Formula One's Engine Crisis

[NL_Fer]

Would the engine crisis solve itself in 2017?

If they alow for more fuel flow, would the increased ice power, decrease the problem of any lacking ERS. And if more aero is allowed, would the car be less pu-sensetive?

[f1316]

I'm surprised Ferrari didn't suggest something to red bull that made a positive out of the possibility of red bull winning. E.g. Some kind of branding that made it very clear that the Ferrari power unit was an integral part of the team's success.

I'm envisaging something in the contract stipulating that the rear wing or the cockpit has to have 'Ferrari' emblazoned on it in massive letters, or hell, even that the team has to be called Ferrari Red Bull (not the other way round).

Now, the latter would be quite unlikely to be agreed to, but then at least Ferrari could say "look, we offered them 2016 engines but they didn't agree to the terms - not our fault."

And as for the inability to produce enough 2016 engines, perhaps they could have suggested that red bull buy out sauber's contract? If 2015 engines are OK for toro Rosso then I dare say they'd be ok for sauber.

[langwadt]

I'm surprised Ferrari didn't suggest something to red bull that made a positive out of the possibility of red bull winning. E.g. Some kind of branding that made it very clear that the Ferrari power unit was an integral part of the team's success.

I'm envisaging something in the contract stipulating that the rear wing or the cockpit has to have 'Ferrari' emblazoned on it in massive letters, or hell, even that the team has to be called Ferrari Red Bull (not the other way round).

Now, the latter would be quite unlikely to be agreed to, but then at least Ferrari could say "look, we offered them 2016 engines but they didn't agree to the terms - not our fault."

And as for the inability to produce enough 2016 engines, perhaps they could have suggested that red bull buy out sauber's contract? If 2015 engines are OK for toro Rosso then I dare say they'd be ok for sauber.

I believe the rules state that the chassis name must always come before the engine name if they are not the same

[nanocustic]

For me is very clear that this Formula has the engine as the main differentiator. I don't think Redbull chassis mysteriously got bad from one year to the other, nor that Mercedes chassis got excellent from 2014 onwards.
And, for me, that's the only way it makes sense that both Ferrari and Mercedes won't supply Redbull: they know this, so they won't obviously give them better performance.
Different thing is that Redbull gives both manufacturers an excuse in the form of the way they treated Renault

[Moose]

For me is very clear that this Formula has the engine as the main differentiator. I don't think Redbull chassis mysteriously got bad from one year to the other, nor that Mercedes chassis got excellent from 2014 onwards.

Those are some pretty weird assumptions to make. It was clear that Mercedes' chassis had been getting better year on year for several years - from being a clear midfield runner in late 2009-2010 to being RedBull's only contender in 2013. It was also clear that RedBull were not bullet proof, and could certainly make mistakes in their car design - 2012 is a notable example, and the effect that Newey looking at the design for a short period in 2015 had suggests that they --- up again in early 2015.

And, for me, that's the only way it makes sense that both Ferrari and Mercedes won't supply Redbull: they know this, so they won't obviously give them better performance.

I don't think that's the only reason. I would be looking at how RedBull treated Renault, not just in 2014/15, but before then, and thinking "would this actually be good for marketing us?" RedBull never gave credit to Renault, when the Renault engine provided the tight packaging and excellent exhaust blowing design that was needed in the late V8 era. In fact, even when they were winning, they were busy slagging off Renault saying that the engine was under powered (when that underpoweredness was exactly what was winning them races).

[ME4ME]

RedBull never gave credit to Renault

Oh no not this crap again. Honesty someone needs to make a video compilation of all the support Renault got when Seb was on the podium. Even Horner praised them from time to time, but people tend to be short-minded.

Took me about 40 sec to find: http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3018 ... am-result/

"A great result for the team and congratulations to Renault for another one-two-three finish on the podium."

[giantfan10]

[/quote]
Those are some pretty weird assumptions to make. It was clear that Mercedes' chassis had been getting better year on year for several years - from being a clear midfield runner in late 2009-2010 to being RedBull's only contender in 2013. It was also clear that RedBull were not bullet proof, and could certainly make mistakes in their car design - 2012 is a notable example, and the effect that Newey looking at the design for a short period in 2015 had suggests that they --- up again in early 2015[quote]
i disagree.... why do people still continue to insist that Mercedes has a chassis thats way better than the rest of the front running teams? Mercedes didnt suddenly discover the secret formula to creating downforce.... they just so happen to have the most powerful engine that also happens to have a qualifying mode that no other manufacturer can match at this time.....they can run more downforce than any other team because of their power advantage. I guess that equates to having a better chassis than everybody else. in 2 out of the 3 races where the power advantage is negated Mercedes was beaten soundly.

[FoxHound]

i disagree.... why do people still continue to insist that Mercedes has a chassis thats way better than the rest of the front running teams? Mercedes didnt suddenly discover the secret formula to creating downforce.... they just so happen to have the most powerful engine that also happens to have a qualifying mode that no other manufacturer can match at this time.....they can run more downforce than any other team because of their power advantage. I guess that equates to having a better chassis than everybody else. in 2 out of the 3 races where the power advantage is negated Mercedes was beaten soundly.

Explain the other 3 powered Merc teams being on average over a second slower (williams) and up to 2 seconds slower (lotus) than the same engined Mercedes team?

And if you can show where in Monaco or Hungary where "Mercedes where soundly beaten" I'd love to know. Singapore is the other track and Mercedes fell way behind due to errors in set up and the new tyre pressure test worry having some implications to that.
They dominate Monaco and would've won the Hungarian GP on pure pace had it been incident free....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33669813
Mercedes W06 are way better than anything else Mercedes powered, and are way better than anything else where engines make less of a difference.
You are left with "chassis" and "aero" not some ludicrous "qualy mode".... that's just laughable.

