RBR expect Gap to Mercedes to increase in 2015

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Tucky

A way round this would be for the FIA to repeal the engine laws and allow the engine manufacturers to spend as much as they like, but they're not allowed to charge the teams any more for an engine. If they want to spend the money they can spend their own.

I know this would further push away independent engine manufacturers from ever entering the sport, but I think they've probably gone for good now the way the engines are.

This is what the FIA should have done when the manufacturers came along with the hybrid concept in the first place.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And I am not certain that that would work either.

It would seem to me that it is really only Horner who is complaining about the so-called inequity between the power-unit providers. From what I have heard and read, Renault themselves have been virtually silent throughout this "debate", and I really do wonder whether their board of directors want to embark on a spending war with the other manufacturers.

It must be born in mind that both Renault and Nissan are losing market share in the car industry, and both are having to make economies in their respective factories. That means redundancies amongst the work-force, and it would surely not sit comfortably with the directors if they where spending (hundreds of) millions of Yen/Euro on an engine that had a maximum lifespan of about 20 to 30 hours before being discarded.

The marginal cost of a power unit is relatively small, it is the R&D that costs the money.

I think that the main problem is that Horner thinks Mercedes currently have 3 seconds a lap on the rest of the field, this is no way to go motor racing!

Honda is the only possible challenger for 2015, everyone else is just making up numbers.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

The marginal cost of a power unit is relatively small, it is the R&D that costs the money.

That makes no difference, it is still a capital cost to be recouped. That can happen two ways, a very high price on a smaller number of sales or a lower price on a higher number of sales. Bring the price down and the whole field will use your motor and if they all did that the power difference would not be an issue. The loser walks as he no longer has any customers. If the whole field ran Renault or Honda MB would not stay around long no matter how far they were winning by.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

That makes no difference, it is still a capital cost to be recouped. That can happen two ways, a very high price on a smaller number of sales or a lower price on a higher number of sales. Bring the price down and the whole field will use your motor and if they all did that the power difference would not be an issue. The loser walks as he no longer has any customers. If the whole field ran Renault or Honda MB would not stay around long no matter how far they were winning by.

Mercedes would be quite happy supplying 2 engines to the whole formula, they are writing the expenditure off in marketing budget.
Tucky's rule where the manufacturers are forced to supply the power units at a fixed cost is the way to go. They should be forced to supply whoever wants there units, and the FIA should allocate the engine numbers to the teams from a pool so that the manufacturer cannot run upspec engines on the works cars.

Then a manufacturer is limited in what they can spend and if their power unit is rubbish nobody will run it.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

Mercedes would be quite happy supplying 2 engines to the whole formula, they are writing the expenditure off in marketing budget.
Tucky's rule where the manufacturers are forced to supply the power units at a fixed cost is the way to go. They should be forced to supply whoever wants there units, and the FIA should allocate the engine numbers to the teams from a pool so that the manufacturer cannot run upspec engines on the works cars.

Then a manufacturer is limited in what they can spend and if their power unit is rubbish nobody will run it.

Just what the sport needs, more regulation and the promise that it will reduce costs when regulations have been proven to do just the opposite over the last decade or so.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Just what the sport needs, more regulation and the promise that it will reduce costs when regulations have been proven to do just the opposite over the last decade or so.

Watching Mercedes works cars with high spec power units disappear into the distance at a managed rate because of a legislated advantage is not sport.

Sport is competing and reacting to what the opposition brings!

The RBR advantage was not great to watch, but at least the other teams could react to it, and it was not a guaranteed game set and match scenario c.f. Webber.

We do not need more regulation, it is a spec formula, we need the right regulations. The problem is not that hard to fix, just torpedoed by vested interests.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

We do not need more regulation, it is a spec formula, we need the right regulations. The problem is not that hard to fix, just torpedoed by vested interests.

Who is to say what is the right or wrong regulation? The vested interests can't agree amongst themselves and they certainly would think yours or my ideas unworthy of consideration I am sure. Maybe we can ask BE or Todt or even CVC what the right regs are, their aims and needs are all different so I don''t think there will be a consensus there. It is going to take a miracle to work out a way forward out of this that all parties can agree to and is truly a way forward not just another band aid delaying the total demise of the "sport".

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Who is to say what is the right or wrong regulation? The vested interests can't agree amongst themselves and they certainly would think yours or my ideas unworthy of consideration I am sure. Maybe we can ask BE or Todt or even CVC what the right regs are, their aims and needs are all different so I don''t think there will be a consensus there. It is going to take a miracle to work out a way forward out of this that all parties can agree to and is truly a way forward not just another band aid delaying the total demise of the "sport".

I guess the litmus test is, can the sport sustain enough interest /money to support the level of expenditure necessary to compete in it...

[Casper]

I have no reason other than my own self doubt to think this but I wonder if the Penske deal will get off the ground if F1 continues to bumble along in the manner it has been. Surely a switched on businessman would be assessing the situation at this point and asking the questions needed.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wnut

Mercedes would be quite happy supplying 2 engines to the whole formula, they are writing the expenditure off in marketing budget.
Tucky's rule where the manufacturers are forced to supply the power units at a fixed cost is the way to go. They should be forced to supply whoever wants there units, and the FIA should allocate the engine numbers to the teams from a pool so that the manufacturer cannot run upspec engines on the works cars.

Then a manufacturer is limited in what they can spend and if their power unit is rubbish nobody will run it.

This sounds good and may even work to a degree but it is more over regulation and would probably discourage both manufacturers and certainly independent engine builders from entering the competition.
Those two aspects would ultimately bring about its failure to work to hold down costs.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

This sounds good and may even work to a degree but it is more over regulation and would probably discourage both manufacturers and certainly independent engine builders from entering the competition.
Those two aspects would ultimately bring about its failure to work to hold down costs.

If the sport provides enough good racing to attract the public and put bums on seats at tracks and in front of TV / computers, the manufacturers marketing sums will show that the sport provides a good return on their investment and they will stay simply because it is the best brand advertising that they can find. Devaluing the sport to pursue the manufacturers agenda to legitimise dodgy technology will lead to the sport's demise.

F1 prospered and grew with no manufacturers, and it is selling its soul and credibility to the short term almighty dollar.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wnut

.
Devaluing the sport to pursue the manufacturers agenda to legitimise dodgy technology will lead to the sport's demise.

F1 prospered and grew with no manufacturers, and it is selling its soul and credibility to the short term almighty dollar.

I can't disagree with these two statements.
As one other person has noted it is more a business than a sport and now we have Bernie saying that the FIA has sold its right to frame the regulations (presumably because it bought a share in The business valued at $120 million).

This contravenes the EU dictate that it not be involved in the commercial aspects of the sport but also seems to have given Bernie the idea that f1 can be independent of the FIA.

His whole plan for the strategy group seems to be to frustrate the FIA, make it powerless to be regulator and have the teams and FOM take over the control of F1 (or GP1 as Bernie see's it).

[chillibowl]

I'm curious to see how the reduction of global oil prices will effect the thinking of the teams, the engine manus and the gas companies.

On one hand more it's money in peoples pockets for discretionary spending but on the other it's less money from the oil company sponsors.

The economics of the sport could be facing a larger challange then unhappy teams as any valuation of the sport must surely move in the same direction of gas prices.

Equally possible is that if people stop caring about fuel efficiency (because gas is cheap) then moving back to v10s becomes less of a problem.

[wolfhound]

In the short term it will be the countries who pay through the nose to host GP's that are likely to suffer as their currencies drop in value and they earn less from oil. It will also effect those teams who have major sponsorship from such countries. However it probably take a few years for this to take effect as contracts run out.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

In the short term it will be the countries who pay through the nose to host GP's that are likely to suffer as their currencies drop in value and they earn less from oil. It will also effect those teams who have major sponsorship from such countries. However it probably take a few years for this to take effect as contracts run out.

There isn't that much time before the oil costs hit again.

Shale oil recovery is tight, closer to the surface and easier to get at but when it runs its course of easy oil and the over supply by US producers of shale oil then start to suffer from the higher cost of further recovery, the OPEC countries will be back in the box seat.
Supply will tighten and the price skyrocket. This is simply the lull before the storm. It may take a year or so but this is not long term. Far from it.

[wolfhound]

Yes Red Bull were right 'Their' gap to Mercedes increased but those of Williams, Ferrari, Sauber and Toro Rosso appear to have got closer to those pesky Mercs.

As a result they are going to chuck all their toys out of the pram.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118081

[GT6]

I have a feeling that this is going to be a very dissappointing year for RBR

[JacobP]

I wonder for how long Red Bull will tolerate the situation with the underpowered Renault power units. At some point, they're going to make a move to take control of the situation, such as taking over the Renault engine factory perhaps developing a Red Bull engine.

(It'd be cool if suddenly Cosworth management gets a phone call from Horner in the middle of a night, announcing a takeover of company...)

[GT6]

i think if someone made renault an offer they would be happy to see it go

[mikuni]

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1...bate-rages-on/

17 June 2011 - Renault is the only enthusiastic supporter of the tiny turbo concept, which has failed to attract interest from new manufacturers.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by mikuni

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1...bate-rages-on/

It has to be remembered that back then it was Renault who were pushing the agenda. Around that time, they made it clear to the FIA that they would withdraw from F1 and stop supplying engines if the FIA didn't change the engine format to bring it more in line with Renault's road going range.

There was a world-wide financial meltdown happening at the same time, and other manufacturers were not looking to play in F1, and both Mercedes and Ferrari were not too happy about the proposed new engine format. But time moves on, and now the format is more appealing certainly to Mercedes who have been able to tell their directors that the new PSUs consume about 30% less fuel, and it has lured Honda back into the fray (unsuccessfully at present, but I am sure that will change soon) because there is some relevance to the engine range on their road cars.

[Gingers4Justice]

What I think is a shame with the new regulations is how strict they are. If you mandate the size of the engines, the number of cylinders, whether it has a turbo etc etc...it stands to reason that someone will do it better than everyone else. It's not necessarily fair to say Renault and Ferrari have done a bad job. If Ferrari were racing against just Honda and Renault, they'd be complaining about their dominance too.

What would have been wrong with having a fuel allocation and then just letting manufacturers do what they want? Maybe you could have had Red Bull using Porsche's V4 LMP1 engine, nice and small for that aero. Mercedes could have their V6s. Maybe Ferrari might have had a low-revving V8. The cars and manufacturers would have had their own identity and different cars would have different strengths and weaknesses.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

What I think is a shame with the new regulations is how strict they are. If you mandate the size of the engines, the number of cylinders, whether it has a turbo etc etc...it stands to reason that someone will do it better than everyone else. It's not necessarily fair to say Renault and Ferrari have done a bad job. If Ferrari were racing against just Honda and Renault, they'd be complaining about their dominance too.

What would have been wrong with having a fuel allocation and then just letting manufacturers do what they want? Maybe you could have had Red Bull using Porsche's V4 LMP1 engine, nice and small for that aero. Mercedes could have their V6s. Maybe Ferrari might have had a low-revving V8. The cars and manufacturers would have had their own identity and different cars would have different strengths and weaknesses.

The parameters for the current PSU were proposed by Renault with input from Mercedes and Ferrari. The only major difference between the 3 manufacturers was that Renault wanted a straight 4 cylinder ICE, wheras the other two wanted a V configuration; the compromise was the V6.

As I said elsewhere, it must be noted that these complaints are coming from, not Renault, but Red Bull. And Red Bull doesn't like losing, and they don't take it well.

[Pingguest]

As far as I can remember, the L4-engines were proposed as an attempt to get Audi in Formula One.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The parameters for the current PSU were proposed by Renault with input from Mercedes and Ferrari. The only major difference between the 3 manufacturers was that Renault wanted a straight 4 cylinder ICE, wheras the other two wanted a V configuration; the compromise was the V6.

If you had a fuel allocation as the only engine 'rule', a bit like in LMP1, then maybe Renault could have had their I4 and the others could have gone with a V configuration. Then Red Bull wouldn't have had a leg to stand on with this complaining. As it is, they half have a point; the goal of the regulations must surely be to have the engines closely matched. And besides, whenever Red Bull found an advantage when they were dominating, the rulemakers found ways to peg them back.

I still don't really understand why everything has to be mandated with the PUs. The main argument is to cut costs, but when the engines are so similar, surely it costs much more in R&D to find that extra 10% which might make the difference? F3 became too expensive in Britain because of escalating costs, in part because of the cost of trying to find an advantage in developing the near-identical Dallara chassis. Isn't that what we're seeing with PUs in F1?