Horner whines to the FIA

another beat up by motorsport.com
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ma...-in-australia/
Manor "had no intention of racing" in Australia
The team failed to run all weekend, although the FIA deemed it had done all in its hands to do so and decided no penalty was needed.
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/114393-...penalise-manor
"Under article 13.2 of F1's sporting regulations, when teams enter the championship they must show that they plan to "participate in every event with the number of cars and drivers entered."

Following written evidence submitted to the stewards, as well as discussions with senior team members, the FIA eventually decided that there had been no breach of the rules.

A statement issued by the stewards said that because Manor had attended the event, brought equipment and staff with it and got its cars ready and through scrutineering, it had done all that it could. Furthermore, the team was able to demonstrate that even if it had broken F1's curfew regulations it would still not have had enough time to sort out the software problems.
Under article 13.2 of F1's sporting regulations, when teams enter the championship they must show that they plan to "participate in every event with the number of cars and drivers entered."

.
"

Horner whining when his team needs to stand up and be defiant in the face of adversity?

Pathetic clubbie racer. Pathetic leadership. Pathetic glory hunting, attention seeking fool.

I am not sure, what everyone's problem is with Horner. He is a politician. Which means he "fights" for his team regardless of where his team sits in the pecking order. It is the task of him as a team principal.

If his team dominates, he tries to protect the advantage. If his team is behind, he tries to find ways to eradicate the handicap. Using politicking for it is just one part of the job. Every team principal does it behind the scenes, even if we do not hear much about it.

Those, who need to act, are Bernie and FIA, who are 'above' the politicking of teams, and make decisions. Teams are there to present their views, and what would be the best (for themselves). Then the governing body needs to make a summary of all this and proceed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

Horner whining when his team needs to stand up and be defiant in the face of adversity?

Pathetic clubbie racer. Pathetic leadership. Pathetic glory hunting, attention seeking fool.

---

Horner can be many things, but pathetic leader he is not.:D 4 WDCs and WCCs. He is up there with the very successful team principals in the sport's history!

I'm sure the FIA would like a close competition just as much as the teams, but Horner needs to follow protocol.

He can't just jump up and down and demand that Mercedes be slowed down. He needs to send out his spies to find something (anything) on the Mercedes that looks to be questionable. Then he goes to the FIA and asks for clarification on that component, or how that component is tested (flexiwings anyone?). After that, the FIA can step in to declare the component illegal (for future races) or beef up the testing procedure.

FIA would be happy to rule against the Merc's to help competition, but rewriting their rulebook without being asked for clarification would be admitting that the rules are poorly written without anyone even having to question them.

I'm sure all the teams have brilliant engineers. and engineers are good with logic and finding solutions, but not always quite so brilliant with creativity and thinking outside of the box. Mercedes must be doing something creative or outside the box (like McL knee-blocking hole in the cockpit) that is within the 'grey area' of the regulations to be this far ahead of all the other teams. It's up to the other teams to discover it, then the FIA will clarify/amend the rules to ban it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

What do you take off the car to slow it down that isn't also on every other car?

---

Well, the same was questioned about Red Bull. Many things were banned, but in the end they still prevailed, because the car package was simply above others, and they only had temporary setbacks due to bans.

I don't know about details, but Mercedes has better inherent quality as well. Talking about specifics - wasn't there talk about split turbo last year? FRIC-suspension? As for the effect of ban, even if others get "hurt" by the ban as well, the best team gets hurt the most, because their system is most advanced/developed/refined. Usually that's what differentiates teams - not what someone has on the car or not, but the most advanced development of a "thing", which is aimed to get banned.

I personally don't know, where the solution lies. Because it is obvious Mercedes can grasp these hybrid engines better than anyone. Give new rules, V4 hybrid or V8 hybrid, they will still most likely prevail. Competitors need to hire Merc' staff, and upgrade their inherent quality to compete. But that's not easy to do and would take many years to accomplish. Red Bull's aerodynamics advantage seems to be evaporating only now, after many-many seasons!

the easiest solution is to undo the engine freeze. With only 4 suppliers, let them worry about the cost of developing the engines.
the other thing is to allow more testing and development.
Increase the engine allotment to 8 vs. 4
and finally. change the payment scale from these secretive ridiculous agreements to an equitable profit sharing system. This will allow the smaller teams to not struggle and constantly worry about financials.
I would cap the teams at 13. Then each will participate in the revenue sharing system. Winners will still get a bonus and extra money, but this will ensure that the smaller teams won't ever struggle again. and in a few years would catch up to the bigger teams. The sport will be stable, the field will be stable, Everyone wins.

Very valid points, Truefan.

Cutting the costs would help a lot too. The current formula is ridiculous and it's just an example of what happens when you try to appease the do-gooders instead of racing with your hair on fire and dragging your balls behind you.

Just give them big ass wings and tires and motors. Get rid of all the complicated stuff, including the semi automatic slushboxes. Make them shift the damm things. That used to be a skill.

I don't think even one of us cares about the green thing when it applies to racing. Let Formula E and WEC have that nitche. Formula One cars should be the baddest thing on the planet. They should go like hell and raise hell while they are doing it. Quiet, fuel efficient cars are killing this sport. The whole point is to be wasteful and scare the schitt out of ourselves and anyone else who gets close enough. People who don't want to risk it can either grow a pair or go home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Austin

I don't think even one of us cares about the green thing when it applies to racing. Let Formula E and WEC have that nitche. Formula One cars should be the baddest thing on the planet. They should go like hell and raise hell while they are doing it. Quiet, fuel efficient cars are killing this sport. The whole point is to be wasteful and scare the schitt out of ourselves and anyone else who gets close enough. People who don't want to risk it can either grow a pair or go home.

---

Industry disagrees with you.:D Motor industry doesn't want to waste money on developing something, which doesn't have future. And green has future! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

the easiest solution is to undo the engine freeze. With only 4 suppliers, let them worry about the cost of developing the engines.
the other thing is to allow more testing and development.
Increase the engine allotment to 8 vs. 4
and finally. change the payment scale from these secretive ridiculous agreements to an equitable profit sharing system. This will allow the smaller teams to not struggle and constantly worry about financials.
I would cap the teams at 13. Then each will participate in the revenue sharing system. Winners will still get a bonus and extra money, but this will ensure that the smaller teams won't ever struggle again. and in a few years would catch up to the bigger teams. The sport will be stable, the field will be stable, Everyone wins.

---

I agree with what you're saying truefan, especially that you mention both the testing and pay scale. These two must go hand in hand. If all you do is allow testing, this only benefits the bigger teams and puts a larger gap between them and the have-nots, as the smaller teams won't be able to take advantage of it for financial reasons. Once you flatten the pay scale somewhat, the smaller teams become stable and competitive as long as they are competent. As you say, over time the sport becomes stable and everybody wins.

I think there is an added bonus beyond that. Right now, teams are winning championships with brute force ($$), not necessarily with efficiency (spending less, but wisely). Once you adjust the pay scale it will remove the advantage of brute force spending somewhat. This in turn, takes away the incentive for manufacturers to stay in F1 (why stick around if you can't buy a championship). In time these teams will leave and be replaced with smaller independent teams - and here comes the bonus. The smaller independent teams are much more likely to allow character and personality back into the sport. I've always been a fan of the drivers that actually engage, not just carry the corporate image, so this would be what I'd be hoping for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Industry disagrees with you.:D Motor industry doesn't want to waste money on developing something, which doesn't have future. And green has future! ;)

---

Yes, but how many racing fans actually give a schitt about hybrid systems and the green agenda? I don't care about that. I just want to see the cars go fast and the drivers race their arse off.

i wonder what would happen if you put one of williams engine in the Mercedes ?
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns30273.html
"Mercedes has hit back at claims it is not supplying the same specification of engine to its F1 customers.

In Australia, Williams' Felipe Massa was the fastest non-works Mercedes driver in qualifying, but the gap to Lewis Hamilton's pole time was a massive 1.4 seconds.

Brazilian Massa admitted he suspects Mercedes might be supplying inferior equipment to its Grove-based customer.

"If we have the same engine the difference should be in the car," he said. "I hope we have the same engine. I believe we have the same engine, so it's the car.

"Maybe," said Massa.
"

This argument always comes up. When Cosworth were supplying the bulk of the engines in the 70's and early 80's, the inferior teams would claim that they 'important' customers eg Lotus were getting better engines than themselves, they would refuse to believe Lotus won because their engineering was better. Same when Honda supplied McLaren in the 90's etc, etc. It is the default position to explain why they are not quite as good as Mercedes.

No disrespect to little Fil, but the driver has something to do with it as well. Many little things quickly add up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

and finally. change the payment scale from these secretive ridiculous agreements to an equitable profit sharing system. This will allow the smaller teams to not struggle and constantly worry about financials.
I would cap the teams at 13. Then each will participate in the revenue sharing system. Winners will still get a bonus and extra money, but this will ensure that the smaller teams won't ever struggle again. and in a few years would catch up to the bigger teams. The sport will be stable, the field will be stable, Everyone wins.

---

Except Bernie.

He obviously cares nil for the smaller teams; this is evidenced by a 30 year track record. This is the same chap who actively let Brabham die whilst he was still in charge, who watched on while Team Lotus imploded and who paid what amounts to a £60m bribe to a court to get out of a bribery charge.
The teams won't result in a better revenue sharing system whilst one particular imp retains 23% of all revenues for himself, has done deals with certain teams to retain that slice.

Incidentally, Bernie also know about pay drivers being rubbish; having been one himself and failing to qualify for two grands prix in 1958.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Except Bernie.

He obviously cares nil for the smaller teams; this is evidenced by a 30 year track record. This is the same chap who actively let Brabham die whilst he was still in charge, who watched on while Team Lotus imploded and who paid what amounts to a £60m bribe to a court to get out of a bribery charge.
The teams won't result in a better revenue sharing system whilst one particular imp retains 23% of all revenues for himself, has done deals with certain teams to retain that slice.

Incidentally, Bernie also know about pay drivers being rubbish; having been one himself and failing to qualify for two grands prix in 1958.

---

Only failed to qualify in Monaco. In the British race Jack Fairman had the car and 'Wiggy the Imp' was named as the second driver, just in case he was needed during the race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Austin

Yes, but how many racing fans actually give a schitt about hybrid systems and the green agenda? I don't care about that. I just want to see the cars go fast and the drivers race their arse off.

---

Well, this is true. I also watch F1 mainly for racing, though there are additional elements, why I watch specifically F1 and not other racing series. So it has to be "pinnacle of motorsport" as well, or at least leave such impression in whichever way! That it is worth watching F1 more so than other series.

But I also have to understand the point of view of others, i.e industry. World doesn't exist in isolation, neither does F1 racing.:)

Although I understand the point of view of those who don't want to see one team run away with it from the first race on, I find it rather offensive that if the FIA(T) go after the Mercedes engine, they'll also be handicapping Williams, Force India and Lotus.

If there's something illegal on the Mercedes chassis, then ban it. But to go after an engine manufacturer, just because the other manufacturers didn't do their homework as well as the Merc boys? No, that's not F1 either. Personally, I'd love to see McLaren-Honda come on strong and beat Red Bull-Renault into the dust. It's just too bad Newey didn't go to Ferrari with Vettel, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Although I understand the point of view of those who don't want to see one team run away with it from the first race on, I find it rather offensive that if the FIA(T) go after the Mercedes engine, they'll also be handicapping Williams, Force India and Lotus.

---

The way the rules are written, they FIA sort of reserved the right to equalize things, but I don't think it's right. The rules were the same for everyone when this new formula started, so why change now just because everyone but Mercedes got it wrong? Then again, the rules for equalizing things have been in there from the beginning too, so Mercedes should have known all along this could/would have happened.

Still, it takes away the incentive to excel if they can take it away with the swipe of a pen.

I'm not a big fan of changing the rules just because they don't suit a particular manufacturer, but for decades manufacturers have used the threat of quitting to get what they want. Sure enough, Red Bull is threatening to quit, almost like clockwork. Remembering that Red Bull really represents four cars (out of Sunday's 15 car field!), you can bet this won't be the end of it. we are going to hear about the inequity all year long and I am willing to be the FIA ends up doing something, even if it is wrong.

Horner does have a point though about how hard the FIA came down on them when they were dominating and now nothing is being done to reel Mercedes in. Then again, the FIA has never earned a reputation for fair governing, so why start now?

Quote:

---

If there's something illegal on the Mercedes chassis, then ban it. But to go after an engine manufacturer, just because the other manufacturers didn't do their homework as well as the Merc boys? No, that's not F1 either.

---

Except the FIA left themselves room in the rules to step in and "equalize" things. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but surely the FIA will find a way to make a mess out of it. It is probably too early to panic because Renault is now claiming they were so bad in Australia because of last minute updates. Imagine the FIA cuts them a break and then they find a solution to their problem and go to the front. How pissed would Mercedes be over that?

You and I will probably watch formula One no matter who is dominating or how bad it is. Unfortunately, there are probably not enough diehards to sustain a sport that requires $95 million cars. If it gets real boring (like Saturday night) TV numbers will sag and the FIA will have no choice. It does not matter any more what is right or sporting ...... it's all about the money now. Actually it has always been about money but formula One has never worried about suffered fan apathy until recently.

The FIA has to keep it interesting enough so that people tune in. Otherwise there would be no point in the manufacturers being there to begin with. Formula One has gotten so complicated and so expensive that everyone is pretty much trapped.

My lasting impression of the race was the very last lap when Nico had seemingly given up and fell back a little. The Mercs circulated around in apparent formation, miles ahead and making it look ridiculously easy. It was actually significant history unfolding and a level of domination we have probably never seen before. It's hard to see this as being good for formula One, but I don't have a fair answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Austin

The FIA has to keep it interesting enough so that people tune in.

---

This an interesting paradox.

Do you as the BTCC have done and reject an offer from pay-TV so that the sport remains on free-to-air and thus retains eyeballs or do you monetise the existing fan base and risk destroying it? I think that the FIA is currently on the road of Ouroboros, the snake will eat itself.

F1 should have looked at the lessons from Germany. where RTL is now the pauper against Sky Sport and Sport 1. When Schumacher was winning championships, there wasn't a problem but lately, pay-TV views have falled off the cliff. I don't know what RTL's arrangements are like for 2015 but if they're similar to the UK, F1 will die a death in Germany.

I think the answer to everything is to simplify everything, starting with the cars. After that they need to adjust the pay scale to keep all the teams solvent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Austin

The FIA has to keep it interesting enough so that people tune in.

---

With a 100 year (or so) deal with FOM that ensures a fixed fee to them, does the FIA have to take an active interest in that? Isn't that Bernie's problem?

Surely the FIA should be concerned only about sporting integrity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Austin

...You and I will probably watch formula One no matter who is dominating or how bad it is. Unfortunately, there are probably not enough diehards to sustain a sport that requires $95 million cars. If it gets real boring (like Saturday night) TV numbers will sag and the FIA will have no choice. It does not matter any more what is right or sporting ...... it's all about the money now. Actually it has always been about money but formula One has never worried about suffered fan apathy until recently.

The FIA has to keep it interesting enough so that people tune in. Otherwise there would be no point in the manufacturers being there to begin with. Formula One has gotten so complicated and so expensive that everyone is pretty much trapped.

My lasting impression of the race was the very last lap when Nico had seemingly given up and fell back a little. The Mercs circulated around in apparent formation, miles ahead and making it look ridiculously easy. It was actually significant history unfolding and a level of domination we have probably never seen before. It's hard to see this as being good for formula One, but I don't have a fair answer.

---

McLaren/Honda at the end of the 80's were pretty dominant but eventually other teams evolved and caught up.

The difference that I see now is that there are too many rules restricting in-season progress. I fear that we have another one team season to look forward to.

No testing, penalties if an engine blows up, restrictions on fuel flows and volumes, rev limits - for crying out loud, this is supposed to be Motorsport. They can put all the washing machine parts in they want, this is F1 and everything that involves a battery is a side show.

I'll believe that there is a finance problem in F1 teams when the caviar and champagne flows a little slower and the top teams salary bills are less than a national education budget.

Manufacturers can bleat all they want but the only engine manufacturer/team combination that matters is Ferrari. All of the others are fair weather friends that have come and gone as an F1 profile has been to their benefit.

Mercedes must receive every accolade for their incredible product but they must also see that they are not going to prove anything by squashing the other teams into dust. They have produced a mind numbingly beautiful thing - now they need to install a big parachute on its rear wing.

Someone here implied :p I'm not a diehard fan if I stopped watching F1 races or something like that :p. Maybe I'm not but my impression is that the object of my passion is gone. This is not the Formula 1 I used to like. I can't just like something no matter what it becomes just because it's called a certain way. I wont support a Man United coached by Mourinho or a Ferrari driven by a Vettel :p or a Formula 1 that is a (failed) show (a not very smart comedy) and not a true competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Austin

Getting and maintaining an advantage is certainly part of racing, but it gets old when you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars and it's the other guy that has that advantage, and worse when you can't overcome it. It stops being fun when you don't even have a chance, and right now, no one has a chance against Mercedes.

Right now the problem is that no one can afford to lose. If I am Renault, I can't justify wasting that much money to get my ass handed to me every week on the world stage. If you want to keep the manufacturers involved, you have to keep them competitive, or at least give them the chance to make themselves competitive.

I certainly don't have the answer because I am also not in favor of restricting Mercedes or giving the others an artificial boost. The rules were the same for everyone going in, so it's too late to change now if you want to have a fair series.

See, the thing is, the FIA should not have written such a ridiculous set of regulations that would have allow this to happen in the first place. We never heard much griping at all over the old regulations, at least not over the engine formula. Maybe that's because it was not such a complex formula that only one company in the world could figure it out and make it work.

We need less complex and less expensive cars.

---

i think the biggest problem is the engine freeze.
the other manufacturers should be able to start all over again, because without using the fundamentally different design of the mercedes they will never be able to be competitive.

that, and of course the ban on testing. also a thing that makes it easier to maintain the advantage and difficult do develop new techniques.

Since Horner is so worried about "the show", I have a solution for him. I only watch horse racing when the Kentucky Derby comes on. But if one horse is particularly strong at the Derby, I'll watch The Preakness. And if the strong horse wins The Preakness, I'll be sure to watch the Belmont Stakes. And judging by the TV ratings rise and fall, that's how many people are.

So here it is, Christian. If Lewis wins every pole and every race up through the British Grand Prix, people will howl and complain. But... but... but, if he goes on to win every pole and every through the Russian Grand Prix, all eyes will be focused on whether or not he can accomplish the (previously) impossible: win every pole and every race in a season. Face it, Christian... your engine sucks. It will continue to suck. Even if the FIA takes two cylinders out of the Mercedes V6, your engines will still blow up and the Mercs will still beat you. But since "the show" is what you're most concerned about, why don't you put your efforts into making sure Lewis has clear sailing and let's watch the ratings take off around October? I'm sure that I can count on you to do what's right for the sport. Come on Spice Boy, take one for the team... er, sport.

Jokes aside (though I don't expect it to happen), can you imagine the reaction of the non-racing press if Lewis went on a tear like this???!!! Heck, even people who don't know what F1 is would hear about this.

http://jalopnik.com/the-ten-most-ing...ver-1465111260

can find no info on f1 engine scrutineering
https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr...ering&start=30

http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/10/04/r...es-works-team/

"Ron Dennis made it clear today that he believes that McLaren has been at a disadvantage relative to the Mercedes works team this year.

Dennis said that McLaren has not had the chance to use the new power unit to its full advantage because of a lack of access to data, and even hinted that the team had not had “the best engines.”

His words made it pretty clear that the team’s 20-season partnership with Mercedes is under strain as it edges towards its conclusion
"

About the only way to guarantee equal access to engines is to distribute them randomly from a common pool. Otherwise the builder can/will keep the good ones for themselves.

There's nothing new about works teams getting better engines than customer teams. In the '90's Ferrari always supplied Sauber with an engine that was a spec or two behind those in the works cars. As far as I'm aware this was the deal that Sauber signed up for so there were no issues.

Today, I don't think this is possible. I'm sure there are rules about all teams being supplied with the same spec engine, not to mention the stupid homologation rules, so if Mercedes aren't doing this then they have some explaining to do. McLaren, Williams etc sound like they were/are paying for current spec engines from Mercedes so they'd have a right to be pissed if they weren't getting what they paid for.

only info I can find
traction control is currently banned in F1. How is it made illegal? Well, every single car on the grid uses the exact same ECU, so no TC can work through the central computer system. Traction control could possibly come from some kind of exotic means of engine management programming, which could limit the amount of power coming from the engine out of corners. Formula One's management, however, checks every car's engine mapping code and it's not allowed to change race by race.

For one, I am totally fine with RBR quitting F1. I honestly believe that F1 will be no better or worse off without them. I'm also sick of listening to Horner moaning like a whiny little bitch to the FIA about Mercedes dominance because they are no longer on top. In fact, I'd be 100% on for it if collectively F1 told RBR to fuck right off. What a pack of sore losers and moany bitches. I had a lot of respect for RBR and what they achieved in the sport until last year when they started moaning about the rules just because they were no longer winning. Now I'd be happy if they were gone so we don't have to listen to them whinge anymore.

I also wonder what is it that RBR have over Bernie to say that he supports them in their plight to reel in the Mercedes teams? He had no issues when RBR were dominating for 4 years straight and now suddenly when Mercedes are dominating he supports calls for equalisation? Something reeks! Maybe Horner and Ecclestone are spooning partners?

I don't really see what people are surprised about anyway. When sweeping rule changes come in, there is always one team that comes out on top. Just look at 1998 and how dominant McLaren became. 2009 with Brawn GP. These sort of rule changes always have and always will bring about periods of domination. It's just that this time Mercedes have done the best job. It took Ferrari 3 years to reel in McLaren from the 1998 changes. If it wasn't for Schumacher being behind the wheel then it would have been a McLaren sweep. Schumacher dominated for 5 years. Periods of domination come and go in F1 but for me, last year was one of the closest fought championship battles in a long time. It was far better than watching that overrated German go on and win 9 races in a row by 30 seconds. At least now you've two top drivers challenging each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

For one, I am totally fine with RBR quitting F1. I honestly believe that F1 will be no better or worse off without them. I'm also sick of listening to Horner moaning like a whiny little bitch to the FIA about Mercedes dominance because they are no longer on top. In fact, I'd be 100% on for it if collectively F1 told RBR to fuck right off. What a pack of sore losers and moany bitches. I had a lot of respect for RBR and what they achieved in the sport until last year when they started moaning about the rules just because they were no longer winning. Now I'd be happy if they were gone so we don't have to listen to them whinge anymore.

I also wonder what is it that RBR have over Bernie to say that he supports them in their plight to reel in the Mercedes teams? He had no issues when RBR were dominating for 4 years straight and now suddenly when Mercedes are dominating he supports calls for equalisation? Something reeks! Maybe Horner and Ecclestone are spooning partners?

I don't really see what people are surprised about anyway. When sweeping rule changes come in, there is always one team that comes out on top. Just look at 1998 and how dominant McLaren became. 2009 with Brawn GP. These sort of rule changes always have and always will bring about periods of domination. It's just that this time Mercedes have done the best job. It took Ferrari 3 years to reel in McLaren from the 1998 changes. If it wasn't for Schumacher being behind the wheel then it would have been a McLaren sweep. Schumacher dominated for 5 years. Periods of domination come and go in F1 but for me, last year was one of the closest fought championship battles in a long time. It was far better than watching that overrated German go on and win 9 races in a row by 30 seconds. At least now you've two top drivers challenging each other.

---

+1

Further evidence can be seen from the 'stable' 3 litre engine formual days of the 70's-mid 80's. Sure Cosworth engines dominated, but no one team. Lotus won four titles, Tyrrell two, McLaren two, Ferrari three, Williams two and Brabham one (before switching to BMW turbo for a second title). Other teams frequently challeged for and won races as well.

Moral of my story is simple. 'Set an engine formula and leave it alone for a decent period of time, things will eventually equallise between the teams and the racing will get closer as the formula goes on.Big changes as Knight says will see one team (usually but not always the richest team/s) continue to dominate, simply because they can spend money to adapt quickest.

Not just engines. All changes to the car regulations too.

With the current restrictions on testing, it will take a loooooong time to equalize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Not just engines. All changes to the car regulations too.

---

Absolutely true Mark. Any major rule changes benefit the cashed-up bigger teams.

I know I keep on harping on about the 70's-80's period of F1, but it was a time when a stable set of regulations were in force and the racing was without a doubt better.... Yes I know that was befor computers and technology ruined things and the world is now a vastly different place, and due to the speed of technological development we can never have the same sort of, or length of stability, but...... something does need to be done. (I am not advocating false after the fact car equalisation, rather a set of stable rules all teams can live with, that are not that cost prohibitive that only the mega-buck teams have a chance)

As Firstgear says, the lack of testing means that any advantage a team has at the start of the season will never be caught by the other teams. It is not a coincidence that one team totally dominating for season upon season corresponds to the testing bans (apart from some obvious exceptions of course)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anfield5

+1

Further evidence can be seen from the 'stable' 3 litre engine formual days of the 70's-mid 80's. Sure Cosworth engines dominated, but no one team. Lotus won four titles, Tyrrell two, McLaren two, Ferrari three, Williams two and Brabham one (before switching to BMW turbo for a second title). Other teams frequently challeged for and won races as well.

Moral of my story is simple. 'Set an engine formula and leave it alone for a decent period of time, things will eventually equallise between the teams and the racing will get closer as the formula goes on.Big changes as Knight says will see one team (usually but not always the richest team/s) continue to dominate, simply because they can spend money to adapt quickest.

---

you can stay with the current engines for 20 years, as long as they remain frozen there will be no equalization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denkimi

you can stay with the current engines for 20 years, as long as they remain frozen there will be no equalization.

---

Absolutely true, that is why I have argued before about scrapping this stupid freeze idea and finding some other way ie budget cap on engines to even things out.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118138
Asked if he appreciated the irony of a once-dominant team demanding equivalency, Horner replied: "I can understand, but when we were performing we never had the level of dominance that we are seeing, nowhere near.
- Autosport, 20th Mar 2015.

Of course Red Bull "never had the level of dominance that we are seeing, nowhere near". Red Bull had Vettel and Webber.

I predicted in 2004 that Webber would never win a Grand Prix and would never win the World Championship. He some some Grands Prix but he was never going to win a WDC.
Mercedes in 2014 had a former World Champion and someone with the potential to be a World Champion. Red Bull even in their highest "level of dominance" never had that.

The 2013 Red Bull probably was as dominant and technically superior to the field as the 2014 Mercedes was. It's just that it was driven by a star and an ordinary, whereas the Mercedes was driven by two stars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118138
Asked if he appreciated the irony of a once-dominant team demanding equivalency, Horner replied: "I can understand, but when we were performing we never had the level of dominance that we are seeing, nowhere near.
- Autosport, 20th Mar 2015.

Of course Red Bull "never had the level of dominance that we are seeing, nowhere near". Red Bull had Vettel and Webber.

I predicted in 2004 that Webber would never win a Grand Prix and would never win the World Championship. He some some Grands Prix but he was never going to win a WDC.
Mercedes in 2014 had a former World Champion and someone with the potential to be a World Champion. Red Bull even in their highest "level of dominance" never had that.

The 2013 Red Bull probably was as dominant and technically superior to the field as the 2014 Mercedes was. It's just that it was driven by a star and an ordinary, whereas the Mercedes was driven by two stars.

---

I've yet to witness Mercedes win 9 races in a row in one season. We'll see if they can do it this year ;) If they win the next race it will be 9 in a row but in different seasons. Oh RBR are such a bunch of sore losers. I've never seen a more obvious case of the boy who cried wolf in my life. Anyway, who wants to see a drinks manufacturer dominate F1? I certainly don't. Totally fine with them quitting. F1 is bigger than any one team, including Ferrari.

All the teams agreed to the 2014 rule changes and had their input into them. Just because RBR didn't do as good a job as the others is no reason for F1 to change. Personally, I've no issue watching two great drivers in the same car battle it out in front. I love watching two drivers push each other like that. That is something F1 has been missing greatly the previous number of years with Vettel dominating.

Dj_bytedisaster can be many things, but guess he was right about one thing - some people are so hurt over the success of Red Bull they still can't get over it. Beating Red Bull, Horner, and others even, when they are down. Red Bull is of no importance and should quit F1? Well, then we would lose 2 teams and F1 would collapse. Good luck with that.

F1 is in a pretty dire state right now. Dominance is never good for F1, be it McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull or Mercedes. We got only 15 cars on the grid, and realistically only 9 teams competing. But people are still beating Red Bull over stating the obvious.

The only time, when car-wise Red Bull enjoyed the kind of dominance Mercedes does currently or all through 2014, was the second half of 2013. You only need to look at time gaps to see that. In the first half of 2013 there were plenty of close races, and even races, where Red Bull was nowhere near the front (like Spain in 2013).

As for "interesting battle between team-mates". We will see, how does this season evolve. But there was nothing interesting between Hamilton and Rosberg in Australia. Utterly forgettable GP in terms of racing at the front. So from this point of view not superior to other domination eras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Dj_bytedisaster can be many things, but guess he was right about one thing - some people are so hurt over the success of Red Bull they still can't get over it. Beating Red Bull, Horner, and others even, when they are down. Red Bull is of no importance and should quit F1? Well, then we would lose 2 teams and F1 would collapse. Good luck with that.

F1 is in a pretty dire state right now. Dominance is never good for F1, be it McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull or Mercedes. We got only 15 cars on the grid, and realistically only 9 teams competing. But people are still beating Red Bull over stating the obvious.

The only time, when car-wise Red Bull enjoyed the kind of dominance Mercedes does currently or all through 2014, was the second half of 2013. You only need to look at time gaps to see that. In the first half of 2013 there were plenty of close races, and even races, where Red Bull was nowhere near the front (like Spain in 2013).

As for "interesting battle between team-mates". We will see, how does this season evolve. But there was nothing interesting between Hamilton and Rosberg in Australia. Utterly forgettable GP in terms of racing at the front. So from this point of view not superior to other domination eras.

---

F1 won’t collapse if we lose RBR. The likelihood would be that Renault would take over Torro Rosso as a works team. There are also rumours of Audi waiting in the mist should RBR or someone else decide to pull out of the sport. So while we’d lose Red Bull I doubt very much that we’d lose two teams which, as I said, I am totally fine with losing RBR.

As for being hurt over RBR’s success, I am not. They did the best job and that’s it, I just don’t believe a drinks company should be spearheading the success of F1. Simple as really. I’d rather that they left and a genuine car manufacturer came in. RBR were the first ones to come out and say that they shouldn’t be punished for doing a better job during the 2010-2014 seasons and I totally agree with that. You can’t punish a team for doing a better job. It’s up to the others to play catch up.

The only fair way out of this that I see is to unfreeze the Engine homologation rules until the end of 2016 and to allow each team something like 7 engines per season. That leaves enough scope for upgrades every 2-3 races and should allow Renault and everyone else to catch up. If they can’t do it in that length of time then they don’t deserve to do it. This will increase cost but, let’s face it, costs are through the roof anyway so what’s another 20 million? In the grand scheme of things and the likely commercial benefit to F1 it would be worth the investment. There could be a potential agreement done with the Engine manufacturers that they receive an chunk of the cherry through increased revenue generated from a more closely fought F1 race. It's all doable should people put their heads down and agree to it and stop bitching but you can't punish Mercedes for doing a better job.

This was the same with Ferrari and RBR. And, in fairness to Ron Dennis, when Ferrari were dominating, he clearly stated that you can't punish them for doing a better job and it is up to the other teams to catch up. The same applies here.

Regarding the Australian GP, I quite enjoyed watching Rosberg and Hamilton drive out front. They were both driving flawlessly and it was interesting to see the contrast in styles. This is part of what draws me to F1, not necessarily "the show". You might not remember the GP and thought it dull but I still rewatched it twice on Sunday. Lets face it, over the last 17 years in F1 there have been more "dull" races as you put it than entertaining ones with lots of overtaking. If you want overtaking, then go to Moto GP. F1 hasn't been about overtaking in a long time. And DRS is still as stupid today as it was three years ago.