Bernie. Engines. Again.

[Lincsblokey]

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!

[rhysenna]

Is there any reason why Mercedes couldn't go and compete in the WEC? An option for them if they wanted out but didn't want to waste their tech. V10 for me please.

[TheAngryDog]

"The change from 2.4 litre V8 engines to 1.6 litre turbo-charged V8 hybrid units has seen costs rise from a reported £5m to £15-20m for customer teams."

Well researched then.

[Derek Smith]

The idea of Ecclestone complaining about costs in F1 is surreal.

Cost could be reduced in many other ways.

Not only that, but change costs.

[hornetrider]

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.

[RobGT81]

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

[Europa1]

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.

Indeed, and his solution to that was double points at the last race, which thankfully has been binned. When Red Bull was in its pomp, their reaction to calls for rule changes was always "it's up to the other teams to do a better job". Interesting to hear them whinge now the boot is on a different foot.

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.

[y2blade]

I wish Bernie would just **** off tbh

[Agent Orange]

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.

I'm all for a moan but lets at least be accurate.

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

[Likes Fast Cars]

TheAngryDog said:

"The change from 2.4 litre V8 engines to 1.6 litre turbo-charged V8 hybrid units has seen costs rise from a reported £5m to £15-20m for customer teams."

Well researched then.

He must have been on PH at some point...

[Likes Fast Cars]

y2blade said:

I wish Bernie would just **** off tbh

+1

[fatboy69]

Bernie does seem to make a habit of fking things up doesn't he?

He is starting to look like a prize bell end.

[Doink]

Why don't we just have a 2 engine formula then?

[allergictocheese]

Doink said:

Why don't we just have a 2 engine formula then?

Yeah, one at the front and one at the back.

[andyps]

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.

[chonok]

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!

[350Matt]

Perhaps

one could approach an independent racing engine manufacturer and ask them to knock 1 up

how many revs and how much power is the key thing to making a cheap engine

[MissChief]

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.

[JonRB]

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.

[Derek Smith]

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 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.