Ecclestone, Di Montezemelo and Todt hold meeting to improve F1

To my eye it looks irregular. Caterham running GE sponsorship or Maclaren can't get sponsorship.

 

$$$

Mclaren is asking more than they delivered last year. The single Mobil 1 logo on the Mclaren is probably at a higher $$$ than the entire livery of the Caterham.

 

You may not need stronger engine components - you just replace them more often. Race engines pushed to the limit are built light and the parts flex and eventually die from the stress of the flex. To go 1500 Miles on a single engine - they are not pushing the limits. The parts would not need a redesign - just the amount of races per replacement would need reduction.

As for the fuel consumption issue - that is indeed a problem as these cars were not designed for refueling, and have *barely* enough capacity to make it. At Malaysia, they were dialed back for a great deal of the race.

 

Incidentally, don't I recall that the first engine formula announced by the FIA for 2014 was for a turbo four cylinder! to which the teams responded: BASTA! and the FIA rethought that idea?

 

recall as well the report that the Melbourne organizers were considering a lawsuit against F1 and FIA for loss of significant income due to dramatic fall in attendance.

 

and these are the only reasons Bernie is looking.......and fretting

 

The fact that these guys took a meeting over it tells me all I need to know.

 

Caterham is owned by Tony Fernandes, Co-Founder and Director of Air Asia. Air Aisia flies 170 Airbus A320 with GE turbines.

 

Really, how many production cars do you know with 1.6 litre V6s? How many mainstream cars with KERS?

Yip, there are none. Limit fuel, why? Limit tyres why? Limit testing why? Ultimately the result is limited innovation.

 

You maybe right, but how can you replace engines more often, if you are only allowed a limited number per season?
The whole rule book needs to be rewritten if they change the fuel flow restriction.

 

The present engine - powerplant - rules are a compromise reached among manufacturers, reflecting what they say they sell.

Ferrari, and apparently Mercedes ,didn't want the 4-cylinder turbo, so V6 turbo was adopted instead. Renault and ... Volkswagen wanted 1600cc 4-cyl. turbo, like on the car they sell everyday.
KERS maybe not, but hybrids can be seen on the streets everyday.

Most of the rules were approved by the manufacturers and the teams.
So how can they complain now ?

 

You new here?

 

I think its called "cutting the middle of the page"... lets face it, F-1 ceased to be a sport around 1990 ish... and when Max came in total busienss... and a money printing busy -ness..

so its about making profit for the teams, Bernie, CVC, FIA etc...

so that his why you limit all this crap... and try to keep the same set of rules for a while... otherwise the big guys Ferrari, McLaren especially will spend the others out...

Red Bull, Mercedes etc... have not show a track record yet of sticking it out... long enough ... but Ferrari and McLaren have - they have been in a spending war and do it well..

so if your technical sponsors are cutting back - you use less of the product you can demand more financial support... etc... lower cost with same revenue = Greater profit.

 

The manufacturers do not seem to be complaining. The FANS are complaining

 

Jacques, William is quite correct. KERS is not the issue, turbo is. The turbo idea relates directly to the fact that all of the major car manufacturers have been obliged by pollution and fuel economy issues to seek increased engine performance by turbos rather than larger unforced induction engines. Several years ago I remonstrated with senior Cadillac executives I know that Cadillac was not producing a V-12 engine without which I said, they cold never compete with Mercedes, BMW and Audi. They answered that within only a few years all manufacturers would be going to smaller, simpler engines with turbo boost. They were right.

 

If the manufacturers aren't in F1 to court the fans as potential customers something is really out of whack. Are they so intent to use F1 as a bully pulpit to push their agendas that they disregard the fans? If so, show them the door.

 

Although I think there is some validity in this point, it also benefits from the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. I don't know that I agree that this was anyone's intent. I do agree, however, that the nature of turning this gentleman's pursuit into a world wide television marketing enterprise was not without risk, and as deeply vested participants soon realized they could no longer sell their dispassionate board rooms on writing blank checks, we have a new iteration of F1 justified on spread sheets as a marketing exercise. (this is specifically demonstrated by Brawn & Co. trying to keep Mercedes in the game, the loss of BMW, Toyota, Honda; and Honda being lured back solely because of the direct correlation of the new formula to their road going product)

There's still a sport worth fighting for, IMHO. I don't agree with the cynical notion that F1 is dead, but I do wonder what everyone was thinking as we spiraled toward the end of the normally aspirated V8 this season. Perhaps everyone was so focused on saving budgets short term that they never fairly considered that the long term consequences of this path. Although I am optimistic compared to others who have posted in this thread, I think Ecclestone, Di Montezemolo, Todt, among others have a very tough road ahead.

 

From this statement I can tell you've either been watching F1 for a LONG time or have read so much that you DO understand the contestant's minds.

Mercedes are opportunistic in their racing over the decades, pick a time when they see an opportunity to dominate, jump in, beat everyone for a few years and then leave and use all that marketing to prove they have the superior car you should buy.

RB=Benneton, here today gone tomorrow

I said to my wife when Toyota came into F1 that if they don't win in 3 years they will be out.

BMW surprised me, but they , like Honda, couldn't see that they were getting their bang-for-buck so they took their bat and ball and went home.

Ferrari are in it for national pride

McLaren are racers with money

Williams = McLaren with less money

I'm surprised Renault hasn't built a better engine as they were quite good in the last turbo incantation

 

Oh yay, lets change the rules mid season how great..

 

That's actually the whole point: there are none yet because the road cars follow what F1 tests

These configurations will be the future and I can't wait.

 

How many production car 2.4 liter V-8s are for sale today because of the last 8 years of F1 regulations?

 

Not a whole lot because that was a technological dead end. Hence the need for a new formula.

However other things got tested like KERS.

 

That's the question. Which would be worse for the sport.
I don't know that there's a good choice.

 

there is nothing wrong with the formula. The execution has been bad.
PS: I still LOVE F1