Moseley's 5 year plan
Discussion
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p...
Includes standard engine, common chassis parts ( wing, brakes, etc. ), energy recovery
Most interesting is the proposal that teams budget should be primarily from an equal share of the TV revenue - does he mean to ban sponsorship ?
Includes standard engine, common chassis parts ( wing, brakes, etc. ), energy recovery
Most interesting is the proposal that teams budget should be primarily from an equal share of the TV revenue - does he mean to ban sponsorship ?
Edited by MartG on Wednesday 15th October 11:07
This would leave the manufacturers with no reason to stay. They'll still want to prove their cars on track so if Max Rufus trying to force them into setting up a rival championship. With no racing in Britain, USA, Canada, and anywhere that's not covered in sand or rice, why should they bother?
With the current credit squeeze F1 will become much cheaper for all concerned.
Max Rufus with F1 is like a boy with a grandfather clock. He doesn't know how it works so he takes it apart and then puts the parts back in the case higgledy piggledy. It might look the same, but it will not tell the time so there is no point in looking at it over an above it being a bit pretty.
There has been suggestions that Max Rufus hates this country and one wonders if this is true because his plans will have a disasterous effect on the F1 industry in Britain.
We'll end up with, as stated earlier, senior Forumla Ford and all the development, design and expertise in WSC or saloon cars.
One wonders about Max Rufus' motivation.
With the current credit squeeze F1 will become much cheaper for all concerned.
Max Rufus with F1 is like a boy with a grandfather clock. He doesn't know how it works so he takes it apart and then puts the parts back in the case higgledy piggledy. It might look the same, but it will not tell the time so there is no point in looking at it over an above it being a bit pretty.
There has been suggestions that Max Rufus hates this country and one wonders if this is true because his plans will have a disasterous effect on the F1 industry in Britain.
We'll end up with, as stated earlier, senior Forumla Ford and all the development, design and expertise in WSC or saloon cars.
One wonders about Max Rufus' motivation.
The way Max is running F1 there will be nobody watching it very soon & thus no reason for the sponsors to take an interest.
At least that way he will be able to fulfil his dream of bankrupting anybody whose team was more successful than his was.
Excepting Ferrari #cos they still have some dirt on him.
At least that way he will be able to fulfil his dream of bankrupting anybody whose team was more successful than his was.
Excepting Ferrari #cos they still have some dirt on him.
When I saw the topic I thought is was the plans to invade Poland.
Anyway, the scheme would work IF the teams can see a reason to stay. Rather than being a showcase for their products, it may end up being a demonstration of how well they can put a set of components together.
I wonder who will get the contract for the engines? Based on reliability it wouldn't be Ferrari or McLaren?
Anyway, the scheme would work IF the teams can see a reason to stay. Rather than being a showcase for their products, it may end up being a demonstration of how well they can put a set of components together.
BBC's James Allen replacement said:
And the 2010 Maunfacturers' Championship goes to BMW, powered by a Toyoto engine.
Would BMW, Toyota, Honda, Ferrari want to race with another manufacturer's engine in their car? And if you're choosing a stock engine, why not add a stock gearbox between the engine and the stock suspension?I wonder who will get the contract for the engines? Based on reliability it wouldn't be Ferrari or McLaren?
Edited by mikee boy on Wednesday 15th October 14:46
freedman said:
Expensive Formula Ford then
Yet another idiotic idea Max
Presumably expensive Formula Yet another idiotic idea Max
With the Canadian Grand Prix axed, the French Grand Prix dropped for financial reasons, apparent pro-Ferrari/anti-McLaren bias and a an impending re-run of the FISA-FOCA war, I can't help thinking that events seem to be coming to a head.
This plan sounds absolutely crazy! Is Max's plan designed to drive out all the manufacturers? What will we be left then? A grid full of identical cars (probably all Ferrari's - well it's one way to ensure they win the constructors' title) and the current manufacturers reduced to the role of sponsors. Maybe this is why they were given the A1GP contract - as a feasibility test.
With Max's current obsession being cost-cutting, this would be a very efficient way to achieve that aim.
As has already been suggested, I hope that moves to form a breakaway series begin soon. I can't see how a credible Formula One series can survive in its proposed form. Couple this with the frankly perverse penalties currently being imposed almost arbitrarily, and we have an untenable situation. As the apparent pro-Ferrari bias is now beginning to affect teams other than McLaren (Toro Rosso last weekend) this may start to drive things forward more quickly.
I honestly believe that Max Mosely's current psychological state is highly questionable. Is there any mechanism in place to remove the FIA president on the grounds of mental incapacity? Doubtful - Mosely, the former lawyer, wrote the FIA rule book.
Sorry about this undisciplined rant, but I honestly see a sport that I have loved since I was a boy being torn apart from the inside.
To paraphrase the Chinese curse: we live in intersting times!
This plan sounds absolutely crazy! Is Max's plan designed to drive out all the manufacturers? What will we be left then? A grid full of identical cars (probably all Ferrari's - well it's one way to ensure they win the constructors' title) and the current manufacturers reduced to the role of sponsors. Maybe this is why they were given the A1GP contract - as a feasibility test.
With Max's current obsession being cost-cutting, this would be a very efficient way to achieve that aim.
As has already been suggested, I hope that moves to form a breakaway series begin soon. I can't see how a credible Formula One series can survive in its proposed form. Couple this with the frankly perverse penalties currently being imposed almost arbitrarily, and we have an untenable situation. As the apparent pro-Ferrari bias is now beginning to affect teams other than McLaren (Toro Rosso last weekend) this may start to drive things forward more quickly.
I honestly believe that Max Mosely's current psychological state is highly questionable. Is there any mechanism in place to remove the FIA president on the grounds of mental incapacity? Doubtful - Mosely, the former lawyer, wrote the FIA rule book.
Sorry about this undisciplined rant, but I honestly see a sport that I have loved since I was a boy being torn apart from the inside.
To paraphrase the Chinese curse: we live in intersting times!
Sheaver1 said:
With the Canadian Grand Prix axed, the French Grand Prix dropped for financial reasons, apparent pro-Ferrari/anti-McLaren bias and a an impending re-run of the FISA-FOCA war, I can't help thinking that events seem to be coming to a head.
This plan sounds absolutely crazy! Is Max's plan designed to drive out all the manufacturers? What will we be left then? A grid full of identical cars (probably all Ferrari's - well it's one way to ensure they win the constructors' title) and the current manufacturers reduced to the role of sponsors. Maybe this is why they were given the A1GP contract - as a feasibility test.
With Max's current obsession being cost-cutting, this would be a very efficient way to achieve that aim.
As has already been suggested, I hope that moves to form a breakaway series begin soon. I can't see how a credible Formula One series can survive in its proposed form. Couple this with the frankly perverse penalties currently being imposed almost arbitrarily, and we have an untenable situation. As the apparent pro-Ferrari bias is now beginning to affect teams other than McLaren (Toro Rosso last weekend) this may start to drive things forward more quickly.
I honestly believe that Max Mosely's current psychological state is highly questionable. Is there any mechanism in place to remove the FIA president on the grounds of mental incapacity? Doubtful - Mosely, the former lawyer, wrote the FIA rule book.
Sorry about this undisciplined rant, but I honestly see a sport that I have loved since I was a boy being torn apart from the inside.
To paraphrase the Chinese curse: we live in intersting times!
The one thing that is guaranteed to result from a heavily-circumscribed formula is diminished interest from the major manufacturers, which in turn would mean a further tipping of the balance of power away from the teams and towards the regulator. Just look at NASCAR, which is enormously successful financially, but where the carmakers consider themselves lucky to be allowed to participate, and the France family rules its fiefdom with an iron fist.This plan sounds absolutely crazy! Is Max's plan designed to drive out all the manufacturers? What will we be left then? A grid full of identical cars (probably all Ferrari's - well it's one way to ensure they win the constructors' title) and the current manufacturers reduced to the role of sponsors. Maybe this is why they were given the A1GP contract - as a feasibility test.
With Max's current obsession being cost-cutting, this would be a very efficient way to achieve that aim.
As has already been suggested, I hope that moves to form a breakaway series begin soon. I can't see how a credible Formula One series can survive in its proposed form. Couple this with the frankly perverse penalties currently being imposed almost arbitrarily, and we have an untenable situation. As the apparent pro-Ferrari bias is now beginning to affect teams other than McLaren (Toro Rosso last weekend) this may start to drive things forward more quickly.
I honestly believe that Max Mosely's current psychological state is highly questionable. Is there any mechanism in place to remove the FIA president on the grounds of mental incapacity? Doubtful - Mosely, the former lawyer, wrote the FIA rule book.
Sorry about this undisciplined rant, but I honestly see a sport that I have loved since I was a boy being torn apart from the inside.
To paraphrase the Chinese curse: we live in intersting times!
Your thought that A1GP might be a stalking horse for the future "ultimate" formula #1 could well be right.
Forget the, 'Kit Car' days, forget FIAT.
MRM, much as I despise him, recognised some years ago that the road car manufacturers might not be the long term future of the sport(FIAT excepted).
The, 'Garagiste' were and still are the heart and soul of GP; Frank, Ron, Peter Sauber, Minardi, Jordan, Force India. That just being a small sample of what has driven GP.
MRM, much as I despise him, has worked for 15 years to limit the influence of the major corp's, Why? Board meetings discussing the, 'credit crunch', that's why. The convoluted reasons why Ford are no longer involved, despite Ford Europe being allowed to spend its promo' budget as it wished(supposedly)...etc.
His plans to introduce a, 'Spec engine' are his last throw of the dice. He'll kill it or cure it.
I think he's killing it... But he's right.
Yeah, MRM? He's still a t
t.
MRM, much as I despise him, recognised some years ago that the road car manufacturers might not be the long term future of the sport(FIAT excepted).
The, 'Garagiste' were and still are the heart and soul of GP; Frank, Ron, Peter Sauber, Minardi, Jordan, Force India. That just being a small sample of what has driven GP.
MRM, much as I despise him, has worked for 15 years to limit the influence of the major corp's, Why? Board meetings discussing the, 'credit crunch', that's why. The convoluted reasons why Ford are no longer involved, despite Ford Europe being allowed to spend its promo' budget as it wished(supposedly)...etc.
His plans to introduce a, 'Spec engine' are his last throw of the dice. He'll kill it or cure it.
I think he's killing it... But he's right.
Yeah, MRM? He's still a t
t.Edited by Shuvi on Wednesday 15th October 22:00
Shuvi said:
Forget the, 'Kit Car' days, forget FIAT.
MRM, much as I despise him, recognised some years ago that the road car manufacturers might not be the long term future of the sport(FIAT excepted).
The, 'Garagiste' were and still are the heart and soul of GP; Frank, Ron, Peter Sauber, Minardi, Jordan, Force India. That just being a small sample of what has driven GP.
MRM, much as I despise him, has worked for 15 years to limit the influence of the major corp's, Why? Board meetings discussing the, 'credit crunch', that's why. The convoluted reasons why Ford are no longer involved, despite Ford Europe being allowed to spend its promo' budget as it wished(supposedly)...etc.
His plans to introduce a, 'Spec engine' are his last throw of the dice. He'll kill it or cure it.
I think he's killing it... But he's right.
Yeah, MRM? He's still a tt.
Of course the problem is that "Formula One" is expected to be the ultimate series, with the most sophisticated technology, the best drivers, and the most epic competitions. It is for these reasons that we follow it ardently.MRM, much as I despise him, recognised some years ago that the road car manufacturers might not be the long term future of the sport(FIAT excepted).
The, 'Garagiste' were and still are the heart and soul of GP; Frank, Ron, Peter Sauber, Minardi, Jordan, Force India. That just being a small sample of what has driven GP.
MRM, much as I despise him, has worked for 15 years to limit the influence of the major corp's, Why? Board meetings discussing the, 'credit crunch', that's why. The convoluted reasons why Ford are no longer involved, despite Ford Europe being allowed to spend its promo' budget as it wished(supposedly)...etc.
His plans to introduce a, 'Spec engine' are his last throw of the dice. He'll kill it or cure it.
I think he's killing it... But he's right.
Yeah, MRM? He's still a t
t.Turn the cars into interchangeable 5hitboxes and many of us won't care whether it's Alonso v Kubica or Sutil v Nakajima - the series simply would not have as much appeal as, say, Le Mans prototypes, sprint cars on dirt, or even drag racing.
Then, because enough fans were no longer attracted to the series, the sponsors would drop out. They drop out and the money and glamour available to the best drivers would drop, and those drivers in turn would go to sports cars, NASCAR or DTM.
It probably would be fine if the FIA were to limit the total budget of a team. There surely is a way of doing that, however, without making the cars all the same. Indeed, if the competition were open to more technological innovation, but on a fixed budget, it could be more interesting than it is today.
Other top-level sports have teetered on the edge of self-destruction until they adopted a salary cap. Although such would be more difficult to apply to motor racing, what with the possibility of hidden subsidies, it ought to be feasible on some level. "Do whatever you like - for $50M/year. Spend it on your hospitality suite, or spend it on bespoke tyres, but that's all you can spend."
@Flemke.
I don't disagree, however; I think the real future of GP is its past. Days when BMW, Porsche, Honda, Ford(Cosworth), et al, supplied the engine tech but the teams were there for the racing alone. What did those days give us? Innovation by the bucket load and on the cheap.
11 pints of Strongbow shared with an old college friend are now telling me to go to bed. See ya.
I don't disagree, however; I think the real future of GP is its past. Days when BMW, Porsche, Honda, Ford(Cosworth), et al, supplied the engine tech but the teams were there for the racing alone. What did those days give us? Innovation by the bucket load and on the cheap.
11 pints of Strongbow shared with an old college friend are now telling me to go to bed. See ya.
Shuvi said:
@Flemke.
I don't disagree, however; I think the real future of GP is its past. Days when BMW, Porsche, Honda, Ford(Cosworth), et al, supplied the engine tech but the teams were there for the racing alone. What did those days give us? Innovation by the bucket load and on the cheap.
11 pints of Strongbow shared with an old college friend are now telling me to go to bed. See ya.
I'm not sure where your thinking is headed. We're going to see less innovation, by necessity. Forty years ago, much more was waiting to be discovered or created than there is today. Big improvements were accessible then, but no more.I don't disagree, however; I think the real future of GP is its past. Days when BMW, Porsche, Honda, Ford(Cosworth), et al, supplied the engine tech but the teams were there for the racing alone. What did those days give us? Innovation by the bucket load and on the cheap.
11 pints of Strongbow shared with an old college friend are now telling me to go to bed. See ya.
That does not mean that F1 must be technologically boring. What has been invented/developed but banned in F1 in the last decade?
- KERS
- CVT
- "Torque-bias diff"
- Mass damper
- "Fiddle brake" (lateral brake bias)
- Body pieces with designed-in flexibility
- Traction control under braking
- Honda front "differential"
There are probably a dozen more things that I am forgetting, and this is not to mention the massive improvements in tyre technology that came along regularly until Mosley decided he wanted a control tyre. Remember the good old days of gorgeous-sounding 10 and 12 cylinder engines? And what would the cars look like if there were no artificial limits on their external design and aero effectiveness?
At least 4 items on your list are/were not invented/developed by F1 bods. Adapted perhaps. Otherwise you are correct, and I agree.
My point and MRM, much as I despise him, agrees, is that the road car manufacturers are likely fickle. That is what he is trying to factor out. Why might they be fickle? Um...?
Chapman, with nothing, McLaren, with the MP4 and very little, Tyrell, in a wood shed, Brabham with dustbins. Yes I know the world has moved on and those days are long gone but it is the principle that is important here. Teams are flexible and inventive/innovative, because they want to race. Manufacturers only, ultimately, want to be seen winning/succeeding, so participate for other reasons.
No, I'm making no sense in my hesad right now, so really, nighty night.
My point and MRM, much as I despise him, agrees, is that the road car manufacturers are likely fickle. That is what he is trying to factor out. Why might they be fickle? Um...?
Chapman, with nothing, McLaren, with the MP4 and very little, Tyrell, in a wood shed, Brabham with dustbins. Yes I know the world has moved on and those days are long gone but it is the principle that is important here. Teams are flexible and inventive/innovative, because they want to race. Manufacturers only, ultimately, want to be seen winning/succeeding, so participate for other reasons.
No, I'm making no sense in my hesad right now, so really, nighty night.
Shuvi said:
At least 4 items on your list are/were not invented/developed by F1 bods. Adapted perhaps. Otherwise you are correct, and I agree.
Not developed? We must have very different definitions of "developed". So far as I know, quite a bit of time and effort was spent on each by at least one team...Anyhow, my point is that there is still plenty of creative potentiality in F1, if only the regulator would get the hell out of the way.
Shuvi said:
My (hic) point and MRM, much as I despise him, agrees (hic), is that the road car manufacturers are likely fickle. That is what he is trying to factor out. Why might they be fickle? Um...? You're my best mate you are.
Chapman, with nothing, (hic) McLaren, with the MP4 and very little, Tyrell, in a wood shed, Brabham with dustbins. Yes I know the world has moved on and those days are long gone but it (hic) is the principle that is important here. Teams are flexible and inventive/innovative, because they want to race. Manufacturers (hic) only, ultimately, want to be seen winning/succeeding, so participate (hic) for other reasons.
No, I'm making no sense in my hesad right now, so really, nighty night.
And the winner of the 2008 drunken semi-rant with half-hearted apology goes to.....Chapman, with nothing, (hic) McLaren, with the MP4 and very little, Tyrell, in a wood shed, Brabham with dustbins. Yes I know the world has moved on and those days are long gone but it (hic) is the principle that is important here. Teams are flexible and inventive/innovative, because they want to race. Manufacturers (hic) only, ultimately, want to be seen winning/succeeding, so participate (hic) for other reasons.
No, I'm making no sense in my hesad right now, so really, nighty night.
.....Shuvi.
Nice one mate. Maybe we should start a thread where you can only post if you're pi$$ed, it would be hilarious.
Speaking of the Mosley 5 Year Plan, check out der Flogmeister's latest:
Teams Mystified By Engine Unfreeze
Leading Formula One teams say they are baffled about the decision by the FIA to equalize engines for next season.
Following a push by Red Bull Racing and Renault to even up engine performance, the sport's governing body announced in the build-up to the Japanese Grand Prix that power units would be equalized for 2009 providing cost cutting measures are introduced.
Although how the engines will be equalized has not been confirmed, representatives from McLaren-Mercedes and BMW-Sauber are not too happy about the move.
McLaren boss Ron Dennis said: "We are a little bit mystified. All that talk about the five-year stability rule, the initiative was driven by cost-reduction and we have taken that cost reduction.
"To get the cost reduction, we have completely dismantled our engine development teams and, what we have now, is individuals that are focused and with completely different skill levels on reliability.
"These are guys that really understand the material properties and the characteristics of components that are under loads in engines. It's a completely different group of technologies, a much smaller group of technologies that are focused on reliability."
And Dennis queries how it can be possible to equalize engines for next season if the introduction of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) will likely bring out performance differential between teams.
"In reality, we love the challenge of KERS. We think it could be one of the best things ever because it's so challenging, it's so complex and so difficult to master. And it if is mastered well it could create a performance differential. But of course with that comes cost.
"The fear I have is that if we can't have the stability we were committed to in our engines, then what likelihood is there that we will have stability if there's a big differential about how well KERS has been implemented by the teams.
"From our point of view, we are completely receptive to giving everybody the opportunity to improve their engines, but whatever the decision is, it should be the same for everybody.
"We don't mind, we will adapt, we will re-resource, we will finance and we will do what's necessary to maintain our competitiveness as we will with KERS because we love the engineering challenge.
"Putting aside what it contributes to mankind, I want to make the point that this is not the way to save money. We'll embrace it, we'll do it, but from this time last year having five years of engine stability to be already looking at addressing some of those issues does our head in."
He added: "We're not negative to anything, but we are confused by the constant change in message. Are we saving money? Are we having a technological race? On the one hand we've got KERS, on the other we've got engines that are all the same. We're opening up engines that were sealed for five years. It's very confusing.
"Change costs money. We've got very good motor racing at the moment. It's so close and the others will catch up. If we have to do things, we'll do them, but let's do them against an absolute background of understanding about what we're doing and why we're doing it, because we're confused."
BMW motorsport director Mario Theissen added: "The announcement of the FIA to allow something like engine equalisation doesn't say what will happen now, it just opens the door. In my view, there are several aspects to be taken into account.
"Firstly, it's a competitive issue - it changes the playing field. Secondly, if we open up something, it has to be open for everybody. Thirdly, if that isn't done carefully we will initiate another cost race and a technology race on an already very expensive engine.
