planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:47 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am
Posts: 1416
As seen on the PF1 home page, Mercedes announced that their F1 team lost something like 140 million dollars last year, despite winning the world championship. Costs increased far greater than revenue with the primary cost being identified as the move to the V-6 engine.

These engines were held out with so much promise, but have yet failed entirely to deliver. They are slower, quieter (boring, to the point that some tracks are threatening legal action), and far more expensive than the naturally aspirated engines.

A travesty across the board.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32527
You sort of skipped past all the win bonuses for 2014 and increased wages for 2014 plus the initial R&D is also going to be more expensive.

Explain to me how the engines are slower or do you really not know it's the reduction in downforce as stipulated by the new regs that make the cars themselves slower?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:22 am
Posts: 1849
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Teams like Mercedes don't really care about losses as they're basically being run out of Mercedes Benz' advertising budget. In fact from memory a few years back Mercedes F1 had an agreement with Mercedes Benz that their annual budget would be £150 million per year, but includes sponsorship, so if they received £80 million in sponsorship then Mercedes would chip in £70mil. I'm assuming since their success that will have increased somewhat.

Another thing that will effect their losses is that payments from results in the constructors championship are delayed a year or two. And teams will be running their budgets off of what payments they are GOING to recieve not what they already have. So it's probably just a case of them accounting for the extra money they will be getting at the end of this year.

And lastly the engine thing is just ridiculous. The new engines are far faster than the old V8s, it's the cars that are slower due to the reduction in downforce everyone was so keen on. The V6 are putting out over 900hp (if you are lucky enough to have merc unit in the back) where the V8s were only making 780hp or there abouts. They're also producing four times the torque of the old engines. And they are far more exciting. Quieter, yes, but far cooler. The v8 function was basically "fuel goes in and burns and then some of that is used to turn the crankshaft..." The new engines are amazing; less fuel is injected directly into the cylinders 5 times per detonation fed by forced induction which can be driven by an electric compressor or the exhaust gasses. What energy isn't used in the engine itself his through a turbine which harvests energy to be stored for the ERS-K motor, used immediately or stored for use to supercharge the engine out of slow turns.

Started rambling off topic a bit there, but there is no comparison between the old and current engines

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Podiums: 1st Spa '16, 1st Bahrain '15, 1st China '14, 1st Malaysia '14
Championship position 2014: 13th | | 2015: 10th (heading the right way)
PF1 Autosport GP Predictor 2014: Second 2015: Second


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15763
Engines are quicker not slower.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
The engines are vastly more expensive than those they replaced, so I agree with you that from a cost perspective they were a step in the wrong direction and have been counter-productive.

However, they are much more powerful than the older engines, so the bit about being slower is not true. It is the reduced downforce which is responsible for slower lap times, not the engines. And in any event they are catching and at some point will probably surpass the previous era cars

I do think these engines were a mistake, but largely for cost reasons


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am
Posts: 1416
pokerman wrote:
You sort of skipped past all the win bonuses for 2014 and increased wages for 2014 plus the initial R&D is also going to be more expensive.



Nope, Mercedes clearly said they lost money due to the V-6 engines.

Nice try though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
Correct me if im wrong, but cost figures are approx. those:

V8 engine: 250.000€
V6 Turbo Power unit: 8-10 million €

Need I say more?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15763
HS Thompson wrote:
pokerman wrote:
You sort of skipped past all the win bonuses for 2014 and increased wages for 2014 plus the initial R&D is also going to be more expensive.



Nope, Mercedes clearly said they lost money due to the V-6 engines.

Nice try though.


And you said the new engines were slower.

Sometimes people get things wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:49 pm
Posts: 372
Zoue wrote:
The engines are vastly more expensive than those they replaced, so I agree with you that from a cost perspective they were a step in the wrong direction and have been counter-productive.

However, they are much more powerful than the older engines, so the bit about being slower is not true. It is the reduced downforce which is responsible for slower lap times, not the engines. And in any event they are catching and at some point will probably surpass the previous era cars

I do think these engines were a mistake, but largely for cost reasons


yeah but you fail to mention that if there wasn't a development freeze on the V8 those engine would be putting out more than a 1000bhp, costing a fraction of the new turbo engines


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 641
Location: illinois
yes, the engines cost more, but mercedes didn't "clearly" state they lost money due to v6 engines only. also, do these numbers include lease profits of engines ? how much more will they be paid by f1 at the end of this season ? is daimler unhappy with this loss ? appears they are not and it is within the "loss" they targeted. how do they internalize the "loss" on paper once they add in the 2billion in advertising they got from f1 ? how much r&d from f1 is transferred to daimler road cars ?

it isn't so simple to just say look at the losses on one sheet of paper and claim the engines are a failure because they cost more than the old ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:29 pm
Posts: 5712
Location: u.k
johnp wrote:
Zoue wrote:
The engines are vastly more expensive than those they replaced, so I agree with you that from a cost perspective they were a step in the wrong direction and have been counter-productive.

However, they are much more powerful than the older engines, so the bit about being slower is not true. It is the reduced downforce which is responsible for slower lap times, not the engines. And in any event they are catching and at some point will probably surpass the previous era cars

I do think these engines were a mistake, but largely for cost reasons


yeah but you fail to mention that if there wasn't a development freeze on the V8 those engine would be putting out more than a 1000bhp, costing a fraction of the new turbo engines


1000BHP on a natrually aspirated V8? The V10's were only just bouncing around the 900-1000 BHP figure. No way would those V8's have gotten close to that figure.

_________________
Winter is Coming


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 6:41 pm
Posts: 587
New tec is bound to cost a mint, if they stick with it over time just like the V8's it will become cheaper plus in some way its good R&D for car makers which I think in part was the point. It should yeald some use for the likes of hybrids, turbo tec and battery tec which are all things in the car industry that could do with moving forward.


Last edited by chaz986 on Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:29 pm
Posts: 5712
Location: u.k
Yes, these new PU's cost more, but that's not the full story. The V8s were subsidised as part of Max Mosley's cost cutting efforts. While the V8s indeed cost customer teams around £8 million compared to the £20 million of the V6s. In real terms the V8s actually cost around £15 million each, but Mosley negotiated a deal with the manufacturers: if the engine manufacturers slashed the prices they were demanding of customers, then Max would allow them to have a wider grid presence (previously I think they were only allowed to supply engines to 1-2 teams) and would allow them to impose driver development programs on customer teams.


However, the price caps have expired now that the new engines (PUs) have come in. There are no price caps for the new engines, largely because Max Mosley is no longer FIA president and because the new FIA president, Jean Todt, didn't negotiate any sort of price caps/subsidies for the new engines.

IIRC, these new PU are still subsidised, but nowhere near as much as the V8's were.

_________________
Winter is Coming


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7250
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
HS Thompson wrote:
Nope, Mercedes clearly said they lost money due to the V-6 engines.

Nice try though.

And you said the new engines were slower.

Sometimes people get things wrong.

He's not just wrong, he's a charlatan who seems to have made it his mission on P-F1 to spread as many falsehoods about the new engines as possible. Facts? Who cares! There's a sensationalist story to be told!

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:45 am
Posts: 725
Location: Michigan, USA
Switching to a new engine is always going to cost more than continuing on the old path, because you're going to end up with much larger development costs when you're essentially starting from scratch. So, yes, the switch to V6s has cost quite a bit more than continuing with V8s would have, and it will probably continue to cost more for a couple of years after introduction. That's the way things run with newer technologies in just about every field. The cost starts out higher, then it comes down.

At this point, it would cost more again to switch back to V8s, because -- unless they start from the last V8 they had, which means they'd be taking a big step backwards -- teams would again have to completely redesign and redevelop the power unit instead of building on what they'd just done, and they wouldn't because automatically subsidised again.

Blackhander wrote:
And lastly the engine thing is just ridiculous. The new engines are far faster than the old V8s, it's the cars that are slower due to the reduction in downforce everyone was so keen on. The V6 are putting out over 900hp (if you are lucky enough to have merc unit in the back) where the V8s were only making 780hp or there abouts. They're also producing four times the torque of the old engines. And they are far more exciting. Quieter, yes, but far cooler. The v8 function was basically "fuel goes in and burns and then some of that is used to turn the crankshaft..." The new engines are amazing; less fuel is injected directly into the cylinders 5 times per detonation fed by forced induction which can be driven by an electric compressor or the exhaust gasses. What energy isn't used in the engine itself his through a turbine which harvests energy to be stored for the ERS-K motor, used immediately or stored for use to supercharge the engine out of slow turns.

Completely agreed on all of this.

RunningMan wrote:
johnp wrote:
Zoue wrote:
The engines are vastly more expensive than those they replaced, so I agree with you that from a cost perspective they were a step in the wrong direction and have been counter-productive.

However, they are much more powerful than the older engines, so the bit about being slower is not true. It is the reduced downforce which is responsible for slower lap times, not the engines. And in any event they are catching and at some point will probably surpass the previous era cars

I do think these engines were a mistake, but largely for cost reasons


yeah but you fail to mention that if there wasn't a development freeze on the V8 those engine would be putting out more than a 1000bhp, costing a fraction of the new turbo engines


1000BHP on a natrually aspirated V8? The V10's were only just bouncing around the 900-1000 BHP figure. No way would those V8's have gotten close to that figure.

Yeah, I don't think there's any evidence that the V8s would've become that powerful if they were still the engine in use. At some point one has to switch to a slightly different technology to get more power, because eventually any given technology is going to hit its limit. I can't say how close the V8s were to that, but considering that naturally aspirated V8s have been in use in F1 since almost the beginning and in general use for more than a hundred years, there's an excellent chance that the previous V8s we saw in F1 were at or very near their peak.

_________________
Image
Pick 10: 1 win, 8 podiums | 2016: 22nd | 2017: 21st | 2018: 3rd |
Top Three: 9 wins, 26 podiums | 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 16th [6th] | 2018: 4th [4th] |


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6696
Location: Nebraska, USA
Seriously?

No one thinks that the V8 couldn't have been developed to produce 1,000+ hp? The end of their development cycle? I have my doubts about that.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7250
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
Seriously?

No one thinks that the V8 couldn't have been developed to produce 1,000+ hp? The end of their development cycle? I have my doubts about that.

Maybe they could have, maybe not. But if that much development was going into them they wouldn't have been so cheap, would they? They were cheap because they were - horror - frozen in development.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Posts: 2432
Location: Austria
The V8s were frozen pretty early after their introduction. And I believe the regulations were already pretty tight when they were introduced...

The real issue, however, was that the manufacturers were demanded to use old technology and then freeze it... Not only were the V8s naturally aspirated, direct fuel injection was also not allowed... With some development and some more regulatory freedom, they would have gotten out a lot more power of a V8 of some sort... Let alone if they just slapped a turbo on it, without the ERS part...

The big issue i have is that the FIA again gave a very narrow path of development and are about to freeze that again... Instead of leaving it to the bright brains of the engineers to find different and ultimately the best solution for achieving the 100kg per race limit, they limited them to a V6 Turbo with ERS. And instead of letting them develop those, they are freezing it step by step, so by 2020, the technology will also be old and outdated (albeit not as much as the V8s were after that long freeze)...

_________________
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:53 pm
Posts: 1098
Location: Ireland
Oh, on every level the v6's have failed. They are too expensive and complicated and have probably frightened off possible entrants rather than attracted them. They have detracted from the whole F1 experience.
As mentioned the V8's could have been developed a lot further before going down this road.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:22 am
Posts: 1849
Location: Brisbane, Australia
James14 wrote:
Oh, on every level the v6's have failed. They are too expensive and complicated and have probably frightened off possible entrants rather than attracted them. They have detracted from the whole F1 experience.
As mentioned the V8's could have been developed a lot further before going down this road.


I disagree on all of these points.

They are expensive, but that's only because of development costs and the fact that engines are no longer being subsidised. A few years from now once development costs have been recovered I expect them to be around 14-18mill per year depending on which manufacturer you go with. And why too complicated? Who decides how complex an engine should be?

The new engines have already attracted new manufacturers. We have four now with Audi supposedly sniffing around camp showing interest (I doubt it will happen but it's the rumour). The V8 were already reduced to 3. Cosworth were out, which people seem to forget. And Renault and Mercedes wouldn't have been around much longer. Which would have resulted in Formula Ferrari. Even if noone else comes to the tables these new engines already have 25% more manufacturers involved.

And above all else Formula 1 is an engineering championship. Drivers come a distant second. It's all about who can design and build the best solution to a set challenge, that challenge just happens to be a series of races. That is why money is awarded for constructor championship position not drivers. The old V8 engines were locked in and done, nothing new or exciting and removed a large part of the engineering problem each year as it was already fully designed. The new engines are far more exciting

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Podiums: 1st Spa '16, 1st Bahrain '15, 1st China '14, 1st Malaysia '14
Championship position 2014: 13th | | 2015: 10th (heading the right way)
PF1 Autosport GP Predictor 2014: Second 2015: Second


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 8:58 am
Posts: 398
Location: Australia
Blackhander wrote:
Teams like Mercedes don't really care about losses as they're basically being run out of Mercedes Benz' advertising budget. In fact from memory a few years back Mercedes F1 had an agreement with Mercedes Benz that their annual budget would be £150 million per year, but includes sponsorship, so if they received £80 million in sponsorship then Mercedes would chip in £70mil. I'm assuming since their success that will have increased somewhat.

Another thing that will effect their losses is that payments from results in the constructors championship are delayed a year or two. And teams will be running their budgets off of what payments they are GOING to recieve not what they already have. So it's probably just a case of them accounting for the extra money they will be getting at the end of this year.

And lastly the engine thing is just ridiculous. The new engines are far faster than the old V8s, it's the cars that are slower due to the reduction in downforce everyone was so keen on. The V6 are putting out over 900hp (if you are lucky enough to have merc unit in the back) where the V8s were only making 780hp or there abouts. They're also producing four times the torque of the old engines. And they are far more exciting. Quieter, yes, but far cooler. The v8 function was basically "fuel goes in and burns and then some of that is used to turn the crankshaft..." The new engines are amazing; less fuel is injected directly into the cylinders 5 times per detonation fed by forced induction which can be driven by an electric compressor or the exhaust gasses. What energy isn't used in the engine itself his through a turbine which harvests energy to be stored for the ERS-K motor, used immediately or stored for use to supercharge the engine out of slow turns.

Started rambling off topic a bit there, but there is no comparison between the old and current engines
Well said and explained. Great source of reliable information as always.

_________________
Raikkonen Bottas Ricciardo

Thanks for the memories Nico


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
egnat69 wrote:
The big issue i have is that the FIA again gave a very narrow path of development and are about to freeze that again... Instead of leaving it to the bright brains of the engineers to find different and ultimately the best solution for achieving the 100kg per race limit, they limited them to a V6 Turbo with ERS. And instead of letting them develop those, they are freezing it step by step, so by 2020, the technology will also be old and outdated (albeit not as much as the V8s were after that long freeze)...

Exactly this. Everything is far too restrictive and if you get it wrong you can almost forget about getting back on track in any decent time-span


Last edited by Zoue on Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 880
Location: Melbourne Australia
I think they might have been better to go to an interim step of having a 1.6 liter V6 with a kers add on.
The 1.5 liter V6 twin turbo engines in the mid 80s were reportedly putting out well over 900 hp.

The kers on the V8s was 80 hp. (160hp electric engine now)
That would have cut the cost down and complexity of the engines.

The fuel flow rate could be upped too which would increase revs and noise.
I remember hearing about a comparison between Kmag and Button in the early races last year.
Button would rev out the engine just like you did to reach the power in the old V8s.
Kmag would change gears much lower down the rev range.
What was the difference in pace/lap times?
It was hardly anything as the electric engines had so much torque combined with the power of the turbo V6, it was less critical when you changed gears.
Ultimately it lead to Drivers not Reving out as it wasted more fuel and put you right on the fuel flow limit.
I have also read somewhere that the most they can rev to is about 12,000 which is well under the 15,000 limit currently set by the regs (18,000 limit in old V8s) due to the measly fuel flow limit.

So if the electric engine was less powerful, they would need to rev them out more and that would also increase the noise too...
Instead they have gone for the most complex engines imaginable with the high cost to match.

_________________
Dan the man!



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7798
The V8s were cheap ONLY because they were frozen and usage was very restricted, not because they were not hybrids. I believe the problem with current engine is that the hybrid technology is new. Some manufactures got it right some not. With V8 the development could be frozen because the technology used to build the engines was well known and the differences between engines were small after 1 season. Even gradual freeze clearly isn't working for hybrids. Before manufactures learn how to design hybrids the development shouldn't be restricted.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am
Posts: 1416
James14 wrote:
Oh, on every level the v6's have failed. They are too expensive and complicated and have probably frightened off possible entrants rather than attracted them. They have detracted from the whole F1 experience.
As mentioned the V8's could have been developed a lot further before going down this road.


I agree with your post completely. The V-6's are an abject failure. Most certainly the F1 experience at the race track is profoundly worse today and that is exclusively due to the V-6 engines.

Well said James.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Posts: 2432
Location: Austria
Blackhander wrote:
They are expensive, but that's only because of development costs and the fact that engines are no longer being subsidised. A few years from now once development costs have been recovered I expect them to be around 14-18mill per year depending on which manufacturer you go with.

this is the prime example of short-term, political thinking...

we freeze engine development, which will cut costs dramatically... after some years, the technology becomes outdated... then we go for a big development push, then freeze it again to keep costs down... wait until it is outdated, then go for a big push again...

looking at the short term, a freeze saves money... no development -> no costs -> lower prices... but at some point, you have to develop again unless you want to convert to horse races... so instead of slowly developing over the course of - say - 10 years, you go for one big, expensive change in technology, let customers pay that off for a couple of years and then "lower" the costs by freezing it again... but in reality, you don't lower costs, you bust bulk them. so it works in the short-term, then you have big step like in 2014.

_________________
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:22 am
Posts: 1849
Location: Brisbane, Australia
egnat69 wrote:
Blackhander wrote:
They are expensive, but that's only because of development costs and the fact that engines are no longer being subsidised. A few years from now once development costs have been recovered I expect them to be around 14-18mill per year depending on which manufacturer you go with.

this is the prime example of short-term, political thinking...

we freeze engine development, which will cut costs dramatically... after some years, the technology becomes outdated... then we go for a big development push, then freeze it again to keep costs down... wait until it is outdated, then go for a big push again...

looking at the short term, a freeze saves money... no development -> no costs -> lower prices... but at some point, you have to develop again unless you want to convert to horse races... so instead of slowly developing over the course of - say - 10 years, you go for one big, expensive change in technology, let customers pay that off for a couple of years and then "lower" the costs by freezing it again... but in reality, you don't lower costs, you bust bulk them. so it works in the short-term, then you have big step like in 2014.


Yeah I probably didn't explain that too well. I meant the costs of developing the engine initially not year to year development and upgrades. Your right though that it is an issue with the relatively minor ongoing costs followed by a few years of highly elevated engine costs before it calms down again and then starts all over a few years later. But short of just opening up engine development completely I'm not sure there is a way around it. And even then it would probably cost the same if not more just without the peaks and troughs

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Podiums: 1st Spa '16, 1st Bahrain '15, 1st China '14, 1st Malaysia '14
Championship position 2014: 13th | | 2015: 10th (heading the right way)
PF1 Autosport GP Predictor 2014: Second 2015: Second


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Posts: 2432
Location: Austria
Blackhander wrote:
egnat69 wrote:
Blackhander wrote:
They are expensive, but that's only because of development costs and the fact that engines are no longer being subsidised. A few years from now once development costs have been recovered I expect them to be around 14-18mill per year depending on which manufacturer you go with.

this is the prime example of short-term, political thinking...

we freeze engine development, which will cut costs dramatically... after some years, the technology becomes outdated... then we go for a big development push, then freeze it again to keep costs down... wait until it is outdated, then go for a big push again...

looking at the short term, a freeze saves money... no development -> no costs -> lower prices... but at some point, you have to develop again unless you want to convert to horse races... so instead of slowly developing over the course of - say - 10 years, you go for one big, expensive change in technology, let customers pay that off for a couple of years and then "lower" the costs by freezing it again... but in reality, you don't lower costs, you bust bulk them. so it works in the short-term, then you have big step like in 2014.


Yeah I probably didn't explain that too well. I meant the costs of developing the engine initially not year to year development and upgrades. Your right though that it is an issue with the relatively minor ongoing costs followed by a few years of highly elevated engine costs before it calms down again and then starts all over a few years later. But short of just opening up engine development completely I'm not sure there is a way around it. And even then it would probably cost the same if not more just without the peaks and troughs

well... the best way would still be a customer cost cap imho... but not one introduced right within an era, but at the very beginning of the rule making process... in addition, allow different concepts...

so theoretically say by 2019 we start fresh, fuel allowance is 100 kg per race, define a certain maximum weight of the entire drivetrain and let them look for the best they can come up with. at the same time, define a customer cost cap of 10 million USD per year, so that manufacturers can not really try to compensate very expensive designs by squeezing out their customers... manufacturers are businesses, with BoDs and stock owners... they can't justify to spend too much money without a plan to recover it, so they will have to plan their concepts in a way that they cost less...

_________________
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2834
Location: Perth, Australia
Colesy917 wrote:
Blackhander wrote:
Teams like Mercedes don't really care about losses as they're basically being run out of Mercedes Benz' advertising budget. In fact from memory a few years back Mercedes F1 had an agreement with Mercedes Benz that their annual budget would be £150 million per year, but includes sponsorship, so if they received £80 million in sponsorship then Mercedes would chip in £70mil. I'm assuming since their success that will have increased somewhat.

Another thing that will effect their losses is that payments from results in the constructors championship are delayed a year or two. And teams will be running their budgets off of what payments they are GOING to recieve not what they already have. So it's probably just a case of them accounting for the extra money they will be getting at the end of this year.

And lastly the engine thing is just ridiculous. The new engines are far faster than the old V8s, it's the cars that are slower due to the reduction in downforce everyone was so keen on. The V6 are putting out over 900hp (if you are lucky enough to have merc unit in the back) where the V8s were only making 780hp or there abouts. They're also producing four times the torque of the old engines. And they are far more exciting. Quieter, yes, but far cooler. The v8 function was basically "fuel goes in and burns and then some of that is used to turn the crankshaft..." The new engines are amazing; less fuel is injected directly into the cylinders 5 times per detonation fed by forced induction which can be driven by an electric compressor or the exhaust gasses. What energy isn't used in the engine itself his through a turbine which harvests energy to be stored for the ERS-K motor, used immediately or stored for use to supercharge the engine out of slow turns.

Started rambling off topic a bit there, but there is no comparison between the old and current engines
Well said and explained. Great source of reliable information as always.


I would also like to say I found this to be quite interesting.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Mercedes will clinch its second successive Formula 1 constructors’ title at this weekend’s Russian Grand Prix, if it outscores Ferrari by three points in Sochi.
And it will not be just any old trophy – the second world title will bring with it a guarantee of increased prize money for the team from the so-called New Prize Fund, established in 2012. Mercedes will receive an estimated $70m bonus in addition to the $92m it will receive for winning the title. This will put it close to parity with Ferrari’s prize take.


http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/10/deja-vu-mercedes-can-clinch-2015-f1-constructors-title-and-big-payday-in-sochi/

Because they really need the money...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2834
Location: Perth, Australia
Zoue wrote:
Mercedes will receive an estimated $70m bonus in addition to the $92m it will receive for winning the title. This will put it close to parity with Ferrari’s prize take.[/i]



My favourite bit.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1390
For manufacturers the V6s are (arguably too) expensive and complicated, but they do at least make sense from a business point of view. Simple V8s would be much cheaper and easier. However, that really doesn't matter, because it just doesn't represent the product they're trying sell any more.
It's the big manufacturers that hold the cards, not the dedicated racing outfits, and for them F1 ultimately is a big exercise in marketing and brand image. It doesn't matter how much money they would save (or even how much better F1 would be) if the technology powering the pinnacle of their motor-sport division directly contradicts what they're trying to promote to consumers.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:29 pm
Posts: 5712
Location: u.k
Blake wrote:
Seriously?

No one thinks that the V8 couldn't have been developed to produce 1,000+ hp? The end of their development cycle? I have my doubts about that.


I don't think they could have. Not in the form they were using them. The V8's were putting out in the region of 700-750HP without KERS. I don't think there was that much room to find an extra 250BHP out of a naturally aspirated V8. The only way they would have hit 1000 is with various ERS systems which is more or less where we are now.

_________________
Winter is Coming


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
wolfticket wrote:
For manufacturers the V6s are (arguably too) expensive and complicated, but they do at least make sense from a business point of view. Simple V8s would be much cheaper and easier. However, that really doesn't matter, because it just doesn't represent the product they're trying sell any more.
It's the big manufacturers that hold the cards, not the dedicated racing outfits, and for them F1 ultimately is a big exercise in marketing and brand image. It doesn't matter how much money they would save (or even how much better F1 would be) if the technology powering the pinnacle of their motor-sport division directly contradicts what they're trying to promote to consumers.

Agree up to a point, but there's no reason why they couldn't have introduced this technology alongside other formats. Don't forget Ferrari didn't want to move to V6 engines in the first place: their market is bigger engines. If the other manufacturers were so confident of the superiority of their new technology they should have allowed it to compete against existing, proven units, instead of forcing everyone down this path.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
RunningMan wrote:
Blake wrote:
Seriously?

No one thinks that the V8 couldn't have been developed to produce 1,000+ hp? The end of their development cycle? I have my doubts about that.


I don't think they could have. Not in the form they were using them. The V8's were putting out in the region of 700-750HP without KERS. I don't think there was that much room to find an extra 250BHP out of a naturally aspirated V8. The only way they would have hit 1000 is with various ERS systems which is more or less where we are now.

They could've hit 1000BHP easily providing they last less km


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8072
The recs for the v6 engine are so restrictive that there is no room to improve much at all. Things from the bore stroke v angle valve size and placement and a whole raft of other things, which would allow lots of development are just plain banned.

For instance, OK, we want a flat 6 so we can put gubbins on top of it and have a low COG and good aero shape. No, not allowed. Neither is a straight 6 (far easier mechanically) an integrated engine gearbox, or even a small increase in the v angle to drop the turbo into and drive it from both ends. There is not even the allowance to just produce a 3 cylinder engine of the same displacement and mount gubbins either side of it. It is a V6 of this angle bore stroke and crank. That means any alternate is plain out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:29 pm
Posts: 5712
Location: u.k
nixxxon wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Blake wrote:
Seriously?

No one thinks that the V8 couldn't have been developed to produce 1,000+ hp? The end of their development cycle? I have my doubts about that.


I don't think they could have. Not in the form they were using them. The V8's were putting out in the region of 700-750HP without KERS. I don't think there was that much room to find an extra 250BHP out of a naturally aspirated V8. The only way they would have hit 1000 is with various ERS systems which is more or less where we are now.

They could've hit 1000BHP easily providing they last less km


Well, what's the point if they can't last the distance? These engines could probably break 1000BHP but what's the point if they just run them out of fuel halfway into a GP or breakdown?

The V10's got upto at least 900BHP and some were closer to the 1000bhp mark however I don't think the 1000 BHP marker was exceeded. What makes everyone so confident that an engine with a 20% reduction in capacity would do it so easily?

_________________
Winter is Coming


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
RunningMan wrote:
nixxxon wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Blake wrote:
Seriously?

No one thinks that the V8 couldn't have been developed to produce 1,000+ hp? The end of their development cycle? I have my doubts about that.


I don't think they could have. Not in the form they were using them. The V8's were putting out in the region of 700-750HP without KERS. I don't think there was that much room to find an extra 250BHP out of a naturally aspirated V8. The only way they would have hit 1000 is with various ERS systems which is more or less where we are now.

They could've hit 1000BHP easily providing they last less km


Well, what's the point if they can't last the distance? These engines could probably break 1000BHP but what's the point if they just run them out of fuel halfway into a GP or breakdown?

The V10's got upto at least 900BHP and some were closer to the 1000bhp mark however I don't think the 1000 BHP marker was exceeded. What makes everyone so confident that an engine with a 20% reduction in capacity would do it so easily?

V10s were dropped at the end of 2005 (that was 10 years ago) and that same year they had to double the lasting distance.
In the end it all depends on how much they wanted them to last, because if they keep on demanding more and more mileage of it, they will get not very far in terms of power output (a combustion only engine that is)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Posts: 2432
Location: Austria
RunningMan wrote:
nixxxon wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Blake wrote:
Seriously?

No one thinks that the V8 couldn't have been developed to produce 1,000+ hp? The end of their development cycle? I have my doubts about that.


I don't think they could have. Not in the form they were using them. The V8's were putting out in the region of 700-750HP without KERS. I don't think there was that much room to find an extra 250BHP out of a naturally aspirated V8. The only way they would have hit 1000 is with various ERS systems which is more or less where we are now.

They could've hit 1000BHP easily providing they last less km


Well, what's the point if they can't last the distance? These engines could probably break 1000BHP but what's the point if they just run them out of fuel halfway into a GP or breakdown?

The V10's got upto at least 900BHP and some were closer to the 1000bhp mark however I don't think the 1000 BHP marker was exceeded. What makes everyone so confident that an engine with a 20% reduction in capacity would do it so easily?

it is kind of a thought experiment... if the development of the V8s was as free as the development of the V10s, could they have made it to that mark or not? as the V8s were already much more restricted than the V10s from the get-go, that was never to be an easy question... it's no secret the old engines made their power from revs... it was their old-fashioned concept... short stroke, high revs - more fuel/air mixture to be burned per second... the V8's were limited at 19k, later at 18k... technically, more than 20k were already possible with the V10s, so after a couple of years they would have made it to 22 probably... they made even huge steps with lubes and fuels during the V8-freeze... if they were allowed to match the hardware to that, even more would have been possible...

i think they could have made it - that said, they could have reached a lot more with the v10s of course... i mean, the v10 allowed them to choose things like the v-angle, while with the v8s they had to use 90 degrees...

and then, just imagine what the v10s or v8s would have been capable of if they allowed something rather rudimental like direct fuel injection...

thinking about that - i would really like to know what a v6, v8 and v10 with kers, direct fuel injection and turbo would need fuel-wise and how much difference between the concepts really is...

_________________
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1705
Location: Hawaii
nixxxon wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
nixxxon wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Blake wrote:
Seriously?

No one thinks that the V8 couldn't have been developed to produce 1,000+ hp? The end of their development cycle? I have my doubts about that.


I don't think they could have. Not in the form they were using them. The V8's were putting out in the region of 700-750HP without KERS. I don't think there was that much room to find an extra 250BHP out of a naturally aspirated V8. The only way they would have hit 1000 is with various ERS systems which is more or less where we are now.

They could've hit 1000BHP easily providing they last less km


Well, what's the point if they can't last the distance? These engines could probably break 1000BHP but what's the point if they just run them out of fuel halfway into a GP or breakdown?

The V10's got upto at least 900BHP and some were closer to the 1000bhp mark however I don't think the 1000 BHP marker was exceeded. What makes everyone so confident that an engine with a 20% reduction in capacity would do it so easily?

V10s were dropped at the end of 2005 (that was 10 years ago) and that same year they had to double the lasting distance.
In the end it all depends on how much they wanted them to last, because if they keep on demanding more and more mileage of it, they will get not very far in terms of power output (a combustion only engine that is)


I agree with nixxxon about engine life. Remember that everything in F1 is taken to the nth degree. The engines could last longer, they would just be heavier.

With regards to the power of the V10's I do not doubt that the V10's were at or over 1,000 hp. By RunningMan's admission the V8's were producing 700-750 hp..........at a limited 18,000 rpms. The V10's I believe raced at 20,000 rpms and were later restricted to 18,000 rpms...........so they were at least at 1,000 hp if not over that. Add to this that Honda reportedly had an engine that could do 22,000 rpms. It's not hard to imagine that a V10 could peak out at 1,200+ hp easily.


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: JamWalsh 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