is F1 on its knees
Discussion
Yep, those were the days. Although this one is more 'recent history' ...
http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/49650
From 2006
Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone believes the change of regulations to a 2.4-litre V8 engine proved a very costly mistake - but he says the constructors have no one to blame but themselves.
All teams but Toro Rosso will race with a 2.4-litre V8 engine this season following changes in the regulations that were aimed at cutting costs and lowering speeds.
But Ecclestone says the same goals could have been achieved by limiting the revs on the existing V10 engines - in a similar way to what Toro Rosso are doing. And the Briton believes the new rule proved more costly than originally imagined.
"It's a rule I don't like," Ecclestone told Autosprint magazine. "It was not necessary either, because they could have reached the same objectives with the old 10-cylinder engines, by limiting their power.
"The new V8 engines cost a fortune, and the next step will be to limit their revs because they'll become too powerful. So they could have done the same thing immediately, by limiting the V10s. They would have saved plenty of money."
But Ecclestone emphasised the move to V8 was entirely up to the teams.
"There was a meeting in Monaco with all the teams, to discuss cost reductions, and things started going badly, because the prevailing idea was that by limiting the engine capacity by 20 per cent, there would have been a similar reduction in costs and power.
"It was total nonsense; no one analysed the problems in-depth. The constructors pledged to make the V8s, but only later they realised what costs they were about to face."
http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/49650
From 2006
Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone believes the change of regulations to a 2.4-litre V8 engine proved a very costly mistake - but he says the constructors have no one to blame but themselves.
All teams but Toro Rosso will race with a 2.4-litre V8 engine this season following changes in the regulations that were aimed at cutting costs and lowering speeds.
But Ecclestone says the same goals could have been achieved by limiting the revs on the existing V10 engines - in a similar way to what Toro Rosso are doing. And the Briton believes the new rule proved more costly than originally imagined.
"It's a rule I don't like," Ecclestone told Autosprint magazine. "It was not necessary either, because they could have reached the same objectives with the old 10-cylinder engines, by limiting their power.
"The new V8 engines cost a fortune, and the next step will be to limit their revs because they'll become too powerful. So they could have done the same thing immediately, by limiting the V10s. They would have saved plenty of money."
But Ecclestone emphasised the move to V8 was entirely up to the teams.
"There was a meeting in Monaco with all the teams, to discuss cost reductions, and things started going badly, because the prevailing idea was that by limiting the engine capacity by 20 per cent, there would have been a similar reduction in costs and power.
"It was total nonsense; no one analysed the problems in-depth. The constructors pledged to make the V8s, but only later they realised what costs they were about to face."
Edited by M3ax on Friday 17th April 14:54
chevronb37 said:
- Price to compete. The revenue available is disproportionate to the cost of entering. This is being exacerbated by the price of fielding a competitive car rising and the revenue available from advertising and TV reducing.
- Pay-TV. The move to Sky Sports (and equivalent elsewhere) was a big mistake in my opinion. This has contributed to declining viewing figures. With that comes a reluctance for companies to use F1 as an advertising platform, and hence the cycle becomes self-perpetuating.
- Attendance prices. I went to the US GP at Austin last year – at the price of £450 for a weekend grandstand ticket. For that, I had no paddock access and two support categories. I loved COTA and I loved the weekend but for the same price I was able to do an entire trip to the Spa 24 Hours two months previously. It is stupid, stupid money.
- Casting aside its heritage. To desert places like Germany in favour of Azerbaijan is insulting to us fans. F1 needs to retain its European heartland and supplement with a sprinkling of awesome, special races further afield. Relying on the whim of governments is a risky game and for a sport which trades so heavily on its heritage, moving to countries with zero racing history in favour of the likes of Germany seems to be unsustainable.
Good points there. The sport is all about money, and that's pushing people away and actually threatening to make less money from F1.- Pay-TV. The move to Sky Sports (and equivalent elsewhere) was a big mistake in my opinion. This has contributed to declining viewing figures. With that comes a reluctance for companies to use F1 as an advertising platform, and hence the cycle becomes self-perpetuating.
- Attendance prices. I went to the US GP at Austin last year – at the price of £450 for a weekend grandstand ticket. For that, I had no paddock access and two support categories. I loved COTA and I loved the weekend but for the same price I was able to do an entire trip to the Spa 24 Hours two months previously. It is stupid, stupid money.
- Casting aside its heritage. To desert places like Germany in favour of Azerbaijan is insulting to us fans. F1 needs to retain its European heartland and supplement with a sprinkling of awesome, special races further afield. Relying on the whim of governments is a risky game and for a sport which trades so heavily on its heritage, moving to countries with zero racing history in favour of the likes of Germany seems to be unsustainable.
Venues should not be making a loss to host these events, and the fans should not need loans to cover the cost to go see them live. It just means less venues, less fans and less money overall, seriously Bernie seems to almost be trying to kill it off at times.
Derek Smith said:
Indeed.
I'm concerned for the future. The BBC consider heritage so important that their intro titles are mostly the old days, right back to the origins of the WDC.
I can understand the short-termism, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. The sport is not on its knees but who can say who will even own it in the next couple of years? That's not going to encourage sponsors and other investors.
Like you, I enjoy all forms of motor racing. The last few seasons have been thoroughly exciting in the main, but for how much longer?
I don't mind pastures new, but we should have the historic European races. No French GP, no German GP, possibly no Italian rumours suggest. I can see just Monaco and a European GP soon. Would you invest is such a sport?
I've got a feeling that Monaco might be considered 'disposable' if Singapore can gain a long-term foothold. I was chatting to a someone from the marketing department of one of the big teams last year. She was telling me that most deals are done in Singapore now - and that's where the sponsors and VIPs want to be seen. I could foresee a time when we have just one or two European races, with the entire calendar being fairly rotational as different enterprises bid for races, hold them for a few years and then disappear again. I'm concerned for the future. The BBC consider heritage so important that their intro titles are mostly the old days, right back to the origins of the WDC.
I can understand the short-termism, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. The sport is not on its knees but who can say who will even own it in the next couple of years? That's not going to encourage sponsors and other investors.
Like you, I enjoy all forms of motor racing. The last few seasons have been thoroughly exciting in the main, but for how much longer?
I don't mind pastures new, but we should have the historic European races. No French GP, no German GP, possibly no Italian rumours suggest. I can see just Monaco and a European GP soon. Would you invest is such a sport?
M3ax said:
Yep, those were the days. Although this one is more 'recent history' ...
http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/49650
From 2006
Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone believes the change of regulations to a 2.4-litre V8 engine proved a very costly mistake - but he says the constructors have no one to blame but themselves.
All teams but Toro Rosso will race with a 2.4-litre V8 engine this season following changes in the regulations that were aimed at cutting costs and lowering speeds.
But Ecclestone says the same goals could have been achieved by limiting the revs on the existing V10 engines - in a similar way to what Toro Rosso are doing. And the Briton believes the new rule proved more costly than originally imagined.
"It's a rule I don't like," Ecclestone told Autosprint magazine. "It was not necessary either, because they could have reached the same objectives with the old 10-cylinder engines, by limiting their power.
"The new V8 engines cost a fortune, and the next step will be to limit their revs because they'll become too powerful. So they could have done the same thing immediately, by limiting the V10s. They would have saved plenty of money."
But Ecclestone emphasised the move to V8 was entirely up to the teams.
"There was a meeting in Monaco with all the teams, to discuss cost reductions, and things started going badly, because the prevailing idea was that by limiting the engine capacity by 20 per cent, there would have been a similar reduction in costs and power.
"It was total nonsense; no one analysed the problems in-depth. The constructors pledged to make the V8s, but only later they realised what costs they were about to face."
And in hindsight, he was spot on.http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/49650
From 2006
Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone believes the change of regulations to a 2.4-litre V8 engine proved a very costly mistake - but he says the constructors have no one to blame but themselves.
All teams but Toro Rosso will race with a 2.4-litre V8 engine this season following changes in the regulations that were aimed at cutting costs and lowering speeds.
But Ecclestone says the same goals could have been achieved by limiting the revs on the existing V10 engines - in a similar way to what Toro Rosso are doing. And the Briton believes the new rule proved more costly than originally imagined.
"It's a rule I don't like," Ecclestone told Autosprint magazine. "It was not necessary either, because they could have reached the same objectives with the old 10-cylinder engines, by limiting their power.
"The new V8 engines cost a fortune, and the next step will be to limit their revs because they'll become too powerful. So they could have done the same thing immediately, by limiting the V10s. They would have saved plenty of money."
But Ecclestone emphasised the move to V8 was entirely up to the teams.
"There was a meeting in Monaco with all the teams, to discuss cost reductions, and things started going badly, because the prevailing idea was that by limiting the engine capacity by 20 per cent, there would have been a similar reduction in costs and power.
"It was total nonsense; no one analysed the problems in-depth. The constructors pledged to make the V8s, but only later they realised what costs they were about to face."
Same deal with these current engines, the costs are stupendous, for exactly what?
And before some smartarse goes on about relevance to road cars, that's plain bs.
rdjohn said:
Unfortunately Bernie TV no longer seems to include Manor Racing. Their resurrection must have really upset him - having to hand over some cash and all!
Not 1 frame during FP1 - he is the shabbiest ringmaster for this circus.
Not going to lie but does anyone really want to see 2 cars that are even 3 seconds a lap slower than the McLaren trundle round on their own? Not 1 frame during FP1 - he is the shabbiest ringmaster for this circus.
Edited by rdjohn on Friday 17th April 13:54
Lost soul said:
ash73 said:
Failed to deliver on a much hyped race today, but the potential is there...
I thought it was an ok race , but the Kimi thing was a bit odd , I wonder what he could have done if he had come in earlier ?I can, perhaps, understand people only being interested in what is happening at the front of the field. I feel sorry for them as they miss so much, but it is not my problem.
But yesterday we had a battle royal at the front. We had KR closing in on 2nd with tyres that had given of their best, He was struggling to get on terms with NR, although still had an advantage. This new NR would not have let him pass easily. But then we had brake 'failure' and Kimi was past. Then we had the leader, just a few second ahead, report identical problems. All within 2 laps of the end.
What's not to thrill? What's not to excite? How could anyone watch that and not stand up when NR left the track?
Historically races are in three parts: the start going on until everyone is settled; the middle section, when you start to see trends and such; then the finish where there might be a challenge.
This race had all those, but the middle section, often the most pedestrian, had lots of incidents.
Not only that, but there were pointers that were quite remarkable. SV not being able to pass a Williams, despite the hype on the red car's new found power. We had a Ferrari on the podium by dint of superior tactics. (If they'd brought KR in earlier, his tyres would have been shredded.) And a rejuvinated NR who still couldn't get on terms with LH.
The only people I'd suggest who would have found yesterday a bit of a problem were Red Bull supporters. I hardly remember anything of them, apart from one rather dramatic incident.
If F1 is on its knees it is not because of lack of excitement during the race. It is because of the management. Anyone who saw Jordan climbing up Ecclestone's fundament yesterday would have had to say that until there is a change of those at the top, the answer might be Yes.
Derek Smith said:
If F1 is on its knees it is not because of lack of excitement during the race. It is because of the management. Anyone who saw Jordan climbing up Ecclestone's fundament yesterday would have had to say that until there is a change of those at the top, the answer might be Yes.
The ritual of non-interviewing Bernie. Why do they even bother?What they should do on the BBC is give the audience some substance for maybe 20 minutes to give a clear detailed breakdown and explanation of the money that comes into F1, the costs of F1, and where the money actually goes.
Derek Smith said:
Lost soul said:
ash73 said:
Failed to deliver on a much hyped race today, but the potential is there...
I thought it was an ok race , but the Kimi thing was a bit odd , I wonder what he could have done if he had come in earlier ?I can, perhaps, understand people only being interested in what is happening at the front of the field. I feel sorry for them as they miss so much, but it is not my problem.
I enjoyed the race from both ends all I said was "what if"
wind your neck n
It was a very old fashioned traditional race in many respects - teams actually working like teams! Merc and Ferrari both worked as teams and fought tooth and nail. Its been a long time since I've seen Ferrari in particular do that - attack dogs working together somewhat. Arrivabene knows his sport and history.
London424 said:
Not at all...it's just me demonstrating the nonsense that the 80s/90s was somehow amazing compared to the racing we see in the last few years.
I watched a vid clip of Senna in a Mc Honda from the 80's a little while back , the sound the way the car was jumping about and right on the ragged edgeYOu could almost feel Rage in the car
Lost soul said:
rdjohn said:
Unfortunately Bernie TV no longer seems to include Manor Racing. Their resurrection must have really upset him - having to hand over some cash and all!
I think I saw them once in the race !!! London424 said:
marshalla said:
Don't they have to use the name in order to get the money from last season ? (and possibly even to qualify as entrants since everything was done in a bit of a hurry)
I believe so. They are technically the Manor Marussia F1 team (or some such). Gaz. said:
Lost soul said:
I watched a vid clip of Senna in a Mc Honda from the 80's a little while back , the sound the way the car was jumping about and right on the ragged edge
YOu could almost feel Rage in the car
Yet all that goes away with a modern camera and mountings on the same car.YOu could almost feel Rage in the car
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff