Bernie. Engines. Again.
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
The way to limit costs would be to keep a stable engine formula. That way, manufacturers would be more willing to invest in designing power plants and offering them for sale at a reasonable price.
Indeed. Which is exactly what Mercedes' beef is. They have poured a humongous amount of money into a new engine formula that is meant to be stable and frozen for the foreseeable future. Then one year in, people are talking about changing it. No wonder they are resistant to the idea! I remember going to WSC, WRC and F1 in this country in the middle 80s to 91. Whilst gates were lower at WSC than F1, the stands were still packed. I remember having a great deal of trouble getting away from Brands one year, when the two Merc C9s (?) collided at Clearways early on, due to the numbers.
I remember the Mercs going into Paddock and diving for the inside when overtaking the smaller GT cars. The speed differential was stunning. The year Jaguar won Le Mans there was a tremendous following for WSC.
Ecclestone, with support from Mosley in his FISA role, pushed for changes to the formula when enthusiasm for it was at its height, forcing 3.5 naturally aspirated V8s from F1 on the sport. The justification for this was cost cutting. The grid dropped alarmingly due to the dramatically increase in costs. Mind you, who could have predicted that? I mean, apart from the commentators, the teams themselves and the manufacturers.
It was almost as if Ecclestone saw the emerging enthusiasm for WSC as a threat to F1 and wanted it neutralised.
What WSC shows is that changes, no matter how, er, well intentioned they are, cost. If things are left alone with the only small changes being brought in to deal with a specific problem, then the sport, be it F1 or WSC, will look after itself. It also shows that a whole formula can be destroyed by those who meddle, for whatever reason.
I remember the Mercs going into Paddock and diving for the inside when overtaking the smaller GT cars. The speed differential was stunning. The year Jaguar won Le Mans there was a tremendous following for WSC.
Ecclestone, with support from Mosley in his FISA role, pushed for changes to the formula when enthusiasm for it was at its height, forcing 3.5 naturally aspirated V8s from F1 on the sport. The justification for this was cost cutting. The grid dropped alarmingly due to the dramatically increase in costs. Mind you, who could have predicted that? I mean, apart from the commentators, the teams themselves and the manufacturers.
It was almost as if Ecclestone saw the emerging enthusiasm for WSC as a threat to F1 and wanted it neutralised.
What WSC shows is that changes, no matter how, er, well intentioned they are, cost. If things are left alone with the only small changes being brought in to deal with a specific problem, then the sport, be it F1 or WSC, will look after itself. It also shows that a whole formula can be destroyed by those who meddle, for whatever reason.
Derek Smith said:
The way to limit costs would be to keep a stable engine formula. That way, manufacturers would be more willing to invest in designing power plants and offering them for sale at a reasonable price.
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.
I'd love for there to be that option. One nice thing I remember from Finnish "folk racing" is that you have to sell your car for a certain amount of money if you are asked - I wonder if a variation on that rule could come in? A requirement for engines to be sold for say $5m per season to anyone who asked. That would stop Mercedes running away with development if they had to supply the whole privateer grid below cost, and would make it much easier for privateers to have good cars. 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.
ash73 said:
If you freeze it by definition the technology is old hat within a couple of years, is that what F1 is about? And whichever team is ahead stays ahead; Lewis versus Nico for the next 5 years with everyone else 1.5 secs down the road. Brilliant.
I'm not sure that my post advocated a freeze on development, just a stable formula. I would point out that the reason one car is so much faster than any other is that the formula has changed. My point is to ensure that the speed, or lap time differential, is much lower than it is now.
If we have persistent change, then by your argument, technology in F1 will always be old hat as the changes have a run in at best of 18mths.
What F1 is about is racing. The only reason this season wasn't a disaster was because Merc allowed their two drivers to race.
You cannot ignore the fact that change to engine regulations costs. We've had persistent changes to engine regs over recent years and the one thing that it hasn't done is make the racing more exciting. In the days of the stable 3-litre formula we had V8s and V12s. Small teams could compete with the big guys. Whilst there was not always a full grid, nowadays the format has changed and the belief is that if costs were lowered, there would be a queue, perhaps back to the need for prequalifying as there was a few years ago.
davepoth said:
I'd love for there to be that option. One nice thing I remember from Finnish "folk racing" is that you have to sell your car for a certain amount of money if you are asked - I wonder if a variation on that rule could come in? A requirement for engines to be sold for say $5m per season to anyone who asked. That would stop Mercedes running away with development if they had to supply the whole privateer grid below cost, and would make it much easier for privateers to have good cars.
It's such a British thing to hate a winner. Mercedes produced the best engine for the 2014 regulations, to rules that said that there was very little scope for iteration, then everyone else moans that "oh it's so unfair" and paints Mercedes as the bad guys for objecting to the rules being changed. Fact is that the recent rules are fecking ridiculous. One shot at getting it right then like it or lump it. On cost grounds? What a joke. But everyone signed up to that. It's no use b
hing about it afterwards. The biggest joke is that these new regs were steam-rollered in on the excuse of cost cutting. If they'd really wanted to cut costs they would have frozen the V8s for the next 10 years.
Fact is, a metric arseload of money has been spent on the 2014 engines and it would make a mockery of it all if we abandoned them after only a year. Yes, they do sound a bit crap, but they are technological marvels (and let's not forget that F1 is all about the technology) and they are bang on message for the current fad of hybrids and eco-bkry.
kry. JonRB said:
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.
I believe the big motorhomes/brandcentres/energy stations/big red thingies are all road transported to European races. At flyaways the teams are provided with accommodation. There was a nice piece last year(?) about McLaren's logistics (maybe youtube). The motorhomes largely stay on the road during the European season going from one race to the next. 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.
suffolk009 said:
I believe the big motorhomes/brandcentres/energy stations/big red thingies are all road transported to European races. At flyaways the teams are provided with accommodation. There was a nice piece last year(?) about McLaren's logistics (maybe youtube). The motorhomes largely stay on the road during the European season going from one race to the next.
Ah right. That makes more sense. Thanks!Its a little bit amusing to see the new engines being defended after a years worth of whining and complaining about them on here.
Remember Bernie never wanted new engines and was against it from the start, so he's just having a little pop. However, he does always have a reason for speaking up, which we probably aren't aware of. Maybe a promoter has been giving him a bit of stick, this is his way of saying "Well I've otld them but I can't o anything about it".
Remember Bernie never wanted new engines and was against it from the start, so he's just having a little pop. However, he does always have a reason for speaking up, which we probably aren't aware of. Maybe a promoter has been giving him a bit of stick, this is his way of saying "Well I've otld them but I can't o anything about it".
Crafty_ said:
Its a little bit amusing to see the new engines being defended after a years worth of whining and complaining about them on here.
I think it's not so much defending the engines, as saying that a stload of money was spent developing them on the understanding that it was a long-term investment. Although I'm still convinced it was the right way to go in order to head all the ecomentalists off at the pass - after all, what could be more "right on" than a hybrid? 
Crafty_ said:
Remember Bernie never wanted new engines and was against it from the start, so he's just having a little pop. However, he does always have a reason for speaking up, which we probably aren't aware of.
Bernie wants to devalue F1 so he can buy it back again cheaply and make a profit. He only cares about money, nothing else. I doubt its that simple, he could be far more destructive to F1 to lower its value, but he does not. The theory doesn't hold up imho.
If he wanted to lower its value he could sign race deals for next to nothing and leave everyone to struggle, or orchestrate it so that CVC don't make any money. Then he could swoop in and buy it dirt cheap, proclaim a new dawn and then increase its value again. If anyone is smart enough to do this it is Bernie.
But he doesn't do any of this.
He's just having a pop and at the same time positioning himself so he can say "Don't blame me mate". Several times in interviews this year he got a few minutes of TV time and would say that "we aren't delivering what we promised to the promoter" - the engine noise is no good and so on. As he doesn't (officially) have any say of regulations he can put the blame elsewhere. He's got a real bee in his bonnet (pun not intended) about these engines, so any chance he gets he sticks the knife in.
If he wanted to lower its value he could sign race deals for next to nothing and leave everyone to struggle, or orchestrate it so that CVC don't make any money. Then he could swoop in and buy it dirt cheap, proclaim a new dawn and then increase its value again. If anyone is smart enough to do this it is Bernie.
But he doesn't do any of this.
He's just having a pop and at the same time positioning himself so he can say "Don't blame me mate". Several times in interviews this year he got a few minutes of TV time and would say that "we aren't delivering what we promised to the promoter" - the engine noise is no good and so on. As he doesn't (officially) have any say of regulations he can put the blame elsewhere. He's got a real bee in his bonnet (pun not intended) about these engines, so any chance he gets he sticks the knife in.
Crafty_ said:
If he wanted to lower its value he could sign race deals for next to nothing and leave everyone to struggle, or orchestrate it so that CVC don't make any money. Then he could swoop in and buy it dirt cheap, proclaim a new dawn and then increase its value again. If anyone is smart enough to do this it is Bernie.
Or perhaps he could have 19/20 races so upping the costs for smaller teams. He could put races in countries which bid the highest but otherwise have no interest in the sport. He could run races where soldiers have to be bussed in to fill the stands. He could remove races from countries with massive interest in the sport, merely because they have no need to make out they are democracies. He could make it so that young fans are priced out of races, so risking the future of the sport.He could look bemused, so worry investors. He could, for instance, get confused by revolving doors, say things that were shocking 30 years ago and nowadays just make everyone cringe. He could look as if he was on his last legs.
Or perhaps he could make people worry about his probity by, maybe, admitting that he paid a person money to keep quiet about illegal tax procedures, or maybe pay forfeit, as high as a large fortune to most, to drop a civil action. He could make it so that the EU could mention a certain disquiet about the financial situation in the sport.
Most especially I would ensure that there was no succession planning. In fact I would ensure that anyone with any sense would avoid having anything to do with the management of F1.
If I was going to bring down the value of the sport to the extent that CVC were unable to sell it, that’s what I’d do. So we can all see what Ecclestone wants.
Crafty_ said:
Its a little bit amusing to see the new engines being defended after a years worth of whining and complaining about them on here.
It's not the engines (I still think they sound awful) but the idea of throwing $50m down the drain and starting again for new engines that still won't sound as good or be as cheap as what went before. suffolk009 said:
I'm not a betting man, but I suspect that if the regs are changed so drastically and so quickly that the manufacturers will all pull out and no new ones will arrive.
And not before the lawyers have had a field day too. The engine manufactures have spend a metric arseload of money on developing these engines. And they did so on the understanding that it was a long term investment on a stable engine formula. Inertiatic said:
Bernie is just trying to devalue his own sport. Why? Dastardly or Senile?
it isn't "his" sport.There is a company called Delta Topco that owns FOM, who own the rights. The majority shareholder is an investment company called CVC Partners. There are a few other shareholders, one of which is Bernie, I think he has something like 10%.
The theory is that CVC want to sell their share / float FOM on the stockmarket.
The tinfoil hat theory is that Bernie wants to buy it back, so is apparently trying to devalue it, so he cant buy it back cheaper.
I think its a load of b
ks, but to some people Bernie is an incarnation of the devil/stalin/hitler/pol pot all rolled in to one, so keep repeating this theory for some reason.Crafty_ said:
it isn't "his" sport.
There is a company called Delta Topco that owns FOM, who own the rights. The majority shareholder is an investment company called CVC Partners. There are a few other shareholders, one of which is Bernie, I think he has something like 10%.
The theory is that CVC want to sell their share / float FOM on the stockmarket.
The tinfoil hat theory is that Bernie wants to buy it back, so is apparently trying to devalue it, so he cant buy it back cheaper.
I think its a load of bks, but to some people Bernie is an incarnation of the devil/stalin/hitler/pol pot all rolled in to one, so keep repeating this theory for some reason.
I think Ecclestone has suggested he might take a bigger investment in CVC. That said, this might well be something that he has just spouted off and might not be based on anything other than having nothing else to say. So perhaps no tinfoil hat required. There is a company called Delta Topco that owns FOM, who own the rights. The majority shareholder is an investment company called CVC Partners. There are a few other shareholders, one of which is Bernie, I think he has something like 10%.
The theory is that CVC want to sell their share / float FOM on the stockmarket.
The tinfoil hat theory is that Bernie wants to buy it back, so is apparently trying to devalue it, so he cant buy it back cheaper.
I think its a load of b
ks, but to some people Bernie is an incarnation of the devil/stalin/hitler/pol pot all rolled in to one, so keep repeating this theory for some reason.Further, I think that CVC wanting to float the rights is more than a theory. Their problem is/was Ecclestone. They might well have to think of another way to realise their assets as, while Ecclestone sits there, some investors are wary.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff