The Hybrid/NA Engine Debate (moved from Future Rule Changes)

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And during that he admitted that it is a conundrum that they are having to face currently, and there main problem at this time is trying to both please the traditional enthusiasts (I don't consider a lot of the "fans" to be true enthusiasts of F1, rather they are followers of certain drivers) and to entice and encourage new, possibly younger, enthusiasts.


In the few words that time permitted, it sounded as though nothing is yet resolved.

I am used to the hybrids now, they sound *OK* on TV with the improved microphones Liberty Media are using. In the previous seasons the onboards sounded truly dreadful but now it sounds quite decent.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Funny, that's exactly the stance you took when I pointed out a Le Mans stint length regulation was poorly worded and was going to cause problems. You said I'd already made up my mind and was anti-ACO. In reality, I wasn't, I was just reading what the rule said. For those with a short memory, after being told I was wrong many times and simply beating an anti-ACO drum, it turned out I was right all along. History does have a way of repeating itself, doesn't it?

Why do we need road relevance? If we do need it, why does it only apply to engines? Why are aerodynamics and tyres not road relevant? And suspension? Historical reason? Why are engines immune to the historical argument? Why do we have the engine regulations we currently do? Who was it that demanded the regulations? Who benefits from the current regulations? Who suffers from the current regulations? What do the current regulations add to the sport? What do the current regulations detract from the sport?

When you start answering these, it doesn't paint a particularly rosy picture.

PS - I like manufacturers. However, unlike yourself, I don't see the world as black and white, and things I like can be open to criticism. Exactly the same as I said in the previous ACO argument. Spoiler alert - I was right.

Partially answering some of the questions.

An Indycar 2.2 litre turbo costs $43 000 per unit.
An F1 engine costs $8 000 000 per unit.

You could purchase 186 Indycar engines for the cost of a single F1 unit.

Who is benefitting to the detriment of the sport? The Manufacturers!

If F1 simply adopted the Indycar spec the whole formula would pretty well be instantly self-funding except for the manufacturers who are clearly just bleeding the sport dry.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/busi...424352663.html

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ac...ehicle-of-2017

Tell the manufacturers that whatever engine spec they wish to have will have to be supplied to customers at equivalent spec at all times and will cost $50 000 a piece. Remove the engine use limit and allow the teams to but any number of engines they wish.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by wnut

Tell the manufacturers that whatever engine spec they wish to have will have to be supplied to customers at equivalent spec at all times and will cost $50 000 a piece. Remove the engine use limit and allow the teams to but any number of engines they wish.

Genius!

This is an excellent idea!

It would put the emphasis on mass production in an efficient, cost effective and high quality manner, which is far more road relevant (as it is the whole basis of the car industry) than exotic prototype power units too.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by wnut

Partially answering some of the questions.

An Indycar 2.2 litre turbo costs $43 000 per unit.
An F1 engine costs $8 000 000 per unit.

You could purchase 186 Indycar engines for the cost of a single F1 unit.

Who is benefitting to the detriment of the sport? The Manufacturers!

If F1 simply adopted the Indycar spec the whole formula would pretty well be instantly self-funding except for the manufacturers who are clearly just bleeding the sport dry.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/busi...424352663.html

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ac...ehicle-of-2017

Tell the manufacturers that whatever engine spec they wish to have will have to be supplied to customers at equivalent spec at all times and will cost $50 000 a piece. Remove the engine use limit and allow the teams to but any number of engines they wish.

Brilliant post.

[Racer65]

Would the manufacturers want anything to do with an F1 based on Indy type engines though?

Take them away and what do you have? Who's paying the mega bucks for the superstar drivers? In reality that's who 90% of the audience are there for. Not for F1 itself.

It's the super stars that set F1 apart from every other series. Sort out all the aero issues, give them amazing engines but a load of drivers in the cars that the majority of the audience have never heard of and the audience plummets overnight.

To me the only person who seems to understand what makes F1 special these days is Mark Webber.

Like them or loath them it would be commercial suicide for a manufacturer to be seen backing a sport going away from what the public perceive as "green" engines.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Racer65

Would the manufacturers want anything to do with an F1 based on Indy type engines though?

Honda, Chevrolet, plus probably Ferrari

That's three manfuacturers. How many more do you need!?

Three is plenty. Indycar has a great field with two manufacturers.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Racer65

It's the super stars that set F1 apart from every other series.

Nonsense, they are only superstars because they are in F1.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Racer65

Like them or loath them it would be commercial suicide for a manufacturer to be seen backing a sport going away from what the public perceive as "green" engines.

Nonsense. Honda and Chevrolet are happy to race without hybrids as it sensible, cost-effective motor racing and still a valuable technical and promotional opportunity.

The many manufacturers (Honda (Acura), Cadillac, Mazda) in the IMSA Sportscar series are happy to race without hybrids either. It shows manufacturers are attracted and not repelled by sensible, cost-effective motor racing.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Racer65

Would the manufacturers want anything to do with an F1 based on Indy type engines though?

Take them away and what do you have? Who's paying the mega bucks for the superstar drivers? In reality that's who 90% of the audience are there for. Not for F1 itself.

It's the super stars that set F1 apart from every other series. Sort out all the aero issues, give them amazing engines but a load of drivers in the cars that the majority of the audience have never heard of and the audience plummets overnight.

All spot on.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Racer65

Would the manufacturers want anything to do with an F1 based on Indy type engines though?

Take them away and what do you have? Who's paying the mega bucks for the superstar drivers? In reality that's who 90% of the audience are there for. Not for F1 itself.

It's the super stars that set F1 apart from every other series. Sort out all the aero issues, give them amazing engines but a load of drivers in the cars that the majority of the audience have never heard of and the audience plummets overnight.

To me the only person who seems to understand what makes F1 special these days is Mark Webber.

Like them or loath them it would be commercial suicide for a manufacturer to be seen backing a sport going away from what the public perceive as "green" engines.

You say it'd be commercial suicide for a manufacturer to be seen backing something other than "green" engines, whilst countless manufacturers exist in other series which have made no attempt to go green.

Seemed to do just fine for superstars when manufacturers didn't have a monopoly on overly expensive engine regulations.

You've got a weird thing with cause and effect going on. You say that the amazing engines will attract the drivers due to the big bucks and that people won't watch a series with people they haven't heard of. But most drivers are unknowns outside of us super hardcore fans until they reach F1 anyway. It's F1 that makes the name. Damon Hill and Michael Schumacher had a battle royal, and whilst the Renault engine powered both cars in 1995, neither were manufacturer back and both made the name when in F1. I mean, the list of drivers who made their F1 debut without manufacturer backing and became famous afterwards is so long that you'd run out of vertical cells on an excel spreadsheet.

Nobody tunes in to watch an F1 driver's first race because he's already a superstar in F2.

[Racer65]

Never said a thing about amazing engines attracting the drivers.

What I said was that to 90% of the F1 fan base they don't care how "petrol head nirvana" the cars are. All they care about is following their favourite driver. Make the cars "perfect" as far as the hard core fan is concerned but remove the current drivers at the same time I bet the former won't make up for the audience loss of the latter. The cars aren't the most important thing is all I was saying. How the drivers get famous is irrelevant.

F1 has to compete with football, tennis, cycling, family movies and everything else that the average joe might be watching/doing on a Sunday afternoon.

American markets are very different to European markets. What a business can get away with the average american consumer they can't with the average european.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Racer65

Never said a thing about amazing engines attracting the drivers.

No, you said - Would the manufacturers want anything to do with an F1 based on Indy type engines though?

Take them away and what do you have? Who's paying the mega bucks for the superstar drivers? In reality that's who 90% of the audience are there for. Not for F1 itself.

Saying that the manufacturers want the engines, and they pay for the drivers, thus, without these engines, you won't have manufacturers and therefore won't have the good drivers.

I don't agree with that at all. You take away the manufacturers and you still have superstar drivers. These superstars are made because they are F1 drivers. They don't earn their stripes and their following in any other series. There are only minor exceptions to that throughout the history of F1. It's being good in F1 that makes you the superstar.

I agree with you that a lot of fans want the drivers, but I don't agree that not having manufacturers means you won't have superstars. That's not how the drivers become stars and popular in the first place and it's very relevant to the point. The best drivers find their way to the top, regardless of manufacturer involvement, and then become stars. And even if there isn't a manufacturer to offer a ridiculous paycheque to a driver, doesn't mean that driver will then go elsewhere - because these sort of paydays don't exist outside F1 anyway. So if anything, not having manufacturers dictating the engine regulations would not only slash engine costs by around 90%, but also reduce the wage bill by a large margin too.

The motorsport cycle that we see in every series is that a series is popular and doing well, so manufacturers join to make the best of it whilst it's popular. They then spend 5-10 years there and then leave - either because they achieved their goal, or they failed badly, or the parent company has some issues. We've seen it in WEC a few times (Group C, Peugeot, and now modern LMP1). We've seen it in ALMS. We've seen it in BTCC. These series all went through major rebuilds to make sure the privateer and smaller teams could survive or return, thus giving the series stability.

F1 has gone the opposite way. When times got tough, they handed even more power to the manufacturers and allowed them to build a walled garden for themselves. An expensive, marble-walled garden, plated in gold. And now, when Mercedes or Renault decide they're moving house and taking the wall with them, F1 will be stuck because there's nobody capable of building these insane engines that only the manufacturers want.

Picture the Lion King, circle of life. This isn't how the circle is meant to go. The F1 circle has weird pointy angles right now.