planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:10 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I think this is complete nonsense. The budget cap is the biggest nonsense. So you can cap the cost of the team at 150 million (or whatever the number) but not cap drivers salaries? That means you are capping engineers? The whole idea of a budget cap is to do exactly that Cap costs...then any bonus money can't be put into the development of the car? where does the money go? Profits? which just shows that true racing teams we have not, we have teams that just want a profit. So Ferrari gets 50Million and they just put it in the coffers? why the hell do that? They don't need the money for profits they make so much in merchandising and licensing the name than building cars, they put the money back into the team, salaries for the best engineers, the best drivers, the best technology that is what you do in a commercial enterprise. This is the most silly thing ever.

Please MB, Ferrari, McLaren its time to take the big three and Williams and let's go find a new playing field. Let Liberty choke on the billions they spent. Everyone forgets they are making money on the backs of these engineers that now will have salaries capped but not drivers...just more silly nonsense.


Yes, a budget cap of 150 million is a cap on engineers. The number of engineers and a reduction on the resources used.

For the big teams, they design and built sets of distinct wings for every race. This is irresponsible spending, on a massive scale, basically a war on who is willing to pour more money down a black hole. Because once the race weekend is over, all that money spent on building those wings is completely written off.

So does it sound irrational to mandate just one wing design that would cost under 100,000 dollars compared to 20 million a year? Would it have that much affect on the fans?

An unrestricted budget limit is bad for engineers, not good. Does anyone remember the three teams that entered Formula One only to fail a few years later? One big reason was the disparity in revenue sharing. Who was advocating for all those who lost their jobs because Ferrari and others did not want a budget cap or play nice with others?

And uh, don't put your money on Williams going anywhere. Claire Williams admits she wanted to "crack open some champagne" after the meeting with Formula 1 owners Liberty Media that outlined its future vision for the sport.



I cam pretty confident if Ferrari, McLaren and MB leave Williams will be part of that world. As for the nose cone is concerned your right thats an excellent point for sure, my point is why not spend that money on getting fractions of speed? thats is the essence of F1 going from GP to GP finding speed and building components to find the tenth..as a fan its awesome. My position is the 50% of revenues that go to Liberty and not the teams, why is it that Liberty can make billions on F1? Every other sport that has revenue sharing/cap costs also control 100% of the venue the sport generates, get rid of Liberty and let the teams own the sport from a commercial perspective. When this happens there is no need for these crazy regulations. The smoke screen your are getting served is look at the hand not the face...Liberty is pulling the wool over everyones eyes, they don't deserve the billions at the expense of the teams.


A team could spend a hundred million designing and building a car that runs at 98% of the fast pace. Then they spend 200 million extracting that last 2%. Is this sound business, is this going past the point of diminishing returns? If the FIA altered the regulations the cars could be much faster at a fraction of the cost. So although I like the engineering that goes into a Formula One car, IMO it is unnecessary and needless spending to impress .. who?

I also see some conflicts going on. The power units are supposed to embrace green technology .. yet money is being thrown around and precious resources used to be in a major redesign war? Between each race many millions are spent in the pursuit of performance.

As far as Williams joining Ferrari and Co. in a breakaway, please read this article. http://www.racer.com/f1/item/148483-williams-wanted-to-crack-open-some-champagne-after-f1-meeting

The essence of Formula One should not be throwing money around like crazy. It should be spent wisely.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apart from the Ferrari payment which is, well it is what it is,


... just wrong, plainly and simply wrong.


Once again... Ferrari brings in the money. Bernie recognized this and apparently Liberty recognizes this. That some rabid race fans don't see it is not likely to change the owners minds.


As for the suggested $150m budget cap... ridiculous! Why in hell should Ferrari, Merc and any others who have invested so much in the sport agree to that? All who are voicing support for it need to ask yourself if that is really the F1 you want? I am not sure you'll like what you get if it happens.

There are some decent ideas on their list, but they need a more reasonable cap number. It makes me wonder if F1 is going try to dictate to Ferrari, Merc and Renault what they must sell their engines for like FOM did earlier.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
So according to a report on Dutch telly, all the figures being bandies about are just speculation. If they are right, it seems that nothing has actually been set in stone yet and all they have are general proposals, rather than a blueprint.

One thing that they felt fairly confident on was the rumour that Liberty Media would make money available to Red Bull and McLaren (didn't elaborate why them specifically) to form a joint venture to manufacture their own engine, so that independents wouldn't be reliant on the big manufacturers in future. I stress they are saying it's just a rumour, but they claim to have spoken to a couple of F1 bosses who have corroborated it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14181
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apart from the Ferrari payment which is, well it is what it is,


... just wrong, plainly and simply wrong.


Once again... Ferrari brings in the money. Bernie recognized this and apparently Liberty recognizes this. That some rabid race fans don't see it is not likely to change the owners minds.


As for the suggested $150m budget cap... ridiculous! Why in hell should Ferrari, Merc and any others who have invested so much in the sport agree to that? All who are voicing support for it need to ask yourself if that is really the F1 you want? I am not sure you'll like what you get if it happens.

There are some decent ideas on their list, but they need a more reasonable cap number. It makes me wonder if F1 is going try to dictate to Ferrari, Merc and Renault what they must sell their engines for like FOM did earlier.


I think the budget cap solves the problem. Ferrari can get the extra money they are somewhat morally entitled to but can't really spend it on the car as they would have the $150 mil anyway.

The competition can stay fair whilst some teams that add more value can take more out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2033
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apart from the Ferrari payment which is, well it is what it is,


... just wrong, plainly and simply wrong.


Once again... Ferrari brings in the money. Bernie recognized this and apparently Liberty recognizes this. That some rabid race fans don't see it is not likely to change the owners minds.

.


Well, the overall product brings in the money.

F1 without Ferrari loses some value, at least in the short run.

F1 with only Ferrari has no value whatsoever.

So, the competition needs to stay healthy. Ferrari's superiour fanbase means that they have huge adavantages in raising sponsorship, revenues from merchandising, etc. Deservedly so. This already gives them a considerable competitive advantage. Further increasing this advantage by additionally biasing price money allocation drastically in their favour is just plainly and simply wrong. It violates the integrity of the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2033
Oh and please, Ecclestone did not " recognize" Ferrari's value. He just tried to bribe any major team out of the breakaway series and Ferrari were simply the first who jumped ship. That's the "historical" payment in reality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
UnlikeUday wrote:
Liberty wrote:
Engineering technology must remain a cornerstone but driver’s skill must be the predominant factor in the performance of the car.
Am I the only one who thinks that, if they really mean this, they are going to have to drop the "formula" in Formula 1? I know that in this PR-world, giving something a totally inappropriate name is "cool", but this borders on the ridiculous.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:54 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 839
Location: UK
Lotus49 wrote:
That first list needs to be unanimously approved by the teams by 30th April to introduce it for next year.

So not a chance in hell then.

* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)


Not trying to be distasteful in any way but, if the average man weighs 80kg, legs represent 20% of body weight and a seat weighs 5kg does that mean a person who has no legs would have to carry ballast. I'm thinking Billy Monger here.
Wouldn't some women weigh about 60 kg?

So what I'm saying is isn't min weight potentially highly contentious?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14181
Option or Prime wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
That first list needs to be unanimously approved by the teams by 30th April to introduce it for next year.

So not a chance in hell then.

* 80kg min. weight (driver+seat)


Not trying to be distasteful in any way but, if the average man weighs 80kg, legs represent 20% of body weight and a seat weighs 5kg does that mean a person who has no legs would have to carry ballast. I'm thinking Billy Monger here.
Wouldn't some women weigh about 60 kg?

So what I'm saying is isn't min weight potentially highly contentious?


I don't think so? The light drivers already carry ballast. This change just dictates where that ballast has to be located.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:49 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 839
Location: UK
OK, I hadnt realised that, thanks, I'd really like to see Billy Monger make the grade, In my view F1 needs a shake up but I'm a bit concerned that it might just end up an ill thought out jumble of ideas!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Wolff saying no to $150M, but suggesting $250M as much more reasonable

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/135213/150m-budget-cap-not-achievable--mercedes

According to the following article, nearly all the teams are well in excess of the $150M figure - which translates to only €122M, although the figures below are total budgets, I believe, which makes comparisons difficult. Even allowing for driver salaries etc, though, it would mean a massive reduction for the big boys and I'm not sure that's realistic

Code:
Mercedes   Approx. €450 million
Ferrari   Approx. €430 million
Red Bull   Approx. €350 million
McLaren   Approx. €250 million
Renault   Approx. €200 million
Sauber   Approx. €135 million
Williams   Approx. €135 million
Toro Rosso   Approx. €125 million
Haas   Approx. €110 million
Force India   Approx. €110 million


https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/236949/budgets-for-the-formula-1-teams-for-2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14181
Meet them half way and call it $200.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
Zoue wrote:
So according to a report on Dutch telly, all the figures being bandies about are just speculation. If they are right, it seems that nothing has actually been set in stone yet and all they have are general proposals, rather than a blueprint.

One thing that they felt fairly confident on was the rumour that Liberty Media would make money available to Red Bull and McLaren (didn't elaborate why them specifically) to form a joint venture to manufacture their own engine, so that independents wouldn't be reliant on the big manufacturers in future. I stress they are saying it's just a rumour, but they claim to have spoken to a couple of F1 bosses who have corroborated it


What Liberty did was lay out a proposal. Now all the interested parties can get down to talking and negotiating. A reference point has been established, now everyone has that reference point to work with.

From what I have read about this proposal, Liberty *may* intend to treat engine manufacturers like teams, assess them points based on results and dole out rewards and money at year's end to engine manufacturer's based on results.

IMO one main reason for these proposals is to make Formula One viable from a business perspective and attract new teams and engine manufacturers.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Oh and please, Ecclestone did not " recognize" Ferrari's value. He just tried to bribe any major team out of the breakaway series and Ferrari were simply the first who jumped ship. That's the "historical" payment in reality.


Whatever you say.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2905
Location: UK
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apart from the Ferrari payment which is, well it is what it is,


... just wrong, plainly and simply wrong.


Once again... Ferrari brings in the money. Bernie recognized this and apparently Liberty recognizes this. That some rabid race fans don't see it is not likely to change the owners minds.

.


Well, the overall product brings in the money.

F1 without Ferrari loses some value, at least in the short run.

F1 with only Ferrari has no value whatsoever.

So, the competition needs to stay healthy. Ferrari's superiour fanbase means that they have huge adavantages in raising sponsorship, revenues from merchandising, etc. Deservedly so. This already gives them a considerable competitive advantage. Further increasing this advantage by additionally biasing price money allocation drastically in their favour is just plainly and simply wrong. It violates the integrity of the sport.

:thumbup:

And how much value does Ferrari have without F1? I would argue that it is F1 that has made Ferrari what it is, not the other way round as many of their fans seem to believe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2905
Location: UK
pokerman wrote:
j man wrote:
I'm all for levelling the playing field but a budget cap seems a bit of an extreme measure. I would love to see an equitable division of the TV revenue and the end of special payments to certain teams so that everyone can compete fairly, but I have no problem with some teams having a bit more to spend on top as a result of effective marketing/branding and sponsorship deals.

But overall I'd give a thumbs up to the direction that Liberty are trying to take the sport.

A budget cap is actually the only way to level the playing field between the teams.

I don't believe so. F1 teams are businesses and have shareholders to appease, and no one is going to operate at a loss for a sustained period of time.

