F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
"...mine or the FIA."?WhiteBlue wrote: ...
I should really not answer posts that fail to recognize the basic concepts or come from a different set of values toatally incompatible with mine or the FiA. But I will give it a last try.
...
Do you work for the FIA?WhiteBlue wrote: I should really not answer posts that fail to recognize the basic concepts or come from a different set of values toatally incompatible with mine or the FiA. But I will give it a last try.
Can you provide me with concrete financial numbers that show the costs involved with new fuels and lubricants will be detrimental to the long term future of the teams? Unless you can provide concrete evidence that pursuing higher energy fuels will run the costs into the stratosphere, then this is all conjecture. Also, how do you determine what is a distraction? I do not see it being a distraction if it ushers in new developments in the engine performance, as well as a trickle down effect into the real world.1. Cost and distraction to teams
Did you think for a moment that new fuels and lubricants have to be tested by the teams and their engine suppliers? So forcing a fuel war will not be without cost for the teams and their engine suppliers. This field of engineering has nothing to do with the ethos of the driver championship or the constructor championship and will do nothing for manufacturers or Joe public. It is simply another spending field which all top teams will have to support by their available financial and human resources similarly to competitive tyre supply. Typically they all get distracted from the main job and get tired of this. So they eventually request the FiA to get rid of the problem by appointing a common supplier.
More conjecture regarding fuel. Interesting how you have been harping about the need for real world relevance, and the need to attract auto manufacturers to the sport. Yet, you have no problem supporting the stifling of any potential developments that would actually benefit both areas.2. Commercial interest
All teams with fuel sponsors and FOM love to see the fuel suppliers sink money into F1 by sponsoring and tweaking the products. But there is a limit to what is positive and what is over all distractive. If the fight for a competitive fuel is absorbing too much resources and attention of the public as tyres did some time ago the contribution of money is not worth the hassle for the sport as a whole. The sport is better of in that case to use a common supplier as the ACO does.
Where does FOM even factor into this? There was zero mention of FOM and Ecclestone when the news came out about the possibility of using one fuel supplier for all teams in the sport. As such, I don't even see how this point is relevant to anything.3. The role of the FiA
The FiA via the ownership of the series has the right and the priviledge to appoint common suppliers by a tendering process if and when common supply is a better solution than competitive supply for the sport. They need to defend that priviledge against the commercial interest of FOM as history has shown. FOM has a tendency to grab every bit of power and influence and disregard the rights and ownership of the FiA championship. I'm reasonably sure that Todt will not introduce a common fuel supply against the broad wishes of the F1 commission, but he will make all necessary preparations that such a move can be implemented as and if it becomes prudent to do so.
I would be glad if you mind your own business. I can look after my own and do not need your personal and often detrimental comments. Thank you for keeping such advise to yourself. My view is that the users at F1t can hold any kind of personal opinion and talk about it here as long as it is on topic.xpensive wrote:"...mine or the FIA."?WhiteBlue wrote: ...
I should really not answer posts that fail to recognize the basic concepts or come from a different set of values toatally incompatible with mine or the FiA. But I will give it a last try.
...
I think you should seriously consider the purpose of this forum WB, it seems to me that you are the one at odds here and
who appointed you as an ambassador for the FIA on F1Technical anyway, you are very predictable in these situations?
Are you kidding me?WhiteBlue wrote:No more comment @ GB. There is no point to have a discussion as you cannot even consider the concepts that I find appropriate. I also dislike the way you try to antgonize the discussion. So I will refrain to have disputes with you.
The same with Shell and Ferrari.GitanesBlondes wrote:Are you kidding me?WhiteBlue wrote:No more comment @ GB. There is no point to have a discussion as you cannot even consider the concepts that I find appropriate. I also dislike the way you try to antgonize the discussion. So I will refrain to have disputes with you.
I have a genuine concern about your comments regarding the increased costs for the teams.
Can you explain to me how there would be increased costs when for example Petronas is a sponsor of Mercedes? They are paying Mercedes to have their name associated with the team, and to be the official fuel suppler for the team. I don't think Mercedes is paying them a dime to use their products. If you know something I don't, I'd be more than happy to look at it if you can provide the appropriate link(s) in which there is evidence otherwise.
That's why I find it curious that someone who is a huge advocate of cost-cutting, suddenly thinks it's a good idea to have a rule change that would kill off a number of big sponsors for the teams.wuzak wrote:The same with Shell and Ferrari.GitanesBlondes wrote:Are you kidding me?WhiteBlue wrote:No more comment @ GB. There is no point to have a discussion as you cannot even consider the concepts that I find appropriate. I also dislike the way you try to antgonize the discussion. So I will refrain to have disputes with you.
I have a genuine concern about your comments regarding the increased costs for the teams.
Can you explain to me how there would be increased costs when for example Petronas is a sponsor of Mercedes? They are paying Mercedes to have their name associated with the team, and to be the official fuel suppler for the team. I don't think Mercedes is paying them a dime to use their products. If you know something I don't, I'd be more than happy to look at it if you can provide the appropriate link(s) in which there is evidence otherwise.
All of the teams will lose out with a control fuel supplier. The teams that have different suppliers will lose that supprt, and gain some (a small amount) from the control supplier. The team that is already partnered with the control supplier will ose the bulk of their support - as that will be spread amongst all the teams.
640BHP engine, plus 160BHP from KERS.rjsa wrote:Roughly it's saying that if the simulation is right the powertrain will have 800hp according to their simulations.
It also says that the engine-development is expected to be frozen on March 1 2014. I guess we'll see about that?rjsa wrote:Roughly it's saying that if the simulation is right the powertrain will have 800hp according to their simulations.
Depending on what happens in winter testing --exploding engines-- I could see the engine suppliers screaming that the freezing of engine development would ensure that no team can get through the season on just 5 engines since reliability takes awhile to work out.xpensive wrote:It also says that the engine-development is expected to be frozen on March 1 2014. I guess we'll see about that?rjsa wrote:Roughly it's saying that if the simulation is right the powertrain will have 800hp according to their simulations.
