New engine rules needed to attract manufacturers – Brawn

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: New engine manufacturers will not come into F1 unless the existing rules are changed, says Ross Brawn.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Lando Norris biography
Is Lando Norris another Lance Stroll?

I’m excited for Lando Norris in a way that I never was for Lance Stroll. In a similar way he’s attached himself to a historic team, but rather than buying his way into the line-up, he’s still doing his time and working hard in the lower categories. Meanwhile, he excelled in the test in Hungary and seems a modest lad.

The problem arrives for him if, in 2019, he’s the Formula Two champion, McLaren have had a good 2018 and Alonso and Vandoorne both want to stay. Would McLaren cast one aside (presumably Vandoorne) for Norris?
Ben Needham (@Ben-n)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Craig and Cduk_Mugello!

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

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.

67 comments on “New engine rules needed to attract manufacturers – Brawn”

  1. It’s when you’re about to be lapped by your team mate in a midfield car, you know things are seriously wrong. Massa isn’t exactly Alonso or Hamilton either. It would be good if Stroll can outperform Kvyat or Kubica or whoever Williams put alongside. The only people I see him beating are di Resta on a really good day and Kubica if his hand is a limitation. Kvyat and Wehrlein have more raw talent as well. Stroll has a lot to do.

    1. Williams needs two top drivers, or it will descend down the order.

      Top driver brings about .5 s over an average driver. I bet with Hamilton and Vettel at the wheel Williams would be 4th in WCC.

      As they are now, sometimes they have to battle with backmarkers.

    2. To his credit, he would not have been lapped by Massa if his front left tire had not disintegrated.

      1. If he didn’t lock the wheel nonstop this wouldnt of been an issue.

        1. Did he lock the tire because the tire had a problem all along or because he is a bad driver?

          We know that these tires do differ. There are bad sets, and unusually good sets too (like Verstappens Q2 tires in Mexico, which contributed to him getting the lead in the race).
          The way Strolls tire failed is unique, a whole diagonal section getting loose and flinging from one end.
          If that tire did not have a construction error something very strange must have happened.

  2. Michael Brown (@)
    16th November 2017, 0:43

    I thought that was what 2014 was for

    1. @mbr-9 exactly, and the only thing we got was Honda. And around that time Formula E wasn’t even around to suck more and more manufacturers and brands into it.

      I can’t see much happening this time around either.

      1. Too true. Formula 1 was too far up its own back-side for too long, sipping champagne outside ever more expensive motorhomes and yachts watching other forms of motorsport slowly die.

        Some drastic measures need to be taken because road relevance would be an electric motor on each corner, powered by a small ICE if they must. So they may as well just go back to raw supercharged V8s ‘for the show’ and IMO give seperate prize money for the engine makers to bring in start-ups.

        You can watch almost daily news of manufacturers scrabbling around trying their best to make ‘electric future’ announcements just to stay relevant. On sites like trucks, buses, Semis, supercars, they’re all going electric. Not because they want to, because they have to before someone else does it.

  3. I do sympathise with Ross B. but really if they drop the MGU-H where is the progress 30 years after the 1.5 Turbo era. I also sympathise (involuntarily) with Ferrari because they have built their reputation on their jewel like engines. The only solution I can see working for all or most PU suppliers, would involve the standardisation of the MGU-H components combined with a less proscriptive ICE specification. It would be highly unlikely that any new ICE using the standard fuel system and standard MGU-H components would be significantly better without a season or twos development than the current PUs, if at all, and if one is successful in a couple of years then the current manufacturers will have had enough time to justify building a new or Mark2 version.

    1. I agree with you and I don’t sympathize with Ross B. It wouldn’t be the first time F1 goes backwards in technology. Turbo engines in late eighties, active suspension in early nineties including bunch of ingenious solutions that Ferrari objected in one way or another. To me the funniest thing is how Christian H. is defending Liberty ( renamed as Formula One Group – FOG ) hoping that under new engine technical regulations they’ll eliminate Mercedes’ advantage. The only argument he’s offering is that they’re working on it for ‘only’ nine months. Well, it’s about 270 days. I watched a press conference on November 9th when Opel/Vauxhall CEO Michael Lohscheller and PSA CEO Carlos Tavares presented strategy of bringing Opel/Vauxhall back to profitability. They did it in 100 DAYS. They even gave it a resounding title – PACE. What American way of managing car production did to Opel/Vauxhall can be described as far deeper mud compared to the situation F1 is at the moment. Obviously, time is not the factor regardless of Christian’s opinion. It’s something else. We all know what is.

  4. Imagine all the nice things Jacques Villeneuve would say if he were forced to watch his own career and comment on it.

    1. @mtlracer
      He beat the most successful and one of the ruthless competitors in the history of the sport to the F1 title i 1997. His rookie year was also something to watch.

      1. I think his debut year was the best i’ve seen, apart from hamilton in 2007. 1997 was a flawed season in many ways but he delivered when he needed to which is the mark of a champion. after that i think he just lost his motivation.

        1. i think after a few failed BAR’s he lost his motivation. Also once he declined the mclaren chance(if there ever was one) that was probably tough to take.

          All this he was a bad driver is rubbish. He blew away HHF he nearly stole the 99 title in a Jordan.

          1. Q85, on the contrary, it seems to be the case that BAR got fed up with him because, behind the scenes, he behaved childishly, petulantly and arrogantly and was an extremely unpleasant person to work with.

            After the 2003 Australian GP, where he intentionally screwed over Button just so he could beat him in the race, it seems that he then proceeded to wind up everybody in the team to the point where most people hated him and were very glad to boot him out of the team, such was his destabilising impact on the team.

        2. @frood19
          Exactly ! His career has been marked with ups and downs but to say that Villeneuve was rubbish is just ridiculous. Apart from his driving skills, he’s a very charismatic driver that speaks always for his mind even if his opinions end up bothering the whole paddock. People also forget that Villeneuve was in fact raised in the paddocks of F1

          1. Yeah and those BAR years were tough. Beginning years of a brand new team, all the ingredients there on paper but never coming together, so, very frustrating times for the whole team. Was always going to be a big risk. What people forget is that it was JV’s very talent as proved with the stuff on his resume that in racing history is only shared by Fittipaldi and Andretti, including a near win in Lemans that would have given him a Triple Crown, that very talent is why he rallied partners that were able to put everything together to form a brand new team in F1. JV was also the reason Honda re-entered F1 at the time. Honda were the ones that convinced JV to stay when he started to think of moving on.

            With respect to his comments about Stroll…I found his remarks in the cited article above to be very fair, whereas he was harsher earlier in the season, but then backed up his criticisms by saying it was the Stroll family themselves that told us to look at the results and we’d see. Well…we’ve seen.

          2. @robbie, it has to be said that there was a strong argument that the Peugeot 908 was running in an illegal configuration in 2008 though, explaining why it was so much faster than the R10 in dry conditions.

            The regulations at the time limited the amount of particulate emissions that the diesel powered cars could produce, and the 908 was visibly breaking them – the car was visibly emitting a lot of soot under hard acceleration, which was a clear contravention of the rules. However, there were those who cynically noted that the ACO was hardly likely to want to penalise a French team with French drivers that looked like it had a great chance of winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans.

            I’d also have to question why you think Jacques was the reason why Honda re-entered F1 – Honda had already developed prototype F1 cars in 1991, 1992 and 1996, and in 1999 there was the RA099, the prototype developed by Postlethwaite that was intended to spearhead a full blown Honda works team before his untimely death lead to the project being aborted.
            I am not sure that Jacques was that influential when Honda already had plans to enter F1 themselves, not to mention they had already maintained a partial link through Mugen (though Mugen is technically separate, there have always been strong family and technical links between Mugen and Honda).

          3. @anon Seems like you are grasping at straws to disparage JV, something I think I have observed from you before. Spent a bit of time googling for this alleged Peugeot illegality you speak of but couldn’t find anything. Seeing sooty exhaust seems quite vague and proof of nothing. Rather moot anyway, since the best JV et al did was second place that year. Shall we analyze all the other drivers who’s teams were using illegalities and pushing envelopes in all the racing series over all the years? Or is this exclusively a 2008 Peugeot thing and something JV should be blamed for? Do you know for a fact that the Audi’s were perfectly legal in every way?

            As to Honda re-entering F1 with BAR…at the time HP was overseeing an evaluation car for Honda. They had not committed at the time to returning to F1. They then decided to return to F1 as an engine supplier to BAR. They could have waited and evaluated F1 more, they could have supplied another team, or they could have entered as a completely new team chassis and all, but they went with JV’s team. They also convinced him to stay with re-assurances that they would improve.

    2. Good one. I don’t think he’s wrong about Stroll, Jacques would’ve been much more savage had we been talking about any other driver.

  5. Force India really push value for money boundary. After they manage to built a good car with limited financial they’re now getting the next best drivers without enormous junior program budget like RedBull.

  6. Regarding the article: Regarding the article: I’d say Hamilton’s easy-looking DRS-assisted passes into turn one were more down to the fact he had a fresher engine than most of the drivers he overtook on his way through the field than DRS alone. That was my impression at the time as well, for example, when he made his moves on the Renault, and Toro Rosso-drivers. People are quick to always blame DRS for easy-looking passes that are completed before the braking point for the approaching corner without thinking about the possible other aspects that could very well have more influence on making them look easy than DRS.

    1. @jerejj Assuming you are a DRS supporter? Well, you’ve just made a great case for getting rid of it, cheers!

      1. @psynrg I’m not really either in favor nor against it. The point is that people always seem to think that it’s the only factor behind easy-looking passes even when it actually isn’t. On most of the circuits, it makes zero difference basically, while on some circuits it might have a more significant impact, but still far from being the only factor. It has to stay at least as long as the way the cars are designed Aerodynamically makes following another car closely very difficult.

        1. People?

          This is the driver making this statement. The one that did the overtakes and he felt they were nothing special because of DRS (that said Brazil needs drs frankly) even though he benefited from it.

          1. Props to LH for a well stated summation of the main problem in F1, inability to follow, and calling DRS a bandaid solution to the real problem. He, the majority of drivers, and the majority of fans agree. Thankfully Brawn does too.

    2. @jerejj Completely agree. It’s all too easy to jump on the bandwagon and claim that DRS should just be gone. That’s just ridiculously simplistic. Also the blame DRS gets for much faster cars driving past slower cars or cars on fresher/faster tyres doing the same are daft. This misconception happens way too often.

      Everybody would wish that DRS could be removed, but it’s been decades and they haven;t been able to come up with something that actually works. Grooved tyres, didn’t work. Narrower cars with smaller wings, didn’t work. Wider cars with more floor effect and lower back wing, didn’t work.

      IF they ever find something that does work I’d be happy to see DRS go. Until then I’m glad we have this to at least allow some overtaking to take place instead of the “endless parade laps” we had before it’s introduction.

      Also, it’s astonishing how quickly people forget. The main complaint was lack of overtaking. Now it’s fixed and still (again) they complain.

      1. @patrickl Personally I think we have processions as it is, even with DRS, so I’d prefer there not be this gadget that only harms the integrity of the sport, if we’re going to have processions anyway. You use the term ‘ridiculously simplistic’ and that is what I think of when you say the main complaint was lack of overtaking and now it’s fixed. Did anyone ask for more passing at any cost, including the integrity of the sport? Or was that just a typical BE knee jerk move? F1 used to pride itself on passes being rare and difficult, even if too often too scarce, such that certain passes are still remembered and discussed to this day, decades later. That will never be said of a DRS pass.

        To say it’s been decades and they haven’t been able to come up with anything that works is to assume they’ve tried everything. I don’t believe that for a second. Going back the last couple of decades for example…let’s say back to 97 when the cars and tires were last this dimension, it became all about MS/Ferrari ending the Ferrari WDC drought, and that era was shaped for processions such that MS did most of his passing through the pitting undercut. Grooved tires were only meant to slow the cars on corners, not deal with dirty air, and the joke was that by half way through the first season of those the teams had found enough more downforce that they negated that which the tires were meant to do. After the decade of MS/Ferrari, BE handed big power to the top teams.

        There was a group formed to look into the dirty air effect (some around here know a lot more of the details of that than I) but they only got so far. Point being, I don’t believe for a second that F1 and the teams have been all that highly motivated to do anything but proceed with spending billions (over all the teams over the last few decades) on aero in wind tunnels. They’ve not been motivated to have that money and time and knowledge curtailed, and they’ve been given the power to stand pat on that.

        But in comes Liberty with Brawn and potentially a genuine effort to play with the hundreds of combinations of ground effects, wing sizes and shapes, aero, and tires that there hasn’t been the true motivation in the past to try, and then instigate.

        1. @robbie If you think we have processions now then you must be new to F1. A decade ago (and before) we would generally have only a handful overtakes during the whole race. That really was not even remotely comparable to what we have nowadays.

          I understand where Hamilton is coming from though. He’s one of the few drivers who could actually overtake before F-duct and DRS were introduced. Now it has become easier lessening his skill in that area.

          Still, with the current tyres and complex aero dependencies, probably no one would be able to overtake.

          1. @patrickl No, been watching since ‘78 when Gilles’ presence in F1 brought TV coverage to Canada. Followed F1 before that from newspapers and library books. I simply see no place for DRS in F1 at all, and I don’t care about the numbers of passes if that is the alternative. They are fake meaningless passes that are, as LH says, a bandaid to a problem. Your last sentence makes no sense as there still are passes without DRS. Unfortunately some of those passes may have occurred because DRS helped a driver get closer while in the drs zones, or it affected a drivers position against another car earlier in the race. I think we do agree that DRS is better gone, with some tweaking to the aero and the tires. I’m happy to give Liberty their day in the sun to shape things post-BE. They deserve some time to do that. I predict they’ll only remove DRS once they’ve altered some other things.

    3. Combination of several things… 1000 hp, class leading chassis, DRS assistance and world champion right foot… And once the pass is made, he neednt brake as early as them, because he had clean air and better car.

  7. The current engine formula is to technical and not needed for formula 1. Ross is correct you will not get anyone coming into f1 to try and build this pathetic engine formula. The current manufactures will argue road relevant, but the fact is I don’t see any 900 horsepower v6 motors in everyday cars. Rosco call there bluff. Change it to a simple v6 turbo with standard kers. Ditch all the other crap there is no need for it and cap horsepower at 900hp to get them all equivalent.

    You need an engine that a small car / engine manufactures can build at a reasonable cost.

    1. I agree but it’s too late. The world and society as moved very fast even since the current regs were first being thought up. In the next decade maximum, elecrtric cars will be priced the same as gas car. It just needs the neighbour effect to kick in. Governments have been gearing up for an EV or even no-car future in cities for the last few years. China and The Netherlands want to bring previous ban on ICE cars (new sales) forward by 10 years over other countires who made the first announcements.

      The manufacturers just need to leave and let F1 go back to privateers with dirt cheap V8s. Burn and pollute whatever they can ASAP. I can honestly seeing them needing Catalyst convertors by the time the new engines are in use, most other Formulas already do.

      1. No electric cars possible on mass market until we store energy in ancient highly inefficient unreliable lithium batteries. But it’s not F1 teams with little $100-300 mln budgets should spend money to find other ways to store energy. It’s rich $100 bln+ equity companies should do it.

      2. No electric cars possible on mass market until we store energy in ancient highly inefficient unreliable lithium batteries. But it’s not F1 teams with little $100-300 mln budgets should spend money to find other ways to store energy. It’s rich $100 bln+ equity companies should do it.

      3. Yeah not that I’ve studied and read up on all the latest about electric cars, but certainly there are issues surrounding the manufacture and disposal of the batteries and the impact that has on the environment. There’s the fact that, as I heard a pundit say the other day, if everyone had to drive an electric car starting today, gas stations would have to be converted to charging stations the size of shopping mall parking lots while people sit there for half and hour minimum before they can carry on. Range is an issue. Also an issue is that the electricity has to come from somewhere to charge all these cars, and that has an impact on the environment too.

        I’m not against electric cars. I just don’t think the conversion to electric is actually going to happen as fast as some make it seem. I can certainly see it more for commercial vehicles like buses and delivery trucks etc that can handle larger batteries that can get them through a day while they recharge overnight. Cities would fair better with electric cars due to the range of them. But for us that live out in the country? For now I think the hybrid solution makes more sense, and that will evolve too such that very little fossil fuel will be used.

