F1 Credibility Gap

[old man]

This is very interesting and thoughtful piece that does not exactly fit any of the existing threads and yet touches on most of them:


http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...884.1373558528

Discuss?!

One interesting quote from this:

During a presentation entitled 'Hybrid, high-tech, cost-efficient: Answers to the rethink in motorsport', TMG's business development manager Sebastian Janssen provided insights into Toyota's rationale behind entering the WEC: The company was able to win global championships for an outlay of less than a quarter of its erstwhile F1 budget (estimated to be £300million per year), while simultaneously developing road relevant technology.

[steve_r]

Number of manufacturers in LMP1: 3

Number of manufacturers in F1: 3 - soon to be 4

I cant read the whole article due to it being subscription only. It sounds like they are working towards the not so startling conclusion that F1 is more expensive than WEC?

[bella]

it's more about roi and value for money than just simply one is more costly than the other. it's been discussed a little in the wilderness of the sportscar forum so if you're not scared of catching endurancitis it's worth a stroll in there.

i think it's a good article - explains why those not involved in f1 won't approach it, which is more valuable than simply going "yeah but there's more involved in f1 than sportscars".

[Paradise City]

F1 has a global presence. Noone knows about the WEC. Factor that into your spending.

[bella]

if i may quote g4j's post in the 2015 wec thread for a review of the article for those who aren't subscribers:

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

It's written by Autosport's F1 political editor, and I was pleasantly surprised at how pro-WEC it was. Whenever these kind of articles usually talk about the WEC there's usually some sort of suggestion that it's a playground for the manufacturers while F1 sorts itself out, or that Audi are to join F1 at any moment.

This article put forward WEC's strengths forward with no ifs and buts. It said the WEC offers greater value for money and more innovative rules offered more road-relevant technology. It took him half the article to even mention the bonus of winning Le Mans. This article was very clearly about the championship as a whole and its credentials.

Another great point Rencken made was that promoters for WEC had actually made profits despite lower ticket sales. There was a suggestion the WEC wasn't just attractive to the major manufacturers, but the major circuits too.

He finished with Dr Zetsche's recent remarks calling for BMW and Audi to join them in F1. Rencken suggested that with Mercedes racing a fizzy drinks company and a small-volume car manufacturer, that perhaps it's Dr Zetsche's brand that is the one racing out of line.

[Gingers4Justice]

Yay, I'm famous!

Seriously, I get increasingly frustrated with F1's major-manufacturer complex, especially when its looking over its shoulder to see who else has got what. Renault was the first high-volume car manufacturer to win a Constructor's or Driver's championship and Mercedes are only the second to do it. You could count Alfa Romeo did it too, although they were an altogether different kind of car maker in the 1950s.

This noughties obsession with works teams has been a poison for F1. It's sports cars, touring cars and rallying which need the road car manufacturers, and that's how you judge their health. But did anyone complain in the Prost/Senna era, or during title deciders between Hunt and Lauda, or during duels between Fangio and Moss that they were not driving in Toyotas, Renaults, Opels, Volvos, Ladas or such like? Of course not. The cars are not the true stars in Formula One.

The trouble with major manufacturers is that they have to justify racing by road-relevance, because simply being there - especially when you're the not the one winning - doesn't cut it anymore. But nobody watches F1 because the cars are relevant to what they drive on the road. The opposite is true, although of course, its popularity has nothing to do with the cars themselves but the bits of flesh and bone sat in the middle of them.

The kind of cars that make heroes of drivers and make little kids go mad with excitement and hooked for life are the reasons teams like Williams and McLaren - and to be fair, Ferrari - came into this sport in the first place. Their founders weren't interested in being involved in an R&D project for multi-million dollar firms.

It's sad that in chasing after these kind of manufacturers, we're losing teams who are only in this business for the racing.

And that's why Formula One is suffering. It's too big for its own good. It can't satisfy the needs of specialist racing teams, potential firms interesting in investing, the major road car manufacturers and the luxury car manufacturers. Each of those parties used to have their own place in the motor sport, but now Formula One has such a big slice of the cake, that too many of these parties are coming in with their conflicting interests and creating a product which is neither one thing nor the other.

[Mr Pink]

G4J, famous and spreading wisdom!
Very well put, I fully agree with what that sentiment.

[steve_r]

The problem is that when you only have 3 engine manufacturers, and two of them say they will walk due to the obselete / irrelevant nature of the engines being used, you end up having to pay attention.

For reasons probably best known to themselves, despite the mind-bogglingly complex and expensive new engine technology, F1 has now got a 4th manufacturer. However, I think it is safe to say that the likes of Brian Hart or other private / small scale engine manufacturers are not going to crop up in F1 for the forseeable future.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by steve_r

The problem is that when you only have 3 engine manufacturers, and two of them say they will walk due to the obselete / irrelevant nature of the engines being used, you end up having to pay attention.

For reasons probably best known to themselves, despite the mind-bogglingly complex and expensive new engine technology, F1 has now got a 4th manufacturer. However, I think it is safe to say that the likes of Brian Hart or other private / small scale engine manufacturers are not going to crop up in F1 for the forseeable future.

My answer to that would be to let two of those three leave. I'm not bashing the V6 Power Units themselves - those dinosaur V8s had served their time. If Mercedes and Renault had gone, we'd be left with Ferrari and maybe Hart, Cosworth and a few other specialist, small-scale racing firms. F1 got by with that for a long time. In fact it thrived on it.

This paragraph in Rencken's article kind of highlights what I'm talking about:

A single dominant manufacturer, which supplies (subsidised) engines to three customer teams; a limping stallion; hamstrung small volume sportscar manufacturer devoid of a title sponsor; two flying drinks can teams; squabbling mid-grid independents and two teams in administration - racing to regulations that fix V-angles and mounting points of engines.

That's the great paradox with these engines. The cost and investment of these Power Units isn't that far shy of what Toyota spend on their whole project in a season of the WEC, and yet so much of these "innovative" V6s are decided by the rule book. In LMP1, the only restrictions are effectively the fuel limit, the mandatory four-stroke engine solution, and two methods of energy recuperation. And yet these manufacturers spend far less money on such powertrains designed to last the distance of a whole F1 season in one chunk at Le Mans.

Say two of those three manufacturers did pull out at the end of 2013. You'd be left with Ferrari and a few specialist, small-scale racing engine manufacturers like Cosworth, AER, Ilmor minus the Merc backing possibly and Hart. You'd probably have a more open rule book whereby genuine innovation could make the difference. With the restrictive rules as they are, money talks. Mercedes can afford the man hours and the people capable of finding those grey areas in the rules or the extra 0.01% which makes the difference.

So what if it was just Ferrari left? They've been comprehensively beaten by much smaller firms who've made cleverer engines (and chassis, and aero solutions) than them plenty of times in the past.

I'm not saying I'm right here, I'm just looking at it from an angle that the rulemakers in F1 haven't up to now. I don't have the answer, but judging by the position F1 finds itself in now, the stakeholders don't either.

[Paradise City]

Yes. I don't really give a jot about 'big manufacturers'. They are as much a blessing as they are a scourge. A grid of little pocket manufacturers like Judd, Cossie, Hart is my preference.

I'm excited with 'big manufacturers' when there's a strong governing body imposing order. When there isn't, 'big manufacturers' make me nervous.

[the sniper]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Number of manufacturers in LMP1: 3

Number of manufacturers in F1: 3 - soon to be 4

Shouldn't your post read:

Originally Posted by steve_r

Number of manufacturers in LMP1: 3 - soon to be 4

Number of manufacturers in F1: 3 - also soon to be 4

Nissan are coming to LMP1 next year.

[JacobP]

I think root problem with the engine variety in F1 is that the engines have become too reliable. Back in the 80s when a works team would use a new engine in each car for each race, and then who knows how many more for practice, qualifying, and testing, it was quite difficult for the same factory to supply more than one or two teams with state of art engines. Because of this, there was a real zoo of engines in the early 90s. There was Ford, Honda, Renault, Lamborghini, Yamaha, another Honda by Mugen, Porsche, etc.

