Current F1 Power Supply Units

[wnut]

Ferrari president Sergio Marchionne has branded Red Bull’s idea that it had a ‘right’ to a competitive Formula 1 engine as “offensive.”

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/1...was-offensive/

Personally I find it offensive that the engine suppliers are allowed to provide engines that are in violation of the homologation rules! Only one authorised common spec of any engine should be allowed.

[Casper]

That RB had to make that statement is the biggest problem. A two speed F1, what a good idea.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Ferrari president Sergio Marchionne has branded Red Bull’s idea that it had a ‘right’ to a competitive Formula 1 engine as “offensive.”

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/1...was-offensive/

Personally I find it offensive that the engine suppliers are allowed to provide engines that are in violation of the homologation rules! Only one authorised common spec of any engine should be allowed.

A point and a question...

1. I completely agree with Marchionne! But that is a bit of a dead horse and has been discussed to death here.

2. How are the manufactures in violation of the homologation rules? Are they in violation, or are the rules not written like you want them to be?

I have read the 2015 PSU homologation regulations (details are split between the technical and sporting regulations). And while I think I roughly understand most of it, I will admit that I can't quite understand the implications of some of the wording. For example it's easy to get hung up on Appendix 4 paragraph 2...

"A manufacturer may homologate no more than one specification of power unit."

Which on the surface would imply that there is only a single homologated spec at a single time. That would imply that all cars (regardless of team) that are using a given engine (Mercedes, Ferrari, etc.) will be identical.

But if you dive deeper into the regulations (which are much larger than that one paragraph/sentence) you see that there are a number of things that can make that not true. As I read things, I can see the following things that can allow differences...

1. A number of things are not part of the PSU homologation specs. Its worth looking at the chart (Appendix 2 in Tech Regs) to see what is explicitly listed as being included in the homologation. Some things are partially included (in some ways included and in others excluded). I would assume if it is not in the include list then it is not part of the homologation. As best as I can tell that includes... Software! It appears to not be homologated (rightly so IMHO). There are other rules that talk to what the software can and can't do, how it is versioned and also that a copy of the code must be provided to FIA. But I assume that changes can happen on a per-event basis (look at FIA documents for events and I think it lists the software versions that each team has "declared" for use during the event).
2. Other changes are allowed at any time at the discretion of the FIA and with agreement between the manufactures. This typically is for "reliability and cost", but I assume (given how it is worded) that as long as everyone is onboard just about anything can happen. And as best as I can tell... these changes are maybe considered to be equivalent with respect to overall homologation. So if you have two PSUs... one with and one without the agreed upon changes... both are considered to be "equivalent" with respect to homologation (as best as I can tell).

Given just the above (if my assumptions are correct), it seems that you can have a number of different units at play over various teams and within a given team and that seems to be how things have worked out. Add in the mix the potential for software versions that are customer specific, or even just an older spec and you can have even more differences. And I believe one of the main complaints that RBR had in their negotiations with Ferrari (at least as what was reported) was that there was no mechanism that would guarantee that RBR would get PSU software that wasn't hobbled in some way.

Also, factor in the use of tokens mid-season and the fact that teams are only allowed X number of power units during the season. So you have to have a workable way to introduce changes without forcing EVERYONE to move forward at the same time. For example, lets say that Mercedes introduced a number of improvements over the season and they were all just for "reliability". Would each team have to burn through their allocation of engines just to keep on the most recent and "single" homologated specification?

If the above is how things work then the question is, what exactly is the purpose of...

"A manufacturer may homologate no more than one specification of power unit."

I believe this is saying that any single manufacture has a single core concept that they have homologated. That they just can't submit a totally different solution and homologate that. Lets say that during initial development Honda thinks that they have a better solution than Mercedes, but to hedge their bets they also produce a Mercedes like turbo layout. So they then could homologate both solutions and run both throughout the early part of 2015 to see what actually works best in the car. Then they could split tokens between the two solutions. Why limit to just two? Homologate three or four solutions to see what works best. If you have the money homologate even more? I think that is what they don't want to happen and that is what that line is about.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Richard, I believe that you are correct in your assumption about PSU upgrades, although technically homologated, do not create a newly homologated unit.

For example, Renault took upgraded units to Mexico and Brazil for RBR to use. In the end, RBR decided to only use the new units in Ricciardo's car in Brazil, leaving Kyatt with the older unit.

This has been the problem in F1 (and in other series as well) for far too long; the regulations are often much too woolly and badly phrased. There are some that will say that it is done intentionally to allow the teams "wiggle" room. The unfortunate consequence is that too often an engineer (or lawyer) will find a loophole that sucks in huge amounts of dosh only to be closed when other teams are not able to replicate, or they do costing a fortune.

[Casper]

To me the concept that a manufacturer can say to a customer we will only take your money IF you agree to accepting an inferior product is wrong. I am guessing that RB knowing that Ferrari have always acted in this way wanted them put on the spot by highlighting how they traditionally treat their customers. If the shoe was on the other foot Ferrari would do the same as they have a track record of doing the same when things do not go the way they want. Do Ferrari always act in the best interest of F1? I would say they don't and never have.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

To me the concept that a manufacturer can say to a customer we will only take your money IF you agree to accepting an inferior product is wrong. I am guessing that RB knowing that Ferrari have always acted in this way wanted them put on the spot by highlighting how they traditionally treat their customers. If the shoe was on the other foot Ferrari would do the same as they have a track record of doing the same when things do not go the way they want. Do Ferrari always act in the best interest of F1? I would say they don't and never have.

Its really supply and demand. Who is offering a premium solution that is better than what Ferrari was offering RBR? Nobody. Of course the screwed up development rules makes is hard for anyone to compete against the status quo suppliers. Lastly, while Ferrari is as guilty as anyone regarding their "looking out for #1" ways, it doesn't invalidate the ridiculous way that RBR has also acted. I may have forgotten, but I can't off hand remember Ferrari acting as badly. I think Ferrari usually just threatens to leave the sport. Anyhow, I think RBR has set a new high bar. Sorry for getting sucked back into a dead horse conversation.

Richard

[Casper]

I don't think RB did anything wrong and I am sure it was a well thought out strategy to highlight what the two dominant PU suppliers were all about and that is to keep everyone else off the podium where possible and If BE was not part of that campaign I would be very very surprised. I cheer them all the way for having done that and I wish they had done it louder and longer and perhaps in more direct language that left no one in any doubt what was going on. We will hear more of this when the dominant manufacturers work out where they stand and their response. I think they have to some extent backed themselves into a corner with their actions and I hope it bites them hard, really hard.

[wnut]

Thanks Richard, good argument.

I would counter that this Appendix 4 would wash your argument, bar FIA and stewards interpretation which would go with your reasoning, currently outside the sporting regs it would appear.


4) Other than any parts agreed by the FIA at their absolute discretion to be solely associated with power unit installation with different teams, each manufacturer may supply only one specification of homologated power unit during any given calendar year, subject to any changes permitted by the FIA in accordance with the procedure set out in 5) below.


I would also argue that this would extend to the software run in the configuration, other than anything varied for a specific installation as above.

Perhaps force the engine manufacturer to provide the homologated source code or set up to any team they supply.

I think the FIA must decide if this is purely a power unit manufacturers championship or a racing car constructors championship.

[jmlima]

Originally Posted by wnut

...
I think the FIA must decide if this is purely a power unit manufacturers championship or a racing car constructors championship.

Neither. Its a series of advertisement slots moving around an extension of tarmac.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by jmlima

Neither. Its a series of advertisement slots moving around an extension of tarmac.

Lol....

Difficult to disagree with that!

[ASCII Man]

There is only one thing that's been bothering me about all this engine malarkey, I just wonder when and, above all, why we suddenly decided to call engines "PSU's", or "Power Supply Units"?

It's not a computer, for pete's sake!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

There is only one thing that's been bothering me about all this engine malarkey, I just wonder when and, above all, why we suddenly decided to call engines "PSU's", or "Power Supply Units"?

It's not a computer, for pete's sake!

Politically correct speech necessary to ensure we all buy into the hype of the useless hybrid system!

The insider's language of initialism and acronyms, impenetrable to people outside the club and apparently indicative of great learning.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

There is only one thing that's been bothering me about all this engine malarkey, I just wonder when and, above all, why we suddenly decided to call engines "PSU's", or "Power Supply Units"?

It's not a computer, for pete's sake!

Practicality?

While "Engine" and "Motor" are commonly used interchangeably by many, they are also frequently used to differentiate between something like a combustion "engine" and an electric "motor". F1 uses both in it's "PSU", so while it's a bit pedantic, using just the word "engine" invites confusion.

I tend to use "PSU" when talking about the entire combustion engine plus the electric motor/generator/storage system. For more granular components, I use "ICE" for the internal combustion engine and "Motor" or "Hybrid" when talking about the hybrid electric motor components. I hope nobody confuses any of this with computer power supplies!

Richard

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Practicality?

While "Engine" and "Motor" are commonly used interchangeably by many, they are also frequently used to differentiate between something like a combustion "engine" and an electric "motor". F1 uses both in it's "PSU", so while it's a bit pedantic, using just the word "engine" invites confusion.

I tend to use "PSU" when talking about the entire combustion engine plus the electric motor/generator/storage system. For more granular components, I use "ICE" for the internal combustion engine and "Motor" or "Hybrid" when talking about the hybrid electric motor components. I hope nobody confuses any of this with computer power supplies!

Richard

I hate to be pedantic but as far as I am aware the only place they are called PSU is on this forum, the rest of the world calls them Power Units (PU).

I suspect you will give me a load of links showing I'm wrong, I'm both apologetic and quite relaxed if thats the case but it's been bugging me since this thread started.

[Oldtony]

Probably Power Units is a quite accurate way of describing them and PSU just adds complication.
By the way getting rid of "useless hybrid units" probably means getting rid of the ICE and going Formula E or its equivalent in the medium term.
A return to any form of pure ICE is unsustainable even as an "entertainment only" formula with the way the world is going now.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

There is only one thing that's been bothering me about all this engine malarkey, I just wonder when and, above all, why we suddenly decided to call engines "PSU's", or "Power Supply Units"?

It's not a computer, for pete's sake!

Whatever it's called, it's pretty much become a computer.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I hate to be pedantic but as far as I am aware the only place they are called PSU is on this forum, the rest of the world calls them Power Units (PU).

I suspect you will give me a load of links showing I'm wrong, I'm both apologetic and quite relaxed if thats the case but it's been bugging me since this thread started.

No, I think you are right. The technical regulations call them Power Units. Outside of here, I think I have seen PSU used by some journalists.

Richard

[wnut]

You don't think that PSU was just derived from this thread title and fell into common usage here?

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by wnut

You don't think that PSU was just derived from this thread title and fell into common usage here?

I think it's because PU, which is pretty correct, would stink.

On another note, how much actual control do Red Bull have on their rebranded stinky Renault units?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

You don't think that PSU was just derived from this thread title and fell into common usage here?

Somewhat. However if you Google it, I think you can find it being used in some FIA document (maybe by accident) even if "Power Unit" (PU) is used much more consistently in their documents. I don't think the name/acronym PSU was invented here.

I get the bemoaning of the reduction (or loss of accuracy) of the word "engine", but I don't get the concern with PSU vs PU. Someone convince an admin to change the thread title? I will gladly use PU instead of PSU. If fact I will try do do so in the future.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wdave0

I think it's because PU, which is pretty correct, would stink.

I thought about mentioning the "stinky" aspect of PU as well.

Originally Posted by wdave0

On another note, how much actual control do Red Bull have on their rebranded stinky Renault units?

So... good question. I think an interesting part of this is the recently announced fact that Renault is bringing Mario Illien onboard as a consultant. For many this may seem old news, but the distinction is that Illien was previously brought to Renault via RBR (RBR consultant) and now he is directly affiliated with Renault (Renault consultant). I think that is significant.

I don't know how accurate it was, but a number of weeks ago there were reports about how Renault and RBR had reached an agreement around IP ownership. It has been much reported that RBR tried to (or actually did succeed in) assisting Renault with respect to PU (note that I didn't say PSU! ) development. With Illien as a RBR consultant being part of that. While it has been reported that Renault did NOT use a specific Illien based change to the cylinder design in the ICE, who knows what other ideas (Illien or RBR sourced) that they did in fact use. This may have created an IP issue given the sour relationship between the partners and that RBR toyed with the idea of doing their own engine.

I wonder if Renault has decided that maybe Illien CAN help (he is familiar with the design), but with him being a direct consultant of Renault vs. RBR that they can control the details of the arrangement. Such as... who owns any resulting IP and ultimately who is his boss! Now there is the conspiracy theory that Illien is at Renault at the request of RBR. That RBR is pulling the strings. I think that was clearly how things started, but I don't think that is what is happening now even if ultimately Illien at Renault validates RBR's approach (needing fresh ideas from outside and ultimately using the resource RBR brought to the table).

To answer your question about how much control does RBR have over Renault PU development and specifically their rebranded unit? I suspect that with respect to items that are homologated (by Renault) little if none. My argument is that Renault is now a full manufacture and they had a very sour relationship with RBR publicly so that "RBR as defacto Renault factory team" relationship is likely gone for good. Renault really doesn't need RBR as much as RBR needs Renault.

To my comments earlier about Software not being homologated, I wonder if RBR might try to do their own solution on that, but it would require a cozy relationship with Renault that doesn't exist. In short, I think to do your own software from the ground up (and to do it quickly and efficiently) would require technical support from Renault. Renault may not see any advantage to helping RBR do that. One question however... did RBR get a legal copy of the PU code as part of their IP settlement? Even if they did, future software development would require help from Renault IMHO. Things like "how hard can you push a component" can be determined experimentally by RBR, but at the expense of burning their engine allocations an taking penalties. Data on new components from Renault would be paramount. Last question... Do the rules allow for RBR to get extra engines and/or components (not for use in race cars) so RBR could push the envelope in development of non-homologated PU related items (software, etc.)

With respect to homologation, I believe that the unit RBR will be using will clearly follow the Renault homologation path (token usage, etc.) as from the FIA's perspective it will be a "Renault PU" even if it has the name of a watch on it.

Richard

[Richard C]

Sorry for multiple posts. Anyhow, this article...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122337

...makes it sound like Renault engine for RBR is really a single year solution. So why invest much in trying to develop it?

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Sorry for multiple posts. Anyhow, this article...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122337

...makes it sound like Renault engine for RBR is really a single year solution. So why invest much in trying to develop it?

Richard

Well Renault are back as a works team and if the engine is competitive, it could pave the way for potential customers in 2017.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Well Renault are back as a works team and if the engine is competitive, it could pave the way for potential customers in 2017.

You might have misunderstood me (or not). Renault will develop the PU for themselves and customers. But I don't know if RBR will have much incentive to do any of their own development to the Renault PU if they will only use it for a year.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

You might have misunderstood me (or not). Renault will develop the PU for themselves and customers. But I don't know if RBR will have much incentive to do any of their own development to the Renault PU if they will only use it for a year.

Richard

As you say they've only got the use of it for one year and I'm sure RBR would want to be competitive but I would have thought RBR's own development would be down to Renault approving it.