True, very true, and everyone agreed (in principle at least) to abide by these rues when they were written. But what happens if the rules dont allow any other engine to catch up in future, and Mercedes ends up winnning 5 titles on the trot, dominating until the end of the formula. Would that be good for F1? Would that not completely alienate F1 fans? Who would still attend GPs if the results are so predictable? Who would pay to watch GP on the box? According to a survey published in Autosport this week, public attendence, public viewing and general revenue is in decline. Is that good? F1 is supported by public interest and commercial support. If those fade away, even slowly because of impractical rules making the show too predictable, it doesn't matter if those rules were initially agreed by the majority of participants; the rules will have to go!
Sounds like the last dynasty of Redbull/ Renault to me. The [F1] world did not end after that run....
I thought you or your other you tesla made it clear that the downfall of McLaren is only to be attributed to Hamilton having left? I am confused.
You're missing my point... I'm not debating or questioning Merc's ability to develop a great PU. I've said many times that they deserve their success. However, when the rules limit and actually restrict the ability for rival engine makers to go back to the drawing board and essentially give Merc a fundamental lock on their initial "better than you" performance... that's unfair. My real point though was that if these restrictions are lifted, there is the potential for Honda to develop an amazing PU that could be a game changer. I'm not saying it's going to happen but the potential is there...hypothetically. But further, a team like Williams or other customer team has virtually no chance of winning using another works team's PU. Let's look at the past few years.. .how many non-factory engine teams have won anything (and I'm sorda including RedBull in this since they were almost treated like a works team with Renault)? Merc is not going to give Williams or Lotus a PU just as good as theirs with all the electronic support and deep understanding of how it works. It's not going to happen. Neither will Ferrari. There a tons of obstacles for McLaren...probably just as much the ability to build an effective car as much as the PU at this point. But they could be a Merc, a Ferrari, with a engine that is designed just for them.
True, but the rules didn't suck as they do now. Now, we have a system in place that clearly favour the team ahead by preventing others to catch up; I am talking ebout engine design here.
IIRC, the testing ban goes back to 2010. That, arguably anyway, aided the Cans during their dominant run. But again, there is nothing in the rules that "prevents the others from catching up". It's hard, and they've got to be careful with their token spending, but I'd bet Honda's budget right now is beyond silly. I don't believe the PU guys are "forced" to turn the lights off for two weeks next month either - They can keep on pushing. OK, they can't do it on track, but I'm sure they have many dyno's running many simulations. Sure, the dyno isn't the track, but that's the same for all. Doff the cap to Merc and get yer heads down guys! Cheers, Ian
That you accept it or not, the present rules limit what the other engine manufacturers can do if they didn't get in right first time. The token system, with the limit on engines per season, is the instrument preventing them to try too many things to catch up. Who had ever heard of "token spending " in the past? It goes completely against everything race engineering is about! If something was wrong, you would redesign it, test it and race it the next time. And if that wasn't good enough, you would do it again and again, and again ... What I cannot figure out, since you talk about silly money, is why nothing is done to limit the aerodynamic spending, and why bodywork, flaps, wings, spoilers, floor pans are allowed to be constantly changed, but the PU not.
I beg to differ. Sure, they're not allowed to test on track, but they can sure as hell run anything they want on the dyno. [Although, I recently read there was talk of limiting that running too! ] +1 I certainly hear you there! But, the stakeholders decided this was the way to go to try and limit spending. They can no longer simply use the scatter gun approach until one monkey writes Shakespeare. Not a bad idea IMO. And again, as of right now, I don't believe any of them have homologated their units this year (?) They're all developing away, and apparently Charlie is being pretty lenient on "reliability" versus "performance" upgrades right now too. IIRC, he's allowed (without the others objecting) many tens, probably well over a hundred by now, such upgrades. They are trying to limit that too; "Wind on time" in the tunnel is heavily controlled as is CFD compute time. Why do they do it? 'Cos it's one of the few areas where they can try and find some time. Cheers, Ian
Eric B really is becoming quite the comedian as customer cars are once again discussed; Err, Eric, *you're* not competitive! What makes you think anyone in their right mind would want one, let alone two, of your POS's right now! If 62% said they were in favor of customer cars, 38% aren't....... Personally, I'm firmly in the latter group. The article went on to say; I guess I could begrudgingly accept a third car for young drivers, who can't score points. But I'm still against it deep down. As Lowdon went on to note in the same story; He also suggested Manor should make all the customer cars as they do it for a tiny amount of money....... Cheers, Ian http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120059
Well, you may have a grudge against Mclaren and a distaste for customer cars, and that is your right, but the MAJORITY of people F1 fans who answered the survey are in favour of them. I think they could be the solution to have a full grid (24 cars), with between 1/3 to 1/2 of car entered by private teams, some of them using customer cars. I repeat again, F1 is now a competition between engineering and design companies. Just like there aren't 12 countries able to design and finance generation V fighters, there is just NO WAY that you can find 12 teams that can built a competitive F1 to compete on an equal level. This because of the financial resources it takes, also because any newcomer has a huge task to overcome before it can be competitive. Most don't reach that stage and fall by the wayside. OK, McLaren isn't on a good form right now, but don't think they are out yet! If teams like McLaren, Williams or Red Bull could share their design with a satellite team, or sell their technology to private teams, that would certainly reduce their financial burden and give smaller outfit a chance to compete on almost equal terms. Instead of Hass, Manor, Force India doing everything themselves, they could buy chassis, complete cars from Ferrari, Williams or Mclaren and just operate them, instead of everybody trying to re-invent the wheel at huge expense and with little success. To me it make sense, and I can see the future of F1 going in that direction.
No grudges here. I'm just not a fan of the Woking boys. Fair enough. I beg to differ. Always has been. Hopefully always will be IMO. That's exactly what they're doing though. The playing field is level & doesn't get moved on a whim if you're too quick, like many other series. Are they challenging for wins? No, of course not, but if we look back without the Rose tinteds, we see that there's only ever been 2, maybe 3 teams in with a legitimate chance of winning throughout the history of the sport. Sure. It's hard. And it's expensive. But reduce the barriers to entry, as with customer cars, and we'll see even more 'coming and going' as it's easier to start, and easier to drop out, as you were never really committed in the first place. I've said many times, "anyone who writes of Ron's boys is a fool." A spec series? That's the path that leads us down. No thanks! Cheers, Ian
I believe Haas is pioneering a "spec" form of F1 entry. They are sourcing everything allowable by the rules from outside vendors and teams. Dallara is making the tub. Suspension, PU, gearbox from Ferrari. Pretty sure only 2 outfits supply braking systems to F1. Doesn't leave a lot left to design/construct in-house. When I was running a race-prep business, we has two Bennetons (B186 and B189) and a Lotus 107B. Each Benneton had the complete blueprint/drawings from when the car was constructed. There were blueprints of steering wheels, brake pads, water pump housings, every nut and bolt! Many were signed-off by Rory Byrne. Cool stuff. I have 1 framed that the car owner let me have. F1 is getting further and further away from true "cottage industry" design/construction of these cars. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just how the sport has developed with such increasingly complex configurations. Haas appears to be taking a very smart approach to their entry into F1, IMO. They are partnering with excellent vendors, giving them good likelihood of being mid-pack out-of-the-box. We shall see if this approach is a success for them, as it will likely be an approach taken by the next group of up-and-coming teams into the sport.
It's the rules that have changed allowing for this just recently. In the end we might not have customer cars but something close anyways.
The Haas entry will effectively be a customer car. Albeit not made by another F1 team, they will still be buying the components from others. At best that makes the team "assemblers" and not "manufacturers". In fact, the current FIA technical regs make customer car/engine teams easier by mandating that all of the engine/chassis attachment points be the same, thus making it theoretically possible to bolt a Merc into a Ferrari. What they get for their money is not very far from what they would get by buying a customer car from Maca or Ferrari. Dallara may not be in F1, but they have a great deal of experience in a wide array of race cars. If Haas can be effective in coordinating the components they purchase, they may be competitive.
It's a very sensible approach to F1, I think. If only Marussia, Caterham and HRT (the last newcomers) had been allowed to follow that path, intead of having to make almost everything in house, they will all be with us still. But no, they had to design, everything themselves then, to satisfy the requirements to be called "constructors", they spent so much time and money doing so that they got broke and left the field.
Where are the 12 engineering firms in F1? I don't see 24 cars on the grid, do you? At most, you have 5 well funded teams capable to build competitive cars and competing for a win year-in year-out depending on the formula, the rest is just struggling technically and financially. It would be nice to have a complete field of cars with almost all drivers with a shot at winning races. As it is, more than half of the drivers don't have a freaking chance !!! Not level playing field at all, in my book.
But what would be wrong with teams entering F1, and leaving after a few years if they wish? I cannot see anything wrong with it; absolutely nothing. What was wrong with Scarab, Eagle, Vels Parneli, March, Minardi, Wolf, LEC, Onyx, Tyrrell, Rob Walker, team Surtees, Footwork, Theodore, Matra, Fondmetal, RIAL, Zakspeed, ATS, Ligier, AGS and many others entering F1 and leaving later? They contributed to the sport; some won races, some even a title! Why should teams show permanent commitment to F1? Is F1 to be considered like a closed shop? An association ran solely for privileged members? What about manufacturers entering and leaving F1 at whim (Honda, Mercedes, Renault, Toyota, BMW), they cause more chaos than small teams having a go and then stopping.
Whew, good thing Hamilton jumped ship so Kraftwerk could become a Mercedes fan. That was a close one for him.
I would say Kraftwerk has always primarily been a Lewis Hamilton fan and so his support of McLaren was mainly based on his support for his favourite driver. Now his favourite driver is at Mercedes, they now get his support.
Sometimes after sustained fail, people assume things can ONLY get better with massive change. But that's not always the case. Honda's hype is almost entirely built on the ghost of their '80s success, which is totally irrelevant today....
Is it not the case for many things? The past is often a good indication of what can be done in future. Honda can achieve a lot, like it did in the past. It's a very innovative engineering corporation, but their management approach is wrong, I think. They make the same mistakes in motorcycle racing. At the limit, I would say that Honda doesn't care too much about the results, as long as it is a good grooming for its engineers, and push the R&D dept. to explore new solutions.
