Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

So, the new turbo engines 'kept Mercedes in F1'


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#1 Zoony

Zoony
  • Member

  • 131 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:39

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/113363

 

This is the trouble with letting manufacturers rule the roost in F1. They're not racers, and they're only in it as a marketing ploy.

 

In my opinion, F1 is much much better without manufacturers teams, who will up and leave as soon as their boards sense that further participation is not beneficial to their core business of selling motor cars.

 

And Niki's comment at the end about there 'being no more fans' [without the manufacturers]...? Yeah, right, Niki. Like there were no F1 fans in the 1970s, when the grid was full of garagistes and DFVs? Bring it back on is what I say!



Advertisement

#2 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 170 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:43

But without the manufactures there would be no F1.

 

The rule change was a success if it kept both Renault and Mercedes in the sport and is bringing in Honda (again)... and who knows maybe even Cosworth could be on the way (back) in someday...



#3 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,228 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:48

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/113363

 

This is the trouble with letting manufacturers rule the roost in F1. They're not racers, and they're only in it as a marketing ploy.

 

In my opinion, F1 is much much better without manufacturers teams, who will up and leave as soon as their boards sense that further participation is not beneficial to their core business of selling motor cars.

 

And Niki's comment at the end about there 'being no more fans' [without the manufacturers]...? Yeah, right, Niki. Like there were no F1 fans in the 1970s, when the grid was full of garagistes and DFVs? Bring it back on is what I say!

 

So, if there are no manufacturers, which powerplants would the teams be using in F1?

I very much doubt Cosworth would be ready to supply the whole field of F1 with engines right now.:p

So we'd have a new F1 - the Flintstone F1.:D



#4 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,338 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:52

F1 have existed without Mercedes and Renault in the past and would have survived and existed had they both left. Some other manufacturers would see the chance to become a F1 winner, and some of the smaller engine tuners would have build an engine after all. There could have been a Cosworth, a PURE a Hart and whichever else is out there that we are not hearing about.

 

:cool:



#5 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:56

'Nostalgia's not what it used to be'. The 1970s only worked because Ford stumped up the money to supply the engines to allow the 'garagistes' to perform, though I seem to recall that term was originally meant in a derogatory term.

The article implies that Mercedes would presumably pulled out of engine supply, not just running a racing team, along with Renault, if the engine regs had not changed, so we would presumably been left with Formula Ferrari, which would have led to unlimited testing, 'cos Ferrari would have been calling the shots, with everything that implies.

Not sure I really want to see every race and championship won by Ferrari for the next 6 years, [Typed whilst drinking tea from Ferrari 50th anniversary mug!]

#6 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:59

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/113363

 

This is the trouble with letting manufacturers rule the roost in F1. They're not racers, and they're only in it as a marketing ploy.

 

In my opinion, F1 is much much better without manufacturers teams, who will up and leave as soon as their boards sense that further participation is not beneficial to their core business of selling motor cars.

 

And Niki's comment at the end about there 'being no more fans' [without the manufacturers]...? Yeah, right, Niki. Like there were no F1 fans in the 1970s, when the grid was full of garagistes and DFVs? Bring it back on is what I say!

 

 

Hey, man, look, I get it. I'm getting old, too. I don't want to die, either. But the future is not ours. Things change and screaming into a cave isn't going to stop the march of time.



#7 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 555 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:08

Yay, another thread whining about rule changes.

 

Get real, they had to happen, accept it, move on.



#8 keiichi

keiichi
  • Member

  • 313 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:09

F1 has been a mix of "garagistes" and manufacturers from the very beginning, and so it should be.



#9 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,282 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:14

But without the manufactures there would be no F1.

 

The rule change was a success if it kept both Renault and Mercedes in the sport and is bringing in Honda (again)... and who knows maybe even Cosworth could be on the way (back) in someday...

 

Mecachrome (an outfit Briatore bought back in the Beneton days) still builds the Renault Engines, the electronics for both the Renault and Ferrari PUs are outsourced to Magneti Marelli. 

Mercedes HPE was Ilmor till Merc bought them

Cosworth can still produce engines

 

the world would not stop revolving without manufacturers, quite the opposite. Yes you 'd have infinity badged Mecachromes and whatever, but life would go on



#10 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:28

So the option would be having maufacturer support, with the resulting big gaps between engine manufacturers that we have due to new rules...

 

...or less manufacturer support, with teams having to shop around for whatever they can get. Would probably be great for Ferrari and everyone else miles behind with Cosworths, non-Renault-funded Mechachromes and whoever else turned up at the last minute.

 

Probably not much difference in on track product, but probably fewer headaches with the former.



#11 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:38

Mecachrome (an outfit Briatore bought back in the Beneton days) still builds the Renault Engines, the electronics for both the Renault and Ferrari PUs are outsourced to Magneti Marelli. 
Mercedes HPE was Ilmor till Merc bought them
Cosworth can still produce engines
 
the world would not stop revolving without manufacturers, quite the opposite. Yes you 'd have infinity badged Mecachromes and whatever, but life would go on

Mecachrome might build the Renault engines but I bet they did not pay for the development. Mercedes group paid for the development of the Mercedes HPE engines. Renault and Ferrari paid Magneti Marelli for the electronic.
Would a stand alone Mecachrome or Cosworth, Pure etc be able to complete with Ferrari without having to charge the teams much more than they could realistically afford.

I agree the world would not stop revolving, but f1 might become even more erratic than some claim the current evolution has become.

#12 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,282 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:48

So the option would be having maufacturer support, with the resulting big gaps between engine manufacturers that we have due to new rules...

 

...or less manufacturer support, with teams having to shop around for whatever they can get. Would probably be great for Ferrari and everyone else miles behind with Cosworths, non-Renault-funded Mechachromes and whoever else turned up at the last minute.

 

Probably not much difference in on track product, but probably fewer headaches with the former.

 

you have a contrived set of regulations that try to keep manufacturers "interested" but also not "spending much". What keeps manufacturers interested is the publicity they get from winning, what in theory stops them from spending much is homologuation. I personally don't see the difference between Mercedes badged Ilmors (which lets not forget that's what Merc engines were for the longest time) and whatever badged Mecachromes/Cosworths etc.

 

Innovation though will follow the money, and with the current engines costing roughly 20mil per season per team 200+ mil per season is plenty enough incentive for the Mecachromes and Cosworths of this world to attract good. innovative engineers. It's not like Oh Renault left, Merc left, ohmygod F1 engines are designed by Bob in his garden shed 

 

Personally though, I 'd see the "big" teams fund their own engine programs, McLaren engine, Red Bull engine etc



#13 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:53

you have a contrived set of regulations that try to keep manufacturers "interested" but also not "spending much". What keeps manufacturers interested is the publicity they get from winning, what in theory stops them from spending much is homologuation. I personally don't see the difference between Mercedes badged Ilmors (which lets not forget that's what Merc engines were for the longest time) and whatever badged Mecachromes/Cosworths etc.
 
Innovation though will follow the money, and with the current engines costing roughly 20mil per season per team 200+ mil per season is plenty enough incentive for the Mecachromes and Cosworths of this world to attract good. innovative engineers. It's not like Oh Renault left, Merc left, ohmygod F1 engines are designed by Bob in his garden shed 
 
Personally though, I 'd see the "big" teams fund their own engine programs, McLaren engine, Red Bull engine etc

I am not sure I want to see just 3-4 teams in F1, each running 5-6 cars each. Although I guess the radio messages might get interesting - 'Fellipe - Alonso, Kimi, Lewis and Sebastian are faster than you'.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 09 April 2014 - 09:54.


#14 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:56

you have a contrived set of regulations that try to keep manufacturers "interested" but also not "spending much". What keeps manufacturers interested is the publicity they get from winning, what in theory stops them from spending much is homologuation. I personally don't see the difference between Mercedes badged Ilmors (which lets not forget that's what Merc engines were for the longest time) and whatever badged Mecachromes/Cosworths etc.

 

Innovation though will follow the money, and with the current engines costing roughly 20mil per season per team 200+ mil per season is plenty enough incentive for the Mecachromes and Cosworths of this world to attract good. innovative engineers. It's not like Oh Renault left, Merc left, ohmygod F1 engines are designed by Bob in his garden shed 

 

Personally though, I 'd see the "big" teams fund their own engine programs, McLaren engine, Red Bull engine etc

 

If all Mercedes did was put a badge on the Ilmor, you might have a point, but I'm sure they pumped a fair bit of cash into it too. Of course they now own the whole lot so if they pulled out would they sell Ilmor to become independent again?

 

Innovation does follow the money. Where does the money come from? Bob's Garden Shed Engines probably can't afford to pay high salaries for as many engineers as Mercedes-Benz or Renault. Does the cost fall on the teams? Might work for McLaren or Red Bull, but it doesn't make things any better for the lower half of the grid.



#15 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 469 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 09 April 2014 - 10:01

Biggest bull i've read. If it were the V8/V10s, and Merc won the first 3 races, they would be singing the same tune. 

 

It's just marketing/PR butter up...



#16 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,282 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 09 April 2014 - 10:17

If all Mercedes did was put a badge on the Ilmor, you might have a point, but I'm sure they pumped a fair bit of cash into it too. Of course they now own the whole lot so if they pulled out would they sell Ilmor to become independent again?

 

Innovation does follow the money. Where does the money come from? Bob's Garden Shed Engines probably can't afford to pay high salaries for as many engineers as Mercedes-Benz or Renault. Does the cost fall on the teams? Might work for McLaren or Red Bull, but it doesn't make things any better for the lower half of the grid.

 

I 'd agree if the engines, right now, weren't pretty much half the budget of a team like Marussia :)

 

My point is this say (for the sake of making the arithmetic easier) you have 12 F1 teams. That's 3 "lots" of 4 teams each, each lot spending 80mil per season on engines. Over 5 seasons which is a conservative length for homologuation that's a total of 400mil. That's plenty of money to R&D and manufacture engines which are meant to be homologuated, and modern finance makes it possible to useup the R&D upfont and amortize it over the length of the homologuation. Don't forget the intent of the regulations we have right now was for a 100 million upfront spend, not half a billion before an engine ever got installed in a car.

 

F1 can be self sustaining with the 2 billion of revenue it generates and produce its own engines so that manufacturers are a bonus but not a necessity. But for that to happen they will need a more "socialist" structure that ensures even the smaller teams can fund themselves, not to a championship contention level of course.



#17 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,995 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 09 April 2014 - 10:47

I 'd agree if the engines, right now, weren't pretty much half the budget of a team like Marussia :)

My point is this say (for the sake of making the arithmetic easier) you have 12 F1 teams. That's 3 "lots" of 4 teams each, each lot spending 80mil per season on engines. Over 5 seasons which is a conservative length for homologuation that's a total of 400mil. That's plenty of money to R&D and manufacture engines which are meant to be homologuated, and modern finance makes it possible to useup the R&D upfont and amortize it over the length of the homologuation. Don't forget the intent of the regulations we have right now was for a 100 million upfront spend, not half a billion before an engine ever got installed in a car.

F1 can be self sustaining with the 2 billion of revenue it generates and produce its own engines so that manufacturers are a bonus but not a necessity. But for that to happen they will need a more "socialist" structure that ensures even the smaller teams can fund themselves, not to a championship contention level of course.

The definitive of the realms of fantasy surely!
Have you factored in the start up and running costs of these specialsed engine plants perchance?

Edited by Fatgadget, 09 April 2014 - 10:49.


#18 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,954 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 April 2014 - 10:57

F1 have existed without Mercedes and Renault in the past and would have survived and existed had they both left. Some other manufacturers would see the chance to become a F1 winner, and some of the smaller engine tuners would have build an engine after all. There could have been a Cosworth, a PURE a Hart and whichever else is out there that we are not hearing about.

 

:cool:

It's always great to see such optimism still around...



#19 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,270 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 11:12

We don't need many manufacturer teams in F1, but we do need them to actually build the engines. That makes two who would of left F1 without changing the rules, compared to zero who were interested in joining. Pretty good we aren't still running the V8s then.

Advertisement

#20 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,545 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 09 April 2014 - 11:42

But without the manufactures there would be no F1.

 

 

The 'golden era' of Formula 1 was a circus of customer cars and almost everyone running the same engine. 



#21 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,496 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 11:56

Oh yeah? Which golden era was that? :)



#22 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 April 2014 - 12:08

Oh yeah? Which golden era was that? :)


1970's IMHO, although it also had actual real characters too, and a downside with all the accidents.

#23 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 09 April 2014 - 13:28

A Mercedes board member said something really scary and it was reported in Autosport today. he said that then new rules kept M-B in F1, but he added that it is only valuable when (if) they are winning. He said that if they weren't winning it was only Marketing and that wasn't reason enough to remain in F1. I am paraphrasing.

 

So, it seems that Renault, Ferrari and perhaps Honda next year are only "marketing" their product and I gather that if mercedes doesn't win next year it will become merely "marketing" and so they will depart. So, amid all the nice noise about the new F1 being so technically important is the message that one must win to justify it all. Win races? Win championships? Who knows? Whatever the case is M-B's time in F1 seems to be limited, for, inevitably, they cannot win forever.



#24 4MEN

4MEN
  • Member

  • 1,556 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 09 April 2014 - 13:34

I wouldn't mind an F1 with just one single engine supplier.



#25 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,817 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 09 April 2014 - 13:35

But we all know that. If I am Lewis for ex, I am already asking my agent to keep his eyes and ears open as mercedes will not be around as long as McLaren or Ferrari for ex. Not as a team anyway. 



#26 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,995 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 09 April 2014 - 13:48

I wouldn't mind an F1 with just one single engine supplier.


Me neither. Will allways have twists and turns making it equally just as riveting...I somehow doubt the likes of Ferrari would play ball though.Tradition and all that....

#27 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 09 April 2014 - 13:54

Me neither. Will allways have twists and turns making it equally just as riveting...I somehow doubt the likes of Ferrari would play ball though.Tradition and all that....

 

 Well, they can use their special Veto and keep their Ferrari engine and every other team can have Mercedes engines. All the teams would take that deal right now. :lol:



#28 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 13:58

A Mercedes board member said something really scary and it was reported in Autosport today. he said that then new rules kept M-B in F1, but he added that it is only valuable when (if) they are winning. He said that if they weren't winning it was only Marketing and that wasn't reason enough to remain in F1. I am paraphrasing.

 

So, it seems that Renault, Ferrari and perhaps Honda next year are only "marketing" their product and I gather that if mercedes doesn't win next year it will become merely "marketing" and so they will depart. So, amid all the nice noise about the new F1 being so technically important is the message that one must win to justify it all. Win races? Win championships? Who knows? Whatever the case is M-B's time in F1 seems to be limited, for, inevitably, they cannot win forever.

 

In equally scary news, Tuesday will follow on from Monday.



#29 AngelaTifosi

AngelaTifosi
  • Member

  • 484 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:00

They are just trying to remind FIA and place pressure on them not to attempt in season regulations change that rbr and ferrari hope for.



#30 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 154 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:04

and kept Renault too.

 

So I guess all of you would be fine with a Formula Ferrrari series.



#31 AngelaTifosi

AngelaTifosi
  • Member

  • 484 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:09

Funny how F1 is so worthless with each team threatening to quit if they are not winning everything.



#32 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,545 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:26

With manufacturers they sometimes leave after they've won...



#33 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:28

In equally scary news, Tuesday will follow on from Monday.

Good point! I was amazed, though, that he was so open about it.



#34 AnR

AnR
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:30

Let's hope Honda finds 3 sec on Mercedes, see who's complaining, and who threats...



#35 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,231 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:34

really, people are taking a Corporate PR report this seriously??? do people really believe Mercedes would've left the sport if they didn't win first 3 races??? also, the engine formula was decided upon 3 years ago, and now a corporate spokesperson says merc would've left if not for the new engine ... 

 

corporate drivel BS is not even worth reading. 

 

nothing to see here. ... move along.



#36 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:45

I call BS on this from Mercedes and see it simply as PR to try and calm the situation down from media and fans pissed about the engines. I get the need to advance.. I get the need for hybrid, electric components...all well and good. Its just the current displacement that's the issue. Should have stuck with a v8.. I love how Mercedes says it's the future yet look at their AMG engines in their top end cars.. people want the grunt of a v8! Period. Otherwise, go buy a kia.

#37 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:49

Look at what the current gold std is in media for car testing... setting the fastest lap time at nurbergring.. Hardly anyone notices 0-60 or stopping distance or fuel economy I can't imagine very many Mercedes buyers are hitting the showrooms going what kind of fuel economy is my amg getting.. even for non amg customers. One of the hottest merc's here in Canada is the silly glk.. and it gets horrible gas mileage.

#38 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:51

F1 can be self sustaining with the 2 billion of revenue it generates and produce its own engines so that manufacturers are a bonus but not a necessity. But for that to happen they will need a more "socialist" structure that ensures even the smaller teams can fund themselves, not to a championship contention level of course.

The only way that would happen is if they lined all the current team chiefs against a wall and shot them.

They cannot even agree to have a unified association to represent their collective interests. As Orwell said - 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
Sums up F1 pretty well.

#39 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,338 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:55

It's always great to see such optimism still around...

 

I contrary to some here, simply do not see F1 as an insular world without any contact to the outside world. When there is room it will fill up, were Mercedes and Renault to pull out, then we have Honda already coming in, we have Ferrari who will only supply a limited number of teams, the balance of teams will find an engine somewhere. This has happened before and can happen again without the world coming to an end, there were rumblings last week about Red Bull teaming with some Austrian engine maker, to create their won engine (unless that was an Aprils fool). Back in the 80ies you had Hart taking on the manufacturers using limited resources to build an engine which:

 

Took 2 Poles.

Took 2 fastest lap

Took 5 podiums

Led 1 Grand Prix

Scored 63 points in total when only 6 first scored.

Participated in 144 Grand Epreuves

 

I agree that this was not a world-beater but they were there and managed, some one would be willing to take a stab at F1.

 

:cool:



Advertisement

#40 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:56

The 'golden era' of Formula 1 was a circus of customer cars and almost everyone running the same engine.

'Almost' being the operative word. Seem to recall some red cars and pale blue cars running alternative engines - OK they may have had variable levels of success - possible due to sheer incompetence and/or in-house politics but it wasn't wall-to-wall DFV's.

#41 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 15:07

My point is this say (for the sake of making the arithmetic easier) you have 12 F1 teams. That's 3 "lots" of 4 teams each, each lot spending 80mil per season on engines. Over 5 seasons which is a conservative length for homologuation that's a total of 400mil. [u]That's plenty of money to R&D and manufacture engines which are meant to be homologuated, and modern finance makes it possible to useup the R&D upfont and amortize it over the length of the homologuation.[\u] Don't forget the intent of the regulations we have right now was for a 100 million upfront spend, not half a billion before an engine ever got installed in a car.

That business model only works if you can produce a successful engine in the first year or you can somehow manage to lock 'your teams' into a 5 year deal. Otherwise how do you guarantee the 80 million pa will continue for the full 5 years to allow you to amortise the R&D and start-up costs.

#42 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 09 April 2014 - 16:42

What if it was McLaren doing the winning? Sure a Mercedes engine is providing the power, but it is public knowledge that McLaren are dumping Merc at the end of this season.

How would that fit into the M-B Board's view of "winning"? Being a team and an engine supplier to other teams muddies the waters. Did he mean that M-B would sell their team but continue as en engine supplier? Or, did he mean that everything would go?

The statement is very opaque.



#43 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 17:19

From some of the comments on here about it being a scare story/PR waffle, I begin to wonder if some posters actually read the article.
From my reading, and being an ex-engineer, I admit I may not understand the nuances of language as well as some, it seemed to me he was saying that there would have been less incentive for Mercedes to remain in F1 with the old regulations, as it would have been more a marketing decision as to whether or not they continued, and that would be mainly determined on results.
The new regulations give them added reasons for continuing, although there is always the option for them to pull out if the marketing return is not worth the expense.
That also applies to any PU supplier or sponsor for that matter, and if we had smaller 'garage' engine manufacturers they would be even more dependent on the sponsorship the team could bring.

#44 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 April 2014 - 17:26

Forza Ferrari. I know they whine sometimes with their empty threats of leaving the sport, but they don't mean it. They're just Italians who have a compulsive habit of needing something to complain about.

In the end, Ferrari are in it to race. I don't think their road car division really benefits, sales-wise, from their F1 endeavors or anything. They do it because its *what they do*.

#45 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,228 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 09 April 2014 - 17:37

In the end, Ferrari are in it to race. I don't think their road car division really benefits, sales-wise, from their F1 endeavors or anything. They do it because its *what they do*.

 

I think everyone, who knows anything about F1, associates F1 with Ferrari being in it . F1 gives Ferrari sort of visibility that they really exist and are there to race. So I do think quitting F1 would have an influence on their car sales, even if not instantly, then long-term. Because one important window through which they get visibility, is gone. And in terms of long-term prospects it would matter especially among younger generation customers, who don't have the nostalgia.



#46 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,338 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 09 April 2014 - 17:38

Going backwards in 5 year increments:

 

  • 2009 - Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, BMW, Toyota
  • 2004 - Ferrari, Cosworth, Honda, Merceds, Renault, Petronas, Toyota, BMW
  • 1999 - Ferrari, Arrows, Supertec, Playlife, Mugen Honda, Mercedes, Cosworth, Peugeot, Petronas, Supertec
  • 1994 - Ferrari, Cosworth, Hart, Renault, Mugen Honda, Peugeot, Ilmor, Mercedes, Yamaha
  • 1989 - Ferrari, Cosworth, Judd, Lamborghini, Honda, Renault, Yamaha
  • 1984 - Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Cosworth, BMW, Renault, TAG Porsche, Hart, Honda
  • 1979 - Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Cosworth, Renault
  • 1974 - Ferrari, Cosworth, BRM
  • 1969 - Ferrari, Repco, Climax, Cosworth, BRM, Maserati
  • 1964 - Ferrari, A-T-S, Ford, BRM, Climax, Honda, Porsche
  • 1959 - Ferrari, Aston Martin, BRM, Alta, Climax, OSCA, Maserati, Borgward, Porsche, Vanwall, Offenhauser
  • 1954 - Ferrari, Lea Francis, Bristol, Alta, Gordini, BMW, Lancia, Maserati, Mercedes, Vanwall
  • 1950 - Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Alta, JAP, ERA, Jaguar, Gordini, FIAT, Talbot

See the one constant.

 

:cool:



#47 pathogen

pathogen
  • Member

  • 124 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 09 April 2014 - 18:17

Going backwards in 5 year increments:

 

  • 2009 - Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, BMW, Toyota
  • 2004 - Ferrari, Cosworth, Honda, Merceds, Renault, Petronas, Toyota, BMW
  • 1999 - Ferrari, Arrows, Supertec, Playlife, Mugen Honda, Mercedes, Cosworth, Peugeot, Petronas, Supertec
  • 1994 - Ferrari, Cosworth, Hart, Renault, Mugen Honda, Peugeot, Ilmor, Mercedes, Yamaha
  • 1989 - Ferrari, Cosworth, Judd, Lamborghini, Honda, Renault, Yamaha
  • 1984 - Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Cosworth, BMW, Renault, TAG Porsche, Hart, Honda
  • 1979 - Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Cosworth, Renault
  • 1974 - Ferrari, Cosworth, BRM
  • 1969 - Ferrari, Repco, Climax, Cosworth, BRM, Maserati
  • 1964 - Ferrari, A-T-S, Ford, BRM, Climax, Honda, Porsche
  • 1959 - Ferrari, Aston Martin, BRM, Alta, Climax, OSCA, Maserati, Borgward, Porsche, Vanwall, Offenhauser
  • 1954 - Ferrari, Lea Francis, Bristol, Alta, Gordini, BMW, Lancia, Maserati, Mercedes, Vanwall
  • 1950 - Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Alta, JAP, ERA, Jaguar, Gordini, FIAT, Talbot

See the one constant.

 

:cool:

If I follow your point, the real counterpart of Ferrari was Ford-Cosworth in historic terms. That's why between 64 ans 84 an even later, a lot of teams playing with relative stability. If you add the number of relevant teams around this equation, we will find names as Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Lotus, Brabham, Ligier, March, or Shadow, all winers eventually. In 1977 Renault toke the 1500 CC turbo niche and everything changed. The turbo era opened the space to manufacturers... 



#48 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,496 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 09 April 2014 - 18:30

I think everyone, who knows anything about F1, associates F1 with Ferrari being in it . F1 gives Ferrari sort of visibility that they really exist and are there to race. So I do think quitting F1 would have an influence on their car sales, even if not instantly, then long-term. Because one important window through which they get visibility, is gone. And in terms of long-term prospects it would matter especially among younger generation customers, who don't have the nostalgia.

Ofc, we need Ferrari to be the enemy :)



#49 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,338 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 09 April 2014 - 18:36

If I follow your point, the real counterpart of Ferrari was Ford-Cosworth in historic terms. That's why between 64 ans 84 an even later, a lot of teams playing with relative stability. If you add the number of relevant teams around this equation, we will find names as Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Lotus, Brabham, Ligier, March, or Shadow, all winers eventually. In 1977 Renault toke the 1500 CC turbo niche and everything changed. The turbo era opened the space to manufacturers... 

 

Point is that the manufacturers come and go with one exception, Mercedes and Renault leaving would not kill F1, and would not make F1 a one engine formula, the hole left by a Mercedes and Renault withdrawal would be filled.

 

Discussion of teams coming, going, disappearing is for another thread.

 

:cool:



#50 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 09 April 2014 - 19:10

This shows that Mercedes is only interested in the short term wrt F1 and are not really committed to motorsport as 'a reason to' be as a manufacturer.

 

They will stay only for as long as the the F1 'powers that be' will bend to their demands, ie turbo PU's (Merc technology which just so happens to be dominant). I would say that the slap on the wrist by the 'independent' International Tribunal for their illegal testing last season was also resulting from not to subtle threats to leave.


Edited by halifaxf1fan, 10 April 2014 - 11:37.