"In my view, this has to be very carefully discussed within FOTA in the technical working group and the engine working group to come up with, if at all, something sensible."
Not all manufacturers are upset about the move to equalize engines, however. Honda Racing CEO Nick Fry told autosport.com that he welcomed the decision to help under-powered engines – of which Honda is believed to be one – get a performance increase.
"The FIA, since we have had the common ECU, clearly have a lot of information about the relative performance of the engines," he explained. "Although it was never intended with the frozen engine, there is clearly a disparity.
"So we are pleased moves will be made to pull it back together again. I am not an expert on what the FIA can see from the modules, but I am sure they have good information of the power characteristics. So to equalise the power curves is something that on the surface can be done."
From:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71420
Teams Mystified By Engine Unfreeze
Leading Formula One teams say they are baffled about the decision by the FIA to equalize engines for next season.
Following a push by Red Bull Racing and Renault to even up engine performance, the sport's governing body announced in the build-up to the Japanese Grand Prix that power units would be equalized for 2009 providing cost cutting measures are introduced.
Although how the engines will be equalized has not been confirmed, representatives from McLaren-Mercedes and BMW-Sauber are not too happy about the move.
McLaren boss Ron Dennis said: "We are a little bit mystified. All that talk about the five-year stability rule, the initiative was driven by cost-reduction and we have taken that cost reduction.
"To get the cost reduction, we have completely dismantled our engine development teams and, what we have now, is individuals that are focused and with completely different skill levels on reliability.
"These are guys that really understand the material properties and the characteristics of components that are under loads in engines. It's a completely different group of technologies, a much smaller group of technologies that are focused on reliability."
And Dennis queries how it can be possible to equalize engines for next season if the introduction of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) will likely bring out performance differential between teams.
"In reality, we love the challenge of KERS. We think it could be one of the best things ever because it's so challenging, it's so complex and so difficult to master. And it if is mastered well it could create a performance differential. But of course with that comes cost.
"The fear I have is that if we can't have the stability we were committed to in our engines, then what likelihood is there that we will have stability if there's a big differential about how well KERS has been implemented by the teams.
"From our point of view, we are completely receptive to giving everybody the opportunity to improve their engines, but whatever the decision is, it should be the same for everybody.
"We don't mind, we will adapt, we will re-resource, we will finance and we will do what's necessary to maintain our competitiveness as we will with KERS because we love the engineering challenge.
"Putting aside what it contributes to mankind, I want to make the point that this is not the way to save money. We'll embrace it, we'll do it, but from this time last year having five years of engine stability to be already looking at addressing some of those issues does our head in."
He added: "We're not negative to anything, but we are confused by the constant change in message. Are we saving money? Are we having a technological race? On the one hand we've got KERS, on the other we've got engines that are all the same. We're opening up engines that were sealed for five years. It's very confusing.
"Change costs money. We've got very good motor racing at the moment. It's so close and the others will catch up. If we have to do things, we'll do them, but let's do them against an absolute background of understanding about what we're doing and why we're doing it, because we're confused."
BMW motorsport director Mario Theissen added: "The announcement of the FIA to allow something like engine equalisation doesn't say what will happen now, it just opens the door. In my view, there are several aspects to be taken into account.
"Firstly, it's a competitive issue - it changes the playing field. Secondly, if we open up something, it has to be open for everybody. Thirdly, if that isn't done carefully we will initiate another cost race and a technology race on an already very expensive engine.
"In my view, this has to be very carefully discussed within FOTA in the technical working group and the engine working group to come up with, if at all, something sensible."
Not all manufacturers are upset about the move to equalize engines, however. Honda Racing CEO Nick Fry told autosport.com that he welcomed the decision to help under-powered engines – of which Honda is believed to be one – get a performance increase.
"The FIA, since we have had the common ECU, clearly have a lot of information about the relative performance of the engines," he explained. "Although it was never intended with the frozen engine, there is clearly a disparity.
"So we are pleased moves will be made to pull it back together again. I am not an expert on what the FIA can see from the modules, but I am sure they have good information of the power characteristics. So to equalise the power curves is something that on the surface can be done."
From:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71420
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff