Is this the end of F1?

The noise/notes or lack there of is gone. The thrill of the scream as the racers accelerate out of turns and down straightaways is gone all for the BS philanthropy of being "green".

Is the drive of being green to stop racing? Because there is far more fuel spent getting to each race than actually racing.

 

Why?

No seriously.... why?

Why can't it just be a sport? Why does F1 have to be something else at all than just a great show so that a billion people can enjoy watching it?

 

Probably because technology is concerned: a Formula One is a car, after all. And among those who are spending large amounts of money into this, are some main car manufacturers. They are into this not only for the sport...
The days of the bolt-on DFVs and club racers are long gone; note that during those days, you were not able to watch it on TV, it was not even broadcasted...(it began here in 1976, and not even for all races; before that, you had the Monaco G.P, and the French G.P).

rgds

 

Racing has developed a lot of things that make passenger cars better and safer. There has always been great political pressure on racing and F1 is feeling a lot of it and has responded by forcing F1 to become more fuel efficient. There is not much any of us can do to change this. All racing is facing these issues and responding. If it doesn't it will banned. Personally I like the old days but when thoughts like these are espoused openly we're racing through uncharted waters.

» Professor Calls For Climate Change ?Deniers? To Be Imprisoned Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

"Be wary of people who wants to jail those that do not think like they do; of people who wants to force happiness onto you without taking what you think into account; and of people promising you happiness if you never see them smile".

 

I think the world is getting too fat. So, we should make a new rule that before and during every Football match on earth, the players need to have a mandatory work out program on the field so show the audience how to exercise better. Sort of like a work out live work out video with the their favorite players showing off their best routines.

The match will be cut from 90 minutes to 45 minutes so that the players can demonstrate and motivate people to get more healthy in the same TV allotment.

The days of couch potatoes are over. Football is such a popular "event", it needs to be used to show humans their tragic ways.

Isn't this a great idea? Football is not just a sport. It's a lifestyle. Football needs to make a better statement to reduce obesity in the world.

 

+1

F1 is the arena for the car manufacturers to show who is king. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. However that only really works if there is a relationship between the technology being raced and what's in the road cars.

Unlimited hp and unlimited fuel consumption is NOT what's happening with road cars. It is only logical that F1 focuses on similar issues (like fuel consumption and energy recuperation). If it doesn't, it becomes technically irrelevant and the link to road cars and car sales in general is lost. At that point the manufacturers would pull out and we'd be left with a few garagistes and yesteryear's engines.

 

Logical? Logical to WHO exactly? GM doesn't race F1. Ford doesn't race F1. Volkswagen doesn't race F1. Toyota gave up racing F1. Porsche won't race F1. BMW gave it up. Are they being "illogical" for giving away this great opportunity to do amazing research?

Last I looked Red Bull and Force India aren't even a car makers and McLaren sold about 1500 cars last year. Lotus about the same. Caterham? Really? A kit car maker???? So much for "race on Sunday, sell on Monday.

Car makers know that racing is not a exercise in reality. If you're going to spend a fortune each year on racing, only a very small part makes it's way back to the real world. You're better off spending that money on research FOR the real world and real cars.

F1 is a marketing TOOL. It's all it's good for. Toyota and BMW realized it wasn't worth it and quit. They seem to be doing pretty well without all the "F1 research spending" going on.

If spending research money on F1 was the reason to do it, every car maker in the world would be clammering to enter.

Ummmm.... actually, we're having a tough time filling the field as it is.

F1 is a splashy, sexy way to get people excited about cars and so that they watch and buy the products plastered all over them. That's all it is... it's TV advertising driven by people watching.

Take away the people watching and there is no more racing, no matter how great the "technology" they may use.

 

The teams are also to blame in this fiasco - whilst developing the new V6 they should have realised it will fall short of desirable sound characteristics - Then they could petition FIA for tweaks to the rules but still maintaining V6 architecture

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

Most car manufacturers get involved in some sort of motor racing anyway.

Why they are not all in F1 at the same time, is because they look at the most favourable time for their effort. Ford WAS in F1 for a long time. Porsche has been in F1 twice. Honda keeps going back to F1. VW isn't in F1, but there is a strong link with Porsche and AUDI, both leaders in WEC.
Others find their niche in rallying, touring cars, GT, endurance, etc...

If it wasn't for car manufacturers, private teams wouldn't have any engine to put at the back of their cars. The era of BRM, ATS, making their engines and gearbox is gone.
Ferrari can afford it only because of FIAT money.

Without car manufacturers, there would be no F1 now. They have become essential to maintain the hi-tec level in F1.

By the way, reasearch and development may turn out to be just as efficient as racing to push technology, but are far less glamourous to advertise a brand, and don't bring much exposure either.

 

The all wanted to save money. That's also part of the problem. F1 is hanging on by a thread. If the engines get expensive, then you'll have only 6 to 8 cars in the field.

They went V6 to cut costs, which is why they also have limited engines per year and gearboxes per year.

 

Again... totally wrong. Sorry but you are.

Red Bull races to get the name Red bull out there. It races airplanes and sailboats and go karts and who the hell knows what else for the same reason. They even stick it on some guy with a jet back on his back and another making a parachute jump from 100,000 feet.

If F1 went away, it would just spend that money on other ways to get it's brand name on TV.

You take away the eyeballs and Red Bull WALKS from F1. WALKS. It has no skin in the "auto game". It uses F1 only as TV advertisement. It's freaking running 4 cars a race for heaven's sake!

Without people watching, there is no F1 because there are no car makers.

The ONLY reason car makers invest in racing is for marketing purposes. That includes Le Mans and Nascar and rally racing and Indy and you name it. It's not to spend R and D money. That is the myth they push out there so you don't feel DUPED by watching.

I am not talking about race equipment manufacturers. Clearly they make money off of racing. I'm talking about the big car makers. They don't spend money on racing unless there is a marketing or advertising purpose behind it.

If racing went away tomorrow, there would be the same or even more research dedicated to real cars and real world problems.

And.. when is all this big "technology" stuff coming to "real cars".

How many "real cars" use carbon brakes? Less than 0.1%. How many cars under $100K use carbon fibre in standard production models to lighten weight? One... the Chevy Corvette. It has 2 pieces (the hood and the targa roof) that reduce weight an astounding (hold your breath!) 40 lbs for a grand total of 20K cars a year. How long has it been since McLaren introduced the carbon fiber chassis? 20+ years?

 

+1

Except the part of Ferrari financing. I'm not sure on that. I heard that the main $ for Ferrari actually comes from merchandising. More than car sales etc. The road and racing cars are merely a catalyst

 

Then you don't know what you're talking about.

Most of their income comes from car sales, not merchandising. Of that, most of the royalties come from video games and car models. The rest is incredibly small.

You really think they make a lot of money from T shirts and caps? More than selling 7000 cars a year at an average of $300K each, not to mention parts sales, service, restoration, cliente programs, taylor made programs, car weekend junkets at 10 grand a pop, and Ferrari Financial?

How many Hot Wheels at 99 cents do they have to sell to make a fortune?

Ferrari is very smart and very lucky. Most of the racing program is paid for by the Concorde agreement and by sponsors who eagerly send them money, research, and materials (Shell for one being a partner for over 50 years). Racing is TV advertising to sell more cars. They just get others to pay for their TV advertising for them.

Think about this. Each LaFerrari will sell for at least 1.7 million. That's 500 cars or about 850 million. You really think it cost them $1 Million each to make one? Probably less than half that. Trust me... Ferrari makes a ton more money on road cars than it does merchandise. It just sells more merchandise than anyone else because IT CAN.

 

Merchandising accounts for about 20% of Ferrari's profit. It not therefore the main source, but it is not small either.

Ferrari makes $62,000 profit per car

 

I didn't say it was nothing. I said it was not it's main source of income.

Money is money. If you own a company, you should grab what you can. If people are holding out a fist full of dollars, you'd be stupid not to consider it.

I'm guessing Ferrari makes even more money in parts sales than it does in merchandising. Anyone priced factory parts lately?

 

I've been watching F1 since the early 90's, and I'll admit this is the most interested I've been in about a decade. I actually like the turbo sound more than the restricted V8's. Sure, it's no comparison to the old V10's and the V8's before they rev-limited them, but I wasn't keen at all of the cars for the past 4-5 years.

Yep, I wish they'd open things up a bit more with larger naturally aspirated engines - preferably V10's or V12's. But that's not palatable right now and at least they're pushing new ground technologically again.

 

Great link, at least they are getting the message. Turn the boost up to 5 bar, no fuel limits, open headers, and get rid of all the winglets.

So funny really to hear people (everyday people) complain about the LACK of sound.

 

Watching since the late 60's on Wide World of Sports and attended first race in 84. Seems a lot here never experienced the 80's turbo era other than thru old youtube video's. Even some that claim they did have faulty recollections. If you didn't experience at least live on TV you can't talk about it's reality. Let me assure you, you needed ear plugs if you were close to the track for the 1,000+bhp cars. Anyone who says different is full of it.

 

you know something is not right in the world of F1 when gp2 cars are:
louder
more powerful
and use more gas

than a formula one car......

you know something is REALLY not right in the world of F1 when i can say that some of my own (mostly stock) road cars are:
louder
more powerful
and use more gas

than a formula one car.......

who would have thought this day would come

people will vote with their feet. i for one have no intention of going to a race this season, and i wont be interrupting my day to catch the race on tv that often either.

 

No, you do not seem to understand, or you pretend you don't.

At present, if it wasn't for the car manufacturers' presence (Renault, Ferrari/FIAT, Mercedes and soon Honda), there wouldn't be any F1 because no private team can built its own powerplant, and none are available off the shelf as before (Cosworth, JUDD, Hart era).

Even Red Bull will all its millions wouldn't contemplate investing hundreds of millions to create its own powerplant, nor would Williams, or McLaren.

The time when small chassis builders could queue up at Cosworth for engine, then Hewland for gearbox to go racing is over. An independent engine builder wouldn't make money in F1; it has to be a motor manufacturer with large pockets.

Mercedes and co are in F1 for the return they hope to get out of it, but I suspect not all will benefit from it. After a few years without success (Honda and Toyota story), they give up and wait for another occasion.

Money alone cannot sustain F1, you need the participation of manufacturers, and Ecclestone understood that very well when tobacco sponsorship dried up.

 

Yes the prices makes me feel positively ill.

 

i think we have to trust the technology,with in 3 years they will work perfectly with the limits set,engineers will find another 100 hp or so

 

Are your road cars faster around a track than a F1?
Are GP2 cars?

 

If you think Ferrari manufacturer is bankrolling the F1 Scuderia team, you don't know much either!!

The F1 team has been financed for decades mostly by parent company FIAT.
There is a long time since Enzo Ferrari wasn't able to finance his racing team with car sales.
That's why he attempted to sell to Ford, and later made a deal with FIAT.
Scuderia Ferrari is nowadays merely the F1 branch of FIAT.

That's why all other programmes at Ferrari itself (sport cars) or in other brands of the group have been terminated one by one (Alfa protos and F1, Lancia rallying and endurance), to compensate for the increase in the Scuderia budget.
Of course, Ferrari get sponsorship as well, but not enough to maintain the highest level of expenses in F1.