Engine equalisation underway

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70682

Basically, McLaren, Ferrari and BMW seem to have improved their engines performance where Renault and others haven't.

McLaren needed to improve the relaibility of their plant but it was a monster before the freeze (as Honda's seemed to be :confused: )

How will the FIA go about this?

[ioan]

That's an aberration.
How can you guarantee engine performance equality?
What use is to have several engine manufacturers only come up with equal engines?

IS F1 headed for some kind of communism where everyone must continuously and artificially be put on equal level to everyone else?!

[F1boat]

That's an aberration.
How can you guarantee engine performance equality?
What use is to have several engine manufacturers only come up with equal engines?

IS F1 headed for some kind of communism where everyone must continuously and artificially be put on equal level to everyone else?!

I agree. We already have one spec open wheel series, the IRL, and although I like it, I think that F1 should reward and not punish the best.

[Knock-on]

I agree. We already have one spec open wheel series, the IRL, and although I like it, I think that F1 should reward and not punish the best.

I agree that they should reward the best but if Ferrari, McLaren and BMW have managed to overtake the likes of Honda and renault during a supposed engine freeze, then it's not right.

Personally, it's yet another unworkable, stupid un unenforcable FIA knee jerk but it's there so that's that.

F1 will find it's natural level regarding performance vs development vs budget.

The FIA can impose standard ECU's and aero packages but let the teams develop their engines as they want and supply them to indy teams.

[aryan]

So, 3 teams have been reading into the fine details of the rule book, which said: "you can change engine parts if it improves reliability or reduces costs".

Of course, added horsepower could be an "innocent" by product of the said changes.

While the rest, didn't do their homework, and sat on their bum doing nothing.

And are now left behind.

And now want all engines to be equal?

What's the point of having different engines, if they are all to be equal?

I say to Renault and the rest who didn't do their job, "get on with it boys, start improving the engine within the regulation, and stop bitching and moaning".

[truefan72]

Simply get rid of the engine freeze rule. If a team wants to spend millions of dollars improving their engine over the course of the year then so be it.

They are spending millions now trying to catch up in other ways anyway. So what's the point. If you can improve your engine, then you wouldn't have to spend thousands of billable man hours and millions on tweaks left and right just to find 1/10th of a second in pace.

It was a stupid cost saving idea bby the fIa that actually ends up costing the teams even more.

[veeten]

This past weekend's events with the Red Bull/Toro Rosso comparison is what has those, but mainly Renault, up in arms. It seems that the Ferrari-powered cars had a better run at Monza than the Renault-powered Red Bulls, even though they are using basically the same chassis.

If that was the case, then Force India's Ferrari-powered cars should have been in the finishing top 5-7, shouldn't they?

It all comes back to where the improvements were made, since they were only allowed to do specific work that improved reliability and efficency, performance ontrack was more of a side-effect than an overall aim. If the others did their work in similar areas, you wouldn't have all this broughaha. Lazy engineers should not be allowed to use the levers of the organization to enforce mediocrity on those that have the willingness to rise to the occaision.

What's that old chestnut... "Winners never quit, and quitters (whinners) never win". :)

[jens]

It seems there is no mention about Toyota's and Honda's engines. Where do they position? I haven't heard them complaining about the engine issue and customer Williams seems quite satisfied with Toyota too. So it seems lack of engine power is mainly Renault's problem.

[ioan]

If it comes to a vote, it will be 50% against 50% in the best case (if Honda and Toyota side with Renault!).

I don't see any artificial equalization coming, so Renault better pull their fingers out and start working hard instead of complaining.

[Allyc85]

So, 3 teams have been reading into the fine details of the rule book, which said: "you can change engine parts if it improves reliability or reduces costs".

Of course, added horsepower could be an "innocent" by product of the said changes.

While the rest, didn't do their homework, and sat on their bum doing nothing.

And are now left behind.

And now want all engines to be equal?

What's the point of having different engines, if they are all to be equal?

I say to Renault and the rest who didn't do their job, "get on with it boys, start improving the engine within the regulation, and stop bitching and moaning".

Spot on that man! :D

[cosmicpanda]

This past weekend's events with the Red Bull/Toro Rosso comparison is what has those, but mainly Renault, up in arms. It seems that the Ferrari-powered cars had a better run at Monza than the Renault-powered Red Bulls, even though they are using basically the same chassis.

If that was the case, then Force India's Ferrari-powered cars should have been in the finishing top 5-7, shouldn't they?

You contradict yourself slightly with this argument because the Force India chassis is not the Ferrari chassis.

[ShiftingGears]

Can the stupid engine freeze, and then common sense wins.

[Ranger]

If it comes to a vote, it will be 50% against 50% in the best case (if Honda and Toyota side with Renault!).

I don't see any artificial equalization coming, so Renault better pull their fingers out and start working hard instead of complaining.

You see, Renault applied late to improve the 'reliability' of their engines (like Ferrari, Mercedes and BMW did), and guess what, it was vetoed by other teams. So now they are stuck until 2013.
...which means they will have to spend twice as much money elsewhere negating their losses. So much for engine freezes reducing costs! :\

[Valve Bounce]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70682

Basically, McLaren, Ferrari and BMW seem to have improved their engines performance where Renault and others haven't.

McLaren needed to improve the relaibility of their plant but it was a monster before the freeze (as Honda's seemed to be :confused: )

How will the FIA go about this?

It is my understanding that, to redress the issue, both Renault and Honda will be allowed to use 3 litre engines against the 2.4 litre engines of Ferrari, BMW and Mercedes. This will even out the competition somewhat. :p :

[leopard]

No, bigger engine means they consume more fuel, Honda has been pioneering to think green. F1 need to cut some expenses down. That idea may put series in worse...

[wmcot]

Simply get rid of the engine freeze rule. If a team wants to spend millions of dollars improving their engine over the course of the year then so be it.

They are spending millions now trying to catch up in other ways anyway. So what's the point. If you can improve your engine, then you wouldn't have to spend thousands of billable man hours and millions on tweaks left and right just to find 1/10th of a second in pace.

It was a stupid cost saving idea by the fIa that actually ends up costing the teams even more.

And that's not even counting the cost of the KERS system development! I would bet that if you include the cost of KERS, teams are spending way more on engine development!

[ArrowsFA1]

Personally, it's yet another unworkable, stupid un unenforcable FIA knee jerk but it's there so that's that.
:up:

It's always been my view that "freezing" engine development at a certain point in time was a daft idea. It was inevitable that one or two engines would be better than the others at that point, and the idea that the competition would allow that to remain was absurd. Teams were always going to find ways (and spend money) to improve performance, and as usual the rules left loopholes for them to do this.

So here we are.

[V12]

Like many others, I saw this one coming when the stupid engine freeze was very first mooted. Teams will always spend what is available to them, if they can't spend money on engines then they'll spend it in other areas, which has probably contributed to all these ugly aerodynamic appendages that have multiplied more and more rapidly in the past two years.

The standard ECU I can just about stomach if it gets rid of traction control and the like, but NO other part of a Formula 1 car should be standardised, frozen, or required to last longer than the session it's being used in.

The engine freeze has been a failed experiment which has given absolutely nothing to the sport, it's time for the FIA to swallow their pride and admit that. Obviously they won't, and will keep up their usual form of fixing a flawed regulation with yet more artificial regulation on top of it - hence the mooted artificial performance balancing. Well when it gets to that point I'll very likely hit the OFF button on my remote.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the whole sport needs to be torn down and re-done from a blank sheet of paper with the rules kept short, concise, simple and unambiguous. All these ever more complex and artificial rules and measures do is p*ss off the purists and confuse potential new fans. Lose-Lose.

[Valve Bounce]

I wonder who thought up that stupid rule!

[Storm]

Max wants a single engine to cut costs - from BBC page

Nice....so all engine manufacturers will pull out of the sport and more and more aero crap gets created :\

Stupid idea.

[veeten]

You contradict yourself slightly with this argument because the Force India chassis is not the Ferrari chassis.

:confused:

I never said in that paragraph that Force India, muchales Toro Rosso, were similar to the Ferrari chassis.

Remember that STR and FI use customer powertrains from Ferrari, STR and RBR share chassis of Red Bull's design. It's the Chassis/Powertrain combination that Toro Rosso has developed that makes results that get noticed.

As I was saying, if it was solely the engine/transaxle by itself, then Force India would be finishing in the upper half of the grid, if not on the podium. It is not my fault that you missed that. :o :)

[Daniel]

Max wants a single engine to cut costs - from BBC page

Nice....so all engine manufacturers will pull out of the sport and more and more aero crap gets created :\

Stupid idea.
Silly. If anything they should go towards having one chassis. It would make it a LOT cheaper than moving to one engine....

[veeten]

... a few weeks back, Tony George, Brian Barnhardt and those in charge of the IRL had invited several auto manufacturers and engineering concerns to discuss the new powertrain regs for the series. What has come from this is the return of turbocharged engines in the form of either I-4, V-6, or even the combination of those to the grid.

Combined with the new chassis regs, that will make the cars substantially lighter than present units, this will make Indycars faster, and possibly more entertaining, than F1. All this will be on grid by 2011, two years ahead of FIA's end of the engine freeze which is in 2013.

Horsepower equalization rules that the FIA is being asked to institute will only spur others to turn to other outlets in defiance. Remember how Ferrari got the FIA to change its mind on engine regs in the early 90's when they decided to build a Indycar challenger, fully testing/race ready?

This is the possible outcome of that direction, something that FIA & FOM don't need.

[Ranger]

... a few weeks back, Tony George, Brian Barnhardt and those in charge of the IRL had invited several auto manufacturers and engineering concerns to discuss the new powertrain regs for the series. What has come from this is the return of turbocharged engines in the form of either I-4, V-6, or even the combination of those to the grid.

Combined with the new chassis regs, that will make the cars substantially lighter than present units, this will make Indycars faster, and possibly more entertaining, than F1. All this will be on grid by 2011, two years ahead of FIA's end of the engine freeze which is in 2013.

Horsepower equalization rules that the FIA is being asked to institute will only spur others to turn to other outlets in defiance. Remember how Ferrari got the FIA to change its mind on engine regs in the early 90's when they decided to build a Indycar challenger, fully testing/race ready?

This is the possible outcome of that direction, something that FIA & FOM don't need.
Fortunately FOTA is now headed by Mr. di Montezemolo, which gives considerable weight to the manufacturers against several stupid recent and proposed FIA regulations.

[Dave B]

The engine freeze was always a stupid rule and nothing to do with cost-cutting. A team will spend their budget somewhere, and if they're not spending it on the engine they'll try to find performance elsewhere. T'was ever so. F1 is supposed to be a meritocracy where the best team/driver wins, you can't go round trying to strangle development like this.

How about a compromise: if you wish to develop your engine then you are obligated to supply a customer team at a fair price.

[ioan]

You see, Renault applied late to improve the 'reliability' of their engines (like Ferrari, Mercedes and BMW did), and guess what, it was vetoed by other teams. So now they are stuck until 2013.
...which means they will have to spend twice as much money elsewhere negating their losses. So much for engine freezes reducing costs! :\

That's what they say.
It was reported last season that in fact Renault did shrink their engine R&D program after the engine freeze was in place.

I doubt that the other teams would veto only Renault's reliability related upgrades. What if those updates weren't clearly reliability related?

Let's not get carried away only because Flav says so.

[wmcot]

Max wants a single engine to cut costs - from BBC page


Yeah, just like his:
- full-race weekend engine cut costs
- switching to V8's cut costs
- 2 race engines cut costs
- engine freeze cut costs
- 4 race transaxle cut costs
- KERS will cut costs
- no tire changes cut costs

...If Max keeps cutting costs, he's going to bankrupt the sport!!!

[Viktory]

"If Volkswagen can buy an engine (for a road car) less expensively (than to build one), they will undoubtedly do that.
After they put the VW badge on it, it's all the same."

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080918111100.shtml

I have a really bad feeling Max won't be standing down at the end of next year.

[V12]

A standard engine...what a fantastic idea!

Yeah, lets use a common engine to save costs, hell we might as well use a single chassis to go with that and the single tyre (BS in more ways than one!) as well.

Still, I think it kind of takes the *!@$ that the teams are spending all these millions on employing two different drivers, who all have different levels of ability, strengths and weaknesses. I know, to lower costs and level the playing field, how about we genetically clone 20 identical human beings, raised in identical surroundings on a cheap battery farm somewhere, to pilot our identical racers.

Actually, this whole racing thing is expensive, aint it? How about we just park the cars in the pits all weekend, and determine the results by random drawing of lots? We could televise it live, and this way we would save loads of money, artificially ensure some unpredictable results, and drastically reduce our carbon footprint, all in one!

Wow, with a train of thought like this, maybe *I* could be the next FIA President!!


OK being serious for one moment...

Right, listen Max, I don't give a toss about what you get up to with hookers in your spare time, and it doesn't concern me one bit that your dad might have been mates with Hitler back when my grandparents were in nappies, these things are irrelevant to me. What DOES bother me is that you are systematically dumbing down and ruining my sport. For this reason, and this reason alone, you are grossly unqualified to run what used to be the greatest sport on the planet, do the decent thing and crawl back into whatever hole you came out of.

Taxi for Mr Mosley...

[Daniel]

*sigh*

You're probably the exact same person who is complaining that the barrier for smaller/new teams to get good results is too much.

Personally if it were me I'd be saying that we should have a single chassis and the teams should make their own engine and all use the same gearbox as well. I'll wager that the cost of engine development (before it was frozen) was a helluva lot less than the cost of the development of the chassis. Contract someone who can manufacture a decent chassis to make the chassis for the series and spec a variety of downforce configurations for various circuits and the chassis development costs can be spread between 10 teams rather than the way it is now. Allow Force India, STR, RBR and Williams to run customer engines for the first year or two with ballast to penalise them for not having their own engines and then force them to develop their own engines and remove the ballast when they do.

The big teams will still rise to the top with bigger budgets for testing and engine development but the difference will be less and the costs will be significantly lower for the minnows.

[V12]

*sigh*

You're probably the exact same person who is complaining that the barrier for smaller/new teams to get good results is too much.

Personally if it were me I'd be saying that we should have a single chassis and the teams should make their own engine and all use the same gearbox as well. I'll wager that the cost of engine development (before it was frozen) was a helluva lot less than the cost of the development of the chassis. Contract someone who can manufacture a decent chassis to make the chassis for the series and spec a variety of downforce configurations for various circuits and the chassis development costs can be spread between 10 teams rather than the way it is now. Allow Force India, STR, RBR and Williams to run customer engines for the first year or two with ballast to penalise them for not having their own engines and then force them to develop their own engines and remove the ballast when they do.

The big teams will still rise to the top with bigger budgets for testing and engine development but the difference will be less and the costs will be significantly lower for the minnows.


In terms of reducing costs, I'd rather see things like scrapping the 48mil entry bond, allowing one car teams again, equal revenue sharing replacing prize money, stuff like that, before resorting to the sort of things being talked about now. For all Max's talk of "cost cutting", we have not seen new constructors enter the sport in recent years, or even look like they are able to.

In 1989 there were 20 F1 teams capable of designing and building carbon-fibre tubs, or at least contracting the work out to a third party on an exclusive basis (Larrousse Lola, BMS Dallara, with other smaller teams utilising specialist design studios etc.)

OK, the financial landscape is nowhere near as rosy at it was in the late 80s, but still. I can only assume the ever-increasing importance of aerodynamics and the need for costly wind-tunnel and CFD programmes is behind this.

In this respect, the new 2009 rules COULD be a step in the right direction and credit where credit is due there. If aerodynamics constitute a smaller percentage of a car's performance, then teams that cannot afford this sort of thing can still put a car on track that is respectable.

Another problem for new teams is one of mere perception. I sometimes get the feeling that some people actually prefer to have only 20 cars that are separated by 2 or 3 seconds, rather than have full fields, qualifying and pre-qualifying, but accepting that some teams will be further off the pace without automatically being unprofessional and an embarrassment to F1 etc. Some people running the sport need to get out of this elitist mindset if quantity and diversity are to be improved upon.

[PolePosition_1]

If the teams would all agree, I'd say cap spending at a reasonable limit, scap engine freeze etc, and allow teams to work within a certain budget.

Though this is near impossible to enforce, with co-operation of all the teams, if they were willing to open their books up, it could work.

[Knock-on]

If the teams would all agree, I'd say cap spending at a reasonable limit, scap engine freeze etc, and allow teams to work within a certain budget.

Though this is near impossible to enforce, with co-operation of all the teams, if they were willing to open their books up, it could work.

Won't work. More holes than a colander.

Let the teams develop what they want but have a standard ECU, Front wing and rear.

Then, set a maximum size for the engine, limit downforce and let the teams get on with it.

Lastly, set a provision that Manufacturers must supply identical engines for $x per season for Indy teams.

[mstillhere]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70682

Basically, McLaren, Ferrari and BMW seem to have improved their engines performance where Renault and others haven't.

McLaren needed to improve the relaibility of their plant but it was a monster before the freeze (as Honda's seemed to be :confused: )

How will the FIA go about this?

Since the point of all this is reducing the F1 teams expenses, how much cheap is cheap?

[Knock-on]

Since the point of all this is reducing the F1 teams expenses, how much cheap is cheap?

Well, dear old Max seems to think you can budget a F1 feeder team for about £3.62 so a full F1 budget should give you change from a Tenner.

[Daniel]

Won't work. More holes than a colander.

You don't think the teams would be honest and up front? :eek:

Cynical ;) :p

[AndyRAC]

Another problem for new teams is one of mere perception. I sometimes get the feeling that some people actually prefer to have only 20 cars that are separated by 2 or 3 seconds, rather than have full fields, qualifying and pre-qualifying, but accepting that some teams will be further off the pace without automatically being unprofessional and an embarrassment to F1 etc. Some people running the sport need to get out of this elitist mindset if quantity and diversity are to be improved upon.

See, that is exactly the point - Bernie et al have set F1 up to be an elite/Premium/Prestige sport. At all levels - whether participating or watching/spectating.

[Knock-on]

You don't think the teams would be honest and up front? :eek:

Cynical ;) :p

No bloody way :D

They will all be running aero packages on a McLaren F1 or shoehorn a Prancing engine into some new Ferrari road "prototype".

Toyota will spend millions on some engine development for their road cars that they "sell" to the F1 team for a couple of grand and BMW will be testing new suspension unit for F-BMW which gets junked and Mario finds it in a Dumpster truck.

:laugh:

[cosmicpanda]

:confused:

I never said in that paragraph that Force India, muchales Toro Rosso, were similar to the Ferrari chassis.

Remember that STR and FI use customer powertrains from Ferrari, STR and RBR share chassis of Red Bull's design. It's the Chassis/Powertrain combination that Toro Rosso has developed that makes results that get noticed.

As I was saying, if it was solely the engine/transaxle by itself, then Force India would be finishing in the upper half of the grid, if not on the podium. It is not my fault that you missed that. :o :)

It's also not my fault that you didn't take the time to put together an easily comprehensible argument. OK, if you look at your original post:


This past weekend's events with the Red Bull/Toro Rosso comparison is what has those, but mainly Renault, up in arms. It seems that the Ferrari-powered cars had a better run at Monza than the Renault-powered Red Bulls, even though they are using basically the same chassis.

If that was the case, then Force India's Ferrari-powered cars should have been in the finishing top 5-7, shouldn't they?

Your argument in that post, as far as I can understand it, is:

1) Ferrari powered cars (Toro Rosso, I presume) had a better run at Monza than Renault-powered Red Bulls.
2) They use basically the same chassis.

Therefore:

Force India's cars should have been in the top 5-7.


I think that you can see now where I misunderstood you. I'm happy to accept that you meant to say that if it was merely a matter of the engine, Force India would be up there on the grid.

[markabilly]

In terms of reducing costs, I'd rather see things like scrapping the 48mil entry bond, allowing one car teams again, equal revenue sharing replacing prize money, stuff like that, before resorting to the sort of things being talked about now. For all Max's talk of "cost cutting", we have not seen new constructors enter the sport in recent years, or even look like they are able to.

In 1989 there were 20 F1 teams capable of designing and building carbon-fibre tubs, or at least contracting the work out to a third party on an exclusive basis (Larrousse Lola, BMS Dallara, with other smaller teams utilising specialist design studios etc.)

OK, the financial landscape is nowhere near as rosy at it was in the late 80s, but still. I can only assume the ever-increasing importance of aerodynamics and the need for costly wind-tunnel and CFD programmes is behind this.

In this respect, the new 2009 rules COULD be a step in the right direction and credit where credit is due there. If aerodynamics constitute a smaller percentage of a car's performance, then teams that cannot afford this sort of thing can still put a car on track that is respectable.

Another problem for new teams is one of mere perception. I sometimes get the feeling that some people actually prefer to have only 20 cars that are separated by 2 or 3 seconds, rather than have full fields, qualifying and pre-qualifying, but accepting that some teams will be further off the pace without automatically being unprofessional and an embarrassment to F1 etc. Some people running the sport need to get out of this elitist mindset if quantity and diversity are to be improved upon.


In the late 60's the cosworth ford v 8 became the cusomer engine of choice and the racing was great. Many different teams building their own chassis and so forth. No big barriers to entry and all the stuff now.
Might imporove things if such were really done right.

But of course beemmer, ferrari and so forth, would HATE to be the loser. Chances are slim it will happen unless the big banks really do BLOW UP, then.........I wonder how F1 would do during a major world wide depression?

[V12]

I would actually be in favour (although it would be far from a perfect situation) of F1 contracting someone, say Dallara or Lola, to supply a basic chassis package that new teams could run if they wanted to (and indeed freely develop if they wanted to, and could afford to). This would provide start up teams with a more cost effective entry into F1.

BUT development should always be left as open as safety concerns allow, and the option for a team to build their own car should always remain.

Of course this customer chassis would not be as quick as a bespoke developed chassis from one of the manufacturer teams, who would still lead the way, but the teams with the most resources will ALWAYS be out front. It's been like this since year dot and no amount of cost cutting measures will change that. I think underpinning any cost-cutting measures should be the idea of making it more accessible at entry-level, rather than some pipe-dream of any team being able to turn up and be on the pace of the leaders because everyone is running the same equipment.

Look at IndyCar, the same three teams win probably 90%+ of the races between them despite it being a de facto one-make series now.

Also as my post was at the risk of getting off the original topic, the same should apply for engines, a key cost-saver would be to make available a (relatively) cheap engine, that while not on the pace of the front runners, at least allows smaller teams the means to take part.

[markabilly]

I would actually be in favour (although it would be far from a perfect situation) of F1 contracting someone, say Dallara or Lola, to supply a basic chassis package that new teams could run if they wanted to (and indeed freely develop if they wanted to, and could afford to). This would provide start up teams with a more cost effective entry into F1.

BUT development should always be left as open as safety concerns allow, and the option for a team to build their own car should always remain.

Of course this customer chassis would not be as quick as a bespoke developed chassis from one of the manufacturer teams, who would still lead the way, but the teams with the most resources will ALWAYS be out front. It's been like this since year dot and no amount of cost cutting measures will change that. I think underpinning any cost-cutting measures should be the idea of making it more accessible at entry-level, rather than some pipe-dream of any team being able to turn up and be on the pace of the leaders because everyone is running the same equipment.

Look at IndyCar, the same three teams win probably 90%+ of the races between them despite it being a de facto one-make series now.

Also as my post was at the risk of getting off the original topic, the same should apply for engines, a key cost-saver would be to make available a (relatively) cheap engine, that while not on the pace of the front runners, at least allows smaller teams the means to take part.


At first, I thought, no true customer cars (and I do not lump red Bull there) have never done all that well, look at march and so forth. OTOH, the ford engine did, and many developed their own chassises.

BUT now I think some more, and given the very advanced tech development, the only way that would work would be very hard. Wind tunnels and so forth.

Very difiicult to just buy a car and set it up to be competitve. One would have to remove much of the aero packages by rule changes that essentially ban most of them.

I think if one could walk up and just buy the Mac right out from under Hamilton (or ferrari out from under massa) and enter it at the next race, even with a top driver, the car set up is not going to be easy. So one needs to buy all the tech knowledge and history of car set up and the engineers familiar with it, or run at the back of the pack.

In the IRL, what is happenning, is anyone with cash can buy a car and engine, but teams like Penske, Andretti and so on, completely rebuild, test and adjust their cars, even the engines...so maybe everything has gotten just too technical

and now that red bull has got to sell out in face of the new rules....well...i don't know

Asd because I always felt that F1 should have a clear emphasis on the driver, above and beyond techincal development.......i regret where it has gone, and the only way to get it back would be another IRL type series?????????, well i don't like that either. :mad:

Asd because I always felt that F1 should have a clear emphasis on the driver, above and beyond techincal development

Really?

I always assumed that the technology of F1 was what made it what it is and has been.

Come to think of it, I can't think of any period in GP racing where the idea was to put the driver ahead of the technical department.

Renault didn't win the 1906 French GP in order to showcase the driving skills of a Hungarian chauffeur.

Hitler didn't bank-roll the Auto Union & Mercedes teams of the 1930's to big-up the driver profiles.

Renault didn't introduce the Turbo into F1 to make Jean-Pierre Jabouille famous.

Colin Chapman didn't introduce the monocoque to highlight Jim Clark, or Ground-Effect to sell Mario Andretti souvenirs.

In F1, the car is the main reason why manufacturers are involved. The driver has a major input into the results, but he is generally secondary to the prime motivation.

[markabilly]

Really?

I always assumed that the technology of F1 was what made it what it is and has been.

Come to think of it, I can't think of any period in GP racing where the idea was to put the driver ahead of the technical department.

Renault didn't win the 1906 French GP in order to showcase the driving skills of a Hungarian chauffeur.

Hitler didn't bank-roll the Auto Union & Mercedes teams of the 1930's to big-up the driver profiles.

Renault didn't introduce the Turbo into F1 to make Jean-Pierre Jabouille famous.

Colin Chapman didn't introduce the monocoque to highlight Jim Clark, or Ground-Effect to sell Mario Andretti souvenirs.

In F1, the car is the main reason why manufacturers are involved. The driver has a major input into the results, but he is generally secondary to the prime motivation.


All good examples of your point, but my view has always been different and contrary to that. But F1 has paid me no attention and gone on its way towards where it is.

OTOH, 99% of the fans who typically go to races or turn on TV, pay max attention to the driver who wins the WDC and the individual races. Very few care at all about the WCC and many do not even know such a thing exists based on my own personal experience at races (ask the people at the track, say looks like Ferrari just might jump ahead of mac by two points in the WCC, and see what kind of blank stare you will get).

Even the TV announcers know this as they concentrate 99% of their attention to the driver's position in a race, rather than to the car's position.

Of course there are those italian fans in Italy who pay more attention to the car, as long as it is Ferrari....to the point, that they celebrate when a German was winning championships behind the wheel

[jens]

IMO the car has always been the main emphasis in F1 too. Drivers aren't some kind of kings, but simply a workforce, or "device", to realize the potential of the car.

For fans drivers have the main priority of course, because in some way they are closer to the public than any other team members and they are human heros, who are easier to follow than some guys in the factory or cars, who aren't living creatures.

[ioan]

People who know little about the F1 technology are mainly driver fans, very often they support a driver from their country (if here is one).
Tells you how much people know about F1 in general. :(