planetf1.com

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-to ... 17-671488/

looks like we are moving in to a period of unlimited engine development

PRAISE JESUS!!!!!!!!!!

This is the biggest step in the right direction since I can remember.

The change was one of the key concessions made when the manufacturers agreed to cut their prices to customers in 2017.

All four now have works teams and will justify their spending in terms of making their own squads competitive, without the cost being passed on to the teams they supply

The manufacturers simply spending millions and taking the hit themselves financially? All seems a bit strange.

Good news if true. I'll wait to see it corroborated before breaking out the bubbly!

Underviewer wrote:

The change was one of the key concessions made when the manufacturers agreed to cut their prices to customers in 2017.

All four now have works teams and will justify their spending in terms of making their own squads competitive, without the cost being passed on to the teams they supply

The manufacturers simply spending millions and taking the hit themselves financially? All seems a bit strange.

I wonder if it actually achieved what it was intended to anyway. With the disparity in engine performance the other teams probably spent more money trying to unlock more performance from the portion and parts they could change.

Hallelujah!

Still think this will reinforce any Mercedes/Ferrari dominance present by 2017 rather than help the others to catch up.

Flash2k11 wrote:Still think this will reinforce any Mercedes/Ferrari dominance present by 2017 rather than help the others to catch up.

And if so then well done to them. But at least others will have a chance to close the gap

Makes you wonder why the engine manufacturers would want to do this given that there is no practical relevance to the engines?

The only way this news could be better was if it was immediate rather than in a year's time.

Well, sounds like great news. Could backfire on Renault though if they're not willing to spend as much as Ferrari and Mercedes have shown up until now (not sure about Honda).

Excellent! That should make things in 2017 interesting. The only better thing woud be if it were for this year, but I suppose it's probably too late for that in any case.

mds wrote:Well, sounds like great news. Could backfire on Renault though if they're not willing to spend as much as Ferrari and Mercedes have shown up until now (not sure about Honda).

True, but then they'd only have themselves to blame. Having the opportunity and not taking it is different to not having much of an opportunity in the first place

https://shellyssojourn.wordpress.com/20 ... -the-lord/

Zoue wrote:

mds wrote:Well, sounds like great news. Could backfire on Renault though if they're not willing to spend as much as Ferrari and Mercedes have shown up until now (not sure about Honda).

True, but then they'd only have themselves to blame. Having the opportunity and not taking it is different to not having much of an opportunity in the first place

I fully agree. It's just a sidenote, Renaults enthousiasm might be tempered as soon as mid next year if they find out exactly how much money they will have to spend in order to keep up with the powerhouses that are Merc and Ferrari.

2017 could turn out to be a great year! Wider cars, wider bodywork and floor, more aero, wider and more aggressive tyres and to top it all off constant engine development!... Now why do I feel like we will have threads throughout the year bemoaning the individual cancellation of all of these plans and be back in a year with the exact same cars?

Blackhander wrote:2017 could turn out to be a great year! Wider cars, wider bodywork and floor, more aero, wider and more aggressive tyres and to top it all off constant engine development!... Now why do I feel like we will have threads throughout the year bemoaning the individual cancellation of all of these plans and be back in a year with the exact same cars?

I'd hesitate to expect all of these things. Every time Pat Symonds tells us about the latest developments he sounds less enthusiastic about widespread change. Seemingly they keep arguing and the step between now and 2017 won't be as major as initially expected. At least they've committed to a Feb 29 date to have everything agreed upon

mcdo wrote:

Blackhander wrote:2017 could turn out to be a great year! Wider cars, wider bodywork and floor, more aero, wider and more aggressive tyres and to top it all off constant engine development!... Now why do I feel like we will have threads throughout the year bemoaning the individual cancellation of all of these plans and be back in a year with the exact same cars?

I'd hesitate to expect all of these things. Every time Pat Symonds tells us about the latest developments he sounds less enthusiastic about widespread change. Seemingly they keep arguing and the step between now and 2017 won't be as major as initially expected. At least they've committed to a Feb 29 date to have everything agreed upon

Come on - this is the FIA - they probably forgot to specify a year...

Herb wrote:

mcdo wrote:

Blackhander wrote:2017 could turn out to be a great year! Wider cars, wider bodywork and floor, more aero, wider and more aggressive tyres and to top it all off constant engine development!... Now why do I feel like we will have threads throughout the year bemoaning the individual cancellation of all of these plans and be back in a year with the exact same cars?

I'd hesitate to expect all of these things. Every time Pat Symonds tells us about the latest developments he sounds less enthusiastic about widespread change. Seemingly they keep arguing and the step between now and 2017 won't be as major as initially expected. At least they've committed to a Feb 29 date to have everything agreed upon

Come on - this is the FIA - they probably forgot to specify a year...

Unlimited engine development and a cap on engine prices - something just doesn't add up.

But with limited testing still in place we should see more spectacular flames and oil smoke from the back of cars as they try to push the boundaries on the cheap and get failures mid-race. It would tickle me if Red Bull do get the "latest" engine instead of last year's version and it blows up in their face. Literally.


.

Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but I should have thought a story of this magnitude, if true, would have been all over the major sites by now. The only ones I can find use the original motorsport.com one as a source...

Chunky wrote:Unlimited engine development and a cap on engine prices - something just doesn't add up.

The cap on PU prices is only a cap on the price PU manufacturers can ask customer teams. They can spend as much as they like, they'll just have to eat the price themselves.

Side effect is: it basically rules out third-party PU's ever taking off.

the token system was allegedly to keep costs down (by restricting development) - so anyone with enough wedge to invest in their engine can gain power, etc - but at what cost? Can't see Renault going overboard with their chequebook - but Honda might? (they need to save face after all!).

I agree with others that say this at least gives 'opportunity' to the engine makers. Let the development wars begin!

MistaVega23 wrote:PRAISE JESUS!!!!!!!!!!

This is the biggest step in the right direction since I can remember.

It is good in that the 4 manufacturers can now spend a fortune developing their engines. That will make F1 much more expensive. I don't like the idea of a price war over engines, as it isn't what F1 should be about IMO.

BUT! They have to sell engines for 12,000,000 euros. Hooray! - except they don't have to sell competitive engines - just engines that fit the rules. The only team to whom it might make sense to provide an engine that is to the highest current spec is if Renault supply their best engine to Red Bull.

So it guarantees F1 will get more expensive.

Over time, provided they are prepared to pay enough, 3 of the 4 manufacturers have a chance to close the gap and one has the chance to stay dominant.

So it all depends on how much money each of them is prepared to pay in the engine wars.

It's basically a complete screw up of the plans to keep costs under control in F1. F1 already has very, very expensive engines that are much more expensive than necessary to provide suitable F1 RACE engines.

But it does make it easier for the 4 manufacturers to compete.

JohnnyGuitar wrote:The only way this news could be better was if it was immediate rather than in a year's time.

You are absolutely right!

Zoue wrote:Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but I should have thought a story of this magnitude, if true, would have been all over the major sites by now. The only ones I can find use the original motorsport.com one as a source...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122691

mcdo wrote:

Zoue wrote:Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but I should have thought a story of this magnitude, if true, would have been all over the major sites by now. The only ones I can find use the original motorsport.com one as a source...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122691

Yay! Now I can break out the bubbly!

So, all they need to do now, is test them

Zoue wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:Still think this will reinforce any Mercedes/Ferrari dominance present by 2017 rather than help the others to catch up.

And if so then well done to them. But at least others will have a chance to close the gap

Without wishing to do this argument again, I reckon the only chance being given to Renault and Honda is the chance to attempt to throw more money at it than Mercedes/Ferrari, something I seriously doubt Renault are even capable of doing and something that I don't think Honda are up for either.

Flash2k11 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:Still think this will reinforce any Mercedes/Ferrari dominance present by 2017 rather than help the others to catch up.

And if so then well done to them. But at least others will have a chance to close the gap

Without wishing to do this argument again, I reckon the only chance being given to Renault and Honda is the chance to attempt to throw more money at it than Mercedes/Ferrari, something I seriously doubt Renault are even capable of doing and something that I don't think Honda are up for either.

Manufactures spending on sport depend on car maker policy, sponsors etc, not revenues or profit. FIAT was bleeding money yet Ferrari never had troubles with spending. Honda had 110b Euro revenue in 2014, Mercedes about 80 and Renault about 60 or so. Ferrari probably nowhere near to any of the mainstream manufactures.

Flash2k11 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:Still think this will reinforce any Mercedes/Ferrari dominance present by 2017 rather than help the others to catch up.

And if so then well done to them. But at least others will have a chance to close the gap

Without wishing to do this argument again, I reckon the only chance being given to Renault and Honda is the chance to attempt to throw more money at it than Mercedes/Ferrari, something I seriously doubt Renault are even capable of doing and something that I don't think Honda are up for either.

Of course it's possible that Mercedes and/or Ferrari will steam ahead, but that's not the point. It's never been about which team specifically is winning, but whether others have the possibility to make up lost ground. The token system (together with lack of development) made that extremely difficult.

mcdo wrote:

Blackhander wrote:2017 could turn out to be a great year! Wider cars, wider bodywork and floor, more aero, wider and more aggressive tyres and to top it all off constant engine development!... Now why do I feel like we will have threads throughout the year bemoaning the individual cancellation of all of these plans and be back in a year with the exact same cars?

I'd hesitate to expect all of these things. Every time Pat Symonds tells us about the latest developments he sounds less enthusiastic about widespread change. Seemingly they keep arguing and the step between now and 2017 won't be as major as initially expected. At least they've committed to a Feb 29 date to have everything agreed upon

That's because more aero makes it harder to overtake, faster doesn't always mean better.

While it does create more hope of the 4 manufacturer teams being more competitive from 2017, it does pretty much complete the picture of the FIA as totally incompetent and weak.

When these very, very expensive engines were introduced, the FIA's solution to the potential very, very, very expensive engine wars, was the token system.

Certainly, improving the possibility of more than 1 team contending for the World Championships is a plus. Whether they will all spend enough money to be competitive, we shall have to wait and see. Currently, all we have is increased hope.

I'd like to hear what happened re the threat to bring in an FIA engine. Did the FIA ever have the power to do that? - and if so, why didn't they do it when they didn't get a solution offered by the manufacturers that was compatible with the FIA's (and Bernie's) wishes for a more competitive but affordable F1?

Why not start this year?

To those saying it will raise cost,........maybe. Thing is they will now be able to do away with expensive dynos and correlation simulators that end up costing more in development because when they get to the track it just does not work. Its not like they are not spending huge sums testing new parts in these simulators at the moment.

It at least will give F1 an opportunity to become more competitive. More competitive means more viewers. More viewers means more sponsors.

And that is the balance of the books.

You cannot just look at it from one side i.e if they are cheaper it will be more affordable for smaller teams. It could happen that "cheaper" drives away sponsors and smaller teams have less money to buy the engine.
That is what they did with the token system and look were we ended up.

babararacucudada wrote:While it does create more hope of the 4 manufacturer teams being more competitive from 2017, it does pretty much complete the picture of the FIA as totally incompetent and weak.

When these very, very expensive engines were introduced, the FIA's solution to the potential very, very, very expensive engine wars, was the token system.

Certainly, improving the possibility of more than 1 team contending for the World Championships is a plus. Whether they will all spend enough money to be competitive, we shall have to wait and see. Currently, all we have is increased hope.

I'd like to hear what happened re the threat to bring in an FIA engine. Did the FIA ever have the power to do that? - and if so, why didn't they do it when they didn't get a solution offered by the manufacturers that was compatible with the FIA's (and Bernie's) wishes for a more competitive but affordable F1?

The token system was the idea of the manufacturers and not the FIA, it was the manufacturers that wanted to control the costs.

The manufacturers have actually bowed to the wishes of the FIA whilst Bernie simply wants rid of the Hybrids which is perhaps your wish as well, so he probably will never be happy unless the likes of Ferrari and Red Bull start to win more often than not?

AravJ wrote:Why not start this year?

To those saying it will raise cost,........maybe. Thing is they will now be able to do away with expensive dynos and correlation simulators that end up costing more in development because when they get to the track it just does not work. Its not like they are not spending huge sums testing new parts in these simulators at the moment.

It at least will give F1 an opportunity to become more competitive. More competitive means more viewers. More viewers means more sponsors.

And that is the balance of the books.

You cannot just look at it from one side i.e if they are cheaper it will be more affordable for smaller teams. It could happen that "cheaper" drives away sponsors and smaller teams have less money to buy the engine.
That is what they did with the token system and look were we ended up.

They still are only allowed 4/5 engines a season so they can't just ramp up at the w/e with a shed full of engines.

AravJ wrote:Why not start this year?

To those saying it will raise cost,........maybe. Thing is they will now be able to do away with expensive dynos and correlation simulators that end up costing more in development because when they get to the track it just does not work. Its not like they are not spending huge sums testing new parts in these simulators at the moment.

It at least will give F1 an opportunity to become more competitive. More competitive means more viewers. More viewers means more sponsors.

And that is the balance of the books.

You cannot just look at it from one side i.e if they are cheaper it will be more affordable for smaller teams. It could happen that "cheaper" drives away sponsors and smaller teams have less money to buy the engine.
That is what they did with the token system and look were we ended up.

I'm not too sure about Sponsors being more attracted by higher prices.

Yes - more competitive means more viewers. This engine war free for all will only mean it's more competitive if all 4 are prepared to spend the amount of money required to catch and stay with Mercedes. If manufacturers spend a lot more money and still can't win races, it makes even less sense to stay in F1.

They could have a very competitive F1 with much cheaper, more powerful engines. The cars could be faster and the best drivers could out-perform the lesser drivers. You might actually have Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel and whoever else you think is capable, all competing for wins at most of the races, because the driver made more of a difference than the car.
More competitive and more viewers and less money required and I think you would have more sponsors than if it was even more expensive.

pokerman wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:While it does create more hope of the 4 manufacturer teams being more competitive from 2017, it does pretty much complete the picture of the FIA as totally incompetent and weak.

When these very, very expensive engines were introduced, the FIA's solution to the potential very, very, very expensive engine wars, was the token system.

Certainly, improving the possibility of more than 1 team contending for the World Championships is a plus. Whether they will all spend enough money to be competitive, we shall have to wait and see. Currently, all we have is increased hope.

I'd like to hear what happened re the threat to bring in an FIA engine. Did the FIA ever have the power to do that? - and if so, why didn't they do it when they didn't get a solution offered by the manufacturers that was compatible with the FIA's (and Bernie's) wishes for a more competitive but affordable F1?

The token system was the idea of the manufacturers and not the FIA, it was the manufacturers that wanted to control the costs.

The manufacturers have actually bowed to the wishes of the FIA whilst Bernie simply wants rid of the Hybrids which is perhaps your wish as well, so he probably will never be happy unless the likes of Ferrari and Red Bull start to win more often than not?

There's a pretty massive assumptive leap here to say that because Bernie doen't like hybrids therefore he must only want Ferrari and Red Bull to win.

pokerman wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:While it does create more hope of the 4 manufacturer teams being more competitive from 2017, it does pretty much complete the picture of the FIA as totally incompetent and weak.

When these very, very expensive engines were introduced, the FIA's solution to the potential very, very, very expensive engine wars, was the token system.

Certainly, improving the possibility of more than 1 team contending for the World Championships is a plus. Whether they will all spend enough money to be competitive, we shall have to wait and see. Currently, all we have is increased hope.

I'd like to hear what happened re the threat to bring in an FIA engine. Did the FIA ever have the power to do that? - and if so, why didn't they do it when they didn't get a solution offered by the manufacturers that was compatible with the FIA's (and Bernie's) wishes for a more competitive but affordable F1?

The token system was the idea of the manufacturers and not the FIA, it was the manufacturers that wanted to control the costs.

The manufacturers have actually bowed to the wishes of the FIA whilst Bernie simply wants rid of the Hybrids which is perhaps your wish as well, so he probably will never be happy unless the likes of Ferrari and Red Bull start to win more often than not?

The FIA write the rules and decide things like restrictions to cut costs. Cutting or at least trying to control costs has been a priority of Todt's for years. He's just not good at implementing it.
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... eaflet.pdf

The manufacturers may have had some input but the decision to include the restrictions on development was the FIA's.

babararacucudada wrote:

AravJ wrote:Why not start this year?

To those saying it will raise cost,........maybe. Thing is they will now be able to do away with expensive dynos and correlation simulators that end up costing more in development because when they get to the track it just does not work. Its not like they are not spending huge sums testing new parts in these simulators at the moment.

It at least will give F1 an opportunity to become more competitive. More competitive means more viewers. More viewers means more sponsors.

And that is the balance of the books.

You cannot just look at it from one side i.e if they are cheaper it will be more affordable for smaller teams. It could happen that "cheaper" drives away sponsors and smaller teams have less money to buy the engine.
That is what they did with the token system and look were we ended up.

I'm not too sure about Sponsors being more attracted by higher prices.

Yes - more competitive means more viewers. This engine war free for all will only mean it's more competitive if all 4 are prepared to spend the amount of money required to catch and stay with Mercedes. If manufacturers spend a lot more money and still can't win races, it makes even less sense to stay in F1.

They could have a very competitive F1 with much cheaper, more powerful engines. The cars could be faster and the best drivers could out-perform the lesser drivers. You might actually have Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel and whoever else you think is capable, all competing for wins at most of the races, because the driver made more of a difference than the car.
More competitive and more viewers and less money required and I think you would have more sponsors than if it was even more expensive.

I think you are romanticising things, more powerful engines doesn't mean that all of a sudden the drivers can overcome a car with superior aerodynamics, you want all the drivers to have an equal chance then you spec the cars as well as the engines.