The Official F1 2025 silly season *contains speculation*
Discussion
Sandpit Steve said:
Ooh, what’s the integrated water pump story? Did someone put it so far inside the engine that they couldn’t replace it without breaking the FIA seals?
It was a handful of years ago (I remember Alonso being with the team at the time, so that'll give a rough date of 2021 or 2022), and Renault thought they'd found a little gain by integrating the water pump into the block of the engine. I assume fewer holes cut in the block = better stiffness ... but can't recall the exact advantage they thought it gave.All well and good until a water pump failure meant that they had to change the engine ... 1 of the 3 for the year ... and there was no way of repairing the engine, so you effectively wrote off an engine for a knackered water pump. I think they racked up quite a few engine penalties for that one over the course of the season.
To the layperson it seemed like a ridiculous idea to integrate a replaceable part like that into the block in an era with a limited number of engines. Whatever the potential performance upside was, surely it was drowned out by the huge downside of scrapping an engine every time a water pump failed? However, somehow no one at Renault saw things that way, and it made its way into the car. Interestingly, I believe the head of their engine program at the time was one Bruno Famin ... I wonder what happened to him ...
I'm sure someone with a better memory than me will be able to fill in more of the blanks - and correct any misrememberings I may have.
Rotary Potato said:
Sandpit Steve said:
Ooh, what’s the integrated water pump story? Did someone put it so far inside the engine that they couldn’t replace it without breaking the FIA seals?
It was a handful of years ago (I remember Alonso being with the team at the time, so that'll give a rough date of 2021 or 2022), and Renault thought they'd found a little gain by integrating the water pump into the block of the engine. I assume fewer holes cut in the block = better stiffness ... but can't recall the exact advantage they thought it gave.All well and good until a water pump failure meant that they had to change the engine ... 1 of the 3 for the year ... and there was no way of repairing the engine, so you effectively wrote off an engine for a knackered water pump. I think they racked up quite a few engine penalties for that one over the course of the season.
To the layperson it seemed like a ridiculous idea to integrate a replaceable part like that into the block in an era with a limited number of engines. Whatever the potential performance upside was, surely it was drowned out by the huge downside of scrapping an engine every time a water pump failed? However, somehow no one at Renault saw things that way, and it made its way into the car. Interestingly, I believe the head of their engine program at the time was one Bruno Famin ... I wonder what happened to him ...
I'm sure someone with a better memory than me will be able to fill in more of the blanks - and correct any misrememberings I may have.
There will have been a weight saving and packaging benefit too, but we're still talking fractional gains vs what obviously went on to prove to be a colossal design cock up.
Possibly they just got caught up with an idea that was clever and very 'F1' in isolation, and there wasn't sufficiently robust global development coordination to look at the knock on effects of such a solution? Although that would be VERY poor for a team of engineers and designers that should be delivering excellence at an F1 level.
It's quite normal for engines to use the block as half of the water pump assembly, with the other half bolting on, that bolt on part carrying the bearings, impeller and drive assembly.
Quite a lot of the race engines I've worked with have completely stand alone pumps, but some do use the block
It sounds like something very unusual to be a block scrap issue.
Quite a lot of the race engines I've worked with have completely stand alone pumps, but some do use the block
It sounds like something very unusual to be a block scrap issue.
732NM said:
It's quite normal for engines to use the block as half of the water pump assembly, with the other half bolting on, that bolt on part carrying the bearings, impeller and drive assembly.
Quite a lot of the race engines I've worked with have completely stand alone pumps, but some do use the block
It sounds like something very unusual to be a block scrap issue.
That's normal for many road car engines - but I think it must be the case they went further, perhaps inverting the normal layout to place the impeller assembly within the block directly connected to the drive.. which would cut out some weight and packaging volume, at the expense of being irrecoverable if the bearings or impeller suffered prematurely.Quite a lot of the race engines I've worked with have completely stand alone pumps, but some do use the block
It sounds like something very unusual to be a block scrap issue.
It's not inconceivable that they calculated the life of the pump would exceed the life of the engine, or were simply desperate with a less than competitive engine and concluded it was worth a bold risk.
The above is all conjecture of course, I don't think they ever confirmed if it was entirely within the block or not? But they did say the have relocated it and they also said that problematic oil feeds were previously impossible to access... Which they would be, if the impeller bearings were embedded and fed oil internally within the block.
You know more than I do. Any reason such a solution wouldn't be possible? I'm not asking if it's sensible..
TheDeuce said:
That's normal for many road car engines - but I think it must be the case they went further, perhaps inverting the normal layout to place the impeller assembly within the block directly connected to the drive.. which would cut out some weight and packaging volume, at the expense of being irrecoverable if the bearings or impeller suffered prematurely.
It's not inconceivable that they calculated the life of the pump would exceed the life of the engine, or were simply desperate with a less than competitive engine and concluded it was worth a bold risk.
The above is all conjecture of course, I don't think they ever confirmed if it was entirely within the block or not? But they did say the have relocated it and they also said that problematic oil feeds were previously impossible to access... Which they would be, if the impeller bearings were embedded and fed oil internally within the block.
You know more than I do. Any reason such a solution wouldn't be possible? I'm not asking if it's sensible..
If you can machine it and assemble it, you can do anything, even if that's a nightmare to work with needing bespoke tooling and hours of labour just to install.It's not inconceivable that they calculated the life of the pump would exceed the life of the engine, or were simply desperate with a less than competitive engine and concluded it was worth a bold risk.
The above is all conjecture of course, I don't think they ever confirmed if it was entirely within the block or not? But they did say the have relocated it and they also said that problematic oil feeds were previously impossible to access... Which they would be, if the impeller bearings were embedded and fed oil internally within the block.
You know more than I do. Any reason such a solution wouldn't be possible? I'm not asking if it's sensible..
I worked on one race engine that ran the water pump backwards from any other of its family due to packaging in a single seater, the drive shaft nut was the oposite thread handing so it didn't undo when spinning the oposite direction, and the impeller was inverted design. Impossible to source parts so I had to make them.
One F1 engine I built had the water pump inner seal in the block, if that failed it let water into the cam timing chain. That was designed by a very famous F1 engine designer, I think he was having a bad day. The rest of the engine was bleeding edge lovely thing running roller bearing cams years ahead of the game.
The DFV run a low friction water pump seal that can't handle much pressure reliably, so you have to use a low pressure cap on the header tank. It's why when warming up a DFV they piss water out the header tank as you can't allow them to build pressure like a normal car system. It's why getting the cooling capacity of the rads is critical on that era of F1 car as they can't deal with 100 degrees water temp.
Rotary Potato said:
Sandpit Steve said:
Ooh, what’s the integrated water pump story? Did someone put it so far inside the engine that they couldn’t replace it without breaking the FIA seals?
It was a handful of years ago (I remember Alonso being with the team at the time, so that'll give a rough date of 2021 or 2022), and Renault thought they'd found a little gain by integrating the water pump into the block of the engine. I assume fewer holes cut in the block = better stiffness ... but can't recall the exact advantage they thought it gave.All well and good until a water pump failure meant that they had to change the engine ... 1 of the 3 for the year ... and there was no way of repairing the engine, so you effectively wrote off an engine for a knackered water pump. I think they racked up quite a few engine penalties for that one over the course of the season.
To the layperson it seemed like a ridiculous idea to integrate a replaceable part like that into the block in an era with a limited number of engines. Whatever the potential performance upside was, surely it was drowned out by the huge downside of scrapping an engine every time a water pump failed? However, somehow no one at Renault saw things that way, and it made its way into the car. Interestingly, I believe the head of their engine program at the time was one Bruno Famin ... I wonder what happened to him ...
I'm sure someone with a better memory than me will be able to fill in more of the blanks - and correct any misrememberings I may have.
While I can understand all the arguments about weight, stiffness, packaging etc, it still makes sense in a sealed engine to get as many of the accessories as possible outside the sealed unit, specifically so they can be changed without attracting the sporting penalties that come with changing the engine. The rule hasn’t changed since 2014, that you’re only allowed 3 or 4 engines for the whole season, so they need to be able to go 5-6,000km, 6-7 full weekends, without a rebuild.
Messing something up like that in the first year of a new rule set would be careless but understandable, perhaps there might be some confusion as to where exactly the scrutineers would place seals on the engine, with some back and forth ‘oh that’s just the water pump, you don’t need to put a seal there’ - but by the second year, you’d clearly know how to design an engine that can be repaired as much as possible within the rules.
Rotary Potato said:
TheDeuce said:
...
In other words, Alpine are only really saleable if the Renault PU op is disconnected from the team, and as a result canned.
If the rumours are to be believed, Redbull may be in need of bit of a boost to their forthcoming engine. If that's the case, maybe a cheeky bid to buy the IP and/or a few key members of staff might give their program a shot in the arm. Saves the Renault PU work going entirely to waste ...In other words, Alpine are only really saleable if the Renault PU op is disconnected from the team, and as a result canned.
Although on the other hand ... it's hardly like Renault have produced a corker in recent history! I guess bidding on Renault's IP is like buying a lucky dip at a fete. You might end up with something good, but more likely than not you're pulling out a banana!
Edited by Rotary Potato on Thursday 6th June 10:13
TheDeuce said:
deadslow said:
rallycross said:
Supersam83 said:
Hasn't Ryan Renolds and his American consortium bought out 24% of Alpine F1 team recently?
.
Will this make it any easier for the Andretti’s to buy the team?.
At some point down the line Reynolds and co will no doubt make a decent return on their investment when a sale does go ahead. Alternatively they could retain their 24% and Andretti could buy out the French owned 76% - either way they get a team they have full control over.
They may own 24% but it might only be in profit shares. If the team is sold, they might have to sell too.
This is because a purchase could be less attractive to a prospective buyer if they can't buy 100%.
tele_lover said:
TheDeuce said:
deadslow said:
rallycross said:
Supersam83 said:
Hasn't Ryan Renolds and his American consortium bought out 24% of Alpine F1 team recently?
.
Will this make it any easier for the Andretti’s to buy the team?.
At some point down the line Reynolds and co will no doubt make a decent return on their investment when a sale does go ahead. Alternatively they could retain their 24% and Andretti could buy out the French owned 76% - either way they get a team they have full control over.
They may own 24% but it might only be in profit shares. If the team is sold, they might have to sell too.
This is because a purchase could be less attractive to a prospective buyer if they can't buy 100%.
thegreenhell said:
tele_lover said:
TheDeuce said:
deadslow said:
rallycross said:
Supersam83 said:
Hasn't Ryan Renolds and his American consortium bought out 24% of Alpine F1 team recently?
.
Will this make it any easier for the Andretti’s to buy the team?.
At some point down the line Reynolds and co will no doubt make a decent return on their investment when a sale does go ahead. Alternatively they could retain their 24% and Andretti could buy out the French owned 76% - either way they get a team they have full control over.
They may own 24% but it might only be in profit shares. If the team is sold, they might have to sell too.
This is because a purchase could be less attractive to a prospective buyer if they can't buy 100%.
But seriously, I don't put much faith behind such statements - it's so easy to follow it up a few months later with a reason that stance suddenly changed.
Do we really believe Andretti wouldn't have approached them and that they didn't show any interest at all..? If a serious offer is on the table I'm sure it'll remain under active consideration at the very least.
TheDeuce said:
Well, I suppose it wouldn't be - they've already sold 24%
But seriously, I don't put much faith behind such statements - it's so easy to follow it up a few months later with a reason that stance suddenly changed.
Do we really believe Andretti wouldn't have approached them and that they didn't show any interest at all..? If a serious offer is on the table I'm sure it'll remain under active consideration at the very least.
Or until he gets fired and the next guy sells it instead.But seriously, I don't put much faith behind such statements - it's so easy to follow it up a few months later with a reason that stance suddenly changed.
Do we really believe Andretti wouldn't have approached them and that they didn't show any interest at all..? If a serious offer is on the table I'm sure it'll remain under active consideration at the very least.
thegreenhell said:
tele_lover said:
TheDeuce said:
deadslow said:
rallycross said:
Supersam83 said:
Hasn't Ryan Renolds and his American consortium bought out 24% of Alpine F1 team recently?
.
Will this make it any easier for the Andretti’s to buy the team?.
At some point down the line Reynolds and co will no doubt make a decent return on their investment when a sale does go ahead. Alternatively they could retain their 24% and Andretti could buy out the French owned 76% - either way they get a team they have full control over.
They may own 24% but it might only be in profit shares. If the team is sold, they might have to sell too.
This is because a purchase could be less attractive to a prospective buyer if they can't buy 100%.
If Sainz signed for Williams last week do you expect James Vowles to admit it on Sky this weekend? No, that's not how business is done.
I don't listen to what CEOs say when I know they wouldn't be allowed to admit if something was happening.
tele_lover said:
Errrr buying £50-100m of IP vs £1m in ex staff salaries?
Is it £50-£100m though? Assuming Renault do pull the plug on their F1 engine development, surely that makes the IP essentially worthless to Renault (I can't imagine them dropping a 12,000rpm 1.6L V6 in the next generation of Clio! )?On the demand side, I can't see any of the established(ish) makers (Merc, Ferrari & Honda) paying any real money for a look at whether Renault have found a silver bullet. That leaves RBPT and Audi (and maybe GM if Andretti ever get a ticket to the big show) as people who may be interested in taking a peek if the price is right. You need at least two people for a bidding war ... otherwise the best offer on the table is a derisory one from the only group interested enough to pay anything.
Renault then have a decision of do they sell what they have at fire sale prices, to at least get something back ... or do they just walk away with nothing.
This is all speculation ... but then that's exactly what's on the title of the thread!
thegreenhell said:
TheDeuce said:
Well, I suppose it wouldn't be - they've already sold 24%
But seriously, I don't put much faith behind such statements - it's so easy to follow it up a few months later with a reason that stance suddenly changed.
Do we really believe Andretti wouldn't have approached them and that they didn't show any interest at all..? If a serious offer is on the table I'm sure it'll remain under active consideration at the very least.
Or until he gets fired and the next guy sells it instead.But seriously, I don't put much faith behind such statements - it's so easy to follow it up a few months later with a reason that stance suddenly changed.
Do we really believe Andretti wouldn't have approached them and that they didn't show any interest at all..? If a serious offer is on the table I'm sure it'll remain under active consideration at the very least.
There's something going on at the team. If it's not being prepped for sale that's almost more concerning than if it is - there would have to be another reason for the stream of departing talent, question marks over engine development and the TP switch. I see Famin as very much a caretaker TP, he has wider responsibilities within Renault Motorsport, which is unusual for a TP supposed to be focussed on turning a team around. He was in fact originally only there as a temp TP.
This is not a forward looking, forward moving team. It's as if it's been put on ice, ticking over. If it ain't for sale, what's that all about!?
Sandpit Steve said:
James Vowles, interviewed on F1TV ahead of P2 today, quite clear that he’s looking to sign Sainz, and also that he has at least one senior technical person who he’s already signed and will announce shortly.
That was quite the impassioned plea wasn’t it? I wonder if it was solely directed at Saintz or if it was a media play for someone else too? It seemed quite out of character for Vowles to court the media so publicly.Interesting times at Williams.
PRO5T said:
Sandpit Steve said:
James Vowles, interviewed on F1TV ahead of P2 today, quite clear that he’s looking to sign Sainz, and also that he has at least one senior technical person who he’s already signed and will announce shortly.
That was quite the impassioned plea wasn’t it? I wonder if it was solely directed at Saintz or if it was a media play for someone else too? It seemed quite out of character for Vowles to court the media so publicly.Interesting times at Williams.
I suspect that Sainz wants the open seat at Mercedes, or at RB if Max were to move, and sees Williams as a step down. Williams or Audi is an interesting choice though, with both teams promising investment and future success.
Sainz has such a complex situation. If the obvious best choices are gone and its down to williams or audi thats tough.
Unknown as it may be , the Audi situations seems most promising, and seem like less of a kick in the teeth dropping from Ferrari.
Still ,I bet ferrari though is not so bad replacing him as he was a shoe in at red bull or mercedes.
Unknown as it may be , the Audi situations seems most promising, and seem like less of a kick in the teeth dropping from Ferrari.
Still ,I bet ferrari though is not so bad replacing him as he was a shoe in at red bull or mercedes.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff