Formula One's Engine Crisis

[FoxHound]

My point still stands though - emphasis does not necessarily have to be on engines for it to make sense for manufacturers to be in F1.

And I said:

A motorsport with not 1 bit of emphasis on the motors

1. Not one manufacturer will enter if there is no emphasis on motors. I guarantee that.
2. It will also not keep any manufacturers in the sport in the medium to long term.

The scenario in the medium to long term will be a spec series, or one so devoid of any innovation and new technology that it will resemble a spec series.

[dans79]

But you seems to ignore point 2.

I'm ignoring it, because it's irrelevant. They all agreed to the rules well in advance.

[Phil]

So... if the rules that were agreed in advance and those very rules end up braking up the sport as a result because of circumstance none all those parties could foresee, the whole sport should just watch everything go to hell and do nothing?

I think the major problem here is that hindsight is a very powerful thing. Adaptability too. No shame in saying that rules were conceived in the best possible interest but sometimes, things just don't work out the way they were intended. Happens time and time again. Back in 2010 and beyond, RedBull got to feel this first hand when aero regulations were changed. Or when certain teams went beyond the 'spirit of the rules' to create something like the F-Duct. Not illegal, but not as intended.

[FoxHound]

So... if the rules that were agreed in advance and those very rules end up braking up the sport as a result because of circumstance none all those parties could foresee, the whole sport should just watch everything go to hell and do nothing?

No, you implement realistic and workable solutions that suit all teams rather than those that are currently not winning.

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12475/ ... -they-get?

Sauber, a customer team themselves, think the situation not very different from they entered in 1994 until the engine freeze. The gist is, if you don't make engines...you accept whatever you get.

But if you look at the last few years, they have really been getting away with so much which is not in agreement with the others, to answer the question, I think they have to live with what they get now. We've done that for so many years so why can't they now

A divine right to win perhaps?

Back in 2010 and beyond, RedBull got to feel this first hand when aero regulations were changed. Or when certain teams went beyond the 'spirit of the rules' to create something like the F-Duct. Not illegal, but not as intended.

The comparison is grossly unbalanced.

As if to suggest a trick with the fuel flow would render an entire engine concept useless. That's just not the case.
We've seen plenty of engine regs been restipulated since 2014 too....

Start procedures are now down to the driver instead of a computer programme.
Fuel flow measurements had to be re-stipulated.
Noise has to be louder.

And there are more in the pipeline too.

So any suggestion that Aero progression has had a hampered environment, and engines have the benefit of linearity, is completely false and inaccurate, and dare I say it...fit's in with an agenda.

[turbof1]

But you seems to ignore point 2.

I'm ignoring it, because it's irrelevant. They all agreed to the rules well in advance.

Yes, well: like Phil said, we have what they didn't have back then: hindsight. They agreed to those rules with a certain situation in their mind. The current situation did not meet expectations.

But let's not make too much fuss about it either. They do adapt and rise to the challenge. As fans, we should cherish the fact we actually are going to get updates throughout the season. I hated it during the V8 era that we only had aero updates to look out for, while the engines were almost the same as the year before.

[dans79]

So... if the rules that were agreed in advance and those very rules end up braking up the sport as a result because of circumstance none all those parties could foresee, the whole sport should just watch everything go to hell and do nothing?

What's making it go to hell, is the appeasement mentality that has saturated the sport. Everyone knows that if they complain loud enough, or throw a big enough temper tantrum someone will give in.

[ME4ME]

A motorsport with not 1 bit of emphasis on the motors

1. Not one manufacturer will enter if there is no emphasis on motors. I guarantee that.
2. It will also not keep any manufacturers in the sport in the medium to long term.

The scenario in the medium to long term will be a spec series, or one so devoid of any innovation and new technology that it will resemble a spec series.

Like I said, there are reasons for any manufacturer to want to be in F1 other than engines.
Recent example is Aston Martin who wants to be part of F1 for exactly the reasons I mentioned. F1 is a marketing platform that can be used in othe ways than just to promote your own engine.

Your guarantee lacks any value and is just another opinion. I can't grasp why you'd even use that word.

[Phil]

So... if the rules that were agreed in advance and those very rules end up braking up the sport as a result because of circumstance none all those parties could foresee, the whole sport should just watch everything go to hell and do nothing?

What's making it go to hell, is the appeasement mentality that has saturated the sport. Everyone knows that if they complain loud enough, or throw a big enough temper tantrum someone will give in.

So teams or engine manufacturers that can't compete because of circumstance have no right to complain? Or if they go bankrupt as a result (short or longterm) it should be irrelevant? Funny - I think even Mercedes realizes that its success is only as much worth as there are teams to compete with them and there is a sport left to do so. If the sport goes down the drain because neither they nor Ferrari wanted to listen (and adapt to a situation that needs adapting) and they end up being the only two teams because of it (eventually), I'm not sure it's in either of their interest. It's not viable.

Why do you think these engine manufacturers have talks with each other in the first place?

[FoxHound]

Like I said, there are reasons for any manufacturer to want to be in F1 other than engines.
Recent example is Aston Martin who wants to be part of F1 for exactly the reasons I mentioned. F1 is a marketing platform that can be used in othe ways than just to promote your own engine.

Your guarantee lacks any value and is just another opinion. I can't grasp why you'd even use that word.

Mercedes-Benz are powering Aston Martin's product range soon, the arrangement ties in with a 5% Mercedes share of Aston's business. There is also speculation Mercedes could ramp that up to complete ownership within a few years.

If there was no Mercedes affiliation that deal would be dead, and is in fact dead due to even smaller problems than those I pointed out. Aston don't have 30 million to spend on what Claire Williams describes as....

But we are pleased having that partnership with the Mercedes brand. It is as powerful to us as potentially an Aston Martin badging exercise would be.

But if this is what you describe as "manufacturers entering the sport for other than engine reasons", then how are they manufacturers if they don't manufacture F1 engines, or even engines for their own cars?

[ME4ME]

You don't have to make engines to be a manufacturer.

[dmjunqueira]

IMHO, there is no F1 engine crisis...there is a F1 management crisis (close to it's apogee...or decay).

This article pretty much sums everything:

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015/10 ... -rulebook/

=D>

[FoxHound]

You don't have to make engines to be a manufacturer.

I see you have an upvote for something that's factually incorrect, to go with my downvote!

But to save you from further embarrassment, here is the definition of a manufacturer team....

Whilst Ferrari, Renault and Toyota are “factory” teams, that is, they manufacture their entire F1 car, “independent” teams such as Sauber, Williams and McLaren need to purchase engines. BMW, Honda and Mercedes are popular engine suppliers.

So to shut this little idea of yours down the facts are as follows.
Aston Martin do not make any part of any vehicle, and are neither independent nor manufacturer.
They do not make engines.
They do not participate in F1.

[ME4ME]

You don't have to make engines to be a manufacturer.

I see you have an upvote for something that's factually incorrect, to go with my downvote!

But to save you from further embarrassment, here is the definition of a manufacturer team....

Whilst Ferrari, Renault and Toyota are “factory” teams, that is, they manufacture their entire F1 car, “independent” teams such as Sauber, Williams and McLaren need to purchase engines. BMW, Honda and Mercedes are popular engine suppliers.

So to shut this little idea of yours down the facts are as follows.
Aston Martin do not make any part of any vehicle, and are neither independent nor manufacturer.
They do not make engines.
They do not participate in F1.

Not sure what your problem is FoxHound. Talking down-votes, using smilies and basically laugh in my face. The one embarrassing himself is you.

I am not talking about manufacturer teams. I am talking about the car manufacture Aston Martin, as an example of a car manufacturer potentially interested in competing in F1.

As for your definition, aside from being irrelevant because you read what isn't there, next time back it up with a source if quoting.

[djos]

IMHO, there is no F1 engine crisis...there is a F1 management crisis (close to it's apogee...or decay).

This article pretty much sums everything:

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015/10 ... -rulebook/

=D>

Tbh I think the best thing that could possibly happen to F1 is DM buying it - he knows how to run and promote global sports and grow them to the benefit of the participants and fans.

[kptaylor]

You don't have to make engines to be a manufacturer.

I see you have an upvote for something that's factually incorrect, to go with my downvote!

But to save you from further embarrassment, here is the definition of a manufacturer team....

Whilst Ferrari, Renault and Toyota are “factory” teams, that is, they manufacture their entire F1 car, “independent” teams such as Sauber, Williams and McLaren need to purchase engines. BMW, Honda and Mercedes are popular engine suppliers.

So to shut this little idea of yours down the facts are as follows.
Aston Martin do not make any part of any vehicle, and are neither independent nor manufacturer.
They do not make engines.
They do not participate in F1.

Not sure what your problem is FoxHound. Talking down-votes, using smilies and basically laugh in my face. The one embarrassing himself is you.

I am not talking about manufacturer teams. I am talking about the car manufacture Aston Martin, as an example of a car manufacturer potentially interested in competing in F1.

As for your definition, aside from being irrelevant because you read what isn't there, next time back it up with a source if quoting.

I think an example would be Infiniti branding on RB. Motor is made by Renault, but they (Infiniti) wanted their branding much like Aston wants their branding in play.