Formula One's Engine Crisis

[Jonnycraig]

But I was thinking the problem was about competition between factory teams. Ferrari is getting closer

That's a bit of a myth unfortunately.

At the Australian Grand Prix, Ferrari were 1.4 seconds off the pace in qualifying. At Austin, with the core of the 2016 engine already running, Ferrari were 1.8 seconds off the pace...

[Phil]

I agree diminishing returns will eventually come in. Or it might not. That all depends on how the rules develop and how much "potential" there is. If the regulations in regards to these engine stay unchanged, then yes, diminishing returns is inevitable. Then it becomes a question on how quickly that is reached and that again depends on the rules and how far an engine can progress. And what consequences happen along the way if that doesn't happen "quick enough" for the uncompetitive teams to survive through this period. While development has "opened up", they are still limited by the 32 tokens and the 4 engines per season. It remains to be seen how this will influence things. It's clear that the Mercedes and Ferrari have two slightly different design concepts - it's yet to be seen if those different concept can reach parity in the package of an entire F1 car.

Every decision has consequences.

Opening engine development leads to higher costs that will lead to more struggles for the lower teams. Another consequence of enabling older-spec engines to be sold, further widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots and their ability to score points, attract sponsorship and price-money. Not supplying RedBull and Torro-Rosso also bears consequence - my last two posts highlight this hypothetical scenario that might lead to the two top teams supplying 3 cars and by simple consequence, gaining a considerable advantage of 50% more data that again will theoretically result in a higher development rate.


And yes, I agree with Jonnycraig above. Ferrari have closed the gap on some unique circuits and through circumstance (Malaysia + Singapore). On many other tracks, that pace gap is still quite significant.

[turbof1]

But I was thinking the problem was about competition between factory teams. Ferrari is getting closer

That's a bit of a myth unfortunately.

At the Australian Grand Prix, Ferrari were 1.4 seconds off the pace in qualifying. At Austin, with the core of the 2016 engine already running, Ferrari were 1.8 seconds off the pace...

Are we really looking at the times at Austin, of all races, to compare PU performance?? The most wet race of the year, with the biggest weight on PU performance.

Going from intuition, because it's relative impossible to bring engine performance in numbers, I also think they are getting bit by bit closer.

[ReoPTy]

Equalization of output power engines , if not F1 is dead by 2017

[FoxHound]

I am following the line of logic what will happen if as a direct consequence of Redbull and TR both leaving F1 due to not getting a PU

So you are biasing all this on Red Bull, as I suspected all along.

I'll post this for the umpteenth time... Williams, Lotus, Manor, Sauber and Force India have all complimented the suppliers of their PU's, but want it for cheaper.
McLaren are appeased now due to Honda now getting extra development potential.
Ferrari and Mercedes both voted for extra development, and are both happy with state of play.

2 parties, which are effectively one, Red Bull, are the only party in F1 that is not happy with supply.
Why is Red Bull's case of "competitive engines" more pressing than that of 5 teams case of "costs"?
It is incomparable to suggest they are one and the same, especially when arrogance is the motivator for Red Bull, and survival for the other 5 teams.

There is no basis for Red Bull to complain about anything other than cost. Supply cannot be forced, and suppliers should not be subjected to public denigration. If they cannot abide, then they should leave as soon as possible.

[PlatinumZealot]

I like the customer engine idea.
it is no big deal. Remember F1 used to have teams with different kinds of engine. Times when Turbos fought against NA engines. What is wrong with a different engine?

[FoxHound]

But I was thinking the problem was about competition between factory teams. Ferrari is getting closer

That's a bit of a myth unfortunately.

At the Australian Grand Prix, Ferrari were 1.4 seconds off the pace in qualifying. At Austin, with the core of the 2016 engine already running, Ferrari were 1.8 seconds off the pace...

Are we really looking at the times at Austin, of all races, to compare PU performance?? The most wet race of the year, with the biggest weight on PU performance.

Going from intuition, because it's relative impossible to bring engine performance in numbers, I also think they are getting bit by bit closer.

Mercedes 1 and 2 in engine neutral conditions....
1.2 seconds clear of Red Bull.

Driver or Chassis?

[i70q7m7ghw]

Engine neutral conditions? There is no such thing...

