Formula One's Engine Crisis

[dans79]

Come on Turbo, you know exactly why they did this. The overwhelming response to them winning has been calls to either limit them in some artificial way, or to make it easier for the others to catch up faster. Thus given the option of having the rules thrown out and erasing their advantage overnight, or compromising in the hopes of stretching out the advantage they have, they made the choices that most benefits them.

Of course I know why they did that. It does not matter: they voted in favour. They had other options like blocking it or even leaving the sport if they felt it was unfair. They choose to play ball, in their own interests. The moment they accepted that, objections went through the window.

And it's just another case of F1 being all about placating the loosers who complain the loudest.

Arrivabene Still has the best quote on the subject, and is actually one I respect.

Our job is to attack Mercedes on the track, not to change the rules.

[FoxHound]

That their own interests are in line with the sports interest, should be a prerequisite, wouldn't you say?

And as Dan has illustrated, Ferrari are singing from the same hymn sheet despite suffering at the hands of Mercedes in 2014, and making a real go of things in 2015.

[turbof1]

Come on Turbo, you know exactly why they did this. The overwhelming response to them winning has been calls to either limit them in some artificial way, or to make it easier for the others to catch up faster. Thus given the option of having the rules thrown out and erasing their advantage overnight, or compromising in the hopes of stretching out the advantage they have, they made the choices that most benefits them.

Of course I know why they did that. It does not matter: they voted in favour. They had other options like blocking it or even leaving the sport if they felt it was unfair. They choose to play ball, in their own interests. The moment they accepted that, objections went through the window.

And it's just another case of F1 being all about placating the loosers who complain the loudest.

Arrivabene Still has the best quote on the subject, and is actually one I respect.

Our job is to attack Mercedes on the track, not to change the rules.

Aren't you forgetting something? It was Ferrari who pushed last year for the development rules to be changed. When that did not happen, they used the loophole in the rules to get exactly that. Ferrari too voted in favour of inseason development. If they did not felt it was their job to change the rules, they wouldn't have voted in favour. Ferrari too voted in its own interests.

Arrivabene is a guy I respect a lot too, btw. But we should not confuse quotes with actions. That one quote is standing right in the opposite of what Ferrari has been campaigning. And for the record: they earn my respect for what they are campaigning.

That their own interests are in line with the sports interest, should be a prerequisite, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't. Everybody should make their own choices and take responsibility for their own choices. Ultimately Mercedes will decide to do what is best for the company that's larger then the F1 team. We can't control that. Bernie cannot control that, neither Todt. They can only try to keep F1 interesting for Mercedes and the other teams/manufacturers.

[djos]

Please no speculation around chassis performance advantage in an engine thread. If this happens too often, I'll be forced to remove posts. Counts for everybody.

How are is anyone who doesn't think Merc's advantage is all down to the PU to refute the many many people who insist Merc's advantage is all Motor?

This constraint severely limits our ability to debate the subject at hand.

It's clearly not all PU and Williams is proving that quite nicely. What the PU does allow is for Mercedes to bolt on as much down force as they like while not compromising useful top end speed.

[dans79]

Aren't you forgetting something? It was Ferrari who pushed last year for the development rules to be changed. When that did not happen, they used the loophole in the rules to get exactly that.

That wasn't Arrivabene, that was Domenicali, Mattiacci, & Montezemolo, and they have all been shown the door. I'd assume that's because the high ups didn't like the results or the tone.

[djos]

But you cannot have your cake and eat it.

If you can't eat the cake, then having it is utterly pointless isn't it?

[FoxHound]

But you cannot have your cake and eat it.

If you can't eat the cake, then having it is utterly pointless isn't it?

You want development AND cheap engines for struggling customers??

[FoxHound]

That their own interests are in line with the sports interest, should be a prerequisite, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't. Everybody should make their own choices and take responsibility for their own choices. Ultimately Mercedes will decide to do what is best for the company that's larger then the F1 team. We can't control that. Bernie cannot control that, neither Todt. They can only try to keep F1 interesting for Mercedes and the other teams/manufacturers.

So Mercedes voted to cut their own interests to enable their own interests which so happened to be the sports interests.
Short term pain for a long term gain?

Even though they could lose their advantage and will pay more for the privilege? Correct Turbo?

[Pingguest]

Limiting in-season engine development may not be in the best interest of Mercedes-Benz in the long run. Although it might help the brand to stay ahead, if people start losing interest, Mercedes-Benz may lose much of its marketing potential regarding its success. It this respect the common good may may well be Mercedes-Benz' good as well.

[djos]

But you cannot have your cake and eat it.

If you can't eat the cake, then having it is utterly pointless isn't it?

You want development AND cheap engines for struggling customers??

Not cheap, affordable (everything is relative in F1).

[turbof1]

That their own interests are in line with the sports interest, should be a prerequisite, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't. Everybody should make their own choices and take responsibility for their own choices. Ultimately Mercedes will decide to do what is best for the company that's larger then the F1 team. We can't control that. Bernie cannot control that, neither Todt. They can only try to keep F1 interesting for Mercedes and the other teams/manufacturers.

So Mercedes voted to cut their own interests to enable their own interests which so happened to be the sports interests.
Short term pain for a long term gain?

Even though they could lose their advantage and will pay more for the privilege? Correct Turbo?

It's nothing more then your average day on the Nasdaq . They know what they are doing, don't worry.

[FoxHound]

Not cheap, affordable (everything is relative in few).

You cannot have (32 tokens ie 50% of PU)development with these engines, and then expect affordable.

@Turbo...
And therein lies the rub, along with the fact that 1 supplier has helped 3 other suppliers, which directly assists a quit threat competitor unhappy with their own supplier, which inadvertently adds a cost burden to 50% of the grid.

Keeps unhappy competitor in sport but the inadvertent sacrificial lamb is costs to those that suffer most.

[turbof1]

Not cheap, affordable (everything is relative in few).

You cannot have (32 tokens ie 50% of PU)development with these engines, and then expect affordable.

@Turbo...
And therein lies the rub, along with the fact that 1 supplier has helped 3 other suppliers, which directly assists a quit threat competitor unhappy with their own supplier, which inadvertently adds a cost burden to 50% of the grid.

Keeps unhappy competitor in sport but the inadvertent sacrificial lamb is costs to those that suffer most.

As long it suits Mercedes, it's not their problem. Own interests always come first, and their interests are primarily marketing for the brand. 1 supplier helped its own, and helping the 3 other is more down to unwanted coincidence then anything else.

For the record, a proposal to put a cost cap on engine prices a year was on the table. Ferrari did whiped that off the table.

And Foxhound, you are excagerating. 25 tokens would have been spend anyway, only at February instead of throughout the season. Resources would then have been allocated to developing next years tokens. They would be spending money no matter what. They made the PUs more expensive by 7 tokens, but only for the manufacturers with the customer teams having running contracts with fixed prices. It's not really a big deal. With or without restrictions, they are going to throw as much money on it as they possibly can. We know this; the same happened when they tried to restrict aero development. Correct, Foxhound?

[djos]

Not cheap, affordable (everything is relative in few).

You cannot have (32 tokens ie 50% of PU)development with these engines, and then expect affordable.

@Turbo...
And therein lies the rub, along with the fact that 1 supplier has helped 3 other suppliers, which directly assists a quit threat competitor unhappy with their own supplier, which inadvertently adds a cost burden to 50% of the grid.

Keeps unhappy competitor in sport but the inadvertent sacrificial lamb is costs to those that suffer most.

"Marketing" budgets for Merc/Ferrari pays for the development, selling engines to customers is just icing on the cake as Merc/Ferrari are going to spend what they need to spend to be competitive anyway.

[FoxHound]

Turbo,

Why should Ferrari or any other supplier subsidise their goods?

And I don't quite see how advocating aero restrictions is valid when engines were frozen!