Adrian Newey skeptical over 2017 rules

Newey sceptical over F1's 2017 regulation changes - Yahoo Sports

Red Bull's chief technical officer Adrian Newey does not feel that regulation changes planned for 2017 will go
far enough to shake up an "engine dominated" Formula One.

Newey has openly criticised F1's engine regulation changes in 2014 that have allowed Mercedes and Ferrari to
open up a huge advantage over Red Bull supplier Renault and Honda.

The FIA is set to bring in regulation changes for the 2017 season in a bid to make cars more aggressive and
chop around five seconds off lap times.

However, Newey remains sceptical as to whether the changes will actually level the playing field.

"For me, what's unhealthy about F1 at the moment is that it is engine dominated. The chassis regulations are
very tight, the engine regulations are very free," he told The National.

"On top of that, if you take the engines built by Mercedes or Ferrari, when they supply those engines to their
customer teams, the customers don't get the same engine - not in the software anyway. The software becomes very important now.

"So we are in this position where Mercedes have a very good, very powerful engine. Their customer teams don't
get the same specifications. So it is difficult for their customer teams to beat the Mercedes team.

"Ferrari have an engine not quite as good as the Mercedes, but still a good engine. But the same problem with
their customer teams. Honda and Renault, so far, have been quite a long way behind.

"So we are in the position where, at the moment, only a works Mercedes, and possibly a works Ferrari, win championships
and races because it is so dominated by the engine.

"I have always enjoyed rule changes because it gives fresh opportunities. The regulations have become increasingly restrictive.
If you go back to, let's say the 1970s and the 1980s, you saw this huge variety of shapes of cars because the regulations were relatively free.

"Now, if you painted all the cars white in the pit lane, you have to be quite knowledgeable to know which car is from which team.
Regulation changes give that opportunity to do something different.

"However, with the regulation changes that are being talked about for 2017, they are actually not that different to what we have now.
Slightly wider tyres. Slightly revised aerodynamics regulations. No really fundamental differences."




wah wah wah, where was Newey when Honda and Renault dominated from the mid-80's
to the late 90's, some of which HE was the recipient of (good engines)?

 

"For me, what's unhealthy about F1 at the moment is that it is engine dominated. The chassis regulations are very tight, the engine regulations are very free".... what a load of BS.

The RB did not win 4 in a row because they had the most powerful engine, they won because the chassis and aero was the most suitable on most of the tracks in that era.

 

Exactly. And if RB had the best motor, Newey would not be moaning either.

 

Newey is still feeling the hurt from the reliability issues and losing Sebastian.

Such is F1.

 

And why is the aero so regulated now? - Because every time any team comes up with an innovative concept, every other team moans/complains and demands clarifications from the FIA, as they believe the concept is either a blatant breach of the rules/open to interpretation or "not in the spirit of the rules"!

So the FIA move to resolve the complaints by restricting the areas where the aero developments have been carried out, and eventually the cars all end up looking the same!

As for the power-units, if Red Bull made their own and were in the same position as Mercedes or Ferrari then I'm sure they'd make sure their customers had the exact same spec engine to guarantee closer racing!

 

I think you are making his point for him. RB won four in a row before the current regulations came into effect.

 

Does anyone connected to RedBull in anyway do anything but whine in the press?

 

So, Newey why not just quit?

 

Maybe he can go back to Mac and get them into 15th place next year.

 

What you people fail to understand is that no one can really catch up to Merc engines because of the rules.

Newey cars (talking red bull years now) because of how good the chassis and aero where. ANYONE was able to do the same things and compete with them, but couldn't nail it. There where no real restrictions. Even so, they fought plenty of sudden rule changes in order to strangle the Red Bulls. They where NOT dominant in 2010, 2012 and only 2nd half of 2013 it was only Vettel who was dominant.

in 2014/2015 you could have made the best car aero and chassis wise, but if you didn't have a Mercedes engine (or factory Ferrari) you had no hope in hell to be a contender for podiums or wins...let alone compete for a championship. All because the regulations where so ****ing dumb that engines where barely able to develop. Mess up in your development and you're back to square one, except your used tokens are gone too, leaving you ****ed for not only the season but possibly the whole V6 1.6 TT era!

Had engines been allowed to develop more freely in 2014, we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

Forgetting the RB whining for a moment, he has a point re Chassis and Aero. They are too regulated. The original reason for much of the current regulations clamp down was to make the cars SLOWER (achieved) and CHEAPER (failed). Now, the governing body wants to make the cars FASTER, but they are going about it the wrong way through over regulation of how this is achieved via Chassis and Aero. It is absolutely true that freer regulations would see more car variation and more interesting development paths. That's all good. We need that.

As for the engine formula - it is a complete shambles. Too complicated. Too expensive. No real performance gain only some marginal efficiency gain that NO ONE in the sport really gives too hoots about. If engines are issue, then develop a spec engine and level that playing field. Works well in lots of other formulas. Or limit power output - that's easy to achieve with a simple engine formula without all the MGU-H and K BS.

 

There is an inherent conflict of interest when PU suppliers are also full teams. There is no good reason, as far as they are concerned, for them to supply the same spec engine to customers. It automatically makes F1 a two tiered series. This is why Renault is entering as a team/PU supplier. It is their only shot at being in the top three in WCC. The Renault customers will be screwed in 2016 because they will be getting inferior versions of the number three PU. Sort of makes you wonder why anybody other than Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and McLaren bother to spend the money when their PU supplier can dictate where they finish.

 

How much do Mercedes/Ferrari/Renault and Honda have to spend to design and develop PU's in order to go F1 racing?: $200Million+ per season?

And how much are the customer teams paying to get PU's to go F1 racing?: @ $20Million per season?

The likes of Williams/Red Bull/Sauber/Force India etc., want Mercedes/Ferrari/Renault and Honda to do all the expensive design/build and development work when it comes to PU's, but then expect to race on an equal footing, even though they only pay a tenth the amount on power units to go racing!

Surely if they don't like the current PU arrangements, or want to truly compete on an equal footing with Mercedes/Ferrari/Renault and Honda then they should build they're own PU's!

Ah! - But, none of them want/can afford to spend that sort of money to go F1 racing, they want to do F1 racing "on the cheap!"


It's a bit like two people going to buy brand new, identical cars at the same dealership.

The first buyer is quite wealthy and so orders all the additional options available and pays for them in addition to the original cost of the car.

The second buyer though states: "I only earn a tenth of what he does so I want the exact same additional options fitted, but I should have them at no extra cost!"

Would that be fair? - Because the second buyer has less money they get the same options all fitted for free?

That's basically what the customer teams want in F1 - They want the exact same end product, but without having to pay anything like the same amount for it!

 

But nobody whines when they are on the other side of the fence.
Newey was on a team that once dominated, and all was well, we didn't
hear him say 'we should knock off and give it up in lieu of the small teams'.

Nobody says a word when they are on top, but they chirp like hell when they are not.

The question is - and it's been the SAME question for 60 years - how do you go fast(er) than the other guy AND keep costs low? You don't.
How do you innovate speed for pennies on the dollar? You don't.

How do you regulate a GREAT series into existence? You don't.
See: IRL. It may be 'decent' racing, but it's iroc at best. Nobody wants to see that,
and the ratings show it.

 

+10,000

What some seem to want is a socialist racing society. Next thing you know, teams will be accusing each other of bullying and need safe spaces.

 

Jana, I wish I could get a participation trophy for F1 (no really)

 

Ha! Don't we all?