Formula One's Engine Crisis

[mrluke]

Renault and Nissan are under the same ownership, they are trying to promote the infiniti brand..

Aston is a bit different as they only share 5% with mercedes

[dans79]

You don't have to make engines to be a manufacturer.

That's called a title Sponsor, not a manufacture!

[ME4ME]

I wasn't talking about being a manufacturer in F1.
My point 2 pages ago was that car manufacturers are interested in F1 for reasons like brand exposure etc, rather than just showing-off their engine

[VerleneDP]

I wasn't talking about being a manufacturer in F1.
My point 2 pages ago was that car manufacturers are interested in F1 for reasons like brand exposure etc, rather than just showing-off their engine

I totally agree with you

[FoxHound]

Not sure what your problem is FoxHound. Talking down-votes, using smilies and basically laugh in my face. The one embarrassing himself is you.

My issue is you have no idea what you are talking about.

The thread is titled, Formula One's Engine Crisis. And my statement was specifically related to the the engines and to manufacturers that make engines.

1. Not one manufacturer will enter if there is no emphasis on motors. I guarantee that.

I am not talking about manufacturer teams. I am talking about the car manufacture Aston Martin, as an example of a car manufacturer potentially interested in competing in F1.

You are bringing me an example of a sponsor approaching Mercedes to use their engines in what Claire Williams describes as a "badging exercise"?
How is that relevant to the so called "engine crisis"?
They are not competing, they are sponsoring. They cannot change a damn thing to compete, so are not competitors.

Surely, and please correct me if I'm wrong....If your point has an validity, this thread should be called Formula One's Sponsor crisis!

As for your definition, aside from being irrelevant because you read what isn't there, next time back it up with a source if quoting.

My definition is that used in F1 since the 1950's.
You want sources?
http://www.autoracing.com/formula-1/manufacturers/
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119251
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/10/m ... m-veto-it/
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... ula-one-f1
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/08/04/c ... f1-series/

What is irrelevant, is that you have ignored the pretext to this thread, to my point, and to the definition of the word manufacturer in F1.

[Phil]

The thread is titled, Formula One's Engine Crisis. And my statement was specifically related to the the engines and to manufacturers that make engines.

The issue is your earlier statement --- I quote:

"What point would Honda, Mercedes, Renault and even Ferrari have to be in F1? A motorsport with not 1 bit of emphasis on the motors?"

...to which the response is quite obvious as ME4ME put it: Prestige, brand recognision, TV-time etc.

The engine is but one component among many. Prior to 2014, even factory teams such as Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault have invested in teams with the sole purpose of manufacturing the entire car, from chassis to aero, not only the engine. Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and Honda are not solely engine manufacturers as companies. They manufacture cars - which encompass a lot more than simply the power unit. You do know that right? Perhaps it's time to go visit a car dealership...

Before the circle starts from the beginning again; It's perfectly clear why the teams that also manufacture engines want engines to be more relevant. The topic at hand is, if it's fair that a team that manufacture engines can be both supplier and competitor at the same time in an engine dominated formula (A formula in which the engine is the major performance differentiator). The big problem here, is that not all teams are equal; Some are pure racing teams with no basis for manufacturing engines, some are. Where do you draw the line?

[rgava]

The topic at hand is, if it's fair that a team that manufacture engines can be both supplier and competitor at the same time in an engine dominated formula (A formula in which the engine is the major performance differentiator). The big problem here, is that not all teams are equal; Some are pure racing teams with no basis for manufacturing engines, some are. Where do you draw the line?

I agree with you.
Moreover, all Formula One stakeholders repeatedly refused to sell chasis to other teams argueing that "customer teams" is not what F1 is about.
But, today, there is clearly customer teams within an engine dominated formula.
The only possibility to avoid this would have been if an independent engine manufacturer like Renault were succeeding in doing a competitive engine without wanting to run a works team.
An, due to the fact that this have not happened, we can clearly say that F1 is in an Engine Crisis because to have healthy competition there is only two posibilities: the one above or several big car makers wanting to enter F1 with their own works teams to create a competitive environment.
Nether of those can happen in the near future.

[turbof1]

An other possibility would be to tackle the engine dominance through opening up the aero rules.

[Facts Only]

An other possibility would be to tackle the engine dominance through opening up the aero rules.

If (and I emphasise the if) Mercedes already have the best Aero package AND they have the most money to spend on Aero development opening up the Aero rules will just allow Mercedes to pull even further ahead.

The only thing keeping Mercedes pegged to a ~1sec advantage is the tight Aero and PU rules, open them up further and the field will just spread out more with Mercedes further out front, Ferrari would stay close but those two teams would be in a different league.

[turbof1]

An other possibility would be to tackle the engine dominance through opening up the aero rules.

If (and I emphasise the if) Mercedes already have the best Aero package AND they have the most money to spend on Aero development opening up the Aero rules will just allow Mercedes to pull even further ahead.

The only thing keeping Mercedes pegged to a ~1sec advantage is the tight Aero and PU rules, open them up further and the field will just spread out more with Mercedes further out front, Ferrari would stay close but those two teams would be in a different league.

Always a danger in that of course. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Mercedes specifically, but the generality rgava mentioned: you have customer teams not being able to compete, being stuck in their position. I was thinking, perhaps with a bit naïvity, that opening up the aero rules would allow atleast some creative solutions level the field a bit. It happened back during the previous turbo era, where non-turbo cars could compensate through useage of ground effect.

I'm of opinion that the issue lies with too tight rules. Mercedes did an awesome job, let's get that clear. However, the rules are quite restrictive to allow the others to try alternative paths that are worthwhile, to make Mercedes' life a bit less comfortable so to speak. Yes it would allow Mercedes or Ferrari to potentionally extent their advantage; there's always a risk. But I've seen how F1 evolved and the more restrictions were applied, the more the teams got more and more locked in their typical grid positions. Generally speaking. It kept Mercedes from having a 1s advantage, but at the same time guaranteed a 0.5s advantage.

[FoxHound]

The engine is but one component among many. Prior to 2014, even factory teams such as Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault have invested in teams with the sole purpose of manufacturing the entire car, from chassis to aero, not only the engine. Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and Honda are not solely engine manufacturers as companies. They manufacture cars - which encompass a lot more than simply the power unit. You do know that right? Perhaps it's time to go visit a car dealership...

Are you being obtuse or is there a point to your abyssal meandering contradictory rhetoric?

If you think F1 is better off with rebadged Mercedes engines, and hold this as an example of "F1 attracting manufacturers", then may I suggest you skip offering advice on me visiting car dealers, and start using some foresight that does not involve favouring 1 specific team?

The topic at hand is, if it's fair that a team that manufacture engines can be both supplier and competitor at the same time in an engine dominated formula (A formula in which the engine is the major performance differentiator). The big problem here, is that not all teams are equal; Some are pure racing teams with no basis for manufacturing engines, some are. Where do you draw the line?

Firstly, we must ascertain if the Formula is engine dominated.

We can see clearly, Renault are well behind the the engines supplied to 6 teams...Mercedes and Ferrari.
Do you agree? >I assume you do.
Does this mean the Formula is engine dominated? No.

We can see that, despite using the same engines, Mercedes and Ferrari powered teams show a massive discrepancy in performance.
So 4 teams of 8 cars using the same Mercedes PU106, show a big difference in performance potential.
3 teams using the Ferrari tipo 059/3 show massive differences in performance.
Is this an indicator the Formula is engine dominated? No.

At Monza, the biggest engine track of all, we saw this difference.

Mercedes were 0.7 seconds a lap quicker than Williams(Merc engined), 1.3 seconds a lap quicker than Force India(Merc engined), and 1.6 seconds a lap quicker than Lotus(Merc engined).
Ferrari were 1.6 seconds ahead of Sauber(Ferrari engined), and 3.1 seconds behind a 2014 engined Marussia.
So far, we can tell that despite the same engines(excluding Marussia), teams have a massive difference in performance at a track favouring engine performance. Is this an indication of an engine dominated Formula? No.

The only thing indicating this is an engine dominated Formula, is that Renault messed up, and are working on solutions(tokens remain unspent with a big upgrade looming).

In the same way Ferrari messed up their 2005 and 2009 car, Mercedes their SWB W01 and W02 cars, Or McLaren and their 2002 and 2003, 2013 and 2014 cars, you simply cannot call the entire sports machinations into question because 1 party is not on level terms presently.
The other teams dealt with it, worked hard towards solutions and came back again.
In McLaren's case, it was due to unreliable engines, and engine reg changes(Beryllium ban). Can you imagine the fuss Red Bull would create if that same incident happened to them? The fallout would be biblical!

So to surmise, The current formula is not engine dominated, the discrepancies between Mercedes and Ferrari teams (14 cars in all) prove this.
It also offers scope for development and has been further extended to 2016(likely).

2 pure racing teams, with no basis for manufacturing engines have this to say....(repeated due to relevance)

Sauber:

But if you look at the last few years, they have really been getting away with so much which is not in agreement with the others, to answer the question, I think they have to live with what they get now. We've done that for so many years so why can't they now?"

http://espn.go.com/f1/story/_/id/139296 ... altenborn?

Williams

It is a difficult situation for them and maybe they haven't handled it was well as they might have done and I'm sure that is what is antagonising some fans, I remember my father used to say 'when you lose say nothing and when you win say even less' and maybe that is a motto we should all abide by

http://www.foxsportsasia.com/motorsport ... they-get'?

Hell, I looked further just for the sport....and Marussia, Lotus, Force India are all happy with their engines, but would like to address cost.
The only teams currently unhappy are Red Bull and McLaren...but McLaren are now appeased due to the 32 token limit next year. Leaving only Red Bull as the unhappy party.

PS:
for the sake of the thread, do not lump other teams with Red Bull, when their concerns revolve around costs,
the least of Red Bull's worries.
We have them on record as testimony.The issue you are raising is one that affects Red Bull. It would be better if you if raised it as such, and not throw in the entire sport to suit 1 teams desires.

[Jonnycraig]

An other possibility would be to tackle the engine dominance through opening up the aero rules.

You only have to see the way the Merc engines cars pull away from even the very good Ferrari's in a straight line to realise Aero isn't going to help. Either fully open development is required, or a change of engines. That's IF you are of the belief that F1 needs 4-6 cars at the front with close performance, which understandably most Merc fans aren't.

[FoxHound]

An other possibility would be to tackle the engine dominance through opening up the aero rules.

You only have to see the way the Merc engines cars pull away from even the very good Ferrari's in a straight line to realise Aero isn't going to help.

Sorry, this is just not true. Baseless Assessment Without Substance.(BAWS)

That's IF you are of the belief that F1 needs 4-6 cars at the front with close performance, which understandably most Merc fans aren't.

Do you speak for most Merc fans?
There is just too much fail going on here....

[Phil]

An other possibility would be to tackle the engine dominance through opening up the aero rules.

I like the idea. What I think would be okay is if the engine component could be tackled by aero. But that's always going to be difficult, because if one team gets both right, they will still be better than one that only gets part of it right.

If I were to create a sport; I would try to take the common denominator. I can't change the fact that some teams have a higher investment ability than other and as we've discussed on F1T, workable cost-caps are next to impossible to enforce. Still, I would look at the talent pool of my competitors within my sport. All can manufacture racing cars. Check. Some can develop power trains and units, some can't. So I think I'd limit that aspect, because to enable that as a too large factor (where it makes the difference between winning and losing) would make it next to impossible for those that don't do that to compete on a realistic level. The same would apply if Mercedes i.e. was in the tire manufacturing business against all other teams that are not. I wouldn't want them to gain a competitive advantage because of that, because it would be unfair to those that don't.

When I create a sport, I want to create a competitive field where my competitors are competing in areas that lies in all of their expertise and ability - not cater to those with some distinct unique expertise and skills. If you do the latter, you end up with a one sided dominated sport that will seize to be attractive for all others.

So again - an engine formula is perfect if I have 8 engine builders competing for the prestige on creating the best engine. Or a tire formula, when I have 8 tire manufacturers competing for the best tires. That would seem the most fair to me. I don't mind engine manufacturers being suppliers and competitors when the engine factor isn't that large (in the big picture) - but if it is, and to some teams like RedBull, Toro Rosso, Sauber in 2014, Williams, McLaren it is, then I see a conflict of interest to those teams and their suppliers. A competitor should never wield as much power in a sport it competes in like Mercedes and to some part Ferrari currently do.

[mclaren111]

1) Just fix the noise & change to 6 speed gearbox !!!!!
2) Put in Price Freeze on PU's for the next 5 years !!!!!
3) Plus the changes for 2017 !!!!!

AND ALL IS GOOD AGAIN !!!!!