Porsche to return?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by coppice

But the differences are tiny and unnoticeable to anybody watching or listening to a car go round the track . Having attended Grands Prix with V8s , V10s running together - and others with straight 4s, v6s and v8s - I find the one size fits all uniformity very dull .

I agree.

Originally Posted by coppice

Umm ...I was being tongue in cheek about Honda.

Well as they say... without some type of visual que (such as a wink or smile) that type of humor can be taken at face value on the internet. How can anyone tell the difference between seriousness and parody.



Richard

[coppice]

You colonials need some education on the subtle art of irony .

That's ironic too .

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

It's a competition. The simple answer is why should they help? Plus good innovation and the ability to keep that innovation a secret are two different things. Imagine if Mercedes had an extremely novel aero approach that produced a significant advantage. It might be very innovative, but at the same time potentially very visible and relatively easy to replicate. The Brawn double diffuser sort of fits that scenario.

The more complex answer is that at some point (after they have dominated for a period of time) they have to protect their investment by keeping the series viable by helping their competitors move forward. Mercedes has publicly said as much.


Not sure of the relevance to the discussion, but I would say this is just and example of someone out spending and getting ahead of the competition. It obviously worked for them. Mercedes could have equally dumped a ton of money on the project and not come up with a winning solution (ala Toyota F1).


I am aware of the oil burn issue. I am only slightly aware of the Spa issue you are talking about. My understanding is that "any" team that brought a new engine to Spa could use the higher burn rate for the duration of that engines life. Others just plan to introduce engines after Spa and will have to use the lower rate. If Mercedes was to have a rash of failures and would need to use a new engine, it would need to meet the new specs. Customer teams who planned to get engines after Spa are a bit screwed, but such is life as a customer team. It's not like they ever had equal equipment to begin with. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Again, I am not saying I like the current situation. Just saying that it is all examples of successful innovation by one team and the resulting impact on the other teams and the sport.

Richard

The point is if Mercedes have a fabulous innovation, Why do they continually appeal to obscure or controversial points of regulation to take advantage?

[Greem]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

The point is if Mercedes have a fabulous innovation, Why do they continually appeal to obscure or controversial points of regulation to take advantage?

I know it sounds a bit glib, but: because they can.

Ferrari did it for years during the Byrne/Brawn/Todt years, and I'm quite sure other teams have done so through the lifetime of F1.

It doesn't make it right, at any point - but if the model of tiny incremental improvements can be applied at a business, procedural and technical level - why not?

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am aware of the oil burn issue. I am only slightly aware of the Spa issue you are talking about. My understanding is that "any" team that brought a new engine to Spa could use the higher burn rate for the duration of that engines life. Others just plan to introduce engines after Spa and will have to use the lower rate. If Mercedes was to have a rash of failures and would need to use a new engine, it would need to meet the new specs. Customer teams who planned to get engines after Spa are a bit screwed, but such is life as a customer team. It's not like they ever had equal equipment to begin with. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Again, I am not saying I like the current situation. Just saying that it is all examples of successful innovation by one team and the resulting impact on the other teams and the sport.

Richard

I believe they can replace any engine with the higher burn rate as long as they use that previous spec, so MB is locked in to no updates for the rest of the year. If they need a new engine they can use the old higher burn but have to stick with that older spec. Renault did not have their newest spec ready at Spa so they elected to not rush it and will have to use the lower burn rate with the upgrades. Believe Ferrari had the same challenge in their builds and well Honda who knows what their plan is but might as well work on the lower burn this season if that's the future rule.

Originally Posted by hondafan37

The point is if Mercedes have a fabulous innovation, Why do they continually appeal to obscure or controversial points of regulation to take advantage?

Originally Posted by Greem

I know it sounds a bit glib, but: because they can.

Ferrari did it for years during the Byrne/Brawn/Todt years, and I'm quite sure other teams have done so through the lifetime of F1.

It doesn't make it right, at any point - but if the model of tiny incremental improvements can be applied at a business, procedural and technical level - why not?

Exactly what Greem said, MB has an advantage and want to keep it as long as is legally possible, and legally grey area even. Just because you are ahead now doesn't mean you rest, or you WILL be behind soon enough. Innovation doesn't only, and often doesn't come from the small. Cubic money is still king and MB has a large pile with the will to use it to their advantage. Ferrari does as well but they seem to be more resistant to change than Wolff and Lauda.