Oh I have not -and I will not- made any comment if they should or shouldn't. I threw that in there since we were talking about PU costs.Why should Ferrari or any other supplier subsidise their goods?
Since you tried to dodge around the statement -yes, I noticed- I'll just be assuming you accept it, albeit reluctantlyAnd I don't quite see how advocating aero restrictions is valid when engines were frozen
.I agree with you Turbo on this. Spending few dozen million more in season to get desired results is sure as hell better then spend few less just to make a deadline and look like amateur for entire year. How much did Renault and Honda lose on their "name" this year with engine blowing left and right and being 30-40kph down the straigths? How much would it cost them 2/3 years in a row? I bet much more then if they allocated a bit higher budget in season to get their engines competative.turbof1 wrote: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.FoxHound wrote:You cannot have (32 tokens ie 50% of PU)development with these engines, and then expect affordable.djos wrote:Not cheap, affordable (everything is relative in few).
@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.
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?
Maybe for just the motor, but few teams are paying for just a create motor.adrianjordan wrote:Re costs: it was reported in James Allen's article that the engine manufacturers voted in favour of capping the costs of the PU's to something like 12million per season...which I believe is less than they cost at present...seems they're happy to swallow the development costs...
PU costs are also affected by supply. Why should they be fixed?turbof1 wrote:Oh I have not -and I will not- made any comment if they should or shouldn't. I threw that in there since we were talking about PU costs.Why should Ferrari or any other supplier subsidise their goods?
Since you tried to dodge around the statement -yes, I noticed- I'll just be assuming you accept it, albeit reluctantlyAnd I don't quite see how advocating aero restrictions is valid when engines were frozen
Goodnight.
Ay ay ay caramba,,,,Jonnycraig wrote:Bernie wants V8s back for 2016 and is willing to let Mercedes sue him to get them reintroduced:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/moto ... 00696.html
Also says FOM will sue RB if they leave the sport.
He's been too much around Poetin. It's impossible to get V8s reintroduced for next year - both regulatory and logistics wise.Jonnycraig wrote:Bernie wants V8s back for 2016 and is willing to let Mercedes sue him to get them reintroduced:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/moto ... 00696.html
Also says FOM will sue RB if they leave the sport.
Not that I deem it anywhere necessary to go arbitration, but if they did Ecclestone would have nothing juristical in his defence. It'll furthermore harm his chances against the EU Commission.Formula One chief executive Ecclestone told The Independent: “I don’t think we should get consent from the teams. I think we should just do it and say to them, ‘If you don’t like it you can go to arbitration’.
It's a power struggle. Bernie doesn't like does he has lost influence and power. Who gained? Mercedes, even a bit Ferrari, because they have the competitive engines. That means they can influence/dictate who they supply and therefore who has a good chance of winning/performing adequately and who doesn't. He knows a lot of the small teams are not happy with the situation but can't be vocal about it because they are dependent (financially too, if they are getting a better deal) on their suppliers. By threatening for cheap V8 to come back, he is probably rallying those forces together against both Mercedes and Ferrari. Renault is on the hinge and Honda doesn't have much influence yet in the state they are in.turbof1 wrote:He's been too much around Poetin. It's impossible to get V8s reintroduced for next year - both regulatory and logistics wise.
It's ironic since it was he who convinced the FIA of selling 2/3 of the regulatory power, with 1/3 going to the 6 teams.Phil wrote:It's a power struggle. Bernie doesn't like does he has lost influence and power. Who gained? Mercedes, even a bit Ferrari, because they have the competitive engines. That means they can influence/dictate who they supply and therefore who has a good chance of winning/performing adequately and who doesn't. He knows a lot of the small teams are not happy with the situation but can't be vocal about it because they are dependent (financially too, if they are getting a better deal) on their suppliers. By threatening for cheap V8 to come back, he is probably rallying those forces together against both Mercedes and Ferrari. Renault is on the hinge and Honda doesn't have much influence yet in the state they are in.turbof1 wrote:He's been too much around Poetin. It's impossible to get V8s reintroduced for next year - both regulatory and logistics wise.
High talk yes, but the reasons behind them are interesting to say the least. Bernie rarely does something without a clear goal in mind.
Lose them? That's not the goal. The goal is to get them to concede power. The goal is to force those profiting at the moment to concede power. This is negotiating in the most basic sense; You threaten something you know no-one wants and you find a compromise somewhere in the middle.adrianjordan wrote:And we'd lose Mercedes and probably Renault and Honda too leaving only Ferrari of the current engine suppliers.
