mickdw wrote: » A customer engine doesn't suggest that they are looking to beat mercedes any time soon. Ron Dennis had the right idea but poorly timed. Red bull are now sitting pretty having their own engine supply.
Jordan 199 wrote: » I just saw Ralf Schumacher in the Toro Rosso garage in Sochi. Didn't see him on television for a while.
Darkglasses wrote: » On a somewhat related subject, does anyone know what Heinz Harald Frentzen does these days? Is he in TV or media at all?
Cork Trucker wrote: » Ferrari have themselves,Haas and Alfa Romeo sorted. Honda are unlikely to break away from Red Bull and Toro Rosso Mercedes have themselves, Williams,Racing Point already under contract with McLaren linked for 2021 Renault just their own team, i don't see any of the above changing. If Renault leave will each team provide a third car or will it be only 9 teams?
AMKC wrote: » Renault would then be in the perfect situation to supply any new teams coming into F1 in 2021 or 2022.
mickdw wrote: » Any new team coming in is never going to win anything in the first few years. A well tried Renault unit would be a good start point.
skipper_G wrote: » Juicy rumour tine, Mclaren switching to Mercedes engines???https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-mercedes-engine-deal-2021/4548906/
Cork Trucker wrote: » Rumour becomes reality.https://twitter.com/McLarenF1/status/1177849346341007361
skipper_G wrote: » Nice to see a quick confirmation of the story. It was Joe Saward that had the scoop, I ended up linking the motorsport.com article because the site that hosts his blog was having some server issues. But worth remembering who broke it, makes a difference when we're trying to find reliable news sources for the big stories. I'm not sure what the real implications are for Mclaren on the performance front, I don't think the Mercedes engine is the clear front runner anymore. Ferrari seems to have more performance, and worth remembering that the Mercedes customer teams have both had more than one engine failure this season. The Mercs are not indestructible
Brendan Flowers wrote: » McLaren Mercedes. It just sounds like the right of the team.
flazio wrote: » I was skeptical about Joe, as this time last year he told us that David Croft was on the way out of Sky Sports. Sadly that didn't come to pass. I used to listen to the podcast Joe Saward guests on, Missed Apex, but I found the lead host of that an even bigger dip stick then Crofty so I just gave up. But fair play he had his finger on the correct pulse this time.
chicorytip wrote: » I think all participating teams ought to be full works outfits building and designing their own engines and chassis. This would be the only regulation change required to create a highly competitive championship rather than the three tier event that currently exists even if it resulted in having as few as six teams on the grid. Imagine Mercedes, Ferrari, Ford, Toyota or Honda, Porsche Audi or BMW and Lamborghini. No more "customer" teams.
H3llR4iser wrote: » If more "manufacturers" entered as engine suppliers, good; What F1 however needs is to encourage more outfits of the breed Brabham, Tyrrel, Ligier, Williams, Benetton and Jordan to come in and have a chance to be competitive.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Yeah but there’s a crucial aspect that people miss. Back in those days, f1 was he pinochle of motoring technology. It was genuinely about building the fastest cars to go as fast as they can. They had huge gaps between teams because that’s just how different they were in speed. It was the business of developing motor cars. Now it’s about keeping f1 in the style of f1. Its much more about the sport of F1. They lost the technological aspect because it’s not actually about building the fastest car anymore. They have rules to slow the cars down and stop them getting faster. The original charm of f1 was the post ww2 boom in motoring tech. They had to build motors for warplanes and tanks so there was innovation in the motoring area. Now the innovation is elsewhere and F1 is coasting on its reputation as previously the pinnacle of technology. It manipulated rules/payment structures to keep Ferrari at the top which keeps more worthy teams down.
skipper_G wrote: » Sorry but you're wrong, take a look what's happened with power train development over the last several years. The sport is pushing efficiency levels to higher than they've ever been. An engine that can deliver 1000+ bhp at above 50% thermal efficiency for example. The commercial side of the sport may be a disaster zone, but the technology side is still the pinnacle.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Yeah. That’s the commercial aspect. When it began the commercial aspect was about getting the greatest power output. Now it about getting the greatest power output, within the parameters of thermal efficiency of v6 engines at a maximum fuel flow rate of blah blah blah. It’s a qualified version of the original which was simply pushing to get the greatest power. Back then the ICE was the future technology. That’s fine but it’s not the pure pursuit of power that is was in the past because the internal combustion engine technology is easy to replicate now. It’s not the pinnacle of development anymore. The ICE is technology of the past and the present. It’s not the long term future. It’s more interesting to manufacturers as a novelty marketing experience and developing the short term future technology rather than simply developing future technology. Look at F1 and FE and see which has greater appeal to manufacturers. If f1 can’t even compete with a small formula like FE, how can it be the future?
skipper_G wrote: » Your entire argument is predicated on the claim that F1 can't compete with FE. How exactly do you figure that's the case? How many viewers tuned into watch the last F1 race compared to the last FE race? What's the difference in revenue between the two series? I'm guessing F1 is more in both cases, regardless of the number of manufacturers involved those are the numbers that matter.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » F1 wins all those metrics. It’s coasting in reputation. The measure of what’s the future technology is answered by looking at manufacturer engagement. Who wins by that metric? FE is just a tiny, brand new formula. It’s in its infancy (5 years old) and how many manufacturers for it have? The most established formula (f1) has 4 manufacturers. FE has 6 already. Why does it have more manufacturers when it also has fewer viewers and lower revenue than f1? FE isn’t the only competitor.
skipper_G wrote: » You're trying to sell the scenario that F1 is dead and look at this shiny new manufacturers toy called formula e. It's a completely different stage of the life cycle of the series, right now in it's infancy costs are well controlled, and the series is competitive. That makes it attractive to them, it's an area of interest because there's a market there for the car makers. It's just as likely to go through some of the same boom and bust cycles as all racing series tend to. Electric still only makes up a small percentage of the global car sales market (2.1% in 2018). It's clearly a growth market but to say it's the leader now is nonsense.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I’m not wedded to f1. I’ll probably just follow the formula that had greatest appeal to me. Will you follow f1 no matter what?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » To say it’s the leader is nonsense. That’s probably why I didn’t say it’s the leader. I did say it’s more the future than ICE. FE will probably go through the same boom bust cycle. And when it’s used up it’s future technology appeal, it can coast on its reputation like f1 does. F1 has built up a huge bank of reputation as a brand leader. It’s coasting on that reputation and will probably continue to do so. It’s nobody’s fault. ICE and spin-offs can only be the future for so long. They’ve had a good innings. FE isn’t the only alternative. It just happens to have Attracted more manufacturers i it’s 5 years than f1 can currently manage after its 70 odd years. I’m not wedded to f1. I’ll probably just follow the formula that had greatest appeal to me. Will you follow f1 no matter what?
