One of the problems with F1 politicking is there are a lot of smoke and mirrors. People argue what appears to be a perfectly reasonable argument but when one looks at the bigger picture, they are clearly arguing purely from the point of view of self-interest. Let me give you an example: In May this year Fiat Chrysler Automobiles boss Sergio Marchionne had a conference call with media about the company’s earnings. He argued that the world’s car companies invest billions to develop basic components that all cars use.
“About half of this is really relevant in terms of positioning the car in the marketplace,” he said. “The other half is stuff which is neither visible to the consumer nor is it relevant to the consumer. The consumer could not give a flying leap whose engines we are using because they are irrelevant to the buying decision.”
“The horrible part about this,” he added, “and the thing that I find most offensive, is that the capital consumption rate is duplicative. It doesn’t deliver real value to the consumer and it is in its purest form, economic waste.”
This is a very sound argument.
However, the same argument does not seem to apply when Marchionne and his sidekicks discuss the activities of Ferrari in Formula 1. They are asked to consider cost-cutting in the sport and reject not only the proposal of a global cost cap, but also the standardisation of car parts and a limit on the amount of money that customers should be charged for engines and transmissions.
They (and Mercedes) argue that they are already making a loss on their engine supply deals and that they are under pressure to be as efficient as possible by recovering as much money as they possibly can from the investment made in the sport, leaving no room for what they term to be “charity”.
Mercedes argues that its involvement was based on a business case and that this should not now be changed.
Ferrari is making huge sums from its F1 activities and is getting not only the technology that is developed, which is transferred to its road cars, but also huge amounts of publicity for its road cars. This is so effective, in fact, that Ferrari never even needs to advertise.
The conclusion that one reaches is that the manufacturers want to be able to outspend their opposition, and use money as a weapon in the competition. When you compare the budgets being spent and look at the points being scored – the sporting efficiency, if you like – it is clear that Mercedes is doing well, but Ferrari is underperforming because its budget is as big or perhaps even bigger than Mercedes, but it has scored 40 percent fewer points than its rival. Williams, which has a budget which is about 30 percent of Ferrari, has managed to score 64 percent of the Ferrari points total.
Thus, in terms of sporting efficiency, Williams is a much better bet than Ferrari. And more cost-effective.
One must also taken into account the fact that according to Strategy&, the strategy consulting team at PricewaterhouseCoopers, there are six automobile companies in their list of the top 20 research and development spenders in 2014. VW led the way with R&D spending of $13.5 billion. To put that into perspective, it is $37 million a day, and the primary goal of this spending is to improve the environmental impact of the products. Embracing the technology being developed in F1 is what the industry wants. It was designed that way. It is obvious that the sport needs to be as sustainable as possible in order to attract manufacturers and after discussions with them it was clear that the trends in the car industry were towards hybrid cars and smaller quieter turbocharged engines, with electric power being used to give more torque. Thus the annual cost of F1 to VW would be less than 10 days of R&D spending. Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Honda and Mercedes are all spending more than $20 million a day on R&D and so F1 makes sense for all of them.
- Comment
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
joeblogsf1 
F1 only makes sense for car manufacturers if you can achieve success. Poor results reflect negatively on the brand.
I don’t believe that it does, I still REALLY want a McLaren P1.
Joe, are team owners not making this case to the Manufacturers? Seems an easy sale to me given the figures you’ve quoted. Surely Bernie and the political/financial state of F1 cant scare them any more than say an emissions scandal…
If I recall correctly, didn’t Toyota gain a reputation for having thrown enormous amounts of cash at their F1 project, only to find that they’d effectively been just watering the daisies, in terms of results achieved.
Williams and Toro Rosso have been embarrassing Ferrari, RBR and McLaren on a regular basis for the last couple of years, and even Force India performs above expectations on occasions.
On this basis, I’d say that, although it might appear that $ = seconds on the race track, it is not always that way. Though obviously Manor, Jaguar, Jordan, Caterham, Minardi, Williams (in the dark years before the Mercedes engine), and many others clearly demonstrate that there’s a level of expenditure below which you can just dream of performing competitively in F1.
It was a different F1 then. F1 then had no relevance to technology on road cars anymore. Now it really does – I doubt Toyota would come back again, they’re still hanging their heads in shame.
The problem with Toyota was clear from the start: the Toyota philosophy of kaizen, constant improvement, works in the slow-moving car industry. But in F1 the teams are living by kaizen by moving much faster. Toyota employed managers who did not understand that kaizen was not enough.
A case of Kamikaze zen?
I think that for at least the last decade, the manufacturers have ensured that they are in F1 because their existing R&D will ensure they build better F1 cars.
No-one in their right mind would have come up with the idea of these power units as a way of saving money.
I am not sure I would throw Toro Rosso in with Williams in the “punching above their weight” category. They are obviously a de facto independent with a small-ish budget, but they benefit from a relationship with Red Bull Technologies which is incredibly well resourced.
Forget Toyota for a moment. You could argue that Honda are doing the same *right now*
Hmm. Thoughts to consider there, all sensible. However I’m thinking about all that R & D VW poured into rorting the emissions reporting system.
Would like to think if this had been published prior to float, this may’ve caused Sergio a mild attack of angst.
I have always found the discussion of “budgets” in F1 laughable. Like NASA and its manned programs, it’s always been a case of spending every last nickel you can get your hands on, then spend money you’ll know will be appropriated in following years (e.g. Williams and SFI getting advances from FOM) and then shuffle the accounts forward & backward to pass muster.
And like NASA (no one could tell you what it cost to land a man on the moon; or what it cost to launch a space shuttle), no one in F1 can tell what individual advances or developments cost…just what they’ve spent.
“(no one could tell you what it cost to land a man on the moon; or what it cost to launch a space shuttle)”
This is incorrect. The entire Apollo program cost $25.4 billion in 1973 dollars, (program roll up) Probably something like $200B in today’s money. If you are talking about just up to Apollo 11 and no further; I guess deducting a few billion off those totals would apply. The GAO have these figures as well as the Shuttle costs. Accounting isn’t rocket science you know. Oh wait…
Rocket science isn’t exactly difficult either … it’s just ballistics and differential mathematics – any British Maths A level student should be able to handle the maths.
Rocket engineering, on the other hand, that’s entirely more complex.
cvrt is probably right, actually, because the so-called “moon landings” were shot on a Hollywood sound stage, and The Man has had to keep bribing everyone involved to keep their mouths shut ever [cont. p94]
Go and have a lie down
Actually, the fact that the automobile has been around for >100 years, and they still can’t make a diesel engine that gets good mileage and burns cleanly without rigging the tests, makes me wonder how they made rockets, command modules, landers and buggies that carried men safely to the moon and back, when the first rockets had only appeared, what, around 25 years earlier?
Does not compute. 😉
Wonder no more. The answer is: Rocco Petrone.
Joe, I think you forgot to remind this gentleman of the import of always taking his meds first, before he goes to lay down. It’s amazing how far and widespread is the membership of this flat-earth society group of zanies, headquartered in California – where else!
One of my in-law is on the executive board. A few years ago, I came to the realization that he also is a troll expositing this false profundity (re the moon landing) and cloying claptrap in order to attract attention. Since then whenever he start talking about and landing, or just about anything else, I find an excuse to walk away. What a certified collection of loons.
For the avoidance of doubt I don’t really believe this claptrap, though I do know someone who believes that so-called “chemtrails” are down to The Man spraying mid-control drugs into the upper atmosphere. The only mood-altering substances up there come from satellite TV…
Could the promoter and FIA not simply ‘tax’ manufacturers a bit and that way give some sort of rebate to non-manufacturing teams.
Best would be simply for Mercedes and Ferrari to only supply their own teams and an’independend’ funded by the rest to supply the rest. A sensible rule making body to ensure we don’t needlessly increase engine costs and then nobody can complain can they?
one word – Veto!
Could promoter simply increase payments to the teams by – let’s say – 8m euro, enough to cover the difference between the price demanded by the manufacturers and the cap suggested by FIA? It wouldn’t cost more than Ferrari bonus.
Joe,
All you say is correct and while it might be logical for a company in the VW Group to enter F1, with announcements of cut backs in R&D spend and spend on “vanity/halo” projects, such as Bugatti, Ducati and Lamborghini, it would be politically very difficult at present to announce an entry into what is perceived by many, to be a profligate business, F1. How long would the VW group have to wait before it would be politically possible. That probably depends on how quickly they can resolve the cheat software issue, the effects the software and hardware updates have on the affected cars and how punitive and retaliatory the legislators are going to be.
Wilson
Valid point about VW going “wasting money” in F1 right now probably not being possible with the whole scandal thing Wilson.
But the issue there is not VW – as it would easily afford to do so if it makes sense to promote a clean future away from Diesel tech – but rather the image of F1 being such a kind of business!
The question then about how quick they could be able to do it is not about VW and how it solves its issues, but about F1 finding a way to become a more solid business option for major companies that have to answer to questions about ethics, accountability etc.
So…what you’re telling me is that VW spend $37 Million a day to create clever engine-management software in order to trick emissions testing criteria and dupe the authorities into thinking their engines were clean and efficient (when in fact they’re actually pumping out just as many cancer-causing chemicals as an old diesel London bus?)
The view here in the US is that FCA is short of the capital and tech it will need in coming years. That’s why Sergio M. is talking about wasted investment and the need for mergers. He wants GM’s fuel efficiency, emissions and ADAS tech for cheap.
Agree, and I think Joe’s trying to highlight the hippocracy of wanting a better deal and sharing technology on one hand yet on the other trying to fleece people wanting their ‘products’.
You spend a fair portion of this blog (correctly) pointing out inconsistencies, stupidities, rampant egotism, irrational decision making, lack of transparency and complete absence of any form of meaningful governance in F1, then you argue that it would be rational for major car companies to invest in F1 as an adjunct to their normal R&D efforts.
Do you see the fault in your logic here?
No
Hmmm, that’s a bit worrying.
There is obviously some middle ground. Not to mention some existence proof of companies investing in F1. If you think they’re wrong you should probably take it up with them …
You are, of course, correct. Currently Renault, Mercedes and Honda are volume car manufacturers deeply involved in F1.
Mercedes are (presumably, though I’ve not seen the statistics) benefiting from their involvement in F1 through increased car sales or raised profile amongst consumers or, perhaps, both. I doubt you’d find that ‘the man on the street’ views the participation of Renault and Honda in F1 in the same light.
Put simply, suggesting that technical advantages will accrue should a mainstream car manufacturer spend a portion of their R&D budget on F1 is somewhat disingenuous as it ignores the very real possibility of a negative public perception of their overall involvement should their participation follow the path of Renault and Honda over the past few seasons.
If participation in F1 was clearly an advantageous path to pursue, mainstream car manufacturers would be fighting for entry. The fact that they aren’t tells you everything you need to know about the current state of F1 and its relevance to mainstream car manufacturing.
Obviously not. Most car companies do, though.
“People argue what appears to be a perfectly reasonable argument but when one looks at the bigger picture, they are clearly arguing purely from the point of view of self-interest.”
This applies to most of politics I think. The opposite is the exception in most cases. This also much of what is sad in this world, and why politics are slow to implement effective, positive changes.
F1, despite the engine/ ERS hype, is still mainly about aero, which has no bearing on anyone’s road cars. Thus, F1 makes no sense (IMO) for any road car manufacturer.
