Roebuck in this months Motorsport - wtf?
Discussion
Ref various rule changes down the years.
Nigel Roebuck said:
Why not, they suggested, stick with the existing V10s, and simply impose a lower rev limit? It would be simpler, they argued, and immeasureably cheaper. Mosley, though, was not to be swayed, and gradually the manufacturers began to bend the knee, so that eventually only two - BMW & Honda - refused to give their agreement.
Eventually....... they were persuaded, but trust me, the means by which it was achieved were not pretty..At all.
What is that about? I heard some rumours about EURONCAP crash tests but does anyone here know anymore? (and is brave enough to post!) Mr Smith? Flemke?Eventually....... they were persuaded, but trust me, the means by which it was achieved were not pretty..At all.
The general consensus seems to be that BMW conceded to the change as they were threatened with a low NCAP rating on the 5 series (I think) if they did not. They agreed and it came out with a good rating.
I doubt anyone who really knows is likely to come out and say it specifically in the near future, although I was hoping that BMW may have said something about it as part of their reason for leaving F1 - it must have played a part in the decision, even these few years later.
I doubt anyone who really knows is likely to come out and say it specifically in the near future, although I was hoping that BMW may have said something about it as part of their reason for leaving F1 - it must have played a part in the decision, even these few years later.
The lower rev limit on the V10s was the obvious way to go if you wanted to reduce costs. That much was made entirely clear by virtually all the correspondents at the time. The move to V8s was patently against the CA and the only way it could be got through was to claim it was a safety move yet a V10 with a rev limit would have been so much simpler and cheaper according to everyone with any idea about F1.
The NCAP report was mentioned in a number of on-line, and well respected, sources, originally rather obliquely - too much so for me - but then clear enough. For a bloke who is willing to sue on very iffy grounds it's surprising he didn't give this one a run. If dressing up as Germans, speaking the language, death camp scenarios and We are Aryans doesn't equate to Naziism then just looking at him wrongly is worth £60,000.
Was the resistance of the move to V8s from the manufacturers, i.e. the ones who would actually have to pay for them, the start of the pogram against them? When Mosley lost a vote on something very minor on karting of all things it was as if they'd insulted his mother. Oh, hold on, his mother was a Nazi-loving Hitler fanatic, or do I mean Hitler-loving Nazi fanatic, and, some might say even worse, a Mitford, so poor analogy there. So let's see, what does he love? Oh, right, it was as if they'd insulted him. He threw his teddies out of the pram and then resigned. He then, according to Pitpass, ignored his resignation and threw those who'd voted against him out of not the pram but the FiA. So history repeating itself by the attack on the manufacturers perhaps?
The move to V8s was, whatever the reason, an expensive solution. Brundle was a firm supporter of reducing the rev limit on V10s as a solution and wrote a very enlightening article. At least Mosley didn't have a go at him for that. Apart from the threat of suing of course on some other matter.
The NCAP report was mentioned in a number of on-line, and well respected, sources, originally rather obliquely - too much so for me - but then clear enough. For a bloke who is willing to sue on very iffy grounds it's surprising he didn't give this one a run. If dressing up as Germans, speaking the language, death camp scenarios and We are Aryans doesn't equate to Naziism then just looking at him wrongly is worth £60,000.
Was the resistance of the move to V8s from the manufacturers, i.e. the ones who would actually have to pay for them, the start of the pogram against them? When Mosley lost a vote on something very minor on karting of all things it was as if they'd insulted his mother. Oh, hold on, his mother was a Nazi-loving Hitler fanatic, or do I mean Hitler-loving Nazi fanatic, and, some might say even worse, a Mitford, so poor analogy there. So let's see, what does he love? Oh, right, it was as if they'd insulted him. He threw his teddies out of the pram and then resigned. He then, according to Pitpass, ignored his resignation and threw those who'd voted against him out of not the pram but the FiA. So history repeating itself by the attack on the manufacturers perhaps?
The move to V8s was, whatever the reason, an expensive solution. Brundle was a firm supporter of reducing the rev limit on V10s as a solution and wrote a very enlightening article. At least Mosley didn't have a go at him for that. Apart from the threat of suing of course on some other matter.
MartG said:
IIRC Toro Rosso claimed force-majeure and ran with detuned V10s alongside the V8s for the first year, and their performance was roughly on par with the V8 cars, which pretty much proves the point that the detuned v10s would have done the job, and with much reduced cost
Just for accuracy, it was actually the Minardi team who had been given the exemption to run the V10, but were then taken over by Red Bull who continued to use the exemption which the FIA had granted, based on the financial implications to Minardi of having to change.MartG said:
IIRC Toro Rosso claimed force-majeure and ran with detuned V10s alongside the V8s for the first year, and their performance was roughly on par with the V8 cars, which pretty much proves the point that the detuned v10s would have done the job, and with much reduced cost
yupand now....again for the same reasons...we have detuned V8s!
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff