FORUMula1.com

[CookinFlat6]

Especially when the outlay could be spent on factories in China to produce much more profitable luxury items. With a brand like Ferrari the sky's the limit, engines are old hat, perfumes, shampoo, handbags, sunglasses, fashion, maybe even cartoons and children's toys will return more profit than paying drivers to develop hybrid parts or race to 6th place

[The Second Coming]

I no longer feel for the rest of the field when it comes to balancing the scales. Not after Ron Dennis came out and said he is after "domination" of the sport with his new ex-wife, Honda, dutifully at his side. If that is McLaren's goal and the new guy across the street at Ferrari firing everyone who leaves the toilet seat up until they are back to yesteryear, the time of plenty, then why should Mercedes give in on relaxing the freeze? I say, everyone in the neighborhood was told what day the trash truck comes by. Mercedes was the only one who put out their bin on the right day. You can't and shouldn't fault them, let alone ask them to take some of your trash to lesson the stink over at your place. As long as Mercedes AMG keep getting it right, full steam ahead. All the big hitters want back into the dominance game—let them earn it on their own merit. Mercedes should wave that trophy and take a page out of one Sandra Martin on Fete Night under the football bleachers when she beseeched, "Come Get It!"

(Emm...did I share too much at the end?)

Such fun!

[CookinFlat6]

well said second coming (that username is just a showoff to your wife isnt it )

If Merc built the best engine and their customers are happy, why should anyone care about engine builders who insist on using driver to develop the engine when it clearly doesnt work as well as having dedicated engineers. Its not as if its some teams that are not allowed to develop - its just 2 engine makers who messed up. The teams can opt for new suppliers as Lotus have done. And Honda will ofcourse take on customers in 2016 so there is no excuse really for any team.

In the V8 era Cosworth built a crap engine, and lost all its customers who moved elsewhere and Cossie were forced to leave the business to the guys who know what they are doing - and remember Cossie are the real engine building nobility in F1. Thankfully Horner and (latest TP) at Ferrari seem to have stopped bleating about it

[The Second Coming]

well said second coming (that username is just a showoff to your wife isnt it )

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

[CookinFlat6]

Very interesting analysis from Saward the 'sometimes not backward'. He looks into the workings of the democracy we call F1. I have long said as long as the rules allow every team to buy an engine from Merc then there is absolutely no grounds for whining about unfairness or non competitiveness on a team level. And I also said that Mercedes and its customers plus Mclaren would rout RBR and its dependents like STR and Ferrari when it comes to the 2017 Hosanna promised by Horner and and his fans like ginger minger spice and a few muddled F1 'observers'.

However Joe has done one of his insightful pieces into the reality of the voting process, I am not sure it makes good reading for all those members looking forward to the return of the V10s (or even V8s or V12s). It reminds me of the time we finally received confirmation that all along Ferrari DID have a veto on the rules and an extra 80 mill handout as well as some special extra help as mentioned by Bernie but so far never explained

The upcoming F1 Strategy Group – illegal though perhaps it may one day be ruled – is currently the decision-making body of Formula 1. It consists of six teams and representatives from the FIA and from the Formula One group. Despite a rather poor attempt by some of the team principals to argue that this is a forum for discussion, it makes the key decisions. These are then sent on to the Formula 1 Commission which only has the right to accept or reject those decisions. Of course, if you want to know the membership of the Formula 1 Commission, there is no point in asking the FIA. The only rule that I can find says that “the Commission shall be constituted in
accordance with the Concorde Agreement (or any similar document which may replace it)”, which means that it is confidential. Nothing like a sport with transparent rules…

Traditionally, the F1 Commission has consisted on a member from the FOM, one from the FIA, a member from each competing team, six race promoters (three from Europe and three outside Europe) appointed by FOM, two circuit representatives (one from Europe and one from outside) appointed by the teams, plus representatives from Pirelli, the engine manufacturers and two sponsors (from different market sectors). This means that it has a membership of around 24 people (depending on the number of teams). However, it is not one vote per representative, as there are always 12 team votes – even if there are only nine teams. If the teams vote 5-4, the majority is able to add the additional three votes and so eight votes count one way and only four the other way. In other words if the top five teams stick together the smaller teams have virtually no voice at all. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that the Formula One Group has a pretty dominant position in this set up as no race promoter wants to upset the people who decide who gets a race. The FIA has almost no power in this body.

The next step of the process is that a proposal then goes to the FIA World Motor Sport Council and is either accepted or rejected. One can see that this gives the FIA power to block things. The World Council tends to do what the FIA President wants because the members do not wish to lose the privileges that come with the position and it is very clear that Jean Todt does not like criticism, let alone opposition.

So if the Formula 1 Strategy Group meets and votes on Ecclestone’s idea of bringing back old engines, what will happen? Mercedes will, logically, oppose it. And if you are a Mercedes customer it would be best to vote with them. Thus Mercedes should have three team votes (its own, Williams and either Lotus or Force India, depending on who is included). The Formula One group has six votes and the FIA has six votes so if Jean Todt agreed to cancel the FIA’s new engine regulations then the teams and manufacturers would have to follow suit. Ferrari and Red Bull might follow Ecclestone because they are losing, but McLaren is in a new relationship with Honda and voting to cancel the new engines makes no sense at all. Thus the vote could be eight in favour and 10 against. The proposal would get no further. Any other outcome would likely result in at least one manufacturer walking away from the sport and the ensuing chaos that would come from that.

The view of the commercial people is that a dominant Mercedes is not good for the sport (although we didn’t hear a peep when Ferrari won in a string of titles in a row a few years back). The people who believe in sport say that if Mercedes has done a better job than the others, its rivals do not deserve a leg-up for their lack of similar competence.

The option exists for Mercedes to agree to supply its hybrid systems as standard to all the teams, in much the same way as McLaren now provides the electronic control units. However, the FIA is unlikely to be keen on that idea and could (if the testicular mass exists) block it at World Council level, if the others tried to force it through. If the federation were to back down on this, its relevance in the sport would be virtually gone as its clever engine regulations would have been thrown out and replaced by a right old botch-job.

If the FIA had not sold its right to make unilateral decisions – a disgraceful move in my opinion – then the federation could simply dictate that engine manufacturers be only allowed to supply engines at a fixed cost and thus the small teams would be able to survive. The sport would still be seen as cutting edge and everyone would be better off.

Even more splendid days ahead....

[myownalias]

If you ignore all the technicalities of the engine freeze, it comes down to the same old F1 philosophy, someone has something better than you, complain, try to get it banned or amended in some way so your team can gain an advantage. This has always been the case in F1 and it will be forever more, unless we end up with a spec series, which is not that unlikely we have been moving that way for some time, moving away from engineering diversity towards a more specific formula with limits on this, that and the other, which of course every designer will push to the limit.

[CookinFlat6]

Its not just F1, we see this in the whole car industry as well as many other supposedly leading edge tech firms

Like Betamax and JVC, like the disaster commonly known as Windows, once a firm have stepped up to the plate and aced a technical space, the rivals go throught the same phases, try get it banned, complain about anti trust or monopoly rules, then try and copy, and then capitulate and stop wasting money to protect some long lost honour.

If we look at what VW have done, and what Fiat are trying, its all about consolidation around the most efficient solutions, but allowing the entities to retain a brand identity. So we have Audi and Lamborghini, 2 car firms traditionally from the opposite sides of everything, yet the R8 and Gallardo share almost everything, except they charge double for the Lambo.

Why would a company spend billion on an engine to compete with the other firm when it could use that money to buy the industry standard for the next decade? The whole idea of F1 strictly prototype cars by different companies just has to look at the car industry. The average F1 fan wouldn't notice that 3 teams share a chassis, when each has gone bansai on the front nose and sidepods.

