F1 without Ferrari?

[NathanOlder]

Yup, and you can't blame the teams for it. Its the clowns running the sport.

[strad]

The part of Horners statement that I totally agree with is this:

Horner instead wants the sport to take a strong stance and lay out the new rules with a 'take it or leave it' attitude, because getting ten teams to agree on something is "impossible".
"My view on this is very simple: trying to get a consensus between teams that have got varying objectives, different set-ups, is going to be impossible

Time and time again we have seen that getting all the teams on the same page is like trying to herd cats.
They are always more concerned with try gain an upper hand or an edge rather than what's best for the sport.

[gshevlin]

Time and time again we have seen that getting all the teams on the same page is like trying to herd cats.
They are always more concerned with try gain an upper hand or an edge rather than what's best for the sport.

This is true. It is a major part of the reason why nothing worthwhile emerged from the Overtaking Working Group, which was supposedly going to fix the overtaking problem in F1.
If, as a result of Liberty imposing a different fiscal reward structure and technical framework, Ferrari and Mercedes decide to leave F1 and/or race elsewhere, I say good luck to them. Mercedes can fall back on Formula E, which they are entering anyway. Ferrari's Plan B will involve them spending a LOT of money that they do not currently spend on building an entire new marketing strategy, since nearly all of their marketing is based around F1. There is no obvious worldwide racing platform that they can use as an immediate alternative. Formula E is a spec car series. Ditto Indycar (and Indycar has no presence outside the USA). WEC is possible, but the global viewership is a fraction of Formula 1. Ferrari does not have many good options.
The idea that Ferrari and Mercedes could set up a breakaway series might give Bernie Ecclestone and his supporters some frisson of excitement, but...who is going to enter a series controlled by two manufacturers whose F1 supply actions show that they are not at all keen on any competing team equalling them, let alone beating them? You can be rude about Renault not being at the level of Ferrari or Mercedes in terms of F1 powerplant performance, but they are willing to supply teams that could and can beat their works team. This is an attitude that goes back to the 1980s, when Renault supplied equal-specification engines to Lotus to start Ayrton Senna on his winning path. Any Ferrari-Mercedes series will comprise the works teams, with the non-works teams expected to play "follow my leader" and be obedient. The chances of that happening are, in my opinion, somewhere between none and none.

[Just_a_fan]

The part of Horners statement that I totally agree with is this:

Horner instead wants the sport to take a strong stance and lay out the new rules with a 'take it or leave it' attitude, because getting ten teams to agree on something is "impossible".
"My view on this is very simple: trying to get a consensus between teams that have got varying objectives, different set-ups, is going to be impossible

[...]
They are always more concerned with try gain an upper hand or an edge rather than what's best for the sport.

I agree with him on that point. The rules should be set by the FIA alone and the teams should compete or not as they see fit. Of course, Horner wants the rules to be changed from what they are now to something that suits his team better. In that regard, he falls straight back in to your point about gaining an upper hand. Horner is not saying these things for the good of the sport but for the good of RedBull.

[Phil]

I agree with him on that point. The rules should be set by the FIA alone and the teams should compete or not as they see fit. Of course, Horner wants the rules to be changed from what they are now to something that suits his team better. In that regard, he falls straight back in to your point about gaining an upper hand. Horner is not saying these things for the good of the sport but for the good of RedBull.

I'd argue what is 'good' for RedBull, is also good for McLaren, Force-India, Williams, Haas, Sauber, Torro-Rosso and Honda too. It's not as beneficial to Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault.

I count more customer-teams than engine-manufacturer-teams. IMO you need to find the common denominator. It can only be a fair(er) sport if the means to compete are somewhat equal. You can't bring someone with 4 legs to a running competition when everyone else only has 2 legs. Same applies to F1: What's the point in having this epic engine arms race when there are only 3 participants with the resources and infrastructure to compete on that front?

The only problem I see ultimately that would make 'finding the most common denominator' difficult is financial budget. Time and time again and shown that enforcing a budget cap is difficult to control. So the goal should be to create rules that make spending significantly more money to yield only a negligible advantage. For any given problem, there can only be finite amount of solutions. At some point, throwing more resources to the problem will not yield a much greater benefit.

[Just_a_fan]

I agree with him on that point. The rules should be set by the FIA alone and the teams should compete or not as they see fit. Of course, Horner wants the rules to be changed from what they are now to something that suits his team better. In that regard, he falls straight back in to your point about gaining an upper hand. Horner is not saying these things for the good of the sport but for the good of RedBull.

I'd argue what is 'good' for RedBull, is also good for McLaren, Force-India, Williams, Haas, Sauber, Torro-Rosso and Honda too. It's not as beneficial to Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault.

Not so sure. All of those teams buy in engines (and other bits in some cases) and would still need to buy in engines. Whether they buy from one of the current suppliers or from another supplier won't change. What change would do, in RedBull's view, would be that RedBull would be able to utilise its one strength which is in aerodynamics. RedBull think that if the engines were levelled, they would then win again just like they did a few years ago. They would then be quite happy with the rules and would be very much against any further changes "to make F1 fairer".

Make no mistake. RedBull are only interested in RedBull.

[Phil]

I never said otherwise. But we were discussing what is essentially "good for the sport". Let me illustrate.

RedBull: chassis/aero
Haas: chassis/aero
WIlliams: chassis/aero
McLaren: chassis/aero
Force-India: chassis/aero
Torro-Rosso: chassis/aero
Sauber: chassis/aero
Honda: engine
Renault: chassis/aero/engine
Mercedes: chassis/aero/engine
Ferrari: chassis/aero/engine

All teams, bar Honda, can build F1 cars. Not all can build engines. Obviously, the parts you can't create yourself need to be bought from a 3rd party. If the engine supplier is not in the sport itself, there's no conflict of interest. However if the supplier is also a competitor, there's clear conflict of interest. The supplier doesn't want to be beaten by his own customer. There's a clear conflict of interest when RedBull - who historically builds very very good cars - went knocking at Mercedes door to get 'the best engine'. Same happened when they knocked on the 2nd best engine manufacturers door. So again, why cater to the interests of 3 factory teams when you have 7 other teams that completely lack the ability to compete in those areas?

I asked a specific question in the other thread: what if Mercedes got into the business of tires. Would it be fair to extend the regulations to make tires part of the competition too? If you did, it would give a clear advantage to that one team in area the rest couldn't possibly compete.

[dans79]

So again, why cater to the interests of 3 factory teams when you have 7 other teams that completely lack the ability to compete in those areas?

For me personally this is an easy question to answer, I don't care about the other teams. It's on them to convince another manufacture to make them the factory team.

[adb]

So again, why cater to the interests of 3 factory teams when you have 7 other teams that completely lack the ability to compete in those areas?

For me personally this is an easy question to answer, I don't care about the other teams. It's on them to convince another manufacture to make them the factory team.

Another manufacture as in Mercedes/Ferrari or a manufacture outside of F1?

Either way, good luck with that!

[dans79]

Another manufacture as in Mercedes/Ferrari or a manufacture outside of F1?

Either way, good luck with that!

Outside!

F1 has always been heavily engine dependent, even during the V8 "aero" era the engine was at-least as important as the aero if not more so. If you wan to be competitive you need to find a backer, end of story.

[strad]

If you did, it would give a clear advantage to that one team in area the rest couldn't possibly compete.

.
You mean like when Ross admits that during the tire war he worked with Bridgestone for them to make tires specifically for the advantage of Ferrari?

[Phil]

So again, why cater to the interests of 3 factory teams when you have 7 other teams that completely lack the ability to compete in those areas?

For me personally this is an easy question to answer, I don't care about the other teams. It's on them to convince another manufacture to make them the factory team.

There are only so many manufacturers that could possibly care enough and have the vast infrastructure and commitment. How willing they are, depends on how attractive the sport and regulations are. That is not something the customer teams can control, but is in the hands of the FIA and Liberty. In fact, the few car manufacturers that are in F1, are exploiting their strong position to keep things the way they are, because evidently, they are in a better position vs any newcomer that would be willing to join.

Outside!

F1 has always been heavily engine dependent, even during the V8 "aero" era the engine was at-least as important as the aero if not more so. If you wan to be competitive you need to find a backer, end of story.

There is still a difference of if that engine supplier is a competitor himself or not. If he is, there is a conflict of interest. That wasnt the case back in the 80ties or earlier, before car manufacturers started buying teams amd entering the sport.

[Schumix]

There are only so many manufacturers that could possibly care enough and have the vast infrastructure and commitment. How willing they are, depends on how attractive the sport and regulations are. That is not something the customer teams can control, but is in the hands of the FIA and Liberty.

I do not agree with you: engine manufacturer may also be willing to come into the competition if they are confident that the F1 team to which they will supply the power unit will assist them to improve in order to challenge their competitors.
You will agree with me that all the public blames and charges that Honda and Renault were facing will not make for example Audi wants to come into competition. Have you heard what Horner said about Renault engine after Melbourne race of last Sunday?

You can make this sport very attractive as it was some years ago by just:
1)- allowing tires war: with two tires manufacturers, the cars will be able to follow each others;
2)- allowing refueling during races but with the maximum quantity that is currently specified;
3)- baning the use of the DRS.
Only with these three changes, you will have a great show and entertainment during F1 races.

In fact, the few car manufacturers that are in F1, are exploiting their strong position to keep things the way they are, because evidently, they are in a better position vs any newcomer that would be willing to join.

It is exactly what everybody does in F1: act in order to make sure that the technical specifications suit them better.

The topic in this thread is: is it F1 possible without Ferrari? According to me, everything is possible. Meanwhile, F1 without Ferrari doesn't have any taste. And moreover if Ferrari decides with Mercedes to create a parallel championship with the old ingredients that they update, I can guarantee to you that many F1 fans will prefer this parallel championship because there will be a real cars competition, not planes competition where they are riding without being able to overtake on track.

[dans79]

There is still a difference of if that engine supplier is a competitor himself or not. If he is, there is a conflict of interest. That wasnt the case back in the 80ties or earlier, before car manufacturers started buying teams amd entering the sport.

Renault supplied several teams in the 80's as well as had their own team.

[adb]

Another manufacture as in Mercedes/Ferrari or a manufacture outside of F1?

Either way, good luck with that!

Outside!

F1 has always been heavily engine dependent, even during the V8 "aero" era the engine was at-least as important as the aero if not more so. If you wan to be competitive you need to find a backer, end of story.

But the thing is, you can't find just a backer, you need to find a backer who has both the money and expertise to develop a top notch F1 engine. Who's gonna do that?

Even if post 2021 engine rules are simplified by taking away MGU-H, you will have to catch up with Mercedes and Ferrari on the rest of the package. Why would you decide to drop hundreds of millions $/€ after seeing how badly Honda got humiliated.

And then even if, and that's a big IF, there is a company ballsy enough to do this, why would they partner with another team? They would be like "let's buy out the team that's struggling the most and pour money in it"

And when they develop a top engine, what do they do?

They refuse to supply another top team with their engines. Sounds familiar?