2015 F1 Mechanics/Aero; Design predictions to win the WCC/WDC. READ FIRST POST

[GTPorsche]

Renault has been in since the late 70s in various forms. They may not buy into an F1 team this year, but that also doesn't mean they're pulling their engine out either.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Well they are though threatening to pull out all together as posted by @IforceV8

 

[NOVOCAINE]

Done what?

Take a look at their F1 history; they drop in and out of the sport like Lindsey Lohan at rehab. With the way they come and go one can argue they'd probably have made more money, had they not bothered in the first place. That is all Formula One is for Renault anyhow; a marketing exercise.

 

[GTPorsche]

Well they are though threatening to pull out all together as posted by @IforceV8

Rumored, as of now. His post was speculation.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Rumored, as of now. His post was speculation.

That's fine, I didn't say they were, even a threat is just a speculative and up in the air as a rumor they're going to leave.

Take a look at their F1 history; they drop in and out of the sport like Lindsey Lohan at rehab. With the way they come and go one can argue they'd probably have made more money, had they not bothered in the first place. That is all Formula One is for Renault anyhow; a marketing exercise.

No they don't. I'd suggest you perhaps go and look at the history again, @GTPorsche gave clear insight that they've been in the sport since the late 70s until now. I could name several other big names that have come and gone since then with a more patchy record. Your analogy is not only tasteless but wrong, I'm afraid. You've simply got them confused, and actually if anyone has been more innovative in the area of mechanical/engine work in the world especially F1...it's Renault.

 

[GTPorsche]

Peugeot, Honda in some regards, Ford/Cosworth, Yamaha, etc.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

That's fine, I didn't say they were even a threat is just a speculative and up in the air as a rumor they're going to leave.



No they don't. I'd suggest you perhaps go and look at the history again, @GTPorsche gave clear insight that they've been in the sport since the late 70s until now. I could name several other big names that have come and gone since then with a more patchy record. Your analogy is not only tasteless but wrong, I'm afraid. You've simply got them confused, and actually if anyone has been more innovative in the area of mechanical/engine work in the world especially F1...it's Renault.

Apologies! I was talking about their involvement as a constructor team. Really didn't help that I didn't specify that in my original comment!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Apologies! I was talking about their involvement as a constructor team. Really didn't help that I didn't specify that in my original comment!

But they've been in the sport either way, some times it's more beneficial to be a constructor and sometime producing engines is enough. However, I'd say they've done as much for the sport as any other manufacture and probably more, and that fact alone is why they should be asking for as much as they are. Because in reality they haven't been out of the sport, cause they spend a ton of money doing engines the same as if they were just a full blown constructor.

 

[GTPorsche]

In terms of current tenureship in F1, it's Ferrari #1, Renault #2. The others have been in and out so many times.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

But they've been in the sport either way, some times it's more beneficial to be a constructor and sometime producing engines is enough. However, I'd say they've done as much for the sport as any other manufacture and probably more, and that fact alone is why they should be asking for as much as they are. Because in reality they haven't been out of the sport, cause they spend a ton of money doing engines the same as if they were just a full blown constructor.

I was never doubting they've had a huge impact on the sport; that's obvious! My annoyance is their lack of commitment when it comes to running their own constructor team. They're talking about running one again but based on their previous form with such endeavours you can't blame me for thinking it won't be around long, should it come into existence once more. Call me Captain Obvious but setting up and running a team costs a hell of a lot more than just producing engines. My point is if they're not going to properly commit to running a team in the long term then surely it would be more beneficial for them, to just keep on being solely an engine supplier.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was never doubting they've had a huge impact on the sport; that's obvious!

You claimed they have been in and out of the sport, it doesn't matter if they're constructor or manufacture, they're both quite key and expensive either way in being an essential key. Thus they haven't been in and out like Lindsey Lohan.

My annoyance is their lack of commitment when it comes to running their own constructor team. They're talking about running one again but based on their previous form with such endeavours you can't blame me for thinking it won't be around long, should it come into existence once more.

Last time they were a constructor it was about 9-10 years, before that it was around the same time frame. And when they aren't doing that they still are part of the sport as a manufacture which is as important, and very beneficial to teams. In and out in the past 2 decades is quite exaggerated, and when they are a manufacture only they have a works team that they are quite close with as if constructors.

Call me Captain Obvious but setting up and running a team costs a hell of a lot more than just producing engines. My point is if they're not going to properly commit to running a team in the long term then surely it would be more beneficial for them, to just keep on being solely an engine supplier.

You aren't, if the cost of producing engines and going through the research and development costs and testing of a ICE and then hybrid systems all teams would do it. Sauber wouldn't spend the money on Ferrari engines, even teams with money like RBR wouldn't spend money to run with a group they feel isn't worth the effort. The point is engine production can cost as much as running a team for a year, the only benefit is over time the engine sales make up for the production costs.

However, the engines are just as expensive if not more when you compare the teams that in the end that buy them. Also obviously the outfit seems to see some benefit, especially if they can get some CVC money, where no matter where they finish they're practically promised money for just showing up. Also the rules are going to be changing quite dramatically soon and thus this also could be a benefit to Renault in more than one way.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

You claimed they have been in and out of the sport, it doesn't matter if they're constructor or manufacture, they're both quite key and expensive either way in being an essential key. Thus they haven't been in and out like Lindsey Lohan.

I claimed they've been in out of the sport as a constructor team, which is correct. It was an oversight not specifying that in my original comment, but I've already cleared that up. And engine construction is nowhere near as expensive as running a full blown team. Yes it's still costly, but it's not on the same level. Not even close.

Last time they were a constructor it was about 9-10 years, before that it was around the same time frame. And when they aren't doing that they still are part of the sport as a manufacture which is as important, and very beneficial to teams. In and out in the past 2 decades is quite exaggerated, and when they are a manufacture only they have a works team that they are quite close with as if constructors.

Beneficial to the teams, yes. Beneficial to Renault themselves however? Well it costs around £158 million each year to run an F1 team which whilst that might seem relatively insignificant to Renault's profit margin of nearly two billion, most of that gets put back into the business. One wonders if they were to start running a team again where they'd make cutbacks to prevent their profit from going into the red.

You aren't, if the cost of producing engines and going through the research and development costs and testing of a ICE and then hybrid systems all teams would do it. Sauber wouldn't spend the money on Ferrari engines, even teams with money like RBR wouldn't spend money to run with a group they feel isn't worth the effort. The point is engine production can cost as much as running a team for a year, the only benefit is over time the engine sales make up for the production costs.

However, the engines are just as expensive if not more when you compare the teams that in the end that buy them. Also obviously the outfit seems to see some benefit, especially if they can get some CVC money, where no matter where they finish they're practically promised money for just showing up. Also the rules are going to be changing quite dramatically soon and thus this also could be a benefit to Renault in more than one way.

Running an F1 team for a year sets you back around £158 million; around £20 million of that is spent on their entire engine supply. If developing an engine costs the same as running a team, and the teams are only paying £20 million for their power units, then the engine suppliers are making a huge loss. This is clearly not the case a if it was, nobody would build F1 engines.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Running an F1 team for a year sets you back around £158 million; around £20 million of that is spent on engine supply. If developing an engine costs the same as running a team, and the teams are only paying £20 million for their power units, then the engine suppliers are making a huge loss. This is clearly not the case a if it was, nobody would build F1 engines.

That doesn't work out... Mercedes develop an engine as part of their team costs and then sell it on. Ferrari do the same. Any customer sales for Merc/Ferrari offset their team dev costs.

Are you saying that you think IRBR were only paying £20 million to be the Renault-preferred team or did you look up the costs for a lower team?

 

[NOVOCAINE]

That doesn't work out... Mercedes develop an engine as part of their team costs and then sell it on. Ferrari do the same. Any customer sales for Merc/Ferrari offset their team dev costs.

Are you saying that you think IRBR were only paying £20 million to be the Renault-preferred team or did you look up the costs for a lower team?

Fair point but then Renault has no works team, as of the present. So if developing an engine costs just as much as running a team, then where are they making the money back? Red Bull's two teams are the only Renault teams on the grid currently, and they both get paid for out of the same pocket. So you can't honestly expect me to believe Red Bull are paying around £150 million for engines each season, for each team? Even £100 million is a long shot!

 

[catamount39]

Peugeot, Honda in some regards, Ford/Cosworth, Yamaha, etc.

I'll still never understand why Yamaha, a motorcycle/marine engine company, wanted to try their hand at F1 V10's...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I claimed they've been in out of the sport as a constructor team, which is correct. It was an oversight not specifying that in my original comment, but I've already cleared that up. And engine construction is nowhere near as expensive as running a full blown team. Yes it's still costly, but it's not on the same level. Not even close.

Would you like to put numbers to that? Because the R&D cost of Mercedes to develop the engine are projected to be 130-140 million pounds and in that same time frame the team costs was say about 175 million pounds, however the problem then arises with the offset. Mercedes have a CVC deal that at the end of the season they too get money from the board for just being in F1, they also get offset from the many sponsors on their car and those their drivers bring to the table and not just the team. The only offset to the engine part (which is separate entity from the F1 constructor Toto has said this) is the teams that buy the engines. Which supposedly doubled the V8 costs.

http://www.pitpass.com/52739/Mercedes-spending-accelerates-to-record-325m
http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-ne...w-mercedes-v6-at-eur-500-million?artid=165594

And this doesn't take into how much Petronas spend on R&D for lubricants and fuel that Mercedes must also help pay for too. This is the same as Shell with Ferrari or Total with Renault. The point is Sponsors bring in more money to the team than the teams buying engines, cause as we known teams don't always pay (Marussia and Ferrari before everything got fixed or Caterham and Renault or even Sauber).

So yes it's on the same level and perhaps even beyond. This is a field I plan to go into (I study aero engineering) and thus I've had the opportunity to talk to actual R&D engineers, such costs do happen.

Beneficial to the teams, yes. Beneficial to Renault themselves however? Well it costs around £158 million each year to run an F1 team which whilst that might seem relatively insignificant to Renault's profit margin of nearly two billion, most of that gets put back into the business. One wonders if they were to start running a team again where they'd make cutbacks to prevent their profit from going into the red.

Where is that number from because there are teams on the grid as we speak that don't get around 158 and there are teams on the grid as we speak that easily blow that number out. There is no linear ideal of how much F1 costs or is going to cost you can only plan for an optimum but doesn't mean you'll keep it. Also why would they have to make cut backs? The link posted proclaims that Cyril and Renault see it much more profitable to be an F1 team, if the numbers posted above are remotely correct, then one could say that engine cost are as costly if not more than building just a car. And thus if they're going to spend that much why not do so as a team as well. Unlike Mercedes Renault the engine builder and the team has been the same group in the past.

Running an F1 team for a year sets you back around £158 million; around £20 million of that is spent on engine supply. If developing an engine costs the same as running a team, and the teams are only paying £20 million for their power units, then the engine suppliers are making a huge loss. This is clearly not the case a if it was, nobody would build F1 engines.

...You've got your numbers wrong again, the 20 million is not supply it's demand cost. The teams spend 20 million a year or more (since price has gone up from V8 era which was cost capped) on engines, that is not manufacturer and development costs. Also there isn't a loss, cause at the end of the day every team uses this platform as a marketing exercise and the top half makes their money back through ads, sponsor deals and various development/engine joint efforts. If F1 put these groups in the red as much as you say, then this sport wouldn't have gone any further than 1980. You've basically said that F1 teams spend and spend and get nothing back, yet this has been disproven to you on this thread, and there are other F1 threads that can also expand on it.

I'll still never understand why Yamaha, a motorcycle company, wanted to try their hand at F1 V10's...

...Cause your notion that they're just a motorcycle company is incorrect, especially when their origin like many is in other products. Yamaha are more known for their history making instruments, post WW2 due to their metallurgical know how and engine building they went into Motorcycles and engines. They have quite the history, but building F1 engines even for the best of groups isn't an easy task...a la Current Honda who we know can build stuff.


@NOVOCAINE Also forgot to also say, that you're wrong with the Works info, every manufacture has a works team. It may not sport Renault F1 as the title runner, but RBR are the Renault Factory works team. Just like McLaren with Honda.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Fair point but then Renault has no works team, as of the present. So if developing an engine costs just as much as running a team, then where are they making the money back? Red Bull's two teams are the only Renault teams on the grid currently, and they both get paid for out of the same pocket. So you can't honestly expect me to believe Red Bull are paying around £150 million for engines each season, for each team? Even £100 million is a long shot!

​

Eh?

Why would it cost as much to produce engines and sell them as it does to run a full F1 team and attend 20 races with it? Renault are unlikely to be running at a huge loss with their engine supplies (say 20 per team per season) and they'll naturally be hoping for good publicity as a by-product... but I simply don't see why making the engines would cost what it costs to staff/develop Ferrari, for example.

I'll still never understand why Yamaha, a motorcycle company, wanted to try their hand at F1 V10's...

Their history was originally in 19thC portative engines rather than specifically motorcycles. Some of their 20thC engines were legendary (Toyota 2000, for example).

​

 

[catamount39]

Eh?

Why would it cost as much to produce engines and sell them as it does to run a full F1 team and attend 20 races with it? Renault are unlikely to be running at a huge loss with their engine supplies (say 20 per team per season) and they'll naturally be hoping for good publicity as a by-product... but I simply don't see why making the engines would cost what it costs to staff/develop Ferrari, for example.



Their history was originally in 19thC portative engines rather than specifically motorcycles. Some of their 20thC engines were legendary (Toyota 2000, for example).

​

Oh so they were a general engine building company in a sense. I knew about the marine engines (forgot to add that in the post I made...it's in the edit) and their motorcycle success but I didn't know that they at one point made car engines. 👍

 

[NOVOCAINE]

Would you like to put numbers to that? Because the R&D cost of Mercedes to develop the engine are projected to be 130-140 million pounds and in that same time frame the team costs was say about 175 million pounds, however the problem then arises with the offset. Mercedes have a CVC deal that at the end of the season they too get money from the board for just being in F1, they also get offset from the many sponsors on their car and those their drivers bring to the table and not just the team. The only offset to the engine part (which is separate entity from the F1 constructor Toto has said this) is the teams that buy the engines. Which supposedly doubled the V8 costs.

http://www.pitpass.com/52739/Mercedes-spending-accelerates-to-record-325m
http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-ne...w-mercedes-v6-at-eur-500-million?artid=165594

These sponsorship offsets are covered in the info-graphic that I shared several posts up. Obviously the engine development costs rose dramatically over the last couple of years due to the new power units. Now they're here however these annual-development costs are only going to decrease. Now we're way past the prototype stages of these V6-turbo power units this 500-million euro development price tag, is completely redundant...

And this doesn't take into how much Petronas spend on R&D for lubricants and fuel that Mercedes must also help pay for too. This is the same as Shell with Ferrari or Total with Renault. The point is Sponsors bring in more money to the team than the teams buying engines, cause as we known teams don't always pay (Marussia and Ferrari before everything got fixed or Caterham and Renault or even Sauber).

So yes it's on the same level and perhaps even beyond. This is a field I plan to go into (I study aero engineering) and thus I've had the opportunity to talk to actual R&D engineers, such costs do happen.

It clearly states in the first link you shared that the overall costs of the engines is £133.9 million, as opposed to the £190.7 million cost of the team. No doubt the engine lubricants are included in the development costs of the engines as teams and oil companies develop the power units and lubricants in tandem, for the best possible performane and efficiency.

Over the next few years the team-running costs will likely remain stable, but the engine development costs will drop dramatically. Several teams lower down the field wanted to retain the old V8's because as the power unit technology aged, their price dropped massively. And the same will happen with these hybrid engines.

Where is that number from because there are teams on the grid as we speak that don't get around 158 and there are teams on the grid as we speak that easily blow that number out. There is no linear ideal of how much F1 costs or is going to cost you can only plan for an optimum but doesn't mean you'll keep it. Also why would they have to make cut backs? The link posted proclaims that Cyril and Renault see it much more profitable to be an F1 team, if the numbers posted above are remotely correct, then one could say that engine cost are as costly if not more than building just a car. And thus if they're going to spend that much why not do so as a team as well. Unlike Mercedes Renault the engine builder and the team has been the same group in the past.

The info-graphic that I shared a few posts above this one! I'm aware though some teams have a lot more, and some a lot less. Just using an average number for the sake of this argument.

...You've got your numbers wrong again, the 20 million is not supply it's demand cost. The teams spend 20 million a year or more (since price has gone up from V8 era which was cost capped) on engines, that is not manufacturer and development costs. Also there isn't a loss, cause at the end of the day every team uses this platform as a marketing exercise and the top half makes their money back through ads, sponsor deals and various development/engine joint efforts. If F1 put these groups in the red as much as you say, then this sport wouldn't have gone any further than 1980.

I said that teams spend £20 million on their engine supply; not that manufacturers spend £20 million on engine development. Reading my comment again however though it's clear it can be interpreted either way. So that's where the confusion has come from. However I wasn't aware of engine suppliers making money back through sponsorship deals, as well as the teams.

Also forgot to also say, that you're wrong with the Works info, every manufacture has a works team. It may not sport Renault F1 as the title runner, but RBR are the Renault Factory works team. Just like McLaren with Honda.

I've always considered factory supported teams more as semi-works teams. Nonetheless I was well aware some teams have special relationships with manufacturers.

Eh?

Why would it cost as much to produce engines and sell them as it does to run a full F1 team and attend 20 races with it? Renault are unlikely to be running at a huge loss with their engine supplies (say 20 per team per season) and they'll naturally be hoping for good publicity as a by-product... but I simply don't see why making the engines would cost what it costs to staff/develop Ferrari, for example.
​

Exactly. That was my point! ​

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

These sponsorship offsets are covered in the info-graphic that I shared several posts up. Obviously the engine development costs rose dramatically over the last couple of years due to the new power units. Now they're here however these annual-development costs are only going to decrease. Now we're way past the prototype stages of these V6-turbo power units this 500-million euro development price tag, is completely redundant...

You've completely missed the point, the fact is I've proven to you that F1 teams get what they spend back and more so if they win the WCC or place high up. They get money from sponsors and other grid team partnerships (if they pay up on time). But I've also proven that development cost are as high as running a team and more so when new engines come into the fold, a 500 euro cost is almost more than 2 years cost of running even the most expensive team on the grid. Then you combine that with development cost each year after that in the current state? It only goes back to the original point that despite Renault being on the grid as just engines or a full fledged team is a moot talking point, because their overall contribution has been on going for 30+ years. And are not this flaky group as you painted them as earlier despite how you want to split hairs.

Also they may come down but the R&D work will never suffice just cause "they're here". Especially if teams do get their way with certain rules in the future...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118631

Now the 1000hp has since been put to the side, but so were wider tires and ground effects a couple years ago, and in a couple years from now they're planned to return. Thus the very real reality of 1000bhp isn't so far fetched just a matter of when, and thus R&D goes up again to make these engines viable, especially with FIA restrictions on PU allocated a year.

It clearly states in the first link you shared that the overall costs of the engines is £133.9 million, as opposed to the £190.7 million cost of the team. No doubt the engine lubricants are included in the development costs of the engines as teams and oil companies develop the power units and lubricants in tandem, for the best possible performane and efficiency.

No the oil groups always keep evolving lubricants and fuels even after the engine is developed. Thus not always in tandem. And if that were the case, Petrobas wouldn't be doing stuff specifically for Williams in regards to next year after the engine has well be built. Also those are Mercedes spending numbers not Mercedes and Petronas, so you can't just say "no doublt included in the development costs" maybe the portion Mercedes gave to Petronas but not the full amount Petronas actually spent doing this work. And that difference matters because the pay off of F1 marketing matters to Petronas as much as it does to Merc.

134 mil is not that far from 190 mil, and that 134 mil is a number that blows the 2010 budget of Caterham and Virgin combined.

Over the next few years the team-running costs will likely remain stable, but the engine development costs will drop dramatically. Several teams lower down the field wanted to retain the old V8's because as the power unit technology aged, their price dropped massively. And the same will happen with these hybrid engines.

...No, the costs were set because the engines for one were frozen thus there was no real difference between the 2013 ran RS V8 Renault and that used in 2010. Lubricants and fuels may have been different and more developed but that's about it. A freeze and the already placed engine cap (as I mentioned) were the real factors. The new engines are in a semi-unfreeze and thus they will not fully steady out until a full on Freeze comes back. These tokens spent are development and manufacturing advancements on the current engines thus money spent.

The info-graphic that I shared a few posts above this one! I'm aware though some teams have a lot more, and some a lot less. Just using an average number for the sake of this argument.

Point is none of us know where that graphic came from or how they got their numbers. I don't fully trust it myself which is my point. Just corroborating factors would be nice.

I said that teams spend £20 million on their engine supply; not that manufacturers spend £20 million on engine development. Reading my comment again however though it's clear it can be interpreted either way. So that's where the confusion has come from. However I wasn't aware of engine suppliers making money back through sponsorship deals, as well as the teams.

What you said at all wasn't very concise and your info graphic indicates engines at 3.5mil, but if that's for a single engine in the car, that price isn't right. Unless the real number is 35 mil a year for engines supplied.

I've always considered factory supported teams more as semi-works teams. Nonetheless I was well aware some teams have special relationships with manufacturers.

They are a works team, end of story. You can't move the goal post as you see fit.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

You've completely missed the point, the fact is I've proven to you that F1 teams get what they spend back and more so if they win the WCC or place high up. They get money from sponsors and other grid team partnerships (if they pay up on time). Also they may come down but the R&D work will never suffice just cause "they're here". Especially if teams do get their way with certain rules in the future...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118631

Now the 1000hp has since been put to the side, but so were wider tires and ground effects a couple years ago, and in a couple years from now they're planned to return. Thus the very real reality of 1000bhp isn't so far fetched just a matter of when, and thus R&D goes up again to make these engines viable, especially with FIA restrictions on PU allocated a year.

In what conceivable way did I miss the point? As I said in my previous reply the info-graphic I shared demonstrates the income teams receive from sponsors, and not just the money that teams pay out for engines, R&D and such. Plus although I didn't originally state this I am fully aware teams get more money depending on where they finish in the standings.

They're aiming to up the engine power for 2017 simply by increasing the fuel flow but of course some engine components will have to be redesigned and redeveloped, otherwise they won't be able to stand the added stresses.

Once these new 1000hp engines have been in place for a few seasons however, costs will drop dramatically. It is not usual in Formula One for the engine formula to change frequently in such a short period of time. The previous era, the V8 era, went on for eight full seasons; and the V10 era for a full decade.

No the oil groups always keep evolving lubricants and fuels even after the engine is developed. Thus not always in tandem. And if that were the case, Petrobas wouldn't be doing stuff specifically for Williams in regards to next year after the engine has well be built. Also those are Mercedes spending numbers not Mercedes and Petronas, so you can't just say "no doublt included in the development costs" maybe the portion Mercedes gave to Petronas but not the full amount Petronas actually spent doing this work. And that difference matters because the pay off of F1 marketing matters to Petronas as much as it does to Merc.

During the initial development of the engine the manufacturer works very closely with their main oil provider. This is what I was referring to. Obviously once this stage has passed they work separately but during the early stages, close collaboration is needed.

Also where did I say Mercedes paid Petronas the full amount for developing the engine oil? All I said was some of the cost must have been included in the engine development budget.

...No, the costs were set because the engines for one were frozen thus there was no real difference between the 2013 ran RS V8 Renault and that used in 2010. Lubricants and fuels may have been different and more developed but that's about it. A freeze and the already placed engine cap (as I mentioned) were the real factors. The new engines are in a semi-unfreeze and thus they will not fully steady out until a full on Freeze comes back. These tokens spent are development and manufacturing advancements on the current engines thus money spent.

Nonetheless development costs will drop to some extent. Technology is always at it's most expensive when it's at it's newest, and most untried. As it ages and becomes more reliable, development costs drop. Because you can only develop so far. At the beginning is where the largest and most expensive development takes place. Even the development of F1 engines has a point of diminishing returns.

Point is none of us know where that graphic came from or how they got their numbers. I don't fully trust it myself which is my point. Just corroborating factors would be nice.

Yet you were only to happy to share the article about the Mercedes engine having cost 500 million-euro to develop? Even though it even said in the article title it was just a rumour?

What you said at all wasn't very concise and your info graphic indicates engines at 3.5mil, but if that's for a single engine in the car, that price isn't right. Unless the real number is 35 mil a year for engines supplied.

The info-graphic isn't mine. I just shared it here.

They are a works team, end of story. You can't move the goal post as you see fit.

I wasn't. I've always referred to teams with factory support as semi-works teams, rather than full blown works teams. And I know I'm not the only person to do so. Sorry if my terminology isn't the same as yours.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

In what conceivable way did I miss the point? As I said in my previous reply the info-graphic I shared demonstrates the income teams receive from sponsors, and not just the money that teams pay out for engines, R&D and such. Plus although I didn't originally state this I am fully aware teams get more money depending on where they finish in the standings.

They're aiming to up the engine power for 2017 simply by increasing the fuel flow but of course some engine components will have to be redesigned and redeveloped, otherwise they won't be able to stand the added stresses.

No, they don't just get money depending on where they finish their are several teams that get money due to CVC despite finishing order, which I've only said several times now as a key point.

As far as the 1000bhp Fuel flow wasn't the only thing talked about, so was upping the bar. Once again your graphic is lacking I'd suggest multiple sources instead of treating it infallible since F1 stats aren't that easy to pin point as seen here.

http://www.f1-grandprix.com/?p=23009 Where this info graphic is debunked...

You missed the point as in the original talking point was Renault leaving and how you thought people should be annoyed cause they're in and out of F1 so frequently which was disproved and then again after you corrected. The numbers show either as a manufacture or constructor they are an essential key in that 30+ years to the F1 grid.

Once these new 1000hp engines have been in place for a few seasons however, costs will drop dramatically. It is not usual in Formula One for the engine formula to change frequently in such a short period of time. The previous era, the V8 era, went on for eight full seasons; and the V10 era for a full decade.

I already provided why this isn't the case this time around, please read that again in regards.

During the initial development of the engine the manufacturer works very closely with their main oil provider. This is what I was referring to. Obviously once this stage has passed they work separately but during the early stages, close collaboration is needed.

Also where did I say Mercedes paid Petronas the full amount for developing the engine oil? All I said was some of the cost must have been included in the engine development budget.

Never claimed you did say that, but you are using that info graphic as a sort of population mean to the entire F1 debate and so that's why I said what I did. As I said their are other areas that I've sourced and haven't that show against the graphic. Why is close collaboration needed during development phase? As I said other teams have groups Williams/Petrobas and they were never apart of the process it could be said yet they're developing fuels and lubricants. Are they in the dark then?

Nonetheless development costs will drop to some extent. Technology is always at it's most expensive when it's at it's newest, and most untried. As it ages and becomes more reliable, development costs drop. Because you can only develop so far. At the beginning is where the largest and most expensive development takes place. Even the development of F1 engines has a point of diminishing returns.

If that's the case then building cars and budgets wouldn't increase yearly after rules have been set. Like 2010-2013, though RBR are claimed to have increased over those years? That's because this is F1 and nothing is ever just stagnant to where costs can catch up. Hence why the RAA was enacted but for naught. Also what diminishing returns are their? They develop to a point where with in the current regs their is not growth or reason to further try and innovate.

Yet you were only to happy to share the article about the Mercedes engine having cost 500 million-euro to develop? Even though it even said in the article title it was just a rumour?

One not sure how you can convey tone, it was just to put some idealized figures, two no one but teams now the actual costs going around. Every info graphic in respect prototype or formula cars are going to be speculative and not official, thus the nature of such sports. I only ask cause that info graphic has discrepancy (not shocking) and it'd be nice to know if it's from an actual racing site or say...Forbes who aren't very good at obtain such info one could say.

The info-graphic isn't mine. I just shared it here.

Well aware

I wasn't. I've always referred to teams with factory support as semi-works teams, rather than full blown works teams. And I know I'm not the only person to do so. Sorry if my terminology isn't the same as yours.

It has nothing to do with being the same as mine or not, RBR are called the factory works team by Renault themselves, not the semi-works team.

 

[NOVOCAINE]

No, they don't just get money depending on where they finish their are several teams that get money due to CVC despite finishing order, which I've only said several times now as a key point.

The top ten teams in the constructors standings at the end of the season get prize money; first place getting the largest amount of prize money, and tenth getting the lowest amount. Two years back it was mentioned quite regularly with the battle between Marussia and Caterham at the back because of course, whoever finished eleventh got squat. Having as little income as they did, it was very important to them both to finish tenth. But obviously teams get money from many other sources as well. I never denied that.

As far as the 1000bhp Fuel flow wasn't the only thing talked about, so was upping the bar. Once again your graphic is lacking I'd suggest multiple sources instead of treating it infallible since F1 stats aren't that easy to pin point as seen here.

http://www.f1-grandprix.com/?p=23009 Where this info graphic is debunked...

Problem with the article you've shared is unlike the info-graphic, it is four and a half years out of date.

You missed the point as in the original talking point was Renault leaving and how you thought people should be annoyed cause they're in and out of F1 so frequently which was disproved and then again after you corrected. The numbers show either as a manufacture or constructor they are an essential key in that 30+ years to the F1 grid.

I never denied they've been vital to the sports development. Put simply their lack of commitment as a constructor team (I'm not referring to their involvement as an engine supplier at all) annoys me. But then that's my attitude towards any mass-market car manufacturer in F1. However I accept I was ignorant and wrong; it is beneficial for Renault after all.

I already provided why this isn't the case this time around, please read that again in regards.

Whilst the current engines aren't in a freeze at the present, manufacturers cannot completely redesign and redevelop their engines. This won't reduce costs as much as the engine-freeze did with the V8's, but it will still have an effect.

Never claimed you did say that, but you are using that info graphic as a sort of population mean to the entire F1 debate and so that's why I said what I did. As I said their are other areas that I've sourced and haven't that show against the graphic. Why is close collaboration needed during development phase? As I said other teams have groups Williams/Petrobas and they were never apart of the process it could be said yet they're developing fuels and lubricants. Are they in the dark then?

Needed was the wrong word to use. It isn't required, but it is preferable. Oil doesn't just lubricate the engine components; it cools the engine, improves performance, and improves general reliability. Normal oil will usually keep the reliability in check reasonably enough, but does naff all for the performance. Which of course is vital in F1.

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/10123

If that's the case then building cars and budgets wouldn't increase yearly after rules have been set. Like 2010-2013, though RBR are claimed to have increased over those years? That's because this is F1 and nothing is ever just stagnant to where costs can catch up. Hence why the RAA was enacted but for naught. Also what diminishing returns are their? They develop to a point where with in the current regs their is not growth or reason to further try and innovate.

Well unlike the engines, which is what I was actually referring too, cars are allowed to be totally redesigned and redeveloped each year. So the amount of development for the cars, unlike the present engines, can never stagnate. I repeat, I know all too well that the current engines aren't frozen. But they aren't allowed to be drastically changed either.

One not sure how you can convey tone, it was just to put some idealized figures, two no one but teams now the actual costs going around. Every info graphic in respect prototype or formula cars are going to be speculative and not official, thus the nature of such sports. I only ask cause that info graphic has discrepancy (not shocking) and it'd be nice to know if it's from an actual racing site or say...Forbes who aren't very good at obtain such info one could say.

http://raconteur.net/infographics/the-economics-of-formula-1

Chastise away...

It has nothing to do with being the same as mine or not, RBR are called the factory works team by Renault themselves, not the semi-works team.

See I've never heard Renault call them that. So how was I to know?

 

[DK]

[Yamaha's]

history was originally in 19thC portative engines rather than specifically motorcycles. Some of their 20thC engines were legendary (Toyota 2000, for example).​

They pioneered five-valve-per-cylinder engines in what was Formula Nippon back in the late 80s. That's what led Zakspeed to use their engines in 1989, with disastrous results.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They pioneered five-valve-per-cylinder engines in what was Formula Nippon back in the late 80s. That's what led Zakspeed to use their engines in 1989, with disastrous results.

Yes, that too

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The top ten teams in the constructors standings at the end of the season get prize money; first place getting the largest amount of prize money, and tenth getting the lowest amount. Two years back it was mentioned quite regularly with the battle between Marussia and Caterham at the back because of course, whoever finished eleventh got squat. Having as little income as they did, it was very important to them both to finish tenth. But obviously teams get money from many other sources as well. I never denied that.

Really...clearly you don't know yet again. At this point and not to be rude, I really wish you'd just stop while you're still slightly ahead...http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118955

You're not getting at all what I'm saying, and I'd wish you'd take the time at this point to either A. look up what the CVC is and how it is key to the conversation at hand among other things, or B. Ask one of us.

Problem with the article you've shared is unlike the info-graphic, it is four and a half years out of date.

I shared three, 2 of which are with in the last year and the other to show you how easily debunked info graphics can get when they rely on F1money which is essentially and FOM publication. And the FOM doesn't like to candidly share money matters in full honesty. So a biased publication being sourced by a business website tells us something but leaves us in the dark as much as the speculation stories we mainly post. Point is that last article was to show how things can be debunked and using one source as the end all isn't the way.

I never denied they've been vital to the sports development. Put simply their lack of commitment as a constructor team (I'm not referring to their involvement as an engine supplier at all) annoys me. But then that's my attitude towards any mass-market car manufacturer in F1. However I accept I was ignorant and wrong; it is beneficial for Renault after all.[/qoute]

Once again that's not a lack of commitment, clearly they have a business model and at times being a constructor was beneficial and at other times it was more productive to give an outfit that title while spending most of the money in engine dev. And though you didn't talk about it, the point is you should have because unlike teams like say BMW that only see things beneficial with in a specific frame, Renault have stuck with the sport in a still influential form

Whilst the current engines aren't in a freeze at the present, manufacturers cannot completely redesign and redevelop their engines. This won't reduce costs as much as the engine-freeze did with the V8's, but it will still have an effect.

That's why I said technically frozen, but if they have enough tokens they can basically restructure the engine, the 2014 engine isn't all the same as the 2015 (the block may be just about it) and as we know for 2016 spec the combustion chamber is a complete redesign as well. Those major changes to the engine cost a lot in R&D which keeps the prices up as was stated by Monisha Kaltenborn earlier this year and how that increase in cost is basically punishing teams for the manufactures R&D spending.

Needed was the wrong word to use. It isn't required, but it is preferable. Oil doesn't just lubricate the engine components; it cools the engine, improves performance, and improves general reliability. Normal oil will usually keep the reliability in check reasonably enough, but does naff all for the performance. Which of course is vital in F1.

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/10123

I'm well aware of how oil can cool things, I happen to have a degree in metallurgy/welding...

The term lubricants usually encompasses oils used for that goal, since it's a quite vague yet expansive term.

Well unlike the engines, which is what I was actually referring too, cars are allowed to be totally redesigned and redeveloped each year. So the amount of development for the cars, unlike the present engines, can never stagnate. I repeat, I know all too well that the current engines aren't frozen. But they aren't allowed to be drastically changed either.

Yes but the car has many carry over pieces and lucky engines is also restricted in development money spent as well in some ways through the RAA, but also through the ever increase and already strict CFD data amount and wind tunnel time allocations. So yes the time spent on the car can diminish like cars, hence the carry over from season to season unless a massive change happens. Which is why teams spend in other areas to find gains, like suspension or trick brakes or gearboxes and such and not the actual fundamentals of the car.

Also with the new rules and winter freeze that also restricts time and money spent on developing cars unlike years past.

http://raconteur.net/infographics/the-economics-of-formula-1

Chastise away...

No need.

See I've never heard Renault call them that. So how was I to know?

Cause F1 sites for the past couple years have done it and so has Renault...if you keep up as much as your leading on here in this debate you'd know or be expected to.
components; it cools the engine, improves performance, and improves general reliability. Normal oil will usually keep the reliability in check reasonably enough, but does naff all for the performance. Which of course is vital in F1.

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/10123



Well unlike the engines, which is what I was actually referring too, cars are allowed to be totally redesigned and redeveloped each year. So the amount of development for the cars, unlike the present engines, can never stagnate. I repeat, I know all too well that the current engines aren't frozen. But they aren't allowed to be drastically changed either.



http://raconteur.net/infographics/the-economics-of-formula-1

Chastise away...

See I've never heard Renault call them that. So how was I to know?

Cause F1 sites for the past couple years have done it and so has Renault...if you keep up as much as your leading on here in this debate you'd know.
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/173061/1/red-bull-racing-now-the-factory-renault-team-says-horner.html
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/renault-declares-red-bull-new-works-team/

 

[TenEightyOne]

@NOVOCAINE, I'm not sure what your point is?

Works teams include their engine budget in their overall costs; they need an engine, after all. Customer teams include buying an engine in their budget, that's offset in the budgets of the people who they buy the engine from. Renault are in an usual (for now) position of being a supplier with no works team... I say that because the exact terms of their contact with IRBR are unknown.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@NOVOCAINE, I'm not sure what your point is?

Works teams include their engine budget in their overall costs; they need an engine, after all. Customer teams include buying an engine in their budget, that's offset in the budgets of the people who they buy the engine from. Renault are in an usual (for now) position of being a supplier with no works team... I say that because the exact terms of their contact with IRBR are unknown.

I just posted it at the end of my post, it was an edit just look at that and sorry to sneak it in. I mean obviously though to keep up with the clear theme and not to take away from you, but yes it doesn't fully explain how that deal works. Just Renault saying yes they are the works team, and Horner saying it prior. This is also further obvious (or should be to those that aren't certain) when Infiniti is plastered on the car and not having any technical or really financial input into the operational costs and powering of IRBR.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I just posted it at the end of my post, it was an edit just look at that and sorry to sneak it in. I mean obviously though to keep up with the clear theme and not to take away from you, but yes it doesn't fully explain how that deal works. Just Renault saying yes they are the works team, and Horner saying it prior. This is also further obvious (or should be to those that aren't certain) when Infiniti is plastered on the car and not having any technical or really financial input into the operational costs and powering of IRBR.

Fair point, I guess I meant to say that Renault aren't fielding a team in the way that Ferrari are... but I accept your point that Renault are, as we understand it, the de facto Renault works team up until the end of this season.

I'm still not clear what @NOVOCAINE's point is though...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Fair point, I guess I meant to say that Renault aren't fielding a team in the way that Ferrari are... but I accept your point that Renault are, as we understand it, the de facto Renault works team up until the end of this season.

I'm still not clear what @NOVOCAINE's point is though...

Yeah you've got it which isn't surprising cause your use to the topic at hand.

As for the user in question, I'd have to say he may of lost track of main reason for discussion with all the other filler material that ends up being F1 business as a constructor.