planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:48 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.


5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well in F1 it's clearly WDC's > Wins > Poles.

I'd put podiums ahead of poles. Podiums are actually worth something

A podium is just 1st or 2nd loser, you could argue finishing 10th is more important than a Pole then?


Poles are meaningless unless they are converted to podiums and wins. They are just a worthless stat that gives fans something to "crow" about otherwise. And YES, I would argue that 10th is much better than a pole that doesn't result in a point scoring finish. I have long maintained that the Pole record is among the least significant of records and stats... going beck to the days of Senna.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Indeed and who would happen to have the Pole record. ;)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9718
Location: Ireland
mikeyg123 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Simply because it's proof you're in a front running car?

Podiums give points, trophies and the driver has more of an influence. A consistent run of podiums will extremely likely keep you in the title hunt
Pole positions offer no points, no trophies and are predominantly car-dependent. A consistent run of poles doesn't guarantee any title run, case in point: Montoya 2002


A run of poles will just as likely keep you in the championship hunt. I can think of a lot more situations where a driver has 8+ podiums but didn't compete for the championship but can't think of any off hand where 8+ poles didn't.

Montoya got 7 poles in 2002 almost every season there is a driver with 7+ podiums but not challenging for the championship

2017 - Ricciardo
2016 - Ricciardo/Verstappen/Vettel
2015 - Vettel
2014 - Ricciardo
2013 - Alonso/Webber/Raikkonen
2012 - Raikkonen/Hamilton
2011 - Button/Webber/Alonso

It happens almost ever year. You had to go back 15 years to find an example of that happening with poles.

You make a fair point in that it depends on what someone would consider "consistent". 7 or 8 of anything isn't actually consistent in a 18-20 race season, which takes Montoya's 2002 out. I was wrong to reference it

Pole just plays a role in the real stuff, which is the race. It's just one of a number of factors in determining the actual successes of Sunday

At least pole plays a functional role, as opposed to Fastest Lap - a real pointless stat

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12369
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Simply because it's proof you're in a front running car?

Podiums give points, trophies and the driver has more of an influence. A consistent run of podiums will extremely likely keep you in the title hunt
Pole positions offer no points, no trophies and are predominantly car-dependent. A consistent run of poles doesn't guarantee any title run, case in point: Montoya 2002


A run of poles will just as likely keep you in the championship hunt. I can think of a lot more situations where a driver has 8+ podiums but didn't compete for the championship but can't think of any off hand where 8+ poles didn't.

Montoya got 7 poles in 2002 almost every season there is a driver with 7+ podiums but not challenging for the championship

2017 - Ricciardo
2016 - Ricciardo/Verstappen/Vettel
2015 - Vettel
2014 - Ricciardo
2013 - Alonso/Webber/Raikkonen
2012 - Raikkonen/Hamilton
2011 - Button/Webber/Alonso

It happens almost ever year. You had to go back 15 years to find an example of that happening with poles.

You make a fair point in that it depends on what someone would consider "consistent". 7 or 8 of anything isn't actually consistent in a 18-20 race season, which takes Montoya's 2002 out. I was wrong to reference it

Pole just plays a role in the real stuff, which is the race. It's just one of a number of factors in determining the actual successes of Sunday

At least pole plays a functional role, as opposed to Fastest Lap - a real pointless stat


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.


5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.


From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 494
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.


5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.


From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.


Does it really matter though? It doesn't seem to have given anything like the advantage claimed.
Much ado about nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
Laz_T800 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.


5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.


From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.


Does it really matter though? It doesn't seem to have given anything like the advantage claimed.
Much ado about nothing.


Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12369
It certainly shows why major manufacturers want to keep the engines mega complicated to avoid having smaller suppliers taking a swing at it. Keeps them holding all the cards.

I think anyone that watched Bottas V Stroll in Baku can see just want Merc can go to if they really want.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4549
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think anyone that watched Bottas V Stroll in Baku can see just want Merc can go to if they really want.

I think anyone who watched that can tell Bottas had a vastly faster car than Stroll, and was always going to be close. If Merc really had some huge engine advantage they don't usually use, I'd think they'd have used it to stop from losing more often this year.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2898
Lotus49 wrote:

Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.


This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1701
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.


This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.


I think the customers know the contract they signed up to, & the Merc ones will not want to ruin their relationship with the best manufacturer at the moment.

I do think there is also the "tolerance" argument though, no coincidence that the majority of Merc engine failures happen within the works team. The risk vs reward isn't there for the customers. If they had a customer pushing for a title we might see something different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
Ennis wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.


This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.


I think the customers know the contract they signed up to, & the Merc ones will not want to ruin their relationship with the best manufacturer at the moment.

I do think there is also the "tolerance" argument though, no coincidence that the majority of Merc engine failures happen within the works team. The risk vs reward isn't there for the customers. If they had a customer pushing for a title we might see something different.


Yeah there's definitely good reasons why the customers are happy enough not to have them, failures are far more costly to them than the advantages of having the mode on balance.

But if they wanted to risk it then I think it should be ok and not just when it suits the manufacturer.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Simply because it's proof you're in a front running car?

Podiums give points, trophies and the driver has more of an influence. A consistent run of podiums will extremely likely keep you in the title hunt
Pole positions offer no points, no trophies and are predominantly car-dependent. A consistent run of poles doesn't guarantee any title run, case in point: Montoya 2002


A run of poles will just as likely keep you in the championship hunt. I can think of a lot more situations where a driver has 8+ podiums but didn't compete for the championship but can't think of any off hand where 8+ poles didn't.

Montoya got 7 poles in 2002 almost every season there is a driver with 7+ podiums but not challenging for the championship

2017 - Ricciardo
2016 - Ricciardo/Verstappen/Vettel
2015 - Vettel
2014 - Ricciardo
2013 - Alonso/Webber/Raikkonen
2012 - Raikkonen/Hamilton
2011 - Button/Webber/Alonso

It happens almost ever year. You had to go back 15 years to find an example of that happening with poles.

You make a fair point in that it depends on what someone would consider "consistent". 7 or 8 of anything isn't actually consistent in a 18-20 race season, which takes Montoya's 2002 out. I was wrong to reference it

Pole just plays a role in the real stuff, which is the race. It's just one of a number of factors in determining the actual successes of Sunday

At least pole plays a functional role, as opposed to Fastest Lap - a real pointless stat

Indeed like we witnessed last time out with Verstappen.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.


5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.


From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.

Who pays for the blown engine bills, I'm guessing that would be Mercedes?

Customers let loose with engine modes and Mercs blowing up quite regularly, you get my drift?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Lotus49 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.


From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.


Does it really matter though? It doesn't seem to have given anything like the advantage claimed.
Much ado about nothing.


Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.

No when you actually look at the numbers it was 3 tenths.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.


5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.


From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.

Who pays for the blown engine bills, I'm guessing that would be Mercedes?

Customers let loose with engine modes and Mercs blowing up quite regularly, you get my drift?


Why would Mercedes pay for it?. If customers didn't have to pay for replacements they'd be running the engine hard all the time.

No I don't get the drift?.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.


This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.

Grosjean used the same engine mode that he used in Q3 to qualify 4th, these modes are used sparingly because of engine life, this engine mode we have never seen before is quite dramatic but then again Grosjean would be a dramatic person.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Lotus49 wrote:
Ennis wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.


This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.


I think the customers know the contract they signed up to, & the Merc ones will not want to ruin their relationship with the best manufacturer at the moment.

I do think there is also the "tolerance" argument though, no coincidence that the majority of Merc engine failures happen within the works team. The risk vs reward isn't there for the customers. If they had a customer pushing for a title we might see something different.


Yeah there's definitely good reasons why the customers are happy enough not to have them, failures are far more costly to them than the advantages of having the mode on balance.

But if they wanted to risk it then I think it should be ok and not just when it suits the manufacturer.

Would they be prepared to cover the costs, this being Lotus who had little money, also it's not good publicity for Mercedes having their engines blowing up, I'm sure the onus is on Mercedes to cover the cost of failures?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1701
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Ennis wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.


This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.


I think the customers know the contract they signed up to, & the Merc ones will not want to ruin their relationship with the best manufacturer at the moment.

I do think there is also the "tolerance" argument though, no coincidence that the majority of Merc engine failures happen within the works team. The risk vs reward isn't there for the customers. If they had a customer pushing for a title we might see something different.


Yeah there's definitely good reasons why the customers are happy enough not to have them, failures are far more costly to them than the advantages of having the mode on balance.

But if they wanted to risk it then I think it should be ok and not just when it suits the manufacturer.

Would they be prepared to cover the costs, this being Lotus who had little money, also it's not good publicity for Mercedes having their engines blowing up, I'm sure the onus is on Mercedes to cover the cost of failures?


The onus isn't on Mercedes, particularly if the team aren't operating the engine within thresholds.

I've never seen an engine contract (although I'd love to), but I would guess there are various scenarios listed whereby if a team operate to a certain tolerance then the cost is Mercedes'. If they operate outside of that, it is the customer's.

Instances like this, you could call it a handshake but I have no idea how they can open up another mode, which comes with a higher risk of failure, before turning it back down again - all whilst accounting for the what if scenario of that engine failing early..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.


From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.

Who pays for the blown engine bills, I'm guessing that would be Mercedes?

Customers let loose with engine modes and Mercs blowing up quite regularly, you get my drift?


Why would Mercedes pay for it?. If customers didn't have to pay for replacements they'd be running the engine hard all the time.

No I don't get the drift?.

Customers have to pay for up to a maximum of 4 engines, they might get away with using 1 engine less so that saves them money, however I don't believe that customers have to pay for engine failures that take them beyond the 4 engine limit, they could go bust.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Ennis wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Ennis wrote:
kleefton wrote:
This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.


I think the customers know the contract they signed up to, & the Merc ones will not want to ruin their relationship with the best manufacturer at the moment.

I do think there is also the "tolerance" argument though, no coincidence that the majority of Merc engine failures happen within the works team. The risk vs reward isn't there for the customers. If they had a customer pushing for a title we might see something different.


Yeah there's definitely good reasons why the customers are happy enough not to have them, failures are far more costly to them than the advantages of having the mode on balance.

But if they wanted to risk it then I think it should be ok and not just when it suits the manufacturer.

Would they be prepared to cover the costs, this being Lotus who had little money, also it's not good publicity for Mercedes having their engines blowing up, I'm sure the onus is on Mercedes to cover the cost of failures?


The onus isn't on Mercedes, particularly if the team aren't operating the engine within thresholds.

I've never seen an engine contract (although I'd love to), but I would guess there are various scenarios listed whereby if a team operate to a certain tolerance then the cost is Mercedes'. If they operate outside of that, it is the customer's.

Instances like this, you could call it a handshake but I have no idea how they can open up another mode, which comes with a higher risk of failure, before turning it back down again - all whilst accounting for the what if scenario of that engine failing early..

Well you've basically said what I said, in the case of Grosjean an early engine failure would be covered by Mercedes because they made the decision for him to use the extra mode over several laps.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I still find it very confusing, when exactly was this mode use, also upon scrutiny we seem to have gone from the hysteria of 8 tenths quicker down to 3 tenths quicker, you do acknowledge this had to be the qualifying mode which Grosjean used to qualify 4th, strange that it would be seen as a mode not previously been allowed to Lotus, also I believe it's generally known that such modes shorten the life of the engine and that's why they are used sparingly.


From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.

Who pays for the blown engine bills, I'm guessing that would be Mercedes?

Customers let loose with engine modes and Mercs blowing up quite regularly, you get my drift?


Why would Mercedes pay for it?. If customers didn't have to pay for replacements they'd be running the engine hard all the time.

No I don't get the drift?.

Customers have to pay for up to a maximum of 4 engines, they might get away with using 1 engine less so that saves them money, however I don't believe that customers have to pay for engine failures that take them beyond the 4 engine limit, they could go bust.


Where did you read that?. I could understand having an upper limit to ward off anything ridiculous that could leave them bust but 4 seems generous to me.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Ennis wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Not 8ths no but its about 15-30bhp as I understand it which isn't insignificant around Spa. Its about the deficit between Renault and Ferrari for example. The 5ths mds puts forward sounds more in the ballpark but we've got to remember the mode itself only brings some of that while the car's improvements with more power adds to it like they mention.

I'd still rather the Manufacturers kept stuff just for themselves rather than do things like this and give customers access only when it suits them.


This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.


I think the customers know the contract they signed up to, & the Merc ones will not want to ruin their relationship with the best manufacturer at the moment.

I do think there is also the "tolerance" argument though, no coincidence that the majority of Merc engine failures happen within the works team. The risk vs reward isn't there for the customers. If they had a customer pushing for a title we might see something different.


Yeah there's definitely good reasons why the customers are happy enough not to have them, failures are far more costly to them than the advantages of having the mode on balance.

But if they wanted to risk it then I think it should be ok and not just when it suits the manufacturer.

Would they be prepared to cover the costs, this being Lotus who had little money, also it's not good publicity for Mercedes having their engines blowing up, I'm sure the onus is on Mercedes to cover the cost of failures?


Well that's what could be worked out and if the customer was happy to run the risk and cover the cost to get the full works software package then let them.

Or just withhold the best Software for yourself. Either or would be fine by me. What I'm not keen on is the customer being able to get access to higher modes but only when it suits the supplier.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
From what he said it sounds like from Lap 30 he got it for a while and I assume he meant it hadn't been allowed in the race before.

They do yeah (Shorten the life) but the point was it wasn't up to Lotus if they got to use it and it was only when Mercedes wanted Ferrari challenged that they got it. I think that's the bit people have a problem with.

Who pays for the blown engine bills, I'm guessing that would be Mercedes?

Customers let loose with engine modes and Mercs blowing up quite regularly, you get my drift?


Why would Mercedes pay for it?. If customers didn't have to pay for replacements they'd be running the engine hard all the time.

No I don't get the drift?.

Customers have to pay for up to a maximum of 4 engines, they might get away with using 1 engine less so that saves them money, however I don't believe that customers have to pay for engine failures that take them beyond the 4 engine limit, they could go bust.


Where did you read that?. I could understand having an upper limit to ward off anything ridiculous that could leave them bust but 4 seems generous to me.

Maybe you have misunderstood?

This year the engine limit is 4 engines so a deal is made at say $15M for the engines, now imagine poor engine reliability and you use 8 engines, do you think the customer is going to receive a bill for $30M?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Ennis wrote:
kleefton wrote:
This is such a bizarre story, and for it to come out well after 2 years is even more bizarre.
I will never stop being puzzled by how the customers do not make more of a fuss about those " secret special engine modes".
But then again, we do not really know if it's the manufacturers restricting those modes or the customers not wanting to use the full allocation of power units due to costs.


I think the customers know the contract they signed up to, & the Merc ones will not want to ruin their relationship with the best manufacturer at the moment.

I do think there is also the "tolerance" argument though, no coincidence that the majority of Merc engine failures happen within the works team. The risk vs reward isn't there for the customers. If they had a customer pushing for a title we might see something different.


Yeah there's definitely good reasons why the customers are happy enough not to have them, failures are far more costly to them than the advantages of having the mode on balance.

But if they wanted to risk it then I think it should be ok and not just when it suits the manufacturer.

Would they be prepared to cover the costs, this being Lotus who had little money, also it's not good publicity for Mercedes having their engines blowing up, I'm sure the onus is on Mercedes to cover the cost of failures?


Well that's what could be worked out and if the customer was happy to run the risk and cover the cost to get the full works software package then let them.

Or just withhold the best Software for yourself. Either or would be fine by me. What I'm not keen on is the customer being able to get access to higher modes but only when it suits the supplier.

The reality is they can't cover the costs and they don't want to cover the costs, the request to have the mode as often as they pleased for one showed the lack of understanding of the harm done to the engine also it was asked under the guise of if it blows up then you pay for it.

On Mercedes' part they don't want their customer engines blowing up with all the negative press of customer's being given inferior parts, look at Renault presently with STR or earlier in the season with Verstappen.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Who pays for the blown engine bills, I'm guessing that would be Mercedes?

Customers let loose with engine modes and Mercs blowing up quite regularly, you get my drift?


Why would Mercedes pay for it?. If customers didn't have to pay for replacements they'd be running the engine hard all the time.

No I don't get the drift?.

Customers have to pay for up to a maximum of 4 engines, they might get away with using 1 engine less so that saves them money, however I don't believe that customers have to pay for engine failures that take them beyond the 4 engine limit, they could go bust.


Where did you read that?. I could understand having an upper limit to ward off anything ridiculous that could leave them bust but 4 seems generous to me.

Maybe you have misunderstood?

This year the engine limit is 4 engines so a deal is made at say $15M for the engines, now imagine poor engine reliability and you use 8 engines, do you think the customer is going to receive a bill for $30M?


Still, show me where you read the customer only has to pay for the 4 PU's and any unreliability cost is picked up by the supplier.

As I said I could understand setting an upper limit so you don't get done over by unreliable engines (Say 6 or 7 parts) but the supplier picking up the cost of all reliability problems is certainly news to me so I'd like to read it.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Ennis wrote:

I think the customers know the contract they signed up to, & the Merc ones will not want to ruin their relationship with the best manufacturer at the moment.

I do think there is also the "tolerance" argument though, no coincidence that the majority of Merc engine failures happen within the works team. The risk vs reward isn't there for the customers. If they had a customer pushing for a title we might see something different.


Yeah there's definitely good reasons why the customers are happy enough not to have them, failures are far more costly to them than the advantages of having the mode on balance.

But if they wanted to risk it then I think it should be ok and not just when it suits the manufacturer.

Would they be prepared to cover the costs, this being Lotus who had little money, also it's not good publicity for Mercedes having their engines blowing up, I'm sure the onus is on Mercedes to cover the cost of failures?


Well that's what could be worked out and if the customer was happy to run the risk and cover the cost to get the full works software package then let them.

Or just withhold the best Software for yourself. Either or would be fine by me. What I'm not keen on is the customer being able to get access to higher modes but only when it suits the supplier.

The reality is they can't cover the costs and they don't want to cover the costs, the request to have the mode as often as they pleased for one showed the lack of understanding of the harm done to the engine also it was asked under the guise of if it blows up then you pay for it.

On Mercedes' part they don't want their customer engines blowing up with all the negative press of customer's being given inferior parts, look at Renault presently with STR or earlier in the season with Verstappen.


The reality is you have as much of an idea of what the customer wants as I do. They are more than capable of deciding for themselves if they want to risk it. The point is they don't have that option. They aren't children incapable of making an informed decision here.

Then withhold the best mapping full stop. Don't use it as a tool to influence whatever battle they fancy.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group