2017 rules / changes

That's been their Achilles heel this whole time. Their system is very advanced and very efficient, minus the cooling problem. Given their progress the last two years, I wouldn't rule them out just yet.

 

F1 is so F'ed up that they will pipe in fake engine sounds in 2018 because no one likes how they sound now.

What's the point? Why not just run a video game and tell us who won?

 

What is annoying about this discussion is that it makes it quite clear that there is more advantage to be gained at the rules negotiations than in the engine shop, wind tunnel or on the track. Not exactly how I thought it was supposed to work. It seems to me that the sport might be better off if the rules were made by an independent board not connected to the teams and/or sponsors. I had always thought that this was the FIA's function. Negotiations amongst the teams certainly could be swayed by a company supplying the best engine to the most teams. If a customer team wants to stay in the supplier's good graces, they must go along with the supplier's suggestions. It's not very hard to imagine how that works. Of course, the rules of good sportsmanship would preclude such a thing from ever happening in the pinnacle of motorsport.

 

You are correct; Ferrari for many years (Enzo, through LdM/Brawn/Todt) had themselves positioned well beyond "1st among equals" with the rest of the teams, and even within the sport.

To a great degree, they continue to have that via the commercial structures ($$) and brand value via F1 ($$, though I'd imagine declining).

To compare and exaggerate slightly, not unlike the dominance Xerox and Kodak had in their markets for a while....you can be holding a full house, but if you can't continue to play a winning hand, you're going to putter away your advantages.

Ferrari has struggled to play this game well since the end of the Brawn/Todt era. FWIW, while that time period was magical (compare to the dynasty years of the Yankees, Bulls, Steelers....etc etc), the institution itself did not evolve to maintain it's own standards.

F1 as a sport, as a business, and as an ecosystem has some severe issues. The generational element of its rules (and constraints, such as testing) sort of "bake-in" how competitive you are going to be early on, and catching up later is a lot more complex than in-season updates.

 

The fact is that F1 is a business that has to sell itself to survive.
It's a show that goes on every year, with mostly the same actors.
So, to ensure continuity of participation from the main teams, you have to make them stakeholders and give them some power in the decision making.
Which means that F1 cannot just be run by a benevolent dictator, but must get the approval of the main participants, mostly the long standing ones.

I don't always like what I see from a spectator's point of view, but when I evaluate F1 from a business angle, I understand better why they arrive at some situations.

I would say that, like most enterprise that becomes very professional and requires huge exposure to thrive, F1 is a sport victim of its own success.

 

And so we roll from one period of domination to another. Ferrari to Red Bull to Mercedes. With ever more predictability. Yet, cutting the "stakeholders" in on the rule making process has done little to keep BMW, Toyota, Honda, Renault, Renault and others in the field in the long term. With the exception of Ferrari, when the rules turn against them the stakeholders give up their stake.

 

Compared to what Mercedes has been doing lately, Ferrari has looked like the newbie in the politics game. Mercedes threatened to leave and suddenly they got a free tyre test, a blatant cheat without precedent in F1. The engine rules were designed by Mercedes. Ferrari has a right of veto that they've only used once, and rightfully because all that of the capped engine price was nonsense. They get a money bonus for their historical importance, while Red Bull gets a special bonus just for being the first one who backstabbed the rest of the teams when they were threatening to leave.

Ferrari doesn't play the politics game too hard because they know that time is on their side. While Mercedes and others are under pressure from their shareholders to win as soon as possible, Ferrari has been there forever: sooner or later the rest run out of luck or money and the game starts again.

 

I agree with that, although we don't know if Ferrari can endure another 23 years period without a title, and still stay in business (racing). We don't know either if the future of F1 will still be relevant to Ferrari (like if it goes full electric, for example).

Times have changed, and even the Scuderia feels some pressure.

 

I think letting the engines rev out to 15 or 16K as designed would make a big impact on the sound. Give them the fuel to utilize those extra revs and make more power. That to me is just a no-brainer. At that point reliability comes into play in a different way...a more legitimate way. Not so much this year but the first two years "reliability" was too much an issue and too much a result of too much-too soon technology. I think if they would have staged in some things it would have allowed teams to get on track. I mean hell... how many times was Honda not even able to start their car that first year. Way too complicated all at once.

