Advance payment helps Sauber keep going

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Sauber receive an advance payment from one of its sponsors in order to pay its latest salary bill.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Alex thinks F1 is pulling in two different directions at once:

Having removed the sport from the casual viewers, its direction is now being pointed away from the dedicated fans that remain. Ecclestone has alienated the Sunday channel-hoppers who would find these ideas for increased entertainment fun. And the folks who are left are the purists, the F1-as-sport types who are most vocal against them.

These tactics were designed to mix up the order not for competitive reasons, but to disrupt the manufacturers and save him money. Ultimately it will send them packing, he’ll get what he wants and the rest of us will leave too. What will the commercial rights be worth then?
Alex Brown (@Splittimes)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Mad Eric, Slr, Dirgegirl and Traverse!

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

Happy birthday to 1997 world champion Jacques Villeneuve who is 45 today!

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.

87 comments on “Advance payment helps Sauber keep going”

  1. COTD is exactly what I was thinking, it doesn’t make any sense to block out casual viewers then make everything artificial, for what? To hope they’ll pay to see it?

    Also, disagree with Hamilton on driver coaching. F1 drivers always want to extract every last 1000th, and if a coach brings a tenth or even half a tenth that they wouldn’t have otherwise had, do it.

    Also, I don’t understand Bernie’s logic (shock). He’s slamming the engines again blaming them. Yet the engines are more powerful than before, there is a lot of interest in them that didn’t exist before, and a lot more competition between the manufacturers than before. Yet he’s convinced that they are actually a bad thing?

    Even Bernie cannot make F1 go away from these engines, so why does he keep complaining??

    1. Bernie keeps complaining about the engines because the manufacturers are too strong for him to control, he only wants teams that need F1 more than F1 needs them. @strontium

    2. I’m a bit puzzled too about his distaste for the V6 hybrid technology, but he does have a point, which is maybe the engines are too expensive for this racing series, but what would he have instead? If F1 went back to the V8s they had a few years ago, then the engines would still be about as expensive as these ones are, or if they went back to the V10, then they too would be about as expensive as the current V6 is. The reason is supply and demand: an F1 team has to have an engine that at the very least ensures they comply with the 107% rule in Qualifying, and preferably an engine that allows them to compete with the team running first in the Constructors Championship, so if one team uses an engine that cost them $4M each and they have the most points in the Championship, then everyone else has to spend that sort of money per engine to compete with them.
      Another way to look at it is if a team turned up with a cheap V8 and got good results, it wouldn’t be long before other teams turned up with an equivalent V8, but a more expensive V8 engine that produces far more power than what the team with the cheap V8 has. This would force the first team with the cheap V8 to have to upgrade their engine, so it isn’t a cheap V8 any more, and before long everyone would be running a V8 that would be about as expensive as they could afford to run without it ruining them, which is pretty much where we are with the current V6 format.
      I can’t help but think that when they say “the engines are too expensive” they don’t actually mean just the engine itself, but also the transmission, active suspension, MGU-K, the MGU-H, and the batteries, and the software that ties it all together as well. If they went to a different engine format, then they’d still have MGU-K, the batteries, the transmission, and the active suspension, and the software that holds it all together, so the cost of those would be more or less the same as they are now. The only difference would be the MGU-H, and if it was decided F1 had to continue being a fuel flow restricted series, then all the MGU-H stuff would have to remain as well. If the cost of those bits and pieces is currently included in “the engine” budget, then it wouldn’t change with a retrograde format.

      1. What active suspension?

        Anyway. The new Power Units are expensive because, well, they are being developed! The V8s were frozen in 2007, with max revs being lowered in 2009, and design changes for reliability were allowed (although this was likely exploited). The engines were also equalized, so engine performance was similar. This, coupled with the fact the engines were subsidized, made the engines cheaper for the teams.

        Anyone should be able to realize that if the engine rules change, and development is allowed (even if it’s restricted), any manufacturer (any) will have a huge budget decidated to developing the engine. And if the engine prizes to the customers aren’t regulated, then they will be high, because the manufacturers will want to recover as much of their investment as possible. Even if the engines were single-cylinder monsters with early-XX-century technology, the manufacturers would spend as much money as possible to get an edge.

        1. @casjo, I presume that is a reference to the proposal for active suspension to be reintroduced in 2017 as part of the new regulation package.

        2. @casjo Thanks for correcting me. I had seen a comment from Ron Dennis last year (and now can’t find) which I misunderstood to mean F1 cars use active suspension, and this is controlled by software. This is wrong, F1 cars don’t use active suspension, it is (as you said) against the rules (currently), so the software can’t be controlling the suspension. I had also noticed the ride height of some F1 cars remained the same at completely different speeds, which I took to mean they were using active suspension, but in fact it is just clever engineering, not active suspension.
          Apparently the suspension in an F1 car is entirely mechanical.

    3. “Also, I don’t understand Bernie’s logic (shock). He’s slamming the engines … Yet the engines are more powerful than before, there is a lot of interest in them that didn’t exist before, and a lot more competition between the manufacturers than before. Yet he’s convinced that they are actually a bad thing?”

      @strontium You have hit the nail on the head with a concise and accurate summary. I, too, have been puzzled by Bernie’s strident antipathy to the technological tour de force that is the current F1 powerplant. Bernie has F1 in his blood, his business acumen built it into the commercial juggernaut it is today, commanding HUGE hosting fees…. why is he intent on badmouthing his own life’s work???

      Your comment made me look at this from a different angle. Bernie was that rare breed of sportsman as well as instinctive businessman. He was F1 until he sold to CVC. When he went to work for THEM, his financial interests switched from that of the teams (i.e. the sport) to their EMPLOYERS, CVC, who now own the revenue. New ownership that did not build a product may not understand it, and can come to see “labour” (the teams) as merely the largest cost on the income statement. Bernie is against these engines because of their expense TO THE TEAMS. The relatively cheap V8 powerplants gave Bernie leverage to justify the pittance of the revenues historically assigned to smaller teams built in to the CVC deal– he could deflect their claims for a larger share by pinning their financial struggles on not knowing how to run their budgets, etc. But the new powerplant requirement gives the teams a LEGITIMATE CLAIM to a larger share of revenue: powerplant cost is a BASIC enterprise expense, so small teams need more money JUST TO SHOW UP (eg Sauber now). The past 2 years have made clear that teams MUST have the money to bring their power units up to par with deep-pocketed Mercedes and Ferrari or the sport becomes a farce.

      These hybrids are a bell that cannot be un-rung. They have demonstrated superior torque, end of straight power, and fuel-efficiency, and are a platform that can be developed significantly. The hybrid/EV powerplant is the paradigm for transition away from fossil fuel as a mobile power source. Like it or not, F1 is again the pinnacle of modern engine technology. The sad thing is that the sport CAN AFFORD to be the developing ground and showcase of this technology, and allow ALL teams to be competitive, BUT THE OWNERS DO NOT WANT TO GIVE UP REVENUE TO “LABOUR.” Bernie’s disparaging comments on the drivers are intended for the teams as well. He sees everyone but himself and CVC as “taking money out of the sport and not putting a dollar in.” This has become the perspective of much modern ownership– they discount the contribution of intellect, insight, and sweat equity in favor of pure capital, as if capital is the reason for the demand for the product. The teams, drivers, engineers, designers, mechanics, builders, factories are all seen by ownership as a drain on “their” revenue. Rather than giving up short term profit, INVESTING in the teams, and doing the hard work of working WITH the teams to develop the sport and put out a better racing product that will become more valuable over the long term, Bernie’s (i.e. CVC’s) only solutions are those that are cheap: previous model engines, sprinklers, artificial grids, time ballast, etc. When smart people propose ideas so ludicrous that they make you wonder “What on earth are they thinking??”, follow the money: these are cheap, easily implementable “solutions” from people who do not want to invest in the sport, since investment is expensive and requires hard work by all, including ownership.

      1. @slowhands well thought, that would explain Bernie’s mad ideas.

      2. @slowhands This is an excellent comment. I hope it gets COTD.

  2. I’m glad Sauber will be racing in China.

  3. It seems things are pretty grim at Sauber. I something can be done to restore their financial situation, but realistically I think we’re looking at the demise of yet another small team.

    I won’t be surprised if they are the only one this year as it has become increasingly difficult to attract sponsors into the sport, particularly now the broadcast rights have gone to Pay TV.

    1. With the jump in performance by Manor, Sauber is now in real danger. Losing them would be devastating, sometimes we forget they are one of the oldest privateers in activity, only beaten by McLaren and Williams. That’s a big part of F1 history there. Plus Sauber, as Minardi before, produced awesome talents (Raikkonen, Heidfeld, Massa, Kubica, Pérez, Kobayashi). I hope they don’t go, they just need a good car. Last year’s was a great car but lack of development killed its chances. And Nasr may be a pay driver but isn’t a slouch. He’s really good. Ericsson can be a bit erratic but he’s proven he can do the job.

      1. Ferrari is a privateer for over 60 years or do you mean a privateer as in only build a chassis not engines?

        1. RaceProUK (@)
          9th April 2016, 1:33

          Ferrari also has their road car division, a top-5 coolest brand image, and the coffers of Fiat available to them, not to mention more prize money and the ‘Ferrari bonus’ payment they get for being Ferrari ;)

          1. Yeah that they do. I always think of manufacturer teams as a large scale manufacturer like Mercedes-Benz Renault BMW etc. Then again if building road cars makes you a manufacturer then McLarens are a manufacturer as were Lotus. If bankrolled by a major car company counts then Red Bull, Williams, McLarens were manufacturer teams as we’re BAR come to think of it. What is the official definition of a manufacturer team?

          2. RaceProUK (@)
            10th April 2016, 0:54

            I believe it’s generally accepted to be a team owned by a manufacturer, and/or a team that makes both car and engine themselves. This would include Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, and the original Lotus, but exclude McLaren, Williams, the Lotus that became Caterham, and the Lotus that used to be and became Renault.

        2. I meant privateer as in not a factory team. Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault are factory teams. Williams, McLaren, Sauber, etc. are privateers (though they had associations with engine manufacturers that could be described as them being factory teams).

      2. @carlitox That’s the problem with Kaltenborn leadership. She pick money over talent, while Peter Sauber pick talent first. Look at Peter’s drivers, many of them become drivers for top teams and highly regarded. While even Nasr and Ericsson might be *good* enough but I don’t see them as top driver in the future. It seems common business logic in never work in F1, the success non works team (McLaren, Williams) always get great drivers first, then sponsor (and prize) money followed, not the other way around.

        1. The thing is that Peter Sauber’s strategy of hiring young promising drivers and then selling them off to top teams (Raikkonen being the prime example) doesn’t work anymore. Every top team has a young driver programme, which means there’s no need to buy a driver from a lower team anymore.

          1. @paeschli But oddly enough, every year there’s always discussion why driver A can’t get F1 while he a champion in feeder series, or driver B is much better than driver C that only get into F1 because his money, etc. While it’s true top team have their own your driver programme, except Red Bull no one actually use it. McLaren/Honda prefer to “buy” Alonso, Ferrari with Raikkonen and Vettel and rumored on eyeing Bottas, Mercedes with Hamilton and honestly Warhlein won’t get a chance in near future on that silver arrow unless something big happened to Rosberg or Hamilton. Sauber can positioned itself as the team that get those “fans darling” drivers as long as they paid really low or not at all for the exchange of making it into F1 and his sponsor can pay lower than your usual pay driver rate. Even if they can’t “sell” them (which still possible if the fans darling is as good as the fans says), they can get more WCC points and collect more prize money. Becoming fans beloved team can also attract it’s own sponsor, maybe youth oriented brand compared to traditionally Rolex-wearing oriented brand in other teams.

          2. @sonicslc I think that might perhaps have more to do with champions and proven drivers not retiring? (can’t think of a more recent young-driver-after-1-really-good-season-driver hire by a big team than KOV in 2008, or maybe PER in 2013 (though that 2013 car turned out awful)……I mean look at HUL).

            (Just a guess.)

          3. @erotictransformation No, but it’s more because big teams doesn’t need to gamble with unproven drivers. From statistics alone, how many rookie drivers looks really special? I can only remember Hamilton, Alonso Vettel and Verstappen. But the point is, if Sauber going to use rookie as cheap driver, get the quality one instead of the proven slow but have sponsor money. They don’t have that driver sponsor cash but they can get better prize money, while also become fan favorite (increasing their sponsorship bargain).

            Also the only model when top teams can develop their own you driver is Red Bull model when they have B team. Teams like Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes won’t put their young driver into F1 because it would risk their WCC battle (unless you are special talent like Hamilton). And even then, Red Bull still get criticized for wasting too many young talent from STR because the main team doesn’t need to replace their driver.

            Finally I think Kovalainen isn’t that great, but McLaren was forced because of the Alonsogate, it was pretty late to start negotiations with other drivers, and Kovalainen just dumped by Renault because they happily create a seat for Alonso. And Hulkenberg is an example of fans darling that not deliver. For all his year in F1, he not having a great record and it’s already reported several big teams considering but ultimately passed on him.

        2. Peter Sauber was always able to strick some good sponsorships, besides the drivers sponsors. They had Credit Suisse, Petronas, Red Bull, Dell, Intel, O2, etc for years and years on the car. Under Kaltenborn that has vanished. NEC has been lost to Force India and Chelsea has disappeared this year. Of course it has not been a good climate to get some sponsors on the car, but bringing nothing at all is just mismanagement. Currently on the Sauber; Silanna = Ericsson, Banco do Brasil = Nasr. Well done…..

        3. Pastor Maldonado ?
          williams certainly took cash over talent

      3. @Carlitox: “And Nasr may be a pay driver but isn’t a slouch. He’s really good. Ericsson can be a bit erratic but he’s proven he can do the job.”

        Really? Being beaten by his team-mate by over ½ a second in qualifying in Australia and a whooping 1½ seconds in Bahrein, being soundly beaten in both races, complaining about his car not generating the same amount of downforce (i.e. not being good at setting up his car) constitutes being “really good”? If that is your standard, then Ericsson is clearly as good as Hamilton or Alonso, something that’s not really on is it? No, Nasr is being found out. Apart from Australia last year, he hasn’t done much to write home about and right now, Ericsson is proving that out of the two, he is the better F1-driver.

        1. What? Apart from Australia last year Nasr hadn’t shown anything?! Are you from Sweden by any chance? Nasr has beaten Ericsson soundly last season especially given Ericsson’s extra year of experience. Both in qualifying and the races. And lest we forget, Nasr has also destroyed Ericsson as team-mate in GP2 again with Ericsson being the more experienced GP2 driver at the time

          We have the whole of last season(and a season of GP2) to look and analyze their rivalry yet you take the non-representative amount of 2 races and claim that they PROVE Nasr has been found out? Yep that’s very logical…NOT

          I’m sorry but your opinion isn’t backed up by facts. If I had to rule right now, I’d say that it’s Ericsson who’s a completely worthless driver apart from his sponsors. Their comparative junior records prove that and their cumulative F1 showings so far too, unless one cherry-picks 2 races from the pool as you did

          1. This is F1 and not what people did in GP2 ages ago. In F1, you’re only as good as your last race and I’m sorry, Nasr has been *dreadful* this season. Furthermore, Nasr didn’t beat Ericsson soundly last season, so do take off your rose-tinted glasses!

          2. Henrik, with regards to your comment that Nasr hadn’t “done much to write home about” last year, he ended the year with the qualifying balance slightly in his favour (10 races to 9) and, in races where both drivers finished, managed to beat Ericsson 8 times to 6 over the course of the season.

            With regards to this year, whilst Ericsson might have beaten Nasr in qualifying for the Australian GP, that advantage did not carry over into the race – Nasr was actually running ahead of Ericsson before the latter retired. From what we have seen of them, and as I believe Keith pointed out in his 2015 review, Ericsson and Nasr seemed to be reasonably evenly matched – I have to agree with the consensus from others that you seem to be picking the last two races mainly because they fit with your preconceived bias against Nasr.

            With regards to your comment that “you’re only as good as your last race”, well, we will wait and see whether you do actually abide by that – if, later in the season, Nasr did have a string of races later in the season where he did beat Ericsson, would you be prepared to retract your comments or not?

        2. Don’t forget the qualifying system used in those two events was a load of Daily Mail.
          Not a totally fair way of judging drivers against each other. And it’s race results that pay the bills in the end.

  4. Honestly bernie has got some nerve. He moans about the engines because they are expensive and the smaller teams are struggling??? (Yes, bernie it’s the engines. Not the fact they receive a tiny fraction of the money that the bigger teams get) He also says the fans didn’t want them? But yet fans didn’t want qualifying changed and that didn’t bother old mad bernie. And how he can have the audacity to act like he cares about f1 fans after selling off f1 to pay tv. Bernie doesn’t care about fans all that matters to him is making sure CVC and himself milk every single penny outta f1 they can. I wonder what shape f1 would be in if redbull didn’t accept bernies bribes and the FOTA was still going strong.

    1. This is exactly it. He covers up the unfair distribution by blaming the cost, and covers up the move to pay-tv by blaming everything else.

    2. Lol I was excited as hell about new engines. Only thing good about V8 was Cosworth revving one to 20000+… But that was nuttered to 18000. So not even that. New engines give more in every dynamic aspect.

      Bernie is just allover the place, consistiently picking gimmick over sport… As in Noise over Performance, reverse grid over fastest lap, degeading tires over faster racing… DRS over mechanical grip… Fireworks above the track instead of fireworks on the track. He consiestently misses the point and we are tired of it.

  5. So Crash are getting their articles from Bernies tame journalist now !?

  6. Certainly Lewis didn’t become 3 times world champion by luck… But I guess he was lucky to have had a car capable of winning all through his F1 career to date… There aren’t many drivers who can count themselves so lucky..

    1. They would not let anyone in a winning car every year unless teams thought the driver was very special. I would say that Hamilton has had a winning car every year he has driven is testiment to his ability.

      1. Come on. He can talk all he wants about drivers ‘needing confidence’. He had a car that was a second clear of the rest of the field for TWO YEARS. He was on a Sunday drive to two championships – and probably a third (God forbid). If he was sitting mid-pack this whole time he’d be trying all the coaches he could get his hands on.

        1. Say what you will but no one wins a championship without having the fastest car. You don’t win the driver’s championship without winning the Constructors’. Wait a min, that has happened in the not so distant past and guess who won the driver’s champ in the not fastest car? Lewis Hamilton in 2008.
          I guess you will soon tell me the 2008 Mclaren was the fastest because to you, he always has the fastest machinery just so you can knock him and ignore the guy’s obvious prowess.
          Don’t knock the guy for using what he was given to the best of his ability.
          As for your “God forbid”, he may well win this year’s championship and his third with Mercedes. I don’t know what will become of you after that happens. One thing I have learnt about Hamilton is never to write him off. He will come back and he will come back strong.

          1. In 2008 it was a real fight between McLaren and both Ferarris as well as Renault, BMW Sauber and Toro Rosso winning races. When Vettel won those four titles in a row, both Ferarri and McLaren were in the mix until quite late in the season. But 2014 and 2015, all Hamilton had to do was to beat his teammate as only under exceptional circumstances could any other team hope to win a race. The “skill” Hamilton displayed in 2014-15 was to have chosen the right moment to join Mercedes and in beating Nico Rosberg.

            Not much to brag about actually.

          2. Henrik, I would argue that Vettel’s 2011 season saw fairly limited competition from McLaren and Ferrari. By the time that the teams got to the German GP, which marked the middle of the season, Vettel was over 80 points clear of his nearest rival from McLaren or Ferrari: after the Singapore GP, Vettel had all but sealed the title with five races still remaining (a 124 point lead with only 125 points available).

          3. The Red Bull in 2012 wasn’t the fastest car as that was Mclaren.

    2. I think Hamilton is lucky to be so talented. He is talented enough to get excellent offers.

      He also left McLaren at the right moment, and joined the best team. Perhaps in time we will learn how much was luck, and how much was good networking and judgement.

      1. There wasn’t much good judgement in that decision…simply people who were forming best possible team made an effort to chase down best possible driver. And they got it right.

        1. Some hindsight in that view I think @jureo. At the time a lot of people were saying he was mad to dump grandee team McLaren for serial failures ex-BAR-Honda-low-budget Mercedes from which Norby and then Brawn himself got sacked for failing to deliver.

          Fact is Brawn went to Lewis’ house and talked him into it with reasoning, and Lewis listened and took the calculated decision to endure 2013, having bought into the reasoned argument for the new era.

          1. Rumours were all over the place before the cars hit the track for 2014 that Merc had made a monster of an engine, if thats in the public then i can bet drivers and team personel had heard this well before.

            “Brawn himself got sacked for failing to deliver” – Deliver what? his input AND as he was in charge of Mercedes when the engine rules were being written he had a part in what they would be, he was the one who put all th epieces together to create this team, Merc wanted multiple people to be in charge whereas Brawn beleived in one person.

          2. @lockup I don’t think team Brackley, at the time (as is today) a manufacturer team, can’t be called a Grandee either………

          3. There was lots of talk in 2012 already and certainly 2013 how Mercedes had 100bhp more than the competition…

          4. @David Bell @davidnotcouldthard don’t forget this was mid-2012 that Lewis was deciding.

            MercedesF1 hadn’t achieved anything at that point, and there wasn’t much interest in them. Mercedes had tried to run the team to the budget cap for a couple of years, and only just increased the budget. But Brawn picked Lewis and went to his house to persuade him: http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9575144

            So it wasn’t luck for Hamilton, it was a calculated decision, is all I’m saying. It’s unfair to say there was no good judgment in it. Nor was it luck that had Mercedes renew his contract last year for 3 years, on his terms, even deleting the ‘dangerous sports’ clause.

          5. If there was lots of talk about +100 bhp @jureo then his choice wasn’t luck, was it? ;)

            But I don’t remember any of that in 2012, and what’s the relevance of talk in 2013? Brawn persuaded him with reason, check the link I posted.

          6. @lockup

            That is why I say Hamilton was not that lucky. Probably he also saw inside McLaren that the team was rapidly deteriorating.

            Like Alonso saw in 2014 at Ferrari.
            Ross Brawn seems to be very persuasive… First convinced M.Schumacher to stop getting in to bike accidents. Then poached best people and sneaked Hamilton from McLaren.
            A lot can be said about Ross Brawn… But of any team principal on the grid he was #1 at getting championships. Offcorse after laying the ground work current Merc team still had to get the job done on track and will dominate until someone outworks them.

            Lewis saw that for sure and he also saw McLaren failure that was enroute.

          7. Ah apologies @jureo I read your initial post as talking about Hamilton, but you were talking about the team.

    3. So Hamilton is bigging himself up and putting others down. What else is new?

  7. Neil (@neilosjames)
    9th April 2016, 1:24

    Bernie moans about engines because Generic Engine Company X can’t make one. Only big manufacturers can, and they end up holding power because they’re the only ones capable of supplying teams with competitive engines. And every bit of power they hold, Bernie doesn’t hold, and that makes him sad.

    The power units are wonderful little masterpieces, even the ‘crap’ ones, and they have just about no responsibility for F1’s current mess. They’re not perfect… I’d like to see them be far less complex to control from the driver’s side (fewer settings) and it’ll be nice when they’re cheaper, but they make F1 better, not worse.

    Bernie/CVC, on the other hand…

    1. You had me at “moans”…

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      9th April 2016, 9:49

      The power units are wonderful little masterpieces

      I would argue that the current PU is the only part that keeps F1 relevant.It’s certainly not the governance (let alone governor), or the look of the cars, or the (TV) exposure, or even the pure racing. The only part that makes F1 stand out these days in a positive way is those marvellous pieces of technology AKA PU’s.
      @neilosjames

      1. “The power units are wonderful little masterpieces”

        “Little” being the operative word. Jack them up to 2-litres as they should have from the beginning!

        1. Displacement does not matter here much. Maybe given fuel flow limit, smaller engine makes more power. 1.6L is arbitrary choice, could be anything else, like 3.0L v8 nom nom…

          1. Obviously, if you change the engine displacement, other parameters have to change as well. The main point is that another 0.4 litres would yield between 200 to 250 HP and make the cars a lot faster out of the corners = more overtaking, provided that delivery is smooth. It would negate much of Mercs current power advantage while not automatically making everyone suddenly equal. Just look at the stupendous improvement of Manor this season once they have a powerful engine or the difference between Renault & Red Bull!

          2. @Jureo “smaller engine makes more power”

            ???

            I’m glad I stopped listening to you 3 posts ago.

          3. @johannes due to limited fuel flow, efficiency is king. Smaller engines have lower losses and thus provide more power from limited fuel.

          4. Henrick Renault and Red Bull use the same engine branded differently.

  8. It should be noted when blaming the financial struggles of some of the teams on the current engine formula that these teams were struggling just as badly before the current engine formula was introduced.

    Lotus for example struggled to pay Kimi Raikkonen both years he was there & it wasn’t just Kimi, Grosjean & other members of staff also went periods without pay. It was the same story at Sauber & was every since BMW pulled out because they failed to find primary sponsors to replace the funding BMW pumped in when they owned the team.

    With regards to Bernie’s comments about Honda, They had shown zero interest in a return to F1 under the V8 formula & were pretty open from the start of the engine formula discussions that the only thing that would draw them back was a formula along the lines of what we have now (Small capacity turbos with heavy emphasis on hybrid technology). Bernie can believe they would have come back anyway if he wants but i’ve not seen or heard anything that suggests that’s in any way accurate.

    Thinking back a decade, I remember the manufacturer’s been very firmly against moving to the 2.6Ltr V8 formula but Bernie decided to side with Max & help push them through. The belief by many in the paddock at the time was that Bernie was trying to push the manufacturer’s out because they were gaining power in the form of the GPMA & Bernie was very open at the time in repeating that ‘F1 didn’t need manufacturer’s’ to the great annoyance of the f1 bosses of the manufacturer backed teams who were trying to sell F1 to there various board members to get budget’s signed off etc..

    Bernie may very well really dislike the current formula, But I also fully believe that a portion of his dislike & certainly his constant public bashing of the current engines is more political games than just a dislike of the formula.
    It also serves to distract because blaming the financial problems teams are facing solely on the formula moves attention away from the uneven distribution of the prize money & the move to Pay-TV potentially taking away sponsors etc.. It also as i said already ignores that these teams were in just as much trouble under the old cheaper formula.

    1. @gt-racer Well summed up. They were talking about the need to look at capping costs well before this new chapter was even agreed to. I also don’t believe Honda would have come back to F1 without this new challenge. And it also surprises me how little BE seems willing to work with this new chapter and would rather just scrap it, like that wouldn’t cost a fortune too, wasting all the work they’ve been doing over the last 5 years only to have them spend more money redoing the chassis and everything to accommodate old engines, seemingly ignoring how that itself would make F1 look. And it’s a bit rich for he and CVC to get their billions out of it only to call the new pu’s too expensive. Rolexes and pay-tv are too expensive, BE.

    2. Great point… Teams had issues well before 2014 Regs… If anything HaaS is now showing the way how to get things done… All struggling teams should outsource their stuff from big teams. Otherwise it takes 100m + per year just to get in to points regularly.

  9. People does not understand the real situation regarding Sauber’s present. The RAI, MAS, HEI, KUB, FRE days Sauber has nothing to do with this Sauber. Yes, they both run from Hinwill, and share the same name. Peter Sauber made a ton of money by selling his team to BMW. THen BMW folded. Thats where Mr. E. picked up the phone and told Peter….hey….I’ve got Toyota place for you. I will help you rebuild. And thats the C30 and C31. Good Slim backing, good inherited driver (KOB), fresh money to keep James Key. But Peter Sauber never returned “at full strength”. This is a quarter of old Sauber.
    People also mistakes to compare Sauber to HRT, Caterham, Marussia, Force India and Lotus. Allow me to differ. All of those racing teams had “dark” backgrounds. (I might need to remove Caterham from the list). Sauber is strictly F1 dedicated, and no millionaire running a team living la vida loca “a lo Hesketh”. Do not compare. Sauber is doing really bad financially, but not due to funds mishandling. Its simply not enough. You need money…and tons of it. What sauber is doing is trying to run a team in a sustainable way. Yes its failing. But everybody knows Force India, HRT even Marussia were not sustainable in time.
    F1 is not sustainable in time. How long will Red Bull resist without winning? How long can Mercedes Benz have financial reds without dominating? The only thing we know is that there will be 2 red cars, 2 mc larens, 2 williams….and hopefully….2 saubers. Thank you Marcus!!!!!

    1. ColdFly F1 (@)
      9th April 2016, 9:40

      Sauber is doing really bad financially, () Its simply not enough.

      I calculated 2 days ago that under an EPL money distribution system Sauber would get $21m more from Bernie. Then they could pay their salaries on time without having to ask Ericcson’s sponsors. @mumito
      And that does not even take into account monies BE is withholding (FOM’s investors get more than SAU, MRT, HAA, FI, STR, WIL, REN, MCL combined)

      PS – my early lead in the China DOTW is Ericcson.

      1. Aye should be more equal distribution with some incentive for results… Say 2x more for first place than last place.

        Right now its more like 10x.

        Alsoin olden days Bernie took 10% like any manager of a sport does…. Now its more like 50%… FOM is baking in profits and teams are slowly dying..

        Only sustainable team seems Williams, and they were in Third place and underbudgeted to be competitive.

      2. Sauber is struggling so much. You are saying that at least Sauber deserves 21 more millions. But Sauber managed to pay 15 to VDG. Mc Laren is struggling to get a Sponsor….what can Sauber do then? Sponsors started as a “bonus”. In the 60ss you didnt have much of them. From to 70ss to now they turn from “bonus extra money” to Team owners or evel necesity.

  10. Maybe it is the Daily Mail’s fault that I think Lewis is being taken out of context here, but is he really worried about coaching? Really?? Is this not a hint of tabloidism? Is Bernie a Friend of the owner of the Mail? What is this dreck?

    1. @ferrox-glideh Usual picking a snippet (from Keith) and the layout in the article (DM) that tries to generate controversy. So yeah this is 100% tabloidism. If I was picking the snippet I prefer to use this one instead (from the very same article):

      [blockquote]’You have to trust yourself. Everyone has their own unique way of doing it. ‘I think people start to look at certain things, that’s not there. All the small, little noises which is not the important stuff.'[/blockquote]

      1. And if you were working for the news media you’d fired on day one.

        For sure, that is obviously one of the most generic quotes any driver will definitely say to a microphone.

        1. On this day where news media is all about clickbait, stir up controversy, or when nothing happened they just fabricated the whole story anyway? Yeah I’ll get fired. But it doesn’t mean that they practice good journalism.

    2. while Keith on occasion might be pushing headlines, this is just quoting a headline. Which is part of a roundup, so i don’t really see the problem. It’s just a collection of f1 related news. Also the source is clearly given.

      1. @thetick While I agree this is mostly Daily Mail’s sensationalism, Keith is not completely blameless here. He picked a snippet from the article that not really aligned with the article title before, but he choose to pick the most controversial inducing one this time. For example, look at the Crash article where he choose a snippet that looked completely out of place compared to the title. So there is an effort from Keith to make DM one sounds more controversial too.

    3. This line…

      it’s a bunch of c**p (Daily Mail)

      …is all you need to know.

  11. “Honda would have come in whatever the engine was, so that was a massive mistake.” – Bernie

    Is Bernie really talking about the auto company that is famous for its “revolutionary nextgeneration Earth Dreams Technology”?

    I don’t think Honda came back into F1 just to continue burning fossil fuel as they did back in the 80s.

    1. They are better at burning fossil fuels.

  12. Come on, Bernie is not stupid, this is all political. By that he will play the card of “No bernie you cannot get v8 back”, ” ok, choose, so v8 o new qually system”.

  13. I admire Saubers effort to stay in a sport that doesn’t give them the respect it deserves.

  14. Bernie and Jean want these power units gone because they prevent them controlling their own sport. So they’re gone. Simple as.

    It’s just a case of, does it happen in 2020 when the contracts expire, or do the manufacturers cut a deal beforehand?

    It’s a case of “when,” not “if.”

    1. @thef1engineer
      I thought Todt was a big fan of the PUs?

      1. A “big fan” is a bit strong.

        He’s quite happy to have hybrids in F1, but he wants them simplified, the cost brought down, and convergence. You can’t achieve that (particularly those first 2) by keeping the power units in their current configuration, so they’re gone.

  15. Bernie can, and does, blame engine regulations all he likes. They’re are expensive, but perhaps it might be prudent to offset the cost of the engines by adjusting the importance of other expensive stuff? Or maybe giving the teams a more substantial piece of the pie would help? Whatever, I’m saying that adjustments can be made to cut costs in other areas. Everything, not just these engines, is expensive in this sport.

    Something will have to give because the simple fact is that these engines, by th

    1. Sorry this, my phone just had a negligent discharge… Don’t get a windows phone, the browser is awful…

      Take 2

      Bernie can, and does, blame engine regulations all he likes. They’re are expensive, but perhaps it might be prudent to offset the cost of the engines by adjusting the importance of other expensive stuff? Or maybe giving the teams a more substantial piece of the pie would help? Whatever, I’m saying that adjustments can be made to cut costs in other areas. Everything, not just these engines, is expensive in this sport.

      Something will have to give because the simple fact is that these engines, because of the considerable amount of money already invested, are here to stay. I think that’s a good thing.

      Most of the rule changes have an impact on what technology manufacturers can develop to add skills and knowledge to their other areas of business. These engines, for the first time years, have given something the manufacturers to get their teeth in to. Elements of things the designers discover in the development of these engines will end up being applied to technology that we normal folk will consume.

      So, the engines are here to stay. I wasn’t convinced at first, but now the gap is reducing between them, I’m beginning to like them even more. The only thing that can be done to improve the engine situation is stable regulation.

      I wonder why Bernie keeps banging on about this. If I were him, I’d be trying to find a solution to the problems that teams will face trying to get sponsors once his uk television deal kicks in.

      There’s some time bombs that need diffusing within this sport. The V6 Hybrid is not one of them.

  16. So driver coaching… Lewis said similar on Sky F1 aswell how driver psychologists are bull and driver coaching has no place in F1.

    But paychologist in me tends to think this is his desire to get a sports psychologist… Maybe even a driver coach. Judging by his last two starts seems like he could use a driver coach…. Maybe someone focused on launching.

    Drivers have physio coaches, health coaches… Why not a driver coach? It is the essential part of any top sportsman (or woman) to have an experienced person looking over them.

    Is he implying Nico Rosberg has driver coach? Well what ever he has 5 wins in a row show its working.

    Romain Grosjean has a psycholgist on his team for last 3 years.. And look at him now 2x in a row F1fanatic(we all agree authority on f1) driver of the weekend winner. Few years ago he rivaled Maldonado in crash of the weekend. So it is working for him.

    Infact driver coaching is working for everyone, that is why radio coaching was banned during the race.

    If I wanted to be a world champion driver I would at minimum get a driver coach. Seems like a nobrainer, but there is a stigma attached to it in F1… While all other sports moved on way past that years ago…

    1. This is what separates the best drivers from the good drivers. No need for coaching. Not sure if Alonso or Vettel have got any coaches, but correct me if I’m wrong but i doubt they they would along with Hamilton. The good drivers are obviously looking at ways they can catch the best drivers and if it helps then good luck to them.

      1. Top tennis players and golfers have coachers why would a top driver not? Pride?

Comments are closed.