|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
27 Oct 2015, 11:17 (Ref:3585952) | #51 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,552
|
I re read the article in Autosport plus I found another in motorsport.com and it was the way the Autosport piece was written that lead to my view on Bernie.
Here is the line from the article. "The FIA has revealed Ferrari used its right of veto after it and Formula One Management "suggested the principle of setting a maximum price for engine and gearbox for client teams" at the last Strategy Group meeting." |
|
|
27 Oct 2015, 12:37 (Ref:3585965) | #52 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,970
|
This is what happens when you make a democracy with a handful of teams that will never agree with each other.
|
|
|
27 Oct 2015, 13:46 (Ref:3585982) | #53 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,638
|
Who said that F1 was a democracy? It more like George Orwell's Animal Farm, except that it's that all teams are equal but some teams are more equal than others!
|
||
|
27 Oct 2015, 13:53 (Ref:3585984) | #54 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 16,760
|
the whole "uncompetitive advantage" under eu laws thing that keeps being brought up (not just by yourself, sir)... in the eu, doesn't the uk and germany and one or two others have a veto vote on some things in a very very similar way?
|
|
__________________
devils advocate in-chief and professional arguer of both sides |
27 Oct 2015, 14:17 (Ref:3585985) | #55 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,638
|
Quote:
However, although the EU handles billions of Euros, it is in no way considered to be a business, although some may disagree, but that is a whole different discussion and not for here! |
|||
|
27 Oct 2015, 23:51 (Ref:3586088) | #56 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
So, "Pirelli present FIA Formula One World Champion powered by Cosworth" has come a step closer then. As one could have expected, standardizing parts is a slippery slope. Or an addiction to drugs: the more you use it, the more you need and want it, but it will inevitably destroy you. Seriously, I do not like the idea of a (semi-)spec customer engine, that requires a lot of artificial performance balancing or the introduction of a two-tier series. It goes against the very fundamental principles of Formula One of creativity and intelligence, leading to technical innovations. It will make Formula One to lose a part of its purity, reason of existence, and to be even more one of many series. |
|||
|
28 Oct 2015, 00:10 (Ref:3586093) | #57 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
I don't think it'll happen. I think it's a high stakes ploy to bring the manufacturers to the negotiating table, get them to agree a cap.
If it goes through, it'll basically jettison every manufacturer from the sport I would say. I don't see it happening myself. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
28 Oct 2015, 07:27 (Ref:3586132) | #58 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
It is BE running a media campaign to get what he wants and he always does this to apply the pressure. Will it happen? All the PU suppliers will be very upset if it does and much dummy spitting and throwing of toys will be the result and who could blame them. If it happens it should be open to anyone to build motors, not just one supplier as that puts a noose around the neck of F1. Define the motor capacity, aspiration etc and let them build what they want. We used to have anything from 4 cylinders to V12's, flat 12's etc and all met the regs of the day.
|
|
|
28 Oct 2015, 09:41 (Ref:3586152) | #59 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,970
|
Quote:
Anyway, we've all seen this before. This idea of teams working together and getting a say in things was trailed during "Bridgestone Presents the Champ car World Series Powered By Ford and in Association with whoever else has a sticker available". It failed spectacularly. F1 should be a dictatorship. If Ferrari of Mercedes don't like what's being proposed, they should be told to throw a hissy fit and pretend to build an IndyCar again. I also do not like the idea of semi-spec engines. But we also have a situation that is not sustainable. |
||
|
28 Oct 2015, 13:47 (Ref:3586190) | #60 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,191
|
The problem is that things like the budget spec engine are regarded as 'negotiating' points in some sort of high stakes card game in the strange 'gun to the head' way that F1 is 'regulated' and the teams know this sp don't take anything seriously.
|
|
|
28 Oct 2015, 14:27 (Ref:3586202) | #61 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,638
|
Quote:
However, if BCE and the FIA hadn't felt so threatened, we might not have the FIA's World Championships and F1 might well be in a better place. Some would say it's karma! |
|||
|
28 Oct 2015, 15:23 (Ref:3586207) | #62 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,970
|
Quote:
FOTA went the same way CCWS did. Both required the teams to put the series before their own team. This is why F1 should be run as a dictatorship. Who should be the dictator is the real question? The answer is probably not BE. |
||
|
28 Oct 2015, 16:08 (Ref:3586220) | #63 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
29 Oct 2015, 05:20 (Ref:3586322) | #64 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,525
|
|||
__________________
ยินดีที่ได้รู้จัก |
29 Oct 2015, 06:43 (Ref:3586328) | #65 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Huge plus 1 there dsg.
Hopefully they get the independent engine supplier, I see that Force India have enough brains and foresight to vote in favour despite having Mercedes power. http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fo...d-engine-vote/ |
|
|
29 Oct 2015, 09:37 (Ref:3586355) | #66 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
|
Quote:
- Price cap on the engines (if they would loose money over it, that's their problem and their own choice, cause then they choose to develop too expensive engines) - Same spec for customers - A minimal amount of teams to be supplied With these three measures implemented properly the hybrid PU rules would work rather well and would be far more beneficial to the sport than a prallel engine rule set and even more so than the current situation. If in the end people reckon these possibly slightly cheaper engines would be low on power they could up the capacity to 2L or so in the long run. But I think given time and advance in technology that would proof to be not even necessary. With the above three measures in place I reckon the whole token system could go overboard. Why spend so much if the customers teams get the upgrade for free? Perfect. |
||
|
30 Oct 2015, 04:19 (Ref:3586561) | #67 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Did fuel flow meter issues cost Audi Le Mans win?
This article was interesting and has implications for the current F1 sensors: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...i-le-mans-win/ |
|
|
30 Oct 2015, 06:13 (Ref:3586568) | #68 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
30 Oct 2015, 06:52 (Ref:3586572) | #69 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,723
|
There are many people around telling me how bad F1 is at present, and that it is all the fault of those terrible engineers at the manufacturers.
I wonder why no one seems to give them credit for the amazing fuel/power efficiency they are achieving. A simple physics exercise would appear to indicate that levels of output per litre of fuel burned is at levels never achieved before. The Le Mans WEC LMP1's are also getting these gains. They are massive step in the sort of development everyone in the sport should be yelling from the rooftops. LOOK AT US!!!! What is happening. The people who own and promote the series are busy talking it down. Don't know, and don't care what the reason is but I wish they would shut up. The racing is as good as it has ever been but the people who should be enthusiastic are busy talking it down. Sure Mercedes are dominant at present, just as Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Brabham, Lotus, and Mercedes once before in the 50's have been. It is the result of a bunch of clever, dedicated, hard working technical people as it has always been. Why not admire their achievement and ignore the ego's in helmets hissy fits? |
||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
30 Oct 2015, 11:01 (Ref:3586622) | #70 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
The problem OldTony is there is only one iteration of one engine that is actually capable of winning a GP, the works Mercedes, the rest are just also rans contributing to Mercedes revenue.
That is not racing! That is the problem! Quote:
This will cap the price of the engines to the teams and ensure that any team has a competitive engine whether the manufacturers like it or not. The best way would be to spec your stock block to the nth degree and let anyone manufacture it. Six litre twin turbo would be excellent with minimal aero. Normally aspirated even. However the manufacturers could not claim they were building the engine, and there goes a bucket load of cash and support. V8s or V10s that are tightly specified and have reached their full potential development and that everybody can build would also be a way through this mess. Currently only a manufacturer has the resources to build the hybrids, so independent suppliers such as Cosworth are impossible. Last edited by wnut; 30 Oct 2015 at 11:17. |
||
|
30 Oct 2015, 14:00 (Ref:3586661) | #71 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
I detest "independent manufacturer" idea -- unless, they are multiple suppliers that can compete and win the tender. Could be a roundabout way of inveigling in cost caps. I'd support that.
But if there's only one independent manufacturer who are allowed to configure more powerful engines and with better fuel efficiency than the others -- I don't want that garbage. However I'm sure it's all a ploy to get those manufacturers to relent to the caps. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
30 Oct 2015, 16:15 (Ref:3586689) | #72 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,910
|
Quote:
I assume this is not a new spec (that anyone can build to), but rather a single solution that will be balanced up to some level. I don't understand the process for making this happen, but if teams were able to veto cost caps for customer engines, how can they expect this also to not be vetoed? The only scenario I can see the manufactures supporting this would be some assurance that this engine will balanced up to a level "below" the existing spec with respect to power and/or economy. Effectively making this nothing more than a way to fill the field at a lower cost, but to not change the status quo at the front of the field. Is this right back to the two tier talk of months ago? And does this really help F1 or address core problems? Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
30 Oct 2015, 17:13 (Ref:3586697) | #73 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,753
|
i thought the two tiered issue was settled when the rules were amended to allow for the sale of prior year spec engines?
other than RBR being in a tight, spot are any of the teams still complaining about engine availability or costs? |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
30 Oct 2015, 17:41 (Ref:3586704) | #74 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,638
|
Quote:
This renewed drive by the FIA and FOM for a second tier ICE is driven solely because Ferrari used it's power of veto, which no other team has been given, to stop the FIA introducing a cost cap for the PSU's, a move that had been agreed by all the other members of the Strategy Group plus Renault. I get the impression that if the FIA actually follow through with the second tier units (assuming that Ferrari do not eventually drop it's opposition to the cost cap), then they will ignore Ferrari if it's tries to use it's veto again. My own opinion is that a court would, in all likelyhood, take a very dim view of Ferrari attempting to use the courts to enforce a veto, especially as it would disadvantage the majority of the other teams. |
|||
|
30 Oct 2015, 23:10 (Ref:3586786) | #75 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,723
|
Quote:
It is F1 racing, it is how it has been and always will be if F1 is to be the ultimate form of motor sport. It should always be about finding the absolutely fastest way of completing a race distance given a set of specifications and allowance of certain inputs. End of story. The current "cost cap" limitations discussions are aimed at protecting the franchisor against the demands of some of the franchisees who have been sold a pup. A reversion to the days when F1 was about being able to front up with a suitably specified car, and a suitably qualified driver and then win a spot on the starting grid if you were fast enough would make the whole thing a lot more like real racing. The problem at present is that in the name of "cost control" we are preventing those teams that have fallen behind from doing the re-design work to allow them to catch up. Tokens should be reserved for arcade games. The really important people over the years have been the Colombos, Chapmans, Barnards and Neweys not the hissy fit mob who wear helmets. Which brings us back to the fact that in my (probably not widely held) opinion that the WDC attached to F1 spoils what could be a fantastic constructors championship. But then I've probably been watching too long. |
|||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2014 Power Units | Mike Harte | Formula One | 1 | 21 May 2014 19:20 |
What is the true revs and power output of the current MotoGP 990cc four stroke engine | Robin Plummer | Racing Technology | 4 | 26 Mar 2004 12:23 |
Current Power | Robin Plummer | Formula One | 41 | 27 Sep 2003 16:38 |
CURRENT POWER OUTPUTS OF GP AND SUPERBIKE ENGINES? | Robin Plummer | Racing Technology | 3 | 12 Oct 2000 11:15 |