Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

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

Ruslan

Under New Management

Recommended Posts

30 November 2017   22:16 (CET)

Wolff:

Quote

“Everything Marchionne says must be taken seriously,” he insisted.

“F1 must remain the pinnacle of technology and the best competition, and if you dilute this message with standard specifications and false situations that penalise the best and help the weakest, I think that’s not our DNA.”

So when asked if he is currently happy with Liberty, Wolff told Corriere della Sera newspaper: “For now the answer is no.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: F1 must remain the pinnacle of technology and the best competition

>I AM confused,  Mercedes do NOT have, the best competition

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 December 2017   4:46 (CET)

“They need to wake up,” Bernie added elsewhere. “It’s almost like giving a dentist a doctor’s job. I’d always treated F1 as if it were a 3-star Michelin restaurant. It isn’t proper to treat F1 like a fast food restaurant. That’s the US standard. It’s far below F1’s. Everyone who has been involved in F1 for the last 40 years expects a higher standard.”

3 hours ago, lipstick79 said:

Re: F1 must remain the pinnacle of technology and the best competition

>I AM confused,  Mercedes do NOT have, the best competition

 

Performance convergence (and competition) is just around corner, however proposed 2020 changes might put us back into 2014 situation. That's the problem. Why it took so long you have to discuss with F1 branch of FiA under leadership of Whiting and his playbook full of restrictions. Strategy Group has 18 members. FiA has 6, FOM (now FOG) had 6 and Teams have 6.  Williams sits there as well. Everyone blames MB and Ferrari, but other 16 members could have risen and state their case. They did not, as seen of results. It took so long in name of "savings", however at the end, Marchionne said, we have not saved a single Euro (to stay competitive). BTW, LdM in his time was against hybrid technology in F1, just to be clear about it. Marchionne is against jerking rules every two weeks, and I can't blame him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sakae said:

 

Performance convergence (and competition) is just around corner.....

 

Really.......right now I would be more than willing to put even money that Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes will again be champions in 2018. On the other hand, I am not so sure that Ferrari will be the second place team next year.

<<Strategy Group has 18 members. FiA has 6, FOM (now FOG) had 6 and Teams have 6.  Williams sits there as well. Everyone blames MB and Ferrari, but other 16 members could have risen and state their case.>>

I am sorry Sakae, but this really isn't a really a good representation of the situation. There were 18 votes (not 18 members). Bernie had 6 votes and FIA had 6. Six teams each had one vote (and the other six teams had no vote at all). For Bernie to cancel the budget cap (which was set up to go in effect, having initially been proposed by FIA and agreed to by the teams).....he only had his vote, and four of the six (or twelve) teams. That gave him 10 votes......and the budget cap was cancelled. Not sure what universe the statement "...but other 16 members could have risen and state their case." comes from.  As it was, six teams had no say at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ruslan said:

Really.......right now I would be more than willing to put even money that Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes will again be champions in 2018. On the other hand, I am not so sure that Ferrari will be the second place team next year.

<<Strategy Group has 18 members. FiA has 6, FOM (now FOG) had 6 and Teams have 6.  Williams sits there as well. Everyone blames MB and Ferrari, but other 16 members could have risen and state their case.>>

I am sorry Sakae, but this really isn't a really a good representation of the situation. There were 18 votes (not 18 members). Bernie had 6 votes and FIA had 6. Six teams each had one vote (and the other six teams had no vote at all). For Bernie to cancel the budget cap (which was set up to go in effect, having initially been proposed by FIA and agreed to by the teams).....he only had his vote, and four of the six (or twelve) teams. That gave him 10 votes......and the budget cap was cancelled. Not sure what universe the statement "...but other 16 members could have risen and state their case." comes from.  As it was, six teams had no say at all.

 

1 December 2017   6:54 (CET)

It seems I had the vote count fouled up, and yes, I meant votes (not members) however point which I was trying to made is, that we didn't have to be in the situation we are, had people with vested interest in the subject stood their ground. RBR and Williams had chance to speak up as opposition to companies, but looks like they chicken out. I see this mess as cumulative effect of many years of unilateral agreements, which never were in synch to each other, solving problems on ad hock basis. I am not in the mood to make any prediction for next year, Hamilton was not as much strong this year, as rather Ferrari got weak, and also with some bad luck the season remains what could have been rather than what it was. Bottas made Hamilton look better than he really is. There was no opposition to him by his teammate in that superior car. We do not know how Ferrari will react over winter, and hard to say what others will do. There were some gloomy prediction of similar value made in 2016, and then came Melbourne surprise, just proving, one never knows in this business. I do however expect Honda to progress well.

Back to FOG - too many irons in the fire, all too quickly and situation seem destabilized. Brawn is talking about compromise and negotiations, yet his hand acts as imperial reach, and very uncompromising manner. I cannot see how that will work and end up well, but there is a lot of unhappy people these days around F1. Maybe for different reasons, but if it was ever true before, now - and I do not mean to make some kind of apocalyptic prophecy - it may end up with disintegrating series three years down the road. I am hoping that I am wrong in that prediction, but it doesn't look good at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyhow...other news today is that F1 is looking at a GP of Miami. For those who remember my posts from many years ago, I always contended that for F1 to grow in the U.S. it really needed four venues....not just a one-of that is over a 1,000 miles away from the majority of people. There of these would be in places where there already was a F1 market 1) Long Beach, 2) New York City or Watkins Glen, NY, and 3) Miami. This are the three areas where there is a still an existing F1 fan base. Then add a fourth one to someplace in the center (Detroit, Indy, Austin). Geography sort of dictates that there needs to be multiple races here and it is also a need to generate enough buzz to break through the media here (after, all the U.S. already had five major sporting series: football (not soccer), baseball, basketball, hockey and NASCAR). One race a year certainly will not do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 December 2017   18:57 (CET)

Drivers, Hamilton among them, were rumbling that season already has enough of races which are located in cities. You put your 30 cars there, and you have rush hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locating races in cities makes a lot of sense. This isn't the 1950s, where families would take their picnic baskets and go watch a race out in the country. You need to put the races where the people are and cater to their time and schedule.

I used to regularly go see 26 cars race at Long Beach (31 tried to qualify in 1982). Was even at the race where John Watson went from 22nd to first....something that no one could do today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 December 2017   5:41 (CET)

This case speaks more about the car than a driver, unless we are talking about a hickory farm. A question perhaps to ask is whether the same driver-skills would get you on the top in today's cluster, being aware that today's car bears number of aero deficiencies (out of synch to power plant), comparative speed they are traveling is much higher, and all of that they do on the old tired topography of courses which really did not keep in synch with technology. 

Share this post


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

2 December 2017   5:41 (CET)

This case speaks more about the car than a driver, unless we are talking about a hickory farm. A question perhaps to ask is whether the same driver-skills would get you on the top in today's cluster, being aware that today's car bears number of aero deficiencies (out of synch to power plant), comparative speed they are traveling is much higher, and all of that they do on the old tired topography of courses which really did not keep in synch with technology. 

Well, you can't go from 22nd to 1st in modern F1 because there are only 20 cars on the grid !!!!

But, the driver in question (John Watson) did several of these charges through the field. He went from 22nd to 1st in Long Beach in 1983, he went from 17th to 1st a Detroit in 1982, he went from 10th to 1st at Belgium in 1982. He only won five races, but several of them were pretty memorable. Meanwhile, Sebastian Vettel has never won a race from below third.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

I'd cast my vote for the Glen, what an amazing track, truly awesome

Never been there, but a friend of mine was almost run over by Jackie Stewart coming back in the pit lane in the 1973. There is still a core of F1 fans in the U.S., many from Southern California because of Long Beach and many from New York because of Watkins Glen. FIA/Ballestrae/Bernie made a big mistake when they let these two races fall off the calendar. 

Share this post


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

Meanwhile, Sebastian Vettel has never won a race from below third.

2 December 2017   21:27 (CET)

I do not follow stats of this kind, nor I engage in dodgy abuse of that branch of maths, so I take your word for it. If Seb was lower than third, maybe -- just maybe -- he didn't have a car beneath him that deserved the podium. BTW, just for the record, I generally consider such comparisons rather a futile intellectual exercise proving absolutely nothing of value.

For fun, check time intervals how close these days drivers are, and then think if Watson had to save equipment/fuel to make it to the finish line, just as whether his peers were in cars with very similar performance. Once you have done that, than think what kind of aero/downforce he had as opposed to a car Vettel is driving today.

At the end this is however all BIG waste of time from my perspective. Vettel came from behind many times, yet until today there are people who claim that he cannot overtake. At the end some people do appreciate his craft, Watson or not, and others do not. I am obviously in the former group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 December 2017   21:36 (CET)

2018 Formula 1 testing schedule

Date Venue
February 26-March 1 spain-2.jpg Barcelona
March 6-9 spain-2.jpg Barcelona
May 15-May 16 spain-2.jpg Barcelona
July 31-August 1 hungary-2.jpg Hungaroring

 

2018 Formula 1 calendar

Date Event Venue
March 25 australia-2.jpg Australian GP Melbourne
April 8 bahrain-2.jpg Bahrain GP * Sakhir
April 15 china-2.jpg Chinese GP* Shanghai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 December 2017   10:40 (CET)

Todt warns against "unfair" focus on new F1 manufacturers

This is a headline I have been waiting for a long time. Pandering to Cosworth at the expenses of established teams is precisely how the so called "negotiations" do appear from sidelines. Naming three new entrants - yet to be declared - has earmarks of thinly veiled threat, and raises a question whether negotiations are conducted in good faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 December 2017   21:12 (CET)

Quote

Ross Brawn has ruled out scrapping F1's plans to replace the current ‘power units' after 2020.

I am not sure what is there to negotiate. They are set to ram this through at the pleasure of McLaren and RBR. Power plant suppliers would be out of their mind to spent another 1.2 Bill or more on a new research with uncertain results, only to have Liberty flip the switch again when mood strikes them. Sometimes I think Liberty wants to have a second IRL series running on roads of EU.

I wonder if there could be another GP (parallel) series run by all F1 exiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/12/06 at 10:37 PM, Sakae said:

6 December 2017   21:36 (CET)

2018 Formula 1 testing schedule

Date Venue
February 26-March 1 spain-2.jpg Barcelona
March 6-9 spain-2.jpg Barcelona
May 15-May 16 spain-2.jpg Barcelona
July 31-August 1 hungary-2.jpg Hungaroring

 

2018 Formula 1 calendar

Date Event Venue
March 25 australia-2.jpg Australian GP Melbourne
April 8 bahrain-2.jpg Bahrain GP * Sakhir
April 15 china-2.jpg Chinese GP* Shanghai

Great stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why only 2 days of testing on May 15 - 16 at Barcelona, and July 31 - August 1 at the Hungaroring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 December 2017   20:41 (CET)

2 days of testing only? Even that is too much (for some folks). JT thinks there is far too much reliability on the grid to his taste as it is already.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that there is a "too much reliability." But, I think that is more of a budget thing then a testing thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 December 2017   9:12 (CET)

One could make a case for on-track testing as less expensive to many (expensive) technologies meandering around restrictive F1 environment. IMO it would have helped to Honda and Renault, possibly also to Ferrari through accelerated development. Engineers need at some point to verify assumptions by acquiring hard data with ample time for corrections of design if required, all before lights go off on Sunday afternoon. There are several steps between design and having it mounted onto a car, and it is better for a team and fans to see engineering trials between races, as opposed to using races for testing, not having choice, as it was admitted by a Spanish driver last year. I doubt that McLaren was the only one team which had to resort to that kind of solutions, yet fans, paying full admission at the gate are told, we are racing! Yeah right. 

Protection from meaningful attack by rivals of certain driver in MB stable continues. Shame.

Share this post


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

16 December 2017   9:12 (CET)

One could make a case for on-track testing as less expensive to many (expensive) technologies meandering around restrictive F1 environment. IMO it would have helped to Honda and Renault, possibly also to Ferrari through accelerated development. Engineers need at some point to verify assumptions by acquiring hard data with ample time for corrections of design if required, all before lights go off on Sunday afternoon. There are several steps between design and having it mounted onto a car, and it is better for a team and fans to see engineering trials between races, as opposed to using races for testing, not having choice, as it was admitted by a Spanish driver last year. I doubt that McLaren was the only one team which had to resort to that kind of solutions, yet fans, paying full admission at the gate are told, we are racing! Yeah right. 

Protection from meaningful attack by rivals of certain driver in MB stable continues. Shame.

testing would have been beneficial too all those who had to catch up, chassis manufacturer, PU manufacturers as well as drivers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2017 at 0:59 PM, Publius Cornelius Scipio said:

testing would have been beneficial too all those who had to catch up, chassis manufacturer, PU manufacturers as well as drivers

17 December 2017   10:31 (CET)

Root cause analysis and derivate solutions should of course support on track testing (10000 km+ per car). Unfortunately this is one of many cases which make too much sense, and for some people on the inside this will therefore not happen. Sergio M. is de facto one of those who has suggested once, we do not need such testing at all these days (since we have computers). Credentials of this man however suggest, that he might not be in reality qualified (despite gazillions of frames on his office walls) to make statements of this kind. If anyone doubts this, just check with road car companies, which after investing billions into digital technology they continue to employ many people to drive new models in various conditions, and reporting back their experiences. Toyota has a testing station in Canada in most northern part of the country to test their cars in winter conditions. BMW is regularly running new models from deep US South, through Arizona and  across the country before their models hit showrooms, etc. Maybe, just maybe those guys - engineers - know something which commercial division does not; feel for the limits of a machine - man made product. It is not coincidence that Dr. Zetsche background includes Management role in Vehicle Development division.

Interestingly enough, some on the inside (mechanics) have suggested in the past, that racing weekends are structured in such manner these days, a team actually cannot learn anything new, as no meaningful testing can be performed in time available. This begs of course then logical question, when those cars are then supposed to be developed? What is meaning of WCC? Tire properties represent a black box, available after design is done (talking about cart placed before a horse), chassis are more of a lottery game, and PU needs time which is not there on the racing weekends. No one should be really surprised when people ask - why is F1 so screw*d up? The answer - In the name of savings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the name of savings. It seems that the powers that be, have come up with part of a solution, which would help reduce costs. Get rid of the Grid Girls........:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...