But now, each car has to do with five engines the whole season. A typical F1 engine factory can probably produce far more than only ten engines at relatively little additional cost, and so it can easily supply,three, four, or five teams. There is probably no limit. As a result, the weaker engine manufacturers (e.g. Cosworth) got squeezed out. Why buy a "budget" Cosworth engine when you can have a manufacturer's "works" engine for a little bit more cash? As a result, nearly every team had a fairly competitive engine in 2013, and four teams had the dominant Mercedes engines in their cars. I remember the situation from two decades ago where some teams would probably kill to have that dominant Renault engine in their cars. But since murder was not an option, Benetton bought the whole Ligier team just so they could use Ligier's Renault engines in 1995 season.

[LC2guy]

Originally Posted by the sniper

Shouldn't your post read:



Nissan are coming to LMP1 next year.

And on top of 4 Manufacturers in LMP1 you also have Honda ( HPD ) in LMP2 Coming, Judd already supplying engines, and GT Manufacturers Aston Martin, Ferrari, Corvette, Porsche ....

[Airhead]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Yay, I'm famous!

Seriously, I get increasingly frustrated with F1's major-manufacturer complex, especially when its looking over its shoulder to see who else has got what. Renault was the first high-volume car manufacturer to win a Constructor's or Driver's championship and Mercedes are only the second to do it. You could count Alfa Romeo did it too, although they were an altogether different kind of car maker in the 1950s.

This noughties obsession with works teams has been a poison for F1. It's sports cars, touring cars and rallying which need the road car manufacturers, and that's how you judge their health. But did anyone complain in the Prost/Senna era, or during title deciders between Hunt and Lauda, or during duels between Fangio and Moss that they were not driving in Toyotas, Renaults, Opels, Volvos, Ladas or such like? Of course not. The cars are not the true stars in Formula One.

The trouble with major manufacturers is that they have to justify racing by road-relevance, because simply being there - especially when you're the not the one winning - doesn't cut it anymore. But nobody watches F1 because the cars are relevant to what they drive on the road. The opposite is true, although of course, its popularity has nothing to do with the cars themselves but the bits of flesh and bone sat in the middle of them.

The kind of cars that make heroes of drivers and make little kids go mad with excitement and hooked for life are the reasons teams like Williams and McLaren - and to be fair, Ferrari - came into this sport in the first place. Their founders weren't interested in being involved in an R&D project for multi-million dollar firms.

It's sad that in chasing after these kind of manufacturers, we're losing teams who are only in this business for the racing.

And that's why Formula One is suffering. It's too big for its own good. It can't satisfy the needs of specialist racing teams, potential firms interesting in investing, the major road car manufacturers and the luxury car manufacturers. Each of those parties used to have their own place in the motor sport, but now Formula One has such a big slice of the cake, that too many of these parties are coming in with their conflicting interests and creating a product which is neither one thing nor the other.

Great post Man...

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Yes. I don't really give a jot about 'big manufacturers'. They are as much a blessing as they are a scourge. A grid of little pocket manufacturers like Judd, Cossie, Hart is my preference.

I'm excited with 'big manufacturers' when there's a strong governing body imposing order. When there isn't, 'big manufacturers' make me nervous.

Moreover as has been said before, manufacturers are only ever one board meeting away from canning their programme regardless of what bits of paper they signed.

We all remember that Toyota pulled out of F1 in 2009 only a few weeks after they signed up to the last concorde agreement commiting themselves to be in F1 until 2012!

F1 is discretionary spend for manufacturers, not core business that will always be their focus. I think F1 and FOM sit back with the comfort of having this so called long term commitment from the leading manufacturers which the past has shown is unwise.

This is why it is crazy to frame engine regulations around them which produces a product that only they can afford and in all probablility only one will get 100% right at anyone time.

[wnut]

WEC is just the reliability trial that F1 seems hell bent on emulating, F1 should be about flat out racing! Not WEC light.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

F1 has a global presence. Noone knows about the WEC. Factor that into your spending.

Not everyone is hiding under that rock these days......

Originally Posted by wnut

WEC is just the reliability trial that F1 seems hell bent on emulating, F1 should be about flat out racing! Not WEC light.

Maybe the time has come to watch some WEC now......

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Maybe the time has come to watch some WEC now......

Too long, not well enough covered, not sprint racing, not the best drivers in the world, usually an economy run.

Not my thing, sorry.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by wnut

Too long, not well enough covered, not sprint racing, not the best drivers in the world, usually an economy run.

Not my thing, sorry.

Well, if all you want are hour and a half sprints, I guess you'll never be won over..... As to not the best drivers, 'Go Pastor and Adrian'.......

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wnut

Too long, not well enough covered, not sprint racing, not the best drivers in the world, usually an economy run.

Not my thing, sorry.

Do you remember the job Lotterer did when he had a run in a back of the field GP car this having not done any testing etc. I think given a decent car he would be right up at the front end of a F1 grid.
Look how Webber compares to his team mates. They do not appear to be slouches by any means.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Do you remember the job Lotterer did when he had a run in a back of the field GP car this having not done any testing etc. I think given a decent car he would be right up at the front end of a F1 grid.
Look how Webber compares to his team mates. They do not appear to be slouches by any means.

You are completely correct that there are some drivers in WEC who are probably better than half the F1 grid, the point is that F1 should be talent centric and attract the fastest drivers, there should be no place for the mediocre to hide, and no possibility of driving to any target under 100%.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by wnut

You are completely correct that there are some drivers in WEC who are probably better than half the F1 grid, the point is that F1 should be talent centric and attract the fastest drivers, there should be no place for the mediocre to hide, and no possibility of driving to any target under 100%.

This has never been the case with F1. There's always been paid drivers, drivers that were good and competent but who sidelined better talents who had less resources. And if you want a grid with a strong complement of garagistes, then paid drivers will be par for the course in that situation. The Diniz and Maldonado types in essence.

WEC is crammed with manufacturers and they can hire who they want.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by wnut

You are completely correct that there are some drivers in WEC who are probably better than half the F1 grid, the point is that F1 should be talent centric and attract the fastest drivers, there should be no place for the mediocre to hide, and no possibility of driving to any target under 100%.

But it isn't. And rarely has it ever been - or ever will be.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

This has never been the case with F1. There's always been paid drivers, drivers that were good and competent but who sidelined better talents who had less resources. And if you want a grid with a strong complement of garagistes, then paid drivers will be par for the course in that situation. The Diniz and Maldonado types in essence.

WEC is crammed with manufacturers and they can hire who they want.

And, during the Prost/Senna era, we had races where Prost was minding his tires, Senna was going balls to the wall, and Prost then picked off a crippled Senna shortly before the end. Tire and fuel conservation (and in earlier eras brake conservation as well) have always been a part of F1.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by miatanut

And, during the Prost/Senna era, we had races where Prost was minding his tires, Senna was going balls to the wall, and Prost then picked off a crippled Senna shortly before the end. Tire and fuel conservation (and in earlier eras brake conservation as well) have always been a part of F1.

It was Fangio who coined the phrase about "winning at the slowest possible speed".

All the comments about sprinting and that going 'flat out from flag are the essence of F1' simply portrays an ignorance of the history of F1.

While it is true that the Schumacher era of a series of sprints punctuated by fuel stops may have created that impression and the current four or five engine a season limits have given us amazing reliability compared with earlier times, a drivers skill has always been about the conservation of the machine and its constituent parts to get it to the finish line with it's highest possible position.

Prost was renowned for this in the latter years of the earlier turbo era when he won races and at Adelaide a championship while running out of fuel on the slow down lap.

F1 has always been about conserving fuel, making the most of the fuel you have on board because it is your energy source and the more you use the more likely you will run out, or have to stop, and the longer you stop the more time you lose.

If you use less but carry the same speed then you can run lighter and so then be even faster. In this age we can quantify tenths and hundredth's of seconds to car weight in pounds and kilograms so it is significant.

In Indycar racing fuel consumption and pit stop times, and stretching your fuel has always been an important part of racing for the entire history of the Indy 500, whose history is much longer than that of F1.


Dixon, of the current group, is a master at it, and wins races on it.

Tyre conservation has won races and stories of F1 races won with the cord starting to show through are in it's history. Races lost in those conditions are there too.

I would be quite happy to see F1 go back to 6 stud wheels and a limit of four people on the pit apron doing the changes with a stud gun, like NASCAR, so a tyre stop actually cost you real time and then make tyre conservation much more important.
To finish first you need to conserve the whole car so it serves you for the whole distance.

To finish first, first you must finish....