Adrian Newey on quitting F1

[GitanesBlondes]

If you have unlimited use of engines, while the total cost can be more, the cost per unit decreases so you receive a better value for what you're paying for.

But it is the total cost which matters. You don't ask your sponsor to give you twice the money so you could by 3 times more engines. You spend what you have.

That would fit in with exactly how grand prix racing operated, and successfully for the first hundred years of existence.

Successfully? There were different times. There were times when F1 was effectively F2. There was a time when nobody except two German teams participated in the top class. I don't see how modern F1 is not a success comparatively. Maybe not the best year, but there were plenty of boring seasons in each era.

Except you were the one who said that Mercedes would still have an advantage of there were no restrictions on engines. I was pointing out that line of thinking is flawed because there are too many variables that would change, so that a definitive statement cannot be made.

It could be Renault, or Ferrari. Doesn't matter, more often than not in event of a big rule change there appear one of two makers who make things much better than the rest. And yeah, I admit I should have phrased it differently, but a probability is on that side.

If teams wanted to use less engines per season 15 years ago they could, so again the cost would be less than what the top teams were spending.

Engines were being produced on such a large scale that the costs were being driven down because, well that's how economics works...the more you produce of something, the less it costs in the long run run due to supply prices dropping, and efficiencies being found.

[JimClarkFan]

Fuel restrictions notwithstanding, I think the longevity requirement - five PUs over the course of an entire season - definitely puts them in an endurance category.

Anyone have any ideas about how much more power could be wrought from these things if they only had to last one weekend?

Not much, though 600 Hp from a 1.6 turbo is even historically pretty lame, unless they increase the fuel flow of course,
then 800 Hp should not be any problem whatsoever.

That's not an issue with the engine, that is an issue with the regs.

The regulations should not be fuel restricted, but there should have been some defined number put on improved efficient at max fuel flow.

[acosmichippo]

If teams wanted to use less engines per season 15 years ago they could, so again the cost would be less than what the top teams were spending.

They didn't use more engines because it was cheaper, they did it because they could squeeze more performance out of an engine that only had to last one race. Money was no object at the time (remember tobacco sponsorships?). Even if the price per unit was less (citation needed), overall it still would have been way more expensive.

[xpensive]

...
The regulations should not be fuel restricted, but there should have been some defined number put on improved efficient at max fuel flow.

If the FIA wants to retain the current 1.6 V6 turbo format, though I would strongly advocate a return to 3.0 V10s,
I think the best thing they could do would be to increase the fuel flow from 27.8 to 36 g/sec and ditch the ERS gizmos,
WSC can do that. But change the flow-curve to force the manufacturers to go all the way to 15 kRpm for full power.

Back to something like this;



This would result in some 780 to 800 Hp screamers, which should give us back some sense of watching motor racing.

Also, it could make it possible for independents like Cosworth to compete without investing 200 MEUR in ERS developments.

And lure Newey and Gascoyne back of course.

[timbo]

If teams wanted to use less engines per season 15 years ago they could, so again the cost would be less than what the top teams were spending.

What acosmichippo says. Teams couldn't just use less engines because everybody were tuning the engines to only last no more than planned running distance.

Engines were being produced on such a large scale that the costs were being driven down because, well that's how economics works...the more you produce of something, the less it costs in the long run run due to supply prices dropping, and efficiencies being found.

Not necessarily. The engines were never mass produced items, there were constant modifications to squeeze out more performance. There were qualifying versions and racing versions. I remember Ferrari ditching 5-valve head for 4-valves DURING the season. I remember McLaren going all out to get to the same specs as Benetton.

[timbo]

If the FIA wants to retain the current 1.6 V6 turbo format, though I would strongly advocate a return to 3.0 V10s,
I think the best thing they could do would be to increase the fuel flow from 27.8 to 36 g/sec and ditch the ERS gizmos,
WSC can do that. But change the flow-curve to force the manufacturers to go all the way to 15 kRpm for full power.

So, artificial tweaks to artificial flow curve would somehow make them less artificial?

Back to something like this;

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2nde ... 1_1280.jpg

Now you're talking. At least this one does not have boost limit (which equals to flow limit...).

Also, it could make it possible for independents like Cosworth to compete without investing 200 MEUR in ERS developments.

Do you not think that a manufacturers won't find a way to spend 200MEUR on engine development?

This would result in some 780 to 800 Hp screamers, which should give us back some sense of watching motor racing.

The sound of current engines might be a problem, but the recent German GP revealed the real problem -- price of admission. Ticket prices, cable/satellite prices, lack of streaming support. I remember F1 was on Eurosport. I guess it was much easier for casual fan to tune in.

[henra]

Where do people always get this idea that F1 has ever been more about the drivers than the cars? In the last 30 years, I can think of a total of three WDCs (2007,1995,1986) that weren't won by the driver in the best car, and even then it was the second best one.

And that is fine for me. It is part of what makes F1 interesting. For me it is the tech battle that makes it attractive for me.
I'm not so much into the Drivers.
I do like honest battles for the win but at the end I watch F1 because of the machines and not so much the man.
Seeing the trend with F1technical as of late I know that I'm on the clear minority side with that stance.
Since I admire clever designs I hate the super restrictive aero regulations of this season. And that is why I'm saddened by Adrian Newey leaving F1.
Maybe he can join WEC. A closed Cockpit prototype designed by Adrian Newey, that would be the cat's meow. [-o<

[Andres125sx]

I agree fuel flow limit is an artificial way to put engine restrictions, but that does not mean these engines are wrong, only FIA failed to use some rational restrictions.

