F1 2014 regs
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
Soldato
Exactly, to me this is technological development. Engines have been almost an irrelevance in the sport for the last 4-5 seasons so a shake up will add back a dimension that F1 should always have provided.
yup the gearbox limitation did very little for the durability.
they break down as much as ever but now we see teams retire for no reason other than to get a free gearbox change which should not be allowed.
If a car is capable of running we want to see it running no matter where it is on the grid surely?
mclaren retiring just because they arent runnig in the points for a free gearbox change happened atleast twice this season i believe
Soldato
Glad for the new rule. As I said now means that kers failures won't be the end of the world.
kd
kd
Briefly read through
Don't like the gear ratios.
Like most of other changes
Is Drs staying as it is?
Would like kers to be bigger still
The gear ratio could really spoil racing surely? One mistake before season starts and a whole race could be hopelessly lost. I know why they are doing it but a step to far imo
Don't like the gear ratios.
Like most of other changes
Is Drs staying as it is?
Would like kers to be bigger still
The gear ratio could really spoil racing surely? One mistake before season starts and a whole race could be hopelessly lost. I know why they are doing it but a step to far imo
Soldato
Except we won't get that, will we? We'll end up with a V6, heavy restrictions in materials, layout (bore and stroke, angle of the vee, valvegear dimensions etc) and everyone will end up building virtually the same engine with the same amount of torque and the same power output and the same rev limit and if the exhaust regs are restrictive enough (and they will be) virtually the same sound
If they had a single ounce of creativity in their souls, TPTB would recognise a golden opportunity for F1 to act as a test bed and let the engine manufacturers choose their own layout within the capacity rules. Inline-4 versus V4 versus straight-6 versus V6 versus V8 versus V10 versus V12 versus something really silly like a 16 cylinder contraption. Equivalency rule for Audi to come along with a diseasel mill. Maybe something really out there like a Mazda rotary. At least then we might end up with rather more than three competitive engines on the grid of the alleged pinnacle of motorsport....
I know I've said all this many times before, but I'll re-iterate. Ferrari builds V8 and V12 road cars. So let them build a small capacity engine with one of those layouts. Renault mainly sells I4s, let them build one of those. BMW could come up with an inline six. VW could send Audi into the fray with a diesel, and Lamborghini in with a V12. Mercedes builds V6s.
I'd much rather see an arms race over engines, which may actually have a bearing on real world problems and applications, than this endless fussing over flexiwings (along with rubber nosecones now, apparently....) and diffusers and Double DR-*******-S.
It still is, but I'm not getting into that again.
@ JRS - in a world with unlimited budgets I would agree.
Last edited:
Except we won't get that, will we? We'll end up with a V6, heavy restrictions in materials, layout (bore and stroke, angle of the vee, valvegear dimensions etc) and everyone will end up building virtually the same engine with the same amount of torque and the same power output and the same rev limit and if the exhaust regs are restrictive enough (and they will be) virtually the same sound
If they had a single ounce of creativity in their souls, TPTB would recognise a golden opportunity for F1 to act as a test bed and let the engine manufacturers choose their own layout within the capacity rules. Inline-4 versus V4 versus straight-6 versus V6 versus V8 versus V10 versus V12 versus something really silly like a 16 cylinder contraption. Equivalency rule for Audi to come along with a diseasel mill. Maybe something really out there like a Mazda rotary. At least then we might end up with rather more than three competitive engines on the grid of the alleged pinnacle of motorsport....
I know I've said all this many times before, but I'll re-iterate. Ferrari builds V8 and V12 road cars. So let them build a small capacity engine with one of those layouts. Renault mainly sells I4s, let them build one of those. BMW could come up with an inline six. VW could send Audi into the fray with a diesel, and Lamborghini in with a V12. Mercedes builds V6s.
I'd much rather see an arms race over engines, which may actually have a bearing on real world problems and applications, than this endless fussing over flexiwings (along with rubber nosecones now, apparently....) and diffusers and Double DR-*******-S.
The way I see it, and budget restrictions wouldn't agree with this but give them all the same fuel pump with a maximum rate of flow, set an 18k rev limit and maximum capacity and let them do what the hell they want. Would cost 100's of millions though.
Soldato
Well, firstly it would hardly require 'unlimited' budgets. And secondly, it wouldn't be dead money - because the engines would actually be testbeds for road car technology for their respective manufacturers.
Right now Ferrari spend a good portion of their budget on aero concerns, trying to eke a drop more performance out of every little surface on the wings and trying to claw back downforce from the diffuser. This has very little bearing on anything you'll see on even fairly special road cars. There's no point in them spending serious money on the engine though, because the homologation rules stop that from being changed for the most part. Opened up engine regulations would mean that they'd actually have to start putting budget towards the engine. And that would mean that they'd need rather more than just race wins as a return for their investment. So they might think 'hmm, let's use this as a proving ground for the next generation of our road car engines, since we're currently faced with the need to decrease emissions and fuel consumption without sacrificing the power our customers have come to expect'.
Everyone would win. Manufacturers would get a great testing ground for their technology. Teams would get better engines. Fans would get some actual bloody variety on the grid. Advertising gurus would get to dust off the old 'win on Sunday, sell on Monday' motifs. And the FIA would get a series that actually has some relevance, rather than a bad tempered war over diffusers.
Sounds like a very good idea actually - pity it will never happen.
Just out of interest, as we know the engines have been a sealed unit for years now with no further developement allowed (apart from initially to improve "reliability").
Im guessing this clause has been scrapped for the first year or so of the new engine regs? Is it possible that one of the manufacturer's could hit the track with an uncompetitive engine , which cant be changed?
(Im guessing the chance of this would be muliplied 100 fold with the changes being described if different V's were allowed with different reving limits etc etc)
If the car manufacturers couldnt justify the cost of F1 when the engines were frozen what makes you think they will be able to find the budget for a competitive engine formula?
The whole grid is already complaining about the development costs of the almost standardized V6s, how do you think anyone would be able to afford the continuing costs of engines under constant development?
Its a lovely idea, but when you keep your feet on the ground and actually look at the global economy and economy of the sport you realise it simply can't happen.
Frank - I would assume there would be some sort of equivalency rulings to help out under performing engines. They aren't frozen to start with, but probubly will be after a year or 2. And your right, opening up the rules would create massive disparity, but that's OK, I'm sure nobody would complain about one team having a massive advantage and winning everything....
The whole grid is already complaining about the development costs of the almost standardized V6s, how do you think anyone would be able to afford the continuing costs of engines under constant development?
Its a lovely idea, but when you keep your feet on the ground and actually look at the global economy and economy of the sport you realise it simply can't happen.
Frank - I would assume there would be some sort of equivalency rulings to help out under performing engines. They aren't frozen to start with, but probubly will be after a year or 2. And your right, opening up the rules would create massive disparity, but that's OK, I'm sure nobody would complain about one team having a massive advantage and winning everything....
Is that done by the engine, or by the ECU and flow rates etc?
(obviously with a "frozen" engine there is only so much that can be done externally)
I was just wondering if FIA had mentioned yet how long the new engines wont be frozen for - maybe they have to see how reliable they are first. Im sure there will be a lot of "growing pains" as it were for the first year or so.
Soldato
Welcome to my point!
Sinking money into a V6 F1 engine is dead money for most manufacturers. For Ferrari, unless they win every single race and both the drivers and constructors titles, they get next-to-no trickle-down development and precious little advertising cachet since they make V8 and V12 cars for the road not V6 ones. Same goes for Audi - one of their big sellers on the road is the Audi A4 with a diesel engine up front, so what would be the point in them spending serious money on a petrol V6 Formula One engine? They can't use it to test technology, and the man in the street wouldn't see enough of a link between an Audi petrol V6 F1 engine and an Audi diesel road engine to sway his purchasing decision. BMW's current 3-Series has a turbocharged inline-4 under the bonnet, so a V6 F1 engine has very little to offer their development people or their PR agents.
Engine costs are high when it comes to developing a new mill from scratch, yes. They are made even higher by having next to no real-world relevance. They need that relevance now, because of the world economy and because of the growing awareness of environmental issues. And within the current ruleset, with layouts locked down tight to something that none of them actually make for the road, it makes much more sense for teams to spend their money on aero developments. Which is why we now have Formula 'Can We Get This Bendy Wing Surface Past The Stewards?' rather than Formula One....
The only reason the rules are locked to a pointless format nobody makes is because Ferrari and Mercedes kicked up such a fuss about the inline 4 specification... a specification that had car manufacturers from all over the globe showing real interest.
Formula 1 cannot sustain a competitive engine formula, the money just isnt there. What it can do though is be relevant enough to enough people to get a wide range of makers on the grid. However, as usual nobody could agree and we have ended up with a non competitive engine formula in a specification that has zero relevance to anyone, which is arguably a worse position. After all, is making a 1.6 V6 really any better for Ferraris image than making an inline 4?
But the solution is not to just simply throw all the rules away.
Formula 1 cannot sustain a competitive engine formula, the money just isnt there. What it can do though is be relevant enough to enough people to get a wide range of makers on the grid. However, as usual nobody could agree and we have ended up with a non competitive engine formula in a specification that has zero relevance to anyone, which is arguably a worse position. After all, is making a 1.6 V6 really any better for Ferraris image than making an inline 4?
But the solution is not to just simply throw all the rules away.
Last edited:
Soldato
And the FIA, instead of saying 'hmm, maybe these guys have a point, and opening up the regulations on engine layout could be a way to get lots of engine manufacturers on-side', chose to go with the dictionary definition of compromise - picking the solution that no-one likes
Who is suggesting that?
This is the charge that gets levelled every single time I suggest opening up the regulations. Opening up. Not de-regulating. Allowing manufacturers to do what they are good at, rather than build a standardised design that might as well have someone else's name on it.
Hell, maybe it's just me. Maybe F1 fans really do want spec racing. I'll admit, it can make for a decent spectacle when it's equal across the board and put back solely in the hands of the drivers. It'd only last for two years before the manufacturers got bored and pulled out, and there would always be the nagging voice in the back of your head telling you that this is not Formula One and something has gone seriously wrong somewhere. But at least you'd finally get to see who actually is the best driver.
Provided that the spec car suited that driver, of course.
And the spec tyre.
And that they didn't get taken out by Pastor Maldonado every weekend.
Not a lot - from what I've read, the 15krpm rev limit may well be fairly academic, as many people are expecting peak rpm a couple/few thousand rpm under this.
Soldato
Nope. Did you actually read what I typed, or did you just do the usual OcUK Motorsport trick of reading one word in five?
The money 'earned' from having a relevant engine would be massively overshadowed by the money spent on continually developing the race engine. Its taking hundreds of millions to develop the V6s. What happens when they have to spend that year on year to keep pace? Or they find their design is never going to keep up with a different specification so they have to start from scratch or be confined to the back of the grid?
What happens when Ferrari discover that the inline 4s will always out perform any V12 they make?
And what happens when someone turns up with an engine that's 3 seconds a lap faster than everyone else?
And this is assuming you get the finance departments to agree to sign off the enormous budgets to enter F1 with these regulations in the first place. Especially when half the companies you are trying to entice in have been burned once already in the last decade. The people high up who you would need to convince to sign the hundred million pound cheques are going to be the very same people who stopped signing them ~5 years ago.
No, the best (or least worst) solution was what the FIA originally proposed. A fixed engine regulation that is relevant to the majority of the companies they are trying to get onboard. It was painful and would have taken a lot to convince the fans, but it made sense. But the FIA wouldn't stick their ground and we have ended up with what we will both agree is an odd middle ground that is of zero relevance to anyone involved.
What happens when Ferrari discover that the inline 4s will always out perform any V12 they make?
And what happens when someone turns up with an engine that's 3 seconds a lap faster than everyone else?
And this is assuming you get the finance departments to agree to sign off the enormous budgets to enter F1 with these regulations in the first place. Especially when half the companies you are trying to entice in have been burned once already in the last decade. The people high up who you would need to convince to sign the hundred million pound cheques are going to be the very same people who stopped signing them ~5 years ago.
No, the best (or least worst) solution was what the FIA originally proposed. A fixed engine regulation that is relevant to the majority of the companies they are trying to get onboard. It was painful and would have taken a lot to convince the fans, but it made sense. But the FIA wouldn't stick their ground and we have ended up with what we will both agree is an odd middle ground that is of zero relevance to anyone involved.