Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Marko rant about Mercedes, Pirelli and Liberty


  • Please log in to reply
291 replies to this topic

#251 KevD

KevD
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 05:37

Mercedes winning has been cited  as a detriment to the sport, if only they did not set such a precedent... wait Redbulll did not do the same, I almost forgot, so did Ferrari before them and Williams before that and McLaren before that, maybe F1 is cyclical in nature when it comes to teams dominating . I guess that's why it has never imploded.

 

I think F1 will be just fine 

 

Very comforting. But look what's happening right before your eyes and note that it is happening all at the same time:

 

Merc dominating the races and both championships for years

Merc providing lots of other teams with their PU, creating political and technical dependencies

Merc deciding who gets their PU and who not and using that to stay ahead

Merc providing FIA with the medical- and pace cars

Merc providing FIA / Liberty with company cars for officials

Merc road cars shod with Pirelli's

Merc enjoying an exclusive tyre advantage

Ever declining audience and spectater ratings

Ever declining revenues

Ever declining number of cars on the grid

Increasing thread from energy transition and competition

 

This happening all at the same time is unprcedented nor comforting IMO  :wave:



Advertisement

#252 Hela

Hela
  • Member

  • 314 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 18 June 2019 - 08:00

Very comforting. But look what's happening right before your eyes and note that it is happening all at the same time:

 

Merc dominating the races and both championships for years

Merc providing lots of other teams with their PU, creating political and technical dependencies

Merc deciding who gets their PU and who not and using that to stay ahead

Merc providing FIA with the medical- and pace cars

Merc providing FIA / Liberty with company cars for officials

Merc road cars shod with Pirelli's

Merc enjoying an exclusive tyre advantage

Ever declining audience and spectater ratings

Ever declining revenues

Ever declining number of cars on the grid

Increasing thread from energy transition and competition

 

This happening all at the same time is unprcedented nor comforting IMO  :wave:

 

Merc, Merc, Merc...funny how Ferrari name is conveniently left out of the equation especially since it is alleged they have the best PU  :confused:

Can you just give me 1 good reason why you have left out the Ferrari name if not due to lack of objectivity or bias ?  :)



#253 KevD

KevD
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 11:05

Merc, Merc, Merc...funny how Ferrari name is conveniently left out of the equation especially since it is alleged they have the best PU  :confused:

Can you just give me 1 good reason why you have left out the Ferrari name if not due to lack of objectivity or bias ?  :)

 

No evil intentions here. Ferrari just wasn't the focus of attention in Marko's rant. It's true Ferrari plays it's part in this unhealthy situation (works team, providing engines, veto power etc.) but that only makes it even worse in my opinion. At the same time it seems to me that Mercedes is really calling the shots atm, controlling almost every relevant facet of this formula.



#254 Hela

Hela
  • Member

  • 314 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 18 June 2019 - 11:18

No evil intentions here. Ferrari just wasn't the focus of attention in Marko's rant. It's true Ferrari plays it's part in this unhealthy situation (works team, providing engines, veto power etc.) but that only makes it even worse in my opinion. At the same time it seems to me that Mercedes is really calling the shots atm, controlling almost every relevant facet of this formula.

 

No they were not but since you made it about Mercedes engine not offered to them, again I ask why have you left Ferrari out, Marko never said anything about engines, you did and I am asking you directly why ?

 

With regards to Mercedes calling the shots, only 1 manufacturer has the almighty Veto power ( even the UN gave that to 5 other guys)

only 1 manufacturer received additional hundreds of million dollars in royalty payment before the eventual pot is shared between the 10 other teams (them included) 

 

Mercedes on the other hand warned against continuous change in regulations and always preached to let rules remain to bring about convergence of competition but the FIA still went ahead, Everyone had access to the same data and tests for tyres so not sure how Mercedes is to blame for this. 

 

I see 1 team that is really calling the shots and that is certainly not Mercedes  :)

 

Now they are making the same errors again, just imagine that come 2021 Mercedes builds a monster car, what excuses do you have then ? Everyone thinking it might be a reset, what if Merc just blitz the field again in 2021



#255 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 12,879 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 18 June 2019 - 15:32

Now they are making the same errors again, just imagine that come 2021 Mercedes builds a monster car, what excuses do you have then ? Everyone thinking it might be a reset, what if Merc just blitz the field again in 2021

 

Given the fact they've won the majority of races for the last 5 years (with the resultant prize money), it would be remarkable if anyone did break this stranglehold that appears to have established itself.



