Imminent F1 shakeup?

[Cam]

FoxHound - read this. No, really. Stop and read it carefully. Really try to understand the concepts and context of the words. Through your bias, that's going to be tough, but do try.

Although there was a development freeze on the old V8s, manufacturers were still tinkering with software last season to get as much performance as possible from the engines. Despite all the new hardware for 2014, once again it will be the software engineers pushing the boundaries all season long.

Taffin: "The software is going to be the key factor for performance. The hardware is frozen by March 1 when we give the specification to the FIA and the software will be the one thing where we can keep developing into the season. That is where we are going to get the performance out of it, because we have a certain type of hardware that we will anticipate we will be running at one point, but maybe when we get to Melbourne we will not be right there."

How homologation works
On Friday February 28th the engine manufacturers have to place a sample power unit, comprising an engine, battery, motor generator units, in a box together with a disc containing all the drawings of the power unit components. This is then sealed by the FIA and taken away. At any stage of the season they can take out the unit and the drawings and request any engine from the race pool of any team and compare it with what is in the box.

If they don’t match then there are severe penalties.

If there is a reliability issue, the manufacturer writes to the FIA highlighting the problem and specifying the fix it would like to carry out. It has to prove that this fix does not enhance the performance. The FIA considers it and if satisfied, writes to the other manufacturers requesting their permission for the change. The other manufacturers have five days to reply.

If one of the power trains is performing significantly worse than the others, can the manufacturer apply for a performance upgrade?
Not in principle. However if that situation arises it is clearly not in the interests of the sport so some common sense needs to be applied. The rule makers looked at this and pre-empted it in some ways; they decided that all manufacturers should be allowed to make a small number of performance upgrades after one year, so the engines will be re-homologated this time next year. And in 2016 there will be a smaller list of areas where they can make further performance steps.
The spirit of this rule (rather like any innovation in chassis design a team introduces which others cannot copy) is that if one manufacturer has the edge he should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his hard work for a season, but then the others will be allowed to close up next season. But if there is one manufacturer lagging behind, then what happens?

I get you hate Renault and Red Bull, hell, we all do. But enough. You're wrong.

[NormalChris]

I think it's possible both of your conclusions are correct. Engine manufacturers have made performance upgrades under the guise of reliability in the past and also have similar opportunities to exploit theses rules again this year. However with the vast increase in complexity along with the integration of the multiple systems of the power units I believe there are choke points in the performance that can't be easily remedied through the available loopholes. Though high revving and state of the art the V8's weren't near the engineering exercise of this years PU and as such the frozen V8's didn't have as many performance differentiating parts. The teams didn't have to solve problems like having an incorrectly sized turbo. Ferrari are suffering this exact issue and I highly doubt that even they could change it under the available loopholes. This isn't to say there aren't other areas that can't be further refined or exploited to increase the performance envelope. Ferrari and renault seem to have gotten some of the fundamentals wrong and it's these issues that can't be addressed midseason.

[Cam]

I think it's possible both of your conclusions are correct. Engine manufacturers have made performance upgrades under the guise of reliability in the past and also have similar opportunities to exploit theses rules again this year.

Please demonstrate where, this year, hardware changes leading to performance gains have been made to PU. The FIA would love to know too.

[SectorOne]

Renault V8 engine went from a turd to all of a sudden being the most user friendly engine of all having clear advantages in extreme engine maps and driveability.
It´s funny how it´s always Renault that produces a turd of an engine then cries about not being competitive.
Maybe Renault itself is the problem and a formula where no holds barred is ok, Mercedes would still trump them (possibly even more)

I mean think about it. No regulations regarding improvements. You have the power house of Mercedes investing 500 million in their engine. How on earth can you possibly compete with that regardless of if it´s frozen or not.

It wasn´t like every engine was identical in the V10 days. BMW had the edge on everyone up until 2004 and that was a solid 4 years of having a superior engine in terms of raw output.

the problem is obviously not the engine freeze but rather Renault themselves.

"We raised our concerns as far back as the end of 2012 with the direction the project was going," Horner told reporters ahead of this weekend's British Grand Prix.

http://www.supersport.com/motorsport/ar ... Id=2515234

Another interesting quote,

"When you look at the engine Ferrari has made, the customers have had to adapt their cars accordingly," he said.

"Mercedes likewise, whereas Renault has tried to keep all of their customers happy, which is an admirable thing to do but is not the best way to be competitive."

[Cam]

We can discuss the previous regulations or regulations from 30 years ago until the comes come home but's it's irrelevant. Ultimately, we can only look at the regulations that teams must abide too this year. It was suggested, by some, that Ferrari and Renault can find performance gains by modifying the hardware on the PU. Several of us have asked, numerously, to have that demonstrated. Each time, the poster(s) go back to digging up Renault and 2008 or whatever..... we're in 2014 - demonstrate a current situation - the question remains.

The original question was posed, when a team finds itself down on HP due to hardware, how a performance gain can be made in 2014.

That question remains unanswered. It's from this position that other members question the legitimacy of a 2014 competition where only one team has an advantage, that others cannot reduce.

It's a fair question, relevant under a rules shakeup and worthy of debate - if only we could keep on the topic at hand.

[SectorOne]

It's from this position that other members question the legitimacy of a 2014 competition where only one team has an advantage, that others cannot reduce.

I am assuming you question the legitimacy of the previous years as well?
Mercedes and Ferrari wasn´t allowed to improve fuel economy or improve driveability.

You can make a claim and say that there´s a frozen formula on aerodynamics as well (realistically speaking).
You create philosophy you believe in, you realize it´s --- and then you are faced with putting make-up on a pig for the rest of the year.

You just can´t go from Caterham DF levels to RB levels in one season, that´s why nobody has done it.
So in a sense, building an insufficient engine is more or less identical to the aero situation.

Do you think that Renault will be up to par next year? Matching the Merc engine?
If they are not up to par. what weight does this conversation carry?

[Cam]

You just can´t go from Caterham DF levels to RB levels in one season, that´s why nobody has done it.

I disagree.

I present to you the Brawn GP BGP 001. An aero innovation that sent a Honda to RB levels in one season. The only team to turn up at race one with the DD and they smashed all comers. The regulations were such though, that any aero dominate innovation could be challenged by any team who chose to do so.

I present to you the Red Bull RB05. A car that, thanks to fair regulations, allowed them to develop their own solutions during the season and go on to win 6 out of 17 races in the same year - preventing an utter domination by Brawn.

"It was a huge amount of work as the car wasn't designed to work with a double diffuser and, in particular, it wasn't an easy marriage with the pull rod rear suspension," explained Red Bull chief technical officer Newey. "We decided we didn't have the resources to redesign the gearbox and rear suspension to better suit the double diffuser concept, so we kept the existing mechanical package and adapted as best we could; the first attempt was our Monaco package, which was a small step that didn't work as well as we would have liked. The second step was then introduced for the British Grand Prix."

This is why I cannot see comparison to this year, where a dominate PU cannot be challenged, because the regulations do not allow it. So any team with a deficiency, cannot make gains. Is that fair?

Do you think that Renault will be up to par next year? Matching the Merc engine? If they are not up to par. what weight does this conversation carry?

I don't know how Ferrari or Renault will go next year. To be clear, my argument would remain if either Renault or Ferrari had the advantage. It's not the team I'm singling out, it's the rules.

A team can dominate - I'm happy with that, but it's only fun if all teams have abilities to rectify mistakes or errors. Remember, Mercedes doesn't just have an advantage this year, I believe, because they stopped competing 2 years ago, they are still way in front for future releases.

As everyone says "it's not good when one team dominates" yet the rules appear to explicitly continue to allow it?

[GitanesBlondes]

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?

I never said the Renault PU was unreliable Fox.

Sad when you have to flat out lie about what was said.

Again, what is preventing Renault from putting in a claim. You have yet to even answer this. I asked you since you are the one who told us how they could make up ground by putting in one of these claims, why they have not done so. Going to keep side-stepping this question to bloviate about unrelated things?

[GitanesBlondes]

FoxHound - read this. No, really. Stop and read it carefully. Really try to understand the concepts and context of the words. Through your bias, that's going to be tough, but do try.

Although there was a development freeze on the old V8s, manufacturers were still tinkering with software last season to get as much performance as possible from the engines. Despite all the new hardware for 2014, once again it will be the software engineers pushing the boundaries all season long.

Taffin: "The software is going to be the key factor for performance. The hardware is frozen by March 1 when we give the specification to the FIA and the software will be the one thing where we can keep developing into the season. That is where we are going to get the performance out of it, because we have a certain type of hardware that we will anticipate we will be running at one point, but maybe when we get to Melbourne we will not be right there."

How homologation works
On Friday February 28th the engine manufacturers have to place a sample power unit, comprising an engine, battery, motor generator units, in a box together with a disc containing all the drawings of the power unit components. This is then sealed by the FIA and taken away. At any stage of the season they can take out the unit and the drawings and request any engine from the race pool of any team and compare it with what is in the box.

If they don’t match then there are severe penalties.

If there is a reliability issue, the manufacturer writes to the FIA highlighting the problem and specifying the fix it would like to carry out. It has to prove that this fix does not enhance the performance. The FIA considers it and if satisfied, writes to the other manufacturers requesting their permission for the change. The other manufacturers have five days to reply.

If one of the power trains is performing significantly worse than the others, can the manufacturer apply for a performance upgrade?
Not in principle. However if that situation arises it is clearly not in the interests of the sport so some common sense needs to be applied. The rule makers looked at this and pre-empted it in some ways; they decided that all manufacturers should be allowed to make a small number of performance upgrades after one year, so the engines will be re-homologated this time next year. And in 2016 there will be a smaller list of areas where they can make further performance steps.
The spirit of this rule (rather like any innovation in chassis design a team introduces which others cannot copy) is that if one manufacturer has the edge he should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his hard work for a season, but then the others will be allowed to close up next season. But if there is one manufacturer lagging behind, then what happens?

I get you hate Renault and Red Bull, hell, we all do. But enough. You're wrong.

Thanks for posting this Cam.

[Cam]

GitanesBlondes - we might be completely wrong, but short of any credible direct evidence contrary to it, one must accept that any fundamental PU deficit is locked in until next year. Even then, it becomes incremental as to what can be changed.

they decided that all manufacturers should be allowed to make a small number of performance upgrades after one year, so the engines will be re-homologated this time next year. And in 2016 there will be a smaller list of areas where they can make further performance steps.

Not exactly sure how that's 'encouraging' to engine manufacturers?

Sure, Renault an Ferrari might have a strong base and it is just tweaks they need, if not, they could be in trouble long term.

[Pierce89]

You just can´t go from Caterham DF levels to RB levels in one season, that´s why nobody has done it.

I disagree.

I present to you the Brawn GP BGP 001. An aero innovation that sent a Honda to RB levels in one season. The only team to turn up at race one with the DD and they smashed all comers. The regulations were such though, that any aero dominate innovation could be challenged by any team who chose to do so.

I present to you the Red Bull RB05. A car that, thanks to fair regulations, allowed them to develop their own solutions during the season and go on to win 6 out of 17 races in the same year - preventing an utter domination by Brawn.

"It was a huge amount of work as the car wasn't designed to work with a double diffuser and, in particular, it wasn't an easy marriage with the pull rod rear suspension," explained Red Bull chief technical officer Newey. "We decided we didn't have the resources to redesign the gearbox and rear suspension to better suit the double diffuser concept, so we kept the existing mechanical package and adapted as best we could; the first attempt was our Monaco package, which was a small step that didn't work as well as we would have liked. The second step was then introduced for the British Grand Prix."

This is why I cannot see comparison to this year, where a dominate PU cannot be challenged, because the regulations do not allow it. So any team with a deficiency, cannot make gains. Is that fair?

Do you think that Renault will be up to par next year? Matching the Merc engine? If they are not up to par. what weight does this conversation carry?

I don't know how Ferrari or Renault will go next year. To be clear, my argument would remain if either Renault or Ferrari had the advantage. It's not the team I'm singling out, it's the rules.

A team can dominate - I'm happy with that, but it's only fun if all teams have abilities to rectify mistakes or errors. Remember, Mercedes doesn't just have an advantage this year, I believe, because they stopped competing 2 years ago, they are still way in front for future releases.

As everyone says "it's not good when one team dominates" yet the rules appear to explicitly continue to allow it?

The Mclaren of 2009 is an even better example. It literally went from qualifying 16-18 in the hands of Hamilton to winning races in the space of 2 updates. Lewis qualified 16th in Silverstone and nearly won a couple races later.

[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.

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

Have you ever raced? 90º turns followed by straights are the lamest thing ever. Even complete rookies can dominate it. People, even those uninformed, notice this. There is a reason NASCAR is barely watched outside US...

(Let me reassure you that 90º turns + straights are even more lame than ovals, who actually present some challenge)

I have talked with no sponsors, but I'm sure audiences numbers talk a lot to them. Plus, think of the children. How many of those city races you will have nowadays until some PC group or some eco group manages to kill it? We live in difficult times...

Regarding evolution, remember the future is not always bright. Especially at the times we live, what is considered to be evolution is simply a carbon copy of our worst nightmares (big brother, police state, decline of morals, financial crisis being chronic and so on...). Vintage is something of a mock today, but I'm sure it will be the mainstream motorsport if this scenario becomes the future.

Real motorsports demands curves, challenging tracks, no speed limits (like invariably we will have racing in EVs or in city centers) and actual emotion and risk. Even if safe risk, like we still have now. Understand that without emotion, motorsport is like watching a chess match. It's cool only for those playing it.

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

For the record, you do know why the format chosen for Formula E is city centers + 90º turns, don't you? Save fuel, I mean, energy. 90º turns don't demand too much in terms of reducing speed and then recovering it. Plus the short straights inside a city means low top speed, which is the most critical point for any EV.

Basically you have racing severely limited to almost child-like levels to suit a forced formula. The future are planes, trains and boring diesels. Doesn't mean I wanna watch that. Separate future from evolution and evolution from purpose.

Expect drivers in this series to be major rookies with money to spare. Maybe that's the plan? A nice way of funding, plus everything is spec... All it needs are city council's support and pockets, no need for sponsors. Anyone could drive in that formula with those terms. Come to think of it, even whiny western women who "needs girl power".

I guess there is a financial background for "motorsports" like these after all. Nothing holds more money than politics. Can you imagine the financial/political interest in "OMG GIRLS RACING"?

Of course, racing itself would be sh*t.

F1 must come to a shakeup of different forms. If it comes this way, money may be guaranteed but interest in the sport will be limited to PC morons with a cause rather than motorsports fans. I doubt the bigger teams will agree with this, with sound reason and all my support.

[Juzh]

Do you think that Renault will be up to par next year? Matching the Merc engine?
If they are not up to par. what weight does this conversation carry?

Not really important, is it? If not, they tried and they failed, which is fair. I (we?) can live with that. Being prohibited from even trying is a whole different story.

[FW17]

I know the last set of regulations were largely drafted by the teams, but how did the current engine freeze get through these set of rules? Did the 3 manufacturers agree to this? why Ferrari who is always at odds agree to this? they are short of money, in comparison to the Merc and Honda, but never thought they would acknowledge the fact publically?