Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

2021 engine formula: political wrangling, technical details, aesthetics...


  • Please log in to reply
3392 replies to this topic

Poll: Pick and choose! (418 member(s) have cast votes)

Extra 3000rpm?

  1. Yay (377 votes [90.19%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.19%

  2. Nay (41 votes [9.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.81%

More prescriptive engine design, standard energy store etc

  1. Yay (210 votes [50.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.24%

  2. Nay (208 votes [49.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 49.76%

Removing MGU-H, more tactical use of MGU-K

  1. Yay (308 votes [73.68%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.68%

  2. Nay (110 votes [26.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.32%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,720 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 03 November 2017 - 14:17

The rule set proposed is basically the most boring thing they could have came up with. The higher RPM is artificial and not a consequence of pushing the boundaries as it was previously.

 

Removing the Turbo KERS is fine by me and would make the engines cheaper and more road relevant if you care about road relevance.

 

It would/will also make the engines sound different im ok with that too. And i assume most is.

 

Increased fuel flow is ofc. fun but what really should have happened was a flat fuel flow. The engines would have been way more gnarly sounding going up through the revs.

 

The engines will sound better but the ruleset is far from focused on efficiency. a flat fuel flow would have been far more green, more challenging for the engineers and perhaps more fun for the fans too.

 

 

Edit:Oh and with a flat fuel flow curve they have the potential to produce more power.


Edited by MatsNorway, 04 November 2017 - 19:05.


Advertisement

#52 Alonsofan007

Alonsofan007
  • Member

  • 2,214 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 03 November 2017 - 14:23

FORMULA 1 ENGINE FROM 2021 Is the criticism of the manufacturer fair?- AMuS

 

https://www.auto-mot...1-12787532.html



#53 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,477 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 November 2017 - 15:42

This proposal reads like a bunch of people slowly coming to terms with the inevitable end of a pointless 'technology race' - a race that is already boxed in from all sides by pages upon pages of regulations and which leads to manufacturers trying to find ever tinier advantages for ever higher costs.

 

Didn't Toto Wolff recently talk about Mercedes spending something like half a billion on their engine? Completely ridiculous.

 


why don't they tell manufactuers to go fvck themselves?

 

:up:


Edited by Nonesuch, 03 November 2017 - 15:48.


#54 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,651 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 November 2017 - 16:19

It’s one of the perils of being a publicly traded company.

Nobody wants to have to tell the stock holders that from 2020 they’ll probably be making $100 million a year less because the FOM historic payments stopped.


I think Liberty might have to bite the bullet and continue giving Ferrari their historic payment. Red Bull are definitely losing theirs though.

#55 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,429 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 November 2017 - 16:34

I think Liberty might have to bite the bullet and continue giving Ferrari their historic payment. Red Bull are definitely losing theirs though.

Why?

#56 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,651 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 November 2017 - 16:51

Why?


Because Ferrari are by far the biggest draw of F1. It certainly isn’t the racing or the variety...

#57 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 3,458 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 03 November 2017 - 16:52

It's a catch 21. How can you ever implement new engine regulations which please manufacturers without creating an arms race? Which brings me to my next point, why don't they tell manufactuers to go fvck themselves?

 

"Dear manufactuers, these are the regulations. We have decided to adopt simple, loud and exciting engines with tremendous output. The fans love them. You are free to join, the door is always open. Just remember the door works both ways.

 

Sincerely,

 

FIA and LMC."

 

:up:



#58 Alexis*27

Alexis*27
  • Member

  • 894 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 November 2017 - 17:00

Rock and a hard place. They try to fix the problems regarding sound and reliability and then they get criticised for being 'regressive'.

 

Then the engine manufacturers complain but don't offer any alternatives.

 

We've seen Ross Brawn's proposals. I would have liked to have seen each manufacturer be invited to submit their own. Or is this yet to happen? 



#59 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 4,505 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 17:17

Loved the piece on AMuS which completely destroys the criticism of the manufacturers. 

 

Basically the MF'ers are complaining that new rules will get expensive. Well duh, any new regulation will get things expensive... And at the same time they want to continue with the very expensive MGU-H... doesn't make sense. It seems that they are just saying things to protect their current status/investment and are trying to keep new manufacturers out of F1. 

 

Really painful to see that they are playing it like this. I will not be sorry if some current mf'ers leave (assuming some new ones will enter the sport). 



Advertisement

#60 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 17:18

Because Ferrari are by far the biggest draw of F1.

 

Not true at all.



#61 Kershy

Kershy
  • Member

  • 442 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 03 November 2017 - 17:33

If this brings Aston in in 2021 as an engine supplier then Im more than happy to see Ferrari as a constructor to go the other way.



#62 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,691 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 03 November 2017 - 17:52

I don't have the stamina to argue any longer.

 

Forme it's like this:

 

If they ditch the HALO, I'll start watching on the TV again.

If they ditch the HALO and fix the sound, I'll go to a track again.

 

If not, my next fix of F1 will be Goodwood when my kid gets old enough to appreciate.



#63 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 03 November 2017 - 17:56

saudoso, you'll still watch, HALO or not. :p



#64 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 17:59

 

 

If they ditch the HALO, I'll start watching on the TV again.

 

I avoid debating Halo stuff (that is arguing in favour of why the Halo is  dumb idea) as the stupidity of the Halo makes me cross.   :)


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 November 2017 - 18:00.


#65 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 03 November 2017 - 18:06

The cars will, in the end, regardless of what they are saying now still end up an expensive, ugly tool for manufacturers to sell cars and 'promote their brand' ... until you loosen (or preferably remove) the corporate chokehold manufacturers have on F1, it won't get any better.

#66 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,651 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 November 2017 - 18:08

Rock and a hard place. They try to fix the problems regarding sound and reliability and then they get criticised for being 'regressive'.

Then the engine manufacturers complain but don't offer any alternatives.

We've seen Ross Brawn's proposals. I would have liked to have seen each manufacturer be invited to submit their own. Or is this yet to happen?


I thought Renault/Mercedes did offer a proposal. Same architecture as now, but with a higher fuel flow and some other slight changes. It sounded a lot better than the FOM proposal.

#67 Calorus

Calorus
  • Member

  • 3,873 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 03 November 2017 - 18:09

So very depressing, all of it.

Paddy Lowe's interview said most if not all.

For me the 2020 regs should have been an opportunity to create something new and even more relevant.

But no, the progressphobes are harking for just the right arbitrary moment to pause the specificaton.

Like brexit, we'll end up with a half formed excretion neither recapturing the past they think they want nor mapping pace with a changing world.

#68 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 2,868 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 November 2017 - 18:11

This proposal reads like a bunch of people slowly coming to terms with the inevitable end of a pointless 'technology race' - a race that is already boxed in from all sides by pages upon pages of regulations and which leads to manufacturers trying to find ever tinier advantages for ever higher costs.

 

Didn't Toto Wolff recently talk about Mercedes spending something like half a billion on their engine? Completely ridiculous.

It's not completely ridiculous because they have won everything for four years. It was a good investment.



#69 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 5,716 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 03 November 2017 - 18:13

I think Liberty might have to bite the bullet and continue giving Ferrari their historic payment. Red Bull are definitely losing theirs though.

 

Completely disagree. No team is, or should be, bigger than the sport.

 

Part of F1's problems in recent years have been created through the idiotic way it has been run. Ferrari receiving preferential financial treatment, when they already have budget and resources way in excess of the majority of teams, is just one example of that.

 

For F1 to become more exciting and less predictable, teams need to be should all be receiving similar financial deals. Maybe that's a naive view on my part, but hey, it works for other sports - and currently they are way more exciting to follow than Formula One has been for the last few years. But if teams doesn't like that, fine, then they can throw their toys out the pram and quit as far as I'm concerned.


Edited by JHSingo, 03 November 2017 - 18:14.


#70 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 03 November 2017 - 18:58

I think Liberty might have to bite the bullet and continue giving Ferrari their historic payment. Red Bull are definitely losing theirs though.

Malone stated when the purchase was complete that it wasn't going to happen.  There won't be any special deals.



#71 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:00

Welcome to Formula One, Liberty. The honeymoon's over.

 

The honeymoon is over.  For the teams...

 

There is a new sheriff in town.  Better get used to it.



#72 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 34,553 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:04

Malone stated when the purchase was complete that it wasn't going to happen. There won't be any special deals.

I hope it ends, but I wouldn't rule out some sort of payment, regardless of any statement they have made.

#73 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:07

It’s one of the perils of being a publicly traded company.

Nobody wants to have to tell the stock holders that from 2020 they’ll probably be making $100 million a year less because the FOM historic payments stopped.

 

The voting shares are controlled by the Angelli-Elkann family (Fiat).  Those are the ones that matter.  The alternative would be to shutter a multi billion dollar investment, lay off 1000 people under EU employment laws and liquidate the race team assets for pennies on the dollar.  All while it's still a profitable business although one with less revenue and a new structure in the series that covers race team costs through equal team disbursements.   The race team will still be a solid business they just won't get bribe money and veto power.



#74 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:10

I hope it ends, but I wouldn't rule out some sort of payment, regardless of any statement they have made.

That's not how he does business.  They'll let them leave and build the business in the way they wish.  Look at Malone's history through the cable TV/media wars in the US.  He's ruthless.  Understated, relatively soft spoken but more than willing to make it painful for anyone that impedes his business goals.



#75 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:25

That's not how he does business.  They'll let them leave and build the business in the way they wish.  Look at Malone's history through the cable TV/media wars in the US.  He's ruthless.  Understated, relatively soft spoken but more than willing to make it painful for anyone that impedes his business goals.

 

Piranha club meet the shark.  Shark meet the piranha club.

 

About time.  :)



#76 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 15,889 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:29

FOM are collating fan opinion here:

https://www.surveymo...k/r/2021Engines

#77 Vettelari

Vettelari
  • Member

  • 1,564 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:32

My big problem with a "Push to Pass" system is how it punishes cars at the lower end of the grid while causing even more separation from the fastest cars to the rest of the field. A car that qualifies lower will have to use the P2P to get around cars at a much higher rate than the leading cars would ever need. It causes a situation where it is extremely difficult for any car that doesn't start in the top 5 to win a race, except for the random safety car shuffle. Whoever is leading the race gets to save up all of his P2P's and can deploy them if any car gets close to him at a much higher rate than trailing cars would have been able to save during the race.



#78 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,067 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:35

Because Ferrari are by far the biggest draw of F1. It certainly isn’t the racing or the variety...

 

Liberty have spent the past months doing detailed market research, and their promotional efforts seem to be more focused on drivers than teams. I wonder if the question has been asked "would you continue to watch F1 if Ferrari withdrew?"  I know I would. Maybe we should have a poll.



#79 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:39

My big problem with a "Push to Pass" system is how it punishes cars at the lower end of the grid while causing even more separation from the fastest cars to the rest of the field. A car that qualifies lower will have to use the P2P to get around cars at a much higher rate than the leading cars would ever need. It causes a situation where it is extremely difficult for any car that doesn't start in the top 5 to win a race, except for the random safety car shuffle. Whoever is leading the race gets to save up all of his P2P's and can deploy them if any car gets close to him at a much higher rate than trailing cars would have been able to save during the race.

 

I can assure you push to pass doesn't work like that.

 

As it is, drivers outside of the top three teams in F1 have precisely zero chance to win a race anyway.



Advertisement

#80 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,429 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:54

Because Ferrari are by far the biggest draw of F1. It certainly isn’t the racing or the variety...

I was talking Red Bull...

#81 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,694 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 November 2017 - 19:54

Dieter Rencken had, as ever, interesting analysis on the politics surrounding the new regs in his column from the other week. https://www.autospor...cide-its-future
 
Summarising his columns are always challenging because they pack a lot of complexity into them, so sometimes the summaries over simplify. Nevertheless:

  • The revenue structure of F1 is (finally) due for reform as Liberty move to try and offset any EU investigation.
  • Strategy Group influence - and chance of Ferrari veto - will though linger unless the privileged teams give up their extra powers. 
  • The last major instance of something like that happening was Mclaren helping out BrawnGP, which cost them a fortune and indirectly led to them losing their factory status, so he questions how likely this is to happen again.
  • Dissent in team ranks over desired outcomes, as seen in recent TP conference. Mercedes wanted clarity, Force India wanted to see more action, McLaren seeking better collaboration between the player, etc.

 
 

Will it come to that given the contentious nature of the topics, particularly with regard to revised power units (with four-wheel-drive?) and a redistribution of F1's billion-dollar fund? First consider: which commercial entity would forfeit a hundred million dollars - and all the attendant lay-offs and downscale - 'for the sake of its industry'?
Then consider: which elite group voluntarily forsakes its preferential status, a status it believes to be its divine right? No royal family abdicates without pressure, and forget not that Ferrari views itself as F1's first family, while Mercedes is the sport's captain of industry. Both are listed companies; both have shareholders and board members to whom they are beholden, so the ultimate decision does not rest on the pitwall.,



Any wonder 'for the good of the sport' has become a phrase synonymous with 'expensive lesson' and 'sliding backwards', making it unlikely that Ferrari and/or Mercedes will relinquish their privileges, certainly not in wholesale fashion. In any event, why should they, given the contractual obligations in place? Contracts may only be waived with the agreement of all signatories.

A senior F1 source confirmed to Autosport that the current governance structure will continue to dictate the rule-making process for the post-2020 period unless all parties agree to change, and, worse, will continue to dictate the process in the absence of any agreed changes thereafter.

 



#82 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 03 November 2017 - 20:01

Thanks for that Sophie.  F1 in a nutshell there.



#83 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 20:03

Thanks for that Sophie.  F1 in a nutshell there.

 

"the current governance structure will continue to dictate the rule-making process for the post-2020 period unless all parties agree to change, and, worse, will continue to dictate the process in the absence of any agreed changes thereafter."

 

Yep

...bunch of self-interested numpties.  :rolleyes:

 

If Liberty have to litigate to force Ferrari to give up their veto and historical payments (presuming they won't volunteer to sign the new agreement of their own goodwill), then Liberty should just do it.  :up:


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 November 2017 - 20:05.


#84 RainyAfterlifeDaylight

RainyAfterlifeDaylight
  • Member

  • 3,967 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 03 November 2017 - 20:08

Dieter Rencken had, as ever, interesting analysis on the politics surrounding the new regs in his column from the other week. https://www.autospor...cide-its-future

The article reminded me of The Godfather movie-the meeting of five families scene, but apparently the godfather in the movie was more peaceful than what we face (Ferrari) right now. No doubt that Mercedes play Barzini's role.

 

teaser_ce_schapiro_godfather_top_1207311


Edited by RainyAfterlifeDaylight, 03 November 2017 - 20:13.


#85 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 03 November 2017 - 20:23

The governance structure of the Strategy Group doesn't include the commercial payments.  Those will be able to be changed once the current deals expire in 2020.  There is nothing the teams can do to fight the changing payment structure except quit.   FOM control the revenue stream and that gives them the power advantage.  If you control the money, you control the power.  Liberty didn't spend all this money to have the teams dictate how the business is operated.  

 

Articles like Rencken's feed the narrative that those the run the F1 teams and their owner's boards are somehow omnipotent  business people.  They aren't.  They have strengths and weaknesses like any one else.  Previous management placated the top teams with cash so they could harvest as much capital from the sport as they could.  It was basically "here's some money, stand down while we pillage this business".  Liberty want to build a sustainable business so they can make money selling the content.   

 

For a bit more on what the teams will be up against should they choose to confront Liberty rather than working with them this 25 year old piece from the New Yorker will give you a good idea of the hardball that could be yet to come.  It's long form but worth the read if you want to know how they do business.

 

http://www.kenaulett...flyingsolo.html

 

Here's another profile that's more of a fluff piece than an in-depth look at how Liberty operates.

 

http://www.businessi...7/#also-read-22


Edited by loki, 03 November 2017 - 20:25.


#86 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,477 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 November 2017 - 20:36

Because Ferrari are by far the biggest draw of F1. It certainly isn’t the racing or the variety...


Exactly. Without Ferrari, what is F1 but a slightly faster GP2/F2? Just with the added drawback of massive gaps between teams.

 

It's not completely ridiculous because they have won everything for four years. It was a good investment.

 
That's a fair point - although I'm not sure I ever saw Mercedes use their F1 success in regular ads. Perhaps they don't need to. :up:
 
But I was mainly thinking along the lines of the FIA; what do they get out of this by having F1 set up this way? Budgets of hundreds of millions of euro/dollars? To be a few seconds faster than GP2? Not impressive at all!
 

For F1 to become more exciting and less predictable, teams need to be should all be receiving similar financial deals.

 
F1 isn't lacking competition because Ferrari has a bonus. Take Ferrari out, divide their bonus between the other nine teams, and you'd just have Mercedes up top like now, then Red Bull all alone behind them, and the same old huge gap to the small-time outfits.

 

If repeated rumours about budgets are to be believed; at least two teams are spending more than Ferrari, with a third very close by. Who knows where Renault will rank in two years time. Probably right up there, too.
 

The alternative would be to shutter a multi billion dollar investment, lay off 1000 people under EU employment laws and liquidate the race team assets for pennies on the dollar.

 
That's not "the" (singular) alternative. Ferrari's race-team doesn't need to be racing in F1.



#87 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 34,553 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 November 2017 - 20:38

That's not how he does business. They'll let them leave and build the business in the way they wish. Look at Malone's history through the cable TV/media wars in the US. He's ruthless. Understated, relatively soft spoken but more than willing to make it painful for anyone that impedes his business goals.

I'll believe it when it actually happens.

#88 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 1,459 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 03 November 2017 - 20:39

FOM are collating fan opinion here:

https://www.surveymo...k/r/2021Engines

 

They are asking the general public to offer their opinion on what they think the affects of the proposed changes will be.  What a useless survey.  If they want to know if the engines are going to be louder, hire an engineering firm to conduct studies, don't ask a bunch of commoners. 



#89 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 03 November 2017 - 20:49

 

That's not "the" (singular) alternative. Ferrari's race-team doesn't need to be racing in F1.

 

Which series will sustain an operation that size?  Particularly when the Ecclestone bribe money is removed from the equation.   They were reported to have spent half a billion USD on race operations and development in 2016, most of that covered with the bribe money.  How are they going to pay for that in another series unless they go out of pocket or considerably downside?



#90 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 21:01

Which series will sustain an operation that size? 

 

LMP.  LMP racing is surprisingly expensive.

 

 

How are they going to pay for that in another series unless they go out of pocket or considerably downside?

 

"Tough"

 

Ferrari can always drop their 7000 car limit and sell more cars to Justin Bieber and the like.   ;)


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 November 2017 - 21:03.


#91 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 4,505 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 21:06

They expect to sell 8400 this year.

#92 Jerem

Jerem
  • Member

  • 1,434 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 03 November 2017 - 21:11

MGUH is the only thing about this engine formula that says "pinnacle". Yeah it's complicated for the general audience, but who cares : for the general audience, an F1 engine is an F1 engine.

However, how the MGUH actually works is quite fascinating (I admit I don't understand it all either!). But only one constructor managed to make this technology reliable, I guess that's why the others want it dropped.



#93 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 21:26

 

However, how the MGUH actually works is quite fascinating

 

The way a personal computer works is quite fascinating, yet most people still could not care less.   ;)

 

Talk to them about how Photoshop is really just a mathematical transformation program based on manipulating a matrix of pixel colour intensities via mathematical functions, and you will see eyes glazing over...  :rolleyes:  :stoned:

 

You will not have much better luck talking about how voice and speech recognition works either, or how WiFi works, all people care about is that it "just works"  :) and they get cross if it doesn't work for whatever reason..

 

For the purpose of watching a grand prix, the MGUH just works, and the only effect is of angering Alonso fans about how Honda's MGUH just works less effectively than everyone else's works!  :lol:


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 03 November 2017 - 21:36.


#94 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 34,553 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 November 2017 - 21:29

MGUH is the only thing about this engine formula that says "pinnacle". Yeah it's complicated for the general audience, but who cares : for the general audience, an F1 engine is an F1 engine.
However, how the MGUH actually works is quite fascinating (I admit I don't understand it all either!). But only one constructor managed to make this technology reliable, I guess that's why the others want it dropped.

Do they want it dropped?

The acid test though is not whether anyone finds it fascinating, but whether it improves the racing. In that regard id say it's added nothing.

Edited by Clatter, 03 November 2017 - 21:32.


#95 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,429 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 03 November 2017 - 22:03

The others may not want it dropped as they may want to prove they can make it work better than the Mercedes ERS system.

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 03 November 2017 - 22:03.


#96 LeClerc

LeClerc
  • Member

  • 9,291 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 03 November 2017 - 22:09

Hybrid, Schmybrid!

 

Watching the cars, I can't see the PU, but  I can hear it. Just smack a cheap bi-turbo V8 in there, and I wouldn't have lost a thing. But a number of teams would have more money to spend on chassis.

 

As for Ferrari leaving, well somethings never change.



#97 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 03 November 2017 - 22:18

They expect to sell 8400 this year.

And they'll sell every single one of them.  And still have people wanting more.


Edited by loki, 03 November 2017 - 22:19.


#98 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 22:25

If we look at either of the two past regulations that allowed plenty of new entrants into the sport it’s hard to say what would be the modern equivalent.

The first was the 1966 3 litre formula. It worked because Ford allowed the DFV to be available to anyone who wanted it. So it became easy to buy a customer supply and build a chassis round it. But the DFV was cutting edge in 1967. It wasn’t some piece of retro tech.

The second was the 3.5 litre formula of 1987. There was something about that formula that meant not only could Cosworth and Judd supply low cost engines to small start up teams, but steadily more and more manufacturers wanted to build engines to those rules and partner with teams. Once the turbos disappeared the field was mainly Ford and Judd with a few works teams thrown in, but after a decade nearly every team had a near exclusive manufacturer supply. Again, those engines were reflections on the then current engine trends in technology.

So what would be the key to another successful formula? Current technology is hybrid based so we should expect that in an F1 engine. But one success was based on virtually a single customer engine, while the other enticed many manufacturers.

#99 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,651 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 November 2017 - 22:43

Completely disagree. No team is, or should be, bigger than the sport.

 

Part of F1's problems in recent years have been created through the idiotic way it has been run. Ferrari receiving preferential financial treatment, when they already have budget and resources way in excess of the majority of teams, is just one example of that.

 

For F1 to become more exciting and less predictable, teams need to be should all be receiving similar financial deals. Maybe that's a naive view on my part, but hey, it works for other sports - and currently they are way more exciting to follow than Formula One has been for the last few years. But if teams doesn't like that, fine, then they can throw their toys out the pram and quit as far as I'm concerned.

 

F1's biggest problem is that the cars can't get close to each other. I agree that the gap between the top and the midfield is too big, but the way to solve that is with a budget cap, not pissing off the top teams. Their third big problem is the utter incompetence of the FIA. 

 

That's not how he does business.  They'll let them leave and build the business in the way they wish.  Look at Malone's history through the cable TV/media wars in the US.  He's ruthless.  Understated, relatively soft spoken but more than willing to make it painful for anyone that impedes his business goals.

 

He does business by trying to make the most money possible. Keeping the big names in F1 is probably his best chance of that. Will Sky or RTL continue paying huge money to show Arden F1 Cosworth vs. McLaren Mecachrome on their broadcasts? 

 

MGUH is the only thing about this engine formula that says "pinnacle". Yeah it's complicated for the general audience, but who cares : for the general audience, an F1 engine is an F1 engine.

However, how the MGUH actually works is quite fascinating (I admit I don't understand it all either!). But only one constructor managed to make this technology reliable, I guess that's why the others want it dropped.

 

We don't know who wants the MGUH dropped. Renault, Ferrari, and Mercedes have all come out in the last few days with criticisms of the proposed PU and in favor of keeping the current one. 



Advertisement

#100 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 5,716 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 03 November 2017 - 22:47

Exactly. Without Ferrari, what is F1 but a slightly faster GP2/F2? Just with the added drawback of massive gaps between teams.

 

 
F1 isn't lacking competition because Ferrari has a bonus. Take Ferrari out, divide their bonus between the other nine teams, and you'd just have Mercedes up top like now, then Red Bull all alone behind them, and the same old huge gap to the small-time outfits.

 

If repeated rumours about budgets are to be believed; at least two teams are spending more than Ferrari, with a third very close by. Who knows where Renault will rank in two years time. Probably right up there, too.

 

What is F1 without Ferrari? It's not much different to what it is now - a racing series that would likely remain the pinnacle of motorsport (rightly or wrongly). As I wrote earlier, that is not dependent on a Ferrari entry. Formula One will remain Formula One regardless, it will still have the history and prestige of more than fifty years' racing. It would still visit iconic, and famous, locations like Spa, Monza, and Monaco. It would remain as the championship that the majority of young kids in karting would dream of one day winning. People who cared about racing would still watch. 'F1 without Ferrari is just a slightly faster F2/F3'? Nonsense. You place too much importance on a single team.

 

And yes, I agree there is a vast yawning chasm in competitive terms across the grid. However, it makes no sense for teams with the budget and resources of Ferrari to additionally receive preferential financial treatment as well. Other teams have a double disadvantage - how on earth are they supposed to close up, if they don't have the same budget/resources and get shafted by the sport as well? To make an analogy to my other favourite sport, hockey, it would be like the Stanley Cup Champions getting the number one draft pick for the following season. You're just making an already good team even better, and increasing the gap in the competitive spread across the league.

 

I don't care how many hundreds of millions manufacturers want to chuck at it. But if they are one of the lucky few to have that privilege, they then shouldn't also be getting preferential treatment from the sport as well - regardless of how long or successful they've been in the sport. That's my gripe - although I accept it may not be totally relevant to this thread.


Edited by JHSingo, 03 November 2017 - 22:50.