F1 2017 Engine Parity discussion. Yes or No? Another F1 thread

  • Thread starter twitcher
  • 25 comments
  • 1,421 views

Should Formula 1 use Balance of Performance (BoP) to even out the field of cars?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • No

    Votes: 21 77.8%
  • Total voters
    27
twitcher

twitcher

6,293
Canada
Canada
So I just read this on Motorsport.com (yes, I know...)

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ecclestone-willing-to-scrap-engine-agreement-732829/

The article states that teams have agreed to parity between the engines...with the parity being no more than 0.300 seconds difference around Catalunya.


I wasn't even aware F1 was considering this route as an option. I didn't think Id ever see BoP in F1.

What are people's thoughts on balancing the power units? How will they go about doing this?
 
I think what's difficult is that F1 is the one championship that's never had BoP in it's entire life (could be wrong but as far I know it has never done any sort of BoP). I'm fine with that mantra make the drivers have more of an impact and make the engine performance differences less. Sadly who knows what the teams and manufacturers will think.
 
Having a balance of power between engines will be good I think. The drivers will be relatively more important, as will the chassis and pit-side management. It's obvious Mercedes still has the upper hand engine-wise. They were ahead from the start on engine architecture, and no one can catch them. They won fair and square, but now is a good time for change.
 
twitcher
So I just read this on Motorsport.com (yes, I know...)

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ecclestone-willing-to-scrap-engine-agreement-732829/

The article states that teams have agreed to parity between the engines...with the parity being no more than 0.300 seconds difference around Catalunya.


I wasn't even aware F1 was considering this route as an option. I didn't think Id ever see BoP in F1.

What are people's thoughts on balancing the power units? How will they go about doing this?
Click to expand...

You do know this has been actively talked about in the constructors thread? Just saying. I was confused by the thread title, because it just seems like the topic is really customer engines which is to be balancing act from here on.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
You do know this has been actively talked about in the constructors thread? Just saying. I was confused by the thread title, because it just seems like the topic is really customer engines
Click to expand...

Not sure how it's being actively discussed in a tread that was last posted in on April 11, and the news that the teams had agreed on the parity just the other day. I only found out about the BoP of the PUs today...

Also, that thread is for 2016 constructor updates, not for discussion of rule changes in 2017. I could be wrong though, there's so many F1 threads these days, it's hard to keep on top of them all.
 
catamount39
I think what's difficult is that F1 is the one championship that's never had BoP in it's entire life (could be wrong but as far I know it has never done any sort of BoP).
Click to expand...

In effect, the long Cosworth-kit car era ('67-'82) was in effect a BoP era, as Ferrari was usually the only other power plant, and the Ferrari chassis was usually a PoS.
 
I'm confused a bit here on how this BoP would be carried out.

How do they determine the lap time?

The way I understand it, they're talking about balancing only the power units to within .300 seconds, not the entire car balanced to within .300 seconds. Is this correct?

How do you balance just the power units?
 
Once the engines are equal, and one team is still ahead, then where next? Are aero components the next to be standardised even more so than they currently are, because the new frontrunning team spent the R&D budget on aero to meet the new regulations and are now winning everything?
I only choose aero as an example as once power and weight limits are standardised, then attention surely has to be turned to another area of performance, it could have been brakes or electronics.
"It's not for us to slow down, its for the rest to catch up"
Red Bull slowed down, Mercedes caught up.
 
twitcher
Not sure how it's being actively discussed in a tread that was last posted in on April 11, and the news that the teams had agreed on the parity just the other day. I only found out about the BoP of the PUs today...
Click to expand...

The rules on how the cars will look which is a regulatory thing, the tokens and there being abolished isn't new, it's just being reminded to us all that it will stay that way to "close the engine gap". All that's been said already and talked about. When you look at the title and what you're actually talking about here are two different things.

Also, that thread is for 2016 constructor updates, not for discussion of rule changes in 2017. I could be wrong though, there's so many F1 threads these days, it's hard to keep on top of them all.
Click to expand...

Who says? In general it talks about what is going on with constructors. Rules, team changes, new designs and such, typically it's asked to be of the current year, but teams tend to forgo building cars for just the entire year. And when they shift gears the subsequent year ends up being discussed as case in point the 2016 constructor thread.

I'm just saying perhaps change the title for less confusion since this seems to be about budget engines and opening up those regulations so teams can afford them, but also not potentially be caught out with no engine deal.
 
This thread doesn't really need to exist as we have a thread dedicated to ongoing technical development, present and future. The title is also a bit misleading as you're exclusively speaking about engine parity agreements, which are only a speculation at this point. This should be merged with the aforementioned thread.

But with regards to that, Bop and F1 mix like water and oil. I don't see how you calculate something like this to then put the engines only within .300 seconds, or why the manufacturers or teams would agree to it for any reason other than to topple Mercedes.
 
K I changed the thread title and added a poll!

I voted no.

As much as I would like to see the gaps in the field narrowed up, and as well as BoP works in other forms of racing, it just doesn't feel right for F1.

To me, the engineering side of F1 is a huge part of the sport. It's not great TV material, but I still enjoy that aspect of it. If all the engines perform relatively the same, that's one step away from a single engine supplier for the whole sport, and it goes on from there.

Maybe if they BoP'd the budget the teams are using, that might be another way to help the current performance gap ;)

The only way I could maybe change my stance on balancing the engines by lap times is if they blew open the regs and said that any configuration or style of engine was allowed, as long as it was within a certain delta of a certain lap time.
 
twitcher
Maybe if they BoP'd the budget the teams are using, that might be another way to help the current performance gap
Click to expand...
They tried that. The teams rebelled.

twitcher
If all the engines perform relatively the same, that's one step away from a single engine supplier for the whole sport, and it goes on from there.
Click to expand...
At the same time, it's too easy for one manufacturer to establish a stranglehold on the grid.
 
I just asked James Allen on his website whether these rumours surrounding the .300s performance balance had any truth to them, and his direct response was, "Yes, that appears to be the direction it's headed in."

I'm really starting to believe that we will see BoP in F1 for 2017.

For what would be such a major, fundemental change to the core of what Formula 1 is, this news has crept up quite quietly, with most people's attention held by the dramas at Redbull and Mercedes, qualifying, Alonso's crash, etc.
 
I don't think this will work. It seems Mercedes is already focusing on fuel consumption, more than on pure power.
F1 has the restriction of 100 kg of fuel per race, so you have to restrict power during the race to finish it. They're now focused to have a closer performance on race compared to qualify. (Sorry for bad english)

And this news seems to be in the same direction of what I said: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124153
 
The FIA says that there will be no Balance of Performance in 2017. Rather, they're cracking down on the dimensions of individual components and the materials used. Their logic seems to be threefold: first, to make the sport more appealing to new manufacturers as they won't feel the pressure to introduce radical, exotic and unproven design concepts just to stand a chance of being competitive (in the late 1990s, Mercedes were experimenting with rare alloys of elements like molybdenum); secondly, to maintain the relevance of the engines to road cars; and thirdly, because they feel that this will close the performance differential down.
 
I would prefer having open engine development, but the token system is flawed and makes it very difficult to close up a deficit.
 
mustafur
I would prefer having open engine development, but the token system is flawed and makes it very difficult to close up a deficit.
Click to expand...
Tokens have been dropped.

If you allow open development, it just becomes a spending war - which is at odds with the fixed price philosophy the FIA wants to allow smaller teams to keep their heads above water.
 
That is only a problem because of the flawed TV revenue system.

The top teams generally haven't spent more then the past though so I don't see a precedent for them to vastly spend more.
 
It's silly, what if a manufacturer has focused 100% on making a light, reliable and efficient PU from the start? Now they will have an advantage. Whoever has made the best overall package should win, end of.
 

Latest Posts

Back