[Tech Issue] Engine Equalisation - Are we going about this all wrong?

[Wrex]

This thread will probably be drowned with the Renault crap, but I'll give it a crack. Sorry for the long post, but this has bothered me a while and wanted to make sure I explained myself properly.

I read once again we are going to 'equalise' the engines to make it 'fair' for everyone. I have to say upfront, I was opposed to the engine freeze from the word go and remain more convinced now than before. I am against standardisation of F1 cars in any form but appreciate it is the only way we can keep some control on costs, particularly in the current financial climate.

I understand the driving force of the engine freeze was to cut costs. Wonderful idea, except all I noticed was teams that had the money put it into aero or other area's instead. Did it really save that much money?

In the mean time, much has changed in Formula One. We have more independent teams than ever before, a budget cap of sorts (can someone please show me the details of that BS agreement), and a financial crisis that is likely to see more manufactures depart rather than join. We also have new rules next year that will see fuel economy became a major factor, something the manufactures and the FIA can brag about to the eco friendly.

So I put this idea to our wonderful forum. Would we be better off removing this ridiculous engine power freeze and exchanging it for a fixed aero package (that actually assists overtaking)?

Engine Suppliers

• Manufactures can use engine success to sell cars (I think this may have be done with great success in the past)
• Keep the multiple race engines to add to the balance they must achieve between power and reliabilty
• Current and potential manufactures can remain/join in F1 in a much more cost/benefit effective way without having to start an entire team.
• Currently no benefit for Honda as an example to stay on as an engine supplier if it is identical to the Toyota unit.
• Build a successful unit that is powerful, fuel economical and reliable and success will easily transfer from F1 success to showroom.
• Engine R&D is more transferable to road cars than clever wings and defusers (Yet to see a Ferrari wing package on a road going version, but sure the engine R&D has some influence)
• Manufactures could once again dabble in F1 via engines (BMW) before making the full plunge into F1. Not possible with engine freeze.

Spicing up the show

• The average Joe cant tell the difference between a Ferrari and a McLaren except for the paintwork
• Different engines would give benefit to cars at different tracks = more potential race/team winners through the season
• Races wont be over at Turn 1. Engine A may be more powerful but wont see the benefit until the weight of the fuel comes down
• Fixed Aero (done correctly) with different engines more likely to result in overtaking than fixed engine power and double defusers.
• With no refuelling, Engine suppliers will have to balance engine power/fuel economy (weight carried) which could vary from track to track (spicing things up)

Cost Cutting

• Engines can still be limited as they are now to size, weight, displacement and materials.
• Teams spend small fortunes on Wind Tunnels and other aero work so cost cutting benefits would remain.

Constructors/Teams

• Teams can still focus on packaging, suspension and getting the right driver in the seat to gain advantage
• Easier for new teams to join the grid, knowing they don't need access to a $600 Million wind tunnel just to get started.

Sporting

• While personally I think this would result in better competition, I have no issue with a engine supplier than has a cracker engine dominating. This is what F1 is all about, pushing the limits and winning.

I have to assume this has already been thought of by the powers that be, and therefore there are valid arguments against it. So please convince me I am way off the mark here, or have a valid point.

[cptkablamo]

I have always thought F1 was going down the wrong track when they dictated 3.5 litre engines, then 3.0L V10, then 2.4 V8s, I think specing it has done the sport a huge injustice.

F1 is not meant to be 'fair' it is F1 - the top. Dog eat Dog. If you want fair, go race in F3 or A1 or something.

F1 should be about innovation. The engine and chassis regs should be opened up so we have a lot of different looking and sounding cars and something where a good idea, well executed can mean more than countless hours and millions of dollars spent perfecting the same idea everyone else has

[BootsOntheSide]

I think rules should impose limits, but only sensible ones. Things which can result in a big performance gain for a small cost should be positively encouraged, as they increase the chance of a capable team beating a rich one. One team dominating is always frustrating, especially if one driver dominates within the team, but past periods of domination have not usually been due to the engine or one specific piece of technology, more a combination of factors.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Things which can result in a big performance gain for a small cost should be positively encouraged, as they increase the chance of a capable team beating a rich one.

