Engine costs cut from 2011

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sureboss
  • 48 comments
  • 2,617 views
Ferrari wont ever leave F1 lol, been in it since it started...

But it will be interesting to see how this all develops!
 
Ferrari are strong enough to do as they please motor sport wise.

The Manufacturer teams can take it or leave it as far as F1 is concerned. The board of directors has more to do with it than actual success.

The Constructor teams live and breath F1. It's why they exist. They can go to other race types but they are in F1 because it's F1.
 
Tired Tyres
Yes I too think the medals idea was the one to make to engine deal look better.

KERS should be dropped. There's no point adding a new thing like that which will cost a lot of money when you are trying to cut costs.
Click to expand...

It would cost even more money if you put in all that development and have no product.
 
Tired Tyres
Ferrari are strong enough to do as they please motor sport wise.

The Manufacturer teams can take it or leave it as far as F1 is concerned. The board of directors has more to do with it than actual success.

The Constructor teams live and breath F1. It's why they exist. They can go to other race types but they are in F1 because it's F1.
Click to expand...


True what you say about manufacturer and constructor teams, but Ferrari's cse is a bit more complex. It's true that Ferrari is strong enough to make a credible menace of leaving F1, and F1 without Ferrari wouldn't have the same appeal (even this happens just because F1 fans either love it or hate it, Ferrari doesn't leave anyone indifferent), but ...

Ferrari without F1 would lose much of their appeal. What would they do in motorsports? Respecting their heritage, the only other available (and respectable) option would be LMP's (I drool, just to think of a closed LMP like the Peugeot, but all in red and with the "cavallino rampante" on it). Problem is ... you need a diesel engine to succeed ... And a diesel Ferrari in almost "blasphemy" :crazy: . So ... I guess Ferrari would have to go racing in the IRL league, claiming they wanted to add a Indianapolis 500 win to their racing history (but they don't have the needed "know how" about oval racing) and keep european customers happy with the GT cars in Europe (but that's a litle "Low profile" for Ferrari).

So, in conclusion ... Ferrari is very strong, F1 needs a Ferrari team, but Ferrari also needs F1.

My two cents
 
Ferrari exists for F1 - their roadcar business is just a sidebranch. At least originally it was.

You don't need a diesel nowadays - you simply need to invest something close to the sums Peugeot and Audi did. And with harsher regs on the diesels in the coming years (ACO considers 3'20 laps far too fast), they might even be disadvantaged. Ferrari have had successful prototype racers in the past - so it's not as if it's the unthinkable, either. IRL is not an option though - spec Dallara cars.
 
Sureshot
It would cost even more money if you put in all that development and have no product.
Click to expand...

Continued development = continued cost.

Stop development now = no further cost.

KERS is optional anyway.

Ian Phillips of Force India has said that development of KERS will cost three times more that the development on an engine.
 
Hun200kmh
True what you say about manufacturer and constructor teams, but Ferrari's cse is a bit more complex. It's true that Ferrari is strong enough to make a credible menace of leaving F1, and F1 without Ferrari wouldn't have the same appeal (even this happens just because F1 fans either love it or hate it, Ferrari doesn't leave anyone indifferent), but ...

Ferrari without F1 would lose much of their appeal. What would they do in motorsports? Respecting their heritage, the only other available (and respectable) option would be LMP's (I drool, just to think of a closed LMP like the Peugeot, but all in red and with the "cavallino rampante" on it). Problem is ... you need a diesel engine to succeed ... And a diesel Ferrari in almost "blasphemy" :crazy: . So ... I guess Ferrari would have to go racing in the IRL league, claiming they wanted to add a Indianapolis 500 win to their racing history (but they don't have the needed "know how" about oval racing) and keep european customers happy with the GT cars in Europe (but that's a litle "Low profile" for Ferrari).

So, in conclusion ... Ferrari is very strong, F1 needs a Ferrari team, but Ferrari also needs F1.

My two cents
Click to expand...

Ferrari and the other manufacturers could break away and form their own championship as they planned to do not so very long ago.

The question is, if given a choice would people chose to watch a Manufacturers Championship or an F1 championship with just constructors?
 
Tired Tyres
Ferrari and the other manufacturers could break away and form their own championship as they planned to do not so very long ago.

The question is, if given a choice would people chose to watch a Manufacturers Championship or an F1 championship with just constructors?
Click to expand...

Traditionally, it´s been the drivers who are the heroes of F1, but a few marques have status as legendary aswell, but that is mostly due to karismatic leaders, such as Colin Chapman. And besides, Lotus had basically the same status as Ferrari, being a carmanufacturer "on the side", so to speak.
A manufacturers championship would most likely draw more makes in though, but at the same time, if F1 was all just private constructors a la Williams, that too would draw more competition to it, as it would most likely be a lot cheaper than it currently is.
Maybe F1 should go for two classes? One for manufacturers, and one for privately funded constructors. Would be a bit like GT1 and GT2 I guess.
 
Tired Tyres
Continued development = continued cost.

Stop development now = no further cost.

KERS is optional anyway.

Ian Phillips of Force India has said that development of KERS will cost three times more that the development on an engine.
Click to expand...

To spend money developing a product and then have no product, is far more expensive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SavageWhiteDude
And so begins the death of F1...
Click to expand...
Not true. It's since come to light that we're only getting half the picture: teams have the option of running with the spec engine if they choose. They're still allowed to develop their own in-house if they wish. The spec engine is designed not simply to cut costs for current teams, but to lower the start-up costs for prospective teams. I can see a new entrant doing two or three seasons with the Cosworth power plant, before switiching to an in-house engine of their own or purchasing fro someone like Renault or Ferrari if they decide that there is a future in F1.
 
Most of the 3 litre teams were powered by the Cosworth DFV in the 70's. F1 didn't die then. It won't die now.

Too many manufacturer teams is far worse for the sport than a spec engine. Manufacturers can leave whenever the board of directors feels like it.

Racing teams of constructors stick with the sport because it's the reason they exist.
 
Tired Tyres
Most of the 3 litre teams were powered by the Cosworth DFV in the 70's. F1 didn't die then. It won't die now.

Too many manufacturer teams is far worse for the sport than a spec engine. Manufacturers can leave whenever the board of directors feels like it.

Racing teams of constructors stick with the sport because it's the reason they exist.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to say I agree with this, though I wouldn't like to see all manufacturer support gone, I would like to see a return of more privateer teams.

I definitely don't want a spec engine though, and I really hate the direction F1 is seemingly going. Taking out the technology and great differences between the teams is basically taking out the heart of F1 just as much as taking out Ferrari would be.

Having said that, like I said before, I do support what they have done so far in giving half the teams the option of cheaper engine supply, just as long as they don't force all the teams to use them.
 
Do you race?
Not true. It's since come to light that we're only getting half the picture: teams have the option of running with the spec engine if they choose. They're still allowed to develop their own in-house if they wish. The spec engine is designed not simply to cut costs for current teams, but to lower the start-up costs for prospective teams. I can see a new entrant doing two or three seasons with the Cosworth power plant, before switiching to an in-house engine of their own or purchasing fro someone like Renault or Ferrari if they decide that there is a future in F1.
Click to expand...

The rules, however, say otherwise. First off, teams have to sign a three-year contract with Cosworth - but we have no idea what powerplants will be available in four years, since they might develop a whole new one.

At the same time, why switch to a Renault/Ferrari? The engines will be regulated so that no measured performance parameter exceeds the spec-engine's data by more than +-0.5% - so the manufacturer engines will be, essentially, the same. No more Ferrari flat-12s and Renault Turbo V6s, then - just a sea of Cosworths without an option that may or may not be superior.

The '70s Cosworth (+Hewland gearbox) dominance is vastly different to what we have here. The DFV's widespread dominance was because it wasn't just cheap - it was also a brilliant engine. It was powerful, reliable and driveable, so teams could buy a batch of DFVs and Hewlands, build a tub around them, kit them out with some aerodynamic wishy-washy (because nobody had an idea, at the time, what actually works as far as downforce is concerned). Ferrari had a few seasons with better engines (which they didn't sell to customers), but these weren't suitable to the sculpted floors of late-'70s ground-effect cars. It took the sport 10 years until a truly-superior engine came along, and even then, it was less reliable, but simply that much more powerful - the Renault V6s.

Engine-supply in a modern team may eat up 30m$, or even 50m$ for all I care - the true costs to a team are the set-up of the team, building the facilities, finding wind-tunnel correlation, matching CFD to tunnel data, matching tunnel data to real track performance, building the cars, testing them, and then, most importantly, actually making them fast.

Ardius
I definitely don't want a spec engine though, and I really hate the direction F1 is seemingly going. Taking out the technology and great differences between the teams is basically taking out the heart of F1 just as much as taking out Ferrari would be.
Click to expand...

It disgusts me that the results of FOTA and FIA meetings always include talk about "performance differentiators" and that things will be spec'ed "unless they are deemed worthy performance differentiators". Is that what they call a chassis? A rear wing? A brake-disk? "Perfomance differentiator"? :yuck:
 
Metar
The rules, however, say otherwise. First off, teams have to sign a three-year contract with Cosworth - but we have no idea what powerplants will be available in four years, since they might develop a whole new one.

At the same time, why switch to a Renault/Ferrari? The engines will be regulated so that no measured performance parameter exceeds the spec-engine's data by more than +-0.5% - so the manufacturer engines will be, essentially, the same. No more Ferrari flat-12s and Renault Turbo V6s, then - just a sea of Cosworths without an option that may or may not be superior.
Click to expand...
Well then, the ability to run with an in-house powerplant is a purely cosmetic decision. Must be more to humour the teams threatening to pull out than anything else, but I cannot for the life of me picture a modern Ferrari running with a Cosworth engine.
 
Exactly, it was in order to keep teams (Ferrari, Toyota) and some drivers (Massa, Alonso) who were threatening to quit over spec engines. They engines will be nearly the same.
 
Tired Tyres
Most of the 3 litre teams were powered by the Cosworth DFV in the 70's. F1 didn't die then. It won't die now.

Too many manufacturer teams is far worse for the sport than a spec engine. Manufacturers can leave whenever the board of directors feels like it.

Racing teams of constructors stick with the sport because it's the reason they exist.
Click to expand...

Can't say I agree at all with the middle part. Right now we have spec engines AND a freeze on engine development. This is supposed to be the ultimate automotive competition. Where constructors build the best car they can dream up and put them out on the track with the best drivers in the world pitted against other constructor cars to see who can build the fastest and which drivers can drive them the fastest. If they want to fill the gaps with customer cars then so be it. It is better than turning F1 into a spec series where it doesn't matter what the hell name is on the nose of the car, it's heart and soul is no different than every other car out there(Example: NASCAR).

This goes against everything Formula One was meant to be.
 
Yes and No. F1 is meant to be about individuality, however, the current climate calls for change, financial change especially. It may be a temporary measure, it may prove successful and to the benefit of the sport, how realistic is it to have a sport that some teams had budgets running up to and over £300 Million. It's just not feasible.

I can't say I'm thrilled at the prospect, but we have to make sacrifices, and what's more important, having 8/9 teams and a spec engine, or 4-5 and individual engines? It should make for a more competitive sport.
 

Latest Posts

Back