Thoughts on current F1 Regulations

[jens]

Solution? From what I remember, engine/car manufacturers themselves wanted the hybrid power units, because V8s were outdated for them. F1 had to "move on with times".

But does the modern innovative era need to be sooo damn expensive that almost nobody can afford it? Perhaps a simpler and cheaper hybrid solution could be found.

Perhaps cheaper and simpler regs could also attract hybrid specialists like VW Group and/or Toyota into F1, who are doing fine in the hybrid-powered WEC series.

As for Honda, their whole F1 strategy has failed. Conservative approach in terms of managament, bad timing of F1 entrance (1 year later, by which time competitors had already nicely settled in, etc). Frozen regs is not the key issue in their failure, but it certainly magnifies the whole mess.

[Jag_Warrior]

You mean like Pastor Maldonado, Sergio Perez, Will Stevens, Roberto Merhi, Markus Eriksson, Felipe Nasr? While people like Vandoorne, Abt, Wehrlein, Lynn, Dixon, Vergne and others sit on the sidelines?

You are correct. I should have inserted the words "some of" in that comment too. But from its earliest days, F1 has had its share of rich, racing playboys, while more talented guys sat on the sidelines. I don't like that either. But unlike Mark Webber, I see this generation of drivers (the A and B students anyway) as being more talented than the ones who were around in Schumacher's era. The D and F students are still with us, and always will be (it will become even worse if efforts to create a politically correct, affirmative action seat for Carmen Jorda are successful). But I really do think that we have a larger class of solid A and B students these days. And I'm enjoying the good things about F1, since I have no power to do anything about the bad things. I know how this works. I followed CART from the very beginning and had to watch it devolve into this sad GP2+ thing that we now have in the U.S. So I hope to see the problems addressed, but let the good remain. Cause...

Once you're gone, you can't come back.

[Nitrodaze]

With the re-appointment of Pirelli as tyre suppliers for the following three years, it would seem the mood of the powers that be are no change to regulations. The pecking order is likely to remain more or less the same for the next three years it would seem. I expect Ferrari to get closer to the Mercedes but not overshadow the very dominant Mercedes car in 2016-17.

The likelihood of Redbull, Honda and possibly Lotus(Renault) leaving the series before 2017 is higher than ever. Redbull is not going to get a 2016 Ferrari engine, Mercedes are not going to give them their 2015 engine and their relationship with Renault is now at the point where it would be a mercy act by Renault to take them back. That leaves Redbull with striking a deal with Honda, with Bernie securing a special dispensation for Honda to have additional tokens to combat their immediate performance problems. That of course depends on Mclaren being happy with sharing Honda's resources with Redbull. But with the promise of improved performance, l can see Mclaren welcoming the idea. At least it would be a fight on the chassis front between both teams.

Without a deal such as this, the risk of losing Redbull and possibly Honda is very possible. Renault's interest in F1 and the Lotus team seem half hearted.

[Rollo]

Solution? From what I remember, engine/car manufacturers themselves wanted the hybrid power units, because V8s were outdated for them. F1 had to "move on with times".

Ha ha ha ha...

There were only three engine manufacturers and to be fair, Ferrari because they are a racing team first and not primarily a car manufacturer, will build according to whatever regulations are set.
The motivations that I can see are that all three of them wanted to gain an advantage over everyone else and when two of those three engine manufacturers also own teams directly, then this was never going to be about moving on with the times but rather, pulling one over their rivals.

Mercedes were successful; Ferrari less so; Renault lost interest.
Honda is Honda and just like every single time Honda goes motor racing of any sort, they want to meddle and fiddle; which is fine if they're on top but if they're not, they're impossible. Jensen has already been bitten by this once before.

[Jag_Warrior]

Rollo, you've been around for awhile too. So from 1000 feet above the scene, how do you assess the current Honda vs. the Honda of old? I mean, from the late 80's through the mid to late 90's in F1 and/or CART, Honda was the shizzle. Now, it's like a sad shadow of its former self, IMO. And I think that actually started a good 10+ years ago. But how do you, and others, see it? What the heck is going on with this "new" Honda? What happened to the "old" Honda???

[anfield5]

The simplest way to cut engine development costs is to cap what an engine supplier can charge a team for an engine supply for the season. i.e. $5 million per season per team. The engine supplier can then develop their engine during the season at no extra cost to the team. If the same engine regs are used for a number of years the development costs will reduce as the engines go through their life cycles and need less work. There will be no stupid penalties whenever an engine needs replacement etc.

I know this isn't a perfect solution and the manufacturers that supply a number of teams will have an advantage as will the likes of Renault who intend to only supply their own team, but I am sure the clever people can come up with a formula for costing based on these facts.

[Rollo]

What the heck is going on with this "new" Honda? What happened to the "old" Honda???

Honda is the same Honda.

Honda always want to meddle and fiddle with the teams they supply/operate.

In 1987 when they supplied Williams and Lotus with engines, they then withdrew their support of Williams and followed Senna to McLaren. Williams made do unsuccessfully with Judd power in 1988.
For five years Honda ruled the roost as an engine supplier and from 1989 to 1992 when they were roundly beaten, they refused to supply anyone who challenged their chance at being the Constructors' and Drivers' Champions. Then in 1993, they took their bat and ball and went home.

From 2000-2005 they supplied Jordan and BAR with engines but when Eddie Jordan started to demand things from them, they dumped Jordan in the muck and progressively bought up BAR, meddling and fiddling with it as they went, before driving it into the ground in 2008.
The extent of their meddling was proven when in 2009, Honda left and Brawn won the championship. I have no doubt that Honda leaving is what saved Brawn. I have also no doubt that Honda showing up and meddling and fiddling with McLaren is what's killing them now.

Aside:
In bike racing, HRC were successful in fiddling with their NSR 500 until it won World Championships but I suspect that the engineers who worked on bikes never spoke to people working on engines. Friday clubs are weird beasts - Keiretsu, Kinyokai, Zaibatsu etc.

[Rollo]

The simplest way to cut engine development costs is to cap what an engine supplier can charge a team for an engine supply for the season. i.e. $5 million per season per team. The engine supplier can then develop their engine during the season at no extra cost to the team.

For a team like Ferrari or Mercedes-Benz, they can always slip under the cap. Ferrari could set up more nominal SpA's and supply themselves with engines at a price of €1 if they wanted. They'd escape auditing as well because costs could very easily be hidden. How do you show costs if development is being done by an SpA within the group but owns no assets. Not even the FIA could demand meaningful sets of accounts that would make any sense.

[AndyL]

Aside:
In bike racing, HRC were successful in fiddling with their NSR 500 until it won World Championships but I suspect that the engineers who worked on bikes never spoke to people working on engines. Friday clubs are weird beasts - Keiretsu, Kinyokai, Zaibatsu etc.

I don't think Honda is really a Keiretsu company in the way that most other Japanese car-makers are. It's a company founded more in the western mould, by a man in a shed, and built up from nothing. I wonder if the tendencies you've observed are because of that, or despite it. And whether things changed after Soichiro handed over the reins.

There was one guy who Honda were sufficiently in awe of (and/or sufficiently baffled by) to just hand over the machinery he asked for and let him get on with things in his own way; he rewarded them with 24 Isle of Man TT wins. But very much a unique case.

[Nitrodaze]

The simplest way to cut engine development costs is to cap what an engine supplier can charge a team for an engine supply for the season. i.e. $5 million per season per team. The engine supplier can then develop their engine during the season at no extra cost to the team. If the same engine regs are used for a number of years the development costs will reduce as the engines go through their life cycles and need less work. There will be no stupid penalties whenever an engine needs replacement etc.

I know this isn't a perfect solution and the manufacturers that supply a number of teams will have an advantage as will the likes of Renault who intend to only supply their own team, but I am sure the clever people can come up with a formula for costing based on these facts.

The idea of capping price of engine is a great idea actually. Obviously manufacturers would spend what they have to spend on the development of their engine to ensure they are at the front. But they would do that with or without the FIA cost cutting rules which really create more spending than the cost it actually cuts. My fear is that customer teams may find that they can only buy 2 seasons old engines , as the very latest engine may not be available at the capped price. This would unfortunately seal the frontend of the grid to manufacturing teams (Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault) or teams with works engine deals like Mclaren-Honda.
The real problem with the FIA rule on engine is it stifles engine development that would translate to what we drive in the future. The rules set engineering challenges that it also inhibits from being realized by most of its engine rules. The challenge to the engineers to produce a fast race engine that uses no more than 100 litres for full race distance is a welcomed and valid challenge. By the look of things, no engine manufacturer has successfully overcome this challenge without its drivers lifting and coasting to save fuel. This challenge is one of the most relevant in modern day F1. I think the FIA should give the engine manufacturers more freedom to innovate so that this challenge can be realized.