Any cheap performance gains are going to be found and used by all the teams (best engine configuration etc),and then the little bits of extra performance that make the difference between winning and losing will cost the millions that the "capable" but skint teams don't have.

Teams don't have to build anything any more to find out if it works or not.Oh no! You can use all sorts of computer programmes to tell you which engine configuration will give you the best power;fuel consumption;reliabilty.Consequently everyone will turn up to the first race of the new 'open' regulations with the same engine,and then spend millions on refining the concept that everyone else has used.Sound familiar?

With regard to Wrex's post.I don't think that any innovative regulations will work without the use of a proper 'budget cap'.Personally I think that F1 missed a trick by not adopting the majority of the budget cap rules.If you can't design and build an F1 car,over a season,for £40m then there's something fundamentally wrong somewhere.

We were told by FOTA (well,some teams in FOTA that may now regret their decision) that a budget cap would stifle innovation when,in fact,quite the reverse would be true.

If you can control overall costs then you can have innovation and close competition.If you allow a "Dog-eat-Dog" situation with innovative regulations then you'll end up with maybe two teams on the grid.

[cptkablamo]

If you allow a "Dog-eat-Dog" situation with innovative regulations then you'll end up with maybe two teams on the grid.

I'd counter this with - when the regs were open and FISA/FIA weren't trying to protect each team they had, they had grids of 30+...

And while computers have dulled everything down in motorsport, I still think some would go with a V8, some turbo, some with V12, some with other combinations, people could be initiative with their car and engine designs, and with the current budgets, find some new, currently unknown engine configurations

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by cptkablamo

I'd counter this with - when the regs were open and FISA/FIA weren't trying to protect each team they had, they had grids of 30+...

And while computers have dulled everything down in motorsport, I still think some would go with a V8, some turbo, some with V12, some with other combinations, people could be initiative with their car and engine designs, and with the current budgets, find some new, currently unknown engine configurations

I agree with this. Formula One is supposed to be a competition (technical as well as sporting). Imposing too many restrictions will stifle the technical progress. I think that the budget cap has to be (somehow) enforced, and then the engineers given a more free reign to do what they can. If (for example) it became more of a fueal-useage formula (as opposed to engine size specific), not only would 'the sport' be seen to bedoing the right thing for the environment, but also any lessons learned could be passed down to the road car industry giving a proper benefit for the investment.

[Armco Bender]

Put me down for one control engine,put whatever chassis you want on it and go racing.Worked for the DFV in F1 and the BDA in Formula Atlantic.

[bravo]

I'm for the here is your fuel... *thud* now make a car to run on that fuel and complete this distance around these tracks as quickas you can. You may use less fuel to lighten the car but you may not have more. If you run out... tough. If you want a v8/v10/v12 fine.

[johntt]

I would suggest an open engine/drivetrain formula with the following restrictions:

1. 800bhp limit
2. No traction control, ABS etc.
3. No fully auto boxes. i.e. when the driver flips the paddle the gear changes.

Rules like this would put a premium on either fuel economy or cost effectiveness, or the most effective combination of the two.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Any cheap performance gains are going to be found and used by all the teams (best engine configuration etc),and then the little bits of extra performance that make the difference between winning and losing will cost the millions that the "capable" but skint teams don't have.

Teams don't have to build anything any more to find out if it works or not.Oh no! You can use all sorts of computer programmes to tell you which engine configuration will give you the best power;fuel consumption;reliabilty.Consequently everyone will turn up to the first race of the new 'open' regulations with the same engine,and then spend millions on refining the concept that everyone else has used.Sound familiar?

Ironically, teams always used to find the 'ideal' package as soon as the FIA started to tighten the regulations.

More ironically, the Group C manufactures never found it despite (or in my opinion: due to) lack of tight regulations.

[ukaskew]

Originally Posted by bravo

I'm for the here is your fuel... *thud* now make a car to run on that fuel and complete this distance around these tracks as quickas you can. You may use less fuel to lighten the car but you may not have more. If you run out... tough. If you want a v8/v10/v12 fine.

I like this, with a sensible fuel limit it could really open things up in the 'innovation' department and potentially have some real viable use back in the real world, especially if they had a 5yr plan or such like where you were gradually given less fuel each season.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

More ironically, the Group C manufactures never found it despite (or in my opinion: due to) lack of tight regulations.

I might be wrong, but didn't the Group C regulations keep changing? Introduction of 'fuel economy' type race regulations after the cars (particularly Porsche) got too much power (The early cars were faster machines than F1 - which was seen as a crime!) Even now it seems there is continuous fiddling with LMP rules in an attempt to equalise open sports cars, closed sports cars, Petrol against Diesel, LMP1 against LMP2 etc etc etc.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I might be wrong, but didn't the Group C regulations keep changing?

Regarding the (lack of) engine regulations, they only lowered the fuel allowance.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Regarding the (lack of) engine regulations, they only lowered the fuel allowance.

Fair enough. But it led to 'economy runs' rather than racing and an effective overall decrease in engine power, did it not?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bravo

If you want a v8/v10/v12 fine.

V8 is light;good on fuel,but not too powerful.V12 is powerful,but heavy and thirsty.V10 is a compromise.

Back in the mid-nineties there were V8s,V10s and V12s,but it soon became clear that the V10 was the best compromise configuration.

Of course the main obstruction to any new engine development is the enormous costs involved.Something that is to be avoided if F1 is to keep a reasonable number of teams on the grid.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I agree with this. Formula One is supposed to be a competition (technical as well as sporting). Imposing too many restrictions will stifle the technical progress. I think that the budget cap has to be (somehow) enforced, and then the engineers given a more free reign to do what they can. If (for example) it became more of a fueal-useage formula (as opposed to engine size specific), not only would 'the sport' be seen to bedoing the right thing for the environment, but also any lessons learned could be passed down to the road car industry giving a proper benefit for the investment.

The situation at the befginning of the 90's was quite different.
Small specialist manufacturers like Judd and others provided power plants based on simple effective designs but they could not match the few manufacturers involved in the sport and their was a shortage of competitive power plants.
That meant small start up teams could compete with the traditional teams who were at the bottom of an engine supply cycle.

Now it is quite different and the small specialist firms could not compete because of the large financial commitments and support required.

The FIA'equalisation has put all the engine suppliers on a plateau where all engines have a reasonably effective chance of making some inroads and getting a result.
There is no way you would have had teams like Brawn, Red Bull, STR (last year) and Force India (this year) getting the results and competitive edges that have demonstrated this year under the traditional rules and ways of working.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Fair enough. But it led to 'economy runs' rather than racing and an effective overall decrease in engine power, did it not?

It should be mentioned that the electronics, including the fuel readouts were in their first stages of development at that time. Nowadays fuel consumption is limited the very same way in MotoGP and due to the electronics the races are far from 'economy runs'. Although I wouldn't necessarily oppose them: drivers should both be fast and intelligent.

[Lotusonpole]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Any cheap performance gains are going to be found and used by all the teams (best engine configuration etc),and then the little bits of extra performance that make the difference between winning and losing will cost the millions that the "capable" but skint teams don't have.

Teams don't have to build anything any more to find out if it works or not.Oh no! You can use all sorts of computer programmes to tell you which engine configuration will give you the best power;fuel consumption;reliabilty.Consequently everyone will turn up to the first race of the new 'open' regulations with the same engine,and then spend millions on refining the concept that everyone else has used.Sound familiar?

