FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting has confirmed that Honda will be allowed to develop its power unit throughout the 2015 season on a similar basis as was allowed for the other manufacturers.
Do we honestly expect anything less from him, considering his team reportedly spent 200 million (the most ever) last year, to finish a distant second this year?Juzh wrote:Horner puts it as it is. It's either give us this small compromise now, or face free for all in 16-17-18.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMfqvZ618OA
Or more likely; "give us this small comprimise now and when that doesn't work we'll still want the free-for-all anyway"Juzh wrote:Horner puts it as it is. It's either give us this small compromise now, or face free for all in 16-17-18.
It is genuinely pathetic how short-sighted and narrow-minded F1 was to implement a new engine formula under homologation rules.Facts Only wrote:Or more likely; "give us this small comprimise now and when that doesn't work we'll still want the free-for-all anyway"Juzh wrote:Horner puts it as it is. It's either give us this small compromise now, or face free for all in 16-17-18.
Ferrari and Red Bull will never be happy until they are winning everything again, what they dont seem to realise is that even if they brow beat Mercedes now they cant both win all the time so will just be back at each others throats when they have their way. It is genuinley pathetic how short sighted and narrow minded they are.
Indeed, not to mention naive and outright stupid, it was obvious that one of three supplier would get the upper hand for a year.GitanesBlondes wrote: ...
It is genuinely pathetic how short-sighted and narrow-minded F1 was to implement a new engine formula under homologation rules.
Please explain how the past rules and regulations are better for the majority of the fans of today, than what's currently in-place? After all, that's what really matters, because if you have no fans you have no sport.GitanesBlondes wrote:Unfortunately Richard, you've totally missed my points.
While it's probably convenient for you to come down and pretend there's no way you can go back in time (which is true) doesn't mean that you cannot explore the past in order to understand why and how certain things worked better.
The great thing about the past, is that for those with an open mind, not really believing in dogmatic thought, is that many wonderful lessons can be learned from it.
My point wasn't about being the most interesting, it was about domination by a few major teams who collude to promote their self interest along with Bernie. The prime goals are protecting their position, maximizing cash and reaching TV audiences in new markets. Being interesting for established fans in established markets blowing klaxons in the stands isn't the dominant goal, hence the reason F1 goes to so many circuits with empty stands. Bernie wasn't worried about the fans when he slashed the TV audience in the UK by switching to Sky.GitanesBlondes wrote:Unfortunately Richard, you've totally missed my points.
....LMP1-H rules in WEC/Le Mans.
F1 has combined uninteresting technical regulations with driving that is not flatout, on terrible tires.
Not really difficult to figure out which of the two is more interesting to watch these days assuming one is a fan of motor racing as opposed to a fan of F1.
This sums it up. F1 sets out to protect its self interest, to block potential disruption. Change only occurs to protect self interest. They grudgingly take on new technology when they have to, we can see that in the delayed adoption of HANS or FOM PR machine that hasn't changed for decades as if social media doesn't exit.GitanesBlondes wrote:People think there is a law of diminishing returns...but diminishing returns has a way of going out the window when new technologies are invented. Just when you think the maximum has been reached something new comes along.
Again? Everything was better 20+ years ago son, girls were prettier, cars were faster and the booze was much stronger!dans79 wrote: ...
Please explain how the past rules and regulations are better for the majority of the fans of today, than what's currently in-place? After all, that's what really matters, because if you have no fans you have no sport.
I have to disagree, I'd take Kate Upton over Kathy Ireland, Elle Macpherson or Rachel Hunter any day of the week!xpensive wrote: Again? Everything was better 20+ years ago son, girls were prettier, cars were faster and the booze was much stronger!
Showing my age here I guess, but who is Kate Upton?dans79 wrote:I have to disagree, I'd take Kate Upton over Kathy Ireland, Elle Macpherson or Rachel Hunter any day of the week!xpensive wrote: Again? Everything was better 20+ years ago son, girls were prettier, cars were faster and the booze was much stronger!
You're missing out dude, try that Google thingy, you wont regret.djos wrote:Showing my age here I guess, but who is Kate Upton?dans79 wrote:I have to disagree, I'd take Kate Upton over Kathy Ireland, Elle Macpherson or Rachel Hunter any day of the week!xpensive wrote: Again? Everything was better 20+ years ago son, girls were prettier, cars were faster and the booze was much stronger!
Not as hot as Lauren Bacall, when I was young and handsome.djos wrote:Ok she's pretty hot but Kathy and Elle where hotter
Well before my time but quite stunning!xpensive wrote:Not as hot as Lauren Bacall, when I was young and handsome.djos wrote:Ok she's pretty hot but Kathy and Elle where hotter
What does that even mean? Why does Formula One owe former teams anything? That's like saying you owe it to your ex-girlfriend not to find a better one.racer.com wrote:Mercedes motorsport boss Toto Wolff says his team's rivals risk damaging Formula 1 if they push ahead with the threat of an all-out engine war.
Amid mounting frustrations at Mercedes' reluctance to accept a relaxing of F1's engine freeze rules for next year, teams with rival engine suppliers are considering a bloc vote to lift development restrictions totally for 2016.
Wolff believes that such a move would be disastrous for F1, and shows that some teams were putting their own interests above those of the sport.
"The rules can change with a simple majority but I don't think it's the way forward by trying to unsettle the system and saying that if you don't agree for 2015 then we are going to turn the whole thing upside down – engine war – no limitations anymore," explained Wolff. "You're looking at it being too narrow for your own team's performance and not considering what's going on around you and in Formula 1.
"I guess the FIA has a say in that and the F1 Commission is going to make the decisions, either by a unanimous decision next year or a majority decision for the year afterward. And we are going to be very vocal in describing and laying out our standpoint and then let's see what happens."
Wolff reiterated that Mercedes is against lifting the freeze because it fears that costs could escalate too much next year.
"We very much believe that we can't take any foolish decisions that would increase the costs for everybody," he said. "We need to keep that under control.
"We owe it to the teams that went out of business and we have to stay reasonable. We are going to resume the discussions when we get back to Europe."
