Engine provided for teams limit

[marmer]

Would it be a good Idea to limit engine manufacturer s to 2 teams and bring in another manufacturer of engines when the regs change currently
Mercedes - Mercedes, Williams, force India
Ferrari - Ferrari, hass, sauber
Renault- Renault, toro roso, rebull
Honda - McLaren

Change would be something like this
Mercedes - Mercedes and Williams
Ferrari - Ferrari and hass
Renault- Renault and force India
Audi/ any other - rebull and toro roso
Honda - McLaren and sauber

Would provide same on track research for each team


Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Manoah2u]

No, just ditch the rediculous engine limit factor. It doesn't make it more cost-effective, or 'cap' costs, it actually makes it worse. Its also not defendable since the technology is too complicated to be put into road use anyway. Perhaps something more interesting would be lifting the ban or being less restricted on the 'exotic materials' allowed to be used for casting engines.
Also, 5 engines a year is just fine. 6 too. I can understand that 1 engine every race is a bit too much nowadays, but then again 4 engines like now is taking things too far too.

[dans79]

I think most of the cost savings rules need to be revisited, as none of them really seem to work.


1) Limited testing just lead to all the teams that wanted to be competitive shifting all their funds to wind tunnels, server farms & simulators.
2) component restrictions shifted the funds from material costs to extreme R&D costs.
3) The active suspension ban pretty much lead to the heavy dependency on sensitive aero.

[virginialuther12]

I also think most about the cost investment funds rules should be returned to, as none of them truly appear to work.

[rekoildale]

No, just ditch the rediculous engine limit factor. It doesn't make it more cost-effective, or 'cap' costs, it actually makes it worse. Its also not defendable since the technology is too complicated to be put into road use anyway. Perhaps something more interesting would be lifting the ban or being less restricted on the 'exotic materials' allowed to be used for casting engines.
Also, 5 engines a year is just fine. 6 too. I can understand that 1 engine every race is a bit too much nowadays, but then again 4 engines like now is taking things too far too.

Actually Mercedes engines next year are 48v architecture with seamless start and scheduled to introduce electric turbos. Semi hybrid as the motor is connected to the crank and cant drive the car alone. So some of the tech is already seeping into our little world.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

[f1316]

I still think all regulations ought to be phrased in terms of objectives and measures, not specific solutions - e.g. For engines we want you to use X amount of fuel; do that however you want.

Likewise I think it would fix the nose aesthetics issue to say: 'we need you to pass x crash test to prove the cars won't ride up in a t-bone crash. So long as you pass the test, all solutions are fine'. With that framework, I guarantee the noses would be better aesthetically.

People will say that it would produce spending war; a) I don't think any of the cost reduction measures (e.g. Testing bans etc) actually reduce costs - they just spend the money on something else (e.g cfd, simulators, wind tunnels) b) finding a way to effectively enforce a budget cap is imo the way to go (although I grant extremely hard) rather than defining specific solutions and limiting engineering creativity