Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

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

Ruslan

Under New Management

Recommended Posts


I have nothing at all against "work of art", a woman, but could this wait until a race is over (and I can turn broadcast stream off)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it still remains very quiet. I gather that means there are intense negotiations going on behind the scene. It ain't Thanksgiving in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 November 2017   5:03 (CET)

There is suddenly volatility all over. Financials, Power Plant, Aero (is Ross really buying wind tunnel for FOG?), Rule Book vis a vis penalty system, perhaps FP1 and FP2 might be taken of the schedule (empty seats on Fridays), new pay TV rights, new broadcaster (heard some concerns about their quality of broadcast) etc., etc. This is really big bite, and I hope they can also chew on it and swallow without harming anyone. Increased racing schedule, more consecutive races less testing and development...? Quantity over quality? What is there to negotiate other then conditions of membership when Liberty wants a different series in preference to traditional F1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, if this was the best of all possible worlds, then we would not have the same team win the WC four years in a row.

This is supposed to be a "racing" series. The only time you see racing is if Hamilton or Ricciardo end up starting at the back of the grid (and the two Force India drivers before the team told them to calm down).

Anyhow, time for a change, because what we have now hasn't really been working all that well over the last 20+ years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 November 2017   7:29 (CET)

While you were watching your favorites, I was watching Vettel to drive through the racing field several times in past many years - probably more often than Hamilton - with flair, including this one year and in a lesser car IMO than the one Hamilton has to his disposal, but that's another story for another day.

With respect to state of the sport in past 20 years it is something you can lay to the doorstep of people like Mosley, Whiting (F1 branch of FiA), and Ecclestone / CVC. If there was a lack of coherent direction, current situation is not much different. Show me who - resorting to cliche - has described best DNA of the F1. Rule book is not doing that, and FiA in their description surely not supported that vision. 

Unless there is consensus  (which is evidently right now not there) on differentiating characteristics of the F1 from other series, I am not sure how anyone can lay a claim that they have well thought out remedial course of action applied on deviation from the desirable vision what this sport is or should be. Does anyone really believe, if Ferrari will be deprived of any and all bonuses, that that loot will be dispersed among teams like Sauber and alike, which will improve - anything - you fill the blank.

Problem is in aero, not an engine. Drivers agree on that point, and so do I. Problem aren't bonuses to Ferrari (or others), but how much is taken out of the sport by commercial license holder. Problem is "unfortunate" chain of restrictive measures. Problem... well, enough for one day. All are of course just opinions of a fan.

 

22 November 2017   12:33 (CET)

How predictable LM really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 November 2017   10:57 (CET)

Quote

McLaren ‘veto’ means shark fins banned for 2018 F1

German publications Auto Motor und Sport and Auto Bild say some teams suspect that McLaren always intended to issue a last-minute ‘veto’ in order to mess up their rivals’ 2018 car designs

Sounds like Ferrari is not the only one party to invoke veto here and there when it suits them, which is not too often. Ferrari is however merely the only party being chastised for it in public as convenient punching bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 November 2017   19:56 (CET)

As expected.

Little bit of background how the regulation on 3 engines per season was changed, and why. I am pleased Wolff confronted Horner of RBR, who is barking from fear over equipment failure penalties on one hand, and at the same time he wants to spend less on engines per seasons. Good article to read. The suggestion to decrease number of units next year was raised several months ago. RB was sleeping on the switch and now, before Christmas they have change of mind. Wold told him - you will get what you wanted!!

FiA of course can change the rules, and they can scale back punitive measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 5:00 AM, Sakae said:

25 November 2017   10:57 (CET)

Sounds like Ferrari is not the only one party to invoke veto here and there when it suits them, which is not too often. Ferrari is however merely the only party being chastised for it in public as convenient punching bag.

McLaren does not have a veto. The fins were banned by FIA, but they are allowed to change the rules if there is unanimous agreement among all the teams. Apparently everyone thought that they had all agreed to allow the fins....but McLaren withdrew its agreement at the last minute. Not sure why anyone is using the word "veto."

Anyhow, it is a shame as I like the fins (and D-Type Jaguars).

By the same token, they could switch back to allowing 4 engines a year if all the teams would agree. Apparently one or more teams does not agree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 November 2017   21:53 (CET)

Whether there will be 3 or 4 engines, either number will not satisfy Horner. 3 engines protest is based on fear from potential penalties, 4 engine protest is related to their cumulative cost per season. FiA could toss aside current penalty system, and be reasonable about it (for once).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIA should not toss aside the current penalty system, as that would be too sudden of a change. I would not mind if they stuck to 4 engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are talking, and subject is potential loss of Ferrari and Mercedes participation in F1 after 2020. RTL (a German broadcaster) might not have their license renewed by new owners. Seems like a lot of hostility for one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sakae said:

Ruslan, congratulation. You are first fellow "I know" who likes current WCC penalty system. 

As you well know.....what I want is a budget cap and to free up all car design under such a cap (including testing). But......if the question is to continue with the current penalty system or to suddenly toss it aside after engines have been developed for years under these rules, so that teams are suddenly running a dozen or two dozen engines a year (which is kind of expensive), then I will go with stay with the current rules.

No, I don't like the current penalty system....I think it is a bad compromise due to their previous failure to establish a budget cap. On the other hand, suddenly scrapping it seems to be an emotional response, vice any real thought out policy position.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 November 2017   13:29 (CET)

Quote

Toto Wolff says F1 should not take for granted Mercedes' presence in F1 beyond 2020, if the sport's new rules don't cater to its best interests.

And now there are two ...

"Good" job Liberty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, lets see.....Mercedes has the best engine in Formula One and Ferrari has the second best engine in Formula One.....so why do they have a problem with the new 2021 engine rules?

Mercedes has the largest budget in F1 and Ferrari has the second largest budget in F1.....so why do the have a problem with a budget cap?

Mercedes received the second largest payout from the purse while Ferrari receives the largest payout from the purse......so why would they object to changing the way the purse is structured?

 

Anyhow, looks like the usual bluster and manipulation we see whenever people try to change anything in F1. One will note that the threat is to withdraw after 2020...and in the case of Mercedes, they only hinted at it, they did not say they would withdraw ("Such a scenario is quite conceivable.").

Anyhow, this is all just part of the negotiation process. No one is going nowhere. Now many times has Ferrari threatened to leave F1 (I suspect the answer is something like at least six times...).....how many times has Ferrari left F1 (0).

 

 

Share this post


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

Well, lets see.....Mercedes has the best engine in Formula One and Ferrari has the second best engine in Formula One.....so why do they have a problem with the new 2021 engine rules?

 

 

Simple, the new rules make it easier for other teams to catch up to them. Why would they vote for that? It's like turkeys voting for Christmas!

Share this post


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

Well, lets see.....Mercedes has the best engine in Formula One and Ferrari has the second best engine in Formula One.....so why do they have a problem with the new 2021 engine rules?

Mercedes has the largest budget in F1 and Ferrari has the second largest budget in F1.....so why do the have a problem with a budget cap?

Mercedes received the second largest payout from the purse while Ferrari receives the largest payout from the purse......so why would they object to changing the way the purse is structured?

 

Anyhow, looks like the usual bluster and manipulation we see whenever people try to change anything in F1. One will note that the threat is to withdraw after 2020...and in the case of Mercedes, they only hinted at it, they did not say they would withdraw ("Such a scenario is quite conceivable.").

Anyhow, this is all just part of the negotiation process. No one is going nowhere. Now many times has Ferrari threatened to leave F1 (I suspect the answer is something like at least six times...).....how many times has Ferrari left F1 (0).

 

 

29 November 2017   17:08 (CET)

As far I hear (read), none of the currently active engine suppliers is on board with changes Brawn is pushing. To imply that only Ferrari and Mercedes for rather selfish reasons do object those vague proposals is not only unjust, but also inaccurate at the extreme. Renault stated quite clearly that new engine - as proposed - is on track to be significantly, if not extremely expensive change, which shall require new research money and time, and at the end it might cost more over one they have now. Performance convergence will vanish and we might have 2014 all over again. There are also issues of Liberty/FiA forcing upon engine builders some British std. products, which they do not want.

I have at the moment impression that Liberty, which includes Brawn, has no idea what they are doing, and cost cutting alone it is not, so much is clear. Ecclestone once said, that Brawn was really not a good engineer (as fame on sideline claims), but had people around him who knew their job well, which made him look good. Today I recall those words, thinking, that the old man was onto something.  

Quote

Wolff said, “Such a scenario (leaving) is quite possible. Just like Ferrari, if we do not see what Formula 1 stands for, then we have to ask ourselves the tricky question: not if, but where we want to operate in motorsport at the highest level?”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lyria said:

Simple, the new rules make it easier for other teams to catch up to them. Why would they vote for that? It's like turkeys voting for Christmas!

Obviously. I don't mind team input, but threatening to leave is a little bit more than just providing input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sakae said:

29 November 2017   17:08 (CET)

As far I hear (read), none of the currently active engine suppliers is on board with changes Brawn is pushing. To imply that only Ferrari and Mercedes for rather selfish reasons do object those vague proposals is not only unjust, but also inaccurate at the extreme. Renault stated quite clearly that new engine - as proposed - is on track to be significantly, if not extremely expensive change, which shall require new research money and time, and at the end it might cost more over one they have now. Performance convergence will vanish and we might have 2014 all over again. There are also issues of Liberty/FiA forcing upon engine builders some British std. products, which they do not want.

I have at the moment impression that Liberty, which includes Brawn, has no idea what they are doing, and cost cutting alone it is not, so much is clear. Ecclestone once said, that Brawn was really not a good engineer (as fame on sideline claims), but had people around him who knew their job well, which made him look good. Today I recall those words, thinking, that the old man was onto something.  

 

Well, from a practical point of view, I am not sure I agree with the new engine regulations either. I gather they are kind of like the old engines but simpler (and hopefully cheaper). I am not sure what is gained by that. But, certainly Ross Brawn knows a whole lot about F1 and wants to achieve something. He has won a whole lot more world championships than Toto Wolff, Marchione, or Bernie Ecclestone.

But, I gather there are three major issues here 1) engine regulations, 2) budget cap, and 3) distribution of funds. I wonder which of these three is the primary concern that is causing Ferrari to threaten to quit? Is it really the engine regulations?

Anyhow, I think this is one where we are going to have to wait and see what they come up with. There is obviously a lot of posturing, manipulation, and maneuvering going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 November 2017   6:41 (CET)

Ferrari is in this snake pit since 1950 - continuously, putting up a lot with other teams. If they would not like new rules of the game, who can blame them if they leave? Ecclestone expressed doubts, that Red Bull will stay beyond 2020 as well.

"Negative Camber" is quoting Ecclestone: (J. Todt said on some other occasion more or less the same thing.)

Quote

“They don’t want budget caps and all that,” says Ecclestone. “They want to spend what they can afford to spend and I’ve always said the same thing. If people can’t spend they have to go. If there are then only three or four teams something would have to be done but until that actually happens nobody is going to do anything. All the teams that say they can’t afford it shouldn’t put an entry in.”

Ecclestone:

Quote

The FIA also did a new regulation package for 2014 that included hybrid V6 turbo engines because Mercedes and Renault threatened to leave the sport if the changes weren’t made for more road-relevant hybrid technology.

Ferrari is not the only team who is or was considering leaving. Today however only Ferrari is in headlines, and I think exploitation of this situation by Liberty is not in the best interest of the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 November 2017   19:20 (CET)

It's hard to call this negotiation, and more of arm twisting and singing "it's my way or hi-way". After almost 70 odd years Ferrari gave to the sport, this new crowd is prepared to drop them like rotten apple and get new su***s in. Strangely enough, says Ecclestone, LdM was initially opposed to hybrids, but MB and Renault were ready to leave if they didn't get their way. (For road relevancy).

Brawn aiming to recruit three new carmakers into F1

None of three potential entrants would be able to build hybrid system within limits of current regulations, and compete successfully. To get this crowd on level playing field, Ferrari, MB, Renault and Honda will be forced to launch new research, get on with the program, or leave the series altogether. This could be expensive development, and we can forget about end of the road will be guaranteed performance convergence. New World will be born.

Liberty is lecturing manufacturers about "there is no free lunch". Don't make me laugh. Guys who invested maybe billions over so many years into the sport are now being insulted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...