In reply to alfadriver: I disagree (I am jocking for Nico to win the Championship) Hamilton could gap anybody at anytime, Max had a great race, but old tires wouldn't have gotten him in front of Hamilton, and Safety cars and red flags I think helped alot of people move up.
trigun7469 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I disagree (I am jocking for Nico to win the Championship) Hamilton could gap anybody at anytime, Max had a great race, but old tires wouldn't have gotten him in front of Hamilton, and Safety cars and red flags I think helped alot of people move up.
Perhaps, but thanks to RB's strategy, we will never know. Max has some very interesting lines, finding grip on a wet surface.
But it would have been nice, being a Hamilton fan, had Max finished 2nd ahead of Nico... Oh, well.
Hamilton was pulling away from Max before the stop for Int's. The gap had gone from one second to almost two by that point.
Heck of a drive from Max, but did anyone look close at the lines he was taking? From what I could tell, he was basically taking what I would consider the wet line, where everyone else was taking the same dry line. Since those tires are supersoft, seems to me that even with the rain washing off the rubber, the other drivers continued to lay down rubber on it making it slick. Max (he said because he couldn't see behind the spray), seemed to take the lines that nobody had, so there wasn't any rubber layed down and his tires just worked better. If that was really his intention, it was a smart move on his part.
-Rob
Furious_E wrote: In reply to Rusnak_322: Aren't they those guys who make really overpriced watches and sunglasses and E36 M3?
Actually , I think BMW made the E36 M3.
Ron Dennis is out at McLaren!!! It's been on the cards for years, but as he pulled the company back from the edge of oblivion and masterminded the classic Lauda - Prost - Senna era as well as Hakkinnan and Lewis not to mention the original F1 road car and the modern road car division I really thought he be there for life, but no, the BoD has forced him out!!
'Executive committee' to run McLaren as it seeks new CEO
Wow.
It's been well publicized that the relationship between Ron and Mansour Ojjeh has been sour, but Ron still owns 25% of the company, I surprised he could be ousted. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing. He's never been a big Button fan and he has made some blunders, but I agree that being tied with a major OEM as their 'works' team is the only way forward in the long run. When Mercedes bought Brawn GP I'm not surprised that he went looking for a new partner and I think we are all surprised at the mess Honda made when they came back.
The Brexit vote, Trump is Pres and Ron looses McLaren!! Ragnarök is coming I tell you!
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
To me, it says that McLaren is going to be the next Lotus. McLaren in name only, and not nearly the performance that it had in the day. Oh, well.
For the non OEM teams, McLaren (I don't really count their road cars, since they didn't exist for most of the team's life, and they are so very, very small) will be replaced by Red Bull- which is still a pretty new team, since they started as Stewart in the 90's. Williams is still there, but Force India (or whatever they end up being with what's going on with the owner) is challenging them. FI is also pretty new tracing back to Jordan of '91, Williams goes back to the 70's.
Behind that, well... not sure who is going to pick up the pieces of a strong, independent team. I can't really take Toro Rosso seriously- even after taking over Minardi, they can't get something solid established. Sauber is at least who they started life as- but man, are they struggling.
Renault is an OEM who still is finding themselves. Ferrari and Mercedes are clearly OEM teams, too- but found themselves rather quickly. Even if Mercedes used to be Brawn who used to be Honda who used to be BAR who used to be Tyrrell. From a good and strong independent team to an OEM. Just like Renault (Benotton, Toelman instead of getting the old Renault team).
Which leaves Haas and Manor. Both of which are still who they started as (sort of- Manor has gone through a few ownership changes, but they are Manor). Right now, I see more potential for Haas, given what they have done in one season has been better than Manor in their history.
Of all that, it's interesting to note that Ferrari has always been Ferrari, McLaren has always been McLaren, Williams has always been Williams. Other than that (and not counting the new teams).....
In reply to alfadriver:
Interesting point of view. Your absolutely have a point that many of the once great teams all started to wane after their (occasionally) benevolent dictator left the scene. Lotus (ACBC), Brabham (Bernie), BRM (Louis Stanley), Tyrrell (Uncle Ken), Ligier (Guy) etc. But I hope this is different as do we all, even if you're not a fan of the team, competition is good.
Times have changed though. Both Williams and McLaren have a reach far far beyond just F1. McLaren has a burgeoning road car business plus Electronics (they supply all the ECUs for F1, Indy car and others) and McLaren applied technologies. Williams make KERS systems and consult both in and out of Automotive. Both teams are involved in Engineering, Aerospace, renewable and alternative energy etc. So unlike Lotus or the early days of Ferrari where road cars were afterthoughts to be able to go racing neither group is a one trick pony.
I think (admittedly hope) that both teams survive on their non F1 businesses while they get their E36 M3 together and rebuild the F1 team. Also, look at the payouts for even the mid field teams in the constructors championship, there's big money there to help keep the lights on. At McLaren at least Honda are paying the driver salaries plus a big injection of cash. Notice the lack of sponsorship on the McLarens and the lack of results does not seem to be slowing down spending as it does at the Saubers, Manors of the world? Same at Williams. Lance Stoll's father is buying the team a new Wind tunnel to pay for his drive and I haven't heard of the Martini money going anywhere even though Force India have spanked them this year on $10 plus belly button lint.
Nope, I'm thinking that McLaren and Williams are going to be here for the long haul. Any way, we can't have McLaren and Williams in 2nd and 3rd place in the all times win list behind Ferrari forever, they need to move back to the top of that list
alfadriver wrote: ...... Williams has always been Williams.
Other than when he sold the team to Walter Wolf and it was re-branded as Wolf and he started over
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
On a related note- did the Renault team after the 1985 season just go away?
I know as an engine supplier, they kept going, and even won a few championships. But I can't quickly find any reference to what happened to the rest of the team.
In reply to alfadriver:
At the end of 85 the closed the door on the team and just did engines. As far as I recall they didn't sell the team, just closed it. But back then teams came and went. Remember the glory days of pre-qualifying to try and get a place to even qualify. that was the days of 30 plus entries for 26 spots on the grid. If only, if only.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
It's too bad that costs have gotten so bad that it's not worth just putting a car together and not be able to qualify. Heck, it takes an act of Bernie for teams to get approved... ugh.
Let's face it. Even Bernie can't carry on forever. He's 86, in reality if he lasts more then four more years I'll be amazed. Also I truly believe after the fleecing from CVC where the intention was to grab every penny possible in profit, Liberty Mutual will take things in a different direction. They have a vested interest in increasing viewers. The best way to do that is to tap into the largest generation the world has ever seen. There are far more Millenials than baby boomers and they are rip for the picking if they can be tempted to take an interest in motorsport. They don't have the money of baby boomers and forget pay per view, this generation is consuming it's media online and not even getting cable, let alone premium PPV channels. I think over the next 10 years we will see a massive change in how F1 can be viewed and consumed. Online watching will become easier and while we'll have to put up with pop up and forced ads in the middle of races, I really think viewership and interactive access will become easier. More viewers means more, new and more diverse sponsors. We will see, I've been wrong before, but I hope not this time.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
One other thing to consider- how many FSAE/Formula Student people are out there. Which is to say that there STILL are a lot of creative people out there who would like to have a chance if the opportunity is realistic.
It's interesting to see that the cost of making an open wheel car has pretty much universally gone out of the world, leading to very few car manufacturers that theoretically can step up- there's a pretty big group of people that constantly make race cars from scratch every year. If a path for that pent up desire can be shown to F1- including the stepping stone series, that would be really interesting.
For that, though, one would very much need an equivalent of what Cosworth brought to F1.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: In reply to alfadriver: At the end of 85 the closed the door on the team and just did engines. As far as I recall they didn't sell the team, just closed it. But back then teams came and went. Remember the glory days of pre-qualifying to try and get a place to even qualify. that was the days of 30 plus entries for 26 spots on the grid. If only, if only.
Part of my argument for a cost cap.
:)
In reply to alfadriver:
In reply to z31maniac:
This is getting off F1, but I think there's an opportunity for an international 'Gentlemans' class a bit like the old F5000. Spec Dallara or similar tub available with or without suspension and wheel ends. Inlet area limited NA engines with max fixed price. Could offer a Cosworth based engine for say $100K/year lease costs. Spec 6 speed paddle shift trans with only mechanical diff. Spec electronics and data logging which limits too many options. The rest is free but with strict limits on aero size and placement. Cap rolling chassis at say $200K less engine/trans/electronics. No reason complete cars couldn't be had for less the $300K and do deals that they are Saturday or even Friday support races at certain of the safest F1 tracks. Big, fast noisy cars making a big splash for rich guys. There are enough people running Porsche/Ferrari/Lamboghini one makes championships plus Pro-Am GT3, IMSA etc. Plus people running BOSS/Historic F1 etc that I have to believe there is a market for it.
End of dreaming.
Yeah, not interested in another spec series.
What I want to see in F1.
"You get these tires, car must fit in these dimensions, be able to pass X crash tests, and use this fuel. You get XXX,XXX,XXX per year to make it happen."
And bit more fairly shared revenue so teams can stay in business.
Maybe if viewership and attendance keep dropping they will figure out people like me are tired of seeing a team with $60 million per year and pay drivers get STOMPED by teams $450 million per year budgets.
I can't wait for Bernie to be gone. I think we'll see some great improvements once liberty has full control.
Especially if they do online streaming of the races, or even have the races available online a day later. Hell, F1 is the only reason I still have cable.
z31maniac wrote: Part of my argument for a cost cap. :)
Cost caps are basically impossible to enforce in something like F1. In stick and ball sports it's easy -- you add up the salaries and you're done. Cheating on them is hard, if only because of tax rules.
Think of the creative accounting loophole exploitation being done in the $20xx challenge cars. Now imagine you have teams like Ferrari with millions of dollars available to pay accountants to look for loopholes in vastly more complex accounting rules.
codrus wrote:z31maniac wrote: Part of my argument for a cost cap. :)Cost caps are basically impossible to enforce in something like F1. In stick and ball sports it's easy -- you add up the salaries and you're done. Cheating on them is hard, if only because of tax rules. Think of the creative accounting loophole exploitation being done in the $20xx challenge cars. Now imagine you have teams like Ferrari with millions of dollars available to pay accountants to look for loopholes in vastly more complex accounting rules.
Cool, how do they manage to limit CFD run time, etc.
I'm not buying the argument they can't figure out a cost cap. You can claim "complex accounting rules" or that they'll shift expenses to the road car division or similar.
They could make it happen but the big dogs have a huge invested interest in making it sure never will.
That's why, not because of "complex accounting rules."
codrus wrote:z31maniac wrote: Part of my argument for a cost cap. :)Cost caps are basically impossible to enforce in something like F1. In stick and ball sports it's easy -- you add up the salaries and you're done. Cheating on them is hard, if only because of tax rules. Think of the creative accounting loophole exploitation being done in the $20xx challenge cars. Now imagine you have teams like Ferrari with millions of dollars available to pay accountants to look for loopholes in vastly more complex accounting rules.
Teams get tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per year from "Corp F1". All invoices, salaries, freight, utilities, rent, logistical expenses, ect get paid directly thru Corp F1.
If your team didn't get points enough to earn the max spending, you can deposit into your account until you hit the max.
Teams have to approve invoices before Corp F1 pays. May take longer for vendors to get paid, but they would be assured that the team has credit.
If a vendor deals with a team outside of the Corp F1 payment plan, then they are barred from dealing with all F1 teams for a period of time.
People on F1 teams found to be going around or covering up expenses would be suspended or barred from working in F1. Whistleblowers would be paid a reward from the cheating teams F1 fund.
Mercedes F1 team would have to be separate from the Mercedes engine development budget. Same with other constructors. All purchases and contracts would be eligible for random audit by Corp F1.
Not saying that it is a way to go, but there are real ways to enforce cost caps.
z31maniac wrote: I'm not buying the argument they can't figure out a cost cap. You can claim "complex accounting rules" or that they'll shift expenses to the road car division or similar.
The FIA couldn't even successfully ban traction control until they imposed a common ECU, and even then there have been allegations that various people have gotten it to work on the sly over the years (Red Bull at Sinagpore a few years ago, for example).
So if I'm in charge of big manufacturer A, my umbrella corporation owns the F1 team and a bunch of other subsidiaries. With a cost cap, doing R&D inside my F1 team has been made difficult, so I shift it to a subsidiary. The F1 team then buys the resulting tech from the subsidiary for some cost. How much should it cost? This isn't like buying used Miatas on Craigslist, there's no "fair market value" for one-off F1 tech. You can't ban teams buying tech, over half the grid buys their engines from another manufacturer. Are you going to enforce forensic accounting of all of the costs that the company selling the tech put into it? How far does it go, which vendors are required to open their books in order to sell to an F1 team? It can't be all of them, no way is Apple or HP going to let the FIA rummage around in their finances just because an F1 team bought some laptops from them. There are plenty of companies in the middle, genuinely independent companies like Brembo and Carbon Industries who sell the specialized carbon-carbon brake systems used on F1 cars.
Right now there are a lot of people complaining about how F1 championships aren't won by drivers, they're won by designers, engineers and strategists. (I don't have a lot of sympathy for that complaint -- technological innovation has been a central part of F1 for as long as it's been around, and there are plenty of other spec series out there for people to watch.) Impose a cost cap like this and it won't be the engineers winning the championships, it will be the accountants and lawyers.
A lot of the cost containment could be part of the "universal" stuff that teams should not really have to duplicate, unless some manufacturer wanted in to provide competition.
Right now, we have Pirelli making the same tires for everyone.
Could have brakes all made by one company to a spec. So each team isn't worried about failure- and they all get pretty much the same performance- which is what they have now not being spec.
Could have the survivable tub that is a spec. Where the front and rear is common- but the suspension, how it packages, how the engine fits, etc- is all common. The actual drivers compartment isn't much of a performance advantage, nor is something we even see or note- and that should save a lot of money and "certification" costs.
What you are left with is the suspension, body and aero for the non powertrain parts.
Then, the engine rules should totally be that there should be a customer spec that anyone can get. To the point that powertrain makers should be able to field 1/3 of the field. We have 4 engines now for 22 cars. Some engine makers already do that anyway. Maybe up that to a capability of 1/2 so that teams can shift mid-season. At that point, the cost of the engine to the consumer can be specified. That gives the makers the option of losing a lot of money if they chose to sell them at a loss, but hey...
Once Ferrari started selling engines, the notion of A car maker making A car went out the window.
Anyway, there are plenty of parts that can be "off the shelf" that we never notice or the performance difference is so very tiny that it's not worth it to US the consumers of the racing compared to having more teams. Like Pirelli, many of the components can be shared for all teams.
z31maniac wrote: Yeah, not interested in another spec series.
I never suggested, it was a tangent about a potential Gentlemans upper end clubmans type series
z31maniac wrote: "You get these tires, car must fit in these dimensions, be able to pass X crash tests, and use this fuel. You get XXX,XXX,XXX per year to make it happen."
With those rules step one is to get rid of driver as A) He/She a big heavy useless squish mess. B) He/She couldn't stay conciouse driving a car built to these specs.
Next?
alfadriver wrote: A lot of the cost containment could be part of the "universal" stuff that teams should not really have to duplicate, unless some manufacturer wanted in to provide competition. Right now, we have Pirelli making the same tires for everyone. Could have brakes all made by one company to a spec. So each team isn't worried about failure- and they all get pretty much the same performance- which is what they have now not being spec. Could have the survivable tub that is a spec. Where the front and rear is common- but the suspension, how it packages, how the engine fits, etc- is all common. The actual drivers compartment isn't much of a performance advantage, nor is something we even see or note- and that should save a lot of money and "certification" costs. What you are left with is the suspension, body and aero for the non powertrain parts. Then, the engine rules should totally be that there should be a customer spec that anyone can get. To the point that powertrain makers should be able to field 1/3 of the field. We have 4 engines now for 22 cars. Some engine makers already do that anyway. Maybe up that to a capability of 1/2 so that teams can shift mid-season. At that point, the cost of the engine to the consumer can be specified. That gives the makers the option of losing a lot of money if they chose to sell them at a loss, but hey... Once Ferrari started selling engines, the notion of A car maker making A car went out the window. Anyway, there are plenty of parts that can be "off the shelf" that we never notice or the performance difference is so very tiny that it's not worth it to US the consumers of the racing compared to having more teams. Like Pirelli, many of the components can be shared for all teams.
I agree this is the way to go on cost containment. I'd say its impossible to police spending. The world knows who the big players were at the big banks and finance companies that lead to the 08 colapse, but even the might of governemnts can't prove it to the point we can lock them up. How could the FIA police spending by OEM car companies who are multinational corps with divisions all over the world and thousands of suppliers?
I couldn't care about brakes and agree, there's zero competative reason why you can't have an off the shelf package for $100K or so. Same with wheels and wheel attachement. Every team makes their own stupidly expensive wheel nuts for quick changes. Make that spec and limit the weight of wheels. Engines can cost whatever they want to develop but they must be willing to lease them to up to say any three registered teams for a per year leas cost of say $5mil. Within reason the works teams will never have funding difficulties as long as the BOD's are happy to sign the checks. The lower teams are vital to the sport unless you want only 10 cars on the grid and right now they have to spend mega bucks to get there. I've seen $5-7 mil for a front running Indy car team where Manor and suposedly spending $90million, yes $90,000,000 to get on the back of the grid. Something will have to give. We've been struggling around 20-22 entries for the alst few years. Imagine the saveing from a spec wheel end package, spec electronics, cost capped engines? You could either do a whole lot more for you $90mil or at least be part of the game for hopefully less than half that. Let's face it, the Dallara Indy car rolling chassis is $350K, what do you think even Haas has spent for their Ferrari lite chassis? I'll bet at least 10 times that. There are opportunities to force some lower costs without going anywhere near a spec series.
You'll need to log in to post.
