92 replies to this topic

[Nonesuch]

Again, if I watched someone in an argument wielding the only gun in the room until they got what they wanted, I don't think I'd be all 'yeah, but look at the result, I like it so it must mean that kind of behaviour is good'.

 
Ferrari's disapproval is not a "gun" because of the veto - but because of Ferrari.
 
Renault or Red Bull or Mercedes leaving F1 is unfortunate. Ferrari leaving is a disaster.
 

Renault were the sole voice in favour, so it was never going to be ratified. No veto required.

 

It did require some heavy lobbying and pressure, because in late 2010 the FIA WMSC approved the four cylinder engines for 2013 - and only after months of complaints was it changed, and the introduction pushed back a year.
 

Are you serious?

 

..Care to explain then what was so embarrassing about BMW's  inline slant 4 Turbo engine that produced nigh on 2000 HP?

 
I'm not disputing it's a fine piece of equipment. But I heard the 80s BMW in action multiple times, and it's not a ticket seller in my opinion.
 
The auditory experience is one of the few reasons to visit a race live, because you sure as heck can't follow the action very well.
 
People have rightly been complaining for years about the V6 engines. The I4 would have been even worse.

 

The idea that being able to have a conversation as F1 cars pass by is a good thing is just mind-boggling to me. But to each his own, of course.

[Junky]

More important than the Veto, to me, is the bonus money. In my opinion, this is much more unfair.

Edited by Junky, 23 May 2019 - 20:07.

[CountDooku]

You might have zero interest in BTCC, but a lot of people do. Circuits are packed. The engines also sound pretty good compared to a modern F1 car.

F1 might be the biggest series but it has a pathetic four engine manufacturers (just compare to 20 years ago). Four might be good for a national series, but this is supposed to be the absolute top level, where constructors form around the world want to prove they're the best.

Your last question is like asking why anyone would watch the FIFA World Cup when they could go down their local park and watch people play, or watch the Olympic athletics finals when they could watch a school sports day.. It's not the equipment that makes the level of the sport, it's the level of competition.

So the people who love BTCC can keep watching it and stop trying to turn F1 into it?
No one goes to the World Cup and moans that people don’t pick up the ball and run with it in their arms. I one goes to the olympics T&F finals and complains that they are missing out on pool action. Yet countless alleged F1 fans constantly moan that it’s not like their claimed favourite motorsports. F1 has ALWAYS been about equipment.

[PayasYouRace]

 
Ferrari's disapproval is not a "gun" because of the veto - but because of Ferrari.
 
Renault or Red Bull or Mercedes leaving F1 is unfortunate. Ferrari leaving is a disaster.
 

 

Back to the age old question. Would Ferrari ever actually leave if they didn't get their way? Or do Ferrari need F1 as much as the seem to think F1 needs them?

[Fastcake]

What is good for F1 is usually good for Ferrari and vice versa. I will repeat: of all teams on the grid they are the only one I think are genuinely in line with Fan thinking on the sport. And I say this as a fan of ****McLaren and Mercedes.

 

I cannot see any reason as to why Ferrari have any more of an interest in the good of the sport than any other team. Ferrari have continuously acted in their own self-interest, and have led every attempt to defeat any effort to level the playing field or allow themselves to be challenged.

[PayasYouRace]

So the people who love BTCC can keep watching it and stop trying to turn F1 into it?
No one goes to the World Cup and moans that people don’t pick up the ball and run with it in their arms. I one goes to the olympics T&F finals and complains that they are missing out on pool action. Yet countless alleged F1 fans constantly moan that it’s not like their claimed favourite motorsports. F1 has ALWAYS been about equipment.

 

F1 is about the equipment in that we expect teams to be constructors and the competition is as much about building a winning car as driving it to victory. But it has survived for decades without always being the fastest, most powerful, loudest, grippiest, etc, series out there. Can-Am, F5000, Indycars, Sports cars and prototypes have also held those honours. What keeps F1 at the top is the level of competition. That level would be greater without one competitor having a special veto over future rules, which has possibly stunted the current level of competition in recent years.

 

It's not about turning F1 into BTCC or Indycar or whatever. It's about looking at such series and thinking, with a small amount of effort, F1 can be just as fun to watch too.

[Atreiu]

Durh, yeah.

[Anja]

Back to the age old question. Would Ferrari ever actually leave if they didn't get their way? Or do Ferrari need F1 as much as the seem to think F1 needs them?

 

To be honest I don't think Ferrari quitting F1 would hurt them all that much. While the brand and the legend was established on its F1 legacy, I don't really see how their current F1 efforts add anything to that anymore. The work is done, the brand is built well beyond the point where it's depending on F1 for further promotion.

[CountDooku]

I cannot see any reason as to why Ferrari have any more of an interest in the good of the sport than any other team. Ferrari have continuously acted in their own self-interest, and have led every attempt to defeat any effort to level the playing field or allow themselves to be challenged.

Don’t confuse the commercial agreements with the technical ones. Ferrari have a technical veto, not a commercial one. That they have maintained their bonus is more to do with politics than the legalities of their contract.

[CountDooku]

F1 is about the equipment in that we expect teams to be constructors and the competition is as much about building a winning car as driving it to victory. But it has survived for decades without always being the fastest, most powerful, loudest, grippiest, etc, series out there. Can-Am, F5000, Indycars, Sports cars and prototypes have also held those honours. What keeps F1 at the top is the level of competition. That level would be greater without one competitor having a special veto over future rules, which has possibly stunted the current level of competition in recent years.

It's not about turning F1 into BTCC or Indycar or whatever. It's about looking at such series and thinking, with a small amount of effort, F1 can be just as fun to watch too.

Eh? You have begged the question there PAYR. There’s little evidence that what makes F1 top dog is the level of competition. In fact it’s heydays which stretched from the late eighties to the mid noughhties were full of domination! And through out this period Ferrari had a veto.

[Fatgadget]

Only by BMW, and despite all the myths, with just one title (which Renault should have won had rules prevailed) and increasingly decreasing returns (see Brabham in 86)... All the other Turbo engines were V6's.

There was Zakspeed .There was Hart. And another whose  name escapes me all fielding inline 4 pot turbos. Sure, BMW was the most potent.

[PayasYouRace]

Eh? You have begged the question there PAYR. There’s little evidence that what makes F1 top dog is the level of competition. In fact it’s heydays which stretched from the late eighties to the mid noughhties were full of domination! And through out this period Ferrari had a veto.

 

By level of competition I mean that it's nominally the best from around the world, not that it is necessarily close or sees a lot of variation, though the latter is what I'd hope we all want from any sport.

[CountDooku]

By level of competition I mean that it's nominally the best from around the world, not that it is necessarily close or sees a lot of variation, though the latter is what I'd hope we all want from any sport.

Aaaaaaah. Thanks for the clarification. Though I still don’t see why removing the veto necessarily makes Ferrari less competitive, same as having it there hasn’t made it more competitive. Since the last two times they used it they haven’t won a single championship.

[PayasYouRace]

Aaaaaaah. Thanks for the clarification. Though I still don’t see why removing the veto necessarily makes Ferrari less competitive, same as having it there hasn’t made it more competitive. Since the last two times they used it they haven’t won a single championship.

 

Well we've kinda gone down a little side road on this one, relating to how Ferrari's veto of 4 cylinder engines may have potentially restricted the number of potential entries in the championship.

 

The veto itself is fundamentally unsporting and unfair.

[CountDooku]

Well we've kinda gone down a little side road on this one, relating to how Ferrari's veto of 4 cylinder engines may have potentially restricted the number of potential entries in the championship.

The veto itself is fundamentally unsporting and unfair.

It’s unfair yes but I definitely do not trust Liberty, the FIA or any other team with that power. 🤷🏽‍♀️

[guiporsche]

There was Zakspeed .There was Hart. And another whose  name escapes me all fielding inline 4 pot turbos. Sure, BMW was the most potent.

 

Absolutely, I should have remembered this!    Although, in my defense I was thinking of 'competitive' Turbo engines. Bar the BMW (which for all its 1200-1400+bhp mostly retired and only won 3 races from 85 to 88), only the Hart was decent enough. The BMW's were eventually rebranded as Megatron for 87-8.

 

Those were the only inline four's though. Alfa's was a V8 and Motori Moderni's (Carlo Chiti) a V6 just as Ford's. Ferrari did produce an I4 too in 83-4 but it was never even tested (as per Forghieri, although there are contradictory claims on this) and anyway stopped being developped very early; Alfa did too (but a different engine) for Ligier in 87 but it was a disaster.

 

Back on topic, Inline 4's sound awful, though, so thank god for Ferrari's veto. 

[PayasYouRace]

It’s unfair yes but I definitely do not trust Liberty, the FIA or any other team with that power. ‍♀

 

Of those three, only one of those should be making and enforcing the rules. That's the governing body - The FIA.

[guiporsche]

IMO, wrong - the teams must definitely have a saying in defining/making the rules, even if only to a degree to prevent a CART-like situation. They are the ones making the investments, particularly in the case of the engine manufacturers. It was precisely for that reason that other teams have for so many years (but always kept quiet about it as it's not good press) agreed with Ferrari's veto on the tacit premise that it was used intelligently and rarely: it's a nuclear deterrent.

 

If Ferrari's veto is to be taken away, then it must be replaced in some way. As the teams can't agree about it (because even if it sounds 'unsporting', the idea that Racing Point might have the same votes as Ferrari is ridiculous, given historical backgrounds and the revenue Ferrari attracts to the sport), the veto will probably be kept and I suppose with Mercedes's agreement; and by the Ferrari-Mercedes teams, which explains the Horner-Williams brouhaha as they are politically isolated. Maybe the veto will be extended to Mercedes too, which would be quite an interesting turnaround... 

 

Just as a side-note, I seriously, seriously doubt it that inline 4's would have attracted more or plenty more manufacturers to the sport. It would have to be a dedicated, designed from scratch engine block anyway to withstand all the forces and last for several races, thus still implicating a substantial investment, which nevertheless is still mostly allocated for the turbocharging and hybrid tech. It would also have generated less power (the DTM 19's are generating about 600bhp) and sounded worse - and it's funny even to see the idea suggested given all the complaints of 2014-16. At best, only one of the VAG marques, maybe BMW would have taken the plunge. But none of these have been known in recent times (say, since 2013) for serious and sustained commitment to a racing series in which they can't win systematically. 

[RacingGreen]

Ferrari have a constitutional power to veto a rule changes but in practice so do Mercedes. If Liberty/ FIA proposed a rule change and Mercedes said to them "I'm sorry if you do that to F1 we'll take our team and play Formula E instead," that rule change would never happen. Ferrari's veto only let's them do so in a slightly different way. You could argue that in both cases the teams have too much power, I would argue that F1 is about the teams so they should write the rules and the Liberty/FIA are just a bunch of administration guys who book circuits and sell TV rights anyway so have gotten a but too big for their boots like most sporting administrators, like most administrators and middle managers really.

 

In the poll I voted that it should go because the veto is unsporting, antiquated and hard to justify in this day and age but in practice it's pretty harmless as it doesn't give them a competitive on track advantage so veto stay or veto go I don't think it'll make any really difference.

 

Now as others have said the same isn't true of the beneficial financial arrangements they have been able to negotiate.

[CountDooku]

IMO, wrong - the teams must definitely have a saying in defining/making the rules, even if only to a degree to prevent a CART-like situation. They are the ones making the investments, particularly in the case of the engine manufacturers. It was precisely for that reason that other teams have for so many years (but always kept quiet about it as it's not good press) agreed with Ferrari's veto on the tacit premise that it was used intelligently and rarely: it's a nuclear deterrent.

If Ferrari's veto is to be taken away, then it must be replaced in some way. As the teams can't agree about it (because even if it sounds 'unsporting', the idea that Racing Point might have the same votes as Ferrari is ridiculous, given historical backgrounds and the revenue Ferrari attracts to the sport), the veto will probably be kept and I suppose with Mercedes's agreement; and by the Ferrari-Mercedes teams, which explains the Horner-Williams brouhaha as they are politically isolated. Maybe the veto will be extended to Mercedes too, which would be quite an interesting turnaround...

Just as a side-note, I seriously, seriously doubt it that inline 4's would have attracted more or plenty more manufacturers to the sport. It would have to be a dedicated, designed from scratch engine block anyway to withstand all the forces and last for several races, thus still implicating a substantial investment, which nevertheless is still mostly allocated for the turbocharging and hybrid tech. It would also have generated less power (the DTM 19's are generating about 600bhp) and sounded worse - and it's funny even to see the idea suggested given all the complaints of 2014-16. At best, only one of the VAG marques, maybe BMW would have taken the plunge. But none of these have been known in recent times (say, since 2013) for serious and sustained commitment to a racing series in which they can't win systematically.

Excellent post!

[JordanIreland]

The Ferrari veto needs to stay. It was Ferrari putting its foot down that saved F1 from the embarrassment of racing with an inline 4 cylinder engine like Renault wanted.

Ferrari has always been willing to compromise, and is a responsible wielder of its unique influence.

F1 must do everything to keep Ferrari on board. This is a small price to pay.

No one team is bigger than the sport. As discussed so many times on this forum, F1 would easily survive without Ferrari. F1 is not a Ferrari play thing.

[JordanIreland]

100% Ferrari's veto needs to stay! I have said this before but they more than any other team they GET the DNA of the sport. Without the veto the sport would be significantly worse! They are the last bastion against FIA tyranny. The F1 equivalent of the Night's Watch so to speak.

F1 is pure business, Ferrari couldn’t care less about F1 and only use it for business purposes.

[Sterzo]

IMO, wrong - the teams must definitely have a saying in defining/making the rules, even if only to a degree to prevent a CART-like situation. They are the ones making the investments, particularly in the case of the engine manufacturers.

Rule-makers take into account how likely their rules are to attract entrants. It's part of the job. GP racing existed for rather a long time without one team having a veto. It exists, essentially, because we had a period when governance in F1 was all about backdoor deals and manouevring for power. The concept is essentially corrupt.

[Sterzo]

It’s unfair yes but I definitely do not trust Liberty, the FIA or any other team with that power. ‍♀

So when Jean Todt was at Ferrari he understood the DNA of F1 and could be relied upon to exercise the veto in the interests of the sport, but now he's at the FIA he's incompetent and needs to be overruled by one of the teams.

[KWSN - DSM]

Veto have to go, we as fans complain incessantly of all the ill's of F1 (and there are many), there is no justification for a team to wield more power than others (there is no justification for some teams being more equal than others either).

 

The sport which have grown into a spectacle needs saving from itself, part of which should be the international federation set the rules, those who wish to play, plays. Those who chose not to can go home, Ferrari does not own the ball.

 

[CountDooku]

So when Jean Todt was at Ferrari he understood the DNA of F1 and could be relied upon to exercise the veto in the interests of the sport, but now he's at the FIA he's incompetent and needs to be overruled by one of the teams.

Yes that’s it.

[Imateria]

Yes that’s it.

I can only assume your trying to troll the rest of us, because you've been spewing some absolute nonsense, this reply being a clear example.

 

The veto needs to go, it's hugely unsporting (see the last time they used it to stop the customer teams from getting cheaper engines, and we've had 3 teams come damn close to going under since then). Mind you, we need all of the teams removed the rules writting process as it is, we've had them heavily involved for over 10 years now and things just keep on getting worse.

[pitlanepalpatine]

I go a step further: Teams shouldnt have a say in the rules at all. 

 

Also not a fan of democracy then? The problem with authoritarian decision making is enforcement. Any venture that has multiple stakeholders should have feedback from those stakeholders. Otherwise stuff starts breaking down because no individual has the capacity to enforce all the rules against everyone else, at which point they go out the window. Personally I'd prefer the teams having a voice and Ferrari having a Veto rather 9 teams not showing up to a race to get their point across.

[Albertino]

F1 is pure business, Ferrari couldn’t care less about F1 and only use it for business purposes.

 

Uh no, Enzo Ferrari built the road car division for the sole purpose of going racing. Sure, the business prospects of the sport support the bank accounts that allow them to go racing but they care most about winning.  That is how they've built their legacy. 

 

Onto the topic of vetos and prize money.  I agree that the veto should go, but why would you take away their payments? Imagine you've been at a company 20 years and have built up a steady vacation time policy. Then in comes your new coworker Mer Cedes and she has all the same benefits that you do, but was granted them immediately. The payments should scale differently, but Ferrari should no doubt receive a bonus.

[JordanIreland]

Uh no, Enzo Ferrari built the road car division for the sole purpose of going racing. Sure, the business prospects of the sport support the bank accounts that allow them to go racing but they care most about winning. That is how they've built their legacy.

Onto the topic of vetos and prize money. I agree that the veto should go, but why would you take away their payments? Imagine you've been at a company 20 years and have built up a steady vacation time policy. Then in comes your new coworker Mer Cedes and she has all the same benefits that you do, but was granted them immediately. The payments should scale differently, but Ferrari should no doubt receive a bonus.

Couldn’t disagree more. Lots of teams could claim a legacy in F1, Williams, McLaren etc but they don’t receive a fraction of the money Ferrari does on a yearly basis, irrespective of championship standings.

F1 would be a much better place without Ferrari.

For F1 to be even considered a sport all “special payments” need to stop and no team should have a veto.

[CountDooku]

I can only assume your trying to troll the rest of us, because you've been spewing some absolute nonsense, this reply being a clear example.

The veto needs to go, it's hugely unsporting (see the last time they used it to stop the customer teams from getting cheaper engines, and we've had 3 teams come damn close to going under since then). Mind you, we need all of the teams removed the rules writting process as it is, we've had them heavily involved for over 10 years now and things just keep on getting worse.

Rather than jump into the conversation like an overexcited teenager why not specify the “nonsense” I have been spewing?

First of all, what proof do you have that Ferrari used the veto for the cheaper engine? Ferrari were AGAINST the push for the change from V8s. Why would you expect manufacturers to supply teams cutting edge engines below their own cost? Why do you think that the three teams went bust because of the engine price? It’s not like F1 teams haven’t been going bust before. Answers on a postcard!

[Marklar]

Also not a fan of democracy then? The problem with authoritarian decision making is enforcement. Any venture that has multiple stakeholders should have feedback from those stakeholders. Otherwise stuff starts breaking down because no individual has the capacity to enforce all the rules against everyone else, at which point they go out the window. Personally I'd prefer the teams having a voice and Ferrari having a Veto rather 9 teams not showing up to a race to get their point across.

Having feedback is fine IMO, being able to easily block every decision not.

Onto the topic of vetos and prize money. I agree that the veto should go, but why would you take away their payments? Imagine you've been at a company 20 years and have built up a steady vacation time policy. Then in comes your new coworker Mer Cedes and she has all the same benefits that you do, but was granted them immediately. The payments should scale differently, but Ferrari should no doubt receive a bonus.

The bonus payments are not really only a Ferrari problem, it's to some extent also a Merc/Red Bull problem

According to the latest reports Ferrari gets a bonus of £ 82.3m, Mercedes of £ 56.5m, Red Bull £ 53.4 m (the bonuses are just differently labelled). So far, so good, nothing to complain here. But then you have McLaren with £ 24.3m and Williams with £ 7.6m. Sauber/Alfa gets nothing. They are all far longer in the sport than Merc/Red Bull. And McLaren/Williams should be if anything close to Ferrari...

Granted, £ 25-30 m are that CCB bonus for teams who have committed to field a third car if the grid is falling apart and other stuff. Fair enough, although McLaren is in this as well, which means the 2nd most succesfull F1 team doesnt get any extras thanks to their brand/history!

[sopa]

IIRC teams were given a say in rule-making in 2009 after they threatened to create a breakaway series and FIA/FOM tried to give them an incentive to stop that happening.

 

If, say, all rule-making process would be in FIA's hands and teams had no say, could we get new breakaway threats, because teams are unhappy with the direction of the sport?

[RedRabbit]

Yes, even the most ardent Tifoso won't defend the bonus.

 

Oh, anyone remember the $50m budget cap? The "world engine"? All stuff Ferrari thankfully vetoed! Mosely was seconds away from destroying the sport.

 

So much talk about the bonus money, but Ferrari aren't the only team that gets one. And why not? Major stars in other sports like golf, tennis and swimming are paid appearance fees, because their participation in a tournament elevates its status. One of the conditions for Renault to re-enter as a full factory team was based on receiving a "historical bonus payment". Even Red Bull gets a fairly hefty bonus, as do McLaren, Mercedes and Williams.

 

These are the main attractions to the sport because of their history associated with it and the grid is better off with their participation.

As for the veto that Ferrari enjoy - it's used rarely and responsibly, so I see no problem with it. 

[absinthedude]

The BMW inline four and the V6 turbos of the 80s didn't sound like much more than a whistle....but by the gods those cars were spectacular because they had way more power than they could realistically put down onto the track. And from time to time they exploded. You really had the impression of the drivers using all their skills to control the things....and that they were almost sitting in front of a grenade. I'm glad we went back to normally aspirated engines and it was glorious to hear the DFRs and other "real" engines in 1989.....but one cannot say that the 80s turbo engines weren't exciting. 

 

As for Ferrari's veto....it is unfair. Sure, Ferrari is a legend and I don't think it is possible to quantify their value to F1. Part of what makes F1 what it is....is the history. Ferrari may not have been on the grid for that first race at Silverstone in 1950 but they were around later that year and have been ever since. Enzo Ferrari was a legend himself....one cannot value these things in terms of numbers. But what also makes F1 is the fact that it is the series where each team makes it's own cars, where the very highest tech is....for the most part where the very best racing drivers in the world drive or aspire to drive. 

[SophieB]

 
Ferrari's disapproval is not a "gun" because of the veto - but because of Ferrari.
 
Renault or Red Bull or Mercedes leaving F1 is unfortunate. Ferrari leaving is a disaster.
 

 

 

My main point isn't Ferrari's habit of angrily holding their breath until they pass out to get what they want, but about Ferrari actually using their veto though. What do you think of their veto use in 2015 to block the setting of a maximum price of engines + gearbox packages in response to the then FIA plans to introduce a budget engine?

[JdB]

Even being a Ferrari fan, i have to agree only Ferrari having a technical veto is wrong...at least in theory. In the real world, they've had it for 30+ years, and as far as i can remember, have used it only a few times, and after consulting the other big teams.

If everything works as it should, i'd like to see FIA make the rules, after discussions with all teams, and have equal chances for all teams.... however, it doesn't always work this way. Teams will do anything to find loopholes in regulations. Almost always, when rules were changed to correct something (danger,dominance,etc.), teams have gone the extra mile to find a way around regulations, and always found them. The veto was given to Ferrari to keep them committed to Formula 1, by means of being able to protest rules that they considered "not right".

I understand that other teams would like that as well, what i do not understand is that teams kick up a fuss now, instead of going bananas when they've actually used it.

 

In an ideal world, the Ferrari veto shouldn't exist, but F1 is not ideal at all. If they'd start over with a blank sheet, and use people who actually know what they're doing, then ditch the veto, but until that moment ...leave it the way it is at the moment. That said, i do have confidence in Ross Brawn and Jean Todt to create better rules, but i'm not too confident that Liberty Media can do the same.

 

Formula 1 has always stood out from the rest of the series, as being a prototype series. I'd hate it to see all cars identical except for the body, i'd quit watching F1. I don't mind Mercedes dominating ( i don't like it, but that's F1), i just like to see the teams come up with solutions to that dominance on track, instead of changing the rules. And the veto can only be used when the rules are changed ...

 

gr.Jeroen

[JdB]

My main point isn't Ferrari's habit of angrily holding their breath until they pass out to get what they want, but about Ferrari actually using their veto though. What do you think of their veto use in 2015 to block the setting of a maximum price of engines + gearbox packages in response to the then FIA plans to introduce a budget engine?

 

Why would you agree to be forced to sell an engine packages below cost price, because other teams who want to compete don't have the funds to pay for what they want (or race)?

[pitlanepalpatine]

My main point isn't Ferrari's habit of angrily holding their breath until they pass out to get what they want, but about Ferrari actually using their veto though. What do you think of their veto use in 2015 to block the setting of a maximum price of engines + gearbox packages in response to the then FIA plans to introduce a budget engine?

 

It's understandable. The rule changes for engines resulted in the engine manufacturers spending fortunes developing competitive products to comply. Those costs have to be recouped. You can't tell  manufacturers to produce sports cars and then tell them to retail them for the price of a nissan micra to even the field so toyota and co can sell "Sports cars" too. What you can do as the rule maker is distribute the prize money to help cover engine cost at a minimum, but that would mean less return for the shareholders.

[realracer200]

No team should have a veto and I agree that the FIA should stop listing to the teams, they should make rules and whoever wants to participate great and if they want to leave, goodbye.

[absinthedude]

Why would you agree to be forced to sell an engine packages below cost price, because other teams who want to compete don't have the funds to pay for what they want (or race)?

 

I think the idea was that it should't cost that much in the first place....

 

Don't sell at a loss...reduce the cost of the package . Part of the problem with F1 in the last 20 years or so is that there's no reasonably priced engine which is competitive. The last "off the peg" Cosworth was woeful. 

[JdB]

I think the idea was that it should't cost that much in the first place....
 
Don't sell at a loss...reduce the cost of the package . Part of the problem with F1 in the last 20 years or so is that there's no reasonably priced engine which is competitive. The last "off the peg" Cosworth was woeful.

Ok, sounds fair, but how do you suppose anyone can supply a low-cost engine+gearbox if the engine regulations keep being altered while the systems keep getting more complicated?

[sopa]

Ok, sounds fair, but how do you suppose anyone can supply a low-cost engine+gearbox if the engine regulations keep being altered while the systems keep getting more complicated?

 

Ditch all those complicated engines with gazillion electic engines and energy recovery systems.

 

I have thought about it, and I actually wouldn't mind a scenario if we went back to V8 and Cosworth supplied the whole field. Because understandably car manufacturers wouldn't be interested in such "old and simple" technology any more. But F1 can't keep up with such arms race any more. So - back to the 70's. In addition to Cosworth we might even get a Judd or a Hart in the mix. Specialized engine builders, who don't care about road relevance, but build simple engines only because F1 teams pay them to do so.

 

Of course then the chassis would be performance differentiator, not engine, and some would complain that "engine should matter too". Well, but F1 teams are specialized in chassis design anyway. Tyres are spec, and supplied by an outside source, just like engines. So why not go to single supplier?