Imminent F1 shakeup?

[SectorOne]

Could a breakaway series now even happen with the teams having signed the Concorde agreement that runs until 2020?

[Cam]

I don't see why not. Remember, apart from proving they have the capability, all F1 teams have to do is pay their entry fee (without seeing the full terms I'm guessing). It would be cheaper to simply pay the year up front, not turn up and go play elsewhere. When that's a realistic viable option, something is wrong.

Red Bull (650 points) $4.400 million
McLaren (497 points) $2.985 million
Ferrari (375 points) $2.375 million
Mercedes (165 points) $1.325 million
Lotus (73 points) $865,000
Force India (69 points) $845,000
Sauber (44 points) $720,000
Toro Rosso (41 points) $705,000
Williams (5 points) $525,000
Caterham (0 points) $500,000
HRT (0 points) $500,000
Marussia (0 points) $500,000

Seems like a drop in the ocean doesn't it?

[FoxHound]

I want what I paid for. I want what's on the box, not the $hite inside it.

Who's not trumpeting Mercedes? I have. Full credit. They didn't compete for 2 years to concentrate on 2014. Awesome. And that's what the sport has come to - teams basically stop competing for years while they 're-build' to tackle a year off in the future.

So we end up having one team who dominates thanks to a 2 year head start, while every other team can't develop to catch up.

What's not to love?

Go back 5 years and apply the same logic.
It's a wonderment to myself that only now you feel the need to voice frustration.

[Cam]

Because I think you're wrong (which I've called you on before). The last 5 years had more scope to improve performance and gain an edge than we have now. With all the engines relatively stable, gains were made in ways that were easier to apply - and anyone could. Any team could have come up with the Double Diffuser. That some didn't wasn't a reflection of the rules, but a reflection of the oversight at the teams that missed that opportunity. The same could be said for the EBD, Engine Maps, Exhaust Blowing, Flexy bits, Various Ducts etc - all those solutions were available in the regs to any team that discovered them and implemented them.

There is no way, with this engine formula, that the same can be said. If you disagree, I'm all ears.

[FoxHound]

Could a breakaway series now even happen with the teams having signed the Concorde agreement that runs until 2020?

Pretty sure Bernie has that exit sown tight. Ferrari tried this strategy not too long ago and came up a cropper.
But if all were to join in a FOTA-esque fashion, whats to say a judge wont alleviate them of their obligations?

[FoxHound]

Because I think you're wrong (which I've called you on before). The last 5 years had more scope to improve performance and gain an edge than we have now. With all the engines relatively stable, gains were made in ways that were easier to apply - and anyone could. Any team could have come up with the Double Diffuser. That some didn't wasn't a reflection of the rules, but a reflection of the oversight at the teams that missed that opportunity. The same could be said for the EBD, Engine Maps, Exhaust Blowing, Flexy bits, Various Ducts etc - all those solutions were available in the regs to any team that discovered them and implemented them.

There is no way, with this engine formula, that the same can be said. If you disagree, I'm all ears.

Please note how EBD, "flexy bits", engine maps and "various ducts" were all Red bull innovations that took months and years for other teams to implement. In total it was a 4 year domination streak which engine companies had their hands tied to compete.
You have had 7 races and you are calling for rule implementation on engines what engine people have been calling for on aero.

Seems biased in my view. But hey, its only my view right?

[Cam]

Please note how EBD, "flexy bits", engine maps and "various ducts" were all Red bull innovations that took months and years for other teams to implement. In total it was a 4 year domination streak which engine companies had their hands tied to compete.
You have had 7 races and you are calling for rule implementation on engines what engine people have been calling for on aero.

Seems biased in my view. But hey, its only my view right?

Not all. Why would you say that when the evidence proves otherwise? DD was Brawn, F-Duct was McLaren, W-Duct was Mercedes, Passive DRS (lotus I think?), etc, sure Red Bull had some innovations, but the point was (and still is) that ANY team could have developed those at ANY time, under the regs.

Merc could have said "hey, lets play with the engine maps and use the exhaust to assist the diffuser". They didn't. Someone else got there first. Other teams had to develop their own systems when other teams got in first - like Merc and their F-Duct - remember every team trying to run tubes through a chassis that wasn't built to include it?

FH - you're selective memory is not becoming. I'm happy to debate on merit any topic, but bring facts and be careful who you're calling biased, as your constant posts that fail to acknowledged other teams "aero' innovations, are telling.

[FoxHound]

I'm sorry Cam, you are clutching at straws now.
I'm pretty sure Renault and Ferrari have aspects of their engine they can improve on and implement next year yes?
Why seperate the 2 disciplines of aero and engine when looking back over the last 5 years when it is clear a single team had a monopoly on aerodynamic dominance?

You can list 2 items in that time and you call that evidence to support your argument?
Lets have 4 years of merc dominance and see what Renault and Ferrari come up with shall we, fair is fair isn't it?

Hence why I level my bias argument to you. You cannot start now and forget the last 4 years.

[Cam]

At least you admit being bias. There's pretty much no further need to discuss. As the saying goes "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink".

Try being impartial sometimes, you learn more.

[Moxie]

Horner can manage anything ...

Horner can't manage! The "Multi 21" fiasco is one of the greatest examples of piss poor management that I have ever seen. Imagine a football coach calling a play and the players ignoring him and doing whatever they want...what an embarrassment! The whole world got to see the lack of respect his drivers have for him. Vettle brazenly ignored orders in the multi 21 incident and with the doughnut events. Weber, was professional, yet still managed to allow his disrespect for Horner to be seen. Horner wouldn't last long managing a construction crew like that.

[FoxHound]

At least you admit being bias. There's pretty much no further need to discuss. As the saying goes "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink".

Try being impartial sometimes, you learn more.

At no point did I admit any such thing.

I've stated my problem with your assessment. 4 years of aero developments in a frozen engine formula.
Now you choose to raise the issue of unhappiness, I want to know why, specifically in relation to the previous 4 years.

[Cam]

Hence why I level my bias argument to you.

If it's an english misinterpretation - I accept that. It was read as though you gave a bias argument.

I want to know why, specifically in relation to the previous 4 years.

FH, I feel like I'm talking to brick wall, but I'm a communicator, so in that vain, I'll attempt another way to get the point across.

We have 2 athletes - A & B. Both compete in a sprints race. In 4 years time the competition will change from sprints to endurance. Are you with me?

Both A & B athletes train for 40 hours a week and compete against each other every other weekend. Both Athletes A & B train for 100% sprints. After 2 years of not winning, Athlete B stops training in sprints and starts training in endurance, so now almost 90% of the training is endurance. As a result, Athlete B gets worse in the competition. Athlete A appears better - in fact, dominates.

In the third year, Athlete A still wants to keep winning, but knows next year the rules change from sprint to endurance, as such, starts to change the training to 50% endurance, 50% sprints. Athlete B by now is fully 100% training endurance. Athlete A still wins the comp as the other Athletes have all switched training regimes by now - but with Athlete A keeping that 50% sprints training, has managed to secure a few records.

Fourth year - the competition changes - now it's endurance. Athlete A & B line up and Athlete B wins in a landslide. Each race it's the same, Athlete B wins by a big margin, and Athlete A is struggling to even make the distance.

Q: Who is who in this example?

The rules were the same for both Athletes at all stages. At any time, Athlete B could have continued to train in sprints - they chose not too.

Given that, is it at all possible that the perception of dominance was magnified by the reduction of the competition?

Can you at least see this point? If not, I'm out. I draw the line at stick drawings.

[hollus]

But that happens in all sports! Football teams, basketball teams, often win by spending more than their year budget in players for a championship run, winning for a while, and then find themselves in debt and with old players. Then they spend 5 years selling, buying youngsters and saving money. Lather, rinse, repeat.
If F1 is a sport, it will look like that.

[FoxHound]

But that happens in all sports! Football teams, basketball teams, often win by spending more than their year budget in players for a championship run, winning for a while, and then find themselves in debt and with old players. Then they spend 5 years selling, buying youngsters and saving money. Lather, rinse, repeat.
If F1 is a sport, it will look like that.

Precisely.

FH, I feel like I'm.......struggling to even make the distance.

Unbelivable Cam, truly.
How is your failure to answer the question to the point, my failure in understanding?

I have given you patience. You have been sitting here on this thread harping on about how bad F1 has become.
If you dislike this years' formula, fine, I'm not particularly fond of it either.
But what you are levelling at the FIA is nothing short of pure hypocrisy if you aint got the foresight to see that it pertains to Red Bull domination over the previous 4 years too.
Mercedes geared for 2014 cos they can make engines real nice, see.
Red Bull geared for 2009 and beyond cos they have Adrian Newey, Red Bull technology centre and can do amazing things with thin air, literally.

Everything post 2009 was geared for Red Bull. They took advantage of the testing ban, and the engine freeze rule which hamstrung manufacturer teams in not being able to compete by using another discipline of the car, the engine.
Imagine for a moment - Red Bull not being allowed to meaningfully update it's aero this year.
Yea, that actually happened for years with the engine guys. It's a point you keep failing to comprehend or acknowledge. Which is again, why I say you have bias(clear as day so as you can understand).

Your athlete comparison is simply a cyclical event that Hollus rightly pointed out as occuring in all sports.
Look at Manchester united...crushed last year and now spending millions with Van Gaal to get back to winning ways.
It will take time but you can be sure this team will win again.

The number 1 rated cricket nation in the world is Australia after years in the wilderness. Took them years to replace an ageing team and to get the most out of their young players.

The South African rugby team of 2003 were selected for their youth, with an eye to winning the 2007 event. Young players at the time like John Smit saying: I also know the value of experience. I went to the 2003 World Cup with youngsters hoping for a miracle. In 2007 we had more experience and it was defining to how we managed the pressure and played.
They won the 2007 world cup.

If you are taking issue with this, I would suggest going prone after a cold shower and then getting used to it. This is the way the world works after all.

I'm still perplexed as to why now, all of sudden you have come to your conclusion that F1 sucks balls when it has been like this for years.

[Andres125sx]

Even then, unless we move to completely green energy production we are no better off.

So if they improve the emissions but not erradicate them completely, they´re not good

There are tons of biased articles stating electricity pollutes as much as petrol.... but they "curiously" ignore that´s only when comparing electricity from coal plants. Reality is electriciy comes from different plants, coal (most polluting), nuclear (no emissions but harmful wastes), hydroelectric (no emissions), windmills (no emissions), solar plants (no emissions)... so actually electricity pollutes just a fraction of ICEs today, and the difference is higher each year

That may be true for some countries, but take for Instance Australia, 70% of the power produced is via coal, so replacing all the cars on the road currently with electric vehicles is of very little benefit. On a side note, I don't like how hydro power is described as 'clean' energy, because it comes with the cost of massive environmental destruction, hopefully one day we wont need to build them and can get 'clean' power else where.

If you need to focus on Australia to say electric vehicles are of very little benefit, then you´re proving me right, even in the worse example you´ve find electric vehicles are still beneficial. Anycase, the planet bothers about the average, not about some example, good or bad, and taking the average EV´s pollute just a fraction of ICE, and the difference will continue raising each year

On a side note, where did you read water is a massive environmental destrcution?

Hydroelectric plants flood vast areas, right, but that can´t even be considered a damage, as water is always beneficial, no exception. Most rivers are dry at summer, while a reservoir has water even in the hottest and dryest seasson. Yes some rabbits will loose their home, but from next seasson they will enjoy much more water to drink, much more areas to stablish close to water, and much more food. Obviously it will be the same for any animal living in that area.

Hydroelectic plants are one of the best ways to produce electricity, environmentaly speaking they have some minor drawbacks, but also some beneficial aspects, something no other power plant, or even cold fussion, will never have.