#256 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,550 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 June 2019 - 15:35

Given the fact they've won the majority of races for the last 5 years (with the resultant prize money), it would be remarkable if anyone did break this stranglehold that appears to have established itself.

 

Majority is underselling it. Mercedes has won 76% of the race since 2014.



#257 beachdrifter

beachdrifter
  • Member

  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: November 17

Posted 18 June 2019 - 15:39

At the same time it seems to me that Mercedes is really calling the shots atm, controlling almost every relevant facet of this formula.


What exactly are they "controlling"?

#258 MasterOfCoin

MasterOfCoin
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 15:53

What exactly are they "controlling"?

They are controlling the Tin Foil supply chain like a Cartel.....

 

20mw3g.jpg



#259 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,070 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 18 June 2019 - 15:55

Why does the FIA insist on using ambiguous words like similar? Surly that's just asking for wildly different interpretations.



Advertisement

#260 Hela

Hela
  • Member

  • 314 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 18 June 2019 - 16:13

Given the fact they've won the majority of races for the last 5 years (with the resultant prize money), it would be remarkable if anyone did break this stranglehold that appears to have established itself.

 

But we have had 2 major aero regs changes since the hybrid introduction (2017 and 2019) and they still came out on tops, it's not far fetched if there is another aero change they will still manage to lead the field and make it a 3 peat come 2021


Edited by Hela, 18 June 2019 - 16:52.


#261 Counterbalance

Counterbalance
  • Member

  • 850 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 16:42

As stated numerous times: he wants the 2018 tyres back because the current ones seem to benefit none but Mercedes. Those tyres do nothing for the quality of racing because of the small operating window and because they require constant management of the temps. He thinks a mid-season change should be possible because of precedents set in the Red Bull dominated era.

 

 

You can ridicule Marko and defend Mercedes all you want but you have clearly not understood what's at stake here. While it may be true that Mercedes have hit the sweet spot this year for whatever reason (kudo's to them if it's on merit and not a result of political powerplay behind the scenes), I argued that their dominance and influence as a works team can hardly be a positive development for the sport. If teams like Red Bull get the impression they're fighting a battle they can never win, a pullout and implosion of the sport will be inevitable.

 

But it's perfectly possible that the well-being of Mercedes is of more importance to you.

 

First of all, the 2018 tyre situation. A conversation about 0.4mm. Yet even Ferrari and Vettel himself came out afterwards and said the change was a positive one. And don't even begin to bang on about tyres after the 2013 mid season pressure increase, which every single team (barring RedBull) foretold that if the pressures were increased, it would hand a massive advantage to the aforementioned team. Guess what? It did. Vettel and Redbull went on a nine race uninterrupted winning streak. As I said in a previous post, why wasn't Makro complaining about one team's dominance then? Why wasn't he offering to supply every other team their chassis and aero blueprints? You know, for the sake of fair competition and the sport. Come back to me when you have an answer for that.

 

And don't whine about an incredibly talented and hardworking group of individuals designing a car which happens to be faster than your beloved RedBull. We're talking about a sport where it costs upwards of $300,000,000m to compete at the top end of the grid. F1 isn't a charity. Or would you prefer Toto Wolff walk into Brixley tomorrow morning and say "Hey, you know what, all the hard work and years of effort you've put into giving us an advantage, well, I've decided to give one of our biggest competitors the fruit of your labour, just to be fair."

 

So, whilst it may be important to me that Mercedes are successful, I'd content that your stubbornness to take anyone's difference of opinion into account probably means you're more of a Mercedes hater than someone who is striving for equality. Which will never happen in F1. Ever.

 

As Hela and others have mentioned, F1 will be fine.



#262 Counterbalance

Counterbalance
  • Member

  • 850 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 17:19

Why does the FIA insist on using ambiguous words like similar? Surly that's just asking for wildly different interpretations.

 

To allow for different interpretations and spice up the show, possibly?



#263 Garndell

Garndell
  • Member

  • 725 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 17:55

Why does the FIA insist on using ambiguous words like similar? Surly that's just asking for wildly different interpretations.

 

It also allows for older parts to be used, they aren't always identical in shape, size etc.



#264 Pimpwerx

Pimpwerx
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 18 June 2019 - 18:03

Why does the FIA insist on using ambiguous words like similar? Surly that's just asking for wildly different interpretations.

Probably to allow things to be fixed. If a part is flawed, it makes no sense to put the same flawed piece back on the car. It would encourage teams to not run, or forfeit altogether. Similar allows corrections to be made, without altering performance. So a part similar in form and function, but without the flaw would allow the racing to go on, without providing a performance advantage. Reliability isn't necessarily a performance gain, as it's not the governing body's desire to encourage retirements/attrition. That's a side effect of performance, but they want more cars on track, not fewer.

 

Also, a flawed part could pose a safety concern, so again, putting the identical safety concern back on the car makes no sense.


Edited by Pimpwerx, 18 June 2019 - 18:04.


#265 Counterbalance

Counterbalance
  • Member

  • 850 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 18:05

After all this, if RebBull win at the weekend, I'm gonna shout conspiracy and I think KevD should buy us all a pint! :D

#266 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 7,553 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 June 2019 - 19:05

Why does the FIA insist on using ambiguous words like similar? Surly that's just asking for wildly different interpretations.

 

The FIA's style in writing rules seems to be to make the rule totally ambiguous so that they can then decide whether or not they want to enforce it. And, even if they do enforce it, the penalties are also ambiguous so that the FIA/stewards can do what they please.



#267 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 7,553 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 June 2019 - 19:08

To allow for different interpretations and spice up the show, possibly?

 

Maybe this.

 

It also allows for older parts to be used, they aren't always identical in shape, size etc.

 

 

Probably to allow things to be fixed. If a part is flawed, it makes no sense to put the same flawed piece back on the car. It would encourage teams to not run, or forfeit altogether. Similar allows corrections to be made, without altering performance. So a part similar in form and function, but without the flaw would allow the racing to go on, without providing a performance advantage. Reliability isn't necessarily a performance gain, as it's not the governing body's desire to encourage retirements/attrition. That's a side effect of performance, but they want more cars on track, not fewer.

 

Also, a flawed part could pose a safety concern, so again, putting the identical safety concern back on the car makes no sense.

 

I don't buy any of this. If they wanted to, they could make the text longer and clarify all of these things. There is a reason why there is no clarification and it's not "oh, we forgot to add it".


Edited by pdac, 18 June 2019 - 19:08.


#268 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,258 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 19:15

It also allows for older parts to be used, they aren't always identical in shape, size etc.


How does that rule out ‘similar’ new parts that aren’t identical in shape, size, etcetera though. Older parts have been scrutinized before, that shouldn’t be a problem anyhow.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 18 June 2019 - 19:17.


#269 Pimpwerx

Pimpwerx
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 18 June 2019 - 19:22

Maybe this.

 

 

 

 

I don't buy any of this. If they wanted to, they could make the text longer and clarify all of these things. There is a reason why there is no clarification and it's not "oh, we forgot to add it".

They explained the things that have to be similar. You're taking that particular word out of context, and the rules are written by technical people, so any ambiguity is probably in there purposefully because as I noted, it wouldn't make sense to replace a flawed piece with another flawed piece. So weight, inertia, and some other aspects are referenced in the rule. Being similar in those regards makes a part work the same, but without any perceivable gain. They write the rules for other technical people to use when assessing legality, not for forum posters hellbent on proving there's impropriety. Engineers with more knowledge than you or even an engineer like myself can figure out pretty well if a part is to spec or not. Don't blame them for your own limitations.

 

This is no different than the overal car specs that are provided, with legality boxes, and areas intentionally left ambiguous, in order to allow freedom for creativity. It's not like they can't spec a car down to the last millimeter. It's just not their desire to do so. There's a real lack of appreciation/understanding of what goes into these rules, and why they exist as they do. It's not logical to jump to conclude that there was ignorance or a nefarious purpose in most of these. It's a lot like the double-diffuser. The rule makers were warned in advance by teams, but they left that loophole in place anyway. The wording of this particular regulation has at least one obvious purpose, which I pointed out. It's also the rule that allows teams to change brake pads to different brands, IIRC. Nothing nefarious or ignorant about it, and it allows changes to be made for safety. There's no reason to add more specific wording, when those involved know what it means, and know what to look for if there's something out of bounds. If Mercedes managed to fit a flux capacitor that was the same weight, inertia, functionality, and what have you as the original failed piece, then good on them. They managed to fool all the actual experts, but if they had such a piece in their inventory, they probably should have fitted it to the car on Saturday, when getting pole would have made the race a lot easier for them.

 

It reminds me of that Kevin Hart scene from 40 Year Old Virgin, "I don't understand all them big words you're using. So I'mma take it as disrespect." Just because we don't fully understand, doesn't mean the people responsible don't.



#270 ATM

ATM
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 18 June 2019 - 19:55

First of all, the 2018 tyre situation. A conversation about 0.4mm. Yet even Ferrari and Vettel himself came out afterwards and said the change was a positive one. And don't even begin to bang on about tyres after the 2013 mid season pressure increase, which every single team (barring RedBull) foretold that if the pressures were increased, it would hand a massive advantage to the aforementioned team. Guess what? It did. Vettel and Redbull went on a nine race uninterrupted winning streak. As I said in a previous post, why wasn't Makro complaining about one team's dominance then? Why wasn't he offering to supply every other team their chassis and aero blueprints? You know, for the sake of fair competition and the sport. Come back to me when you have an answer for that.

And don't whine about an incredibly talented and hardworking group of individuals designing a car which happens to be faster than your beloved RedBull. We're talking about a sport where it costs upwards of $300,000,000m to compete at the top end of the grid. F1 isn't a charity. Or would you prefer Toto Wolff walk into Brixley tomorrow morning and say "Hey, you know what, all the hard work and years of effort you've put into giving us an advantage, well, I've decided to give one of our biggest competitors the fruit of your labour, just to be fair."

So, whilst it may be important to me that Mercedes are successful, I'd content that your stubbornness to take anyone's difference of opinion into account

As Hela and others have mentioned, F1 will be fine.



Agree on all points except the last one. A dominance of 6 years is quite a lot for the casual viewer, tends to get quite boring actually. Through no fault of their own, Mercedes risk diminishing the sport fanbase - not the hardcore one, which is quite stabile but also getting older- I mean the younger more fiery generation, who doesn’t seem to wait patiently until they see another winner (of course, Ferrari takes the blame here with their fiasco fiesta).

#271 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,176 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 18 June 2019 - 19:57

Probably to allow things to be fixed. If a part is flawed, it makes no sense to put the same flawed piece back on the car. It would encourage teams to not run, or forfeit altogether. Similar allows corrections to be made, without altering performance. So a part similar in form and function, but without the flaw would allow the racing to go on, without providing a performance advantage. Reliability isn't necessarily a performance gain, as it's not the governing body's desire to encourage retirements/attrition. That's a side effect of performance, but they want more cars on track, not fewer.

Also, a flawed part could pose a safety concern, so again, putting the identical safety concern back on the car makes no sense.

That's fine, but it should not be allowed penalty free. Parc Ferme is supposed to mean they race what they qualified with, make repairs, start at the back.

#272 MasterOfCoin

MasterOfCoin
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 20:33

The rules governing Parc Ferme are fine as is......there are enough penalties regarding engines and gearboxes, lets not add anymore to the list......



#273 KevD

KevD
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 20:37

No they were not but since you made it about Mercedes engine not offered to them, again I ask why have you left Ferrari out, Marko never said anything about engines, you did and I am asking you directly why ?

<snip>

 

Providing engines to some (and denying others) was just one in a much longer list of examples, showing an undesirable influence of Mercedes as a car manufacturer over this sport. And if it makes you happy: yes, the same goes for Ferrari, more or less. IMO both are a thread to the future of the formula and I've tried to substantiate this. Perfectly fine with me if you don't agree.

 

First of all, the 2018 tyre situation. A conversation about 0.4mm. Yet even Ferrari and Vettel himself came out afterwards and said the change was a positive one. And don't even begin to bang on about tyres after the 2013 mid season pressure increase, which every single team (barring RedBull) foretold that if the pressures were increased, it would hand a massive advantage to the aforementioned team. Guess what? It did. Vettel and Redbull went on a nine race uninterrupted winning streak. As I said in a previous post, why wasn't Makro complaining about one team's dominance then? Why wasn't he offering to supply every other team their chassis and aero blueprints? You know, for the sake of fair competition and the sport. Come back to me when you have an answer for that.

 

And don't whine about an incredibly talented and hardworking group of individuals designing a car which happens to be faster than your beloved RedBull. We're talking about a sport where it costs upwards of $300,000,000m to compete at the top end of the grid. F1 isn't a charity. Or would you prefer Toto Wolff walk into Brixley tomorrow morning and say "Hey, you know what, all the hard work and years of effort you've put into giving us an advantage, well, I've decided to give one of our biggest competitors the fruit of your labour, just to be fair."

 

So, whilst it may be important to me that Mercedes are successful, I'd content that your stubbornness to take anyone's difference of opinion into account probably means you're more of a Mercedes hater than someone who is striving for equality. Which will never happen in F1. Ever.

 

As Hela and others have mentioned, F1 will be fine.

 

You couldn't be more wrong about how I feel about Mercedes as an F1-team. I respect and admire them. A lot. But you seem to take this as personal dig specifically aimed at them while it was my intent to show that some car manufacturers have too much power, using Mercedes as an example.

 

At the same time I'm not a blind follower of Red Bull or mr. Marko. But well, he brought this all up didn't he? It's true that a fellow countryman is driving for that team at the moment but hell, even he nay be driving for Mercedes some time...So calling me a hater is far beyond the truth.

 

Lastly, I don't think that Bull's winning streak was remotely comparable to the current Mercedes dominance. Red Bull only had some fizzy drinks in a can and a great chassis, while I showed that Mercedes has much more commercial involvement in the sport and it's tyre manufacturer. I just don't think that that kind of a deep involvement is a healthy development from a sporting perspective.

 

What exactly are they "controlling"?

 

I provided a list of examples (which you obviously didn't read) of their instruments, their commercial interests and actual trends in a bid to substantiate the points I was trying to make: too much power and influence in the hands of a few car manufacturers, will utlimately kill the sport. I'll repeat them here for your convenience and I challenge you to use your own imagination to work out how this all happening at the same time can lead to 'control': 

 

Merc providing lots of other teams with their PU, creating political and technical dependencies

Merc deciding who gets their PU and who not and using that to stay ahead

Merc providing FIA with the medical- and pace cars

Merc providing FIA / Liberty with company cars for officials

Merc road cars shod with Pirelli's

Merc enjoying an exclusive tyre advantage

Merc dominating the races and both championships for years

 

Ever declining audience and spectater ratings
Ever declining revenues
Ever declining number of cars on the grid
Increasing thread from energy transition and competition
 
And while I use Merc here as an example, this partly goes for Ferrari as well.

Edited by KevD, 18 June 2019 - 20:40.


#274 KevD

KevD
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 20:55

After all this, if RebBull win at the weekend, I'm gonna shout conspiracy and I think KevD should buy us all a pint! :D

 

I'm happy to buy you all a round but somehow I predict it 'll be between the two car manufacturers again this weekend  :)



#275 Hela

Hela
  • Member

  • 314 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 18 June 2019 - 20:59

 

 

I provided a list of examples (which you obviously didn't read) of their instruments, their commercial interests and actual trends in a bid to substantiate the points I was trying to make: too much power and influence in the hands of a few car manufacturers, will utlimately kill the sport. I'll repeat them here for your convenience and I challenge you to use your own imagination to work out how this all happening at the same time can lead to 'control': 

 

Merc providing lots of other teams with their PU, creating political and technical dependencies - They provide 2 other teams same as Ferrari and 1 more than Renault and Honda

 

Merc deciding who gets their PU and who not and using that to stay ahead - It is a competition, if Redbull want it so bad, then go build their own PU, Did they share their aero technology apart some parts to their sister Toro Rosso when they were the class of the field, how is this different 

 

Merc providing FIA with the medical- and pace cars - What cars were the medical and safety cars when Redbull or Ferrari were winning.....ohh yes Mercs so nothings changed 

 

Merc providing FIA / Liberty with company cars for officials - Ridiculous

 

Merc road cars shod with Pirelli's - So the italian tyre manufacturer decides to shack up with the Anglo-German team to screw their fellow Italian F1 team (slowly warming up to your thought process now)

 

Merc enjoying an exclusive tyre advantage - I thought the tyres were the same for everyone  :confused:

 

Merc dominating the races and both championships for years - same as Redbull, Ferrari, williams and McLaren in prior years and era

 

Ever declining audience and spectater ratings
Ever declining revenues
Ever declining number of cars on the grid
Increasing thread from energy transition and competition
 
Revenues, spectators and Grid were already declining before the Hybrid era, Caterham, Virgin etc all disappeared from the field , this had nothing to do with Mercedes 
 
And while I use Merc here as an example, this partly goes for Ferrari as well.

 

 

You sound upset  :confused:


Edited by Hela, 18 June 2019 - 21:03.


#276 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,258 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 18 June 2019 - 21:05

The quality of this thread is sinking to the level of Marko’s quotes.

#277 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 15,525 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 18 June 2019 - 21:05

You sound upset  :confused:


I'd call it something else.

#278 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 7,553 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 June 2019 - 21:15

The rules governing Parc Ferme are fine as is......there are enough penalties regarding engines and gearboxes, lets not add anymore to the list......

 

I would say that rules are only bad if they are not totally clear and/or it's not totally clear what the penalty for infringement is. Otherwise, rules work well and the more there are the better everything will be.

 

The trouble of course is that a lot (perhaps the majority) or the regulations governing F1 are not at all clear and even those that are do are not clear about penalties.

 

The need for judgement is what makes rules unbearable.



#279 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 18,175 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 June 2019 - 09:11

Very comforting. But look what's happening right before your eyes and note that it is happening all at the same time:

 

Merc dominating the races and both championships for years

Merc providing lots of other teams with their PU, creating political and technical dependencies

Merc deciding who gets their PU and who not and using that to stay ahead

Merc providing FIA with the medical- and pace cars

Merc providing FIA / Liberty with company cars for officials

Merc road cars shod with Pirelli's

Merc enjoying an exclusive tyre advantage

Ever declining audience and spectater ratings

Ever declining revenues

Ever declining number of cars on the grid

Increasing thread from energy transition and competition

 

This happening all at the same time is unprcedented nor comforting IMO  :wave:

 

What exactly is that list supposed to prove actually?

 

  • Mercedes are not the first team to enjoy a period of dominance. It happens. Though with modern reliability it does get exaggerated.
  • They are not the only team providing PUs to other teams. Ferrari and Renault both do that while having works teams. Only Honda is an "independent" engine supplier at the moment, but they're exclusive to the Red Bull teams.
  • All engine suppliers get to decide who gets to use their equipment. It's not new. As long as all teams have engine supplies there's no problem.
  • The FIA have to source their equipment from somewhere, and they've used Mercedes for much longer than Mercedes have been the top team in F1. What were they supposed to do? "Your team has won the championship, now we're going to source our cars from elsewhere"? Are you suggesting the FIA should have replaced all their company car fleets with other cars just because Mercedes is winning?
  • It's irrelevant which tyres Mercedes put on their road cars.
  • Please explain exactly how they have an exclusive tyre advantage in a control tyre formula where all competitors use the same tyres.
  • Audiences, spectator ratings and their associated revenues rely on many complex interacting elements. You can't ignore things such as higher ticket prices, reduced access and less free coverage when looking at those numbers, for example. Nothing to do with Mercedes. F1 had a boom period during the Ferrari domination period.
  • The number of cars on the grid, while less than the maximum, is not "ever declining". It has remained at or above the current 20 since 1996.


Advertisement

#280 Pimpwerx

Pimpwerx
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 19 June 2019 - 10:51

I would say that rules are only bad if they are not totally clear and/or it's not totally clear what the penalty for infringement is. Otherwise, rules work well and the more there are the better everything will be.

 

The trouble of course is that a lot (perhaps the majority) or the regulations governing F1 are not at all clear and even those that are do are not clear about penalties.

 

The need for judgement is what makes rules unbearable.

This is a problem with you, not the rules. If teams wanted more clarity or specificity, they would ask for it. How come no other team has lodged a complaint about the vagueness of the rules in these areas? It's because they don't want them more exacting, and apparently, neither does the FIA. So, with that said, where the hell is the problem? 

 

Question: Should the FIA write rules for spectators or competitors?

Answer: For competitors, because they are the actual ones who have to abide by them.

 

You're just looking to find something wrong where there is nothing wrong.


Edited by Pimpwerx, 19 June 2019 - 10:52.


#281 KevD

KevD
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 19 June 2019 - 13:42

 

What exactly is that list supposed to prove actually?

 

  • Mercedes are not the first team to enjoy a period of dominance. It happens. Though with modern reliability it does get exaggerated.
  • They are not the only team providing PUs to other teams. Ferrari and Renault both do that while having works teams. Only Honda is an "independent" engine supplier at the moment, but they're exclusive to the Red Bull teams.
  • All engine suppliers get to decide who gets to use their equipment. It's not new. As long as all teams have engine supplies there's no problem.
  • The FIA have to source their equipment from somewhere, and they've used Mercedes for much longer than Mercedes have been the top team in F1. What were they supposed to do? "Your team has won the championship, now we're going to source our cars from elsewhere"? Are you suggesting the FIA should have replaced all their company car fleets with other cars just because Mercedes is winning?
  • It's irrelevant which tyres Mercedes put on their road cars.
  • Please explain exactly how they have an exclusive tyre advantage in a control tyre formula where all competitors use the same tyres.
  • Audiences, spectator ratings and their associated revenues rely on many complex interacting elements. You can't ignore things such as higher ticket prices, reduced access and less free coverage when looking at those numbers, for example. Nothing to do with Mercedes. F1 had a boom period during the Ferrari domination period.
  • The number of cars on the grid, while less than the maximum, is not "ever declining". It has remained at or above the current 20 since 1996.

 

 

Well, obviously you have no problem with a situation where seven privateer teams are politically and technically held hostage by three works teams. Where the number of customer teams served by the works teams basically determines the voting power in case of rule changes. A situation where those three works teams get to decide for themselves which privateers may pay them big money for the right of use of a faster engine and additionally use that political and financial power to help them to always stay ahead (shame on you Renault! :p ). Where one of the works teams provides the F1-organization with some necessary technical assets like company cars, while at the same time no one knows for sure how they are compensated. Where one of the works teams even has business ties with Pirelli as the preferred supplier of race tyres, creating a possible conflict of interests.

 
How can you possibly rule out a causality between the above circumstances and actual observations like the sport becoming way too predictable and declining/stagnating number of teams, revenues and spectators? IMO it’s the inequality Marko is ‘whining’ about. But of course you don’t have to take him seriously and tell him to just go away if Red Bull are not happy anymore. Sixteen cars makes it even easier to win.  :stoned:


#282 Pimpwerx

Pimpwerx
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 19 June 2019 - 14:14

 

Well, obviously you have no problem with a situation where seven privateer teams are politically and technically held hostage by three works teams. Where the number of customer teams served by the works teams basically determines the voting power in case of rule changes. A situation where those three works teams get to decide for themselves which privateers may pay them big money for the right of use of a faster engine and additionally use that political and financial power to help them to always stay ahead (shame on you Renault! :p ). Where one of the works teams provides the F1-organization with some necessary technical assets like company cars, while at the same time no one knows for sure how they are compensated. Where one of the works teams even has business ties with Pirelli as the preferred supplier of race tyres, creating a possible conflict of interests.

 
How can you possibly rule out a causality between the above circumstances and actual observations like the sport becoming way too predictable and declining/stagnating number of teams, revenues and spectators? IMO it’s the inequality Marko is ‘whining’ about. But of course you don’t have to take him seriously and tell him to just go away if Red Bull are not happy anymore. Sixteen cars makes it even easier to win.  :stoned:

 

You can't remedy the economics of the sport without standardizing engines the way they standardized tires. Love 'em or leave 'em, the manufacturers currently make it possible for the privateers to compete. Otherwise, the sport is simply too expensive to develop your own engine at this point. Predictability has been the norm rather than the exception for the last 19 years now. We had 3 dynasties spanning 14 years, and Renault had a b2b mini-run in there as well. This is a star-driven league, like some other sports, where the manufacturers are the stars that can swing the balance in one direction or the other. I'm sure if I were to go back over an even longer timeline, we could see the trend extending through the 80s, with Williams and McLaren being the top teams. I don't think this is what F1 has always been, just with different players at the fore. The only difference might be that Mercedes is currently the Jordan Bulls, or the Russell Celtics, where their dynasty runs a little longer than the others. But it's more a perfect storm of normal events, than anything new and profound.



#283 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,070 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 19 June 2019 - 15:39

They explained the things that have to be similar. You're taking that particular word out of context, and the rules are written by technical people, so any ambiguity is probably in there purposefully because as I noted, it wouldn't make sense to replace a flawed piece with another flawed piece. So weight, inertia, and some other aspects are referenced in the rule. Being similar in those regards makes a part work the same, but without any perceivable gain. They write the rules for other technical people to use when assessing legality, not for forum posters hellbent on proving there's impropriety. Engineers with more knowledge than you or even an engineer like myself can figure out pretty well if a part is to spec or not. Don't blame them for your own limitations.

 

This is no different than the overal car specs that are provided, with legality boxes, and areas intentionally left ambiguous, in order to allow freedom for creativity. It's not like they can't spec a car down to the last millimeter. It's just not their desire to do so. There's a real lack of appreciation/understanding of what goes into these rules, and why they exist as they do. It's not logical to jump to conclude that there was ignorance or a nefarious purpose in most of these. It's a lot like the double-diffuser. The rule makers were warned in advance by teams, but they left that loophole in place anyway. The wording of this particular regulation has at least one obvious purpose, which I pointed out. It's also the rule that allows teams to change brake pads to different brands, IIRC. Nothing nefarious or ignorant about it, and it allows changes to be made for safety. There's no reason to add more specific wording, when those involved know what it means, and know what to look for if there's something out of bounds. If Mercedes managed to fit a flux capacitor that was the same weight, inertia, functionality, and what have you as the original failed piece, then good on them. They managed to fool all the actual experts, but if they had such a piece in their inventory, they probably should have fitted it to the car on Saturday, when getting pole would have made the race a lot easier for them.

 

It reminds me of that Kevin Hart scene from 40 Year Old Virgin, "I don't understand all them big words you're using. So I'mma take it as disrespect." Just because we don't fully understand, doesn't mean the people responsible don't.

 

Define similar.... 10% difference, 5%, difference, 70% difference? Give an engineer an inch and they will take a mile, it has been proved time and time again you can drive a bus through the regulations and it's only when other teams point out the infraction/potential infraction that the FIA do anything.

 

I'm not saying Mercedes did anything wrong in what they did just the rules are a bit loose.



#284 Retrofly

Retrofly
  • Member

  • 3,089 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 19 June 2019 - 15:45

I love that Mercedes not giving competitors their engine is a conspiracy. Since when are car components free reign for other teams?

 

Should Red Bull have given their chassis and areo concepts to other teams during their hay day? Should brawn have told everyone about the double diffuser?

Maybe merc should be letting everyone use their suspension too!

 

:rotfl:



#285 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,550 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 19 June 2019 - 15:50

Should brawn have told everyone about the double diffuser?

 

The funny thing is, he - and others - did, if indirectly.

 

They warned that the rules were so badly written that this would happen.


Edited by Nonesuch, 19 June 2019 - 15:50.


#286 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 6,258 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 19 June 2019 - 15:57

I love that Mercedes not giving competitors their engine is a conspiracy. Since when are car components free reign for other teams?

Should Red Bull have given their chassis and areo concepts to other teams during their hay day? Should brawn have told everyone about the double diffuser?
Maybe merc should be letting everyone use their suspension too!

:rotfl:

There’s a difference though. Under the rules every team has to design it’s own car (apart from certain listed parts). For the engine the situation is totally different as the vast majority of teams is dependent on being accepteren as a customer of one the three works teams. Red Bull are lucky with Honda as independent engine supplier and better hope that they succeed, otherwise they would/will be doomed as none of the works teams would be prepared to accept them as a customer.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 19 June 2019 - 16:01.


#287 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 3,143 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 19 June 2019 - 16:48

Marko is a well balanced sort. Has a chip on both shoulders.



#288 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 4,280 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 19 June 2019 - 17:02

Marko is a well balanced sort. Has a chip on both shoulders.

 

rPVZGdW.jpg



#289 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 30,689 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 19 June 2019 - 18:15

If you had told me 5-6 years ago that this picture is possible I would have ridiculed you^



#290 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 7,553 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 June 2019 - 20:30

This is a problem with you, not the rules. If teams wanted more clarity or specificity, they would ask for it. How come no other team has lodged a complaint about the vagueness of the rules in these areas? It's because they don't want them more exacting, and apparently, neither does the FIA. So, with that said, where the hell is the problem? 

 

Question: Should the FIA write rules for spectators or competitors?

Answer: For competitors, because they are the actual ones who have to abide by them.

 

You're just looking to find something wrong where there is nothing wrong.

 

Well, I guess I just have to disagree with you there. The series is promoted as a spectator sport.



#291 Pimpwerx

Pimpwerx
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 19 June 2019 - 20:46

Define similar.... 10% difference, 5%, difference, 70% difference? Give an engineer an inch and they will take a mile, it has been proved time and time again you can drive a bus through the regulations and it's only when other teams point out the infraction/potential infraction that the FIA do anything.

 

I'm not saying Mercedes did anything wrong in what they did just the rules are a bit loose.

That's for the scrutineers to decide. I'm assuming they have predetermined tolerances. 10% difference in weight for something that is 20kg is pretty significant. If something is much lighter, they can make the team slap some ballast on the part. Teams don't run afoul of these rules very often, so they must be pretty easy to interpret. That no one has made a big fuss is telling enough. It's a non-issue.



#292 Pimpwerx

Pimpwerx
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 19 June 2019 - 20:47

Well, I guess I just have to disagree with you there. The series is promoted as a spectator sport.

So is basketball, but none of the rules are written for the fans, except those pertaining specifically to fan interaction with the action on the court. We don't have to consider any of the regulations when we turn on our televisions, and sit down in our easy chairs. The rules are written for engineer on the teams to understand. That's the end of it. You're reaching.