F1 Power Units Discussion

I thought it would be better to have some more general threads for discussing subjects such as this rather than just dumping everything in the Spare Parts and race threads. Edit: If something like this already exists, please merge.

Anyway, the reason for creating this is this (frankly stupid) suggestion from Bob Fearnley:

"I think that looking at an alternative parity engine, using maybe a V8 with KERS that is much more affordable for the independent teams, has a lot of merit."

SOURCE: AUTOSPORT

Yeah great idea. Design an entirely new engine and try to equalise it to the engines used by the other teams (which all have different levels of performance), rather than using an existing, high-tech engine which can be purchased off the shelf and comes with the support of a works outfit.

Who does he think will pay for this? Does he think Mercedes are going to devote resources to building an outdated engine for them, lose out on the testing mileage that Force India would've performed on the V6, and then sell it to them for cheaper than what they're already charging. Or maybe he thinks Force India can build their own V8 for cheaper than what they pay for a Mercedes V6 and still be as competitive.

Crazy bastard!

 

Good Idea AG!

Bob is just a mouth piece for BE. I really cant imagine his team doing any better financially if they had to again change to another engine format. His job is on the line as it is with his boss having no money and no assets

 

Very pleased to see this thread. Thanks, AG. It provides a more suitable place for a comment I made a few minutes ago in a thread which seems to have wandered off its own topic.
– Actually, perhaps I should put it here anyway.
…(Goes looking…)

 

Right. Even though my comment in the Bahrain thread was in response to recent comments about the sound of the current engines () and has validity there, most of it is more relevant here.

"
…

I think it is a great shame that in a world where motorsport's zenith sees its main priority as selling itself to keep afloat, it is not possible to grant carte blanche to allow complete freedom on engine configuration. But that's how it is. It's a product of what the big audience (as opposed to the purist view more likely found in a forum) demanded. The main concern is twofold: that of keeping lap times very similar throughout the grid – because not so long ago, the public cried out for overtaking (cheap or otherwise) – which happens less with a strung out field; and utilising, pioneering and developing sustainable technologies which hold meaning beyond the environs of a track. Motorsport's political scene is balanced on a tightrope.

Two things are clear cut in my view:

• Red Bull's top brass is hypocritical. Anyone who's not just discovered F1 will know Marko and the mouthpiece in his corner make this very obvious. More than any other team in F1, they wanted (ney; pretty much demanded) the current engines.
• Complaints are far more likely to be voiced by losers.

As I've said elsewhere, and despite their investment over the years (which has already been paid back with gigantic profit), I will be quite happy when (not if) Red Bull eventually walk away. Although they modelled their F1 involvement on the questionable ethics of the old Ferrari model, they differ from the historic team in a fundamental way. Ferrari will stick around – even if financial favouritism is withdrawn – whereas Red Bull seem the motorsport equivalent of bankers looking for short-term profits who look to blame all others when the wind stops blowing their way. "

 

If it's about spectacle, as well as costs, then I'd be in favour of allowing V8's back in alongside the turbo's.

The difference in sounds may make it more appealing for the casual viewer, as all cars have sounded pretty much the same for years now because of how regulated the engine regs are.

Trouble is, there has never been much parity between turbo and non-turbo units. They have tried to do it before and it didn't work. The engine characteristics of power and torque are just too different, even allowing for massive tinkering with any KERS/hybrid systems to try and level it up a bit.

But, if a team thinks that having 'cheaper' V8's and accepting they are not going to win and just be scrapping for lower end points is enough for them, then let them have it.

What has to be avoided is a two-tier championship like they had in 1987.

 

The only real way would be fuel limits and weight. If a team used a V8 or V10, maybe an increaed weight and reduced fuel would balance out against the turbo?

 

Was tried before in 1988. The turbo's had just 150 litres of fuel, the non-turbo's had unlimited capacity. Turbo's easily won every single race that year.

 

One of the problems with trying to ensure parity between two different types of engine is that you don't know whether one engine is stronger because of better design or kinder regulations. If Cosworth came in to supply midfield teams with V8s and were able to produce a competitive engine, I'd suggest the rules are unfairly favourable to V8s. But if Cosworth were getting thrashed they'd pursue the FIA for some form of equalisation, even though most of their deficit is from lack of design talent and resources.

This is something that bugs me a little with WEC. They place different restrictions on different configurations, meaning the teams aren't all designing to the same set of rules. I'm a Toyota fan, but couldn't help but feel their success last year had more to do with the regulations restricting Audi rather than Toyota out-designing them.

They really should remove the restrictions on engine design in F1. I'd like to see limits placed on the ICE, but the hybrid part being completely open to development, with no limit placed on how much energy can be harvested, how much power can be generated and for how much of the lap it can be used.

 

AbsolutelyGlorious: 'They really should remove the restrictions on engine design in F1. I'd like to see limits placed on the ICE, but the hybrid part being completely open to development, with no limit placed on how much energy can be harvested, how much power can be generated and for how much of the lap it can be used.'

I too would love that. It does go against the 'budget cap' that keeps getting bandied about but then again it's the hybrid systems that are exciting to me. The aero isn't that interesting to me but I would love to see/read more on the nuts/bolts and electrical/electronics side of things. That is probably just me as I was trained as electronic engineer and worked on ic, turbine and jet engine development so engines and electronics are my sort of stuff

 

Any excuse to go back to the V8's, Bernie just wants rid of these engines because they don't produce the same level of noise. At the end of the day he probably feels he's losing money as a result. That's how I see it anyway.

 

I think Bernie wants to go back to the V8s because he's too deaf to hear a V6.

The sport losing fans has little or nothing to do with the noise, you only really get the full impression if you're at the circuit anyway, which is a tiny proportion of the viewing audience. If you think the V6s are too quiet at home turn your TV up.

He's reaping what he's sown in my opinion. He put the sport behind a paywall and the ratings predictably dropped. MotoGP have done the same thing, long term pain for short term gain.

 

5th engine for the season not going to be happening? http://www.grandprixtimes.com/news/display/10195?

Should at least have one extra engine they are allowed to run in practice to help give us fans a bit more of a show. C'mon Merc, grow some balls.

 

I don't see Mercedes being the sticking point here, they have nothing to loose in letting there be a 5th engine. The teams who need this the most are Red Bull and STR who are not even close to taking points off them. Red Bull could maybe threaten Ferrari and Williams. STR, I guess Sauber is the main rival there?

 

Allowing a 5th engine also enables teams to introduce their remaining tokens in not only different permutations but also different times.

 

Yeah this. Mercedes have fewer tokens remaining and a lead to defend, anything that going to allow Ferrari to potentially put performance on the car sooner is not going to be popular with them. Ferrari are also more likely to take risks with development and damage power unit components, allowing them an extra engine would make them less likely to receive penalties later on.

I don't blame Mercedes, the rules were agreed to before the start of the season, you can't change them now, it should've been done before Australia or not at all. They should change it for next year though, four engines for a season is ridiculous, it should be six or seven.

 

You can see why certain teams are looking smug. But whats the link

please log in to view this image

 

I had not realised Honda were that unreliable. I just thought they were very underpowered!!! I am shocked!!!

 

Honda's record is especially bad when you consider that each car has only started three races so far.

 

BBC reckon it's force India and Williams who are blocking it. They can't afford the extra £1.5m it would cost them.

That does beg the question as to who pays when the engines fail purely because they're ****. Surely Renault aren't charging Toro Rosso for the pleasure of a dodgy engine?

 

Entirely fair enough if they are blocking. I'm sure they can afford the extra £1.5m, certainly Williams, but if you look at BLS' table, why on earth would Williams want to pay for two engines they don't need, especially when it's going to help their rivals.

Surely the engine supplier pays for the replacement engines.