ad
Countdown to 2016 Australian Grandprix:
2016 Formula1 World Championship Calendar

Australia | Bahrain | China | Russia | Spain | Monaco | Canada | Baku | Austria | Great Britain | Hungary | Germany | Belgium | Italy | Singapore | Malaysia | Japan | USA | Mexico | Brazil | Abu Dhabi

Who Demanded Hybrids?

Talk about the Teams & Drivers

Moderators: Lyria, Mafia, Lawrence, Administrator

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Lawrence on Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:14 pm

Yea, I am not sure that one of F1s major problems is the dominance by engine manufacturers. Right now, they have four engine manufacturers for ten team. For many years it was only three. Back in the good-old-days (70s) it was often two cars with Ferrari engines and the other 20+ cars with Cosworth.

So, not sure we have a big problem here. Now, there are only four top teams in F1 (Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull), and each have their own primarily engine manufacturer (assuming Red Bull eats crow and returns to Renault), so again, I don't think we have a problem (other than cost).
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Lawrence on Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:17 pm

Sakae wrote:Mr. Ecclestone is also being quoted that he might not ask engine suppliers, but simply tell (order) them to switch.


Not only does he not have that authority.....but, he has been objecting to the new formula since at least 2011 (it was in one of the links I put below). So.....appears to be just talk. Time to put the guy out to pasture.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Sakae on Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:20 pm

I wish it would be simple as that, but I seriously doubt, and I wouldn't even know where to begin to ponder massive consequences of such decision. Having said that, I do not like strategy group any more than a next guy. One would need rather large area to draw full deterministic model to illustrate various cause&effect relationships along journey how we arrive to where we are today. Rise of engine manufacturers era did not happen in random manner, nor in vacuum. It's not going to happen, and no one is interested, unless you want to see a series with one supplier, V8 from Cosworth. It will look pretty odd on Ferrari, assuming they are still in.
Last edited by Sakae on Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Lawrence on Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:20 pm

Paolo 2 wrote:I think that F1 cars should be less technologically advanced that road cars, road cars have been fitted for decades with ABS brakes, traction control, stability control and so many other settings and electronic aides that some manufacturers are starting to sell cars that drive themselves, I don't want an F1 cars that doesn't need a driver.


Obviously, with F1 being a sport, the drivers aids need to be minimized if not eliminated all together (I think I favor the later, including for gear shifting). But.....if in 20 - 40 years from now, if most people no longer drive their cars, what is going to be the level of interest in a sport about driving?

Is F1 going to be OBE (overcome by events)?
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Paolo 2 on Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:03 pm

Lawrence wrote:Yea, I am not sure that one of F1s major problems is the dominance by engine manufacturers. Right now, they have four engine manufacturers for ten team. For many years it was only three. Back in the good-old-days (70s) it was often two cars with Ferrari engines and the other 20+ cars with Cosworth.

So, not sure we have a big problem here. Now, there are only four top teams in F1 (Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull), and each have their own primarily engine manufacturer (assuming Red Bull eats crow and returns to Renault), so again, I don't think we have a problem (other than cost).


the thing with Cosworth (and the DFV) was that anyone could buy at a relatively cheap price a good engine and either build a chassis in a shed or buy it somewhere else, no one had RBR's problems, no one risked remaining without a decent engine. Nowadays we have 4 engine manufacturers and 2 have their own team, one is getting ready for next year and the 4th has a "works" agreement with a team (said teams doesn't got bankrupt only because of the financial assistance of the engine manufacturer). Everyone else has in effect a "b" spec engine and is de facto prevented from racing the big boys (if I remember correctly no Mercedes or Ferrari customer has beaten the works teams this season).

in the end it's all about power: since Bernie has to give something to Mercedes and Ferrari (and maybe Renault) in return of them letting have their engines to some smaller teams and as a consequence keeping F1 afloat, I'm sure that he'd be very happy to have someone willing to sell an engine to anyone, it would break Ferrari and Mercedes' power
Paolo 2
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Lawrence on Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:11 pm

Paolo 2 wrote:the thing with Cosworth (and the DFV) was that anyone could buy at a relatively cheap price a good engine and either build a chassis in a shed or buy it somewhere else...


It was a nice arrangement. But I think F1 started moving away from that almost 40 years ago (with the Renault turbocharged engine).

Again, not sure we should go back.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Sakae on Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:46 pm

Would be nice to understand what a b-spec engine actually is, if it exists at all, as I think that there is no a such thing as b-spec engine. Less then ideal situation, and lot of misunderstanding how engineering and manufacturing actually works is surfacing up.

Unless you design (re: Ferrari, Mercedes, and could be new Renault) whole system from ground up fully optimized, just mounting an engine on a foreign chassis is a first compromise is whole series in sub-optimal solutions that follow, detriment to car handling, heating tires, etc. Is that a b-spec engine? No, that's b-spec solution as alternative for not building your own PU and the rest.

Moreover, new development solutions during a season aren't simply possible for whole range of practical issues to be distributed on the same time line to all in balance manner. Regulations aren't that flexible to make that happen. We see it this weekend, when RBR refused Renault's updates, because they fear grid penalties, exasperated by uncertainty, that upgrade propels them forward to be worth it, as Vettel hopes his upgrade will. Racing teams supplying engines to others is a loosing proposition and flawed concept IMO right from GETGO, regardless of any goodwill on part of a supplier. Maybe a solution is to let teams like Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari to supply only their teams, and others get Honda and Cosworth, or someone like that. Then the argument ends.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Paolo 2 on Sat Oct 24, 2015 7:22 am

Lawrence wrote:
Paolo 2 wrote:the thing with Cosworth (and the DFV) was that anyone could buy at a relatively cheap price a good engine and either build a chassis in a shed or buy it somewhere else...


It was a nice arrangement. But I think F1 started moving away from that almost 40 years ago (with the Renault turbocharged engine).

Again, not sure we should go back.


in reality we have had companies like Mecachrome selling engines to anyone interested until a few years ago, Renault did the same over many years, same as Ford, it's only recently that we have come to a situation where a few companies can impose their terms to their customers for lack of any suitable alternative
Paolo 2
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Sakae on Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:37 am

I am confused over criticism directed towards teams.

Teams sitting at the Strategy Group decision table hold 1/3 of the decision power. FiA and CVC 2/3 by equal part. I am not sure it's correct then to say that the teams ruling F1, otherwise one could ask, why CVC and FiA don't stop them if they so strongly disagree with direction taken? I am not aligned with many technical regulations now in effect, but at the same time I have hard time believing that it is one or two teams who are cooking books.
Prerequisite to any change, and IMO most unfortunate one, is requirement, that all teams must be on the same page for a change to go through. Downfall of that is for example seen with homologation freeze, because Mercedes customers protecting status quo, and I bet even if Mercedes will yield, other customers must ratify it, and result of that vote is uncertain. Question then is, where was FiA and FOM during strategy sessions when homologation was first proposed? Where were RBR and McLaren on that idea? Can anyone stand up and claim that F1 engineers are so incompetent and did not know how potentially damaging that proposal could be in first year when new technology is introduced? I seriously doubt it. They all knew how bad it is, but most likely, for whatever reasons, had their arms twisted by someone to whatever aim, however proposal was wrong. Very wrong. We can say that today.

thisisf1
Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport, reporting that Bernie Ecclestone has managed to convince FIA president Jean Todt.

Ecclestone, backed by his old sparring partner Max Mosley, has made clear that he thinks the current 1.6 litre, V6 ‘power unit’ rules are ruining F1 because they are expensive, Mercedes is dominating and car manufacturers are effectively running the sport politically.

So, for 2017, the FIA will open a tender for an independent supplier of 2.2 litre, twin-turbo V6 engines, which will be an affordable EUR 6 million and fully competitive with Mercedes.

It follows Ecclestone’s earlier plan to simply resurrect the old screaming V8s.

“It (V8) was quite simple technology compared to what we have now, so the costs were significantly lower,” Red Bull team boss Christian Horner said in Austin.

“But the machinery (the power units) that we have now, they are incredible bits of equipment. I think what we need to do is rather than look backwards, look forwards as to what should the engine develop to be for the future.

En savoir plus sur http://www.thisisf1.com/2015/10/24/fia- ... ZeFyQLj.99


Well, good luck with it. Honda, experienced with US related racing is struggling, at least for now. I am not however sure what is behind those words. Is it a suggestion to adopt IRL type engine "as is", or modify IRL engine, and add next to internal combustion engine (ICE), the motor generator unit-kinetic (MGU-K), the motor generator unit-heat (MGU-H), the energy store (ES), turbocharger (TC) - they have already, and control electronics (CE).
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Lawrence on Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:31 pm

Paolo 2 wrote:in reality we have had companies like Mecachrome selling engines to anyone interested until a few years ago, Renault did the same over many years, same as Ford, it's only recently that we have come to a situation where a few companies can impose their terms to their customers for lack of any suitable alternative


Yea, but one was hardly going to win a championship with a mechachrome.

Still, it does look like the powers-that-be are listening to you. Apparently for 2017 they are going to have $6 million twin-turbo V-6 for anyone who wants it. Does this mean that F1 is going to be using a two-engine formula?
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Willie Caja on Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:34 pm

Lawrence wrote:Obviously, with F1 being a sport, the drivers aids need to be minimized if not eliminated all together (I think I favor the later, including for gear shifting). But.....if in 20 - 40 years from now, if most people no longer drive their cars, what is going to be the level of interest in a sport about driving?

Is F1 going to be OBE (overcome by events)?

Well, we still have sailboats competitions...
And horse competitions.
Road cars are transportation. And that has its own path in techology, not necessarily linked to sports.
"Okay Fernando, we are racing Massa behind to the end."
"I love your sense of humour!"
User avatar
Willie Caja
 
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:01 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Sakae on Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:52 pm

Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Lawrence on Sun Oct 25, 2015 1:12 am

Have to agree with a lot of that article, especially the second half of it.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Sakae on Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:47 am

An attempt to transform Ferrari and Mercedes into evil twins of F1 continues. It is news to me, that Ferrari has God given competitive engine (already), 2014 struggle is forgotten, as hundreds of sleepless nights by people of Maranello working on solution is meaningless, just as 2 sec remaining deficit on Mercedes means nothing to some. But then, claiming that Vettel has equal car with Hamilton adds to his otherwise would could be considered hollow victory.

I retain however my initial assertion, that whilst situation is admittedly less than ideal, this condition wan't born in vacuum, and chickens simply came home to roost after series of questionable decisions over number of years. All, FiA , FOM, including RBR, McLaren, and Williams at Strategy Group collectively had power to stop engine development direction several years ago, but they have not, and now they can stay either in the front of mirror and perform every morning finger self-pointing act, or simply, and more practically, deal with it. My prediction is, duality of engines will not fly in what I, rightly or wrongly, perceive as flawed regulatory concept based on current business model. Before we ditch engines, or talk in diversional manner about sounds, there are some other, more urgent priorities ahead.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: Who Demanded Hybrids?

Postby Sakae on Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:35 am

Today:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121497

Wolff
"We don't want to hear anybody saying the engines are being frozen and there is no possibility to catch up.

"From our perspective it would have been against our core purpose to freeze everything simply because we have an advantage.

"The truth is it wouldn't help Formula 1 nor help us as a brand.

"So we decided to open it up, to allow complete development freedom. You can develop whatever you want.


If this gets ratified, I got my wish, and we can now look forward...
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

PreviousNext

Return to Formula One Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Copyright 1988-2011, Inside F1, Inc.