Australian Grand Prix 2015, Melbourne - Race 1/19

[Skeeter]

So if it works on the rear wing, why not apply a similar set of rules to the front?

With the current trend of following razors ("MOAR BLADES!") I think this would be a pretty sensible option. I think they were limited when they had the flap in 2009, but since then the number of elements have exploded.

I'm not sure it will save much money in the grand scheme though. Teams just divert money and effort elsewhere. Current cars are bare of winglets in comparison to 2008 machines, but the teams arent spending any less on them.

On that note, I saw a few 2007/08 cars up close the other day, I'd forgotten just how ugly they got at that stage. Id worry I'd chop a leg off trying to step into them!

 

[this_is_gav]

You know, flat out till you need more fuel and tires. It's a easy concept in fact they used to do it. But not the flat out bit.

F1 cars have very rarely been driven flat out in racing trim. There was always something they tried to save. The cars of the past were horribly unreliable, so they'd short shift and dial the engine back to preserve it and give it more chance of surviving to the end of the race. Back in the 60's you had radial tyres, which could last for multiple races, but then you they had numerous fuel pump and engine issues that stopped them racing flat out.

Back in the 80's the turbo cars never had close to enough fuel to get to the end of the race flat out. They simply weren't permitted to carry as much as they could consume, not so different to how it is now in that respect. They were apparently around 700hp down in race trim to keep the engines in one piece and the fuel consumption down. The supposed 1500hp behemoths at the height of the turbo cars were probably 1000hp down in race trim.

Tyre management started in the early 70s, even with the modest 450hp engines, and only relented with the introduction of regular pit stops, when fuel saving was already in full effect.

Flat out is seldom ever the fastest way to go racing. There'll be few races in the history of F1 where a driver has won going truly flat out for the duration of the race.

 

[deuse]

How would you make everyone drive flat out rather than drive a strategy to pit for tyres as little as possible and carry the least amount of fuel possible?

Would you mandate a number of pit stops that are safely within tyre life and fuel tank limits?

If they don't drive flat out. They will get lapped just like McLaren did on Sunday. "strategy" they won't need it.
"mandate" no need for that either. Teams already know how long a tire will last.
In my own opinion F1 needs to be simplified.

 

[Skeeter]

If they don't drive flat out. They will get lapped just like McLaren did on Sunday. "strategy" they won't need it.
"mandate" no need for that either. Teams already know how long a tire will last.
In my own opinion F1 needs to be simplified.

But what you have suggested is just the same as the rules already are, meaning for the reasons this_is_gav explains above you will just get everyone managing everything.

What would be different in your suggested scenario to now that would make teams drive flat out all race over running a strategy? Remember that extra stops for tyres and carrying extra fuel cost time.

 

[drunkenmaster]

The same could be said about Renault and to a lesser degree Ferrari last year. Mercedes must be commended for how well they ran out of the box last year, but even their customers had a difficult first day. Even a year later Renault are struggling to understand an apparently relatively unchanged engine.

Things have come a long way from the days of a block of metal with a few wires and pipes. It takes the experienced teams 2 hours plus to change a power unit, which gives you some idea of just how complex the installation is - try to picture that degree of complexity and you can begin to understand just how difficult it must be to work around and with these engines, and I'm fairly sure they're far more complex than our heads can even comprehend.

Sitting on a dyno is fine, but when you try to squeeze it inside a tightly packaged rear end you will find problems. We're talking two of the biggest and most experienced car manufacturers in the world who are struggling here, and it's not for lack of effort and I'm sure money. These things are almost impossibly complicated.

I don't think they are simple, but I think breaking down to each individual part they aren't as complex as you think. A 1.6 split v6 isn't particularly difficult to make. A electric motor is pretty basic. The complexity comes both in putting them together as a hybrid and also in managing the electrical harvesting/output for sure.

A lot of the Mclaren problems appear to be in packaging with too hot intake air on various parts of the engine. Honda's side seems to be getting their engine to work in the Mclaren hotbox chassis and problems with electrical side of the engine.

Renault wise, it's worth noting that this year is actually very different from the teams compared to last year testing and start of season.

How last year worked was pretty much the three teams spent anything from 2-3 years working on these engines to have ready for last season. They sent the engines to testing, had relatively speaking their final spec in mind and had a pretty similar engine throughout testing and into the first race of the season.

This year was significantly different, a year to make upgrades but a complex situation in which you needed to find out which upgrades currently worked best, which worked together and which might be best held back and improved before being added later in the season. So at each test the engines effectively changed, with different specs and the final spec to actually take to Australia could have been a spec never actually run in testing. Merc used the most points and it seems they used a similar spec to in testing because they were the most prepared and knew what they wanted to improve, what was ready. Ferrari took different specs to each test and it's said they kept the spec from the final test. Renault... seemingly had the most changes and also maybe have started the season with a spec never run in testing. They were late to upgrade, behind on the engine and brought in new expert advice late in the season. So they appear to have decided their upgrades weren't good enough, dropped what they could to be hopefully improved on and introduced later.

So Renault teams struggling the most with engine maps is likely because they had the newest engine in Australia with little experience of it. Horner or Newey stated they tried to revert to the simpler winter testing maps but they just weren't working either... which really does point to the fact this particular spec of engine was never run in testing. So effectively this was the first test for the engine and no wonder the Renault teams are angry at Renault. If this was really the first time this spec was run then the data should lead to decent improvements for Malaysia, and updates later in the year will likely have more impact on the Renault than any other team as they did the least to improve from last years engine.


This is also how difficult it is for Honda. Boullier has stated that Merc spent at least 3 years on the first engine, Honda spent 18 months on their engine, but Merc have also spent another year(at least) working on this seasons upgrades... Honda have been working on potential upgrades to the initial engine roughly speaking at the same time.

Considering Merc have done an exceptional job, I really can't see how another group of engineers are going to produce a brilliant engine in less than half the time. Ferrari/Renault were a year or more behind Merc and look how far behind they are. Ferrari with another year have gotten probably to around where Merc were last year... Renault haven't used all their upgrades and haven't made it as far as last years Merc. Quality engineering takes time, Honda haven't had the time, I don't think their problems are even a little bit surprising and I can't see how anything but a significantly amount of time and change will likely get them competitive.

 

[timmeh]

They need to remove all of the engine development regulations and leave the engine manufacturers free to develop however they please. It seems daft that the rules have barely changed from some age old rules when there's been a complete overhaul of the formula. It's only going to lead to people getting ****ed off and going off to watch other sports, especially after last years domination by Merc. At least when Red Bull were 'dominating' other teams had a chance here and there of winning, right now there's no chance.

I lost interest in it towards the end of last season and if it carries on like it was in Australia I probably won't bother with it and just stick to the Aussie V8s where the paddock isn't full of complete *******.

 

[Skeeter]

timmeh, how would you stop the engine development battle just being about who can spend the most? Unlimited development = unlimited cost.

The Mercedes domination is also more than just the engine. The other Mercedes teams were spread throughout the field and beaten by Ferrari and Renault engine cars.

 

[drunkenmaster]

They need to remove all of the engine development regulations and leave the engine manufacturers free to develop however they please. It seems daft that the rules have barely changed from some age old rules when there's been a complete overhaul of the formula. It's only going to lead to people getting ****ed off and going off to watch other sports, especially after last years domination by Merc. At least when Red Bull were 'dominating' other teams had a chance here and there of winning, right now there's no chance.

I lost interest in it towards the end of last season and if it carries on like it was in Australia I probably won't bother with it and just stick to the Aussie V8s where the paddock isn't full of complete *******.

Australia was crap because it's a crap track for passing, it's an interesting to watch a single lap track but in reality it's ALWAYS been a poor track. 90% of racing on it has been induced by the close walls in the more street circuit feeling parts of the track and crashes causing safety cars to bunch the grid up. Besides safety cars there is very little action here. It's a meh race and a poor season opener because it's often boring with little action and all the people who check out the first race will be bored and potentially not watch the rest of the season as a result.

Don't judge the season on Australia, ever, it's just not a good racing track.

I wish people would stop blaming the regulation. Within the current exact same regulations if Ferrari and Renault had made great engines... we'd have a close championship, it's that simple. If 2 of 3 engine makers completely screw up there is very little you can do. You can't change regulations drastically every year, it would cause insane costs and we'd have a 5 team grid, if that. Big changes in regs come few and far between with the intention that the teams can prepare for such changes.

If Mclaren, Ferrari(team and engine), Renault, RBR, had all prepared properly for 2014, which with YEARS and YEARS of advanced notice each and every one of them had the chance to... they'd all be doing better, it's that simple. Ferrari/Renault on the engine decided to take less time despite it being such a drastic change, it was stupid and ill thought out. Ferrari deemed the mgu-h unimportant and electrical energy to not be the deciding factor... they fired the engine guy and the new team have improved the engine significantly in a short space of time. The faults and who made them are pretty obvious... fire an idiot engine guy who couldn't move forward into a hybrid(and awesome) era of engines and get a better guy in and the engine improved dramatically.

Renault for all their faults have finally brought in help, but too late and that help will take time to show.

Honda have screwed the pooch even worse. Merc spent 3 years on the engine, Ferrari/Renault 2 years, which wasn't enough, all three teams have now spent an extra year on the newer engines... so Honda rushed in with 18 months of development and have the worst and most unreliable engine.

If Honda entered for 2016, but started developing at the same time they'd enter the sport with 2.5years of development time(also not making the same Ferrari 'electrical... new age rubbish, ICE all the way for me' mistake) and have been far more prepared and ready to compete.

regulations can't account for idiot teams, idiot engine manufacturers and poor engineering.

With unlimited testing/budget/whatever, aside from all the teams who would be pushed out of the sport, Ferrari would still have made their mistake and it would still have taken a year or more to fix it. Good engineering takes time, regulating it just helps them to not waste as much money getting to the same point.

 

[deuse]

But what you have suggested is just the same as the rules already are, meaning for the reasons this_is_gav explains above you will just get everyone managing everything.

What would be different in your suggested scenario to now that would make teams drive flat out all race over running a strategy? Remember that extra stops for tyres and carrying extra fuel cost time.

You don't get it. But fair enough.

Remember that extra stops for tyres and carrying extra fuel cost time

But they will all do it. So that's a moot point. " managing everything" and this is what's wrong with F1. In my opinion.
The drivers would love to drive with all this " managing everything" crap.

 

[Greboth]

You don't get it. But fair enough.


But they will all do it. So that's a moot point. " managing everything" and this is what's wrong with F1. In my opinion.
The drivers would love to drive with all this " managing everything" crap.

I don't get it either, racing flat out is not the fastest way to complete a race distance and I can't think of a time in the history of F1 it ever has been. Even back when refuelling was allowed you would hear engineers say things like a 1 stop is 10 second quicker than a 2 stop. If the quickest way was to drive flat out they they would be doing it already but it simply isn't!

 

[englishpremier]

They have 8 or was it 9 tokens to spend on upgrades. Renault have 12 tokens left. Irc merc has 7 tokens left.
Depending what it is depends how many tokens it costs.

Then some things like engine mapping doesn't cost anything.

Was the rule about being able to update engines for reliability scraped then now that we have the token system?

 

[Skeeter]

You've still not explained what you would do differently that would make everyone drive flat out all race. You just keep dodging the question.

The way I see it the only way you can make it so that the fastest way to race is balls to the wall every lap is by completely removing tyre and fuel limitations (I'm also assuming pretty solid reliability). The way to achieve this is:

Set a minimum fuel limit that means the cars won't run out of fuel no matter how hard they are driven, and give them tyres that will easily last the whole race. No pit stops.

OR

Mandate a minimum number of pit stops that breaks the race up into chunks where each chunk is in the format above so tyres never wear out, and mandate a minimum amount of fuel they must refuel with.

Allowing the teams to chose their fuel and tyre usage will allways lead to them taking a calculated optimum approach, and this will almost never be to go flat out. There's always a compromise of weight vs fuel and tyre wear vs pit stops.

If you have another solution for how to encorage flat out racing please let us know. Saying "you don't get it" isn't really much help.

 

[Glaucus]

Was the rule about being able to update engines for reliability scraped then now that we have the token system?

Nope, reliability is till free.

And it's clear why he hasn't said how he would force them to drive flat out, he thinks with pitstops they always did drive flat out, which couldn't be more wrong.

They will do the fastest race they can. That always means not going flat out as pitstops just take to long and you can't make the time up.

Just like now, most teams won't fill their tank with 100kg of fuel, as lugging that weight around and trying to go faster, results in a slower race time, than under fuelling and driving accordingly.

 

[Skeeter]

He might have some good ideas if he dropped the 4 year old "I know you are but what am I" response every time someone questions him.

But then again he did blame the 2010 to 2013 drop in viewing figures on the V6 engines, so maybe not.

 

[JUMPURS]

I don't get it either, racing flat out is not the fastest way to complete a race distance and I can't think of a time in the history of F1 it ever has been. Even back when refuelling was allowed you would hear engineers say things like a 1 stop is 10 second quicker than a 2 stop. If the quickest way was to drive flat out they they would be doing it already but it simply isn't!

Going back further than that, i'm sure i seen a documentary of Stirling Moss trying to nurse tyres home to the end of the race, going so far as to deliberately drive on the grass on corners were possible to reduce wear.

 

[Skeeter]

I'd have similar to the aero rules I've suggested, remove the existing rules totally, then just add the basics which would include material limitations, min. weight limit and a fuel allowance of the same 100KG as now.

That leaves it up to clever ingenious designers to come up with ideas rather than spending millions trying to extract the nth degree of extra performance from a design that is essentially fairly robustly tied down by rules and regulations. A fresh start could lead to a free for all on what systems they use be it Hybrid as per now or engine + turbo with the only real limiting factor being the fuel limit. Given exotic materials are banned, this essentially does limit teams to not trying to achieve silly 20,000rpm's from their engines, although I'd be ok listening to one running @19,500rpm

Something like that could work, but is it perhaps the wrong area?

The ICE engine is pretty strictly regulated, but then we don't really need that developed. There's plenty of people our there doing that already. While Glaucus can be a bit blunt regarding hybrid/electric at times, he has a point. Shouldn't the focus of the PUs now be on making the ERS better and the whole package more efficient, powerful and lighter?

How about we create a single spec V6 turbo that everyone uses, but open up ERS rules instead? "Here's a 650bhp V6 you can't change, now see how much more power you can make the car produce by bolting magic bits too it"

Under the current regs the MGUK and ES are effectively spec, which is perhaps a mistake on the FIAs part. There's no plans to open it up either which will mean the electric power is going to look pathetic in 4 or 5 years if it remains the same.

 

[JUMPURS]

It was idiocy the create a whole new power unit design and then lock it down. They should have left room for the engine to be completely redesigned till the start of this season. Then implement their token system.

 

[Skeeter]

They did.

The rules allowed about 90% of the engine to be changed over the winter. The specs are locked down, but the physical components are quite open at the moment.

 

[FrankJH]

6 retired this year. Bottas didn't get out of the garage.

.

Surely you have to start the race at the very least to be considered a retiree?

imo 4 retired and 3 DNS (irrelevant if they did or didnt do the formation lap)

Then some things like engine mapping doesn't cost anything.

Probably stupid question, but is there a huge difference between engine mappings and gearbox ratios (which to a novice could mean the same thing)

I was under the impression that all teams only got one gear ratio change during the year (maybe Im thinking of something completely different but I thought it was ratios)