Ecclestone, Di Montezemelo and Todt hold meeting to improve F1

My point was that road cars don't usually follow what F1 tests. The cost and complexity of KERS only makes sense in a handful of million-dollar supercars. Just like the (added) cost and complexity of a V-6 makes the I-4 a better choice for a 1.6 production engine. I don't see how any amount of R&D can change that.

I'm not saying that fans (the casual fans, not the diehards like us) won't tune in if they can't relate to the new tech with their road cars. But if the tech makes the whole racing experience less exciting, they and their dollars will find something else to entertain them. Which is why Bernie, Jean and Luca are soiling themselves...

 

I don't have a problem with a mid season change. It's like the super diffuser dilemma.

 

Well, if Sprinklerman is for it....


What changes would you suggest?

 

Good question but I'll be on thin ice since I'm not very technical:
- get rid of the fuel flow limit and the sensors
- rise RPMs to 18k
- allow for more engines (if the RPMs risk them blowing up)
- allow refueling if the RPMs need too much fuel

Will fix the sound issue about halfway and eliminate the hated fuel flow rule

 

I like. You should have been in the damn meeting.

 

Sounds like a very good start.
I'm assuming that you'll be doing away with fuel allotments and unfreeze the engines too.

I wonder if they can run those revs. They may be reliability limited at this point.

 

the problem is Renault will never agree and Honda will complain and probably delay a year -- which is why we have what we have now.

All this was done to keep Renault on board (including reducing costs) and Honda wanted the green thing as an excuse to promote it's brand.

Mercedes and Ferrari would jump at the chance for this Renault and Honda may just say "bye-bye".

I don't see refueling ever coming back to F1. Today it would be considered "unsafe".

 

Why would Mercedes want to change anything?
They're having a turkey shoot as it stands now.

 

Why would Renault disagree?

Not arguing, just wondering.

 

While they were a driving force behind the new formula I suspect that a reshuffle might be attractive about now.

 

My thoughts exactly

 

They wanted to reduce costs or they were leaving. F1 needed Renault to stay in until Honda jumps in and can supply several teams. That won't be for 2-3 years.

If Renault quits, F1 is in big trouble. Ferrari and Mercedes cannot supply the entire field.

 

But Mercedes holds a veto. So I say it ain't gonna happen.

 

You can't veto a team or engine supplier to not drop out. Unless costs are reduced, there will be 6 or maybe 8 cars on the grid. The only way to save it would be to allow 3 cars per team but that would raise the costs yet again.

With 8 cars on the grid, F1 would look like a joke instead of just a sham.

 

In the case of a tie the status quo prevails.
I suspect that loosening up the regs wouldn't benefit Renault nearly as much as it would Mercedes.

 

In the long run you're absolutely right but we're talking about a mid season change of rules.

This is exactly why I think that the big guys hold too much sway. They can afford to walk away.

 

Sounds like the big banks: too big to let them fail

 

Must not go P&R. Must not go P&R.

 

No? Then why was fuel consumption the most compelling graphic on screen?

 

In spite of all the suggestions, I suspect F1 will have to live with its present rules for a while; at least to the end of this season for fuel tank capacity (in case they ditch fuel flow limiters).
I cannot see a big departure from the present parameters.
F1 teams aren't awash with money, several are even in financial troubles.
There is just not enough cash to go around to think about a change of engine configuration, so soon after the turbo V6 has been introduced.
People can forget about V10, or V12 in future; it is just not going to happen.

 

really? a 1.6 ltr turbo engine that sounds like a hairdryer on steroids is exciting to you? ok, to each his own. just sounds pretty uninspiring to me.

 

Financial problems in F1 are a result of bad choices...

and it is difficult for those who made the bad choices to be aware of it. Will F1 have to fail before it gets better?

 

Probably so.

It's just like in politics, you don't keep the same leaders to change direction.

Football teams sack managers when they have bad results.

Ecclestone and co. have to go first: they are the ones who have steered F1 to where it is now.

Powerplants seem to be the problem, but I cannot see a new redefinition coming soon, unless they want to bankrupt most teams. The worst that could happen to F1 is that it ends up being just a spec series with mandatory FIA-supplied engines.
F1 following CART?

 

That validates the choice of a 1.6 turbo engine with fuel flow restriction formula.

The rulemakers got that right at least!