New engine regs for 2016 - again?!

Moneyseeker · 19 Dec 2014, 16:27 (Ref:3486478)

Michael Schmidt reporting that at the strategy group yesterday, BE proposed scrapping the V6 turbo's in favour of engines that are louder, more powerful and cheaper.

Michael Schmidt, of the respected German trade magazine Auto Motor und Sport, said that although his proposal did not produce a "definitive result", the sport is now headed towards an all-new set of regulations for 2016.
"The engines are to be louder, more powerful and cheaper," said Schmidt on Friday.
"The goal is 1000 horse power and a cost of 10 million euros per team. An expert group must deliver results (on the proposal) by the end of January," he added.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...in-2016-report

wolfhound · 19 Dec 2014, 16:47 (Ref:3486481)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Michael Schmidt reporting that at the strategy group yesterday, BE proposed scrapping the V6 turbo's in favour of engines that are louder, more powerful and cheaper.

Michael Schmidt, of the respected German trade magazine Auto Motor und Sport, said that although his proposal did not produce a "definitive result", the sport is now headed towards an all-new set of regulations for 2016.
"The engines are to be louder, more powerful and cheaper," said Schmidt on Friday.
"The goal is 1000 horse power and a cost of 10 million euros per team. An expert group must deliver results (on the proposal) by the end of January," he added.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...in-2016-report

I wonder how many engine manufacturers will be left in F1 if there is significant change to the current engine regs. From my understanding these regs were developed at the request of the manufacturers (except Ferrari) to make F1 more relevant to the car industry.
I bet Honda, especially will not be best pleased after build ing a new engine only for it to be dumped the following year. I suspect Renault might also head for the exit door especially when they have to listen to their works team telling all the world what is wrong with their power units.

Sodemo · 19 Dec 2014, 22:52 (Ref:3486566)

F1 doing what F1 does best, burn money. Headless chickens spring to mind.

wolfhound · 19 Dec 2014, 23:39 (Ref:3486578)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

F1 doing what F1 does best, burn money. Headless chickens spring to mind.

And if Bernie liked the new engines there would be no mention of change in 2016

wnut · 20 Dec 2014, 00:48 (Ref:3486589)

Yes!

I am with Bernie 100% on this one, simple powerful cheap (relatively speaking) proper racing engine, that is the way to go!

W.A Trichlorostyrene · 20 Dec 2014, 01:56 (Ref:3486607)

Unlikely that it would pass according to Saward: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/...litical-games/

I wonder if Bernie is just playing with the white smoke machine again, with the lawsuit news coming today?

one five five · 20 Dec 2014, 02:05 (Ref:3486608)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnut

Yes!

I am with Bernie 100% on this one, simple powerful cheap (relatively speaking) proper racing engine, that is the way to go!

yep, all good..... and then there would be no engines for 2016, no company is going to be able to (or want to) get an engine ready that quick.... plus the likes of Mercedes and Honda are only interested in the turbo's

This proposal has no chance of seeing the light of day. Just destabilising to the whole fraternity

wnut · 20 Dec 2014, 04:14 (Ref:3486618)

Quote:

Originally Posted by one five five

yep, all good..... and then there would be no engines for 2016, no company is going to be able to (or want to) get an engine ready that quick.... plus the likes of Mercedes and Honda are only interested in the turbo's

This proposal has no chance of seeing the light of day. Just destabilising to the whole fraternity

Think he is just trying to drive the excessive price of the PUs down!

Still think it would be a good rule change though ...

P38 in workshop · 20 Dec 2014, 09:02 (Ref:3486656)

Unbelievable stupidity.Allowing the current engines to continue would allow their development costs to be amortised over a longer period.The only thing preventing the current engines developing more power is the 100Kg/hour fuel flow.Throwing more fuel at the engines would hardly be progressive and it would alienate the manufacturers who are using the requirement to accelerate the development of more efficient engines,not to mention the anti-car environmentalists.
Nothing like enough publicity has been generated about the huge advances in efficiency that the current power units represent.Changing them to suit the whims of a bunch of deafened old men is absurd.

Teretonga · 20 Dec 2014, 09:33 (Ref:3486663)

Quote:

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Unbelievable stupidity.Allowing the current engines to continue would allow their development costs to be amortised over a longer period.The only thing preventing the current engines developing more power is the 100Kg/hour fuel flow.Throwing more fuel at the engines would hardly be progressive and it would alienate the manufacturers who are using the requirement to accelerate the development of more efficient engines,not to mention the anti-car environmentalists.
Nothing like enough publicity has been generated about the huge advances in efficiency that the current power units represent.Changing them to suit the whims of a bunch of deafened old men is absurd.

Agreed.
Two thoughts come to mind.
One is his habit of raising nonsensical issues to divert attention away from other things happening.(Like the Bayern bank legal case)
The other is the total impracticality of doing all this in less than 12 months (which means any changes are likely to be minor in the regulations because implementing anything more is going to be problematical. A
Thirdly is the idea that adding development costs to an all new engine is probably going to add to costs not reduce them, and that, as everyone seems to agree, is just stupid.

Mike Harte · 20 Dec 2014, 10:47 (Ref:3486668)

Well, according to an article on The Independent newspaper's website ( http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/m...e-9937043.html ), no one agreed with Ecclestone about introducing a new engine for 2016.

B.E. is quoted as saying that if the teams do not produce realistic plans for his "retro" engines by the time of the next meeting of the Strategy Group in January '16, he will push it through himself because he only requires a simple majority vote to get his way.

However, if all the teams resist his demands, I cannot see him getting his way, unless of course the FIA were to vote with him. Which begs the question on whether he has some hold on the FIA that means that they have to do his bidding?

Also reported here: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ec...59835/?v=2&s=1

I apologise that The Independent page seems to load slowly; it never ceases to amaze me that the faster my broadband becomes, the longer web-pages take to load.

wolfhound · 20 Dec 2014, 11:44 (Ref:3486672)

So Bernie is the only one in the strategy group wanting new engines for 2016. Its crazy if one person wants something and nobody else does that it could get rammed through. Using this forum as a guide I would suspect most fans here except the new engines and can see the merits in them. To use V8's or something simple is just another form of indycar, Auto GP, Renault 3.5 etc. I don't see that pushing the boundries for the future.

Alex Langheck · 20 Dec 2014, 12:15 (Ref:3486677)

Bernie shoud be left to promote the sport - and stay away from the regs. This just shows how out of touch he really is.
What next, V10 DFV's.....and maybe H gear shifts....???

Mike Harte · 20 Dec 2014, 12:53 (Ref:3486681)

I must admit that I am/have been racking what passes for my brain to understand just why Ecclestone is so determined to return to some form of the old style power-units. We all know, or should do, that he never does anything without a very good reason, but for the life of me, I can't see what his reasoning is on this ocassion.

History shows that he will often make seemingly obscure comments in what appears to be an on the spur of the moment way, but they are usually said to deflect from another issue, but also often done because that is the nature of his sense of humour. But this time, he really is pushing the agenda, but for what purpose?

My view is that if he was to be successful in his quest, then it is very likely that Mercedes, Renault and Honda will walk away. FOM may hold "contracts" with the three that "assures" that they all stay until a certain date - 2020? - but I think that it highly unlikely that that clause would be enforceable in a court of law, especially in view of the changes in rules/regulations that drove them to renege on the contracts in the first instance.

Is it really his intention that the manufacturers leave the sport? Or is there something else going on that this debate is obscuring? I don't think that it can be the impending court case in Germany being brought by Bayern Bank, because I personally think that that is a lost cause, if just for the simple reason that multiple officers/directors of the bank have already sworn on oath in is it 3 or 4 cases, New York, London and Germany, that they were "over the moon" with the sale price. And as became apparent during those cases, there was never a formal counter offer to the CVC bid; yes, another "bidder" claimed that they were prepared to offer a higher figure, but that was never put in writing and formalised. Therefore, it never, in legal terms, existed.

So, apart from showing the world that he still controls the strings over Formula 1, what is his motive?

Casper · 20 Dec 2014, 14:18 (Ref:3486690)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnut

Yes!

I am with Bernie 100% on this one, simple powerful cheap (relatively speaking) proper racing engine, that is the way to go!

Stock block LS Chev and two turbos.

Teretonga · 20 Dec 2014, 15:28 (Ref:3486708)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Langheck

Bernie shoud be left to promote the sport - and stay away from the regs. This just shows how out of touch he really is.
What next, V10 DFV's.....and maybe H gear shifts....???

Seriously, if that happened (and he wouldn't because that is not his objective at all) you would see the bills for power units and drive trains drop to less than 4 million a year and the return of independent engine producers and if the chassis regulations were similar you could see a return to early 90's team numbers and pre-qualifying.

But that isn't what people are looking for. No one here has expressed or suggested that as a goal, nor has Bernie or the teams expressed that as a goal.

JeremySmith · 20 Dec 2014, 17:34 (Ref:3486729)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Agreed.
Two thoughts come to mind.
One is his habit of raising nonsensical issues to divert attention away from other things happening.(Like the Bayern bank legal case)
The other is the total impracticality of doing all this in less than 12 months (which means any changes are likely to be minor in the regulations because implementing anything more is going to be problematical. A
Thirdly is the idea that adding development costs to an all new engine is probably going to add to costs not reduce them, and that, as everyone seems to agree, is just stupid.

Are you interested in collaborating on a movie script ?

"The Madness Of Bernie"

Teretonga · 20 Dec 2014, 20:30 (Ref:3486755)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Are you interested in collaborating on a movie script ?

"The Madness Of Bernie"

Hmmm
I am involved and writing a book at the moment...

I am also wondering if pressure is being brought on him from CVC to bring change because of the falling audience and TV ratings.
This would help explain the constant sense of disorganised snatching at things to 'improve' the sport in everything from grid restarts to new engines for 2016...

While Bernie may have sold the series for a small fortune it is actually controlled by Slavica, not Bernie except for the reward of the reverse divorce settlement.
Secondly working for CVC isn't a patch on being able to rock up and run it with Max, and not be accountable to anyone, like in the old days.
At the same time its always been his baby, so he's attached to it because its his life's work. He can't just walk away. Its almost an obsession for him.

Paradise City · 20 Dec 2014, 20:58 (Ref:3486758)

Eccelstone should have zero say. Teams should a strong consultative role. The FIA should be layin' down the lay on tech regs.

Sorry guys, just fantasising for a moment. Carry on.

JeremySmith · 20 Dec 2014, 21:48 (Ref:3486769)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Hmmm
I am involved and writing a book at the moment...

I am also wondering if pressure is being brought on him from CVC to bring change because of the falling audience and TV ratings.
This would help explain the constant sense of disorganised snatching at things to 'improve' the sport in everything from grid restarts to new engines for 2016...

While Bernie may have sold the series for a small fortune it is actually controlled by Slavica, not Bernie except for the reward of the reverse divorce settlement.
Secondly working for CVC isn't a patch on being able to rock up and run it with Max, and not be accountable to anyone, like in the old days.
At the same time its always been his baby, so he's attached to it because its his life's work. He can't just walk away. Its almost an obsession for him.

I am sure as you say Bernie is being lent on to do something about the TV ratings, and the overall disdain from the fans which I am sure he takes notice off..

I have two sets of feelings about this engine business.. The technology involved in the latest PU is in many ways amazing, however if it does not float the boat of the millions of TV viewers and fans that attend races then it has to be looked at seriously, in this regard I do not disagree with him..

Given the choice I would have a louder, not ear splitting, but louder engine because it just sounds more important and more like what my perception of F1 is about..... The fuel saving the happens with the V6 Turbo, well its impressive, but in the overall scheme of things what does it really mean?

The costs of competing in this sport HAVE to come down..The teams must come together and make this happen without further delay...

Bernie has worked hard to make F1 a global success...In a sense F1 has to be run by a dictator, because the teams seem so weak when it comes to agreeing on anything...

BtccLee · 20 Dec 2014, 22:28 (Ref:3486775)

Tiny tremors before something bigger. This sport in its current format is heading into the business abyss. Right now we appear to be dodging some fairly large bullets. A year maybe two. You reap what you sow.

TRuss · 21 Dec 2014, 00:21 (Ref:3486797)

They should be making close 1,000 hp by 2016 anyway. Even with development bans. They clearly gained speed through out this season. Currently 800 hp seems to be a conservative estimate with Mercedes already with a 70 hp improvement for next season.

ECW Dan Selby · 23 Dec 2014, 01:41 (Ref:3487285)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRuss

They should be making close 1,000 hp by 2016 anyway. Even with development bans. They clearly gained speed through out this season. Currently 800 hp seems to be a conservative estimate with Mercedes already with a 70 hp improvement for next season.

You're probably right, but they'll still be quiet and will retain that awful whistling sound.

I really tried to give these new engines a shot, but I just can't like them, i'm afraid.

Selby

Casper · 23 Dec 2014, 04:33 (Ref:3487314)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

You're probably right, but they'll still be quiet and will retain that awful whistling sound.

I really tried to give these new engines a shot, but I just can't like them, i'm afraid.

Selby

The way of the future. Notice how every manufacturer is moving away from the ICE engine in Europe? It is this trend that the manufacturers wanted to parallel in F1. There will be no going back even if BE does his tough guy act and tries to make it happen.

smellysocks · 23 Dec 2014, 21:43 (Ref:3487500)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Langheck

Bernie shoud be left to promote the sport - and stay away from the regs. This just shows how out of touch he really is.
What next, V10 DFV's.....and maybe H gear shifts....???

But what if there isn't much left to promote?

Bernie/CVC will intervene to protect their interests. If nothing is done the 'business' will suffer, small/midsize teams will drop away and it will be to late to turn things around.

I love the sound of this new 'formula' - $10 Million per year and 1000 HP. Simple and effective (ps. also let there be in-season updates!). The teams (avg 10) will save about $15 M each per year, that's $750,000,000.00 over the next 5 years.

And this emphasis on fuel economy should be set aside, I would wager that no one buys a ticket for a race to follow the cars fuel economy!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Engine Regs for IndyCar	Tim Northcutt	Indycar Series	159	4 Sep 2010 21:09
Just so that everyone is clear on the engine regs	Marbot	Formula One	5	3 Oct 2006 18:54
Engine Building for Closed Regs	THR	Racing Technology	3	4 Jul 2002 08:03
FIASCC SR2 - new engine regs?	cybersdorf	Sportscar & GT Racing	5	28 May 2002 01:18