Formula 1 2009

[Mr Revhead]

Ferrari's statement comes on a day when Renault - one of only three manufacturers left in F1 alongside Ferrari and Mercedes - is also evaluating its F1 future. The company is discussing its plans at an extraordinary meeting.

[fivebob]

The economic climate is a good excuse but, judging from the chairman's speech, the real reason they left F1 was lack of results. I'd be willing to bet that if they had a win this year they would still be in F1.

[Makaveli]

I don't think it's to do with wins, maybe partially, but mainly due to economic conditions and their consecutive financial losses. Honda, BMW, Bridgestone and now Toyota all left. Renault might be quitting as well. All we need is Ferrari to quit and that would be the end of Formula 1. While Ferrari were on top, they had plenty of sponsorship money and revenue from F1 Commercial but they haven't been that good this year. So their cash flow will slow down. Tobacco advertising ban didn't help either. I think they need to cut the budgets drastically to save F1 as Max Mosley has suggested.

[Makaveli]

In saying that FIA should stop screwing around with rules (constant rule changing) and cut the R&D costs, and introduce limited testing again and ban all rigs/windtunnel testing.

[fivebob]

I don't think it's to do with wins, maybe partially, but mainly due to economic conditions and their consecutive financial losses.

Then why did they quit, apologising for failing to acheive the results that they had targeted, and then announce a Q2 profit on the same day.

It's all about not getting the wins and not reaching their goals. Without wins the budget isn't going to be allocated because there is no value for money in the form of the "free" advertising they get from a win. Without wins, and the publicity that comes from them, they can't get front line sponsors to pay the big $$$, and they only get negative or marginally positive publicity.

Also, as Ferrari have said, the new rules that have been implemented in the last few seasons, greatly diminish the value of F1 as an R&D tool, therefore reducing it's use to manufacturers.

The economic climate is just a good excuse to break a contract that they signed by claiming "Force Majeure".

[Mr Revhead]

Yeah I think fivebob is pretty much correct
Personally I think it was parts of all those above including economics.
If they had some wins, then they could justify the costs. But they didn't win, so F1 was not seen as value anymore. While I have no doubt they could afford F1, it wasn't worth it.
I still think they have a fairly tasty plan B hiding away somewhere....

[Mr Revhead]

Oh, and something I forgot to rant about a week or so ago....

I saw an interview with Bernie on CNN
there is no doubt in my mind that that old senile git should be shot
His view on costing cutting was along the lines of this:

"I don't think we need to set a budget. It will set it's self"

In other words Teams and tracks will fall by the wayside until there's a select few of money bags left....

[2jayzgte]

I f they keep changing the Formula ala V-10s V-8s I believe this is where alot of these so called budget problems occur as teams invest so heavily in getting there cars competitive for the new formula and this leads to the absorbitant costs if they stop F**King with the rules and stay the course costs might not be as high but these rule makers are just hell bent on putting there fingers and nose's in when it is'nt needed.

[Mr Revhead]

However the rules needed to be sorted so the car's can actually pass....
Certain technical freedom is needed. If the cars are too regulated you'll end up with a single formula class.... close racing yes, but no passing....

So the need to devise rules that allow experimentation and variety
Not rules so tight that all the cars look identical because the body work is so tightly regulated

I still think they need to seriously reduce the aero allowed, ban carbon brakes and alter the rules so teams can choose between 8, 10 or 12 cyls.
You could do that by altering weights allowed by various configurations. Ie V8s could run a lower minimum weight. But are not allowed to refuel or limit the amount of fuel they can add during the race etc. Something like that anyway.

To further reduce costs, ban certain things like pneumatic valves. electronic gear change's etc.
Yes F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport But imo "pinnacle" doesnt not mean most technically advanced. It means most spectacular, most exciting and most entertaining. For some time now F1 has failed to be any of that.
you also have to remember at certain times F1 was not the fastest series around and that didn't hurt it one bit

[Makaveli]

I don't think they should "dumb" down the technology used in Formula 1. IMO that's what makes it pinnacle of Motorsport. And I am pretty sure they are the fastest cars compared to Le Mans, Indy Lights, CART etc. But they need rule stability to cut R&D costs, that's what costs the most. If you get rid of Pneumatic Valves, you will be back to 12,500RPM or so they had back in the 1980s and that's just going backwards IMO. I think KERS was a good idea as it's relevant to road use. Most manufacturers are now adopting Hybrid technology for road cars such as BMW and Mercedes Benz. Toyota Prius has been a huge success and is the best selling vehicle they have.

Also Formula has great variety of tracks: you have the glamorous tracks like Monaco and Abu Dhabi, but you also have the "old school" driver's tracks like Spa and Suzuka.

I think ban on Tobacco is hurting F1 quite a bit. Because Tobacco companie's have a lot of cash at their disposal. Approximately 24% of the world's population smoke at any given time.

The main problem this year has been that you didn't have two competitive teams at one track. You had Brawn domination at one track, then you had Red Bull domination at another track, would have been nice to see them both fighting wheel to wheel on the same track.

[fivebob]

To further reduce costs, ban certain things like pneumatic valves. electronic gear change's etc.

Won't do any good. The major cost of these items is the development costs, these things are well developed so that the only cost is production, and that's quite low relative to development costs.

Banning things just starts another development race to find alternative technologies, and the the team with the most money/resources is the one that will come out on top.

Actually Mad Max did have one good idea in his proposed cost cutting rules that teams could only benefit from new developments for the year in which they were developed, after that they had to publish all the details so that everyone else could copy them. Don't know if that rule made it through though

[Mr Revhead]

I don't think they should "dumb" down the technology used in Formula 1. IMO that's what makes it pinnacle of Motorsport. And I am pretty sure they are the fastest cars compared to Le Mans, Indy Lights, CART etc.

I disagree on that. Part of being the "pinnacle" is being the best. F1 is not that. And I said "also have to remember at certain times F1 was not the fastest series around and that didn't hurt it one bit" not that it's not now. At various times Can Am and Sports cars were faster. at times when F1 was quite popular.


Yes the R&D is what costs, limit that.
Basically there's two options:
1: Don't reign in the tech/costs (remember tech = cost) and it will collapse, or only have 1-2 teams competitive.

2: dumb it down, concentrate on competitiveness and variety and it will thrive.

Imo this year hasn't been all that great, best part of it was seeing two other teams dominate rather than the usual suspects.

And yeah, the tracks..... the tracks are getting so so boring! combine that with cars that can't pass each other.....

Hell, I think I'm starting to loose faith in F1

[fivebob]

At various times Can Am and Sports cars were faster. at times when F1 was quite popular.

That was back when the FIA in their (in)finite wisdom decided that F1 should be normally aspirated 1500cc engines

[Mr Revhead]

In the late 60's F1 was running 3500cc then. I've just read Eion Young's book about Denny Hulme, where Hulme talks about smashing the F1 lap record at a track in Europe in a McLaren Can Am in about 69.
Mind you that car was basically a McLaren F1 car with body work and 750hp

My point is I don't think it will impact in negative way if the cars are slowed a bit. As long as the changes made that reuslt in the slowing, vastly increase the spectacle.
At the moment F1 cars do not pass anywhere enough, they race to set faster laps so they can over take in the pits.

I want to see passing and drivers fighting each other wheel to wheel.
That's also want all the casual fans want....

[Sideros]

Really? All I want to see is Ferrari winning...

[Mr Revhead]

Well, I would tell you to go watch A1GP then, but.....

[Sideros]

Burn!

[fivebob]

I don't think there's much that can be done to increase the passing during the race.

Apart from oval track racing I can't think of any class where there is a lot of passing, even V8 supertaxis don't have that much passing, and there's not much aero involved in those cars.

[fivebob]

Well, I would tell you to go watch A1GP then, but.....

Ferrari challenge series is also an option

[Mr Revhead]

Well there's quite a few touring car classes that do pass.... V8's pass a hell of a lot more than F1.

But even in GP2 there's prob more passes in one race than in 2 race's of F1