The disparity on performance at Austin was down to more than just Engine or Chassis. It was more about how the cars had been setup and how they were making use of the overheating inters on a drying track.

[FoxHound]

I like the customer engine idea.
it is no big deal. Remember F1 used to have teams with different kinds of engine. Times when Turbos fought against NA engines. What is wrong with a different engine?

In principle nothing.

But it depends entirely on how it is introduced. Because the bottom line is, why should Merc, Ferrari, Honda and Renault...and perhaps more importantly, any interested engine manufacturer, join up to compete when the 5 million dollar a year 2.2 V6 is annihilating the 25 million dollar a year(plus 300 million in development) 1.6 V6?

It becomes redundant to all makers if that cheapo engine is made to be equal to or better than the current engines.

If that happens, I predict all makers would just head for the exit and F1 will become a spec series.

[FoxHound]

Engine neutral conditions? There is no such thing...

The disparity on performance at Austin was down to more than just Engine or Chassis. It was more about how the cars had been setup and how they were making use of the overheating inters on a drying track.

Qualifying spec.

The standing water and feathering of throttle out of corners and nowhere near flat on straights makes even a 10% power advantage redundant.
3 unique factors(tyres are the same for everyone) take over, driver, aero and chassis.

In the race we saw the inters and how the cars use them as the decisive factor...ie overheating/wearing as in Mercedes case.

[turbof1]

In all fairness that's a bit skewed: Red Bull went for a wet set up and because of that they kept the inters in their working range. Mercedes choose for a dry set up.

We did saw that even with the massive advantage the Red Bulls had, that on the straights they were still slower then mercedes, even though the former had DRS. It's certainly not the same advantage as usual, but it still was there (a note should be place those are quite big straights).

I do believe that coming out of corners, the wet conditions did indeed put a hamper on acceleration because you can't go as easily full throttle. So it does take some bit of the advantage away, but not everything.

[dans79]

Pessimistic?

Yes! As others have said, you are basing you opinions on the believe that no one or only Ferrari will be able to close the gap to Merc. F1 history has shown that Dominance usually doesn't last long, and the team that becomes the new king of the hill usually isn't who most people expect it to be.

[FoxHound]

In all fairness that's a bit skewed: Red Bull went for a wet set up and because of that they kept the inters in their working range. Mercedes choose for a dry set up.

We did saw that even with the massive advantage the Red Bulls had, that on the straights they were still slower then mercedes, even though the former had DRS. It's certainly not the same advantage as usual, but it still was there (a note should be place those are quite big straights).

In Qualifying, do you think any team got within 5% of their top speed?

[Phil]

Dans, we are still entertaining *your* point that you'd rather have the manufacturers in control than Bernie - and your later point that you'd rather have 6 competitive cars opposed to 4, which a 3 car team scenario would bring. I'm simply being a realist. If we have both Mercedes and Ferrari supply 3 cars, they will have access to 50% more data. Do you disagree that this will not be any kind of advantage opposed to all other teams that are

1.) only running 2 cars and have less data
2.) have a lower budget and historically a lower success rate in the field of aero/chassis as well
3A.) not factory-teams and mere customers - but identical engines running on less optimized maps due to different fuels. possibly less efficient packaging
3B.) not factory-teams and mere customers - but older spec engines at a cheaper price, possibly less efficient packaging
3C.) are a factory-team or works-team like Renault and McLaren-Honda but are severely behind the development cycle and playing catch up under restrictive rules (4 PUs per season / 32 tokens)

And you think that those teams under all these disadvantages will close the gap, because......?

[turbof1]

In all fairness that's a bit skewed: Red Bull went for a wet set up and because of that they kept the inters in their working range. Mercedes choose for a dry set up.

We did saw that even with the massive advantage the Red Bulls had, that on the straights they were still slower then mercedes, even though the former had DRS. It's certainly not the same advantage as usual, but it still was there (a note should be place those are quite big straights).

In Qualifying, do you think any team got within 5% of their top speed?

it's not just about top speed. Acceleration matters too, and in these conditions heavily dependant on the tyres. Mercedes might had the tyres within the optimal zone for one lap, but during the race they struggled to do so.

Note this message does not really disagree. I just like to stay away from extremes like "the engine power gap has widened" or "the engine power is neutralized". It will have taken some emphasis away from the engine, but not everything. It's vague and depends really from moment to moment.