Formula 1 2019 - General Discussion Thread

El_Duderino 09

mickdw wrote: »

A customer engine doesn't suggest that they are looking to beat mercedes any time soon.
Ron Dennis had the right idea but poorly timed. Red bull are now sitting pretty having their own engine supply.

Whatever chance they have of beating Mercedes with a customer Mercedes engine, they’ll never do it with customer Renault engine.

Honda was their chance to have a works deal again. But that didn’t to to plan. So they’re back to square 1, -1

Darkglasses

Jordan 199 wrote: »

I just saw Ralf Schumacher in the Toro Rosso garage in Sochi. Didn't see him on television for a while.

On a somewhat related subject, does anyone know what Heinz Harald Frentzen does these days? Is he in TV or media at all?

Harika

Darkglasses wrote: »

On a somewhat related subject, does anyone know what Heinz Harald Frentzen does these days? Is he in TV or media at all?

Not in TV, has retired in 2010 from Motorsports and is mostly known as promotor for electro mobility.

AMKC

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Ferrari have themselves,Haas and Alfa Romeo sorted.
Honda are unlikely to break away from Red Bull and Toro Rosso
Mercedes have themselves, Williams,Racing Point already under contract with McLaren linked for 2021
Renault just their own team, i don't see any of the above changing.

If Renault leave will each team provide a third car or will it be only 9 teams?

Renault would then be in the perfect situation to supply any new teams coming into F1 in 2021 or 2022.

El_Duderino 09

AMKC wrote: »

Renault would then be in the perfect situation to supply any new teams coming into F1 in 2021 or 2022.

Who would spend hundreds of millions to join f1 and have such low self esteem to want the engine that had lowest power and reliability?

mickdw

Any new team coming in is never going to win anything in the first few years. A well tried Renault unit would be a good start point.

El_Duderino 09

mickdw wrote: »

Any new team coming in is never going to win anything in the first few years. A well tried Renault unit would be a good start point.

Tried and tested. Found to be unreliable and low on power.

mickdw

Its alittle down on power but mclaren are going fairly well on it. Compare that to the hybrid honda years. The Renault is at a standard that would be more than adequate for a new entrant.

Cork Trucker

skipper_G wrote: »

Juicy rumour tine, Mclaren switching to Mercedes engines???

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-mercedes-engine-deal-2021/4548906/

Rumour becomes reality.

https://twitter.com/McLarenF1/status/1177849346341007361

skipper_G

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Rumour becomes reality.

https://twitter.com/McLarenF1/status/1177849346341007361

Nice to see a quick confirmation of the story. It was Joe Saward that had the scoop, I ended up linking the motorsport.com article because the site that hosts his blog was having some server issues. But worth remembering who broke it, makes a difference when we're trying to find reliable news sources for the big stories.

I'm not sure what the real implications are for Mclaren on the performance front, I don't think the Mercedes engine is the clear front runner anymore. Ferrari seems to have more performance, and worth remembering that the Mercedes customer teams have both had more than one engine failure this season. The Mercs are not indestructible

Brendan Flowers

McLaren Mercedes. It just sounds like the right of the team.

Cork Trucker

skipper_G wrote: »

Nice to see a quick confirmation of the story. It was Joe Saward that had the scoop, I ended up linking the motorsport.com article because the site that hosts his blog was having some server issues. But worth remembering who broke it, makes a difference when we're trying to find reliable news sources for the big stories.

I'm not sure what the real implications are for Mclaren on the performance front, I don't think the Mercedes engine is the clear front runner anymore. Ferrari seems to have more performance, and worth remembering that the Mercedes customer teams have both had more than one engine failure this season. The Mercs are not indestructible

Joe is well respected, hopefully he gets the kudos for breaking the story. Merc are pushing their R&D to the limit because while Merc appear to have a better chassis than Ferrari, it's clear they no longer hold that dominance in the engine department.

Cork Trucker

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

McLaren Mercedes. It just sounds like the right of the team.

Ever hear the saying an ex is an ex for a reason? McLaren-Honda 2.0 was a disaster, while McLaren-Mercedes 2.0 will clearly be better than that it won't be the same as the partnership from 1995-2009, i say 2009 as from 2010-2014 Mercedes were concentrating more on their works outfit than the McLaren partnership even though there were victories in 10/11/12, 13 & 14 were a disaster and much of that was down to the McLaren chassis itself. Would be interesting if McLaren tried snd go back in for Newey, although at this stage of his career i think it's unlikely he'll up sticks again, even the blank cheque offer from Maranello wasn't enough one time.

flazio

I was skeptical about Joe, as this time last year he told us that David Croft was on the way out of Sky Sports. Sadly that didn't come to pass.
I used to listen to the podcast Joe Saward guests on, Missed Apex, but I found the lead host of that an even bigger dip stick then Crofty so I just gave up. But fair play he had his finger on the correct pulse this time.

Cork Trucker

flazio wrote: »

I was skeptical about Joe, as this time last year he told us that David Croft was on the way out of Sky Sports. Sadly that didn't come to pass.
I used to listen to the podcast Joe Saward guests on, Missed Apex, but I found the lead host of that an even bigger dip stick then Crofty so I just gave up. But fair play he had his finger on the correct pulse this time.

He must have had something to go on though, it forced Sky to come out and say David Croft (I refuse to call him by his alias) was staying with them, which personally i think was the wrong choice, the amount of fcuk up's he makes in his commentary is terrible, if he thinks he's the next Murray Walker then he needs to do some soul searching.

chicorytip

I think all participating teams ought to be full works outfits building and designing their own engines and chassis. This would be the only regulation change required to create a highly competitive championship rather than the three tier event that currently exists even if it resulted in having as few as six teams on the grid. Imagine Mercedes, Ferrari, Ford, Toyota or Honda, Porsche Audi or BMW and Lamborghini. No more "customer" teams.

El_Duderino 09

flazio wrote: »

I was skeptical about Joe, as this time last year he told us that David Croft was on the way out of Sky Sports. Sadly that didn't come to pass.
I used to listen to the podcast Joe Saward guests on, Missed Apex, but I found the lead host of that an even bigger dip stick then Crofty so I just gave up. But fair play he had his finger on the correct pulse this time.

Completely agree about missed apex. What makes podcasters think people are interested in their banter? I’d be much happier if he kept it much more factual, much less banter. If it begins to drag, shorten it. Never pad it out with banter unless you’re a professional comedian.

I only listen to the missed apex with Joe. He’s a bit of a dipstick too but his insights on f1 are interesting

Actually the ones with Matthew carter are very good. He was team
Principal at Lotus when they had Mercedes engines. Very informative on how things work behind the scenes.

Cork Trucker

chicorytip wrote: »

I think all participating teams ought to be full works outfits building and designing their own engines and chassis. This would be the only regulation change required to create a highly competitive championship rather than the three tier event that currently exists even if it resulted in having as few as six teams on the grid. Imagine Mercedes, Ferrari, Ford, Toyota or Honda, Porsche Audi or BMW and Lamborghini. No more "customer" teams.

You'd have to wonder what might have been with McLaren, Ron Dennis personally owns same car.

GarIT

chicorytip wrote: »

I think all participating teams ought to be full works outfits building and designing their own engines and chassis. This would be the only regulation change required to create a highly competitive championship rather than the three tier event that currently exists even if it resulted in having as few as six teams on the grid. Imagine Mercedes, Ferrari, Ford, Toyota or Honda, Porsche Audi or BMW and Lamborghini. No more "customer" teams.

Just four teams in a race would get old fast

H3llR4iser

chicorytip wrote: »

I think all participating teams ought to be full works outfits building and designing their own engines and chassis. This would be the only regulation change required to create a highly competitive championship rather than the three tier event that currently exists even if it resulted in having as few as six teams on the grid. Imagine Mercedes, Ferrari, Ford, Toyota or Honda, Porsche Audi or BMW and Lamborghini. No more "customer" teams.

Actually, we owe the reason we have races on sh1tty, pieced together tracks in god-forgotten places with no motorsport history or tradition not to mention interest or understanding to the heavy manufacturers involvement of the last couple of decades. Mercedes and Ferrari in particular want to go to these places because they want to sell luxury cars to questionable businesspeople minted to the gills with new money, of which...notorious "motoring hot-spots" like Bahrain, Azerbaijan, China, Abu Dhabi, Russia, Singapore and next year Vietnam have no shortage. The money these places pay to host a race would be of no consequence if Daimler AG or FCA said "nope". We really don't want to add more politics to the cauldron.

It's absolutely not by chance that the "golden era" of the sport was one where the car manufacturers limited themselves to being engine suppliers for the most part. Through the '70s and '80s only Ferrari, Alfa Romeo (at this time they were different companies, until 1988) and Renault had direct, full works teams involvement; BMW, Honda, Porsche, Ford all were supplying engines, having full technical partnerships with teams, but weren't owning them outright.

If more "manufacturers" entered as engine suppliers, good; What F1 however needs is to encourage more outfits of the breed Brabham, Tyrrel, Ligier, Williams, Benetton and Jordan to come in and have a chance to be competitive.

Also, last but not least, in terms of brand image someone like BMW or Audi can't just come in and lose to Ferrari, Alfa, Renault or even worse, Mercedes; And because money in F1 is necessary but not sufficient for success, as BMW, Toyota and Honda brilliantly demonstrated with their abysmal campaigns, they obviously aren't interested at the moment.

El_Duderino 09

H3llR4iser wrote: »

If more "manufacturers" entered as engine suppliers, good; What F1 however needs is to encourage more outfits of the breed Brabham, Tyrrel, Ligier, Williams, Benetton and Jordan to come in and have a chance to be competitive.

Yeah but there’s a crucial aspect that people miss. Back in those days, f1 was he pinochle of motoring technology. It was genuinely about building the fastest cars to go as fast as they can. They had huge gaps between teams because that’s just how different they were in speed. It was the business of developing motor cars.

Now it’s about keeping f1 in the style of f1. Its much more about the sport of F1. They lost the technological aspect because it’s not actually about building the fastest car anymore. They have rules to slow the cars down and stop them getting faster.

The original charm of f1 was the post ww2 boom in motoring tech. They had to build motors for warplanes and tanks so there was innovation in the motoring area. Now the innovation is elsewhere and F1 is coasting on its reputation as previously the pinnacle of technology. It manipulated rules/payment structures to keep Ferrari at the top which keeps more worthy teams down.

skipper_G

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but there’s a crucial aspect that people miss. Back in those days, f1 was he pinochle of motoring technology. It was genuinely about building the fastest cars to go as fast as they can. They had huge gaps between teams because that’s just how different they were in speed. It was the business of developing motor cars.

Now it’s about keeping f1 in the style of f1. Its much more about the sport of F1. They lost the technological aspect because it’s not actually about building the fastest car anymore. They have rules to slow the cars down and stop them getting faster.

The original charm of f1 was the post ww2 boom in motoring tech. They had to build motors for warplanes and tanks so there was innovation in the motoring area. Now the innovation is elsewhere and F1 is coasting on its reputation as previously the pinnacle of technology. It manipulated rules/payment structures to keep Ferrari at the top which keeps more worthy teams down.

Sorry but you're wrong, take a look what's happened with power train development over the last several years. The sport is pushing efficiency levels to higher than they've ever been. An engine that can deliver 1000+ bhp at above 50% thermal efficiency for example. The commercial side of the sport may be a disaster zone, but the technology side is still the pinnacle.

El_Duderino 09

skipper_G wrote: »

Sorry but you're wrong, take a look what's happened with power train development over the last several years. The sport is pushing efficiency levels to higher than they've ever been. An engine that can deliver 1000+ bhp at above 50% thermal efficiency for example. The commercial side of the sport may be a disaster zone, but the technology side is still the pinnacle.

Yeah. That’s the commercial aspect. When it began the commercial aspect was about getting the greatest power output. Now it about getting the greatest power output, within the parameters of thermal efficiency of v6 engines at a maximum fuel flow rate of blah blah blah. It’s a qualified version of the original which was simply pushing to get the greatest power. Back then the ICE was the future technology.

That’s fine but it’s not the pure pursuit of power that is was in the past because the internal combustion engine technology is easy to replicate now. It’s not the pinnacle of development anymore. The ICE is technology of the past and the present. It’s not the long term future.

It’s more interesting to manufacturers as a novelty marketing experience and developing the short term future technology rather than simply developing future technology.

Look at F1 and FE and see which has greater appeal to manufacturers. If f1 can’t even compete with a small formula like FE, how can it be the future?

skipper_G

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. That’s the commercial aspect. When it began the commercial aspect was about getting the greatest power output. Now it about getting the greatest power output, within the parameters of thermal efficiency of v6 engines at a maximum fuel flow rate of blah blah blah. It’s a qualified version of the original which was simply pushing to get the greatest power. Back then the ICE was the future technology.

That’s fine but it’s not the pure pursuit of power that is was in the past because the internal combustion engine technology is easy to replicate now. It’s not the pinnacle of development anymore. The ICE is technology of the past and the present. It’s not the long term future.

It’s more interesting to manufacturers as a novelty marketing experience and developing the short term future technology rather than simply developing future technology.

Look at F1 and FE and see which has greater appeal to manufacturers. If f1 can’t even compete with a small formula like FE, how can it be the future?

Your entire argument is predicated on the claim that F1 can't compete with FE. How exactly do you figure that's the case? How many viewers tuned into watch the last F1 race compared to the last FE race? What's the difference in revenue between the two series? I'm guessing F1 is more in both cases, regardless of the number of manufacturers involved those are the numbers that matter.

El_Duderino 09

skipper_G wrote: »

Your entire argument is predicated on the claim that F1 can't compete with FE. How exactly do you figure that's the case? How many viewers tuned into watch the last F1 race compared to the last FE race? What's the difference in revenue between the two series? I'm guessing F1 is more in both cases, regardless of the number of manufacturers involved those are the numbers that matter.

F1 wins an those metrics. It’s coasting in reputation.

The measure of what’s the future technology is answered by looking at manufacturer engagement. Who wins by that metric?

FE is just a tiny, brand new formula. It’s in its infancy (5 years old) and how many manufacturers does it have? The most established formula (f1) has 4 manufacturers. FE has 6 already. Why does it have more manufacturers when it also has fewer viewers and lower revenue than f1?

FE isn’t the only competitor.

skipper_G

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

F1 wins all those metrics. It’s coasting in reputation.

The measure of what’s the future technology is answered by looking at manufacturer engagement. Who wins by that metric?

FE is just a tiny, brand new formula. It’s in its infancy (5 years old) and how many manufacturers for it have? The most established formula (f1) has 4 manufacturers. FE has 6 already. Why does it have more manufacturers when it also has fewer viewers and lower revenue than f1?

FE isn’t the only competitor.

You're trying to sell the scenario that F1 is dead and look at this shiny new manufacturers toy called formula e. It's a completely different stage of the life cycle of the series, right now in it's infancy costs are well controlled, and the series is competitive. That makes it attractive to them, it's an area of interest because there's a market there for the car makers. It's just as likely to go through some of the same boom and bust cycles as all racing series tend to. Electric still only makes up a small percentage of the global car sales market (2.1% in 2018). It's clearly a growth market but to say it's the leader now is nonsense.

El_Duderino 09

skipper_G wrote: »

You're trying to sell the scenario that F1 is dead and look at this shiny new manufacturers toy called formula e. It's a completely different stage of the life cycle of the series, right now in it's infancy costs are well controlled, and the series is competitive. That makes it attractive to them, it's an area of interest because there's a market there for the car makers. It's just as likely to go through some of the same boom and bust cycles as all racing series tend to. Electric still only makes up a small percentage of the global car sales market (2.1% in 2018). It's clearly a growth market but to say it's the leader now is nonsense.

To say it’s the leader is nonsense. That’s probably why I didn’t say it’s the leader. I did say it’s more the future than ICE. FE will probably go through the same boom bust cycle. And when it’s used up it’s future technology appeal, it can coast on its reputation like f1 does.

F1 has built up a huge bank of reputation as a brand leader. It’s coasting on that reputation and will probably continue to do so. It’s nobody’s fault. ICE and spin-offs can only be the future for so long. They’ve had a good innings.

FE isn’t the only alternative. It just happens to have Attracted more manufacturers i it’s 5 years than f1 can currently manage after its 70 odd years.

I’m not wedded to f1. I’ll probably just follow the formula that had greatest appeal to me. Will you follow f1 no matter what?

flazio

I suggest you check out Channel 4s podcast On the Marbles. Allan McNish is standing in for David Coulthard and as the team principal of the Audi FE team he touched on some points about Formula E and Formula 1, including why Audi aren't looking to get into F1.

uchimata83

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m not wedded to f1. I’ll probably just follow the formula that had greatest appeal to me. Will you follow f1 no matter what?

I'm tired of watching cars run 7 seconds off the pace they are capable of. I'm tired of the awful AR advertisements around the tracks. I'm sick of watching copy and paste tracks built in the desert by slave labour. And last but not least, I'm sick of sky - A sport they didn't even recognize the existence of until they bought the rights, and I get to listen to "Crofty" go on about the journalists WhatsApp group.

I'm going to give it till next year and if things are still the same after the first few races I'm done.

skipper_G

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To say it’s the leader is nonsense. That’s probably why I didn’t say it’s the leader. I did say it’s more the future than ICE. FE will probably go through the same boom bust cycle. And when it’s used up it’s future technology appeal, it can coast on its reputation like f1 does.

F1 has built up a huge bank of reputation as a brand leader. It’s coasting on that reputation and will probably continue to do so. It’s nobody’s fault. ICE and spin-offs can only be the future for so long. They’ve had a good innings.

FE isn’t the only alternative. It just happens to have Attracted more manufacturers i it’s 5 years than f1 can currently manage after its 70 odd years.

I’m not wedded to f1. I’ll probably just follow the formula that had greatest appeal to me. Will you follow f1 no matter what?

If FE is the future as you seem to think then in the end F1 will be dead and I'll be watching whatever is left I suppose. I think you're patently wrong and nothing you've said has shifted my opinion.

It's an alien concept to some, if you hate F1 don't watch it. I actually enjoy watching and will continue to do so for as long as my interest is held. It's not perfect, but then nothing is.

pjohnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

FE isn’t the only alternative. It just happens to have Attracted more manufacturers i it’s 5 years than f1 can currently manage after its 70 odd years.

I’m not wedded to f1. I’ll probably just follow the formula that had greatest appeal to me. Will you follow f1 no matter what?

If FE is so much better why do you watch F1?

El_Duderino 09

skipper_G wrote: »

If FE is the future as you seem to think then in the end F1 will be dead and I'll be watching whatever is left I suppose. I think you're patently wrong and nothing you've said has shifted my opinion.

It's an alien concept to some, if you hate F1 don't watch it. I actually enjoy watching and will continue to do so for as long as my interest is held. It's not perfect, but then nothing is.

You’re stuck on FE vs F1. My point was that F1 originally had a natural purpose to developing ICEs because they were the future. It has lost that edge because ICEs are the present but they’re not the long term future like they were in the 1950s.

Don’t take my word for it. Even with a tiny sport, in its infancy and as you pointed out, lower viewership and revenue, the manufacturers are skipping F1 and moving to FE in greater numbers.

El_Duderino 09

pjohnson wrote: »

If FE is so much better why do you watch F1?

Maybe I watch both.

I suppose I needs to be said again. I’m saying f1 has lost the edge that it once had, of being re sport developing the future technology. That doesn’t say anything about the spectacle. Just the fact that f1 has lost some of its brand appeal as the driver of future technology. Because ICEs aren’t future tech.

skipper_G

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You’re stuck on FE vs F1. My point was that F1 originally had a natural purpose to developing ICEs because they were the future. It has lost that edge because ICEs are the present but they’re not the long term future like they were in the 1950s.

Don’t take my word for it. Even with a tiny sport, in its infancy and as you pointed out, lower viewership and revenue, the manufacturers are skipping F1 and moving to FE in greater numbers.

But that's the point you're missing, electric is not the future. It's only part of the future. The ICE is also part of that future, where F1's relevance now is in the millions of R&D spent on making them last longer, run more efficiently and use less fuel. If you think that's not vital to the future of mobility on this planet then you need to think again.

El_Duderino 09

skipper_G wrote: »

But that's the point you're missing, electric is not the future. It's only part of the future. The ICE is also part of that future, where F1's relevance now is in the millions of R&D spent on making them last longer, run more efficiently and use less fuel. If you think that's not vital to the future of mobility on this planet then you need to think again.

That’s true. And in the past the future wasn’t split like that. The ICE was the alternative to the horse and cart. And f1 was the pinnacle of ICE development in sport. It naturally had the monopoly. Now it doesn’t.

pjohnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe I watch both.

I suppose I needs to be said again. I’m saying f1 has lost the edge that it once had, of being re sport developing the future technology. That doesn’t say anything about the spectacle. Just the fact that f1 has lost some of its brand appeal as the driver of future technology. Because ICEs aren’t future tech.

Thats only true if you ignore the fact ICE's are still developing for the future.....

El_Duderino 09

pjohnson wrote: »

Thats only true if you ignore the fact ICE's are still developing for the future.....

Yeah. 4 manufacturers in f1. FE has 6 so far in a piddley little sport in its infancy, with paltry viewership and revenue by comparison to f1. Why’s FE finding it so easy to attract manufacturers?

pjohnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. 4 manufacturers in f1. FE has 6 so far in a piddley little sport in its infancy, with paltry viewership and revenue by comparison to f1. Why’s FE finding it so easy to attract manufacturers?

Well the obvious answer would be because it is cheap? They dont need to spend to develop the chassis it is designed and set for them. In F1 manufacturers have to develop engine and chassis. F1 is expensive to enter and compete.

skipper_G

pjohnson wrote: »

Well the obvious answer would be because it is cheap? They dont need to spend to develop the chassis it is designed and set for them. In F1 manufacturers have to develop engine and chassis. F1 is expensive to enter and compete.

Bingo! And because there are so many standardised parts it's also very easy to be competitive with minimal investment. Then there's the benefit of them being seen to 'be green' from a marketing perspective, because some people blindly think: electric = good / ICE = bad.

Dont be at yourself

Never mind Formula E, you just need to look at Toyota's failed entry into F1 to understand why we don't have more manufacturers. Largest carmaker in the world, huge pedigree in motorsport, billions invested, and nothing to show for it after 8 years.

2021 rules badly need to lower the barriers to entry to new manufacturers. Budgets caps, more equitable revenue distribution, more standard parts or open-sourced designs -- that will do more to attract manufacturers than the prospect of improving their green credentials or 'road relevance'.

recyclebin

Should we be worried about Renaults future in the sport? Will they continue on there own in the long term? The loss of engine data from other teams will be huge especially if the the current engine format changes from 2021 onwards.

shamrock55

Just let vettal drive on, what's with this swapping crap
If you want to win a race you need to bloody earn it

skipper_G

shamrock55 wrote: »

Just let vettal drive on, what's with this swapping crap
If you want to win a race you need to bloody earn it

There's a race thread for Russia here
https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058018572/2/#post111377863

Harika

Vettel retirement is becoming more likely after today's oopsi

PopePalpatine

If Vettel and Leclerc were paired in either Red Bull or Merc I'd be looking forward to an explosive title fight next year like 1989, but Ferrari gonna Ferrari.

El_Duderino 09

pjohnson wrote: »

Well the obvious answer would be because it is cheap? They dont need to spend to develop the chassis it is designed and set for them. In F1 manufacturers have to develop engine and chassis. F1 is expensive to enter and compete.

That would be a reason for private teams who can’t afford F1, to enter FE Manufacturers want maximum exposure which they won’t get in FE at the moment. So I wonder what other element they find attractive about FE. I wonder, I wonder....

quokula

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If Vettel and Leclerc were paired in either Red Bull or Merc I'd be looking forward to an explosive title fight next year like 1989, but Ferrari gonna Ferrari.

In fairness there’s no chance in hell Merc would purposely put two top drivers in the team. It was an unfortunate fluke that reliable journeyman Rosberg turned out to be regularly competitive with Hamilton, and they soon put paid to that by hiring the most reliably underwhelming driver on the grid to replace him.

Ridiculous the amount of stupidity going on at Ferrari though. It’s like they’re trying to piss Vettel off.

quokula

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

Never mind Formula E, you just need to look at Toyota's failed entry into F1 to understand why we don't have more manufacturers. Largest carmaker in the world, huge pedigree in motorsport, billions invested, and nothing to show for it after 8 years.

2021 rules badly need to lower the barriers to entry to new manufacturers. Budgets caps, more equitable revenue distribution, more standard parts or open-sourced designs -- that will do more to attract manufacturers than the prospect of improving their green credentials or 'road relevance'.

I don’t understand the obsession with manufacturers anyway. When I first got into F1 there was McLaren, Williams, Ligier, Jordan, Sauber, Lotus, Tyrrell, Benetton, Minardi etc - the only manufacturer on the grid were Ferrari, who are unique because they were an F1 team first and sold cars later to fund the F1.

Further back before my time there were periods when the entire grid were using cosworth engines. Manufacturers have dipped in and out throughout history, but it’s really only in the last 10 a 15 years that they’ve become the dominant force to the detriment of proper old fashioned racing teams.

Personally I’d be happy if they all jumped ship to FE and we returned to a proper sport rather than a R&D / marketing exercise for the likes of Mercedes.

AMKC

recyclebin wrote: »

Should we be worried about Renaults future in the sport? Will they continue on there own in the long term? The loss of engine data from other teams will be huge especially if the the current engine format changes from 2021 onwards.

Lots can happen between now and 2021. I would not be so worried unless there is a recession or worse otherwise I think they are in it for the long term.
If new teams come in Renault will be in the perfect position to supply them and am sure they could get some deal from the FIA for doing it too.

pjohnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That would be a reason for private teams who can’t afford F1, to enter FE Manufacturers want maximum exposure which they won’t get in FE at the moment. So I wonder what other element they find attractive about FE. I wonder, I wonder....

Manufacturers just want easy money. FE is lost cost to enter and is a (per Season 5 figures) rapidly growing market. Growing market = increasing returns. Low cost and effort required to enter then yielding potential decent returns = very attractive and no real risk attached.

Its just basic business. "Future" doesnt make money, low risk investments are a no brainer.