More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I have fond memories of the days when F1 had just one engine supplier (well, and Ferrari doing their own thing).

Me too. Ferrari doing their own thing with engines back then, never really let them get on top of things like aerodynamics and suspension.

Enzo Ferrari was quoted as saying that the only reason why aerodynamics were being used by the other teams is that no one else could make a good enough F1 engine.

One of our forum members (Pingguest) has the exact quote for his signature.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I have fond memories of the days when F1 had just one engine supplier (well, and Ferrari doing their own thing).

Good times indeed, I guess all things must pass...

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

That and perhaps the 1,000 bhp deficite they had in qualifying.

Ironically, the power output of qualifying engines were not that important. In the eighties McLaren won two consecutive constructors' titles and three consecutive drivers' titles without having a proper qualifying engine.
During the 1984 Italian Grand Prix BBC's co-commentator James Hunt quite rightly said that Niki Lauda's race weekend started at two-thirds of the race distance.

If your reason for their obsolsence is right, then it's a shame that no one thought about putting the V6 turbo engines turbos and exhaust systems between the V angle. It's not like it hadn't been done before, and Ferrari did eventually do that for its turbo engined F1 cars.

It is a common fact that the Cosworth DFV was about to become outdated in the seventies, until Colin Chapman introduced the ground effect concept. Suddenly the Cosworth DFV was the engine to have again, as its design allowed huge venturies. However, the engine became irrelevant as soon as flat-bottomed cars became standard in 1983. All teams were forced into the same direction: powerful turbo-engines.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Ironically, the power output of qualifying engines were not that important. In the eighties McLaren won two consecutive constructors' titles and three consecutive drivers' titles without having a proper qualifying engine.

It was a good car, regardless of powerplant, but would it have won those championships with a V8 NA engine? Unlikely.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It is a common fact that the Cosworth DFV was about to become outdated in the seventies, until Colin Chapman introduced the ground effect concept. Suddenly the Cosworth DFV was the engine to have again, as its design allowed huge venturies. However, the engine became irrelevant as soon as flat-bottomed cars became standard in 1983. All teams were forced into the same direction: powerful turbo-engines.

That's strange, because when the turbos were banned, that saw the return of V8, V10 and V12 engined flat-bottomed cars. These cars were also significantly quicker than the earlier turbo cars. The cars also had no restrictions with regard to engine weight, position,and centre of gravity. At that point, F1 was already getting way too expensive to compete in.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It was a good car, regardless of powerplant, but would it have won those championships with a V8 NA engine? Unlikely.

I think missed my point: with free regulation races and championship will not be decided by just one variable.

That's strange, because when the turbos were banned, that saw the return of V8, V10 and V12 engined flat-bottomed cars. These cars were also significantly quicker than the earlier turbo cars. The cars also had no restrictions with regard to engine weight, position,and centre of gravity. At that point, F1 was already getting way too expensive to compete in.

I do not believe the above answers my point either.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I think missed my point: with free regulation races and championship will not be decided by just one variable.

I cannot see free regulations being anything other than a spending competition. That's all it could be.

Unless you have some sort of budget cap to keep things sensible, the richer teams will always be happier than the poorer.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I cannot see free regulations being anything other than a spending competition. That's all it could be.

I don't think there is strong evidence for that. The budget explosion occurred together with the increasing technical restrictions, and I would argue that has favored the richer teams who can do tons of CFD, wind tunnel, four post, damper dyno, and all manner of other refinements that cost millions of dollars for a half second of lap time.

With more open rules, a really clever new idea that doesn't cost a lot can beat other, very expensive solutions.

And that's what everybody is afraid of.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

And that's what everybody is afraid of.

I agree. One very clever idea could finish F1 off, or at least see a lot of teams leave because, while they may also have had a very good idea, it was also a very expensive one. Consequently that very good idea, and the people or person that had that very good idea, will tend to follow the money.

There's also the old chestnut with regard to patents that will get in the way of things. The technology goes to the richer teams, not because it was their idea, but because they can afford to buy it and now no one else can use it except for them. How can you stop teams from buying other people ideas? Whose idea was the 90's rotary valve engine, for example, and why couldn't it be used in F1? That's why there needs to be a budget cap.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I cannot see free regulations being anything other than a spending competition. That's all it could be.

Unless you have some sort of budget cap to keep things sensible, the richer teams will always be happier than the poorer.

The stricter the rules are, the more cars tend to converge. Strict regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and the only way to win races, is to get closer to that point than your opponents.
However, the free-er the rules are, the more cars tend to diverge. Not using as much resources as possible but intelligence and creativity will the key factors.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The stricter the rules are, the more cars tend to converge. Strict regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and the only way to win races, is to get closer to that point than your opponents.
However, the free-er the rules are, the more cars tend to diverge. Not using as much resources as possible but intelligence and creativity will the key factors.

I'd agree with this to an extent but I don't necessarily think stricter rules always leads to a point of perfection.

[Kempi]

Perfection as in as good as under the set of rules possible, not necessarily the best possible in any which way.

Pingguest is right. Of course, perfection is per se not possible, nothing can be perfect. But the teams will get closer and closer to perfection of what is possible under the rules. In the end, everyone will be at that point, question just is how long does it take for each time and how much money do they spend.

[Nicholosophy]

Once upon a time the FIA set the formula and the teams that wanted to race built cars to conform to the formula. These days the FIA propose a set of rules and the teams get together and the bigger teams work out what is of advantage to them. Look at customer cars for example.

There's no scope for anyone other than the current teams to build a car and race. You can't buy a car and race it. The constructor's championship was so named because (like WRC) it was for the constructors, not the teams. Those terms can be used interchangably at the moment.

With the V6 engines for 2014 and the requirement to have more endurance-style parts it is a shame that some of the WEC enduro teams can't go buy a chassis, stick their Turbo V6 in and go racing.

[formerf1champ]

On the coverage over here, there was a question asked by Alan Jones to Tom Clarkson is Newey leaving F1 next year? They answered that there was talk that Newey doesn't like these rules, where the engine will be the most significant factor in performance. Has anyone come across this? If it's correct, it's pretty soft from Newey.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

On the coverage over here, there was a question asked by Alan Jones to Tom Clarkson is Newey leaving F1 next year? They answered that there was talk that Newey doesn't like these rules, where the engine will be the most significant factor in performance. Has anyone come across this? If it's correct, it's pretty soft from Newey.

http://translate.google.com/translat...m-de-2014.html

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Not using as much resources as possible but intelligence and creativity will the key factors.

The point is that "intelligence and creativity" can be bought by the highest bidder.

Everyone knows where it is and how much it is, but only a few can buy it, or have the necessary cash to buy the patent rights for such "intelligence and creativity".

If, for example, Ferrari legitimately bought the ultimate F1 'holy grail', or the patent rights to it, rather than having had the 'TEAM' come up with the idea themselves, is that fair? and if not, how can we stop teams from buying other peoples ideas?

[Kempi]

Patents are pretty much a non-factor in F1. Teams want to use innovation quickly. However, it takes well over 1 year, most times at least 2 to 3 to have a patent issued by the patent offices. Then you have the different protection in different countries. And you want to keep your good ideas secret until the patent is issued. That is hard to do if you put it on your car.

If you actually manage to keep it a secret, you do not want to register a patent at all since by doing so, you publish your secret.

So, patents are nothing that is of value in F1. Innovation and speed of innovation is.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Kempi

Patents are pretty much a non-factor in F1. Teams want to use innovation quickly. However, it takes well over 1 year, most times at least 2 to 3 to have a patent issued by the patent offices. Then you have the different protection in different countries. And you want to keep your good ideas secret until the patent is issued. That is hard to do if you put it on your car.

If you actually manage to keep it a secret, you do not want to register a patent at all since by doing so, you publish your secret.

So, patents are nothing that is of value in F1. Innovation and speed of innovation is.

I can't see patents should be a problem, you simply enshrine in the rules that you cannot use any patented technology unless it is available for license on reasonable terms to all the teams - job done.

[Hesketh]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I think we need an important distinction here:
Noise = Something that can be unpleasant and hurtful.
Sound = Something that can be beautiful and tuneful.

Racing cars should not necessarily be noisy, but they should sound nice...

Agreed, but some kind of music demands to be played LOUD!

[Kempi]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I can't see patents should be a problem, you simply enshrine in the rules that you cannot use any patented technology unless it is available for license on reasonable terms to all the teams - job done.

That would make patents even more a non-factor: not only would teams have to wait to put their innovation in play, they would have to give it to all other teams at the same time. Why would they want to do that?

No, patents are a non-factor because there is no use for them in F1: people simply put their innovation into the car and hope they are far enough ahead in development that it helps them. If it is copied afterwards, so be it.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Kempi

That would make patents even more a non-factor: not only would teams have to wait to put their innovation in play, they would have to give it to all other teams at the same time. Why would they want to do that?

No, patents are a non-factor because there is no use for them in F1: people simply put their innovation into the car and hope they are far enough ahead in development that it helps them. If it is copied afterwards, so be it.

I think we are on the same side of the debate, I am suggesting the rule not to make patents useful but to make them irrelevant.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Kempi

So, patents are nothing that is of value in F1. Innovation and speed of innovation is.

Maybe. But what are we doing about a teams ability to out-source its "intelligence and creativity"?

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I can't see patents should be a problem, you simply enshrine in the rules that you cannot use any patented technology unless it is available for license on reasonable terms to all the teams - job done.

I think that Pingguest would object to that on the grounds that it would eventually lead to teams converging on just one solution.

Originally Posted by Kempi

If it is copied afterwards, so be it.

Going back to the rotary valve engine that was going to be used in the early 90's. The reason that it couldn't be used was because the technology was patented and even though other engine manufacturers knew how the technology worked, the objection was that they couldn't use it while a patent was still in place and therefore it was banned.

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I think we are on the same side of the debate, I am suggesting the rule not to make patents useful but to make them irrelevant.

I never really thought that patents would be the most difficult problem to solve. The most difficult problem to solve would be the use of out-sourced unpatented technology that buys you a couple of tenths lap time for around $10 million. Teams that are already 5 or 6 seconds off the pace are hardly likely to spend so much on so little, even if it has had its patent removed.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Maybe. But what are we doing about a teams ability to out-source its "intelligence and creativity"?

I never really thought that patents would be the most difficult problem to solve. The most difficult problem to solve would be the use of out-sourced unpatented technology that buys you a couple of tenths lap time for around $10 million. Teams that are already 5 or 6 seconds off the pace are hardly likely to spend so much on so little, even if it has had its patent removed.

That describes exactly the difference between those who think that F1 should be some sort of carnival for the entertainment of its fans and those who believe it has a responsibility to provide an incentive and platform for scientific and technical development.

You are saying that $10 million for a technical wizard and his team is waste, but that the same amount for a driver is rational expenditure.

Sorry doesn't add up!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I never really thought that patents would be the most difficult problem to solve. The most difficult problem to solve would be the use of out-sourced unpatented technology that buys you a couple of tenths lap time for around $10 million. Teams that are already 5 or 6 seconds off the pace are hardly likely to spend so much on so little, even if it has had its patent removed.

A team can't buy the trick active suspension and also the trick co-generation powerplant, and also package it into the smallest, lightest chassis (because the trick co-generation powerplant takes up more space). Every team has to choose the direction they want to go, and some approaches are mutually exclusive.

I'm totally on board with budget caps, provided they are set at a level 75%-80% of the field can raise, and the little teams will be have-nots that have to find a way to be more clever. Like F1 always was.

Say we had that, and Mercedes got it wrong and got horribly embarrassed by Williams and left the sport. Look at the sport now compared to ten years ago. Most of the big manufacturers are gone. Has the sport disappeared? Has the competition gotten worse? It looks to me like most fans are having the most fun in years! The manufacturers have always come and gone, and little teams have come and gone, and the sport lives on. The people who run these teams are competitive SOB's and if their opponents mopped the floor with them, they would just get ****ed-off and raise their game.

Or they would leave and that opens up two spots for somebody itching to participate.

Meanwhile you would have competition between cars that go like stink down the straight and suck in the turns and cars that blow by them in the turns, and then get passed on the next straight. The starting grid at Monza looks real different from the grid at Monaco.

The gearheads get to enjoy the amazing new technology and the folks there for entertainment value get to enjoy the suspense of never knowing who would do well the next week. The techno nerds would actually have a pretty good idea who would do well the next week, except the bleeding edge, underdeveloped technology wouldn't be as reliable as what we have now and the cars that seemed to have it all wrapped-up break before the finish so nobody really knows what to expect from week to week!

Fun times!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The point is that "intelligence and creativity" can be bought by the highest bidder.

Everyone knows where it is and how much it is, but only a few can buy it, or have the necessary cash to buy the patent rights for such "intelligence and creativity".

If, for example, Ferrari legitimately bought the ultimate F1 'holy grail', or the patent rights to it, rather than having had the 'TEAM' come up with the idea themselves, is that fair? and if not, how can we stop teams from buying other peoples ideas?

As intellectual property already exist and teams are already working around it - nobody is fully copying another's exact technology -, it cannot be an argument against free-er regulations.
Ironically, intellectual property is mostly a problem due to rules, even those outside the regulations: the prohibition of customer parts and chassis.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

You are saying that $10 million for a technical wizard and his team is waste, but that the same amount for a driver is rational expenditure.

Sorry doesn't add up!

No. I am saying that just one piece of out-sorced technology could cost $10. I'm not including team personnel or technical wizards.

Originally Posted by miatanut

you would have competition between cars that go like stink down the straight and suck in the turns and cars that blow by them in the turns, and then get passed on the next straight.
Fun times!

Why wouldn't a car be both good down the straights and good around the corners? That would be the goal for any team. And what would stop them from bringing a purpose built car to each circuit? They've got plenty of data from testing (there would be more testing, right?) and they'll take as many parts to each race as they can fit into as many trailers as is necessary.

You need to think more about what the unintended consequences are for more open regulations.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

As intellectual property already exist and teams are already working around it - nobody is fully copying another's exact technology -, it cannot be an argument against free-er regulations.
Ironically, intellectual property is mostly a problem due to rules, even those outside the regulations: the prohibition of customer parts and chassis.

See above.