Its Official: F1 Engine Homologation Rules Are A Farce

So the FIA have acknowledged that the engine homologation rules for 2015 are a complete farce, with no date set for homologating the 2015 power units it gives Ferrari, Renault & Mercedes Benz the opportunity to develop their power units into the season and homologate their engines mid season when they can introduce an updated specification. This will mean starting the season with hardware in 2014 spec, though development in software integration of the different elements of the power unit can be updated from it's end of 2014 spec as this is not homologated. Whilst this gives a slight break to Renault & Ferrari to try and make ground on Mercedes Benz it leaves Honda in the lurch, as a new manufacturer they have a definite date by which they must homologate their engine - 28th February and will therefore have to use the same spec of hardware throughout the season. In light of this ludicrous situation and the ill-thought nature of the engine homologation rules it seems to me that the only sensible course of action is to drop engine homologation altogether. Previously homologation was used for power units that were based on technology that had been fully developed over many years and therefore there was reasonable parity between manufactuers, but when the formula has changed to a whole host of new technologies it is ridiculous to try and impose such homologation at a time when the manufacturers need to rapidly evolve and develop the hardware and systems, which not only benefits F1 but also the wider development of hybrid systems which will become more and more common in road going products as pressure to reduce emissions and fuel consumption mounts even more on the automotive industry. This is the justification for manufacturers being in F1 in the first place (along with marketing benefits obviously) so can't the FIA see that engine homologation is counter-productive to this at this stage of the development cycle. In a few years time when the technology has matured and the returns on investment in development diminish it will once again become appropriate to homologate hardware to control costs, but for the reasons previously stated I believe that the current rules do the sport a disservice and are more likely to drive manufacturers away rather than attracting them to the sport.

It's blatantly unfair on Honda to insist they homologate their PU at the end of February when that isn't specifically in the regs but allow other manufacturers to homologate their 2015 PU whenever they want. (Honda should have been allowed until the first race in March.)
However it's not as big a deal as some in the media are making out as there would be huge disadvantages to delaying homologation, e.g:

• the competitive disadvantage of running old spec PUs;
• the difficulties of having to introduce the 2015 spec to all teams/drivers at the same time as once the 2015 spec is introduced the 2014 spec can't be used even in practice;
• the effect on aero development by the chassis having to suit both 2014 and 2015 PUs, possibly resulting in a b-car being needed.

I think it will only happen if Renault or Ferrari make a major mistake that they only find during preseason testing or if they concede that they are so far behind that they are better giving up on 2015 and effectively rolling over the tokens for a year by delaying homologation until December.

Who actually owns McLaren's M-B engines? Were they forced to give them back?

Would it be techincally possible for McLaren to keep them and make changes on them, themselves? Or would that be a violation of IP?

McLaren had to return them after each race weekend in 2014, so they won't have any now.

I don't think it will be a devastating blow to McLaren-Honda if they concentrate on building as powerful a PU as they can, as upgrades for reliability are allowed to all teams.

I think they need to scrap the whole system and come up with something simple. I'de like to see them lay down a normally aspirated displacement limit and be done with it.

We should be talking about racing more and rules less, but right now F1 is all about the rules and the racing is secondary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Austin

I'd like to see them lay down a normally aspirated displacement limit and be done with it.

---

Would that include rotaries? I have a feeling that a 1.5L Rotary would produce more power than a 1.5L four-pot.

I'm not at all surprised that this happened. When Ferrari James Allison mentioned the loophole a couple of weeks ago it was pretty clear that like most rules in F1 they had found a way to circumvent them. What a bunch of idiots the FIA are. They keep making the same blunders over and over again.

Quote:

---

An FIA spokesman said: "It was always envisaged, although not explicitly stated in the rules, that manufacturers would have to deal with modifications on the engine within the constraints of the rules, and then submit their 2015 engine [at the first race].

"It is simple, but when you read it [the rule book], it doesn't say that unfortunately."

---

I mean this is just simply embarrassing. Someone's head should roll for this.

On the bright side, at least now it might finally stop Christian Horner throwing the toys out of the pram requesting the return of v8's etc. He has his wish, now maybe he'll be a man and work hard to catch up instead of bitching when things aren't going his way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

I don't think it will be a devastating blow to McLaren-Honda if they concentrate on building as powerful a PU as they can, as upgrades for reliability are allowed to all teams.

---

Agreed. Build it to be powerful and then worry about reliability later. So we might see a lot of McLaren failures in 2015 but that would be expected.

It is a bit unfortunate for Honda that the homologation of new designs is the one part of the engine regs where the FIA gave themselves "absolute discretion."