Ford and GM are in Lemans to race their sports cars that look just like the road cars you can buy from their dealers. I think that they know what they’re doing, and F1 offers no ROI for the line of cars they offer.
No it is not. Right now it is about engines
I’m sorry but I have to agree with Blah.
Yes the engines are important and having the wrong one in your car can hurt, but for customer teams you have a fixed cost element. OK it’s more than it used to be but it’s still a fixed cost. Whereas aerodynamic development is constantly bleeding money.
There are 4 teams with Mercedes engines, given the advantage the engines have and if they are the major influence in the championship why do we not have Mercedes cars running 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 at the very least in qualifying? and if 4 teams were competitive surely that would class as a great thing for F1?
But they aren’t, and that seems to be down to how much teams spend on aero R&D. If you were to compare Mercedes and Red Bulls aero budgets with that of Lotus then you start to see where the problem lies. The aero budget is completely unregulated, you’re not limited to a certain number of wing designs per year, each team has to spend money researching and developing their own aero and can easily blow huge wads of cash following the wrong concept and even if you do get it right and your car performs brilliantly in clean air, they lose so much performance behind another car that they just sit one or 2 seconds back hoping to jump the car in front in the pit window and then the money spent on 8 element front wings is wasted because it has little to no road relevance.
The engines are fine, they will balance themselves out over time, and are a fixed cost for the customers but if F1 doesn’t reign in the aero in terms of cost and the effect it has on racing, teams will constantly go belly up.
Red Bull has the best Aero package yet is 4th in the constructors championship – doesn’t that answer the point re Engine/Aero importance?
What do Williams (3rd) spend compared to Red Bull (4th) on Aero?
And, do you really think that Williams, FI, Lotus have the same spec engine (ICE,ERS) as Mercedes do?
At the moment, the ‘power unit’ is the deciding factor in the championship.
Not in the GT categories. P1 and P2, maybe, but for the classes blah is talking about the link to the off-the-peg cars is the key.
I think it’s a bit of both – engines are clearly the differentiator between say Mercedes and Red Bull, however as you move down the grid, aero clearly contributes to why Red Bull is faster than Force India who have the same Mercedes engine.
The GT prototype classes comprise silhouette cars with a shape that looks like a road car but with very different internals. They are limited to 2WD so you have the bizarre scenario where a 4WD road car silhouette is fitted with a pure racing engine and transmission. It makes for good advertising and allows wealthy amateurs to have fun. However it is as relevant to mass road car design as F1 aero.
As you say, the main advantage of racing in the GT category is the fact that you can create a visual link with the road going version of the car.
In reality, the technological transfer is not from the race track to the road car, but from the road car to the race track. The regulations make it quite clear that changes to the racing version have to follow the development of the road going version of the car.
A good example of that would be the high pressure fuel injection system that Ferrari developed for the 458. Although Ferrari introduced that system in 2010, they were not allowed to use it on their GT cars until 2011 – Ferrari introduced that system on the 458 so they could use it on their GT cars, not the other way around.
“The regulations make it quite clear that changes to the racing version have to follow the development of the road going version of the car.”
So how does this work when the road car has 4WD and the race car has 2WD?
If looking just like the road cars you can buy from their dealers was the key to relevance for a racing series; then GT racing would be the #1 one type of racing in the world.
But it isn’t.
It all about LMP1 and Formula cars, as the worlds premier racing categories.
When you look at the audience and tv numbers for GT racing it really makes one wonder about why car manufacturers keep investing in it.
Where’s the ROI when no one is watching?!
Why do the manufacturers keep pouring money into it?
.
I didn’t say it was more popular, I say it’s more effective..
You still get to beat the Ferrari/Porsche/Astons, but at a reasonable cost, and you get to do it with a car that looks like one your customers would drive. Not some open cockpit, winged single seater that you had to spend umpteen millions on the aero, that has absolutely no relevance to the road cars you sell.
Nice bit o marketing here:
Corvette owners love it I’m sure and it might even make a European consider a Vette. 😛
[Link removed]
I wonder how many R&D dollars went into the decision to install emissions test defeat software into their engine management systems?
All their R&D effort undermined by a really crass and greedy decision…
I think that came about rather as a “solution” to avoid spending more R&D dollars at that moment and buy time to find a better way forward
10 days sounds nothing. But taking 250 working days – therefore spending 4% on research for F1 now sounds a large chunk of the budget considering the payback needs to be over and above the Audi and Porsche spending on development in WEC (2 differing platforms) Of course they could stop the WEC and transfer to F1 but they must prefer the bang for bucks results they are getting from Sportscars plus they have made it their highly rated niche. The exposure is minimal in comparison to F1 but hopefully, the market they sell to seem knowledgeable about their products and their achievements. So, it’s not a simple decision to switch to F1 as its more of a sport and SEEMS less of a development platform. The hero’s are the drivers and the cars are less important, the reverse of long distance Sportscars.
Volkswagen is also in WRC and dominating the series. They’ve won all but 1 race this year so far, with one to go. If anything the VW Polo WRC is more dominant in Rallying than Mercedes is in F1.
what does Marchionne mean exactly with “…capital consumption rate is duplicative.” ? I researched the term but could not find how it can be “duplicative”.
Also, funny how VW spends $37m a day on emissions R&D but has to resort to cheating.
His point is that each OEM is investing in development on the same systems, but that the customer could not care less about the resulting differentiation, if any. His view is it would be far more efficient to develop these systems once and share across brands, rather than the “duplicative” effort and use of capital
No one said they spend $37m a day on emissions R&D.
Not sure I agree, why should Ferrari or Mercedes have to sell their engines to anyone else. All the hard work, effort and cost that has gone into the engine design and manufacture, just so red bull or others can benefit. And why the sucking up to Mercedes from most of f1. Where have they been for most of the f1 history. Just an engine supplier up until the last few years and now it seems they are the best thing since sliced bread.
Ironically, the ‘smoke and mirrors’ aspect of F1 makes for simultaneous entertainment and inefficiency . . .
Could the latter ever be eliminated without eroding the former?
Valid, but if Castrol, Johnson & Johnson, Sony & Emirates want nothing to do with FIFA & Blatter, what makes you think Toyota, BMW, GM, Ford etc would want anything to do with F1 & Bernie?
Different industries, different markets and different benefits from each entities affiliation, but all of them have a brand to worry about. Image is more important than fact.
I agree with your argument, but for me that little big problem still exists. All he cares about is control, and for as long as he has control the best interests of the sport will not be represented.
gotta agree – the little big problem is * the* problem
Politics in motor sport ? Who would have believed that ?
Can spending allocated as ‘R&D’ provide mitigation against tax liability? I anticipate that it could be allocated pretty ‘creatively’ wherever accounting incentives exist, giving rise to apparently eye-watering R&D budgets.
Thinking of incentives: what incentives motivate the cushy deal F1 gives Ferrari? These are not people to hand over the quids without plenty o’ pro quo…
They were forced to do so at the time because they needed to divide the teams, so they purchased Ferrari’s agreement with money and power.
Remarkable that three of the current four manufacturers have strong current (Renault-Merc) and past (Merc-Ferrari/Fiat/Chrysler) ties outside F1. Only Honda doesn’t, but it has precedence in F1, albeit only succesful on one occasion (that happened to last from the mid-eighties to the early nineties). Seems there is more to entering F1 than just a markering or R&D decision, maybe there needs to be some sort of personal chemistry as well that VW (even discounting the supposed Piech-Ecclestone animosity) doesn’t have and Ford doesn’t anymore.
Maybe all it needs for another brand (Hyundai, Chinese brands?) to enter is for the right person to switch jobs. Hyundai already employs – or is about to employ – a few prominent European designers in Peter Schreyer and Luc Donckerwolke so who knows.
