Bernie. Engines. Again.
Discussion
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12472/9610936/be...
Isnt it about time the old fool crawlwd under a rock & hibernated?
Another engine change would create more hassle than help!
Isnt it about time the old fool crawlwd under a rock & hibernated?
Another engine change would create more hassle than help!
Bernie said:
I believe if you got everybody in the room, secret ballot, there would only be one company interested in retaining this engine, and that is Mercedes. You can't blame them because they have done a super job, and the others haven't, so they've a big advantage.
"Is that good for Formula 1? I think not, because we can all put our money together and have a wager they will win the championship next year, and probably the year after, which is not really the sort of thing we are looking for.
Hang on. Red Bull won the thing four times on the bounce."Is that good for Formula 1? I think not, because we can all put our money together and have a wager they will win the championship next year, and probably the year after, which is not really the sort of thing we are looking for.
rhysenna said:
Is there any reason why Mercedes couldn't go and compete in the WEC?
Not really, there is questions over their reliability though. Would it last 24 hours? Would it be as good as the purpose built Audi/Porsche/Toyota engines that are built to much less restrictive rules. 1000hp from the Toyota remember.
Edited by RobGT81 on Thursday 18th December 11:34
hornetrider said:
Bernie said:
I believe if you got everybody in the room, secret ballot, there would only be one company interested in retaining this engine, and that is Mercedes. You can't blame them because they have done a super job, and the others haven't, so they've a big advantage.
"Is that good for Formula 1? I think not, because we can all put our money together and have a wager they will win the championship next year, and probably the year after, which is not really the sort of thing we are looking for.
Hang on. Red Bull won the thing four times on the bounce."Is that good for Formula 1? I think not, because we can all put our money together and have a wager they will win the championship next year, and probably the year after, which is not really the sort of thing we are looking for.
The thing I find hard to stomach is the way the sport talks of controlling costs as if there isn't enough money in F1. There is an unbelievable amount of money in F1. However, the way it is distributed does need looking at seriously.
Europa1 said:
hornetrider said:
Hang on. Red Bull won the thing four times on the bounce.
Indeed, and his solution to that was double points at the last race, which thankfully has been binned.Bernie also wasn't best pleased that Red Bull won 4 years in a row.
He also didn't suggest double points for the last race. He suggested double points for the last 3 races in order to reduce the possibility of someone like Vettel winning the championship with 4 races to go. That it ended up being only the final race was a decision taken by the World Motor Sport Council and one that he thought ridiculous. The WMSC is a FIA committee made up of national FIA delegates.
Edited by Agent Orange on Thursday 18th December 13:15
Another attempt by Bernie to devalue F1 so he can buy it back on the cheap from CVC. I really hope if he happens to get away with this that Mercedes do stop immediately, and sue whoever it would be for changing rules which have been agreed for a long period (is it until 2019?) for all their development costs. Eight cars off the grid for the first race should give Bernie something to think about.
I don't actually believe that Renault would support this anyway, they haven't complained as far as I'm aware. It has just been Christian Moaner doing so on his own behalf whilst trying to imply he is spokesperson for Renault. And with the LaFerrari having hybrid power, the California already a turbo and the 458 going that way next year the current formula has more relevance to them than an NA one.
And finally McLaren will also be off the grid because Honda haven't got an engine to go back to.
I don't actually believe that Renault would support this anyway, they haven't complained as far as I'm aware. It has just been Christian Moaner doing so on his own behalf whilst trying to imply he is spokesperson for Renault. And with the LaFerrari having hybrid power, the California already a turbo and the 458 going that way next year the current formula has more relevance to them than an NA one.
And finally McLaren will also be off the grid because Honda haven't got an engine to go back to.
V10's would be good..
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/12/12/f1-fanatic-r...
I still can't see a return to NA happening, but I can't say that I disagree with him.
I don't see why people are surprised. He has always been against the new engines and it's not very often he doesn't get his own way!
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/12/12/f1-fanatic-r...
I still can't see a return to NA happening, but I can't say that I disagree with him.
I don't see why people are surprised. He has always been against the new engines and it's not very often he doesn't get his own way!
ash73 said:
Just give them 100 litres of fuel and let them design whatever engine they like. And get rid of the freeze so other teams can catch up, it's ridiculous.
Yes, the cost would be. Ridiculous that is. And if one engine was way better than any other then even MORE money would need to be spent playing catch up.Europa1 said:
The thing I find hard to stomach is the way the sport talks of controlling costs as if there isn't enough money in F1. There is an unbelievable amount of money in F1. However, the way it is distributed does need looking at seriously.
Exactly so. And not only that, but the operating costs that the smaller teams incur is actually greater than for the bigger teams, as the latter have their air freight paid for as part of their perks package for WCC points.
Personally I think that the millions that teams pay for entry fees to F1 should include a proportion of free air freight as part of what you get for your money. Perhaps x number of square feet per team - enough so that the smaller teams can transport pretty much all they need but the bigger teams need to pay to transport their mahoosive motorhomes / hospitality centres.
MissChief said:
ash73 said:
Just give them 100 litres of fuel and let them design whatever engine they like. And get rid of the freeze so other teams can catch up, it's ridiculous.
Yes, the cost would be. Ridiculous that is. And if one engine was way better than any other then even MORE money would need to be spent playing catch up.The Ford DFV is a case in point. It was a simple enough design and helped provide some classic racing. Teams could buy one virtually off the shelf, provide decent chassis, aero, driver and back up and they were in with a chance.
I'm not suggesting going back to those regs. Indeed they were exploited by the rich manufacturers in order to entertain the crowd with record-breaking qually cars and loud bangs during the race. However, a regulation that allows engines to be built cheaply seems to be the obvious solution.
A petrol consumption forumla has been tried in the past, both in F1 and in WSC. 7-litre n/a engines competed with 3.5 turbos and it was fun. But it wasn't a free for all, but was still mightily expensive.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff