Sainz 2021

During most of the Cosworth era, teams would change the engine after every practice session, qualifying, and a new engine for the race. That is 5 engines per race weekend. There is a reason the F1 teams are called a circus--the mechanics rebuilding the cars between sessions.

Between races, these engines would be rebuilt to run again. So, while the engines might be $150K to buy new, they end up about $10K-$20K to run per weekend.

And even at these costs, they were cheaper than the engines of the current formula which have to last 25× longer.

 

From a technical point of view, what do you prove by using 5 engines per race? Nothing.

What is the achievement ? Nil.

Is it not better to say that you build engines that last 1/3 of the season and use only a 1/3 of the fuel ?

I know which engine I prefer to hear about ! Give me the reliable and fuel efficient power unit any day !!!

 

Maybe YOU really do think it's better to say that you build a long lasting engine using only a third of the fuel (which it doesn't, by the way...a third less over a race distance, but, because of the way these engines are used, i.e. they have to last so long, the engines aren't run nearly as hard as they could thus resulting in fuel saving!!! Lets not forget the massive addage of electronic power that supplements fuel to a significant degree..and they really aren't *that* much better), but it is not exciting. An F1 car/engine should be pushed the entire distance, it is a sprint race after all, what we have now is effectively endurance race engines run over a series of tracks.

Why not put in a toyota diesel engine and tell teams to use it for 5 seasons? You'll never need to change it, and it'll use even less fuel.

You have effectively proven my earlier post, only 1% of fans care about these nerdy engines.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That's an optimistic number Bas

 

I would say less than 1% fully understand them as well

 

Myself included.

 

Since he beat both of them i guess he's a proved!

 

You can make fun of these hybrid power units all you want; they are part of automotive evolution.
Hybrid is there to stay, probably saving ICE from complete extinction.
That may not interest you, but some people like the fact that hybrid is giving the ICE another lease of life, possibly with alternative fuels in future (hydrogen, synthetic, biofuel) , who knows?
I don't think you are eager for the automobile world to switch immediatly to electric.
As for only 1% of F1 followers being interested, I don't know where you get these stats, but never mind ...

Regarding the decline in viewership in recent years, it has several causes.
Has it occured to you that at the same time the hybrid formula was introduced, GPs disappeared from most terrestrial channels, to be only available of pay-TVchannels?
Many people stopped following F1 simply because now they had to pay for it.
Look no further than that; instead of accusing the hybrid formula; blame Liberty instead.

 

I’m quite surprised they signed a second driver that quickly. On second thought, I suppose Sainz or any of the other candidates weren’t in much of a position to argue about salary if they received the tap on the shoulder. Waiting it out might have dropped the going rate but likely it would have been pennies in the difference and Fezza might have lost the chance for their top draft pick .

That said, I like Junior, he’s a worthy choice. Will he accept #2 status is anyone’s guess. He made friends with Lando easily enough (maybe that’s not difficult), and he didn’t seem to mind when Lando outqualified him. His race craft was superior to the whiz kid, McLaren itself had an exceptional year and his camaraderie with the Brit was top rate, thereby rising his stock immeasurably in the process.

So crossed fingers we have a decent pairing (and F1 returns somehow intact). Both lads have egos however, I’m not sure how long the friendly zone will exist if Eclair’s ability throughout the season isn’t obvious. Hoping we have a Jody/Gilles pair here and not a Gilles/Pironi one (not attempting to be dramatic).

Both gents can mix it up with anyone and for the time being, that’s a good feeling.

 

F1 isn't road cars or related to road cars. F1 is a sport, it's entertainment, and the engines aren't entertaining.

As for my 1% figure...Just look at the attitude of F1 viewers. No one does anything but complain about the noise. Ask any F1 fan what they want: A double digit cilinder NA or a turbo V6?


You are correct I'm not eager for the car world to switch to electric. Maybe I'm wording that wrong. I don't really care for the mundane cars to be powered by electricity, but forcing tiny car makers such as Ferrari, Mclaren, Aston etc to switch to Electric (effectively killing them off, as a pure Electric Ferrari will provide exactly the same interest to me as a electric audi. I.e. not at all. And I'm definitely not on my own. These cars will be nothing more than a kitchen appliance on wheels). Some clever nerd who will look at actual statistics of the above named manufacturers and compare them to the numbers they use for throwaway cars they base their figures on and their overall impact on the world. Ferrari et all will come out SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper in Co2 and impact on environment than even the cleanest of cars. Why? The amount of Ferrari's that get binned after 15 years of use is almost exclusively those that get crashed. And even of those all salvageable parts get re-used. As Ferrari's etc get older they're even less likely to get binned. And the miles the average Ferrari does in it's lifetime is far less than throwaway cars. So why is Ferrari etc subjected to the ridiculous targets and humiliated to eventually become an electric car?

As for blaming pay tv, see the graphs below. And as far as I can work out, Football (the european type) has moved behind a paywall as well and is coping just fine. So it's the product that's to blame. The product is ****.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I was being generous.

And that's after 6 years (!) of being told every other weekend, multiple times during sessions, what these engines do or what the acronyms stand for.

6 years x 20 races = 120. Lets say on average you watch 3 sessions. That's being told 360 times. And still we have no idea what these engines do.

And every time someone wins a race we're hearing the same radio message ''well managed''. Pre 2014 that wasn't the case. Or during the race ''turn the engine down we need to save it because it needs to last 6 more weekends...so settle for position rather than attack''. That's not F1 racing.

 

+1

 

Yes, very true.
F1 has never been related to road car.

But who has invested the most in F1 in the last ... 20 years?
You will find that since the ban on tobacco advertising, it's the motorcar industry! It has invested $ billions!
Car manufacturers have come and gone in F1; from Toyota to BMW, from Renault to Mercedes, from Honda to... etc ...
So it's not surprising to find they have some influence in the direction F1 takes, no? "Who pays the piper, calls the tune!"
At present, one way or the other, every team in F1 benefits from the involvement of the carmakers.
They own 4 factory teams, support 4 more, supply engines below cost, finance some GPs and sponsor some circuits.
It happens that F1 is a good laboratory to test new technologies and showcase them,
I am sure carmakers are no more enamoured with hybrid technology than the man in the street; it has been pushed on them by legislation.
So, what you propose is simply to take away from the car manufacturers any incentive to stay in F1.
Going back to running old technology V12 won't interest them, and they will leave, to spend their money somewhere else.
What would happen next? Who would invest in F1?
It won't be the oil companies like in the past, nor the tyre companies, The tobacco industry is banned, The banking sector has lost appetite.
There are not many miracle sponsors (Red Bull is the exception) around to support F1
So be carefull what you wish for by condemning the hybrid formula; F1 could lose its main support.

 

Right and the racing has gotten so good siince manufacturers got involved...and the budgets stayed sane. And the rules where what the teams wanted not what a manufacturer wanted or it would throw a hissifit.

Wait.

None of that happened.

Before Manufacturers insisted on certain rules we had plenty of indy's in F1, including engine manufacturers. Why would a manufacturer such as Gibson or Cosworth NOT be interested if they could supply F1 engines and actually make money? They are a business. It only makes sense. Even if they're spec V12s. If anything that'll be more a reason for them to join up, as costs are controlled, they get their name out and make a bit of money.

Manufacturers are on their way out again, and could pull the plug any moment now. They have done before, literally from one day to the next they'll be gone. If they stop supplying engines, then F1 has a REAL crisis, as NO ONE can simply come in, build an engine, and supply. A spec V12? Easy. A manufacturer bows out and a Cosworth can a) easily supply b) another engine manufacturer can build an engine in little time.


With F1 moving towards a sensible budget cap (and even lower in the coming years), A spec V10/12 only makes more sense. It would bring more excitement in the sport, people would watch more, costs are lower and likely more competitive (not just due to engines but also the new aero regs), sponsors are to come back....and with much less money needed to operate a (successful) team, a team isn't on the verge of extinction just because a sponsor pulls out.

Manufacturers are already about to join Formula E because of pressure from board/environmental imbeciles, so who will supply engines then?

 

I suspect manufacturer's back then felt (demanded) hybrid technology was the future and needed a sharp learning curve, F! gave them the menu with a little help fromm them in selecting the main ingredients.

Since Hybrid cars are being banned in 15 years time then all electric is the only way forward, F! will be all electric, possibly and hopefully not in my life time but as old farts on here will be gone and a new age of fans will want it.

Best

tony

 

I think you are living in the past. You are nostalgic about "the good ol' days" and you wish to bring them back.
Fair enough, but the world around you moves on, and you have to keep up with the time.
I suggest you watch Historic Racing and get your fix of V12 listening to Ferrari and Matra V12 screaming their heart content.
You don't like hybrid technology, the type of racing it brings, the lack of noise, and the influence of manufacturers.
What do you like in F1?

The modern world is about progress, no going backwards; it's about trying new technologies, not getting stuck in a rut.
I don't like everything I see, but I accept that things have to move on, new solutions tried, etc ...
Normal Aspirated engines are out; they are not efficient. That's why they are largely abandonned. Why should F1 bring them back?
Going down that path is regressing, not advancing.
If F1 shun progress and stick with old technologies, it will soon stop being the "pinacle" of motor racing.

I guess there will always be a clivage between traditionalists and people more open-minded.
But the world, and F1, shouldn't be held hostage by nostalgia.
Even if the manufacturers leave F1, I believe that hybrid technology will survive because it has shown huge potential.
We have just touched the surface. Probably that Cosworth or Gibson would be more interested in building hybrid power units then old V12 !
Once the technology has been debuged, engine builders will be more familiar with it, and the cost will also come down.

 

You don't blow and engine in practice or in qualifying.

More laps

in the 3.5 Litre era, one could build a 650 HP engine to last 4 hr. or build that same engine parts to 450 HP and have it last 40 hr.
The former is the F1 engine, the later is the leManns engine.

 

" During most of the Cosworth era, teams would change the engine after every practice session, qualifying, and a new engine for the race. That is 5 engines per race weekend."
Who said that? Not me !
If so many engines were necessary to do more laps during a single weekend, they must have had severe reliability problems, I should think.
You don't cure reliability problems by simply changing engine; you have to work on the faults, go back to the drawing board and find solutions.

It's far better to have engines (power units) that are more reliable and can last several races.
The FIA was right to limit the number of PUs per season, and penalise engine changes to force the manufacturers to work seriously on reliability.

Even in the World Endurance Championship, they now limit the number of engines per season, I believe.
Without restriction, this progress wouldn't have been achieved.

 

As I´ve said other times, I don´t think that the problem with these engines is not the hybrid stuff per se. They´re forced to run with a low fuel flow, so they´re de facto rev limited and can´t run at 100% all the time. Break downs are very heavily penalized. Ironically, Jean Todt said some months ago that the good reliability of today´s cars made the racing less interesting: hey genius, if you give them grid penalties for breaking engines, they´ll try to avoid then. On the other hand, engines are so expensive that nobody can afford to replace them often. And finally, everybody was idiot enough to allow Mercedes their idiotic rules: you can´t have unlimited regenerative braking, but you can have unlimited battery charge with the turbo. So you end with big turbos, expensive engines and bad sound.

About the audiences in free fall, I think we can´t put the blame on the cars. It´s more related with the fact that we´ve been having too much BS and too many boring seasons lately. Just when F1 was recovering from the years of Schumacher dominance, we had the infamous Brawn year (a whole season ruined for political reasons: you´re pathetic, Max), then the Red Bull era (not all, but some of those years were boring) and then the reign of terror of Mercedes. And here and there, lots of moronic stewards. Even if this season turned out to be great, many spectators already had already run away. There is not confidence in F1 to bring a good show and it´s going to take years to recover it, if possible.

 

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11989237/sebastian-vettel-still-passionate-about-f1-says-ferraris-boss - I say that Binotto notes an element of consistency with Sainz.

"Carlos Sainz is a young driver and Ferrari haven't had such a young driver pairing in 50 years. It's a gamble for us and we're happy to be taking on this challenge. We want to begin a new cycle.

"It'll be a tough path, but putting faith in youngsters is also geared towards that, not just for the drivers, but also for the mechanics. Sainz is a very nice and intelligent guy.

"He is a real team player and works very hard, so having him alongside Charles will be useful. He's done well over the last five seasons and has almost always reached the finish line, earning his team so many points in the process."

 

You're a fool if you think Cosworth or Gibson would be ''more interested'' in building hybrid engines. They can't afford to build one, and even if they could, they couldn't afford to sell it! Sure, a V12 with a simple KERS unit is easy and certainly doable.

I watch F1 because it's the best drivers, and I live in faint hope the racing (and engines) would get better (the racing very likely post 2021).

I would actually be ok with the current base V6, 2 conventional turbos and a simple KERS unit. The base V6 really doesn't cost all that much, nor would conventional turbos. None of this 3 engines per season **** anymore. Run more boost. 1300bhp. Bring it on.

 

Unlike you, I don't insult people of different opinion; that's not forum etiquette.

I don't think you will ever get your wish granted anyway; the NA V12 belong to museums, and will stay there.

Why not bring back drum brakes, rigid axles, carbs and maagneto ignition whilst we are at it, eh ? Hahaha

 

The big question here is manufacturer involvement. It will take hybrid and possibly full electrics to keep them interested and paying massive amounts towards the teams budgets, at least for works teams.

However, if manufacturer involvement isn't important, than yeah . . . bring on 5 litre V10s! You're allowed to dream. I'm sure somebody like Cosworth would be happy to supply the entire grid. But that grid would NOT include Ferrari.

 

I've not insulted you. Learn how to read. I'm sure you wish I did though, as that is afterall your modus operandi...skirt on the fine line of insulting someone yourself and then go crying to the moderators when you think someone insulted you.

Drum brakes et all have sweet **** all to do with the thing we are discussing.

What will happen when Mercedes, Honda and Renault say ''post 2021 we are pulling out of F1 full stop''? Everyone has a Ferrari engine? No one else can build these engines, not competitively in any case.

If a simple engine (be it current turbo V6 minus all the frills, or ''spec'' NA V8/10/12, that's not an issue. As any manufacturer can build one of those without much issue and make some money.

I'm not sure why Ferrari wouldn't be involved in such a formula...after all they raced with V10's for 9 years without putting one of those in their cars...

Renault/Honda/Mercedes could easily quit. They can afford to. And it won't be long before they're forced to quit unless F1 would go full electric or liquid hydrogen.

F1 needs to be clear on what is to happen in the future, what are their back up plans?

 

Yes I said that, I stand by what I said.

Cosworth Engine reliability problems were Cosworth's problems that Cosworth gets to fix. The customers buying and rebuilding Cosworth engines could do little to improve the reliability (which at the time was often valve related). The teams using Cosworth engines could do little more than replace them before they went sour, or worse.

It was the beginning of the Michael Schumacher era when he made Ferrari get their reliability problems in check. And how did they do that--they ran a F1 car every single day until the engine deparment figure out how to make a "just as powerful" engine that would last a whole race weekend. This was the demise of the Cosworth engine era. Sure they played along for a while, but they could not, in the end, bear the costs involved.

Only if they were sufficiently powerful. A reliable engine that is 100 HP down on the competition is worth about as much as a packet of salt. So, now we have an era with 3 engines per year that cost upwards of $25M per car whereas before one had to buy 5 engines per car ($500K) and rebuild them every race (5×$10K×20 races) = $5M. So engine costs today are far more costly than they used to be, are far more reliable, creating far less enjoyable racing.

You might be right, but the early Ferrari-Schumacher era says otherwise. Schumacher understood that without reliability championships were at best luck of the draw. Teams wanting championships have to muster the budget and engineering to survive the stresses. Teams using customer engines are already 2 steps behind before FP1.