    2. The current engine formula is to technical and not needed for formula 1.

      Real F1 fans will disagree.
      F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and the ‘motor’ part is important.
      F1 junkies will get excited about the marvels of PU that are in these cars, even if we miss the sound of the previous incarnation.

      If people want ‘simple’ and ‘standard’ then there are enough alternatives: Nascar, Monster Truck racing, WWE, etc.

      1. I agree, however if the engine regs prevent other suppliers from coming into the sport, the current engine makers can band together and hold F1 hostage whenever they want. The engine rules must be set in such a way that a new manufacturer can come in and be competitive almost immediately because no one will want to come in and look like Honda. If a simpler, less expensive engine is the answer then so be it. I’d rather that, than the current crop of engine makers banding together at every turn and demanding that it’s their way or no way.

        1. + 1. By the way I have been following F1 for 30 years + and I don’t get at all excited about the ‘marvels of the PU’.

      2. ‘real fans’ Really?!

        Then we should’ve been using small engines from the sixties.

        Electric isn’t even newtech. its 100 years old. You sound like a mouthpiece for the car industry who are desperate for electric to gain traction so they can sell to us all over again.

        F1 BECAME a tech series in the late 60s but it is a formula. not a do anything with anything sport and if the formula turns out to be sour, no ones going to drink it.

        1. the car industry desn’t want electric cars they either lose money on them or make very little. there is also less after market sales for servicing and parts. Tesla is the main force behind them

    3. kinda agree
      would like to see other engine configuratations 4cyl (or maybe even 5cyl !) which are more road-car relevant
      The current cost is way too high, mainly due to the complexity
      I’m not sure if setting a maximum price engine manufacturers can charge is necessarily a good idea or not
      We don’t want to get to the same situation with a massive difference in engine capability and no possibility of fixing the situation
      As for what ‘Real F1 fans’ want
      I really don’t get excited about the ‘MGU whatever’ or however many ‘bits’ each driver has used:

  8. I don’t believe any change in whatever regulations would make the sport more interesting for manufacturers. It’s simply a way to expensive thing to get involved with, without zero guarantee of any positive exposure. If let’s say any VAG group engine would come in they’d need to build a chassis too, one that would have to match a Ferrari or Mercedes team with plenty of experience. Only an engine builder that would partner with Red Bull could be competitive right away.

    I don’t believe FE is even remotely influencing brands to come into F1. FE is still very, very small compared to F1 and creating an electric engine for it is basically easy compared to the complex ones from F1. In the end I believe most sportscar brands would choose a combination of FE (for electric road car relevance) and GT racing (for their top end sportcar), and those both bring all the advertising they want.

    That being said FE viewership has been dropping since season one, and I’m quite sure that it’s going to live up next season thanks to the few manufacturer entries. In the end though I don’t see a long live for it, but that’s another discussion.

    1. Viewership is dropping in all motorsport. participation too and yet both watching and taking part just gets more expensive. Society is moving very very fast right now. Formula E might not work out, but something else will come in and capture the new generation’s imaginations.

      Good points about the manufacturers, but they’ve been badly wrong footed over electric cars. I’m not sure they can be trusted. Part of it is they know their industry isn’t going to be as lucrative anymore.

    2. I don’t believe FE is even remotely influencing brands to come into F1.

      IMO FE is interesting because it is a city centre event; not because of the electric engines.

  9. The whole security thing had been overblown.
    Which big city doesn’t have its own share of thugs? London, Paris, Berlin all have them and we don’t judge the countries and their people based on their acts. This is just part and parcel of living in a big city. The Korean GP was safe, but it was in the middle of nowhere and nobody wanted to go there.
    I think it’s time we bite the bullet and admit there can be no high profile sporting event without an associated security risk. The organisers instead should create incentives to stop these attacks and create jobs by hiring local workforce during the event. This would not nly improve the local economy but also save cost in the long run because F1 is currently carrying a lot of unneeded baggage from race to race.

    1. Couldn’t disagree more.

      Nearly every year we’re having members of staff held at GUN POINT.

      You’re honestly telling me you can’t tell the difference between a ‘share of thugs’ and gun point?

    2. I can’t find figures for robberies, but Brazil has a homicide rate of almost 30 per 100,000. That compares to less than 1 for the UK and just under 5 for the dangerous, gun-crazed, murder hellhole of the United States. The next highest rate on the F1 calendar is Mexico at 16; i.e, just over half that of Brazil. Every other venue is in single figures.

      Crime in Brazil is extremely high, and literally a whole order of magnitude worse than what we’re used to in Europe, North America, and pretty much everywhere else F1 visits. It’s not even remotely comparable.

      1. As you say, in terms of the homicide rate, Brazil is one of the worst countries in the entire world – the homicide rate is the 14th highest in the world, and in terms of the raw numbers (over 55,500 recorded homicides) it is the highest in the world (nearly 50% higher than the next highest nation and close to that of the other 19 countries on the current F1 calendar combined.)

        Even if the state of Sao Paolo is, by Brazilian standards, comparatively less violent, the homicide rate, at 10.8 per 100,000, is still substantially worse than most nations. As you say, this is not a case of just “a few thugs” – we’re talking levels of violence that are beyond what most individuals are likely to have experienced here and, in some parts of Brazil, closer to that of major conflict zones.

    3. Pedro Lopes Garcia
      16th November 2017, 12:20

      Brazil is in the middle of a huge financial crises, we have more than 13 millions unemployed people, the criminality levels are rising to new records, we have more gun kill per 100k habitants then war zones like Siria and Iraq so do not compare the Brazilian situation with “share of thugs”. I’m Brazilian and I believe that the sensible solution is to put the Brazilian GP on hold until the situation improves.

  10. Other than Alonso and Verstappen, the rest of Hamiltons overtakes looked like highway passes where there was no racecraft involved and instead he’s was just faster in a straight line and blitzed past the other car.

    DRS in Brazil was spectacularly ineffective as it made cars like the Mercedes with a distinct pace advantage passing slower cars too easy yet still didn’t provide enough prospect of passing a car with similar pace such as the Ferrari.

    I would sooner have watched a race where Hamilton struggled to break into the top ten but worked for every one of the passes he did make than see him cruise up to 4th like he’s racing another categories car.

  11. Surely the answer to the sao paulo security issue is to build a hotel within the circuit perimeter for all personnel and helicopter shuttles from the airport?

  12. Aside from the security concerns I think Interlagos is one of the most boring races of they year. It’s not a particularly exciting track, there’s no spectacular setting to set it off, it’s just boring. If Korea would have had more fans it could have been a better race than Brazil. I know there’s a lot of history there and some very passionate fans, but there are plenty of other tracks I’d rather see on the calendar. Interlagos needs to be the next to go, it’s time has long passed.

    1. Agree. Without a brazilian driver it is not going to generate any interest outside the aficcionados. I see no point in having a race here.

  13. It’s quite simple, really. The only way to justify Liberty’s (absurd) market capitalization and enterprise value are to show substantial growth in earnings. But F1 “is what it is”. The revenue stream from circuits can’t grow; the fee per race is already unsustainably high and teams don’t want added races. Revenue from media are under long term contract, and the trend on sports-rights is down, not up. Pay per view might bring higher revenue, but very difficult to transition given the contracts and value of rights will crater if Liberty reserves right to go direct with a premium service.
    So, we are left with changing the way the revenue stream is divided. Lower the teams’ operating costs through a cost-cap, and justify lowering their share of revenue as a result. Teams get less revenue but also lower costs, and likely in a way that creates a more sustainable financial situation for the teams, at least on paper. What’s more this cost cap and engineered financial model for the teams will create more parity on the grid.
    Unfortunately, Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Red Bull are not going to go along with this Liberty-engineered business model for teams.

    1. I think too though, there is potential to grow the sport and the audience, as well as revenues, by putting on a better more enthralling show that is more balanced and thus attracts more sponsor money and more manufacturers.