As I said I have no problem with some teams having a bit more money than others, my objection is to the lower teams being given such a small cut of the revenue that they have no chance to compete at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
j man wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apart from the Ferrari payment which is, well it is what it is,


... just wrong, plainly and simply wrong.


Once again... Ferrari brings in the money. Bernie recognized this and apparently Liberty recognizes this. That some rabid race fans don't see it is not likely to change the owners minds.

.


Well, the overall product brings in the money.

F1 without Ferrari loses some value, at least in the short run.

F1 with only Ferrari has no value whatsoever.

So, the competition needs to stay healthy. Ferrari's superiour fanbase means that they have huge adavantages in raising sponsorship, revenues from merchandising, etc. Deservedly so. This already gives them a considerable competitive advantage. Further increasing this advantage by additionally biasing price money allocation drastically in their favour is just plainly and simply wrong. It violates the integrity of the sport.

:thumbup:

And how much value does Ferrari have without F1? I would argue that it is F1 that has made Ferrari what it is, not the other way round as many of their fans seem to believe.


You believe whatever you wish. Ferrari's and F1's growth has been largely hand-in-hand, but F1 has not been Ferrari's only game.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 926
Location: Brazil
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Chase Carey, Chairman and CEO at Formula One, said: "Formula One is a sport with a rich history. We want to preserve, protect and enhance that history by unleashing F1s potential, by putting our fans at the heart of a more competitive and more exciting sport. We are driven by one desire: to create the world's leading sporting brand. Fan- centred, commercially successful, profitable for our teams, and with technological innovation at its heart."

I like this a lot. Finally, Formula One has a roadmap and clearly defined goals. One thing that jumps out at me is that this plan is designed with a sane business model in mind. Under current practices, anyone wishing to enter this sport has a very high probability of crashing and burning. That is not good business. It does not attract new teams or investors, it does not have a healthy future.

Make no mistake, Liberty are taking control of the sport in a manner very alien to Ecclestone's practices. Instead of Bernie's "divide and conquer", and basically bribing teams to agree with him, Liberty have laid out a roadmap for the teams to digest, and then either join the parade or use the door. The teams will be stripped of their abilities to control the sport. Instead of the lunatics running the asylum, now we will have a much simpler hierarchy.

What Liberty are doing is what any new owner does, to clean house. And they are going to resolve this in the near future. Five years from now Ferrari will either be in Formula One, or not. They deserve to be in Formula One, but their politics and influence in the sport will be gone. And Liberty are giving them enough notice to decide, and act on their decision. If they are going to leave and maybe form a new competitive series, now is the time to march. In poker, this is known as calling their bluff.

Oh my, I expect a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth by some teams. It will probably get ugly, but in the end, Liberty will tell everyone to either sign on the dotted line or get out.


Nearly 40 years later, FOCA revolt is subdued. And that's not a bad thing at all.

Americans also tend to handle BoP better in IMSA series than FIA in the WEC.

Blake wrote:
You believe whatever you wish. Ferrari's and F1's growth has been largely hand-in-hand, but F1 has not been Ferrari's only game.


Few doubt Ferrari's ability to build competitive cars, but they have been getting breaks in F1 for a long time and done little with it. Last year was the tenth anniversary of the last drivers' title they won (with their champion being treated like an also ran by the team). What makes you think they'll sweep the floor with any series they choose to enter if they decide to leave F1?

Currently the top flight endurance series are WeatherTech SCC and WEC. IMSA/NASCAR are not the FIA and won't allow Ferrari to have their way with the rules should they move up to DPi class. The WEC is all but dead with a grid of Toyota plus privateers. IndyCar is spec series, so not to Ferrari's liking. Anywhere they go, they won't have "longevity" bonuses nor executives turning a blind eye to their practices. I'd say their position is currently much weaker than that of Liberty.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:32 pm
Posts: 392
As a long term fan who stopped watching the races when F1 became "Formula Mercedes" a few years ago and am only returning to the sport this year, I for one am glad with what Liberty Media is doing with F1. Finally someone is actually treating F1 like a sustainable business and an entertainment product rather than an arena for the rich manufacturers to masturbate. For far too long F1 has been a playground for a handful of rich teams who have for all intents and purposes made the sport unsustainable for most teams on the grid to be competive in. A spending cap is a great idea and will go a long way towards turning F1 into a sustainable business for most teams on the grids. When a sport is run like a business with goals of growing the sport and the revenues, the consumers win.

I really hope Liberty media can get F1 to a state where most teams on the grid can hope to compete and you don't have YEARS of domination by 1 or two teams. I don't give a damn if that comes at the expense of "F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of tech". Sorry don't give a damn, F1 is a racing series first and foremost and 99.999% of the fans are not there to appreciate how some obscure tech is making the car go .030 seconds faster. I live on the west coast in US and for me I have to wake up at 6-7am on Saturdays/Sundays after an evening of consuming a lot of drinks to watch most European races and I am not willing to do that if the product is absolutely garbage with only a handful of competitive teams and minimal overtaking. Sorry. Certainly the average fan or a new fan is not willing to watch racing that is basically procession. The last really good seasons I remember were the ones where the Pirelli tires were shaking things up and we had a new winner pretty much every race.

I think Liberty media has the right idea and has done some great things for the sport. Simply putting highlights and team radio on YouTube has been amazing and was one of the things that brought be back to F1 after giving up on it for years. F1 should seek to emulate NFL and NHL, in these leagues most teams are competitive on a game to game basis, you still have good teams that are consistently good but they do it on a even playing field rather than spending their way to the top. I love the proposals Liberty is making (esp the spending cap). I hope they are also willing to step on some sacred cows and get rid of crap tracks like Monaco, Spain or Australia which are no longer conducive to exciting racing in this day and age. If it means we have to lose manufacturers like Mercedes, Ferrari to make this happen than I am more than happy to lose them. At the end of the day, it's the quality of the racing that matters to me, not the branding on the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 919
iceman_fan90 wrote:
As a long term fan who stopped watching the races when F1 became "Formula Mercedes" a few years ago and am only returning to the sport this year, I for one am glad with what Liberty Media is doing with F1. Finally someone is actually treating F1 like a sustainable business and an entertainment product rather than an arena for the rich manufacturers to masturbate. For far too long F1 has been a playground for a handful of rich teams who have for all intents and purposes made the sport unsustainable for most teams on the grid to be competive in. A spending cap is a great idea and will go a long way towards turning F1 into a sustainable business for most teams on the grids. When a sport is run like a business with goals of growing the sport and the revenues, the consumers win.

I really hope Liberty media can get F1 to a state where most teams on the grid can hope to compete and you don't have YEARS of domination by 1 or two teams. I don't give a damn if that comes at the expense of "F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of tech". Sorry don't give a damn, F1 is a racing series first and foremost and 99.999% of the fans are not there to appreciate how some obscure tech is making the car go .030 seconds faster. I live on the west coast in US and for me I have to wake up at 6-7am on Saturdays/Sundays after an evening of consuming a lot of drinks to watch most European races and I am not willing to do that if the product is absolutely garbage with only a handful of competitive teams and minimal overtaking. Sorry. Certainly the average fan or a new fan is not willing to watch racing that is basically procession. The last really good seasons I remember were the ones where the Pirelli tires were shaking things up and we had a new winner pretty much every race.

I think Liberty media has the right idea and has done some great things for the sport. Simply putting highlights and team radio on YouTube has been amazing and was one of the things that brought be back to F1 after giving up on it for years. F1 should seek to emulate NFL and NHL, in these leagues most teams are competitive on a game to game basis, you still have good teams that are consistently good but they do it on a even playing field rather than spending their way to the top. I love the proposals Liberty is making (esp the spending cap). I hope they are also willing to step on some sacred cows and get rid of crap tracks like Monaco, Spain or Australia which are no longer conducive to exciting racing in this day and age. If it means we have to lose manufacturers like Mercedes, Ferrari to make this happen than I am more than happy to lose them. At the end of the day, it's the quality of the racing that matters to me, not the branding on the car.


I am just curious. Did you watch F1 between 2000 and 2004, and between 2010 and 2013?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2018 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6680
Location: Mumbai, India
This surely is welcome news.

One more change FIA wish to bring into F1 in 2021 is getting rid of DRS.
https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/-238464/f1-aims-to-drop-drs-in-2021

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5899
Location: Michigan, USA
UnlikeUday wrote:
This surely is welcome news.

One more change FIA wish to bring into F1 in 2021 is getting rid of DRS.
https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/-238464/f1-aims-to-drop-drs-in-2021

That's only welcome news if their overtaking overhaul works. Otherwise it'll plunge us back into pre-2009 levels of processional racing.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4851
Shamelessly lifted statman's post from AS, I think it's from AMuS but not entirely sure...

google translate for every to read:



google translate:

The engine manufacturers have made a U-turn. They do not want to do without the MGU-H in the engines from 2021 onwards and continue to negotiate with the FIA. This eliminates the entry of new manufacturers and creates a dangerous cartel.

FIA President Jean Todt and Formula One leaders Chase Carey and Ross Brawn can't believe what they were hearing at the latest strategy meeting in London on 4 July. Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault changed course about the engine regulations for 2021 and now again on the whereabouts of the MGU-H and thus the existing engine architecture. Previously, with a heavy heart, they had already said goodbye to the electrical engine in the exhaust tract. The FIA ​​called for simpler and cheaper engines to cut costs and attract new manufacturers to Formula One.

The complexity of the MGU-H practically excludes this. Even Porsche would come only on the basis of a stripped-down regulations. All other car companies have shown Formula One the cold shoulder. It would take far too long and cost too much until they were reasonably competitive with the current engine regulations. Honda is a daunting example. Only now, in their fourth season, are the Japanese taking root so slowly. Private engine manufacturers are excluded from the outset.

The car companies represented in Formula 1 defend the preservation of the 2014 introduced engine technology with always the same flimsy arguments. Series relevance, costs, too much unit technology. The MGU-H in particular will never make it into mass production and will remain a technology for hypercars and industrial machinery. The "hot" electric machine chokes off excess energy in the exhaust tract and converts it into electricity. But this must also be done under full load. In countries with speed limits, the series engines never come in this area. In Germany, the cars are in traffic for most of the time. Calling the MGU-H a green technology anyway is window dressing. On the special test benches, where the MGU-H is tested separately with exhaust tract and turbocharger, the manufacturers burn more gasoline than with two cars throughout the season.

The car companies claim that redesigning an engine without MGU-H would cost too much money. They also build a new engine every year. The problem of a double development in 2020 was to eliminate the FIA ​​from freezing the current engines in the last year of the control cycle. But this met with resistance from the manufacturers who have the feeling that they still have to catch up with Mercedes and Ferrari.

Even if the construction of a new engine costs more money for a year, it would cost manufacturers less in the following years. Because the development effort is lower because of the simpler technique. The manufacturers are also opposed to excessive turbocharger limitations and the plug-in idea that should dictate the chassis and transmission linkage points in order to simplify a change of engine supplier teams. On the other hand, they offer that at a certain point in time, you no longer run development and then really save money. Where, then, is the high-tech approach demanded by the car companies if you can not touch the engines any more?

With their veto against the plans of the FIA ​​and Liberty, Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault have again bought three to four months time. That's enough to avert a new engine regulation for 2021. The deadline for developing a new engine by this season has already expired. Also for manufacturers who would be interested in Formula One.

The F1 management now believes that Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault have very different interests. One wants to foreclose, build a cartel that makes the FIA ​​and Liberty dependent on the manufacturers and not vice versa. "They are afraid to give up their mastery and that then Porsche or any other manufacturer comes and drives them around the ears," says one. The U-turn not only excludes new candidates in the engine market. It also puts pressure on the other teams financially.

The engines would be delivered for 10 million euros per season, but that defines only part of the cost. The hybrid monsters require much more complex chassis due to the elaborate cooling and housing of the many elements and controllers. On the one hand, that makes money, keeps the gap between the big and small teams going up and makes it unnecessarily difficult for potential newcomers. Anyone wanting to get into Formula One today must team up with a manufacturer like HaasF1. Maybe this model is exactly what the auto companies are aiming for. Full control.

Red Bull could be 2021 without engine. Honda only stays in Formula 1 when they win races with Red Bull. "If we were to be without an engine in 2021, who will give us one? We will not go begging at Mercedes and Renault. The three manufacturers then have it in their hands who they (Beep) which engine, "fears Red Bull team boss Christian Horner. Before that happens, Red Bull gets off with two teams. You do not just have to worry about Red Bull and Toro Rosso. Force India, Williams and McLaren are also suffering. And replacement is not at the door

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:04 am
Posts: 295

Good info, was looking forward to the possibility of new engine manufacturers entering the sport. Seems like that is out the window now.

_________________
- Mod Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1364
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Lotus49 wrote:
Shamelessly lifted statman's post from AS, I think it's from AMuS but not entirely sure...

google translate for every to read:



google translate:

The engine manufacturers have made a U-turn. They do not want to do without the MGU-H in the engines from 2021 onwards and continue to negotiate with the FIA. This eliminates the entry of new manufacturers and creates a dangerous cartel.

FIA President Jean Todt and Formula One leaders Chase Carey and Ross Brawn can't believe what they were hearing at the latest strategy meeting in London on 4 July. Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault changed course about the engine regulations for 2021 and now again on the whereabouts of the MGU-H and thus the existing engine architecture. Previously, with a heavy heart, they had already said goodbye to the electrical engine in the exhaust tract. The FIA ​​called for simpler and cheaper engines to cut costs and attract new manufacturers to Formula One.

The complexity of the MGU-H practically excludes this. Even Porsche would come only on the basis of a stripped-down regulations. All other car companies have shown Formula One the cold shoulder. It would take far too long and cost too much until they were reasonably competitive with the current engine regulations. Honda is a daunting example. Only now, in their fourth season, are the Japanese taking root so slowly. Private engine manufacturers are excluded from the outset.

The car companies represented in Formula 1 defend the preservation of the 2014 introduced engine technology with always the same flimsy arguments. Series relevance, costs, too much unit technology. The MGU-H in particular will never make it into mass production and will remain a technology for hypercars and industrial machinery. The "hot" electric machine chokes off excess energy in the exhaust tract and converts it into electricity. But this must also be done under full load. In countries with speed limits, the series engines never come in this area. In Germany, the cars are in traffic for most of the time. Calling the MGU-H a green technology anyway is window dressing. On the special test benches, where the MGU-H is tested separately with exhaust tract and turbocharger, the manufacturers burn more gasoline than with two cars throughout the season.

The car companies claim that redesigning an engine without MGU-H would cost too much money. They also build a new engine every year. The problem of a double development in 2020 was to eliminate the FIA ​​from freezing the current engines in the last year of the control cycle. But this met with resistance from the manufacturers who have the feeling that they still have to catch up with Mercedes and Ferrari.

Even if the construction of a new engine costs more money for a year, it would cost manufacturers less in the following years. Because the development effort is lower because of the simpler technique. The manufacturers are also opposed to excessive turbocharger limitations and the plug-in idea that should dictate the chassis and transmission linkage points in order to simplify a change of engine supplier teams. On the other hand, they offer that at a certain point in time, you no longer run development and then really save money. Where, then, is the high-tech approach demanded by the car companies if you can not touch the engines any more?

With their veto against the plans of the FIA ​​and Liberty, Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault have again bought three to four months time. That's enough to avert a new engine regulation for 2021. The deadline for developing a new engine by this season has already expired. Also for manufacturers who would be interested in Formula One.

The F1 management now believes that Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault have very different interests. One wants to foreclose, build a cartel that makes the FIA ​​and Liberty dependent on the manufacturers and not vice versa. "They are afraid to give up their mastery and that then Porsche or any other manufacturer comes and drives them around the ears," says one. The U-turn not only excludes new candidates in the engine market. It also puts pressure on the other teams financially.

The engines would be delivered for 10 million euros per season, but that defines only part of the cost. The hybrid monsters require much more complex chassis due to the elaborate cooling and housing of the many elements and controllers. On the one hand, that makes money, keeps the gap between the big and small teams going up and makes it unnecessarily difficult for potential newcomers. Anyone wanting to get into Formula One today must team up with a manufacturer like HaasF1. Maybe this model is exactly what the auto companies are aiming for. Full control.

Red Bull could be 2021 without engine. Honda only stays in Formula 1 when they win races with Red Bull. "If we were to be without an engine in 2021, who will give us one? We will not go begging at Mercedes and Renault. The three manufacturers then have it in their hands who they (Beep) which engine, "fears Red Bull team boss Christian Horner. Before that happens, Red Bull gets off with two teams. You do not just have to worry about Red Bull and Toro Rosso. Force India, Williams and McLaren are also suffering. And replacement is not at the door


If this is true, and there's every indication it is, then I'm afraid it's no more than the sport deserves and it could very well sound the beginning of the end of F1.

It's an absolute disgrace they way the manufacturers are dictating terms in a sport which they'll abandon anytime they like while the great teams who are in it for racing like Williams & McLaren become also rans with no chance of getting back to the top.

Ecclestone, CVC & the FIA should hang their heads in shame over what they've done to this sport.

What I'd like to see is Liberty say "Stuff you" to the big 3, get in Porsche, Cosworth, Judd, Engines "R" Us, Petes Perfect Power Units, and any other engine manufacturer they can find & sort the engine regs out for 2021 without Ferrari, Merc or Renault.

Either that or maybe the privateer teams need to take a stand & say "if the regs stay like this, we're gone". See how F1 goes with a 6 car series. Then again, all the big 3 will probably do is enter 6 cars each I suppose.

I sincerely hope Liberty take a stand here and wrest back control of the sport and not just kowtow to the whims of the big 3. There could be interesting times ahead.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5899
Location: Michigan, USA
Jezza13 wrote:
If this is true, and there's every indication it is, then I'm afraid it's no more than the sport deserves and it could very well sound the beginning of the end of F1.

It's an absolute disgrace they way the manufacturers are dictating terms in a sport which they'll abandon anytime they like while the great teams who are in it for racing like Williams & McLaren become also rans with no chance of getting back to the top.

Ecclestone, CVC & the FIA should hang their heads in shame over what they've done to this sport.

What I'd like to see is Liberty say "Stuff you" to the big 3, get in Porsche, Cosworth, Judd, Engines "R" Us, Petes Perfect Power Units, and any other engine manufacturer they can find & sort the engine regs out for 2021 without Ferrari, Merc or Renault.

Either that or maybe the privateer teams need to take a stand & say "if the regs stay like this, we're gone". See how F1 goes with a 6 car series. Then again, all the big 3 will probably do is enter 6 cars each I suppose.

I sincerely hope Liberty take a stand here and wrest back control of the sport and not just kowtow to the whims of the big 3. There could be interesting times ahead.

:thumbup:

For the health of the sport, I think it's past the point of mattering whether the 'Big Three' are bluffing or not. F1 can't become locked into being an engine cartel for the foreseeable future.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14181
FOM simply have to call their bluff. If they make a set of rules enticing enough then other big players will come in and losing existing manufacturers won't be an issue. They just have to be brave. F1 has for too long been held at ransom by the demands of the few.


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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheGiantHogweed and 1 guest


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

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