Start, Melbourne, 2014

Making sense of F1’s engine rules for 2015

2015 F1 seasonPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Start, Melbourne, 2014The 2015 F1 season marks the second year with F1’s V6 hybrid turbo engines. But the rules around the new power units are still causing confusion and controversy.

The new year is less than three weeks old but the FIA has already advised the teams of two key developments in how the rules will be interpreted. This has partly been triggered by the arrival of a fourth engine manufacturer, Honda, alongside Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari.

The latest rule interpretations could have a major effect on the competitiveness of the teams this year.

The letter of the law

The wrangling over the rules began last year when Mercedes’ rivals lobbied the FIA to relax the rules on engine development to increase their chance of catching the cars which dominated the 2014 season.

The FIA intended to prevent teams introducing new parts after pre-season testing concluded. However the section of the sporting regulations which laid down the rules for homologation – the process by which the FIA approved each manufacturer’s power unit – only referred to how this would take place last year:

Other than any parts solely associated with power unit installation in different types of car (which have no performance benefit and which may be changed from time to time during the homologation period with the consent of the FIA), any such power unit is one which is identical in every respect to either:
a) A power unit delivered to the FIA no later than 28 February 2014.
b) A power unit delivered to the FIA after 28 February 2014 which has been modified in accordance with the Annual F1 Power Unit Homologation table […]
c) A power unit delivered to the FIA after 28 February 2014, or modified and re-delivered to the FIA after that date, which the FIA is satisfied, in its absolute discretion and after full consultation with all other suppliers of power units for the Championship, could fairly and equitably be allowed to compete with other homologated power units. […]
2015 FIA F1 Sporting Regulations, June 29th draft, Appendix 4, Article 1 (read the current rules in full – PDF link)

At the beginning of the year the FIA admitted, in a letter to teams, that the rules did not prevent them from introducing new power unit components after the 2015 season had begun. It advised the three manufacturers who competed in last year’s championship that their basic homologated unit would be the same as the one used in 2014, including any alterations made under clause (c) of the above rule.

However this would not apply to Honda who, as a new entrant to the championship, had not yet homologated an engine.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

The Honda exception

Stoffel Vandoorne, McLaren-Honda MP4-29H/1X1, Yas Marina, 2014At the same time the FIA also ruled Honda would have to homologate their engine by February 28th of this year, something which had not been specified in the original draft of the 2015 engine rules.

Crucially, this also meant Honda would not have the same right to introduce upgrades to their engine after this date – the dispensation which had just been granted to their three rival manufacturers. Unsurprisingly, the FIA was soon contacted by representatives from the engine manufacturer as well as McLaren.

The extent to which teams can modify their homologated power unit designs each year is specified in the rules in order to keep costs under control. Each year a team has a quota of items which they may modify – often referred to as their engine ‘tokens’.

The FIA’s stance meant the three original manufacturers could now use 32 of these tokens throughout the season. However Honda were expected to adhere to the same restrictions used last year and not make any alterations to their engine after the season had begun.

That changed last week when the FIA agreed a new compromise. Honda will now be granted an allocation of tokens to use after they have homologated their engine on February 28th. This will be based on how many tokens their rival manufacturers have used by the beginning of the season. An average will be taken of how many tokens each of the other three has left, and rounded down to the nearest whole number, to give Honda their allocation for 2015.

Fewer engines, fewer teams

A further complication to the freedom teams have to introduce new components on their power units comes from the fact they are only supposed to use a limited number of power units per car per season. Last year they had five for 19 races, this year that number will fall to four power units for the 20 rounds on the 2015 F1 calendar.

The obvious consequence of this is engines will now have to last for five races instead of four. But it also means teams will have fewer opportunities to introduce upgrades.

This also gives an insight into why allowing teams to develop their engines during the season is likely to increase waste and force costs up. Spare components may now be superseded by upgraded versions before they have been used.

Another key factor which will determine how quickly the manufacturers can advance their development programmes is the number of teams they are supplying (see chart below). This is a double-edged sword: while Mercedes can potentially accumulate twice as much testing data as their rivals as they are supplying more teams, they also have to build enough parts to provide for a larger number of competitors.

NB. Assuming Caterham and Marussia/Manor do not compete.

So what can they change?

Renault Energy F1, side, 2014What does the abstract idea of tokens actually mean when it comes to changing parts of their power units?

For the purpose of the rules, a power unit is divided into 42 components, each of which is given a weighting from one to three in terms of the number of tokens which are spent when it is changed.

It would cost 66 tokens to change every item on the power unit once – which is more than twice as many tokens as the teams have. However for 2015 three items (with a total weighting of five tokens) are frozen in specification and cannot be modified. These are:

  • Upper/lower crankcase: Cylinder bore spacing, deck height and bank stagger
  • Crankshaft: Crank throw, main bearing journal diameter and rod bearing journal diameter
  • Air valve system: Including the compressor and air pressure regulation devices

The number of frozen items will increase again next year, stay the same in 2017, increase again the following year and significantly increase for 2019 and beyond. Therefore teams may wish to prioritise development on items which will be frozen in specification sooner rather than later.

Here are how many tokens it will cost teams to develop each part of their power unit, and when that part is due to be frozen:

Tokens Item Frozen
3 Upper/lower crankcase: All dimensions including cylinder bore position relative to legality volume, water core 2016
3 Ancillaries drive: From ancillary to power source. Includes position of the ancillaries as far as drive is concerned 2016
3 Combustion: All parts of parts defining combustion. Included: ports, piston crown, combustion chamber, valves geometry, timing, lift, injector nozzle, coils, spark plug. Excluded: valves position 2019
2 Valve drive: Gear train down to crankshaft gear included. Position and geometry. Includes dampers 2016
2 Valves axis position: Includes angle but excludes axial displacement 2018
2 Valves drive: From valve to camshaft lobe. Position and geometry. Exhaust and inlet. Including valve return function inside the head 2018
2 Crankshaft: Except crank throw, main bearing journal diameter, rod bearing journal diameter. Includes crankshaft bearings 2018
2 Cylinder head: Except modifications linked to subsequent modifications 2019
2 Con rods: Including small and big end bearings 2019
2 Pistons: Including bearings and pin. Excluding crown 2019
2 Injection system: PU mounted fuel system components: (e.g. high pressure fuel hose, fuel rail, fuel injectors, accumulators). Excluding injector nozzle 2019
2 Pressure charging: From compressor inlet to compressor outlet 2019
2 Pressure charging: From turbine inlet to turbine outlet 2019
2 MGU-H: Complete. All internals including bearings, casing… 2019
2 MGU-H: Position, transmission 2019
2 MGU-K: Complete. All internals including bearings, casing… 2019
2 MGU-K: Position, transmission 2019
2 Energy store: Cells 2019
2 Energy store: BMS 2019
1 Valve drive – Camshafts: From camshaft lobe to gear train. Geometry except lift profile. Includes damping systems linked to camshaft. Exhaust and inlet 2016
1 Covers: Covers closing the areas in contact with engine oil cam covers, cam-timing covers… 2016
1 Oil pressure pumps: Including filter. Excluding internal if no impact on body 2018
1 Oil scavenge systems: Any scavenging system 2018
1 Oil recuperation: Oil/air separator, oil tank, catch tank 2019
1 Engine water pumps: Include power unit mounted water pipes 2019
1 Inlet system: Plenum and associated actuators. Excluding pressure charging, trumpets and throttle associated parts and actuators 2019
1 Inlet system: Trumpets and associated parts and actuators 2019
1 Inlet system: Throttles and associated parts and actuators 2019
1 Pressure charging: External actuators linked to pressure charging 2019
1 Ignition system: Ignition coils, driver box 2019
1 Lubrication: All parts in which circulates oil under pressure (oil pump gears, channels, piping, jets) and not mentioned elsewhere in the table 2019
1 Friction coatings 2019
1 Sliding or rotating seals 2019
1 MGU-H: Power electronics 2019
1 MGU-K: Power electronics 2019
1 ERS: Cooling/Lubrication systems (Including ES jackets, pipes, pumps, actuators) 2019
1 Pressure charging: From engine exhaust flanges to turbine inlet n/a
1 Electrical system: Engine mounted electrical components (e.g. wiring loom within legality volume, sensors, alternator). Excluding actuators, ignition coils and spark plugs n/a
1 ERS: Wiring loom n/a

Over to you

Will the relaxation of the engine rules make it easier for Mercedes’ rivals to catch up to them? Will Mercedes benefit or suffer from having to supply more teams?

Have your say in the comments.

57 comments on “Making sense of F1’s engine rules for 2015”

  1. Thanks Keith, been waiting for a comprehensive article such as this!

  2. I just love the simplicity of it all ;)

  3. One correction, @keithcollantine :

    That changed last week when the FIA agreed a new compromise. Honda will now be granted an allocation of tokens to use after they have homologated their engine on February 28th. This will be based on how many tokens their rival manufacturers have used by that time.

    The amount of tokens granted to Honda will be based on how many tokens their rival manufacturers will have used by the start of the season. This means they still have a few weeks after February 28th, so they can process all data from the final pre-season test (ending March 1st) and still make changes and choose what to take to Australia.

    1. @mattds, you are correct however any change will use up 2015 ‘tokens’.

      Their 28Feb15 unit becomes the base unit, similar to other teams’ 2014 PU.

      They then have an amount (to be determined) of ‘tokens’ to develop during 2015.
      If they want to change anything between 28Feb and Melbourne then it will be part of the ‘token’ usage because they change a part of their base unit.
      One problem is that they do not even know how many (if any) ‘tokens’ they will have in 2015!

      1. I didn’t make myself clear enough @coldfly, sorry for that. By “they” I meant Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes.

  4. So I guess it is as I suspected – each manufacturer homologates just one PU for the 14-20 rules period. That’s the homologated power unit, and then each year a number of development tokens are applied to it, but the homologation remains the same. Effectively the development parts are homologated separately from the PU itself, heance there are no deadlines for homologating a ‘new’ PU.

    It seems a relatively sensible approach to define a number of tokens that Honda can use, based on the unused tokens from other manufacturers. It forces them to either rush through their developments early-on, or allow more room for Honda to make its own upgrades later on.

    All things being equal, I still believe that Honda hold a pretty decent advantage. Or rather, Honda are in an advantageous position, with an opportunity to develop parts of their PU spec during 2015 and until Feb 28, which for other manufacturers were locked in at the start of 2014. Given that at the time, each manufacturer was working blind, with no idea how much power their rivals were likely to generate, nor any idea what kind of innovations would be rolled out, for Honda to be able to develop its engine in ful possession of these facts is a huge boost to them. There may be compromises made to the Mercedes, Renault, and Ferrari PUs which were locked in and will be impossible to change now that their PU is homologated, which Honda have had an extra year to engineer their way around.

    Now, whether that actually translates into performance for Honda depends entirely on how good a job Honda have done of maximising this advantage. If they don’t roll out a PU which is at least as powerful and efficient as the 2014 spec mercedes unit, then they should frankly feel very disappointed with themselves.

    1. Do Honda have all the facts though? are the teams made to share their exact engine specification with everyone? I’m sure there are many tiny details and lines of software code that add up to make the Mercedes engine far more efficient than the others that even the customer teams don’t know about.

      1. Well, for once they can not repeat Ferrari mistake, which sacrificed PU performance in favor of aero. Not saying they were going to, but it is good to know without having to test it for yourself.

    2. @mazdachris, It matters not to me whether the PUs are developed during the season or between seasons, just so long as there is development. My biggest concern is that after 2019 we will again have to watch cars with “equalised” PUs racing each other and may the best aero-package win, my biggest hope is that for 2021 an entirely new PU can be designed and built by each manufacturer. Which way do you think it will go?

      1. @hohum I wish I could offer a decent answer, but the fact is that the whole of the sport at the moment is shrouded in more politicking than I’ve ever seen before, with power units being central to a lot of the power play between the major players. Frankly I’d be pretty surprised if we arrived in 2019 with the current formula still more or less in place.

        I know what I think *should* happen (or at least what I would like to think of as the future of the sport), but I’d say it seems unhlikely for a number of reasons.

        I believe the best way of generating interest and innovation would be to throw a lot of the rules wide open. I would rather see it become an energy formula, with a specific fuel flow rate and starting mass mandated by the rules, but with no definition on what manufacturers do with that fuel exactly. I think (at the risk of sounding like a perpetually stuck record) you could look to WEC for a bit of inspiration here, where the power balancing formula seems to work pretty well, giving us a range of different technical solutions, all of which can be competitive. I’d like to see a move away from a conventional internal combustion engine plus ERS system, towards something more resembling an electric vehicle wiht a petrol (or diesel, or hydrogen, etc) powered motor working as a power generating range extender. But again, I think it should be open, so manufacturers could go down that route, or they could choose a more conventional setup. The only restriction being the amount of fuel you can use and how fast you can use it. Perhaps with a common sense restriction on the power of any electrical assistance. Some may argue that this would lead to massive development costs, but actually I don’t see it significantly increasing costs at all. In fact, with the freedom to develop their own technology without overly prescriptive rules, i could see the opportunity to actually develop competitive engines far cheaper, since it would do away with the current fixation on diminishing returns in increasingly small areas open for development. It would also give the manufacturers the opportunity to make large development leaps without having to go through the rules wiht a fine tooth comb, or potentially lose out to a team which managed to find the best loophole. At the moment it feels like within the rules, there is probably one ‘ultimate’ optimised solution, and it’s simply a case of the manufacturers getting as close as possible to that ideal. All paths lead to the same destination, leaving absolutely no room whatsoever for innovation or originality.

        The flipside? Well it’d be very hard to accurately predict the sort of power levels you’d end up seeing. So you might end up wiht some cars woefully underpowered, whereas others may have power figures well into four digits. It might harm competition to an extent. Though with the caveat that it would make it easier for manufacturers to make large design changes and catch up far easier. It also means that nobody would be locked into a development path from which they can’t deviate, and potentially also having advantages and disadvantages locked in with them.

        At the moment, unless Honda can come up with a really good technical solution, I think it’s likely that Mercedes will continue to dominate through this entire period, since there is no opprtunity for their rivals to catch up. They are already further along the path to that ultimate solution, and they have the same opportunity to develop as any of their rivals. Unless they simply decide to stop developing, what scope is there whatsoever for someone like Ferrari to not only catch up, but actually overtake Mercedes? I don’t think there is at all. The factory Mercs may win every championship from now until 2020, because of how the rules are structured.

        1. Yes, a good idea re fuel flow. But I would extend that to a simple caloric flow/sec. Allow ANY fuel but equate the flow rates such that equal energy/sec is available from diesel, petrol, alcohol, or whatever. That would really open the door for experimentation.

        2. @mazdachris, Thanks Chris, seems you and me are likeminded on this subject.

        3. @mazdachris, Troy, 1 further observation, I expect all 3 2014 engines to have the same approx bore/stroke ratio and if I am correct in that then all is not lost for SF and R, it appears that the biggest advantage MB have comes from the split turbo and its dynamotor which should be easily replicated for this year, all else being equal. Honda may go for a more square ratio (they have done it before in the 20,000 rpm era) and if that gives them an advantage the 2014 engines will be forever disadvantaged. Another thought, if Ferrari were silly enough to reduce the bore spacing such that cooling is badly compromised they will never recover, no matter how many tokens they use.

          1. @hohum Yeah this is the problem with these massively prescriptive rules. If the split turbo is the best solution, then all the rivals can do now is spend a certain number of tokens copying the solution off Mercedes. Fine. But then that’s X number of tokens they have spent just to address one shortfall, and claw their way up to the level of the unmodified Mercedes engine. Mercedes can spend those points now making their PU even better. How will this ever be anything other than a game of catch-up for Renault and Ferrari? And as you say, with some things set i stone and unchangeable, they may need to live with certain design flaws all the way to 2020. Even though those flaws may be really easy and cost effective to solve, and working/developing their way around these issues ultimately costs far more money than just fixing the problem i the first place.

            Open up the rules and they can draw on all sorts of accumulated knowledge, and take a far more innovative approach with their own, logically developed solution.

            I do see SteveR’s point about having a calorific energy formula to allow for a massive range of fuels, but I think there would be a risk of reducing the road-relevance (something which is still very important to constructors, whether we like it or not) and also potentially scare off the major fuel companies. People like Shell, Petronas, Total, et al, all invest huge amounts, but it’s pretty important to them that the performance they generate on track positively influences their brand perception at the forecourt. There’s definitely a ‘goldilocks zone’ when it comes to allowing them to develop good quality racing fuels, and creating bizarre, exotic chemical mixes which will never see any application outside of the world of F1. It’s a huge amount to spend to develop a cocktail that can only power a couple of cars for a couple of thousand miles each year, but is otherwise useless.

    3. agreed

      backed up by the fact that they are only supplying one team…that previously had a full season of experience with the current championship winning engine and one must admit that McLaren were previously the de facto works team…. I am a Honda fan so it will be cool to see them back……

      I was particularly amused by how far Renault and Ferrari got it wrong……huge tubular headers going up and around the cam covers to the exhaust turbine….. as opposed to Mercedes…unsophisticated short primary manifolds with the idea in mind…. to get the most energy through the shorted route possible……brilliant and effective

      1. Yeah, their solution was elegant…

  5. Air valve system: Including the compressor and air pressure regulation devices

    Will this mean, neither Ferrari, nor Renault could go down the split turbo route anymore? (But Honda could?)

    1. That was my first thought to and may by why Renault said they are not going the split turbo way. If i remmeber correctly Ferrari all most have the same design as Merc just not so advance.

    2. No, the “air valves” are in the engine, not the turbo, they use air to close really fast, rather than a metal spring used in almost all road cars / other engines.

      1. But they must have some role in the compressor itself, else the rule wouldn’t specify the compressor with regard to the air valves.

        But, the above aside, even if the above holds, the exact placement of the compressor may still be different, so you’re right (I guess you meant that).

        1. I think they’re referring specifically to a compressor supplying compressed air to the pneumatic valve system. Not even sure they carry one on board though, as (at least on the V8s) I can remember Lotus having to do a long pit stop to top up their pneumatic storage system, due to a leak.

          The Turbo stuff looks like it’s defined under all the entries starting with “pressure charging”. The problem is, depending on how much they would have to change, they could be burning 7 tokens (assuming they had to change the compressor side, the turbine side, the route to the turbine inlet, and the transmission for the MGU-H) – They would have to be confident of a pretty big performance gain to merit using that many tokens on that one change.

          It may be that, whilst splitting the turbo is advantageous, the limited tokens they have are better spent elsewhere, in terms of tenths-per-token.

        2. Ah, now I understand, thanks.

          Great bit of comment on the cost of the solution as well, I agree with it.

    3. Thats the way I read it as well…..

      And thus I consider why ??? Trying to wrap my brain around how the rules were conceived to heavily advantage those that got the power unit correct straight away and those who didnt are not allowed to seek the necessary changes to be competitive…..and to change the rules for Honda Something not right there ???

      It makes no sense that the compressors cannot be changed…..the most primary fundamental development in turbo engine tuning

      Although technically in terms of ruling… the Compressor may apply only to the impeller size and not its drive system….I hope Ferrari and Renault have a horn section of very competent lawyers Dewy cheetum and howe comes to mind……agr

  6. Makes sense to me WAIT WHAT!!!!

    1. You don’t get it! You must be dull and obviously don’t wear a rolex as a real fan of F1…

      Actually I don’t get it either. So the other teams can modify their engines more which would mean Honda can modify it less? I can’t even explain the rules to my wife anymore- and she actually somewhat understands American Football.

      1. The Honda ruling assumes that Honda have used 2014 to evaluate the strengths and weakness’ of the 2014 designs and will have already made the modifications to their 2015 engine that the 2014 makers will apply to their engines for 2015, therefore Honda will have the same average number of modifications available to them during 2015 as the 2014 homologated ICEs have left unused at the beginning of 15 and should therefore be on par for 2016.
        I hope this helps, it is simple but it is difficult to express simply.

        1. I had it before now I’m confused! LOL

  7. I’m still unclear on homologation and honda tokens.

    I was under the impression that existing manufacturers would be able to delay the homologation if they chose, and could use the 2014 engine spec instead.

    So basically, the engine manufacturers would either start the season with 32 tokens to spend or 0 tokens to spend. Honda would then have 32 (0 teams homologate )/21 (1 team homologate )/10 (2 homologate) 0 (all homologate) tokens depending on how many teams decided to start the season with their new 2015 units.

    The way it is written now sounds like manufacturers will be able to make ammendments to their 2014 engine but then homologate their 2015 engine at a later date.

    E.g. start the year with their 2014 engine but with 16 tokens spent and then spend the other 16 at the later homologation of the 2015 engine.

    Which situation is the correct one?

    1. The homologated power unit is the one they submitted at the start of 2014, and remains so until 2020. Every year they are allowed to make specific changes to it, but they don’t homologate a new power unit. There is effectively no 2015 homologation of an upgraded power unit.

      1. So ‘spirit of the rules’ have changed completely then! In that case why can’t Honda ‘homologate’ their engine on the 28th of February and then have their 32 tokens to spend like everyone else? The season won’t have started until the first race afterall!

        Oh and doesn’t being able to change a ‘homologated’ power unit completely go against the definition of homologation? :P

      2. @mazdachris, it is actually the opposite.

        If you look at the full rules it will say “Once homologated in accordance with a) or b)”.
        Thus a PU will get homologated both when delivered to the FIA before 28Feb14 (a), and when delivered after 28Feb14 (b).

        The confusing bit is that the rules then say

        A manufacturer may homologate no more than one specification of power unit.

        But that does not say how often they can homologate, only that they can use only one specification at a time.
        Thus in effect all (customer) cars have to use the same engine during any specific race.

  8. I think it will be interesting if one engine manufacturer turns up in Australia with all 32 tokens used. That would make the others nervous, because then they are open to the other manufacturer lodging a protest if they use more than one specification of engine during the season.

    1. I thought that there were some indications that Mercedes was indeed planning to do just that @mikeydcmtd oh, yes – Omincorse: Mercedes to run 2015 engine from start of 2015 (google translated). I read speculation somewhere too they might keep some tokens for the end of the season, but they probably have been working from the start of last year to improve the engine before the start of testing – apparently they changed enough things that the units aren’t interchangable.

      And since Mercedes were in the best position, they also mainly had to improve rather than rectify, so it makes sense for them to be doing that, and reduce Honda’s potential while at the same time stealing (another) march on their other competitors.

      1. As an engineer that sounds good and it is probably what I would do in their position, but I hope for the sake of competition that no action is taken on the others. I don’t mind watching the Mercedes drivers battle it out again especially if Williams are closer but I do eventually want to see big battles at the front of the field where only the best drivers really stand out. Imagine a 6 car plus battle for the lead in F1.

      2. I am pretty sure that I read an article saying more or less the opposite – that Mercedes would use only about 2 of their 32 allowed and save the rest to react to what Honda and Ferrari and Renault do @bosyber, @mikeydcmtd

        1. Well it seems like it’s all just speculation at the moment anyway, I think Mercedes are in a position to win either way but their customers may not be happy having to wait for upgraded engines

  9. Great overview!! Thanks!

  10. I have just read the PDF File supplied for us. They can not make as many changes as they like they have to use all there tokens at ones.

    “Other than any parts solely associated with power unit installation in different types of car (which have no performance benefit and which may be changed from time to time during the homologation period with the consent of the FIA), any such power unit is one which is identical in every respect to either”

    “A manufacturer may homologate no more than one specification of power unit”

    “The supplier of an homologated power unit and/or the team using the homologated power unit must take and/or facilitate such steps as the FIA may at any time and in its absolute discretion determine in order to satisfy the FIA that a power unit used at an Event is indeed identical to the corresponding power unit delivered to and held by the FIA.”

    “The FIA will study such requests and, if they agree that the changes should be permitted, will circulate the correspondence to all manufacturers for comment. If the FIA receive no comments which cast doubt on their original decision about the proposed modification(s) they will confirm to the manufacturer concerned that they may be carried out.”

    My conclusion on what i read is that you can only changes the engine once else you have to get permision from the FIA. The resion is that the engine must at all time be the same as the engine the FIA has in ever respect.

    1. @koosoos, it’s actually a bit different.

      They cannot make ‘changes to a homologated PU’, but they can ‘homologate a changed PU’.
      It is subtle (and might seem semantical) but makes all the difference.

      It’s like getting a building permit.
      When you get a building permit you have to build in line with the plans submitted. But you can always go back to the authorities and present new plans (and as soon as they are approved you have to build according to those).

      1. I do understand what you are saying. But this is how i understand it. The loop hole was there was not date given for the submission of the the engine suppler to submit there new engines.The suppler can submit there there new engine at any time this session, but they still have to athere to the homologated rule. So if you chance a part on your car you are braking the rule that stat that the “any such power unit is one which is identical in every respect to either”.
        Or maby i’m wrong about loophole they found and it will changes every thing. LOL

        1. Sorry not new engine i meant modified engine

  11. Good to see what they can modify in the next few seasons! thanks keith!

  12. Won’t be long until teams will start trading tokens.

  13. I hate restrictions! What about new manufacturers? How can they produce a new engine, and God forbid, develop that same engine?

    1. @nidzovski One thing I was thinking was that if a new manufacturer wanted to come into it, then they should be given the freedom of a development window starting from the 2014 regulations.

      Although it is not without its problems, for example, if Ferrari (or anyone else) want a completely new engine design, they could just design it and let Fiat enter it as theirs.

      1. @strontium The thing is whoever enters it will have to start with a gigantic deficit to others. I have no clue of how can someone new enters except by bringing (buying) engine expert from a competitor.

  14. The FIA have just over complicated this. Massively.

  15. This is the craziest thing I’ve read in a long, long time. So basically the FIA is saying to prospective engine manufacturers, “we don’t need you”?

    Why can’t they just be allowed to develop whatever they like?

  16. If only one version of an PU can be used by all the teams using that PU, what happens to the PU’s that are part used and usually used for Friday practice sessions?

    Does it mean that teams can use any engine spec on Friday’s, but must use latest homologate unit for Quali and Race.

    Or are all old units now considered obselete, and can no longer be used, at all, because they are not the latest spec. If this is the case will some teams/drivers have to do a lot more than 5 races with some engines. Especially if a PU has had to be changed earlier than desired because of a catastrophic failure.

  17. I could explain to a laymen how an engine itself works easier than these rules.

    Something to do with collecting tokens, and when you have enough you send off for a stegosaurus?

    1. But the FIA will only allow a plesiosaur.

      1. The problem is, FIA thought it’s implied that it is a plesiosaur, when in fact they’ve only wrote it in the rules as “marine reptile”. Being dinosaurs themselves, FIA thought it would be obvious what kind of marine reptile they’ve had in mind.

  18. What is bank stagger? where cylinders in opposing banks aren’t aligned with each other? vr6 like?

  19. For the life of me I can’t understand all this nonsense. It’s getting totally out of hand and ridiculous. All that is happening here is introduction of more rules to cover previous mistakes. Typical of a bunch of engineers, math einsteins and accountants trying to prove how clever they are and how complicated they can make things. Is it not called MOTOR sport??? Now suddenly it becomes ELECTRIC sport like Scalectric??? The objective should be speed, performance and safety! Now teams are not allowed to develop performance, lift and coast, tyre management, fuel limitations etc etc etc. It’s not racing anymore….its an economy run!! Do they really think the fans are ignorant enough to believe developing and designing a TOTALLY new power unit and all the systems that go along with it is cheaper than getting the max out of something like a tried and tested 2.4 normally aspitated V8??? Please lets get back to RACING BASICS!!! Make RACING rules, not political rules of which the sole purpose is to make things as COMPLICATED as possible. Stop the car manufacturers from calling the shots and using F1 as a testing and development platform for their road cars!! THATS why costs are so ridiculous.

  20. Good gracious Lord! Why have the rules I’ve finally learned and thought I understood got broken and no one saying anything? This could only mean two things. I didn’t understand them as correctly as I thought or they have changed.

    Wasn’t it stated that each manufacturer is allowed to run only one engine spec at a time? The same rule that many people had pointed out that it would be a burden to Mercs since they’ll have to change all 8 power units of their drivers if they have to upgrade their PU?

    This rule was broken when Ros and Lewis ran different spec, not to mention other Merc engined racers.

    Can someone please clarify this to me?

    Apologies for my horrible English.

  21. I will only say as a spectator that the rule thing seems out of hand. There are garden tractors with more displacement and Nismo stock cars that seem of similar output. I just think the specification rules make it so much less exciting.
    Why not say you can put anything under the hood as long as cars are of the similar size period? Why cap fuel, cylinder number, tokens Etc? Surely innovation and engineering alone could determine if a 6 cylinder turbo is a better design vs a 12 or 16 cylinder supercharged version. If the larger engine weighed more and took more fuel stops that would be weighed against the lighter engine requiring less stops. (Like a GTR racing a Veyron)
    To me that would allow so much more competition and interest in the sport.
    Otherwise it’s often like watching professional bowling on TV! They all use a specified ball weight size Etc. And the bowler is the only variable.

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.