sgth0mas wrote:Lets remind you again that the formula are the rules. You cannot say its the fault of the rules, not the v6t formula. They are the same thing.
If you dont see a problem with forcing teams to pay a several times increase for engines when half the grid is going bankrupt...then theres no sense in going further. Drop the fanboy approach to hybrid tech and look at the facts. Making what was 5% of a small teams budget into 20-25% of their budget is a big problem. If you cant see that...theres no sense in discussing it further.
Inferior in the aspect of racing. I dont care about mpgs in F1, i care about racing. Endurance racing is where all this green activity belongs...not F1. Reliability is down, competition is even worse, and no one can afford to run. The grid penalties have made it comical to see who is at the back...pick a reason. The v6t formula is a failure from a spectators standpoint.
I mostly agree with your points. Not going to argue about "inferior" as I think speed, power or laptimes are not an issue to the overall state of the sport.
I think one of the major problems is that F1 is no longer a healthy environment. And it hasn't been healthy even before these V6T came into play. Looking at how the sport has progressed makes me seem that the people in charge have been having a very short sighted view, only tackling problems as they arise without any sense of perspective into the future and how certain steps would be necessary to make it a stronger place for all and years to come.
As far as I see it, the sport was already struggling and facing declining numbers. So what does Bernie do? He sells the broadcasting rights to pay-tv so that more profits can be generated off fewer people watching. At the same time, because more and more teams are struggling, they change to more "road and future relevant engines" (e.g. ERS and smaller capacity engines) in an attempt to lure car/engine manufacturers with big wallets into the sport. In theory, a good idea. They bring fuel flow limits and ERS harvesting/deployment limits into play which in theory should have restricted the engine makers into producing engines in roughly the same performance ballpark. Then, in order to control costs for the already struggling sport (the smaller teams), they also come up with a token system and a 4/5 engine limit per season to control the rate of development.
Also a good idea in theory. You can't have an engine being changed around completely, as teams need to build their car around the engine. So you can't start with a "size-zero concept engine", build and design your aero around it and then have that engine manufacturer go "large-bigger-better" mid season forcing the customer teams to throw their aero philosophy all over board. So a form of control when and how certain changes are made are needed. So in theory, a good idea too. But it hinges on the necessity that all engines are more or less within the same ballpark.
The problem? They are not.
So we have a large disparity between engines. One is dominating, the other is still quite a bit off, and two are in hell. So we've got the situation that the limit on development has made it even more difficult to catch up and the teams relying on this progress are already struggling enough as it is with paying for these expensive engines and being limited by them at the same time. And the biggest problem? The whole point of these engines, to lure more manufacturers with lots of money into the sport - isn't working. Most are probably following the progress of Honda closely, but with how they are fairing, most will stay clear away from it.
At the same time, clearly, Mercedes who is enjoying its dominance doesn't want to give it up as easily, so as always, the "haves" are trying to keep it that way while the rest is trying to hang on and ride it out...
