547 replies to this topic

[Enzoluis]

How have Ferrari made such a big step with their engine then?

 

They had to wait one year, and still they are in times at the same distance that last year. They recovered against customer teams and RBR. Now their only hope are ten tokens. 

[SirT]

by being smarter... but, guess what... it's still not enough, is it...

 

Not enough yet but shows in time that Mercedes can be caught up within these regs. It may take until 2017 season but Merc havent broken rules, they have just been supreme.

 

Rather than a whole new spec of regs. Someone will probably dominate that at the beginning and we are back to square one with truck loads of extra money spent.

Edited by SirT, 17 March 2015 - 18:07.

[CaptnMark]

Is that a serious question? McLaren: '88, '89. Williams: '92, '93, '96 and if you have a look at the start of '97 you'll see how far they were qualifying ahead of the competition at the beginning of that season.

 '97 the domination only lasted for 1 race and only for Villeneuve. IMO, 98 McLaren was more dominant than 97 Williams.

[ardbeg]

Is that a serious question? McLaren: '88, '89. Williams: '92, '93, '96 and if you have a look at the start of '97 you'll see how far they were qualifying ahead of the competition at the beginning of that season.

Maybe you are right about the earlier seasons, I have not checked the stats, but I did check 1997. You're right, the Q gap is huge at the beginning of the season but if you look at the end it is incredibly close. Take the last GP of that season:
 

1. Jacques Villeneuve Williams-Renault 1:21.072  
2. Michael Schumacher Ferrari 1:21.072 +0.000
3. Heinz-Harald Frentzen Williams-Renault 1:21.072 +0.000
4. Damon Hill Arrows-Yamaha 1:21.130 +0.058
5. Mika Häkkinen McLaren-Mercedes 1:21.369 +0.297

In the old days, things happened during the season.

Edited by ardbeg, 17 March 2015 - 18:16.

[redreni]

Because, with aero, teams were free to bring updates as and when they wanted. There was no stupid 'token' system where every part of the car cost a certain amount of tokens for you to change. So, in many ways, it was probably quite a lot easier to make improvements, and close down an advantage another team had.

 

But with engines, there is a stupid token system, that leads me to believe the running order we have now will basically remain unchanged, and no-one will get anywhere near Mercedes.

 

Plus as for the argument of teams working harder. I made this point before, but it's not just about 'working hard', is it? It is about money, predictably. Williams have done a fantastic to be where they are. But Mercedes simply have a far bigger budget, and more resources available to them. So, while Williams may be able to chip away at the gap, I doubt they have enough money or resources available to them to be able to mount a serious challenge to Mercedes right now.

 

Right, with aero everyone could catch up because you can upgrade at every race if you want, whereas with engines it takes longer. That's got naff all to do with whether or not it should be equalised if somebody dominates, though.

 

Renault and Ferrari argued for more development opportunities and got them. Ferrari seem to have improved marginally but Renault got smashed and now Horner wants equalisation, and that is every bit as absurd as if Ferrari and Mclaren and Mercedes had asked the FIA to equalise chassis performance when Red Bull were dominating.

[P123]

Maybe you are right about the earlier seasons, I have not checked the stats, but I did check 1997. You're right, the Q gap is huge at the beginning of the season but if you look at the end it is incredibly close.

In the old days, things happened during the season.

Give this season some time to mature. I'm hopeful Ferrari can improve further, Renault can get their driveability sorted out, Williams can sort out their strategies and Honda can turn the engine up for McLaren.

[JoseM]

Ok, I get it, Red Bull wants out. Didi wants out, because he is not breaking even any more, and expenses are outweighing promotion value when he is not winning. And I fully understand him, because no one gets  that obscenely rich with a sweet spot or passion for anything. It's just the way of the world and such types (see Bernard). But stop the noises already. Yeah, Renault is using you as a test platform, and even charging you for that, get over it, everybody and their pets knew that RB is in it just as long as it suits them, Why all of a sudden plethora of stupid proposals, when Hornee knows his only way to strive is to get under Bernard's skirt. Just make it happen, and STFU already Hornee. Renault will buy Little Bulls, Honda may change their collective minds and buy Hornee Bulls, everything will be fine. 

[learningtobelost]

1. Neither McLaren or Williams dominated to the same extent as Mercedes do now. Not even close.
 

 

Mclaren were undisputedly the best team in 1988 & 1989 and enjoyed a bigger margin over the nearest competition than Mercedes do now. In 1990 and 91 they were probably on par with the competition, but Senna made the difference (one way or another ;))

Williams were utterly dominant in 1992 & 1993. In 92' Mansell regularly qualified between 1 & 2 seconds faster than the next rival manufacturer.  Only reliability and good fortune allowed Senna and Schumacher to pick up wins.  The situation was similar in 93 with Prost. The electronic aids ban hurt Williams for 94, though by the end of the season they clearly had the best car, the advantage was carried over into 95' unfortunately Damon wasted a golden opportunity with that car. The 96 Williams may have been their most dominant car ever.  Far more so than Mercedes.

With all due respect, I get the impression you didn't watch F1 during this era.  It was not uncommon for the Mclaren or Williams cars to lap the entire field.  They held a huge advantage respectively. Again, more so than Mercedes currently do.

I do have to wonder whether many of those that are complaining the loudest about Mercedes dominance are relatively new to the sport. 6 teams winning in a season and championships going down to the wire, 5 teams within a second of eachother etc. is something that has only become commonplace in recent history. Having rewatched my 90's FIA review DVDs recently, I am reminded of just how little on track competition there really was... rose coloured glasses do tend to focus your mind on the best bits!

[seabass8]

So what should the FIA do?   How do they get everyone up to the same level?    What does that do to the Mercedes customer teams?

I would rather see close racing, but i can't imagine how they do this. 

[bonjon1979a]

So what should the FIA do?   How do they get everyone up to the same level?    What does that do to the Mercedes customer teams?

I would rather see close racing, but i can't imagine how they do this.

Exactly. Renault have made a complete arse of it, are all the teams supposed to dial down to their level? This is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport, it's laughable. Glad to see so many other teams come out and call Horner out.

[seabass8]

Exactly. Renault have made a complete arse of it, are all the teams supposed to dial down to their level? This is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport, it's laughable. Glad to see so many other teams come out and call Horner out.

 

it would be funny if they handcuffed the mercedes teams before Malaysia ....... and Ferrari finished 1-2 by 30 plus seconds.  

[redreni]

Maybe you are right about the earlier seasons, I have not checked the stats, but I did check 1997. You're right, the Q gap is huge at the beginning of the season but if you look at the end it is incredibly close. Take the last GP of that season:
 

1. Jacques Villeneuve Williams-Renault 1:21.072  
2. Michael Schumacher Ferrari 1:21.072 +0.000
3. Heinz-Harald Frentzen Williams-Renault 1:21.072 +0.000
4. Damon Hill Arrows-Yamaha 1:21.130 +0.058
5. Mika Häkkinen McLaren-Mercedes 1:21.369 +0.297

In the old days, things happened during the season.

 

That won't happen this year principally because the tyres are spec.

 

I don't think Ferrari gained all that time by outdeveloping Renault on the engine front. They gained it by pounding round and round and round and round at Fiorano every day testing aero and tyres, and having a special exclusive deal with the tyre company to have tailor-made tyres just for themselves.

[Heisenberg]

If you think getting your ass kicked by 33 seconds is doing pretty well, then there's nothing more you have to add to this discussion.

You have to be realistic: look where they were last year and what progress they made. 

[Freung]

usually when you have the FIA issuing clarifications like this it is because they noticed or somebody told them about a loophole either being actively exploited or planned to be used. Given the short notice to implement it I am leaning towards the 1st scenario: a loophole being actively used.

 

the clarification hints to someone having found a way to exceed the max allowed fuel flow. If it is indeed the case that could give you qualy advantage. It is certainly would have less impact on race pace due to the 100kg limit which we know forces to save fuel during the race and not use max power/fuel rate.

 

now which PU has the biggest power differential between qualy and race?? that could be a hint to who this clarification is targeting

 

So you think any measures implemented now with all the furore regarding holding back Merc automatically means they have broken the rules.? WOW. 

[Freung]

WRONG!!! in the past, teams could catch up... not now...

that is the problem...

Stop repeating a mantra if you have no clue whether or not it is true.! What makes you think they are unable to catch up.? And if they cannot, what makes you think it is solely because of the way the rules are written.! Stop blaming the rules. It seems like a copout.

