F1 Credibility Gap

[old man]

This is very interesting and thoughtful piece that does not exactly fit any of the existing threads and yet touches on most of them:


http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...884.1373558528

Discuss?!

One interesting quote from this:

During a presentation entitled 'Hybrid, high-tech, cost-efficient: Answers to the rethink in motorsport', TMG's business development manager Sebastian Janssen provided insights into Toyota's rationale behind entering the WEC: The company was able to win global championships for an outlay of less than a quarter of its erstwhile F1 budget (estimated to be £300million per year), while simultaneously developing road relevant technology.

[steve_r]

Number of manufacturers in LMP1: 3

Number of manufacturers in F1: 3 - soon to be 4

I cant read the whole article due to it being subscription only. It sounds like they are working towards the not so startling conclusion that F1 is more expensive than WEC?

[Paradise City]

F1 has a global presence. Noone knows about the WEC. Factor that into your spending.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

F1 has a global presence. Noone knows about the WEC. Factor that into your spending.

Not everyone is hiding under that rock these days......

Originally Posted by wnut

WEC is just the reliability trial that F1 seems hell bent on emulating, F1 should be about flat out racing! Not WEC light.

Maybe the time has come to watch some WEC now......

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Maybe the time has come to watch some WEC now......

Too long, not well enough covered, not sprint racing, not the best drivers in the world, usually an economy run.

Not my thing, sorry.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by wnut

Too long, not well enough covered, not sprint racing, not the best drivers in the world, usually an economy run.

Not my thing, sorry.

Well, if all you want are hour and a half sprints, I guess you'll never be won over..... As to not the best drivers, 'Go Pastor and Adrian'.......

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wnut

Too long, not well enough covered, not sprint racing, not the best drivers in the world, usually an economy run.

Not my thing, sorry.

Do you remember the job Lotterer did when he had a run in a back of the field GP car this having not done any testing etc. I think given a decent car he would be right up at the front end of a F1 grid.
Look how Webber compares to his team mates. They do not appear to be slouches by any means.

[the sniper]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Number of manufacturers in LMP1: 3

Number of manufacturers in F1: 3 - soon to be 4

Shouldn't your post read:

Originally Posted by steve_r

Number of manufacturers in LMP1: 3 - soon to be 4

Number of manufacturers in F1: 3 - also soon to be 4

Nissan are coming to LMP1 next year.

[LC2guy]

Originally Posted by the sniper

Shouldn't your post read:



Nissan are coming to LMP1 next year.

And on top of 4 Manufacturers in LMP1 you also have Honda ( HPD ) in LMP2 Coming, Judd already supplying engines, and GT Manufacturers Aston Martin, Ferrari, Corvette, Porsche ....

[bella]

it's more about roi and value for money than just simply one is more costly than the other. it's been discussed a little in the wilderness of the sportscar forum so if you're not scared of catching endurancitis it's worth a stroll in there.

i think it's a good article - explains why those not involved in f1 won't approach it, which is more valuable than simply going "yeah but there's more involved in f1 than sportscars".

[bella]

if i may quote g4j's post in the 2015 wec thread for a review of the article for those who aren't subscribers:

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

It's written by Autosport's F1 political editor, and I was pleasantly surprised at how pro-WEC it was. Whenever these kind of articles usually talk about the WEC there's usually some sort of suggestion that it's a playground for the manufacturers while F1 sorts itself out, or that Audi are to join F1 at any moment.

This article put forward WEC's strengths forward with no ifs and buts. It said the WEC offers greater value for money and more innovative rules offered more road-relevant technology. It took him half the article to even mention the bonus of winning Le Mans. This article was very clearly about the championship as a whole and its credentials.

Another great point Rencken made was that promoters for WEC had actually made profits despite lower ticket sales. There was a suggestion the WEC wasn't just attractive to the major manufacturers, but the major circuits too.

He finished with Dr Zetsche's recent remarks calling for BMW and Audi to join them in F1. Rencken suggested that with Mercedes racing a fizzy drinks company and a small-volume car manufacturer, that perhaps it's Dr Zetsche's brand that is the one racing out of line.

[Gingers4Justice]

Yay, I'm famous!

Seriously, I get increasingly frustrated with F1's major-manufacturer complex, especially when its looking over its shoulder to see who else has got what. Renault was the first high-volume car manufacturer to win a Constructor's or Driver's championship and Mercedes are only the second to do it. You could count Alfa Romeo did it too, although they were an altogether different kind of car maker in the 1950s.

This noughties obsession with works teams has been a poison for F1. It's sports cars, touring cars and rallying which need the road car manufacturers, and that's how you judge their health. But did anyone complain in the Prost/Senna era, or during title deciders between Hunt and Lauda, or during duels between Fangio and Moss that they were not driving in Toyotas, Renaults, Opels, Volvos, Ladas or such like? Of course not. The cars are not the true stars in Formula One.

The trouble with major manufacturers is that they have to justify racing by road-relevance, because simply being there - especially when you're the not the one winning - doesn't cut it anymore. But nobody watches F1 because the cars are relevant to what they drive on the road. The opposite is true, although of course, its popularity has nothing to do with the cars themselves but the bits of flesh and bone sat in the middle of them.

The kind of cars that make heroes of drivers and make little kids go mad with excitement and hooked for life are the reasons teams like Williams and McLaren - and to be fair, Ferrari - came into this sport in the first place. Their founders weren't interested in being involved in an R&D project for multi-million dollar firms.

It's sad that in chasing after these kind of manufacturers, we're losing teams who are only in this business for the racing.

And that's why Formula One is suffering. It's too big for its own good. It can't satisfy the needs of specialist racing teams, potential firms interesting in investing, the major road car manufacturers and the luxury car manufacturers. Each of those parties used to have their own place in the motor sport, but now Formula One has such a big slice of the cake, that too many of these parties are coming in with their conflicting interests and creating a product which is neither one thing nor the other.

[Airhead]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Yay, I'm famous!

Seriously, I get increasingly frustrated with F1's major-manufacturer complex, especially when its looking over its shoulder to see who else has got what. Renault was the first high-volume car manufacturer to win a Constructor's or Driver's championship and Mercedes are only the second to do it. You could count Alfa Romeo did it too, although they were an altogether different kind of car maker in the 1950s.

This noughties obsession with works teams has been a poison for F1. It's sports cars, touring cars and rallying which need the road car manufacturers, and that's how you judge their health. But did anyone complain in the Prost/Senna era, or during title deciders between Hunt and Lauda, or during duels between Fangio and Moss that they were not driving in Toyotas, Renaults, Opels, Volvos, Ladas or such like? Of course not. The cars are not the true stars in Formula One.

The trouble with major manufacturers is that they have to justify racing by road-relevance, because simply being there - especially when you're the not the one winning - doesn't cut it anymore. But nobody watches F1 because the cars are relevant to what they drive on the road. The opposite is true, although of course, its popularity has nothing to do with the cars themselves but the bits of flesh and bone sat in the middle of them.

The kind of cars that make heroes of drivers and make little kids go mad with excitement and hooked for life are the reasons teams like Williams and McLaren - and to be fair, Ferrari - came into this sport in the first place. Their founders weren't interested in being involved in an R&D project for multi-million dollar firms.

It's sad that in chasing after these kind of manufacturers, we're losing teams who are only in this business for the racing.

And that's why Formula One is suffering. It's too big for its own good. It can't satisfy the needs of specialist racing teams, potential firms interesting in investing, the major road car manufacturers and the luxury car manufacturers. Each of those parties used to have their own place in the motor sport, but now Formula One has such a big slice of the cake, that too many of these parties are coming in with their conflicting interests and creating a product which is neither one thing nor the other.

Great post Man...

[Mr Pink]

G4J, famous and spreading wisdom!
Very well put, I fully agree with what that sentiment.

[steve_r]

The problem is that when you only have 3 engine manufacturers, and two of them say they will walk due to the obselete / irrelevant nature of the engines being used, you end up having to pay attention.

For reasons probably best known to themselves, despite the mind-bogglingly complex and expensive new engine technology, F1 has now got a 4th manufacturer. However, I think it is safe to say that the likes of Brian Hart or other private / small scale engine manufacturers are not going to crop up in F1 for the forseeable future.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by steve_r

The problem is that when you only have 3 engine manufacturers, and two of them say they will walk due to the obselete / irrelevant nature of the engines being used, you end up having to pay attention.

For reasons probably best known to themselves, despite the mind-bogglingly complex and expensive new engine technology, F1 has now got a 4th manufacturer. However, I think it is safe to say that the likes of Brian Hart or other private / small scale engine manufacturers are not going to crop up in F1 for the forseeable future.

My answer to that would be to let two of those three leave. I'm not bashing the V6 Power Units themselves - those dinosaur V8s had served their time. If Mercedes and Renault had gone, we'd be left with Ferrari and maybe Hart, Cosworth and a few other specialist, small-scale racing firms. F1 got by with that for a long time. In fact it thrived on it.

This paragraph in Rencken's article kind of highlights what I'm talking about:

A single dominant manufacturer, which supplies (subsidised) engines to three customer teams; a limping stallion; hamstrung small volume sportscar manufacturer devoid of a title sponsor; two flying drinks can teams; squabbling mid-grid independents and two teams in administration - racing to regulations that fix V-angles and mounting points of engines.

That's the great paradox with these engines. The cost and investment of these Power Units isn't that far shy of what Toyota spend on their whole project in a season of the WEC, and yet so much of these "innovative" V6s are decided by the rule book. In LMP1, the only restrictions are effectively the fuel limit, the mandatory four-stroke engine solution, and two methods of energy recuperation. And yet these manufacturers spend far less money on such powertrains designed to last the distance of a whole F1 season in one chunk at Le Mans.

Say two of those three manufacturers did pull out at the end of 2013. You'd be left with Ferrari and a few specialist, small-scale racing engine manufacturers like Cosworth, AER, Ilmor minus the Merc backing possibly and Hart. You'd probably have a more open rule book whereby genuine innovation could make the difference. With the restrictive rules as they are, money talks. Mercedes can afford the man hours and the people capable of finding those grey areas in the rules or the extra 0.01% which makes the difference.

So what if it was just Ferrari left? They've been comprehensively beaten by much smaller firms who've made cleverer engines (and chassis, and aero solutions) than them plenty of times in the past.

I'm not saying I'm right here, I'm just looking at it from an angle that the rulemakers in F1 haven't up to now. I don't have the answer, but judging by the position F1 finds itself in now, the stakeholders don't either.

[Paradise City]

Yes. I don't really give a jot about 'big manufacturers'. They are as much a blessing as they are a scourge. A grid of little pocket manufacturers like Judd, Cossie, Hart is my preference.

I'm excited with 'big manufacturers' when there's a strong governing body imposing order. When there isn't, 'big manufacturers' make me nervous.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Yes. I don't really give a jot about 'big manufacturers'. They are as much a blessing as they are a scourge. A grid of little pocket manufacturers like Judd, Cossie, Hart is my preference.

I'm excited with 'big manufacturers' when there's a strong governing body imposing order. When there isn't, 'big manufacturers' make me nervous.

Moreover as has been said before, manufacturers are only ever one board meeting away from canning their programme regardless of what bits of paper they signed.

We all remember that Toyota pulled out of F1 in 2009 only a few weeks after they signed up to the last concorde agreement commiting themselves to be in F1 until 2012!

F1 is discretionary spend for manufacturers, not core business that will always be their focus. I think F1 and FOM sit back with the comfort of having this so called long term commitment from the leading manufacturers which the past has shown is unwise.

This is why it is crazy to frame engine regulations around them which produces a product that only they can afford and in all probablility only one will get 100% right at anyone time.

[wnut]

WEC is just the reliability trial that F1 seems hell bent on emulating, F1 should be about flat out racing! Not WEC light.

[JacobP]

I think root problem with the engine variety in F1 is that the engines have become too reliable. Back in the 80s when a works team would use a new engine in each car for each race, and then who knows how many more for practice, qualifying, and testing, it was quite difficult for the same factory to supply more than one or two teams with state of art engines. Because of this, there was a real zoo of engines in the early 90s. There was Ford, Honda, Renault, Lamborghini, Yamaha, another Honda by Mugen, Porsche, etc.

But now, each car has to do with five engines the whole season. A typical F1 engine factory can probably produce far more than only ten engines at relatively little additional cost, and so it can easily supply,three, four, or five teams. There is probably no limit. As a result, the weaker engine manufacturers (e.g. Cosworth) got squeezed out. Why buy a "budget" Cosworth engine when you can have a manufacturer's "works" engine for a little bit more cash? As a result, nearly every team had a fairly competitive engine in 2013, and four teams had the dominant Mercedes engines in their cars. I remember the situation from two decades ago where some teams would probably kill to have that dominant Renault engine in their cars. But since murder was not an option, Benetton bought the whole Ligier team just so they could use Ligier's Renault engines in 1995 season.

[Gingers4Justice]

The difference between conservation now and conservation in the past in F1 is that today, it's almost entirely manufactured.

Drive a 1950s F1 car at full pelt for 2 hours, and it will break. It wasn't control tires, or fuel-flow limiters, or engine/gearbox restrictions which the drivers and teams had to consider, it was the fact the technology was young, unproven and often not fully understood and if you pushed it too hard for too long it broke. It's what separates the great from the good. There are many drivers with the bravery and reflexes to drive an F1 car fast for a lap. It's the great drivers who understand what the car's doing - they save tenths correcting the slide before it comes, feel the tire that's going to drop off laps before it does and know what that drop in track temperature will do to the car's grip without even thinking about it. That's the skill you need to be a multiple World Champion, not flat out speed over a lap - otherwise you'd have wonderkids in karting telling the press they want to grow up to emulate their hero Jarno Trulli.

As I said earlier in the thread, it's not the cars themselves that's made F1 popular, but the drivers. But you need a certain type of car to put the drivers in a super-hero scenario which us mere mortals can't really imagine. Do you see a 2014 F1 car and think "wow, I just couldn't do that"?

Not enough people do, even though these cars are more complex to master than they've been for a while now. That, for me, is partly down to the major road car manufacturers who would rather tell you about how road-relevant, innovative and green the new PUs are - although even that message was lost by the nonsense we had about the noise from Bernie and various other stakeholders.

All Formula One seems to be at the moment is crisis management. We're not going to get out of this mess until all the parties get together and decide what F1 is and who it's for. That's not going to happen while this mess continues to make so much money for CVC.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

The difference between conservation now and conservation in the past in F1 is that today, it's almost entirely manufactured.

Drive a 1950s F1 car at full pelt for 2 hours, and it will break. It wasn't control tires, or fuel-flow limiters, or engine/gearbox restrictions which the drivers and teams had to consider, it was the fact the technology was young, unproven and often not fully understood and if you pushed it too hard for too long it broke. It's what separates the great from the good. There are many drivers with the bravery and reflexes to drive an F1 car fast for a lap. It's the great drivers who understand what the car's doing - they save tenths correcting the slide before it comes, feel the tire that's going to drop off laps before it does and know what that drop in track temperature will do to the car's grip without even thinking about it. That's the skill you need to be a multiple World Champion, not flat out speed over a lap - otherwise you'd have wonderkids in karting telling the press they want to grow up to emulate their hero Jarno Trulli.

As I said earlier in the thread, it's not the cars themselves that's made F1 popular, but the drivers. But you need a certain type of car to put the drivers in a super-hero scenario which us mere mortals can't really imagine. Do you see a 2014 F1 car and think "wow, I just couldn't do that"?

Not enough people do, even though these cars are more complex to master than they've been for a while now. That, for me, is partly down to the major road car manufacturers who would rather tell you about how road-relevant, innovative and green the new PUs are - although even that message was lost by the nonsense we had about the noise from Bernie and various other stakeholders.

All Formula One seems to be at the moment is crisis management. We're not going to get out of this mess until all the parties get together and decide what F1 is and who it's for. That's not going to happen while this mess continues to make so much money for CVC.

I have said this for a long time now. Bernie has another plan, underway now and the FIA may be powerless to stop him.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I have said this for a long time now. Bernie has another plan, underway now and the FIA may be powerless to stop him.

What plan is that?

[Teretonga]

In his spiel about going back to normally aspirated V10's or V8's (which I think is highly unlikely) he was asked if the FIA would be happy and as they are regulator they would have to approve it. Bernie appeared to be dismissive about the FIA saying that they had sold the rights (to regulate?) to the strategy group....

If true, it is counter to what the EU commission said to the FIA regarding not being involved in the commercial side but Bernie indicated they had received a payment of $40 million from CVC (or FOM) and it has recently been noted by the EU commission that the FIA now holds a small shareholding in F1 valued at $120 million.

Bernie's slant to the journalists was that the strategy group was the way FOM and he thought it should be set up, but it makes it almost impossible for the FIA to lead the regulation process because Bernie and the teams hold 2/3rds of the vote. If they don't want it they can scuttle or veto it.

Now Bernie may be just stroking someone's fur, or he may really have it in his mind to take the whole show away from the FIA's paws. It wouldn't be F1 because the FIA owns that logo but Bernie owns GP1 so there's always a vehicle waiting in the wings.

Some of it is here:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns29626.html
More here at the end of the Pitpass article:
http://www.pitpass.com/53120/Ecclest...0s-or-anything

[wolfhound]

I suspect Berie's other plan might to buy F1 from CVC at a bargain price. At the moment he is in the softening up process by trying to devalue F1 with his various comments and the loss of teams etc. Its the only thing that makes sence with some of things he says. I don't think Bernie wants F1 to go public because he would almost certainly loose control. He is also running the risk of the FIA taking back F1 if too many teams drop out.
The way Bernie has setup the strategy group could make F1 ungovernable as can be seen with some of the new rules that have come out of it.
I notice that he appears to be being dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age by CVC as there are now a number of staff working on it at FOM.

http://www.pitpass.com/53125/F1-look...s-reservations

If Bernie was to setup a GP1 championship he would still need approval from the FIA as very little motorsport happens at international level without the FIA's approval.