[AngelinaTheElf]

Max Mosley has made it clear that if teams want to continue to build their own engines or take a manufacturer-supplied engine they can do so, but the performance of other engines will be pegged to the performance of the standard engine. It is far from clear how this will be achieved, but I suspect that Formula 1 may soon revert to the engine supply model of the 70's, with one dominant engine (the standard unit) and one or two teams using their own powerplants (a la Ferrari and Alfa Romeo). The price of the standard engine and transmission package will allow teams to operate from a much lower cost base than at present. The major remaining issue is whether a regulation package can be found that does not result in teams spending $10-20m a year on wind tunnel time to find .2 of a second improvement in lap times.

[ultramDoctoo]

Its the manufacturers fault. The big teams have been spending money like there is no tomorrow for too long now, and guess what, Honda just found out that there is a tomorrow and responsibilities!!! Sadly, I expect more teams will follow...

[Vegeinvalge]

mosley fuched the whole deal up. allowing all the little gay winglets he created a wind tunnel windfall. Then he couldn't control the electronic components like the seamless shifter. Now I understand that f1 is to be the tech leader than spills down to our road cars. But if you make every component on the car subject to millions and millions in research to gain 1 tenth then you are a bit out there. I was driving a mercedes suv and it had little gay shift buttons on the inside of the steering wheel. well the turning radius of the steering wheel made these a joke as you have to move your hand. This is a trinket bullsh!t deal. Worthless and the car can't even begin to perform. Then on top of it MopHead takes all the money and the car owners can't afford to run competively - this whole deal is out of hand and for one needs a new leader. You don't need a automatic transmission in a f1 car - you need a man that can work a shifter and a clutch. You don't need a whole car of winglets - you need a driver that can slide the ass out and stand on the gas. you don't need at 0000001 shifter in your road car. There is so much radar out there it don't matter how fast the gear box s - what you need is a radar jammer and that ain't in f1.

[Immampdah]

mosley fuched the whole deal up. allowing all the little gay winglets he created a wind tunnel windfall. Then he couldn't control the electronic components like the seamless shifter. Now I understand that f1 is to be the tech leader than spills down to our road cars. But if you make every component on the car subject to millions and millions in research to gain 1 tenth then you are a bit out there. I was driving a mercedes suv and it had little gay shift buttons on the inside of the steering wheel. well the turning radius of the steering wheel made these a joke as you have to move your hand. This is a trinket bullsh!t deal. Worthless and the car can't even begin to perform. Then on top of it MopHead takes all the money and the car owners can't afford to run competively - this whole deal is out of hand and for one needs a new leader. You don't need a automatic transmission in a f1 car - you need a man that can work a shifter and a clutch. You don't need a whole car of winglets - you need a driver that can slide the ass out and stand on the gas. you don't need at 0000001 shifter in your road car. There is so much radar out there it don't matter how fast the gear box s - what you need is a radar jammer and that ain't in f1.

Calm down, you're a few years late cowboy, the winglets and the electronics are gone (well the electronics are very restricted and standardized).

If we could get mophead to give back more money to those who really invest in this sport than we wouldn't be in this stupid situation.

[Seasmillets]

If we could get mophead to give back more money to those who really invest in this sport than we wouldn't be in this stupid situation.

So you think bailing the manufacturers out is way to go?

You think that despite CVC paying billions and billions of dollars to own this revenue entitlement, should just give it out to the teams.

Only way the FOTA can justify a bigger revenue intake of the sport, would be if they joined resources, and actually brought a stake in the Formula 1 Group.

[Seasmillets]

You know what PP. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I disagree. However, I always respect your opinion as you're a knowledgeable and courteous poster.

OK, Standardise may be the wrong word. Perhaps I should have said to make them clearer and without the ambiguity.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate development and innovation but the FIA seems to use this ambiguity to it's advantage rather than the innovators.

There should be fairness, transparency and stability.

Second. There have been rule changes that have increased safety. Max has done a good job on this as I have acknowledged previously. OK, some bits need rethinking such as the endless tarmac runoffs with no penalty (unless you're a McLaren ) but in the main, they have been positive.

However, there have been a lot of changes that just seem knee jerk and have disadvantaged the smaller teams.

To name a few.

KERS
Grooved Tyres (in fact, slick to groove to slick)
3.0 V10 to 2.4 V8
Engine to last 1 full race weekend, then 2, then 3
Same with transmission but needs to last 4 races

All of these things required large amounts of redevelopment budget that drained resources from other areas. OK with the big teams but it's killing / has killed the smaller ones.

They have done some good such as banning exotic materials but come on. Billions have gone down the swanny because of the FIA and their knee jerk rule changes.

The rest I can agree with you on. The manufacturers have been gratuitously frivolous with their budget. They have tried to "out do the Jones's", spent small fortunes, been allowed to get away with it and what has been the result. Better racing? I don't think so.

So, perhaps it's time to listen to the fans a bit.

Feeling is mutural Knock On, whilst I sometimes disagree, I do respect that you take time out to justify your views, so even if I disagree, I can appreciate where your viewpoint originates.

To be fair, I agree with all of what you have just said.

Though with regards to introduction of KERS, change of engine rules etc etc. Whilst they have all increased costs, the aim has been to reduce costs. Obviously they've failed, but the intention was in right place, and I think that should be remembered.

If you look at the manufacturers, who have purposely driven costs up in the drive of success, and I think thats the primary factor in the current economic situation of F1.

So I think we pretty much agree on 95% of what has been said, but main difference may be the primary cause of cost increases, whilst I understand (from what you've said) you believe its the rule changes at fault for high costs of F1, I think its the manufacturers 'invest at all costs' philosophy they have adapted.

[Broorbbub]

Well, surely me creating a topic is trying to understand the other perspective, for people to then not be able to justify their reasoning behind it by just saying "try harder"......hypocritic strings to mind.

And whilst there is many topics about the current state of F1, with many laying into Bernie and Max as the main people responsible, I ain't seen any justification.....hence I created this topic, not to tell people they're wrong, but to be open minded and try understand a different view point to mine, even if I might ultimately disagree.

Read my post above, then tell me where I went wrong. OK??

[Broorbbub]

Though with regards to introduction of KERS, change of engine rules etc etc. Whilst they have all increased costs, the aim has been to reduce costs. Obviously they've failed, but the intention was in right place, and I think that should be remembered.

.

Could you please explain in simple terms so I can understand how KERS was introduced to reduce costs, please. Thanks!

[hitaEtela]

If you look at the manufacturers, who have purposely driven costs up in the drive of success, and I think thats the primary factor in the current economic situation of F1.

So I think we pretty much agree on 95% of what has been said, but main difference may be the primary cause of cost increases, whilst I understand (from what you've said) you believe its the rule changes at fault for high costs of F1, I think its the manufacturers 'invest at all costs' philosophy they have adapted.

Manufacturers have driven up costs. It should be no more than about £40m for any F1 team. It just shouldn't be but with some drivers commanding nearly that amount, it is.

So, we have teams spending 1/4 of a billion quid on going racing, paid for by sponsors, teams and fans.

When the FIA come along with their new initiatives which cost £10M to implement, it can be swallowed.

That's OK but with a team only having £40M to play with, it's untenable.

Teams will spend all they can. Human nature. However, the FIA should have a set of rules that doesn't benefit the team with the fattest cheque book and bankrupts the rest.

[Seasmillets]

Read my post above, then tell me where I went wrong. OK??

Wasn't directed at you Valve, from what I've seen, your not part of the "bernie and max are satan" crew.

[Seasmillets]

Could you please explain in simple terms so I can understand how KERS was introduced to reduce costs, please. Thanks!

My bad, I wasn't too clear in my post, in relation to KERS, it was made to make F1 more relevant to road car technology, improve a technology which will likely be very important in the years to come.

Though with reading my post again, I can see how it may look like I was implying it was implemented to reduce costs - I should have made my post clearer.

[Seasmillets]

Manufacturers have driven up costs. It should be no more than about £40m for any F1 team. It just shouldn't be but with some drivers commanding nearly that amount, it is.

So, we have teams spending 1/4 of a billion quid on going racing, paid for by sponsors, teams and fans.

When the FIA come along with their new initiatives which cost £10M to implement, it can be swallowed.

That's OK but with a team only having £40M to play with, it's untenable.

Teams will spend all they can. Human nature. However, the FIA should have a set of rules that doesn't benefit the team with the fattest cheque book and bankrupts the rest.

See, I agree with that, though with you thoughts of "the FIA should have a set of rules that doesn't benefit the team with the fattest cheque book and bankrupts the rest.".

In relation to this, I would say that surely more regulations, tighter restrictions would solve this. If there is only so much teams can change, no matter how much money they spend, they'll only be gaining hundreds of a second rather than seconds.

So say a team can spend £20m finding 0.1s, that way, even if budget difference is £100m +, the fastest car willl only be 1s faster.

For me, if they did as what I understand you suggested, loosen up restrictions on regulations, surely teams would find much more time, and big budget teams would be able to go 3s a lap faster.

Does that make any sense to you? Not sure if I'm explaining it too well.

[Broorbbub]

My bad, I wasn't too clear in my post, in relation to KERS, it was made to make F1 more relevant to road car technology, improve a technology which will likely be very important in the years to come.

Though with reading my post again, I can see how it may look like I was implying it was implemented to reduce costs - I should have made my post clearer.

There's no may about it - that was exactly what you said regarding both KERS and reducing engine size their aim was to reduce costs.

This is arrant nonsense - the reduction of engine size was meant precisely to reduce cornering speed - that was Max's idea. This was aimed at making F1 safer. Unfortunately, it had the opposite effect by increasing cornering speed.

KERS had nothing to do with reduction of costs, and you will find that KERS will end up costing a helluva lot to develop. http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headline...10091524.shtml

I know that you like to introduce new themes for discussion here which is what this forum needs; but for God's sake, get your facts right before you do, OK??

[Broorbbub]

And by the way, if you want to reduce costs, ban on board computers and all that aero. This alone should reduce the costs of F1 by around 90%.

[Immampdah]

So you think bailing the manufacturers out is way to go?

I think you don't get the point.

The ones investing money in F1 are, in the right order of investement made:

1. The teams (manufacturer backing + sponsorship)
2. The media (TV) that pay the rights for broadcasting
3. The tracks that pay mopheads fees

The ones getting money from F1 are:
1. CVC + Bernie
2. TV's (they charge a fortune for advertising during F1 races + consumer fees)
3. The teams

IMO the only ones getting a fair return for their investement are the media.

The teams are ripped off getting a return of around max 25% of their investment in case they have good results and much less if not.

CVC and Bernie invest nothing ATM and get more the rest of the revenues.

The tracks are in the worse position as they get squat out of it (mophead takes the ticket fees and sponsorship fees).

Why do you call a fairer revenue for the investment a "bailout"? It's not a bailout, it's equity.

You think that despite CVC paying billions and billions of dollars to own this revenue entitlement, should just give it out to the teams.

You think that CVC will get any revenue if the teams pack it in and go home or play somewhere else?

Only way the FOTA can justify a bigger revenue intake of the sport, would be if they joined resources, and actually brought a stake in the Formula 1 Group.

The FOTA members are paying for F1 every year more than what CVC paid for the commercial rights. Who do you think that pays for the cars, fuel, tires, testing days, all the material and most importantly team personnel? Huh?!

I just realized that you are placing the blame on the manufacturers without knowing who does what.

[Immampdah]

Wasn't directed at you Valve, from what I've seen, your not part of the "bernie and max are satan" crew.

Well, I'm not saying that "bernie and max are satan" either, I only think that about the lil' one.

[Broorbbub]

Well, I'm not saying that "bernie and max are satan" either, I only think that about the lil' one.

Bernie is simply greedy, and Max is nuts. I would dearly love to see these two get stuck in a lift for 24 hours.

[hitaEtela]

See, I agree with that, though with you thoughts of "the FIA should have a set of rules that doesn't benefit the team with the fattest cheque book and bankrupts the rest.".

In relation to this, I would say that surely more regulations, tighter restrictions would solve this. If there is only so much teams can change, no matter how much money they spend, they'll only be gaining hundreds of a second rather than seconds.

So say a team can spend £20m finding 0.1s, that way, even if budget difference is £100m +, the fastest car willl only be 1s faster.

For me, if they did as what I understand you suggested, loosen up restrictions on regulations, surely teams would find much more time, and big budget teams would be able to go 3s a lap faster.

Does that make any sense to you? Not sure if I'm explaining it too well.

I think the problem is that the regulations are a little too loose as it is and intentionally so as it allows the FIA flexibility.

I propose removing the ambiguity of the rules. Standardising them, making them more transparent.

Sure, teams will be able to sink millions into development but for the minuscule advances you mention, there's little point.

What we should end up with is good, clean, fast racing with little controversy and the skill of the drivers becoming the main success criteria.

[hitaEtela]

Bernie is simply greedy, and Max is nuts. I would dearly love to see these two get stuck in a lift for 24 hours.

Now, that would be funny

[Si8jy8HN]

CVC and Bernie invest nothing ATM and get more the rest of the revenues.

Nothing? Nothing

I do think the teams should get a greater share of the sport's profits, which is what FOTA are seeking.