Ferrari is very rare in building its own engines and their backward looking stance towards hybrid and other tech is exactly why they are overdue to close their engine facility and start shipping cars with rebranded engines from Merc, Audi or BmW. McLaren F1, Zonda etc have such engines

And on the F1 track, traditionally 1 was about garagistas building their own chassis, buying engines and creating the bodywork from a wooden buck, well things have evolve so far that buying a proven engine and chassis and active suspension provides the same scope for differentiation from aero and the other modern garagista specialties.

Lets face it tho, if F1 went to spec engine and chassis tomorrow, everyone would want Merc gear, except those clinging on to the 'spend our way ahead of others' of the olden days

[myownalias]

I agree it's not just F1; I was using the reference to F1 because it's an F1 forum. I kinda like the idea of a spec series, we see it in lower formula, the racing is much closer, and we find the best drivers rise to the top. In F1, those same top drivers can be at different end of the scale, not because of a talent difference, but because of machinery differences. If would could have 26 Mercs running around, I think racing will improve because the talent will rise to the top, unlike in recent years where one or two drivers have been dominant because their machinery is better!

[CookinFlat6]

I cant help thinking the only spec series left to capture the essence of top flight racing on track and with the engineers will be FE or something similar. It just seems odd pushing technologies that are already dated. ERS? Fuel efficiency? old sound back by regulation?
I truly believe the first major to endorse the all electric racing series (If F1 had any sense they would be muscling in on Agog to hedge themselves) has a big chance to become the house hold name of the future - like Hoover for vacuums - Merc have already declared their interest. It really would not take that much or that long to find FE has become the modern equivalent of F1 50 years ago, where anyone can turn up and buy the kit from Merc and then concentrate on making the body as light as possible and the aero as good
F1 is facing a crisis if it goes to spec, because thats the whole raison d'etre thats kept it relevant. And there is no real alternative unless we see 3 teams with 5 cars each
F1 as a spec series and say all the innovation on aero, and the engine makers etc will start saying they dont want to make hybrids but electric to be more relevant, and then depending where FE is ICEs will vanish

[CookinFlat6]

things get more interesting.

Merc has offered all the other makers a standardised version of its Hybrid system. this is calling the bluff of Horner who said previously that simpler engines and standardised Ers components was the way forward. As no one would want a statdardised Renault or Ferrari ERS it makes sense that Merc offer theirs. So far no response from Ferrari or Horner

It also has come out that Merc offered to allow relaxation of the freeze as long as Ferrari and Red Bull agreed to a more equitable distribution of FOM income to the smaller teams. Both Ferrari and Red Bull rejected this and this is why Horner has gone quiet on this.

Finally Bernie recently claimed that he was going to propose a return to NA V8s at todays (18th) strategy group meeting for 2016. He also admitted that the FIA wouldnt be on his side, and a host of other ridiculous things like the noise and that an engineer told him it wouldnt be expensive to use the old engines. The most ridiculous bunch of toss that makes you wonder what he could be up to http://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2014/ ... million/2/

And what do we hear on today on Thursday the 18th? Anything about the meeting? nope, anything about old petrol engines being voted by a side that have no majority? Noope

We do hear that CVC have reappointed Bernie to the board of the top company

Well fancy that!!! lets hope everyone understands the reason for claiming a return to V8s was feasible, lets hope we are no longer subjected to bernies useful idiots telling us how F1 is no good without the V10s

[The Second Coming]

Interesting reading, Cook'n. Our Bernie is a right pillock! Go back to the old engines...don't have to make new ones, just use the old?! SERIOUSLY? Then as soon as the cars roll out in Melbourne you can expect to hear him ripping the teams because this is no longer the pinnacle of motorsports if we're using 4 year old engines. Prat!

[CookinFlat6]

Oh but Bernie is anything but dumb, he knows there is no way in hell of bringing back old engines for 2016 yet achieved his real aim by pretending he was serious about it. CVC seem to have reinstated him to the board. Even though CVC probably realised that not even real fans would be stupid enough to actually think he was serious, but they also realised that it could cause a frisson of misguided excitement and therefore negative connotations amongst the less knowledgeable and shallow casual viewers and affect any future IPO, and so to shut him up they have had to cave in on trying to replace him.
So we wont hear anymore about the old engines as Bernie, like Horner had ulterior motives for stirring up the 'passion' amongst casual viewers in the same way luca used to. And in an ironic turn, Luca has also been given a place within the F1 management
It would be sad if ""casual"" viewers continued to cling on to these mantras not realising that they have served their purpose.
The general consensus now seems to be that Merc will run riot till at least 2018, which could mean Lewis leaves Merc with 6 titles at his peak age

[myownalias]

F1 as a spec series and say all the innovation on aero, and the engine makers etc will start saying they dont want to make hybrids but electric to be more relevant, and then depending where FE is ICEs will vanish

Electric powered cars are so not relevant today, what's the point of having an electric car if you need to have a second gasoline powered car for when you want to travel more than 100 miles? If F1 wants to look towards the future, then hydrogen powered cars is the way to go, but for now hybrid gives you the best of both worlds, I don't see the ICE going away anytime soon!

[CookinFlat6]

Electric cars are relevant today, they are just not as practical and cheap as they will become. The car manufacturers are all in on electric, and see the near future as electric. We have had an indepth convo about the benefits of electric vs others on the Tesla thread. Hydrogen is not preferred above electric for the simple reason of having to build distribution infrastructure and its bulky and heavy with its protective stuff. Transporting compressed gas is not a lot of fun and will be seen as primitive as ICe in future.
Electric promises to give transport that doesnt need a grid or distribution. In the near future cars will be fully charged quickly anywhere you have solar panels, there is even the technology to charge the battery as you stop at the lights by dangling a wire along the ground etc - or eventually have the car body itself acting as a solar sink

people need to see beyond our fossil fuel centered life and realise that we must discard it completely and embrace a new way, unfortunately a lot of policy makers cant project their vision beyond a car that has to be fueled by a major company digging up the earth. Apart from the small fact that driving around in ICE cars is not sustainable for the next 20 years or so - climate change is real and is mostly caused unnecessarily by burning fossil fuels for fuel - That will increasingly become the driver for moving to electric or some other zero ongoing emission solution whether its as cheap and convenient as burning the remains of our ancestors for fuel or not.

its fairly selfish IMHO for people to completely forget the environmental drivers for switching from ICE and to keep their heads stuck in the sand while the 'freak' weather patterns increase exponentially and we see soil erosion, everyone with asthma, trees dying etc because people are too lazy to walk or pay a bit more for electric cars - they dont want to be inconvenienced and so they start believing the oil lobby claims that there is no climate change

Anyway what matters is that the manufacturers have already done the homework and electric it is and a lot sooner than we expect The only thing holding this back is the oil lobby and their pet politicians, the car makers are on 'our' side, not because they want to help save the world or mankind etc - but because they can cut out the gas station, and instead of us spending multiples of the cars price on expensive and dangerously wasteful carbon emitting fuel, we can drive for pennies and spend the money on thier car accessories instead

[myownalias]

I disagree, electric cars have been around for 20 years now and we still don't have anything affordable with any decent range and fast charging destroys the batteries, that's if you can find a fast charging station in the first place. Until a car maker actually finds a way to self charge the batteries from recovery systems, it will never work because you will always need a second gasoline powered car every time you want to go out of town. Hybrids make perfect sense because it becomes it's own charging station, I doubt an electric road car will have the capability to use enough of it's own momentum to constantly recharge itself, unless we end up with a milk float with a top speed of 29mph!

I just don't see electric cars as the future of motoring, 20 years of progress and we still can only manage 200 miles and that's only if you can afford to buy a Tesla. I'm not going to be giving up my ICE for electric just to be ecologically friendly, it has to be practical and have the performance a midsize car for me to even consider the switch.