Formula One's Engine Crisis

[NL_Fer]

I think they were both blowing hot and cold, but hot blowing will waste allot of fuel and overheat the exhaust valves and manifold. It was only usable during qualifying. Cold blowing was more sensible to use during a race, were maybe Renault was just better at.

Also Newey started on the design way back in 2007-2008. In 2009 Brawns double diffuser was better at season start. But at the end, till 2013 Redbull was king and Vettel was a master in operating it.

[Faustino]

Heard a radio report on the engine fiaso and an American journalist added some comments about Ford Cosworth angling to get an entry. Would Red Bull snap up the opportunity if it came their way?

Of the other likely, or reaslistic Manufacturers coming in, VW would be most interesting but the current emissions debacle has set that back a few years. Toyota could come back but to which team.

[Sevach]

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/ ... t-for-2016

In season development agreement from all 4 manufacturers.

If tokens are to remain this is a nice compromise, the original proposition of gradually freezing the engine would be a disaster.

Hmm. I wonder why it is expected to be a formality. I was always under the impression that one of the small teams would vote against since it'll put them back with unequal material. What has been offered as compensation, I wonder?

Bernie is always good at twisting the little guys arms.

[ChrisF1]

Heard a radio report on the engine fiaso and an American journalist added some comments about Ford Cosworth angling to get an entry. Would Red Bull snap up the opportunity if it came their way?

Probably poor reporting of what Bernie said where he referenced the Cosworth era.

Ford Cosworth don't exist, and although they have a proposed engine, it's never been run and they've had it stagnating for a year or more waiting for a big investor (read manufacturer partner)

[bhall II]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as I recall Mercedes had hot blowing which was considered superior to Renault's cold blowing however Mercedes and McLaren simply didn't master the aero implementation prior to it being banned.

Yes and no.

From the design's inception, cold blowing was a significant player in the Renault V8's cooling strategy, which is a big reason why Red Bull was able to adopt smaller radiators/sidepods. The drawback is that it was incompatible with hot blowing. But, that doesn't necessarily mean it was inferior.

Vettel highlighted Renault's contribution to Red Bull's blown-exhaust diffuser concept during the team's domination of the latter part of the V8 engine era.

"Renault has done a fantastic job in the past," he said,

"Supplying us a strong engine, supplying us with the latest technique that I think was required to be competitive when we had the era of blown exhausts.

"I think there Renault was probably one of the best ones and most advanced."

The accompanying aero was relatively straightforward. At least, it was in 2011...



Things became decidedly more complicated in 2012, and everyone initially struggled to get the most from it...

[FoxHound]

Oh fox, I'm not sure now if you're talking to a wall or if that reply was directed at me, but I've never argued this point. In fact, I didn't take a stance on this specific point either way. Is an engine freeze in the interest of F1? Or not?

Phil, you did write this, did you not?

Unfortunately the sport is larger than just those 3 engine manufacturers. We have (customer) teams who were perfectly happy with frozen engines. Why give more weight to an attribute entirely outside their control?

For 5 years this was inside their control, with an engine freeze. So I'll ask again, Do you think it in the interest of F1 to have frozen engines for 5 years running?

I'm not pro RedBull, I'm not anti Mercedes or any other engine manufacturer, I'm simply arguing the merits of the pro and cons of both perspectives and the perspective of having a healthy competitive F1 while looking at the large picture.

But looking at the large picture, it seems you are okay with a frozen engine formula and aero being the predetermined dominant factor. Here, I'll demonstrate:

I think that's a very unfair assessment. During the V8s and their 8 titles, there was nigh on engine parity. Hence, the crucial difference between winning championships, wasn't the engine, it was the aero

but the chassis/aero Newey built were the big differentiator.

Bizarrely, you have yet to say that the 5 year engine freeze was unfair to the engine biased engine manufacturers.

My main gripe with the current situation (and I appologise I've I'm repeating myself for the 10th time, but it seems this point is being overlooked time and time again) is; We have 4 engine manufacturers, but we have 10 Formula 1 teams.*

You are repeating yourself because it makes no sense, Phil. If Mercedes are supplying 4 teams and Ferrari 2, that makes 6 teams with a competitive engine. I feel also you are skewing the argument by suggesting the Ferrari PU is not competitive.
It is. You are also assuming that all 10 teams have equal means to make and deliver equal Chassis/Aero components. They can't.

also important; From those 4 engine manufacturers, only 2 have competitive engines. Actually, depending on how we measure that, we might even only have 1 truly competitive one.

Even if we say one engine, it supplies 4 teams, of which only 1 has won races with it. Ferrari's PU makes it 6 teams with competitive powerplants.
And if we compare it to what went in the frozen era....

2009 to 2013, it was Chassis and aero dominated(you agree).
For Red Bull since the British GP of 2009 (Red Bull yielded their own DDD at that race) 88 races yielded 47 victories 57 pole positions and 102 Podiums 4 drivers titles and 4 constructors titles.
Using your method, I can then backdate it to 2009-13 and state categorically that:
There are 12 teams 4 engine manufacturers (Cosworth, HRT, Caterham inclusive)

But only 1 was truly competitive.

[Phil]

Fox, picking my post apart and quoting it out of context is not going to progress this discussion and more importantly, doesn't change the meaning of my argument.

Since you're asking the same question 5 different times, I'll go at it again to illustrate the problem:

To have an engine dominated formula is problematic when the engine manufacturers are both factory teams and suppliers, competing in the same pool. With engine dominated formula, I am referring to a formula in which the engine component is the biggest performance differentiator.

It's no different than if we had, as an example, Pirelli enter F1 with their own car, using their own tires as an advantage to excel over others while artificially limiting what their customers could race with in a tire dominated formula (of course with some other tire suppliers there, but limited by complex rules to catch up). This isn't a fair competitive environment. We don't want competition to be influenced by the dominance of a supplier. We want a competition where the competitors are directly in focus, competing on what their expertise is, not on the premise of their supplier they are either lucky, unlucky or forced to have.

An engine dominated formula works (and makes sense), if you (only) have factory-teams competing with one another. This is not the case.

In the V8 frozen engine era, the competitive environment also worked because the teams were not competing on the performance of their suppliers, but on their own actual field of expertise (aero + chassis), which is why over 5 seasons from 2009-2013, we've had more variety on teams winning opposed to the monotone dominance of the past 2 years.

Now, as I said already - I don't blame engine manufacturers like Mercedes or Ferrari wanting open engine regulations. But how fair is it to let them compete using expertise and components that become the major performance aspect that other teams like Sauber, ForceIndia, Manor, RedBull, TorroRossd, Lotus have no say/input/influence whatsoever?

Another example:
Imagine if suddenly, we were to have a fuel dominated formula, where as one of the unique suppliers exclusive to one of the teams made a revolutionary discovery in how to pack more energy into the fuel being used and that that team dominated thanks to that supplier irregardless of how good their chassis/aero is? Sure, then we'd have a race of different fuel suppliers, but it would quickly render the teams actual field of expertise redundant. It doesn't matter to me if it's an engine, a tire or a fuel dominated formula - the point is, it's never good to have such a formula if the dominating aspect is one a supplier is responsible for, especially not if that supplier is competing in the same pool as supplier and their own factory team (and using that position to their advantage).

In the V8 frozen engine formula, this was not the case. The engine, like many other components, were less crucial to the overall performance of the car and it was the expertise of the race team itself (and not their supplier) to determine how well they fared in this environment. And as a result, we've had more teams winning and the field being overall closer irrespective if RedBull walked it in the end or not for 4 years out of 5. So from the sports perspective, yes, that was better - but at the same time, change was needed to in order to satisfy Renault and Mercedes wanting new engines or if not losing them. There's a lot of grey here and I guess there is no clear answer to what kind of Formula is best, because interests, resources and expertise vary from team to team. So the sport needs to address with clear focus, what kind of a formula is in the best interest and sustainable for the majority of teams and the sport.

[Phil]

To further emphasize my point. Consider the following and lets disregard the factory teams for a moment.

Sauber and Williams. Both teams have been more or less in the same ballpark from 2009-2013:

2009: Sauber 6th/36 pts, Williams 7th/34.5 pts
2010: Wiliiams 6th/69 pts, Sauber 8th/44 pts
2011: Sauber 7th/44 pts, Williams 8th/5 pts
2012: Sauber 6th/126 pts, Williams 8th/76 pts
2013: Sauber 7th/57 pts Williams 9th/5 pts
2014: Wiliiams 3rd/322 pts, Sauber 10th/0 pts

Both are not engine suppliers, they are customers. They had direct control over their own faith in the years 2009-2013. Sure, in those years they were in the established midfield, but their only limit was the investment they could afford and sometimes, they made up through efficiency or ingenuity. They couldn't blame a supplier for their performance.

Then 2014 came and from nothing, it propelled Williams from practically back of the grid to 3rd while having the exact opposite effect for Sauber. Suddenly, the consistency of the own race chassis/aero team was non existent and the performance of the crucial engine supplier became everything. In fact, I'd argue that Williams, after their sub-par performance in an aero/chassis dominated formula from 2011-2013, (EDIT) did not have the means to produce a significantly better car in 2014 than Sauber. It was the engine and Williams with their partnership with Mercedes propelled them to that success and back into a nigh on front running team.

Look at it from Saubers perspective. How "fair" is that from their POV? If we follow your argumentation that you have applied to RedBull's situation and cause, they should just suck it up and build their own engines. It ain't possible. At times, I could care less for the likes of a multi billion cooperation like RedBull. The sport includes more than just the likes of our engine suppliers - we have actual customer teams who are struggling in the momentary situation. Sure, Williams isn't - they are profiting of the situation. But for all others, like Sauber, they are struggling, much because of precisely this environment that has developed. The sport needs these teams and we should stop focusing on just the front runners, the "have's", the ones that are ultimately controlling the sport. If we don't have the likes of Sauber, Lotus etc - the meaning of 'winning' evaporates.


EDIT: Have Sauber been cocky in regards to the failing Ferrari engine? No. In the struggling position they are in, they can't afford to insult one of their important partners that are giving them most likely cheaper engines. RedBull is a different argument, they have the money and are not financially dependent on their suppliers, hence why their line of arguing and "blackmailing" if you want to call it that is there. Make no mistake however, the smaller teams, those with noncompetitive engines, are not happy, even if we don't hear them speak out aloud.

[mrluke]

Sauber 2014 is a bad comparison, they were on the verge of bankruptcy and only got their PU very very late in the process which undoubtedly hindered their 2014 car.

Saying that I agree with the main thrust of your post.

[FoxHound]

It's no different than if we had, as an example, Pirelli enter F1 with their own car, using their own tires as an advantage to excel over others while artificially limiting what their customers could race with in a tire dominated formula (of course with some other tire suppliers there, but limited by complex rules to catch up). This isn't a fair competitive environment.

We have been over this countless times, Mercedes cannot provide a "different" engine to it's customers. It is factually incorrect to say "artificially limiting" When the hardware is the same, the lubricants the same(exclude McLaren in 2014), and the maps can be adjusted by the teams themselves with HPP in Brixworth. This can actually lead to customer teams devising optimum maps for their own particular design direction...Or would you prefer Mercedes take care of that too?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118139
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/217249/1/t ... ncern.html

Contractually stipulated parity, Phil.
Other than Mercedes getting the Phase IV engine first, due to production limitations and the fact that Williams, Lotus and Force India were just starting their use of the 3rd of 4 engines for the season. It also meant Mercedes were exposed to reliability issues on the new engine first, as in Rosberg's failure.
If you have any information to dispel this, forward it to Lotus, Williams and Force India. And until we know otherwise, parity is the fact we are operating on rather than unfounded speculative assertions.

We don't want competition to be influenced by the dominance of a supplier. We want a competition where the competitors are directly in focus, competing on what their expertise is, not on the premise of their supplier they are either lucky, unlucky or forced to have.

You do realise that Red Bull technology is listed as a supplier right? Something about, I dunno, supplying 2 teams...
And in the case of engines, Nobody forced any team that did not make it's engines, to race. It has always been the responsibility of the team to source the engines to race. Not the sports, and not the manufacturers.
Caterham, HRT and Manor are excluded from that due to the promises made to them on entry in 2010.

In the V8 frozen engine era, the competitive environment also worked because the teams were not competing on the performance of their suppliers, but on their own actual field of expertise (aero + chassis), which is why over 5 seasons from 2009-2013, we've had more variety on teams winning opposed to the monotone dominance of the past 2 years.

You are again asserting that Mercedes dominance comes only from the engine. We know for a fact that Mercedes aero/chassis is at least as good as anything out there, and on some tracks alot better than anything else.
Chassis/Aero tracks:
Monaco the gap to pole was almost a 0.8 seconds
Hungary the gap to pole was 0.7 seconds.
The gap to the next Mercedes powered car was 1.2 seconds at Monaco and was 1.8 seconds.

If I read you correctly, you could really be advocating spec engines. If not spec engines, then frozen units with identical numbers so as to appease the back markers and Red Bull, that aero and chassis can once again dominate for another 5 years.

I don't blame engine manufacturers like Mercedes or Ferrari wanting open engine regulations. But how fair is it to let them compete using expertise and components that become the major performance aspect that other teams like Sauber, ForceIndia, Manor, RedBull, TorroRossd, Lotus have no say/input/influence whatsoever?

This is F1 it has always been the case up until 2009, and then from 2014 onwards again. It's as if you started watching F1 in 2009.
However, in Mercedes case we have contractually stipulated parity, with maps left to the customers to play around with to suit their needs. Mercedes cannot impose this on them, as it could have a detrimental effect on the car as a whole.
Williams consistently outgun Mercedes in the speed traps, so they clearly have a differing ethos to Mercedes which has differing requirements of the PU map.

There's a lot of grey here and I guess there is no clear answer to what kind of Formula is best, because interests, resources and expertise vary from team to team.

Exactly, be that Budget, Staff, Equipment, Aero or Chassis expertise or Engines. You cannot neuter any of them and then call it fair.

[Phil]

Fox, I give up. Arguing with you is a waste of time since you fail to understand the picture and problem as a whole. I articulated various points that have become a problem as a sum, and here you are ignoring most of it and picking apart singular points and arguing them as if they were single standing. They are not. Maybe you should address the post as a sum of its points instead of quoting singular lines.

Minor point about my hypothetical example of having a tire dominated formula;

We have been over this countless times, Mercedes cannot provide a "different" engine to it's customers. It is factually incorrect to say "artificially limiting" When the hardware is the same, the lubricants the same(exclude McLaren in 2014), and the maps can be adjusted by the teams themselves with HPP in Brixworth. This can actually lead to customer teams devising optimum maps for their own particular design direction...Or would you prefer Mercedes take care of that too?

My hypothesis and example was not only in regards to 2014 or 2015, but also in regards to 2016 where Mercedes and Ferrari as the two suppliers with competitive engines are arguing in either supplying RedBull with B-spec/older engines or none at all. You also conveniently ignored one of the biggest advantages of being a factory team in todays formula, namely the fact that a factory team is perfectly aware of the changes in the pipeline in regards to the engine and can plan this perfectly with the chassis/aero team. Insight knowledge, also in regards to the fuel and engine maps, also works in regards to building the car - something the customer team lacks. So while some customer teams might have a physically identical unit, the advantage of being the factory team is not to be underestimated.

If you don't believe me, go read Ron's interview post Japanese GP where he highlighted why he moved away from the best PU to go to a new engine supplier as a works-team. He certainly believes such a partnership to be an integral factor for future success under this new formula. Renault probably isn't in disagreement with this. Meanwhile, we have a competitive chassis/aero team like RedBull who is having trouble being supplied because they would be too competitive. That is a form of artificial control as RedBull is being limited to compete on the same level by not having an engine or being forced through consequence to use engines that are not competitive.

I also refer to my last post on this page in regards to the customer teams and the problem they face in such a formula that you obviously see no problem with.

Sauber 2014 is a bad comparison, they were on the verge of bankruptcy and only got their PU very very late in the process which undoubtedly hindered their 2014 car.

While Sauber has faced problems since their split with BMW, 2013 was still not a bad year. It was 2014 that was extremely bad for them, also due to the problems with the PU that saw the team end with 0 points. 2015 is an effect of 2014, 2014 of 2013 etc. 2014's problems were later also exaggerated due the financial problems of the backmarker teams going bust.

[FoxHound]

If you don't believe me, go read Ron's interview post Japanese GP where he highlighted why he moved away from the best PU to go to a new engine supplier as a works-team. He certainly believes such a partnership to be an integral factor for future success under this new formula.

Yup I read it.

And it is full of "ron-isms" and inaccuracies.
Firstly he apportions the blame completely on Mercedes, when the PU's were in effect identical.
Secondly, McLaren chose to use Mobil lubricants as they were getting paid to advertise Mobil and have a long history with them.
Thirdly, McLaren utilised the "hot blowing" concept to far greater effect than the Mercedes GP team. All whilst working with Brixworth to develop the maps.
Finally, He ends on the lie that no customer team ever beat a factory team....Brawn beat the factory backed McLaren team in 2009.

So, there is no credibility to his claims at all. I'd be pretty peeved if I lost free engines and 80 million dollars too...It was Ron's parting shot to Mercedes.

Fox, I give up. Arguing with you is a waste of time since you fail to understand the picture and problem as a whole. I articulated various points that have become a problem as a sum, and here you are ignoring most of it and picking apart singular points and arguing them as if they were single standing. They are not. Maybe you should address the post as a sum of its points instead of quoting singular lines.

Here's a summary of the point's you've raised thus far. I will address each point with my own short reservation as is fair.

1. You feel it was ok for engines to be frozen as it allowed aerodynamics and chassis development to hold sway and for teams to make the difference using their expertise.

My view is simply this is not sustainable unless you have a spec engine series. Pointless any manufacturer competing if they are not allowed to compete using engines.

2. You implicitly think that engines, and only engines are the predetermined factor to win.

Clearly Mercedes have the chassis and aero combination of the field.

3. You list the reliance customer teams on suppliers expertise as problem.

Well..."specialized expertise is somewhat rare among engine manufacturers. For instance, only Mercedes develops its own turbochargers; the others are sourced from specialists.

It's much the same story for other components as well.

Ferrari gets turbos from Honeywell; pistons, cylinders, etc., come from Mahle; SKF supplies bearings, gaskets, lubrication systems, etc.; ERS and electronics are from Magneti Marelli; NGK supplies spark plugs and ignition components; they're advised on ICE issues by AVL...

Point being: if anyone doesn't like the engine rules, a company of sufficient means really has no excuse for not doing it themselves, especially if that company potentially has ambitions to develop a road car."

4. You wish non-engine manufacturers to have an equal say in engine manufacturing.

Why? Other than cost purposes, what business does a team that does not produce engines have in saying what goes or not?
Remember Phil, I have said it before...All teams signed up to F1 knowing the state of play apart from Manor.
You simply cannot now invoke that responsibility on a team that has no knowledge in producing an engine.
And if you do, why don't they go and build their own engine anyway? Costs are an excuse, but in the long game 4 or 5 small teams could bunch together and develop their own PU's. 20 million a year cost for PU's x 5 is 100 million.... x 3 or 4 seasons and you are looking at a big ass engine programme!
You did say the big picture right?

You also conveniently ignored one of the biggest advantages of being a factory team in todays formula, namely the fact that a factory team is perfectly aware of the changes in the pipeline in regards to the engine and can plan this perfectly with the chassis/aero team.

I didn't need to, you didn't raise it...and if you did, accept my apologies. But, I'll address this.
I actually agree with you.

But this reasoning only excludes customer teams. Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes and McLaren all benefit from the above.

[Phil]

Remember Phil, I have said it before...All teams signed up to F1 knowing the state of play apart from Manor.

At the expense of repeating myself again; I've already argued that no-one knew precisely what they were signing up for. The sport has gone through many changes - changes made with the best interests at heart - but they don't always turn out the way they were intended. In light of these new engine regulations; The goal was to create an environment to promote efficiency, but also a controlled cost environment by limiting development by engine homologation and tokens etc. Fuel flow limit and fuel limit per race was a means to not only promote efficiency but also a means to create a limit to how much power can be me made with these engines. The line of thought was also that these 3 engine manufacturers would produce engines within the same ballpark due to strict fuel flow rules etc - any differences that could potentially be overcome by the sum of other factors of the car. The idea and claims that one engine manufacturers, namely Mercedes, would outshine the others by such large margins as was rumored before 2014 - preposterous. It did pan out that way and it has created a bad situation for teams limited and reliant of their suppliers performance.

Which is precisely why I redirect again to my post in which I point out an engine dominated formula to be problematic - a formula in which the power-unit is the major performance differentiator. Once all 3-4 engine manufacturers get into the same performance ballpark, it no longer is an "engine dominated formula" anymore and the problem I am highlighting stops to be one.

And if you do, why don't they go and build their own engine anyway? Costs are an excuse, but in the long game 4 or 5 small teams could bunch together and develop their own PU's. 20 million a year cost for PU's x 5 is 100 million.... x 3 or 4 seasons and you are looking at a big ass engine programme!

Oh please, not that argument again. I'll just quote James Allen:

One thing that Red Bull is not going to do is make its own engine. The costs involved and the investment in technology is so huge and then at the end of it you could have a product like this year’s Honda. If the world’s largest engine maker cannot get it right, what hope would a niche specialist have on ultra-sophisticated energy recovery systems, especially with Mercedes and Ferrari having had a five year head start?

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/10/r ... tled-team/

Now apply that line of thought to your proposed idea that the small teams should team up to build their own engine after already struggling to pay for the already finished end products they are receiving...

I am not going to add anything further to this pointless discussion, which you've already had with Turbo.

[dans79]

I am not going to add anything further to this pointless discussion, which you've already had with Turbo.

I find the entire discussion fascinating, to me its more about underlying social & geo-political differences within the EU than it is F1. Personally I'm not even sure some of you aware of how political your arguments are.

[FoxHound]

Again with the oversight Phil. If 60% of the grid posses competitive engines, Then how is this worse than 10% of the grid having the best chassis/aero with similar "built in" advantages that smaller teams and even massive factory teams have little to no chance of replicating?