 

I think thanks to the turbo charger any more revs just don't make much sense.

They're already not fully utilizing all revs available.

 

It's not the turbo, it's the maximum fuel flow rate that is limiting the revs - when the engines are reaching the maximum permitted fuel flow rate, and thus maximum permitted power, at 11K rpm, there is zero benefit to revving higher with the fuel flow constant. To use the higher revs allowed to make more power, the engines need a higher fuel flow rate.

 

I disagree. You have a deeper understanding of the history of the sport than I but I know competition when I see it. And I see little to none.

With your logic, there will be few new fans. I know what's going on (not as much as you) and it's boring to me.

How do you expect to attract new viewers if you can't just switch it on and enjoy the racing?

 

Exactly my point. Don't know why that's not in the mix. Having giant bugle style exhaust like they tried makes more sense than increasing power to make better noise? Personifies all that's wrong with F1 these days.

 

It would be a lot better if they ditched the fuel flow rate limit

 

Agreed! If they really wanted to spur innovation, they could stick with the maximum energy store for the race duration, i.e. The 100 kg of fuel (or whatever it is now), and allow them to use it how they like - higher peak fuel flow, energy recovery, turbo, N/A, large displacement, small displacement, KERS, in whatever combination they want. Give them XXXX kilojoules of liquid gasoline energy to work with and get to the race distance.

They could also return to genuine pump gas, rather than their pretend pump gas where the fuel providers for each team are micro-tuning the fuel mixes. Let Bernie sell the fuel rights to the series and have Esso, BP, Shell, whoever give every team the exact same fuel. That would also eliminate a lot of useless spending in the engine labs that race fans absolutely don't care about.

 

Agree 100% but I would cap it at 6 cylinder or higher. I fear we would see inline 4s otherwise

At least with the current engines, give them the 100kg but ditch the fuel flow limit. Might see some more RPMs/boost if they did that

 

I have no problems with 4 cylinders-loved that Bmw f1 engine from the 80s.

 

You are welcome to disagree, and get bored. I just gave my opinion.

 

Sound wise, the turbo acts as a muffler on the engine, because it restricts the flow of exhaust gazes.

So, people shouldn't expect turbo engines to make the same noise as atmospheric engines.

Also, turbo engines tend to operate at lower revs than atmo engines.

To increase power with an atmo engine, you raise the revs, on a turbo engine, you increase the boost.

 

Not ditch it, just raise it a bit.

The fuel flow rate limit acts in fact like a revs limiter. It's one way to cap power and force engines to be fuel efficient.

But raising the fuel rate will never increase the noise substantially on a turbo engine, if that's what you have in mind.

 

For a hybrid formula limited to 1600cc, the 4 cylinder is the ideal configuration, in terms of packaging and weight. You can put it vertically, horizontally, in-line, or across. It has minimal exhaust tracks, inlet system, etc...

A 4-cylinder hybrid engine would easily dominate hybrids V6, V8, etc...
You could even imagine a narrow-angle V4 to reduce the crankshaft length.

I couldn't understand why that configuration wasn't allowed and the V6 was imposed.

 

The original 2014 engine formula proposal was for an inline 4 cylinder. Ferrari objected and insisted on a V6.

I find it funny that people blame Mercedes for creating the new engine formula to their advantage, when it was Renault that insisted on a new 4 cylinder turbo hybrid powerplant regulation, and Ferrari that said "OK, but only if it's a V6", and Mercedes said "OK, whatever you guys want, we'll go along"

 

I welcome your post!

These days, people like so much to accuse Mercedes for deciding the current hybrid formula.

They blame Mercedes because the others cannot catch them.

ALL the engine manufacturers agree on this formula and the token system.

But now everything wrong is because of Mercedes; I am sick and tired of it ...

 

The four was proposed by Renault and Mercedes, and Ferrari were forced to compromise with them at V6. There was nothing for Ferrari to do, and they certainly didn't ask for these crap little engines. Ferrari wanted to stay with V8s

 

Well, the Brabham-BMW ultimately failed because the inline four was too tall compared to the V6. They tried to tilt it but it caused oil surge and transmission problems.

Today probably it would be better than a V6 for efficiency issues but not for packaging nor aero.