What If?

[WeirdKerr]

aaaahh the 1999 euro gp..... a race full of what ifs if there ever was 1....

[dinizintheoven]

Here's a good one for you...

What if... F1 teams gave their reserve drivers a shot at Le Mans?

"Right, Bruno, Fairuz, Jan, we know you haven't got a lot to do with the testing ban and all that, but we've looked down the back of the sofa and found a spare 400,000 euros, so we bought an LMP2 chassis off Lola, painted it black and gold, stuck an engine in it and some Genii Capital decals on the side, and the three of you are going to be entered for Le Mans this year. Now go out and win the class. What's that? Ferrari and Lotus? Yes, they've got cars as well, and three reserve drivers who all want to beat you. Show them who's boss."

I was toying with the idea of Virgin and Hispania entering, say, a competitive LMP2 car for Glock/Custard/Yamamoto and Liuzzi/Karthikeyan/Mondini (maybe?), if only to lift their competitive spirits after trundling around at the back of the field for a year and a half, but Le Mans is on the same weekend as the Canadian Grand Prix and they'd not be available. But the three teams with enough reserve drivers sitting idle to make a full endurance driver line-up could, in theory, do it. If there's enough cash in the bank, I would say why not have a full assault on the LMP1 class and take on Audi and Peugeot for overall glory, but I suspect Ferrari wouldn't be too happy running in someone else's car, and it's not as if the sight of a rampant lion up there with the fastest cars is going to bother the Renault F1 team too much now that Renault's not involved.

Or, if there was an emergency in one of the top LMP1 teams; say, Rinaldo Capello has a crash that rules him out of the race, is there anything to stop the Audi bigwigs calling, say, Timo Glock? "So, Timo, we've got a proposition for you. How would you like to drive at Le Mans alongside Tom Kristensen and Allan McNish? You know, ten titles between them. How about you tell John Booth that he can put Sakon Yamamoto in the Virgin for Canada and you'll have a stab at winning Le Mans, and give your team a bit of a boost and some extra publicity in the process. Or, we could pick Jean-Denis Délétraz instead, and you can go to Canada and line up 22nd behind Jarno Trulli and finish the race two laps down if the car doesn't have a few more gearbox gremlins. What do you say?"

[ibsey]

Here's a good one for you...

What if... F1 teams gave their reserve drivers a shot at Le Mans?"

I think, it certainly will improve those driver's race craft ability (especially tyre management & fuel saving, which seems to be very important in 2011). So I can't see any reason for them not to really. Maybe there's the arguement that they may find it difficult to adapt back to F1. But I do think it is a fundamental skill of an top class driver to be able to adapt to whatever they are given. If they are able to pull it off successfully, as you seem to suggest, it should improve their reputation.

I personally would love to seem more F1 drivers (including those like Bruno Senna or Christian Kilen... who find themself without an F1 race drive in 2011) in Le Mans, than we currently see. I do miss the group C days (early 1990's) when there were tons of F1 drivers completing for Le-mans. In fact some drivers like Eddie Irvine in 1994 completed in Le mans on top of their F1 duties that year.

Another what if question for you...what if a certain M Schumi, never stepped into a go kart, but became a brick layer like his father? Would F1 have been so predictable in 2002 & 2004?

[dinizintheoven]

Another what if question for you...what if a certain M Schumi, never stepped into a go kart, but became a brick layer like his father? Would F1 have been so predictable in 2002 & 2004?

I reckon Ferrari would still be floundering around chaotically like they were in the early 90s - so much so that Jean Alesi would have left of his own accord.

[GroupLotusRenault]

What if jackie Stewart never took safety so seriously and didnt try and improve it?

[DOSBoot]

What if jackie Stewart never took safety so seriously and didnt try and improve it?

I'm sure someone else would have, and F1 would still probably be same as it is now.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

What if Williams decide the best way out is IndyCar?
What if Michael Andretti had tried to make his F1 career work?
If the above happened, what would have happened to Mika Hakkinen?
What if Williams gave Adrian Newey the technical director position he so wanted?
What if Williams had Renault engines this year?
What if the cars hadn't changed in 1998, and how well would have Alex Zanardi done?
What if Greg Moore had survived, and raced for Penske?
What if Champ Car survived and ran in 2008, and is still running today?
What if Bruno Junqueira had got the Williams seat instead of Jenson Button?
What if Anthony Davidson had driven for Williams in 2005?

[TomWazzleshaw]

What if Michael Andretti had tried to make his F1 career work?
If the above happened, what would have happened to Mika Hakkinen?

Hakkinen would have replaced Senna in 1994 and then would have had pretty much the same career as he did in real life. Andretti would win a race or two but quit at the end of 1995 as he gets fed up with the crapboxes McLaren give him to work with.

What if Williams had Renault engines this year?

They'ld be just as hopeless as they are now sadly. (The Renault is down on power relative to the Mercedes and Ferrari powerplants and I think the Cosworth is slightly more powerful than it aswell)

[Londoner]

Here's one
What if the 2007 European Grand Prix had not been red-flagged with Markus Winkelhock in the lead?

[tommykl]

Here's one
What if the 2007 European Grand Prix had not been red-flagged with Markus Winkelhock in the lead?

He'd probably have scored in his only GP. Kolles had decided to bring in Yamamoto whatever happened.

[ADx_Wales]

What if HWNSNBM was one of us?

[MansellsEyebrows]

What if Champ Car survived and ran in 2008, and is still running today?

http://champcar-ws.com/home

Mark Plourde would have taken over the champ car universe, that's what.

[Aerospeed]

What if Champ Car survived and ran in 2008, and is still running today?

http://champcar-ws.com/home

Mark Plourde would have taken over the champ car universe, that's what.

Holy crap! And is it on TV as well?

[dr-baker]

What if Champ Car survived and ran in 2008, and is still running today?

http://champcar-ws.com/home

Mark Plourde would have taken over the champ car universe, that's what.

What on earth...? Is this for real?

[mario]

Here's one
What if the 2007 European Grand Prix had not been red-flagged with Markus Winkelhock in the lead?

He'd probably have scored in his only GP. Kolles had decided to bring in Yamamoto whatever happened.

Given that he retired due to a hydraulics failure after the race was restarted, I'd say that he would probably have still had a mechanical failure anyway, just that he might have spent a little longer in the lead and covered a few more laps before he would have retired.

Overall, though, it'd have made next to no difference to the outcome of his race - it would probably have had a more significant impact on the races of other midfield runners who had taken advantage of the chaotic conditions to make up places, like Wurz and Webber.

What if Williams had Renault engines this year?

They'ld be just as hopeless as they are now sadly. (The Renault is down on power relative to the Mercedes and Ferrari powerplants and I think the Cosworth is slightly more powerful than it aswell)

I'd have to agree - the Renault engine would probably give them a slight fuel consumption advantage, since the current evidence suggests that it is probably the most fuel efficient engine in use today, with the Cosowrth towards the higher end for fuel consumption (the thirstiest is rumoured to be the Ferrari engine). That would probably come at the cost of a slight reduction in peak power, although probably nowhere near as much as Horner claimed (the power difference would probably be about 10bhp) - overall, the two aspects would probably balance each other out, so there would not be a major advantage in switching.

It's not like the early 1990's, when the Renault V10 was significantly better than its rivals for a number of reasons - the difference would be perhaps hundredths of a second at best, and Williams need several tenths and even whole seconds to be at the front. Besides, it seems that, as per usual, the real killer for Williams have been their aerodynamics package - although they are not the only ones (Ferrari are having major problems with their wind tunnel data, as their recent track data hasn't been matching their wind tunnel data).

[ibsey]

I'd have to agree - the Renault engine would probably give them a slight fuel consumption advantage, since the current evidence suggests that it is probably the most fuel efficient engine in use today, with the Cosowrth towards the higher end for fuel consumption (the thirstiest is rumoured to be the Ferrari engine). That would probably come at the cost of a slight reduction in peak power, although probably nowhere near as much as Horner claimed (the power difference would probably be about 10bhp) - overall, the two aspects would probably balance each other out, so there would not be a major advantage in switching.

Mario, you are probably the best person to ask this question to. Do you, by any chance, know what the reputed differences are (in BHP) between the most powerful F1 engine (which I assume to be the Mercedes or Ferrari) & the least power engine (which seems to be the Renualt). Also would there be a reputed differences between the engines in terms of weight, reduction of power due to wear & configuration of the values (i.e. are they all around 75 - 90 degrees?), between the engines?

Finally how would all this translate into laptime (i.e. is the most efficent engine worth an extra 3 tenths on a track, like Barcelona).

Apologies if it seems a bit like an interrogation, however F1 engine performance information appears to all be very secretative & therefore difficult to find any further details on it. If it is easier for you, perhaps you can stick a link to a website you know of that may answer the above questions.

Thanks in advance.

[MansellsEyebrows]

What if Champ Car survived and ran in 2008, and is still running today?

http://champcar-ws.com/home

Mark Plourde would have taken over the champ car universe, that's what.

What on earth...? Is this for real?

Well it's just one guys complete fantasy (that guy being 'Mark Plourde' to be precise). Serious case of one man with too much time on his hands, though I'm surprised nobody on here has seen it before as it is quite an internet sensation on the motorsport forums.

[MansellsEyebrows]

What if Champ Car survived and ran in 2008, and is still running today?

http://champcar-ws.com/home

Mark Plourde would have taken over the champ car universe, that's what.

Holy crap! And is it on TV as well?

If only

[Aerospeed]

Holy crap! And is it on TV as well?

If only

Where can you see the races then?

[ibsey]

What if Panis hadn't crashed in Canada 1997? Could he have had a chance at the championship (he was lying in 3rd position in the WDC when he broke his legs).

Also what races do you think he could have won (perhaps France, Hungary & Austria since the Bridgestones were extremely strong at the latter two races). If he had not won the championship for himself, surely his possible strong results would have affected the battle between Schumi & JV. What are your thoughts on this?

Finally, would he (& Prost for that matter) have been more sucessful after 1997?

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

What if Panis hadn't crashed in Canada 1997? Could he have had a chance at the championship (he was lying in 3rd position in the WDC when he broke his legs).

Also what races do you think he could have won (perhaps France, Hungary & Austria since the Bridgestones were extremely strong at the latter two races). If he had not won the championship for himself, surely his possible strong results would have affected the battle between Schumi & JV. What are your thoughts on this?

Finally, would he (& Prost for that matter) have been more sucessful after 1997?

This is of particular interest to me as I am a ProstGP fan (see avatar).

I sincerely think Panis would not have been able to fight it out with Villeneuve and Schumi. The Ligier, and I say Ligier because after all, they designed it, was good, but I doubt Prost had the resources and the facilities to keep up with the likes of Williams and Ferrari. Podiums IMO would have been frequent, but I doubt a win was in sight (Spain would have been their best chance, God damn you Irvine). He may have finished ahead of JV or Schumi, which would most likely have resulted in Schumi winning the title, unless Villeneuve isn't DSQ'd from Japan. I doubt, though, that Prost would have been any more successful after 1997 than in RL. If Loic Bigois came up with the same shitbox (albeit a good looking one), then Prost were doomed. They may have been able to attract slightly more talented designers, but overall, I still think they would have endured the same fate.

[MansellsEyebrows]

Holy crap! And is it on TV as well?

If only

Where can you see the races then?

You can't, It's all in the guys head. Much like some threads in the Perry mcarthy section of this forum, results are made up, and the drivers are I guess ones who he'd like to see in Champ Car. Unlike in the afforementioned forum section here though, Plourde has gone to the trouble of creating an entire, big fat realistic website. A lot of effort (and time) has clearly gone into this, perhaps a little too much.

Just a shame there is no Chris Dagnall in the series because after he retires from F1 it would be cool if he went over there and gave Mark Plourde a run for his money .

[mario]

I'd have to agree - the Renault engine would probably give them a slight fuel consumption advantage, since the current evidence suggests that it is probably the most fuel efficient engine in use today, with the Cosowrth towards the higher end for fuel consumption (the thirstiest is rumoured to be the Ferrari engine). That would probably come at the cost of a slight reduction in peak power, although probably nowhere near as much as Horner claimed (the power difference would probably be about 10bhp) - overall, the two aspects would probably balance each other out, so there would not be a major advantage in switching.

Mario, you are probably the best person to ask this question to. Do you, by any chance, know what the reputed differences are (in BHP) between the most powerful F1 engine (which I assume to be the Mercedes or Ferrari) & the least power engine (which seems to be the Renualt). Also would there be a reputed differences between the engines in terms of weight, reduction of power due to wear & configuration of the values (i.e. are they all around 75 - 90 degrees?), between the engines?

Finally how would all this translate into laptime (i.e. is the most efficent engine worth an extra 3 tenths on a track, like Barcelona).

Apologies if it seems a bit like an interrogation, however F1 engine performance information appears to all be very secretative & therefore difficult to find any further details on it. If it is easier for you, perhaps you can stick a link to a website you know of that may answer the above questions.

Thanks in advance.

Well, I'll see what I can do to answer your questions - I might not be able to answer all, since the engine manufacturers are so secretive. Regarding power, the last set of figures that I saw for the engines (in an Auto Motor Und Sport article, and picked up again by James Allen, and based on accoustic analysis of the engines), were for 2009, so things might have changed slightly since then.

Mercedes were said to have the most powerful engine in the field, with 755bhp, whilst the Toyota engine at the time is quoted at 735bhp (the latter figure is here http://www.f1technical.net/features/15538 ). Renault were quoted as being around 10bhp down on the Mercedes unit (i.e. producing about 745bhp), with Ferrari splitting the two at around 750bhp. Cosworth is a slight unknown - before the season began, they were quoting 770bhp, which, if true, would have given those teams using the Cosworth engine a major power advantage, although the evidence so far suggests that is probably not the case, or hindered by other factors. http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2009/11/a ... e-in-2009/
Out of the manufacturers left since then, Renault probably still has the least powerful engine (as I've said, Cosworth is a slightly unknown quantity). What is also unknown is how much power the engine builders have squeezed out of their reliability upgrades since 2009, especially Ferrari with their modified pneumatic valves. Following that upgrade, rumours of power increases from 5bhp to 20bhp were floating around - scarbsf1 put it at 12bhp for example ( http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/05/1 ... ification/ ). That, in theory, should have put them ahead of Mercedes in terms of peak power - but we don't know if Mercedes have been able to increase their engine power over that time frame either. Cosworth have also been very busy on their engine too, although a lot of that relates to better engine wear, fuel consumption and engine maps.

As for the time effect on track, that is harder to quantify. James Allen quoted a 0.3s time difference between the Mercedes and Renault engine if power alone was considered, although that seems to be slightly higher than most estimates. When fuel was accounted for, the picture became more blurred - the higher fuel efficiency of the Renault engine seems to offset the power disadvantage, as James Allen also claimed that the difference in fuel required added up to about 4 laps or 0.3s. Ferrari, meanwhile, are probably the worst for fuel consumption, with Cosworth probably the next worst (fuel consumption was an area of major work for Cosworth last year by their own admission).

As for power loss with wear, that really is the biggest unknown, since very few people have been interested in that, even though it could be more of a factor than the claimed differences in power output when new. Cosworth have been the most open, admitting that power loss is worse than expected (unfortunately, I can't link to the article because of Autosport's restrictions on how far back you can go in their archives for non subscription viewers), but beyond that, it is quite nebulous.
I do recall heaving a few rumours of disquiet from Toro Rosso about the power loss of the Ferrari engine, as they claimed that Ferrari were pressing them to put very high mileages on their engines in 2009 (so Ferrari could work out the power loss), and that it was hurting their performance quite badly. However, overall, there is no hard data on what the power loss with wear is, only a broad notion that Cosworth seems to be one of the worst offenders (particularly after around 1600km), and possibly Ferrari next (with little to no indication of where Mercedes and Renault sit).

As for the weight, that is fixed by the FIA at a minimum of 95kg, and at the moment that is a pretty easy target for the engine manufacturers to meet. So, in terms of weight, there is no advantage, nor in terms of centre of gravity, which has to be at least 165mm above the reference plane (i.e. the floor of the car). The valve geometry seems to be one of the few areas which is less restricted - the FIA, I believe, only stipulate that two intake and two exhaust valves must be used - but the only information about that is for the Toyota engine, which, now being out of use, was looked at and discussed by Racecar Engineering in one of the subscription only articles. The preview, though, did include the valve angle (21.2º), which is mentioned in that F1Technical article linked to further up the page. There are likely to be some small differences in this regard, but that is one area where the engine manufacturers are especially secretive, and have not given any further detail.

[ibsey]

Wow, truely fascinating stuff Mario.

I asked the question because I remembered reading at the begining of 2002 the top engine performance figures were approx 850BHP (reputated for the BMW). I think the Ferrari engine was reputated to be approximately 825 BHP. I think both the BMW & Ferrari's engine weights were also under 100 kg's & the valve geometry were supposely 75 degrees (where as the Renault were trying out a radical 111 degree configuration to keep the CoG as low as possible which they subsquently ditched in 2003/2004 I believe).

So it is really interesting to compare what the differences between 2002 engines & todays units are. Especially when one considers that in 2002 all engines were 3.0 litre, V10's, which were used for only one race (& in the case of the top teams just for a single qualifying session where performance figures were said to be around 900 BHP mark).

Whereas today, of course, engines are all V8's & much a smaller size (2.4 litres IIRC), furthermore they are expected to last for 3 grand prix weekends.

So it is pretty interesting to find that all those restrictions imposed, have only reduced max power output by approximately 60 - 80 BHP. Interesting also to note that this reduction in power is approximately the same BHP that the KERS system is reputed to bring teams today.

I can't thank you enough for your help. I can only say you have made my Easter weekend. Thanks once again.

[Aerond]

What if Prost had taken over Ligier as intended in 1992???

++ I´ll answer myself:

Senna would have gone to Williams in 1993, won the championship easily and then, who knows what. Ligier would have probably won a race or two in 1993 (that is, if Prost continued with the project after a bad 1992) and the French would have never had that brilliant end to his career.

[ibsey]

What if Panis hadn't crashed in Canada 1997? Could he have had a chance at the championship (he was lying in 3rd position in the WDC when he broke his legs).

Also what races do you think he could have won (perhaps France, Hungary & Austria since the Bridgestones were extremely strong at the latter two races). If he had not won the championship for himself, surely his possible strong results would have affected the battle between Schumi & JV. What are your thoughts on this?

Finally, would he (& Prost for that matter) have been more sucessful after 1997?

This is of particular interest to me as I am a ProstGP fan (see avatar).

I sincerely think Panis would not have been able to fight it out with Villeneuve and Schumi. The Ligier, and I say Ligier because after all, they designed it, was good, but I doubt Prost had the resources and the facilities to keep up with the likes of Williams and Ferrari. Podiums IMO would have been frequent, but I doubt a win was in sight (Spain would have been their best chance, God damn you Irvine). He may have finished ahead of JV or Schumi, which would most likely have resulted in Schumi winning the title, unless Villeneuve isn't DSQ'd from Japan. I doubt, though, that Prost would have been any more successful after 1997 than in RL. If Loic Bigois came up with the same shitbox (albeit a good looking one), then Prost were doomed. They may have been able to attract slightly more talented designers, but overall, I still think they would have endured the same fate.

Glad to see another fellow Prost fan (Allez les blues). Whislt I do agree with the vast majority of your post Jeroen, I do tend to think Panis would have had a good shot at winning at least one race after Canada in 1997 (probably at Magny Cours, perhaps even Hungary or Austria, if his engine wouldn't have blown on him like it did to Trulli & Nakano). Remember, that Magny Cours in 1997, was Trulli's 1st race with Prost & he qualified 8th (IIRC) ahead of both Benetton's & only 0.8s off pole. If one considers that Panis has probably done more laps around Magny Cours than perhaps any other F1 driver, I think it is fair to assume he would have been a bit higher up the grid than Trulli (not wishing to take anything away from Trulli's excellent debut at Magny Cours). Furthermore when Panis 1st tested the Prost after breaking his legs (circa september 1997), it was at Magny Cours, & his fastest lap, was slightly quicker than M Schumi's pole lap time.

Therefore assuming Panis had not suffered those leg injuries in 1997 & gone onto some get some good results that year, then I tend to think he would have had more confidence going into 1998 & 1999. If the cars was still poor during thoses years, i think Panis would have been able to use this extra confidence gained to out perform his cars, more than he had done in reality. Thus perhaps securing a better F1 drive in the following years. In short, whislt I don't think Panis would have gone on to become WDC, I do think his fully potenial was affected by that crash in 1997.

I do agree with you on the fate of Prost however.

[mario]

Wow, truely fascinating stuff Mario.

I asked the question because I remembered reading at the begining of 2002 the top engine performance figures were approx 850BHP (reputated for the BMW). I think the Ferrari engine was reputated to be approximately 825 BHP. I think both the BMW & Ferrari's engine weights were also under 100 kg's & the valve geometry were supposely 75 degrees (where as the Renault were trying out a radical 111 degree configuration to keep the CoG as low as possible which they subsquently ditched in 2003/2004 I believe).

So it is really interesting to compare what the differences between 2002 engines & todays units are. Especially when one considers that in 2002 all engines were 3.0 litre, V10's, which were used for only one race (& in the case of the top teams just for a single qualifying session where performance figures were said to be around 900 BHP mark).

Whereas today, of course, engines are all V8's & much a smaller size (2.4 litres IIRC), furthermore they are expected to last for 3 grand prix weekends.

So it is pretty interesting to find that all those restrictions imposed, have only reduced max power output by approximately 60 - 80 BHP. Interesting also to note that this reduction in power is approximately the same BHP that the KERS system is reputed to bring teams today.

I can't thank you enough for your help. I can only say you have made my Easter weekend. Thanks once again.

Ah, I now realise that when you asked for the valve angle, what you actually wanted was the cylinder bank angle. In which case, I need to make a little addendum (the valve angle I'd included in my previous post was for the intake valve, not the cylinder bank). Under the V10 era of Formula 1, there were a few typical engine bank angles, which were 72º and 90º - from what I can tell, Cosworth and Mercedes went for 72º, whilst Toyota, Ferrari, BMW and Honda went for 90º. Renault, meanwhile, started off with the 72º V10 in the late 1990's, before switching to the wide angle 111º engines in the early 2000's, and finally back to a 72º engine from 2004 onwards.
In theory, the 72º cylinder bank means that the engine has an even firing order, which means that the engine is mechanically more balanced (i.e. engine vibration problems are minimised). On the other hand, the 90º engine bank would have slightly better torsional rigidity, and a slight centre of gravity advantage, over a 72º engine, even though there would be some additional complications with mechanical balance as you would need an uneven firing order.

As for Renault's wide angle engine, the theory behind that engine was that the centre of gravity of the engine could be lowered even further, and in theory there was a slight aerodynamic advantage since the engine cover could be lowered, improving airflow to the rear wing. In reality, though, the centre of gravity advantage was offset by the fact that the engine was overweight, and slightly underpowered (due to the odd firing order required), which was why it was eventually ditched in favour of a much easier to manufacture 72º unit.

As for the power, well, the V10 engines continued to increase in power long after 2002, even though they were required to last for increasingly longer periods of time. The peak power came in 2005, at the end of the V10 era - a number of the engines were breaking the 950bhp mark, with Honda's famous "Suzuka Special" breaking the 980bhp mark (officially registering 986bhp on the dyno, at least according to Honda).

That said, since the V8 engines came in, the regulations have been much stricter - with the fixed engine bank of 90º, the banning of variable intake systems and the banning of exotic metals for the engines (they are restricted to aluminium and ferrous alloys, on the whole), the differences in engines has reduced markedly. On the one hand, it makes it much easier to swap engine supplier - such as Brawn did with the BGP001 - and keeps spending down, but on the other hand it has lead to relative stagnation. Whether things will improve under the new turbo regulations, it is hard to say, especially on the issue of how much development will be allowed (against the issue of keeping down development costs, which the manufacturers are already unhappy about).

Well, I hope that makes things even better for your Easter weekend - happy reading!

[ibsey]

That was yet another brilliant post Mario & written in such a way that even non technical people (like me) could understand it all. Well done & I can only once again humbly offer my thanks for the information. You seem to know so much about F1, I bet you could even tell us what color underwear the drivers wore in the 1967 British Grand Prix.

On the one hand, it makes it much easier to swap engine supplier - such as Brawn did with the BGP001 - and keeps spending down, but on the other hand it has lead to relative stagnation. Whether things will improve under the new turbo regulations, it is hard to say, especially on the issue of how much development will be allowed (against the issue of keeping down development costs, which the manufacturers are already unhappy about).

That does seem to be an interesting dillemma indeed.

In 2006 I do recall thinking the reduction in F1 engine power & the restrictions on engine development would be a bad thing for F1. Now 5 years on, I can happly say that opinion was totally wrong & my view has completely changed.

Personally I think that racing has benefited from the stagnation of engine development. For instance, since 2006, we as F1 fans have always been treated to a close title fight, (expect perhaps for 2009 depend on one's own opinion). Of course there have been many other reasons for such good racing since 2006 (i.e. emergence of Hamilton & Vettel, return to slick tyres, etc) but I do think the engine regs deserves at least a share of the credit as well.

However many F1 pureists may argue that engine development is vital 'for the pinnance of motor racing' & I can totally understand their point of view. I mean it was great to see & hear the differences between engine's, back in the V10 days. Also the constant developments on engines, were another source of interest for the fans, particularly which when manufactures brought in special quali engines etc.

So coming to the question of how much development should be allowed under the new turbo regs? I personally think its a balance that is going to require alot of thought & planning. The FIA should allow as much engine development as they can, without comprising the close racing we are currently enjoying.

Ideally I would like to see, engine's countine to have their own characteristics, almost in the same way as the teams & drivers. For example the Renualt being very driveable & fuel efficient whereas its downside may be that, it lacks top speed. So Renualt may benefit at races (like Monaco). Whereas the Ferrari has top speed, but is much thristier. So in theory Ferrari should benefit at races like Monza.

But I would hate to see the racing negatively effected because of these charateristic traits & for example we find ourselves in a sitation where we turn up to one GP weekend & everyone knows this will be a Renualt track, or the next race will be a Ferrari track etc. Instead if they can strike the right balance (like DRS & KERS), so that the differences between the engines are noticable to the average fan (thus becoming another talking point), but not so noticeable it they become the 'deciding' factor, then i think they will be on to a winner.

I hope this is all clear & makes sense.

[mario]

That was yet another brilliant post Mario & written in such a way that even non technical people (like me) could understand it all. Well done & I can only once again humbly offer my thanks for the information. You seem to know so much about F1, I bet you could even tell us what color underwear the drivers wore in the 1967 British Grand Prix.

Hardly - I know enough about the sport to know that I understand just a fraction of the sport and its history - for a start, I can't explain what Deletraz was doing...

On the one hand, it makes it much easier to swap engine supplier - such as Brawn did with the BGP001 - and keeps spending down, but on the other hand it has lead to relative stagnation. Whether things will improve under the new turbo regulations, it is hard to say, especially on the issue of how much development will be allowed (against the issue of keeping down development costs, which the manufacturers are already unhappy about).

That does seem to be an interesting dillemma indeed.

In 2006 I do recall thinking the reduction in F1 engine power & the restrictions on engine development would be a bad thing for F1. Now 5 years on, I can happly say that opinion was totally wrong & my view has completely changed.

Personally I think that racing has benefited from the stagnation of engine development. For instance, since 2006, we as F1 fans have always been treated to a close title fight, (expect perhaps for 2009 depend on one's own opinion). Of course there have been many other reasons for such good racing since 2006 (i.e. emergence of Hamilton & Vettel, return to slick tyres, etc) but I do think the engine regs deserves at least a share of the credit as well.

However many F1 pureists may argue that engine development is vital 'for the pinnance of motor racing' & I can totally understand their point of view. I mean it was great to see & hear the differences between engine's, back in the V10 days. Also the constant developments on engines, were another source of interest for the fans, particularly which when manufactures brought in special quali engines etc.

So coming to the question of how much development should be allowed under the new turbo regs? I personally think its a balance that is going to require alot of thought & planning. The FIA should allow as much engine development as they can, without comprising the close racing we are currently enjoying.

Ideally I would like to see, engine's countine to have their own characteristics, almost in the same way as the teams & drivers. For example the Renualt being very driveable & fuel efficient whereas its downside may be that, it lacks top speed. So Renualt may benefit at races (like Monaco). Whereas the Ferrari has top speed, but is much thristier. So in theory Ferrari should benefit at races like Monza.

But I would hate to see the racing negatively effected because of these charateristic traits & for example we find ourselves in a sitation where we turn up to one GP weekend & everyone knows this will be a Renualt track, or the next race will be a Ferrari track etc. Instead if they can strike the right balance (like DRS & KERS), so that the differences between the engines are noticable to the average fan (thus becoming another talking point), but not so noticeable it they become the 'deciding' factor, then i think they will be on to a winner.

I hope this is all clear & makes sense.

It does indeed, and it is a very difficult dilemma for the FIA. You were certainly not the only one questioning whether the FIA's engine restriction was a wise idea back in 2006, but on the whole, it worked reasonably well. Yes, for some manufacturers it locked in a permanent disadvantage, especially for Toyota and Honda, and Renault to a lesser extent, but the disparity in power output was minimal compared to the past - go back to the V10 era just a few years earlier, and the disparity in power across the grid would have been far more than 20bhp.

It's been a double edged sword - on the upside, the engine freeze lead to a huge drop in spending by the manufacturers, which made engine supplies very cheap by recent standards and has helped keep spending within the sport under control. It also reduced the advantage that the big manufacturers had - especially the regulations forcing them to give the same specification engines to their clients, ending the inbuilt advantage that the "customer engine" deals had previously fixed - and has probably helped the grid become much tighter and closer compared to historic standards.
But, on the downside, the manufacturers have resented, to a greater or lesser degree, their reduction in importance - Luca Di Montezemolo, whilst often talking out of his own self interest (as you'd expect of any team boss), hit a nerve when he complained, on behalf of all the manufacturers, that they'd been marginalised, and that aerodynamics, with negligible application to the road, were too dominant. It left them in a situation where they were getting even diminishing benefits from participating, but with continual high overheads, at a time when other areas of motorsport are offering increasingly attractive avenues of development.

And I think that the FIA is going to have to tread very carefully, since it seems that the current manufacturers are ambivalent about the new engine regulations. This article has recently popped up on the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson ... rules.html - and it shows that support for the new regulations is not absolute. Ferrari's opposition is well known, but Mercedes are ambivalent - since they feel that the expense of developing the new engines will heavily outweigh the benefits - and even Cosworth, previously championing the new regulations, have slipped back to a "neutral" stance, with only Renault publicly enthusiastic about the change.
And in another area, the engine regulations have failed even more pointedly. With the loss of BMW, Honda and Toyota as engine manufacturers, we now have a situation where just three manufacturers remain - Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes. Even with Cosworth's return, we have a situation where engine supplies have shrunk, effectively increasing the influence, and leverage, of those left.

By opening up the turbo regulations, part of the FIA's plan was to broaden the manufacturer presence in F1 again by offering them road relevant avenues of development with those new engine regulations. Cutting down the dominance of aerodynamics would increase their importance again, whilst diluting the dominance of a small clique of manufacturers and improving competition, and hopefully innovation. Bad for Newey - who has already said he hates developments like KERS - but better for Renault, who are throwing a lot of energy and resources into hybrid assisted small capacity turbo engines.
Unfortunately, it hasn't worked well. The only major manufacturer who expressed interest were VW, but it seems that they were frustrated by the delays in adopting the new engines and have now, somewhat grumpily, dismissed the idea of entering F1 - even though the engine regulations were written with their support (VW sent representatives to the opening negotiations). BMW are more interested in forcing other racing series, like DTM, to change their regulations to let them use their M3 GT racing car, whilst Toyota and Honda are now entering Le Mans as engine suppliers, which is dirt cheap compared to F1. Hell, for the cost of just an engine supply in F1, you could get an entire drivetrain and chassis package, plus manufacturer support, in the ILMC. Other proposals by F1 - such as having the cars operating just on KERS power in the pits - are just copying what the ACO proposed last year, and is already happening in Le Mans (there are two hybrid entrants for Le Mans this year capable of doing just that).

The next few months are going to be interesting - the FIA are going to be pressed by the manufacturers to allow them to do more (the FIA has already made some moves to restrict development, such as banning advanced forms of turbo charger design (like turbo compounding) for the first year of the new engine regulations), whilst the aerodynamicists are going to resist any calls to reduce their influence. There are also going to be frantic overtures to manufacturers like VW to lure them back in (even if their Audi Le Mans team now seems to be hogging all their attention), and to quell discontent amongst their current manufacturers, perhaps fearing that VW's entry will disrupt their current amicable relations.

And all this is going on against a backdrop of negotiations for the new Concorde Agreement, where Bernie has been desperately trying to break up FOTA in an open attempt to divide and conquer, using the engine negotiations to try to peal Ferrari and Mercedes backed teams away from Renault and Cosworth backed teams, and to sow discord and confusion. It's also a way for Bernie, who has an uneasy relationship with Todt, who won't bend to Bernie's bidding and has his own clear vision for what the FIA should stand for (and Bernie does not feature in it), to try to break Todt's influence. If he can stop Todt's first big reforms, then it'll make it harder for Todt to make further changes in the future - and Bernie will not want to see anything change whilst the situation is favourable for him.
Somebody is likely to be burned quite badly in these negotiations - there are a whole load of interconnecting negotiations going on here, and more than one party could end up getting a worse deal than they'd like...

[Phoenix]

About the costs of developing those new engines, which sound quite elevate, are they going to have an influence on what customer teams will have to pay for them? And is there a way to cap those costs so there would be no complaints about it?

I'll remain adamant that those changes are absolutely necessary for the sport. This engine formula, which pretty much has been in use since 1989, is getting too long on the tooth. Besides, I see those changes exciting.

[ibsey]

This Bernie vs Todt & Bernie vs Fota business is brilliant entertainment in my book...loving it. Who needs Neighbours & Eastenders, when you have this soap opera going on.

I do believe Bernie thrives on this kind on confusion during negatations (according to EJ's book) but surely he must be getting on a bit these days. Simliarly I rate Todt very highly, so it would be interesting to see how this particular power struggle is played out.

Regarding the new engine regs, whislt I've learnt these days not to fear changes in F1 regulations & therefore I would not appose the turbo regs in principle. However it just seems that F1 is trying to whore itself a bit too much for my liking, in an attempt to attract more manufactures like VW. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see more manufactures in F1. However 2009 taught us, that the manufactures can also cause lots of trouble when they are in F1 (i.e. breakaway series) then up & leave whenever it suits them.

So I am of the opinion that whatever new engine regulations are adopted. The main priorities has to be increasing the entertainment of F1 & ensuring the long term survival of the sport. F1 is a sport, so it should be about escapism & entertainment, not merely a advertising platform for car manufactures. If they join the sport, then that's great & obviously they should have a say in the ongoing discussions on new engine regs. However they shouldn't be allowed to demand rules, that might comprise the sport itself, purely because it suits their own interests.

I completely agree with Eric Boullier who says that Formula 1 teams need to consider only what is best for the sport - rather than what suits their own interests – when it comes to deciding what to do about future engine rules. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90972

Anyway if you have enough entertainment value in F1, more viewers will watch it...then manufactures will automatically be attracted, whatever engine regs are in place. Furthermore who's to say we won't suffer another economic recession when manufactures are here, leaving then all to pull out like 2009. The likes of Cosworth, to whom F1 is their core business, also need to be looked after in these on going negations, as they will be the ones to pick up the pieces should the manufactures decide to leave.

As for eco-friendliness, being a bit of a hippy myself, I do reckonise the importance of F1 being seen to be green. F1 is already 'carbon positive' (i.e it plants more trees to overcome for the carbon footprint it does create) but this does seem to be the world's best kept secret. So the way I see it, why not extend & promote this avenue rather than potentially threaten the spectacle of F1, via the engine regs?

Again, don't get me wrong here, I'm all for greener engines that provide good racing. But I'd rather see more sustainable changes from F1, rather than silly PR gimmicks, that may look good on face value but in reality makes little change to overall emissions.

But, on the downside, the manufacturers have resented, to a greater or lesser degree, their reduction in importance - Luca Di Montezemolo, whilst often talking out of his own self interest (as you'd expect of any team boss), hit a nerve when he complained, on behalf of all the manufacturers, that they'd been marginalised, and that aerodynamics, with negligible application to the road, were too dominant.

This does throw up an interesting 'what if' question. What if, the engine restrictions were not imposed back in 2006? Would Newey & Red Bull still have been as competitive as they are now? Also where would Vettel be right now & what would the racing have been like, bearing in mind less aero = less dirty air?

[golic_2004]

What if Timo Glock was never injured in Japan in 2009?

Kamui Kobayashi would have had to work at his father's sushi shop.

[David AGS]

6 Questions!!!

1.What if Shell decided to break the McLaren contract in 1993, so that McLaren used elf fuel and Renault engines, would Senna have stayed, and would he win the title? Ironically Shell broke the contract late 1994

2.What if Christian Fittipaldi took that McLaren test driver spot in 1993?

3. What if Capelli took the Scuderia Italia drive instead of Ferrari, who would have taken the Ferrari seat?

4. What if Minardi got the Ford Cosworth V8 engine in 1991 instead of Jordan, alongside Benson and Hedges sponsorship?

5. What is PSN bought out Minardi in late 2000?

6. What if Renault bought Minardi in late 2000?

[Salamander]

3. What if Capelli took the Scuderia Italia drive instead of Ferrari, who would have taken the Ferrari seat?

I think I remember hearing that Ferrari were looking at Pierluigi Martini as a second candidate for that seat if they couldn't get Capelli on board.

[mario]

4. What if Minardi got the Ford Cosworth V8 engine in 1991 instead of Jordan, alongside Benson and Hedges sponsorship?

Well, the M191 was fairly competitive back in 1991 by Minardi's standards - they finished twice in the points, regularly within the top 10 and 7th place in the WCC was the best result they ever achieved in their history. They would have had the benefit of lower fuel consumption - the Ferrari V12 was pretty thirsty, and on the heavier side to boot - which would probably have helped their race pace, but on the other hand they'd have had to take a hit on the power side. Overall, though, it might have made the M191 a little more competitive, but they might still have struggled to score points on anything more than an occasional basis.
As for securing sponsorship from Benson and Hedges, the extra funding would have certainly helped, given how they had to operate on a relatively lean budget. At the very least, they might have been able to obtain a better engine deal in later years - the engines were always a weak point for Minardi, generally being underpowered.

[mario]

This Bernie vs Todt & Bernie vs Fota business is brilliant entertainment in my book...loving it. Who needs Neighbours & Eastenders, when you have this soap opera going on.

It's certainly proving to be intriguing to see who will get the upper hand, since it will have a major impact on the direction that the FIA takes, and development within motorsport as a whole. There will probably be a fair lot more of this sort of thing to come - neither side are likely to back down just yet, and the stakes are quite high...

As for the engine discussion, well, that could be an entire thread, and maybe even a few articles for the main site, in itself, since there are so many different aspects to the previous, current and proposed engines that could be discussed. I'll definitely come back to them later, and your last lengthy post, but for now I'll pick up on your last question:

But, on the downside, the manufacturers have resented, to a greater or lesser degree, their reduction in importance - Luca Di Montezemolo, whilst often talking out of his own self interest (as you'd expect of any team boss), hit a nerve when he complained, on behalf of all the manufacturers, that they'd been marginalised, and that aerodynamics, with negligible application to the road, were too dominant.

This does throw up an interesting 'what if' question. What if, the engine restrictions were not imposed back in 2006? Would Newey & Red Bull still have been as competitive as they are now? Also where would Vettel be right now & what would the racing have been like, bearing in mind less aero = less dirty air?

Given that the FIA wanted to cut the power of the cars to prevent them becoming any faster - the average lap speeds were going ever upwards, and some drivers were raising concerns about being able to control the cars, along with the potential safety ramifications.

So, given that background, there would have been some move sooner or later to cap the power of the engines, and from previous experience, normally the FIA have managed that by limiting engine size. However, during the transition period from the V10 to V8 regulations, Stoddart was actively campaigning for rev capped V10 engines as a cheaper alternative to the V8's.
In hindsight, his suggesting might well have been a more sensible alternative - at the very least, it's hard to see how it could have cost the hundreds of millions that the switch to V8's cost (the spending war between Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes alone is rumoured to have exceeded $500 million, and probably around the $1 billion mark across the field).

Now, that provides us with a possible hypothetical scenario - one where, instead of accepting the manufacturers claims that the V8's would just be a V10 with two cylinders cut off (they proved to be anything but), the FIA accepted the proposal from Stoddart to use rev capped V10's (I think he was talking of figures around the 14,000-16,000rpm mark).
In that scenario, then yes, I think that Red Bull and Newey might have struggled, but for different reasons. Under the V10 era, few manufacturers were willing to sell their engines to other potential rivals on the grid - Ferrari only ever sold customer engines to Sauber, which were typically derived from the previous years model. Only Jordan Grand Prix, in 2005, got the same specification engine as the works outfit, which was the Toyota RVX-05 engine - but that was because Jordan Grand Prix were not a threat to Toyota that season.

Now, the engine manufacturers were probably more protective of their engines and advantages than in the V8 era (mainly because the V8 regulations are so much tighter, and included clauses that meant the works outfits had to supply the same engines to their customers). It's possible, in that scenario, that the bigger manufacturers would have been more reluctant to supply engines to a rival outfit, like Red Bull, if Red Bull were in a position to threaten them.
In which case, Red Bull might have had to stick with the Cosworth V10 engine, which suffered from a number of defects (I'll have to find the article, but Cosworth admitted that the engine lacked torsional stiffness, causing slight handling problems, along with a few other mechanical reliability issues).

It's hard to tell exactly what could have happened, though - Newey didn't arrive at Red Bull until the V8's came in, and his first Red Bull car, the RB3, looked a fair bit like a MP4-21 clone (which isn't that surprising, given his previous links with McLaren). It's only since the regulations changed that Newey has exerted his influence - under the pre-2006 regulations, his efforts could well have been offset by a lack of a decent engine and transmission package (remember how frail Red Bull's early attempts at a "seamless shift" gearbox were?)

[Aerospeed]

6 Questions!!!

1.What if Shell decided to break the McLaren contract in 1993, so that McLaren used elf fuel and Renault engines, would Senna have stayed, and would he win the title? Ironically Shell broke the contract late 1994

2.What if Christian Fittipaldi took that McLaren test driver spot in 1993?

3. What if Capelli took the Scuderia Italia drive instead of Ferrari, who would have taken the Ferrari seat?

4. What if Minardi got the Ford Cosworth V8 engine in 1991 instead of Jordan, alongside Benson and Hedges sponsorship?

5. What is PSN bought out Minardi in late 2000?

6. What if Renault bought Minardi in late 2000?

2. Fittipaldi becomes a life-time test driver until 1995, when he races for Nigel Mansell. After the 1995 season ends (with Fittipaldi filling in for the rest of the season), Fittipaldi is released with a best finish of sixth. (But eight of them!) Fittipaldi joins Williams as a test driver but is let go after one season, then joins the failed MasterCard Lola team in 1997, before defecting to IndyCar.

3. Probably Gianni Morbidelli, since he replaced Prost in the last race of the season. He probably would have unrejectified himself a lot sooner but nothing more. He probably would have been sacked after 1992 even if he didn't whine and moan about the car like Capelli.

6. Renault buys out Minardi but interestingly enough they don't input their engines onto the team. Eventually they sell the team in 2001 to some group who dives the team into bankruptcy. People whine and moan about Renault not trying hard enough in Minardi, and many people at F1 Rejects type in questions on the "What if?" board asking "What if Minardi were backed by Renault engines?" time after time again, only to be schooled by Mario for the 55th time.

But if craziness happened and Renault did put effort into Minardi, here's what would happen:
The team becomes Renault Minardi in 2000, eventually Renault F1 in 2001. They hire Flavio Briatore and a rookie driver in F3000 named Fernando Alonso, and they win the constructors' and drivers' championship in 2003. So we just have a Flavio-Alonso relationship a lot sooner. Oh, and Jarno Trulli becomes an Alonso henchman. Meanwhile, Benetton gets bought out by Gerhard Berger after the 2001 season, the team gets renamed "Berger F1" and the team barely makes it through it's first season, folding after the finale in Suzuka.

[TomWazzleshaw]

Here's one:

What if Fernando Alonso's one-off test with Jaguar in 2002 had amounted to anything more than just a one-off test?

[David AGS]

Id say Jaguar would have still produced an average 03 car, and average 04 car, then Red Bull takes over.

The only difference I can think of Webber would have gone elsewhere in 03, perhaps at Toyota or so. Briatoire is mad, but he would have been mad to have two of his drivers in another team together.

[Ferrarist]

What if...

...Renault decided to unify their Formula Renault 3.5 and the GP2-Series, to concentrate their feeder series activities?
...Gary Paffett took the Mclaren seat alongside Fernando Alonso in 2007?
...Formula One was organized like the V8 Supercars, where teams have to buy a franchise in order to compete in the series?