Audi in F1 for 2015
Discussion
Indeed, the change in engines/power systems (i.e. all this hybrid malarky) is pushing F1 into totally silly money. However, wasn't the change partly driven by a desire to get VW on board?
A general side point about VW and F1 would be that VAG seem to like picking easier battles... Hence Audi and Porsche at Le Mans, VW in WRC. There's no point chucking a VW brand into F1 with its huge financial implications if they are going struggle to win anything for a couple of years, when you can already 'Win on sunday sell on monday' somewhere else for less.
A general side point about VW and F1 would be that VAG seem to like picking easier battles... Hence Audi and Porsche at Le Mans, VW in WRC. There's no point chucking a VW brand into F1 with its huge financial implications if they are going struggle to win anything for a couple of years, when you can already 'Win on sunday sell on monday' somewhere else for less.
m0rris said:
Indeed, the change in engines/power systems (i.e. all this hybrid malarky) is pushing F1 into totally silly money. However, wasn't the change partly driven by a desire to get VW on board?
Certainly to gain interest of more manufacturers - the "more relevant technologies" argument. Arguably it has worked to shake things up already - and Honda in next year.Crafty_ said:
Engine changes driven by the manufacturers, not the team, FIA or Bernie.
And the FIA. Had the choice of engine stayed as 4 cylinder turboed, VW could well have been on the grid this year. They certainly took a long hard look in 2012. Btw, isn't Joest still privately owned? I doubt VW would go into F1 with a privateer partner....rubystone said:
And the FIA. Had the choice of engine stayed as 4 cylinder turboed, VW could well have been on the grid this year. They certainly took a long hard look in 2012.
I suspect, looking at Porsche in the WEC it is much more a case of 'would' than 'could'... I'll be interested to see how VW's engine survives in the trials of endurance racing.m0rris said:
Indeed, the change in engines/power systems (i.e. all this hybrid malarky) is pushing F1 into totally silly money. However, wasn't the change partly driven by a desire to get VW on board?
A general side point about VW and F1 would be that VAG seem to like picking easier battles... Hence Audi and Porsche at Le Mans,
Seriously, I mean how much of the Porsche racing heritage do you really know and understand. You do realise F1 for Porsche is not new, don't you...A general side point about VW and F1 would be that VAG seem to like picking easier battles... Hence Audi and Porsche at Le Mans,
K
rubystone said:
Joest know how to run a sportscar, not an F1 car. Audi don't take punts and nor would they hide the fact they were entering F1...why would they bother?
And if they were, their scaling up would be common knowledge in the industry. And it's not.
But it's a damn good story to throw the scent off of Renault's problems isn't it?
Well they did take a punt when they decided to run the ducati moto gp team and despite chucking money at it they haven't managed to make that punt pay up.And if they were, their scaling up would be common knowledge in the industry. And it's not.
But it's a damn good story to throw the scent off of Renault's problems isn't it?
Crafty_ said:
Engine changes driven by the manufacturers, not the team, FIA or Bernie.
Regardless of who wanted the engine changes it seems a strange decision when most of the teams were finding it difficult to come up with the necessary funds to compete in 2013. The costs of the engine change must be enormous, and as for F1 being 'green', how stupid do they think we are?
warmfuzzies said:
Seriously, I mean how much of the Porsche racing heritage do you really know and understand. You do realise F1 for Porsche is not new, don't you...
K
I personally don't think that Porsche's F1 heritage is particularly strong. Even in their TAG years they were essentially a paid engine supplier.K
RYH64E said:
Regardless of who wanted the engine changes it seems a strange decision when most of the teams were finding it difficult to come up with the necessary funds to compete in 2013.
The costs of the engine change must be enormous, and as for F1 being 'green', how stupid do they think we are?
If one reads widely on this subject it's clear that had the engine formula not changed, the non-works teams would have been facing a big increase in their engine costs in 2014. The manufacturers simply couldn't afford to subsidise them any more. Initially Moseley set a cap on the (2014 formula) engine cost per team per season of E2m!!!!The costs of the engine change must be enormous, and as for F1 being 'green', how stupid do they think we are?
Clearly the new power units have merit in our 'green' world where there is a realisation that 100% electric power ain't going to work in the real world. I just think a trick has been missed in not making it a 1.6 litre in-line 4 turbo formula.
The trick that was been missed is not just specifying a 1600cc turbo engine with a maximum fuel flow rate. that would have been interesting.
vw with a V4
Mercedes and Renault with V6s
Ferrari with a V8...
too much regulation imo. Keith duckworth went to the FIA in he seventies and asked for a fuel flow limit to cap power. he even had a letter from Mauro Forgieri of Ferrari agreeing that this would be for the good of the sport and the duckworth's design for the flow restriction was a good idea. the FIA didn't like it because duckworth couldn't guarantee they could be within less than 0.1% of each other.
If that had been allowed, we wouldn't have had the turbo era in the eighties.
Anyway, my point is that different designs would be better for F1 than everyone running essentially the same thing.
vw with a V4
Mercedes and Renault with V6s
Ferrari with a V8...
too much regulation imo. Keith duckworth went to the FIA in he seventies and asked for a fuel flow limit to cap power. he even had a letter from Mauro Forgieri of Ferrari agreeing that this would be for the good of the sport and the duckworth's design for the flow restriction was a good idea. the FIA didn't like it because duckworth couldn't guarantee they could be within less than 0.1% of each other.
If that had been allowed, we wouldn't have had the turbo era in the eighties.
Anyway, my point is that different designs would be better for F1 than everyone running essentially the same thing.
warmfuzzies said:
Seriously, I mean how much of the Porsche racing heritage do you really know and understand. You do realise F1 for Porsche is not new, don't you...
K
Porsche for F1 isn't new but it's hardly where their pedigree lies. Compared to other F1 manufacturers, the Porsche works team lies as a footnote in history and whilst their engines were succesful just look at what they wre doing in sportscars at the same time. Porsche's iconic racing cars are the 911s, 917s, 935s etc... not their F1 cars.K
Porsche entering Le Mans alongside an Audi effort could make a lot of sense... It guarantees the participation of two works teams, boosts the competitiveness of the competition and it means that out of 3 works teams, two are ultimately answering to the same board which could help VAG prevent an F1 style spending war.
Justaredbadge, I entirely agree, the precise specification of what the manufacturers must do ultimately hampers creativity.
Edited by m0rris on Sunday 23 February 15:47
rubystone said:
Crafty_ said:
Engine changes driven by the manufacturers, not the team, FIA or Bernie.
And the FIA. Had the choice of engine stayed as 4 cylinder turboed, VW could well have been on the grid this year. They certainly took a long hard look in 2012. Btw, isn't Joest still privately owned? I doubt VW would go into F1 with a privateer partner....AlexS said:
rubystone said:
Crafty_ said:
Engine changes driven by the manufacturers, not the team, FIA or Bernie.
And the FIA. Had the choice of engine stayed as 4 cylinder turboed, VW could well have been on the grid this year. They certainly took a long hard look in 2012. Btw, isn't Joest still privately owned? I doubt VW would go into F1 with a privateer partner....rubystone said:
So what you are saying is that Audi are going to build the infrastructure of an F1 team from scratch in 12 months. For that to happen the team principal would have to be god. And even then he'd have to defer to BCE.
" Hallo Mr Brawn? Audi here, sorry to interupt your fishing but we would like a word with you 
Mr Braun? My name iz Volfgang Ulrick. I vould very much like to speak with you.
TBH I won't believe it until I see their name on the 2015 Entry list. VW Group have flirted with F1 many times over the past few years, to the point where 3-4 years ago they as good as said 'Make the Engines V4 and we will enter' and the FIA said 'OK!' except VW Group then wimped out and we narrowly avoided an even bigger engine catastrophe than we have now. Audi aren't used to coming second at anything they do. They will be thinking long and hard about entering F1 as they know they won't win in year 1. Probably not in year 2. They'll be aiming for points and podiums in year 2 or 3 and aiming for the WCC in years 4 and 5. If they can't do that then they'll not do it IMO.
TBH I won't believe it until I see their name on the 2015 Entry list. VW Group have flirted with F1 many times over the past few years, to the point where 3-4 years ago they as good as said 'Make the Engines V4 and we will enter' and the FIA said 'OK!' except VW Group then wimped out and we narrowly avoided an even bigger engine catastrophe than we have now. Audi aren't used to coming second at anything they do. They will be thinking long and hard about entering F1 as they know they won't win in year 1. Probably not in year 2. They'll be aiming for points and podiums in year 2 or 3 and aiming for the WCC in years 4 and 5. If they can't do that then they'll not do it IMO.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff