Thoughts on current F1 Regulations

[Nitrodaze]

Even though it was obvious that the Mclaren-Honda is slow on the straights compared to the rest of the midfield which is where they are now, this weekend has been one of their better showing. There is evidence that there is a reaslistic potential for a proper step forward next season.

It was great to hear the Ron Denis interview. It is reassuring that he still has confidence in Honda delivering the goods next year. Mclaren are consoled by the fact that they are not alone on the wrong side of the regulations. But it was interesting to hear his opinion about the highly restrictive F1 regulations which seems to cripple in-season progression. I think the most important point he made was that the cost saving basis of these regulation was not being achieved as the regulations creates new reasons for spending. With Honda's very visible and humiliating difficulties in succeeding to produce a competitive package within the current regulations, it is clear the current rules is becoming a deterrent to attracting new teams and manufacturers. It would seem most teams are lukewarm about the regulations as they are about the tyres.

One looming blow to F1 is the threat by Redbull to exit the sport if they cannot find a competitive engine. Hearing Dr Marko today would suggest that this is a serious stance by Redbull. Redbull and Torro Rosso exiting the paddock in 2016 would be a huge blow to the current FIA regime, as it would be the clearest statement that they have got the regulations very wrong and have not been sensitive to the realities of the F1 teams. The reality is that there could be other teams exiting F1 along with Redbull for other reasons relating to cost and the restrictive regulations. It is not outside the possibility that Honda may also choose to withdraw from F1 in 2016 or 2017 for the same reasons.

The real question is , is the current F1 still a viable proposition given the difficulties teams are having to operate competitively if they start the year with any deficit in performance. Not to mention the damaging effect of the failure to succeed within the regulations has on the corporate brand. Having two world champion drivers, two multiple world championship teams and two world championship engine manufacturers dealing with publicly visible frustrations of living with the painful realities of the constraints of the regulations, would suggest that the regulations may have gone a tad too far.

We can only truely judge the regulations on the quality of the racing it produces. Could we retrospectively say that the racing has improved compared to racing prior to the current regulations? Has cost, consequently spending gone down? Is it safer? Is F1 more accessible? Are drivers and teams happy and comfortable with the state of affairs? If you can objectively answer yes to all of these questions, then the regulations is spot on.

What is your take on this? Is the current F1 regulation spot on or too restrictive?

[N4D13]

First, if Red Bull leave the sport, they have Red Bull to blame. You can't just spend your tenure on the sport shitting on everyone else, inclding your engine supplier, whenever things don't go your way and expect any good to come out of it.

Second, I think Joe Saward has a great point when he calls for an iron first FIA that rules the sport and hands out rules to the teams, regardless of whether they like it or not. The current statu quo in which teams have too much power means that the big teams can block any significant changes - and why wouldn't they keeping things as they are benefits them?

The main issue with F1 these days is, in my opinion, the lack of consensus between the teams and the FIA's unwillingness to do anything at all unless the teams all agree. Take the teams out of the equation, let the regulators do their work alone and I'm sure that F1 will become much better and more sustainable.

[zako85]

My current thoughts on making the racing better:

1. Reduce the aero downforce and/or increase the ground effect, and give cars better tire grip to get rid of DRS in order to have more close racing and higher quality overtaking.

2. The Q3 sessions should got back to one lap qualifying format.

3. Get rid of the fuel flow sensor. None of the sorry ass engineering excuses to justify having them made a good case for better racing. Just give every car X liters of fuel for the race and let the engineers decide when it must push hard or save fuel to finish the race. This could add some incredible drama like the leading cars suddenly slowing to save fuel, cars running out of fuel, etc. What we have right now where cars can push equally well in any part of the race is just boring.

(3a. Alternatively, keep the sensor, but set the flow limit a little higher so that the engine power stays in check somewhat, but the drivers still have an option to push harder or to save fuel)

4. With the 2017 regulations, set the limit on customer engine costs.

5. Discuss with all manufacturers whether liberating engine development would be beneficial for the sports.

[Bezza]

On Sunday night Sky F1 showed the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix which Raikkonen won on the last lap. It was of course a classic race under unusual circumstances but what stood out for me was the visible speed and effort the drivers were putting in compared to the 2015 cars. 10 years on you would think F1 would have progressed, but it has undoubtedly REGRESSED.

I don't think it is difficult to fix personally, but F1 needs to decide what it wants. Does it want manufacturer / big business entries, or does it want privateer / budget entries? It wants both - currently it is trying to please both, and failing to please most - and totally failing to please the watching public.

1) Unlimited testing. And no rules against in-season development. It is killing F1 at the moment. If you are not quick in Australia, the season is over. Gone are the days like 2004 when McLaren started with a terrible car and ended it with a race-winning one.

2) Get rid of penalties for car changes. This is not the drivers fault so stop making stupid regulations that confuse the public.

3) Get rid of DRS. We do not want more overtaking. We want intense, close battles. Having DRS makes passing too easy - and takes the skill away. Why should the driver in front be sabotaged for being in front? It is the driver behinds job to overtake him. Some tracks are better than others, and none of them need DRS - it is a gimmick that needs to be done away with ASAP.

4) Q3 Qualifying should be a "Super-Pole" session with Qualifying tyres. In fact I wouldn't have a Q1 or Q2, simply a Q1 with all 20 cars, and a Q2 top 10 Super Pole.

5) Engine manufacturers who run teams (a k a Mercedes and Ferrari) should be forced to give engines to other makes should they want them - and should give them the best engines they have. Mercedes current dominance of F1 is far worse than Red Bulls through 2010-2013 because they are in effect "controlling" F1 by having customer teams like Lotus and Williams who they will not give the best engines to. And Ferrari and Renault's engines are not good enough to compete (and are not allowed to develop quick enough in season) - therefore it is a two-tier championship of Mercedes power.

When will Mercedes realize that winning in their current fashion is not good for themselves or anybody? Fine for one season, 2014, but two, three in a row? Every will turn off if they haven't already.

I don't see much changing for 2016, hopefully Ferrari will be a little closer and Vettel can take the fight to Hamilton. I'm looking forward to 2017 with the changes proposed so far.

[steveaki13]

On Sunday night Sky F1 showed the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix which Raikkonen won on the last lap. It was of course a classic race under unusual circumstances but what stood out for me was the visible speed and effort the drivers were putting in compared to the 2015 cars. 10 years on you would think F1 would have progressed, but it has undoubtedly REGRESSED.

I don't think it is difficult to fix personally, but F1 needs to decide what it wants. Does it want manufacturer / big business entries, or does it want privateer / budget entries? It wants both - currently it is trying to please both, and failing to please most - and totally failing to please the watching public.

1) Unlimited testing. And no rules against in-season development. It is killing F1 at the moment. If you are not quick in Australia, the season is over. Gone are the days like 2004 when McLaren started with a terrible car and ended it with a race-winning one.

2) Get rid of penalties for car changes. This is not the drivers fault so stop making stupid regulations that confuse the public.

3) Get rid of DRS. We do not want more overtaking. We want intense, close battles. Having DRS makes passing too easy - and takes the skill away. Why should the driver in front be sabotaged for being in front? It is the driver behinds job to overtake him. Some tracks are better than others, and none of them need DRS - it is a gimmick that needs to be done away with ASAP.

4) Q3 Qualifying should be a "Super-Pole" session with Qualifying tyres. In fact I wouldn't have a Q1 or Q2, simply a Q1 with all 20 cars, and a Q2 top 10 Super Pole.

5) Engine manufacturers who run teams (a k a Mercedes and Ferrari) should be forced to give engines to other makes should they want them - and should give them the best engines they have. Mercedes current dominance of F1 is far worse than Red Bulls through 2010-2013 because they are in effect "controlling" F1 by having customer teams like Lotus and Williams who they will not give the best engines to. And Ferrari and Renault's engines are not good enough to compete (and are not allowed to develop quick enough in season) - therefore it is a two-tier championship of Mercedes power.

When will Mercedes realize that winning in their current fashion is not good for themselves or anybody? Fine for one season, 2014, but two, three in a row? Every will turn off if they haven't already.

I don't see much changing for 2016, hopefully Ferrari will be a little closer and Vettel can take the fight to Hamilton. I'm looking forward to 2017 with the changes proposed so far.
This is all spot on Bezza

I always felt F1 should be cheap to enter and hard to win. I.e like the 90s we could have smaller teams enter and race hard, but as back then only 3 or 4 teams were ever going to win.

I know some will struggle to understand but I would rather have a field of 26 or more with good racing through the field and 3 teams in with a chance with winning. Rather than 14 equal manufacturer cars.

Or as we have now 1 engine series.

I think early 90s in terms of sport had it better. Easy (comparatively) to enter and race in but money will still win it

We will never these days get privateers that can win so let's not stop the big teams spending but rather help new teams enter.

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

[Nitrodaze]

With the EU Competition Committee stepping into the F1 fray, a scenario rocked with teams openly criticizing the rules, teams threatening to withdraw from the series, teams facing financial woes and drivers quietly think of exiting to other series; is F1 in crisis or on the verge of crisis?

[zako85]

With the EU Competition Committee stepping into the F1 fray, a scenario rocked with teams openly criticizing the rules, teams threatening to withdraw from the series, teams facing financial woes and drivers quietly think of exiting to other series; is F1 in crisis or on the verge of crisis?

It's just a new page of F1 history. The mid-field teams are complaining that distributing hundreds of millions of euros to the top teams simply for being the top or historically significant teams is unfair. (These days Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes, etc receive money from a specially allocated pot of gold specially reserved for these specific teams) I think those midfield teams have a good reason to complain. The special subsidy that the rich teams receive must go. Right now, F1 has a system where the rich teams always get richer. Is this fair? Probably not. In my opinion, the system must go, but also the midfield teams must be compensated for the past years when the corrupt and monopolist practices led to rich teams getting more money simply for being rich.

[Big Ben]

There's so much wrong with F1 these days that I actually wouldn't mind if it collapsed somehow and Bernie would be left with nothing but a name and maybe then a new championship could be set up without the poisonous dwarf. I know it's not going to happen but one can hope.

[Rollo]

5. Discuss with all manufacturers whether liberating engine development would be beneficial for the sports.

re 5: Yes.

Formula One is expensive yes, but keeping a lid on engine development basically ensures that whoever does not have access to the best engine, remains crap. I think Honda have already learned that even if they have a horrible engine, they may as well just give up altogether because the regs don't really allow them to throw the whole engine away and start again.
In a number of races we've seen that Mercedes engines are the best and if you don't have them, even if you're developing you're own, then it sucks to be you.

[Nitrodaze]

First, if Red Bull leave the sport, they have Red Bull to blame. You can't just spend your tenure on the sport shitting on everyone else, inclding your engine supplier, whenever things don't go your way and expect any good to come out of it.

I am not so sure anyone would blame Redbull for walking out of the series if they don't see good business sense in staying. The rules as it were, placed a huge pressure on Renault to get out of their deficit in performance once it became clear they had got their design wrong and were down on power relative to Mercedes. But with the constraints of the rules, it was clearly difficult for Renault to find the sort of performance that would make Redbull competitive enough to take the fight to sharp end of the grid.

Under the circumstances, Redbull pay a huge amount of money to Renault to provide engines competitive enough to challenge at the front of the grid. If they are not getting value for money, it is natural that they would be very unhappy about it. After two seasons of no real progression on the power front, you have to be quite daft to not start thinking that there has to be a better way than the current one. Unfortunately the restrictive regulations is the real problem and they could have jointly acknowledged that and try to do something collectively about it.

The reality for Redbull is, the difficulty of the regulations will follow them to their new engine supplier and they would need to have the patience of a saint to get back to competing at the front. Much as Mclaren is testament of. Audi or whoever they get in bed with would need to turn up with an engine that is competitive compared to the Mercedes and Ferrari, plus the engine design must allow scope for development over the following 2 years at least. Now that is a tall order by current standards. Particularly with lack of F1 experience and an engine with no historical data.

The fact of the matter is, it is incredibly tough getting anything new into F1 at the moment due to the overly restrictive nature of the current regulations which places an unfair burden o innovation coupled with an attempt to restrict spending or reduce cost. It is difficult to innovate without spending a great deal of money. It is also impossible to innovate out of an architectural flaw in a design without re-architecting the design. This essentially is where Renault and Honda find themselves, as such stuck between a rock and a hard place as they say.

The current regulation has removed an important competitive strand of F1, the technology race between teams. This is the arena that has produced some of the most amazing innovations in the past. The likes of DRS, energy recovery systems etc l am sure you can name a few of your own. The current regulation has effectively killed off this aspect of F1. Incidentally, this is one of the main aspects of F1 that makes it the premier 4 wheel open cockpit motorsport. It is also the main reason why the competitiveness of teams are frozen where they start their season from; the ugly reality of not being able to innovate themselves out of a rotten start to the season.

The current F1 is not in harmony with its essence, it lack its spiritual balance, it is out of sorts with its heritage. No Feng Shui.

[Rollo]

The fact of the matter is, it is incredibly tough getting anything new into F1 at the moment due to the overly restrictive nature of the current regulations which places an unfair burden o innovation coupled with an attempt to restrict spending or reduce cost. It is difficult to innovate without spending a great deal of money. It is also impossible to innovate out of an architectural flaw in a design without re-architecting the design. This essentially is where Renault and Honda find themselves, as such stuck between a rock and a hard place as they say.


I feel that Honda have an ace card up their sleeve that no-one could do anything about.

What would happen if the 2016 Honda Gold Wing touring bike is released with a 1.6L V6? Honda could deny that it is the Honda RA615H... couldn't they? It wouldn't be the same power plant, it would be in a bike :D

[Mia 01]

It´s tough to compete in F1. I don´t want it to be a spec serie.

[Jag_Warrior]

As long as F1 continues to attract the best drivers and continues to race on (some of) the world's greatest tracks, I will continue to be glued to the set. Even if Bernie devises a way to make me put coins into my TV set to watch (which I'm pretty much already having to do), I'll still watch. I do love it so. There are some serious financial issues facing F1 right now. And IMO, that started as the tobacco money was forced to leave global sports. The decision to move to ultra complex, ultra expensive "green" engines simply made it worse. I'm into turbos, but I feel that too much focus has been placed on technology that fans either don't understand, can't relate to or generally don't care that much about. The type of person that this green tech most appeals to probably doesn't watch F1 to begin with. I think that most people watch F1 for the drivers, the glamour and the spectacle. And these power units are so expensive and so complex that I don't see a way to get a smaller independent to develop and produce competitive customer engines. That, I don't like.

But generally, I admit that I'm a happy camper right now mostly because "my guy" is whooping butt. But even including the Hamilton/Mercedes domination, which is not so different from the dominant eras of the past, I just don't see anything so wrong with F1 that it can't be fixed. It's going to take deep thought and proper planning. And there are risks ahead. If Red Bull and Toro Rosso end up leaving, I think that's going to be a very hard hit.

[Nitrodaze]

As long as F1 continues to attract the best drivers and continues to race on (some of) the world's greatest tracks, I will continue to be glued to the set. Even if Bernie devises a way to make me put coins into my TV set to watch (which I'm pretty much already having to do), I'll still watch. I do love it so.

I hope F1 fans continue their unwavering support for the series. It still is one of the best motorsport in the world and l hope it continues forever. As long as an F1 car turns a wheel, l shall always watch it and head for he nearest circuit to see it first hand. That said, one cannot help to observe and wonder at the current state of affairs.

[janneppi]

I hope F1 fans continue their unwavering support for the series. It still is one of the best motorsport in the world and l hope it continues forever.
I don't necessarily agree with that, If viewing figures are or good, there is no need to change anything.

If enough people tune out (at least stop paying for watching F1) the business model for 400 million/year budgets starts to disappear.

[dj_bytedisaster]

As long as F1 continues to attract the best drivers and continues to race on (some of) the world's greatest tracks, I will continue to be glued to the set.

You mean like Pastor Maldonado, Sergio Perez, Will Stevens, Roberto Merhi, Markus Eriksson, Felipe Nasr? While people like Vandoorne, Abt, Wehrlein, Lynn, Dixon, Vergne and others sit on the sidelines?

[Duncan]

re 5: Yes.

Formula One is expensive yes, but keeping a lid on engine development basically ensures that whoever does not have access to the best engine, remains crap. I think Honda have already learned that even if they have a horrible engine, they may as well just give up altogether because the regs don't really allow them to throw the whole engine away and start again.
In a number of races we've seen that Mercedes engines are the best and if you don't have them, even if you're developing you're own, then it sucks to be you.

This does seem to be a significant problem. I understand that the idea was to keep engine costs down, but that obviously isn't working, so maybe it's time for a rethink...

Although I can't figure out what's stopping McLaren just announcing that they're scrapping their engine supply contact with Honda and signing a new one with Acura, who are going to be developing a new engine for them for next season. How do the rules prevent that?

[Rollo]

This does seem to be a significant problem. I understand that the idea was to keep engine costs down, but that obviously isn't working, so maybe it's time for a rethink...

How do you police a team like Ferrari which as an SpA can shift development projects within the building and has access to test anything they feel like without even having to ask permission to borrow someone else's circuit? Same with Mercedes-Benz.
Ferrari owns Fiorano, Mercedes-Benz owns Stuttgart-Unterturkheim, Honda owns Suzuka Circuit. The point is that all three of these companies could test anything they jolly well like and it would be incumbent on the FIA to prove that what they were testing was for F1. These companies can always plead plausible deniability.

It's just that at the moment, M-B is chucking more money into R&D than Ferrari.

[zako85]

You mean like Pastor Maldonado, Sergio Perez, Will Stevens, Roberto Merhi, Markus Eriksson, Felipe Nasr? While people like Vandoorne, Abt, Wehrlein, Lynn, Dixon, Vergne and others sit on the sidelines?

Where would you put Robin Frijns on that list?

[jens]

While "engine freeze" is not ideal, I am unsure this is really the key issue. When Red Bull dominated, the development of aerodynamics was 'free', but RBR was still never caught and in 2013 they actually increased their advantage.

Mind you, Mercedes would win anyway, regardless of whether the rules were open or not. Just like RBR in aerodynamics with A. Newey at helm, I believe they have simply mastered this era.

The real problem is that the power units are so damn expensive, which means 3 things:

- only very few manufacturers can afford it. If even Honda fails, how many chances do others have?

- big gap between team performances, even greater than in so-called Red Bull era. Underfunded midfield teams have now no chance unlike 2012, because more budget goes to paying for the engines, and less money for car development...

- being a 'works team' counts a lot. Because as the engines are so expensive and complicated, 'integration' with PU counts far more. With previous V8's you could do like Brawn did in 2009, and win as a customer team, because integration was far easier and a customer could perform on as good level as the works team, provided the chassis was good enough.

[jens]

Solution? From what I remember, engine/car manufacturers themselves wanted the hybrid power units, because V8s were outdated for them. F1 had to "move on with times".

But does the modern innovative era need to be sooo damn expensive that almost nobody can afford it? Perhaps a simpler and cheaper hybrid solution could be found.

Perhaps cheaper and simpler regs could also attract hybrid specialists like VW Group and/or Toyota into F1, who are doing fine in the hybrid-powered WEC series.

As for Honda, their whole F1 strategy has failed. Conservative approach in terms of managament, bad timing of F1 entrance (1 year later, by which time competitors had already nicely settled in, etc). Frozen regs is not the key issue in their failure, but it certainly magnifies the whole mess.

[Jag_Warrior]

You mean like Pastor Maldonado, Sergio Perez, Will Stevens, Roberto Merhi, Markus Eriksson, Felipe Nasr? While people like Vandoorne, Abt, Wehrlein, Lynn, Dixon, Vergne and others sit on the sidelines?

