[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

As someone once said "It is all complete ******** and has nothing to do with racing".

well when the technology being used is actually forcing several of the competitors to run as slowly as they possibly can then yeah...thats not really racing for me either.

i mean yes it is technically still 'a race' but in many ways its becoming more and more like a Monty Python upper class twit of the year type race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCyr1ugzxXM

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Well the rules that have been adopted by IndyCar since 2014 work, while the rules currently employed by F1 constantly come in for criticism.

My apologies, but can you give a brief summary of IndyCar rules and how it applies to this scenario. I don’t follow IndyCar anymore.

I did a very fast Google search on IndyCar engine rules, and it looks like after you use your initial four, it impacts the engine championship by no points being awarded. I can see that working well for IndyCar where... (1) they apparently have an engine championship (2) they don’t have manufacturers who run teams (everyone is a customer of a manufacture). Neither scenario applies to F1.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Well the rules that have been adopted by IndyCar since 2014 work, while the rules currently employed by F1 constantly come in for criticism.

I forgot to mention... I am not knocking the IndyCar rules nor defending the F1 rules. I think F1 is screwed up in a multitude of ways and the power unit longevity rules is just one of them.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Imagine if Goodyear and Michelin got together and demanded incredible expensive tyres that you were only allowed 3 sets of during the year. These would be super road relevant due to the number of miles they do. They'd be incredibly expensive, and if you had a puncture then you got a grid penalty.

Man. That sounds like a stupid idea. Yet when if you replace the word tyres with engines, it's what we have.

[S griffin]

Actually tyres could in theory last a long time, but still, I see your point

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Actually tyres could in theory last a long time, but still, I see your point

Yes. So could engines. And gearboxes. And Driver shoes. And drinks bottles. And pedal sets. And front wings. And fireproof underwear. And rain lights. And everything else. Everything could last an almost infinite amount of time if you invest an insane amount of money into them, advancing the technology even further, but also throwing the price through the roof.

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. Nothing else on an F1 car is road relevant, but we seem stuck on the idea that engines have to be. And as ASCII correctly pointed out, very little on an F1 car is cutting edge technology - it's only as good as the regulations allow anyway.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Right, but we talked about that.

So what penalty do you give? Well you don't penalise the driver, because nobody likes that. So do you take away team points? That seems pretty unfair on STR. They're a team buying a product, and if that product sucks not only do they lose positions, they lose points, and therefore massive amounts of income that's tied to the constructor's championship.

Do you make it a big fine? Also seems a bit unfair. Honda make a bad engine, so STR have to pay lots of fines.

Do you make it a small fine? Seems more reasonable, but if the fine is small enough that it doesn't harm the smaller teams, then the big teams will just abuse that. If the fine is small then the big teams will swallow the fine to allow them to build an engine that has significantly more power, but needs replaced often. They won't care about the fine - that's pennies to them. So then the gap grows, and the small teams buying the engines get less reliable units.

So what exactly is the answer? I agree that the grid drop sucks. However, if we're to keep the PU limit to 4, then I'm not sure how that can be policed in any meaningful way than penalising the teams via competition methods like grid drops, or pit lane starts. Anything else that's powerful enough to be meaningful has the potential to cripple smaller teams on the basis of a badly made customer component. Anything that's less powerful will just be abused and become a different issue.

The problem isn't just the penalty, it's the entire regulation surrounding the PU limit, the cost per unit, and the inaccessibility to new engine manufacturers.

We have talked about it but what's the solution? Maybe a fine is the best way but not make it so big that it becomes unaffordable and not so small that teams abuse it and have the team and the engine manufacturer share the fine, with the majority of the fine paid by the engine manufacturer. It's not STR's fault Honda make a bad engine, so they share the fine with STR who then aren't left holding the baby.

You say if the fine is small enough, the big teams will abuse it and swallow the fine to allow them to build an engine that has significantly more power. Isn't that what engine manufacturers are trying to do anyway, build an engine that has significantly more power than their rivals?

If the problem isn't just the penalty but it's the entire regulation surrounding the PU limit, what are the current regulations?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My apologies, but can you give a brief summary of IndyCar rules and how it applies to this scenario. I don’t follow IndyCar anymore.

I did a very fast Google search on IndyCar engine rules, and it looks like after you use your initial four, it impacts the engine championship by no points being awarded. I can see that working well for IndyCar where... (1) they apparently have an engine championship (2) they don’t have manufacturers who run teams (everyone is a customer of a manufacture). Neither scenario applies to F1.

Richard

What you found by Googleing is more or less a brief summary of the rules regarding engines. Here's the link to IndyCar engine rules.

https://www.indycar.com/Fan-Info/IND...ingRegulations

True F1 doesn't have an engine manufacturer's championship, however a number of teams are are engine customers and it's the team and their driver that get clobbered by the grid penalty because of the engine. Both series have engine rules and I'm just suggesting using IndyCar's engine rules or adapting them to F1, so that the grid penalty can be eliminated.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

We have talked about it but what's the solution? Maybe a fine is the best way but not make it so big that it becomes unaffordable and not so small that teams abuse it and have the team and the engine manufacturer share the fine, with the majority of the fine paid by the engine manufacturer. It's not STR's fault Honda make a bad engine, so they share the fine with STR who then aren't left holding the baby.

You say if the fine is small enough, the big teams will abuse it and swallow the fine to allow them to build an engine that has significantly more power. Isn't that what engine manufacturers are trying to do anyway, build an engine that has significantly more power than their rivals?

If the problem isn't just the penalty but it's the entire regulation surrounding the PU limit, what are the current regulations?

Honestly, I think this is far too simple a way of looking at it.

Yes engine manufacturers are trying to build more powerful engines, but that isn't what I was saying. I was saying that if the fine for going over the PU limit is too small, then they will just increase the power significantly at the cost of reliability and replace the engine every weekend. Run the engine at 120% power and build 15 of them rather than 95% power and build 3 of them. Swallow the small meaningless fine that would barely cover a Lewis Hamilton trip to the Barber shop, increase the gap to the smaller teams by a massive margin, and possibly even sell more engines because the privateer teams need more of them since they aren't lasting as long.

So a small fine doesn't work. In fact, any kind of fine doesn't work because you're penalising teams for a supplier part failing. Imagine if we fined a team because a Pirelli tyre burst, or a Brembo brake failed. That would hardly be fair either. So realistically, the fine doesn't work in F1 like IndyCar.

Fine the engine manufacturer? I guess so, but not sure what difference that would make. Again, Mercedes would happily swallow that fine and up the performance. That would just increase the gap between the front and back runners, whilst bumping up the price of developing the engine...which is, of course, rolled back to the private teams in the form of costs per unit.

I don't have a fix for it, because there doesn't appear to be one. The IndyCar model works due to the engine manufacturers championship. That's a really good solution for that series but doesn't work in F1. But F1 has walled itself into this mess and is busy trying to create penalties and regulations to fix the problems it created.

The only meaningful way I can see of policing the PU limit is grid penalties. Everyone hates them, including me, but I can't see another way that works. The real issue here is why we need a limit on PUs, rather than the penalty associated with breaking that limit.

My solution: Cost cap the engines. Drop the hybrid system, or produce a cheaper spec one. If you want to be green that limit the amount of fuel per race as well. Cap engine sales at (for sake of discussion) $500,000 per unit. One engine per weekend. Even at 20 weekends and $10m of engines, you're still saving money. Mercedes can spend as much as they want developing it, but it has to be sold for half a million to a private team. It will make privateer budgets more sensible, and reduce the entry curve for a new manufacturer. F1 has dabbled with the idea of budget caps, but those are incredibly hard to police compared to sales caps. But this solution requires a new engine format - something F1 doesn't want to do as it's letting Mercedes and Renault write the regulations in their favour.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Honestly, I think this is far too simple a way of looking at it.

Yes engine manufacturers are trying to build more powerful engines, but that isn't what I was saying. I was saying that if the fine for going over the PU limit is too small, then they will just increase the power significantly at the cost of reliability and replace the engine every weekend. Run the engine at 120% power and build 15 of them rather than 95% power and build 3 of them. Swallow the small meaningless fine that would barely cover a Lewis Hamilton trip to the Barber shop, increase the gap to the smaller teams by a massive margin, and possibly even sell more engines because the privateer teams need more of them since they aren't lasting as long.

So a small fine doesn't work. In fact, any kind of fine doesn't work because you're penalising teams for a supplier part failing. Imagine if we fined a team because a Pirelli tyre burst, or a Brembo brake failed. That would hardly be fair either. So realistically, the fine doesn't work in F1 like IndyCar.

Fine the engine manufacturer? I guess so, but not sure what difference that would make. Again, Mercedes would happily swallow that fine and up the performance. That would just increase the gap between the front and back runners, whilst bumping up the price of developing the engine...which is, of course, rolled back to the private teams in the form of costs per unit.

I don't have a fix for it, because there doesn't appear to be one. The IndyCar model works due to the engine manufacturers championship. That's a really good solution for that series but doesn't work in F1. But F1 has walled itself into this mess and is busy trying to create penalties and regulations to fix the problems it created.

The only meaningful way I can see of policing the PU limit is grid penalties. Everyone hates them, including me, but I can't see another way that works. The real issue here is why we need a limit on PUs, rather than the penalty associated with breaking that limit.

My solution: Cost cap the engines. Drop the hybrid system, or produce a cheaper spec one. If you want to be green that limit the amount of fuel per race as well. Cap engine sales at (for sake of discussion) $500,000 per unit. One engine per weekend. Even at 20 weekends and $10m of engines, you're still saving money. Mercedes can spend as much as they want developing it, but it has to be sold for half a million to a private team. It will make privateer budgets more sensible, and reduce the entry curve for a new manufacturer. F1 has dabbled with the idea of budget caps, but those are incredibly hard to police compared to sales caps. But this solution requires a new engine format - something F1 doesn't want to do as it's letting Mercedes and Renault write the regulations in their favour.

I think the IndyCar model would work without the Manufacturer's Championship, with the penalty being imposed on the team. As it is, if the team decides to make an unapproved change-out, they and the driver incur the biggest penalty, not Chevy or Honda.

Regarding cost caps, would Mercedes want to spend as much as they can developing an engine, if it is going to be sold for a set price like half a million?

Of course it's unfair to fine a team if a supplier part fails, so why not fine Pirelli if a tyre bursts?

If there were a new engine format, what's to stop another limit on engines being imposed?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What you found by Googleing is more or less a brief summary of the rules regarding engines. Here's the link to IndyCar engine rules.

https://www.indycar.com/Fan-Info/IND...ingRegulations

True F1 doesn't have an engine manufacturer's championship, however a number of teams are are engine customers and it's the team and their driver that get clobbered by the grid penalty because of the engine. Both series have engine rules and I'm just suggesting using IndyCar's engine rules or adapting them to F1, so that the grid penalty can be eliminated.

I think the key thing is that if you want to incentivize behavior you create punishment that is targets pain points. Given the two series are structured differently in many ways, it is likely hard to apply a solution that works for one directly into the other. To the original comment of just limiting the number of produced engines, it doesn’t seem IndyCar works that way. It seems very similar to F1 in that there is a limit before penalties, but you clearly can exceed the limits. The Indy 500 might be the exception in that it sounds like it had a hard limit.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think the key thing is that if you want to incentivize behavior you create punishment that is targets pain points. Given the two series are structured differently in many ways, it is likely hard to apply a solution that works for one directly into the other. To the original comment of just limiting the number of produced engines, it doesn’t seem IndyCar works that way. It seems very similar to F1 in that there is a limit before penalties, but you clearly can exceed the limits. The Indy 500 might be the exception in that it sounds like it had a hard limit.

Richard

I agree, I don't think one set of rules can be applied directly, which is why I said they would need to be adapted. With regards to exceeding the limits, IndyCar has more leeway than F1.

[VIVA GT]

It's quite simple guys, we don't need all of these complicated rules and penalties, all we need is common sense and fair play.
Oh, hang on...................

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I think the IndyCar model would work without the Manufacturer's Championship, with the penalty being imposed on the team. As it is, if the team decides to make an unapproved change-out, they and the driver incur the biggest penalty, not Chevy or Honda.

Regarding cost caps, would Mercedes want to spend as much as they can developing an engine, if it is going to be sold for a set price like half a million?

Of course it's unfair to fine a team if a supplier part fails, so why not fine Pirelli if a tyre bursts?

I'm not following why this would work. Why is penalising the team for a customer component failure a good thing? And then you say it's unfair to fine a team if a supplier part failures? So is it a good idea to penalise the team for engine failures or not?

And no, Mercedes wouldn't want to spend a huge amount of money on an engine that was sold at a price cap. That's the entire point. By limiting the amount the engine sells for, you limit the amount of development cost being sunk into the engine, reducing the manufacturer spending, and reducing the customer costs.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If there were a new engine format, what's to stop another limit on engines being imposed?

The reason for the engine limits is the insane cost of buying a full PU. You cannot expect small teams to be able to spend £5m per engine per race. You need to ration them in an attempt to make them affordable to customers. There is a double issue with this in that you no longer have any cheap low-quality options to choose from because the barrier to entry for an engine supplier is now so high. So you have to reduce the amount of engines used to try and make sure smaller teams can afford it.

If you have an engine format where the engine costs £100k rather than £5m then suddenly those limits don't matter as much. You can raise the limit to 10-15 engines per year and still make a cost saving to the customer teams. The limit is a means to an end. It is purely designed to overcome the issue of cost. If the engines are cheap, then you no longer need to limit them.

Drinks bottles are cheap. That's why there isn't a limit on how many you can use in a season. But if drinks bottles cost £5m a go and wore out quickly, you can bet you'd suddenly have a limit on them.

[wnut]

I agree with your logic Akro, but I think that the cost per unit for the PU's should be far less generous. The Indycar units are $40 000 each. The F1 units should then be under $50 000 a unit, and put into FIA stocks from where they are issued.

If the manufacturers want to showcase expensive PU's then they must sponsor the difference between the fixed cost and there manufacturing costs. Production relevant road technology. Furthermore there should be no limit on the number of PU's the customer purchases at $50 000 each in the year.

[Akrapovic]

I'd agree with that.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Just write the rules, so that only 4, 5 engines can be built. F1 always over complicates things.

There is no reason for F1 to have bespoke engines at all in this day and age. It is simply a hang over from when road car engines were antiquated lumps of cast iron producing 50bhp per litre. These days a 1000bhp motor can be had in a road car and it could be built for under $200,000. Teams could use three a weekend and still have change from what it costs now to run three motors now.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I'm not following why this would work. Why is penalising the team for a customer component failure a good thing? And then you say it's unfair to fine a team if a supplier part failures? So is it a good idea to penalise the team for engine failures or not?

And no, Mercedes wouldn't want to spend a huge amount of money on an engine that was sold at a price cap. That's the entire point. By limiting the amount the engine sells for, you limit the amount of development cost being sunk into the engine, reducing the manufacturer spending, and reducing the customer costs.

The reason for the engine limits is the insane cost of buying a full PU. You cannot expect small teams to be able to spend £5m per engine per race. You need to ration them in an attempt to make them affordable to customers. There is a double issue with this in that you no longer have any cheap low-quality options to choose from because the barrier to entry for an engine supplier is now so high. So you have to reduce the amount of engines used to try and make sure smaller teams can afford it.

If you have an engine format where the engine costs £100k rather than £5m then suddenly those limits don't matter as much. You can raise the limit to 10-15 engines per year and still make a cost saving to the customer teams. The limit is a means to an end. It is purely designed to overcome the issue of cost. If the engines are cheap, then you no longer need to limit them.

Drinks bottles are cheap. That's why there isn't a limit on how many you can use in a season. But if drinks bottles cost £5m a go and wore out quickly, you can bet you'd suddenly have a limit on them.

No one is saying penalising a team for a customer component failure is a good thing but that's what is currently happening in F1 with grid penalties.

In the case of IndyCar, that's why they have the unapproved change-out rule, so a team is only penalised for changing an engine before reaching it's mileage threshold, not because the engine failed. The decision to make an unapproved change-out, is a team decision not the engine manufacturer's, so the team should be penalised.

Otherwise that all makes sense. However, by limiting the amount the engine sells for and therefore limiting the amount of development cost being sunk into the engine, isn't there the risk having a cheap engine but not necessarily a good engine, due to the lack of development?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Otherwise that all makes sense. However, by limiting the amount the engine sells for and therefore limiting the amount of development cost being sunk into the engine, isn't there the risk having a cheap engine but not necessarily a good engine, due to the lack of development?

Only if you dictate that the engine has to be incredibly complex and expensive to engineer. Then you risk engine manufacturers not putting enough in, for fear of not making much back in sales. However, given that 3 of the current 4 engine manufacturers are also works teams, if they want to win they may sink more into it for an advantage, whilst not creating additional costs for the teams.

The worst case scenario is that they don't sink any money into it and the engines are rubbish. However, that's when this sort of setup begins to shine. With significantly cheaper engines it massively lowers the barriers to entry, thus anyone who has a team of engineers and wants to give it a go can do so, and attempt to build a better engine. This is something that isn't possible right now due to the extreme costs. It's the free market at work - stop a couple of companies having a monopoly and then others can compete too.

With engines at a price of an IndyCar engine, you open the market to manufacturers like Gibson, Judd, AER, Cosworth, etc. It would allow companies like Mecachrome to build an engine without huge funding backing from Renault.

You do have the possibility of the situation becoming Mercedes still spending millions on their engines, and the privateers using engines that can't compete with the Mercedes. But then that's what F1 has always had - a couple of good engines, and then 10-12 Ford V8s propping up the midfield back. At least this way it means there are options, fallbacks and affordable engines - which would also mean more stable teams, and a lower barrier to entry for a new team as well.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In the case of IndyCar, that's why they have the unapproved change-out rule, so a team is only penalised for changing an engine before reaching it's mileage threshold, not because the engine failed. The decision to make an unapproved change-out, is a team decision not the engine manufacturer's, so the team should be penalised.

what happens when the engine failure is the result of driver input, or a driver using more power to win a race, or accident which is not your fault, or the result of the team not installing it properly?

parts fail for reasons beyond manufacturer error.

i fear one penalty system would be replaced with another complicated one which also has the potential for being one fraught with endless recriminations as teams, drivers, and suppliers argue about who is at fault in order to avoid penalties, fines, blame etc.

you change an engine, regardless of the reason (when outside the allotment of course), and you get a grid drop.

to be honest, im not sure it gets more simple then that.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

what happens when the engine failure is the result of driver input, or a driver using more power to win a race, or accident which is not your fault, or the result of the team not installing it properly?

parts fail for reasons beyond manufacturer error.

i fear one penalty system would be replaced with another complicated one which also has the potential for being one fraught with endless recriminations as teams, drivers, and suppliers argue about who is at fault in order to avoid penalties, fines, blame etc.

you change an engine, regardless of the reason (when outside the allotment of course), and you get a grid drop.

to be honest, im not sure it gets more simple then that.

Regarding driver input, there are rules for Operating Outside Guidelines, 16.5.7 as well for Crash Damage, 16.5.8 and also for what's called Entrant Abuse, 16.6.3

Operating Outside Guidelines and Crash Damage, come under Approved change-outs, so no drop in points and being sent to the back of the grid. Under Operating Outside Guidelines, the Entrant pays the Engine Manufacturer for the repair, including parts, labour and shipping costs.

Entrant Abuse is an Unapproved change-out and covers tampering with the boost control or rev limit functions, or continuing to operate the engine after being informed that a problem has occurred like overheating, with the Entrant paying the Engine Manufacturer for the repairs and any remaining mileage on the engine prior to the Entrant Abuse incident is lost.

Here's the link to the official rules, if you want to read them and engines come under section 16.
http://epaddock.indycar.com/LinkClic...%3D&portalid=0

As for parts failing for reasons beyond manufacturer error, from what I've read of the rules, there doesn't seem to be any penalties.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

There is no reason for F1 to have bespoke engines at all in this day and age. It is simply a hang over from when road car engines were antiquated lumps of cast iron producing 50bhp per litre. These days a 1000bhp motor can be had in a road car and it could be built for under $200,000.

Under $20,000.

But for reliability you will probaby want to pair your heavily boosted Toyota 2JZ or Chevrolet LS7 or Subaru EJ257 or similar with a racing gearbox costing another $20,000.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Under $20,000.

But for reliability you will probaby want to pair your heavily boosted Toyota 2JZ or Chevrolet LS7 or Subaru EJ257 or similar with a racing gearbox costing another $20,000.

I used 200K as a figure because F1 will want to throw some real engineering at it and not done in a back yard workshop with a blue printed water dyno. Any European performance V6/8 could be persuaded to produce 1000hp for small change compared to what is used now. It won't happen as it would not be exotic enough "for the fans".

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

I used 200K as a figure because F1 will want to throw some real engineering at it and not done in a back yard workshop with a blue printed water dyno. Any European performance V6/8 could be persuaded to produce 1000hp for small change compared to what is used now. It won't happen as it would not be exotic enough "for the fans".

I really love being told what I am thinking by the powers that be:

It won't happen as it would not be exotic enough "for the fans"

1st off the 2.2 litre Indycar engine for $43 000 is a proper racing engine and would with more boost happily produce 1000 hp.

2nd I would love to see a member vote as to whether they would rather see racing limited to three $8 million each PU's or better racing with as many $43 000 each 2.2 engines as the entrant wishes to use. I know my vote is for the latter.

Perhaps a Mod would like to institute a pole of the members - I would love to see the result.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by wnut

I really love being told what I am thinking by the powers that be:

It won't happen as it would not be exotic enough "for the fans"

1st off the 2.2 litre Indycar engine for $43 000 is a proper racing engine and would with more boost happily produce 1000 hp.

2nd I would love to see a member vote as to whether they would rather see racing limited to three $8 million each PU's or better racing with as many $43 000 each 2.2 engines as the entrant wishes to use. I know my vote is for the latter.

Perhaps a Mod would like to institute a pole of the members - I would love to see the result.

I second the Indycar engine suggestion. It would be a great commonsense idea.

If they reduced the power to 700hp that would be good too, as it would require a pairing back of the draggy high downforce levels that some F1 fans seem to hate.

These days, the F1 car is 734kg compared to the Indycar's 730 kg. I am little shocked to learn F1 cars as heavy as Indycars now. The old Indycars always seemed so lumbering compared to the svelte F1 cars of old.

The F1 car might be around 40-50kg lighter in minimum weight trim without the battery and MGUH and K, but would have to carry 50kg more fuel at the start of the race of course.