86 replies to this topic

[Wuzak]

And they've said that the engine deals doubled in price when the new rules came in.

 

At least partly because the old V8s were price capped.

[chipmcdonald]

He is anything but. He is a N. Bonaparte replica. He knows motorsport inside-out. It would be the best solution to give him the reigns asap. 

 

 

 Whether he "knows the sport inside and out" or not has nothing to do with whether his perspective makes sense for it as a whole.

 

 No one person should be made King of Formula One.  At least not without having an agreement among the F1 community as to what constitutes "Formula One car racing". 

 

 Otherwise, whimsy will always pull it to and fro. 

 

 Todt seems to have a rather.... totalitarian attitude towards the sport.  But to consolidate my point, the problem is that you either agree or disagree with him about his *conceptual idea of what the sport is about*.

 

 

 I wholly disagree with him - I see no need for tiny hybrid engines, or some sort of green mandate (and I'm pro-environmentalism).  Shorter races?  DRS?  So of course I don't want him being King of Formula One.  All of that aside, it does not make any sense for a committee of people whose mandate is "transportation safety" to make rules about a form of entertainment.  It's not their job, and if I owned Formula One I would never let someone that DOESN'T have a stake in it to tell me what my own business is.

 

 It will continue to be a mess until what codifies "an F1 car" and "F1 racing" is set in stone, and only by a community of people.  It would be complete insanity to let Todt be King. 

 

It should be CVC and Bernie.  Or Qatar and the Dolphins owner, or whoever OWNS F1 ultimately deciding. 

[mzvztag]

It should be CVC and Bernie. Or Qatar and the Dolphins owner, or whoever OWNS F1 ultimately deciding.

Nobody should own F1 because there should be nothing to own.

"Formula 1" should mean a set of rules, sporting and technical, defined by FIA or reformed CSI/FISA.

The same regulator should then set the calendar and co-organize the races with national auto-clubs and tracks.

The financing should come from tickets and trackside advertising, TV rights should be free or near free.

Who doesn't like it, let him create his own racing series but without using the terms like "World Championship" or "Grand Prix of Country XYZ".

[Wuzak]

No one person should be made King of Formula One.  At least not without having an agreement among the F1 community as to what constitutes "Formula One car racing".

 
If you ask just about anybody they would tell you that Bernie is the king of F1.

As for agreement amongst the F1 community - that is what has lead us to this point. Or, rather, the lack of the ability to come to an agreement.

 

Todt seems to have a rather.... totalitarian attitude towards the sport.  But to consolidate my point, the problem is that you either agree or disagree with him about his *conceptual idea of what the sport is about*.

Earlier in the thread he was being accused of being absent....

 

I wholly disagree with him - I see no need for tiny hybrid engines, or some sort of green mandate (and I'm pro-environmentalism).

It is an effort to attract and retain major motor manufacturers. You know, the people that invest huge amounts of money in the sport.

 

DRS?

Surely the TWG, OWG or the SG came up with that? In other words, teh teams + FOM + FIA.

 

All of that aside, it does not make any sense for a committee of people whose mandate is "transportation safety" to make rules about a form of entertainment.  It's not their job, and if I owned Formula One I would never let someone that DOESN'T have a stake in it to tell me what my own business is.

It has only been the FIA's role for 100 years mate.

Formula 1 is defined by the rules that the FIA set. The FIA created F1, they own F1. It is theirs to decide what to do with.

Bernie and CVC own nothing. They have a lease to the commercial rights (a dodgy 113 year lease).

Bernie's business is to promote F1 - which he doesn't really do - and to not make rules.

To reiterate, the FIA OWNS F1.

 

It will continue to be a mess until what codifies "an F1 car" and "F1 racing" is set in stone, and only by a community of people.  It would be complete insanity to let Todt be King. 
 
It should be CVC and Bernie.  Or Qatar and the Dolphins owner, or whoever OWNS F1 ultimately deciding.

CVC and Bernie have raped the sport for many years. There is little evidence that if they had total control things would be any better.

[Guizotia]

Is another baby?

He's gone tomorrow, but...

[pRy]

Jean and Bernie suggesting a removal of as many driver assists as possible together with cutting down pit -> car management:

 

http://www.motorspor...-of-driver-aids

 

Sounds good to me. Max Verstappen saying he was getting so fed up with the micro management from the pits he switched off his dash display.

 

I think the drivers will be all for it. The teams.. not so much. They like having as much control over the car and driver as possible. But I think for the good of the sport they need to return the car to the driver.

Edited by pRy, 29 June 2015 - 08:49.

[FullThrottleF1]

Jean and Bernie suggesting a removal of as many driver assists as possible together with cutting down pit -> car management:

 

http://www.motorspor...-of-driver-aids

 

Sounds good to me. Max Verstappen saying he was getting so fed up with the micro management from the pits he switched off his dash display.

 

I think the drivers will be all for it. The teams.. not so much. They like having as much control over the car and driver as possible. But I think for the good of the sport they need to return the car to the driver.

 

Brilliant Max! This guy is my new favourite driver.

[jcbc3]

Because he is too stupid to process the information he's given? Ok, that's harsh, but the team, as pRy alludes to, like to protect their machinery and have it operated at optimum performance.

 

It's a whole other discussion if they should have this opportunity (and I am very much in the 'back-to-basics' camp) but switching off your display and denying useful information doesn't seem very smart to me.

[uffen]

Because he is too stupid to process the information he's given? Ok, that's harsh, but the team, as pRy alludes to, like to protect their machinery and have it operated at optimum performance.

 

It's a whole other discussion if they should have this opportunity (and I am very much in the 'back-to-basics' camp) but switching off your display and denying useful information doesn't seem very smart to me.

If the "switching off" thing is true, it represents protest, not a level of ability. No, the teams will not like protest, especially in that form. But frankly in this case I don't really care what the teams like or don't like.

The teams have always liked to protect their machines and to have them race as quickly as possible, that's natural. And if control is returned to the driver they will still "like" those things.

The issue for me is that once the lights go out it should be "man and machine" not "an assembly of 400 people and satellite links and computer analysis and man and machine."

[Jon83]

Jean and Bernie suggesting a removal of as many driver assists as possible together with cutting down pit -> car management:

 

http://www.motorspor...-of-driver-aids

 

Sounds good to me. Max Verstappen saying he was getting so fed up with the micro management from the pits he switched off his dash display.

 

I think the drivers will be all for it. The teams.. not so much. They like having as much control over the car and driver as possible. But I think for the good of the sport they need to return the car to the driver.

 

I agree with Bernie.

[uffen]

Autosport just put up an article where Jean Todt asks Bernie to not be negative in public but to do it privately. Fine, can't argue with that.

As an example he cites Bernie's dislike of the current engines, basically asking Bernie to discuss solutions privately. Fine.

The big BUT here is that Todt has already said publicly that the engines are not going away they are staying. So, there is nothing to discuss and so he is basically telling Bernie to stop complaining - period.

 

Might not be a big deal but it is a mixed message.

[chipmcdonald]

Nobody should own F1 because there should be nothing to own.

 

 ..... the real world doesn't work that way.

[chipmcdonald]

If you ask just about anybody they would tell you that Bernie is the king of F1.

There is a difference between a moniker and literal reality. Bernie can't do what Todt wants to have the sole privilege of doing.

 
 

As for agreement amongst the F1 community - that is what has lead us to this point. Or, rather, the lack of the ability to come to an agreement.

The "F1 community" isn't just the team bosses and their lawyers.



 

It is an effort to attract and retain major motor manufacturers. You know, the people that invest huge amounts of money in the sport.

It is a purple cow with wings.

Just because you can say something about something doesn't make it so. You imply that the only way to have motor manufacturers and money in the sport is through this procedure, when again, obviously that is not true.
 
 

Surely the TWG, OWG or the SG came up with that? In other words, teh teams + FOM + FIA.

All of the prior bureaucratic committees have been shown to be both subject to partisan influence as well as being ineffective. They must have a unilateral agreement on the philosophy of what constitutes "F1 racing" before anything
will change, and that has to be done in a manner that does not allow politics to intrude. As long as the participants are making the rules it will be a mess.

 

It has only been the FIA's role for 100 years mate.

Their role is not to invent the technical parameters of motorsport but to administer them. As you've pointed out there is the TWG, which is comprised of people from various F1 teams.

Formula 1 is defined by the rules that the FIA set. The FIA created F1, they own F1. It is theirs to decide what to do with.

Uhm... no.

Edited by chipmcdonald, 29 June 2015 - 15:31.

[chipmcdonald]

CVC and Bernie have raped the sport for many years. There is little evidence that if they had total control things would be any better.

Bernie has made F1 the success that it is/was. Tons of evidence of that, plenty of quotes from just about every last person in F1.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Someone or some single entity has to own Formula One. Right now that is in the form of the commercial rights holders. But one of the major ills of Formula One is that it is not controlled by any one entity, but rather too many organizations and people have a say in how it is run. Bernie represents the commercial rights holders, and he is attempting to nudge Formula One into a place where it makes money for the owners. The teams have the right to look after their own interests, but that can sometimes be counter-productive to the general health of the sport (example, the cost cap). The manufacturers have an influence, they want Formula One to be a showcase for their products. And the FIA, the organization that drafts the rules and runs the show, is often powerless to make any sane (or insane) changes. Someone proposes a rule change, a team vetoes it. How daft is that?

 

No matter how "bad" that single entity may be, it is better than a committee that cannot reach a consensus.

 

The current engine rules are a very good example of a dysfunctional organization. The engine rules seemed like a good idea at the time. But everyone quickly realized that the costs were insane. Instead of one controlling body moving quickly to put a ceiling on engine costs, the present "resolution" is this token thing, which also creates it's owns problems, including making it even more expensive. Each token is precious and cannot be wasted. So for any manufacturer, they must invest even more money and time into researching and testing before they submit for the exchange of a token for an engine modification.

 

IMO Formula One needs a dictator with complete control, so that this sport can get organized, tackle the most important issues, so that it presents a simple and understandable form of entertainment.

[Kalmake]

Autosport just put up an article where Jean Todt asks Bernie to not be negative in public but to do it privately. Fine, can't argue with that.

As an example he cites Bernie's dislike of the current engines, basically asking Bernie to discuss solutions privately. Fine.

The big BUT here is that Todt has already said publicly that the engines are not going away they are staying. So, there is nothing to discuss and so he is basically telling Bernie to stop complaining - period.

 

Might not be a big deal but it is a mixed message.

Hate to see F1 moving towards NASCAR-like "don't damage the brand"-world. If this is how Todt likes to handle things, I fear once Bernie is gone we will no longer hear negative driver opinions on the sport.

[mzvztag]

 ..... the real world doesn't work that way.

 

It works in cycles and will work that way once the current series collapses and the whole project goes down the drain.

Then FIA will start from scratch and hopefully with no involvement of Bernies.

[mzvztag]

Bernie has made F1 the success that it is/was. Tons of evidence of that, plenty of quotes from just about every last person in F1.

 

Only Bernie and some limited number of individuals needed this "success".

If it remained lowly commercialized, I would enjoy the cars and racing all the same.

 

What is your benefit of this success, for example?

I see none. The ticket prices went up 300% since I visited my first race in 1998, the cars, teams and drivers are ghettoized from the fans completely, only corporate clowns that cannot spell the word "Formula" get premium paddock access for free and then do selfies and drink cocktails during the race because they have no interest and do not understand anything.

Edited by mzvztag, 29 June 2015 - 17:01.

[mzvztag]

"Trade curses everything it handles."

(Henry David Thoreau)

 

And business, the bigger it gets, would destroy F1 all that quicker.

Edited by mzvztag, 29 June 2015 - 16:59.

[Wuzak]

Just because you can say something about something doesn't make it so. You imply that the only way to have motor manufacturers and money in the sport is through this procedure, when again, obviously that is not true.

It is a fact that the power unit rules were designed to keep the incumbents (Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes, particularly the latter two) happy and attract new manufacturers, notably VAG, who took part in the consultation process. Though VAG decided to not come, Honda have now joined.

All of the prior bureaucratic committees have been shown to be both subject to partisan influence as well as being ineffective. They must have a unilateral agreement on the philosophy of what constitutes "F1 racing" before anything will change, and that has to be done in a manner that does not allow politics to intrude. As long as the participants are making the rules it will be a mess.

The committees suggest rules to the FIA. They do not write or publish the rules. That is the FIA.

Their role is not to invent the technical parameters of motorsport but to administer them. As you've pointed out there is the TWG, which is comprised of people from various F1 teams.

The FIA's role in F1 has always been to define the technical parameters of F1. It was the FIA that defined the Formula One regulations in 1946/47, that created the F1 World Championship in 1950, and has run the sport ever since.

The role of FOM has only been in recent times, and they have only had a vote in the rules for the last 15 or 20 years. The FIA still has the final say, through the World Motorsport Council, the majority of votes there belonging to the FIA and its affiliates.

The FIA has been writing rules for Grand Prix racing since just after WW1.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

The more time passes, the more I get the feeling that Ferrari were competitive just because of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne and it is the case right now with Ferrari too. Just take away James Allison from Ferrari and Ferrari will hit the trouble again.

[FullThrottleF1]

The more time passes, the more I get the feeling that Ferrari were competitive just because of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne and it is the case right now with Ferrari too. Just take away James Allison from Ferrari and Ferrari will hit the trouble again.

That's the same for any championship winning team.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

That's the same for any championship winning team.

So just throw away all the team principals 

[Erwin123]

Teams interests, commercial shareholders interests, FIA interest Bernies interests, drivers interests etc.

 

Its a spectator driven circus, that should be the start and end of every discussion.

If no one is watching anymore or simply can't afford to watch anymore all other interests will be void.

 

If the constructors are leaving because they can't promote their 1.0 Ecoboost start/stop engine and drivers can't race anymore because of safety regulations, fuel economy and electronics  then maybe the sport is just dead.

 

We'll all be watching F3 and ask ourselves why we put up with F1 for so long.

[mzvztag]

Yes, if F1 eats itself up like it did in 1952, some other series will step up and take its place.

I know that the money from TV rights is huge but it's a big mistake not to pay attention on the people actually coming to races.

I live nearby Hockenheim and it's a pleasure to feel the atmosphere of the track even for lesser events. F1 has become so remote.

[mzvztag]

The more time passes, the more I get the feeling that Ferrari were competitive just because of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne and it is the case right now with Ferrari too. Just take away James Allison from Ferrari and Ferrari will hit the trouble again.

In a way you are right.

Ferrari was competitive because of RB1 and RB2 but not simply because of them but because RB1 (and JT) was able to put together the whole organization in the perfect way.

To start winning titles, everything has to be perfect, from the cleaning lady to the genius in the design office. And then this momentum can be kept even if some people leave, as Ferrari kept it until the rule change in 2009 or Red Bull until 2014.

They simply knew how to build petfect cars for specific rules, But when the rules changed, the organization as a whole was not good enough any more to continue winning. The cycle starts again and it takes time to achieve organization-wide perfection. That's why it's usually impossible to recover dominance within a year or two.

Edited by mzvztag, 30 June 2015 - 08:29.

[Jon83]

The more time passes, the more I get the feeling that Ferrari were competitive just because of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne and it is the case right now with Ferrari too. Just take away James Allison from Ferrari and Ferrari will hit the trouble again.

 

So take away key personnel and they'd struggle? No offence but is not that rather stating the obvious and would be the same for any team?

[CoolBreeze]

Paul Stoddart for president..

[Nonesuch]

The more time passes, the more I get the feeling that Ferrari were competitive just because of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne

 

Ferrari's successes as a team can't be ascribed to one or two guys; F1 is too difficult for that.

 

Also, why only Byrne and Brawn if one wants to call Todt's work into question? Why not Paolo Martinelli, Nikolas Tombazis or Aldo Costa as well?

[chipmcdonald]

It is a fact that the power unit rules were designed to keep the incumbents (Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes, particularly the latter two) happy and attract new manufacturers, notably VAG,

If the rules were so well designed for manufacturers, where is Ford, Toyota, Nissan, BMW? Why is Renault threatening to leave? You think Ferrari likes the engine rules? Politics.

The committees suggest rules to the FIA. They do not write or publish the rules. That is the FIA.

... who administers them. The FIA doesn't just pop up one morning and go "hey, we stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, here's the new engine regulations! Good luck!".


Do yo not understand the PRESIDENT OF THE FIA is asking for the power you claim they already have?

[turssi]

A good read, thanks.

Makes me wonder who is calling the shots then? Is it Bernie from FOM, Toto from Merc and Arrivabene from Ferrari? Horner is pissed at Renault and the small teams at FIA?

[scolbourne]

The problem with F1 is basically two things :-

 

1) The competition is not there because the way the rules have been written it is virtually impossible for teams to develop their engines. It would have been hard for teams to catch Mercedes without the development rules. With the current rules there is no point even trying.

The rules do not save money. Mercedes did a great job designing their engines but at great cost. The other teams/engine providers can try developing their engines but to achieve this would if possible cost an enormous amount.

 

2) This year F1 is receiving only limited coverage on free to air. For me that is in Australia and England. Why would anyone pay to watch this  farce when we know which team will win, and the other teams need a miracle to be on the podium. This is not a sport anymore.

 

F1 needs to rmove restriction on engine development, allow in season testing, remove limits on the number of engines used. I also suggest keeping the sport on free to air so their is an incentive for sponsers to keep the teams going.

[Wuzak]

If the rules were so well designed for manufacturers, where is Ford, Toyota, Nissan, BMW? Why is Renault threatening to leave? You think Ferrari likes the engine rules? Politics.

The FIA invited interested parties to participate in the (then) 2013 Power Unit regulations. VAG particpated, the others did not.

Nissan, btw, is part of Renault, so it is unlikely that both would do an engine for F1.

 

... who administers them. The FIA doesn't just pop up one morning and go "hey, we stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, here's the new engine regulations! Good luck!".

No, they had a committee looking at the new engine regulations, took them on board and (likely) adopted them completely.


 

Do yo not understand the PRESIDENT OF THE FIA is asking for the power you claim they already have?

The situation that we have now where the teams and the FOM have a say/right of veto, in F1 has only existed in the recent past.

The FIA president is only asking for it to be returned back to the way it was.

[swerved]

"The controversial former president of the FIA, the governing body, was invited to attend a crucial meeting this morning of the F1 strategy group, called to find ways of solving a growing crisis of confidence that is driving away fans."

 

Apparently he refused to attend.

 

http://www.thetimes....icle4484146.ece (Sub needed) 

[Talisman]

Todt seems to have a rather.... totalitarian attitude towards the sport.  But to consolidate my point, the problem is that you either agree or disagree with him about his *conceptual idea of what the sport is about*.

 

The guy has been anything but totalitarian.  In fact its difficult to describe his leadership of F1 as anything other than absent.  He's only turned up to the odd race, refused to comment even when people have asked for his opinion whether it be over the finances of F1 or the noise of the new PUs.  He hasn't gotten involved in any of the off-track political conflicts between the teams and/or FOM.  There could be no starker contrast with his predecessor.

In fact other than the last month or so when he seems to have found his voice again it is difficult to point to anything he HAS done related to F1.

He's been spending all his time on his road safety projects and trying to get involved with the UN which he's succeeded at.

[mzvztag]

Giving voting rights to FOM (and the existence of FOM indeed) are the worst things that happened to F1.

[johnmhinds]

"The controversial former president of the FIA, the governing body, was invited to attend a crucial meeting this morning of the F1 strategy group, called to find ways of solving a growing crisis of confidence that is driving away fans."

 

Apparently he refused to attend.

 

http://www.thetimes....icle4484146.ece (Sub needed) 

 

There are some conflicting reports that say Mosley turned up.

 

The F1 Strategy Group is in really deep **** if it thinks bringing Mosley back into the fold is a good idea.

 

Didn't they also want Briatore to run the group last year?

 

GET A FRIGGING CLUE GUYS! 

Edited by johnmhinds, 01 July 2015 - 13:04.