Formula 1 - 2009 Season
- Thread starter Dave Baumann
- Start date
When every team has KERS they will use it at the same places (the most beneficial places) each lap and any advantage will be negated. The only reason KERS has made any noticable difference is because there are "haves" and "have-nots".
Please don't put words into my mouth. Feel free to spin a light sentence into proof of an anti-McLaren conspiracy, but please use other people's quotes to do so.
Most importantly, entry increased to 26, and significant financial and material backing to new teams.
No refuelling and no rev limit is a first step towards the holy grail of open engine restrictions.
I wonder how much money has been wasted chasing ever-changing "cost cutting" engine regulations?
No refuelling and no rev limit is a first step towards the holy grail of open engine restrictions.
I wonder how much money has been wasted chasing ever-changing "cost cutting" engine regulations?
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Still i wonder how much the production on engines really does for the costs. Renault once said its about 200k to revise the whole engine. Lets count in another 100 if you need to build a new one (I suppose in F1 revise is about the same as totally renew) so thats 300k x 20 is 6million a year for engines. Not alot of you consider even at the bottom budgets are already 120million and up. So I never understand why they wanted to cut engine costs so much. Though ofcourse development will cost alot more.
I wonder how they will check costs though. Cant the manafacturer teams set up some mock company that does the engine development and then ''sell'' the engines to the team for a much lower price than it would if they included development? I know there is the rule that says you have to pay a price that shows the true value of the part but would there be anyway to get the total costs from what is not a company related to the team (on paper)?
I wonder how they will check costs though. Cant the manafacturer teams set up some mock company that does the engine development and then ''sell'' the engines to the team for a much lower price than it would if they included development? I know there is the rule that says you have to pay a price that shows the true value of the part but would there be anyway to get the total costs from what is not a company related to the team (on paper)?
The engines have generally been around 50% of the total budget for a team like Ferrari and McLaren who have works engines.
Mosley has a point, though. After the car manufacturers entered F1, it has been a race toward infinite refinement which basically just costs money. You throw money at it and run 3 wind tunnels with the staff running shifts so the operation is 24/7. You buy the best super-computers to run CFD around the clock. You spend tens of thousands on the smallest components like the nuts and bolts.
I wonder, though, how is engine failures going to be factored into the 2011+ budgets? You build a 25000 RPM engine which fails all the time or you continue with the 18000 RPM engines that are very reliable. Is the engine freeze out of the window now? Will V10s return? V12s? V16s? Turbos? Or do we only get unlimited revs for the existing V8 designs?
Mosley has a point, though. After the car manufacturers entered F1, it has been a race toward infinite refinement which basically just costs money. You throw money at it and run 3 wind tunnels with the staff running shifts so the operation is 24/7. You buy the best super-computers to run CFD around the clock. You spend tens of thousands on the smallest components like the nuts and bolts.
I wonder, though, how is engine failures going to be factored into the 2011+ budgets? You build a 25000 RPM engine which fails all the time or you continue with the 18000 RPM engines that are very reliable. Is the engine freeze out of the window now? Will V10s return? V12s? V16s? Turbos? Or do we only get unlimited revs for the existing V8 designs?
Mosley have said that they will count the parts as costing market price. Who knows what market price is for these F1 engines ...
I haven't read the interview so can only comment on your thoughts on what Mosley said, if the gist is that Mclaren have been let off because Ron has gone then I don't see anyone could view it anything other than that to be honest.
Rurouni
Veteran
I just noticed the meaning of 'suspended ban' ... I though at first McLaren would be banned for 3 races (which I believe is fair). After knowing this, I think the punishment is rather light. I don't really care about the politics, but I'm expecting at least 1 race ban on the sporting side of things.
... I though at first McLaren would be banned for 3 races (which I believe is fair). After knowing this, I think the punishment is rather light. I don't really care about the politics, but I'm expecting at least 1 race ban on the sporting side of things.tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Do you have a source for that? Not that I dont believe you, but I would like to read some more on it. However, half their budget is including development. That is why I said what will happen if they make a dummby corp to avoid the R&D being counted on their budget cap.
I dont think car manufacturers have anything to do with it. Remember the ground effect and active suspension days? Its always been a case of refine as much as you can. I think a big problem is that the FIA is looking at the wrong things. All that is left is aero development (which in my opinion is actually related the least to F1) but that is what costs most money because as you said they all have a bunch of windtunnels etc. They should have done it the other way around. Let them be free on the mechanical side of things, that is what cars are about, and give them a relative standard aero pack. Solves 2 things. No more insane spending and no trouble with overtaking because of aero because than you are in a position to force everyone to have a aero pack that works like you want it.
Engine freeze is gone. They say development will open up so I suppose you could also go for bigger engines again. But if that will happen? Designing a complete new engine on 40m wont work I suppose. But maybe some teams will take out their old v10's again if they can use enough engines. And they can probably update those some more and they should have a instant of around 200, 300bhp more than now. v12's would be awsome though. Love the sound of them. v16 will never happen. Too big, too complicated, too expensive, probably not faster than a other engine.
The cosworth engine deal was at 5m so I suppose that should be somewhere around there?
Another thing about engine development, what about the likes of Ferrari and toyota who sell their engines? if they develop engines that will skyrocket their expenses. But the teams that buy the engines wont have those expenses (and I dont think they can take the earnings from selling the engines back into the budget cap) so how will that work? A team with their own developed engines will be at a big disadvantage compared to the ones only having to buy the engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_1#Revenue_and_profits
It's estimated, though.
But the manufacturers brought the big bucks into it. Anyway, aero is such a big performance differentiator that a standard aero package is not what F1 is about.
I think the teams selling engines will be able to augment their budgets with the profits from the engine deals.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I dont think see. Manufacturers have been in F1 for alot longer than the past 10 to 5 years when we've seen a whole lot entering. Renault competed with their insane expenses on their Turbo engines, mclaren and Ferrari have been their a long time (though you cant really count Mclaren) and the likes of alfa romeo and ofcourse others like honda but mostly on the engine front.
I think its more a case of the costs just rising very fast. F1 has never been cheap but with the advance of technology that just gave the teams more options to spend more money for improvement like windtunnels, CFD systems etc. It doesnt has alot to do with the car manufacturers. Honda and Toyota were the only ones really spending the most. Renault always had a relative small budget and I dont think BMW is up on top there either.
I dont think banning aero development would be a big deal for performance. They can still give everyone a efficient aeropack only designed for overtaking. Combined with slicks and the big increase in enginepower that would still make the cars faster than what we have now and maybe even close to the 2004 cars again.
Still, that wont cover much I think. The cosworth deal is 5m a year so a other engine cant possibly be alot more expensive. Given how I think rules say you can only provide 2 teams (exception made this year for Brawn) you wont earn much i suppose.
The manufacturers drove the cost up and they were really the only ones able to sustain that level of spending.
I also think you are underestimating the cost of the engines. In the Top Gear episode where Richard Hammond tries to drive the Renault R25, Jonathon Lewis said an engine rebuild (presumably for the V10 in the R25) was about £150000 - £200000 or even more.
I also think you are underestimating the cost of the engines. In the Top Gear episode where Richard Hammond tries to drive the Renault R25, Jonathon Lewis said an engine rebuild (presumably for the V10 in the R25) was about £150000 - £200000 or even more.
It's very simple - McLaren got a light sentence. Arguing that this is proof of an anti-McLaren conspiracy is ridiculous, unless you are arguing that they should have received no punishment at all?
You might put forward the case that this is proof of an anti-Ron Dennis conspiracy at best, but it is clear from events over the past few seasons that McLaren have been prepared to lie and cheat on numerous occasions in an attempt to gain an advantage. Whether or not Max Mosley and Ron Dennis are best friends or mortal enemies, the fact remains that throughout this time, Ron Dennis has been McLaren number one and therefore ultimately responsible for the actions of the team.
In the eyes of the FIA, the massive punishment for the Coughlin affair clearly didn't deter McLaren from such practices, so all that was left was to ensure the removal of the man responsible, using a light punishment as a carrot, and have faith that the new man in charge may take the team in a more sporting and credible direction. In fairness to Whitmarsh, he has very rapidly turned around the Ron Dennis culture of blaming and cutting loose a scapegoat, into admitting the team were at fault as a collective.
Similar threads
