Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ruslan

Under New Management

Recommended Posts

16 October 2017   13:49 (CEST)

So much for wisdom uttered by Szu Tzu (or maybe Michael Corleone?) - "Keep your friends close, but enemies closer". FOG and (now former) FOM aren't friends by any measure. It is nothing but acrimonious relationship for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie is no longer part of F1.....Ron Dennis is no longer part of McLaren......they both sold shares in their team and businesses until such time as they could be put out to pasture. Frank Williams, on the other hand, his handing his business, for better or worse, over to his family. A Williams is still run by a Williams. Whose approach was the best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sergio M.:

Quote

“Like them (Liberty), we want to reduce the costs of F1 which are beyond the limit. And that’s not because of technical choices but because of the way the sport is managed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 October 2017   15:39 (CET)

Death of the series?

Looks like Brits and Americans might succeed killing GP as we know it. Why let teams make money as reward for their investment, performing research, and built a racing product, when it is "better" just redirect money flow into someone's coffers for basically doing nothing other than talking? Might be interesting to see how that works. I can envision Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton retiring in three years, and Ferrari, Mercedes and potentially also Honda leaving. It will be new dawn for someone else. Count me out. I had good run, but nothing lasts forever. 

Brawn: F1 at crossroads…but where is Todt?

Good question.

 

It's fun.

FiA was found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 November 2017   12:28 (CET)

There will be war.

Liberty (not the FiA?) is now proposing parallel developments on two engines, says Wolff. Neither Mercedes, Renault or Ferrari are happy. RBR however is.

I grew up and have lived obviously most of my life in different world, in which words meant what textbooks and parents said they mean, however this is not world we live in today. Today when they say savings, they actually meant more expensive, and suppliers will pay for it, not Liberty. Life goes on. It remains to be seen how new face of the F1 will change. Honda was quiet, because TR (hence RBR) is their client, however I seriously doubt, that they are too happy about it as well.

If Liberty is trying to chase automakers out of the sport, they I have to applaud to them for doing splendid job.

Lowe:

Quote

“I think whenever you change regulations you always create opportunity and actually create a divergence whether it is around engines or current limits,” he said. “What creates convergence is regulation stability.

Lowe: F1 engines not the sport’s biggest problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 November 2017   11:37 (CET)

Wolff

Quote

But Wolff said he was “surprised” that the FIA had published so much detail on the new engine when the manufacturers had been told in a meeting on the same day that the plans were “a proposal of a vision for 2021” that would be subject to further discussion and refinement at F1’s various rule-making entities.

He added: “It portrays it in a way of this is how we’re going forward and none of the current OEMs (car manufacturers in F1) was particularly impressed.”

Ferrari have declined to comment. Renault and Honda have not yet responded to BBC Sport’s inquiries.

He said the proposals as published would mean “developing a new engine concept that will trigger immense costs” for the car manufacturers in F1 – Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda – “just for the sake of having a new concept”

What I take out of this is, that Liberty is playing a dictator, and they want to impose their ideas, regardless whether any manufacturer likes it, or not. All of those (probably shortsighted) individuals who hate manufacturers will be applauding. Speaking for myself, I think it was OEM Group, which made a lot of people in CVC rich, and series without them may be another thinly veiled IRL in disguise. Well, good luck with that. Maybe they will run Cosworth engines as a standard unit on all cars. Durable, but then they have to find someone who will also watch it on pay TV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ruslan said:

5 November 2017   12:56 (CET)

I haven't researched the subject enough to claim in-depth knowledge, however not too long ago an internet based article someone was raising the issue that Ferrari, whilst not used this legally binding and privileged instrument in the past too often (maybe 2- 4 times in decades), they might invoke their contractual right during forthcoming negotiations related to the proposed changes on engine-architecture, should they don't like it. In my understanding they can protest if a decisions taken are adversarial to Ferrari business interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 November 2017   15:31 (CET)

Interlagos will provide clarity who will assume P2 in WDC, it however might hopefully also shed some light on what happened last Tuesday. I wonder if BE will offer a few players to launch with him a new series in 2021, free of Liberty and FiA. It would be certainly an interesting gambit. Not everyone is impressed with LIberty's plans. Question is, what they can do about it.

 

9 November 2017   18:58 (CET)

Which problem are you people actually solving? Do you really know?

 

9 November 2017   19:05 (CET)

Proposed is:

Quote

F1 engine plan for 2021

+ as before: V6 turbo with 1.6 liters of displacement

+ max. Speed 18,000 / min (+ 3,000 / min) for better sound

+ stricter specifications for internal and external dimensions

+ Omission of MGU-H

+ stronger MGU-K

+ Pilot himself takes over energy management to use extra power tactically

+ Dimensions and weight limit for turbo should be specified

+ Battery and electronics boxes are standardized

+ stricter gasoline development rules

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, nothing has been announced. It appears that there is a lot of backroom discussions going on...with a little bit of it playing out in the press. I gather there are four main issues:

1. New engines regulations (apparently Mercedes and Ferrari object).

2. Redistribution of prize money (apparently all the rich teams object).

3. Removing Ferrari's special payment bonus (apparently Ferrari objects).

4. Budget cap (I gather there is some un-ease from the richest teams).

My sense is that there will be a compromise. Suspect it will entail some changes on the engine regulations and the $$$ (including keeping some or all of Ferrari's benefit). Apparently the budget cap is the least controversial....so that one may actually go through. We shall see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ruslan said:

1. New engines regulations (apparently Mercedes and Ferrari object).

13 November 2017   15:32 (CET)

Mercedes and Renault objected.  Ferrari was on sidelines for the moment, however just as Honda, they all will be on the same page. I read long time ago that Honda admitted that the only reason for their return to F1 was hybrid-power plant challenge. Without it, they had better ways to spend their money. Will they stay without full hybrid? At best, it is MAYBE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I am not sure how in this day and age you can have Formula One race without some form of hybrid. It is the future (for now.....electric cars are probably the future in 20 years). I am vaguely dissatisfied with the current engine regulations, but have not seen anything that anyone proposes that is actually clearly better. So, I gather they will need to stay with at least some form of hybrid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 November 2017   7:59 (CET)

I do not know who first proposed MO how to further decrease cost for PU customers (I faintly recall it might have been T. Wolff), however I understand that next season only 3 engines will be allowed contingent for whole racing season without reliability related penalty. I see this as another proof of existential insanity in F1 ranks. WDC consequently will be even more contaminated by factors beyond driver's control (for all practical purposes), as we didn't have enough of it already. (Ask around in paddock). Ferrari for example was hit by failure (reportedly spark plug) assignable to their supplier. Who on earth thinks it will be less risky next year?

I am disappointed with these developments, since quality of primary competition which is - WDC - will be hit badly, and championship might be lost by a few points perhaps because of a spark plug? That will go down "well" if and when that happen. Grounds for such event to occur is however fertile.

Cost to PU suppliers will rise, and indirectly they subsidizing teams like RBR, I have no doubt about it, because RB will be paying less for racing, whereas Renault's cost shall increase. Facilities initially were built and optimized for a different output, potentially double what will be projected throughput. 

Brawn is surprised by reaction? Really, that little he understands position of major players and his partners? For past decade a lot of changed in technology field, whilst brain core became harder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I am not sure about the three engine rule either. It seems a little too tight at this point and time. On the other hand, if there is a budget cap, you really don't need to place any restrictions on components, as the original purpose was to control costs.

We shall see what they come up with, but FIA could negotiate the three-engine rule away (keep it at four?) in exchange for other rules concessions from the team. It does give Liberty some leverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 November 2017   9:11 (CET)

In another interview with Brawn we are being assured that new owners are prepared to ram their plan through regardless who likes it, or not. Watching this on a split screen parallel with (House) proceedings on US tax cut, I am unable to detect differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in the United States a bill has to be passed by both the House and the Senate. The Senate seems to be the challenge.

Anyhow, I don't think that Liberty is going to ram anything through regardless. Now, I have no doubt that what they push through will offend a team or two. It is hard to do anything in F1 without offending a team or two. But, in the end, they have an obligation (and a major financial interest) in the long-term health of the sport. Each team has its own agenda that may or may not be helpful to the sport, so I have more faith right now in Liberty, vice any single team.

But I gather they are now in an extended round of negotiations with all the players, so we will have to see what comes out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 November 2017   23:12 (CET)

Brawn is mistaken with his comments that current hybrid is not a racing engine. I swear I saw them racing in speed around 375 Km/hr (220 mph), therefore I must say, they are racing engines, and pretty good ones at it. What is being proposed by FOG is a new PU system which needs to be developed and results in terms of performance convergence are uncertain. This could be shambles of 2014 all over again. I think it is also going to be more expensive than keeping current system in place. Solution - permit Renault and Honda to catch up and level off with Mercedes, and we have a race.

The issues that I have with the current PU are not complicated. Head count is too big in support functions that are needed for my liking, and then as a second issue drivers at some point during a race do stop racing and start controlling a gap due to fuel limitation (which is a major artificial barrier), and wear&tear concerns, or rather penalties imposed on parts exchanges. If drivers would be permitted to step on it and keep going, than there is nothing more to negotiate on technical side. Keep what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I gather part of the discussion is that they are trying to make the power units more affordable and bring in other manufacturers (like Cosworth and Ilmor). This does a lot of good things for the sports, instead of letting it be held hostage by one or two engine manufacturers. What would happened in Renault and Honda both withdrew, something that actually looks plausible a year or two ago? F1/FIA/Liberty needs more engine manufacturers, and ones that are not tied to a works team. This means making the engines cheaper so other people are willing to join in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 November 2017   14:46 (CET)

Renault (team) signed up already until 2013 if memory serves me. Cost might be issue only for Cosworth and alike.

Main problem for new entrants is however I think thinly veiled fear of journey from back of the grid to the front, especially after witnessing struggle that Honda is experiencing. Newcomers would need grace period of at least three years of special rules (which now do not exist) for relaxations for "catching up" whilst knowing, that race-wins might (or might not) come only after several years of humble defeats, hefty upfront investment and all the way bad headlines.

Who would actually invest today into such product development (material and human resources), all which is probably optimized for at least 10 years long product life cycle, whilst Liberty is behind their back burning oil to change direction at their discretion any time, and without warning. Who would invest a Billion or two into this, and have Brawn and Whiting change rules next week as they are attempting to do already? Hybrids do need at least another 5 to 8 years to be paid off (road cars have I think 3 years), but automobile companies will not get that kind of relieve. So much is obvious, and people of Porsche and alike see this as much as rest of us on sidelines do. 

Whilst not totally certain, but current PU proposed change as it stand represents what Brown/Cosworth has and wants, and they seems prepared to scr*w everybody else over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2017 at 9:55 PM, Ruslan said:

Yea, I am not sure about the three engine rule either. It seems a little too tight at this point and time. On the other hand, if there is a budget cap, you really don't need to place any restrictions on components, as the original purpose was to control costs.

that is a very good point, if they can manage to build the engines cheaply (and to do that they could follow 2 routes, either allow for simpler designs like in the normally aspired era or by keeping the same rules for many years) and they can squeeze say 8 engines per car per season within the budget cap then so be it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 November 2017   20:33 (CET)

I think not enough attention has been paid to - what I consider - birth of a cost reduction solution initiative, which 3 engine solution represents. Intuitively I suspect that cost-value analysis of PU(s) was done long time ago by Mercedes and alike, and that more than once, and the outcome felt short. I put my hand into fire that Honda has definitely done it. This is a company which excels in value analyses, cultivating such approaches to an art level in their road cars business, therefore I bet there is not a one screw more in their system which should not be there. (This is all my guess work). Maybe better solution would be to this perceived cost problem if commercial owners take less out of this business, and pass their cut to Tier 2 teams.

New generation of power plant some 5 years down the road needs new technical regulation. That's my solution (in lieu of some artificially limited budget.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

that is a very good point, if they can manage to build the engines cheaply (and to do that they could follow 2 routes, either allow for simpler designs like in the normally aspired era or by keeping the same rules for many years) and they can squeeze say 8 engines per car per season within the budget cap then so be it

This is part of the reason I so strongly support a budget cap. It allows you to free up everything else, testing, engines, car design, etc. I have no problem with them going back to use qualifying engines...if they could fit it under their budget cap. A budget cap potentially frees up many of the things the F1 has been restricting over the years. Now, it becomes a series of trade-offs. It does make F1 more interesting also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone's worried about Liberty's technical regs, but I'm worried about something else:

David Hill from FOX has been hired by Liberty to help with the world TV feed.

Here's the thing: if there is one thing in F1 that is 100% NOT wrong, it's the world TV feed images.  F1 has always been beautifully produced since moving from local production to a standard FOM feed.  I'm not sure many sports, if any, are better in terms of video than F1.

Meanwhile, FOX is one of the worst at covering sports.  FOX ruined NASCAR, for example, by selling not just commercials, but actually SELLING the race.  So, basically, a sponsor like Budweiser would pay money, and then the Budweiser car would be shown on TV, regardless of where it was running, or what else was happening on track.  It is the standard for NASCAR to this day that almost everything you see on the telecast was paid for, and it's horrible.  They don't just cover the race.

So, I'm very worried that FOX influence and American influence will make F1 unwatchable TV, especially with Liberty's plans to have a world streaming service.

In America, for the record, F1 has moved to ESPN for next year, with ESPN paying F1 nothing at all.  ESPN will not hire announcers; Liberty is going to provide announcers they are testing for their streaming service.  Who they hire will say a lot about their plans—credible, good announcers like Jack Nicholls, James Allen, Will Buxton, or Peter Windsor would give me some confidence; getting some yahoos would not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stream of "good" news just continues. We cannot however claim that this is totally unexpected surprise. What's next? 10 min programming and 20 min of adds on every half an hour? SC pausing in mid race to make time for some trumpets, drums and high kicking dancing girls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...