[Freung]

Right, with aero everyone could catch up because you can upgrade at every race if you want, whereas with engines it takes longer. That's got naff all to do with whether or not it should be equalised if somebody dominates, though.

 

Renault and Ferrari argued for more development opportunities and got them. Ferrari seem to have improved marginally but Renault got smashed and now Horner wants equalisation, and that is every bit as absurd as if Ferrari and Mclaren and Mercedes had asked the FIA to equalise chassis performance when Red Bull were dominating.

Agreed. Look, the crazy thing here is also the question that no-one seems to be addressing.How can this paritybe achieved whilst keeping the integrity of the sport. I am assuming it cannot be via handicap as that would be like current Merc pulling over in every race and letting the rest go by. . ! Any wins will be fake and whilst the record books will show them as wins , lots of fans will be lost as all validity is gone. If they allow the teams do develop freely Merc may even have a larger advantage.!

[black magic]

the biggest disgrace re f1 in melbourne was not the gap to nmercedes.

 

it was the number of cars that made it to the grid. 1 team couldnt even pull out of the garage. another had both cars out lap 1. another 2 cars failed to even make it to the grid after qaulifying.

 

at least the fight between the top cars is genuine.

 

but f1 has bigger issues than mercedes domination. the money and who gets what is the cancer eating the sport fromm below and not surprising that 2 of the biggest gainers out of this innane system are doing the loudest compalining.

 

ever want to find the guilty party - follow the money

[chipmcdonald]

The thing that is annoying is that Horner keeps referencing their dominance in light of "things taken away from them" - that were flounting the limits of the regs. 

 

If Horner feels Mercedes is doing the same, he should say so and say in what way. 

 

Otherwise, the reality is - Mercedes is the only company that got it right, and the real problem is the ridiculous engine formula to start with.

 

 

[ninetyzero]

The thing that is annoying is that Horner keeps referencing their dominance in light of "things taken away from them" - that were flounting the limits of the regs. 

 

If Horner feels Mercedes is doing the same, he should say so and say in what way. 

 

Otherwise, the reality is - Mercedes is the only company that got it right, and the real problem is the ridiculous engine formula to start with.

 

This (mostly) If Mercedes some kind of special gimmick that is responsible for them being dominant then take it away from them if you want, but (and I suspect this is the case) if they have just managed to do a better job than everyone else then Horner is talking out of his backside. I don't have a problem with the concept of the engines though, just with the way it's been implemented. Merc will be the best team until the rules change again because it will be very hard for anyone to catch up under the current regs.

[lbennie]

"Horner, what change do you propose today to benefit Red Bull?"

 

That's basically the crux of all news pieces involving him.

 

Amazing, anyone would think hes a team principle.

[SuperSwede]

Teams expressing their discontent with the current rules and calling/lobbying for a change due to that they´ve lost their competitiveness either because another team has done a better job or due to higher expenses is nothing new, It has always been the case and all the teams have and will continue doing that to try to change either the sporting or technical rules to get more competitive.

 

Horner and the rest of the RBR top brass are just doing their jobs. It´s just that their calling/lobbying for a change get´s more exposure these days than let´s say back in 04 when the Michelin teams was calling/lobbying for a change to the tire regulations for the 05 season (and got it ) as all the other measures to slow down the Ferrari´s (so that Michelin teams could win too) had failed so far.

 

Once the new tire rules was in place, they finally could beat Ferrari, which off course started to complain and calling/lobbying for a change too, which they got. By then the Ferrari "super team" had started to break up though and they have not reached the same levels of competitiveness since then.

 

And due to that they continued to calling/lobbying for a changes. But once those changes came, they were (as always) to conservative in their approach to the new regulations. RBR was not though and beside the fact that they didn´t have a double-defuser in 09, they were pretty much the team to beat the last 5 years.

 

And when the others failed to catch up, they started calling/lobbying for a changes to the technical regulations. They got them but as they still couldn´t beat RBR due to that the cars competitiveness was heavily aero-dependent under those regulations, (in which RBR excelled), they started to call/lobby for a change of engine regulations and got it too.

 

Mercedes have done a great job using these new regulations to their advantage and they have gotten a clear performance edge on the other teams which I think that they deserve to keep for a couple of years. But don´t forget that they were one of those (if not the one) that was calling/lobbying hardest for these new regulations, as they could not beat RBR as things was. They alongside Renault (which is a bit ironic) was even threatening to leave F1 if the technical regulations didn´t got changed.

 

On another note..

There´s a lot of people that are saying that Red Bull only are racing because of marketing and that they´re not real racers which to me is pretty silly when you look at facts. Yes, they do own a company that sell fuzzy drinks and they are successful in doing so too. But they have invested more into F1 and other motorsport than anyone else the last 20 years, without a single doubt.

 

Sure, they want exposure and to expand their market too, but which company does not?

 

And they are not doing anything that the other teams haven´t already done in previous years when they´ve lost their competitiveness. The difference is perhaps that no matter how good a job that RBR does, they are dependent on an engine manufacturer that has screwed up really really badly.

 

[Edit] NoScript "compressed" the post and made it hard in to one piece.

Edited by SuperSwede, 18 March 2015 - 03:30.

[MastaKink]

Even Johnny Five would struggle to read that mate.

 

Problem Solved

Edited by MastaKink, 18 March 2015 - 03:35.

[SuperSwede]

Even Johnny Five would struggle to read that mate.

Yeah, I noticed that mate.. hence the edit

[Guizotia]

Basically DM is doing his nut that his previously massively successful F1 team has turned so quickly into a basket case, and wants then returned to glory pronto, and CH has realised that Renault just aren't going to be capable of doing it. So he is asking for a get-out-of-jail-free-card.

Is that the crux of the matter?

[bonjon1979a]

Horner needs to shut up and get on with it. His team set a fastest lap of 1.33.0 in Melbourne last year. This year they managed only a 1.32.8. The disparity between the front and them isn't because mercedes have moved ahead by an epoch. It is because their team hasn't got their arse in gear. Arevwe seriously going to entertain the idea of a formula that sets the limit at the team that's done the worst job?

[Maustinsj]

Amazing, anyone would think hes a team principle.

Or even that he's a team principal.

[Melbourne Park]

aero and chassis are not the same thing. Chassis is the tub, a homologuated tub limits certain mechanical aspects but doesn't really affect aero, aero is bolted on. Most obvious example was the Double Diffuser from 2009, teams were able to copy it. They couldn't copy McLaren's F-duct arrangement though cause that required a change in the chassis, so they adapted to a hand rather than a knee operated f-duct

 

Actually Red Bull did copy the principle ... they were able to establish an F duct, because they had wide wiring apertures. And they got their F duct to work on the whole wing - unlike Mercedes. So RBR's F duct was superior ... then Mercedes changed their's too, so their's could also then work on the whole wing. 

 

The key issue though is that aero is typically much easier to work out where and what the competitive advantage is. Secondly such innovations can be copied pretty quickly, and always by the next season.

 

For instance, when the double diffuser was introduced, Toyota, Williams and Brawn had the concept. Brawn did it much more comprehensively though. By the end of the season, RBR had tacked on a double diffuser setup and they were considerably quicker than Brawn. 

 

But with engines, the key success factors are less known. And it takes much longer to improve an engine. The packaging issues also are probably a factor too - which is limited by the lack of testing. 

 

Its ironic that the FIA carried on about saving costs, yet they've increased engine costs from 7 million euro to 20 million. And the new formula while providing less return for aero expertise, has cost 1 billion euro in engine development. Yet - only one motor package is competitive. 

 

The problem is not that Mercedes got it right. The problem is that excellent engine makers have failed to close the gap in the second year. That is contrary to what the FIA wanted. 

Edited by Melbourne Park, 18 March 2015 - 08:05.

[SenorSjon]

Mclaren were undisputedly the best team in 1988 & 1989 and enjoyed a bigger margin over the nearest competition than Mercedes do now. In 1990 and 91 they were probably on par with the competition, but Senna made the difference (one way or another ;))

Williams were utterly dominant in 1992 & 1993. In 92' Mansell regularly qualified between 1 & 2 seconds faster than the next rival manufacturer.  Only reliability and good fortune allowed Senna and Schumacher to pick up wins.  The situation was similar in 93 with Prost. The electronic aids ban hurt Williams for 94, though by the end of the season they clearly had the best car, the advantage was carried over into 95' unfortunately Damon wasted a golden opportunity with that car. The 96 Williams may have been their most dominant car ever.  Far more so than Mercedes.

With all due respect, I get the impression you didn't watch F1 during this era.  It was not uncommon for the Mclaren or Williams cars to lap the entire field.  They held a huge advantage respectively. Again, more so than Mercedes currently do.

I do have to wonder whether many of those that are complaining the loudest about Mercedes dominance are relatively new to the sport. 6 teams winning in a season and championships going down to the wire, 5 teams within a second of eachother etc. is something that has only become commonplace in recent history. Having rewatched my 90's FIA review DVDs recently, I am reminded of just how little on track competition there really was... rose coloured glasses do tend to focus your mind on the best bits!

 

Still, in those years other teams were free to develop aero and engine to get better. Also reliability wasn't always bulletproof so others could win. And raw driver talent could gain you more time than nowadays. With all the saving of bits and pieces it has no use to lap the field anymore. In the past you could have split times in a midrace red flag. So a large gap was to your benefit, now you need ~30 seconds to factor in a pitstop and then you can stabilize. I bet the Mercedes car could go MUCH faster if they really wanted to. 

 

Still, you had two different teams competing for wins most of the time (Benetton - Williams, Ferrari - Williams/McLaren). The question of this season is who will finish third.

 

I wonder what refuelling could do to the pecking order. When teams can use more fuel and run lighter, they get closer to qualifying times.

[muramasa]

Actually Red Bull did copy the principle ... they were able to establish an F duct, because they had wide wiring apertures. And they got their F duct to work on the whole wing - unlike Mercedes. So RBR's F duct was superior ... then Mercedes changed their's too, so their's could also then work on the whole wing. 

 

The key issue though is that aero is typically much easier to work out where and what the competitive advantage is. Secondly such innovations can be copied pretty quickly, and always by the next season.

 

For instance, when the double diffuser was introduced, Toyota, Williams and Brawn had the concept. Brawn did it much more comprehensively though. By the end of the season, RBR had tacked on a double diffuser setup and they were considerably quicker than Brawn. 

 

But with engines, the key success factors are less known. And it takes much longer to improve an engine. The packaging issues also are probably a factor too - which is limited by the lack of testing. 

 

Its ironic that the FIA carried on about saving costs, yet they've increased engine costs from 7 million euro to 20 million. And the new formula while providing less return for aero expertise, has cost 1 billion euro in engine development. Yet - only one motor package is competitive. 

 

The problem is not that Mercedes got it right. The problem is that excellent engine makers have failed to close the gap in the second year. That is contrary to what the FIA wanted. 

In hindsight but probably this pu freezing rule acted to increase the cost rather than decrease and stabilize the cost. Manufacturers, esp Merc, spent huge in developing the initial PU. Merc superiority is just a relative thing. Idea was stabilize the cost by allowing incremental change while gradually freezing the engine, but this was obviously flawed. Irony is that Merc, as well as Ferrari and Renault of course but esp Merc, probably wouldnt have spent that much for the initial PU if there was no or less freezing in front. Even if one team spent huge for initial PU and dominate for one or two seasons, there would be developmental ceiling so others should have chance to catch up and do so in shorter time. I think F1 should be more about engine development rather than aero (of course aero is essential so i mean strike good balance somewhere), but current reg in hindsight turned out to be flawed unfortunately. F1 can learn many things from current WEC imo.

[Petroltorque]

And now we have the other side of the story with Cyril Abitoul stating that Red Bull insisted on Renault bringing on stream PU updates that had not been validated on the test bench. Practices that might work for a Chassis clearly don't apply to the PU since any errors will prove catastrophic. Best to let Renault solve the issues according to their own engineering concepts.

[SenorSjon]

They tried that in 2014 and it didn't work. I don't rate Cyril highly to be honest. Caterham was overstaffed and not run particulary well.

[Knowlesy]

Or even that he's a team principal.

 

Indeed. 'Horner' and 'principle' don't belong in the same sentence...

[kevinracefan]

^really???
roflmao...

[OO7]

The speed trap figures indicate that Ferrari are very close to Mercedes in terms of peak performance at least: Qualifying Session Speed Trap

[Melbourne Park]

The speed trap figures indicate that Ferrari are very close to Mercedes in terms of peak performance at least: Qualifying Session Speed Trap

 

I don't think melbourne is the best place to analyse engine power. Lets look at Monza ... but even at Monza, if Mercedes are 30 seconds in front, I would not expect them to stress the engine. Right now, Mercedes can save the engine, and wait for the best time to use some tokens and make a major power or fuel saving upgrade. We don't know how more powerful the mercedes power train is, and also we don't know how much faster Hamilton could have been compared even to his team mate. We can see though that the driveability looks very good ...

 

to be fare though, Mercedes got two top Red Bull team leaders last year, and also Mercedes lost a top engine guy to either RBR or Renault. So, I'm guessing that perhaps Renault have written off this year, and maybe they'll focus on a second and then third upgrade for 2016. I do expect Renault to look a lot better this season, too. But the token system and the new homologation rules (i.e. not having to homologate at the beginning of the season) point to a likely Renault focus on parity for 2016. They've changed the internal combustion engine in a major way already, and their focus has been on that, and not on the hybrid side - which they say is a minor factor. Perhaps that strategy is why the drivability is so poor at the moment and later I assume they'll improve that radically.

 

The cost of the token system is likely Renault giving up on this year ... and when I read their quotes, that assumption makes more sense. But who knows, RBR have a huge amount to gain if the motor gets working as Renault predicted only a few weeks ago ...

Edited by Melbourne Park, 19 March 2015 - 01:44.

[lbennie]

^really???
roflmao...

 

Aye, this place is fast becoming planetf1

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Finally I found it. Anyone remember it? 

Source: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/84911/

 

Red Bull pushes for engine equalisation           Thursday, July 1st 2010, 11:09 GMT

 

Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner has made a fresh plea to try and get engine performance equalised for next season - with his outfit now set to remain with Renault for 2011.

Horner has made no secret of the fact that he believes the Renault is down on power compared to the benchmark Mercedes-Benz - even though his unit may have advantages in terms of weight, driveability and fuel consumption.

A push last season to make all engines equal did not result in any action being taken, and Horner is now keen for the matter to be looked at again – especially as he believes the importance of power will become more important as rival outfits close in on the chassis advantage that Red Bull currently enjoys.

"I think if you look at basic studies you would say we are about three per cent down on power – which is probably about 30-35bhp," said Horner. "That is as much as four tenths per lap, but until you run all the engines in the same conditions on a dyno and do a fair and proper comparison you can never be sure.

"You often hear Ross Brawn talk about weight distribution, or the centre-of-gravity and cooling efficiency so on, and the more power you have the more heat you generate.

"But you need to look at all the aspects in a collective format. The most important thing moving forward is that chassis will for sure converge, as there is freedom within the regulations, and that is where the engines will become a bigger factor."

He added: "It is getting a bit boring. Through the regulations, there is nothing that specifically deals with engine equality, and that is the problem. I think it is acknowledged that there are differences and there is a format that was agreed last winter to evaluate the engines, which was agreed upon by all the manufacturers, but some of the teams stopped that from happening. We are back in to that situation."

Last season Red Bull Racing chased a deal with Mercedes-Benz hard for 2010, but that move was scuppered when the plans were blocked by McLaren – who had a veto right over Mercedes-Benz expanding its customer supply platform.

And with Mercedes-Benz having said recently that it did not plan to provide an extra team with engines for next year, Red Bull Racing looks set to agree terms with Renault for at least one more season.

"In terms of supply, we are very happy with the relationship we have with Renault," explained Horner. "They treat us very well, and we have a very good partnership with Renault.

"Unfortunately the product, due to the homologation, is frozen and therefore you have a performance freeze.

"Mercedes have made it transparently clear that they will not be supplying any additional teams for next year- so we rely on the FIA and the teams and manufacturers to create a healthy situation. It is not healthy to have a situation where one engine is significantly ahead of the rest."

When asked to respond to suggestions that although the Renault may be down on power, it does have advantages in other area, Horner said: "The Renault engine is a tidy engine; it is a good engine, as is the Ferrari.

"But I think horsepower is such an over-riding element that that would come at the top - you would trade any of those aspects for horsepower.

"In terms of fuel consumption, when you have less horsepower you burn less fuel as you generate less temperature. But if you take more horsepower and you run conservatively, you can end up at the same point, but you've got it for when you need it. It is a key element, absolutely."

Edited by RYARLE, 19 March 2015 - 10:23.

[ExFlagMan]

Horner seems to have had a change of mind over equalisation.

[Gyno]

That won't happen this year principally because the tyres are spec.

 

I don't think Ferrari gained all that time by outdeveloping Renault on the engine front. They gained it by pounding round and round and round and round at Fiorano every day testing aero and tyres, and having a special exclusive deal with the tyre company to have tailor-made tyres just for themselves.

 

IN 97 they were on Good Year Tires and NO they didn't tailor made for Ferrari.

Only Bstone did that.

 

Also JV should have walked away with the title in 97, even Patrick Head said that, But Schumi made him work for the title HARD.

[SanDiegoGo]

Horner seems to have had a change of mind over equalisation.

 

 

looks like the focus group numbers came back.

[Nemo1965]

looks like the focus group numbers came back.

 

Good joke... but then I thought: no, this might be totally true. I really believe Horner thought the time was rife to take away Mercedes' advantage and then he saw the backlash in the publicity. It is, at least my impression, that there was a backlash...

[FerrariV12]

That won't happen this year principally because the tyres are spec.

 

I don't think Ferrari gained all that time by outdeveloping Renault on the engine front. They gained it by pounding round and round and round and round at Fiorano every day testing aero and tyres, and having a special exclusive deal with the tyre company to have tailor-made tyres just for themselves.

 

I agree on the tyre front, since we lost the tyre war we've lost a variable that - while occasionally could magnify a dominant team's advantage, could also mix things up - I don't want to take too much away from Alonso and the Enstone team, but I have the feeling that if we had a spec tyre going back to then, we'd be referring to Michael Schumacher as a nine or at least eight-time world champion.

 

But regarding 1997 Ferrari were on the same (Goodyear) tyres as the other front runners, the whole cosy relationship with Bridgestone came later. (Where tyres played a role were for that certain bloke sitting fourth on the grid in an Arrows, as well as Hungary, and Panis at certain races before he broke his leg). And they did play a massive role the year afterwards when we had McLaren on BS and Ferrari on GY, and played a big role in the competitive order shifting around towards the end of that year.

 

Back then, it wasn't about chassis, it wasn't about engine, it wasn't about tyres, it wasn't about driver, it was about everything. Those elements all still play a part of course, but with spec tyres, a partial engine freeze, testing ban limiting development of all areas anyway, it's not the same. Tracks are another part where we've lost something. Ferrari spent the whole of 1994 a clear third best to Williams and Benetton, but come Hockenheim (and to a lesser extent Monza before Alesi's pit disaster) they could unleash their V12s down the straights and be the quickest car. Now with one or two exceptions we have tracks with similar characteristics.

 

I'd take the winner lapping the field when everything clicks for them, in exchange for the possibility of a Hungary or Spain '97 elsewhere in the year, rather than a full season of the same team(s) winning the race by only 20 or 30 seconds.

 

I find the whole idea of equalisation in something that is supposed to be a competition really, really dull, and if that either is or ever becomes the stated aim then rather than pussy footing around the thing they might as well be honest with themselves and make it a spec series and be done with it.

[chipmcdonald]

Wow.  I tried reading through this, and it hit me: "tokens.  Equalization rules.  V6 turbos.  This is really dull bureaucratic stuff".  

 

F1?

[pdac]

looks like the focus group numbers came back.

 

More likely talks about the sale of team or about getting Mercedes power in the future are progressing and this campaign is now unhelpful.

[bonjon1979a]

Good joke... but then I thought: no, this might be totally true. I really believe Horner thought the time was rife to take away Mercedes' advantage and then he saw the backlash in the publicity. It is, at least my impression, that there was a backlash...

I think it was ferraris response that probably surprised him most, as soon as they said it was bollocks and the winning has to be done through hard work, I think he remembered who the big team in f1 really is. Bernie probably faxed through a copy of their contract to 2020 as well!

[SanDiegoGo]

More likely talks about the sale of team or about getting Mercedes power in the future are progressing and this campaign is now unhelpful.

[showtime]

Horner seems to have had a change of mind over equalisation.

 

[superden]

Aaaaand reverse.