Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
If you fancy an insecure job in education I am willing to consider a swap.
Sorry, I think we agree but I'm not being clear enough. I don't think that engine suppliers have a random cost at all, but rather that the cost cannot be avoided. It isn't discretionary no matter what the cost. Rather, it is fixed at the known amount, but it cannot be reduced.
Development such as aero, however painful, IS discretionary. It is variable. If a team has £100 million income, and £20 million goes on engines, the remainder (I'm generalising here but hopefully it will still make a point) is discretionary to different degrees. Staff can be cut, development can be paired back.
Teams cannot make a decision on the cost of their engines - that's always been the way. The point I'm trying, poorly it seems, is that when that no option cost increases it really does impact the other discretionary investment available within the team. Third time lucky, I'll leave it now
I get your point.
But hey, at least its a stable set of regulations and a stable cost that the teams can work with.... oh no wait, seems Bernie's suggestion has at least spurred a working group to draw up proposals for another new engine for 2016. Apparently F1 needs 1000bhp NA engines using more fuel...
Nothing like progress!
But hey, at least its a stable set of regulations and a stable cost that the teams can work with.... oh no wait, seems Bernie's suggestion has at least spurred a working group to draw up proposals for another new engine for 2016. Apparently F1 needs 1000bhp NA engines using more fuel...
Nothing like progress!
Nope, can't do that. I've been told, many a time - can't spend money on developing engines. You *can* spend the same kind of cash that could fund a small nuclear war on a new kind of bendy wing, but not engines. No, nothing remotely road or manufacturer relevant.
*sigh*
No other engine rules whatsoever?
Well this conversation has spurred from a desire by some people to throw the new, incredibly road relevant and technologically impressive engines in the bin, and replace them with inefficient multi cylinder NA race units. So... make your mind up
. Maybe an I4 would be more relevant... hmm.Plus, you love it really
.
Last edited:
Well this conversation has spurred from a desire by some people to throw the new, incredibly road relevant and technologically impressive engines in the bin, and replace them with inefficient multi cylinder NA race units. So... make your mind up
Plus, you love it really
You know my thoughts - let them have some freedom with cylinder layout, maybe build in an equivalent N/A engine formula, hell let 'em build a diseasel or gas turbine.
Give the manufacturers something to tell the shareholders "here's where the money's going - development!'.
That exists. Its called ACO LMP1-H.
It's brilliant, but it is just 3 (4) teams that account for about only 15% of the field in WEC. So while its working brilliantly there spearheading the series, sustaining an entire field of 20+ cars using that same regulation format might be a stretch.
I'm totally with you on the aero stuff though, but you can't change a formula that doesn't want to be changed. Recently I've been converted to thinking customer chassis are the future.
Yep, that's a huge part of the problem.
They certainly should be allowed.
Do you think the big players would be more open to selling chassis than they have been to budget caps?
We haven't really had many teams take a stance on it, they are more keen on complaining about engines. It's hardly an off the wall idea, it used to be the standard thing in F1, and RBR did it with Toro Rosso only recently.
We haven't really had many teams take a stance on it, they are more keen on complaining about engines. It's hardly an off the wall idea, it used to be the standard thing in F1, and RBR did it with Toro Rosso only recently.
I know Williams were dead against customer cars and have refused any attempt to change that in the past. They say that the 'Constructor' term in the rules is plain and simple. You must construct your own car, not buy the chassis from elsewhere. Obviously that doesn't stretch to Gearboxes etc. which some teams buy from other teams. Whether Claire will be more open once her Dad retires and she takes over the team is another thing though.
Yep, the same Frank Williams that started out in F1 by running a customer Brabham for Piers Courage in '69, followed by a de Tomaso and a couple of March cars, is dead against anyone else getting into F1 that way.
Easy enough to sort, of course. No constructors points if you buy your chassis in. Separate Teams championship that everyone is eligible for. Then of course you get to see if a customer team has beaten the works cars, which is usually good for a laugh!
Easy enough to sort, of course. No constructors points if you buy your chassis in. Separate Teams championship that everyone is eligible for. Then of course you get to see if a customer team has beaten the works cars, which is usually good for a laugh!
Before you even think of customer chassis, you've got to let the 3 engine makers sell to whom they want. And that's never going to happen.
But if it did happen which chassis\engine would everyone go for? yep Merc. So 2 Ferrari's, 2 Renaults and the rest Merc.
But if it did happen which chassis\engine would everyone go for? yep Merc. So 2 Ferrari's, 2 Renaults and the rest Merc.
You're assuming that Mercedes would even want to make a customer chassis, let alone sell it to all and sundry.
Customer cars being allowed means that a firm like Lola could get (back) into F1 - they would be able to offer cars and technical support to existing teams. It's not immediately going to lead to the top team of the day suddenly building cars for ¾ of the grid.
Who's going to buy an unproven chassis? that's right no one.
You need points to stay alive in F1 and you won't get any points with a crap chassis.
And where is lola going to get a top notch engine from? have they got £150 mil spare to invest.
Not even Cosworth have that kind of money to throw away on a could sell deal.
You can let half the world sell chassis to F1, it doesn't mean people will buy them.
But if they're offered the best that's going they will. That's good business sense.
Last edited:
I think you have missed the point deuse. The chassis is entirely separate to the engine. With the standard engine mounts you should be able to chop and change.
So buying a chassis from a supplier doesn't mean buying an engine from them too. You could have chassis manufacturers who don't run their own teams or compete in F1, like Renault do with engines.
Also, what makes you think engine suppliers aren't able to sell engines too who they want? And for teams like Caterham and Marussia, buying any chassis from any other team is going to result in a better car than they built themselves at enourmous, company ending costs over the last 5 years.
And MissCheif, I can see Williams point. Teams like Williams and Sauber exist only as F1 teams, of which the only part they produce is the chassis. Removing the requirement to build chassis would remove the main part of their workforce. But, I'd happily see a few customer teams reduce in size if it increased the competitiveness on the grid. And what's to say Williams wouldn't become a leading chassis manufacturer supplying 2 or 3 teams?
So buying a chassis from a supplier doesn't mean buying an engine from them too. You could have chassis manufacturers who don't run their own teams or compete in F1, like Renault do with engines.
Also, what makes you think engine suppliers aren't able to sell engines too who they want? And for teams like Caterham and Marussia, buying any chassis from any other team is going to result in a better car than they built themselves at enourmous, company ending costs over the last 5 years.
And MissCheif, I can see Williams point. Teams like Williams and Sauber exist only as F1 teams, of which the only part they produce is the chassis. Removing the requirement to build chassis would remove the main part of their workforce. But, I'd happily see a few customer teams reduce in size if it increased the competitiveness on the grid. And what's to say Williams wouldn't become a leading chassis manufacturer supplying 2 or 3 teams?
Last edited:
Allowing 1 car teams has the same issue as allowing 3 car teams in that it skews the constructors championship.
The liveries have to only be "broadly similar", not identical, so cars can carry driver specific sponsors. But totally different liveries like in NASCAR are out.
The liveries have to only be "broadly similar", not identical, so cars can carry driver specific sponsors. But totally different liveries like in NASCAR are out.