      Your last sentence I think is the key and is what Martin Brundle has hinted at in a recent article. The big 4, as you say, although Horner seems pretty on board with what Liberty are saying, could be the biggest hurdle, and so the question remains to be seen…do they get their way like they were able to with BE, or does Liberty draw a line somewhere in the sand and say at some point too bad so sad this is how it will be. I have a feeling the top teams won’t just plant themselves and not budge, and that a reasonable compromise can happen, for after all, this isn’t the BE show anymore, and things must change at least somewhat.

      1. i don’t believe there is significant leverage to revenue from “growing the (media) audience”. Sports rights are under pressure as more households cut the chord on pay TV. Formula One is a niche sport in the grand scheme of live entertainment, and the demographic that watches is not the most desirable, i.e. it skews “old”. There may be an opportunity to increase medi revenue through OTT fees, but that will damage the value of sales to cable and OTA.
        Horner is on board with the proposed engine changes, but he is very much (will be) opposed to Liberty’s view of a revised team business model, i.e. cost-cap plus reduced revenue.
        Ferrari and Mercedes will be opposed to both engine and team business model.
        Renault will be opposed to engine but probably OK with the team business model.
        As one can see, there will be no pleasing everyone.
        As I have posted previously, the problem with F1 is fundamentally a capital structure that is not fit for purpose.

        1. +1.

          New, somewhat cheaper engines won’t help – gain one new engine supplier and lose two? Maybe F1 can use Indy engines – then have a Champ of Champs (lol) series to generate more USA hype and a little more revenue. Bernie (CVC) were smart to sell off when they could.

  14. Brawn says Formula 1 ‘can’t leave engines as it is’

    Ross is correct. We need to look at where we are heading. If Honda don’t get on the podium within the next year or two then they will start to reconsider this foray into F1 as a waste of money. Renault … they do have victories in the guise of Red Bull and Tag Heuer, but they want the brand name Renault on that podium. If both of them drop out then how could F1 be a credible premier open wheel racing series with just two engine manufacturers? It couldn’t! F1 would have to merge with another racing series, which would almost certainly entail having handicaps and standardised engines and chassis’. That is the future unless F1 changes. This doesn’t mean F1 should occasionally hand out medals simply for turning up, but F1 should have rules that are more encouraging for more manufacturers to enter the sport. Some manufacturers already have an engine that might be competitive, so why can’t they use that? Yes, it probably does have a different cc rating, yes, it probably breaks the rules on how the fuel is injected, but if all the engines are fuel flow restricted then, in theory, a large cc 8 cylinder engine with multipoint injection won’t be producing more power than the proposed turbo-charged V6 engine.
    F1 is currently heading along a path of extreme specialisation that no other engine manufacturer seems to be going along, so to attract their attention F1 needs to change. This is what Brawn’s proposals are all about. Porsche, Toyota, Aston Martin, etc, do produce engines that might be suitable for F1, or might be with some development, but they will want their brand name to be noticed, and especially noticed at the front of the grid or on a podium. Obviously everyone can’t be on the podium, and the fairest way is for the podium to be by merit. Will a “detuned” engine spec produce less good racing? I don’t know, but I suspect it would produce closer racing.
    I love the idea of the MGU-H, where the burning remnants of fuel in the exhaust adds to the power of the car, but it does seem it is a difficult beast to tame and a source of performance inequality. I love the idea of an engine that converts nearly 50% of the potential energy in the fuel into actual power to the wheels, and while that is good and arguably road relevant, it is also bad because the technology that enables sort of fuel efficiency is trickier to develop than trying to fool Penn and Teller.
    As I think about this it does seem F1 has rules that are unnecessary, for example the rules that prohibits multipoint injection and multiple injectors, rules that prohibit active suspension systems. Such rules seem to be there simply to rack up the cost of an engine or a car.

  15. I have never understood why they can’t have a limited number of DRSs per race… So that drivers are forced to use it strategically…. just like push-to-pass in Indycar.

    1. I also have a problem with not providing a defense to the driver in front. Can’t they disable ERS if someone uses DRS, so that the car in front can deploy ERS and defend himself.

      1. But if they provide a defence to the defender, that defeats the purpose and they may as well get rid of it.

  16. Would McLaren cast one aside (presumably Vandoorne) for Norris?

    With respect to the COTD, its funny that people are already dismissing Vandoorne, one the the greatest GP2 champions.

Comments are closed.