Formula One 2010

[Caleb]

I thing I don't get about the FIA is....

They limit the number of engine and gearboxs per year to bring down expenses to save costs, that's fine. In theory.

But here in the real world: Previous engines were designed to go to their max threshold and hold it for a race. Any longer than 500kms on an engine would rip it to shreds. Initially in previous years, the FIA wanted the engines to last for 2 weekends, which the teams were averaging over 1700Kms per weekend on a unit. Where does this three-fold reliability and performance come from?

Re-design and re-engineering. Which costs an absolute fortune to carry out. And it's not like this is a one off. With the rules and regulations changing every year not one single part of the car will stay the same the whole way through.

So while the individual parts maybe be cheaper overall and less units will equal less outlay in that respect, the R&D expenditure would more than cover that.

The big teams will always flourish as long as this cycle continues, regardless of the amount of times the FIA changes the rules to tight the field.

[bennymacca]

most of it came from switching to 8 cylinder engines, and limiting the revs

[AJG]

If you are talking redesign of engines Caleb, most teams dont build there own, so this R&D cost isnt there, and if the engines are getting cheaper, as per benny the cunt's post, then the companies making them either dont have such costs or aren't passing it on (which is none too likely)

benny the cunt, how does limiting revs cost $$? some simple electronics could achieve it no?

[maccatak11]

So just because the teams have large parent companies doing the research and development for them means there is no cost?? Please, the big companies wouldn't do it if there wasn't some return for them, so it most certainly IS a consideration - not a chrissy present.

And benny the cunt was saying that most of the increases in relaibility have come from limiting revs and switching to 8 cylinders, not making it more costly.

[bennymacca]

benny the cunt, how does limiting revs cost $$? some simple electronics could achieve it no?

limiting rev's increases reliability. hance keeping costs down because the engine has to last.

so they aren't spending heaps and heaps of R&D money trying to get their existing engines to be more reliable, they actually switched to a new, more reliable (and therefore lower cost) engine.

[Caleb]

benny the cunt, how does limiting revs cost $$? some simple electronics could achieve it no?

limiting rev's increases reliability. hance keeping costs down because the engine has to last.

so they aren't spending heaps and heaps of R&D money trying to get their existing engines to be more reliable, they actually switched to a new, more reliable (and therefore lower cost) engine.

Not quite the point I was trying to make.

The fact they are switching to the new engine is the whole point. If they just kept the regulations similar for a season or 2 it would be cheaper overall than having to "switch" to a new, more reliable unit every season.

Let's not forget, even though there are only 4 different powerplants this year, there are endless combinations of gearboxs, suspensions, hydraulics, diffusers etc. Not to mention the fact every car has been redesigned to include a fuel tank that can last a whole race.

Every engine has had to be redesigned from last year just to be able to fit them into the bloody cars.

I know I didn't mention that in my original post, but it was more of what I was getting at, the R&D outlay of everything involving the engine, not just the unit itself.

And yes benny the cunt, it did cost a massive outlay to create a more reliable engine. Just limiting the revs on the existing powerplants didn't cut it. Every one had to be redesigned from the ground up to limit stresses.

[Origami]

benny the cunt, how does limiting revs cost $$? some simple electronics could achieve it no?

limiting rev's increases reliability. hance keeping costs down because the engine has to last.

so they aren't spending heaps and heaps of R&D money trying to get their existing engines to be more reliable, they actually switched to a new, more reliable (and therefore lower cost) engine.

Not quite the point I was trying to make.

The fact they are switching to the new engine is the whole point. If they just kept the regulations similar for a season or 2 it would be cheaper overall than having to "switch" to a new, more reliable unit every season.

Let's not forget, even though there are only 4 different powerplants
Mercedes
Ferrrari
Ford Codsworth
Renault.

tyres and aerodynamics ...ie wing diffusers sizes have all been adjusted too..Mclearen r in the poo cuz of their interprtation of rear wing designs...


this year, there are endless combinations of gearboxs, suspensions, hydraulics, diffusers etc. Not to mention the fact every car has been redesigned to include a fuel tank that can last a whole race.

Every engine has had to be redesigned from last year just to be able to fit them into the bloody cars.

I know I didn't mention that in my original post, but it was more of what I was getting at, the R&D outlay of everything involving the engine, not just the unit itself.

And yes benny the cunt, it did cost a massive outlay to create a more reliable engine. Just limiting the revs on the existing powerplants didn't cut it. Every one had to be redesigned from the ground up to limit stresses.

[bennymacca]

And yes benny the cunt, it did cost a massive outlay to create a more reliable engine. Just limiting the revs on the existing powerplants didn't cut it. Every one had to be redesigned from the ground up to limit stresses.

i am not doubting that it would take a lot of R&D effort to design a new engine, but in comparison to burning through 20 of them in a season, it would have been a lot cheaper, especially in the long term.

think back to the days when schuey was racing, the rules were pretty stable for a period of time there, but the engines didn't get any more reliable, because they didn't have to be - 1 per race meet really.

[Caleb]

And yes benny the cunt, it did cost a massive outlay to create a more reliable engine. Just limiting the revs on the existing powerplants didn't cut it. Every one had to be redesigned from the ground up to limit stresses.

i am not doubting that it would take a lot of R&D effort to design a new engine, but in comparison to burning through 20 of them in a season, it would have been a lot cheaper, especially in the long term.

That's my point mate.

There is no "LONG TERM" with the FIA at the moment. The outlay being spent this year with no doubt be useless when they mess around with rules again for next year. Same as last year and the year before.

They've been trumpeting an engine development freeze for the last few years, but as long as they keep messing around with the rest of the car as well, there will be no long term savings derived from these regs.

I should point of this is mainly for those designing their own components/drivetrains/powerplants.

There is a cap on price Mercedes/Ferrari etc. can sell their engines for, regardless of any other factors.

It all boils down to this. F*** MAX MOSLEY.

[AJG]

Yes, I didnt word my last post well, I meant that there are some teams that make their own engines, so they end up with the full hit of the R&D costs...
Most dont.
This who buy there engines from X will shore the cost of the R&D from X. And as Caleb mentions there is a price cap...

There is no "LONG TERM" with the FIA at the moment. The outlay being spent this year with no doubt be useless when they mess around with rules again for next year. Same as last year and the year before.
...
It all boils down to this. F*** MAX MOSLEY.

+1 Caleb