There are going to be some tricky judgments for the other manufacturers to make - whether to deploy a new component and get the benefit sooner, or continue developing it to potentially get a bigger benefit later on. Given how long they've already had to work on their 2015 modifications, I suspect most of their changes will appear sooner rather than later anyway.

There is a distinct lack of text in the rules to explain the tables in Appendix 4 of the technical regulations. This may not be the last debate on the matter. Now that the cat is out of the bag and the "common sense" interpretation based on the FIA's original intent has apparently been rejected, all sorts of other reinterpretations are possible.

For example, can you spend your 32-point modification budget on the same item more than once? E.g. the complete turbo system adds up to 6 points; to take it to the extreme, could you introduce 5 completely different turbo designs for 30 points? There could even be an argument that having chosen to spend 6 points on a new turbo, you could make an unlimited number of changes to that component during the year - the rules don't explicitly say you can't. They also don't explicitly say that allowed modifications have to be relative to a 2014 engine, so Honda could argue after their engine is homologated in February that they should be allowed to make 32 points worth of changes during 2015.

It's all a bit stupid isn't it.

Personally I think while engines should be frozen during the season then they should be allowed to introduce an entirely new engine once a year.

I also think F1 has become a bit too reliable, with cars all but guaranteed to finish the race unless they're involved in a crash. Nothing like the engine of a leading car expiring in a cloud of smoke near the end of the race to spice things up a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

It's all a bit stupid isn't it.

Personally I think while engines should be frozen during the season then they should be allowed to introduce an entirely new engine once a year.

I also think F1 has become a bit too reliable, with cars all but guaranteed to finish the race unless they're involved in a crash. Nothing like the engine of a leading car expiring in a cloud of smoke near the end of the race to spice things up a bit.

---

I agree with this and I also feel that they should be allowed a new Engine every two races. Drivers shouldn't have to worry about being penalized if their Engine blows up in smoke due to too many miles and no fault of their own.

This rule is awfully unfair to new entrants. If the powers that be want to see new entrants succeed then the entrants need to be able to develop as the season wears on.

I don't see the big hoopla. All engine manufacturer's continue development anyway, so why not Honda?

I can only think that rules like this are in place in order to limit F1 so Bernie can make more money.

Great news for the Anglo Mafia.
I am happy to say my membership has been secured with assistance from the Bilderberg Group.
I am a made man, Tally-ho!! :angel:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117386

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

Great news for the Anglo Mafia.
I am happy to say my membership has been secured with assistance from the Bilderberg Group.
I am a made man, Tally-ho!! :angel:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117386

---

Anyone taking bets on who will cry about it first? :laugh:

My money is on Ferrari, but Mercedes might beat them to the punch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Anyone taking bets on who will cry about it first?

---

I Think that there is a high likelihood of several teams complaining about it. Mercedes has already said that they will start 2015 with their 2014 PU, which makes sense considering the amount of effort put into making these PUs reliable. No one wants to lose points, or use up PU components early on, especially considering that the rules only allow 4 PUs without penalty in 2015. If the other manufacturers follow suit I think, if I understand the rules correctly, that that will mean 32 tokens for the Honda PU. Probably nothing short of unlimited development will allow equity in this arena, which would be very costly, and probably price the lesser funded customer teams out of the series. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is another tweak to the rules before the start of the season!
Can of bloody worms really.....mate!

It appears already that teams are scrambling to rethink their engine strategy in response to this rule change!

Quote:

---

We reported earlier that Mercedes, having utterly dominated the 2014 season, may in fact enter the first few races of this year with all 32 tokens still in its pocket.
"It's a late (rule) change," works Renault team Red Bull's Adrian Newey told Sky, "and we are sorting out with Renault the best way to play it -- it's not exactly clear."

---

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns29777.html

I'm just happy they reversed this stupid rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

I Think that there is a high likelihood of several teams complaining about it. Mercedes has already said that they will start 2015 with their 2014 PU, which makes sense considering the amount of effort put into making these PUs reliable. No one wants to lose points, or use up PU components early on, especially considering that the rules only allow 4 PUs without penalty in 2015. If the other manufacturers follow suit I think, if I understand the rules correctly, that that will mean 32 tokens for the Honda PU. Probably nothing short of unlimited development will allow equity in this arena, which would be very costly, and probably price the lesser funded customer teams out of the series. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is another tweak to the rules before the start of the season!
Can of bloody worms really.....mate!

---

I think the new Honda ruling gives an incentive for all three existing makers to introduce as many revisions before the season starts as possible which penalises Ferrari and Renault, especially since Ferrari itself acknowledges that they are behind schedule even now. If Mercedes start the season with their 2014 PU then Honda have at least 10 points to play with already through 2015.

It beggars belief that F1 have to always make the simple things overly complicated. It is claimed that it is a money saving measure, but this it garbage. Why not simply state the displacement, ers, maximum power output etc of the engines/power units and let the manufacturers manufacture. The cost of the engines will not rise because most teams are customers and have limited budgets. The best era (imo) was in the 70's - mid 80's. Engine development was allowed but wasn't really done to any great degree, there weren't too may draconian rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

I Think that there is a high likelihood of several teams complaining about it. Mercedes has already said that they will start 2015 with their 2014 PU, which makes sense considering the amount of effort put into making these PUs reliable. No one wants to lose points, or use up PU components early on, especially considering that the rules only allow 4 PUs without penalty in 2015. If the other manufacturers follow suit I think, if I understand the rules correctly, that that will mean 32 tokens for the Honda PU. Probably nothing short of unlimited development will allow equity in this arena, which would be very costly, and probably price the lesser funded customer teams out of the series. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is another tweak to the rules before the start of the season!
Can of bloody worms really.....mate!

---

It's a big mess really. After years of talking about money savings that never took place, now we have these freezes and regs on development. So if someone gets it wrong and goes boom too many times, they eventually run out of "tokens" and have spent all this money for no reason. Unless of course the FIA forgives them and changes their mind since they already have huge money in development, in which case they threaten to leave and the FIA gives them more tokens probably.

It's like a poker game where everyone is very drunk, nobody has a good hand, and they are all trying to out bluff each other!

I'd wonder if Honda gets a fair deal on this, as the other teams and especially Mercedes have a great deal to lose. They will know Honda isn't stepping back in short on funds, and will likely do everything possibly to slow the development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

I think the new Honda ruling gives an incentive for all three existing makers to introduce as many revisions before the season starts as possible which penalises Ferrari and Renault, especially since Ferrari itself acknowledges that they are behind schedule even now. If Mercedes start the season with their 2014 PU then Honda have at least 10 points to play with already through 2015.

---

With the exception of Mercedes who I'm sure would love to save enough until the end of the season to effectively "roll over" their tokens. Unless of course they find another team has reached equal footing with them, which I find unlikely.

here is a random simple idea. Scrap the stupid token system and simply tell engine manufacturers that they develop whatever they want, but cant charge their teams more than x amount per year. That way teams are not footing the bill for the engine upgrades, but engineers can still work to improve the engines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anfield5

here is a random simple idea. Scrap the stupid token system and simply tell engine manufacturers that they develop whatever they want, but cant charge their teams more than x amount per year. That way teams are not footing the bill for the engine upgrades, but engineers can still work to improve the engines.

---

Interesting, sounds like something akin to a claiming rule. But it would hand an advantage to either the manufacturer with the biggest budget, who can afford to subsidise their customers, or to the manufacturer with the fewest customer teams.

So if I get this right if some engine manufacturer wants to get in F1 in 2019 he will have to get it right from the very beginning because he won't have many tokens left to use and probably will be allowed to use even less engines per season?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

So if I get this right if some engine manufacturer wants to get in F1 in 2019 he will have to get it right from the very beginning because he won't have many tokens left to use and probably will be allowed to use even less engines per season?

---

I always thought that's a truly bizarre plan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anfield5

It beggars belief that F1 have to always make the simple things overly complicated.

---

Perhaps F1 could learn something from Indycar where, I believe, the cost of engines is something like 1 million USD per season (which has about 16 races), and I heard it costs something like 5 millions USD in sponsor money per season to add a full time car. And besides the engines, F1 needs some radical changes, including the possibility of customer chassis sales. The high cost of engines is only a manifestation of some serious problems with F1. For some reason, everyone doing business with F1, including FIA, thinks that all F1 teams can print their money, and track owners can print their own money, etc. As a result, a team on a 100 million dollar budget can barely afford to build a working chassis and employ only pay-drivers. The figures are ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

So if I get this right if some engine manufacturer wants to get in F1 in 2019 he will have to get it right from the very beginning because he won't have many tokens left to use and probably will be allowed to use even less engines per season?

---

That's right, though they would have the benefit of creating a design from scratch having seen what worked or didn't work for everyone else. I guess they would be in a similar situation to Cosworth when they came back with the V8 straight into an engine freeze. While that Cosworth was the weakest engine on the grid it was not a million miles off the pace, Williams won a race with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

Interesting, sounds like something akin to a claiming rule. But it would hand an advantage to either the manufacturer with the biggest budget, who can afford to subsidise their customers, or to the manufacturer with the fewest customer teams.

---

I know my idea isn't perfect, but it still seems better than the confusing tokenism crap we now have, where teams lucky enough to have an engine that is better than their opposition can be assured of decent results, while teams with other engines have no way to compete.