Dans, I will answer this bit (and it's relevant to Andres too):
dans79 wrote:You are the one who is either unaware of F1 history, or ignoring it to support your view point. F1 has always favored the major manufactures.
It's hardly relevant what the sport was a 80, 50 or even 20 years ago. The sport has changed over the years, so have the dynamics. Teams have left, among which were also big car manufacturers, and new teams have joined as well. The sport has also grown from an investment point of view and has been on a steady increase over the years.
The only relevant point to this topic is the now and present and what constitutes a viable sport for the imminent future - which is what we're discussing here.
It's a simple matter of undisputed fact that we currently have 2 factory-teams backed by 2 engine manufacturers (Ferrari, Mercedes) and 8 teams in a
customer role of a total of 4 engine manufacturer teams as a supplier. Next year, we are assuming we will have 3 factory-teams (Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault) opposed to 7 teams in a customer role to those factory teams. If you include McLaren-Honda and their exclusive arrangement, it is currently 3 factory-teams (Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren-Honda) and 7 teams in a customer role - for 2016, we're assuming 4 factory-teams and 6 teams in a customer-role.
Still a minority.
So yes, the sport with its current regulations is indeed catering to that of a
minority. How many these 6 or 7 racing teams in a customer-role who do not have the means, ability and expertise to manufacture their own engines invest is
utter irrelevant (which was the point Andres was making). Why? Because at least one of those teams has had a history of huge investments [RedBull] which has gained them a competitive advantage during an engine-freeze period. But it hasn't helped their cause under the current regulations, it has made it worse;
Because
being competitive has highlighted the predicament such a team faces: Either you are one of those 6-7 teams in a customer-role and are constituted a threat [case example: RedBull] and the 4 factory-teams / engine suppliers will not supply you with competitive engines or you are not constituted a threat under which getting an engine is not a problem.
The outline is simple:
If you're a team like Williams, part of F1 since over 40 years, and suddenly, perhaps through sponsorship and/or better engineers, gain the means to drastically improve the car to the point they become a threat, Mercedes will no longer have a reason to supply them with competitive engines anymore. If they do, it will be a matter of standing contracts but not choice. They would have no more reason to supply them with competitive engines than they do now of supplying a strong competitor like RedBull.
This is also the reason why the engine manufacturers have been pushing to allow A and B spec engines. It gives them more power and leverage in deciding who gets to play and compete and who doesn't. Some might think this is fair because they are also making the investment, but this is also the first step in guaranteeing that no team in a customer role will ever be able to compete with the factory-team. Some might also call this is monopolizing the sport.
What will happen? These 6-7 teams, still a majority by todays standards, will be further forced outside the sport. They will face the dilemma; Become too competitive (like RedBull) and you bear the risk that your supplier will no longer want to supply you with the best possible engine (artificially limit you), or you are irrelevant to them and you can stay further down the grid - at which point sooner or later, they will deem the sport not a fair competition anymore and either leave or they'll stick around long enough to be forced out either way. The question is; Will the sport have found enough manufacturers to replace them by then, or will we see a period of 3-4 car teams to fill the gaps? Because this is exactly where it is heading, and it might start with next year if we lose RedBull and Torro-Rosso as the first 2 teams.
So the question the sport needs to address; Is if it is willing to lose those current 6-7 racing teams - some of them being part of F1 since 40+ years - by catering to the needs and expertise of those 4 engine-manufacturers and if the sport can be made attractive enough to replace them with more engine-manufacturers entering as factory-teams - OR - if the sport finds a way to make these engines less of a factor at the expense of these factory-teams (that are currently a minority), but making the sport more relevant to the majority of its participants and bring the field closer together like we did during the engine-freeze period in rules that cater to the common-denominator of expertise that all teams can offer and compete on.
Andres wrote:You could say the same about RBR, and actually people said it when they entered F1... An energy drink company building F1 cars?
Oh my... You are aware that RBR simply bought a team right? It was formely known Jaguary Racing, and before that Stewart Grand Prix, its history dating back to 1997.
And no, I don't think we are going to start this discussion again about a team like RedBull starting to build its own complex engines as a solution to all problems - a job even the mighty Honda failed with all the resources, in place facilities, know-how and expertise they have as a car manufacturer.
James Allen commented on this, as was there already
a lengthy discussion on this in the RedBull thread. I suggest you go read it. And even if RedBull had the means, they are still the rest of the majority of teams to consider that don't have that ability and they have been rooted much longer in F1 than the Milton Keynes squad.
Andres wrote:So basically the sport will always be forced to please some part of the grid, they can please the small teams but then manufacturers will be pissed and posibly quit, or you could please manufacturers and then small teams will be unable to compete.
You make it sound as if all manufacturers want is some kind of monopoly where they can enforce only having to compete with the other factory-teams while keeping their customers at bay due to artificially limiting them with less adequate engines. It's a very warped view of how actual competition is.
What happened to the ages where you competed on the merit of competing and the reward wasn't power, but actual recognition of beating your opponents fair and square? The goal should be to create an attractive sport that wants competitors to join and compete.
As I said, and I'll say it again (and I'll keep repeating it as long as I must...) - I have absolutely no issue with an engine focused formula if we have a majority of engine-manufacturers battling it out among each other.
This isn't the case: Right now, we have 4 engine manufacturers and 6 equally worthy racing teams with just as much history associated with F1 being forced into irrelevancy due to the circumstance these new engines and regulations have created. And the question is; For every team the sport loses due to this circumstance, is there an engine manufacturer in place to take their place and replace them? Clearly, the answer to that question is
no, not for next year, assuming both RedBull and Torro-Rosso drop out and it remains to be seen if 2017 will see a change in that.
The simple solution would be to find a middle ground that works for both engine manufacturers and the remaining teams; allow engine development but protect the customer teams by forcing those engine manufacturers to parity (no A-B spec engines) and a maximum price threshold for these engines. Assuming a factory-team still has a non-crucial advantage should be enough for them to prevail over their own customer by creating a better or at least equal car to them. It's also key that the engines get closer to each other as a result of diminishing returns and locked down regulations.
), so if they really want to compete with manufacturers, they must become a manufacturer, and that´s perfectly doable if you invest same amount of money than they