Motorsport Off Topic Thread

Lets be honest. Bernie likes it that way as it adds to the drama and keeps F1 in the headlines and the $$$ heading into his money vault so that he can covet it.

Frankly it's just annoying. The finances are bent. The politics are bent. F1 deserves to almost fail so they can clear the decks and go back to basics.

Only 5 months until the BTCC media day, and some proper racing. :)
 
That article is all rather doom and gloom and seems to be all about how bad it is that Booth and Lowden are leaving, suggesting the teams dead without them.

With Mercedes engines and Williams gearboxes, zero debt, guaranteed income for a few years and a chassis they have had a year to focus on building, the future is bright for Manor. Losing a couple of top guys is not the end of the world.

What's next for Manor? A new guy in charge with knowledge and experience of F1 and then a season of battling Sauber for points, hopefully.
 
Booth and Lowden are the heart and soul of the team. If they leave and their core guys follow it's just another bought out F1 team trading in name only.

Once the money runs out they're another Caterham, unless we magically get a cost cap.
 
Yeah, look at that other bought out team that just went on to do nothing after the guy who was the heart, soul and saviour of the team left... Brawn.

People get far to attached to the sentimentality of long term owners. In reality those teams that cling on to tradition or certain leadership and ownership are the ones falling down the grid (Sauber, Williams).

Without knowing who is taking over Manor, how is everyone so convinced its a bad move? Both Carlin and Prodrive have been mentioned in reports about the team, and they are both pretty successful in what they do. Booth and Loweden have hardly set the world alight with Manor over the last 5 years, this could be the start of a bright new future.

I suppose its just a victim of F1 journalisms determination to make everything a negative story.
 
Really? I expect better from you Skeeter.

Ross Brawn had been in F1 for 30 years and worked his way up from the machine shop to being a technical director.

Fitzpatrick owns an Energy company.

Hell, I'm probably more qualified.
 
With Booth and Lowdon leavingthere isn't much point it keeping the Manor team name... Could potentially have another team name change for next year.

I think it's a real shame that they have left but it doesn't necessarily mean the team is in trouble.
 
MagicBoy said:
Really? I expect better from you Skeeter.

Ross Brawn had been in F1 for 30 years and worked his way up from the machine shop to being a technical director.

Fitzpatrick owns an Energy company.

Hell, I'm probably more qualified.
Click to expand...

I think you've missunderstood.

I'm refering to Brawn selling the team to a faceless giant corporation (Mercedes) and then leaving after basically saving them, and the fact they then went on to be double champions 2 years in a row.

Clinging onto people because of tradition or sentiment can hold you back. Minardi have gone on to perform better as STR. I doubt Jordan would have been as successfully as Force India now are (ignoring that odd Midland and Spyker period). Red Bull were Stewart. Sauber were pretty good when they were BMW.

What I'm saying is saying its all doom and gloom because a couple of the key foundation stones of the team are leaving is missing the point. History shows that change can be good.
 
Seems I did. I'll agree change can be good, however in this instance :
1) It's not longer Manor GP once the founder of 25 years resigns. The act of resignation is the statement.
2) Fitzpatrick doesn't understand F1. Bernie will eat him for breakfast.

As for Brawn and Mercedes, different thing entirely. I'm prepared to reconsider when a large motor manufacturer with decades of motorsport history decide to buy Manor and throw unlimited funds at them.
 
Well they are technically still called Marussia so the names hardly a big issue. We have a team called Lotus on the grid who never received a penny from Lotus Cars too.

In this instance you have to hope that someone competent takes over running the team, and with Prodrive and Carlin being thrown about as names, that doesn't sound too unlikely.

At the end of the day, as long as the owner keeps funding them, it doesn't really matter what they do or don't know about F1.
 
I'm confused by the engine thing. Can anyone clear it up?

My understanding was that the FIA and WMC had approved plans to impose a cost cap on the V6 engines. However Ferrari have vetoed this. So in response the FIA have gone out to tender to get an alternative, single spec engine from an independent supplier that will be more powerfull than the V6s and use more fuel, while being considerably cheaper.

However, the talk on the Sky coverege is that what Ferrari have vetoed is actually this alternative independent engine idea in its entirety?
 
From what they were saying in FP, vetoed everything and pretty much every team where behind them, so carry on as we have the last two years.
I don't get fia, spen't all this money developing these amazing power units to just want to scrap them, hybrids are the immediate future. Nit N/A or even turbo on their own.
I still say you will never limit spending in F1 top teams wont agree to budget restrictions so they will spend there ~300million on something. So can we stop them spending it aero which is well understood and silly, and open up the power units and just make it that all teams have to have the latest engine spec from the manufacturer.

And what a difference a year makes, what happened to Ferrari hating these power units, calling them stupid and death to the sport. As always teams only say such rubbish when they're losing.
 
That wasn't my understanding.

Ferrari voted against a current engine cost cap which would have come in 2016. This vote needed unanimous approval due to the short time period.
In response the FIA and FOM are searching for an alternative engine supplier to meet a proposed 2.2L turbo V6, and will introduce it in 2017 as they don't need unanimous approval. Unfortunately, Jean Todt negotiated a veto for Ferrari (and only Ferrari) to any proposed rule change, when he was boss of Ferrari. This is what they're threatening to do to the alternative engine supply rule proposal, ironically vetoing one of Todt's rule changes.
 
Marvin said:
That wasn't my understanding.

Ferrari voted against a current engine cost cap which would have come in 2016. This vote needed unanimous approval due to the short time period.
In response the FIA and FOM are searching for an alternative engine supplier to meet a proposed 2.2L turbo V6, and will introduce it in 2017 as they don't need unanimous approval. Unfortunately, Jean Todt negotiated a veto for Ferrari (and only Ferrari) to any proposed rule change, when he was boss of Ferrari. This is what they're threatening to do to the alternative engine supply rule proposal, ironically vetoing one of Todt's rule changes.
Click to expand...

So are they vetoing the cost cap on the 1.6L V6s, or the cheap 2017 engines? Autosport says they did the former, and the 2017 engine is the FIAs alternative approach in response to being blocked. Sauber are against a 2017 cheap engine too according to Autosport.
 
Yep vetoed cost cap at 12mill. So fia are saying cheap 2.2l v6. Up to engine manufactures what they want to do, one or the other. So fia blatantly want these larger v6s as no way they can supply engines at that cost.
 
Part of me wonders if this is 'single spec engine attempt 2'.

If the 2017 engine is cheaper and more powerful than the 1.6L V6s then no team will want the current engines. Mercedes, Honda and Renault all leave, Ferrari hangs on building engines for just them and Haas, and the rest of the grid all use the same engine.

I'm not sure how legal that would be though. The current engines have been built by manufacturers expecting to sell them until 2019 at least. If they are forced out they may have a case to sue for loss of earnings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom