| Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| No “equalising” of engines for 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 17 2010, 10:46 AM (353 Views) | |
| Steelstallions | Jan 17 2010, 10:46 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Driver
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/01/no-e...gines-for-2010/
As said, when its about F1 engines in 2010, performance is not the one deciding factor this season its fuel efficiency with performance (and of course reliability) as the cars cannot refuel during a race. Who after Renault has the most fuel efficient but powerful engine? I can see why FIA has left it as it is, they cannot agree and Mercedes don't necessarily have an advantage this season as less fuel efficiency will mean more weight in fuel for the car. Ferrari apparently have managed to keep last years engine performance but improve fuel efficiency working directly with Shell. This could be why we have heard nothing from them about equalisation. |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Jan 17 2010, 11:26 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
Ferrari had one of the least fuel efficient engines last year (and certainly the least efficient of those remaining in the sport this year). If Steel is correct and they have been working on efficiency with Shell, hopefully that will not be a problem for them in 2010. |
![]() |
|
| Norbert | Jan 17 2010, 04:44 PM Post #3 |
![]() ![]()
|
So if everyone has the same engine that was homologated gawd knows how long ago (and subsequently fettled very slightly as allowed under the rules) won't a new engine manufacturer have a huge advantage, in that they can develop an engine all they like, before submitted for homologation? What happens if Cosworth turn up with an engine kicking out about 780bhp and also being more fuel efficient? Won't there be rather a lot of angry teams in the pit lane? |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Jan 17 2010, 05:03 PM Post #4 |
![]()
|
The Cosworth was homologated in 2006 along with all the other engines, and I think the 2010 engine has to be essentially the same as that one in accordance with the engine freeze rules. I could be wrong though. |
![]() |
|
| Pasta | Jan 17 2010, 06:45 PM Post #5 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It just seems to me that these miniscule rules are taking away from the sport. The FIA has rules about everything including how teams can spend budgets. This is replacing initiative, innovation, creativity and financial dedication to the sport with a bland government designed to make everyone equal. A bit like communism if you ask me. Instead of encouraging leadership in engineering, fuel efficiency, technological improvements, the FIA is instead going for the lowest common denominator all in the interest of improving the show. |
![]() |
|
| GordonB | Jan 17 2010, 07:01 PM Post #6 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You're completely correct. You're also not the first to point this out - I think just about everyone on this board has expressed that sentiment to various degrees at some point. Too many engineering-based rules => restrictive engineering solutions => all cars are basically the same. The trouble is that the alternative is basically open rules with a budget cap, which I personally would wholeheartedly support, but various people have pointed out that this is unachievable (sportsman makes a very good case on this point) because teams would get round the budget cap by doing their development "out of the team" and then just giving it to the team so that it costs them no money. I'd still like to give it a try though. |
![]() |
|
| Pasta | Jan 17 2010, 07:16 PM Post #7 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
While I agree that an open playing field within a budget cap would make sense (spend your money where you want - be that testing, engine development, aero work or whatever) and spending efficiency would become a big part of F1 success, that won't work if we view this on a team-by-team basis. That would be to ignore the realities of the sport. Accept that there are different tiers in F1: The main teams and the feeder teams. The feeder teams essentially get huge financial support by buying engines and other parts from the four or five major teams (ok three this year plus Red Bull), guarantee to lose but hopefully be close and get some points, and create the real show at the top. The feeder teams can and have operated on smaller budgets because they do not need to spend the same as the majors on R&D. Also this program has developed not only new driving talent, but also new engineers that advance to the bigger teams because they show they can develop relatively better technology within the limited budgets of the second tier teams. The big teams benefit by spreading their R&D budgets over some recoupment from engine/other sales to the minor teams. I think the solution should arise if they look at the real economics of the sport, and address those issues, rather than the knee jerk reaction and micro management that has been so prevalent under Max. Stop trying to make all teams equal, and let the big boys spend, but ensure that they support the lesser teams. I think that given a year, Todt might just bring some common sense back to the sport, that was ruined by Max more than a decade ago. That is, of course, if Todt agrees with us. |
![]() |
|
| P1 | Jan 17 2010, 09:44 PM Post #8 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The 2009-spec engines by the numbers regarding fuel consumption...![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
| GordonB | Jan 17 2010, 10:04 PM Post #9 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wow - good stats. What's the source? The one thing that really stands out though, is that despite having the "same" engine, Brawn used much more fuel per lap than McLaren. I wonder why that is. Kers?? |
![]() |
|
| flood1 | Jan 18 2010, 12:39 AM Post #10 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The stats are from here: http://f1numbers.wordpress.com/ |
![]() |
|
| safc_fan89 | Jan 23 2010, 10:44 AM Post #11 |
|
safc_fan89
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In the case of the Renault though, unless they have found the "tricks" which everyone else has been using to improve their engine, any benefit from fuel efficiency will be lost because it's slow. Mind you, the Renault engine can't be that bad, given Red Bull's season. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)









8:44 AM Jul 11