Mosley wants action to 'save' F1 [Archive]

ArrowsFA1

8th October 2008, 08:11

Formula One has been told it needs to implement drastic cost-cutting measures by 2010 if it is to remain "credible".

FIA president Max Mosley told BBC Sport that the global credit crisis had only exacerbated problems for F1 and several teams were now in danger of quitting.
"It has become apparent, long before the current difficulties, that Formula One was unsustainable," said Mosley. "It really is a very serious situation. If we can't get this done for 2010, we will be in serious difficulty."
Mosley warned: "We've got various means of making sure they don't spend that money, but it does mean some draconian changes."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7657298.stm

So is Max right or is this just more threat and bluster? Who are the "several teams"? What "draconian changes" can we expect?

Not so long ago FOTA said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71034) "The good thing is that people now realise that we do have to do something and I think (we are having) quite a creative open discussion." FOTA are already working on their proposals and haven't yet presented them to the FIA.

ShiftingGears

8th October 2008, 08:14

So who's going to fire him?

SGWilko

8th October 2008, 08:29

^ :up: I was going to say, my advice to Max on this subject would be - 'resign'. :)

SGWilko

8th October 2008, 08:31

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7657298.stm

So is Max right or is this just more threat and bluster? Who are the "several teams"? What "draconian changes" can we expect?

Williams are sponsored by....

RBS - In serious 5hit in the UK.
HAd sold a stake in the company to Bauger?, who are owned by an Icelandic bank, and if you thought our problems were bad, Iceland could quite easily go bust very soon............

MAX_THRUST

8th October 2008, 09:15

Knock-on

8th October 2008, 09:29

You cannot cap what individual companies spend on F1. It's as simple as that.

If sponsorship slows up, teams will spend less.

Dave B

8th October 2008, 09:47

Somebody needs to save F1 from Max.

In my personal opinion (lawyers ;) ) the guy's becoming unhinged. His attempts to save costs are laudable but you don't achieve that by constantly tinkering with the rules every few years.

F1 is becoming a laughing stock. Standard ECUs have no place in the sport; and now we're seeing gimmicks like push-to-pass buttons dressed up as an envionmental measure, and the threat of capped budgets. Carry on like this and soon F1 will be indistinguishable from A1GP.

V12

8th October 2008, 09:49

We need to get Max laid again. At least it managed to shut him up for a few months.

jens

8th October 2008, 11:01

Dramatic changes? Maybe we will finally see customer teams and cars in 2010?

When it seemed 2009 is a "radical change" and after this the situation calms down, then now it looks like 2009 marks only the beginning of the era of complete makeover of F1. :p :

MAX_THRUST

8th October 2008, 11:04

Knock-on

8th October 2008, 11:19

You can't save costs any better or be any greener than using customer cars...Not sure what Max is really trying to achieve, but the FIA are causing more problems than correcting them these days. Don't get what is going on.

I really believe Max is the problem, and always have. He moans about how F1 is run, that's not his job that's Bernies.

Agree wholeheartedly with you.

The FIA is there to govern the sport from a regulations perspective.

They are supposed to set technical and sporting rules and enforce them in a consistent and fair way.

:rolleyes: Yeah, right :rolleyes:

F1 cannot go on much longer as it is.

ioan

8th October 2008, 11:22

I have a feeling that with the current financial troubles there might be a very natural spending cap on F1 teams. If there will be F1 at all in a couple of years.

MAX_THRUST

8th October 2008, 11:34

If F1 fails in the next few years who will we all blame........tha man that contiunaly brings the sport into the press often for the wrong reasons. At the end of the day Max wants the sport to fail with in two years of him leaving.

We are dealing with a bitter man at the moment, vengefull man. If he is justified to feel aggrieved is your own opinion, but sinking F1 because of his petty pollitics is not acceptable. I am deeply concerned about his behaviour and I think many others will start to speak openly as well.

What with Ferraris recent sour grapes, and involvement in A1GP who knows what will happen next to F1 and what threats Ferrari will throw. Now more than ever the series organises need to be balanced in there approach and fair. Customer cars must surely be introduced soon.

Dave B

8th October 2008, 11:45

I have a feeling that with the current financial troubles there might be a very natural spending cap on F1 teams. If there will be F1 at all in a couple of years.
Teams will cut their coat according to their cloth - they always have and always will.

The danger is that in the medium-term the big manufacturers, having bought up or invested in the traditional garagistes, will pull out or significantly reduce their involvement. How these teams cope with their changed circumstances we can only speculate, but those who best manage the transition will be in a strong position.

ArrowsFA1

8th October 2008, 11:46

I think many others will start to speak openly as well...
Sadly we've seen what happens if they dare try :dozey:

Knock-on

8th October 2008, 11:46

Following a meeting in Paris on Tuesday, the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) issued the following statement:

“The WMSC unanimously agreed to give the FIA President authority to negotiate with the Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) the introduction of radical measures to achieve a substantial reduction of costs in the championship from 2010.

“Failing agreement with FOTA, the FIA will enforce the necessary measures to achieve this goal.

“It was further unanimously agreed to allow Formula One teams to equalise engine performance across the field for 2009, pending the introduction of cost-saving measures from 2010.”

So, the teams accept Max's ideas or they get implemented anyway :(

Way to negiotiate max :(

And what is the 2nd part all about?

The teams can "equalise" engine performance before next year.

What does that mean exactly?

ArrowsFA1

8th October 2008, 11:49

F2 "on the cheap" seems to be Max's model for the future of F1. I only hope that FOTA has the strength of purpose to come up with proposals that the FIA President can, or will, accept.

V12

8th October 2008, 12:04

F2 "on the cheap" seems to be Max's model for the future of F1.

That's a very scary thought indeed. Even scarier is the fact that you may well be right. I for one am sitting with my fingers crossed that "F2" crashes and burns, because if it does change the face of motorsport as we know it, I for one won't stick around to watch.

Dave B

8th October 2008, 12:07

The teams can "equalise" engine performance before next year.

What does that mean exactly?
It means an admission that the freeze on development as a cost-saving measure has failed massively.

Instead of investing year-by-year in engine development, manufacturers will now pour huge sums into one massive push next year.

Result: no money saved, and a likely advantage for the large teams who can allocate huge resources quickly.

Daniel

8th October 2008, 12:30

After watching Max on the news "BBC national news", I am afraid of what he will do next. He is clearly stupid!!! With all the stuff that has gone on about favouritism, he sits with a ferrari behind him. Not a problem really until the BBC zoom in at the end of the interview on it. Implying what I wonder?

Who was implying what you're wondering about? not Max himself. If he's had a STR there would people be talking about it? If he was REALLY so heavily biased as people say would he be stupid enough to have a Ferrari behind him in his office? I wouldn't say so.

I agree that capping is a load of bull. What you need to do is limit the benefits of pouring millions and millions into developing things so if Ferrari or McLaren want to spend millions developing a new type of screw which will give them a .0000001 second per lap advantage then they can but there will be no real point in doing it. Then you effectively cap F1 without having to enforce caps which is pretty much impossible. Ban the teams from making ANY aero changes unless they can show evidence that there is a safety issue and give them a variety of standard wings to choose from and you've just cut millions from the budgets of every F1 team. If you limit the potential for development of a car you limit the effectiveness of spending millions of euro's dollars pounds on development.

sal

8th October 2008, 12:32

Thought the most illuminating part of the interview on the BBC news last night with Mr M. was not the financial situation of F1 but the questions about the events in his private life which made all the headlines this year. In response he hardly appeared to suggest that he would be changing his habits, which must be re assuring for his wife, who the interviewer suggested had been oblivious to his tastes for the past 50 years! Mr M brushed it off by stating that it was all down to human nature and that there was little he could do about it.

What made me laugh was that behind Max's right shoulder was a 1/8th scale Ferrari F1 car, guess it was a "gift" from the Scuderia and in no way suggests a pro Ferrari bias?!!!

Daniel

8th October 2008, 12:38

wedge

8th October 2008, 12:56

I suppose I'm the only one here who has a bit of sympathy for Max.

Manufacturers will come and go but Max needs to keep them sweet one way or the other. People love to see manufacturer involvement. Look at Le Mans. There's been more interest when someone else is fighting against the Audis.

Costs needs to brought down/be more managable. Look what happened in Touring Cars. DTM/ITC destroyed itself because of huge costs. FIA came up with Super 2000 rules to keep costs down from Super Touring. I can't be the only who thought it was ridiculous idea at the time but almost a decade later its done a lot of good.

Valve Bounce

8th October 2008, 13:05

I have a feeling that with the current financial troubles there might be a very natural spending cap on F1 teams. If there will be F1 at all in a couple of years.

Things could be worse than we think. If you've checked the Nikei or the Hang Seng as well as the Dow and FTSE today, financial support for some of the F1 teams could disappear before the end of this month.

Actually, it may dry up even sooner. :(

Daniel

8th October 2008, 13:16

I think you're quite right wedge, but salary/budget caps will never work properly. S2000 is a great example of cost cutting that has worked in touring cars. There's less show but it's so cheap compared to how it used to be that some manufacturers can afford to run teams of more than 2 cars which is a good thing. Though a grid full of Leons gets a bit annoying. I fully agree cutting costs is the way forward but caps aren't a good way of doing that.

ioan

8th October 2008, 13:38

It means an admission that the freeze on development as a cost-saving measure has failed massively.

Instead of investing year-by-year in engine development, manufacturers will now pour huge sums into one massive push next year.

Result: no money saved, and a likely advantage for the large teams who can allocate huge resources quickly.

There will be money saved, because next year the manufacturers won't have as much money to pour into F1! :D
That is if some teams don't go bankrupt until that moment. I really fear that Williams will be in a dire situation give the RBS and Hamley's situation.

wedge

8th October 2008, 13:47

ioan

8th October 2008, 13:48

Things could be worse than we think. If you've checked the Nikei or the Hang Seng as well as the Dow and FTSE today, financial support for some of the F1 teams could disappear before the end of this month.

Actually, it may dry up even sooner. :(

Things are going so fast that in 1 week Iceland went from the hero to zero and are in a position to catch up with Zimbabwe's inflation (it won't happen because they have a solid economy based on fishing, but a financial debt of 6 times your GDP isn't exactly a rosy situation).

Still today at noon (CET) most central bans decided to cut their reference interest, and this meant all markets trends were reversed.

However this doesn't mean that a few banks wont be nationalized and that means no more money for sponsoring anything, especially given that Icelandic banks were way to present on many markets, with the UK being the main one.

Daniel

8th October 2008, 13:51

Ioan. You should go to the chit chat section if you enjoy talking about the credit crunch. Not saying don't discuss it here or anything, just that you can have a more in depth discussion there :up:

sal

8th October 2008, 14:49

*sigh* Would it have been better if there had been no model there? Why are people picking up on this meaningless observation when Max said stuff that was a lot more interesting, enlightening and worrying than a model f1 car.

Apologies that I don't inhabit the same high intellectual plane as you. It appealed to my sense of humour thats why I mentioned it.

I trust you mean interesting about his sexual preferences and not FI as he hardly came up with anything earth shattering about the World economic situation that may or may not affect the F1 circus. Anyway I'm sure Bernie would be able to prop it up in much the same way as the world's governments are propping up thier respective banking industries.

MAX_THRUST

8th October 2008, 15:25

As head of the FIA MAx should have been more prudent than having a Ferrari behind him when his organisation has been accused of being biased. Had it been a Force India, we'd all be happy. The fact that the producer/director of that interview felt fit to zoom in on the car at the end of the interview speaks volumes.

Max is clearly wanting to dig a big hole for himself. Its like watching OJ Simpson say it wasn't him in that hotel room, standing holding the merobilia..

Daniel

8th October 2008, 15:33

Speaks volumes about the producer yes. If they didn't zoom in would that mean Max isn't biased? :rotflmao:

I'm happy to have a dig at Max for his decisions and behaviour but his taste in car models doesn't bother me. This is about as relevant as his dad is to discussion on F1

Sarah

8th October 2008, 15:42

Daniel

8th October 2008, 15:46

ioan

8th October 2008, 16:54

Daniel

8th October 2008, 19:56

I've been posting today on my phone because internet use at work and didn't watch the video before I posted although i did watch it last night.

But I'm apalled at what people have said. Truly amazed, apalled, astonished, whatever......

Everyone bitches and moans about how much the Minardi's, Super Aguri's and Force India's of F1 have/had to spend spend to be back markers and how something needs to be done to keep the smaller teams in the sport. So Max suggests that it be made easier for teams to keep their heads above water and you poo poo his ideas. Sure he may be rude to ex-F1 drivers, he might get spanked by the occasional prostitute and he may make some boneheaded decisions which have hurt motorsport but when he comes along with a good idea to HELP the championship you can't see past your (perfectly justified I might say) hatred for the man. Cutting your nose off to spite your face springs to mind. Though a line which the great Jim Richards once uttered to a load of Australians seems a little more appropriate though conveniently I seem to have forgotten it.

If you truly loved this sport you'd forget what an incompetend fool of an idiot this man is and support cost cutting in F1. I was always happier in the WRC forum where the people realise it's going down the drain and work hard to discuss ways which they feel the FIA could and should change things to help the WRC get back to being as healthy as it was in the 90's. But instead the majority of people would rather be bitter about what an idiot Max is and find themselves with no Grand Prix's to watch and no Ferrari, McLaren or Force India's to listen to on a Sunday afternoon. Max will have retired and will probably be getting a daily spanking and parasite inspection, Bernie will have enough money for it all to not matter and the only losers out of it all will be the people here on this forum for whom F1 will be but a memory like Group C, CART, Supertourers.....

Laugh it up while you can because if changes aren't made F1 will be gone sooner than you think. The WRC was healthy and strong not so long ago and it's perhaps 2-3 years from death at the moment unless drastic action is taken and F1 is not far behind.

ArrowsFA1

8th October 2008, 22:22

Everyone bitches and moans about how much the Minardi's, Super Aguri's and Force India's of F1 have/had to spend spend to be back markers and how something needs to be done to keep the smaller teams in the sport. So Max suggests that it be made easier for teams to keep their heads above water and you poo poo his ideas.
I'm not sure many here have 'bitched and moaned' about that. F1 has always had the "haves" and "have nots". Frank Williams didn't bitch and moan when his team was struggling to establish itself, and he managed to become a multiple championship winning constructor. Others have been unable to do the same. Is it really the FIA's role to step in and level the playing field?

I've said elsewhere that Max's F2 could be seen as his blueprint for the future of F1. Do we really want F1 to be just yet another spec-series among many?

Sure he may be rude to ex-F1 drivers, he might get spanked by the occasional prostitute and he may make some boneheaded decisions which have hurt motorsport but when he comes along with a good idea to HELP the championship you can't see past your (perfectly justified I might say) hatred for the man. Cutting your nose off to spite your face springs to mind.
If he was actually proposing a new idea then perhaps he should be cut some slack. But he's not. He's scaremongering in order to impose his own agenda. It's a tactic we've seen before. Prior to the GA meeting in June he said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67479) the FIA risked losing control of F1 if he were forced out of office. In his letter he cited a threat to "our ability to protect the traditional grands prix". I guess Canada isn't "traditional" enough to matter.

Sorry Daniel but being rude to ex-drivers and boneheaded decisions are not wiped out by an interview that simply re-hashes an issue that has been on the F1 table for a very long time. This isn't Max suddenly coming up with a 'new' idea, or a 'new' issue. It's been discussed a great deal this year and much earlier than that.

More than four years ago Autosport carried this (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/14574/.html) article with Jaguar having announced their withdrawl. Then the concern was for the future of the smaller teams. Back in February 2003 Max was saying (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/9466/.html) that "The way to guarantee the long-term health and stability of the championship is to make sure there is a solid group of independent teams which do not depend on the presence of the manufacturers for their survival."

Credit Max for consistency then, but that was 2003 and he has done nothing. In fact the multiple rule changes since then have hit the smaller teams hardest because they are least able to afford the cost implications of those rule changes. Yet now we're supposed to believe he's the saviour of F1? He wasn't in June and he isn't now IMHO.

Daniel

8th October 2008, 23:49

You can prattle on all you want but F1 as it is now is unsustainable and will be largely dead in the water in a few years if nothing is done. If you lose a team or three as is quite possible it will die nice and soon.

Whether he does anything or not about it is a whole other matter of course but the fact is these are turbulent times and it's quite possible some of the less successful manufacturers will up sticks and leave fairly soon.

wedge

8th October 2008, 23:50

I'm not sure many here have 'bitched and moaned' about that. F1 has always had the "haves" and "have nots". Frank Williams didn't bitch and moan when his team was struggling to establish itself, and he managed to become a multiple championship winning constructor. Others have been unable to do the same. Is it really the FIA's role to step in and level the playing field?

I've said elsewhere that Max's F2 could be seen as his blueprint for the future of F1. Do we really want F1 to be just yet another spec-series among many?

If he was actually proposing a new idea then perhaps he should be cut some slack. But he's not. He's scaremongering in order to impose his own agenda. It's a tactic we've seen before. Prior to the GA meeting in June he said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67479) the FIA risked losing control of F1 if he were forced out of office. In his letter he cited a threat to "our ability to protect the traditional grands prix". I guess Canada isn't "traditional" enough to matter.

Sorry Daniel but being rude to ex-drivers and boneheaded decisions are not wiped out by an interview that simply re-hashes an issue that has been on the F1 table for a very long time. This isn't Max suddenly coming up with a 'new' idea, or a 'new' issue. It's been discussed a great deal this year and much earlier than that.

More than four years ago Autosport carried this (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/14574/.html) article with Jaguar having announced their withdrawl. Then the concern was for the future of the smaller teams. Back in February 2003 Max was saying (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/9466/.html) that "The way to guarantee the long-term health and stability of the championship is to make sure there is a solid group of independent teams which do not depend on the presence of the manufacturers for their survival."

Credit Max for consistency then, but that was 2003 and he has done nothing. In fact the multiple rule changes since then have hit the smaller teams hardest because they are least able to afford the cost implications of those rule changes. Yet now we're supposed to believe he's the saviour of F1? He wasn't in June and he isn't now IMHO.

All very well pointing fingers but at least Max is trying to something because something has to be done, IMHO.

If F1 teams go under and the days we'll be seeing 14 cars on the grid then I suppose you'll be pointing fingers at the FIA for not doing anything.

AJP

9th October 2008, 00:34

Max's is bringing the sport into disrepute..
There is absolutely no reason to back him anymore. He has had his chance to make this sport into want he wants, and has failed. We can not still think that his remarks of late are inspiring at all, as Arrows said, these points have all been raised before, a long time ago. So what has changed now.

Max is on his way out, We need someone fast, who has the interests of F1 as their number 1 priority, in order to keep this the pinnacle of motorsport.

Max says he has been campaigning for years in order to introduce major cost cutting..yet not enough has happened along the lines of his business model. That screams out to me, that he does not have the backing in order to pull off this cost cutting exercise of his, therefore, he should just close his mouth and get out now quitely.

ShiftingGears

9th October 2008, 01:03

Max is on his way out, We need someone fast, who has the interests of F1 as their number 1 priority, in order to keep this the pinnacle of motorsport.

I would actually like to see him, and the FIA, actually do something about the mess they've got other series into, since they have only paid attention to F1.

AndyRAC

9th October 2008, 08:03

I would actually like to see him, and the FIA, actually do something about the mess they've got other series into, since they have only paid attention to F1.

I would agree, however as F1 is the 'Blue Riband' I can accept that it will get more attention, and certainly I can live with that. What I can't accept is the almost disregard for the other series - WTCC & WRC who are both struggling for Manufacturers and a proper media package.

Daniel

9th October 2008, 08:14

Andy! How can you say that? They banned active front and rear diffs in the WRC, didn't they? That seems to have solved all those pesky problems the WRC has been facing for years now :mark:

AndyRAC

9th October 2008, 08:22

Oh silly me!! I forgot about that - forgive me - it slipped my mind.

Daniel

9th October 2008, 08:30

Now get back to the WRC forum so we can talk about how enthralling the last event in our extremely healthy championship was! :mark:

At least F1 has some spectacle left. The WRC is dying on it's feet. WRC fans would have loved for Max just to acknowledge that the WRC exists in his interview let alone talk about measures to save it!

PolePosition_1

9th October 2008, 08:31

It's his choice though. If he likes doing that then good luck to him. We (quite rightly) tolerate gays, Lesbians and various other people who don't necessarily fit the standard picture of what a human being is normally considered to be. If Max was gay would people be taking such a dim view of it?

What Max does to his wife or a prostitute is really of little importance to me. I'm more interested in how he runs the various FIA championships.

Couldn't agree more! He's entitled to a private life just as much as the next person. Just because his activities don't fit into what is regarded as acceptable in society people seem to think its ok for people to call for him to resign. Its discrimination.

Dave B

9th October 2008, 08:36

What Max fails to appreciate is that cost-cutting every few years actually costs more money.

Goodness knows what the manufacturers spent in R&D for the long-life engines and gearboxes but I'm willing to bet it was more than the cost of manufacturing a few extra units. The money spent on KERS would make your eyes water, and you can guarantee that all the teams have had their wind-tunnels running 24/7 trying to adapt to the 2009 aero changes.

If only Max would stop buggering about at the margins, the smaller teams could play catch-up. In fact this has already hapenned to an extent. Look how close the field is in qualifying: barely a couple of seconds between pole and 20th.

Constantly re-writing the rulebook means that the teams with most resource will always prosper.

Daniel

9th October 2008, 08:36

I can understand why people say it though. He's not done the best of jobs on the motorsport side of things though. But you have to wonder how much of that may be down to manufacturers and other external factors like Bernie.

Daniel

9th October 2008, 08:57

I agree Dave. If you look at the WRC in the 90's there were relatively few changes in regs. They introduced WRCars and changed the size of the inlet restrictors once or twice and it prospered. But then it got stagnant, expensive and and boring to watch.

Any changes need to be carefully considered and their long term implications thought about at length. The whole two race engine thing has done little if anything for costs, but there are other measures that can be taken which can actually have a more positive effect on the sport.

If nothing is done or if the rules get tinkered with every year or so it will only hurt the championship.

ArrowsFA1

9th October 2008, 09:17

Any changes need to be carefully considered and their long term implications thought about at length.
Absolutely :up: and that is exactly what has been happening among the teams. It's the reason FOTA was created. Changes are being considered and discussed.

Daniel

9th October 2008, 09:26

Well on the track record of what's happened in the last few years the changes haven't been properly thought out ;)

V12

9th October 2008, 10:23

The problem is, Max's bleating about cost-cutting is starting to become a bit like Bono or Bob Geldof bitching about world hunger and poverty. Noble causes sure, but you get the feeling they are using it for their own attention-seeking needs.

If Max was serious about cost cutting and increasing the grid, perhaps scrapping the $48 million new team entry bond would be a good start? How about allowing single car teams again?

But F1, like any sport, will always have the haves and have nots, as said above. Also teams will spend what they have available to them - always have always will - and teams with more to spend will inevitably come out on top - but not always (Toyota?)

The key is to make it more accessible at entry level, for teams to enter, and yes probably come last week in week out, but then somebody has to be last!

The fact is I don't think anyone running the sport is serious about helping the smaller teams. They'd actually prefer to have a nice, compact, homogenized, manageable 20 car grid all within 2 seconds of each other, rather than an entry list of 30-40 cars with some heroic minnows maybe 6 or 7 seconds off the pace.

No - this is just an excuse for Max to push his one-make, standardized component, engine-freezing, dumbing-down agenda on us. Strange for the man who was once one-quarter of one of the world's biggest customer racing car manufacturers that he is so hell-bent on killing off that cottage industry and have 3 or 4 companies producing ALL of the world's racing cars - because that is the way it is heading.

One driver once said, I think it was Martin Brundle, that when Mosley first won the FISA presidential election he introduced himself to the drivers at Suzuka in 1991, and said something along the lines of "you won't be seeing much of me", which was greeted with a cheer (after all the rubbish with Balestre over the previous 10 or so years).

Well, a great big fat lie that turned out to be.

P.S. As for the WRC's problems, well as an ex-fan of rallying I can only speak for myself, but the day they decided to can events like the Safari and RAC rallies for a few laps of a car park in Wales somewhere, was pretty much the beginning of the end for that once-great sport. Top that off with entry caps and a control tyre (sound familiar?) and right now I couldn't care less about the WRC.

ioan

9th October 2008, 10:44

I'm amazed of the posts of some of you.
If the costs of running a F1 team will not be cut at least by half than F1 will not survive. It's that simple.
Don't you people see that the financial markets fall back to a low mark that we didn't see since the 80's?
Who the hell are you expecting to continue investing half a billion USD a year in a F1 team?

You might want to say that there are contracts in place already. Contracts are worth only the paper they are written on if one of the parts goes bankrupt.

You lot may continue to attack Max left and right for his cost cutting ideas, but I'd like to see what will you do when there will be no more F1. I bet you will b!tch about how max didn't cut costs when it was still possible.

AndyRAC

9th October 2008, 10:49

ArrowsFA1

9th October 2008, 11:20

If the costs of running a F1 team will not be cut at least by half than F1 will not survive. It's that simple.
What are you basing that on ioan?

Don't you people see that the financial markets fall back to a low mark that we didn't see since the 80's?
How did F1 survive the 80's?

Who the hell are you expecting to continue investing half a billion USD a year in a F1 team?
Take Toyota as an example. They have precious little to show for their massive investment in F1 over the years and yet they remain in the sport. Why?

Also, is there any sign that any of the manufacturer teams are considering withdrawing from F1? The fact is they will come and go regardless according to their own needs, not the needs of F1. They always have done.

You lot may continue to attack Max left and right for his cost cutting ideas, but I'd like to see what will you do when there will be no more F1. I bet you will b!tch about how max didn't cut costs when it was still possible.
Max has been talking about cost cutting in F1 for years, and yet what has he done about it? He has introduced a variety of rule changes that have cost the teams money, as well as increasing entry & superlicence fees but what has he done to reduce costs?

Daniel

9th October 2008, 11:38

Max has been talking about cost cutting in F1 for years, and yet what has he done about it? He has introduced a variety of rule changes that have cost the teams money, as well as increasing entry & superlicence fees but what has he done to reduce costs?

I agree but that still doesn't mean that an actual cutting of costs isn't needed to give the sport a shot in the foot before it goes the way of the WRC and drifts off into relative obscurity as the WRC seems to be doing.....

Whether or not Max walks the walk and actually implements rules which mean costs actually get cut who knows but he is right in what he is saying.

V12

9th October 2008, 12:20

As for your WRC point - basically the changes were to 'cut costs' and for better media coverage. So you can see it's worked.

Well that kind of proves my point then. In dumbing down and changing the whole concept of the sport in the name of "cost cutting", it p*sses off the purists and real genuine fans of the sport (who, contrary to popular belief, aren't completely worthless and not worth caring about). So you get a "cheaper" sport that nobody is watching or cares about - sponsors leave, manufacturers leave, and the whole thing goes tits-up anyway.

Hondo

9th October 2008, 12:21

There was a time in F1, like the Indy 500, when an individual could actually build a car in his garage and if he could get it to the track, pay the entry fee, and quailify for the grid, he was in the race. With the exception of Ferrari when Enzo was still alive, I've always thought that having manufacturers make up the majority of the grid was a mistake because their shareholders are their main priority, as well they should be. Nowadays, just the cost of buying into F1 is staggering and the expenses of all those fly-away races can't be cheap either. I wonder how much money is spent on carbon fiber over a season? Maybe we should go back to aluminum and fiberglass on chassis construction but continue with electronic and engine developments elsewhere on the cars. I can see manufacturers having an interest in electronics and engines for possible production car uses but I don't think we'll be seeing any mass producing auto manufacturers building their road cars with carbon fiber anytime soon, with the exception of Ferrari.

wedge

9th October 2008, 12:23

Constantly re-writing the rulebook means that the teams with most resource will always prosper.

Not always.

How do you explain Renault's performance after drastic rule changes in '03 and '05. Or how about Ferrari's demise in '05?

The flipside of the coin is that reg changes equalises the competition because its a clean sheet of paper for everyone.

But yes, constant rule changes doesn't do much good with cost cutting agenda.

wedge

9th October 2008, 12:44

If Max was serious about cost cutting and increasing the grid, perhaps scrapping the $48 million new team entry bond would be a good start?

That's a deposit. It's to ensure that teams have sufficient funds to enter the championship but you only have to look at the demise of Super Aguri to look at the financial mess F1 is in. Seems like Torro Rosso is next on the Grim Reaper's list.

Dave B

9th October 2008, 12:45

Not always.

How do you explain Renault's performance after drastic rule changes in '03 and '05. Or how about Ferrari's demise in '05?

Ok then, almost always. :D

The big teams have the budget and infrastructure to throw massive resources at any new challenge, probably spending far more in the process rather than see the intended saving.

Yes there's the chance that a team lower down the grid will happen on a solution which propels them up the order, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

ArrowsFA1

10th October 2008, 12:24

John Howlett of Toyota:

"I think that the teams have a lot of ideas to actually save money but at the same time not destroy the core DNA or value of Formula One. I think that given a constructive discussion and hopefully shall we say using the current environment of ‘financial crisis', people could take a political advantage and try to apply unnecessary pressure and hopefully for once we can put politics behind these discussions and really focus on the facts, the real issues and then we will find, I am sure, good solutions."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71281http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71277

:up:

ioan

10th October 2008, 17:29

There is no doubt that manufacturer teams can survive the crisis if the respective manufacturers' boards agree with spending on a motorsport division.

But what about the other teams? :rolleyes:

V12

15th October 2008, 15:53

He's STILL at it!!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71405

Seriously, I think i'm one of the few people who couldn't give a flying... about his sex life or who his dad was or anything, all I care about is the fact he's so out of touch and incompetent that he could end up causing irreversible damage to the sport unless he is removed from office NOW. :mad:

Dave B

15th October 2008, 15:58

Standard engines? Shorter races? Less work on cars?

We've already got A1GP for that, Max.

There has been a vacant grid spot for a few years now (2 since Super Aguri disappeared). Whatever issues are preventing more teams entering F1 have existed for some time, not just as a sudden side-effect of the recent economic downturn.

Teams have always cut their coat according to their cloth, and will continue to do so.

Constantly tinkering with the regulations every year of two doesn't exactly help cut costs, does it Max? :rolleyes:

Just go.

V12

16th October 2008, 13:13

You can bet that even if all this cost cutting is implemented, we'll still only have 10-12 teams that can afford/are allowed to compete, which kind of defeats the whole point anyway.

If these changes are pushed through, F1 will lose much of its unique selling point, p--- off the genuine fans who contrary to Max's out of touch views DO care and WILL know the difference when parts are standardised or whatever, and I doubt there'll be many lemmings to take their place as fans who aren't there already.

Max needs to stop treating the teams like franchises or departments of one business entity and realise that they are competitive entities, all in competition (not collaboration) with each other, basically we need a racer in charge. I'm all for bigger grids but I'd rather watch proper F1 with 18-20 cars than some artifical almost-spec snoozefest that's artificially limited to 24 cars anyway.

ArrowsFA1

20th October 2008, 14:54

Daniel

20th October 2008, 15:22

I just don't get the opposition to a standard engine. I'm very much against a complete spec series like a1gp but the standardisation of one component which will save millions for all the teams is a good thing. Sure Ferrari and the other top teams will chuck that money into chassis development and it will show but at least this frees up some money for the minnows to put some money into testing and chassis development also. The top teams will still be the top teams but we'll see the drivers becoming more of a factor and we'll see more events like Monza and this can only be a good thing. Right now the teams could all be running the same engines and we wouldn't know it and it wouldn't matter. As long as the cars still look different, still make the right noises and are visually very fast then F1 is still F1.

Gone are the days where the silly levels of expenditure can be maintained for very little reward. With the current economic climate Honda and Toyota won't be able to keep up spending all this money just to end up with very little to show for it cv the end of the year.

ioan

20th October 2008, 15:28

Autosport have now published Max's letter to FOTA - link (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71629)

Funny that an invitation to tender for engines is option 1 of 3. Don't give the other two much hope of happening!!

It's funny how the most important thing for them is the SHOW and how to improve it, no mention about technical excellence.
It's maybe time for the reds to leave the boat, or at least threaten to do it if such proposals are pushed through.

Maybe Ferrari should go back to Le Mans prototype racing?! One can dream.

Daniel

20th October 2008, 15:40

That would be great ioan. I LOVE prototype racing. I'm not fussed about where the teams are as long as there's a good show.

harsha

20th October 2008, 17:34

it's funny to see that being against Max is the only time when all(allmost) Formula 1 fans(regardless of their personal tastes) have a common opinion

ArrowsFA1

20th October 2008, 18:05

It's funny how the most important thing for them is the SHOW and how to improve it, no mention about technical excellence.
By "them" do you mean the teams or the FIA?

Stefano Domenicali said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71628) that FOTA have:

"...agreed on a document that I think is very important, because it goes in the direction the FIA has rightly pressed on with regards to costs, while keeping what we feel are the right variables in F1. And also keeping in mind both the interests of the independent, smaller teams, who need to make significant savings in the short term, but also keeping in mind the interests of the constructors with research and technology."

The purpose of me linking to Mosley's letter was to highlight the way he goes about things. He's asked the teams to come up with proposals. The teams have organised themselves under FOTA and have done just that according to what Domenicali says. And yet, just before the scheduled meeting with the teams to discuss the way forward Max announces a tender for a spec engine. Why do that when such an option is just one of three options he himself has put on the table for discussion?

Whatever the answer to that it seems that his stance has raised questions among the teams:

...it has emerged that all team principals are unlikely to attend the Mosley meeting - amid fears of divide-and-conquer tactics being used to weaken the teams' position.

Senior sources have suggested there is a fear within FOTA that Mosley is using the threat of a standard engine, plus recent suggestions of engine equalization rules and the return of customer cars, as a way to break what has appeared to be rare unity in team ranks following the formation of FOTA.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71558

Sleeper

20th October 2008, 20:05

it's funny to see that being against Max is the only time when all(allmost) Formula 1 fans(regardless of their personal tastes) have a common opinion
That says plenty about Max, doesnt it. Quite frankly he's a bafoon that thinks a spec series is a good thing. He's right in that F1 needs to cut costs now, nut then he's been banging on about this for years and done nothing of any real value. I'd have more faith in Briatore doing the job right, he's been going on about it for just as long but tends to get ignored a lot more.

Personnally, I think F1 needs a complete re-write of the rules book, down to the base concept of the cars if need be. The problem with most rule changes that get implemented at the moment is that they are increasingly complex and are based on a car concept that has been purposelly allowed to become a very complex, and subsequently expensive beast, that has had to be rained in by ever increasing layers of regulation (quite a bit of it being a bi vague as well) forcing the teams to spend more money to find solutions to problems. Take the front wing hight that was raised by 50mm in both 2001 and 2003(?). The idea was that it would reduce the downforce and make for better racing, but each time it made for increasingly complex wing designs to claw back the lost performance and made them more sensitive, going completely against the point of the rule changes in the first place.

F1 needs a more simple rule book that clearly states what is and isnt allowed and makes clear avenues of development, but not in a way that cost millions of £/$.

wmcot

20th October 2008, 21:47

Maybe Ferrari should go back to Le Mans prototype racing?! One can dream.

I would love to see it! Prototype racing is fast becoming my favorite form of racing. It's fan friendly, technology friendly, and a great spectacle to watch - everything that F1 is not (or is rapidly losing.)

Ferrari have already been giving serious support to the GT2 teams running F430's in the ALMS. It would be nice to see them take it up a level. I would love to see the next 333SP or 312PB successor! :)

ioan

21st October 2008, 11:25

By "them" do you mean the teams or the FIA?

I meant Max and Bernie, now that they seem to be "friends" again, who are both pushing ahead this one engine proposals and other means to cut costs and improve the SHOW.

Dave B

21st October 2008, 11:43

Slightly off-topic but probably not worthy of its own thread, here's a very candid and revealing interview with Max from yesterday's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/mosley-privacy

:)

ArrowsFA1

21st October 2008, 12:45

I meant Max and Bernie, now that they seem to be "friends" again, who are both pushing ahead this one engine proposals and other means to cut costs and improve the SHOW.
Put bluntly, Bernie is interested in making money for those he represents. It's what he's done since the early days of FOCA, when the teams were the main beneficiaries, to today when the banks that own the Formula One brand are looking for a return on their investment. His efforts have made a lot of money for a lot of people, not just himself.

So yes, Bernie wants to improve the show because a better show means more interest and so more commercial income.

Max, himself a noteable Bernie beneficiary, has (or should have) a different role. The FIA is the sport's policeman. It's there to frame the rules and police them, not just for F1 but for most motorsport worldwide. But Max sees his role in much wider terms where F1 is concerned. His argument appears to be that to remain credible F1 has to become a test-bed for road cars, regardless of the views of the manufacturers currently in F1.

I don't think the manufacturers see F1 in those terms. For them F1 is primarily a marketing tool used to enhance their brand. There may be other advantages for them, but road car develpment is not a priority in the same sense.

I'd like to know why Max is not targetting touring car racing, for example. Surely those series are the ideal stage for the manufacturers to race their road cars, and develop road-revelevant technology in a way that everyone could understand?

F1 is a 'prototype' series in a way that touring cars are not, but Max seems intent on changing that, and in doing so is fundamentally moving away from what F1 has been. To me, Max is acting beyond the remit of the FIA, and dictating to those who chose to participate in F1 why they should be in F1. That's for the likes of Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari and Renault to decide, not Max or the FIA. By his actions it seems entirely possible that those manufacturers may consider leaving the sport. What would we be left with then?

BDunnell

21st October 2008, 12:56

His argument appears to be that to remain credible F1 has to become a test-bed for road cars, regardless of the views of the manufacturers currently in F1.

I can see his point, though I view it rather differently - that F1 should embrace the development of new technologies, which is something a bit removed from being a 'test-bed for road cars'. Whatever the practicalities of this, I don't see anything wrong with the FIA looking at ways to keep F1 relevant, which it may not be, given time, if it is perceived negatively for environmental reasons and continues to be a display of conspicuous wealth in hard financial times.

I'd like to know why Max is not targetting touring car racing, for example. Surely those series are the ideal stage for the manufacturers to race their road cars, and develop road-revelevant technology in a way that everyone could understand?

Among the main reasons behind developing the Super 2000 touring car formula were that it should remain uncomplicated and cheap, and not become a costly undertaking involving ever-higher technology like Super Touring was. Rising costs killed off that formula, and I think allowing S2000 to be turned into a technological exercise would do something similar.

Daniel

21st October 2008, 13:08

I don't see the fascination with high tech. Current Word Rally Cars and F1 cars are some of the most sophisticated machines about but they're as dull as dishwater to watch when you compare them to their predecessors 15 years ago or so. High tech doesn't mean better to watch. You could tell most people that the gearbox of an F1 is a really just two toffee apples stuck together and as long as the cars are spectacular to watch people will watch it. Something can be the pinnacle of whatever it is and still be ****. Just remember that.

ArrowsFA1

21st October 2008, 13:14

... F1 should embrace the development of new technologies, which is something a bit removed from being a 'test-bed for road cars'.
But hasn't it always done that, and in doing so there has been some transfer of race technology to the road? The example I'm thinking of is the turbo, which Renault introduced because the rules didn't prevent them from doing so!! It may have taken BMW to refine the idea into an championship winning engine, but we certainly saw plenty of turbos on our roads, and still do. Then there's the flappy-paddle gearbox which has made its way to some road cars.

Those are two examples which are perhaps more using the "image" associated with F1 than the technology, and I'm sure that technology pioneered in F1 has found its way to our roads in many different ways.

...if it is perceived negatively for environmental reasons and continues to be a display of conspicuous wealth in hard financial times.
You can be sure that major manufacturers would not want to be associated with any negative image and would take appropriate action. I don't think Max, by his proposals, is saving them from anything there.

Among the main reasons behind developing the Super 2000 touring car formula were that it should remain uncomplicated and cheap, and not become a costly undertaking involving ever-higher technology like Super Touring was. Rising costs killed off that formula, and I think allowing S2000 to be turned into a technological exercise would do something similar.
Fair point, but the issue for me was relevance. A touring car is more relevant than F1 to road technology, and in a way that is more marketable in the sense of future customers seeing the car they may buy racing.

Then again, given that Max's F2 series is due to support the WTCC perhaps his version of F1 could headline that package :p

Daniel

21st October 2008, 13:20

I disagree. F1 is infinitely more marketable for road car technology. What sounds better? F1 style gearbox? Or touring car style gearbox? You're right that touring car tech is perhaps a little more relevant than f1 tech though.

BDunnell

21st October 2008, 13:24

But hasn't it always done that, and in doing so there has been some transfer of race technology to the road? The example I'm thinking of is the turbo, which Renault introduced because the rules didn't prevent them from doing so!! It may have taken BMW to refine the idea into an championship winning engine, but we certainly saw plenty of turbos on our roads, and still do. Then there's the flappy-paddle gearbox which has made its way to some road cars.

Those are two examples which are perhaps more using the "image" associated with F1 than the technology, and I'm sure that technology pioneered in F1 has found its way to our roads in many different ways.

Maybe I should have added words like '...in a more focused/targeted way than has previously been the case', or something.

You can be sure that major manufacturers would not want to be associated with any negative image and would take appropriate action. I don't think Max, by his proposals, is saving them from anything there.

Doesn't hurt for the FIA boss, given his nominal responsibilities regarding the motor industry, to spell it out, does it? And I actually think that F1 is already in danger of appearing rather vulgar to many non-enthusiasts, so maybe the major manufacturers aren't acting quickly enough. Still, the same can be said for those in charge of F1.

ioan

21st October 2008, 13:24

BDunnell

21st October 2008, 13:28

Turbo chargers were not F1/race technology transferred to road car, rather the other way around.

In fact, it's more true to say that turbochargers had nothing to do with cars at all when they were first developed. But you are right that turbo cars had existed before Renault entered F1.

ArrowsFA1

21st October 2008, 13:29

I disagree. F1 is infinitely more marketable for road car technology. What sounds better? F1 style gearbox? Or touring car style gearbox?
True, but isn't that because F1 is seen as being unattainable and unique to Joe Public. Sticking a turbo badge to your Fiat Panda in the 80's was an image thing, not a technology thing :p

Making F1 less unattainable and less unique, as Max appears to want, may get the worst of all worlds. Less attractive to manufacturers as participants, so less application to road cars, so less interest from Joe Public...

ioan

21st October 2008, 13:42

Daniel

21st October 2008, 13:53

Aircraft too. The idea that F1 brought us turbo's is funny :p

ArrowsFA1

21st October 2008, 14:01

In fact, it's more true to say that turbochargers had nothing to do with cars at all when they were first developed. But you are right that turbo cars had existed before Renault entered F1.

Yep, it was first boats and trains! Than the first "car" with turbo charger was a truck.
But wouldn't it be right to say that turbos reached a wider audience, and use, once they had been seen in F1, particularly in relation to road car use?

BDunnell

21st October 2008, 14:21

But wouldn't it be right to say that turbos reached a wider audience, and use, once they had been seen in F1, particularly in relation to road car use?

Possibly, but they have still been something of a niche development, except perhaps when mated to a diesel engine. I would have thought that F1 ought to be able to do a bit better than that and bring about more fundamental developments if Max's hope is to become reality. Personally, I have my doubts about this, but I'm no engineer or scientist.

ioan

21st October 2008, 14:31

But wouldn't it be right to say that turbos reached a wider audience, and use, once they had been seen in F1, particularly in relation to road car use?

I don't think so.
IMO the use of turbos on Porsche's race car in the 70's had a bigger influence.
And still they are widely used only on diesel road cars, for good reason though.

Daniel

21st October 2008, 14:35

Both of the cars in our household are turbocharged and one is a petrol but i suspect we're not typical. I think petrol turbo's will start to catch on in the mainstream though due to the movement towards smaller cars and the fact that you can get the same power with very similar and sometimes better economy from a smaller turbo engine than a bigger n/a engine.

Tazio

21st October 2008, 14:53

I'm late to this discussion.
If you are not familiar with General Motors products (I wouldn't blame you) :p :
The Pontiac Grand Prix (or Grand Am)
Came out with a paddle shifter on the steering wheel around 2003.
Sort of a gimmick considering the car is really a sedan.
But clearly an F1 mimic/inspired

schmenke

21st October 2008, 14:56

Aircraft too. The idea that F1 brought us turbo's is funny :p

I thought aircraft first used superchargers?

Daniel

21st October 2008, 14:57

Tazio. Wait till you see DDCT boxes become commonplace. Them you'll see that a paddle shift system doesn't need to be just a gimic.

ArrowsFA1

21st October 2008, 14:59

I don't think so.
IMO the use of turbos on Porsche's race car in the 70's had a bigger influence.
Well, as an F1 fan in the late 70's/early 80's I do remember seeing the rise of the turbo in F1, and then the appearance of turbo road cars. Particularly memorable ones for me were the Saab 900 and Renault 5.

I've always thought that increased regularity with which I used to see a turbo badge on a road car was not entirely unconnected with the use of turbos in F1, and the popularity of F1.

Daniel

21st October 2008, 15:04

Schmenke there are many aircraft which used turbo's in WW2. Probably less than were using superchargers but still :)

Knock-on

21st October 2008, 15:10

Tazio

21st October 2008, 15:18

Tazio. Wait till you see DDCT boxes become commonplace. Them you'll see that a paddle shift system doesn't need to be just a gimic. Without a doubt! :up:

Daniel

21st October 2008, 15:18

Perhaps you have a point. I'm too young to remember the turbo era let alone it's impact upon the image of the turbo so i can't say for sure but do you not think the Quattro coming in and dominating the WRC with it's turbocharged engine and 4wd would have had a greater impact on people given how popular rallying was back then.

BDunnell

21st October 2008, 15:21

I think the point about Turbo's is that they were used in a variety of guises pre F1 but were really only seen as a high performance race function for cars after their spectacular appearence in F1.

F1 develops some technology that filters down but like most race series, also adopts and enhances technology that then becomes commonplace.

Don't forget, though, that quite a few well-known turbo cars of that era will have been developed for touring car racing/rallying homologation purposes.

Daniel

21st October 2008, 15:25

Very good point Ben :up:

ArrowsFA1

21st October 2008, 15:34

I guess my point about turbos, when it comes to road car application, is that they were as much about marketing as they were about technology which brings me back to my point that, for the manufacturers, F1 is primarily a marketing tool. Sure, there may be other benefits, but the bottom line is they see F1 as a means to enhance their brand. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be involved.

Daniel

21st October 2008, 15:41

But if they were about marketing and F1 them where were the expensive turbocharged cars made by all those manufacturer? Sure there was the renno 5 and a few others but by and large the manufacturers involved didn't build a lot of cars with turbo's. It was all about the show and that's kind of what i've been talking about with regards to standard engines.

Knock-on

21st October 2008, 15:44

Don't forget, though, that quite a few well-known turbo cars of that era will have been developed for touring car racing/rallying homologation purposes.

Quite agree but I think the big impact was F1. However, I don't think F1 has quite the pull today it had in previous years as the sport gradually erodes in popularity.

Daniel

21st October 2008, 15:47

Predictably I disagree :p I think at least compared to the WRC, F1 is stronger in terms of marketability than ever. I think rallying was a better way of selling cars and demonstrating new technology back in the 70's and 80's

Tazio

21st October 2008, 15:50

Schmenke there are many aircraft which used turbo's in WW2. Probably less than were using superchargers but still :) Italy used turbos Pre WW2 to drain Lake Nimi uphill to salvage a couple enormous ships that were toys of Caligula :eek:

Am I confusing turbines with turbos I can't find the link But I've seen photo's of massive turbines that actually used a tunnel dug by Roman slaves to a lake upstream facilitating the constant water level of Nimi and Caligula's ships!
When the Italians salvaged them 1927-32 they pumped the water back up through this tunnel

"Between 1927 and 1932, under the orders of the Italian dictator Mussolini, they had been pulled out of the temporarily drained lake."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemi_ships

ioan

21st October 2008, 16:07

Turbos were used on high and very performance cars before being used in F1.
That is unless we think that the Porsche 934 and 935 were not world beaters and were not dominating the high end sport car championships back in the 70's.
And sure they were more road car related than any F1 car ever built.

ArrowsFA1

21st October 2008, 16:24

But if they were about marketing and F1 them where were the expensive turbocharged cars made by all those manufacturer?
To be fair there were only a handful of manufacturers involved at the time I'm thinking of. Renault, BMW & Honda were the F1 turbo pioneers with others following later, but I take your point. The manufacturers did not all rush out to build turbos.

Turbos were used on high and very performance cars before being used in F1.
I don't think that's in dispute ioan. Turbos were not an F1 "invention", but their use in F1 did give them a prominence that the likes of sportscars could not provide.

ioan

21st October 2008, 16:43

I don't think that's in dispute ioan. Turbos were not an F1 "invention", but their use in F1 did give them a prominence that the likes of sportscars could not provide.

That might be the case. I don't really know if it was LeMans and endurance racing or F1 that were more prominent back than.

BDunnell

21st October 2008, 17:11

I don't think that's in dispute ioan. Turbos were not an F1 "invention", but their use in F1 did give them a prominence that the likes of sportscars could not provide.

I see your point, but even so there were very few turbo road cars, and I really doubt that Saab, for example, went down the turbo route for reasons that had anything to do with F1.

AndyRAC

21st October 2008, 21:26

BDunnell

21st October 2008, 21:37

Seeing the success of Diesel power in Le Mans/WTCC - will we ever see the day when there is a Diesel F1 engine? And if not, why not? Shouldn't Motorsport, and F1 in particular, be seen to be doing something apart from having green painted tyres?

Absolutely, for F1 is the biggest global brand in motorsport. But how will the technical regulations be relaxed to allow radical changes in engine type, changes in configuration, etc? The loopholes that allowed six-wheeled cars, fan cars, four-wheel-drive and so on have all been closed up. Will some have to be re-opened?

AndyRAC

21st October 2008, 21:59

Absolutely, for F1 is the biggest global brand in motorsport. But how will the technical regulations be relaxed to allow radical changes in engine type, changes in configuration, etc? The loopholes that allowed six-wheeled cars, fan cars, four-wheel-drive and so on have all been closed up. Will some have to be re-opened?

I can understand the banning on six-wheelers, fan cars, but not 4WD. Anyway, surely if there's a will, there's a way - as the saying goes. Having seen a report in EVO magazine, the petrol v diesel road car split is much closer now. It would be interesting to see a F1 Diesel car, though you might not hear it.

Rollo

21st October 2008, 22:25

It matters not what sort of "cap" you put on F1 because the legal departments are smart enough to find legal work arounds for them.

In the cases of the manufacturers, they could very easily consolidate the accounts back into the main body of research and development and then have the work performed on the cars "donated" to the teams as not-for-profit-organisations. You may be able to impose a costs cap on a team, but when those costs no longer "exist" then it scarcely matters.

If you then went on a "full diclosure" basis, then it would not be terribly difficult to shuffle costs back into the rest of the organisation and although it might technically possible to conduct an audit, what would happen for someone like Renault where the associated costs might appear anywhere within the PSA group. A team that was only buying customer equipment might be simple to dicern costs in, but then again a group like Honda could just as easily declare "Friday Club" basis.

ArrowsFA1

22nd October 2008, 08:08

The loopholes that allowed six-wheeled cars, fan cars, four-wheel-drive and so on have all been closed up. Will some have to be re-opened?
I think they should be. The rules should set parameters within which the teams can produce their own solutions, rather than there being a rule for almost every eventuality. The rules have become so restrictive that there is no room for innovation.

On another, related. note it seems that the FIA & FOTA had a "very positive and constructive" meeting (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71638) yesterday over the future development of F1. It's amazing what can be achieved by unprecedented unity among the teams and dialogue between them and the FIA.

Daniel

22nd October 2008, 08:39

What is your obsession with innovation? :crazy: Innovation doesn't make for better racing and more spectacle :mark: I think it's the James Allen type people who are to blame for this view by constantly going on about how F1 is the pinnacle and so on. It was never innovation that made F1 good to watch. In fact in the last few years innovation with regards to aero and other things has made it worse to watch. Give the cars wide tires, take away the wings and you'll see good racing. Is that innovation? Completely the opposite, it's going back to basics. Sometimes innovation makes for interesting solutions like the air storage tank on the Ford Escort Cosworth but more often than not you get stuff like big wings which makes the cars worse to watch or traction control which also makes F1 worse to watch. Manufacturers will always try to innovate to the point where the cars are fairly easy to drive in terms of a race car and all the driver needs to do is point and shoot. I oversimplify of course but manufacturers don't want good spectacular racing. They want to win and if that means making a series boring to watch then they'll do it.

ArrowsFA1

22nd October 2008, 08:48

What is your obsession with innovation? :crazy: Innovation doesn't make for better racing and more spectacle :mark:
I wouldn't call it obsession Daniel. Just an enjoyment of the kind of variety - engines, designs - we used to see on an F1 grid. Perhaps that in itself didn't make for better racing, but I think it improved the spectacle.

Innovation then was a "big idea" - the Tyrrell P34, the Brabham 'fan car', the ground effect Lotus, even the twin chassis Lotus - not evolution of an idea, which is what I think we've seen with the development of aero over the years.

Daniel

22nd October 2008, 08:51

ArrowsFA1

22nd October 2008, 09:14

I agree. But I don't think you're talking about innovation but merely a variety of formulae. Thing is if one is inherently better all of the teams will use it hence you're back to square one. That's what always happens in motorsport there days.
You're right that teams have always 'copied' the good ideas - just look at the number of Lotus 79 clones during the 1979 season - but I think over time the problem has been that increasingly restrictive regulation has strangled innovation and therefore variety.

I'll admit to looking back with rose-tinted glasses, but as an example Lotus were real innovators. Colin Chapman made numerous leaps forward in design ideas that were often improved on by others, the Lotus 79 being just one example.

That simply cannot happen today because the sport has been regulated to the nth degree, and there is little or no sign that is about to change. Therefore it is likely that the status quo will remain, whatever changes are proposed.

BDunnell

22nd October 2008, 10:35

You're right that teams have always 'copied' the good ideas - just look at the number of Lotus 79 clones during the 1979 season - but I think over time the problem has been that increasingly restrictive regulation has strangled innovation and therefore variety.

I'll admit to looking back with rose-tinted glasses, but as an example Lotus were real innovators. Colin Chapman made numerous leaps forward in design ideas that were often improved on by others, the Lotus 79 being just one example.

That simply cannot happen today because the sport has been regulated to the nth degree, and there is little or no sign that is about to change. Therefore it is likely that the status quo will remain, whatever changes are proposed.

I agree, but then F1 runs the risk of becoming boring if someone comes up with a stunning innovation and blitzes every race as a result. It could also bring costs up again, which is surely the opposite of what should be happening.

555-04Q2

22nd October 2008, 10:40

The only prblem with a diesel powered F1 car is it wont sound as brilliant as a petrol powered version. Lets face it, nothing in this universe sounds as good as an F1 engine at full cry.

ioan

22nd October 2008, 11:03

...what would happen for someone like Renault where the associated costs might appear anywhere within the PSA group.

That would be weird, cause Renault isn't part of the PSA Group (Peugeot & Citroen). ;)

ioan

22nd October 2008, 11:04

I wouldn't call it obsession Daniel. Just an enjoyment of the kind of variety - engines, designs - we used to see on an F1 grid. Perhaps that in itself didn't make for better racing, but I think it improved the spectacle.

Innovation then was a "big idea" - the Tyrrell P34, the Brabham 'fan car', the ground effect Lotus, even the twin chassis Lotus - not evolution of an idea, which is what I think we've seen with the development of aero over the years.

:up:

ArrowsFA1

22nd October 2008, 11:10

I agree, but then F1 runs the risk of becoming boring if someone comes up with a stunning innovation and blitzes every race as a result.
Therein rests the dilemma :)

Set the rules, allow the teams to race and may the best team win. Or set the rules to level the playing field and improve the "show".

The former is the way F1 has worked. The latter the way it appears it may work in the future, and if that is the case I fear that F1 is about to join the many other spec-series that already exist, and are still being created (see A1GP, Superleague & F2).

It's a bit like watching the "dumbing down" of TV with the proliferation of "talent" shows :dozey:

Daniel

22nd October 2008, 11:29

Sleeper

22nd October 2008, 11:53

Daniel

22nd October 2008, 11:55

Will the IRL race at Monaco, Spa and so on?

Sleeper

22nd October 2008, 12:34

^No, but then what has that got to do with the performance of an F1 car.

Besides, if F1 cars get much slower than GP2 well be able to qualify on pace for an F1 race.

wmcot

22nd October 2008, 21:43

I disagree Arrows. F1 will always be top dog in regards to racing because the cars will always be the fastest.. I don't think the general public will care about a spec engine. The purists will but what percentage of viewers are purists?

Actually, F1 cars aren't always the fastest. In the late 60's and early 70's the Can-Am series shared some of the same tracks with F1 and they were seconds a lap faster! On top of that, Can-Am cars had a very high level of innovation and most were built by "garagistes."

ArrowsFA1

23rd October 2008, 08:08

F1 will always be top dog in regards to racing because the cars will always be the fastest..
I think F1 has been seen as the pinnacle of motorsport for a number of reasons, not just speed. As others have pointed out there are, and have been, faster cars out there, so it has to be more than that.

Young drivers aim for F1 more than anything else. Few get there, which emphasises its exclusivity. Then there are the locations around the world, the teams, and all the history, as well as the cars themselves.

I don't think there is a series that can offer all of that. Certainly some have the history & tradition (Indy), some have a location (Le Mans), but none can offer a driver what F1 offers, and I think that's why it's seen as being top dog.

I don't think the general public will care about a spec engine. The purists will but what percentage of viewers are purists?
As someone who has only a vague knowledge of the technology involved I think you're right about the general public not particularly caring about the spec engine, but that's where I hope the "purists" (including those in FOTA) will still have some influence on the future shape of F1. If not, we will see the dumbing down of F1.

Mickey T

23rd October 2008, 08:24

so max wants to save F1 from the financial crisis, but as of next year, he reduces by 30 percent the single biggest advertising area on the cars?

well, that makes sense...

ShiftingGears

23rd October 2008, 08:44

Set the rules, allow the teams to race and may the best team win. Or set the rules to level the playing field and improve the "show".

Or have it balanced between the two, that way F1 is still the engineering pinnacle, and you get the best people aspiring to be in F1, and you still have a show in on track racing, and developments of cars and such.

The former is the way F1 has worked. The latter the way it appears it may work in the future, and if that is the case I fear that F1 is about to join the many other spec-series that already exist, and are still being created (see A1GP, Superleague & F2).

True, but I see part of the reason why they want some restrictions on technology, and part of it is that high tech aerodynamics inhibit passing more than they ever did in F1.

BDunnell

23rd October 2008, 10:37

^No, but then what has that got to do with the performance of an F1 car.

Besides, if F1 cars get much slower than GP2 well be able to qualify on pace for an F1 race.

Now that WOULD be retro!

(I'm referring to Jacky Ickx at the Nurburgring in 1967, setting the third fastest qualifying time for the German GP despite driving an F2 car.)

ioan

23rd October 2008, 11:10

so max wants to save F1 from the financial crisis, but as of next year, he reduces by 30 percent the single biggest advertising area on the cars?

well, that makes sense...

Actually I believe that the sidepods and the airbox are bigger and more visible for advertising that front and rear wings.

Daniel

23rd October 2008, 12:08

I think F1 has been seen as the pinnacle of motorsport for a number of reasons, not just speed. As others have pointed out there are, and have been, faster cars out there, so it has to be more than that.

Young drivers aim for F1 more than anything else. Few get there, which emphasises its exclusivity. Then there are the locations around the world, the teams, and all the history, as well as the cars themselves.

I don't think there is a series that can offer all of that. Certainly some have the history & tradition (Indy), some have a location (Le Mans), but none can offer a driver what F1 offers, and I think that's why it's seen as being top dog.

As someone who has only a vague knowledge of the technology involved I think you're right about the general public not particularly caring about the spec engine, but that's where I hope the "purists" (including those in FOTA) will still have some influence on the future shape of F1. If not, we will see the dumbing down of F1.

All very true :) Not once did you mention innovation ;) It really is the overall package that makes F1 what it is. I don't think F1 should be dumbed down to NASCAR level because that really would kill it but I think there is a certain level of dumbing down that can be down without harming the sport which could actually make for more spectacle. If some fussy purists get pissed off then that can only be a good thing. Everyone has their own little picture of what makes F1, Rallying, rock music, a good steak what they are and so on are but you should concentrate on the big picture rather than details which are actually quite minor when you think about it.

In an ideal world we'd have different manufacturers for engines and so on and no regulations but time and time again manufacturers have shown they can't be trusted to keep things safe and to keep to caps and so on. In the WRC the FIA has stood by while the sport has priced itself to death and most of the people on the forum realise this. F1 is running the risk of doing the same and people seem to be resisting. Why? I don't know :)

schmenke

23rd October 2008, 17:45

Actually I believe that the sidepods and the airbox are bigger and more visible for advertising that front and rear wings.

I remember reading an article a while back that said that the mirrors are now a favourable piece of realestate for the sponsors :mark:

ioan

23rd October 2008, 21:09

I remember reading an article a while back that said that the mirrors are now a favourable piece of realestate for the sponsors :mark:

Bizarre! The mirrors being some of the smallest parts on a F1 car. Maybe because it's cheaper? :confused:

schmenke

23rd October 2008, 21:25

No, if I remember correctly, it had something to do with camera angles.

ShiftingGears

24th October 2008, 09:16

so max wants to save F1 from the financial crisis, but as of next year, he reduces by 30 percent the single biggest advertising area on the cars?

well, that makes sense...

I don't see the problem. If it's popular, people are going to see it.

Knock-on

24th October 2008, 10:10

No, if I remember correctly, it had something to do with camera angles.

Correct. Whenever you see a close up of the driver, you always get a prominent view of the mirror.

V12

24th October 2008, 13:24

If some fussy purists get pissed off then that can only be a good thing.

Why?

Knock-on

24th October 2008, 13:40

All very true :) Not once did you mention innovation ;) It really is the overall package that makes F1 what it is.

Totally agree. F1 is the sum of all it's parts. There has been scandalous mismanagement of the sport but it's testament to the fans and teams that F1 is still surviving.

I don't think F1 should be dumbed down to NASCAR level because that really would kill it but I think there is a certain level of dumbing down that can be down without harming the sport which could actually make for more spectacle.

Dumbing down is not the word. How about enhancing to improve the spectacle. Enhancing the effects of aerodynamics so that a suitable level of down-force that doesn't create as much air turbulence for following cars for example?

If some fussy purists get pissed off then that can only be a good thing. Everyone has their own little picture of what makes F1, Rallying, rock music, a good steak what they are and so on are but you should concentrate on the big picture rather than details which are actually quite minor when you think about it.

Well, if some lapsadaisical neanderthals who don't understand the heritage and ethos of the sport get pissed off, why should we care ;)

In an ideal world we'd have different manufacturers for engines and so on and no regulations

I think this is drag racing you're talking about.

but time and time again manufacturers have shown they can't be trusted to keep things safe and to keep to caps and so on. In the WRC the FIA has stood by while the sport has priced itself to death and most of the people on the forum realise this. F1 is running the risk of doing the same and people seem to be resisting. Why? I don't know :)

Manufacturers and teams have always pushed to get the maximum that's available to them with the budget they have.

F1 will always cut it's cloth to suit it's pocket but will do it in other areas rather than the standardised components.

However, the teams have come up with some real world suggestions to help standardise elements of the sport that should make smaller teams more competitive.

You will find that even in standard spec series, the better teams tend to be the most professional and have the best funding as they have more resources at their disposal. F1 will be the same.

V12

24th October 2008, 18:19

The thing is - if spec series, absence of innovation, and being solely focussed on the on-track "product" and "entertainment" are your thing, then 95% of the worlds' racing series already cater for you.

For those who are actually interested in motorsport as a whole, seeing a variety of technologies, makes of car, in combination with drivers, tyres, and everything else coming together, we have....what? F1 for the time being (very tenuously!!), Sports prototypes yes definitely, but that lacks the single driver-to-driver, all-out speed of competition that single seaters have.

I've tried getting into MotoGP over the past couple of years and appreciate it, but my passion since I played with my car mat before I could walk has always been cars rather than bikes, and that series' move to a spec tyre indicates they are down the same slippery slope as F1, just slightly further up it...

So that leaves, well...nothing. Spec series have their place as a gimmick, like the nation-oriented A1GP, but they are becoming the norm at an alarming rate.

Also, I can't find any real evidence that spec series and standardisation help with increasing the competitiveness, and in saving costs.

Looking at IndyCar/CART/IRL/Champ Car/etc. as a first example. In the mid-90s, there were two makes of tyre and multiple engine manufacturers. On one of those weekends where one particular make "got it right", it would sometimes throw up an unusual result, I remember one CART season where for the first half of the season there was a different winner in each race (1995 or 2000 I think). In contemporary IRL IndyCar where everyone uses the same equipment, three teams win probably 95% of the races, and car counts were lower than ever before the merger.

F1....Pierluigi Martini used Pirelli qualifiers to stick a Minardi on the front row for the 1990 US Grand Prix. Jean Alesi's well-documented heroics on race day were aided by the characteristics of his Pirellis probably being better suited to the task than the Goodyears used by all the "usual" front runners.

In 1994, Ferrari were slowly emerging from one of their barren periods, but the combination of a powerful Ferrari V12 and the characteristics of the Hockenheim track enabled Gerhard Berger to outpace title contenders Michael Schumacher (Ford V8) and Damon Hill (Renault V10) even before they hit problems, and score a then-rare win for the Scuderia.

Without the recent Bridgestone-Michelin tyre war, 2001 and 2003 would probably have been the same borefest that 2002 and 2004 were. Michelin having the edge in 2003 enabled Montoya and Raikkonen to push Schumacher harder than they otherwise would have. Without Michelin, it's possible that Schumacher would have been champion every single year from 2000 to 2006.

Also I don't think its a coincidence that since the single tyre, Ferrari and McLaren have done the bulk of the winning, whereas in previous seasons there were an average of three cars that could contend for wins on more than one-off occasions.

Standardization places more emphasis on money and resources, since you can rely even less on innovation, and not on having the right tyre or component, so the teams that can eke out performance to the n-th degree by throwing resources at a problem, win. See IndyCar 2006 onwards.

People talk about "entertainment", but I don't want to be "entertained", I want to be interested, captivated and absorb myself in all facets of the sport. And when it comes to relying on quirky qualifying and race regulations to mix things up in order to keep the casual fan mildly satisified in order to make more and more money, while alienating the hardcore fans, who contrary to popular belief, AREN'T worthless, because they are the ones who stick with the sport through thick and thin providing it retains its core values.

And like I said, for those who don't give a toss about all that stuff and just want to watch an "exciting" race, virtually every series out there is already catering for you, I'll always say each to his own, but to be as good as told your point of view is worthless and that every single form of motorsport should standardise to chase some unattainable pipe dream of equality, cost containment and entertainment, is becoming repetitive and annoying, and it is being led from the top (Max).

schmenke

24th October 2008, 18:34

...People talk about "entertainment", but I don't want to be "entertained", I want to be interested, captivated and absorb myself in all facets of the sport. And when it comes to relying on quirky qualifying and race regulations to mix things up in order to keep the casual fan mildly satisified in order to make more and more money, while alienating the hardcore fans, who contrary to popular belief, AREN'T worthless, because they are the ones who stick with the sport through thick and thin providing it retains its core values.

And like I said, for those who don't give a toss about all that stuff and just want to watch an "exciting" race, virtually every series out there is already catering for you, I'll always say each to his own, but to be as good as told your point of view is worthless and that every single form of motorsport should standardise to chase some unattainable pipe dream of equality, cost containment and entertainment, is becoming repetitive and annoying, and it is being led from the top (Max).

:up:

truefan72

24th October 2008, 18:46

If Mosley wants to save F1 the cheapest and probably the best thing he can do for the sport is to resign and leave F1. and while leaving, he can ask Bernie to follow suit. And finally the FIA board can use a shakeup and transparency.

Those actions alone will do more for F1 than any gimmick measure.

wmcot

25th October 2008, 09:02

People talk about "entertainment", but I don't want to be "entertained", I want to be interested, captivated and absorb myself in all facets of the sport. And when it comes to relying on quirky qualifying and race regulations to mix things up in order to keep the casual fan mildly satisified in order to make more and more money, while alienating the hardcore fans, who contrary to popular belief, AREN'T worthless, because they are the ones who stick with the sport through thick and thin providing it retains its core values.

And like I said, for those who don't give a toss about all that stuff and just want to watch an "exciting" race, virtually every series out there is already catering for you, I'll always say each to his own, but to be as good as told your point of view is worthless and that every single form of motorsport should standardise to chase some unattainable pipe dream of equality, cost containment and entertainment, is becoming repetitive and annoying, and it is being led from the top (Max).

Totally agree with you! Those who want to be entertained can watch "Dancing with the Stars." Those who want to be interested watch "Nova." The motor racing equivalents are NASCAR and F1/ALMS, respectively.

markabilly

25th October 2008, 15:02

A long, long time ago... I can still remember how
That music used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while

Geeusss,
what do you people not understand---you think MaXie wants to turn F1 into dancing with the stars or the red neck good times of nastycar???He knows the elite snobs of F1 could not deal with that!! OH NO, we do not want the f1 fans might actually laugh and get a hernia or a dose of rectal prolapse :eek: Regardless of many other faults, He is not a "wannabe" Nero playing the fiddle while F1 burns...

But that's not how it used to be

The money was a flowing, the sponsors were a spending...

Bad news on the doorstep

I couldn't take one more step

He knows that given the way the world is going, that first all the tobacco money dried up, like the desert in Iraq.

Now the banks and auto industry are crashing into the pitstop of no return.

Price of oil is falling, by over 50% in less than three months (as in 140 plus per barrel to the 60 or so range), so bye bye oil money like Shell......

AIG, Prudential and Hartford are going bye, bye.....

While Lennin read the book of Marx

Real estate prices and mortgages are crashing all over, even.....IN CHINA!!!!!

Maybe you people need to worry over more important questions like
So do you have faith in God above?
Do you believe in rock and roll?
Will music save your mortal soul?

BUT NO........

Now for 10 years we've been on our own
And moss grows fat on a rolling stone

So who is gonna pay the bills for those buffets fancy wind tunnels, carbon fiber, tires good for 10 minutes, complex tech and stuff good for two hours per race and out-moded in three months????

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away

Enjoy what is very likely to be the last great orgy of money and splendor for f1 for years to come, assuming any of it is around in a year or so.......
I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before

But the man there said the music wouldn't play
And in the streets the children screamed
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken
And the three men I admire most
The Father Son and Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast

I think I will have another drink before they (be it MCCain, Obama, Osama or Putin) turn out the lights.....Bye, bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry................