GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Dare on August 28, 2014, 04:40:25 AM
-
F1 is supposed to be about the best technology in
the highest level of motor racing.Is it fair to penalize
a team for the whole season just because they didn't
initially get it right? I don't think so.... :DntKnw:
ESPN Staff
August 27, 2014 « McLaren formulating five-year driver plan - Boullier | McLaren considering Vandoorne options »
© Sutton Images
Enlarge
Ferrari team principal Marco Mattiacci says he wants manufacturers to be given the chance to make changes to their engine during a season.
Engines were homologated before the start of the season, with regulations only allowing approved changes to be made for reasons of reliability, safety or cost-saving. After tweaks are made this winter the same rule kicks in at the start of 2015, something Mattiacci wants to see changed.
"Yes, in a certain way - not as rigid as it is today. I would like a certain amount of opportunities a year to work on the engine," Mattiacci said when asked if he wanted the freeze to be lifted.
Mattiacci and his fellow team principals met during the Belgian Grand Prix and he admits this is an issue he raised.
"As you very well know we keep discussing about how to improve - if it's needed - every area of the Formula One product. [In Belgium] we had a fantastic race. But I suppose there are certain areas, the DNA of Formula One is innovating, innovating and catching up with the best one and being as fast as the smartest one. That's what I will keep, as Ferrari, insisting, and one of the areas is engine freezing."
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
-
Engine developement helps everyone, even, or perhaps especially customer teams, who are also saddled with a crap engine and nothing they can do about it.
-
I agree with Scott.
I think that as long as any engine upgrade is distributed fairly to all teams using the engine then allowing upgrades would benefit F1.
However, they can't just ignore the fixed number of engines per season rules. Perhaps there should be set times in the season when an upgrade is allowed. One obvious one would be straight after the summer break. It could transform the second half of the season.
-
I'd rather at least two development steps...maybe as they move to Europe and again after summer break.
-
Some freeing up on the freeze would be good and 2 or 3 fixed times for introduction seems to strike the right balance.
However unless the old ways of Ferrari International Assistance are reinstated all the engine makers will be free to upgrade, so any runaway leader may well add even further to their advantage, I wonder if the new Ferrari boss has factored that in. :D
-
Oh, you mean he only thinks Ferrari should be able to develop the engines. |-( :DD :DD
-
I agree with Scott.
I think that as long as any engine upgrade is distributed fairly to all teams using the engine then allowing upgrades would benefit F1.
However, they can't just ignore the fixed number of engines per season rules. Perhaps there should be set times in the season when an upgrade is allowed. One obvious one would be straight after the summer break. It could transform the second half of the season.
I think the fixed number of engines would naturally serve to cut costs on engine development while still allowing development. If a company has to manufacture 100 identical engines, then having a set design that can be mass produced saves money.
However, since each supplier only makes 60 engines, the economy of scale no longer apply. They're all hand made, and it doesn't matter if the engines are identical or not, there is no manufacturing savings.
I do realize that much of the cost is involved in R&D, but if the companies see the R&D as trickle down research, I think that the FIA can still cap the costs suppliers can charges to customers and still have willing suppliers.
As it is, why would Renault stay in the sport if they're forced to put their name on an inferior product?
-
I can see one issue that might be a bit tricky to navigate. Many of the engine improvements would probably involve replacement of major parts and assemblies. How many parts, and what parts, could be replaced without the unit being counted against the season total as a "new" engine?
-
I have always felt like the engine development freeze is against the spirit of F1, and also the displacement and valve restriction. This is the very heart of car racing, so this should be open, diverse, brilliant and cutting-edge technology. Yes we have to consider about cost, but can some one tell me over years in which department teams have spend up most of the resources? Its aero not engine, so cost cutting should be restricted on aero not in the engine.
The method by which the freeze is implied is feels dubious to me. Instead of freeze of development, I think there should be limit of budget and the engine should be build in house, no other third party, or a subsidiary of big company. There we will see creativity, brilliance the essence of F1 to the word.