Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Power unit: only three engines per season from 2018?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Stowmarket. U.K
    Posts
    18,334

    Question Power unit: only three engines per season from 2018?

    Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault available to the freezing of parts and the use of standard parts to reduce costs

    Jean Todt and Bernie Ecclestone have been mandated by the World Council of the FIA ​​to change the rules of Formula 1 unless there is an agreement shared between the teams for the cost reduction of the power unit. In early January, the Builders will come together to discuss what should be their proposals, to avoid experience a traumatic break with the FIA ​​and FOM.

    HONDA AGAINST ABOLITION MSU-H
    After the dismissal of the standard engine by the F1 Commission, in Abu Dhabi had been raised the opportunity to maintain the existing power unit, but reducing the hybrid part. There was the desire to simplify the system, abolishing the MGU-H, that is, the motor generator that converts heat into electricity to be wasted with the turbo. The idea was stopped intransigent attitude of Honda for voice Yasuhisa Arai , head of Motorsport, said: " We have entered into Formula 1 because there was the hybrid to be developed without the electric motor would not no sense our presence. " The Japanese, in fact, financed the re-entry into the world of GP with budgets that are derived also from R & D, in the belief that research thrust of the Formula 1 could give important benefits in the great series production.

    FORMULA 1 MUST NOT BETRAY HYBRID
    Moreover, the attitude of the Japanese is perfectly in line with the new guidelines that have emerged from the international climate conference that took place in Paris where he was a new agreement between 195 nations to reduce emissions, so as to slow down global warming. Even Sergio Marchionne , President of Ferrari, in the press conference Christmas, pushed in this direction: "After all that has been done in order to reduce emissions, to hear about a return to the aspirated engine with a hybrid system less complex , is really offensive and would be a step back. The world with choices of Paris has moved forward and, therefore, also the Formula 1 has to adapt. "

    SPARE PARTS STANDARD AND FROZEN?
    Easy to say, but harder to do. What would be the main way to find a shared solution designed to reduce costs? According to advances collected by Motorsport.com, Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault would be working on three points:

    1 - freeze some parts of the power unit that now are now folded to a development "mature". 2 - define the details that can become standard with a single supply (we talk, for example, just MSU-H and dell ' MGU-K, while leaving full freedom in the management strategies of the electric motor generators). 3 - extend the life of the power unit to use only three units per driver per season. By the search for a surge in costs could force immediately, but to achieve the target using only one engine every seven GP should be taken less sophisticated materials that allow a significant reduction of costs.


    POWER UNIT AVAILABLE TO 12.15 MILLION EUROS
    It is clear that these changes would not be easily insertable in 2017 how they would like the FIA and FOM, but is more likely to materialize in 2018, leaving motorists time to define the cost-cutting ( a supply should not exceed 12.15 million euro per year) is associated with the increase in performance of four seconds a lap that would have been invoked by the entire paddock.

    NEW 'AERODYNAMIC IN 2017 AND ENGINES IN 2018?
    It would not be ruled out, therefore, that in 2017 we can only introduce the new regulation aerodynamic (the result of a combined study among the proposals brought by Red Bull Racing and FIA, while the ideas that were been put forward by Ferrari were deemed too "extreme"), leaving the adoption of the new power unit at the next championship. It will be interesting to see if you will find a convergence of intent on these points, otherwise get ready for a further period of great unrest in Formula 1 ...

    http://www.omnicorse.it/magazine/720...gione-dal-2018
    CAVALLINO RAMPANTE PER SEMPRE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Stowmarket. U.K
    Posts
    18,334
    So, the 2017 aero ideas have come about from RBR? Teams shouldnt really, i think be pushing for set of rules that would only benefit them. I know, we (Ferarri) may of done same in past, and may do again. But its wrong.
    Last edited by Rob; 16th December 2015 at 08:15.
    CAVALLINO RAMPANTE PER SEMPRE

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    16,097
    As many times before I will said it once again out loud REST IN PIECE Formula 1!

    I am glad I've been witness of some great seasons in the 80's, 90's and early 2000.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Christchurch,UK
    Posts
    4,957
    Quote Originally Posted by stefa View Post
    As many times before I will said it once again out loud REST IN PIECE Formula 1!

    I am glad I've been witness of some great seasons in the 80's, 90's and early 2000.
    Sad to hear you say this, Stefa, but I get where you're coming from, F1 seems to be at its lowest ebb for some years. Is there maybe a way to reduce some costs as suggested above, rather than having them spiral out of control when rules, regs and parameters are being fiddled with, as is so often the case with Bernie and the FIA, and those changes just add to the cost. As for teams like Toro Rosso using a 2015-spec engine in 2016, I understand the reasoning behind it, but why would TR want to be so disadvantaged and unable to get any upgrades for a whole season? None of it really makes any sense to me, and I guess that's why F1 is struggling to maintain its core fanbase.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    U.S
    Posts
    502
    This is why Bernie and Todt were given mandates. As far as i've heard, the manufacturers want to limit to 3 in order to save costs. Seems like a desperate way to keep the current hybrid engines.
    If the manufacturers were to run the sport, F1 would have died years ago. I hope Bernie can save F1 again.
    Vous resterez toujours en nos coeurs, Jules.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob View Post
    So, the 2017 aero ideas have come about from RBR? Teams shouldnt really, i think be pushing for set of rules that would only benefit them. I know, we (Ferarri) may of done same in past, and may do again. But its wrong.
    What were Ferrari's ideas that were too "extreme" ? Are they talking of the concept cars that were put out by some (RBR, Ferrari, Mercedes & now McLaren, to my knowledge)?
    That phrase "brought by Red Bull Racing and FIA" jumped right out at me, maybe I'm a little sensitised by the recent coup by Merc on the PU front.
    Forza Ferrari !
    "You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." - Juan Manuel Fangio

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    wilderness
    Posts
    1,574
    3 units for whole season.. Welcome new manufactures, this is the sport you want invest in

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    norCal
    Posts
    9,605
    I have no problem with it, really. Should be of some benefit to us-engines are what we do. Eliminate all the aero carp (allowing only ground force aero) might be a good idea, too. Let's get back to racing.

    -Lou(is)
    Forza
    Ferrari 16/15

    Totus Tuus


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    U.S
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by Tifoso View Post
    I have no problem with it, really. Should be of some benefit to us-engines are what we do. Eliminate all the aero carp (allowing only ground force aero) might be a good idea, too. Let's get back to racing.
    Vous resterez toujours en nos coeurs, Jules.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    9,864
    I wonder if things could be different if FIA owns the rights to F1 instead, and have all the revenue distributed to the teams (with FIA taking their usual share for operations etc.) IIRC, last year it was reported that somewhere about 60% of the revenue goes to the teams and FIA, while the commercial rights owner gets the rest.

    It made me wonder what kind of investment does the rights holder put back into the sport anyway. I understand that they negotiate track and broadcasting rights, but you don't need 40% of the revenue to do that. Of course they get that share as profit for being the owner of F1. But I'm curious as to what benefits does that bring to F1. Would things be different if we actually invested all the revenue back into the sport every year.

    Could be some things I couldn't see of course... just IMO.:xmasredface:

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    2,459
    But isn't 3 engines a year bad for in season development on the engine? Will it make even harder for the engine manufacturer teams to make a turn around? This sounds weird because the manufacturers are pushing it. How is this in their interest? I guess they are just desperate to keep the hybrid engines no matter the cost...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,462
    Standardizing parts and processes at the end of the day is what FOM wants in order to reduce costs. It makes no sense if you want to have manufacturer teams competing. If you want to go to an Indy style of racing with shared platforms, might as well just tell the manufacturer teams to go away and standardize the chassis design for all cars... throw in one main engine manufacturer to supply the engines and turn it into a drivers championship...

    What's that you say? It would kill F1? Of course it would and that's what FOM is doing... at this point they should just get it over with and stop wasting everyone's time so that they can destroy the series. Then it will be rebuilt appropriately with less brain dead individuals running the show...

    The solution is fairly simple really. No rules and a cap of $X amount with audited spending on an annual basis. If the small teams can't handle it, then they should reconsider being in F1. An overhaul of the profit distribution needs to also occur. If FOM wants to play Grinch and not distribute more cash, then they should stop pretending that they care about the smaller teams.
    Rest in Peace Leza, you were a true warrior...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    2,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony View Post
    Standardizing parts and processes at the end of the day is what FOM wants in order to reduce costs. It makes no sense if you want to have manufacturer teams competing. If you want to go to an Indy style of racing with shared platforms, might as well just tell the manufacturer teams to go away and standardize the chassis design for all cars... throw in one main engine manufacturer to supply the engines and turn it into a drivers championship...

    What's that you say? It would kill F1? Of course it would and that's what FOM is doing... at this point they should just get it over with and stop wasting everyone's time so that they can destroy the series. Then it will be rebuilt appropriately with less brain dead individuals running the show...

    The solution is fairly simple really. No rules and a cap of $X amount with audited spending on an annual basis. If the small teams can't handle it, then they should reconsider being in F1. An overhaul of the profit distribution needs to also occur. If FOM wants to play Grinch and not distribute more cash, then they should stop pretending that they care about the smaller teams.
    You are totally right. But, the ways of the manufacturers to battle these rules are totally wrong. In order to prevent these destructive rules by the FIA the manufacturers are proposing equally destructive rules.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    9,864
    I think the reason why we are down this path of regulating development is because no one could agree on how to enforce a budget cap. Personally, I'm not sure if that's ever going to change.

    If a team is unwilling to a budget cap, they are always going to find ways around it. And we can't blame them, because if they don't do it, their competitors would anyway. Trying to enforce it would be very difficult.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    16,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony View Post
    Standardizing parts and processes at the end of the day is what FOM wants in order to reduce costs. It makes no sense if you want to have manufacturer teams competing. If you want to go to an Indy style of racing with shared platforms, might as well just tell the manufacturer teams to go away and standardize the chassis design for all cars... throw in one main engine manufacturer to supply the engines and turn it into a drivers championship...

    What's that you say? It would kill F1? Of course it would and that's what FOM is doing... at this point they should just get it over with and stop wasting everyone's time so that they can destroy the series. Then it will be rebuilt appropriately with less brain dead individuals running the show...

    The solution is fairly simple really. No rules and a cap of $X amount with audited spending on an annual basis. If the small teams can't handle it, then they should reconsider being in F1. An overhaul of the profit distribution needs to also occur. If FOM wants to play Grinch and not distribute more cash, then they should stop pretending that they care about the smaller teams.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    30
    I know at the present moment Formula One is having a hard time, its scary as 3 power units is all we going to have to use throughout the season. Things can only get better.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Garden of England
    Posts
    1,020
    F1 is turning slowly into Formula E to appease mass manufacturers and green loons..
    Trying to be less angry..

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    2,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Singer View Post
    F1 is turning slowly into Formula E to appease mass manufacturers and green loons..
    Well, it will never be to the extent of Formula E. Hybrid is the most F1 will go. Formula E was created for a reason, and that reason is full electric Formula. No need of a second.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kitchener, CANADA
    Posts
    10,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
    Well, it will never be to the extent of Formula E. Hybrid is the most F1 will go. Formula E was created for a reason, and that reason is full electric Formula. No need of a second.
    ^this
    So 2023 started off bad, but managed to claw back some lap time come end of the year. Lets hope SF24 will give us tifosi something to smile about.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •