years to build a good engine?
What are these comments in aid of?

Again, why are they not doing so now Fox? If it is as easy as you are purporting it out to be, why do they, and Ferrari not both do the same thing? The landscape in F1 changes as you know quite drastically over a span over 5 years. This isn't the F1 that allowed them to do "reliability" upgrades, which was more of a polite way of saying, "Our engines are shite, and we need to upgrade them."

You have not addressed a simple fact. Here I will take you to the water.

These are examples of teams going to the FIA with a reliability reason to make changes that resulted in more power.
This in a homologated rule-set.
http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2010/05/12/fe ... ification/

While the fundamental reason for this dispensation is to aid teams with reliability problems, any ‘reliability’ change could also bring a performance gain. This could be either as a direct result of the ‘reliability’ change i.e. lighter part making more power, or as a secondary result, i.e. new valve seat material allows a different fuel for more power. Clearly any possible advantage will be taken by the manufacturers when making changes to the engine

I will reiterate, if something is unreliable(evident), can be had cheaper(easily done), can be made safer..... then it can be changed. And can you tell me, certainly, they have not applied for any 3 of the above this year?
And, is it possible...that Renault themselves have ditched this engine and are focusing on an entirely new engine?

If that is the case, tell me Gitanes....how long will Renault design, build and test a new V6 turbo with auxiliaries in an open Formula.....8 months? maybe a year?

I've another point I will make but I want to hear your answer first.

[Andres125sx]

Soon there will be City centre electric racing and although the marketing of this modern sport is as yet a small fraction of F1 marketing it will not be long before the money changes direction.
F1 has got until September to re-think its reasons for existence.

Think of the children! Running in the city centre is dangerous!

Seriously though, money is going nowhere. Either stays in F1 or will vanish completely.

That´s seriously speaking? I wonder how many sponsors have you talked with to bring out that conclusion

No one is interested in quiet racing around 90º corners in a city center.

Hi, my name is no one

Could be interesting as some sort of disobedience, like running through the city. As a replacement for F1 or a real motorsport? Forget it.

Some day you´ll realice real motorsports evolve, those that don´t evolve are called vintage

[GitanesBlondes]

No, I'm not attempting to denigrate you as a fanboy.

What do you call this feeble attempt then?

I know it fills you with glee watching the B̶r̶a̶w̶n̶ ̶G̶P̶ 0̶0̶6̶ Mercedes W05 running away with it, but let's not call this impressive since it took them nearly 3 years to come up with an untouchable engine. Their chassis work sure as hell was never impressive.

BGP006? Chassis work never impressive? Took 3 years to build a good engine?
What are these comments in aid of?

Again, why are they not doing so now Fox? If it is as easy as you are purporting it out to be, why do they, and Ferrari not both do the same thing? The landscape in F1 changes as you know quite drastically over a span over 5 years. This isn't the F1 that allowed them to do "reliability" upgrades, which was more of a polite way of saying, "Our engines are shite, and we need to upgrade them."

You have not addressed a simple fact. Here I will take you to the water.

These are examples of teams going to the FIA with a reliability reason to make changes that resulted in more power.
This in a homologated rule-set.
http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2010/05/12/fe ... ification/

While the fundamental reason for this dispensation is to aid teams with reliability problems, any ‘reliability’ change could also bring a performance gain. This could be either as a direct result of the ‘reliability’ change i.e. lighter part making more power, or as a secondary result, i.e. new valve seat material allows a different fuel for more power. Clearly any possible advantage will be taken by the manufacturers when making changes to the engine

I will reiterate, if something is unreliable(evident), can be had cheaper(easily done), can be made safer..... then it can be changed. And can you tell me, certainly, they have not applied for any 3 of the above this year?
And, is it possible...that Renault themselves have ditched this engine and are focusing on an entirely new engine?

If that is the case, tell me Gitanes....how long will Renault design, build and test a new V6 turbo with auxiliaries in an open Formula.....8 months? maybe a year?

I've another point I will make but I want to hear your answer first.

I have another point to make.

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.

You're absurd Fox.

I asked you to explain why, if it is as simple as you claim, they have no done so.

You've not only ignored this, you're now bringing up new engine design which was never part of the discussion.

Have fun with it Fox, I'm sure you can high-five the Brackley engineer you ride the train with every morning.

[FoxHound]

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.

You're absurd Fox.

I asked you to explain why, if it is as simple as you claim, they have no done so.

You've not only ignored this, you're now bringing up new engine design which was never part of the discussion.

Have fun with it Fox, I'm sure you can high-five the Brackley engineer you ride the train with every morning. :lol

Well there you go getting all personal again.

I've given you precedent, that the same company(Renault) had a performance gain in a frozen engine Formula.
James Allen
Scarbs
RaceCarEngineering
Etc Etc

Are you denying it?

And do you have evidence to support your claim that the unreliable Renault PU has not been subject to a reliability/cost saving/safety claim by Renault?
Your F1 "landscape" seems to have regressed along with Renault. I wonder what made them capable to make the claim in the V8 days, but not this year?

Basically, you cannot bring anything to the table to substantiate your opinion.
You are talking about "landscapes changing in F1"....Is that all you have?