[Pingguest]

To judge the current engine formula, one should take everything in consideration. The V8-engines were "frozen" for a couple of years and equalized. In those days, the engines were expensive but subsidized and provided no justification for manufacturers for their participation any more. Since their introduction, no less than big manufacturers - BMW, Toyota and Honda - left Formula One. At least two remaining manufacturers threatened to leave the series as well.
New regulations allowing more relevant engines were necessary. Those regulations were introduced and made the engine a main performance differentiator again, as it was the case before the homologation and equalization of the V8-engines. Such would not be a huge problem if new engine manufacturers would have entered, but so far, only one manufacturer decided to make it's return to the series.

Not the engine being an important performance differentiator but Formula One's inability to attract new manufacturers seem to be the series' main issue. The root cause is, I believe, that the regulations do not allow much diversity. More relevant engines were needed but do not necessarily constitute hybrid power units, that very complex, if not too complex for some. The strive for more relevant power units could have been met without practically forcing manufacturers to use hybrids.

[SectorOne]

And, for me, that's the only way it makes sense that both Ferrari and Mercedes won't supply Redbull: they know this, so they won't obviously give them better performance.

Both Ferrari and Mercedes has no obligation whatsoever to supply engines to another team because that particular team could not get a component they bought to work properly.

Now they´re pulling the "Mercedes and Ferrari force us out of F1" BS card. Give me a break honestly.
You shut your mouths, work even harder with Renault and overcome.

Adapt, Overcome and WIN.

If you told me the laws of nature inhibited Renault from catching up to Mercedes and Ferrari i would have given them a pass but last time i checked that is not the case.

[adrianjordan]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/10/m ... m-veto-it/

This actually seems like a sensible solution....so I'm fairly sure one of the teams will block it... I wouldn't put it past RBR...though as James says they could use this to their advantage to help them get an engine deal for next season.

[toraabe]

I am sure that Renault has the plans ready for 2016. When they have confirmed the termination to RB / TR after the last GP 2015 I am sure that they will cooperate with Merc to get their PU on pair at least with Ferrari. It is also in Merc intrest that Renault becomes competitive in terms of F1 value.

[turbof1]

Mercedes is not going to help out. They aren't exactly that fond of in season development due it putting them in a more vulnerable position. They did agree with it on that meeting, but they will not be unhappy if it gets vetoed in the F1 commission. Hence Red Bull will not be able to pressure Mercedes. They might be able to pressure Ferrari, although there are limits to that since if it gets vetoed, it'll be voted by majority to introduce it in 2017. Ferrari might find that the better option than being pressured into an agreement they don't want.

Aside the Red Bull side of the story, there's no guarantee all the others vote in favor. I have strong doubts that without incentive, the smaller, customer teams will not see any advantage of voting in favour. Not only would it bring their equality in PU hardware in danger, it could also bring extra costs since PUs being updated throughout the season can require bodywork modifications. So the manufacturers will need to throw in a boon to persuade the smaller teams.

I do hope these set of rules can be pushed through, and for 2017 a cap on PU costs to the customer teams. I think that rule changes to increase PU power should be left for 2018, to give enough time to prepare.

[r_b_l]

Not the engine being an important performance differentiator but Formula One's inability to attract new manufacturers seem to be the series' main issue. The root cause is, I believe, that the regulations do not allow much diversity. More relevant engines were needed but do not necessarily constitute hybrid power units, that very complex, if not too complex for some. The strive for more relevant power units could have been met without practically forcing manufacturers to use hybrids.

Definitely a contributing factor of today's engine issue.

F1 has regulated itself out of the Engine market. All these recent changes have, in part, been made to ensure current established manufactures are satisfied. The direction F1 has taken is anti-competitive in regards to potential new engine manufactures.

[CHT]

To judge the current engine formula, one should take everything in consideration. The V8-engines were "frozen" for a couple of years and equalized. In those days, the engines were expensive but subsidized and provided no justification for manufacturers for their participation any more. Since their introduction, no less than big manufacturers - BMW, Toyota and Honda - left Formula One. At least two remaining manufacturers threatened to leave the series as well.
New regulations allowing more relevant engines were necessary. Those regulations were introduced and made the engine a main performance differentiator again, as it was the case before the homologation and equalization of the V8-engines. Such would not be a huge problem if new engine manufacturers would have entered, but so far, only one manufacturer decided to make it's return to the series.

Not the engine being an important performance differentiator but Formula One's inability to attract new manufacturers seem to be the series' main issue. The root cause is, I believe, that the regulations do not allow much diversity. More relevant engines were needed but do not necessarily constitute hybrid power units, that very complex, if not too complex for some. The strive for more relevant power units could have been met without practically forcing manufacturers to use hybrids.

The main issue is the road car relevant technology might not necessary mean its good for F1 show and the lack of "sound" is just one of the problem F1 is lacking right now. And this of course, I am referring to its ability to attract track side spectators who are willing to pay many hundreds or even thousand just to catch a race over the weekend.

One top of that, V6 turbo and its complex MGU-K and MGU-H system, + fuel limitation is making the entire drive train extremely complex, hence only big manufacturers with huge funding will be able justify sustaining such an operation.

If you have been following the trend in automotive industry, car manufacturers today are now investing more in electric motors instead of KERS, which mean the entire V6 formula might already be irrelevant to the automotive industry and the reason why they are clinging on to it is to justify the initial sunken cost.