planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:20 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
Ross is now scheduling a meeting with the FIA to talk about resolving the grid penalty 'chaos' and Eric B is suggesting changing the penalties to financial penalties.

Which sounds all fine and dandy except I don't see how that's going to work. I'm sure teams with plenty of money will think it's great (we can just buy a fresh engine? Awesome!) but not so much for those like Sauber... because let's be honest, if there's going to be a financial penalty it would have to be set pretty high. But even then, would Merc care about spending $500k to give Lewis a fresh engine?

This idea is all kinds of stupid.

Even if you proposed a climbing scale whereby each additional engine cost more to prevent teams 'buying' engines for the title race, where would that leave Honda? They aren't choosing to use more components.

Maybe they need to allow engine changes where a part has failed, but not where the team 'claim it's going to fail'. That way if you have a failure you've already taken a penalty in the form of lost points?

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:04 am
Posts: 1247
What if the customer teams had the majority of the financial penalty covered by the manufacturer? e.g - if it's a £500k engine penalty for Force India then Mercedes would cover £400k of that.

Then it's less of a penalty to the teams with smaller budgets, and it encourages the manufacturers to produce reliable engines across the board.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 894
Financial penalty should be a percentage of team budget and constuctors points. That way it will hurt all teams equally. Of course their must be some development consessions, as penalties can also push new entrants out of the sport before they have a chance to develop


Last edited by AravJ on Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Maybe teams could be allowed 'unit credits' to cover things, and the top teams could 'buy' credits off lower teams instead of a penalty?

For instance, Ferrari have used all their allocation, but Haas have not, so they 'buy' a turbo credit off Haas. Hass need a turbo late in the year, so take a 5 spot drop when all the allocation has been used.

Top teams gain by not spoiling the race, lower teams gain by getting assistance we gain by still having the fight at the top, plus boosting the bottom.

Or is this just over complicating it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1665
Sevenfest wrote:
What if the customer teams had the majority of the financial penalty covered by the manufacturer? e.g - if it's a £500k engine penalty for Force India then Mercedes would cover £400k of that.

Then it's less of a penalty to the teams with smaller budgets, and it encourages the manufacturers to produce reliable engines across the board.


The teams could just adjust their own pricing to an extent.

Also, Merc and/or Ferrari may well be willing to swallow the additional financial penalties to get more power output. I don't see there being a financial penalty that is a) severe enough for Merc/Ferrari to care, & b) reasonable enough to be pracitically implemented.

The current penalties don't seem to work that well, but I've yet to see a better solution. As a starting point, they should revise next season's engines to ensure they stay at 4 for the season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Sevenfest wrote:
What if the customer teams had the majority of the financial penalty covered by the manufacturer? e.g - if it's a £500k engine penalty for Force India then Mercedes would cover £400k of that.

Then it's less of a penalty to the teams with smaller budgets, and it encourages the manufacturers to produce reliable engines across the board.


Then the manufactures will either provide less teams with engines or wack the charge of supply up. Nobody takes a financial hit they can pass on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1665
moby wrote:
Maybe teams could be allowed 'unit credits' to cover things, and the top teams could 'buy' credits off lower teams instead of a penalty?

For instance, Ferrari have used all their allocation, but Haas have not, so they 'buy' a turbo credit off Haas. Hass need a turbo late in the year, so take a 5 spot drop when all the allocation has been used.

Top teams gain by not spoiling the race, lower teams gain by getting assistance we gain by still having the fight at the top, plus boosting the bottom.

Or is this just over complicating it?


I don't think its overly complicated, I still think that Merc/Ferrari could just spend and hoover up everyone else's parts though. I don't think it would solve the problem.

Brundle was suggesting some variation of teams take financial hit, that is then spread amongst the remaining teams. I just don't see how this stops or deters Merc or Ferrari (or Red Bull when they have a capable car).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.

the whole penalty system is a pointless exercise. As you say, the intention is to try and persuade teams to spend less money, although I think it's also intended to fall in line with the whole "economy is good" policy. But it's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Teams still spend fortunes, because engine development has to continue, especially with new technology (which anybody with half a brain should have foreseen). And manufacturers like Honda and Renault aren't purposely designing engines that fall apart every time a corner is taken, so what benefit is there in penalising them further for being behind the design curve? Like with most of the things the FIA comes up with, it's poorly thought out


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
Ennis wrote:
moby wrote:
Maybe teams could be allowed 'unit credits' to cover things, and the top teams could 'buy' credits off lower teams instead of a penalty?

For instance, Ferrari have used all their allocation, but Haas have not, so they 'buy' a turbo credit off Haas. Hass need a turbo late in the year, so take a 5 spot drop when all the allocation has been used.

Top teams gain by not spoiling the race, lower teams gain by getting assistance we gain by still having the fight at the top, plus boosting the bottom.

Or is this just over complicating it?


I don't think its overly complicated, I still think that Merc/Ferrari could just spend and hoover up everyone else's parts though. I don't think it would solve the problem.

Brundle was suggesting some variation of teams take financial hit, that is then spread amongst the remaining teams. I just don't see how this stops or deters Merc or Ferrari (or Red Bull when they have a capable car).

I don't think there ever was a problem that needed addressing, tbh. It was a perceived problem. I wonder how much less teams spend on engines now than in 2007, for example?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1665
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.

the whole penalty system is a pointless exercise. As you say, the intention is to try and persuade teams to spend less money, although I think it's also intended to fall in line with the whole "economy is good" policy. But it's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Teams still spend fortunes, because engine development has to continue, especially with new technology (which anybody with half a brain should have foreseen). And manufacturers like Honda and Renault aren't purposely designing engines that fall apart every time a corner is taken, so what benefit is there in penalising them further for being behind the design curve? Like with most of the things the FIA comes up with, it's poorly thought out


What is the alternative though?

I think the 'economy is good' is actually a play to keep the engine suppliers & customer teams happy, as it translates to R&D which can be used in their broader company and prevents a race in to oblivion as Ferrari (for example) change engines every session forcing all other teams to attempt to keep up or accept defeat.

Honda don't need double penalised, but how do you apply common sense without others abusing it? I think this is F1's consistent problem - it is very difficult to write common sense in to the rulebook, and teams will go long ways to find an advantage. Every other solution I've heard or read will bring its own raft of problems and abuse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Zoue wrote:
Ennis wrote:
moby wrote:
Maybe teams could be allowed 'unit credits' to cover things, and the top teams could 'buy' credits off lower teams instead of a penalty?

For instance, Ferrari have used all their allocation, but Haas have not, so they 'buy' a turbo credit off Haas. Hass need a turbo late in the year, so take a 5 spot drop when all the allocation has been used.

Top teams gain by not spoiling the race, lower teams gain by getting assistance we gain by still having the fight at the top, plus boosting the bottom.

Or is this just over complicating it?


I don't think its overly complicated, I still think that Merc/Ferrari could just spend and hoover up everyone else's parts though. I don't think it would solve the problem.

Brundle was suggesting some variation of teams take financial hit, that is then spread amongst the remaining teams. I just don't see how this stops or deters Merc or Ferrari (or Red Bull when they have a capable car).

I don't think there ever was a problem that needed addressing, tbh. It was a perceived problem. I wonder how much less teams spend on engines now than in 2007, for example?



I think the 'problem' came from Cosworth who could not keep up with the development race, and it was brought in as a way to try and keep them in the game, and in F1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3011
I feel that they should keep the engine allowance per season, which is three for 2018. However, if they use a fourth engine - whenever that engine is used, the car only scores 75% points for the constructors championship. When the fifth is used, that only scores 50% for the constructors,
and when the 6th (and subsequent) are used, they only score 25% for the constructors. The driver receives no points penalties.

While it will mean a richer team could throw engines at the WDC - Brawn GP excepted - it's only rich teams who usually fight for that championship and teams aren't going to throw engines to get 10th in the WDC, or even 5th or 4th, so the lower budget teams won't be affected.

The penalty will also penalise the bigger budgeted teams more - as 50% of 15 - 25 points is a much more significant difference than of 1-6 points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.

the whole penalty system is a pointless exercise. As you say, the intention is to try and persuade teams to spend less money, although I think it's also intended to fall in line with the whole "economy is good" policy. But it's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Teams still spend fortunes, because engine development has to continue, especially with new technology (which anybody with half a brain should have foreseen). And manufacturers like Honda and Renault aren't purposely designing engines that fall apart every time a corner is taken, so what benefit is there in penalising them further for being behind the design curve? Like with most of the things the FIA comes up with, it's poorly thought out


What is the alternative though?

I think the 'economy is good' is actually a play to keep the engine suppliers & customer teams happy, as it translates to R&D which can be used in their broader company and prevents a race in to oblivion as Ferrari (for example) change engines every session forcing all other teams to attempt to keep up or accept defeat.

Honda don't need double penalised, but how do you apply common sense without others abusing it? I think this is F1's consistent problem - it is very difficult to write common sense in to the rulebook, and teams will go long ways to find an advantage. Every other solution I've heard or read will bring its own raft of problems and abuse.

I agree it's not straightforward, but that doesn't mean the existing solution is fit for purpose. Penalising manufacturers for struggling with their R&D is far from sensible. Nobody wants to see their equipment fail mid-race and applying penalties isn't going to magically make them come up with a solution any quicker.

They made more sense when development was frozen and reliability was more or less guaranteed, but it's hard to see the point in a development race. They're basically saying "develop, but don't take risks," which seems at odds with what F1 is all about


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1665
Zoue wrote:
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.

the whole penalty system is a pointless exercise. As you say, the intention is to try and persuade teams to spend less money, although I think it's also intended to fall in line with the whole "economy is good" policy. But it's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Teams still spend fortunes, because engine development has to continue, especially with new technology (which anybody with half a brain should have foreseen). And manufacturers like Honda and Renault aren't purposely designing engines that fall apart every time a corner is taken, so what benefit is there in penalising them further for being behind the design curve? Like with most of the things the FIA comes up with, it's poorly thought out


What is the alternative though?

I think the 'economy is good' is actually a play to keep the engine suppliers & customer teams happy, as it translates to R&D which can be used in their broader company and prevents a race in to oblivion as Ferrari (for example) change engines every session forcing all other teams to attempt to keep up or accept defeat.

Honda don't need double penalised, but how do you apply common sense without others abusing it? I think this is F1's consistent problem - it is very difficult to write common sense in to the rulebook, and teams will go long ways to find an advantage. Every other solution I've heard or read will bring its own raft of problems and abuse.

I agree it's not straightforward, but that doesn't mean the existing solution is fit for purpose. Penalising manufacturers for struggling with their R&D is far from sensible. Nobody wants to see their equipment fail mid-race and applying penalties isn't going to magically make them come up with a solution any quicker.

They made more sense when development was frozen and reliability was more or less guaranteed, but it's hard to see the point in a development race. They're basically saying "develop, but don't take risks," which seems at odds with what F1 is all about


They don't make them fail, I think the best solution would be some form of governance which allows replacement in the event of a qualifying or race failure but not replacement for replacement's sake.

But how to govern that, without the teams yet again finding a way around it and us all complaining about the poorly written rules? I have no idea :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.

Yes this just widens the gap between teams that have money and the teams that don't, what price would you put on the titles whilst for the small teams it just eats further into their budget.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Sevenfest wrote:
What if the customer teams had the majority of the financial penalty covered by the manufacturer? e.g - if it's a £500k engine penalty for Force India then Mercedes would cover £400k of that.

Then it's less of a penalty to the teams with smaller budgets, and it encourages the manufacturers to produce reliable engines across the board.

Yeah that's an idea but also let's not forget the gearbox penalties as well how does that get covered?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I feel that they should keep the engine allowance per season, which is three for 2018. However, if they use a fourth engine - whenever that engine is used, the car only scores 75% points for the constructors championship. When the fifth is used, that only scores 50% for the constructors,
and when the 6th (and subsequent) are used, they only score 25% for the constructors. The driver receives no points penalties.

While it will mean a richer team could throw engines at the WDC - Brawn GP excepted - it's only rich teams who usually fight for that championship and teams aren't going to throw engines to get 10th in the WDC, or even 5th or 4th, so the lower budget teams won't be affected.

The penalty will also penalise the bigger budgeted teams more - as 50% of 15 - 25 points is a much more significant difference than of 1-6 points.

That's an interesting concept.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Next year the teams only get 3 engines, Horner is campaigning to get it scrapped, for me I think they should put it back to the original limit they started out with, that being 5 engines.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7702
Financial penalties don't make any sense. It's just waste of money for everyone involved and defeats the idea of using less engines to save money. Eric B is saying that because his cars cannot can barely complete a race if at all.

_________________
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
Ennis wrote:
Honda don't need double penalised, but how do you apply common sense without others abusing it? I think this is F1's consistent problem - it is very difficult to write common sense in to the rulebook, and teams will go long ways to find an advantage. Every other solution I've heard or read will bring its own raft of problems and abuse.


Exactly, if anything Honda are only only providing potential opportunity for the big boys to exploit anything that might be put in place to help.

Realistically, as much as the grid system makes F1 look a bit silly, it's still by far the most effective way to dissuade teams from using more parts, I certainly can't think of anything else. Money isn't going to work, constructors points might work, but wouldn't it make a mockery of the Championships if Ferrari decided to take the hit for the sake of the WDC and Merc held out for the WCC. Do we really want that kind of situation, can you imagine the FURY of the Lewis fanboys (or the Seb fanboys if the situation was reversed!). Never mind North Korea, this place would explode!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Having had a morning sitting about in a hospital has allowed me to think about this, and it seems we, and FIA are overcomplicating things.

Allow as many engine changes as required, but only allow any difference to the previous engine every 5th race.

No penalties to spoil the race, everyone gets the same upgrade opportunity if all engines are covered. IE Merc upgrade goes to FI Williams etc at the same time. There could even be an opt out to use the sixth or seventh race, but no sooner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1665
moby wrote:
Having had a morning sitting about in a hospital has allowed me to think about this, and it seems we, and FA are overcomplicating things.

Allow as many engine changes as required, but only allow any difference to the previous engine every 5th race.


Then the big boys build engines to last a race, and switch out the engines every session. There is, generally speaking, a reliability vs performance trade off. If they no longer need to build engines to last 5 races + Qualy + Practice, they will simply get more performance out of engines built to barely last a weekend...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Ennis wrote:
moby wrote:
Having had a morning sitting about in a hospital has allowed me to think about this, and it seems we, and FA are overcomplicating things.

Allow as many engine changes as required, but only allow any difference to the previous engine every 5th race.


Then the big boys build engines to last a race, and switch out the engines every session. There is, generally speaking, a reliability vs performance trade off. If they no longer need to build engines to last 5 races + Qualy + Practice, they will simply get more performance out of engines built to barely last a weekend...


But if it is the same as the customer engine and it would have to be the same, this would be a bit pointless. The engine has to be good enough to finish the race anyway, so is going to be a good standard, not like the flying bomb engines used in qualli a while back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1665
moby wrote:
Ennis wrote:
moby wrote:
Having had a morning sitting about in a hospital has allowed me to think about this, and it seems we, and FA are overcomplicating things.

Allow as many engine changes as required, but only allow any difference to the previous engine every 5th race.


Then the big boys build engines to last a race, and switch out the engines every session. There is, generally speaking, a reliability vs performance trade off. If they no longer need to build engines to last 5 races + Qualy + Practice, they will simply get more performance out of engines built to barely last a weekend...


But if it is the same as the customer engine and it would have to be the same, this would be a bit pointless. The engine has to be good enough to finish the race anyway, so is going to be a good standard, not like the flying bomb engines used in qualli a while back.


They're building a Mercedes engine to last 5 race weekends at the moment, they could build engines to last 1 race weekend but go through 2 or 3 of them to balance against the new risk of failure. Then you have a bunch of customers who need to swallow some of that cost, and manufacturers who potentially aren't happy at the increased cost / less R&D real-world carryover, etc..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Ennis wrote:
moby wrote:
Ennis wrote:
moby wrote:
Having had a morning sitting about in a hospital has allowed me to think about this, and it seems we, and FA are overcomplicating things.

Allow as many engine changes as required, but only allow any difference to the previous engine every 5th race.


Then the big boys build engines to last a race, and switch out the engines every session. There is, generally speaking, a reliability vs performance trade off. If they no longer need to build engines to last 5 races + Qualy + Practice, they will simply get more performance out of engines built to barely last a weekend...


But if it is the same as the customer engine and it would have to be the same, this would be a bit pointless. The engine has to be good enough to finish the race anyway, so is going to be a good standard, not like the flying bomb engines used in qualli a while back.


They're building a Mercedes engine to last 5 race weekends at the moment, they could build engines to last 1 race weekend but go through 2 or 3 of them to balance against the new risk of failure. Then you have a bunch of customers who need to swallow some of that cost, and manufacturers who potentially aren't happy at the increased cost / less R&D real-world carryover, etc..


The customer engine costs are set, so would not impact on them. If say Merc built a one race engine, they would have to supply 8 1 race engines for no extra income. That would not be worth their while.

Edit,

8 sets of engines


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.


The engines have been an unmitigated disaster in this area. Costs for engines have never, EVER been higher since switching to the hybrids. A complete and total failure, with no one being held accountable for this failure. Teams have failed financially with some of the remaining teams resorting to highly questionable tactics to remain solvent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
pokerman wrote:
Next year the teams only get 3 engines, Horner is campaigning to get it scrapped, for me I think they should put it back to the original limit they started out with, that being 5 engines.


Is this true?? Only 3 engines for each car next year? Holy $#@@$ Honda is going to be in serious trouble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Herb Tarlik wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.


The engines have been an unmitigated disaster in this area. Costs for engines have never, EVER been higher since switching to the hybrids. A complete and total failure, with no one being held accountable for this failure. Teams have failed financially with some of the remaining teams resorting to highly questionable tactics to remain solvent.


This is actually less true in the hybrid era than at any point in the last 40 years or so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1615
Why not just deduct some points?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:20 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1105
pokerman wrote:
Next year the teams only get 3 engines, Horner is campaigning to get it scrapped, for me I think they should put it back to the original limit they started out with, that being 5 engines.


I support this position 100%. Formula One has painted itself into a corner, and the situation went past being stupid many races ago. In theory mandating how many engines or transmissions are used per season is rational. But we are barely a little over half way into the season and already many teams and drivers are teetering on the brink, if not already over.

As a fan I want to see every car and driver take to the grid with the best equipment and tools available for them, so that they can go crazy for the entire race and amaze us with their skill and bravery. Instead we are witnessing very good cars and drivers having to take insane grid penalties just because they ran out of allocated parts.

How we got to this crisis is a combination of good intentions, stupid decisions, costs, and the inability for the rules makers to properly assess the impact of any rules changes. So while we attempt to unravel this history of mistakes, we need to find a temporary solution that makes sense until Ross Brawn and Co. figure things out and we get more sane and rational engine rules in 2020.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
mikeyg123 wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.


The engines have been an unmitigated disaster in this area. Costs for engines have never, EVER been higher since switching to the hybrids. A complete and total failure, with no one being held accountable for this failure. Teams have failed financially with some of the remaining teams resorting to highly questionable tactics to remain solvent.


This is actually less true in the hybrid era than at any point in the last 40 years or so.


I dont believe this to be remotely true. The grids are getting smaller, much smaller.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4415
Location: Michigan, USA
Herb Tarlik wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.

The engines have been an unmitigated disaster in this area. Costs for engines have never, EVER been higher since switching to the hybrids. A complete and total failure, with no one being held accountable for this failure. Teams have failed financially with some of the remaining teams resorting to highly questionable tactics to remain solvent.

That's not what Pat Symmonds seems to believe, as per an article he wrote for F1 Racing magazine. According to him the cost over the season is actually lower than it was in the 1990s, when they were cramming an engine in for every session, and surprisingly enough only a few million more than a V8 supply. Assuming the engine actually can last the number of races it's supposed to (you're supplied by Mercedes or Ferrari, that is to say) the cost to a team over a season is actually not much higher. I think I'll take his word on that over yours.

I agree with Haas F1 that getting rid of the grid penalties will only widen the gap between the midfield and the top teams. Mercedes and Ferrari would use a new engine every race if they could, whereas the midfield will never have the financial resources to do that. The grid penalties only look ridiculous because Honda (and to a certain extent, Red Bull) has gotten it so wrong. I'm okay with failure having a price.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Exediron wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.

The engines have been an unmitigated disaster in this area. Costs for engines have never, EVER been higher since switching to the hybrids. A complete and total failure, with no one being held accountable for this failure. Teams have failed financially with some of the remaining teams resorting to highly questionable tactics to remain solvent.

That's not what Pat Symmonds seems to believe, as per an article he wrote for F1 Racing magazine. According to him the cost over the season is actually lower than it was in the 1990s, when they were cramming an engine in for every session, and surprisingly enough only a few million more than a V8 supply. Assuming the engine actually can last the number of races it's supposed to (you're supplied by Mercedes or Ferrari, that is to say) the cost to a team over a season is actually not much higher. I think I'll take his word on that over yours.


:lol: :lol: :lol: You think I'm paying the bills? I have no idea what the costs are. I just know what I read and I have read many of the lower teams complain that the costs of the engines today are too high to sustain them. Manor, Sauber, and a few others were quite vocal about the need to dramatically reduce engine costs.
Exediron wrote:
I agree with Haas F1 that getting rid of the grid penalties will only widen the gap between the midfield and the top teams. Mercedes and Ferrari would use a new engine every race if they could, whereas the midfield will never have the financial resources to do that. The grid penalties only look ridiculous because Honda (and to a certain extent, Red Bull) has gotten it so wrong. I'm okay with failure having a price.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Exediron wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.

The engines have been an unmitigated disaster in this area. Costs for engines have never, EVER been higher since switching to the hybrids. A complete and total failure, with no one being held accountable for this failure. Teams have failed financially with some of the remaining teams resorting to highly questionable tactics to remain solvent.

That's not what Pat Symmonds seems to believe,


Pat should get out and educate himself better.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/34920837

"Costs of the V8s, including a basic energy-recovery package, ranged from about 12-15m euros (£8.5-10.6m), while the turbo hybrids cost in the region of 18-23m euros (£12.7-16.3m)."

This was from 2015. I'm sure the costs now are even higher.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Herb Tarlik wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The thing with financial penalties is that you have to be careful not to defeat the object of the exercise. Remember the whole point of limiting engines is to try and persuade teams to spend less money. Now that's not going to happen if not only have to pay the inflated price that comes with an engine that is built to last but have to replace it every race anyway because that's what the competition is doing - And then on top of that pay the FIA a fine.

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise to me.


The engines have been an unmitigated disaster in this area. Costs for engines have never, EVER been higher since switching to the hybrids. A complete and total failure, with no one being held accountable for this failure. Teams have failed financially with some of the remaining teams resorting to highly questionable tactics to remain solvent.


This is actually less true in the hybrid era than at any point in the last 40 years or so.


I dont believe this to be remotely true. The grids are getting smaller, much smaller.


I can't think of any other period of F1 history since the mid 70s where only 1 team in a four year period has kicked the bucket?

Could be wrong of course. What I do know for a fact is that during large periods of the V8 use there were only 10 teams. In fact we have the same amount of teams now as we had in the 96 season 21 years ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4415
Location: Michigan, USA
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
The engines have been an unmitigated disaster in this area. Costs for engines have never, EVER been higher since switching to the hybrids. A complete and total failure, with no one being held accountable for this failure. Teams have failed financially with some of the remaining teams resorting to highly questionable tactics to remain solvent.

That's not what Pat Symmonds seems to believe,

Pat should get out and educate himself better.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/34920837

"Costs of the V8s, including a basic energy-recovery package, ranged from about 12-15m euros (£8.5-10.6m), while the turbo hybrids cost in the region of 18-23m euros (£12.7-16.3m)."

This was from 2015. I'm sure the costs now are even higher.

He says they're lower now, and why wouldn't they be? It's a more mature technology.

Symonds was the technical head of an F1 team until this year. I very much believe he knows what an F1 engine costs, or at least what Williams paid. However, even taking the 2015 numbers at face value, they still wouldn't be the most expensive of all time. He quotes a higher figure for their supply in the 1990s:

"That may seem like a huge sum, but F1 is not a cheap sport and for a mid-sized team this represents perhaps ten to 12 per cent of its budget. The power unit embodies a significant part of the overall package and personally I don't feel that this cost is totally unreasonable. In the late 1990s at Benetton our engine bill was around £17million and at the end of the season we got an additional bill because we had exceeded the agreed testing mileage."

And from next year an engine supply will be mandated to cost 12m Euros, which is very much on par with the V8s. The cost issue of these engines - like everything else about them - has been exaggerated by their detractors for political purposes.

At least people have shut up about how slow they are.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:42 pm
Posts: 121
how about the financial penalties get given to the smaller/less funded teams?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:42 pm
Posts: 121
Herb Tarlik wrote:

The engines have been an unmitigated disaster in this area. Costs for engines have never, EVER been higher since switching to the hybrids. A complete and total failure, with no one being held accountable for this failure. Teams have failed financially with some of the remaining teams resorting to highly questionable tactics to remain solvent.


Agree. F1 feels like it needs to be involved with the latest Tech out there, so they have to be involved with electric. I still think a way to DRAMATICALLY cut down costs would be to have a SINGLE manuf for the hybrid and regeneration systems and have the teams work on their own ICE and chassis. This is best of both worlds. You can show the green peace people that you are promoting hybrid tech, BUT you take out that cost/variable from the Manuf. This could also make more parody in the series as well, closer racing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 216
If the FIA set the cost of supply for a season and mandated that customer teams were given how ever many engine required within this cost it puts the onus on manufacturers to make them reliable or pay.
If they also mandate that all teams have access to the same number of engines (of the same spec) over a season they could avoid Merc using 20 engines per car and only giving a customer 3 or 4?

Edit

And make it so any upgrades had to be available to all teams at the same time if they were to be used


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Blinky McSquinty, Robot and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group