I´d prefer 1.0 turbo engines with same total fuel limit, than current 1.6 turbo engines with total fuel and fuel flow limits. If they didn´t want more power than previous engines using 1.6 turbos is nosense, 1.5 turbo engines from 80´s provided more power than 2013 engines, so using 1.6 turbo engines 25 years after is simply absurd

Also, 1.0 turbo engines should rev higher, and sound should be better. To me that´s not an important point, but since it does bother a lot of people...

[Pingguest]

Timbo my point is, if you want F1 to really matter from an engine engineering standpoint, things like max RPM, power, fuel flow rate should not be dictated. Let the engineers find out the achievable limits on their own.

San Marino '85 was marked by the drivers turning off the boost pressure to conserve fuel.

Actually timbo, the engines themselves produce less power. So...hundreds of millions spent to have engines that achieve what, 3.5MPG? lol Besides, what would have made sense was dictating a fuel limit, and let the teams do whatever they want.

Without a fuel-flow limit nothing will prevent teams to make the engines generate 1,500 bhp or more. From a safety point of view this is far from desirable.

[Andres125sx]

Size will prevent that. That´s the reason I think 1.0 turbo would have been more reasonable, or even smaller...

I know that´s a really small engine, smart size, but technology evolves and to keep same power level without artificial restrictions like fuel flow limits, the only way is reducing engine size. Then there could be a lot more freedom for the engineers

Who cares about engine size if they provide 800bhp and there´re real battles between engine departments

[Ultra]

Size will prevent that. That´s the reason I think 1.0 turbo would have been more reasonable, or even smaller...

I know that´s a really small engine, smart size, but technology evolves and to keep same power level without artificial restrictions like fuel flow limits, the only way is reducing engine size. Then there could be a lot more freedom for the engineers

Who cares about engine size if they provide 800bhp and there´re real battles between engine departments

I'd rather see them reduce the orifice through which the engine breathes and let them design and use whatever engine the engineers deem best. Technical diversity of that sort would be an audience draw, IMHO.

[Pingguest]

With turbocharging the capacity and number of cylinders are not that determinative. However, if they would than a fuel consumption limit is unnecessary, as this piece of legislation only limits the engines power on average.

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

Size will prevent that. That´s the reason I think 1.0 turbo would have been more reasonable, or even smaller...

I know that´s a really small engine, smart size, but technology evolves and to keep same power level without artificial restrictions like fuel flow limits, the only way is reducing engine size. Then there could be a lot more freedom for the engineers

Who cares about engine size if they provide 800bhp and there´re real battles between engine departments

Eurocentrism at its best. Not to sound too picky on you mate, we are European and there's very few engines I enjoy more than a small engine giving everything and performing great

Engineering and physics however have few places for relative perceptions and government policies. There are optimal ratios and sizes for any given engineering objective about an engine. Read papers about that. When the truth comes, measures and other related bases for an engine are cold, hard and precise calculations. Engines and cars are an art as well, but engineering and physics are exact sciences at the end.

No such "ever smaller the size smaller" is ever true. For your 800 hp goal there's an actual perfect measure

Also realize how forcing a smaller measure, such as cylinder count or displacement, may as well make fuel consumption WORSE. Travel to countries were cars are forced to have small displacements like 1000 cm³ or even 800 cm³ and rent one. Besides the performance being sufferable, consumption is on par with cars where engines are 50% or even DOUBLE the size

There's a reason Americans use V8's for heavy trucks and SUV's. Agree, the way most people use them is generally debatable, but force the use of a 4 cilinder on them and the result is bad performance and fuel consumption equal to worse. And no, not even an evolved 4 cilinder will make peace with a vehicle of a 2500 kg mass

Problem with the world is that we became a political race. Technical knowledge seems to be a sin those days

Long story short, your 1000 cm³ engine would rock and be fun as f*ck as engineering and entertaining propositions. Would also use more fuel and natural resources and cash than a more adequately sized engine

[Andres125sx]

Where did I say I was looking forward fuel consumption? I want engine develpment and freedom for the engineers. That´s what F1 used to be

Can you read or you´re happy criticizing anything I say no matter if you have to invent reasonings like this one or talking about poor africans who are forced to emigrate like on the other thread?

Seriuosly, stop, now.

[McMrocks]

Sorry guys, i support a thesis that is maybe a little bit controversial. I accept if some of you have a different opinion but i believe this is true. The thesis says: "F1 has no spending problem".

Some teams are at the edge to bancrupcy- yes- so some people came up with the idea that F1 is too expensive. But if we look at the past we can see that F1 has always been expensive, and it is always going to be expensive. We had unlimited engine developement, T-cars, a unlimited number of engines per season. F1 has been way more expensive in the past.

IMO the costs are not the problem why some F1 teams are in financial troubles. The income inequality is the real problem. There is enough money in F1 that every team could afford a new engine for every session. The problem is that half of the money earned with the label Formula 1 goes to CVC Capitals. And the remaining money is distributed even more unfair.

But instead of solving the real problem the governing pack tries to do some fake-fixing. Especially those teams that benefit from the unfair distribution try to keep that policy upheld and agree to cost cutting. That way they can keep their high income and develope other parts of the car with that money.

F1's spending problem is fable. That fable is used to avoid that the real problem is fixed because that could hurt some powerful teams.