I can’t quite make out what to think of Marchionne: loud mouth with brains or just loud mouth.
Are you serious about Honda’s pedigree? Start off by having a look at cars manufactured in Japan before 1960 to understand where Honda was coming from.
A couple of years after building their first (crude) road car, Honda set up F1 and F2 racing programmes. The F2 programme, conducted with Brabham Racing, was a big success winning every significant race. The F1 programme was a minor success with a win for Richie Ginther — in a 1.5 litre car, naturally aspirated, at a high altitude circuit. Not bad for a new team.
As a constructor (rather than engine developer), Honda have three GP wins — one for each set of F1 rules — and loads as engine provider. Arrows won zero GPs in 20 odd years.
There’s a strong argument that Honda delivers the goods when the company has a smart European-based partner. Ron Tauranac managed it at Brabham and Ralt, in two different racing eras. John Surtees and Lola had a go which delivered a GP win in 1967. Williams and Lotus succeeded with an F1 engine which was criticised by experts for its unsuitability for F1 aerodynamics; but the teams made it work. So future success depends on whether McLaren can be a smart partner.
“Mercedes argues that its involvement was based on a business case and that this should not now be changed.”
It is a shame that argument didn’t work for Lotus Racing/Caterham, Manor/Marussia, Campos Meta/HRT and the stillborn USF1 project who entered F1 based on a business model which subsequently changed…
There is no obvious link between the Scuderia’s win rate and the success of the road car division (think of the speculation wave in the early 90s, one of the worst period in terms of F1 achievements). Lamborghini doesn’t fo advertising either. I don’t know how much of the F1 costs can really be considered as R&D for the raod car division (there has never been a V10 road car despite Ferrari’s huge success with this architecture) and while I’m completely in favor of cost cap for the sake of F1’s sustainability, Todt’s proposal comes a bit late. If a price cap had been part of the initial PU regulations it would have made perfect sense. Asking the teams to do that now makes little sense in the world of economic reality that we live in.
Joe I have two questions for you
1
If Force India become Aston Martin next year will they still use Merc engines?
.
2
Would Aston Martin modify any engine at their engine plant in Germany?
3
According to TJ13 RBR and Illien have created a sort of in house engine tuning company that works with Renault based engines.
Do you think it would be a good idea for established tuning companies like Brabus ( who modify Mercedes engines) and Novitec ( who modify Ferrari/Maserati engines) to get involved with one the privateer teams such as Williams or Sauber or even Haas in future to help them be even closer to works outfits and give them more chances of consistent points scoring / podiums/ race wins/championship wins etc?
There’s some logic to number 3, I quite like that idea. That is 3 questions though 🙂
There are still independent engine builders out there capable of building a unit that’s up to the job. Look at the AER small capacity turbo for LMP1 Lightweight – mega little thing. Within 5 laps of its first shakedown, the Rebellion was faster than it had ever gone around le Castellet with the big Nissan lump.
In the days before teams had vast amounts of money to call upon they would go out and find a solution that allowed them to compete against the manufacturers – be that a DFV or Coventry Climax or whatever. Perhaps that’s simply asking a bit much of the appetite among Red Bull’s owners and management at this stage, which would be a shame.
I do not see the connection. The first instance is talking about repetitive manufacture for small and high volume production. Of course it is the case that many components do not add anything to the performance or buyers choice. The lower the volume of production the less this is true. Though when you look at VW they have been very successful at sharing componets, sub assemblies and even significant elements like engine and floorpans in both mass produced and very low volume prestige cars. The second instance is talking about very specific prototype racing cars, where performance is everything and the rules such that the cars cannot be produced in volume or sold to customers. Though some of the technology can be transferred. In very low volume production directly and in high volume production, ideas and the engeineering transfored into mass produced components.
What the FIA have to understand is that there is a three party position here, and that it holds the trump cards.
The manufacturers are in it to sell more cars and therefore make more money.
Bernie is in it to make a lot of money for CVC.
The FIA should be in it because it is a sport.
But the manufacturers and Bernie can only achieve their goals if it is an interesting sport. So the FIA (and I’m sure it doesn’t feel like this to Todt) do really hold the winning hand.
I have to admit that so many things in F1 are wrong now that recovering our sport can only be achieved by near destruction of F1 so as to have a Phoenix arise untainted by the domination of CVC.
Open wheel cars that are the fastest thing out there, driven by the best drivers, causing shock and awe amongst the spectators are the fundamentals of what used to be Grand Prix racing.
I don’t have a recipe of how that may be realised, but I am sure that the FIA could manage it.
But perhaps the best person to do that is not an industry insider like Todt.
Even if the manufacturers knew before hand that they couldn’t charge more than the price of a bag of jellybeans per engine they would of all spent exactly the same amount because they would be terrified that their competitors were spending more and thus have a better performing engine.
Engines do not cost millions each. What is the major cost is the R&D that went into them.
While I can understand why the FIA forced the teams into heavily prescribed V6 units, all they have done is force the price of R&D up as teams spend millions trying to eke extra hp out of a straightjacketed design.
WEC have managed to produce 1000hp+ engines but you don’t hear Toyota or Nissan moaning about how much their redesign of their power units are costing.
Marchionne needs to find an R&D partner to share the cost of future car platforms. FCA was the only major manufacturer making a loss last year, so again ironic that Ferrari is almost embarrassed by riches. The lump of cash from the Ferrari IPO will not last long at FCA as there are too many brands to support, most of which need new modern lightweight designs on new platforms.
Just to chuck in a comparison in R&D figures, back when I worked for Philips (car radio dept) I remember giving a presentation to the ARG (Austin Rover Group) ICE (In Car Entertainment) committee at Canley which included the line “The Philips Concern spends a million pounds a day on research” which back then was quite a big deal. Since then sadly it has gone down the toilet,
The manoeuvrings of the French government are increasingly intruding upon the structure of the Renault, with Nissan currently enjoying nothing from the partnership while the Hollande government artificially creates more voting power in the alliance, for itself, by a dodge worthy of Bernie. Only the dual role of Ghosn is preventing a huge upheaval and possible questioning of the spending habits of Renault.
Joe, besides the smoke and mirrors, you should add the flash-bang grenades that Bernie flings about. They are attention-getters to distract us from something else.
Yes, its called $1.5m of profits leaving the sport a day, every day. They don’t even take weekends off. 0% reinvested
For as long as that never becomes the main talking point of the sport I don’t think Bernie could really give a toss what people are talking about.
Joe I believe cost is an important issue in F1. Therefore I believe as teams cannot agree cost saving solution I propose that the F1 World Championship be held only every 2 years , with four tests permitted per team in a year when the championship is not held.
Joe I believe cost is an important issue in F1. Therefore I believe as teams cannot agree cost saving solutions I propose that the F1 World Championship be held only every 2 years , with four tests permitted per team in a year when the championship is not held.
Re the cost of engines .
I am sure there will be a host of un- thought of problems with this proposal
However criticism is welcomed we all accept something has got to be done .
How about all engine suppliers being contracted to build say 40 identical
{or 15 for each 2 car team } engines for the year all to be supplied to a central distributor who allocates them to the contracted teams on a lottery type basis .from the pool of engines .
Development only being permitted on any type of engine. if that particular engine type fails to achieve 10% of the available constructors championship points after 5 ,10.and 15 races.
An engine failing to finish a race as a result of a mechanical fault to be returned and rebuilt (if possible )and returned to the pool..
All engines completing 3 races likewise to be rebuilt and recycled through the pool.
It might stop the arms race .
Each constructor and driver would have equal chance without these ridiculous grid penalties.
Teams would all pay say £5m per car with the engine manufacturer being responsible for the management and health of the engine for the season .
All engine software management being under the supervision of the governing body .
Testing might also be permitted for those teams that are failing to notch up the points in the constructors championship.on a similar basis.
In a fuel (or a resource) limited formula the end result is always efficiency as you need to produce the most power from the same energy source.
They should be shouting from the roof tops
Research and Development are two different things. If you find it hard to comprehend, concentrate on the word “and”.
Research is laboratory stuff. Research creates F1 fuels that look like the stuff you put in your car. But the F1 fuel does not pre-ignite in a turbocharged engine; knowledge about that fuel will go back to fuel suppliers and engine manufacturers; your road car and its fuel will change.
Development follows Research; you can’t develop an idea that hasn’t been invented.
But developers push researchers. I don’t know who came up with M-B’s turbo-here and charger-there design (via a long shaft running at silly speeds) but it reinvented turbochargers.
Everyone knew that in a conventional engine, one third of fuel energy pushed the wheels, one third heated the air and one third went down the spout.
The thermodynamic efficiency of hybrid F1 engines/power units is better than 45%. F1 is making engines that excite and interest engineers. F1 is racing with engines which only existed in scientific papers or on test beds a few years ago. And the power units are made of conventional mechanical and electronic components.
When this technology gets into lorries and buses, you’re going to love it.
I think that the point was about money not about the word “and”
Joe: Recently I noticed that whenever I submit comments, they simply disappear. I have tried using two different computers but the results are the same. Thus, I don’t know whether my submissions have been received and awaiting moderator’s review or if they got lost in cyberspace. Please let me know if my recent experiences are the result now protocols that you have instituted
There is no problem with this message. I have changed nothing and if I get to read your comment, you are not banned. If you are banned, it goes straight to trash because that is where people who banned deserve to be.
I think that Alex is referring to the fact that on some wordpress blogs you can see your own reply as “awaiting moderation” , but here .. you can only see it post moderation so it appears as if it were deleted/missing…. until it appears later on.
That used to be the case here too but unless Joe has been fiddling with something under the bonnet I’m more inclined to think it’s WordPress.
Mr. Larrington: Thanks. A friend informed me that the problem I’m having is very similar to a frequent complaint over at J. Allen’s Blog. I’ll let my friend know of your outlook re WordPress as well as that of R. Redding. This way, he may share with James’ visitors/commenters the view that their problem may be associated with WordPress.
Are we getting a bit too excited by what car companies spend on R&D? I think beneficial tax breaks tend to mean a lot of non-manufacturing costs are assigned to R&D when in reality we are probably talking about understanding how many cup holders are needed in various territories and the exact aesthetics and functionality of said cup holders once quantified.
The notion that billions are being spent on future engine designs is possibly fanciful. Lobbying EU Parliements to defer future emission regulation is far less expensive and much more effective. Real changes cost real money so it is always better to understand what makes a customer perceive the greater value of a GLS rather than a simple L of otherwise identically boring models.
If Mercedes really wanted to seriously reduce emissions they would only sell Smart and dump their AMG segment. In reality they want to sell the cars that customers actually want and can afford to buy right now, and even more of them tomorrow.
Their involvment in F1 Hybrids has had minimal impact on the technology used in the cars they sell today. Perhaps perception is everything, but I doubt it and I guess that VW will also know the wisest places to spend and save in the next few difficult years.
Unrelated, but slightly amusing news: Dutch media are reporting that the Zandvoort counsil has adopted a motion to ‘research the possibility’ of getting F1 to return to the circuit in a few years. Basically the message is: “the facilities need updating, the infrastructure needs updating, we need to find the money for Bernie’s fee, but if all of that comes together, we won’t say no.” They’re discussing the possibility of alternating European circuits so that there would be a Dutch GP every five years. Pie in the sky stuff, but it would be really great, the circuit is good and the atmosphere would probably almost be up there with Silverstone.
Very interesting! Let’s bring this sport back to life!