Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

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

stopkidding

2008 Engine Rules.....

Recommended Posts

from paddocktalk...

"

Max Mosley delivered a blow to F1's recalcitrant carmakers on Friday, telling a Silverstone news conference that there would be no compromise over his controversial plan to 'freeze' engine development from 2008-10.

''There have been some discussions (with manufacturers) ... but there is no consensus,'' the FIA president said, despite reports that a deal had neared completion.

Mosley said the carmakers' proposed 'deal' was still going to be too expensive.

It is highly unpopular with outfits including BMW, Honda and Toyota, but Mosley's plan will require current-spec 2.4 litre V8 engines to be lodged immediately with the governing body as the blueprint for 2008.

In an odd twist, the arrangement will mean that teams will continue to develop engines in 2007, only to revert to the FIA-lodged June 2006-specs for the start of season '08.

But Mosley insisted: ''There (will be) no further discussion on the homologation point.''

And in comments which may reignite speculation about Volkswagen's intentions, he said he hoped the low-cost plan would entice 'another new

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay, lets hope volkswagan enter but under Audi and it being the nw prodrive audi team. Even better again would be for Audi to buy midland!

I love Audi, Audi_Rule!!!

Also the new regs are absolutely ridiculous. What is the point in going back in time! Not pleased about that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yay, lets hope volkswagan enter but under Audi and it being the nw prodrive audi team. Even better again would be for Audi to buy midland!

I love Audi, Audi_Rule!!!

Also the new regs are absolutely ridiculous. What is the point in going back in time! Not pleased about that!

Mario said today that he hoped a compromise can be reached. he also said that the "going back in time" was stupid.

Why develop 2007 engines, only to go back?

Moseley needs to wake up and smell the coffee. that dumbass makes "cost cutting" rules that actually cost more money>

Hello, earth to Max?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would happen if all the teams just decided to ignore Max's rules :eusa_think:

Are there real legal ramifications to not following the madman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes a whole lot of sense, quite frankly, even if I am not sure how they will implement it. Mike I don't expect any better from anyone else, but do you actully sit down and read the massive interviews that Max Mosley gives out, his column in F1 Racing? I don't agree with him on a lot of things, yet a lot of things make a whole lot of sense. I won't bother going further with anyone who has not read the last two interviews, they are both on pitpass - one with Max and Bernie and the Silverstone press conference from Max. I have almost entirely stopped reading headline news - the ones that tabloid style F1 sites love to publish - the DC at Ferrari story is a case in point, if you actually read through the press conference there is absolutely nothing in it.

This is another great example. Max has said if all the teams agree, he would be quite happy to bring in the engine freeze an year earlier.

Once again please read through the press conference transcript - not 2 or 3 lines picked out to promote someone's rather sensationalistic point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes a whole lot of sense, quite frankly, even if I am not sure how they will implement it. Mike I don't expect any better from anyone else, but do you actully sit down and read the massive interviews that Max Mosley gives out, his column in F1 Racing? I don't agree with him on a lot of things, yet a lot of things make a whole lot of sense. I won't bother going further with anyone who has not read the last two interviews, they are both on pitpass - one with Max and Bernie and the Silverstone press conference from Max. I have almost entirely stopped reading headline news - the ones that tabloid style F1 sites love to publish - the DC at Ferrari story is a case in point, if you actually read through the press conference there is absolutely nothing in it.

This is another great example. Max has said if all the teams agree, he would be quite happy to bring in the engine freeze an year earlier.

Once again please read through the press conference transcript - not 2 or 3 lines picked out to promote someone's rather sensationalistic point of view.

Yes I read them. In this instance I was trying to spark a bit of debate ;) Nobody seems very interested in a detailed analysis of most issues, so I'm limiting myself to debate-sparking these days...

EDIT: I don't agree with everything Max does. In my opinion he's had the correct goals, but has come up with quite a few incorrect solutions. He's also far too dictatorial in his decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, lets go into a bit of detail now that I'm home and have a cold beer in front of me.

First off, lets address my opening statement concerning what would happen if the teams/manufacturers decided to ignore Max.

Nothing would happen. The FIA operates under a mandate by all the member auto racing groups and circuits. Membership is voluntary, not manditory. The US, for instance, is not governed by the FIA. We are governed by the SCCA in areas concerning motorsport. In effect, the teams could choose to have a championship regardless of what the FIA state. It would be difficult, but not impossible.

Now to the issue of Max in particular. It is well known, and I'll not debate this, that Max's decisions, for the most part, are not disputed within the FIA. This points to him being the prime decision-maker so lets not hear anything about a democratic vote. Dissention is a crucial sign of a functioning democracy and within the FIA there is little to no dissention.

Now that I've established that the FIA's decisions are predominantly Max's ideas, lets get into them:

Excerpts taken from Max's press-release dated June 9.

"I would remind you that the reason for homologation was that we want to eliminate engine development costs where the major manufacturers are spending between 100 and 200 million euros per year. Indeed more than that in some cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy so much to sift through.

First off, lets address my opening statement concerning what would happen if the teams/manufacturers decided to ignore Max.

Nothing. They are welcome to run their own sport, they tried and failed so miserably it was almost funny. Again read the Bernie - Max interview for some insight, one sided though it may be.

Now to the issue of Max in particular. It is well known, and I'll not debate this, that Max's decisions, for the most part, are not disputed within the FIA. This points to him being the prime decision-maker so lets not hear anything about a democratic vote. Dissention is a crucial sign of a functioning democracy and within the FIA there is little to no dissention.

That unfortunately is the state of the FIA, however, there isn't anyone willing to oppose him either. A functioning democracy does not imply there will always be a viable opposition.

"I would remind you that the reason for homologation was that we want to eliminate engine development costs where the major manufacturers are spending between 100 and 200 million euros per year. Indeed more than that in some cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing. They are welcome to run their own sport, they tried and failed so miserably it was almost funny.

They failed because they chose to give in considering Bernie's hefty monetary incentives. This does not mean they failed because the idea was bad or unworkable. The very fact that Bernie went to the bargaining table means that, for a time, the breakaway series was indeed a possibility. End result is that it is possible to oppose the FIA if you stick to your guns.

That unfortunately is the state of the FIA, however, there isn't anyone willing to oppose him either. A functioning democracy does not imply there will always be a viable opposition.

A functioning democracy means that the members of the council will sometimes disagree with it's leader. A functioning dictatorship means the members of the council will always agree with it's leader. Which is the FIA? Dictatorship.

Max is the head of the governing body of the sport. He is not dictating to private industry what to spend - they are quite welcome to, he is saying that spending in F1 has gone too far, and he is very right there. The teams have a say in F1, which is more than most sports teams do in their ow sports. The teams should not be the ones setting the rules - that will be the worst form of anarchy. We saw it with the engine homologation - they cannot agree on anything.

The spending you refer to is on the engine-side, not the team side. Max is effectively dictating what is 'too much' to spend on an engine.

When you say the teams should not be the ones setting the rules and that if they do it would be the worse form of anarchy, you are wrong. The teams setting the rules would be democratic; all participating members having a vote, majority wins. There is no 'worst' form of anarchy, just anarchy; which is the absence of group rules.

Your final sentence is flat wrong. The Working Group did agree, every one of them, to abolish the engine homologation rules. Max overrode that democratic decision.

With respect, rubbish. Look at Mclaren this year, compared to their engine failure rate last year. Look at Renault's (Alonso, the one that get's the proper engines) reliability. The manufacturers did spend millions more, but they would have spent that anyway on V10s.

Looking at one engine during one season doesn't present an accurate picture of the v10 formula as a whole. It also doesn't take into account the sterling reliability of the rev-limited v10s. Simply making a manditory rev limit on existing v10s would have been the saner, and cheaper, option. You failed to counter how this would be the cheaper option, so I can assume you agree with me?

The current agreement won't let them I think.

Rubbish. They could have went with a rev-limited v10 until 2008. This is a viable option. It is a fact that a rev-limited v10 is both cheaper and more reliable than the current v8 formula.

It is an excellent solution, and it makes sense to direct the research in a more relevant direction than getting 100 rpm more for the next race. He never said he wants to make things slower, just not much faster than they are now.

The whole point of this energy recovery system is to inject overtaking into a race, no? Let's set aside Max's obvious intent that Formula 1 be a test-track for road cars. To improve overtaking what would you do? Use this experimental 'push-to-pass' technology, letting the driver pass at possibly only one part of a ciruit or would you bring back the 1997 aero rules slick tyres? I would do the latter. This would give the driver freedom to pass wherever he can find the grip, not just at one spot on one lap.

for a 100 million a year? It's not going to last anyway, the company boards will pull the manufacturers out.

Yes. For as much as the companies are willing to spend. It's not the FIA's job to be a policeman on a private companies' expenditures. Let the market dictate this. At some point the companies will reign themselves in when they see countless millions being spent on 12place finishes. In the end, though, it's their money to spend as they see fit.

Fair enough, the current aero situation should never have happened.

The money would have been spent anyway. 2 race rule is rubbish, I agree.

:cheers:

Three teams pulled out because they couldn't afford the sport, because their owners got a chance to sell at a profit and because the manufacturers went back on their commitment to give cheap engines.

Why couldn't they afford the sport? Constantly changing aero-rules meant that they needed to spend alot more money to catch the bigger teams. Leaving the aero alone would have allowed the smaller teams to catch-up. Them selling at a profit is irrelavent. Keeping the team viable would have brought more income than a one-time sale. The manufacturers went back on their commitments because the engine rules kept changing, increasing costs for them.

No. The Michelin teams wanted the single race rule which is why that went through, and Red Bull voted for tyre changes which is why that went through. Max cannot dictate rules, they have to be pased by the working group. The only solution is control tyres, which is what we are going to have.

I'll concede the tyre issue. The statement in bold is untrue. Max can and has dictated rules. Again I bring your attention to his overriding every member of the Working Group in regards to engine homologation.

To blame Mosley solely for everything rather misses the point, you haven't seen the bunch of jokers that inhabit the pitlane, wasting years over the pie in the sky GPMA. Max isn't perfect, far from it, but I dread to imagine what one of the current team principals would turn the sport into if they were allowed a say.

I have shown quite a few problems in the sport and how they track back to Max Mosley's decisions and ultimate goals. Contrary to what you state, this is indeed the point of the whole issue. Now your statement in bold...One of the current team principals? Like Jean Todt? You cannot maintain that statement and keep your Ferrari bais total :D As for the rest of it, I don't advocate any one man be allowed to dictate the rules. I advocate a democracy. That would be a group of all participants having an equal vote on the issues, with no Max to override them.

The manufacturers aren't vital to F1, they aren't even necessary.

What, pray tell, would be power the cars with, if not the manufacturer's engines? Surely you mean the manufacturers owning teams...but then where does that leave Ferrari? Are you saying Formula 1 doesn't need Ferrari? Ferrari is, of course, a manufacturer, despite what they say. Any team that manufactures a road car is a manufacturer.

Have you seen the insane amount of subsidy that teams like Honda and Toyota get from their parent companies? Ferrari can only keep up with their massive advertising budget and road car integration, through which they access and share Ferrari resources. That subsidy is not sustainable, desirable or necessary, it just means the manufacturers will forever look on F1 as an investment they want returns on.

Again, I say who cares? They make the money, let them spend it any way they want to. I don't demand you spend your paycheck a certain way, and likewise I don't demand Ferrari or Honda to spend their earned income any way except how they want to.

Your ending statement, Cav, sums up all that is wrong with Formula 1 at the moment far better than the thousands of words I've used can ever do:

There is no alternative, this is F1, and what Max says is the way it is going to be.

Great debate, Cav. There are only a few people I'll take the effort to debate in detail and you're one of 'em ;)

EDIT: Added italics because the forum isn't taking the 'quotes'...(at least my browser isn't showing them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think every race will use its own engine, i mean no two race engine rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another great example. Max has said if all the teams agree, he would be quite happy to bring in the engine freeze an year earlier.

---------------

Why bring in an engine development freeze at all???????????

Isnt F1 supposed to be the cutting edge of racing technology?

Lets just get rid of the cretin Mosely instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...