With regard to Wrex's post.I don't think that any innovative regulations will work without the use of a proper 'budget cap'.Personally I think that F1 missed a trick by not adopting the majority of the budget cap rules.If you can't design and build an F1 car,over a season,for £40m then there's something fundamentally wrong somewhere.

We were told by FOTA (well,some teams in FOTA that may now regret their decision) that a budget cap would stifle innovation when,in fact,quite the reverse would be true.

If you can control overall costs then you can have innovation and close competition.If you allow a "Dog-eat-Dog" situation with innovative regulations then you'll end up with maybe two teams on the grid.

Maybe the teams did miss something Marbot.

IMHO Have basic rules such as overall dimensions, engine capacity and any regs that have a direct influence on retaining or improving safety standards and let the teams do what they want in any area as long as the overall budget cap is not passed.

The problem is and was what the cap should be.

[F.O.F.]

hmm...I've never actually contributed to one of these tech. reg. discussions but...

Engine capacity:free
Engine design:reciprocating pistons(no wankles or turbines,etc...), maximum twelve cylinders.Aspiration free.set maximum external dimensions or internal surface areas for rads and intercoolers.
Engine weight:minimum 200kgs(assuming you can clearly define what is/isn't part of the engine).
And also keep the 8 per season thing.
Fuel:150L max per race
Aero: Development frozen during the season with two different front and rear wings (high/low speed)homologated before,say february 28th each year.clear up the loophole about the double diffusers and restrict the shape and profile of wings so they can only really change the angle.
Chassis:Tub design frozen for 3 years.

There's much,much more of course but my head starts to hurt after a while...Oh yeah,Gearboxes.set a minimum weight a little higher than whatever Minardi were using about 6 years ago.Or better yet,set a component limit within the 'box.

[Yannick]

I'm curious as to how "equal" the new Cosworth engine will be. Red Bull Racing with their Renault engines have shown this year that it can be an advantage when an engine manufacturer is allowed to update their power plant.

From this perspective, it looks like a Williams-Cosworth might be very competitive combination. But we'll see how Sir Frank decides.

[gttouring]

F.O.F. has laid out very nice ideas.
I really like the Rad size limit

how hard is it to run F1? the ideas here obviously show Ten-Tenths can do better then Bernie and Max...
silly FOA

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by gttouring

F.O.F. has laid out very nice ideas.
I really like the Rad size limit

how hard is it to run F1? the ideas here obviously show Ten-Tenths can do better then Bernie and Max...
silly FOA

It all sounds very expensive though (new engines). Which is one of the things that the FIA recently got slagged off for.

[Marbot]

A quote by Mario Theissen from todays press conference:

Theissen: "Even as an engine guy I have supported the homologation because almost everything that we have achieved in the past two or three years in terms of cost reduction came from the engine side, through homologation and the extension of engine life, so that was certainly a very important and positive step."

I think that F1 has to come to terms with the fact that not all of the teams in F1 will be interested in 'road car technology' or in having to pay more for an engine in order to cover its R&D costs.

[Pingguest]

Yep, some teams are more interested in Aerodynamics. At least it will help them not to get passed by others.

[F.O.F.]

I'm just of the opinion that they should be allowed to develop engines but for efficiency rather than outright power.Of course they were spending stupid money on engines a few years ago but you need to spend that much when you're trying to get massive power gains from an NA engine,you're totally unrestricted in the materials you use and you can chuck the whole thing in the bin after every session.Where would they spend the money if cranks,pistons,turbos or the whole unit had relatively high minimum weights specified? Or like I said,If you restrict the cooling opportunities?

On an aside,has anyone ever thought of mandating steel brake discs,thus lenghtening braking zones and making overtaking easier.Maybe they would melt after a few laps but it'd be the same for everyone.It's something I've always thought would make better racing.lap times would probably be slower than gp2 if you made that change alone but a healthy increase in power would sort that out.