|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
13 Sep 2017, 15:08 (Ref:3766559) | #76 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,574
|
As with all things there are more facets to this than an uncut diamond.
If we were to consider the whole thing as a sport then as long as the regs are implemented, who cares how many engines or gearboxes a team uses in a weekend? The trouble comes due to the manufacturers. If it costs a zillion dollars to lose an engine, the manufacturer doesn't care, he just pulls another off the line. A team like Williams however, will feel every financial pinch, thus a failed engine means more than just a penalty it means big bucks. It's a problem with the make up of the sport as a whole. Accepting that technology is important it does mean that the manufacturers need to feel some kind of penalty when they get something wrong. As a sporting solution grid penalties don't work because they make a mockery of the grid/race/event. It all comes back to getting real and dropping the technology. We will have e racing soon enough, but as we are still trying to run on oil then why not make it a simple V8/V10/V12 formula of a certain swept volume? Any unreliability will carry a financial and sporting penalty simply because the team won't score points and/or won't start in a good position. Natural justice if you will. Also, both manufacturers and their customers should run the same version of the specific engine. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
13 Sep 2017, 16:13 (Ref:3766581) | #77 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Peter, you have to take into account why we are where we are, with the PUs.
Back in 2010 and 2011 when the discussions about the new PU technology was being carried out, the two loudest voices from the producers of the PUs were Mercedes and Renault. Renault insisted that the base of the ICE had to be relevant to their road going vehicles, and at the time were demanding that it be a 4 cylinder block. However, they relented and accepted the V6. On the other side of the table, Mercedes had the main board of Daimler Benz breathing down their necks, and the main board only gave the green light to the project when the racing engineering team had assured them that their would be at least a 25% reduction in fuel required with the new PUs, and that they could incorporate technology that they were already developing for their road going vehicles. I fear that if your dream, and it's also the dream of many on here including myself, was to come to fruition, then we would probably lose both of those manufacturers. One could debate whether that would be a great loss in the grand scheme of things, but it does then mean that the sport would need to rely on the likes of Cosworth, without a benefactor such as Ford, being able to compete with the financial clout of Ferrari assuming that they stayed on. |
||
|
13 Sep 2017, 16:34 (Ref:3766584) | #78 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,574
|
Exactly. Lose the manufacturers or stop complaining.
|
||
|
13 Sep 2017, 22:49 (Ref:3766668) | #79 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
It is also all very well that the manufacturers be allowed to showcase their technology, however they should not be allowed to charge the customer teams exorbitant bills to provide the PU's. The PU's should be priced at the level of a normally aspirated 3 litre V10. Failing this agreement F1 should just return to the 3 litre V10s which would be much more widely attainable than just from Mercedes. (Nobody else can build one.) Note to Richard on the "run what you brung" formula libre, how much worse could it get than Mercedes' total dominance of the last 3 years? We have never experienced anything that has come close! |
||
|
13 Sep 2017, 22:58 (Ref:3766670) | #80 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
It would be very interesting to see what the individual team finances would look like if F1 lost the manufacturers, I would submit that everyone except Mercedes and Ferrari would be much better off financially!
|
|
|
14 Sep 2017, 16:07 (Ref:3766845) | #81 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,958
|
Quote:
using technology based on their F1 engine program, reportedly, they are about to produce 275 cars with a price tag of around 2mil per (apparently all of which are already sold)...conservatively thats 600mil before any after market upgrades, storage, and factory support packages owners will no doubt have to buy as well. thats a pretty large windfall from their f1 program. so while, i can understand them wanting to sell their engines to f1 customers for a profit, its also clear that they have other ways, beyond having their customer teams foot the bill, to monetize their F1 engine program. obviously there are a lot of numbers i dont have access to, so this is just a broad generalization, but i think its a fair question to ask why their F1 customers are being asked to subsidize their engine program given that Merc clearly have the ability to realize a return on their R&D cost via a hypercar program (and also potentially down the road through their road car divisions). going one step further, i think its reasonable to suggest they be required to sell their engines to F1 teams at or below cost. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
14 Sep 2017, 20:24 (Ref:3766905) | #82 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,303
|
going one step further, i think its reasonable to suggest they be required to sell their engines to F1 teams at or below cost.
Ehh??? As a Business, that is a crap suggestion. Why should they do that?? |
||
|
14 Sep 2017, 23:36 (Ref:3766927) | #83 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 660
|
Quote:
The market will reflect the prices - too high and no will pay but if it's good enough then it should command a high price. If we end up with a grid full of Mercs, then so be it. But that is something the FIA don't want.... Either make all the engines the same by freezing Merc & Ferrari, and giving Honda and Renault unlimited testing to get them up to speed. Or let the best team win. |
|||
__________________
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true." -Robert Wilensky |
15 Sep 2017, 07:26 (Ref:3766999) | #84 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Sadly technology has killed F1...
|
||
|
15 Sep 2017, 08:46 (Ref:3767017) | #85 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,087
|
Because this is also a sport, not just a series of businesses. If engines are too expensive, then you'll lose teams and the sport will die.
|
|
|
15 Sep 2017, 11:33 (Ref:3767061) | #86 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 186
|
If they wanted to save teams money, they could come up with a set of rules that are not completely mental.
It's pretty hard to turn a Grand Prix at Spa into a snorefest, but they pulled it off in spades. I enjoyed watching the Fun Cup race at Spa more than the F1 race. |
||
|
15 Sep 2017, 16:10 (Ref:3767147) | #87 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,958
|
Quote:
so from an economic point of view, there is a tipping point where they risk long term profits (via road/hyper car sales) for a relatively modest short term gain through PU sales to their competitors. but all that aside...i actually think the current structure is bad business. the likes of Williams, Force India, Mclaren etc are helping their engine manu carry out their research (essentially aiding them in creating a commercially viable product). to be honest, me saying they should sell at cost or below is a compromise on my part...closer to my heart is a system where the engine manus pay the customer teams for helping them develop and promote their multi billion dollar brands (which i hope they agree to in the next concord by allowing for a more fair distribution of the prize fund or by agreeing to a simpler/cheaper engine formula that has more relevance to sporting competition then it does to their road car sales). but hey im a left wing/social redistribution kind of guy so to me the current system is too much like taxing the poor to subsidize the rich...to me thats both bad business and unsustainable. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
24 Sep 2017, 07:45 (Ref:3769536) | #88 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Great to see Ross Braun of the OWT (Overtaking Working Group) is right on the ridiculous grid penalty system too!
https://www.pitpass.com/60175/Driver...alties-in-2018 Awesome just awesome! Well done that man! |
|
|
24 Sep 2017, 08:29 (Ref:3769538) | #89 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
I just want to wish my best to the OWT and the world of F1 should be a better place to be with a better set of rules
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
15 Oct 2017, 07:59 (Ref:3774293) | #90 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 991
|
I apologize if someone already proposed this, but what if, instead of a grid penalty we just make it a financial penalty split between the team and the supplier?
So say you need to replace a gearbox outside the allowed amount, there is a fine. Two thirds of that fine is paid by the supplier, one third by the team (There needs to be an incentive for the teams to not abuse their components). You could say this will give rich teams an advantage, but as a rich team most likely makes their own gearboxes their fine will be three times as high compared to a customer team. Advantages: - Doesn't hurt the drivers - Doesn't hurt the customer teams as much (they are not the builders in the first place). - Doesn't mess up the grid/race weekend/championship. - Stimulates durable components. - Takes press attention away from component penalties because fines are less sexy to write about than grid penalties. Thus improving F1 image. What do you say? Last edited by Taxi645; 15 Oct 2017 at 08:14. |
|
|
15 Oct 2017, 13:07 (Ref:3774325) | #91 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,120
|
Sounds like pay to win? The opposite of the entire strategy of cost reduction?
Richard (Edit, post bumped over to next page. I was responding to previous post) |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
15 Oct 2017, 13:38 (Ref:3774326) | #92 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 991
|
That depends on how you formulate the rules I suppose. If you choose the right height of the fine and/or the right ratio between the part the customer and the supplier pay and force the supplier to make them available for customers than building fast but unreliable components would become very expensive indeed for the supplier.
|
|
|
20 Oct 2017, 08:07 (Ref:3775170) | #93 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Hartley makes his F1 debut with a 30 place grid penalty before he even sits in the car.
F1 rules written by Monty Python. |
||
|
20 Oct 2017, 08:08 (Ref:3775171) | #94 | ||
Race Official
1% Club
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 47,180
|
|||
__________________
Go woke, Go broke… Here’s hoping a random universe works out in your favour… The meaning of life… ENJOYING THE PASSAGE OF TIME! #CANCERSUCKS |
20 Oct 2017, 08:23 (Ref:3775175) | #95 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
I was hoping he would start on pole and win from there.....too optimistic?.
|
||
|
20 Oct 2017, 11:44 (Ref:3775212) | #96 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,406
|
|||
__________________
When did I do dangerous driving??? |
22 Oct 2017, 19:52 (Ref:3775669) | #97 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 966
|
And in the latest on stupid penalties, Stroll qualified 17th, gets a 3 place grid penalty for impeding Grosjean but starts 16th thanks to engine penaties elsewhere
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/s...&r=159709&em=1 |
||
__________________
I haven't got a life, just an anorak. |
22 Oct 2017, 19:55 (Ref:3775672) | #98 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Engine penalties should be applied before actual penalties.
|
|
|
30 Oct 2017, 07:05 (Ref:3777383) | #99 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
All Renault powered back of the grid at the next GP.
|
||
|
30 Oct 2017, 12:45 (Ref:3777478) | #100 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,891
|
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Hamilton 5 Place Penalty? | Peter Mallett | Formula One | 55 | 17 Apr 2012 00:49 |
10 place penalty for Hamilton and Rosberg | alonso11 | Formula One | 299 | 24 Jun 2008 02:06 |
Five place penalty for Kovalainen | Down F0rce | Formula One | 107 | 23 Jun 2008 16:42 |
Vettel gets 5 place penalty | Marbot | Formula One | 13 | 19 May 2008 20:11 |
Massa first to be hit with '10 place penalty' following De la Rosa Incident | Damon | Formula One | 3 | 17 Sep 2002 11:41 |