Has the FIA forgotten what F1 is really about?

Has the FIA forgotten what F1 is really about?

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 16th November 2017
quotequote all
oyster said:
jsf said:
Limiting engines doesn't save a penny. The amount of investment required to make an engine that can last 7 races is huge. Just this change from 4 to 3 engines per year has required new engines with different spec major components that all have to be rig proven. Renault is against the relaxation from the 2018 rules because they just designed a completely new engine for next year to cope with the extra life.

The cost is in the R&D and prototyping, not the production. We need a much cheaper architecture than the current V6 hybrid if we are ever going to see new manufacturers involved.
But you've completely missed off the additional R&D costs of having additional engine specs per engine through the season.

If you have 10 engines for the season, then the engineers will be looking to R&D 10 times.
You think they aren't doing that now?

They may only release 4 specs in a year due to the regs but they will be flat out all the time testing new ideas.

sparta6

3,689 posts

99 months

Friday 17th November 2017
quotequote all
MitchT said:
Does F1 have to be governed by the FIA? I know the organisation has its finger up the bum of most motorsports but it doen't have anything to do with Indy Car or NASCAR, for example, so surely F1 could escape its grasp?
Completely possible and would be a more cost effective option for Liberty. They could establish a new global Governing Body for between £5m - £7m.

But it would mean the French not running the show anymore

iandc

Original Poster:

3,708 posts

205 months

Friday 17th November 2017
quotequote all
sparta6 said:
Completely possible and would be a more cost effective option for Liberty. They could establish a new global Governing Body for between £5m - £7m.

But it would mean the French not running the show anymore
Yippee!!!

corozin

2,680 posts

270 months

Friday 17th November 2017
quotequote all
For a number of drivers, this season has been reduced to a bad joke by the existing rules. Alonso spent a good chunk of an already bad season taking 25 and 35 place grid penalties because of reliability problems; Jenson Button turned up fresh at the Monaco GP and inherited a grid penalty for something that happened when he wasn't even in the car, and Brendon Hartley arrived at his first bloody F1 race to receive a 25 place penalty for something that happened when Carlos Saintz was driving!

The situation is ridiculous. Lewis Hamilton has observed, correctly in my view, that the halo devices are going to introduce as many safety issues as they are alleged to fix, will affect the handling, and look ridiculous. He is also not the only driver to comment on the ridiculous 2017 engine formula. The cars already spend enough time coasting at many circuits to preserve fuel, engines and tyres and the new rules are going to make that situation worse.

It seems that everyone involved; the FIA, the various lawyers, the teams and Liberty media are all so preoccupied fighting to control and thier own interests that collectively everyone has forgotton about the thing that matters - the punters who watch the sport and (mostly) pay for it, be that via tickets, PPV subscriptions or purchases of sponsors products.

Formula One is not a sacred cow. It has no divine right to be popular, and viewing figures have been on a significant slide for a few years now. If they continue to f**k around with it, people will just go and do something else.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 17th November 2017
quotequote all
sparta6 said:
MitchT said:
Does F1 have to be governed by the FIA? I know the organisation has its finger up the bum of most motorsports but it doen't have anything to do with Indy Car or NASCAR, for example, so surely F1 could escape its grasp?
Completely possible and would be a more cost effective option for Liberty. They could establish a new global Governing Body for between £5m - £7m.

But it would mean the French not running the show anymore
Be careful what you wish for.

The ACO runs its own series although under the umbrella of the FIA. It is not without its critics for the way it is organised, especially with regards favouritism.

If Liberty takes full control of F1, albeit allowing the FIA some regulatory function, then it has total control. I'm not sure this is a particularly good idea.

At the moment we have different 'interest' bodies in the sport: the FIA, Liberty and the car manufacturers. The balance of power shifts regularly. At one time the manufacturers had the whip hand and then someone with lots of money thrust a small bit into the hands of one of the teams (initially) and promised a favourable deal and all of a sudden the organisation of manufacturers lost its authority.

The rights holders and the FIA were quite close, so leaving control in the hands of one power broker as such, and the rest were left with limited, influence, although it varied over time. Their handling of the sport when completely in charge was not without its critics.

Whilst Liberty might not have the same immediate targets as the FIA/rights holder, it is a leap of faith to assume that theirs and the fans' dovetail.

Let's see how things develop.

There is a chance, of course, that Liberty will be worse than the grouping it replaced. We might think that is impossible, but I'm sure that where multi millions of pounds are concerned, such limits don't apply.

Liberty hasn't got my full confidence, but I have no evidence to suggest that F1 is not getting better for us.


iandc

Original Poster:

3,708 posts

205 months

Friday 17th November 2017
quotequote all
corozin said:
For a number of drivers, this season has been reduced to a bad joke by the existing rules. Alonso spent a good chunk of an already bad season taking 25 and 35 place grid penalties because of reliability problems; Jenson Button turned up fresh at the Monaco GP and inherited a grid penalty for something that happened when he wasn't even in the car, and Brendon Hartley arrived at his first bloody F1 race to receive a 25 place penalty for something that happened when Carlos Saintz was driving!

The situation is ridiculous. Lewis Hamilton has observed, correctly in my view, that the halo devices are going to introduce as many safety issues as they are alleged to fix, will affect the handling, and look ridiculous. He is also not the only driver to comment on the ridiculous 2017 engine formula. The cars already spend enough time coasting at many circuits to preserve fuel, engines and tyres and the new rules are going to make that situation worse.

It seems that everyone involved; the FIA, the various lawyers, the teams and Liberty media are all so preoccupied fighting to control and thier own interests that collectively everyone has forgotton about the thing that matters - the punters who watch the sport and (mostly) pay for it, be that via tickets, PPV subscriptions or purchases of sponsors products.

Formula One is not a sacred cow. It has no divine right to be popular, and viewing figures have been on a significant slide for a few years now. If they continue to f**k around with it, people will just go and do something else.
Totally agree. The grid penalties I guess will only get worse next season as they reduce to 3 engines without penalty. Will next season's WDC be the driver who can manage his engines best rather than the best driver?

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 17th November 2017
quotequote all
corozin said:
For a number of drivers, this season has been reduced to a bad joke by the existing rules. Alonso spent a good chunk of an already bad season taking 25 and 35 place grid penalties because of reliability problems; Jenson Button turned up fresh at the Monaco GP and inherited a grid penalty for something that happened when he wasn't even in the car, and Brendon Hartley arrived at his first bloody F1 race to receive a 25 place penalty for something that happened when Carlos Saintz was driving!

The situation is ridiculous. Lewis Hamilton has observed, correctly in my view, that the halo devices are going to introduce as many safety issues as they are alleged to fix, will affect the handling, and look ridiculous. He is also not the only driver to comment on the ridiculous 2017 engine formula. The cars already spend enough time coasting at many circuits to preserve fuel, engines and tyres and the new rules are going to make that situation worse.

It seems that everyone involved; the FIA, the various lawyers, the teams and Liberty media are all so preoccupied fighting to control and thier own interests that collectively everyone has forgotton about the thing that matters - the punters who watch the sport and (mostly) pay for it, be that via tickets, PPV subscriptions or purchases of sponsors products.

Formula One is not a sacred cow. It has no divine right to be popular, and viewing figures have been on a significant slide for a few years now. If they continue to f**k around with it, people will just go and do something else.
You have to feel for Alonso, Button and Vandoorne.

Surely having the Honda engine during 2017 should have been enough of a penalty without adding more.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 17th November 2017
quotequote all
Taken from Autosport

Formula 1 managing director of motorsport Ross Brawn has outlined how the power unit limitations behind grand prix racing's current farcical level of grid penalties can be eliminated.

With just one race of the season remaining, there have been a total of 730 grid penalties issued for power unit elements changes this season - excluding gearbox penalties.

Honda has picked up a mammoth 380 places worth of penalties and Renault 310, while Ferrari and Mercedes have just 20 each.

To put these numbers into context, the entire season of 21 races only holds 420 grid slots - but the of threat unintended consequences means there is no easy solution to the matter.

For example, if you dock constructors' championship points a team may be able to absorb the hit, and should one driver get a better engine without punishment it would be equally problematic.

Brawn has noted a division between internal combustion penalties, which account for about one third of the total, and those related to add-on elements like the turbo or energy recovery systems.

His idea is to introduce simpler, cheaper turbos and energy recovery systems, stopping the need for a need to limit on how many can be used.

"What I think we should try to achieve with the new engine is componentry that is economic to change whenever you want," said Brawn.

"If we go towards a different design of turbocharger, a homologated turbo, and it costs $2-3,000, why would you bother to even worry about limiting the number you use?

"It is not worth it in terms of the scale of the racing.

"But when your turbocharger is as expensive and complicated as it is now, then that's why we have the limitations.

"The engine is an incredible demonstration of engineering competence, but it is not a great racing engine."

The idea of simpler engines jars with grand prix racing as a proving ground for new technology.

But Brawn believes this cannot come at the expense of entertainment, highlighting the World Endurance Championship's loss of Audi and Porsche in LMP1 in successive seasons.

"It has been interesting because Porsche have been in the meetings and they have been able to add their opinion because they have seen both sides," said Brawn.

"And they have been able to add that understanding of what went on, and it did become too much of a technical exercise.

"Sportscar racing has its fan following but even in the environment where the fans were not the biggest thing, it faltered and it failed.

"In this environment, where the fans should be the biggest thing, we can't afford to have that sort of failure where we get so extreme we lose contact with the fans, because only a very few people can afford the technology and excel in the technology.

"We are four seasons into this technology and we are still getting so many grid penalties.

"All credit to Mercedes. They have done a fantastic job. But no-one else can catch up. That is the reality."


37chevy

3,280 posts

155 months

Saturday 18th November 2017
quotequote all
ash73 said:
That's the key point, imo. And when that team doesn't have two competitive drivers it's pointless even watching.

I don't think Jean Todt has been a good FIA president, and I'm surprised that doesn't get more scrutiny.

Apparently Ferrari have vetoed blocking the 3 engines rule. They need to get rid of the "all teams must agree" rule, and equalise the funding.
That’s a little bit defeatist. Ferrari were leading until the Asia leg, where they had a crash, and yes a couple of issues. Bear in mind they had punctures at Silverstone too...so the championship could be looking very different. Their engine reliability hasn’t been that bad this year, just the drivers and teams have messed up in other ways too

Vaud

50,289 posts

154 months

Saturday 18th November 2017
quotequote all
Ferraris position is also understandable; they have put a lot of R&D into designing an engine for next year that lasts against the 3 engine criteria.

Rule changes should be planned and in advance, not ad hoc (aside from reactions to safety which should be measured but can be quick)

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 18th November 2017
quotequote all
ash73 said:
That's the key point, imo. And when that team doesn't have two competitive drivers it's pointless even watching.

I don't think Jean Todt has been a good FIA president, and I'm surprised that doesn't get more scrutiny.

Apparently Ferrari have vetoed blocking the 3 engines rule. They need to get rid of the "all teams must agree" rule, and equalise the funding.
I was delighted to hear when Jean Todt became the FIA president as he was part of the successful Michael Schumacher years and also part of the Group B era of rallying.

I was extremely hopeful that his appointment would be a blessing.

The reality is shocking.

You would be more likely to see Shergar racing in the Grand National than seeing Mr Todt at a GP weekend.

He is a waste of money and time and should not be in the job.



Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Saturday 18th November 2017
quotequote all
ELUSIVEJIM said:
I was delighted to hear when Jean Todt became the FIA president as he was part of the successful Michael Schumacher years and also part of the Group B era of rallying.

I was extremely hopeful that his appointment would be a blessing.

The reality is shocking.

You would be more likely to see Shergar racing in the Grand National than seeing Mr Todt at a GP weekend.

He is a waste of money and time and should not be in the job.
That's a bit harsh. He was left in a difficult position. Someone, can't remember the has been's name, changed the system whereby the FIA received money directly from F1. They get money through the super licences but other than that, zilch. Todt has to support other streams of income.

On top of that, compare his tenure with that of either of the two predecessors. Any comments about naziism? Any accusations of favouritism? Any races lost due to his intervention? Any nonsensical fines?

When you consider the decisions made by both his predecessors, Todt's behaviour has been exemplary.

At a time when there are new owners of the rights to F1, Todt has to tread with care. He can't ignore the agreements made before he was in position. He's been neutered.

On top of that, F1 is only part of the FIA's responsibility, and probably not the main one; not now anyway.

He's not done anything outstandingly good, but then he's not made a fist of it, so an improvement.


anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 18th November 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
That's a bit harsh. He was left in a difficult position. Someone, can't remember the has been's name, changed the system whereby the FIA received money directly from F1. They get money through the super licences but other than that, zilch. Todt has to support other streams of income.

On top of that, compare his tenure with that of either of the two predecessors. Any comments about naziism? Any accusations of favouritism? Any races lost due to his intervention? Any nonsensical fines?

When you consider the decisions made by both his predecessors, Todt's behaviour has been exemplary.

At a time when there are new owners of the rights to F1, Todt has to tread with care. He can't ignore the agreements made before he was in position. He's been neutered.

On top of that, F1 is only part of the FIA's responsibility, and probably not the main one; not now anyway.

He's not done anything outstandingly good, but then he's not made a fist of it, so an improvement.
Anyone who does nothing can only be exemplary biggrin