FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Hammer278]

Them's fighting words....

Sagi, going by the fact that we have no history in V8 success and it seems like Merc have started out to be the masters of it, and seems like Merc hold the trump card as to approve the 100% revamp for engines, it really does seem like another 2-3 years of Merc ownage. Like it or not...this is common sense, not about arrogance or being provocative.

[CookinFlat6]

There is no different in the end result of all or most of the teams using the frozen Merc engine, or the teams using 3 different engine types all froxen at the same profrmance like the V8s. The reason for the freeze is cost saving which F1 needs
So instead of unfreeze to try and compete with a maker who already trounced them, why not STFU and concetrae on getting up to parity within the agreed and priced in schedule.
Merc will have the best engine for the next generation, the others will be able to catch up if they can, they wont beat them, so why spend the money that they dont really have anyway?
Its only RBR and Ferrari making these noises, and the solution is clear - use Merc engines or wait till tall engines are equalised according to the schedule

And the fans who admit they dont know much about F1 and have only started following recently etc etc are possibly the ONLY ones who are clicking on the meaningless hedlines about changing the rules for 2015 or unlimeted development for 2016 - aint gonna happen - Ferrari is very very likely to dump its engine making and start using German engines that work, just like De Tomasso ddi, and just like Lambo are doing and just like Bugatti are doing and just like Pagani.
Ferrari shareholder analysts will soon insist on saving money building an engine when they can simply outsource it - like the examples I mentioned, its not rocket science.
McLaren didnt build their on engines, neither did Williams and neither will ferrari soon

[sagi58]

Them's fighting words....

Sagi, going by the fact that we have no history in V8 success and it seems like Merc have started out to be the masters of it, and seems like Merc hold the trump card as to approve the 100% revamp for engines, it really does seem like another 2-3 years of Merc ownage. Like it or not...this is common sense, not about arrogance or being provocative.

Oh, I know that!
I also know that there is no way you can sugar coat the fact that Mercedes are using
that card to their advantage by insisting they are doing it for the good of F1.

[sagi58]

...And the fans who admit they dont know much about F1 and have only started following recently etc etc ...

I am one of those fans and I have no problem admitting it, as it's not something to be ashamed of!!
By the way, I don't have to know about a lot about F1 to recognize !

[racechick]

I'm fairly sure this article had been posted before, but I'd recommend reading it, it's very good.
Hers a little part from it.

Away from the PR war, Ferrari’s own technical staff admit the current staged engine freeze is not a serious obstacle to them being able to catch Mercedes. “It’s true you can’t change every part of the engine,” said technical director James Allison in September, “but the regulations say the majority of parts that can make a difference in terms of performance on the engine are still free.”

“The 48% is not a binding figure and can be misleading compared to what are the real opportunities to improve the power output of the power unit. The way is completely open when it comes to the rules.”

F1’s staged engine freeze is a rare example of a sensible compromise between its need to operate at the cutting edge of technology yet constrain costs in a way which will prevent its competitors from spending the sport to destruction. It is a nuanced solution to a complex problem.

Taking the lid off engine development would lead to a huge increase in costs which few teams can bear at the moment. In many ways the real question here should be why it has fallen to a team to defend it. At a time when there are very real fears about F1 grid sizes falling, the sport’s governing body and commercial arm should not be contemplating another hike in engine costs.

Nonetheless, if Mercedes care most about protecting the future of the sport, they should block a relaxation of the engine freeze. And if Mercedes care most about protecting their hard-won position at the front of the pack, they should block a relaxation of the engine freeze.

Here's the link to read it all. It was written before we lost the two teams from the grid because of costs.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/10/24/m ... -unfreeze/

[CookinFlat6]

...And the fans who admit they dont know much about F1 and have only started following recently etc etc ...

I am one of those fans and I have no problem admitting it, as it's not something to be ashamed of!!
By the way, I don't have to know about a lot about F1 to recognize !

Ok so what do you say to this article, the points made by Allison and the highlighted discussion of the cost issue. or is it only you can recognise???

I'm fairly sure this article had been posted before, but I'd recommend reading it, it's very good.
Hers a little part from it.

Away from the PR war, Ferrari’s own technical staff admit the current staged engine freeze is not a serious obstacle to them being able to catch Mercedes. “It’s true you can’t change every part of the engine,” said technical director James Allison in September, “but the regulations say the majority of parts that can make a difference in terms of performance on the engine are still free.”

“The 48% is not a binding figure and can be misleading compared to what are the real opportunities to improve the power output of the power unit. The way is completely open when it comes to the rules.”

F1’s staged engine freeze is a rare example of a sensible compromise between its need to operate at the cutting edge of technology yet constrain costs in a way which will prevent its competitors from spending the sport to destruction. It is a nuanced solution to a complex problem.

Taking the lid off engine development would lead to a huge increase in costs which few teams can bear at the moment. In many ways the real question here should be why it has fallen to a team to defend it. At a time when there are very real fears about F1 grid sizes falling, the sport’s governing body and commercial arm should not be contemplating another hike in engine costs.

Nonetheless, if Mercedes care most about protecting the future of the sport, they should block a relaxation of the engine freeze. And if Mercedes care most about protecting their hard-won position at the front of the pack, they should block a relaxation of the engine freeze.

Here's the link to read it all. It was written before we lost the two teams from the grid because of costs.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/10/24/m ... -unfreeze/

[sagi58]

...And the fans who admit they dont know much about F1 and have only started following recently etc etc ...

I am one of those fans and I have no problem admitting it, as it's not something to be ashamed of!!
By the way, I don't have to know about a lot about F1 to recognize !

Ok so what do you say to this article, the points made by Allison and the highlighted discussion of the cost issue. or is it only you can recognise???

The to which I referred was your own suggestion that Ferrari buy Mercedes engines and give up being a manufacturer.

As for the article, it was an interesting read and I recognize that it was written by someone who obviously agrees with Mercedes' position.

[overboost]

Also, would you be so kind as to point out exactly where any of the other teams is proposing "unlimited spending"?

Work it out yourself - clue unlimited development has to be paid for

And who pays for the lost revenues from fewer fans and sponsors driven away by a sport without competition and dominated by one team? Even the fans in Germany aren't willing to pay to see it!

That's not because of engines. The racing this year is far better than it was in the red Bull dominated , 'go slow' tyre years. That's because many races are in stupid places . And Germany, that's because Vettel wasn't doing well. I was at Germany, it was pretty good on race day, the atmosphere was good but the vast majority of support was for Vettel not Rosberg.

Back to the engines, changing the rules now would unleash a spending spree that F1 can ill afford. And Merc would still end up ahead with the engine.
And you know , the team that has only one less win than the second placed Merc driver , the ONLY team to win other than Merc has a Renault engine. There are three other teams out there with Merc engines, but it's a Renault engine that's taken the wins. Maybe Mercs superiority isn't all about the engine. Just a better all round job.

I would say that they didn't show up for the race because of the continued domination by one team spoiling the show. The attendance was down 38% on race day in Germany, that's alot of lost revenue and a huge number of former F1 fans moving to other forms of entertainment! And of course Merc'c success this year is due to the engines otherwise why would Merc go out on a limb and risk their reputation by using a veto to prevent competition?

The idea of freezing engines as a cost saving measure probably sounded like a good idea but in reality its implementation was flawed and it just isn't working. It should have been called an engine lottery rather than a freeze.

[Roth]

Attending GPs is the only time one team domination doesn't bother me because I can't tell what the hell's going on anyway.

As for Merc's stance, it's obvious what they're doing and none of it is to save money. Toto's not that altruistic. It's pure selfishness, which is fair enough, but don't try and dress it up any other way.

[sagi58]

Looks like one cost-saving option was placed solely in the hands of Mercedes; but, they chose not to participate in doing so.

 wrote:">To unfreeze or not to unfreeze? With hybrid turbo engines, that is the question

...There has been plenty of to-ing and fro-ing on engine freezes in recent months in the F1 Strategy Group, with Christian Horner breaking the omertà of the F1 Strategy Group by revealing details of discussion points; in a Singapore meeting they had had a unanimous vote to introduce one ‘unfreeze’ window on 2015, but that Mercedes had changed its stance at the Sochi meeting. Mercedes argues that the Singapore meeting was an informal discussion on the topic and in principle they were interested, but when the vote came in Sochi, at which the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone voted in favour of the unfreeze, there were details which were not acceptable to Mercedes, such as that the updates in the ‘unfreeze’ window had to be made simultaneously available to all teams and with no additional costs passed on to customers...

[Hammer278]

Aww boo hoo, Mercedes is not willing to be overly generous in givng the rest a 2nd chance....

Fact remains the others are trying their level best to be given another chance to get things right when this was never the deal in the first place, so Mercedes is the only one being rational here. Difference is they can afford to be rational since they're doing the winning. Doesn't make it their fault. Maybe they could start being charitable after 5 years of domination like Ferrari 2000-2004.

[CookinFlat6]

Ferrari have 1 customer and Merc have 3 times that number, so Merc are asked to spend 3 times more than Ferrari but the ones new to F1 can't make the connection

Too funny

[CookinFlat6]

...And the fans who admit they dont know much about F1 and have only started following recently etc etc ...

I am one of those fans and I have no problem admitting it, as it's not something to be ashamed of!!
By the way, I don't have to know about a lot about F1 to recognize !

Ok so what do you say to this article, the points made by Allison and the highlighted discussion of the cost issue. or is it only you can recognise???

The to which I referred was your own suggestion that Ferrari buy Mercedes engines and give up being a manufacturer.

As for the article, it was an interesting read and I recognize that it was written by someone who obviously agrees with Mercedes' position.

It's not about agreeing with Mercs position, it's about some stated facts. Facts such as Ferrari don't need an unfreeze to catch up, they just need to do a better job. But let's ignore the facts and make our claims based on self admitted 'little knowledge'
While we are at it why do Feerari have to continue as a manufacturer if they can't make competitive engines within the rules? Just one valid reason will do. BMW, Toyota, Cosworth stopped, tell us why Ferrari continue if it's not working out for them?
Or just change the subject

[CookinFlat6]

As for Merc's stance, it's obvious what they're doing and none of it is to save money. Toto's not that altruistic. It's pure selfishness, which is fair enough, but don't try and dress it up any other way.

Can you prove this or is it again just an opinion that doesnt take into account any facts, and instead sounds as if it has been thought through?

Firstly - none of it is to save money - how can you say this? - the facts are that merc would have to supply 8 extra sets of engines without extra pay, please explain how refusing to do this is not about the extra money. Lets hear your side of the argument as you at least have a bit more capacity to reason and avoid logical fallacies than some we have heard from on this

Secondly - for it to be pure selfishness would mean that there was only a benefit for Merc and Merc alone by sticking to the freeze, therefore you should be willing and able to explain what the benefit gained by ONLY Totos Merc and NO OTHER team would be by this

Remember selfish is (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. So what do merc alone gain that noone else does?

[sagi58]

Aww boo hoo, Mercedes is not willing to be overly generous in givng the rest a 2nd chance....

Fact remains the others are trying their level best to be given another chance to get things right when this was never the deal in the first place, so Mercedes is the only one being rational here. Difference is they can afford to be rational since they're doing the winning. Doesn't make it their fault. Maybe they could start being charitable after 5 years of domination like Ferrari 2000-2004.

Your first comment doesn't merit any sort of a response (even though, technically, this is)!

Secondly, what "deal" are you referring to? The "deal" which is competition in F1?

Of course, Mercedes can afford to be rational, they aren't the ones losing money hand over
first because they can't compete at the front. Do you understand the ramifications if there
isn't any real competition in F1? There is a strong possibility that current sponsors of some
teams will decide they don't want to spend publicity money on teams that can't compete.
Then what? You don't think there would be even more teams declaring bankruptcy?

And, finally, did Ferrari have a hold over development during that period? I don't believe so.
Do you see the difference between what Mercedes is doing in using their veto?