Max wants to save money again with engines - yeah right!!!
Discussion
Max has always gone on about keeping the costs of F1 down to help the smaller teams, with such ideas as the 1 engine for two GPs etc...
Can anyone tell me if that rule alone has cut the cost of F1 - NO
If you try and cut costs in one area, the teams with the money will spend it elsewhere - notice how more and more in spent on aero tweaks as the engines have become such a restricted area for further development.
What was wrong with unlimited engines? No need to nurse an engine home for the next race, so at least the drivers could rev to the limit for the whole race. Now he's talking about 1 engine for five races... why for god sake?
Renault showed in 2005 and 06 that the team with the biggest budget doesn;t always mean they will win. Renualt have always run with a much smaller team and with smaller budgets than many, but they still managed to get 4 championships in 2 years, bloody good ROI for their sponsors
Look at Toyota who are spending even more than Ferrari - a perfect example of how throwing money at the problem will not make you a race winner or even a championship contender.
So for god sake Max, stop worrying about the money and let the teams do what ever they want with the cash that floods into the sport...
I remember someone once saying (not sure if true) that McLaren spend more money on their teams overalls and personel clothing than Minardi spend in a whole season going racing! Let the teams decide where to spend the money, and stop this silly idea of making engines last more than one race - maybe then we might get drivers pushing harder at each race without the fear of loosing grid positions with a blown engine...
Can anyone tell me if that rule alone has cut the cost of F1 - NO
If you try and cut costs in one area, the teams with the money will spend it elsewhere - notice how more and more in spent on aero tweaks as the engines have become such a restricted area for further development.
What was wrong with unlimited engines? No need to nurse an engine home for the next race, so at least the drivers could rev to the limit for the whole race. Now he's talking about 1 engine for five races... why for god sake?
Renault showed in 2005 and 06 that the team with the biggest budget doesn;t always mean they will win. Renualt have always run with a much smaller team and with smaller budgets than many, but they still managed to get 4 championships in 2 years, bloody good ROI for their sponsors
Look at Toyota who are spending even more than Ferrari - a perfect example of how throwing money at the problem will not make you a race winner or even a championship contender.
So for god sake Max, stop worrying about the money and let the teams do what ever they want with the cash that floods into the sport...
I remember someone once saying (not sure if true) that McLaren spend more money on their teams overalls and personel clothing than Minardi spend in a whole season going racing! Let the teams decide where to spend the money, and stop this silly idea of making engines last more than one race - maybe then we might get drivers pushing harder at each race without the fear of loosing grid positions with a blown engine...
Edited by TheOriginalGT40 on Sunday 20th May 17:02
TheOriginalGT40 said:
Max has always gone on about keeping the costs of F1 down to help the smaller teams, with such ideas as the 1 engine for two GPs etc...
Can anyone tell me if that rule alone has cut the cost of F1 - NO
If you try and cut costs in one area, the teams with the money will spend it elsewhere - notice how more and more in spent on aero tweaks as the engines have become such a restricted area for further development.
What was wrong with unlimited engines? No need to nurse an engine home for the next race, so at least the drivers could rev to the limit for the whole race. Now he's talking about 1 engine for five races... why for god sake?
Renault showed in 2005 and 06 that the team with the biggest budget doesn;t always mean they will win. Renualt have always run with a much smaller team and with smaller budgets than many, but they still managed to get 4 championships in 2 years, bloody good ROI for their sponsors
Look at Toyota who are spending even more than Ferrari - a perfect example of how throwing money at the problem will not make you a race winner or even a championship contender.
So for god sake Max, stop worrying about the money and let the teams do what ever they want with the cash that floods into the sport...
I remember someone once saying (not sure if true) that McLaren spend more money on their teams overalls and personel clothing than Minardi spend in a whole season going racing! Let the teams decide where to spend the money, and stop this silly idea of making engines last more than one race - maybe then we might get drivers pushing harder at each race without the fear of loosing grid positions with a blown engine...
Can anyone tell me if that rule alone has cut the cost of F1 - NO
If you try and cut costs in one area, the teams with the money will spend it elsewhere - notice how more and more in spent on aero tweaks as the engines have become such a restricted area for further development.
What was wrong with unlimited engines? No need to nurse an engine home for the next race, so at least the drivers could rev to the limit for the whole race. Now he's talking about 1 engine for five races... why for god sake?
Renault showed in 2005 and 06 that the team with the biggest budget doesn;t always mean they will win. Renualt have always run with a much smaller team and with smaller budgets than many, but they still managed to get 4 championships in 2 years, bloody good ROI for their sponsors
Look at Toyota who are spending even more than Ferrari - a perfect example of how throwing money at the problem will not make you a race winner or even a championship contender.
So for god sake Max, stop worrying about the money and let the teams do what ever they want with the cash that floods into the sport...
I remember someone once saying (not sure if true) that McLaren spend more money on their teams overalls and personel clothing than Minardi spend in a whole season going racing! Let the teams decide where to spend the money, and stop this silly idea of making engines last more than one race - maybe then we might get drivers pushing harder at each race without the fear of loosing grid positions with a blown engine...
Edited by TheOriginalGT40 on Sunday 20th May 17:02
Agreed, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle, if you cant afford it, dont enter.
Things like the engine rule and stopping competition between tyre manufactureres.
freedman said:
Agreed, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle, if you cant afford it, dont enter.
Things like the engine rule and stopping competition between tyre manufactureres.
Things like the engine rule and stopping competition between tyre manufactureres.
That's kind of true, but look what happened to the BTCC when the organisers took that approach. In the late nineties, the sport nearly died.
MrKipling43 said:
freedman said:
Agreed, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle, if you cant afford it, dont enter.
Things like the engine rule and stopping competition between tyre manufactureres.
Things like the engine rule and stopping competition between tyre manufactureres.
That's kind of true, but look what happened to the BTCC when the organisers took that approach. In the late nineties, the sport nearly died.
Same with Sportscars, after the 956/Jag/Saubers Toyota /Peugeot got involved and destroyed the whole thing,
however F1 is a different kettle of fish and always has been
TheOriginalGT40 said:
Max has always gone on about keeping the costs of F1 down to help the smaller teams, with such ideas as the 1 engine for two GPs etc...
Can anyone tell me if that rule alone has cut the cost of F1 - NO
If you try and cut costs in one area, the teams with the money will spend it elsewhere - notice how more and more in spent on aero tweaks as the engines have become such a restricted area for further development.
What was wrong with unlimited engines? No need to nurse an engine home for the next race, so at least the drivers could rev to the limit for the whole race. Now he's talking about 1 engine for five races... why for god sake?
Renault showed in 2005 and 06 that the team with the biggest budget doesn;t always mean they will win. Renualt have always run with a much smaller team and with smaller budgets than many, but they still managed to get 4 championships in 2 years, bloody good ROI for their sponsors
Look at Toyota who are spending even more than Ferrari - a perfect example of how throwing money at the problem will not make you a race winner or even a championship contender.
So for god sake Max, stop worrying about the money and let the teams do what ever they want with the cash that floods into the sport...
I remember someone once saying (not sure if true) that McLaren spend more money on their teams overalls and personel clothing than Minardi spend in a whole season going racing! Let the teams decide where to spend the money, and stop this silly idea of making engines last more than one race - maybe then we might get drivers pushing harder at each race without the fear of loosing grid positions with a blown engine...
Can anyone tell me if that rule alone has cut the cost of F1 - NO
If you try and cut costs in one area, the teams with the money will spend it elsewhere - notice how more and more in spent on aero tweaks as the engines have become such a restricted area for further development.
What was wrong with unlimited engines? No need to nurse an engine home for the next race, so at least the drivers could rev to the limit for the whole race. Now he's talking about 1 engine for five races... why for god sake?
Renault showed in 2005 and 06 that the team with the biggest budget doesn;t always mean they will win. Renualt have always run with a much smaller team and with smaller budgets than many, but they still managed to get 4 championships in 2 years, bloody good ROI for their sponsors
Look at Toyota who are spending even more than Ferrari - a perfect example of how throwing money at the problem will not make you a race winner or even a championship contender.
So for god sake Max, stop worrying about the money and let the teams do what ever they want with the cash that floods into the sport...
I remember someone once saying (not sure if true) that McLaren spend more money on their teams overalls and personel clothing than Minardi spend in a whole season going racing! Let the teams decide where to spend the money, and stop this silly idea of making engines last more than one race - maybe then we might get drivers pushing harder at each race without the fear of loosing grid positions with a blown engine...
Edited by TheOriginalGT40 on Sunday 20th May 17:02
Renault aren't exactly low on budget though, they spent more than McLaren going racing last year.
Alexs said:
TheOriginalGT40 said:
Max has always gone on about keeping the costs of F1 down to help the smaller teams, with such ideas as the 1 engine for two GPs etc...
Can anyone tell me if that rule alone has cut the cost of F1 - NO
If you try and cut costs in one area, the teams with the money will spend it elsewhere - notice how more and more in spent on aero tweaks as the engines have become such a restricted area for further development.
What was wrong with unlimited engines? No need to nurse an engine home for the next race, so at least the drivers could rev to the limit for the whole race. Now he's talking about 1 engine for five races... why for god sake?
Renault showed in 2005 and 06 that the team with the biggest budget doesn;t always mean they will win. Renualt have always run with a much smaller team and with smaller budgets than many, but they still managed to get 4 championships in 2 years, bloody good ROI for their sponsors
Look at Toyota who are spending even more than Ferrari - a perfect example of how throwing money at the problem will not make you a race winner or even a championship contender.
So for god sake Max, stop worrying about the money and let the teams do what ever they want with the cash that floods into the sport...
I remember someone once saying (not sure if true) that McLaren spend more money on their teams overalls and personel clothing than Minardi spend in a whole season going racing! Let the teams decide where to spend the money, and stop this silly idea of making engines last more than one race - maybe then we might get drivers pushing harder at each race without the fear of loosing grid positions with a blown engine...
Can anyone tell me if that rule alone has cut the cost of F1 - NO
If you try and cut costs in one area, the teams with the money will spend it elsewhere - notice how more and more in spent on aero tweaks as the engines have become such a restricted area for further development.
What was wrong with unlimited engines? No need to nurse an engine home for the next race, so at least the drivers could rev to the limit for the whole race. Now he's talking about 1 engine for five races... why for god sake?
Renault showed in 2005 and 06 that the team with the biggest budget doesn;t always mean they will win. Renualt have always run with a much smaller team and with smaller budgets than many, but they still managed to get 4 championships in 2 years, bloody good ROI for their sponsors
Look at Toyota who are spending even more than Ferrari - a perfect example of how throwing money at the problem will not make you a race winner or even a championship contender.
So for god sake Max, stop worrying about the money and let the teams do what ever they want with the cash that floods into the sport...
I remember someone once saying (not sure if true) that McLaren spend more money on their teams overalls and personel clothing than Minardi spend in a whole season going racing! Let the teams decide where to spend the money, and stop this silly idea of making engines last more than one race - maybe then we might get drivers pushing harder at each race without the fear of loosing grid positions with a blown engine...
Edited by TheOriginalGT40 on Sunday 20th May 17:02
Renault aren't exactly low on budget though, they spent more than McLaren going racing last year.
I'd be very surprised if that is the case. Estimates I've seen have put McLaren's budget at about 1.5x that of Renault - right up there with Ferrari
I rekon that F1 should use production block and head castings and controlled internal materials (no hi tec alloys), this would bring "customer" engines into affordable range, throw in a manual gear shift and iron/steel brakes would sort the men from the boys at every corner. Yes its a retro grade step but I believe the driver would then make a greater difference and a well run privateer team would be able to compete with the big boys.Restrict the size of front and rear wings (as many elements as you like but only "x" many square meters in total for both wings with a max of say 60/40 % difference in size front to rear). Enforce a minimum ride hight at full suspension compression as well, of say 3 inches, this will reduce the aerodynamic grip of the car and permit closer racing, ban venturis and fully enclosed engines.
I rekon this will give a grid of very different cars, and allow for the odd "break through" as in the earlier years.
I rekon this will give a grid of very different cars, and allow for the odd "break through" as in the earlier years.
[quote=ELAN+2]I rekon that F1 should use production block and head castings and controlled internal materials (no hi tec alloys)[/quote]
So Ferrari (whose production engines are very high performance) would win the championship every year. Whilst Renault (whose engines power bread and butter cars) wouldn't stand a chance.
So Ferrari (whose production engines are very high performance) would win the championship every year. Whilst Renault (whose engines power bread and butter cars) wouldn't stand a chance.
loneranger said:
[quote=ELAN+2]I rekon that F1 should use production block and head castings and controlled internal materials (no hi tec alloys)
So Ferrari (whose production engines are very high performance) would win the championship every year. Whilst Renault (whose engines power bread and butter cars) wouldn't stand a chance.
[/quote]
Or, they'd have to build something suitable. Which would cost more than the f1 programme anyway.
I like the idea of basing it on a stock unit, but teams would spend just as much tweaking a compromised power unit and/or start designing homologation specials...
Sorry completely disagree, allowing a free for all perpetuates the boring spectacle that has become F1 and keeps the top 2 or 3 teams staying at the front and keeps the small teams at the back, meaning only money dictates grid postion, to me that's not sport, that's business and i'm not interested in getting up at 3am to watch business. IMO the rule changes don't go far enough, i'd also like to see a limit on downforce and standard fuel. Who on here actually thinks that F1 has improved as a spectacle over the last decade??
taffyracer said:
Sorry completely disagree, allowing a free for all perpetuates the boring spectacle that has become F1 and keeps the top 2 or 3 teams staying at the front and keeps the small teams at the back, meaning only money dictates grid postion, to me that's not sport, that's business and i'm not interested in getting up at 3am to watch business. IMO the rule changes don't go far enough, i'd also like to see a limit on downforce and standard fuel. Who on here actually thinks that F1 has improved as a spectacle over the last decade??
The problem with limiting this or standardising that is that Formula One is meant to be the ultimate form of racing. The cars are the most advanced, the drivers are the best.
The more you constrain the potential for the cars to be the best, the less interested the sponsors are. Without the sponsors, you don't have the money to draw the best engineers and best drivers. Without the best drivers and the best machines, the fans aren't interested.
You want wheel-to-wheel, with lots of overtaking? How about Formula Ford, or a one-make series?
There is a reason why those sorts of series do not attract even a small fraction of the interest that Formula One attracts.
[quote=ELAN+2]I rekon that F1 should use production block and head castings and controlled internal materials (no hi tec alloys), this would bring "customer" engines into affordable range, throw in a manual gear shift and iron/steel brakes would sort the men from the boys at every corner. .[/quote]
Anyone who is forced to use production based blocks and heads will tell you it's bloody expensive to compete with compared to using bespoke parts, they would spend a hell of a lot more money using that route.
Steel brakes have been proven to be a match for carbon/carbon by williams, they just arnt as safe.
Semi auto boxes are the main reason why reliability is now taken as a given, do you want to go back to the days of low gearbox reliability for no gain in terms of racing?
Anyone who is forced to use production based blocks and heads will tell you it's bloody expensive to compete with compared to using bespoke parts, they would spend a hell of a lot more money using that route.
Steel brakes have been proven to be a match for carbon/carbon by williams, they just arnt as safe.
Semi auto boxes are the main reason why reliability is now taken as a given, do you want to go back to the days of low gearbox reliability for no gain in terms of racing?
[quote=flemke
The problem with limiting this or standardising that is that Formula One is meant to be the ultimate form of racing. The cars are the most advanced, the drivers are the best.
The more you constrain the potential for the cars to be the best, the less interested the sponsors are. Without the sponsors, you don't have the money to draw the best engineers and best drivers. Without the best drivers and the best machines, the fans aren't interested.
You want wheel-to-wheel, with lots of overtaking? How about Formula Ford, or a one-make series?
There is a reason why those sorts of series do not attract even a small fraction of the interest that Formula One attracts.
[/quote]
Don't entirely agree. F1 is not really funded by external sponsorship in any real way. Toyota and Honda are almost entirely funded by the factory, BMW, Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes have non-automotive sponsors its true but Malboro's investment with Ferrari isn't likely to change given the rules on tobacco sponsorship in Europe (i.e. what else can it do) and should it come to the crunch the motor manufacturers would continue anyway. Red Bull is stand alone with no significant additional money from 3rd parties.
The ones who would suffer from a sponsors point of view would more than gain from engine/chassis limitations. i.e. Williams, Spyker.
As for drivers, and fan interest...The fans come because they like to see the established names in cars - to them they could be driving formula ford cars. The drivers come for the money.
The reason it wouldn't happen is that the only reason BMW,Fiat, Mercedes, Renault, Honda and Toyota do F1 is to prove to the world that they are the best...
The problem with limiting this or standardising that is that Formula One is meant to be the ultimate form of racing. The cars are the most advanced, the drivers are the best.
The more you constrain the potential for the cars to be the best, the less interested the sponsors are. Without the sponsors, you don't have the money to draw the best engineers and best drivers. Without the best drivers and the best machines, the fans aren't interested.
You want wheel-to-wheel, with lots of overtaking? How about Formula Ford, or a one-make series?
There is a reason why those sorts of series do not attract even a small fraction of the interest that Formula One attracts.
[/quote]
Don't entirely agree. F1 is not really funded by external sponsorship in any real way. Toyota and Honda are almost entirely funded by the factory, BMW, Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes have non-automotive sponsors its true but Malboro's investment with Ferrari isn't likely to change given the rules on tobacco sponsorship in Europe (i.e. what else can it do) and should it come to the crunch the motor manufacturers would continue anyway. Red Bull is stand alone with no significant additional money from 3rd parties.
The ones who would suffer from a sponsors point of view would more than gain from engine/chassis limitations. i.e. Williams, Spyker.
As for drivers, and fan interest...The fans come because they like to see the established names in cars - to them they could be driving formula ford cars. The drivers come for the money.
The reason it wouldn't happen is that the only reason BMW,Fiat, Mercedes, Renault, Honda and Toyota do F1 is to prove to the world that they are the best...
2priestsferrari said:
The reason it wouldn't happen is that the only reason BMW,Fiat, Mercedes, Renault, Honda and Toyota do F1 is to prove to the world that they are the best...
Precisely, and the accepted way of proving that you are the best is to build some of the fastest racing cars.
If you are competing in a formula that, because of aerodynamic or engine restrictions is slower than, say, GP2, the average viewer won't appreciate that your car might be more sophisticated underneath. He or she will be more impressed by the fact that other sorts of racing are faster, and discount the sophistication or technical achievement of the slower formula.
You say that the fans want to see the best drivers, which is right. The thing is, drivers prove themselves by competing at the highest level, which for circuit racing is F1.
Maybe Sebastien Bourdais is the best driver in the world, but no one is going to believe that until he goes up against the best in F1.
Do you really think that, if F1 cars were slower on the same circuit than other formulae were, the manufacturers would continue to spend hundreds of millions in F1 to showcase themselves?
Who said anything about making the cars slower, there's absolutely no reason why they can't measure and apply limits on the downforce and still be faster than GP2, same goes for using standard fuel or making engines last 5 races.
Agreed F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle, but its crap, are any of you actually saying that you think F1 has improved in the last decade? With the pace of development there is no reason why they can't limit the areas that really truly cost all the money, allowing teams at the back to be more competitive and still be a technical showcase, i'm bored of Mclaren, Renault and Ferrari always dominating, let's have, Super Aguri, Redbull and the others up there fighting every race, then it would be a showcase
Agreed F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle, but its crap, are any of you actually saying that you think F1 has improved in the last decade? With the pace of development there is no reason why they can't limit the areas that really truly cost all the money, allowing teams at the back to be more competitive and still be a technical showcase, i'm bored of Mclaren, Renault and Ferrari always dominating, let's have, Super Aguri, Redbull and the others up there fighting every race, then it would be a showcase
flemke said:
Do you really think that, if F1 cars were slower on the same circuit than other formulae were, the manufacturers would continue to spend hundreds of millions in F1 to showcase themselves?
Yes I do because if you took away the current F1 spec of car and limited some aspects of it then the "new" F1 would still be the fastest... All you need to do to make the racing better is to take away the front wing, then the rear wing would be trimmed to get an aero balance and overtaking would come. Audi, Peugeot and Porsche are spending money on LMP cars that are not as quick as F1, whilst BMW and SEAT are spending money on WTCC cars that are slower than Porsche cup cars so yes in some circumstances they still do have a desire to spend.
Re: the fans the biggest motorsport by a million miles is NASCAR and that has drivers who are as old as many of our fathers and cars that could have come out of Europe 30 years ago... But the whole event is marketed properly and they race almost every week so (like football in Europe) the fans are constantly fed.
Go to a race and then say it ain't that big... Put it this way at some races like Bristol you can't get a good seat unless you book it over a year in advance. They have over 100K people to pretty much every race and bear in mind they race sometimes twice per week! The drivers have so much tat to sell the top drivers have 2 artic trucks full of just their branded stuff. NASCAR is huge.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff