FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[spankyham]

Cosworth was never going to be financially sustainable with only one customer team.

Don't tell that to McLaren and Honda

....the only argument for keeping them which is "they sound better".

That's the only argument you've heard?


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[What's Burning?]

Cosworth was never going to be financially sustainable with only one customer team.

Don't tell that to McLaren and Honda

I wouldn't even insinuate it, because to compare the McLaren Honda partnership to Caterham/Cosworth would be very insulting. Cosworth only came back because they saw an opportunity to make some cash with their old slab selling it to the new teams. Most of the relationships dissolved because the engine was never competitive, just a cheap price of admission.

If you're going to make that argument, it's not an argument you can make in good faith. So of course Cosworth would never spend a dime to make a engine for the any new reqs. And the McLaren Honda deal is only exclusive for the short team, Honda has made that clear. So yes, you can't have a model with only one team buying your engines.

....the only argument for keeping them which is "they sound better".

That's the only argument you've heard?

Yes, what other ones can you give me? I challenge you to come up with two others that have any real merit and not simply subjective based on the wishes of Ferrari.

[spankyham]

I challenge you to come up with two others that have any real merit ..

As requested two items not based on the wishes of Ferrari

1) Vettel's opinion
2) Cost

[CookinFlat6]

The one thing Ferrari did not complain about was cost. In fact they argued for a return to a more engine dependent formula and wanted no restrictions on type of engine.

They have long said teams should be able to spend as much as they want on engines, cost was never an issue.

The following analysis might go some way in educating people about Ferraris position, note that cost is not an issue

These new Formula 1 regulations are least relevant to the Scuderia. Ferrari have the luxury of being owned by a larger firm, Fiat-Chrysler, while the likes of McLaren or Mercedes do not. Ferrari don't have to think about reducing emissions in their road cars to comply with the 54.5 by 2025 CAFE standards because the base Fiats, Chryslers, Alfas, and other sub-brands will fill that void for them.

When was the last time Maranello produced a turbo V6? A hybrid? Made a dramatic step to reduce fuel consumption? The 2014 Formula 1 regulations do not provide an outlet for the other side of the Maranello garage. Formula 1 is no longer fit for Ferrari, and Ferrari is no longer fit for Formula 1.

The Problem with Ferrari Owning Formula 1

Ferrari have been the most vocal about the new regulations claiming that their fans are upset.

83% are disappointed with the new format, dismissing it mainly because of the drivers being forced to lift off to save fuel. In addition, the fans don't like the noise from the new engines and are confused by rules that are too complicated.
However, analysts at F1 Fanatic are keen to dismiss these results, claiming

The data is untrustworthy, the procedure used to collect it is flawed, and the conclusions Ferrari have drawn from it are highly spurious.

Nowhere in the poll did Ferrari ask about the impact of the fuel rules, the noise of the engines or the complexity of the new formula. The poll results give Ferrari no justification for asserting that fuel conservation, noise or complexity are why those who responded are [criticizing] the sport.

The poll options also did not ask how strongly fans hold their views. Professional polling [organizations] use five- or seven-point scales to gauge how deeply people care about particular subjects.
So why would Ferrari slip these results to the public, to the FIA, to Formula 1's management?

The sound of Formula 1 cars was the last foundation that Maranello thought it had in Formula 1, until the the rev range dropped and the turbos stifled the noise. No longer does your Enzo, F12, 458 sound, drive, or run like an F1 car.

And don't for a second think that these regulations were a way to slow down the Formula 1 cars as the Ferrari boffins claim, because they didn't. If anything, the 2014 regulations made the cars more difficult to drive.

Ferrari have the most to lose with Formula 1 switching ethos, and you can bet they wont go down without a fight.

I like roaring V12s, you like screaming V10s, and we all love open-throttle blowing, but more than that, Ferrari loves winning.

I am coming to terms with these new 2014 regulations, with the confusing power units and strange aerodynamic regulations, but Ferrari have landed on the back foot, and need to show that they are a winning team; without that, their sales drop and they must lower the price of their vehicles, the Tifosi buy less meaningless Ferrari attire, and they are ultimately less influential.

As a viewer, I'd love for something to be done about the sound, be that from better microphone placement to even higher rev ranges or new engine regulations entirely, but I'd rather take better microphone placement for the time being and see if the noise can be fixed with placement.

Ferrari is using this slight distaste to spin the regulations back toward their favor through twisting the fans' voice and using their influence during Formula 1's transitional ownership.

Is that necessarily bad? We'd bring back wailing V12 engines and make Formula 1 real racing again!

...or would we?

The Bahrain Gran Prix was the best race I've ever seen, and the fuel conservation was miles less apparent than the tire conservation of 2013 (as seen when Lewis Hamilton was passed by a back-marking Williams FW35 in an attempt to conserve his tires). If the fight between Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg for 1st place and the scuffle for 3rd place between the six Red Bulls, Williams, and Force India drivers wasn't real racing in Formula 1, I don't know what is.

If Ferrari gets their way, and you can bet they'll get part of it, then the almighty 'road relevance' will wash away from most of the F1 teams with ties to road cars and they will be forced to leave the sport due to a lack of funding, not to mention that most of the engine manufacturers would leave the sport; Honda and Renault would most certainly be out, making Mercedes the option engine manufacturer (Update: turns out Mercedes would have been out too).

Formula 1 would be a Ferrari party of one.

I fully expect the regulations to change in about 3-5 years to something more appealing, but if something changes sooner, you can guarantee Ferrari was behind it.

[Hammer278]

I challenge you to come up with two others that have any real merit ..

As requested two items not based on the wishes of Ferrari

1) Vettel's opinion
2) Cost

1) A DRIVER'S opinion? Really? Since when are rules of the sport changed based on a drivers preference, it's the teams which make the call and the FIA to decide on yes or no. Why not add DCs opinion? Maybe now we take pundits seriously too.

2) Cost....what's worse, the cost of this new development channel which would contribute to the survival of the sport since manufacturer teams see the merit in the investment, or the cost of continuing on with engines which nobody gives a crap about except supercar makers (where consumers consist of 1% of the entire world population, if that) and eventually we're left with just Ferrari, McLaren, and? Maybe run 10 Ferrari cars, and 10 McLaren cars since the others either can't keep up with inflation and rising costs, or simply don't see the merit in continuing. Toyota, BMW, Honda left. Now Honda wants back due to V6 Turbos. What more proof do you want?

Bottom line: SOUND is what everyone is complaining about, not just 1 driver or 1 pundit. Stop desperate nitpicking.

[CookinFlat6]

Cost is hardly a relevant issue as its the engine manufacturers bearing the cost. The customers have no choice but to buy what the manufacturers make. If every manufacturer apart from Ferrari accepts the new costs and wont stay in F1 without doing it, and Ferrari are not protesting a change due to the cost (they actyually want to be able to spend even more on engines, they rejected the engine development freeze) then its beyond me how anyone can actually present cost as a reason ferrari dont want the hybrid.

As far as Vettels opinion being a reason - the clearest indicator that deep understanding of the issues involved in the reasons for this engine change have not been made easy to understand for most by the FIA, thats a big fail on thier behalf. Just like they have failed to make it easy to understand why the laptimes drop when there are regulatory changes. They should have explained that a car that uses half as much petrol and is 2 seconds slower provides a challenge that the engineers will overcome very quickly while reaping other benefits

F1 is maybe too complicated but the important thing is for those writing articles and educating the public at least understand it

[sagi58]

SKY Sports..."With the objective to save fuel, be efficient and have very high performance, that's exactly what we have to do with our production cars and we use exactly the same technical components," he added.

And to underline just how important this was, without F1 making this switch, Mercedes would have left!

... and Honda would not have joined and Renault would have also left since they were to first push for the change.

Ferrari would have been a force to be reckoned with!

You might say Mercedes vetoed the V8s

I would look at it another way, Ferrari was the only one pushing to keep them. I'm amazed they didn't get their way frankly.

The FIA couldn't make them both happy, eh?
They went with Mercedes, who had the "veto" that counted, this time!

I think you missed the dialogue that transpired in the thread, no "veto" from Mercedes, it was Ferrari wanting something that Renault, Mercedes and Honda were not interested in. So the choice was 1) seeing every other team walk, or 2) keeping Ferrari happy. No other way to "spin" it even for a rib poke of a laugh.

My apologies for continuing on with the "poke-fest, which you started"!

[What's Burning?]

Ferrari would be okay with a single stroke engine if they were winning. Some day (soon) cities will not allow non partial or zero emissions cars, then where will Ferrari owners drive their cars to?

So here, I'll list the positives;

1-We have four engine manufacturers instead of two. (with additional manufacturers considering entry)
2-We've opened the door for more manufacturers to consider the sport.
3-Ferrari can race in Le Mans with an engine they've already invested R&D into.
4-Battery efficiency has been improved tenfold since the early units in 2009.
5-Energy recovery has made cars like the P1 and the 918 trounce previous performance numbers (and they'll be allowed in cities)
6-Current F1 cars are using 30% less fuel while being less than 1% slower. (even though a lot of the speed loss is attributed to lower downforce)
7-Today's F1 cars clearly showcase the better drivers. (you weren't cheering so much for Daniel Ricciardo last year)

Off the top of my head, I did a good job, I think mine is bigger than yours. (the list I'm talking about). And IMO, Vettel not liking it is a good thing. Rosberg and Hamilton and Ricciardo are loving it.

[What's Burning?]

SKY Sports..."With the objective to save fuel, be efficient and have very high performance, that's exactly what we have to do with our production cars and we use exactly the same technical components," he added.

And to underline just how important this was, without F1 making this switch, Mercedes would have left!

... and Honda would not have joined and Renault would have also left since they were to first push for the change.

Ferrari would have been a force to be reckoned with!

You might say Mercedes vetoed the V8s

I would look at it another way, Ferrari was the only one pushing to keep them. I'm amazed they didn't get their way frankly.

The FIA couldn't make them both happy, eh?
They went with Mercedes, who had the "veto" that counted, this time!

I think you missed the dialogue that transpired in the thread, no "veto" from Mercedes, it was Ferrari wanting something that Renault, Mercedes and Honda were not interested in. So the choice was 1) seeing every other team walk, or 2) keeping Ferrari happy. No other way to "spin" it even for a rib poke of a laugh.

My apologies for continuing on with the "poke-fest, which you started"!

I started it? Geez Sagi, your comments are pretty ridiculous at times, laughably ridiculous. So I'll just laugh it off. I made a post about Mercedes in a Mercedes thread and the valid points are glossed over in whatever rebuttals the Ferrari fans can muster in order to discuss a "veto" that Mercedes must have? The language of common sense prevails, I guess for someone that apparently only speaks passion, the world is against them if they don't get their way. How very Lewis Hamilton like of you.

[Hammer278]

This is the weekend when history could be rewritten - most consecutive 1-2s in F1 history.

COME ON YOU MERCS!

[CookinFlat6]

The language of common sense prevails, I guess for someone that apparently only speaks passion, the world is against them if they don't get their way. How very Lewis Hamilton like of you.

With Hamilton the passion generates a sense of entitlement that comes from a history of excellence and success

For some fans the passion causes a belief that any argument or any statement can be countered with any comment that sounds witty and sounds like a come back and as long as they are passionate then it doesn't have to be true at all or to make any sense. The passion wins through, there are no need for facts or the truth when one is passionate and believes in something. They just feel they are right and so that's enough.

This is not directed at any fans on this site, it's just a general observation about those that sell the passionate card. Ted Kravitz is a classic example, he sounds knowledgeable, he acts the part, he comes out with things with authority but when he says things like 'ICEs don't have spark plugs' it doesn't matter, there is no shame, apology or retractment, - he sounds passionate , so what if he doesn't understand how cars work

[spankyham]

4-Battery efficiency has been improved tenfold since the early units in 2009.
5-Energy recovery has made cars like the P1 and the 918 trounce previous performance numbers (and they'll be allowed in cities)

I still don't like or agree that batteries are good. Negatives for me are:-
1) disposal of highly toxic dead batteries are a high environmental risk
2) rare earths are super rare resources on our planet
3) slave labor is used for most production of rare earths
4) batteries need to be charged - that comes from power plants that add to CO2 and/or even worse, nuclear waste.
5) infastructure changes needed to meet the generation needs (most likely more nuclear power plants) plus global grid upgrades for the 20-30 increase consumption of electricity
6) bio-fuel can be carbon neutral from day-1 and can be distributed within the existing fuel distribution infrastructure. grow the plant (carbon stored) use the fuel made from the plant (carbon released) grow the plant (carbon stored again) etc etc etc if the fuel has to come from bio source then carbon being sucked up into new plants equals carbon being released = carbon neutral. If you make perennial grasses the source then you go carbon negative to some degree as the root system from each crop (significant in perennials) stays in the ground.
7) bio-fuel uses pretty much the same donks in use today so car prices don't jump 10-20K (bad news for the production car companies but good news for the consumer)

[CookinFlat6]

Did someone change the name of this thread to alternative fuels thread? Would be nice to stick to Mercedes support as its not fair on Merc supporters to derail their thread.

How did we get from discussing the reason F1 manufacturers want hybrids to our preferences for alternative fuels?

But while we are on the subject, I would like all energy to be from wind farms, the wind blows, the wheel turns, we have electricity - nice and carbon neutral. Lets ignore the fact that we would need to cover half the country with windfarms and stick one on top of each car and spend a ruinous amount. Who would do this spending? who cares, it sound good. And Im sure the goverments and scientists worried about climate change, soil erosion, rising tidal levels etc havent thought about it. They just like the sound of hybrids and so thats the way we are going. Once I tell them I would prefer wind farms they can implement that instantly!

[sagi58]

I started it? Geez Sagi, your comments are pretty ridiculous at times, laughably ridiculous. So I'll just laugh it off. I made a post about Mercedes in a Mercedes thread and the valid points are glossed over in whatever rebuttals the Ferrari fans can muster in order to discuss a "veto" that Mercedes must have? The language of common sense prevails, I guess for someone that apparently only speaks passion, the world is against them if they don't get their way. How very Lewis Hamilton like of you.

[Hammer278]

Let's try again,

COME ON YOU MERCS!

Let's stick to topic...or take the off topic stuff to lesser teams thread (any other out there). Danke!