BMW to leave Formula One at end of 2009

[PlatinumZealot]

will BMW still provide engines?

[mx_tifoso]

No mas motores.

[xpensive]

Peter Sauber has been offered Koenigsegg-Saab engines for 2011. For free actually.

[PlatinumZealot]

I only asked because I think BMW can make a profit by just offering the engines alone. hmmm I faintly recall either Toyota or Mecedez saying that providing engines is good business. Since engine development has halted the engines are much cheaper to manufacture and generate more value.

[timbo]

The FIA should have studied it more before pushing for it how they did.

And that goes for basically ALL Max's groundbraking ideas. Like a budget cap.

You're flat out wrong there and like a stubborn kid, you're deliberately missing the point. BMW has a really solid understanding of what motorsport should give a company by way of return (as - interestingly - did Honda). It is a company with a strong motorsports history. It's board of directors have a very solid idea of what the project should cost for what it should give by way of returns.

The way I read this, it is only a matter of time that they withdraw from F1. Interestingly it applies to all "manufacturers" in general (more or less), that's why Max's crusade.
Also, do you imply that Mercedes people are dumb for staying in sports?

If they're basically telling you that FOTA's version of F1 is a sh*t deal, stand up and take notice.

You only should add "sh*t deal for them" and I would entirely agree.

So what if the FOTA members create the cars? The point is they're doing a crap job about getting together and cutting the cost of doing so, even when giving the chance after having resisted any external pressure to do so.

To me they've done a brilliant job getting together. It was Max who used every trick in his disposal to try and divide them and prevented them from showing what it's worth.

Max has done plenty. He's pushed for changes that would have seen Honda and BMW remain in the sport, and would have made it equitable for new teams to come in (let's see how long the new boys last... now that there's effectively no budget cap for 2010 and they're competing against free-spending bigger teams). That's his job. Beyond that - after giving Ferrari the tech veto - he can't do much.

OK, here's the question, would BMW be happy in a "cost-regulated" F1 if a new team embarrasses them? Would they see value in F1 as technological test platform if they are only limited for so much money? How much BMW spends in R&D on itself?

Max wasn't solely responsible for picking new teams. You'll find other people were involved (and at any rate... what's wrong with the three that were picked?)

You imply that Ferrari was involved? Because when anybody talks about any sort of conspiracy in F1 it is either Max or Ferrari or both.
The wrong is that EE, Lola and Prodrive is obviously much better choice.

Nope. And they're not. 2009 was an exceptional year, and you've got to admit that many of the changes were fan-driven.

OK... V8s, 2005 with no tyre changes (how long it lasted???).

We've also got to admit that they've not been successful changes. Overtaking hasn't changed markedly. DF is not significantly down on where it was this time last year. It's a shame... as a TWG of team interests shaped the rules.

IMO it is FIA which deliberately chose to allow DDDs. So we have no idea how proposals of OWG could have worked.

[xpensive]

A most logic and impressive display timbo, for what it's worth, I'm with you all the way.

[SZ]

The FIA should have studied it more before pushing for it how they did.

And that goes for basically ALL Max's groundbraking ideas. Like a budget cap.

Again... there you go assuming that Max was actually, literally pushing for a budget cap. It's impossible. It's been known to be impossible. Max, the FIA, FOTA members all know that with teams split in five different countries all operating under different tax structures, labour laws, etc... that it's impossible.

The point isn't to have teams count the last penny and come up to the same number. The point was to push the teams to get serious about cost reductions. Push an agenda to get an agreeable solution.

So really, what has FOTA come up with that's cut costs significantly that wasn't on the FIA roadmap?

Are you capitalising "ALL" because you believe that anything out of Max Mosley's mouth is ---? If so it's not worth having this discussion. One might add that a number of teams vying for a new grid spot on the sheer promise of reduced costs to enter F1 might disagree with you too.

You're flat out wrong there and like a stubborn kid, you're deliberately missing the point. BMW has a really solid understanding of what motorsport should give a company by way of return (as - interestingly - did Honda). It is a company with a strong motorsports history. It's board of directors have a very solid idea of what the project should cost for what it should give by way of returns.

The way I read this, it is only a matter of time that they withdraw from F1. Interestingly it applies to all "manufacturers" in general (more or less), that's why Max's crusade.
Also, do you imply that Mercedes people are dumb for staying in sports?

Under the current rules it's only a matter of time before any manufacturer bar Ferrari leaves the sport. You can call it 'coming and going' but those leaving call it a 'lack of an equitable business case'. When one of the world's most successful auto manufacturers makes the call to leave, it's a wake up call.

Dumb? No. Do I think what they're doing is sustainable? No... and that's the point.

Mercedes is putting in a lot of money and they'll continue doing so... while they can.

If they're basically telling you that FOTA's version of F1 is a sh*t deal, stand up and take notice.

You only should add "sh*t deal for them" and I would entirely agree.

Ha. Don't be a fanboy and talk it out.

Competing in a category where there's little if any cost reduction in sight and where the best funded team has the only technical veto is 'good deal' how? No really, go on, explain it.

If your explanation is sufficiently excellent I'll pay the postage for you to mail it to BMW's board of directors... I'm sure they'll apologise for their misreading the situation. That it really was a 'good deal' after all and that they're committed indefinitely. Theissen will log on here personally, quote your post and offer his thanks and humble apologies.

Go on.

So what if the FOTA members create the cars? The point is they're doing a crap job about getting together and cutting the cost of doing so, even when giving the chance after having resisted any external pressure to do so.

To me they've done a brilliant job getting together. It was Max who used every trick in his disposal to try and divide them and prevented them from showing what it's worth.

Brilliant job of what? Getting together and holding meetings where they can't decide on a way to seriously reduce costs?

Max sitting them down and telling them to stop farting about and get serious divides them... how? Is a trick... how? (Seems pretty blatant and clear from here).

"What it's worth"... is what? 8 member teams chanting the same mantra about not giving a toss about reducing costs?

The last time the manufacturers formed a voting block pre-Concorde it was a red team that blinked first after being handed cash and a mandate to shape the rules, if we remember correctly, leaving the other teams wondering WTF the team love went. That's how much it's worth.

Max has done plenty. He's pushed for changes that would have seen Honda and BMW remain in the sport, and would have made it equitable for new teams to come in (let's see how long the new boys last... now that there's effectively no budget cap for 2010 and they're competing against free-spending bigger teams). That's his job. Beyond that - after giving Ferrari the tech veto - he can't do much.

OK, here's the question, would BMW be happy in a "cost-regulated" F1 if a new team embarrasses them? Would they see value in F1 as technological test platform if they are only limited for so much money? How much BMW spends in R&D on itself?

No team would be happy if a new team beats them, and if you haven't worked out that that's why Ferrari and their like don't want budget caps... come out from under the rock. Please.

The current rules allow every team to eventually get embarrassed by vested interests. You can't seriously be a fan of motorsport and want to limit competition by being concerned about 'being embarrassed' by... your competitors. If they're not able to compete with you... it's no longer a competition.

That single line you wrote is about the dumbest thing written yet in this saga.

But there's getting beaten when you've invested hundreds of millions and there's getting beaten when the next season's $40m away. You're deluding yourself if you think they'd not hang around after a bad season at the right money. Unless you're Ferrari, F1 is marketable enough - it's probably one of the best known, most powerful global brands to be associated with - if you just show up. Just ask William's sponsors.

A budget isn't going to limit BMW's ability to send engineers from Germany over to the team for race experience.

You seem to think that any sort of significant cost reduction is going to limit innovation in F1. How? Go on. List the reasons. Don't just say it's so. Think about it. You might find the answer to be considerably different to what you currently seem to think. I don't know any engineer that goes to work and thinks 'today's challenge is to use as much money as I can on this project'. Innovation and cost aren't necessarily related.

BMW's R&D budget is immense and far exceeds what they put into F1. How much of what goes on in F1 do you seriously think gets used in road cars under the current rules? Go on. I'm keen to hear what you think - I can tell you exactly.

Max wasn't solely responsible for picking new teams. You'll find other people were involved (and at any rate... what's wrong with the three that were picked?)

You imply that Ferrari was involved? Because when anybody talks about any sort of conspiracy in F1 it is either Max or Ferrari or both.
The wrong is that EE, Lola and Prodrive is obviously much better choice.

Nope, don't think that Ferrari were involved at all.

What's your basis for believing those three teams to be a better choice? You talk as if you have knowledge... state your reasons.

I can't see that they're obviously better and in many ways worse choices than those that were chosen.

Nope. And they're not. 2009 was an exceptional year, and you've got to admit that many of the changes were fan-driven.

OK... V8s, 2005 with no tyre changes (how long it lasted???).

You've got me there. No tyre changes are a poor choice for F1 (did shake up a certain manufacturer's technical relationship centred about a certain team... which some may argue was more the point).

V8's were about far more than dropping two cylinders though (read the rules).

We've also got to admit that they've not been successful changes. Overtaking hasn't changed markedly. DF is not significantly down on where it was this time last year. It's a shame... as a TWG of team interests shaped the rules.

IMO it is FIA which deliberately chose to allow DDDs. So we have no idea how proposals of OWG could have worked.

You're suggesting the FIA's responsible for the rules we have now, which isn't the case. The FIA is simply responsible for upholding the rules. Be careful who you criticise for what. Read the rules... There's nothing barring DDD's if you're smart about where the cuts in the floor go.

You won't hear me complain that the DDD's are against the intent of the rule or that the rules are poorly worded. I'd have preferred to see them banned myself... not least because they serve to make overtaking more difficult and increase downforce, which is not where 2009 was supposed to be. I personally think that if you allow DDD's then we may as well have left the aerodynamic rules where they were. There'd have been an almighty uproar from the three teams that launched with them were they banned though. Blame the lack of clarity in the original rules. If this is what you're suggesting, no, I don't disagree with you.

The FIA has chosen to uphold what it has and let those caught off-guard catch up... so be it. I think it's a double standard. Teams with good ideas that take the piss out of the rules but don't quite break them have had them banned before...

Had the FIA the balls to ban DDD's... it wouldn't make those that shaped a poor set of rules any less culpable.

[axle]

My god...this place just gets worse...

Last few pages of this thread = Supposition based on rumours for the most part...

Way to go.

[timbo]

The point isn't to have teams count the last penny and come up to the same number. The point was to push the teams to get serious about cost reductions. Push an agenda to get an agreeable solution.

For a while (before certain comments from Max) I thought that it may well been his agenda. But from how things resolved I'm 100% sure that it was a power play. Nothing more.

Are you capitalising "ALL" because you believe that anything out of Max Mosley's mouth is ---? If so it's not worth having this discussion. One might add that a number of teams vying for a new grid spot on the sheer promise of reduced costs to enter F1 might disagree with you too.

Reduced cost or 10 mil deposit or a piece of publicity?
And let's review Mosley ideas from the start of this year - 1) winner takes all, 2) budget cap, 3) two-tier, 4) Cosworth branded as Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW etc.

Under the current rules it's only a matter of time before any manufacturer bar Ferrari leaves the sport. You can call it 'coming and going' but those leaving call it a 'lack of an equitable business case'. When one of the world's most successful auto manufacturers makes the call to leave, it's a wake up call.

Interesting why you say "bar Ferrari". Seriously, why?

Competing in a category where there's little if any cost reduction in sight and where the best funded team has the only technical veto is 'good deal' how? No really, go on, explain it.

It is interesting that you use veto again and again. The way I see things Manor, Campos, USF1 and of course Williams and Force India - they all have vetoes.

"What it's worth"... is what? 8 member teams chanting the same mantra about not giving a toss about reducing costs?

How about this mantra - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72676
Dated January 8th.

The last time the manufacturers formed a voting block pre-Concorde it was a red team that blinked first after being handed cash and a mandate to shape the rules, if we remember correctly, leaving the other teams wondering WTF the team love went. That's how much it's worth.

Let's not start the same argument over and over again. You should admit that even if that happened the way you describe it Ferrari sucked at using their veto as they lost more titles in 5 years after than they did in 5 years before.

But there's getting beaten when you've invested hundreds of millions and there's getting beaten when the next season's $40m away. You're deluding yourself if you think they'd not hang around after a bad season at the right money. Unless you're Ferrari, F1 is marketable enough - it's probably one of the best known, most powerful global brands to be associated with - if you just show up. Just ask William's sponsors.

OK. So, you average BMW owner would enjoy wearing "being beaten by Force India for a $40 million" T-shirt.

Now leaving jokes aside, why BMW didn't go along with Max proposals? Why it joined FOTA if it sucked so horribly? If Max had such respected manufacturer as BMW with him, he surely could have spanked others into a submission?

A budget isn't going to limit BMW's ability to send engineers from Germany over to the team for race experience.

They can always find cheaper alternatives for that no matter how much F1 costs. And we don't know whether it was a common practice for BMW as it was for Honda.

You seem to think that any sort of significant cost reduction is going to limit innovation in F1. How? Go on. List the reasons. Don't just say it's so. Think about it. You might find the answer to be considerably different to what you currently seem to think. I don't know any engineer that goes to work and thinks 'today's challenge is to use as much money as I can on this project'. Innovation and cost aren't necessarily related.

Yeah, but in F1 you would always have an overhead cost of running the team. So without F1 manufacturers can always spend more on innovations.

BMW's R&D budget is immense and far exceeds what they put into F1. How much of what goes on in F1 do you seriously think gets used in road cars under the current rules? Go on. I'm keen to hear what you think - I can tell you exactly.

Many trends from automotive industry go completely against the spirit of F1 as a sport (like various driver assists). You can't do anything about it.

What's your basis for believing those three teams to be a better choice? You talk as if you have knowledge... state your reasons.

I can't see that they're obviously better and in many ways worse choices than those that were chosen.

Prodrive - apart from their success in various racing categories David Richards has experience of running F1 team (a successful experience), Epsilon Euskady has it's own technological base and racing team, and Lola has tremendous experience of building single-seaters (although 1996 was embarrassing).
On the other hand Manor relies on Nick Wirth company for technology and has a strong relation to Mosley, Campos doesn't have a team as he sold his part of GP2 team and don't have his own technological base (however Dallara may be good choice of technological partner) and USF1, well, I wasn't surprised when they finished on the list and I honestly wish the success as more USA involvement may be good for F1 value but there's some doubts about them.

V8's were about far more than dropping two cylinders though (read the rules).

Yeah, standard dimensions, CG height etc. Max could limit rpm or simply reduced volume and that would most likely be cheaper for manufacturers as they won't have to do as much studies as for a new engine formula.

You're suggesting the FIA's responsible for the rules we have now, which isn't the case. The FIA is simply responsible for upholding the rules. Be careful who you criticise for what.

Actually, we don't know did the final wording of the rules. Quite likely not people in OWG. But let's just leave that aside, I want to point you to the role of Charlie Whiting in the whole shebang who somehow decides whether a part has a go, but has no right to do that...

[SZ]

Timbo, don't assume that just because Max is the public face of bringing down costs in F1 that he's the only one driving it. Very far from the truth.

Max's ideas - nor anyone else's - are never, ever definitive in F1. As in asking for something isn't necessarily the same as asking for what you want. It's a gambit to get you there and force an issue. Some examples:

Budget caps = Sort out a way of getting costs down that works for you, but do it.
Winner takes all = Felipe won more races and lost the championship. Not ideal for the sport. We need to sort it out.
Two tier = You people have to be kidding yourselves if you think the new boys are there not to compete.
Common engine = What we've got is still too expensive.

A surefire way of not getting what you want is asking for it explicitly - it's too easy to say no. Don't think that Max is the only one who speaks his mind in non-definitives in F1.

I say any manufacturer bar Ferrari will leave the sport if costs rise indefintnely, as no manufacturer receives the same level of financial support, and no other manufacturer is so linked to the core of what F1 is as a brand. Very simply there's no other team on the grid that other teams have ever paid money to just for showing up (a 'historical contribution to the sport').

I say veto again and again as Ferrari literally has a technical veto. Other teams have voting power. This isn't the same. What Ferrari has under the current agreement is the legal right to have every other team cast a vote in support of a technical amendment/rule/etc, they can simply say no and the FIA is bound to follow the minority, as long as it's Ferrari. This was a condition of their signing the current Concorde. It's also cited in Ferrari's latest legal documentation. If you think other teams have a veto, you clearly don't understand what it means to have one - as no other team does.

I've read that link. What exactly is the 'aerodynamic test reduction' - do you actually know - has it ever actually been printed anywhere for the public to see? Can you put a dollar figure to what it costs? You've got a neat page on Autosport citing a pretty loose reduction in aero costs - do you have any idea how it affects teams? The number of job ads for aeros for established teams aren't exactly shrinking on Autosport either! Engines and transmissions are an FIA idea - long overdue at that. And nothing else has ever been confirmed - we've heard absolutely nothing of it!

I'm not starting the same argument again and again. Ferrari bought a veto, deal with it. They didn't buy race wins, and they're dealing with it. This is a BMW thread. What relevant isn't how poorly Ferrari's doing, it's how hard conditions are for BMW to go racing. It's stupid to enter a fight with one hand tied behind your back.

If BMW or any other team is precious enough to worry about getting beaten by Force India or any other indie team - and if their fans are stupid enough to worry about it so much not to want to have their team compete - it's time to get out of the competition sport they've signed up for. By your logic noone else should turn up and BMW would have been happy racing itself only... no fear of getting beaten by other teams.

BMW joined FOTA as manufacturer representation isn't a bad thing, and representing your companies interests among contemporaries isn't a bad thing. The concept doesn't suck at all. It hasn't achieved a great deal on reducing costs considerably though. Call it what it is.

BMW does/did send engineers to F1 on rotation.

The costs of running a team are nowhere near what's being spent on development. You don't seem to understand what I'm asking of you on this - how much do you think it costs to go racing and why does limited spending limit innovation in F1?

Dallara and Wirth Engineering were both actively and very recently involved in F1. EE and Lola not so, but I'd bet Lola was the closer of the two to getting in. Would be nice to see them race. Just because David Richards ran a team successfully doesn't mean the rest of Prodrive is geared up to do similarly... unless you're contending that DR will engineer and develop every aspect of the car too, the Prodrive entry was way off the mark. I'm an F1 fan though. I'd like to see the Lola too.

Reduced volume in engines is massively complicated, more so than a change to V8's. An RPM limitation was a nightmare to push through rules - very few engine constructors wanted it (actually none) and letting STR have the V10's was a massive concession (see previous comments on why it's stupid letting manufacturers run the sport - I agree there are cheaper solutions than a switch to V8's).

The final wording of rules concerning the diffuser are online and can be downloaded by anyone. It's really quite clear. Charlie's role, and there's one of him in every category, is to limit piss taking. When that's contentious it goes to the FIA. As did DDD's. The rules were rear out and designs compared. Very simply, the implementations of DDD's put forward don't break the rules. I personally believe the FIA should have taken the opportunity to kill them then and there, but alas...

This is a BMW thread though (we - I - should get back to it). F1 isn't a viable option for the company, that's clear. What do you think would have made it viable? There are at least lessons to be learned here. F1 certainly isn't better off without BMW.

(I was really quite looking forward to Kubica doing great things in a BMW this or next season - I thought he was driver of the year, exceptional in 2008).

[timbo]

This is a BMW thread though (we - I - should get back to it). F1 isn't a viable option for the company, that's clear. What do you think would have made it viable? There are at least lessons to be learned here. F1 certainly isn't better off without BMW.

(I was really quite looking forward to Kubica doing great things in a BMW this or next season - I thought he was driver of the year, exceptional in 2008).

Agree with that wholeheartedly, but we actually can only deduce how things went in top-management circles. Right now they state "we were unable to meet our expectations", while BMW was active and dedicated partner within FOTA. So let's not put at least all the blame on FOTA?

Actually, something may have come as a result of recent comments of BE and MM sex scandal. As stupid as it may sound their management may seen collaboration with those guys as damaging to a company image.

KERS failure may also played a part in that decision as well as stated lack of races in key markets.

[xpensive]

A humble bit of advice timbo, leave it be, with some people you're getting nowhere.

Besides, this one in particular seems all too familiar somehow.

[SZ]

Agree with that wholeheartedly, but we actually can only deduce how things went in top-management circles. Right now they state "we were unable to meet our expectations", while BMW was active and dedicated partner within FOTA. So let's not put at least all the blame on FOTA?

Actually, something may have come as a result of recent comments of BE and MM sex scandal. As stupid as it may sound their management may seen collaboration with those guys as damaging to a company image.

KERS failure may also played a part in that decision as well as stated lack of races in key markets.

I don't blame FOTA entirely at all. FOTA didn't give the Ferrari a veto, and FOTA can't rule on how rules are implemented. FOTA didn't create the situation we're in fundamentally - FOTA, if the FIA had done their job properly - wouldn't exist. There shouldn't be a dynamic whereby a few teams can bitch about the rules and hold up rules changes. FOTA's to blame for the situation we have now, sure, as (certain) teams have wanted the ability to shape the next generation of F1 rules, and have done very little with it. They wanted the responsibility, they got it, they've squandered it - 2010 development is going full steam and what it costs to race is unfortunately still very ambiguous. Hard for new teams, hard for BMW making a business case for it after a poor year, hard for others involved and re-evaluating their involvement. KERS involvement is still ambiguous - it's not a small job designing the hardware in or out of a car, either. We can assume with good certainty that KERS meant much to BMW.

But the FIA certainly created the situation by which FOTA exists. It shouldn't need to.

Nor does FOTA regulate revenues fed back to teams. Just as BMW has made a business case for leaving F1, the FIA doesn't seem to want to make one for keeping them in the sport. Which is a shame - top facilities at Hinwil and pre the rules shakeup, things really were on the up and up.

The FIA has had some good intentions, and some important ones have been horribly executed - one in particular, KERS, has a lot of relevance to BMW. If it was a 2010 introduction for all teams, BMW wouldn't have been among the only teams with teething issues, and everyone would have come out a little more competitive. I'll lament their absence.

[xpensive]

I wonder, is there any rule preventing one individual from appearing on F1T under a multiplicity of nicks?

Just platonic wondering, Ciro?

[tk421]

I wonder, is there any rule preventing one individual from appearing on F1T under a multiplity of nicks?

then we could just argue with ourselves!