Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
I think its more because of the tour cyclists like Wiggins and Froome who are responsible for popularity of road cycling.
Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
I think its more because of the tour cyclists like Wiggins and Froome who are responsible for popularity of road cycling.
Hence why I included "team mates".
Really? Williams' engine bill went from $18M for the Renualt v8 to $24M for the Mercedes v6.
To put these prices in context teams back in 2002 were paying between $20M-$30M.
Steve Nielsen has joined Williams as Sporting Manager.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/...sen-appointment-strengthens-williams-f1-team/
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/...sen-appointment-strengthens-williams-f1-team/
Exactly. They have gone from a stagnant engine design that had zero development to a brand new entire PU. Obviously the price increased, but it's by a relatively small amount in the grand scheme of things, and significantly less than when they were chewing through 3 engines per weekend.
As I said the engine costs are a non issue that's being blown out of proportion and used as a scape goat by a bunch of knuckle draggers who are rapidly running out of ways to justify their outdated opinion on what is "proper" F1.
I remember having an argument with someone about how F1 wasn't "proper F1" without 20k rpm engines. From what I remember only one F1 engine ever revved to 20k, and did it once, on one lap at one race weekend once (it was in a Williams if i remember?). Hardly a core value.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
I keep on saying that the 80's turbo cars are one of the iconic F1 eras. It wasn't particularly loud, the engines didn't scream or growl, but it goes down as one of the golden eras.
OK, I'm not saying these engines have the same character as some of the 80's plumes of smoke, but whoever thinks F1 is about screaming V10s and V8s (as was the case with some this winter) needs their head bashing against a wall.
What you grew up with doesn't define F1.
OK, I'm not saying these engines have the same character as some of the 80's plumes of smoke, but whoever thinks F1 is about screaming V10s and V8s (as was the case with some this winter) needs their head bashing against a wall.
What you grew up with doesn't define F1.
Wasn't the late 80s Honda a 1.5l V6 that revved to around 11,000 rpm? Pretty much the same on paper as the ICE they are bringing next year.
High rpm NA F1 engines have only been common in F1 for about 15 years of it's 65 year history.
High rpm NA F1 engines have only been common in F1 for about 15 years of it's 65 year history.
So you think that Horner is a knuckle dragger as his the one that started it all by saying
"the development of these engines have cost $1bn and counting" "and we should think about going back"
Even bernie says the same and most of the race promoters.
You think the best way to deal with having spent $1bn is to... throw the resulting product away?
And the race promoters must all be really upset, look at how many have left on the.... 21 race calendar for next year.
Engine manufacturers hate it too, look at how we have gone from 3 too just..... 4 next year.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Aside from the fact that Horner basically made the number up, Wolf said along the lines of he thinks that number is nuts and mercedes themselves spent around 150-200mil on their R&D and frankly because of the time Merc spent on the engine I expect they have spent more money on their engine than the other two did, though not necessarily true. 10 top guys working for 3 years can cost less than 30 guys working for 2 years, but you do get the impression Merc had the right team working longer and probably cost more.
Either way Horner was talking about that cost being the total cost for all teams together, he wasn't suggesting a per team figure and as Skeeter said, even if that was true it would make no sense to throw them out and make new engines that would only increase the amount required to be spent in R&D.
I didn't say they were unpredictable, I said they were uncontrollable. Whatever the cost the team has no choice - they HAVE to have the engine. Other costs are more discretionary.
I get what your saying, it isn't a cost they control, but it's not like it's unique and everything else is optional. The team has to have 2 drivers, they have to build a chassis to meet the regulations, they have to pay for tyres.
They also have choice. Unlike Pirelli, if a team isn't happy with their engine supplier they can move. That's made even easier now with the standard mountings.
So yeah, while they are not in control of the cost of the engines, it's not unique in all the things that a team has to pay for, its not unstable like some of the others, and they do have some degree of choice which is something they don't have with other costs.
The cost of the engines will not have been a surprise to any teams, and factoring it into their future planning is fairly straightforward, relatively speaking.
What they won't be able to predict, however, is the complete unknown of a kneejerk reaction to a different engine format, with no idea on that cost, or how much if the lost investment the manufacturers will want to recoup through inflated prices. If Mercedes are expecting to earn $20m per customer per year for the V6, what's to say they won't charge $25m if they go back to the V8s? $5m for the "cheaper" engine, plus the $20m they need to cover the loss of developing an engine they then can't sell. They aren't going to just write that investment cost off. Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and Honda have developed these engines under the expectation that they will be selling them to customer teams up too and beyond 2019.
Last edited:
So then, how about an equivalent-engine formula? Let RBR (and anyone else that wants to) tool around with old 2.4 V8 units and no KERS, and let the rest build/buy 1.6 V6 hybrid motors. Christian 'Whiny McBitchtits™' Horner will soon get with the programme once his cars are running at the back of the pack, and The Almighty Satanic Evil That Is Bernard Charles Ecclestone™ won't be in the picture for much longer anyway.
We-e-e-ell...
Since they wouldn't have KERS, I'd say that no - they can carry extra fuel. Keep refuelling banned obviously, so if they decide to tank it right up then they have that weight penalty to deal with. It's not as if we've seen the current gen engines really struggle to live with the 100kg fuel limit after all.
No engine development of course on the 2.4s. After all, that would cost money
