One reason may be that they don't want them to use 160 kg of fuel if it is technically feasible to use only 105 kg for the same performance. The other reason why the cylinder count and bore is fixed was also explained in detail. The engineers know that there is little optimizing potential in playing with those numbers. Some might try a three cylinder and find a bit of an improvement. But the collective cost of getting there would not be in a sensible relationship with the improvements in power you get in a fuel restricted formula. So those developments have been cut off in the name of cost stability. The big power gains are going to come from optimizing the turbine technologies, the fuel injection, the valves and the electronic control. The formula is setting the right incentives to materialize those gains.hecti wrote:I just cant see why they cant put a limit on engine development budget, say 30 million pounds... and then state that you have to make the end of the race with 160kg of fuel. end of story, you go home do your maths and in 2013 we have 3 or 4 types of engines and 12 different cars.
you could even have the manufactures publicly report engine horsepower, imagine that! and never install another engine freeze, and every time a manufacturer changes a component they have to re-publicize the hp figure.
This is what formula one should be all about, technology and engineering vs technology and engineering. Simple as that. There should be limits, but not limits on creativity, design and aerodynamics, but basic ground rules like max fuel for a race and your car must fit in a box x by y by z meters big.
I was thinking about it some time ago, when the budget cap idea appeared for the first time. Of course that you cannot control directly all excessive spending on engine development.machin wrote:Anyone got an workable way of doing it?
Cost of customer supply is going to be one element. But there will be also a human resource restriction like the 315 head count for chassis development I understand. A third element of cost control will be homologation. Some technical features are supposed to be fixed for five years from 2013 to 2017. Other features will be homologated for one year. And they apparently have agreed to not do any competitive development on turbo compounding before 2014.piast9 wrote:I was thinking about it some time ago, when the budget cap idea appeared for the first time. Of course that you cannot control directly all excessive spending on engine development.machin wrote:Anyone got an workable way of doing it?
In my opinion it may be controlled in some way by forcing all engine manufacturers to contract at least one customer team and provide it with identical engines that factory team uses at some maximal price set by rules. Nobody would then spend zillions on engine that other teams could also buy for money nowhere near the actual costs.
No. All of that is plausible. That's why there is a company called Red Bull Technology that employs Adrian Newey. He's not employed by Red Bull Racing.machin wrote:Or am I just devious???
Of course, I agree that the limit would be not the strict one. But that should prevent situations in which for example the price for the engine would be (I don't remember actual CA2010 price) for example $5M and it would cost the manufacturer the $50M. For sure the rich teams spending limit would be lower than without such rule.747heavy wrote:It may goes a way to reduce the possibility of an spending war, but there is no guarantee.
This is why a while back, in this topic, I proposed a bill of materials limit to $500k per engine as it stops ppl building 5million dollar engines and selling them for less than they are worth.piast9 wrote:Of course, I agree that the limit would be not the strict one. But that should prevent situations in which for example the price for the engine would be (I don't remember actual CA2010 price) for example $5M and it would cost the manufacturer the $50M. For sure the rich teams spending limit would be lower than without such rule.747heavy wrote:It may goes a way to reduce the possibility of an spending war, but there is no guarantee.
There was. The BBC article mentioned resource restrictions as checks and balances. Montezemolo talked about engine resource restrictions as early as summer 2009.747heavy wrote:What has a limited headcount for chassis development and production to do with engine development cost?
AFAIK there was no talk about a headcount limit for engine manufacturers yet.
I'm not aware that Ferrari, Mercedes, Cosworth or VW have been bailed out. Renault were but they have just pulled out of F1 as a team owner and it rests to be seen if they will remain as a supplier of drive trains beyond 2013. I see the established and potential engine suppliers in F1 as properly financed corporations which will be making decisions for spending development money based on solid business practice and expected returns.autogyro wrote:The money involved is after all mainly from the public in the form of bail outs.