News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

Initially the FIA wanted to enforce an engine 'freeze' for the 2008 to 2010 seasons.

Appendix 6 of the 2008 F1 Sporting Regulations details the engine homologation regulations.

1. A homologated engine is an engine identical in every respect to :

• (i) an engine delivered to the FIA prior to 1 June 2006 or,
  (ii) an engine delivered to the FIA after 1 June 2006, or modified and re-delivered to the FIA after 1 June 2006, which the FIA is satisfied, in its absolute discretion and after full consultation with all other suppliers of engines for the Championship, could fairly and equitably be allowed to compete with other homologated engines.

All such engines should be delivered in such a condition that the seals required under Article 85(d) can be fitted. Engines will be held by the FIA throughout the homologation period.

2. The supplier of a homologated engine and/or the team using the homologated engine must take and/or facilitate such steps as the FIA may at any time and in its absolute discretion determine in order to satisfy the FIA that an engine used at an Event is indeed identical to the corresponding engine delivered to and held by the FIA.

3. The FIA, in consultation with the TWG and the engine suppliers, will from time to time issue indicative information as to the tests and inspection procedures to be applied.

Following discussions with the Manufacturers, it was agreed in August to 'freeze' the engines from the 2006 Chinese Grand Prix. The following was agreed:

- Engines will be stabilised from the 2006 Chinese Grand Prix. These will be the only engines used from and including the 2007 season.

- This means that no further developments of the engines will be allowed other than retuning for the 19,000 rpm limit, to be agreed in each case with the FIA under the terms of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations

Then in September and in another meeting between the FIA and the teams including the manufacturers, it was agreed to 'freeze' the engine used in the last 2 races of the season and that the 'freeze' will come into force for the 2007 season.
- Homologated engine regulations already in force for 2008 to apply for 2007. The homologated engine to be that used at the 2006 Japanese Grand Prix, subject to retuning for a maximum of 19,000 rpm. Full details of the retuning to be submitted to the FIA no later than December 15, 2006, and the definitive engine to be delivered by March 1, 2007

In October, the World Motor Sport Council approved those changes. The final text was:
Engines homologated and used during the last two Events of 2006 must now be used during the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons

That's beautifully spelt out Ed and I for one am in awe
But what does that mean in English?

No no really they've agreed to four years stuck with the same engine doesn't that kind of benefit just the big hitters? They now get to spend all those mega-bucks on their chassis.

Snowy wrote:That's beautifully spelt out Ed and I for one am in awe
But what does that mean in English?

No no really they've agreed to four years stuck with the same engine doesn't that kind of benefit just the big hitters? They now get to spend all those mega-bucks on their chassis.

And people like Martinelli have had to find alternative employment.........

His services are no longer required at Ferrari

Snowy wrote:That's beautifully spelt out Ed and I for one am in awe
But what does that mean in English?

No no really they've agreed to four years stuck with the same engine doesn't that kind of benefit just the big hitters? They now get to spend all those mega-bucks on their chassis.

While I don't like the idea of the engine freeze, the aim is to reduce cost. With the 4 race per gearbox (from 2008), a standard ecu (from 2008), limit on testing, there are less areas to spend mega bucks on.
There will always be a team or two spending a lot more than the others but these restrictions will make it easier for the smaller teams to compete (or at least be close) to the top teams. Don't forget that Renault won 2 Constructors' Titles with just the 5th largest budget.

The engine freeze in a worst case scenario could lead to just one engine supplier. Lets say the Toyota engine turns out to be the best engine by far(when rev limited to 19,000 rpm), with no changes to the engines for 4 years, you'd expect to see a number of teams (if not all) go for the Toyota engine.
This is a worst case scenario and it is unlikely that it will happen.
A more likely scenario is that one or two manufacturers will pull out because their 'frozen' engines can't compete with the 3 or 4 other engines. That is one of the reasons I don't like this engine 'freeze'. But to cut costs and stop the increase in power, they had to do something!.

Ed wrote:

Snowy wrote:That's beautifully spelt out Ed and I for one am in awe
But what does that mean in English?

No no really they've agreed to four years stuck with the same engine doesn't that kind of benefit just the big hitters? They now get to spend all those mega-bucks on their chassis.

While I don't like the idea of the engine freeze, the aim is to reduce cost. With the 4 race per gearbox (from 2008), a standard ecu (from 2008), limit on testing, there are less areas to spend mega bucks on.
There will always be a team or two spending a lot more than the others but these restrictions will make it easier for the smaller teams to compete (or at least be close) to the top teams. Don't forget that Renault won 2 Constructors' Titles with just the 5th largest budget.

The engine freeze in a worst case scenario could lead to just one engine supplier. Lets say the Toyota engine turns out to be the best engine by far(when rev limited to 19,000 rpm), with no changes to the engines for 4 years, you'd expect to see a number of teams (if not all) go for the Toyota engine.
This is a worst case scenario and it is unlikely that it will happen.
A more likely scenario is that one or two manufacturers will pull out because their 'frozen' engines can't compete with the 3 or 4 other engines. That is one of the reasons I don't like this engine 'freeze'. But to cut costs and stop the increase in power, they had to do something!.

Agreed they had to do something and nothing in F1 is done without a great deal of lobbying and bullying, Kyoto has nothing on F1.

Ed wrote:

Snowy wrote:That's beautifully spelt out Ed and I for one am in awe
But what does that mean in English?

No no really they've agreed to four years stuck with the same engine doesn't that kind of benefit just the big hitters? They now get to spend all those mega-bucks on their chassis.

While I don't like the idea of the engine freeze, the aim is to reduce cost. With the 4 race per gearbox (from 2008), a standard ecu (from 2008), limit on testing, there are less areas to spend mega bucks on.
There will always be a team or two spending a lot more than the others but these restrictions will make it easier for the smaller teams to compete (or at least be close) to the top teams. Don't forget that Renault won 2 Constructors' Titles with just the 5th largest budget.

The engine freeze in a worst case scenario could lead to just one engine supplier. Lets say the Toyota engine turns out to be the best engine by far(when rev limited to 19,000 rpm), with no changes to the engines for 4 years, you'd expect to see a number of teams (if not all) go for the Toyota engine.
This is a worst case scenario and it is unlikely that it will happen.
A more likely scenario is that one or two manufacturers will pull out because their 'frozen' engines can't compete with the 3 or 4 other engines. That is one of the reasons I don't like this engine 'freeze'. But to cut costs and stop the increase in power, they had to do something!.

Agreed, problem is that if one (or more) manufacturer has an engine which turns out to be unreliable they cannot fix the problem!
With the manufacturers using F1 as a platform for advertising this could lead to some really bad publicity, particularly in markets where comparative advertising is permitted!
I can see it now "Our cars perform better and last longer than those of @#$%&*!. Who needs the extended waranty the most?"

End result, a loss of interst and possible loss of manufacturers in F1.

Judging by the performance of the engines toward the end of the season hopefully this wont be the case.

Ed wrote: While I don't like the idea of the engine freeze, the aim is to reduce cost. With the 4 race per gearbox (from 2008), a standard ecu (from 2008), limit on testing, there are less areas to spend mega bucks on.
There will always be a team or two spending a lot more than the others but these restrictions will make it easier for the smaller teams to compete (or at least be close) to the top teams. Don't forget that Renault won 2 Constructors' Titles with just the 5th largest budget.

For that reason alone I tend to support the engine freeze idea. It will surely hamper the advancement in automobile technology but a four-year trial period is no biggie. After all we have had the same engine technology for the last 120 years

Ed wrote:The engine freeze in a worst case scenario could lead to just one engine supplier. Lets say the Toyota engine turns out to be the best engine by far(when rev limited to 19,000 rpm), with no changes to the engines for 4 years, you'd expect to see a number of teams (if not all) go for the Toyota engine.
This is a worst case scenario and it is unlikely that it will happen.
A more likely scenario is that one or two manufacturers will pull out because their 'frozen' engines can't compete with the 3 or 4 other engines. That is one of the reasons I don't like this engine 'freeze'. But to cut costs and stop the increase in power, they had to do something!.

I agree. Big teams won't EVER resort to such measures but in the face of failure smaller teams (Spyker, STR, RBR and even Williams) will easily switch to a proven and reliable power plant.

I think the direction Max Mosley and the FIA are trying to force the manufacturers into is energy recovery and re-use. While the engines are frozen and rev limited to 19,000 from 2009 they are planning to introduce provisions for energy recovery. That will be the next 'competitive' area and it will certainly help the advancement of that technology on road cars.

From 2011 or maybe earlier, the FIA in conjunction with the engine suppliers will work on performance improvements based on the efficient use of energy (i.e restricting the flow rate of fuel rather than fixing the engine capacity).

Keep in mind though that these are proposals and not firm regulations.

Ed wrote:I think the direction Max Mosley and the FIA are trying to force the manufacturers into is energy recovery and re-use. While the engines are frozen and rev limited to 19,000 from 2009 they are planning to introduce provisions for energy recovery. That will be the next 'competitive' area and it will certainly help the advancement of that technology on road cars.

From 2011 or maybe earlier, the FIA in conjunction with the engine suppliers will work on performance improvements based on the efficient use of energy (i.e restricting the flow rate of fuel rather than fixing the engine capacity).

Keep in mind though that these are proposals and not firm regulations.

That actually sounds sensible The only problem I have with that is that Max never ever makes sense What's he really up to?

No really, I have always thought that F1 rather than developing faster and faster technology should be going down a more fuel efficient road. And I have always thought refuelling ran totally counter to that. What crucial factor am I missing when lambasting refuelling? Surely now would be a good time to be rid of it?

It means larger tanks and the 2007 cars have already been designed. So anything like that will be for 2008.

What they should get rid of immediately is the 15 minute fuel burning exercise that is called Q3 or Super Pole! If the powers that be so much insist on qualifying in the 3rd session on race fuel then give each driver 2 flying runs and that is it!

Ed wrote:It means larger tanks and the 2007 cars have already been designed. So anything like that will be for 2008.

What they should get rid of immediately is the 15 minute fuel burning exercise that is called Q3 or Super Pole! If the powers that be so much insist on qualifying in the 3rd session on race fuel then give each driver 2 flying runs and that is it!

That's my point exactly nothing that Max invents or has anything to do with makes any sense. F1 is the pinnacle of "What is the stupidest thing we can do?"

There has been talk of "fuel cells". And that as early as 2012. Dunno about the stupidest idea but surely we'll have some nice fireworks on the track

Something that I don't understand about this freeze thing, what if a team found out a serious flaw with the engine. Couldn't they fix that flaw for the next 4 years ? Surely that won't be the case ?

JayVee wrote:Something that I don't understand about this freeze thing, what if a team found out a serious flaw with the engine. Couldn't they fix that flaw for the next 4 years ? Surely that won't be the case ?

They are basically the engines as run in the last two GPs, and rev limited back to 19,000rpm so they should handle that easily. For example the cosworth was running at 20,000rpm.....that 1000rpm makes a huge difference in reliability at the upper rev limits.

Julian Mayo wrote:

JayVee wrote:Something that I don't understand about this freeze thing, what if a team found out a serious flaw with the engine. Couldn't they fix that flaw for the next 4 years ? Surely that won't be the case ?

They are basically the engines as run in the last two GPs, and rev limited back to 19,000rpm so they should handle that easily. For example the cosworth was running at 20,000rpm.....that 1000rpm makes a huge difference in reliability at the upper rev limits.

We could have analyzed the situation a little deeper if those two idiots didn't crash into each other in the first lap!