Formula 1 2015: General Discussion Thread

How do you make it cheaper to race while still allowing development?

afatbollix

Standard engine and gearbox.

But that would harm racing......

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you make it cheaper to race while still allowing development?

pass the emphasis from aero back to mechanical? Have a very simplified body panel and wing layout as standard? Removes a lot of the wind tunnel and high process CFD work.

Would make for better racing if aero was less important too, cars could actually follow each other closely with less impact.

Sterling Archer

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Ferrari have used 3 engine upgrade tokens for this weekend, here's hoping we are in for another Canadian classic

Speaking of Ferrari has anyone seen this article yet
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/ferrari-and-haas-find-a-loophole/

ScumLord

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

pass the emphasis from aero back to mechanical? Have a very simplified body panel and wing layout as standard? Removes a lot of the wind tunnel and high process CFD work.

Would make for better racing if aero was less important too, cars could actually follow each other closely with less impact.

I'm after trying a sim version of a 2009 F1 car and the aero makes these cars incredibly difficult to drive. The car behaves completely differently depending on what speed your doing. It does add an extra dimension of difficulty that isn't there in cars with less aero. At low speeds you have to deal with mechanical grip and throttle application, at high speeds you have to be incredibly cautious with the steering as the slightest movement in the wheel causes the car to dart left or right.

The likes of the GT cars have aero but it only really assists through corners, in F1 cars the aero completely changes the car, it takes over entirely. I don't know that I'd like to see it reduced now. Reducing aero would result in a dramatic reduction in lap times.

No matter how much power you give the cars they will never match older times without aero. I did a race where I was driving a formula abarth (probably somewhere between formula ford and F3), I was racing Zondas and other supercars and I was able to literally drive around them in corners on silverstone and be so far up the road that they couldn't catch me by the next corner.

They need some way of cancelling out the dirty air when following a car.

H3llR4iser

Myrddin wrote: »

I think a cheaper, simpler car design means the smaller teams can become much more competitive & can close the gap to the leaders a lot. Sure, the big teams will always be faster, but I'm suggesting the closing up of a the absolute gulf that exists between Mercedes & Manor for example. Sure, it's not a cost cap per se, but if the cars are made that bit simpler, the big teams are only buying tenths of seconds, not >7+ seconds a lap. As a result, a spending cap becomes less important, as the point of diminishing returns comes a lot, lot faster than it does today.

Not the case, I am afraid.

Season 1995 - 20 years ago. The cars were much simpler than nowadays, not quite "tubs with an engine strapped on" but still, simple compared to today's standards.

Let's take the Spanish Grand Prix - both because the track changed very little over time, and because it's always been a chassis proving ground.

Gap between polesitter and last on the grid:

1995: 8.088 seconds;
2015: 7.357 seconds;

Gap between polesitter and 10th on the grid:

1995: 2.475 seconds;
2015: 2.089 seconds;

As you can see, very little difference in terms of gaps; The reality is quite simple, really - the top teams will always run away, and the small ones will always struggle.

mickdw wrote: »

I agree with you. Change the rules to make it less costly to really compete but that is entirely different to a cost cap.
You cannot police a cost cap so anyone suggesting that it is the way forward is on the wrong track.

This is a very valid point, but there is the problem that someone already remarked about: how do you impose heavy limitations while still allowing research? It's not as simple as it looks.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

pass the emphasis from aero back to mechanical? Have a very simplified body panel and wing layout as standard? Removes a lot of the wind tunnel and high process CFD work.

Would make for better racing if aero was less important too, cars could actually follow each other closely with less impact.

Again, difficult to do - if you mandate "same panels for everyone", how do you keep the research aspect of F1? If it's just a "thriller show" with near zero technical content, there's NASCAR.

However, I can't help but notice how the "dirty air" problem seems to have been exacerbated by the high noses; Please note that, although people love to call this years' noses "low", they aren't by any means. The last "low nose" cars were seen in 1991. This is what I mean:

low nose



High nose called "low"



Now it's probably not the silver bullet, but the high noses (in other words, not having a flat bottom from tip to rear axle of the car) might have made the front end much more sensitive to aerodynamic disturbance.

Zcott wrote: »

If the FIA took cost control seriously, it's entirely possible. For sponsors it's a great platform and only getting bigger, but for any team to consider going to F1 there needs to be some cost control in place.

Oh no, it's not a great platform for sponsors anymore, and it won't be until they get rid of the whole PayTV deals. Would you invest a lot of money to promote your brand in something that people have to pay to even watch on TV?

_rebelkid

Canadian GP Race Thread

Mitch Connor

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Oh no, it's not a great platform for sponsors anymore, and it won't be until they get rid of the whole PayTV deals. Would you invest a lot of money to promote your brand in something that people have to pay to even watch on TV?

Soccer, and the PL in particular get LOADS of sponsorship money, and it is on subscription tv.

H3llR4iser

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Soccer, and the PL in particular get LOADS of sponsorship money, and it is on subscription tv.

Not comparable; Even Premiership sponsor money will look like spare change compared to what some of the biggest sponsor (e.g. Marlboro) used to spend on Formula 1, which has a world-wide appeal as opposed to a local one (I can assure that people in other EU countries will prefer watching their own leagues rather than the Premiership, and so in places like Brazil or Argentina).

Also, and here lies the fundamental point, PayTV has been an ADDITION of visibility for football, be it the 'ship, the Bundesliga, the Liga or the Serie A - the matches were seldom, if ever, aired on live TV. Sponsors saw their visibility increase from Sky et all, from a local/stadium level to broadcast size.

With F1 it is the opposite - at least in the last 35 years, it has always been predominantly TV-aired sport; the PayTV has taken away viewers, and a lot of them. For sponsors, it's a disaster - all of a sudden, their investment reached only a fraction of the people it used to. It's not by chance that even top teams, like McLaren, are struggling to find a title sponsor. The sooner they kill the PayTV idiocy, the better.

Myrddin

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The sooner they kill the PayTV idiocy, the better.

Is that a possibility do you think? It'd be nice to have the whole season back on the Beeb again...

Cookie_Monster

A little help please. Back in the UK for work for a couple of weeks from NZ. IS the GP this week on BBC and what time GMT is it?
I'm still super messed up from the time differences and usually don't have to care about when it's on cos its some stupid time on Monday AM and simply has to be recorded for later.

Thanks in advance

H3llR4iser

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

A little help please. Back in the UK for work for a couple of weeks from NZ. IS the GP this week on BBC and what time GMT is it?
I'm still super messed up from the time differences and usually don't have to care about when it's on cos its some stupid time on Monday AM and simply has to be recorded for later.

Thanks in advance

Start at 19.00 on Sunday night

Not sure about it being on BBC, but I think Monaco wasn't, so chances are this one will be.

H3llR4iser

Myrddin wrote: »

Is that a possibility do you think? It'd be nice to have the whole season back on the Beeb again...

I suspect that the concept is dawning on them. Sure enough, they lost most if not all the "casual" and "semi-casual" audience; The people who liked F1, but certainly not enough to spend a few hundred euro each year to just watch it on TV.

Of all the people I know, nobody watches anymore - and for all of them, it's because of Sky.

In general it's incredibly stupid to take a sport that made its fortune and fame on massive TV audience and pretend it will do all right... once you took said audience away!

counterlock

Sky jumped in had first with the 24 channel but their coverage is absolutely garbage. I watched Monaco on it and they had three montages in the space of 45 minutes before the race. Throw in teds notebook where he seems to interview every hour soap in the pit lane and you really have diluted the product.
Eyes on screens is where the long term money is but Bernie took the quick dollar and went with sky. BBC are still quite good but setanta is almost a token gesture

Infoanon

counterlock wrote: »

Sky jumped in had first with the 24 channel but their coverage is absolutely garbage. I watched Monaco on it and they had three montages in the space of 45 minutes before the race. Throw in teds notebook where he seems to interview every hour soap in the pit lane and you really have diluted the product.
Eyes on screens is where the long term money is but Bernie took the quick dollar and went with sky. BBC are still quite good but setanta is almost a token gesture

Sky F1 has gone down hill this season imho,cant remember the last time any new programming beyond the F1 show and race coverage was added.

Myrddin

Even if Sky's coverage was good, it's still behind a paywall & I'd agree with H3llR4iser in what he says, tons of casual viewers now just don't view because of it. F1 should always be a non subscription thing, though I'd really worry about going back to the UTV days with ads every few laps *shudder

smellslikeshoes

counterlock wrote: »

Sky jumped in had first with the 24 channel but their coverage is absolutely garbage. I watched Monaco on it and they had three montages in the space of 45 minutes before the race. Throw in teds notebook where he seems to interview every hour soap in the pit lane and you really have diluted the product.
Eyes on screens is where the long term money is but Bernie took the quick dollar and went with sky. BBC are still quite good but setanta is almost a token gesture

I agree with most of your post apart from the bolded bit, Ted's notebook has been the highlight of Sky's coverage for me. It's the only part of the pre/post race stuff that I actually go out of my way to see.

Sterling Archer

Manor have a new sponsor
It's not major news but really great for the team
https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/606538762818969600

PopePalpatine

Myrddin wrote: »

Even if Sky's coverage was good, it's still behind a paywall & I'd agree with H3llR4iser in what he says, tons of casual viewers now just don't view because of it. F1 should always be a non subscription thing, though I'd really worry about going back to the UTV days with ads every few laps *shudder

I wonder why ITV never thought of using banner ads on the screen when they had the broadcasting rights.

muckwarrior

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder why ITV never thought of using banner ads on the screen when they had the broadcasting rights.

It wasn't the done thing. When they started their coverage, 'banner ads' basically didn't exist. Even towards the end it was very much still a web thing.

AMKC

Shane_ef wrote: »

Manor have a new sponsor
It's not major news but really great for the team
https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/606538762818969600

Thats good to see and nice. I wonder how much they are paying for that. Less I say than if it was on one of the bigger teams cars. Hopefully the new sponsor gets some airtime. I hope that Manor does make progress and start to become a midfield team or at least be a few seconds better than they are because this new Haas team that is coming look like they mean to hit the ground running. They are really going to put the pressure on Manor to improve which can only be good and might mean more exciting racing.
I see they have also got some new signing to there team including Bob Bell who has also worked with Renault( He was there the early to mid 00s and 2005 -2006 when Alonso won the championship) and Caterham. Hopefully he can help the team progress.
There is also talk of another team entering in 2016 but Id say it will be 2017 before another one besides Haas enters as 9 months is far to short for any team that is new from the ground up to be ready to enter F1 unless there is a team starting that we have not heard about or there is a faster way of starting up.

Uno my Uno.

Another dire weekend for McLaren, Honda must be under pressure now.

Going Strong

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Another dire weekend for McLaren, Honda must be under pressure now.

Apparently, Honda wouldn't talk to any media, other than Japanese media, after the race.

Uno my Uno.

Going Strong wrote: »

Apparently, Honda wouldn't talk to any media, other than Japanese media, after the race.

I don't imagine that anyone expected stelar results from them this season but the engine issues are unacceptable at this point. The drivers are unhappy and I'm sure Ron Dennis spends a lot of time on the phone to Japan.

_rebelkid

Going Strong wrote: »

Apparently, Honda wouldn't talk to any media, other than Japanese media, after the race.

Read that as well. Maybe they're just tired of the Euro media asking them why they're so sh*t, and who should be fired for it. I would be.

If anything, Honda should be given some bit of praise for what they're doing. They could have made an engine the same as Ferrari or Mercedes, and they'd be pootling around with the Force India's and Saubers, and everything would be dandy. But instead, Honda went radical. They went for something totally new, and should that something work, would match the Mercedes speed. But, they've had a little over a year to develop the engine, everyone else has had 4-5.

The failures shouldn't happen, but what has failed before, hasn't failed again as far as I can see. So they are making progress. I mean, who would have thought they'd have points after testing? No one. They're not where McLaren "should" be, but they aren't far off.

Uno my Uno.

_rebelkid wrote: »

Read that as well. Maybe they're just tired of the Euro media asking them why they're so sh*t, and who should be fired for it. I would be.

If anything, Honda should be given some bit of praise for what they're doing. They could have made an engine the same as Ferrari or Mercedes, and they'd be pootling around with the Force India's and Saubers, and everything would be dandy. But instead, Honda went radical. They went for something totally new, and should that something work, would match the Mercedes speed. But, they've had a little over a year to develop the engine, everyone else has had 4-5.

The failures shouldn't happen, but what has failed before, hasn't failed again as far as I can see. So they are making progress. I mean, who would have thought they'd have points after testing? No one. They're not where McLaren "should" be, but they aren't far off.

I think they are miles off where they should be, this is Honda McLaren we're talking about, they aren't exactly operating out of a shed somewhere in south east surrey are they? If this was a smaller team like force India and a smaller engine manufacturer they would be pilloried for performances like these. That the drivers have lost patience shows just how bad it is, if true progress was being made they would be more on message.

It might all come together next season but this season is going to feel very long for them at this rate.

muckwarrior

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

they aren't exactly operating out of a shed

Neither are Renault, but even with a full year behind them they aren't exactly a million miles ahead of where Honda are.

_rebelkid

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I think they are miles off where they should be, this is Honda McLaren we're talking about, they aren't exactly operating out of a shed somewhere in south east surrey are they? If this was a smaller team like force India and a smaller engine manufacturer they would be pilloried for performances like these. That the drivers have lost patience shows just how bad it is, if true progress was being made they would be more on message.

It might all come together next season but this season is going to feel very long for them at this rate.

This will be the longest season in Ron's life. I mean, he's even starting to not sound like himself. He came out with "You've got to go backwards to go forwards" yesterday. Ron of old would say that going backwards was unacceptable.

I do believe they'll make it. They've made up 2 and a half seconds already this year, only 2 more to go. They may get there at Abu Dhabi, but they'll still have done it. McHonda know what they're doing.

mickdw

They know that they were never going to win as a merc customer once mercedes came in as a constructor. A works deal with honda was the only option that could possibly get mclaren into a championship winning position so I think they will be content to give it time.
All the other manufacturers we hear about seem to be thinking about coming in with full teams so partnering again with Honda will pay off. I just hope honda have the good sense not to pull the plug when on the verge of winning. They have been known to do that more than once.

ScumLord

_rebelkid wrote: »

The failures shouldn't happen, but what has failed before, hasn't failed again as far as I can see. So they are making progress. I mean, who would have thought they'd have points after testing? No one. They're not where McLaren "should" be, but they aren't far off.

Unfortunately for Formula 1 teams they have to do their testing in front of the public.

Most consumers are used to seeing products long after testing is finished.

Andrew76

_rebelkid wrote: »

I do believe they'll make it. They've made up 2 and a half seconds already this year, only 2 more to go. They may get there at Abu Dhabi, but they'll still have done it. McHonda know what they're doing.

They'd made decent progress when you hear them saying they've made up 2 seconds, but they were coming from so far back you'd expect that. I can't see them making up the remaining 2 this season though - nobody is going to catch the Mercs this year, I'd be shocked if anyone got within a few tenths even.

Hopefully McLaren will get back close to the Williams or even the Ferrari's say, we need more of the top teams close to each other, even if there's another far out in front for now.

I read that refuelling might not be coming back now? Link. Maybe it wouldn't have improved the racing afterall.

_rebelkid

_rebelkid wrote: »

Read that as well. Maybe they're just tired of the Euro media asking them why they're so sh*t, and who should be fired for it. I would be.

If anything, Honda should be given some bit of praise for what they're doing. They could have made an engine the same as Ferrari or Mercedes, and they'd be pootling around with the Force India's and Saubers, and everything would be dandy. But instead, Honda went radical. They went for something totally new, and should that something work, would match the Mercedes speed. But, they've had a little over a year to develop the engine, everyone else has had 4-5.

The failures shouldn't happen, but what has failed before, hasn't failed again as far as I can see. So they are making progress. I mean, who would have thought they'd have points after testing? No one. They're not where McLaren "should" be, but they aren't far off.

Meh, I could design an engine that doesn't work, would I deserve credit for it? :pac:

McLaren have very good aero and chassis. Stick a Ferrari in it and they'd be the 3rd team at least right now. Honda have made a total balls-up.

Tea 1000

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh, I could design an engine that doesn't work, would I deserve credit for it? :pac:

McLaren have very good aero and chassis. Stick a Ferrari in it and they'd be the 3rd team at least right now. Honda have made a total balls-up.

I don't really agree. Look at Renault, they're almost as bad and they've been in the game years. Honda are new with a new concept to try to beat the Merc, they'll need a year at least.
Also, look at Ferrari between around 2006 and last year, hardly a team to be proud of given the experience and money. Alonso was waiting a while for them to come good!

Frank Bullitt

Aren't Renault threatening to leave if engine development isn't allowed next year?

To be honest, with such complex PU's, I think it would make some sort of sense to allow this.

mickdw

Shane_ef wrote: »

Speaking of Ferrari has anyone seen this article yet
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/ferrari-and-haas-find-a-loophole/

What are people thinking of this.
To be honest, what is to stop any team having another wind tunnel somewhere else in the world run by another company with a team of employees not officially related to the f1 team, then have the f1 team simply buying in Research expertise from them. I mean where do you draw the line.

Frank Bullitt

Ron Dennis was right when he said that these new rules benefit works teams more. That has to be one of the main reasons as to why they went with Honda over Merc.

Ghost Train

few news or blog posts about how somebody from a smaller team could be preparing to make a formal complaint to the european commission about how f1 operates

This week the Financial Times confirmed that moves to begin an investigation into Formula One were underway at the European Union, with a group of the sport's smaller teams preparing a formal complaint for the competition commissioner.

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/13028462/kate-walker-legitimacy-inequality-european-union-formula-one

Going Strong

Ghost Train wrote: »

few news or blog posts about how somebody from a smaller team could be preparing to make a formal complaint to the european commission about how f1 operates


http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/13028462/kate-walker-legitimacy-inequality-european-union-formula-one

As usual, the specialist F1 press are too sh*t scared of losing their paddock pass and will wait until everyone and their dog knows about via the wider media before asking Bernie what he thinks about it and printing that as the only angle to the story.

donspeekinglesh

Dieter Rencken for Autosport has been suggesting that as an approach for the disenfranchised teams for a good while now.

Charlie-Bravo

Regarding the fuel saving problem that goes on during races, my wife came up with a great solution (she doesn't watch much F1). Her thoughts were, that the drivers can use as much fuel as they wished to win the race, then get their points based on finishing position (as it currently is). In order for the Constructor's to get points, they will be measured on the amount of fuel remaining on the tank or 'saved'. So during the race, the driver has no clue about fuel usage while battling hard for their win. There will be a need for the teams to design more fuel efficient technologies/hybrid power trains. What do other boardies think?!

mickdw

astrofluff wrote: »

Regarding the fuel saving problem that goes on during races, my wife came up with a great solution (she doesn't watch much F1). Her thoughts were, that the drivers can use as much fuel as they wished to win the race, then get their points based on finishing position (as it currently is). In order for the Constructor's to get points, they will be measured on the amount of fuel remaining on the tank or 'saved'. So during the race, the driver has no clue about fuel usage while battling hard for their win. There will be a need for the teams to design more fuel efficient technologies/hybrid power trains. What do other boardies think?!

The fact remains that they are currently starting races with less than the allowable fuel limit as running light and saving fuel is the fastest way to the end of the race so if everything else stays the same, they will continue to use as little fuel as possible.
A tyre that could withstand hard racing laps without much penalty could tip the balance towards more out and out racing meaning it was feasible to carry the extra fuel.

Myrddin

astrofluff wrote: »

Regarding the fuel saving problem that goes on during races, my wife came up with a great solution (she doesn't watch much F1). Her thoughts were, that the drivers can use as much fuel as they wished to win the race, then get their points based on finishing position (as it currently is). In order for the Constructor's to get points, they will be measured on the amount of fuel remaining on the tank or 'saved'. So during the race, the driver has no clue about fuel usage while battling hard for their win.

You'd kinda be putting the drivers wishes in conflict with th teams wishes though no? "Screw the team I want the win" etc, whereas now it's win/win for either if either do well. Imagine radioing a driver to say no, slow down, we need constructor points? I doubt it'd be nice to watch...

There will be a need for the teams to design more fuel efficient technologies/hybrid power trains. What do other boardies think?!

Personally I think this whole drive toward 'fuel efficiency' & hybrid energy has seriously harmed the sport in the short term. I get why it is this way, & it provides a solid development base for manufacturers in their road car technology too...but the spectacle of F1 has been seriously dented by these quiet cars. Yeah you can hear tires screeching (though it sounds like someone doing up a zipper when it happens), and you can hear the crowd (which is nice),...but there's absolutely zero "wow" factor to these cars for the casual fan. None at all. To go further down this road is not something I'd like to see.

I reckon they should go back to KERS, do away with this ERS thing (too costly also), and either go back to V8's, or go twin turbo V6's to bring some life back into the sport.

muckwarrior

Brundle has made a good point here about telemetry and radio info http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/24096/9879047/f1-is-on-the-wrong-wavelength-with-radio-ga-ga

He basically makes the point that in the 80s drivers had to deal with the same issues - fuel/tyre/engine saving - but because there was little or no data going back and forth between the cars and pits it made for much more unpredictable racing.

Mitch Connor

On the fuel issue, they could implement a MINIMUM amount of fuel in the car. Cars go faster the lighter they are, so to get your car moving quick, you need to burn the fuel off. you do that by racing hard from the off.

ScumLord

Or maybe force them to carry a full fuel tank at the start of the season and let them win the right to reduce their fuel load in races. I wouldn't reward the race winners because you want to give the advantage to the weaker teams so they can be more competitive as the season goes on.

Maybe they could bring in weight penalties for winners?

HighLine

ScumLord wrote: »

Or maybe force them to carry a full fuel tank at the start of the season and let them win the right to reduce their fuel load in races. I wouldn't reward the race winners because you want to give the advantage to the weaker teams so they can be more competitive as the season goes on.

Maybe they could bring in weight penalties for winners?

In fairness, there are enough gimmicks in F1 as there is.

Tea 1000

The worse the team performance, the more testing they're allowed to do. That would sort some problems like McLaren/Honda and Renault out. Curbing testing is daft. Let them test and advance the sport. Then sort out the aero, and ditch the piddly engines.
Give them all 120kg's of fuel. You can turn the wick up as high as you want, but that's it. No under fuelling, all must start with the same. No team orders, and no pit calls. You pit when you feel like it, regardless of where you are on the road. If the other driver is in front, it's up to him to guess when you might pit to try and overtake him and let him counteract. If there ends up being a 2 car queue, so be it.
Too many rules has us where we are, the only way back is to relax some of them, not introduce more rules.

ScumLord

HighLine wrote: »

In fairness, there are enough gimmicks in F1 as there is.

Weight penalties already exist in other sports, BTCC uses weight to slow down the fastest drivers so they have close racing. Fuel offers a chance to add that type of system into F1 but it also adds another dimension to the weight penalty in that you could make it work for you by running an economical race, or a flat out race with your additional fuel.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The worse the team performance, the more testing they're allowed to do. That would sort some problems like McLaren/Honda and Renault out.

I'm surprised they haven't allowed them some extra development time. I can understand there's an issue of fairness across the field but they need to be brought up to speed. I could understand if Honda wanted give up on F1 being forced to do so much of their testing in front of TV cameras. It looks bad even though they're probably doing incredibly fast development of a very sophisticated engine.

No team orders, and no pit calls. You pit when you feel like it, regardless of where you are on the road. If the other driver is in front, it's up to him to guess when you might pit to try and overtake him and let him counteract.

I don't think that can happen, there's too much margin for error. A car running out of fuel on track could cause a serious collision. Two cars of the same team could end up crashing in the pit lane fighting for the same pit space.

Driving the cars is hard enough, there's only so much strategizing you can do from the seat of an F1 car with limited information. I do think they get too much information at times and I wouldn't mind them continuing to restrict what can be said over the radio but I wouldn't be against team orders. It can be interesting to watch to similar teams battle each other using tactics.

Zcott

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The worse the team performance, the more testing they're allowed to do. That would sort some problems like McLaren/Honda and Renault out. Curbing testing is daft. Let them test and advance the sport. Then sort out the aero, and ditch the piddly engines

Christian Horner made a good point on the BBC's coverage at the weekend: dyno testing isn't limited. Honda (and Renault) can run their engines 24/7 on a dyno if they really want. Ok, so that's probably not where the fault is but there is some leeway for a bad engine.

Frank Bullitt

Zcott wrote: »

Christian Horner made a good point on the BBC's coverage at the weekend: dyno testing isn't limited. Honda (and Renault) can run their engines 24/7 on a dyno if they really want. Ok, so that's probably not where the fault is but there is some leeway for a bad engine.

He has a point, but at the same time its hard to fully recreate real situations on a dyno. I remember hearing before that the dyno is a very linear way to develop an engine, as things like resistance from the rubber on the tarmac, rumbles and shakes etc are recreated so the development isn't fully optimized.

At the same time, its not as simple as just running one of the PUs on a dyno. Heating and cooling of the PU actually within in the car is limited I think as well, could be wrong on that one.

The only way to develop a car and a PU is on the track. With the rules as they are, there isn't really much they can do.