Should engines be equalised? (Poll)

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Hungaroring, 2010

Red Bull continue to claim they are at a disadvantage because their Renault engine produces less power than the Mercedes or Ferrari V8s.

The championship leaders want F1′s engine development ‘freeze’ restrictions lifting so that engine power can be equalised between the teams.

Should they be allowed to?

Pro

Christian Horner of Red Bull has claimed the Renault engines his team use are 20-30bhp down on the likes of Mercedes.

Mark Webber put the case for engine equalisation at the end of the post-race press conference in Hungary:

The reason our car is quite good on these sort of tracks?? we?ve been looking for engine parity for the last few years.

We know we don?t have the most powerful engine. When we go to a track where there are not many straights, the car is good because we?ve had to try incredibly hard to get the car performing in this type of situation, so we would love parity with the engine.

Other teams sometimes want everything, but we need parity on the engine and then it would be a fair game. That?s all we want, again, is similar horsepower to other teams and this is another example, when you go to different venues like here, we see who has a nice car. It?s not a one way street with this stuff you know.
Mark Webber

Red Bull tried to acquire a supply of Mercedes engines this year but McLaren and Brawn (now the Mercedes works team) blocked the deal.

Con

Red Bull’s case for ‘equalising’ engine performance is based solely around how much power their engine produces.

But there are other aspects which determine how good an engine is: physical factors like weight, centre of gravity and size but also how power is delivered and how much fuel it uses.

If engine power is going to be equalised, surely all these factors should be too? In which case, why not switch to a single specification engine?

Renault’s engine is believed to have the best fuel economy, which would allow teams using it to carry less fuel. So perhaps the trade-off for having a power deficit (likely to be less than estimate) is not so bad.

Webber’s comments were probably made with an eye on the next two rounds on the calendar at Spa and Monza, where engine performance is very important.

I say

The engine equalisation argument is a bit of a red herring. The real debate over engines is how they will change under the new rules due to be introduced in 2013.

It’s more important to solve that long-term problem. And that’s where the F1 teams should focus their energies – instead of equalising engines which are only going to be in service for two more years anyway.

You say

Should F1 engines have their power outputs equalised? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Should F1 engines have their power outputs equalised?

  • Yes (18%)
  • No (77%)
  • No opinion (5%)

Total Voters: 2,919

Loading ... Loading ...

See more results of F1 Fanatic polls: F1 Fanatic polls archive

Image (C) Red Bull/Getty images

Advert | Go Ad-free

158 comments on Should engines be equalised? (Poll)

1 2 3 6
  1. To get more representative poll results, you should consider posting your own view in a follow up post. Its testament to the trust place in your expertise, that the polls always strongly follow your views.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 10th August 2010, 10:22

      I still got accused of “manipulating” the voting when I did that:

      http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/05/08/should-monaco-qualifying-be-split-poll/

      Better to mark my point of view clearly. People are entirely capable of making their own minds up and I’ve found myself in the minority on many occasions.

      • Henry said on 10th August 2010, 11:20

        I think that this is not the kind of poll in which you could manipulate people’s views in the first place. Also, since the polls are only really used for the site and the readers of the site, most people who comment and read are interested enough and knowledgeable enough to make their own opinion.

      • Ilanin said on 10th August 2010, 12:01

        I don’t think it really matters. I mean, what you do certainly biases the results, but self-selecting polls (rather than polls where you pick a sample at random) are hilariously inaccurate anyway, so it doesn’t really make much difference.

        The only thing that’s naughty is treating the results as being as reliable as scientific opinion polls are.

      • SteveH said on 10th August 2010, 13:04

        Keith, you actually raise a bit of a red herring when you mention other factors in how good an engine is: minimum weight is specified, as is center of gravity. These are not modifiable factors. Neither is V angle, cylinder spacing, etc. Personally, I hate this engine formula.

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 10th August 2010, 13:27

          Sorry, I don’t understand your point. They can’t change engine power either, so how is it any different?

          • damonsmedley said on 10th August 2010, 13:39

            Regarding Al’s original point, I am pretty sure most people have made up their mind by the time they have finished reading the headline. I voted no before I even read the article so I wasn’t at all influenced. And I am sure that I am not the only one.

          • Dr. Gonzo said on 10th August 2010, 16:39

            The point is that your article is about lifting “F1’s engine development ‘freeze’ restrictions” but in your “Con” you throw in “physical factors like weight, centre of gravity and size” which are specified in Article 5 of the Technical Regulations. If the “freeze on development” was lifted these specifications would still be in the Tech Regs and would still remain in effect.

          • SteveH said on 10th August 2010, 18:46

            Thanks Gonzo, you expressed my point well. C.G., weight, and other fixed engine parameters are specified and are the same for all engines. Since they are the same they are neither pro nor con factors, just as, for example, all the cars are (I hope) at minimum weight so weight is neither a pro nor con for car speed (how that weight is distributed is of course another story).

          • Mike said on 11th August 2010, 2:56

            http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html
            In which you will find Weight and CoG indeed must be of a certain level as Gonzo said,

            But…
            The rules say the engines must be a least x weight with x high CoG, Unless you can prove that all the engines conform to this minimum, His point stands…

            Also,
            Size isn’t mentioned, He is correct there,
            A smaller engine would be very highly desirable. (Newey would love it).

          • SteveH said on 11th August 2010, 6:22

            True, Mike, but the Cosworth V10 was lighter than the current minimum weight, 95kg, and the C.G. is specified to be at the geometric center of the engine ± 50mm. The cylinder spacing, V angle, and bore are also specified, pretty much fixing size. The engines are VERY similar. These are not values that can be deviated from. My point stands.

      • Younger Hamilton said on 10th August 2010, 19:22

        Hey Keith do you think you can do me a big favour,can you write an article of why Red Bull are so Fast.

    • Oliver said on 10th August 2010, 14:50

      I think it is only proper that we all get a proper perspective of an issue before we make informed decisions.
      We should have a reason for voting, yes or no.

      This is not a game of click and see the result.

    • flatbeat said on 11th August 2010, 6:53

      Theres more to horsepower then peak power in terms of tune/built, the renault engine may have more torque lower down which helps the renaults in the corners, etc.

      personally im against the equalisation of engines, i love watching races where some teams are stronger others weaker… Also on tracks with a mixture of both long straights and tight corners, mixes up the teams strategies and makes it more interesting to watch.

      • It also makes it more special when a driver further down the order pulls out a really special weekend.

      • @flatbeat,

        I agree with you. What is the point of having manufacturers if the engines have to be equal? To be honest I think the freeze should only be for 2 seasons at a time as F1 is as much about the tech as the racing. If they want to be green then they need to let the manufacturers design more efficient engines which is impossible while they are frozen. Also the freeze is pretty much a facade anyway as we all know that the engines have been modified under the guise of increasing reliability.

        Either relax the regs for engines and cars or do away with team designs and just have a single car and engine design and kill off F1 in the process.

        I do think though that if an equalisation is to occur then all parameters should be equalised not just power (i think it would be stupid but it would be the only fair outcome).

  2. Sandman said on 10th August 2010, 9:42

    My take on this is simple. Mr Horner doesn’t want equalization, Mr Horner wants the freeze lifted.

    Its entirely untrue Renault engines are worse. They may have less HP, but what we’ve seen over and over again thanks to the RBR’s is that HP is not everything this season.

    What they loose in sheer, raw horsepower, they more then make up for it in smaller (and thus lighter) tanks, helping in the early stages of the race. Just look how quick Renault’s are at the first few laps, till the felxible wing times easily matching the pace of the front runners.

    Answer to question “should they be equalised” is obvious for me – no, of course not! I’m all up for lifting the freeze though.

    • plushpile (@plushpile) said on 10th August 2010, 9:53

      I’m of a similar opinion, i’m against the engine freeze. But if they must be frozen they should be equal on power…

      • Robert McKay said on 10th August 2010, 10:22

        If you’re going to freeze them they surely have to be frozen on everything – power, weight/size, fuel consumption, etc.

        You just know that even if they were all re-equalized on power then one of the teams would find another aspect they were down on and then complain about that.

        I think it’s just much simpler to let them develop it and redress the balance if they can.

        • Henry said on 10th August 2010, 11:26

          I think the current system is not bad at all. The engines are all optimised in various different ways – the mercedes has a little more power, but it the Renault has the best consumption not only does that mean less fuel and weight over race pace, it also means a smaller tank, which means they can package the weight lower and smaller; another large advantage.

          • BasCB said on 10th August 2010, 12:07

            Exactly, i think most fans would rather like to see bigger differences between the engines to have a effect.

            The mercedes is seen to be most powerfull with a good fuel economy. Ferrari is close to that, maybe a bit better now, but slightly lesser fuel economy and is known for problems with heat. The Renault is light, fuel efficient and seems to give good traction out of curves as well as good heat management. Cosworth is cheaper, but it’s fuel management and power output will probably be a bit worse, even though Williams have stated it offers better thrust than the Toyota engine did.

            With as little difference as there is, why change anything (OK, Cosworth will still have some potential to get closer to the rest as it’s less developed).

            Now just let the engine suppliers focus on what to do from 2012 onwards.

    • “What they loose in sheer, raw horsepower, they more then make up for it in smaller (and thus lighter) tanks, helping in the early stages of the race. ”

      So why, many would argue Mclaren and Ferrari as quick as Red Bull in the race, or at less closer on full tanks?

  3. You mention in your ‘Con’ section that, if we equalise power output, we should equalise all other aspects of the engine. I voted yes because I don’t see the point in freezing engine development if they aren’t equal in some intrinsic way – otherwise it’s unfair. Much better to give a basic spec, like power output, and then the teams can find the best way of achieveing that for their cars (a compromise on centre of gravity, power distribution etc)

  4. Cyclops said on 10th August 2010, 9:49

    I think RB just want more power for themselves. If they had Mercedes engine, no equalisation would be needed according to them ;)

    And I agree that Keith should put his views in the follow up post If he wants a reliable poll. His views strongly influence the results.

    • BasCB said on 10th August 2010, 12:10

      But you get a clue of Keith’s opinion from the article and the way the arguments pro/con are formulated, no point in hiding.
      And I think the influence from Keith by clearly stating his view is not that big, as most of us are pretty sure weather to have even more of a standard engine or hope for looser rules to have differences between the engines.

  5. If something is frozen, it needs to be equal.

    Imagine if the entire design of the car was frozen from the first race of the season. Then whoever has the best package at the start has the best package for the whole year and by far the best chance of winning the championships. Every race, all the other teams would start with a disadvantage they have no way of reducing.

  6. Why did Red Bull choose Renault as their engine supplyer for the year if their goning t complain about the engine

  7. DGR-F1 said on 10th August 2010, 9:53

    I’m surprised that Red Bull would consider giving up their aerodynamic advantage just for a few more horsepower, or are they looking to next season when all their wings etc are liable to be banned?
    If Bernie and Jean want to attract more teams and different manufacturers into the sport, they will have to allow for different engines and different power levels, otherwise as you say, it might as well be a single spec series (presumably with the Renault engine?)!
    Bernie should really be looking to Le Mans and Sportscar racing and entice new engine suppliers who can provide economical, clean and powerful engines which can relate back to the cars we drive, but still be different enough to be F1.

  8. The freeze to me, seems, unnecessary, and it doesn’t really make sense.
    If they won’t a freeze, I think having spec engines would be the way to go, that’s frozen, and fair.

    But… I really don’t like that idea, Why can’t they allow development, but regulate the financial expenses involved?

  9. Robert McKay said on 10th August 2010, 10:10

    The real problem is they “froze” the engines but they didn’t actually freeze them and all the teams made changes to the bits they were allowed to change and some of the teams probably made changes to the bits they weren’t allowed to, made them more unreliable, and then were allowed to make more changes under unreliability grounds.

    So the whole thing didn’t really help. Slowed down the pace of development and spread in performance, perhaps, but also limiting the ways of catching back up and expanded the grey areas, where some teams pushed the boundaries harder than others did.

    But to be honest I think the engine freeze should never have come in. I understand why, given the costs involved, but I see no point in everyone having something different that performs the same. You might as well just give everyone a spec engine in that case.

    I think it’s at least good that we can talk about little variations in the engines – the Renault being more driveable and fuel efficient but down on ultimate power, for example.

    But ultimately it’s clear we’re in a “holding pattern” until they actually decide what the new engines will be and what the plan is long term.

    • Derek said on 10th August 2010, 12:45

      Even if all the teams had the same engine (Of which I am against) they have different suppliers of fuel and lubricants etc that would squeeze more power and fuel efficiency out of their engines. So you would never get parity.

      • DGR-F1 said on 10th August 2010, 13:07

        I think if it went as far as a ‘spec’ engine, then that supplier would come only wanting their tame fuel and oil suppliers as well, otherwise they couldn’t guarantee the efficiency/power to the teams, and so be in breech of the contract…..

    • What Robt Mckay describes is what F1 has been since the day F1 cars first turned a wheel way back in the fifties.

      The whole of F1 is high-tech pressure pot where brilliant engineers work every minute of their lives trying to get around whatever current regulations are running at any given moment. They will always use whatever means they can to beat the opposition.

      There will never be a time ( I sincerely hope) when one team hasn’t stolen a development march on all the other teams.
      Last year it was Honda/Brawn, this year, Red Bull. Next year….who the hell knows ?

      But this is exactly what makes F1 the pinnacle of all motor sport. The urge to beat the opposition by doing things nobody thought of before. When F1 ceases to do exactly what it does best, I shall no longer be interested.

      Long may it go on doing exactly what it does now.

  10. Dan Thorn (@dan-thorn) said on 10th August 2010, 10:25

    No. A couple of years back Ferrari were widely regarded to have the best engine, yet recently Mercedes seem to have usurped them. I believe there is some room for development in the engine freeze – if other manufacturers can find it then Renault should be able to as well. Besides, wasn’t the freeze for Renault lifted a while ago to give them a chance to equalise engine power?

    They just need to get on with racing. I’m all for lifting the freeze completely, but perhaps that would be better when the new engine regs come in 2013.

  11. why equalise engines doesnt make sense, if red bull are asking this then maybe other teams should ask for equal aero & downforce. Its part of being a different team

    • The difference is the other teams can develop their aero to increase their downforce, Renault can’t develop their engine to increase power as engine development is frozen.

    • Hairs (@hairs) said on 10th August 2010, 13:02

      I agree, Red Bull have a massive advantage in their chassis. This is because they did a better job in pre-season development and design. Equally, Mercedes did a better job than Renault in engine development. That’s what F1 is supposed to be all about.

      If Mr Horner is so keen on equality, maybe he should give everyone a RB6 chassis to use? That’d be fair.

      • But the engine power development was done ages ago, and it can’t be modified so, IMO its unfair that the engine suppliers that didn’t have the opportunities to lift their engines as much as Mercedes or Ferrari in 2007 have to pay the consecuences forever.

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 10th August 2010, 21:54

          I didn’t find it unfair. Mercedes and Ferrari exploited the loophole in the regulations regarding engine design changes for reliability, and exploiting loopholes has always been a big part of Formula 1. Renault, Toyota and BMW snoozed, and in terms of engine power, Renault have lost.

    • xtophe (@xtophe) said on 10th August 2010, 14:26

      That’s a horrible slippery slope argument, and the 3 pages of comments so far are filled with different versions of the same argument.

      Seriously, people need to get over their respective RBR, Ferrari and McLaren-phobia. Supporting a team is starting to look like a political ideology.

      • bosyber said on 10th August 2010, 14:42

        Does not compute. Why does one have to have something against Red Bull to be against their proposed next equalization of the Renault engine, after Renault already had a go at it?

        I can see that it helps to be for Red Bull to be in favor of it, yes, but what would it serve? Honest competition?

        Red Bull already have a downforce monster, they made the trade-off with the extra drag that produces leaving them down on top speed themselves. Renault themselves do not have a problem with their engine, after all.

        So far Red Bulls choices gave them the car on the grid that got round almost all tracks the fastest. I don’t resent them for that, I think it is good work by the team. They clearly made the right development choices there, others have to catch up. But they are now, again, asking to have that downside to their winning choice eliminated – why would anyone else want to oblige?

        And what purpose would it serve? To make them truly invincible, apart from engine failures due to the tinkering? What is in it for the FIA, for the FOTA, for the general F1 fans? Engine freeze was a practical matter, not an attempt at creating a spec engine. Everyone gets to work with what they have got – they can try to request permission for changes, as Ferrari has managed to obtain, sure why not, but if other teams decline to give that permission, no one should force them to, for some imaginary single engine spec, which does not exist. Red Bull should learn to live with their package as others have been forced to.

  12. melkurion said on 10th August 2010, 10:45

    I think you shouldn’t lose sight of why the engine development was “frozen” in the first place.

    To save money…

    The devolpment of a new engine used to be a very big part of the budgets. Even though manifaturers forked up the bill for the worksteams, the teams without a worksdeal were left with the option to buy the (usually) worse customer engines. Now offcourse we have that as well, but with mostly equal specs, and for far less money now that the engine is not under constant devolopment. And this also means that manufatorers like mercedes and renault and ferrari can actually supply more than on or two teams.

    The other reason for the freeze was to not let the available horsepowers run rampant like in the turbodays.

    But as you rightly say, horsepower does not alone make a good engine, other factors come into play as well.

    Now F1 is a technical sport, and I for one whish to see cutting edge engine technology. But I also understand the costsaving aspect.

    The key i think is to find a balance. When the new rules come into place perhaps they should restrict only certain aspect of devolpment. For instance, set a maximum horsepower, maximum displacement, but let them work out themselves how many cilinder/weight/economy etc

    • Simon said on 10th August 2010, 11:15

      Thats the absurd thing. No matter what you do the teams will not save money! If they save 30 million on engine development, they will spend it on suspension or aero or driver wages. They spend what they can raise, and any cost saving rule simply redistributes the spend.

      • David said on 10th August 2010, 12:25

        …what?

        All the teams have mentioned they have saved money, and cut costs dramatically since even just 2 years ago.

  13. VitaRedux said on 10th August 2010, 10:48

    I think F1 is confused as to what it really is and what it should be.
    Is it about the driver, is it about the team? Is it about the engine, is it about the aero, or the tyres? Should it be able to innovate in ALL areas? How should budgets be handled to make things fair? Should designers have free reign or should we constrain them? (and I don’t mean for safety)

    I think its incredible that within the FIA regulations the cars are as close as they are. F1 is doing well, but its walking a tightrope.

    I don’t know the answers to the questions above. Its about all those things, and if it lost any one, it’d lose a chunk of fans. I think we all know the dilemmas and I just hope the FIA can continue to tread carefully forward.

  14. Namesis said on 10th August 2010, 10:50

    I think that I would prefer to hear about engine dev and maybe new “green” or efficiencies/tech and see real gains in this area vs that of aero. I thought that was one thing that did seperate F1 from other series. Otherwise cut costs and go to single spec and play the areo bits.

  15. I think there should be a few more options in the poll. For instance should engine restrictions be completely lifted or fully equalised against all parameters like you suggest. My thoughts are that it shouldn’t be restricted at all. After all it’s on the interest of f1 to promote highly developed and efficient engines.

1 2 3 6

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.