2016 Engine Regs Re-re-explained

· by · in F1 Forensics. ·

Forensics

Brought to you by TJ13 contributor Mattpt55

Well, well it’s barely 2016 and already the readers are looking for loopholes in the engine regs. So the fine taskmasters at TJ13 thought a close reading of the new NEW regs was worth the effort, especially since they didn’t have to do it themselves, having stuck me with the job instead.

The new bits are in purple!

Of course, having made a thorough mess of last year’s intended regulations by failing to specify a homologation date, the FIA was certain to not let itself get fooled again, including the February 28th date not once nor twice but 4 times (10 if you count the recursive nature of articles 4 and 7) in its eye-watering update to last year’s goat rodeo.

BREAKDOWN

spaghetti
 Advanced Computer Simulation of FIA Regulations

In order to help you look clever down at the pub without doing too much work on your own, TJ13 engineers have helpfully broken down Power Units into the 3 flavours found in this year’s regs:

  • Re-homologated

  • Homologated

  • Re-used

If you are an engine manufacturer that was already making engines for F1 under the 2014-2020 regulation period then you may re-homologate your existing power unit. Specifically if you have already made changes for the 2016 season. On the other hand, if you are an engine manufacturer foolish enough… errr ummm… confident enough to join F1 then you will have to homologate your  new power unit. Lastly, if you are a team looking to cheap it out and go with a 2015 engine (despite the new, low, low price of just $12 million so you can afford such things as food and staff), your power unit manufacturer can simply apply to re-use last year’s engine for you, without giving the FIA an engine in a box by February 27th, the official date it must be delivered. Assuming, of course, your manufacturer of choice agrees to provisioning you in such a way.

SECTION 4

The wording of section 4 comes under particular scrutiny as it codifies a fairly standard practice that simply wasn’t mentioned in the previous year’s regs:

4) Other than any parts agreed by the FIA at their absolute discretion to be solely associated with
power unit installation with different teams, each manufacturer may supply only one specification of homologated power unit during any given calendar year, subject to any changes permitted by the FIA in accordance with the procedure set out in 5) below.

The bright shiny object in this section is that different teams get different parts when the PU is installed, raising the spectre that a team might exploit this for ill-gotten gains. The truth is much more mundane, in that given the different chassis designs, different fitments are needed to wedge the PU in and the FIA has not only codified this practice, but threatened to stomp into jelly any team attempting shenanigans (though they use the rather less entertaining “absolute discretion” to make their point).

Section 5, by the way, is the famously infamous reliability, safety and cost-saving whereby Renault wound up dominating the V8’s despite being rather off at the beginning of the formula; even last year Mercedes made rather impressive gains without spending a token through the Canadian GP through strategic use of reliability upgrades.

The difference this year is that the FIA is now being rather stern and demanding loads of extra paperwork before rubber stamping the application, and yet again the threatening and stentorious “absolute discretion” is hung over the manufacturers’ heads like a veritable Sword of Damocles. Granted an actual sword would be cool, but the FIA is way too safety-minded for that sort of thing.

CAVEATS & QUIBBLES

colander and board

Artist's Depiction of F1 loopholes

Oh there are definitely a few, as the FIA once again demonstrates its inability to write a regulation that doesn’t include massive loopholes (or actively promulgates, depending on your monthly household spend on tinfoil). Particularly intriguing is the wording of Section 6 which allows a manufacturer to apply to re-use last year’s 2015 spec PU without re-homologating it. What it then spectacularly goes on to fail to do is mention whether or not the team and manufacturer can make use of the 32 development tokens available in 2016 (this example is for speculative purposes only, as TJ13 does not endorse these sorts of shenanigans unless they are really, REALLY entertaining, like the the ones Ferrari lawyers brought us last year; in which case, pass the popcorn). So theoretically, a manufacturer could have a total of 64 tokens of development to play with (it takes 66 tokens to make an engine), 32 for a team running a 2015  re-used engine and 32 for a different team running a re-homologated 2016 engine.

The actual language is “may also apply to the FIA to re-use such a power unit in a given team, to the same specification, without going through the re-homologation process described above”. While the phrase “same specification” might give the reality-challenged a pause, the fact that it goes on to mention only competitiveness without excluding use of development tokens would allow one to make a fairly sanguine argument that “same specification” only applies to the February 27th deadline and not the permitted in-season development. Just sayin’…

The other highly entertaining omission is that nowhere does it preclude any current manufacturer (possibly rhymes with Zonda or Leno) from rocking up with a PU, saying it’s new and claiming to homologate it for the first time under Section 3. This would allow the clever party(ies) to have had a full spend of 66 tokens and then get an extra 15 for the season. Plus a bonus 32 the year after when the rest will be limited to 25. Granted, it’s rather unlikely given the development time and expense involved but still, IT COULD HAPPEN!!! And it wouldn’t even be against the rules, best of all.

140 responses to “2016 Engine Regs Re-re-explained”

  1. So basically they introduced a coupon day?!?! You know the usual “here are our 10 specific commandments ‘er’ rules…..and here are the 10,000 specific exceptions, oh and the 100,000 random loopholes”

  2. I understood absolutely NOTHING!
    Only the spaghetti image has stuck in my head!
    I’m hungry now!

  4. Matt I think you need a drink after that, I know a good bar you could go to, I think it’s called Brooklyn Tribeca, they’ve got some good ones on tap….😂😂😂

  5. power unit installation to chassis/bolting pattern to bulkhead is standardised, as is gearbox installation to engine/bolting pattern to engine.
    A manufacturer supplying a year old specification PU is not permitted to performance develop that year old PU by the use of development tokens, and that is why a there is no need to re-homologate a year old specification PU for the second time.
    Manufacturers must supply customers with same specification PU they homologated/registered with the FIA at start of season, BUT such specification alludes only to hardware and not software, fuel or lubricants.

      • you can always try a bit harder, and if you do you will see some of the contradictions you came up with in the article.

        • Haha last refuge of the scoundrel. Regs are up there at the top. You’re very certain of yourself, yet provide no evidence, textual or otherwise for your claim. Show me the quotes and I’ll reconsider, but as far as I’m concerned, if the FIA intended a 2015 spec PU to have no development, they failed to specify it in the actual rules.

          Oh and BTW as far as Section 4 is concerned my info comes from actual F1 teams. Because, you know, reporter. 😉

          • Not long ago thejudge13 F1 site was unique not only in being the first with important information about the goings-on in FI but most importantly being most of the time spot-on, thoroughly the best site. The downward spiral started by an officer on watch claim of solid inside information that the red bullies will be using a Renault sports F1 PU block and build their own engine at their building 9 site so and so levels underground. That was no less a contradiction than this here penned article, such articles writing are/is irresponsible because they can wrongly/falsely influence the site followers, but when such articles are excepted/permitted by the site owners they will not only downgrade the site to trash standards, but risk the site down fall.

          • Well given that it’s the offseason and there’s very little news emanating from the factories apart from the usual run of the mill rhetoric. You can understand how difficult it is to continue churning out articles after articles.

            Now I’m sure had the judge or any of the other writers came across anything that was worthy of writing about, then they would’ve.

            But the offer stands, if you had come across anything that you felt was pertinent, then you could’ve written about it and submit it for review to AJ and then he would’ve published it.

            So instead of being so critical, how about contributing? I’m sure the guys won’t turn you away.

            #ForTheFansByTheFans

          • So because its the off season and there is very little news emanating from the factories it is ok by your standards to pen rubbish and contradictory articles, goes to shows very little respect to your readers intelligence.
            If that’s what is meant by “for the fans by the fans” and as claimed “doing it for free” this site this site will not be freed from on the rocks where it was stirred by suck article writers.

          • Again I’ll reiterate what John asked of you… Since you feel the quality of the last few articles are below the standards you’re expecting, why not contribute? The platform is there for you to write something and if it’s deemed worthy of publishing, then it will be published.

            Until then stop attacking the guys who are trying to do their best to put out articles. I’m sure it took a hellava long time for Matt to sift through all the engine regs to produce this article.

          • Just a minor point Sunny… Have you considered that this article may have been run upon the request of a reader of this page? And that as it is a quiet time in F1 at the moment they have obliged?

      • No he can not, from my reading of the new specification item 5. states that any manufacturer can apply for permission to modify from F1 on many grounds.

    • How about the engine that Ferrari is supplying STR. Will it be last years price or will it be the new revised price.

        • Please advise witch Appendix 4 is the current and is enforceable for the 2016 season, the one at the top of this article or the one I downloaded from the FIA website dated 2/12/2015. This Appendix 4 changes as often as the wind changes direction and is in favor of the engine manufacturers each time.

          • The one at the top of the article was published on December 8, 2015. It is the newest version of the 2016 regs on the FIA site.

  6. and I thought that after its ship has been ran aground by the officer on watch, the judge13 would concentrate on stemming the water the ship was taking in and try save the ship and not continue running on the rocks.

    • It appears you’ve got very strong opinions on how the site should be run, how about if you contribute to that?

      If you’re willing, John would love to hear from you to discuss your ideas on how to help the site grow, as it is being run by volunteers, who do it not for money, but for the love of the sport.

      You can find the contact details in the menu section. He’ll be waiting.

      Cheers.

      • Yes I have very strong opinion of how a site should be ran, and how not to be stirred onto the rocks by people on watch. As I said these past few days, thejudge13 was/is too good a site to let people on watch stir it directly onto the rocks, there is a big difference in expressing an opinion in the comments section and news/article writing. Remember that commenting on article writing will in most cases be moderated-out like happened recently.

          • What about my message / opinion / contribution?

            I’ve offered up several in recent months. Yet like this one is likely to never be seen again … and I’ve just realized how by publishing this comment but no previous – the powers that be make it look like I’m the gullible one, wearing a tinfoil hat and giving apparent credence to ludicrously paranoid ideas – and there it goes agaaaaaaaaaaa

        • Will you pleeeease stop with the “stir”?

          Steer: guide or control the movement of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft (website in this case.)
          Stir: move a spoon or other implement around in a liquid or other substance in order to mix it thoroughly.

          Good grief that drove me up the wall.

      • yes, if I was thrown overboard, the remaining loyal followers of the judge would have been more easily force fed such misleading rubbish

        • What is misleading about this story?

          You have made a bunch of statements and not one single reference to back it up. My response to you has nothing to do with whether I believe what is written or not, it is based on the constant barrage of disparaging comments from posters like you. Your type is the bane of the internet. If your not interested in the conversation then shut-the-fuck-up.

          • Once again the person on the tiller, presumably “a fan for the fans working for free” has chosen to be selective on what goes and not on here, not once but twice regarding an answer to being told “than shut-the-fuck-up”, goes to show the honest and democratic way that this site is stirred into, again, you on the tiller may not let this post stand, but you will be reading it.

      • The ship certainly did, stirred by the officer in charge of which according to him was acting judge (penning his opinion “article”) as well as acting prosecutor (deciding what readers posts goes or not) on here. That is certainly not the way to run a formula one site, the calibre of which left this site jammed-up for days upon days with the same articles.

        • Well turn a blind eye to F1 problems, a lot of people are calling for change. One day you will wake up and it will be gone.

        • If you don’t like the site, then don’t come here. There are plenty of us who love the discussions.
          And… it seems from what was written here, the regulations, as usual, are not clear cut and are open to different interpretations. Which is what the article was all about.

        • @sunny stivala
          …8 posts so far, and nothing interesting or constructive to say.
          (and save the nautical analogies for a yachting blog, if you’re going to keep bleating on about the ‘demise’ of TJ13 then it would be appreciated if you could:
          a) use motorsport metaphors;
          b) have something interesting to say;
          c) develop a sense of humour;.)
          Have a nice day. ; )

  8. So it’s a bit of a free-for-all again!

    Nowhere does it say that customers must get parity with their manufacture, they must all be supplied with a unit of the same spec as the homologated unit the FIA holds, but it doesn’t say that any ‘in season’ upgrades must be given to everyone at the same time. Allowing once again for ‘works’ teams to ensure their customers NEVER beat them on engine performance.

    What a crock!

      • Software not covered at all. Seem to recall RB running proprietary software, thought the main ECU is supplied by FIA and made by McLaren, last time I checked

        • Teams can run their own code alongside the mandated FIA applications on the most recent ECU –
          “Developing the code to run on the ecu is not trivial. MES has used Simulink since 2000. “We have been supported by The Mathworks, but have had to do a lot of work to manage the large and complex control strategies,” Strafford explained.
          One change from the previous model is to provide the ability for F1 teams to run their own code alongside mandated applications. “We wanted to offer the best of both worlds,” Strafford said.

          With this approach, each application runs in its own address space and can only access certain signals. “For example, traction control is blocked by not allowing the routine to access wheel speed data,” Strafford noted. “It’s the FIA that gives permission to access the various data.” – See more at: http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/electronics-technology/racing-ahead-developing-an-engine-control-unit-for-all-f1-teams/43568/#sthash.2iQMLQet.dpuf

          I’m guessing there might be loopholes in the rules that may allow Red Bull (and others) to gain access to a particular sensor/data stream and use it’s own code for a performance advantage. That’s just an assumption on my part though. All we ever seem to hear about on a software front is usually about engine mapping, not all of the other bits of software that makes an F1 car work. For those wanting to cut out live telemetry, it would require a lot of expensive changes no doubt. F1 cars can run without a live data link, but if a complex issue arises, well we’ve seen what happens – cars usually decide to turn themselves off or performance drops.

    • Yes a lot of really good points which I completely failed to make. Not least of which the whole point of this was to keep the customer teams from being at a disadvantage to the works teams. Oh well, I’m sure the teams know what the FIA meant.

  10. Although they have reduced the cost of engines to $12M they have not told anybody how many Power Units a Customer gets for that money ie 5 for a car, 3 for a car or 10 for a team or 3 for a Team

  11. With all these rules and regulations what a pathetic “Sport”? this has become. No wonder the general public have lost interest.

  12. Appendix 4 has no regulation that would make manufacturers supply the same specification engine to customer teams. Even if a customer wanted the top specification you would find that this engine would not fall within the cost controlled engines that are offered for supply. Reading the 2016-2020 Power Unit Homologation rules you would think they were written by the 4 manufacturers and not the FIA

  13. F1 is still F1. 2016 won’t have all the glorious excitement of the past 66 seasons rolled in to one, but when the lights go out in Melbourne and the cars fire off the line for the first time – real fans will sit forward on the edge of the couch and cheer.
    All the teams have an engine, all four manufacturers are working their bums off to look good, and Kimi may get a podium or two… The organization may be laughable, but the boys will give us a good show. Let’s get positive and tell the world how good our sport is for a change.

  14. Good to have this place back, the only things that wind me up on here are the ‘stories’ that would look more at home in heat magazine than on a sensible F1 site. The stories you get here are overwhelmingly great and I accept that sometimes it’s hard to resist the urge to create click bait.

    This post is looking a bit negative so I apologise for that, I really do appreciate the work that goes into creating the multitude of stories you get on here, very often breaking stories at that.

    As for the new PU rules, well, what can you expect, this is modern day F1. I’m still waiting for them to fix the simple issue of unfair assistance to certain teams. You should not get paid huge sums for simply turning up, if you want to pay all the same then fair enough, but, if some are getting $70-$100m whilst others get zero then you have to accept that F1 will not have a competitive field.

    Sometimes someone not from the chosen few will win, but how long can they keep that winning up?

  15. last year apart from Manor/Marussia being supplied with a year old specification PU which was exempt from the use of performance developed tokens manufacturers supplied their customers with same specification PU’S as homologated for the season at the season opener race, but right there the performance development by the use of tokens buck stopped, we have than seen manufacturers use performance developed PU’S while their customers did not, not only that, but we have even seen Mercedes, Renault and Honda ran their two works cars with different specification upgraded PU’S. article 23.5 of the sporting regulations published 4/10/2015 states, “only power units which are identical to the power unit that has been homologated by the FIA in accordance with appendix 4 of the sporting regulations may be used at an event during the 2016-2020 championship seasons” but this turned out to concern only the PU hardware and not the software, fuel or lubricant. than on 4/12/2015 the FIA also agreed to a rule change as unanimously agreed by all teams to allow the use of a year old specification power unit.

    • There is no mention that a manufacturer can not homologate 3 different engines, they could all be at different levels of development and horsepower. When they apply to upgrade their engines, there is no mention about upgrading engines in service or weather they have to upgrade their customer engines

      • yours is a bit finer a garbage than the proposed possibility of a manufacturer having 64 development tokens.

        • Actually what is garbage is your ability to actually RTA. There is no wording in the latest version of Appendix 4 that would prevent a 2015 PU from using development tokens. Period. No matter how loud you shout. Quoting last years regs is nice but irrelevant and even last years regs weren’t adhered to. Everyone knew exactly when the PU’s had to be homologated until Ferrari’s lawyers pointed out CW forgot to include the date. The fact that you “know” 2015 spec PU’s can’t be developed is nice, but again, show me the sentence that precludes it. Otherwise, perhaps you should rethink your conclusions. And happily enough I will stop there and let your own ignorance and obtuseness make my point for me.

          • I stand with what I said, namely your penned article was total speculative garbage, believing your followers can be spoon fed that garbage, or could it be because it is the off season and news are hard to come by, and or it is from the fans to the fans for free?

          • in 2015 there was just one team supplied with a year old specification engine not a hundred and one teams, was the manufacturer of that power unit allowed to performance develop that power unit by the use of tokens?, next year there is going to be another team being supplied with a year old specification power unit, do you still think that the manufacturer of that power unit will be able to upgrade that power unit by an extra 32 performance development tokens, which means said manufacturer will make use of a total of 64 performance development tokens? ST82DPOINT PLEASE and no zigging about

        • I made no mention of tokens, my comment was that a manufacturers could homologate as many PU he wanted. He could upgrade them as per Appendix 4 article 5 Power Unit Homologation Dated 8/12/2015 All you ever harp about is the regulations please read them, you are the same on other sites.

          • It is crystal clear for all those reading us to see who have a problem when they read you saying “A manufacturer can homologate as many PU’S as he likes”

          • There is no limit on the number of PU’s a manufacturer can homologation, as long as that PU is stays with a particular customer then it doesn’t appear to breach the regs.

  16. @ Sunny.. Your above comment now confirms to me that you have a problem reading. The page Appendix A only has 35 lines of type and 6 headings or are that arrogant that you thing all other people cannot under the page of type.

  17. to the one on the tiller today, seems you still undecided if my last post is let to stand or not, you may now most probably repeat your back scratching tactic with what my post was in answer too, by only letting the complain stand and not the answer, of which contained no insults or abuse whatsoever, that, yours is a very clever way of minimising the answering effect to your comrade in arms. once again you may not let this be, but you would have read it.

  18. @sunny stivala
    Seriously, if you don’t like the quality of the articles and haven’t got anything either positive/amusing/constructive to add to the discussion then kindly refrain from wasting everyone’s time with your disparaging and vague remarks.
    Enter into some informed verbal jousting with some of the more seasoned postees, pen an article/opinion piece yourself, or just accept that it’s an imperfect blog in an imperfect world, and entertainment, too:
    In any case, if the quality of journalism offends then the least you could do is improve the quality of your posts.
    Arrivederci.

  19. “enter your comment here” what is the use of entering a comment on here, with this dirty game being played by the moderator.

  20. Why can’t the Judge be open and transparent and explain to viewers what is going on with this site? Honesty will win you points. As far as I can tell Fortis is in charge and has been for quite a while.

      • That reply doesn’t actually answer my question, Fortis. Answering the question would certainly help with site credibility.

        • Well my answer only relates to you stating that I’m in charge, the rest is not something I can answer.

    • TJ13 is a social media project mate. We need people to help out… all the time. There is a core that keep on producing articles and stuff but everyone has only so much time to give and if everyone is committed with real live then that’s it. I’m working on a solution so we can bring you more news, more regularly but even my time is limited. Soon most of the core will be back from a rest and we’ll be firing on all cylinders.

        • According to Mattg55 it will be a hybrid with the possibility of having double (64 in number) of development tokens against the others being allowed only 32.

          • See…now you’ve got the hang of it, Sunshine!
            Motorsport reference √
            Interesting √
            Funny √
            Nice day being had √

      • The most urgent need you need to work on/resolve is transparency and honesty in running this site/in moderation/moderator of what goes or not on the site dialogues, to get to understand what has been going on, go try trace my answering posts to Mattp55 which contained no abuse or insults but were still not let to stand by whoever was moderating. please do hurry-up and stir this site back to when it was one of the best F1 sites.

        • Will do. Give John a shout. He can really use an extra hand or two.

          Re honesty/transparency – as long as you engage with the content written and not attack the writer or other contributors/commentators your comments will be passed. We don’t want to moderate comments but we’ve had a problem with trolls. I know we don’t always get it right moderating stuff but if you/anyone attacks one of the writers we can always just bin all your comments.

          When we started we had great debates and we want that. There is no problem with disagreeing with the article but rather than saying this is sh!t or the writer does not know what he’s talking about we want facts to counter.

          Hope you understand and look forward to your constructive debates.

          • I fully understand and except as gust/visitor on this site a honest and open moderating of comments, but I will repeat that a dirty game was being played by whoever was moderating my answer/comments to Mattp55 which contained no insults or abuse, just disagreement with what he penned, on the contrary I was the one that was abused and insulted.

          • in the hope that this (the third) will be be let to stand.
            Be advised that I had the honour of being personally contacted by Mr John Myburgh.

  21. @Sunny. I think it is a pity that you will not accept that the document that the FIA has published (Appendix 4) has been very poorly written, has been worded to favor the manufacturers. This document will do nothing to equalize the different teams that are racing during 2016. My impression the FIA is it is there to manage car racing for all the clubs around the world, write the racing rules and specifications, enforce the rules. They are not there to manage the racing for the manufacturers ! Once again I repeat what I stated on another site you are dribbling again..

  22. Since Mr Stilvia refuses to either put up or shut up, here’s my interpretation of why a “re-used” engine from a previous season is not eligible for token upgrades:

    Technical Regs Appendix 4 “Annual Power Unit Homologation” describes the token allocations and quotas and states:
    “This Appendix permits modification of the homologated Power Unit within the homologation period laid out in … the Sporting Regulations”

    And Sporting Regs Appendix 4, paragraph 2 (as shown above) says:
    “A power unit may be homologated for one season only, starting on 28 February of each year
    and ending on 27 February of the following year.”

    So a re-used 2015 season engine (eg STR Ferrari) is not permitted development tokens during 2016.

    Having said that, if you read that Tech Regs section closely you may notice it has an incorrect cross reference, presumably this was either done deliberately to create anther loophole for certain teams benefit, or because FIA is incompetent (your call).

    • I read it the same as you. As the software is not controlled in any way you could change the mapping to cause a valve or piston failure you could apply under Appendix 4 item (5) to change materials on any PU. The Appendix 4 item (5) a homologated PU and as all engines need to be homologated every season whether it is a 2014,2015 or 2016 model engine makes no difference. Please Note ! I have not mentioned the use of tokens

      • Once again you are totally out of order and still persisting in your perceived wisdom on F1 matters. The use of a year old specification PU in 2015 and the one going to be used this year had already been homologated (year old specification) so no need to re-homologate, because being declared a year old specification it being afforded no performance upgrades in parallel with its manufacturer current homologated specification PU of which is permitted performance upgrades, if that happened said manufacturer would have been allowed to make use of double the development tokens that others could. If the FIA legal and technical departments known about the wisdom you posses, they will be falling all over each other to acquire your services.

    • That’s a right fair point, howesomever, quoting from the actual regs (23.5 natch) Only power units which are identical to a power unit that is homologated by the FIA in accordance with Appendix 4 of these regulations may be used at an Event during the 2016-2020 Championship seasons. which means to me that even under section 6 of Appendix 4 (re-use) that the PU is considered to be homologated (or re-homologated) and thus eligible for development token upgrade under Appendix 4 of the tech regs. Basically, the PU must be homologated to be used in a GP, so even under Section 6 it would have to be considered homologated for the current season.

      In fact what I took section 6 to mean is that literally the PU manufacturer didn’t have to provide another PU in a sealed container, presumably because the FIA already had the one from the end of the season laying around and no changes were going to be made for the start of the season. Otherwise, it’s basically a re-homologated PU under section 2 of the appendix.

      I would actually say the most likely language would be that the FIA has to “approve the modification” under Appendix 4 of the tech regs. But if they really intended no development, it more than begs the question as to why the just didn’t add “Any PU homologated under section 6 is only eligible for modification under Section 5 ( safety and reliability)”.

      Ha and you found the Easter Egg!! Not sure if I should spoil it for everyone but it sure gave me a good laugh.

      • 4/10/2015 “Only power units which are identical to the power unit that has been homologated by the FIA in accordance with appendix 4 of the sporting regulations may be used at any event during the 2016-2020 championship season” apart from the above regulation directive not covering software, fuel and lubricant, and also does not cover the later (4/12/2015) regulation change/directive reached by consensus (unanimously) to allow the use of a year old specification PU to be used by STR, of which being a year old specification was already homologate, and therefore exempt from the use of performance development tokens, the PU’S that has been homologated with the FIA in accordance with appendix 4 of which are intended to be used at and as from season opener would have been of the latest upgraded specification as permitted by performance development tokens, and therefore registered/homologated as such.

  23. @ mattpt55 If you need someone to blame for the position of F1 racing today you need to go no further than the FIA them selves. Poorly written specifications, the time it takes them to post Rule and regulations updates on their web site, the way all the specifications have been altered to favor PU manufacturers teams and away from the customer teams.

  24. There has been two different Appendix 4 posted at the top of this article please advise the correct one. the one with 6 items or the latest one posted with 7 items

      • Thankyou ! Some time ago during this post I requested clarification for the posted Appendix 4 at that time and the one from the FIA website dated 2/12/2015. I was advised that the one posted was dated 8/12/2015. Now I find the Appendix 4 I had was the correct one and this changes the assumptions on the whole Appendix 4 Regulations

  25. And dear Reddirt, If the moderator at the tiller permits me and leaves this my post/answer to you to stand, that is, I left out that, You can call mine “dribbling” all you want and to your heart content, it will be up to those reading us to judge who is right and who is wrong.

  26. What in the name of Saint Fuck? Seems the shit hath hiteth the fan.

    Sunny, my friend, you need to calm down. This approach isn’t the way forward. Yes, it’s clear you fear some moderators are playing shenanigans, but remember, “fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” And we’re all suffering your foolishness; but most of all, you’re suffering from it. Do as they do in Frozen… let it goooo, let it goooo; of your fear, that is.

    It’s clear you feel aggrieved, but take a step back and rethink 1) what you’re trying to achieve here, and 2) the best way to achieve it. I can’t imagine that bombarding the comments section, as you have, would be the ideal tactic for any purpose outside of alienating staff, writers and commenters.

    About one third of the comments in this post are either yours, or related to your accusations. Don’t be that guy; you’ll become white noise.

    Hearts and minds, my friend. Cause and effect. Be patient. Be logical. Think…

    I suggest you do the following: Email TJ13’s Sth African dynamo athlete, Mr. J Myburg, and explain your fears with a civil tone; but always bearing in mind that it’s only an F1 blog on the Internet.

    Try to be succinct. Keep an open mind to the possibility that your suspicions may be incorrect. Trust that others have the intellect to ascertain the truth. Do and say what you can, and no more. State facts and not theories. Let others arrive at conclusions organically.

    And most of all, remember this… if the shenanigans you suspect are indeed being played, then take comfort in the knowledge of how pathetic one must be to need to inhibit free speech in order to manipulate a point. It means they can’t speak to their own points under appropriate levels of scrutiny and/or they live in terror of their preferred narrative being led askew. OMG! You see?

    If anything, instead of being angry, take pity upon those poor souls – if indeed they exist. And I don’t know that they do, but it seems that you do, so take comfort in that and remind yourself of Twain’s words on anger… “Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.”

    Step back. Think. Be patient. Alternatively, leave. But I can assure you that you won’t last long here under these conditions, and nor should you. Personally, I hope you stay. Any online community such as this needs knowledgable people to keep adding to/improving the content in the comments.

    Anyhow, if you take my former advice re: email, good luck on your adventure through the land of the Internet and it’s volunteer moderators. But never forget what Mr. Ari “the robed one” Stotle said.

    “The investigation of the truth is in one way hard, in another easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of all things, and while individually they contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed.”

    Be careful about what you think you know, and in the end does it matter?

    Peace and love,

    @WTF_F1

    PS: Nice write up, Matt. +1

    • I hereby ‘cosmically (or should that be: comically? ) order’ a copy of the WTF_F1 self-help book. At the very least, a weekly column…a Sunday sermon, perhaps?
      Wise filtration of words, full of pearls and nuggets. And Mr. Ari Stotle? Hilarious!
      [ Which reminds me of the time when, whilst working in an art gallery, I came upon a painting filed under
      Angelo (Michael) ! ]

      • You’re too kind, dobzizzle.

        I can very well imagine the amusement in finding a painting with that name. I’ve had fun with the name ‘Archi M. Edes’ in other fields back in the day.

        “Who’s this ‘Archi’ bloke?”

        😀

  27. Hi Matt. Tough Reg to read. First time writer , long time reader. The words ” fairly and equitably and at FIA discretion “kinda read like a formula to balance performance should that be good for the show. Possibly too simplistic so I apologise in advance

    • Hello and welcome to the party!! Once upon a time, I was a first time commenter as well. Thanks for adding to the site. Usually, articles about regulations aren’t quite so contentious, haha! You’re brave to join in. And, no, the simple things are actually the hardest to spot and that is an interesting echo of BoP.

      I would hope that the FIA would indeed use those words that way but sadly I think that without BoP being directly referenced that the meaning is directed only at new manufacturers bringing a new PU to the sport. Especially given how litigious the teams can be. Frankly I would have also thought the FIA would have never allowed the lack of a homologation date to open in-season development, so there you go. Many and wondrous are the ways of the FIA.

      Don’t be a stranger!! Most folks here are friendly so feel free to jump in with both feet.

  28. And while Rome burns some on here goes in blab blab blab mode. Open your eyes and try save this site, this is not me speaking, this is how others looks at the state this site was driven into. The following is from another site regarded as a top notch F1 site.
    24 Jan 2016 00:21. The F1 news FUD topic, by Djos. Hopefully the mods could “bless” this potentially controversial FUD topic where we can post links to stories we think are total rubbish and give them the sledging they deserve? An example would be most stories published by thejudge13. It may also fan to come back and review these “wild” stories to see how wildly they missed the mark.

    • Haters gonna hate sunny. It’s just an F1 site, not life or death. Suggest you take WTF_F1’s advice and just chill a bit. Plenty of people don’t like us and that’s fine because plenty do as well. There’s lots of room on the internet for everyone.

  29. mattpt55, how about you considering taking some advice? I clashing with you/your likes was because I was honestly feeling sorry for the state this site I championed as one of the best found itself in, but today visiting one of my (dozens) of regular sites, and I repeat its a site regarded as a top notch site, and reading what I posted, I felt hurt and upset.

    • sunny, I appreciate the sincerity of what you are saying and am not above taking advice, but I’ve also been around long enough to see that there will always be those who hate. The anonymity of the internet does tend to encourage mob mentality in those who are susceptible to it and what you quoted seems to be a classic case of that.

      I’m sorry that Djos comments distress you but I’ve been on other sites and seen similar posts and yet here we still are. That said, I suggest you get in touch with John re the site as I am but an occasional writer of articles. Cheers

  30. This must be a first, over 100 comments and the article is not about Lewis Hamilton! Yes miracles do happen

    #SunnyStivalaYouBeauty

    • Ah, yes, but can’t you see that the rules have been worded in such a vague way that Mercedes can legally give Lewis their latest super, duper 1500+ hp whizz machine while giving Nico the 2014 engine and the rest of their customers something they recycled from an old Mercedes 300?

      🙂

      • Nothing wrong with that, to the victor goes the spoils of war… So the last time I checked, he won the war back 2 to back…😉..😂😂

  31. “I suggest you get in touch with John” I don’t need to for the simple reason that Mr Myburgh has been faster than you and your back rubbing crones and he himself made contact with me, If you stop your blabbing about you would have noticed that I have managed to make that clear on my third attempt, as evidenced by my last two attempt out of the three being allowed to stand, which goes to prove what I was saying about the game was being played on here. And about what I posted about the esteem this site is enjoying right now on other sites, I am a long standing participant/visitor on dozens of F1 sites in different languages and I can assure you that I have never seen such attitude from on one site to another site. My advice to you Mr Petruska is, you out to stop or minimise shitting so big that every time you need do it you block the toilet as is the norm where you comes from.

    • Were you born this rude to people, or did you have to take a special course? There is no need to be so unpleasant to someone just because they disagree with you. You maybe correct in what you say, you maybe incorrect, time will tell. In the meantime it would look better, and you may even gain some support for your views, if you treated other people with the respect they are due. We are just a group of enthusiasts, entitled to voice our views here, so please stop being so abusive.

    • 1. I meant regarding the other site
      2. Your paranoia is showing, no games being played.
      3. All of your comments evince a certain difficulty with reading comprehension. For example, you have yet to get the actual point of this article
      4. Said lack of comprehension is exceeded only by your appalling lack of taste, class, and (obviously) a sense of humor.
      5. Since those words are probably too big for you I will translate. Fuck off you moronic douchebag. I’m tired of trying to be civilized with someone who clearly lacks the ability to do so. You are wrong in every single way possible and an excellent example of all that is wrong with humanity.

  32. fortis, Are you on the tiller today? How many coffee breaks and how long does they last when on the judge’s tiller duty? Posts takes so sooooo long to be pushed forward or aside.

    • Unless your comment has anything to do with the article in question and not attacking the writer or other commentators, then your comments will remain in moderation.

      • So my comment about “Lulu” which on the first place you yourself pushed on here, wasn’t let to stand because it was not about the article!. And, not agreeing with the commentators (some of my posts) was regarded as attacking said commentators and not let to stand, But the insults to me were let to stand as they were not regarded as attacks. confuse me some confuse me not.

        • At least he gets a warning on this site, the other site he dominates you just get blocked without notice. You can not disagree with his comments and he is allowed to attack RBR as well As Dan Riccardo. From what he has commented he is trying to dominate here.

  33. Putting aside all the debate on here as to whether or not it is legal to upgrade a year-old PU, you’ve got to ask, who would bother?

    Development is expensive. On the ‘main’ PU the cost is recouped by the success of the works team and the money from customers. On a year-old PU who is going to pay?

    You could argue that they can try things out to be incorporated in to the 2016 PU but there is limited value there. They’d still need to spend 2016 tokens to put it on the current engine. I also can’t see a customer being too happy to be a guinea-pig and needing to accept penalties when the thing fails.

    So, maybe the focus of the debate should be why would they, rather than can they?

    • Yes that was my other thought. If a team can’t afford a 2016 PU at the new bargain rate, likely they won’t be able to afford to pay for development. The thing is, what if a manufacturer wanted to test something that would exceed their token budget for the 2016 PU. With a 2015 PU they could potentially do that. Though truthfully, I think it highly unlikely.

    • I doubt that there is any point in developing an old PU. It lacks all the 2016 upgrades, so the effect of the upgrades on a full 2016 upgraded PU is not clear. Maybe they could use some 2016 things on the 2015 one, but at this point in the development it is a whole package thing. It is not like you can put on another turbo, without changing the exhaust system that sits before it. And when you change the exhaust you are like to want to work on the ilnet side too, especially as the new turbo is changing the inlet air speeds. And for all that you need other software and as the changed turbo spins “differently” it will have an effect on the recovery system too. And all the time that you are trying to figure this out, that development PU is taking up space on a dyno where you would like to run 2016 upgrades and 2017 test configurations. It is not worth the use of resources, even if Torro Rosso pays the bill.
      And if you were to supply a kind of upgraded 2015 unit you could just as well have supplied a 2016 unit without upgrade rights. Yeah yeah, the rules say no more than x number of units, but orginally 2015 units were not supposed to be supplied in 2016 either.

      • Yes and again you are not wrong in that it would be unlikely that such a thing would happen, but the point I was trying to make is though it may be obvious (much like the homologation date last year) it is non-trivial when regulations that may be adjudicated fail to account for these possibilities. Which speaks to the broader problem of how the FIA writes these in the first place, i.e. they are reactive and written casually and without consideration for the scrutiny they will endure. My failing, apparently was that I tried to make my point humorously, rather than just saying it in boring old serious F1 speak.

        • I agree with you, just putting my thoughts online as well. No attack. Interesting stuff to talk about in the off season. For me mostly more interesting than the racing itself lately. 🙂

          • Too true, sadly enough. Hopefully this year will see a little more action at the top. And no, your comment was excellent. It’s the kind of discussion that helps to pass the odd winter hour.

  34. OFFS!!!!!
    Can we please just get another article written so we can stop this barrage/onslaught continuing any further….. At least 3/4 of this comments thread is a complete and utter waste of time and energy. A new story/thread/debate pertaining to the reality of aliens living among us or indeed the ability of whether or not pigs can actually fly, would surely be more relevant than the conspiracies going on in here…..

    • Bloody hell, dude, you need to keep quiet about the flying alien pigs – they don’t take kindly to loose lips.

      Granted, most squadron members are probably drunk at their bi-annual conference at Circuit Dr Catalunya watching over the “secret” MB-Pirelli tyre test but they employ reptilian media monitors to keep an eye on things while they party.

      I’ve said too much already. Lay low for a few days and don’t pick up your phone or answer the door. Good luck and God speed.

  35. So the 2015 motor for STR is the homologated motor from februari 2015 or the motor which ran in the last race of the year (with x tokens used)?? Imho, if the latter then the 2015 motor has to be re-homologated otherwise not. We don’t know which motor STR gets until 27th of feb.

    • Yes I’ve been wondering about that too. Remember, there was no Feb 2015 homologation (because they forgot to publish a date in the Regulations – the famous loophole) but every token upgrade, as well as non-token safety/reliability upgrades, had to be approved by the FIA throughout the year. And the current regs don’t make any exception for the 2015 “non homologation” season. So I’m betting on an end of season motor, but it won’t be rehomologated (which technically would make it eligible for 2016 development tokens but would contravene the “one specification” clause and my head hurts).

    • Now that’s an important question! Do STR get a prehomologated 2015 engine ( the one in the FIA’s sealed closet) or a rehomologated 2015 engine containing token spendage?
      Ferrari absolutely wouldn’t waste resources redeveloping the pre-engine, but they might make the token – spent improvements available to STR for a wee bit extra…. that way it’s STR’s choice.

  36. In my opinion any car raced by any team must have the power unit Homologated at the start of the new year racing weather the engine being used older than a present year homologation. Even if this 1 year old engine is re-homologated this engine should not be allowed to upgrade any parts or materials for any reason, This would stop the upgrade of parts without using tokens but by using item 5 of Appendix 4

    • Yes Reddirt – NSW. Hope you had a good one yesterday! But no, item 6 says you don’t have to re-homologate if you get approval to re-use. And as per my earlier comment, item 2 say the homologation period only covers the current season, and token modifications may only be used on engines “within the homologation period” (Tech Regs Appendix 4) …

Leave a Reply to fortis96Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.