Honda gone

[rabf1]

With Honda gone, what happens to Button and Brawn?

[philipbain]

Lets not jump the gun, there has been nothing to confirm nor deny that Honda are leaving F1, though it seems clear that they will at very least cut thier budget for thier F1 team, this may explain the apparent exodus of staff from the Honda F1 team (there has been a sharp rise in applications for vacancies in other teams from Honda F1 staff). As for Jenson & Rubens, I think the writing was already on the wall for Rubens, he hasnt been a part of Honda's post season testing whilst Bruno Senna has been given useful mileage. I think a Button / Senna combo is most likely whoever the owner of the team is and Honda would most likely maintain a presence as an engine supplier if they were to sell the team.

[Nikki Katz]

Surely there are only a finite amount of Saudi businessmen who will want to buy a midfield (at best) F1 team when they can buy a championship contending football team for half the price. If they do sell it'll be for significantly less than they paid for BAR. Honda also have the biggest budget in F1 (though I believe that the figures released exclude prize money, which is why Ferrari is generally so far down the list), so unless they persuade someone to sell them chassis (which is still against the rules but nobody seems to care any more) then they'll have to significantly downsize in order to keep going.

I hope it doesn't happen but it's possible we're looking at 18 cars next year. Having said that, up until a few weeks ago Honda kept announcing that they could keep spending at the current rate, the financial savings were just for the benefit of the smaller teams.

[Giuseppe F1]

Theres now suggestions that Ross Brawn may seek an engine deal with former employer Ferrari if the team is to keep going with a new buyer......


......this sucks!

I was so looking forward to the likeky Senna/Honda reunion next season :(

[Giuseppe F1]

I also cant believe that Honda wouldnt try and stay on at least as an engine manufacturer in order to kep their F1 presence and to still be there if the economic climate starts to recover.

Including Mugen, when was the last time we had no Honda involvement in F1?


Hasnt F1 always been central to Hondas ethos we are constantly being told?

This is so hard to take

[Andrewmcm]

I think the reasoning behind the timing of Rubens' remarks is now a bit clearer - I'm sure he knew the game was almost up at Honda and hence had nothing to lose by publishing his thoughts on the Austria incident.

So is this, a major manufacturer withdrawing, an isolated incident or are the storm clouds brewing for F1?

[F1boat]

Shocking... I hope that Honda stays and remain competitive.

[V12]

Including Mugen, when was the last time we had no Honda involvement in F1?


1982 (!!)

I think it just goes to show what many have been saying for years...F1 cannot take manufacturer participation for granted (this was already demonstrated with Ford/Jag...luckily Red Bull were waiting to step into the breach on that occasion)

Hmm.....I'll get the wacky, completely baseless rumours started anyway....could this be Prodrive's way into F1? DR returning to his old stomping ground :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

With hindsight, and bearing in mind there has been no official announcement yet, it's worth bearing in mind that Honda have essentially funded the team alone for some time. All of the other manufacturer teams have major commercial backers.

A couple of months ago Max Mosley warned (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71213) that "we're likely to lose two or three more of the independent teams". He also said "Some of the manufacturers may be in difficulty now as well...I think they're finished. I really think it's a serious situation."

It certainly appears to be a serious situation for Honda, and I feel for everyone in the team at the moment.

[jens]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72319

Now the news are here too.

Although Honda has recently failed to be competitive, these news make me inevitably sad. :( F1 has only 10 teams and simply can't afford losing even one of them! I'm really starting to worry about the general future of F1.

Just when I read the news of the departure of Nakamoto, I thought - finally some good news about Honda, some changes in the team, which may lead to greater success. But as the Nakamoto-stuff appeared just moments before the news of general exit, then it puts the previous news into totally new light too...

[CNR]

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=James_Allen&id=44706



Honda will announce tomorrow morning that it is withdrawing from Formula 1.

It is putting its team up for sale and will continue to fund the team for three months, but if no buyer is found by March then the team will be closed down.

The team was addressed by team principal Ross Brawn this evening and he explained the situation to the workforce.

[Daika]

When Hamilton won the championship I read ( believe it was the bbc site) that he could be the first sportman to gain 1 billion dollars. I always thought that was curious because at that time the the financial crisis has already begun. Now look at this bloody mess...

[BDunnell]

The BBC is reporting that Honda's deadline for a sale could be the end of January, not March as suggested by ITV F1.

[Valve Bounce]

I have posted several times that no factory team can afford to come last. To compound the issue, Honda sales have plummeted, both GM and Ford need massive bailouts to even survive, one new car dealer here has gone bust and is auctioning off over 1000 new Holdens (GM) with no reserve. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what this does to the car industry in general and this must have a knock on effect on the most expensive Car Racing series in the world.

I am also predicting that attendance at next year's Aus GP will be down significantly, as will those at other venues.

This is only the second nail in the F1 coffin.

[BDunnell]

I have posted several times that no factory team can afford to come last.

You have it absolutely right. Of course the recession isn't helping, but how could Honda justify another season like 2008, or worse?

[AndySpeed]

With the current global economic crisis and Honda's poor performances for the past few years its easy to see why the big bosses at the company decided to pack in the F1 team. It would save a lot of money in a difficult time. F1 needs to trim the costs in a sensible manner, yes they can be radical changes as long as they're implemented sensibly!

[Nikki Katz]

I wonder if there's a minimum car count contract in place at circuits. You'd think it was 18 but the car count hasn't actually dipped below 20 for a long time, and last time it looked like it was going to they would have ordered running 3rd cars, bringing the count back up to 21.

We'll have to wait for the details in tomorrow's announcement, but March doesn't sound like very wrong in the current financial climate to find a buyer that can afford to keep the team going, even if they do receive it for free.

[Valve Bounce]

We'll have to wait for the details in tomorrow's announcement, but March doesn't sound like very wrong in the current financial climate to find a buyer that can afford to keep the team going, even if they do receive it for free.

Well, I've got news for you. There are brand new luxury apartments in Dubai that nobody wants to buy because the money is no longer there.

To be honest, I'd rather buy a bunch of luxury apartments in Dubai at a huge discount than spend my money on a sinking return from a free F1 team.

[Vim Fuego]

What about David Richards and Prodrive?
Couldn't this be his golden ticket? :confused:

[Somebody]

I wonder if there's a minimum car count contract in place at circuits. You'd think it was 18 but the car count hasn't actually dipped below 20 for a long time, and last time it looked like it was going to they would have ordered running 3rd cars, bringing the count back up to 21.
The minimum is 16. If they drop below that, then the remaining teams are obliged to run third cars.

[Hawkmoon]

If true, this will be Honda's third exit from Formula 1 and it doesn't really surprise me in the least. All the manufacturers currently in F1, with the excpetion of Ferrari and Toyota, have come and gone as they please.

The inetersting questions will arise if no buyer is found. Who will fill the empty slots on the grid? The Concorde Agreement states a minimum of 20 cars does it not? Will Ferrari and McLaren have to field 3 cars next year? Is the Concorde Agreement still in force? What of Button, Barrichello and Brawn?

Barrichello will probably retire and Button still has enough reputation to land a drive somewhere. Brawn could probably get a job at just about any of the other teams. Actually, if I was Sir Frank I'd demote Sam Michael, put Patrick Head out to pasture and give Brawn whatever he wants. Unlikely, I know, but it must be tempting.

[Hawkmoon]

The minimum is 16. If they drop below that, then the remaining teams are obliged to run third cars.

I'm pretty sure the minimum is 20, not 16. Bernie's ting himself right about now.

[truefan72]

shocking, but not all together surprising.

The sad fact is that they ran Super Aguri out of town, who on a smaller budget and tighter management succeeded in outperforming Honda. I thought back then and still do today, that they should have hedged their bets with Super Aguri rather than listen to Nick Fry's jealous POV. Now hey have lost everything.

Honda looked at the regulations, saw no way to improve under the current regs, and decided to close shop than be bleeding cash. I fear Williams is next to close/suspend their F1 team.

I don't see many suitors lining up to buy an F1 team under these regs and with the stupefying money that the FIA/F1 want you to spend to get involved.

Tracks and teams leaving F1. Bernie and Max have truly killed the sport.

[leopard]

What springs in my mind if one of teams decided to go is about bad precedence for the series rather than where the drivers and engineers will go. A reputed team like Honda will be in the proper termination for their employee once their plan about withdrawal official in effect. Driver like Button and engineer like Brawn will not have problem whatsoever about place to go next.

This can apparently stimulate other teams even for the bigger cash team like Toyota to make the same decision once they feel that competing in F1 can't give them enough benefit, but rather wasting money and time.

I think most of us here have the same concern on how to maintain teams to have enough resource to stay in the championship and the more important thing is how to make it attractive so teams fell homey being there, and to drive more participants involved and more people interested in and watching the sport...

[Hawkmoon]

Tracks and teams leaving F1. Bernie and Max have truly killed the sport.

Blame Bernie 100% for the circuits leaving and partly for the teams leaving but Mosley can't be blamed for either. He's been on about costs for years and the teams have ignored him. He's got a big fat "I told you so" look on his face right about now. I doubt it's brought him any pleasure though.

[CNR]

What about David Richards and Prodrive?
Couldn't this be his golden ticket? :confused:

Kuwaiti Investors Buy 40% Stake in U.K.-Based Prodrive

To help secure its future outlook and growth plan, Kuwaiti investment firm The Investment Dar Company (TID) has secured a 40% stake in Prodrive.

he may have the money
http://www.newsonf1.com/2004/news/nov/nov19.htm


David Richards commented: "We were brought in by British American Tobacco to turn the team around and secure its long-term future and that is what we have done. I am immensely proud of what Prodrive has achieved in a shorter time than anticipated. I believe that B.A.R Honda is now in a very healthy position to continue its pursuit of the World Championship. Obviously I and all at Prodrive will take a strong interest in the fortunes of the team in the future."

[CNR]

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=James_Allen&id=44706

how long has this be going on for


the package being put up for sale does not involve the potential new owner running Honda engines but instead involves Ferrari engines, a deal which one imagines Ross Brawn would have put together.


but honda pulling out or selling the team would brake any contract that Ross Brawn had with the team i think

[wmcot]

It's pretty hard for Honda (or any manufacturer) to justify running an F1 team while laying off factory workers. It's a sad time, but for more of the world than just F1.

[Ranger]

Wow...didn't expect that... at least so soon!

[leopard]

who expected it? :rolleyes: :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Honda Racing CEO Nick Fry and team principal Ross Brawn are 'deeply committed' to finding a buyer to save the team, a senior figure within the Brackley-based outfit has confirmed.

It is understood Brawn has already addressed the team staff to say that potential buyers have been lined up, and sources suggest moves are being made to secure a supply of customer Ferrari engines for 2009.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72323

[Valve Bounce]

who expected it? :rolleyes: :)

Me!

[Mark]

This is always the drawback of manufacturer funded teams, if they aren't at the front then they aren't going to continue the funding, so they withdraw, simple. The exact same thing happened in the BTCC and it almost destroyed it.

Formula 1 has always had a tradition of private teams and manufacturer engines, so when a manufacturer pulls out, as they do, the team just switch engine supplier and continue.

[Knock-on]

It's very sad for team Honda and the manufacturer.

I just hope Prodrive can put something together.

[Dave B]

Now is the perfect time for a new team to get involved in F1. The one good effect of this economic slowdown is that with three vacant slots on the grid it's never been so cheap to become a team owner.

But then, if you're an investor, you can pick up a Premiership football team for about the same cost and have far greater exposure. :s

[ArrowsFA1]

Honda Racing's CEO Nick Fry remains 'hopeful' that the team will be on the grid in Melbourne next year...Fry also claims there are already interested potential buyers in the wings.

"We have only had a short amount of time but in the last 12 hours we've had three serious people come to us suggesting they would like to buy the team, so we are still hoping to be there in Melbourne," he said.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72326

[Andrewmcm]

Fry was on BBC Radio 5 this morning and his propaganda machine was in full flow - I wouldn't take much that he says at face value at the present time...

[V12]

Formula 1 has always had a tradition of private teams and manufacturer engines, so when a manufacturer pulls out, as they do, the team just switch engine supplier and continue.

Yeah, I agree it was so much better in those days. Back then Honda or Renault pulling out simply meant that McLaren or Williams had to scrape by with a customer engine for a year or two. Maybe BMW's withdrawal helped accelerate Brabham's demise but they were always going downhill after Bernie started paying more and more attention to the sport as a whole before selling them anyway.

As an F1 fan I welcome manufacturer involvement, but their sustained involvement cannot be taken for granted, with the exception of perhaps Ferrari and even then stranger things have happened. With the odd other harmless exception such as Alfa Romeo and Renault's factory efforts in the 80s, I strongly believe that manufacturer involvement should always be limited to plugging into existing teams and supplying them with engines.

This way it gives F1 teams their own brand recognition in the same way football teams have. There is actually one example of this, Mercedes giving their supercar a "McLaren" badge, but to be honest names like Williams, Tyrrell, Minardi, Ligier, Sauber etc. always meant more to me personally than names like BMW, Toyota, Renault, Ford etc.

[Dave B]

You can tell when F1 makes the mainstream news when "Ross Brown" is introduced by a BBC business reporter with apparently no knowledge of the sport :s

[Knock-on]

Apparently 3 bidders are in serious talks with Honda.

Jens still has a contract but is not "under contract" if you know what I mean.

[52Paddy]

Sad news this. It doesn't reflect well on the state of the sport. Its also a shame because Honda put their lame 2008 season down to the fact that they spent their year working on developing their 2009 car. I genuinely thought that Honda would produce something special next year; maybe not enough to challenge for either title, but certainly more consistent points finishes. Now, it looks like all of that development is just thrown away :(

And, with most of the top seats filled, Button won't have many solid options for next year.

[ioan]

Blame Bernie 100% for the circuits leaving and partly for the teams leaving but Mosley can't be blamed for either. He's been on about costs for years and the teams have ignored him. He's got a big fat "I told you so" look on his face right about now. I doubt it's brought him any pleasure though.

Completely agree!
While Max was looking to secure F1's future, even if he isn't the commercial rights holder, Bernie has been tinkering with the points system and backstabing Max.
Funny, eh?!

[ioan]

Me!

Put me on the list too.
And I have a feeling that some more will go if they don't cut the costs to around 100.000.000 Euro.

[Dave B]

Apparently 3 bidders are in serious talks with Honda.
If you believe some of the more far-fetched rumours on t'internet, one of them is "Team Schumacher". :eek:

Ferrari engines, Ross Brawn.... it could just work.

[ioan]

This way it gives F1 teams their own brand recognition in the same way football teams have. There is actually one example of this, Mercedes giving their supercar a "McLaren" badge...

There were some Williams badged Renault's too.
Not to mention all those Ferrari badged cars! ;)

[ioan]

If you believe some of the more far-fetched rumours on t'internet, one of them is "Team Schumacher". :eek:

Ferrari engines, Ross Brawn.... it could just work.

They would still need a top F1 designer, maybe the guy fired by FI if they can't manage to bring Rory out of retirement.

[BDunnell]

Not to mention all those Ferrari badged cars! ;)

:laugh:

[truefan72]

Completely agree!
While Max was looking to secure F1's future, even if he isn't the commercial rights holder, Bernie has been tinkering with the points system and backstabing Max.
Funny, eh?!


Max is not innocent. Indirectly, he is much of the reason for many of these unnecessary cost in F1.

1. The R&D cost of designing a new engine to fit the changing regs each year
2. The R&D to develop engines that will last 2 races
3. The R&D spent on Wind Tunnels and CFD engineers, looking to find any advantage they can.
4. The continously changing specs of cars

If they had just left the rules alone, teams would be spendin much less on simply upgrading engines and aero packages, rather than developing entirely new cars to fit the ever changing rules. I wonder how much they spent of developing the 2009 car. Which probably will change by 2010(if there is still a sport)

[BDunnell]

While Max was looking to secure F1's future, even if he isn't the commercial rights holder, Bernie has been tinkering with the points system and backstabing Max.

Yes, I think Bernie ought to be thinking about more fundamental matters than the points system. 'Tinkering' is a good word.

The truth is that he and Max should be working together to cut costs, otherwise the commercial rights holder might not end up with a series to promote and the FIA might not end up with an F1 World Championship under its auspices.

[Mark]

If you believe some of the more far-fetched rumours on t'internet, one of them is "Team Schumacher". :eek:

Ferrari engines, Ross Brawn.... it could just work.

It could that! If Schumacher were to put together a team, with him as the team boss, I think he'd have no real trouble finding backers.

But then again F1 is littered with failed teams where drivers have attemtped to turn team owner. Prost being an example recently.

[ioan]

Max is not innocent. Indirectly, he is much of the reason for many of these unnecessary cost in F1.

1. The R&D cost of designing a new engine to fit the changing regs each year
2. The R&D to develop engines that will last 2 races
3. The R&D spent on Wind Tunnels and CFD engineers, looking to find any advantage they can.
4. The continously changing specs of cars

If they had just left the rules alone, teams would be spendin much less on simply upgrading engines and aero packages, rather than developing entirely new cars to fit the ever changing rules. I wonder how much they spent of developing the 2009 car. Which probably will change by 2010(if there is still a sport)

I'm not so sure about that.
On the long term extracting ore more tenth of a second from an overdeveloped design is much more expensive than designing a new one that will have a better base.
Why do you think that teams were launching new chassis and engines every season even if there were no rule changes?

[BDunnell]

I'm not so sure about that.
On the long term extracting ore more tenth of a second from an overdeveloped design is much more expensive than designing a new one that will have a better base.
Why do you think that teams were launching new chassis and engines every season even if there were no rule changes?

And this is exactly why costs need to be curbed - drastically, and now.

[ioan]

And this is exactly why costs need to be curbed - drastically, and now.

Completely agree with you, and Max! ;)

[MrJan]

And this is exactly why costs need to be curbed - drastically, and now.

Costs don't need to be curbed now, it should have been done about 10 years ago. The trouble is that any cost saving measure the head honchos introduce seems to suck balls and ruin the sport further, just look at the rule in the WRC a few years back when teams HAD to have an inexperienced driver on the books.

[ArrowsFA1]

Max is not innocent. Indirectly, he is much of the reason for many of these unnecessary cost in F1.
The many and varied FIA rule changes have certainly had a major impact on costs. KERS is just the latest example.

It's true to say that Max has been talking about costs for some time, and as he's so often illustrated he'll willingly use his power when it suits. That power has been available to him to take action all the time he's been talking about costs in F1. What measures has he actually introduced, which have had the desired effect, in all that time?

It's all very well talking about cost cutting, but under Max's Presidency the FIA has been responsible for repeated regulation changes that inevitably have led to cost increases, not reductions.

[ioan]

The many and varied FIA rule changes have certainly had a major impact on costs. KERS is just the latest example.

It's true to say that Max has been talking about costs for some time, and as he's so often illustrated he'll willingly use his power when it suits. That power has been available to him to take action all the time he's been talking about costs in F1. What measures has he actually introduced, which have had the desired effect, in all that time?

It's all very well talking about cost cutting, but under Max's Presidency the FIA has been responsible for repeated regulation changes that inevitably have led to cost increases, not reductions.

And what is your problem?
Max does the talk, he can't build them cheaper cars.
You seem to try to hit him every time even when you got nothing at hand to do so. A very stupid stance IMO.

F1 participation being so expensive only served one person: Bernie. More money going around in F1 made his business have such a blown up market value that he manged to sell it for that huge amount. bernie never had any interest in making the sport cheaper.

[Knock-on]

And what is your problem?
Max does the talk, he can't build them cheaper cars.
You seem to try to hit him every time even when you got nothing at hand to do so. A very stupid stance IMO.

F1 participation being so expensive only served one person: Bernie. More money going around in F1 made his business have such a blown up market value that he manged to sell it for that huge amount. bernie never had any interest in making the sport cheaper.


ioan, I've agreed to a certain degree with your view on this thread but you have to appreciate that the reason for the cost being so astronomical is the way the rules are structured.

Tens of millions are spent developing one tenth of improvement and on making the cars harder to be overtaken.

Ever since I have been on this forum, people have proposed ideas to simplify the formula to make it a racing and not a technology discipline.

You and max have not desired to see this happen. You because of your desire to see a technologically advanced sport and Max because he would be less able to manipulate the sport.

Bernie is a greedy that's strangling the sport but Max has long been the hands tightening around the throat.

[BDunnell]

Costs don't need to be curbed now, it should have been done about 10 years ago.

You are right, but we begin to see here how F1's fortunes are now so closely tied with those of the global economy, which wasn't the case in the early '90s except perhaps for the car manufacturers involved.

[Dave B]

The problem with cost-cutting regulations is that they bring about more expense to impliment them. How much did the teams spend on R&D for 2-race engines, for example?

Rules stability is the way to go, not constantly tinkering about at the margins every year or two.

[ArrowsFA1]

And what is your problem?
Max does the talk, he can't build them cheaper cars.
You seem to try to hit him every time even when you got nothing at hand to do so. A very stupid stance IMO.
Two questions for you ioan:

What measures have the FIA introduced that have actually reduced costs for the teams, in all the time Max has been talking about costs?[/*:m:329r0k6x]
Do you deny that regular regulation changes cost the teams money?[/*:m:329r0k6x]
F1 participation being so expensive only served one person: Bernie. More money going around in F1 made his business have such a blown up market value that he manged to sell it for that huge amount. bernie never had any interest in making the sport cheaper.
I understand your argument against Bernie, but it's never been his job to make the sport cheaper. Initially, through FOCA, his job was to get better deals for the teams who had previously each got starting money from individual circuit owners at differing rates. FOCA unified the teams and secured tv deals for the sport which increased income for the teams and the sport. Those tv deals also increased exposure for the sport which led to more sponsorship income, and more venues wanting to host GP's. Essentially, and very briefly, that has made many people particularly wealthy.

The teams will always spend whatever money they can get their hands on, and they have done very well in the last three decades by and large, but at the moment money is in short supply.

[Daniel]

And this is exactly why costs need to be curbed - drastically, and now.

Surely you know the FIA doesn't work this quickly. The WRC is coughing up blood and still they don't seem to realise.

[BDunnell]

I understand your argument against Bernie, but it's never been his job to make the sport cheaper. Initially, through FOCA, his job was to get better deals for the teams who had previously each got starting money from individual circuit owners at differing rates. FOCA unified the teams and secured tv deals for the sport which increased income for the teams and the sport. Those tv deals also increased exposure for the sport which led to more sponsorship income, and more venues wanting to host GP's. Essentially, and very briefly, that has made many people particularly wealthy.

The teams will always spend whatever money they can get their hands on, and they have done very well in the last three decades by and large, but at the moment money is in short supply.

But Bernie certainly needs to be aware of the fact that he may not have a sport to promote unless big changes are made, surely?

This is why the functions/responsibilities of he and Max, or indeed whoever it might be at the helm of the FIA, are so inextricably intertwined, and why I always thought those who expressed the view during the Mosley scandal that everything fundamentally wrong with F1 was suddenly the fault of Bernie were completely wrong to do so.

[bontebempo]

glad to see them gone!

[Knock-on]

glad to see them gone!

But what about Button. We know you have a soft spot for him :D

[ioan]

The easiest way to cut cost is to not have development during the whole season.
They have the right to design the next seaons cars as soon as the current season gets underway (no track testing though).
They get X no. of kms of season track testing, Y hours wind tunnel testing and that's it. Make the best car they can with that.
No new parts should be allowed on the cars during the season.

I doubt it would improve the show, cause the ones that get it wrong will have no chance to correct it, but costs would be certainly cut and technology would still be part of it.

[Knock-on]

The easiest way to cut cost is to not have development during the whole season.
They have the right to design the next seaons cars as soon as the current season gets underway (no track testing though).
They get X no. of kms of season track testing, Y hours wind tunnel testing and that's it. Make the best car they can with that.
No new parts should be allowed on the cars during the season.

I doubt it would improve the show, cause the ones that get it wrong will have no chance to correct it, but costs would be certainly cut and technology would still be part of it.

Q1:

Ferrari keep blowing engines because of a weak seal. Would they be allowed to design a uprated one?

Q2:

How do you stop them designing next years cae.

Q3:

If Bernie is so keen on reducing costs, why does he keep changing the rules. Next year, the engines have to be redesigned yet again to withstand 3 races. The year after, to emulate a Cossie powerplant.

How do teams cut down on expenditure with that sort of requirement?

[ioan]

Two questions for you ioan:

What measures have the FIA introduced that have actually reduced costs for the teams, in all the time Max has been talking about costs?[/*:m:2gx8uybz]
Do you deny that regular regulation changes cost the teams money?[/*:m:2gx8uybz]

I bet that the 1 engine/race week end and 1 engine/2 race week ends have cut the costs for the customer teams.
Sauber used to pay a lot of money for one season supply of engines, nowadays they pay maybe half of that and will pay not even a quarter of it in the future.

Yes I do deny that regulation changes cost teams more money than if there was no regulation change.
I already posted in this thread that getting one more tenth of a second out of an older design is costing the teams more money in the long term that building a new one.
Why do you think that teams developed one new chassis and engine and transmission for each new season (sometimes even 2 per season) even when we had no rule changes at all?
I tell you why, because they get a certain amount of money through heavy sponsorship and they make sure that they get the maximum out of it by spending it all.
I honestly don't think that the big ones would spend less than what they have at disposal, simply because they race to win not to do their best with half the money they get and come home below 6th in the championship.

As you say it:



The teams will always spend whatever money they can get their hands on...



I understand your argument against Bernie, but it's never been his job to make the sport cheaper. Initially, through FOCA, his job was to get better deals for the teams who had previously each got starting money from individual circuit owners at differing rates. FOCA unified the teams and secured tv deals for the sport which increased income for the teams and the sport. Those tv deals also increased exposure for the sport which led to more sponsorship income, and more venues wanting to host GP's. Essentially, and very briefly, that has made many people particularly wealthy.

It should be his job to make the sport cheaper if he wants to have something left of it.
The profit you can make out of "0" is exactly that "0".

What he did was nice and beautiful, and hugely profitable (for himself first of all because teams reinvest the money every years in next year's championship, but Bernie takes it into his bank account), but unsustainable in the long term.
We should see that he didn't do anything because of his "huge" charitable soul.



The teams will always spend whatever money they can get their hands on, and they have done very well in the last three decades by and large, but at the moment money is in short supply.

Yep and Max has been pushing for cuts for more than 2 years already, so why attack him?

[ioan]

Q1:

Ferrari keep blowing engines because of a weak seal. Would they be allowed to design a uprated one?

Only if they can prove that the output of the engine is the same as before.



Q2:

How do you stop them designing next years cae.


You don't. Why should you stop them designing whatever they want, as long as they only get the right to test it during the winter test session.



Q3:

If Bernie is so keen on reducing costs, why does he keep changing the rules. Next year, the engines have to be redesigned yet again to withstand 3 races. The year after, to emulate a Cossie powerplant.

How do teams cut down on expenditure with that sort of requirement?

You are again mixing Bernie with Maxie. ;)

team do redesign their engines ever season, no matter if you change the rues or not. I don't see it as driving costs up, it keeps them constant for the manufacturers and brings them down for the poorer customer teams.

[Knock-on]

Only if they can prove that the output of the engine is the same as before.

They tried that this year. Sounds easy in principal but in practice.... well, ask Flav ;)


You don't. Why should you stop them designing whatever they want, as long as they only get the right to test it during the winter test session.

I thought you said different in your post?


You are again mixing Bernie with Maxie. ;)

Sorry, you are quite correct. I manage to get them mixed up quite often.


team do redesign their engines ever season, no matter if you change the rues or not. I don't see it as driving costs up, it keeps them constant for the manufacturers and brings them down for the poorer customer teams.

So, essentially you are saying that teams will spend every penny at their disposal. No argument from me there :)

Forget all this spec engine crap. Just get the manufacturers to supply engines at a reasonable cost. I think Mercedes have offered this?

[ioan]

They tried that this year. Sounds easy in principal but in practice.... well, ask Flav ;)

Not really, last year and this year they were allowed to to change some of the parts (not any of them) if they had reliability problems, but only the blue prints of the engines were comapred.

If they compare the engine's output than it will be a different story and getting an advantage would be very very difficult.

As for Flav's problem, well Renault were the only one manufacturer stupid enough to keep only a part of their previous engine departement. What were they thinking? :rolleyes:



I thought you said different in your post?

Here's what I said in my previous post:



They have the right to design the next seaons cars as soon as the current season gets underway (no track testing though).

You were not paying attention. :p :



Sorry, you are quite correct. I manage to get them mixed up quite often.

Your age is showing, you're on route to catch up with Valve, and still he seems not to mix them up at all. :D



Forget all this spec engine crap. Just get the manufacturers to supply engines at a reasonable cost. I think Mercedes have offered this?

I think that is what will happen, only that Max has a lower number in his head.
As for what Mercedes offered, who knows I didn't see any numbers around, and the reason why FI went with them is that they get an engine, the transmission and KERS (and it might even some chasis and aero development), while Ferrari only provided the engine.

[ArrowsFA1]

It should be his job to make the sport cheaper if he wants to have something left of it.
Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. Bernie is employed by CVC and CVC want to make money from F1. Market forces will ultimately determine what is or isn't acceptable to circuit owners.

...Max has been pushing for cuts for more than 2 years already, so why attack him??
I disagree with your use of the word "attack", but still...Yes, I am criticising Max in his role as FIA President, for the reasons I have already given. He has been in a position to do something for a very long time. He has shown he is prepared to use his power at certain times, and yet costs have continued to escalate under his Presidency. That's not entirely his fault, but I certainly don't see him as F1's saviour either.

[Knock-on]

Ummmm ioan. Far be it for me to accuse you of plagiarising my posts. If you wanted to use my words, I would be only too happy to impart my wisdom ;)

:D

[jens]

To sum up Honda's adventures in F1, it's hard to look past a guy called Nick Fry and to be honest, it's not easy to find an example of a worse team principal than him. He got his current role, when the team was the second best in F1 and by now it has started getting beaten by almost everyone, ending with the departure of the manufacturer. Besides this the 2007-2008 Earth Dream stuff or whatever it was called was clearly a failure, with this Honda lost its identity (livery) and also sponsors. Honda as a car manufacturer has in recent years been clearly the biggest spender in F1, because in the budgets of other teams sponsorship money plays an important role too. Hence no surprise Honda was the first one to find out that the whole F1 programme is too costly.

I find it quite ironic that Fry is still there and trying to "save" the team.

[Giuseppe F1]

Yep and Max has been pushing for cuts for more than 2 years already, so why attack him?

Max enjoys being attacked doesnt he? :)

[Giuseppe F1]

Whats likely to happen to Honda's other works and semi-works motorsport programmes:

- Acura sportscar prototypes
- Formula Nippon engine supply and team support
- Japanese F3
- Formula Dream
- Indycar engine supply

etc.

Will these all be canned or scaled back I wonder?


A shame for a young British driver called Will Stevens too who was recently signed to the Honda F1 team on a long-term junior programme similar to McLaren Mercedes' support of Lewis Hamilton - presumambly Honda will no longer be supporting him up the ladder.


Ive also just thought that Honda's F1 withdrawl may have an impact on drivers signing to race in Formula Master too as the champion of that series receives a Honda F1 test as part of his prize and so this was a major incentive for young driver to race in and take their sponsorship money to this category...

...interestingly, has the 2008 Formula Master champion already been given his Honda F1 test or will this just now vanish into thin air? - such a shame for him if it does.

[V12]

I may be wrong but IndyCar, and I *think* the Acura sportscar program, are Honda's American arm's initiatives rather than the parent company. They are not immune I guess, but in any case I imagine they drain significantly less resources than the F1 program does/did.

[keysersoze]

Immediately mandate that cars get three engines FOR THE SEASON (or face grid penalties), limit revs to 16K, no testing once the season begins, freeze the formula for three years, and . . . drum roll please:

we immediately go to 3-car teams. Voila . . . a 27-car grid. :D

Toyota 3rd driver: Pantano
McLaren 3rd driver: Di Resta
Ferrari 3rd driver: Button
Williams 3rd driver: Senna
Red Bull 3rd driver: Davidson
Renault 3rd driver: Grosjean
Force India 3rd driver: Liuzzi
Toro Rosso 3rd driver: Sato
BMW 3rd driver: ?

[ioan]

Ummmm ioan. Far be it for me to accuse you of plagiarising my posts. If you wanted to use my words, I would be only too happy to impart my wisdom ;)

:D

Oups!
I must have copy pasted the wrong bits up from a certain point a certain moment.

Sorry, my bad! :)

[AJP]

Immediately mandate that cars get three engines FOR THE SEASON (or face grid penalties), limit revs to 16K, no testing once the season begins, freeze the formula for three years, and . . . drum roll please:

we immediately go to 3-car teams. Voila . . . a 27-car grid. :D

Toyota 3rd driver: Pantano
McLaren 3rd driver: Di Resta
Ferrari 3rd driver: Button
Williams 3rd driver: Senna
Red Bull 3rd driver: Davidson
Renault 3rd driver: Grosjean
Force India 3rd driver: Liuzzi
Toro Rosso 3rd driver: Sato
BMW 3rd driver: ?

I dig it...!!!

In all seriousness FIA, why cant we do this???

[AJP]

R.I.P HONDA...

at least they gave it a go..

[Giuseppe F1]

I guess its safe to say Danica Patrick will no longer get her Honda F1 test this Winter now as was planned :)

[ioan]

I dig it...!!!

In all seriousness FIA, why cant we do this???

Cost?
And also because Ferrari wouldn't hire Button.

[ioan]

I guess its safe to say Danica Patrick will no longer get her Honda F1 test this Winter now as was planned :)

Honda will continue to invest in the team until February, they might go ahead with the test as it will be a good publicity stunt for them.

[keysersoze]

Cost?
And also because Ferrari wouldn't hire Button.

I have little notion about the economics of running a team, so you are probably right.

But with a third car teams would have 50% more adverstising space (on the car at least) and a 50% more chance to get constructor points (and money), which may offset some of the expense.

And as far as the Button thing, I originally had him down as going back to Renault. :p :

[ioan]

I have little notion about the economics of running a team, so you are probably right.

But with a third car teams would have 50% more adverstising space (on the car at least) and a 50% more chance to get constructor points (and money), which may offset some of the expense.

And as far as the Button thing, I originally had him down as going back to Renault. :p :

I'm not sure about it but I think that even if teams run 3 cars only 2 would be eligible to score points, and anyway it would be the same for everyone so the chances are still equal.

Sure running one more car wouldn't be such a huge expenditure given that the design and testing costs will not increase at all, but I doubt that teams would want to pay those extra millions to build and race a 3rd car.

[Bagwan]

I like the thought of 3 car teams .

Just imagine the inter-team driver status struggles , with three drivers fighting for favour .
Who's #1 has furnished us with such great battles , both on and off the track , I can't imagine the tantrums that would ensue , if there was a lower rung on the ladder to be hung on .

Imagine the sweat on the brow of the #2 , with a freshly picked 20 year old storming into the picture .

We'd see enough drama that if the show was a runaway for any team , the potential inter-team controversy should give us enough to chew on in itself .

[markabilly]

I guess its safe to say Danica Patrick will no longer get her Honda F1 test this Winter now as was planned :)
:eek:

oh no :(
I guess that means she will have to go with mac......

(although she can't compete with anyone in the IRL, except when it comes to cat fights,so maybe she and lewis can engage in a bitch slap contest......I bet she could out do freddy

[aryan]

There were some Williams badged Renault's too.


Yeah, the Clio Williams... a true hot hatch, one of the best fwd cars of the last century.

Incidentally, it was all Renaultsport and had nothing to do with Williams other than the badge.

Sorry, couldn't resist this. Back to topic now. Honda...

[aryan]

I'm not sure about it but I think that even if teams run 3 cars only 2 would be eligible to score points, and anyway it would be the same for everyone so the chances are still equal.



Yes, two will score, but the top two, so in effect that will be the best 2 of 3.

Imagine what an advantage that could give a team, specially in regards to reliability. Lost a car? No worries... still 2 to go.

Unless of course, the rules say that they have to nominate which 2 cars will score points, and the third car should not score a point no matter where it finishes... which would be a disaster for the race and the spectators. Do you think viewers will like it if a guy finishes on the podium but the team doesn't get any points for it?

oh then... we've had these discussions every once in a while for the past couple of years.

[ShiftingGears]

Unless of course, the rules say that they have to nominate which 2 cars will score points, and the third car should not score a point no matter where it finishes... which would be a disaster for the race and the spectators. Do you think viewers will like it if a guy finishes on the podium but the team doesn't get any points for it?.

That's the rule for the WRC, and it's pants.

[Triumph]

Such a shame for Jenson as he was persevering with Honda in expectation of a car worthy of his abilities.

Fingers crossed for some sort of salvage for this situation. Also it would be nice to see Bruno Senna on the Formula 1 scene.

:-)

[arcanox]

Really , its very sad this new. I always like Honda and Toyota, I don`t know if Toyota thinks to take the same decision in the future, the essencial is that F1 couldn´t have japanese teams, and this situation would do the F1 only one champion of european manufacturers with very little interesting in others parts of the world. I think is very expensive to the others teams not europeans to continue in F1....The manufacturers champion won`t have sense with only europeans..Perhaps only Ferrary and MacClaren will be alone in F1.

[trumperZ06]

I like the thought of 3 car teams .

Just imagine the inter-team driver status struggles , with three drivers fighting for favour .
Who's #1 has furnished us with such great battles , both on and off the track , I can't imagine the tantrums that would ensue , if there was a lower rung on the ladder to be hung on .

Imagine the sweat on the brow of the #2 , with a freshly picked 20 year old storming into the picture .

We'd see enough drama that if the show was a runaway for any team , the potential inter-team controversy should give us enough to chew on in itself .

;) Now that could be fun to watch !!!

[CNR]

I have little notion about the economics of running a team, so you are probably right.

But with a third car teams would have 50% more adverstising space (on the car at least) and a 50% more chance to get constructor points (and money), which may offset some of the expense.

And as far as the Button thing, I originally had him down as going back to Renault. :p :

with the 3rd car i do not think that it will get points
or that was the go last time the talk of running a 3rd car
some years ago

as for the 50% more adverstising space look what happend with B.A.R they where not allowed to run 2 cars with different livery

[keysersoze]

I vaguely recall the 3-car team scenario, but I thought that situation (the-only-two-cars-can-score-points-thing) was if only a couple of teams decided to do it. If all teams were required to field 3 cars, I would think all would be eligibile for points. May as well go to a 10-place point system:

1,2,3,4,5,7,9,12,15,20

C'mon, the FIA is already favoring a couple of my earlier suggestions (hear this correctly--I'm NOT saying they did it because I suggested it)--no testing and rev limits--let's look at more cost cutting. Here's my latest:

1. No Friday practice. Just PR work for the drivers and teams. On Saturday, just 2 one-hour sessions, then qualifying. That's a long day, sure, but the spectators get a lot for the money.

2. 4 sets of tires for the weekend per car: 1 for each practice, 1 for qualifying--that must be used to start the race--and 1 extra set for the race. Obviously, the rules provide for wet conditions.

3.Why the heck do teams need 16 guys over the wall? How about 9: two for the jacks, one for each tire, two for fuel, and a lollipop guy? Less time spent on training. Fuel first--then tires--that way a driver is less likely to leave with the fuel guys still trying to uncouple the hose.

[ArrowsFA1]

...as for the 50% more adverstising space look what happend with B.A.R they where not allowed to run 2 cars with different livery
That's an example of a daft, restrictive rule IMHO. Why shouldn't the teams be allowed to carry different livery on each of their cars? For one thing it would add variety to the grid, but more importantly it could enable them to raise additional sponsorship.

Those who worked for Brabham in Bernie's day tell of how immaculate everything had to be, and it seems that this fastidiousness has extended to the 'look' of F1. Two-by-two on the grid; inch perfect placement of trophies & dignitaries on the podium etc etc. Loosen up a bit Bernie :p :

[Hawkmoon]

That's an example of a daft, restrictive rule IMHO. Why shouldn't the teams be allowed to carry different livery on each of their cars? For one thing it would add variety to the grid, but more importantly it could enable them to raise additional sponsorship.

Those who worked for Brabham in Bernie's day tell of how immaculate everything had to be, and it seems that this fastidiousness has extended to the 'look' of F1. Two-by-two on the grid; inch perfect placement of trophies & dignitaries on the podium etc etc. Loosen up a bit Bernie :p :

Sorry mate but I disagree with you here. F1 is a team sport and part of being a team is the uniform, in this case the livery. I never liked the American idea of multiple liveries and I hope to never see it in F1.

However I do agree that F1 in general needs to loosen up a bit. Take the sport to the fans rather than hide away in the paddock all the time. The Americans have that part right.

[ShiftingGears]

That's an example of a daft, restrictive rule IMHO. Why shouldn't the teams be allowed to carry different livery on each of their cars? For one thing it would add variety to the grid, but more importantly it could enable them to raise additional sponsorship.

I think that would be a good idea.

[leopard]

Such a shame for Jenson as he was persevering with Honda in expectation of a car worthy of his abilities.


Perhaps he got the result for the insufficient loyalties given to the team,

[AndyL]

3-car teams... in practical terms, would there be enough room in pit garages to work on 3 cars? Splitting a team between two garages, if that were necessary, would seem less than ideal.

[Valve Bounce]

3-car teams... in practical terms, would there be enough room in pit garages to work on 3 cars? Splitting a team between two garages, if that were necessary, would seem less than ideal.

Refueling would be a hoot!

[keysersoze]

Sorry mate but I disagree with you here. F1 is a team sport and part of being a team is the uniform, in this case the livery. I never liked the American idea of multiple liveries and I hope to never see it in F1.

However I do agree that F1 in general needs to loosen up a bit. Take the sport to the fans rather than hide away in the paddock all the time. The Americans have that part right.

Varying liveries is not an "American" idea inasmuch as an economic reality in American open wheel. Because sponsor packages can be had on the cheap (compared with F1) there is a wide variety of product TYPES in AOW. In F1, phone companies (and we all know what a racket that is), technology companies, and financial companies can afford the big spaces on cars (Red Bull is one of the significant exception). On this side of the pond, there are auto part stores, food and drink companies, restaurant chains, paint companies, home improvement stores, and a host of others that can afford to use racing as a way to promote their products. Because of this, there is even space for non--profit advertising (Hole-in-the-Wall Camps and Racing-For-Kids are two examples).

And as far as that "team sport" notion to which you refer, I'm sure Fernando Alonso would like a word with you about how far THAT goes. Same car, same uniform, and his own boss is trying to beat him

On the other hand, NASCAR drivers within the same team--yet with different uniforms--routinely help each other out on the track with drafting help, etc.