Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57
  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,442
    Like
    14
    Liked 790 Times in 652 Posts
    It would seem the FIA has backed down on its push for cheaper engines. Bernies subtle politics has met a momentary obstacle some may say. With such enthusiastic and promising response from the tender for supply of the 2.2 litre engines, one would doubt that this matter is properly over. All would rest with how robust the proposal to be put forward by the manufacturer teams is. It would be particularly interesting to see what propose and if it would be acceptable to mid size to small teams. I think it would come down to whether the manufacturer teams can supply cheap engines that is no slower than 1 sec than the more expensive hybrid engines.

    With 2 seasons of the hybrid season gone, it is possible that the manufacturer teams would be able to find a combination of the past evolution of engine parts that could be strung together to produce a suitably cheap engine.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 25th November 2015 at 21:31.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    8,414
    Like
    488
    Liked 793 Times in 587 Posts
    Simple ploy to get some compromise , it seems .
    Rumour has it that teams may ask for 16 , instead of Todt's !2 million , to be considered as cheap .

    BE and JT need to careful they don't say too much about the ploy , given there's some obvious work that goes into making a tender , and some karma coming the next time they ask anyone for any bids for entry .

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,442
    Like
    14
    Liked 790 Times in 652 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwan View Post
    Simple ploy to get some compromise , it seems .
    Rumour has it that teams may ask for 16 , instead of Todt's !2 million , to be considered as cheap .

    BE and JT need to careful they don't say too much about the ploy , given there's some obvious work that goes into making a tender , and some karma coming the next time they ask anyone for any bids for entry .
    Those 2 are like buddies now. I wonder how many times they text each other in a day :-)

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,442
    Like
    14
    Liked 790 Times in 652 Posts
    Every so often Andrew Benson puts out one those gem of an article that is unmissable. The following is a thorough incite into the state of affairs of current F1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35037357 . The tripartite tug of of war continues. While the world commission has blocked the dirty cheap engines, the world council has contrarily enpowered Todt and Ecclestone to take whatever action they deem necessary to revive F1.

    It would seem the manufacturer teams have big sway in the commission but not in the council. But what does this new emergency power given to the FIA and Rights owners mean? I doubt it is powerful enough to block the manufacturers from leaving F1 if it does not align with their commercial interests. Similarly, a decision making process that does not include the teams is a recipe for the death of F1 as we know it; surely.

    The world council's mandate to the FIA and the rights owners seems somewhat comical at best, and certainly is without aspirational conviction. I say this because the mandate would be properly tested at a price that may quickly dislocate the interests of the FIA from that of the rights owner, if the prospect of the continuation of racing under the banner of F1 by the teams collectively [bar Redbull] is under threat of coming to an end. Whatever the new banner might be, the FIA must be in a position to provide governance or it also puts itself at risk of losing legitimacy to govern all world motorsport.
    As far as the rights go, it is only as good as the number of teams that are willing to race in it. This is the main reason the World council mandate is comical as they seem to have lost sight of the symbiotic relationship that binds this tripartite endeavour which is F1.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 11th December 2015 at 19:38.

  5. #55
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    10
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    There's no point really focusing on the current rules and formats of F1. Everything seems to change before it's begun, everything's fine apart from DRS and the no fuelling aspect. I preferred to watch cars fly around a track on no fuel, pit in and fire out again. This was proper strategy!

    Controversially, I wouldn't mind seeing rules causing all cars having to have similar power and performance. This'll create better racing and would make it more down to drivers rather than 'whoever has more money/resources.'

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,442
    Like
    14
    Liked 790 Times in 652 Posts
    Alas, Horner has joined in the call for rule changes. He claims Redbull won four titles but did not have as easy as Mercedes is having it. The boot is on the other foot now buddy.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,442
    Like
    14
    Liked 790 Times in 652 Posts
    Isn't it great, the FIA is crapping engine restrictions from 2017, hip hip hoooooraay :-)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •