2015 Rolex Australian Grand Prix

Its amusing to see the biggest governing body force engine changes on a car that was already up to 20km slower on the straights at some tracks,

 

That was due to the Blown diffuser not for power reasons.

 

It's hard to know whether to side with Red Bull or against them regarding their engine complaints. On one hand, a lot of their comments make them sound like they're throwing the toys out of the pram just because they find themselves unable to win the championship now. On the other hand, they're paying Renault big money to supply them with F1 engines, and are instead getting engines that simply aren't up to F1 standards. With Renault not honouring their part of the deal, you can understand why Red Bull are sour about life right now.

 

That could be more that Infinity is more a naming rights sponsor then Renault, so there would be a sour taste there I'm sure,

I thought Red Bull didn't have the blown diffuser?

Edit, meant double deck, not blown, everyone had that eventually lol

 

Before the fuel flow sensor thing I've heard MB is using a special fuel from Petronas on termic engine. Other MB client teams don't use this fuel.

The reason why they are no longer the fastest on the straight is they can use considerably more downforce and still have a decent top speed which wouldn't be possible without this Petronas fuel.

 

Yes they do, all the other MB clients run the fuel, with Petrobas currently developing their own for Williams in a long term plan to find gains that way. I don't see how Petronas is giving a different variant along with another variant between one team from the others. Especially considering that it'd be best to have their main team alliance fight another team with a similar set up rather than someone else.

They were six kph off their MB clients, the most likely reason is that MB have a superior understanding of the 2015 engine obviously and thus can build (like last year) a superior car. They've also upped their game in the aero area from last year and have a car that rivals the best RBR cars if not better. Also another aspect you have yet nor has anyone else is the mapping of the entire system. Mercedes have no obligation (other than to keep Ferrari and Renault at bay) to supply their clients with the absolute specifics on mapping or what mapping the factory team uses.

The fuel flow measure will probably help Merc AMG more and hurt their rivals more. Instead of 32 stupid tokens, perhaps a more open regulation for the Manufactures building the engine through the season would be better.

 

And how would that work? The token system is designed to control the rate of development for an engine. Deregulate that, and the manufacturers will simply throw money at developing the engines and pass the costs on to customer teams.

 

Why not impose a max price tag for PU packages, and let engine manufacturers develop/spend as much as they see fit?

 

Because some Manufactuers will be okay with making them at a Loss and others wouldn't.

 

Can't have your cake and eat it too, I guess

 

I think once Active Suspension gets introduced it can take abit away from engine irregularities though.

A team that can excel at implementing it should be able to overcome any engine downfalls.

 

The fuel they use has to be very close to the fuel you'd get from a service station pump. I'm sure there are some low concentration additives that you could use to help, but probably not to get the sort of performance differences that Mercedes has.

This doesn't really do anything to solve the current problem.

Even with a max price, it's still totally possible for one engine developer to do a much better job than the others. Or conversely, for one engine developer to do a much worse job than the others. (See: "to pull a Renault".)

 

Agreed.

But on the other hand it could eventually allow those committed to the competition to do so on the basis of on track performance, rather than politics and rule twisting.

 

That it self is not anything like what it is now though, excusing my obvious objections due to differing objectives from each manufacturer, it in theory would still allow development to get to the point of diminishing returns, right now that is severally restricted to the point it won't happen before the total freeze or it will take nearly the full length of the regulation life to happen.

 

I have no proof nor abilities to explain what this Petronas fuel is about, I've just heard it in a couple of forums and would like to know if any of you here ever heard of it before. Some says they utilize an ex FIAT technology.

 

That's sort of what makes Formula 1 different from most other forms of motorsport though. If everyone was in a spec car it wouldn't really be the same. And if you're going to have people pushing to develop new engines as part of the competition, then some people are going to take it seriously enough that they'll do whatever they can to win, instead of just what's profitable.

It's the Senna@Suzuka'90 mindset applied to engines, and it applies just as well to any other developmental part. You always run the risk of having someone who will do whatever it takes to win. If that means eating $50 million in losses from selling engines at less than cost, then maybe someone ruthless enough to do that will come along. If that means pushing the rules right to the very limit, then someone will do it.

This is just what high level competition is. People will disagree whether that's what it should be, but few people will fail to recognise that there are people like that out there.

Cost caps on engines would work to make F1 more accessable to teams and bring costs down, but there's no guarantee at all that it will have any effect of the quality of those engines, either in absolute or relative terms. Maybe Merc decides that having unquestionably the best engine is worth it to them in terms of the image it creates and the value of being world champions.

I think these sort of disparities are just part of Formula 1. As long as development is so valuable, it's going to happen. Still, at the moment it certainly appears that Mercedes are competing based on track performance, at least until any solid evidence of any dubiously legal parts turns up. It's just that they're much, much better at it than anyone else.

 

The team reputably with (one of) the highest spendings in F1 ends to be one with (one of) the worst engine and performance in the field, so I certainly agree on the fact there is no obvious correlation.

There is also indeed a wide scope of primary motivations, hence commitments. Balancing sustainability and competition to the ultimate edge will remain a delicate equation, specifically when the perception on budget and spendings distorts to unprecedented levels threw the field. If MB can spend up to $10 millions to air a one minute long ad during Superbowl, spending hundreds for a full dominating F1 season is probably very good value for money.

It just seems to me that by unfreezing engines development healthy manufacturer’s may continue to play their game, when at the same time a cap for delivery would allow smaller racers outfits to maintain theirs. Better have this, IMO, than a one (2?3?) make series with interchangeable billboards.

Considerations on legality is just another/additional matter.

 

I think we're talking about two different things. I wasn't talking about the blown diffuser engine maps, I was talking about changing maps between qualifying and the race.

 

I already said it. The other MB clients use the same fuel as the mother team. It isn't the fuel that's an issue, or a down powered engine as Massa suggested but then tried to go back on in a recent interview.

Weren't you the same guy that for years on this and other sites I've seen you on say that cost caps don't nor will work. Yet the token idea to some is a measure but not really, cause it doesn't cap cost of development for what ever part the manufacture plans to bring in that's worth n amount of tokens.

So how would taking the system away be any different. The only option I see is a joint agreement between the groups on a max unit cost and time of development, not only would this cap the research aspect but also the total cost at the end. Thus if a team really wants to destroy their bottom line by over spending in a small dev window with no return on product profit or negative return, they only hurt themselves.

 

My usual pedantry... but Benz isn't part of the F1 team as it's AMG, their performance group

 

Yes but it originally was MB, and the name has been switched so much it really doesn't matter. Considering the name is a marketing effort more so than what area of Mercedes has the biggest say. Also considering that the car comes from a team in Brackley using engines from Ilmor that was re-branded with AMG in the title. It was also known as Mercedes GP for a couple years, in the end it's a group that is even outside the group they claim to be. Thus the marketing connection.

However, Mercedes Benz is the main stay, and the company at large thus saying MB clients still is correct in the grand scheme. More importantly such semantics hardly matter when addressing what the conversation is about. Which we should get back to.

 

No, they raced as Daimler-Benz, Mercedes-AMG doesn't use the Benz moniker and haven't since their F1 return. I understand your point about the parent group though.

Back on-topic...

Exactly. And even within the cost-capping there are all kinds of clever ways for the more well-resourced teams to find extra-budgetary development if they're so inclined, especially with something as small as an engine. It's much harder to build/test a car unseen than it is to build/test an engine.