You are correct. I should have inserted the words "some of" in that comment too. But from its earliest days, F1 has had its share of rich, racing playboys, while more talented guys sat on the sidelines. I don't like that either. But unlike Mark Webber, I see this generation of drivers (the A and B students anyway) as being more talented than the ones who were around in Schumacher's era. The D and F students are still with us, and always will be (it will become even worse if efforts to create a politically correct, affirmative action seat for Carmen Jorda are successful). But I really do think that we have a larger class of solid A and B students these days. And I'm enjoying the good things about F1, since I have no power to do anything about the bad things. I know how this works. I followed CART from the very beginning and had to watch it devolve into this sad GP2+ thing that we now have in the U.S. So I hope to see the problems addressed, but let the good remain. Cause...

Once you're gone, you can't come back. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=Xyp2tTZsMZ8)

[Nitrodaze]

With the re-appointment of Pirelli as tyre suppliers for the following three years, it would seem the mood of the powers that be are no change to regulations. The pecking order is likely to remain more or less the same for the next three years it would seem. I expect Ferrari to get closer to the Mercedes but not overshadow the very dominant Mercedes car in 2016-17.

The likelihood of Redbull, Honda and possibly Lotus(Renault) leaving the series before 2017 is higher than ever. Redbull is not going to get a 2016 Ferrari engine, Mercedes are not going to give them their 2015 engine and their relationship with Renault is now at the point where it would be a mercy act by Renault to take them back. That leaves Redbull with striking a deal with Honda, with Bernie securing a special dispensation for Honda to have additional tokens to combat their immediate performance problems. That of course depends on Mclaren being happy with sharing Honda's resources with Redbull. But with the promise of improved performance, l can see Mclaren welcoming the idea. At least it would be a fight on the chassis front between both teams.

Without a deal such as this, the risk of losing Redbull and possibly Honda is very possible. Renault's interest in F1 and the Lotus team seem half hearted.

[Rollo]

Solution? From what I remember, engine/car manufacturers themselves wanted the hybrid power units, because V8s were outdated for them. F1 had to "move on with times".

Ha ha ha ha...

There were only three engine manufacturers and to be fair, Ferrari because they are a racing team first and not primarily a car manufacturer, will build according to whatever regulations are set.
The motivations that I can see are that all three of them wanted to gain an advantage over everyone else and when two of those three engine manufacturers also own teams directly, then this was never going to be about moving on with the times but rather, pulling one over their rivals.

Mercedes were successful; Ferrari less so; Renault lost interest.
Honda is Honda and just like every single time Honda goes motor racing of any sort, they want to meddle and fiddle; which is fine if they're on top but if they're not, they're impossible. Jensen has already been bitten by this once before.

[Jag_Warrior]

Rollo, you've been around for awhile too. So from 1000 feet above the scene, how do you assess the current Honda vs. the Honda of old? I mean, from the late 80's through the mid to late 90's in F1 and/or CART, Honda was the shizzle. Now, it's like a sad shadow of its former self, IMO. And I think that actually started a good 10+ years ago. But how do you, and others, see it? What the heck is going on with this "new" Honda? What happened to the "old" Honda???

[anfield5]

The simplest way to cut engine development costs is to cap what an engine supplier can charge a team for an engine supply for the season. i.e. $5 million per season per team. The engine supplier can then develop their engine during the season at no extra cost to the team. If the same engine regs are used for a number of years the development costs will reduce as the engines go through their life cycles and need less work. There will be no stupid penalties whenever an engine needs replacement etc.

I know this isn't a perfect solution and the manufacturers that supply a number of teams will have an advantage as will the likes of Renault who intend to only supply their own team, but I am sure the clever people can come up with a formula for costing based on these facts.

[Rollo]

What the heck is going on with this "new" Honda? What happened to the "old" Honda???

Honda is the same Honda.

Honda always want to meddle and fiddle with the teams they supply/operate.

In 1987 when they supplied Williams and Lotus with engines, they then withdrew their support of Williams and followed Senna to McLaren. Williams made do unsuccessfully with Judd power in 1988.
For five years Honda ruled the roost as an engine supplier and from 1989 to 1992 when they were roundly beaten, they refused to supply anyone who challenged their chance at being the Constructors' and Drivers' Champions. Then in 1993, they took their bat and ball and went home.

From 2000-2005 they supplied Jordan and BAR with engines but when Eddie Jordan started to demand things from them, they dumped Jordan in the muck and progressively bought up BAR, meddling and fiddling with it as they went, before driving it into the ground in 2008.
The extent of their meddling was proven when in 2009, Honda left and Brawn won the championship. I have no doubt that Honda leaving is what saved Brawn. I have also no doubt that Honda showing up and meddling and fiddling with McLaren is what's killing them now.

Aside:
In bike racing, HRC were successful in fiddling with their NSR 500 until it won World Championships but I suspect that the engineers who worked on bikes never spoke to people working on engines. Friday clubs are weird beasts - Keiretsu, Kinyokai, Zaibatsu etc.

[Rollo]

The simplest way to cut engine development costs is to cap what an engine supplier can charge a team for an engine supply for the season. i.e. $5 million per season per team. The engine supplier can then develop their engine during the season at no extra cost to the team.

For a team like Ferrari or Mercedes-Benz, they can always slip under the cap. Ferrari could set up more nominal SpA's and supply themselves with engines at a price of €1 if they wanted. They'd escape auditing as well because costs could very easily be hidden. How do you show costs if development is being done by an SpA within the group but owns no assets. Not even the FIA could demand meaningful sets of accounts that would make any sense.

[AndyL]

Aside:
In bike racing, HRC were successful in fiddling with their NSR 500 until it won World Championships but I suspect that the engineers who worked on bikes never spoke to people working on engines. Friday clubs are weird beasts - Keiretsu, Kinyokai, Zaibatsu etc.

I don't think Honda is really a Keiretsu company in the way that most other Japanese car-makers are. It's a company founded more in the western mould, by a man in a shed, and built up from nothing. I wonder if the tendencies you've observed are because of that, or despite it. And whether things changed after Soichiro handed over the reins.

There was one guy who Honda were sufficiently in awe of (and/or sufficiently baffled by) to just hand over the machinery he asked for and let him get on with things in his own way; he rewarded them with 24 Isle of Man TT wins. But very much a unique case.

[Nitrodaze]

The simplest way to cut engine development costs is to cap what an engine supplier can charge a team for an engine supply for the season. i.e. $5 million per season per team. The engine supplier can then develop their engine during the season at no extra cost to the team. If the same engine regs are used for a number of years the development costs will reduce as the engines go through their life cycles and need less work. There will be no stupid penalties whenever an engine needs replacement etc.

I know this isn't a perfect solution and the manufacturers that supply a number of teams will have an advantage as will the likes of Renault who intend to only supply their own team, but I am sure the clever people can come up with a formula for costing based on these facts.

The idea of capping price of engine is a great idea actually. Obviously manufacturers would spend what they have to spend on the development of their engine to ensure they are at the front. But they would do that with or without the FIA cost cutting rules which really create more spending than the cost it actually cuts. My fear is that customer teams may find that they can only buy 2 seasons old engines , as the very latest engine may not be available at the capped price. This would unfortunately seal the frontend of the grid to manufacturing teams (Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault) or teams with works engine deals like Mclaren-Honda.
The real problem with the FIA rule on engine is it stifles engine development that would translate to what we drive in the future. The rules set engineering challenges that it also inhibits from being realized by most of its engine rules. The challenge to the engineers to produce a fast race engine that uses no more than 100 litres for full race distance is a welcomed and valid challenge. By the look of things, no engine manufacturer has successfully overcome this challenge without its drivers lifting and coasting to save fuel. This challenge is one of the most relevant in modern day F1. I think the FIA should give the engine manufacturers more freedom to innovate so that this challenge can be realized.

[Jag_Warrior]

Honda is the same Honda.

Honda always want to meddle and fiddle with the teams they supply/operate.

Yes, that part may still be true. But my observation is based more on their ability (or lack thereof) to plan and execute. And at least here in the States, even their marketing has become much less focused and edgy. I've been out of automotive for going on three years now and I've lost touch with a great many of the people who used to feed me "what's what" industry news (people have this odd tendency of retiring and/or dying, it seems). But this trend that I *think* I see in Honda really did start some time ago. From passenger cars (although the quality is still quite good) to racing, this "new" Honda seems to have lost a step.

Anyway, I do hope they get it turned around. I'm not so much a Honda fan, but I would like to see all of the manufacturers being competitive.

[Rollo]

But this trend that I *think* I see in Honda really did start some time ago. From passenger cars (although the quality is still quite good) to racing, this "new" Honda seems to have lost a step.


They've done all right in the BTCC with Shedden taking out the championship and in the WTCC, nothing can stop the Citroën juggernaut. They're putting in a decent showing in Super GT with Izawa and Yamamoto in the NSX as well - currently 2nd.

Honda's F1 program like Renault's suffers from the problem that if you have a bad package, they rules basically prevent you from improving. This suits M-B and Ferrari nicely and Renault might up stumps because of it. Honda started a year late and are on a hiding to nothing.

[Nitrodaze]

Yes, that part may still be true. But my observation is based more on their ability (or lack thereof) to plan and execute. And at least here in the States, even their marketing has become much less focused and edgy. I've been out of automotive for going on three years now and I've lost touch with a great many of the people who used to feed me "what's what" industry news (people have this odd tendency of retiring and/or dying, it seems). But this trend that I *think* I see in Honda really did start some time ago. From passenger cars (although the quality is still quite good) to racing, this "new" Honda seems to have lost a step.

Anyway, I do hope they get it turned around. I'm not so much a Honda fan, but I would like to see all of the manufacturers being competitive.

The Honda debacle in F1 is simply the realities of joining F1 under the current restrictive rules. Honda and Renault are confronting the fact that they have got their engine design wrong for 2015. The Honda case is more embarrassing because engine is woefully poor from 70% of the straights of most tracks. Unfortunately, the nature of the rules is such that, before the start of the 2015 season,they were unlikely to have a good understanding of the their relative competitiveness untill they arrive at the few pre-season test sessions. Even then, they would have been unable to do much about it with such a short testing window before the first race at Australia. Mainly because the problem is more architectural than configurational. But more importantly is the process of understanding the problems with where the engine was lacking, dealing with unforeseen reliability issues and keeping up with the mounting list of tasks to keep operational.

Under the new FIA F1 format of 1.6L V6 hybrid car, Honda must be seen as novices, as such must be granted the patience that is due a novice to this new format F1. The fact that they overestimated their chances of being competitive underlines this fact. This fact does not by any means suggest that Honda is past it and not able to produce competitive engines. I think they would as there is a matter of pride involved here. I doubt Honda are quitters also as that would be more damaging to their reputation than showing grit and determination and overcoming their difficulties. Showing grit and prevailing would give Honda an enormous boost in their reputation and brand popularity.

As one who rides a Honda Fireblade litre bike, l have a strong feeling that they can prevail over their immediate difficulties. If they can beat Mercedes is another matter. That would take a number of seasons. They may bring Mclaren closer to the front of the grid in 2016, enough to bother Williams maybe. My real interest is in what they might be able to do in 2017; assuming they stick in there and have some belief that the can do it.

The Honda story is an interesting one, as Honda in this instance is the underdog in the face of the dominance of Mercedes. It is also a return of faith and trust of an old friend [Mclaren] seeking a change of fortune. The quiet question is, can this return of partnership return the glory days of their previous partnership? The current circumstances is different, the competitors are stronger than ever and the road to success is fraught with unseen pitfalls and tribulations. And they must travel this road naked in the ever glaring eyes of the modern information age.

The nakedness of this journey alone makes the outcome of this story more glorious if successful or poignant at failure. It is the underdog come good story, if they succeed and everyone loves a rise to success story, especially from a position of despair where everyone has written them off. The Herbie story of sorts. It is an inspirational character building story. However, If Honda chickens out and cowardly pulls out before they achieve anything or overcome their challenges, it simply is not something anyone would want to be identified with.

Honda is in the public eye on this journey, they have no option but to successfully produce a competitive engine. They must have the Mclaren consistently fighting for podium positions to remotely say they have achieved the F1 communities admiration. But more importantly, they have to win an F1 constructor or driver championship to really say they have been successful. It may seem like a mountainous challenge, but if anyone can, the Mclaren-honda partnership is one that l am willing to bet hard cash on to do it.

[Rollo]

The idea of capping price of engine is a great idea actually. Obviously manufacturers would spend what they have to spend on the development of their engine to ensure they are at the front. But they would do that with or without the FIA cost cutting rules which really create more spending than the cost it actually cuts.

Solution:
Ferrari sets up an arms length company called Vittorio Alfieri SpA. None of the staff who own or work at Ferrari own this company.
Vittorio Alfieri SpA then designs, develops and builds engines.
Vittorio Alfieri SpA then gives Ferrari at the cost of €0.01
You can't audit the books of Vittorio Alfieri SpA because it's not entered in F1 and because it is a loss making entity, also probably wouldn't need to be audited either. It would also have a turnover per year of €0.01.

The idea of capping price of engine is a dumb idea actually; for the above reason. What do you do if they start selling prime engines to the A-team* for €0.01?

*Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them...

[Nitrodaze]

Solution:
Ferrari sets up an arms length company called Vittorio Alfieri SpA. None of the staff who own or work at Ferrari own this company.
Vittorio Alfieri SpA then designs, develops and builds engines.
Vittorio Alfieri SpA then gives Ferrari at the cost of €0.01
You can't audit the books of Vittorio Alfieri SpA because it's not entered in F1 and because it is a loss making entity, also probably wouldn't need to be audited either. It would also have a turnover per year of €0.01.

The idea of capping price of engine is a dumb idea actually; for the above reason. What do you do if they start selling prime engines to the A-team* for €0.01?

*Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them...

The scenario you describe would instantly flag a nefarious activity which would inevitably result in Ferrari being thrown out of the sport. This would threaten the continuity of the sport as we know it. It may sound clever on paper but you forget the other teams are not stupid enough not to see this as dodgy from a mile off and start to make uncomfortable noises that would effectively bring the formula to a halt. But l do agree with you that capping engine cost may not work for other obvious reasons.

[Rollo]

It may sound clever on paper but you forget the other teams are not stupid enough not to see this as dodgy from a mile off and start to make uncomfortable noises that would effectively bring the formula to a halt. But l do agree with you that capping engine cost may not work for other obvious reasons.

Really? Pray tell how would anyone investigate it?
A multi-million dollarpound company like Ferrari or Mercedes-Benz could find all sorts of neat ways to hide expenses. Such things like a double Irish with a Dutch sandwich schemes exist by other companies to avoid tax; you don't think that companies like Ferrari or Mercedes-Benz could hide audit trails?
Besides which, if you appoint an external auditor, who hires them? The FIA, FOM?

I suspect that the 2007 Espionage Scandal only came to light because a certain Spaniard didn't like a pipsqueak Englishman beating him. $100 million later and they're still in the sport.

[Nitrodaze]

Really? Pray tell how would anyone investigate it?
A multi-million dollarpound company like Ferrari or Mercedes-Benz could find all sorts of neat ways to hide expenses. Such things like a double Irish with a Dutch sandwich schemes exist by other companies to avoid tax; you don't think that companies like Ferrari or Mercedes-Benz could hide audit trails?
Besides which, if you appoint an external auditor, who hires them? The FIA, FOM?

I suspect that the 2007 Espionage Scandal only came to light because a certain Spaniard didn't like a pipsqueak Englishman beating him. $100 million later and they're still in the sport.

Of course F1 teams can find interesting ways of hiding costs, but somehow l cannot see how Ferrari or any manufacturer team would get away with purchasing engine for $1 and not cause some sort of reaction in the paddock. The consequences is not only going to be damaging to the team, if it was a top team like Ferrari or Mercedes, it could bring the entire sport to crisis. What you are talking about makes the Mclaren Ferrari-gate seem like small potatoes. The consequences would fall outside the scope of the FIA into legal. Hiding cost is not far off hiding taxes and profits, government would definitely be involved. What you are talking about could result in someone going to jail for a long time.

[Rollo]

l cannot see how Ferrari or any manufacturer team would get away with purchasing engine for $1 and not cause some sort of reaction in the paddock.

Play it the other way then.

Ferrari already doesn't purchase engines.
Ferrari could (and probably already does) claim that its entire F1 program is all R&D and those costs are not mutually exclusive to the Formula One team. If parts like valve gear were developed on one side of a workshop, how could you prove what they were necessarily for?
Again, does the FIA have to do an audit of the entire of Ferrari S.p.A? The question of plausible deniability raises its head again.

Would you expect the auditors to separate out costs for an organisation which turns over € 2.3 billion?

Besides which, imposing a cost cap in F1 would probably see a legal challenge before it was implemented.
FOM already has a major shareholder in private equity firm CVC and the second largest shareholder is asset management firm Waddell & Reed; they probably already operate a double Irish with a Dutch sandwich scheme.

[Nitrodaze]

The simplest way to cut engine development costs is to cap what an engine supplier can charge a team for an engine supply for the season. i.e. $5 million per season per team. The engine supplier can then develop their engine during the season at no extra cost to the team. If the same engine regs are used for a number of years the development costs will reduce as the engines go through their life cycles and need less work. There will be no stupid penalties whenever an engine needs replacement etc.

I know this isn't a perfect solution and the manufacturers that supply a number of teams will have an advantage as will the likes of Renault who intend to only supply their own team, but I am sure the clever people can come up with a formula for costing based on these facts.

It would seem the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone are whipping up a new scheme to introduce cheaper engine for new and smaller teams; see the following:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34629481

The initial suggestion is for a 2.2 litre V6 engine with a small hybrid component offered at capped price. Also Teams would be given freedom to develop their car as they see fit provided they stick within a capped budget. Teams may also choose not to operate a capped budget but must run to the current hybrid regulations. To free the teams opting for the capped budget from the mights of the manufacturing teams, the capped price engine shall be produced by a manufacturer who wins an open bid to supply these engines.

If we compare both engines broadly, capped engine would be 2.2 liters V6 which would require more fuel than the current 100 litre max fuel comsuption hybrid engines. Hence the 2.2L capped engine cars are going to be logging around large quantities of fuel and the associated weight disadvantages, particularly at the start of races. The idea of refuelling has resurfaced as a result. The current spec cars would be 600cc shy of the capped engines which would make it possible for the midfield teams like Force India with decent chassis to have comparative performance to the 1.6litre hybrid cars. Though with the added fuel weight disadvantages and possibly longer stops for tyre and fuel.

The idea sounds interesting on paper but how does that align with the FIA's commitments to greener F1. The 2.2 litre engines would be less greener as they would produce higher emissions. There would be a two tier regulations in F1. This is not new as MotoGP has been operating this sort of format for close to 4 years now. And had little impact at the sharp end of the grid where manufacturer teams like Yamaha, Honda and Ducati still remained.

The real question is how are they going to operate this new format, such that it does not turn out to be a punishment to the manufacturer teams. Could we be seeing Manufacturer teams disappearing from F1 in the near future? The other consideration is, should the 2.2 litre engine prove to be more competitive than the 1.6 hybrid engine, thus causing the manafacturers to abandon their 1.6 v6 engines; having a standard engine like in go karting, is likely to drastically reduce innovation in engines which would have transitioned to road cars. The technology competition that brings about novel ideas and designs would be eradicated from the series. The supplier of the capped engine would not be inspired to do much more than required by the specification provided. Some would say F1 would be losing its diversity. The very things that make this formula the pinnacle of motorsport.

Manufacturer teams would be seeking some level of parity in the regulation to ensure they can compete on a level playing field. The current token system would certainly put the manufacturer teams at a disadvantage. Unless the same rule would apply to the capped engine manufacturer. Finding the right level of parity between the two formats is where the key to success of this idea lies. If they get it wrong, manufacturer teams would simply lose interest in F1. We could be back to a strictly privateer team formula which is not necessarily a bad thing. The question is would Ferrari hang around this new formula? I can see Mercedes packing up shop if there is no commercial advantage in the new format for them. This is likely to be the case for Ferrari as well. I am sure you can imagine the impact of these two manufacturers leaving the series.

I suppose we should wait to hear more and see the reactions of the manufacturer teams.

[Rollo]

I suppose we should wait to hear more and see the reactions of the manufacturer teams.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121497
Mercedes motorsport boss Toto Wolff has expressed objections to the prospect of the introduction of a cheap engine alternative into Formula 1.
- Autosport, 25th Oct 2015

This afternoon, I heard Ron Dennis on the BBC World Service, express what sounded like utter disgust at the through that Honda might supply Red Bull with engines.

The reactions of the manufacturer teams are basically as pig-headed as Bernie Eccleston. F1 is currently in a race to eat itself - the embodiment of Ouroboros.

[Nitrodaze]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121497
Mercedes motorsport boss Toto Wolff has expressed objections to the prospect of the introduction of a cheap engine alternative into Formula 1.
- Autosport, 25th Oct 2015

This afternoon, I heard Ron Dennis on the BBC World Service, express what sounded like utter disgust at the through that Honda might supply Red Bull with engines.

The reactions of the manufacturer teams are basically as pig-headed as Bernie Eccleston. F1 is currently in a race to eat itself - the embodiment of Ouroboros.

Last seat in the house looks like an interesting satire, l have ordered a copy. I think l would love it from the few pages that l read on Amazon.

Just in case you are wondering what l am talking about, l am talking about a book by Rollo called "Last seat in the house". Go get it. :-)

[Nitrodaze]

It is looking like the Cheap engine proposal has met with a cold shoulder from the manufacturing teams. But all signs seem to indicate that the FIA are going to try to force the issue and see what happens. From the look of things, this would put some pressure on the Lotus -Renault deal, Mercedes would seriously be reconsidering their position and this may give Honda a face saving exit strategy. It all comes down to Ferrari's reaction which has been somewhat quite on the matter as they contemplate things.

It is safe to say that we are about to witness a tug of war between the FIA and the manufacturing teams on this matter. One side will come out of it with egg in face whatever the outcome. The reality is that teams like Mercedes, Renault, Honda are likely not to find commercial advantages with the cheap engine scheme. Of course this would depend on whether these teams are willing to produce cheap engines for their customers. Now, whatever format these cheap engines may take, they are unlikely to be as competitive as the hybid engines which would be much more expensive due to the specification of the hybrid era. It would seem the FIA are finding their regulations have produced a situation of expensive engines and are clumsily taking a U-Turn.
I say clumsily because they are throwing out most of their good policies to try to make the Cheap engine idea work. For instance, the FIA are ditching their green policy of cleaner F1 and low fuel consumption. And they are likely to scrap their safety policy and return to refuel at pit stops. Just to name a few. This battle is one that would rumble into the 2016 and may produce some interesting controversy.

[The Black Knight]

It is looking like the Cheap engine proposal has met with a cold shoulder from the manufacturing teams. But all signs seem to indicate that the FIA are going to try to force the issue and see what happens. From the look of things, this would put some pressure on the Lotus -Renault deal, Mercedes would seriously be reconsidering their position and this may give Honda a face saving exit strategy. It all comes down to Ferrari's reaction which has been somewhat quite on the matter as they contemplate things.

It is safe to say that we are about to witness a tug of war between the FIA and the manufacturing teams on this matter. One side will come out of it with egg in face whatever the outcome. The reality is that teams like Mercedes, Renault, Honda are likely not to find commercial advantages with the cheap engine scheme. Of course this would depend on whether these teams are willing to produce cheap engines for their customers. Now, whatever format these cheap engines may take, they are unlikely to be as competitive as the hybid engines which would be much more expensive due to the specification of the hybrid era. It would seem the FIA are finding their regulations have produced a situation of expensive engines and are clumsily taking a U-Turn.
I say clumsily because they are throwing out most of their good policies to try to make the Cheap engine idea work. For instance, the FIA are ditching their green policy of cleaner F1 and low fuel consumption. And they are likely to scrap their safety policy and return to refuel at pit stops. Just to name a few. This battle is one that would rumble into the 2016 and may produce some interesting controversy.

The issue at the core of this is one that has been present for a long time. Lack of a long term vision for F1 and direction. The teams and the FIA attempted to address this with the introduction of the V6 hybrid engines and I personally think it was a great approach. The problem really has been reach from lack of a holistic perspective as to the impact this has on the entire grid e.g. the Engine manufacturers had their say and all came to an agreement but no one took cost into acocunt for customer teams e.g. Sauber, Force India whom would be paying for these engines. I'm sure that they would have asked the estimated cost of these units.

Mercedes, Ferrari et al, then went off and implemented a business model to govern these projects and in this BM they factored the R&D costs and, at the end, came up with a selling price of each unit. It is unrealistic for the FIA to expect them to lose 8 million on them then after factoring the selling cost into their Business model. The cost may currently be €20million and they expect them to pay just €12. €8 million loss? No way and Ferrari were 100% right to veto.

It's bad management coupled with a good vision that caused this. The idea was right, the implementation was wrong.

[N. Jones]

They are horrible. Just look around here. We used to have BIG TIME rows in these threads. Now everyone's gone...

[Nitrodaze]

They are horrible. Just look around here. We used to have BIG TIME rows in these threads. Now everyone's gone...

The big time rows are still very much going on in other threads. I just came from one.

[Nitrodaze]

The issue at the core of this is one that has been present for a long time. Lack of a long term vision for F1 and direction. The teams and the FIA attempted to address this with the introduction of the V6 hybrid engines and I personally think it was a great approach. The problem really has been reach from lack of a holistic perspective as to the impact this has on the entire grid e.g. the Engine manufacturers had their say and all came to an agreement but no one took cost into acocunt for customer teams e.g. Sauber, Force India whom would be paying for these engines. I'm sure that they would have asked the estimated cost of these units.

Mercedes, Ferrari et al, then went off and implemented a business model to govern these projects and in this BM they factored the R&D costs and, at the end, came up with a selling price of each unit. It is unrealistic for the FIA to expect them to lose 8 million on them then after factoring the selling cost into their Business model. The cost may currently be €20million and they expect them to pay just €12. €8 million loss? No way and Ferrari were 100% right to veto.

It's bad management coupled with a good vision that caused this. The idea was right, the implementation was wrong.

Great observation. There doesn't seem to be a clear direction other than the cheap engine initiative at the moment. And that is looking like a dead duck at this point. This happens to be one of the few things that the promoters and the FIA have a common view on. One would think that their combined force would bring about some level agreement among the teams and the manufacturing teams in particular.

Like you say, a holistic approach is required and the FIA has to do a better job this time round to find a middle ground. It is a test of Jean Todt's presidency to get this right as the hybrid idea was his baby to start with. If you ask me, the promoters and the FIA seem abit lost and aloft on this matter of finding a new better direction for F1. The process of reigniting the F1 fire or spirit is in motion but moving against it own inertia. This remains a very interesting topic for the foreseeable future.

[N. Jones]

Yes but there were many more people on this forum when I started in 2004 then there are today.

[Nitrodaze]

It seems the FIA are backing down, but only on the premise that the manufacturer teams provide €12 million engines to the smaller teams. What these €12 million engines are going to look like, is yet to be clarified. One thing is certain, the manufacturers are not going to provide cheap engines that is faster than their more expensive hybrid engines. A fair situation may appear to be the original proposition of having a 3rd party develop these cheap engines. OR have a combination of 3rd parties and the Manufacturer teams to produce these cheap engines so that the smaller teams can buy the best cheap engine on the market.

The €12 million engine idea only works if there is some competition among suppliers and supply is not exclusive to the manufacturer teams to produce these engines.

Clarity on the characteristics of the rules governing the two types of engine powered cars is also paramount to not inadvertently produce a 2 tier F1 fomula. F1 is emulating MotoGP, they have to get it right and do as well as MotoGP has managed at least.

[The Black Knight]

Yes but there were many more people on this forum when I started in 2004 then there are today.

I don't think that's to do with F1 to be honest. Seems that this forum has been quiet for a while now. I'm not sure of the reason for it but there seems to have been a mass exodus of users at the one time about three years ago. It's been getting quieter and quieter since then and now on the F1 forum there are only 10-15 regular posters now.

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't think that's to do with F1 to be honest. Seems that this forum has been quiet for a while now. I'm not sure of the reason for it but there seems to have been a mass exodus of users at the one time about three years ago. It's been getting quieter and quieter since then and now on the F1 forum there are only 10-15 regular posters now.

The same thing has happened on every forum that I've been on for any length of time. One site allows users on Facebook to post - and those are some of the absolute dumbest posts that I have ever read (really!). But it seems that more than a few of the members here have wandered into that great intellectual wasteland, known as Facebook, and don't post here as much.

As an aside, I've always had to subscribe to pay channels to watch F1. But for those who are new to that, I think that has a lot to do with viewership losses too. And I'd say that the people who have been "priced out" probably aren't commenting as much on something that they're not watching as much. Me, I'll watch until the day that I die... or the series dies. If I ever suffer financial ruin and one of you sees a story about a guy in a homeless shelter who is guarding the TV set with a tire iron, so that he can watch F1 in peace... you'll know what became of me.

[Nitrodaze]

It would seem the FIA has backed down on its push for cheaper engines. Bernies subtle politics has met a momentary obstacle some may say. With such enthusiastic and promising response from the tender for supply of the 2.2 litre engines, one would doubt that this matter is properly over. All would rest with how robust the proposal to be put forward by the manufacturer teams is. It would be particularly interesting to see what propose and if it would be acceptable to mid size to small teams. I think it would come down to whether the manufacturer teams can supply cheap engines that is no slower than 1 sec than the more expensive hybrid engines.

With 2 seasons of the hybrid season gone, it is possible that the manufacturer teams would be able to find a combination of the past evolution of engine parts that could be strung together to produce a suitably cheap engine.

[Bagwan]

Simple ploy to get some compromise , it seems .
Rumour has it that teams may ask for 16 , instead of Todt's !2 million , to be considered as cheap .

BE and JT need to careful they don't say too much about the ploy , given there's some obvious work that goes into making a tender , and some karma coming the next time they ask anyone for any bids for entry .

[Nitrodaze]

Simple ploy to get some compromise , it seems .
Rumour has it that teams may ask for 16 , instead of Todt's !2 million , to be considered as cheap .

BE and JT need to careful they don't say too much about the ploy , given there's some obvious work that goes into making a tender , and some karma coming the next time they ask anyone for any bids for entry .
Those 2 are like buddies now. I wonder how many times they text each other in a day :-)

[Nitrodaze]

Every so often Andrew Benson puts out one those gem of an article that is unmissable. The following is a thorough incite into the state of affairs of current F1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35037357 . The tripartite tug of of war continues. While the world commission has blocked the dirty cheap engines, the world council has contrarily enpowered Todt and Ecclestone to take whatever action they deem necessary to revive F1.

It would seem the manufacturer teams have big sway in the commission but not in the council. But what does this new emergency power given to the FIA and Rights owners mean? I doubt it is powerful enough to block the manufacturers from leaving F1 if it does not align with their commercial interests. Similarly, a decision making process that does not include the teams is a recipe for the death of F1 as we know it; surely.

The world council's mandate to the FIA and the rights owners seems somewhat comical at best, and certainly is without aspirational conviction. I say this because the mandate would be properly tested at a price that may quickly dislocate the interests of the FIA from that of the rights owner, if the prospect of the continuation of racing under the banner of F1 by the teams collectively [bar Redbull] is under threat of coming to an end. Whatever the new banner might be, the FIA must be in a position to provide governance or it also puts itself at risk of losing legitimacy to govern all world motorsport.
As far as the rights go, it is only as good as the number of teams that are willing to race in it. This is the main reason the World council mandate is comical as they seem to have lost sight of the symbiotic relationship that binds this tripartite endeavour which is F1.

[Matt Phelps]

There's no point really focusing on the current rules and formats of F1. Everything seems to change before it's begun, everything's fine apart from DRS and the no fuelling aspect. I preferred to watch cars fly around a track on no fuel, pit in and fire out again. This was proper strategy!

Controversially, I wouldn't mind seeing rules causing all cars having to have similar power and performance. This'll create better racing and would make it more down to drivers rather than 'whoever has more money/resources.'

[Nitrodaze]

Alas, Horner has joined in the call for rule changes. He claims Redbull won four titles but did not have as easy as Mercedes is having it. The boot is on the other foot now buddy.

[Nitrodaze]

Isn't it great, the FIA is crapping engine restrictions from 2017, hip hip hoooooraay :-)