A single fuel provider in the future of F1?

[Mikey_s]

I would be very surprised if this proposal were to go ahead.
In respect of sponsorship the sponsors tend to fall into two main groups; commercial sponsors & technical sponsors. The former provide cash for a spot on the car, the latter may also do this, but also provide technical input.
I worked for Shell for many years and, although I was not in the fuels or lubes division, I knew some of the guys working in the R&D section for the Ferrari F1 area.
You can be reasonably certain that Total will have next year's Renault engine in their labs right now, and Shell will have Ferrai's, most likely Mercedes will also be present in ExxonMobils labs and they will be working on fuel & lubricant packages for the MPUs.
In addition to working out the basic characteristics necessary I can assure you that the oil companies do develope specific fules for specific tracks; there will be a different fuel for e.g. Monza, where the cars spend approx 70% of the lap on full throttle, than at Monaco where they need low rev grunt and less top end. The oil companies also provide hydraulic fluids and greases for the cars, colants, hydraulic fluids etc.
Certainly the oil companies provide large sums of cash for the teams, but they also provide millions of dollars of technical support for their headine teams as well as bespoke fuels and lubricants that the lowlier teams do not have access to... they will have to pay for their fuels and get 'regular' race fuel. There would be a much reduced incentive for the oil companies if there was a single supplier and sponsorship would be reduced to commercial sponsorship oinly... The broad parallel is tyres; when Michelin and Bridgestone were fighting each other there was great development and real competition.... nowadays the tyres are a joke manufactured only to spice up the racing for the masses.

It most certainly will not be only Ferrari who would compain, but also Lotus, Red Bull and Mercedes if this were to happen.

Interestingly there was a rumour at one point that Ferrari was unhappy that Shell might have a better general overview of the car than many people at the Ferrari factory. Within the team the different groups are kept in tightly confined 'silos' to reduce the risk of losing intellectual property if a key member of staff left. As such the gearbox people didn't have detailed information about the engine etc... Shell was providing fuel, engine and gearbox lubricants, hydraulics, greases, coolants and other friction modifiers which were used in several differnt engineering areas and thus had a pretty good overall perspective of the vehicle.

[timbo]

Actually I wonder why there's no Pepsi or Coca-cola owned brand in F1.

There is, Burn is coca cola owned.

Ah, thanks. But it is relatively minor involvement IMO.

[GitanesBlondes]

Outsiders, national bans and EU laws, so what, the teams still survived, didn't they?

Yeah, but actually tobacco sponsored F1 seemed healthier, as there were actual sponsors around and tobacco companies could afford to throw away cash. But this is other question.

What I'm talking about is that FIA first has to propose this idea to teams (unless someone blows up and fuel monopoly is passed as safety measure) and I don't think they would welcome that.

If F1 is going IRL or Nascar, they need to learn from them, bring in McDonads, Dunkin' Donuts, Pepsi, KFC, IKEA and Tide!

Actually I wonder why there's no Pepsi or Coca-cola owned brand in F1. Also the scope of the businesses sponsoring F1 seem to have narrowed over time.

The most ridiculous aspect of going to a single fuel supplier, is who gets picked?

Todt being a worldly man, who happens to like things mostly French when it comes to suppliers, would probably be agitating for a French fuel supplier. As seeing that a French manufacturer has been the most successful engine builder of the last 21 seasons, I could imagine such a contract going to Total, or Elf if Total preferred using that brand.

Either way, Renault engines would have a huge advantage, much as the case would be for Ferrari engines if Shell were to receive such a contract.

Such a thing --to borrow a favorite line from Todt's FIA predecessor-- would be tantamount to bringing the sport into disrepute if you ask me. Aside from whacking out a whole bunch of sponsorship dollars, one engine supplier is going to have a distinct advantage in a one fuel supplier F1.

Perhaps this is what would lead to the proposal of a single engine manufacturer with custom engine covers? Renault, Total, and Michelin dominating grand prix racing's supply side, all courtesy of a Frenchman in the FIA.

[xpensive]

They should have gone with methanol, CH3OH, from cellulose, squashing two roaches with one shoe, generic and mighty green.

The FIA could thus have ditched the xpensive gizmos and imposed a boost good for 900 Hp with multiple fuel-stops for the show.

Hell, throw in a muffler for good green measure while you're at it.

[GitanesBlondes]

They should have gone with methanol, CH3OH, from cellulose, squashing two roaches with one shoe, generic and mighty green.

The FIA could thus have ditched the xpensive gizmos and imposed a boost good for 900 Hp with multiple fuel-stops for the show.

Hell, throw in a muffler for good green measure while you're at it.

That makes way more sense than the current idiocy emanating from the FIA.

[Holm86]

They should have gone with methanol, CH3OH, from cellulose, squashing two roaches with one shoe, generic and mighty green.

The FIA could thus have ditched the xpensive gizmos and imposed a boost good for 900 Hp with multiple fuel-stops for the show.

Hell, throw in a muffler for good green measure while you're at it.

A few years ago I suggested that the new engines should run on methanol.

But I think that this single supplier of fuel is fine. And I don't see why Shell shouldn't be able to sponsor Ferrari even if the supplier is someone else. Different petrol companies can still sponsor teams. Shell would probably still team up with Ferrari. They will just say that their fuel is developed for Ferrari roadcars and that's still selling point for them.

[GitanesBlondes]

They should have gone with methanol, CH3OH, from cellulose, squashing two roaches with one shoe, generic and mighty green.

The FIA could thus have ditched the xpensive gizmos and imposed a boost good for 900 Hp with multiple fuel-stops for the show.

Hell, throw in a muffler for good green measure while you're at it.

A few years ago I suggested that the new engines should run on methanol.

But I think that this single supplier of fuel is fine. And I don't see why Shell shouldn't be able to sponsor Ferrari even if the supplier is someone else. Different petrol companies can still sponsor teams. Shell would probably still team up with Ferrari. They will just say that their fuel is developed for Ferrari roadcars and that's still selling point for them.

Their sponsor price would have to drop drastically for them to stay on. Besides, why spend money when you can't even claim that your own fuel is being used? Not to mention if there were ever to be a problem with the fuel from a single supplier, then Shell has to issue press releases stating it has nothing to do with them? There's no upside to be had from staying on as a sponsor, especially when the bean counters start asking why they are spending money to be a fuel sponsor for a team that they don't actually supply fuel to.

[Holm86]

They should have gone with methanol, CH3OH, from cellulose, squashing two roaches with one shoe, generic and mighty green.

The FIA could thus have ditched the xpensive gizmos and imposed a boost good for 900 Hp with multiple fuel-stops for the show.

Hell, throw in a muffler for good green measure while you're at it.

A few years ago I suggested that the new engines should run on methanol.

But I think that this single supplier of fuel is fine. And I don't see why Shell shouldn't be able to sponsor Ferrari even if the supplier is someone else. Different petrol companies can still sponsor teams. Shell would probably still team up with Ferrari. They will just say that their fuel is developed for Ferrari roadcars and that's still selling point for them.

Their sponsor price would have to drop drastically for them to stay on. Besides, why spend money when you can't even claim that your own fuel is being used? Not to mention if there were ever to be a problem with the fuel from a single supplier, then Shell has to issue press releases stating it has nothing to do with them? There's no upside to be had from staying on as a sponsor, especially when the bean counters start asking why they are spending money to be a fuel sponsor for a team that they don't actually supply fuel to.

Why was whiskey and tobacco firms interested in sponsoring? Its not like they could go out and say that the drivers used their products.

[xpensive]

Neither would the Williams drivers claim they got their jobs through Randstad and use Kemppi welding equipment daily I think,
but Vettel is perhaps guzzling Red Bull between qualifying stints though I doubt it? Seriously, it's all just brand name advertising.

[timbo]

But I think that this single supplier of fuel is fine. And I don't see why Shell shouldn't be able to sponsor Ferrari even if the supplier is someone else. Different petrol companies can still sponsor teams. Shell would probably still team up with Ferrari. They will just say that their fuel is developed for Ferrari roadcars and that's still selling point for them.

I do not think this will work. The company chosen as fuel supplier would want to use that for promotion too. Do you think Shell would want its badge along with, say, Total on the same car?
Well, it could work if only fuel would be provided and Shell can still advertise its oils and hydraulics fluids.

[Holm86]

But I think that this single supplier of fuel is fine. And I don't see why Shell shouldn't be able to sponsor Ferrari even if the supplier is someone else. Different petrol companies can still sponsor teams. Shell would probably still team up with Ferrari. They will just say that their fuel is developed for Ferrari roadcars and that's still selling point for them.

I do not think this will work. The company chosen as fuel supplier would want to use that for promotion too. Do you think Shell would want its badge along with, say, Total on the same car?
Well, it could work if only fuel would be provided and Shell can still advertise its oils and hydraulics fluids.

I don't see why the single fuel provider should have advertising space on the cars?

[GitanesBlondes]

Why was whiskey and tobacco firms interested in sponsoring? Its not like they could go out and say that the drivers used their products.

Depends on what era you are talking about.

Keke Rosberg was smoking Marlboros when he had the personal Marlboro sponsorship in the 80s. James Hunt was always seen with a pack of Marlboros even though inside they were really Rothmans. Niki Lauda smoked Marlboros.

But those sponsorships were aimed at the public primarily.

Ferrari and Shell have an extremely long history together minus the period when Ferrari was sponsored by Agip. Shell has always used the sponsorship to their benefit as a way of selling their fuels and lubricants...and to use Ferrari vehicles for their R&D purposes. No longer being able to use Formula 1 as a way to develop new fuels would render the F1 sponsorship pointless.

On Shell's own website they've got a write up about their partnership with Ferrari.

http://www.shell.com/global/products-se ... rrari.html

If Shell cannot use their products in Ferrari F1 engines, they are not going to take kindly to it, and would most certainly re-evaluate the need to even sponsor in F1. The fuel suppliers are interested in the technical benefits, and if they no longer have that, why bother?

[GitanesBlondes]

But I think that this single supplier of fuel is fine. And I don't see why Shell shouldn't be able to sponsor Ferrari even if the supplier is someone else. Different petrol companies can still sponsor teams. Shell would probably still team up with Ferrari. They will just say that their fuel is developed for Ferrari roadcars and that's still selling point for them.

I do not think this will work. The company chosen as fuel supplier would want to use that for promotion too. Do you think Shell would want its badge along with, say, Total on the same car?
Well, it could work if only fuel would be provided and Shell can still advertise its oils and hydraulics fluids.

I don't see why the single fuel provider should have advertising space on the cars?

Why wouldn't they?

Pirelli is the single tire supplier, and they've got their logo on every single car on the grid.

It was the same when Goodyear was the sole tire supplier. Every F1 car had Goodyear decals on the cars regardless.

[Holm86]

I do not think this will work. The company chosen as fuel supplier would want to use that for promotion too. Do you think Shell would want its badge along with, say, Total on the same car?
Well, it could work if only fuel would be provided and Shell can still advertise its oils and hydraulics fluids.

I don't see why the single fuel provider should have advertising space on the cars?

Why wouldn't they?

Pirelli is the single tire supplier, and they've got their logo on every single car on the grid.

It was the same when Goodyear was the sole tire supplier. Every F1 car had Goodyear decals on the cars regardless.

I haven't noticed any Pirelli decals on the cars. Please show me.

[Hail22]

I haven't noticed any Pirelli decals on the cars. Please show me.