Daniil Kvyat, Red Bull, Shanghai International Circuit, 2015

Ecclestone kept small teams in the dark over rivals’ payments

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Sauber team principal Monisha Kaltenborn reveals Bernie Ecclestone did not tell F1’s smaller teams how much extra money he was giving to the largest teams when they made their commitments to compete in F1.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Start, Le Mans 24 Hours, 2015
The revised 2016 F1 calendar clashes with the Le Mans 24 Hours for the first time in five years
Is there a reason why Azerbaijan’s first F1 race in 2016 has been moved to the same weekend as the Le Mans 24 Hours?

I completely believe that Bernie intentionally scheduled Baku to be on top of Le Mans. He does not want drivers in the other series as he is a selfish task master. Nothing can get in the way of Bernie’s control of every aspect and having drivers promote WEC is not in his interest and in his eyes diminishes his F1 brand.

And if you look at the schedule, logistics, timing, the challenge of finishing Baku track on time… everything points to it being better to push Baku back a week. Name a single reason why Baku would be the week of Le Mans instead of going back a week. Seriously, go look at the calendar and notice the breaks around those races.

There is absolutely no reason to have it the week of Le Mans other than to stop drivers from competing in both.
@daved

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jeepneyman!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Ten years ago today the 2005 season concluded at Shanghai, where Renault clinched the constructors’ championship. It was also the final race for V10-engined cars, but the second Chinese Grand Prix was something of a damp squib:

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 72 comments on “Ecclestone kept small teams in the dark over rivals’ payments”

    1. Regarding the comment of the day on Baku conflicting with Le Mans, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the date is changed down the line, but only once it’s too late for any driver to be confirmed for Le Mans.

      1. Bernie’s schedule conflict sounds a lot like what happened with V8 Supercars and the Bathurst 12 hour this year. Most of the V8 drivers chose to compete in the 12 hour in years gone by, but in 2015, V8 supercars scheduled a test day on the same day as the 12 hour, and made it mandatory for all 2015 season drivers to run in the test. Part of this has also to do with TV rights, as Channel 7, who lost the V8 supercar rights this year to pay TV network Foxtel, announced last year that they would screen the Bathurst 12 hour on free to air. So some viewed this as V8 supercars ensuring that their new network would still have viewership on test days.

        After crushing 12 hour’s brand with this trick, V8 supercars announced that they were taking over the running of the 12 hour from next year, so I wonder if this is Bernie’s play to take over the WEC or Le Mans in order to prevent F1 losing more of its viewership to this series.

      2. People are reading too much on this subject. Bernie and Ezpeleta (Motogp) try not to clash, also Bernie and the broadcasters try not to clash with other major sporting events which not always works, this year for instances Wimbledon managed not to clash with F1, Wimbledon was the one that coincidently changed but you get the point, it’s business. Anyway the calendar as seen this year may drop one or two venues as the season is about to start and as said earlier the rulebook stipulates 20 max race weekends.

      3. While Bernie would pull any sort of trick to get his way, I think people are failing to remember that Le Mans has clashed with F1 many times in the past, most noticeably with the Canadian GP.

        The Canadian GPs of 1996-2000 and 2010-2011 clashed, and in 2005 and 2007 it clashed with the US GP at Indianapolis. This is not something new.

        1. Yep I always remember Montreal clashing with Le Mans – Martin Brundle’s Toyota commitments at Le Mans would always clash with his F1 commentating so Mark Blundell (and others) used to commentate in his place. So it’s very annoying that Baku has clashed, but no it’s nothing new.

        2. In the last few days Bernie has made a number of highly visible moves, none of which seem to do F1 any favours at all. Perhaps he’s driving the value of F1 down in order for a particular sale to go through – to himself?

          Or is he finally losing it?

    2. If Bernie and Red Bull pull off this idea of different engine specs, which I think would be a disaster, wouldn’t they still be subject to the 100 kg rule and the fuel flow metering of 100kg/hr?

      And if so could they be competitive considering that in the previous era they used about 160 kg per race.

      1. This is not likely to happen at all.

      2. From Autosport:

        Autosport has also learned there will be no alternative engine in the near future.
        F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone was rumoured to be considering options to the current 1.6-litre V6 turbo-charged hybrid systems, such as a 3.5-litre twin-turbo V6 or a pre-2014 V8.

        But despite it being recognised sustainability is key to the future of the smaller teams, and a standardised customer engine could be a way forward, that idea has been comprehensively rejected.

        1. “The times they are a changing” the rules too apparently, it seems 12 hours is a long time in F1.

        2. Yes.. I just read this as well.

          It certainly is a good idea to have a generic 3rd party engine.. As Bernie says, new comers and smaller teams (and not to mention teams with no engine supply) will have an option.. But I’m not sure if it being a completely different engine will fly. It would create a two tier formula in effect. Further to this, although this type of different engine scenario has happened before.. There are too many variables that are scrutinised these days and the only way a 3.5 L can compete with a 1.6L is if there is a rock solid set of regulations. I’m not going to hold my breath, because if it’s one thing that the FIA can’t do is, is write a set of rules that aren’t ambiguous.

          1. @jaymenon10

            I guess you mean 3 tier formula. Two tier it is already now as we have learned. Manufacturer engines (total package) is not the same as customer engine.

            However I also think that it is not possible to balance two entirely different specs of engines. One side will always be the fooled one, and if it is only because one costs a fortune and the other is cheap.

      3. @w-k You are getting carried away, the 100kg rule couldn’t exist with the old engines, why? First of all there’s no fuel injection in the old V8’s, 2nd the engine might not work at all. The 3.5 bi-turbo simple Kers plan has the potential to make F1 cars quicker, even with just 100kg of fuel, there’s modern fuel injection, all sort of cam technologies, yet over a race distance the current Pu’s are certain to achieve better effieciency and power but that’s not all in F1, weight is important. 100kg/H would be a real challenge but who knows. The underlying idea is that the current PU’s are powerful and efficient but they are really heavy the battery pack alone is 100kg, and in F1 that offset could make the difference in this subject as any of the proposed engine alternatives would make cars inherently 150-200 kg lighter, which usually converts to 3.5-4.0 seconds.

        1. @peartree Errr.. exactly how do you think the V8s were fuelled then? Carburettors? I think not. Even though they were naturally aspirated, they were still fuel injected.

          1. I suspect Pennyroyal just means direct injection.

    3. With the comment of the day, if Baku is kept at the same date on the calendar, would there be a chance of a driver (i.e. Hulkenberg) asking his team to let him miss the GP for Le Mans instead?

      1. It’s extremely unlikely. Most teams don’t allow their drivers to race in other series at all, let alone taking a race off.

        1. Don’t forget what happened to Robert Kubica…

        2. ColdFly F1 (@)
          16th October 2015, 7:32

          Look at Rossi in Sochi!

          1. You can’t really compare those two.

            With smaller, backmarker teams you have, ahem, bigger potential for lineup changes, for whatever reasons :)
            From my point of view, Rossi is only racing this year, so he can get a superlicense for the next season, because of FIA’s new system.

            So him not doing 1 race, after driving 2, and Hulkenberg being ‘full-time’ driver, multiple years with the team are quite different

          2. @coldfly Isn’t Rossi under contract for just 5 GPs? I think this was the deal from the very beginning and it was Mehri’s turn to do the Russian GP (he’s also going to race in Abu Dhabi with Rossi racing in the US, Mexico & Brazil).

      2. @rgbargie Probably not. Letting your driver take other commitments on top of his team duties which he’s under contract for is one thing, having your driver choose other commitments over his team duties is another.

        Force India, par example, will face a tough year in 2016, with Haas, McLaren, Renault, Sauber and Manor all aiming to get ahead of them in the WCC. They’re also not that keen on pay drivers either, so I don’t see them too willing to put an inexperienced driver in that car just because his wallet is thick enough. They’ll want Hulkenberg in that car.

        I wouldn’t hold the team(s) responsible however. It’s the decision to run that joke of a GP the same weekend as the Le Mans 24H just because Ecclestone has a point to prove which is sickening.

        The FIA should intervene, since it’s still the sanctioning body of both competitions. They should just argue that overlapping the two races is detrimental to both competitions, to the fans and to the drivers, which not only they should be allowed, but in my opinion they should be encouraged to race as they please.

      3. F1 politics are truly baffling sometimes. At times I envy the so called casual F1 fan because they don’t get caught up in the politics and just watch the races on odd weekends. During the winter break they don’t care much about what is going on and just tune in when the new season kicks off. Meanwhile the people on this website like myself whom of which are passionate and invested in the sport get turned off more and more by the daily shenanigans of the F1 circus. The lack of transparency, Bernies back door dealings and his total disregard for small teams (public perception) is detrimental to the sport. If it wasn’t the potential colossal battle between Ham and Vet next season I probably wouldn’t watch at all. Hopefully Ferrari can build a car that can rival Mercedes on a more consistent basis.

    4. Bernie is 84. For those who hate what he does: just wait it out. He will not live forever. For as much trash as people talk, I suspect we will look upon the days he ran the sport fondly. He is great for F1 and great for shareholders.

      1. 20 years ago Bernie was reaching retirement age, 10 years ago he was nearly 75, but today he’s still here, the Devil looks after his own.

      2. The share holders don’t give a hoot about racing, they only care about money and control of power.

      3. F1 is great for Bernie, but Bernie is not great for F1.

        1. Bernie is the reason F1 is still alive today

      4. F1 made a bad deal because they were trying to shake the EU off. Ever since, F1 can’t shake CVC off, obviously they don’t want to sell, F1 is making good money. It’s Bernie’s and Mosley’s legacy for a long time, the deal is scheduled to run for another Bernie’s lifetime. So just because Bernie made a bad album it shouldn’t have tainted his past work, only the future.

      5. With malice towards none, but F1 should find a backup for Bernie, because people of this age can collapse any day, I mean a small ailment or accident have big impacts on health at his age.

        1. Horner would do a fine job actually I think.

    5. As a longtime fan of Formula 1 I hate to say this, but Bernie has gone beyond the capitalist model with his business and into fascism. Bernie is a fascist. He is no longer in touch with the grass roots of the organization that he governs. It will end in tears if it continues down this track. Shame on Ferrari and Mercedes for going along with his dictatorship. Maybe that’s Entertainment.

      1. I think you need to look up a definition of fascism. Bernie is a 100% capitalist. The problem is, capitalism always must be controlled through government-created and government-imposed regulations, or you end up in the situation we have in US, where big corporations run the government. The governing body for F1 should be FIA, but they have as much control over Bernie as US government has over big corporations. Zero.

        1. @ferrox-glideh, @brace

          This is not quite right. Fascism is government control of business. It was the German government that controlled business, and so it was Italian government of Mussolini that controlled business 80 years ago.

          If corporations control government then this is called crony capitalism or corporatism.

          As an example. In Germany and Italy it was government offices who told business what to produce, how much to produce and who to sell to for which price. This is fascism. “Owners” of the businesses aren’t really owners because they are not deciding/controlling what to do with their business/property, they more or less just follow instructions from the government. Their title to the property of the business is only formal, an empty shell.

          If on the other hand the government does not do this, but corporations lobby for laws and regulations that favour them and impede/crush competition than this is crony capitalism

          Wiki:
          “An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[4] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state”

          Just think of who controls who. If government controls what business has to do it is fascism. If business controls what government has to do (e.g. What laws to enact, how to interpret them or enforce them, getting bailed out when making losses etc) then it is crony capitalism.

          1. Then its called living in America lol

      2. I think you are a bit too harsh on Bernie there @ferrox-glideh. I agree that Bernie probably is not much interested in F1 as a sport or money. Instead he looks like he is “having fun” playing his game of divide and conquer and likes to agree to deals and see them come to fruition.

      3. Well…he did great things to say about Hitler. “..in the way that he could command a lot of people, able to get things done,” – so yes, fascism isn’t a bad thing in Bernie’s eyes. But, he doesn’t care about political ideologies when it comes to getting a deal done. Any totalitarian will do if they have the millions to spend on his power lust.

        1. Even Bernie admits Spa and Silverstone can’t pay the same price to host a GP than Bahrein or Azerbaijan.

      4. @ferrox-glideh I think it is a bit too harsh. Even though Ecclestone has often praised dictators and sometimes clearly gone too far, I do not believe that he cannot stand any opposition or that he loves to destroy or humiliate people, who do not agree with him. It is just that he believes that ‘benevolent dictatorship’ is a more effective way to reach certain goals than trying to make everyone happy. I also have seen many bad examples of corporate democracy where a lot of nice people get together and simply cannot get anything done and would not get anything done even if they were given 100 years. Remember that a lot of racing series have gone bust, while F1 has survived and become one of the biggest sports in the world.

        For sure, I disagree with Ecclestone’s views on democracy (particularly if we are talking about countries, not corporations). In fact, I do not agree with a lot of things that he says or does (remember that he often does not speak his mind though). But I can see where his philosophy comes from and I would not use such words to describe him.

        1. “I don’t think there’s any place for democracy, full stop. Anywhere.” These are the words of B. E., a powerful corporate leader who is using his influence in the “entertainment” industry to support human rights abusers and war criminals in the political sphere. I may have gone to far by calling him a fascist, but he is manipulative, greedy, corrupt, and I find his behavior truly repulsive.

    6. An easier solution — break the rules for both Renault and Honda and allow them to develop an engine that’s competitive with Mercedes because if they can’t, two teams (RB and STR) will leave the sport. The argument? The sport is more important than any one team. Presto, STR gets a Honda that is competitive, RB gets a Renault that’s competitive, and we all get a proper F1 again.

      Yes, this is ridiculous, but wayyyyy less ridiculous than a whole other spec/size of engine racing in F1.

      It’s in everyone’s interest if F1 doesn’t skew too far toward one team. Mercedes can’t just keep winning. Even they don’t want that. Or at least they don’t want it to be so easy.

      1. On the contrary, I would use the ‘the sport is more important than any one team’ as an argument against giving special rules breaks to the competitors who haven’t done as good a job as their rivals.

        way less ridiculous than a whole other spec/size of engine racing in F1.

        It would be ridiculous, but I don’t expect that factors in Ecclestone’s thinking. As far as he’s concerned, fans have no idea what engines are in the cars anyway.

        1. @keithcollantine And sadly, Bernie probably right. Most of the fans probably only care to know about the brands (Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, Honda) and it is a hybrid engine. I don’t even think they really know what the hybrid means except it have something with electric car, just like Prius!

          On the other hand, I really like if RBR really break with Renault, either if they leave F1 or get something at the last hour, but leave STR intact. And Renault and Honda finally get it right next year and they both competitive again.

          1. Off course it is hard for us big fans to judge what other fans know or not about the cars, I think many do know about the brands (just look at how many Ferrari, Mercedes, Red bull etc shirts and banners are used in China, for example) and I doubt anyone is not aware of these being hybrids.

            That people know little of what the hybrid does is arguably the result of Bernie (and the FIA) not presenting it more than lack of interest from fans

        2. @keithcollantine

          I would use the ‘the sport is more important than any one team’ as an argument against giving special rules breaks to the competitors who haven’t done as good a job as their rivals.

          Agreed, if someone is allowed to artificially catch others up just to keep him satisfied and make the whole thing more interesting, then we are not really talking about a competition or a sport anymore and I might as well switch the channel and watch “Dancing with the stars” or a cooking show instead.

    7. In all honesty maybe we are reading too much into the calendar. If you want 21 races over let’s say 36 weekends a year (so without summer break) you’re bound to clash with some other major events in sports. If anything flying the entire circus from Canada to Baku is easier than transporting everything back to England first.

      1. I don’t believe it for a second @xtwl. Bernie has always used the calendar as part of strategic and tactical arsenal to knead the sport to his biddings. Just look how the first calendar draft was concentrated into a short season or how BE puts events in back to back or single flights (the first few races are all single event, making for high cost flying back and forth for example)

        As for your assumption that its easier to fly from Baku directly to Canada, have you checked flights? I think its quite likely that you will find flights to baku going through several stops (middle east, Turkey, Moscow? not sure, maybe even through Heathrow?).

        1. @bascb I agree completely but the chances of any F1 event clashing with Le Mans isn’t as small as some seem to think. In case of the flights, cargo goes by other rules than commercial flights. I think it would go via Heathrow but straight on towards Baku. I know we have goods coming in from Vietnam/Indonesia/China/Korea daily and some of those urgent get here in less than 40 hours and they don’t pass Heathrow (which is the flightentry to Europe indeed), it’s not like the entire circus is going to be shipped by boat which would take quite a bit longer .

        2. @bascb Except I believe FOM has it’s own (either owned or chartered) cargo plane for hauling the stuff, so they don’t need to do transits. The personnel will still use commercial flights, but it won’t be that much problem. But, both of you and @xtwl is correct, Bernie is a really good businessman, so he will use anything, including the calendar for money efficiency and advancing his agenda. Why you only think in 1 dimension if you can do both at once?

          1. First of all, its quite possible that the heavier/bulkier stuff will actually be shipped to Canada by ship ahead, just like it is done with many other overseas races. That is why teams have multiple sets of this stuff.

            Af for the clash, didn’t the FIA and ACO agree a year or 2 back on rules and also on not staging F1 races and LeMans in conflict? Sure, there are easy enough reasons one can name as an excuse, and I am sure Bernie will if needed (see @soncislv’s remark, yes BE does and will use all means available).
            But as you say yourself, we should not be thinking its just an unconvenient incident that happened by accident @xtwl.

            I also think that the flights “only” for team personell ARE a bit of an issue, because those team members will work the weekend all out, then finish off packing everyting on monday evening after the race, travel Monday night/tuesday (it WILL realistically take them about a full day or more) and on wednesday they already have to have things goint to be able to present the cars for scrutineering on Thursday.

            Yes, unless any bureaucratics get in the way, it seems doable. But it certainly leaves little room for error, obstacles (what if Syria and Ukraine mean having to take a wide route around the region, for example) and certainly puts quite a bit of stress on the team personel without private jets

    8. Matthew 20:15 goes like this: “Do I not have the right to do what I want with my own things? Or is your eye envious because I am good?” All the workers agreed their wages. The principle is simple. You agree your wages, you accept the contract and commitments that go with it, or you don’t. It seems that attitude – I can’t live with consequences of decisions I make – is becomin’ sort of pandemic. It seems worrying that majority of the ‘short’ people are pushing it to become default for everything. In the universe that is run by laws of causes and consequences some are to tired to think about the consequences before they do something. They prefer to think about it ‘a bit’ later. Then, they bump into Bernie who prefers things the other way. What now…? Change the universe, maybe?

      1. While I tend to agree with what you say, you do assume that there is no such thing as being ‘bullied into an agreement’. When they give you (i.e. a team such as Sauber or Force India) a choice between not signing a contract (which means all your investments of both time and money will be lost AND over 200 of the employees you are responsible for will be on the street instantly) and signing that contract (which means that your bankruptcy will be postponed by a couple of years and be a longer painful process) the choice is easy. I guess if I were in their situation I would also sign thinking in the back of my mind that I will do whatever it takes to change that deal afterwards, but at least my employees will get their salaries.

        I wonder if you also think there is nothing wrong with pyramid-schemes, since they also work based on agreement from all parties involved. The same goes for mortgages. In a somewhat unrelated topic, before the crisis I often had little sympathy for people who complained when they were evicted from their houses due to unpaid loans to the bank. Since then I have had the misfortune of analyzing some cases and I have had to conclude that banks have really bullied people into taking more and more loans at higher and higher interest rates. One particular case comes to mind where a family lost their house, and they had actually paid 5x times what they initially owed the bank (including interest) , but this still was not even close to enough.

        Luckily there are very clear definitions of what kind of deals are legal and illegal. And while I have not look into too much detail of the F1 case, to me it looks like a great example of abuse of power.

      2. Mark 12:17 states “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
        In this case Caesar (EU competition law) requires all contracts to be fair and lawful. I’m not an expert on contract law, but from what I’ve read from those who are the F1 contracts don’t appear to be fair or lawful.

      3. Matthew 20:15?

        An F1 team does not have the choice whether to do F1 or not. It is an F1 team. They do F1. F1 is what they do. If only unfair terms are offered, they still have to accept them.

        Applying something somebody said 2,000 years before the motor car can only lead you somewhere that has nothing to do with cause and effect. The effect of turning down Bernie is damnation, as we all know ;)

    9. I can’t see anyone wanting to watch the F1 race over Le Mans…
      We’ll just see Azerbaijan loose bucket loads of money with nobody watching or caring, while the rest of the world watches a race that really matters.

      1. @scottie I don’t see where you coming from. Aside from the diehard LeMans fans, most people who watch motorsport that day will prioritize F1 first. Why you sacrifice another big event when you only took away 2 hours from 24 hours event? It’s not like watching LeMans means you glued into the screen for 24 hours anyway.

      2. @scottie I think you’re overestimating the people who watch both. As I have said many times F1Fanatic readers are only a small percentage of all F1 fans and not even on this site 100% is even interested in Le Mans. Of all the people who actively follow both I also think more will choose to see an inaugural event of F1 rather than those 2 hours of Le Mans.

        1. @xtwl Given that I’ll be at Le Mans, either trackside or at a campsite, I’m pretty sure I won’t be taking time out to watch an F1 race. Maybe if it was one I was interested in, like Monaco or Britain, but not some newcomer like Baku. Probably watch it on catch up but I don’t see myself going out of my way to watch it while I’m in France.

          1. @mazdachris What I’m trying to say is that of all people who watch Formula One only a small percentage also actively follows and views the WEC and of that group only an even smaller group has access to quality footage of both (most likely F1 over WEC) and of that group a large chunk (if they would want to) would watch on a second screen (iPad, laptop, whatever) without any problem. So the actual group of people who will have to actually miss those two hours of racing,… not that much.

            Of course it is a stupid clash and unfortunate for current F1 drivers who had wanted to take part.

      3. @scottie It will also depend on the starting time of the F1 race. Ideally, they would start the race one hour after Le Mans finishes. However, that would be already at 19:00 Baku time, which is too late (sunset is at 21:14). So the best option would be starting the GP at ~14:00 local time (11:00 CET), which would allow the fans to watch the F1 race and the final laps of Le Mans right after that.

        If the “European” GP indeed takes place on June 19, a certain competition between both races is inevitable. F1 will still win it but the 24 hours could take a substantial portion of TV audience away, particularly if Hamilton dominates the season again and the race at Baku is rather dull. Of course, it will depend on the intensity of the Le Mans race, too.

        1. which would allow the fans to watch the F1 race and the final laps of Le Mans right after that.

          @girts Taking into account this is on your home telly of course. Problem already non-existent if you’re watching on a crappy stream on the side.

          1. @xtwl You are right, I prefer watching races on TV but there will certainly be fans, who will have two screens (or a split screen) and who are going to divide their attention between both events.

    10. I agree with @daved, I believe it would make more sense to have a triple-header (Baku-Red Bull Ring-Silverstone) than host the race at Baku just a week after the Canadian GP. As Adam Cooper pointed out, “the shortest flight from Montreal to Baku on the Monday after the Canadian GP takes 14.5 hours – and it’s via Heathrow”.

      If you take a look at the history of the relationship between F1 and Le Mans, then you see that a lot of F1 world champions and race winners took part and often won at Le Mans until the 1970s: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/06/10/f1-drivers-who-won-at-le-mans/ As the importance of money, sponsorship and TV coverage in F1 increased, Le Mans became less attractive for top F1 drivers. For instance, Jochen Rindt and Graham Hill are the last drivers that have won both the Monaco GP and the 24 hours of Le Mans. Mark Webber is definitely in a good position to repeat the feat but Hill and Rindt were still active F1 drivers when they won at Le Mans.

      Nowadays the likes of Hulkenberg are obviously a big exception. I do not believe that the current F1 drivers would not love to combine F1 with Le Mans, it is just that moneybags do not want to see it happen.

    11. 32 tokens next year and areas that were to be frozen will be left open. Merc will be happy as they pushed to bring a new spec in Monza with a view to next year as the areas they changed and used all their remaining tokens on were to be frozen from next year. Clever at the time but now everyone can change these areas next year with 6 or more months additional development.

      Do the 32 tokens have to be spent by the start of next season? If so it will be hard to maximise all 32 tokens with the research needed and lead times to manufacture. For areas that were to be frozen and are now open it only gives teams 5 months or less to design and build for these areas should the engine have to be homologated before the start of the season.

      1. No they’ll be able to spend them through the year again, as they did this year. The homologation date will be dropped.

        Which means pretty much unlimited development through the season in all but name. The main restrictive factor will not be the tokens but rather the number of power units available for drivers through the year. They’ll want to sync the development cycle so that major updates are ready before each new engine is used. Unless they just take penalties as Honda have done this year.

        1. Bit of a climb down on the original plan. I cannot understand why they did not keep the format when the V8 engine came in. 1 year to do what you want then freeze. Instead we have engine makers being put off entering and whoever did the best job to start with a guaranteed advantage for years as everyone is kept at arms length from them even if they have the ability to catch up faster. In the end we have ended up with years of partial development and the research costs that go into it when we could of had 1 year unlimited and the rest frozen, surely this wold have been a huge net saving even if the 1st year development costs would have been large? Not to mention how on occasion this year races have been better for Ferrari catching up a little to Merc despite the restrictions in place.

          1. I cannot understand why they did not keep the format when the V8 engine came in. 1 year to do what you want then freeze.

            Because these are very different engines with a lot of new technology that isn’t going to be fully figured out in just 1 year as we have seen with Renault & Honda.

            The V8’s were well understood technology so there wasn’t really much to be learnt & unlike the V8’s its not just about the engine, There’s all the extra hybrid stuff & its those areas that are going to take time to figure out & its that area which Renault & Honda need to improve as neither are able to harvest or deploy the amount of energy that Mercedes & Ferrari can.

            1. Fine it can be tweaked 2 years unrestricted. It allows engine manufacturers to catch up faster and reach a plateau of development faster. This year is better but last year the results were a fore gone conclusion. What we are left with however is a restricted system that can take 4 or more years for everyone to get to a similar level.

              Another thing why is the hybrid part not a one for all system like the ecu? This would be cheaper and engine manufacturers still have the kudos of building their own engines that they are famed for but in a far more cost effective way with a closer balance of performance that would come about faster. A V6 twin turbo is no more complicated than the V8’s and then they could of had 1 year before freezing them. I think being able to build your own engine to get an advantage is as important as new front wings and aero parts but with the additional variable of the hybrid technology it has created a chasm in performance that will take a long time to balance out naturally and to force a balance is against everything motor racing should be about.

    12. Bernie. F1 engines. Le Mans. …..
      Where is that charlatan of Jean Todt in all this ?
      Busy to get some other title or decoration ?

    13. My mum once said, “be very careful with what you wish in case it become true”. Hamilton should think about that.

    14. Saurabh (@sksahukanker62)
      17th October 2015, 6:21

      I think Force India and Sauber are doing the right thing. It will make the sport more competitive.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.