Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
'Michael Schumacher’s former engineer shares stories from his early years at Benetton'
http://www.foxsports.com.au/motor-s...ears-at-benetton/story-e6frf3zl-1227687027409
Great read.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/motor-s...ears-at-benetton/story-e6frf3zl-1227687027409
Great read.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 9,130
- Location
- Southampton, hopefully not too hot, or too cold
But some will say that while Redbull won four titles on the spin, at least two of them were not "dominating" wins in the drivers championship.
Without Googling, my hazy memory of the constructors championship in those four years is very much in line with what Mercedes have done for the last two seasons.
I think something needs to change in F1 rules and regulations, but sadly the teams (especially those that have been around for decades) seem to have far too much influence on any changes.
Without Googling, my hazy memory of the constructors championship in those four years is very much in line with what Mercedes have done for the last two seasons.
I think something needs to change in F1 rules and regulations, but sadly the teams (especially those that have been around for decades) seem to have far too much influence on any changes.
Steedie said:
Part of his point is that they (RBR) didn't dominate the way that Mercedes have done for two years. I've no love for Horner at all. Or any respect. Or indeed much in the way of anything resembling sympathy for him. But he is right about that.
It'd be nice if he offered something a bit more than 'we need a rules rejig' though. Because I suspect that any idea he has for a rejig involves whoever has the best engine right now handing it over to him
Red Bull (or more specifically, Vettel) dominated for a season and a half out of the 5 years they were in title contention. 2 of his titles went to the final race, and one (2010) Vettel only lead the championship once, at the end.
They had, at most, half a second advantage over the field. The Mercedes level of dominance is measured in seconds, and is way ahead of anything RBR had.
Under the butthurt though, Horner has a point. F1 is predictable, a single team have an advantage, and the rules look set to not change as the teams who are up the front hold all the power.
They had, at most, half a second advantage over the field. The Mercedes level of dominance is measured in seconds, and is way ahead of anything RBR had.
Under the butthurt though, Horner has a point. F1 is predictable, a single team have an advantage, and the rules look set to not change as the teams who are up the front hold all the power.
Who cares, the end result is the same and arguing about degrees of dominance is pointless.
Then maybe Horner and Red Bull should have shouted up about the problem back when they were "up the front". Oh wait no that wouldn't have made any sense would it?
He's a whining little ****.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Meh, they're all in it for themselves. I'm not a fan of Horner but he's no different from anyone else.
Red Bull had a period at the front when the engines were, to all intents and purposes similar, but it's now totally engine dominated (not for the first time of course - it's a large part of F1's history) but I can see his point. It's not a good time for F1 but every team is in it for themselves and F1 put itself in this mess.
He's been more vocal (to the English-speaking press anyway) but I'm guessing Ferrari were equally vocal in Italy and Spain last year, Renault and Honda will be next year and Mercedes would have been exactly the same if the roles had been reversed.
Like I said the engine situation isn't good for the sport (though I maintain I like the engine concept) but F1 put the blocks in place that are now keeping it from every solution.
Its not degrees of dominance, its dominance vs simply winning.
RBR dominated for 1.5 seasons.
Ferrari have now come out an flat admitted that they refused to supply RBR with engines as they didn't want to be beaten by them.
A team being able to pick and chose its competitors in any other sport would be called fixing.
F1 - sport or business?
If it's sport, then why should a team be forced to help out another one? You don't see anyone saying 'hey Leicester City, Aston Villa aren't doing too well right now, how about loaning them a few of your players at x price?'
If it's business, then how much sense does it make to force a company to sell their product to anyone at a fixed price that is (possibly) below cost? Shareholders are going to scream blue murder about that.
Doesn't really show confidence in their own kit if they are worried another team would get more out of it than themselves.
Why would they supply engines to a team they believe could build a better package than they could themselves?
Real Madrid would be highly unlikely to loan or sell Cristiano Ronaldo to Barcelona....
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
There's no alternative.
1) It turns into touring cars with an "equalisation" formula (horrible, horrible route to go down for many reasons, BTCC's power-rating only system being a good example, Renault's more fuel and weight efficient F1 V8 being another) but which will be vetoed.
2) Tokens, tokens everywhere. Which will never happen because Mercedes and Ferrari will veto any meaningful change.
3) New engine formula which won't happen any time soon because [see above and above]
We'll move onto a new engine tech/regs at some point before 2020, but I hope we don't have half a decade of stalemate in between like most of the 2000s was.
Am I happy with the current regulatory and supplier structure of F1? Nope.
The FIA should have all the rule-making power - no teams should have any say in it, beyond deciding if they want to field cars, and no suppliers should have any say in it, beyond deciding if they want to provide parts/technical support.
FOM's only roles should be getting the commercial deals in place to fund the prize pot and sorting out the TV rights.
The supplier structure....well, it's always worked well enough in the past. The problem isn't that structure per se, it's that not enough manufacturers want to be involved with the current ruleset. You can't have just four engines on the grid (well....three and a half, not sure if the Honda counts as a full engine!). I think customer cars should be allowed - obviously anyone running one not getting constructor points. And yes, a cheaper alternative engine (N/A, no energy recovery) that anyone can buy and use while they're getting started in the sport, or indeed buy and use after angering their original supplier by throwing them under a bus at every opportunity
And then open up the engine layout rules. Start a ******* arms race for horsepower, efficiency and reliability. Let the manufacturers build freaky gas turbine powered stuff if they want. Let's give those R&D budgets some kind of playground rather than a restrictive box that they all have to cram into.
The FIA should have all the rule-making power - no teams should have any say in it, beyond deciding if they want to field cars, and no suppliers should have any say in it, beyond deciding if they want to provide parts/technical support.
FOM's only roles should be getting the commercial deals in place to fund the prize pot and sorting out the TV rights.
The supplier structure....well, it's always worked well enough in the past. The problem isn't that structure per se, it's that not enough manufacturers want to be involved with the current ruleset. You can't have just four engines on the grid (well....three and a half, not sure if the Honda counts as a full engine!). I think customer cars should be allowed - obviously anyone running one not getting constructor points. And yes, a cheaper alternative engine (N/A, no energy recovery) that anyone can buy and use while they're getting started in the sport, or indeed buy and use after angering their original supplier by throwing them under a bus at every opportunity
And then open up the engine layout rules. Start a ******* arms race for horsepower, efficiency and reliability. Let the manufacturers build freaky gas turbine powered stuff if they want. Let's give those R&D budgets some kind of playground rather than a restrictive box that they all have to cram into.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Every single sport I can think of has most of the participants involved with running the sport. It's absurd to suggest that F1 shouldn't. It's absurd to suggest that a sport which requires multiple years of planning going into it and engines that require hundreds of millions to develop should be able to change direction without the participants involvement. It would almost instantly destroy the sport for the FIA to make decisions that the biggest teams don't agree with. It would see them leave, other big manufacturers would NOT replace them as they too would not want to be involved for the same reason. Investing hundreds of millions to at any point see the sport go against their needs and see them leave.
Opening up the engine regulations would see a dramatic and completely unsustainable engine cost increase. It would see the customer teams be entirely unable to afford engines remotely close to the same power the main teams are producing and with big changes every year you'd increase their year to year chassis/design costs to cope with ever changing engines.
FOM getting commercial deals involves making promises about which teams will be involved. You can't get X company to sign a deal for Y amount if you have a situation where 2 or 3 big teams might not work the next year because FIA randomly change rules and pee them all off.
Can't have just 4 engines on the grid.... really? So you want engine companies to have open regs so they change engines constantly at massive cost to be competitive but you want way more engines meaning less customers, meaning less money coming back in... who is that appealing to and for what? That leads to an almost certain unbeatable car every year based on engine alone, it would both increase costs per team, make customer teams so uncompetitive as to be worthless and create a huge chance for a huge dominant team every single year.
Opening up the engine regulations would see a dramatic and completely unsustainable engine cost increase. It would see the customer teams be entirely unable to afford engines remotely close to the same power the main teams are producing and with big changes every year you'd increase their year to year chassis/design costs to cope with ever changing engines.
FOM getting commercial deals involves making promises about which teams will be involved. You can't get X company to sign a deal for Y amount if you have a situation where 2 or 3 big teams might not work the next year because FIA randomly change rules and pee them all off.
Can't have just 4 engines on the grid.... really? So you want engine companies to have open regs so they change engines constantly at massive cost to be competitive but you want way more engines meaning less customers, meaning less money coming back in... who is that appealing to and for what? That leads to an almost certain unbeatable car every year based on engine alone, it would both increase costs per team, make customer teams so uncompetitive as to be worthless and create a huge chance for a huge dominant team every single year.
Am I happy with the current regulatory and supplier structure of F1? Nope.
The FIA should have all the rule-making power - no teams should have any say in it, beyond deciding if they want to field cars, and no suppliers should have any say in it, beyond deciding if they want to provide parts/technical support.
FOM's only roles should be getting the commercial deals in place to fund the prize pot and sorting out the TV rights.
The supplier structure....well, it's always worked well enough in the past. The problem isn't that structure per se, it's that not enough manufacturers want to be involved with the current ruleset. You can't have just four engines on the grid (well....three and a half, not sure if the Honda counts as a full engine!). I think customer cars should be allowed - obviously anyone running one not getting constructor points. And yes, a cheaper alternative engine (N/A, no energy recovery) that anyone can buy and use while they're getting started in the sport, or indeed buy and use after angering their original supplier by throwing them under a bus at every opportunity
And then open up the engine layout rules. Start a ******* arms race for horsepower, efficiency and reliability. Let the manufacturers build freaky gas turbine powered stuff if they want. Let's give those R&D budgets some kind of playground rather than a restrictive box that they all have to cram into.
If the FIA took back all the control of their own sport then they could quite easily force people to supply teams with engines. So your points in this post would solve the problems in your previous one.
The FIA have made this suggestion themselves about teams having to supply a minimum number of teams at a fixed price. Like you say, its then up to the teams to decide if they want to compete.
Constructor cars would see an abolition of the constructors championship and a return to a teams championship. Teams have to compete in a championship as that's where there monwg comes from. I've detailed it in previous posts and threads, but I see no issue in a Formula 1 where a team can rock up, buy Williams chassis, Ferrari engines, hire a couple of drivers and line up on the grid being competitive.
Some of the teams having all the power, rather than just a say, is the fundamental problem with F1. And the worst thing is, they did it to themselves.
Not sure that the engine manufacturers would be happy being forced to provide engines at below cost to the other teams though.