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
Printable View
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
By "them" do you mean the teams or the FIA?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Stefano Domenicali said that FOTA have:
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?Quote:
"...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."
Whatever the answer to that it seems that his stance has raised questions among the teams:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71558Quote:
...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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by harsha
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 £/$.
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
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! :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
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...mosley-privacy
:)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Then again, given that Max's F2 series is due to support the WTCC perhaps his version of F1 could headline that package :p