Red Bull made their bed, let them lie in it. This engine supply idea is a bad one, there are options for the backmarker teams now. It's not like teams on the verge of bankruptcy is anything remotely new, this has been the case through all of the past engine formulas. How many teams did we lose during the supposedly 'cheap' 2.4 v8 formula? 4? Making a 2nd lower tier of engines is not f1 and would damage the sport more than losing a backmarker team or two. What is Manor, 4 seconds off the front of the grid? That might be the closest the worst team in f1 has ever been to the front of the grid.
That was different, it was 1.5 turbos competing on merit with 3 liter atmo, once one was shown to be superior everyone switched. This isn't competing, it's 1.6 turbos with 2.2 liter 2nd tier motors that aren't going to be and aren't intended to be fully competitive.
How do we know that? Why being so negative from the outset? It's up to FIA to equalise the 2 different power units - the present 1.6 liter with complex energy recovery system, against the much simpler 2.2 liter turbo with "basic" KERS. On the later the ICE is bigger but the recovery system is less, whilst the former benefit from more energy recovered from its smaller ICE. With the 1000hp target mentioned by Ecclestone, I am sure the engineers can work at it and make both units competitive. Where there is a will, ther is a way...
Seems impossible to equalize such radically different designs IMO. Even the "backmarkers" have expressed concern over the new plan. Maybe the FIA is actually worried about oversight into Formula 1 after what happened to FIFA and Ferrari is the perfect scapegoat...Evil Ferrari and their expensive engines and veto! They are the problem...of course! A position also supported by the mental-midget Kate Walker at ESPN F1. What a joke. It is not at all unlike someone hiring a contractor to build a house to spec without discussing cost. Then when the bill comes in saying, "well this is outrageous, I won't pay it". Well then you should of had better controls in place to understand the cost.
When has everyone in F1 ever had comparable engines? You are talking about making the engine so close that it is largely irrelevant. What is the point of that? That they just focus on developing the chassis at that point? Seems like Ferrari, Merc, and Renault should be given the option to develop under the new specification as well if they so choose. Why would anyone buy their engines if they can get comparable performance out of an engine costing a 75% less?
Then there is zero incentive to built a 1.6 turbo if a much cheaper 2.2 turbo will be made to be competitive. No way the manufacturer teams allow it as it invalidates 2+ years of development.
Not really. The manufacturers WANTED the hybrid system to be "relevant" and showcase their technology; that was their incentive. If they find the new format cheaper for them, and go on adopting it, they will still keep the experience of 2+ years of development to trickle on their road cars.
...and it will likely result in a 200-500m loss (maybe more) on the books for all the R&D they did to make the 1.6L engines. Why is that their burden to bare because the FIA decided they didn't really want the engines once they found out the cost? Maybe XXXMosley shouldn't have sold the TV rights to his best-buddy Bernie for peanuts! Then they could redistribute the revenue to all the teams and they could be competitive? This is all just total crap...and I will be amazed if any other major manufacturer ever joins again if this goes through. What about Honda? LOL...they will be crushed by this.
I really think this is a huge issue right now. The elimination of FOTA and the preferential treatment of the bigger teams since is the real reason we are here... The FIA didn't hand down a set of regulations...instead, the teams came up with the general specifications that the FIA then wrote into rules. If the FIA had been in control of the process, we'd be watching turbocharged I4 engines. The (bigger) TEAMS veto'd that...because the FIA and FOM gave them the power to do so. They simultaneously removed the ability for Sauber, et.al. to do anything about anything. Six months ago, Bernie had no sympathy and pointed to their luxury suites, etc. saying they should cut some corners if F1 is too expensive. Now he suddenly needs to find a solution to the problem he has been ignoring.
How about this for a nightmare scenario for the FIA: What if Ferrari decided to ditch the 1.6 litre hybrid power unit and switch to the simpler 2.2 ~ 2.5 litre power unit (whichever the FIA decide it should be), and ended up with a superior overall package compared to the other 2.2~2.5 litre runners, whilst Mercedes on the other hand decided to stick with the 1.6 litre Hybrid power unit. Now if the FIA's equivalence ruling favours the 1.6 litre unit, Mercedes would have a big advantage over everyone else still. If the FIA changed the equivalence ruling to favour the 2.2~2.5 litre power units though, then they would hand Ferrari an advantage over all of their rivals! So if the above scenario were to take place (and it's a big if!), then F1 might not be that much better off after all! Then there's the fact that if Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Honda all decide to go with the simpler 2.2~2.5 litre power units that the FIA have said will use more fuel, instead of the 1.6 litre hybrid engines, then the FIA's ambitions to make F1 greener and more fuel efficient goes completely out of the window! Surely that would be slightly embarrassing for the FIA? - They introduce rules to make the cars more fuel efficient, and then change the rules to make them less fuel efficient again! What's the reckoning on Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Honda all looking into designing a simpler 2.2~2.5 litre power unit as well, "just in case"? I know that if I were running Ferrari, I would be seriously looking into the possibility of switching to the 2.2~2.5 litre power unit, and also the possibility of homologating both types of power unit to use throughout the season. With this new power unit idea, the FIA may have cured one problem and created a whole host of other problems for itself! - Time will tell!
This wouldn't be the first time that the FIA accommodated more than one engine type. In the '60 we saw 1.5L boosted and 3.0L N/A engines legal at the same time, with no limit on the number of cylinders. Manufacturers decided what was best and had at it; I-4, V-6, V-8, F-4, even H-16. This would be the first time that the FIA changed engines in mid-stream. Which means that, though they won't really admit it, the FIA caused a problem and maybe prepared to make another. But, things have been headed this way since 2000. Before 2000 the engine type, configuration and design was up to the manufacturers, limited only by displacement and aspiration type. Since then the FIA have decided the number of cylinders, V-angle, etc. to the point where the current formula calls out the precise valve angle. This says that some nut, or collection of nutty frustrated design engineers think they know better than all of the guys who make a living designing engines. I really would like to see the FIA go back to a simple formula that says that the only design restriction is 1.5L turbocharged or 3.0L N/A. If they want to keep costs down they could restrict the use of exotic materials. Beyond that, let the market decide what is the best design.
Everything I've read suggests that the FIA is looking for a single manufacturer to offer an alternative engine. That's it. They aren't suggesting that each manufacturer will have a choice of specification. Nor are they suggesting that anyone who wants to build an alternative spec engine can do so...again, they are looking for one supplier. IOW, Honda, Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes will be obliged to continue with the 1.6 liter single turbo...the chosen manufacturer will be the only one supplying the alternative specification.
I cannot see that being a nightmare. The aim is to have 22 or 24 cars on the grid, even if they aren't all capable to race for a win. Watching mid-field teams battling among each other is often more interesting that following the procession at the lead.
I was mainly talking about the FIA's proposed equivalence ideas between both types of engines rather than the whole "Let's make sure everyone has an engine at least!" scenario. The reason I described it as being a nightmare scenario is because, had it have worked out as I'd described, one way or another, a single team would have ended up with a big advantage over the rest of the field. People are turning their backs on F1 right now because of a single team dominating the sport and the multiple engine format could have been manipulated one way or another to continue that process. You have plenty of mid-field battles going on right now with just the 1.6 litre engines and yet still less and less people are interested in F1! Anyway, it looks like it's game over for the alternative engines now anyway: Formula One rejects alternative engine proposal - Formula 1 - Eurosport Australia
Remember Al Jr's Indy win way back when? He won with a "lessor" pushrod engine meant to be a cheaper alternative to the more complex "standard" engine. If I recall correctly, that engine was made by Mercedes, and the pushrod was allowed more boost. Do you think any of the manufacturers would not revisit this possibility again?
Thanks for the link. LOL - it already doesn't make sense though: ""The proposal will include the establishment of a minimum number of teams that a manufacturer must supply, ensuring that all teams will have access to a Power Unit." This must be an incorrect interpretation, because the math would not add up. It must be that if you don't have the minimum number of teams as an engine supplier (presumably 3?), then you are forced to sell to a team if they want your engine. Again, not sure how the FIA can force a corporation to supply an engine anymore than they can force a cost value they pull out of the air? In addition, if the PU manufacturer meets the min requirement, then they can refuse additional customers - so not everyone will actually have access to all the PUs. Just as an example though, I don't see how this gets RB anything other than access to the worst PU in Honda. Merc supplies a ton of teams with an engine not comparable to their own, and Ferrari is losing Manor to Merc, but adding Haas. Honda and Renault supply the least amount of teams currently. "Measures will also be put forward to reduce the cost of the supply of hybrid Power Units for customer teams, as well as improving their noise." That seems mutually exclusive to me. V6s do not sound great. The only way to make them sound better IMHO, is to raise the redline - which will raise costs. Just putting some fartcanon exhaust on there is not going to do anything.
Sums up today's major waste of time. F1 - useless and defeated by 2 manufacturers. Thank you to Mercedes and Ferrari for allowing no improvement to whatever F1 is now lol!
Yes, it was clever of Roger Penske to think about exploiting a loophole in the rules allowing a pushrod engine bigger capacity and more boost, and ask Mercedes to build one! I think that was only for Indy500, and not the whole championship though. The rulemakes never thought that a pushrod engine would be built just for one race; how wrong they were. Mercedes built the engine in great secrecy not to worry the opposition, and even when testing, the Penske team never said anything. Some witnesses (Andretti) noted that the engine emitted a "strange" noise. Comes Memorial Day, the cat is out of the bag, and the Penske Mercedes wins. One of the sweetest victory for the German carmaker. Guess what? The rulemakers banned the pushrod engine for the following years!!!Things never change ...
a) That may put manufacturers under obligation to supply engine against their wishes. b) That is just wishfull thinking. You cannot force a manufacturer to trade its engines at loss.
I think a lot of people are confusing F1's structure with a free market economy. Of course the FIA can write a rule saying that a manufacturer needs to supply a certain number of teams if they want to be an engine builder. The manufacturer can either comply with the rules and regulations or choose to not participate at all. IOW, they're not being forced to participate at all...but, if they want to / choose to participate they must follow the rules.
