planetf1.com

So came across this little gem today:

...ahead of the Italian Grand Prix, the FIA has confirmed that Mercedes will only have to comply with the 1.2l limit that was laid down in the technical directive – because the engine has already been used.

The ruling does mean, however, that when Mercedes customer teams introduce their final units, they will have to run it at the 0.9L level.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mercedes-fia-oil-burn-limit-946538/

So Merc customers will be forced to run their units at a lower state of tune than the Works team by the FIA, simply because they will get it later. This despite the fact that in all other respects the PUs they get will be exactly the same as the ones Merc introduced to their own team this last weekend.

Why not just have a line in the rules that customers may never be allowed to compete with Works teams on equal terms? Just when I think the rule makers couldn't get any more incompetent, they go and prove me wrong. How does this benefit any part of F1 (apart from Works teams, of course)?

Also not good for Ferrari.

"Furthermore, it also means the Maranello outfit will have to run its new engine – when it comes – at the 0.9 litres per 100km limit."

I just dont see how 200 grams/100 km (1.1-0.9) could possibly affect the race. There is so little energy in 200 grams of oil. I could burn that much oil on my lab bench and aside from the smoke, it would not bee that much of a big deal.

I'm not so much worried about what the competition may do, as long as everyone has had the same lead time to make changes. But it's absurd that two teams may be using the same engine and one of them has to downtune them for no other reason than that their supplier gave it to them later.

I'm guessing in part Mercedes wanted to keep what they were doing a secret so as Ferrari would not be able to react, I think you are over reacting to the in season rule change by the FIA.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

It seems a bit silly to change the oil burning limit mid-season. What was the catalyst (no pun, etc..) for this?

Teams were always going to play the rules. If the performance impact is so little anyway, why not just wait until the end of the season?

I dont know a lot about oil but 0.9 - 1.2l is 33% increase so id presume thats quite significant. Could be very important when need a fast lap

I don't really understand why the FIA have done it this way. Why not just make it so that all engines must run at the new limit from Monza, regardless of when they were introduced?

Or why not just leave it alone until next season. It's not like it's making an impact on the racing, no one watching would know any different if all teams were running 1.2 rather than 0.9. Seems like an unnecessary change and one that could have an impact on the title.

Also why didn't Ferrari take advantage of it like Mercedes? Seems odd for a team in a championship battle not to take advantage of every little opportunity that comes their way.

Engine upgrade not ready, stand to lose more than they would gain by introducing early?

Not necessarily - we dont know how much of a performance increase the 0.9l burn rate gives anyway - so it would be a 33% increase on that performance baseline if we assume linear increase.

It could be that the extra burn is a byproduct of another enginge modification and doesnt actually increase performance on its own - of course, it could be integral a large boost We just dont know

What we do know is that the FIA have decided that the potential for oil burning to become an issue means they have calrified the regluations and stated that all teams must run their engines as per the oil burn level at the last race for the rest of the season.

Maybe the engines are designed to run in that way and can't be changed hence any new engines need to be designed differently?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

I don't think the FIA's intention was to harm the engine customer teams.
They couldn't reduce the oil consumption limit effective immediately, nor even from a fixed date forwards regardless of engine age because they knew the teams probably couldn't just start consuming less oil in their engines but instead would have to introduce a new engine at the risk of a penalty.
On the other hand they wouldn't wait out the season as they thought the consumption would need to be fixed ASAP.
They were left with the choice of starting to enforce the new regulations from a fixed date, with the exception of previously used engines.

I suspect Mercedes wanted to exploit this little loophole but didn't have the time or resources to provide also their customers with the new spec engines, but couldn't it also be that customer teams could have gotten it too if they had wanted it?
Mercedes couldn't, wouldn't or weren't asked to. Which is it?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

You make a lot of good points, the introduction of the new and final engine may have been too soon for the customer teams with so many races still to go, they are looking to use less engines rather than more which helps with their budget.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

Not exactly forced, they could have taken 4th units at the slightly lower specification. Furthermore, Mercedes customers tend to use lower than their allocations anyway.

Williams did last year on 4 units when allowed 5
Manor did last year on just 2 from 5
Force India I believe took 3/4 too.

Last time I looked at the engine usage table it looked like Williams/FI were aiming to do the entire season on 3 units this year. It's a big cost saving for the customers to not take an extra unit.

Ferrari will gain more development time by holding off, but they had the same opportunity. Also, customers running the same spec as works teams is something quite unusual in F1 terms. Mercedes don't supplier the lubricants which is where a lot of time is.

I remember reading Mercedes was going to bring an engine update I think at Singapore but could be wrong on the race, then it was brought forward to Monza then most likely pushed forward to Spa for obvious reasons.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016

I'd agree that the FIA didn't intend to harm customers. But it's highly likely they didn't anticipate this, either. Which just goes to how inept they are. Would it have been that hard to fix the cut off at the point of engine homologation, rather than when each customer uses their allocation? After all, customers don't exactly get a say in how the PUs are made

Merc pulled a good fast one on the rest. That was some smart planning

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God

I rely on Prost



FA#14

I think you may be misunderstanding the point. The timing of the rule is not the issue, but the execution is. It's daft to have two teams using the same engine while one has to run it in a lower configuration to the manufacturer according to the rules. There's no logic to that

It is not that amount as a stand alone unit, it is that amount as an additive. I have no Idea what amount of 'standard' fuel it would treat, but if it only gives them a lapsworth, it has to be worth having.

Then blame the FIA and not Mercedes and like as what's been said maybe the customers declined the option because of budget considerations and it being too early to have another new engine?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

I think you are misreading. I've not laid any blame at Mercedes' door, but I've directed it all specifically at the FIA for once again not thinking rules through.

They should have said from this date forward rather than a future date?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

It's not about the timing, really, but more about the fact that they raise the potential for a two-tier system even with parties running the same engine. Which is nonsense, really.

For example, once Merc had introduced that engine to a race, it should be effectively homologated for them and any customer from that point on, not just for them. It's the same engine! Any newer versions would fall under the new ruling. It can't be that hard to get that worded properly. But now they effectively have two identical engines in different states of tune. What does that achieve? Seems a bit like shutting the door after the horse has bolted, to me.

Aside from that, the whole mandating how much oil you burn thing is ridiculous anyway. Why is the FIA concerned about it? What door are they trying to close, exactly?

Report form Mark Hughes

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opini ... rule-tweak

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016

He's voiced what I've been saying:

So potentially, as things stand, one of the two championship-contending teams (Mercedes) could be allowed an engine with a legal advantage denied the other one (Ferrari) – obviously bit of a political hot potato for the FIA. There is a complication in that which of the two limits apply to the Mercedes customer teams when they receive this spec of engine? One way of interpreting the regs might be that if this engine is introduced by anyone from Monza onwards, then all engines in this spec must be subject to the new limit.

But the BIB isn't what the earlier report states.

The more I think about it, the more cack-handed this piece of legislation is. The first line in the paragraph above highlights that it's actually giving one manufacturer an advantage over another (as well as one works team over its customers). I strongly suspect they didn't think things through (yet again). Inept is too kind a word

This is a 2 edged weapon too. Oil is one of the consumables which can be topped up before minimum weight check. Not a huge amount, but it all counts.

A quick Google shows just under 2lbs per liter for motor oil (granted this is normal consumer grade which is probably heavier) so with minimum race distance (except Monaco) being 300km and a burn rate of either .9 or 1.2 ltr/100km you're looking at close to 6lbs (2.73kg) by the end of the race.

Granted the weight is coming off very slowly and your competitor is doing the same so it will all be a wash. Still interesting to look at.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}

I'm sorry am not following you regarding the homologation?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

I believe he means that once that spec of PU is introduced by any team that is what is allowed for anyone who introduces it later.

In this case since Mercedes used it at Spa before the limit on oil burn goes into effect that spec would be in effect homologated and the customer teams who put it into use later would still be able to use the higher oil consumption configuration.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}

Ah gotcha. But is the "spec" of an engine officially recognized and monitored by the FIA? They have a system in place for monitoring where and when any engine has been used, but would they know whether two units are of the same exact, identical, spec? I'm not saying in this case Mercedes would have a reason for giving their customers a different spec, just that the FIA may find it hard to enforce if there isn't already a system in place.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

Still Williams and Force India are not disadvantaged relative to any of the other teams and it's not like they were going to beat Mercedes anytime soon anyway.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

exactly this, thanks

I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to disadvantage them?

First of all the engines were obviously rushed through at the last minute so it might have not been even practical to produce enough engines, look at Honda for instance who sometimes can't even give their own drivers the same engines.

Secondly you don't even know if Williams or Force India would have wanted the engines this far from the end of the season because of budgetary reasons.

Thirdly it's been pointed out that both Williams and Force India did not take the full allocation of engines for last season to save money, each engine tends to be an improvement on the last so they choose to have a slight disadvantage.

So in summary you don't know that they are actually being disadvantaged.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

I think you are missing the point. With regard to the regulations a team's budget or allocation timetable should be irrelevant, as should a Works team's manufacturing capability. It's about the wording of a regulation that would mean one team would be able to run an engine as the manufacturer intended, while another would have to detune exactly the same engine to run sub-optimally. It's effectively creating a two-tier supply as a consequence of lack of thought and shows that - once again - the rule makers didn't consider all the variables before rushing out new legislation.

Its a mid season rule change, you can't cover everything. Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault engine cars will be running the higher limit way passed when the ban comes in. There will be different cars in different situations all through the remainder of the season. The curious thing is, why didn't Ferrari introduce the new engine in Spa when its was just one week before Monza.

With regards to it being two-tier, its a mid season one off rule change that will last for 8 races and be covered in next years rules. Its also between a team and its two customers that haven't managed to finish ahead of or out qualify the lead team in 25+ races and were 2.5+ seconds per lap slower in the last race. I don't think a 0.1 disadvantage for 8 races (if it is even that) is a big deal for them. FI and Willaims also could have taken new engines last race of the older or possibly newer spec.

The FIA has no way to investigate engine specifications so the rule of an engine being ran by one team then being allowed to be used by others if of the same specification would be impossible to implement as would an immediate new limit being set for all races on wards as most cars are using engines designed to run at the higher limit. So its the best they can do.

If one of the Mercedes drivers blows an engine, the team mate is going to have to run a lower specification.

Possibly Ferrari aren't gaining as much as Mercedes from the oil burning, and have more to gain from limiting the mileage of their newest units.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

And therein lies one of my major gripes with the FIA

IMO the rules should be set from the start. As teams bring new updates and changes the FIA should deem them legal/illegal according to the rules that have existed from the start of the season. Changing the rules midway through has always been BS

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God

I rely on Prost



FA#14

I can understand a mid season change in regulations for safety reasons and even in some cases for sporting reasons (not a tech regulation but dropping the stupid qualifying at the start of last year being a recent example).

For something like this which is completely invisible to the viewer though? It's just pointless and silly really, leave it until next year.

It was changed basically because Renault didn't want to spend $5M to develop the technology and of course in the back ground we have Red Bull constantly complaining about anything engine related.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

I think the rule makers should do their damndest to ensure they do cover everything, that's kinda the point.

Mid-season rule changes are always something that should only be considered as a last resort, and then only after all possible permutations have been considered. This is just poorly thought out. And, to put not too fine a point on it, it was completely unnecessary. It doesn't add to the racing, or the precious "show." Even if they were concerned about it then there was no need to rush it through this year. Instead, given half the season had already passed, they would have been far better off just including it in next year's regulations. Renault still wouldn't have needed to invest in the technology (if the allegation that they pushed for it to be banned is true), and no-one would have been discriminated against. But no, they just had to stick their oar in. It's this kind of stuff that makes the FIA look like Keystone Cops.