Imminent F1 shakeup?

[SpainFAN]

Moral of the story: the only way to reduce costs is through complete standardization. Without it, design elements that can be exploited will be exploited. With it, on the other hand, F1 is dead. And not just mostly dead; dead dead.

So what's the answer?

Missed the end of the post, exactly mi opinion... and I think the team must come up with a sound solution soon or

[Jon]

So what's the answer?

Easy. Standard aerodynamics and zero development in this area from any team.

[bhall]

http://www.indycar.com/

[FoxHound]

I'm pretty confident Mercedes would pull out, both as a team, and as an engine manufacturer. That would have disastrous consequences for the sport.

Its not just the withdrawals. Who else will they attract?

[Gaz.]

I'm pretty confident Mercedes would pull out, both as a team, and as an engine manufacturer. That would have disastrous consequences for the sport.

Its not just the withdrawals. Who else will they attract?

iirc it was only Ferrari who wanted to keep the V8s. Cosworth were quite happy to continue supplying V8's but importantly both said they could not supply more than 3/4 teams each. Nobody else were falling over themselves to supply V8s after Honda & Toyota left although the proposal/agreement of 4cyl turbo hybrids in June 2010 probably dissuaded a supplier from designing and building one for just three seasons- 2013 was a stay of execution.

[ScottB]

And when things change and Ferrari still aren't in front, we'll be back here again with LDM bumping his gums about 'the show' and 'what the fans want' to deflect the fact he is presiding over an era of struggle for the Prancing Horse.

I don't know about anybody else, but I think the show has been pretty damn exciting this year! We've had some titanic battles at the front, a real shake up of the order, established racers being challenged and usurped by up and commers, even Marussia have got on the board!

Ferrari and others were complaining from the get go, and really should hang their heads in shame, as should the FIA. The PR has been awful, they should have been shouting from the rooftops about the new engines, the impressive early reliability, the strides being made, but no, we've had months of moaning about noise and efficiency.

Incidentally, if LDM's threat is to leave F1 for Le Mans because he doesn't like efficiency, he's going to the wrong place...

[Cam]

@bhall - yep, I realise that they stated it was a choice between engines - but ultimately they still choose the V6 when any other engine or solution was possible. Heck a full electric system was possible, but it came down to $. It's this which is confusing everyone and hurting the sport, IMO. As an example, here's some highlights of the simply amazing statements that has contributed to the mess, IMO, they're in.

The choice of having a V6 turbo from 2014 is the right one," the Ferrari boss said. "I'm pleased to note that common sense prevailed. It shows we are working together without pointless counter-proposals or diktat, if it leads to the best outcome for the sport.

“The decision of V6 is important because turbo-six is good for the future, not only for Ferrari but also for Mercedes and others.

I speak on behalf of Italian sports people and fans, I don't like this Formula 1 and in my opinion it's delivered a product that has absolutely no sense.

No sense? Agreed, no sense but lots of dollars. They agreed on it. This was not a decision for the betterment of F1 - this was a commercial decision in an attempt to sell more cars. That is fine, but let's not delude why the decision was made. So now there is no sense to the V6's?

I hope the people who run the sport look again at the rules because the way Formula 1 is now, it has much less appeal and that's a shame as it is an extraordinary world."

“We are the only team with the right of veto,” he said. “More political weight than that is impossible!

Wow. They have a hand in running the sport, can basically change anything and didn't. They still can, but don't.

Then we have Ferrari and Todt contradicting each other:

My position has been clear for a few months now," he said. "To have drivers who save fuel and tyres, this is not Formula 1.

You need to explain to people that the drivers are driving flat out from the first to the last lap.

To be clear, this isn't attack on either Montezemolo or Todt, but a highlight of how they're all contributing to muddy the waters. This is what we, as fans, are hearing and seeing. We only can eat the cake they bake.

It's this area that needs the biggest shake up really IMO.

[bhall]

I don't think that's an accurate assessment at all.

FIA President Jean Todt has spent months pushing for the introduction of turbocharged, four-cylinder 1.6-litre units from 2013 onwards, advocating the need for F1 to be more sustainable and environmentally accountable. The Frenchman's plans were persistently opposed, however, by the sport's commercial rights-holder Bernie Ecclestone – who made little secret of his distaste for the so-called 'greener' hybrid technology – and manufacturers, with only Renault entirely on-board.

Although Todt had vowed to stand firm, it appears the ex-Ferrari team principal has now bowed to the mounting pressure – not least from his former employer, which largely echoed Ecclestone's views in arguing that his proposals bore no relevance to their road-going cars – with the confirmation that a compromise has been reached to delay the advent of the new engine formula until 2014, and to plump for 1.6-litre V6s rather than four-cylinder powerplants to replace the current gas-guzzling, 2.4-litre normally-aspirated V8s.

Everything said after that was, and remains, easily recognizable spin from parties who viewed securing the V6 as a victory over the forced imposition of a four-cylinder formula. However, that doesn't mean the outcome was ideal. It was a compromise, which, by definition, wasn't completely satisfactory to anyone involved.

But, ask yourself this: how would the sport have reacted if an outright Ferrari veto caused Renault to leave?

Renault had threatened to withdraw from the sport were the new rules not to come into force...

Or Mercedes?

F1 committed to using more fuel-efficient engines back in 2009, and a senior figure at Daimler, Mercedes's parent company, has now revealed that the decision convinced the team to stay in the sport, even though other marques, including BMW and Toyota were leaving.

It's not as simple as you want it to be.

[Cam]

I don't think that's an accurate assessment at all.

I know it's not simple. I'm agreeance with you for the most part. Perhaps I've not fully communicated that. Let me try again.

Remove the V6 "win" from the equation for a sec. That's an old trick. Give an overly bad offer, knowing full well no one will accept it. The compromise was the original solution (just ask your local politician). If the V6 was offered, the FIA would have no where else to go. So they would have us believe.

The point was (and still is), that a compromise was not required. So what if some manufactures left. The whole point of the V6's was to attract them - and I don't see any doors being beaten down trying to get in - do you?

What we had is good, everyone likes it, so why change it? It was thought that, if we had smaller engines, more manufacturers would be attracted to Formula One. But nobody else seems to be coming.”

The sports promoter didn't see a reason to change engines - neither did the majority of fans. Regardless, the FIA did want change and the teams accepted that. The teams could have just as easily have said "No. We'll keep the V8's thanks and we'll find some other changes to improve the competition. We'll go to LMP1 to pursue our eco marketing V4 & 6 dreams". So the teams do hold a fair chunk of responsibility here - which is why I have pointed out the doublethink that is being passed off to us now.

Regrets, I've had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.

Ok - they stuffed up - we all do. Either way manufactures were going to leave - either by going to V4, keeping the V8 or now - having a v6 and changing back to want the fans want. Someone's going to loose. Maybe one, maybe more.

All they have to do is provide a top notch race engine. I'm sure plenty of companies out there can provide that, so where there are looses, there are winners.

[Vettel Maggot]

F1 has it all wrong. People worry about fuel economy and being 'green' every day of their lives. We buy economical cars to save money on fuel and others choose to buy hybrids because they think they are saving the baby seals.

F1 was an escape from reality, loud, spectacular and fast, all the things you do not experience day to day. Now its about vacuum cleaner noises and conservation of everything. Something needs to be done, audiences are down, attendances are down (Monaco stands empty during quali and only half full during race etc) otherwise F1 will become even more unpopular.

[Chuckjr]

Would not the simplest solution be to remove the stringent hourly and total weight regs currently in place for fuel? Upping the anti by allowing say, 125 kg of fuel, and no hourly max flow limit would allow them to keep things as they are and give Ferrari and Renault what they've been wanting. I'm sure with more fuel Merc would still have advantage, but this would immediately allow for more competitive racing without all the changes to aero or engine.

[Cam]

It would be interesting to hear a range of views on that solution - fuel. Personally I think they could satisfy fans and keep the V6's simply by opening up the fuel regs too - even allowing re-fuelling again. What better way to show 'economy' than seeing first hand a car win a race with one less stop.

[Harsha]

Would not the simplest solution be to remove the stringent hourly and total weight regs currently in place for fuel? Upping the anti by allowing say, 125 kg of fuel, and no hourly max flow limit would allow them to keep things as they are and give Ferrari and Renault what they've been wanting. I'm sure with more fuel Merc would still have advantage, but this would immediately allow for more competitive racing without all the changes to aero or engine.

I think They restricted fuel to stop squeezing out more BHP from engines so if FIA set some limit on BHP and Open Fuel regs say 120 KG for full race and this might allow to go cars a bit more higher REV than 10500 doing so make cars louder as well

[mertol]

So what's the answer?

Easy. Let them develop everything. The teams who got the millions will spend them anyway the teams that don't will just be a little further behind. Instead of screwing around with the rules, bernie could give some more money to the backmarkers.

[autogyro]

All the comments so far completely miss the point.
F1 can no longer attract sponsors in the real world because it promotes a technology of internal combustion engines the concept of which has been obsolete for decades.
Motor sport is in a period of major technical change as is road vehicle technology.
Vehicle manufacturers may still be able to sell the public internal combustion but this is only because of the huge marketing budgets they have and the pressure from the petro chemical industries and dated government policies.
F1 is living a huge illusion.
Bernie is the only thing keeping it going at the level it is today.
Montezemolo is simply trying to protect a car company that is based on inefficient multi cylinder 'super cars'.
Ferrari has always been a thorn in the technical development in F1 but has been tolerated because of its huge fan base.
That fan base will continue but it has been eclipsed by a much bigger world demand for energy efficiency and a change in the world public's moral values towards protecting our planet.
When Bernie retires, dies or goes to prison, those at the pinnacle of F1 will be forced to bite the bullet and accept a rapid move away from internal combustion engines in motor sport.
The alternative is a slow and very painful decline, the regulations will make no difference whatsoever.
Even this site ignores FE but this will be the future.