Discussion:
Freeze the Merc PU
Add Reply
Bobster
2017-02-10 05:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
That's the suggestion from Franz Tost.

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18651252/mercedes-engine-development-frozen-says-toro-rosso-chief-franz-tost

"If the power unit parity is not coming then the FIA should come up with a regulation to freeze it. I would freeze the power unit from Mercedes, the others should catch up and then they freeze all of them. I would leave the development of the battery free because the battery is something for the future and it is also something important for the manufacturers."

This is interesting because it's similar to what Mosley said he would have wanted - a standard ICE but freedom for the ERS systems, which would then become the performance differentiators and which would drive real world development.
Edmund
2017-02-10 08:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
That's the suggestion from Franz Tost.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18651252/mercedes-engine-
development-frozen-says-toro-rosso-chief-franz-tost
Post by Bobster
"If the power unit parity is not coming then the FIA should come up with
a regulation to freeze it. I would freeze the power unit from Mercedes,
the others should catch up and then they freeze all of them. I would
leave the development of the battery free because the battery is
something for the future and it is also something important for the
manufacturers."
This is interesting because it's similar to what Mosley said he would
have wanted - a standard ICE but freedom for the ERS systems, which
would then become the performance differentiators and which would drive
real world development.
Brilliant AB-SO-LUTE-LY BRILLIANT!
Regulate what is left of the clever inventions to death, what a good idea.
Such idea's worked so well in the past, so well that they suggested an
obligated wrong tyres rule and oil sprinklers in an foolish attempt to
get something of a race again.
Oh now these demented elderly don't want to ban the development of the
battery because that is something of importance in the future???
Right! and making an efficient PU as a whole isn't of course.
What an unbelievable bunch of idiots.
Go back to the Renault Clio race it got all these fools want, everything
the same for everyone and no such thing as development improvement or use
for the future.

Edmund
alister
2017-02-10 09:28:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Bobster
That's the suggestion from Franz Tost.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18651252/mercedes-engine-
development-frozen-says-toro-rosso-chief-franz-tost
Post by Bobster
"If the power unit parity is not coming then the FIA should come up
with a regulation to freeze it. I would freeze the power unit from
Mercedes, the others should catch up and then they freeze all of them.
I would leave the development of the battery free because the battery
is something for the future and it is also something important for the
manufacturers."
This is interesting because it's similar to what Mosley said he would
have wanted - a standard ICE but freedom for the ERS systems, which
would then become the performance differentiators and which would drive
real world development.
Brilliant AB-SO-LUTE-LY BRILLIANT!
Regulate what is left of the clever inventions to death, what a good idea.
Such idea's worked so well in the past, so well that they suggested an
obligated wrong tyres rule and oil sprinklers in an foolish attempt to
get something of a race again.
Oh now these demented elderly don't want to ban the development of the
battery because that is something of importance in the future???
Right! and making an efficient PU as a whole isn't of course.
What an unbelievable bunch of idiots.
Go back to the Renault Clio race it got all these fools want, everything
the same for everyone and no such thing as development improvement or
use for the future.
Edmund
sensible comments from you there Edmund but if you read the article it is
being suggested by Toro Rosso sop can be simply translated as

"WA WA WA Merc are too good for us, wa wa wa. hold them back so we can
win for a change wa wa wa."
--
If Karl, instead of writing a lot about Capital, had made a lot of
Capital,
it would have been much better.
-- Karl Marx's Mother
~misfit~
2017-02-10 11:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by alister
Post by Bobster
Post by Bobster
That's the suggestion from Franz Tost.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18651252/mercedes-engine-
development-frozen-says-toro-rosso-chief-franz-tost
Post by Bobster
"If the power unit parity is not coming then the FIA should come up
with a regulation to freeze it. I would freeze the power unit from
Mercedes, the others should catch up and then they freeze all of
them. I would leave the development of the battery free because the
battery is something for the future and it is also something
important for the manufacturers."
This is interesting because it's similar to what Mosley said he
would have wanted - a standard ICE but freedom for the ERS systems,
which would then become the performance differentiators and which
would drive real world development.
Brilliant AB-SO-LUTE-LY BRILLIANT!
Regulate what is left of the clever inventions to death, what a good idea.
Such idea's worked so well in the past, so well that they suggested
an obligated wrong tyres rule and oil sprinklers in an foolish
attempt to get something of a race again.
Oh now these demented elderly don't want to ban the development of
the battery because that is something of importance in the future???
Right! and making an efficient PU as a whole isn't of course.
What an unbelievable bunch of idiots.
Go back to the Renault Clio race it got all these fools want,
everything the same for everyone and no such thing as development
improvement or use for the future.
Edmund
sensible comments from you there Edmund but if you read the article
it is being suggested by Toro Rosso sop can be simply translated as
"WA WA WA Merc are too good for us, wa wa wa. hold them back so we can
win for a change wa wa wa."
Anyway the Merc PU is only part of the equation (as evidenced by the other
teams on the grid who use it and aren't trouncing RBR). In the last couple
of years people* seem to have been seriously underestimating the rest of the
car IMO.

[*] Except a few of the better technical writers but their columns don't get
as many eyes on them as the popular F1 press.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Sir Tim
2017-02-10 13:31:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Anyway the Merc PU is only part of the equation (as evidenced by the other
teams on the grid who use it and aren't trouncing RBR). In the last couple
of years people* seem to have been seriously underestimating the rest of the
car IMO.
+1
--
Sir Tim
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional"
Bobster
2017-02-10 10:18:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Bobster
That's the suggestion from Franz Tost.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18651252/mercedes-engine-
development-frozen-says-toro-rosso-chief-franz-tost
Post by Bobster
"If the power unit parity is not coming then the FIA should come up with
a regulation to freeze it. I would freeze the power unit from Mercedes,
the others should catch up and then they freeze all of them. I would
leave the development of the battery free because the battery is
something for the future and it is also something important for the
manufacturers."
This is interesting because it's similar to what Mosley said he would
have wanted - a standard ICE but freedom for the ERS systems, which
would then become the performance differentiators and which would drive
real world development.
Brilliant AB-SO-LUTE-LY BRILLIANT!
Regulate what is left of the clever inventions to death, what a good idea.
Such idea's worked so well in the past,
Yes. There was a freeze of approximately equalised engines for a number of years. You will remember it, I'm sure. What were your impressions of that era?
Post by Bobster
so well that they suggested an
obligated wrong tyres rule and oil sprinklers in an foolish attempt to
get something of a race again.
I think it's generally accepted that the root problem with overtaking and thus racing is in the aero (which makes this year's changes with increased aero influence a bit puzzling from some POV). Now that can be fixed, but it requires a regulation. The problem doesn't come about BECAUSE of regulations per se. You need to have regulations. Having less regulations might not improve things.
Post by Bobster
Oh now these demented elderly don't want to ban the development of the
battery because that is something of importance in the future???
Right! and making an efficient PU as a whole isn't of course.
What an unbelievable bunch of idiots.
The one thing I never understand is the school of thought that everybody in F1 is an idiot. They clearly are not.

The ERS is a big deal. Remember when KERS was first bought into F1? There were caps on the output (and there still is a cap on what you can feed back into the drive train, though it is much higher than previously). So what did that leave engineers to play with? Size and weight? If the output is capped but you can make the KERS lighter than then you have an advantage - and that's an advantage that you can use in road cars. You probably can't make a 1500cc ICU much smaller now, but the ancillary systems? Make those lighter or more efficient and you can package things better. That's a good thing.
Post by Bobster
Go back to the Renault Clio race it got all these fools want, everything
the same for everyone and no such thing as development improvement or use
for the future.
Well you should go watch formula libre. If there's a good series near to you.

Or consider the history of Can-am. That was unrestricted and wide open and the moment somebody with money to burn came along (it was Porsche) that nearly killed the series.
Post by Bobster
Edmund
Bobster
2017-02-12 06:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Oh now these demented elderly don't want to ban the development of the
battery because that is something of importance in the future???
Right! and making an efficient PU as a whole isn't of course.
What an unbelievable bunch of idiots.
LOL. You can't blame Bernie anymore. Going forward, nobody can blame Bernie. "Demented elderly"? How old do you have to be? Tost is 61 (and of course you understand that he works neither for FOM nor FIA nor for a team that has a vote on the strategy group). Whiting is 65 this year. Ross Brawn, FOM's F1 strategy guy, is 62. Todt is 70, and seems to think that the best way to run F1 is to let it run itself. Chase Carey is 63 this year.
Ar
2017-02-10 09:19:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
That's the suggestion from Franz Tost.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18651252/mercedes-engine-development-frozen-says-toro-rosso-chief-franz-tost
"If the power unit parity is not coming then the FIA should come up
with a regulation to freeze it. I would freeze the power unit from
Mercedes, the others should catch up and then they freeze all of
them. I would leave the development of the battery free because the
battery is something for the future and it is also something
important for the manufacturers."
Idiots.

Every few years a team dominates, it just happens to be Mercedes turn.
So the others will catch up, they might even do it this year - 2017 has
so many car changes.

It's bad enough we have faked overtaking with DRS, do we need more fake
"show"?
Bobster
2017-02-10 10:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ar
Idiots.
Every few years a team dominates, it just happens to be Mercedes turn.
So the others will catch up, they might even do it this year - 2017 has
so many car changes.
It's bad enough we have faked overtaking with DRS, do we need more fake
"show"?
Engines were previously frozen, and part of that was a special deal for Renault who had fallen behind performance wise and were allowed to catch up in the interests of equalising performance. I don't recall it devaluing the racing.
John
2017-02-10 19:35:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sigh.............. F1, we try even less.
Loading...