Horner: F1 should be polar opposite of Formula E | Page 5 | FerrariChat

Horner: F1 should be polar opposite of Formula E

Discussion in 'F1' started by Bas, Aug 9, 2017.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    I can understand why drivers aids are restricted or banned in F1, because it's a drivers championship, first of all, and it should highlight driving skills, and not who's better at managing onboard computers.

    From a driver's point of view, all he needs is power, it doesn't matter where the power comes from. It could be a pushrod engine, an hybrid power unit, a turbine or an electric motor. All of these can provide a source of power to a racing car.

    But the fact is that the main players who put their money in F1 (constructors, sponsors, and the FIA) seem to prefer some relevance, rather than dwell in the past, and I can understand that. To stay the pinnacle of motor racing as it pretends to be, F1 cannot stand still, or even less go back in time.

    All this is my opinion, you may not share it, of course. The next engine formula will be decided soon, I hope. We will see then which way F1 is going. I cannot say more than that.
     
  2. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    Constructors? That can only be Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault & presumably Honda, since they build Mclaren's engine. Ferrari was never a big fan of it, in fact they where against it. So that leaves the other 3. 3/10 apparently want these engines. The rest doesn't, and that'll be in the next point:

    Sponsors. Exactly which sponsors want these engines? Sponsors care about exposure. Since these engines have come F1 has suffered a further downfall, one it possibly will never recover from. Sponsors are important to teams, especially now since the sport is even more expensive because of these engines that where supposed to be cheaper, but are much more expensive.

    FIA. Apart from the green message they are fixated on, why is this good for them also? I don't see them putting any significant money in it, either.
     
  3. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    Don't forget about potential constructors. F1 will not only have these 4 for ever. Who says that Toyota, BMW, Audi or Hyundai may not be interested one day? So the FIA has to make participation in F1 attractive to them. F1 doesn't live in a vacuum. As for Ferrari, if they want to stay in the game, they have to play by the rules. If Ferrari was against it, as you say, why did they continue in F1 then? But even for Ferrari, the hybrid formula is now relevant, I read. They will soon have hybrid street cars.

    Apart from motorsport, the FIA represents the car industry worldwide, so it projects the wishes of car manufacturers, even those not participating, to promote relevant technologies in competition, for everybody's benefit. It's called spearheading the sport.

    Sponsors. Don't forget that some constructors are sponsors of their team as well. Mercedes, Renault and Honda have put plenty of money in F1. Don't you think they have a voice?
    Teams that don't make engines have no choice really, since they don't put any money in engine design and development. They get what's on offer.

    F1 is about progress. That's what it's the pinnacle of motor racing, why it attracts interest and a worldwide audience. It's not just a single seater series stuck in time. If it goes backwards, as you and some others seem to wish, it will stop being at the top and will be overtaken by something more flamboyant.

    F1 is supposed to be extreme, the ultimate form of motor racing competition, that's why it's expensive, and you cannot have champagne taste with lemonade money.

    The loss of audience can be attributed to many things. Fees imposed on organising tracks are too high, pushing up the price of tickets, etc... There is also less free TV viewing than before. All this discourages spectators to get to GPs, and TV viewers to follow the sport, IMO. I think there are too many GPs too.

    But, now I am through talking about that. I gave my opinion. Perhaps because I always look forwards for new ideas, new people, and I have no interest at revisiting the past. I am not pretending to convince anyone.
     
  4. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    Oh come on! Potential constructors?! If they had ANY interest they would've joined up 4 years ago. They're no interested, full stop, stop fantasizing about this idea!

    You're now counting constructors as their own sponsors, come on, they're constructors, full stop, you don't get to count them twice.

    I fail how the FIA represents the car industry. Sorry.

    I fail to see how ticket pricing directly affects TV viewing figures? Since that's what really gets measured. Yes less free TV is partially to blame but not by a long shot...There was an immediate significant drop after the first couple of hybrid races.

    Why did Ferrari continue with it? They where against the new engines that is extremely well publicised. Why did they continue with it? Well...you also believe Mclaren should jump out of the sport because tehy currently suck. Everyone knows why they didn't quit. Surely that doesn't need explaining to a 50 odd year follower of F1?!
     
  5. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447

    Have it your way.
    Not interested to discuss this anymore, as I do not wish to envenom the conversation.
     
  6. #106 lorenzobandini, Aug 19, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017
    Pssttt. Again, F1 is not "a drivers championship,". It is the F1 World Championship of both drivers and constructors (at the moment, the 10 teams,...McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Haas, et al) not manufacturers (such as Renault, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Ford, Chevrolet, Kia, etc.). ;)
    http://www.statsf1.com/en/2017.aspx
     
  7. Beau365

    Beau365 Formula 3

    Feb 27, 2005
    1,284
    Congested London
    Full Name:
    Beau
    The Genie was out of the bottle with Obama, but Trump has put it back in.
     
  8. 'Don't know which Genie you refer to, a good one or a bad one. 'Irrelevant anyhow...let us not get political. 'Not the thread for it. ;)
     
  9. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    I agree.
     
  10. Beau365

    Beau365 Formula 3

    Feb 27, 2005
    1,284
    Congested London
    Full Name:
    Beau
    Agree. Just saying Genies can be put back into bottles when the motivation is strong enough.
     
  11. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    I don't think you get the meaning of that maxim.

    "What has become known cannot be ignored in future", that's the idea.

    Once something is uncovered, nobody can pretend it doesn't exist; it goes for ideas, technology, governance, etc...

    In F1 parlance, once the benefits of a new technology will have existed for 5+ years, it would be very difficult to swipe them under the carpet in future when writing a new set of rules. That's what I wanted to convey.
     
  12. Ability to unscramble the egg would be more definitive. I'm rooting for sticking the Genie back in the bottle on both counts....racing and politics... :)

    Pocono time (IndyCar)

    (PMing ya Beau)
     
  13. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    Even if they have to suffer periods of coercion, once people have tasted freedom, they will always aspire to it, because they know it exists. In the end, good always wins against evil.
     
  14. Absolutely. 'Trouble is, the road to the "end" can be long and have many "bumps" and "potholes" along the way. :(
     
  15. DeSoto

    DeSoto F1 Veteran

    Nov 26, 2003
    7,482
    It can be done and has been done in the past, i.e. active suspension.

    Having said that, I think that getting back to non hybrid engines would be like getting back to carburettors.
     
  16. 'Disagree. The method of delivering "energy" to the IE is far from removing the totally different, additional, source of drive, the electric motor and it's necessary components.
     
  17. 444sp

    444sp Formula Junior

    Dec 18, 2016
    506
    There is something I can not understand from all this discussion.
    Why should we consider only 1 option?
    Why not make a regulation that considers aspirated and turbo engines.

    And honestly I do not think it's low tech if someone get to make a 1.6-liter V12 aspirated capable of spinning at 25000 or 30000 rpm and generating 1200 or 1500 HP.
    Also the hybrids recover much energy but how much energy is lost by the excess weight of the car?
    We have the heaviest F1 in history and for me this is not synonymous with technology.
    Maybe a aspirated car could weigh 200 kg less than now.
     
  18. DeSoto

    DeSoto F1 Veteran

    Nov 26, 2003
    7,482
    I meant that very soon a non hybrid engine will be an outdated technology.

    F1 shouldn't be like that.
     
  19. Beau365

    Beau365 Formula 3

    Feb 27, 2005
    1,284
    Congested London
    Full Name:
    Beau
    The vast majority of sports have retained the same fundamental 'technology" and yet they are still dramatic to watch. It's the human and visceral elements which draw crowds, not the inner workings of some hidden circuitry underneath a shroud. Horner is correct, let Formula E worry about developing new designs for mass market shopping trolleys.
     
  20. DeSoto

    DeSoto F1 Veteran

    Nov 26, 2003
    7,482
    In motorsports, the "motor" part is as relevant (if not more) than the driver.

    And yet, the boats and bicycles of today are not the same of 20 or 30 years ago.
     
  21. Beau365

    Beau365 Formula 3

    Feb 27, 2005
    1,284
    Congested London
    Full Name:
    Beau
    This is where F1 has gone wrong of late, more reliance on the tech than the driver input. The good news is Brawn and Horner want to reel in the tech a bit and re-introduce more human skill and drama.

    I wasn't considering boats or bicycles.

    Baseball, boxing, football are the big ticket events. Very mild evolution to the tech elements and the audience doesn't give a monkeys whether a ball or glove is kevlar or leather.
     
  22. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    Motorsport must follow an evolution just like the motor car does.

    The idea that F1 should stand still technically just to make noise to satisfy a few, is frankly ridiculous, IMO.

    Maybe the reactionary elements can slow down the evolution temporarily to suit their agenda, but it is inevitable that F1 will catch up.

    F1 must adapt, or become an historic series.
     
  23. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    A few? Vast majority of fans I do not call a few. And the millions that left.
     
  24. Beau365

    Beau365 Formula 3

    Feb 27, 2005
    1,284
    Congested London
    Full Name:
    Beau
  25. So as not to insult with my style of writing, my opine:

    Motorsport need not follow an evolution just like the motor car does.

    The idea that F1 should stand still technically just to make noise to satisfy a few, is frankly ridiculous; it need not include a hybrid powertrain, however, IMO.

    Maybe the reactionary elements can slow down the evolution of the ICE temporarily to suit their agenda, but it is inevitable that F1 ICEs can catch up.

    F1 need not adapt, nor become an historic series.

    Right here and now, pound for pound, there is nothing better than the ICE for race car propulsion.
     

Share This Page