Following the closure of Manor/Marussia F1 and Caterham being in administration, what does the board think should be done to ensure the survival of F1?
My thoughts are that as Monisha Kaltenborn said there is plenty enough money in F1 to ensure 11 or more teams can be supported.
Lets be honest Bernie Ecclestone himself could have saved Marussia, and could still save Caterham and Sauber.
But why can't the money that goes into F1 from sponsorship,TV rights and any other sources be shared equally amongst the teams.
Why should Ferrari for example get more money than the bottom three teams, just for turning up?
I appreciate that F1 without Ferrari wouldn't be F1. But it wouldn't be F1 with just two or three teams either would it. I think EJ said earlier today that they need a minimum of 9 two car teams for the sponsors to be happy.
And why have the teams with the least resources suddenly got into trouble?
Well partly because they have had to spend much more this year on Hybrid Power Units. A rule brought in to make F1 greener.
How on earth can F1 be considered green. Despite hybrid engines, they use up to 100 litres per hour maximum flow rate and use 100 litres per race day.
Then there is the three practice sessions and qualifying. Not to mention all those tyres they use.
Green? Not in the slightest.
But F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of open seater motor sport. Forget about hybrid power units. Lets get back to normally aspirated, screaming V8s V10s or V12s. That will reduced costs in an instant.
Well that's a starting place people.
What are your thoughts and ideas?
And no bickering etc.
I reserve the right to delete any such posts.
F1, where next?
posted on 9/11/14
So the IC engine still the way to go in F1 irrespective of the fuel source
As for teams, there are only 2 manufacturers in F1 at present, maybe 3 if you include fledgling car makers Mclaren. And they only got into car production because of motor racing.
Ferrari being who they are are a different kettle of fish to Mercedes. As I said, if they start falling behind other teams in the next few years, will the Daimler AG board if directors continue to sanction paying for an image of them producing a losing car? My guess is they sour do another Honda, or Toyota. Lets be honest they wouldn't be in it today if it weren't for Honda pulling the plug on BAR, and Mclaren allowing Brawn in on their Mercedes contract.
posted on 9/11/14
Would do*
posted on 9/11/14
comment by Drunken Hobo (U7360)
posted 5 hours, 58 minutes ago
F1 at the moment is reminding me a bit of the SPL, and I think we'll similarly need one of the big teams to go bust before somebody wakes up. Used to be that the top two teams in the SPL got 33% of the prize money, and they justified it by saying they were the teams that drew the crowds. Well unless they were going to play each other forever, they need those other teams.
Sure, people may tune in to watch Mercedes, Red Bull & Ferrari, but nobody is going to watch 6 cars race against each other. Even with 18 cars the grid seems somewhat empty. The backmarkers add more than people give them credit for.
I also don't see hydrogen fuel cell ever working as a technology; it's a bit of a dead end. The concept is solid - use efficient & environmentally friendly power plants to produce a fuel. The problem is that hydrogen is an absolutely terrible fuel. Poor energy density, very difficult to compress & requires heavy duty tanks for storage. Whereas a current F1 car can fit 100kg of fuel in a tank weighing a couple of kilos, a hydrogen F1 car would need a tank weighing several hundred kilos. Not only that, but the volume of hydrogen would be several times larger, meaning F1 cars would end up the size of small busses. As it's difficult to compress, you either waste a lot of energy getting it into liquid form, or leave it as a gas and make the tanks even bigger.
There are other problems too - it's very difficult to transport - partly due to the reasons above - and partly due to it being difficult & expensive to pipe (hydrogen likes to corrode things and escapes very easily). Safety isn't that much of a concern, providing you build the tanks properly. But just one accident and people would be bringing out the Hindenburg comparisons.
I think crop-based fuel is the future, although that's not without its problems. Mainly the rather thorny issue of turning food into fuel; an ethical minefield with so many having so little to eat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats all probably correct. But i imagine internal combustion seemed like a minefield of problems back in the day. Never underestimate humans, we are unbelievable and will get there
posted on 9/11/14
I agree technology will always get better, but the problem with hydrogen is its limitations are based on its physical properties which simply cannot be changed. No matter what, it'll always take the same amount of energy to liquefy hydrogen & it will always take an immensely strong vessel to contain liquid hydrogen at atmospheric temperatures. It will also always have a pretty low energy density, meaning big tanks are required. There would need to be a development in a super-strong super-light material to make it more practical. Carbon nanotubes are a potential solution, but are decades away from being widely usable, and come with their own set of problems.
Unlike some, I don't think batteries are a complete dead end. It is theoretically possible to make batteries that have a similar or greater energy density to petrol. But again that's a few decades away. For the moment, I think crops are a good solution to wean us off of crude oil. Think genetic modification could play a big part there in producing very oily crops that grow in poor soils, removing some of the problems of fuel into food.
posted on 9/11/14
Hybrid power units is what are keeping the big teams in the sport as they're transferring the research to road cars.
The big teams should be allowed 3 cars and remove the rubbish teams, it would make the sport more interesting and keep more top drivers in the sport.
posted on 10/11/14
When you say 'the big teams' I assume you refer to engine manufacturers, as there are only 2 big car manufacturers running teams.
Did Ferrari and Renault push for hybrid technology to be introduced or they would leave. I believe Mercedes may have threatened to do so but I'm not sure of the other 2.
Red Bull and Mclaren may be considered big, but do they really have the funds to be able to run 3 cars?
I'm pretty sure Williams couldn't.
Also what constitutes a 'rubbish team'?
F1 shouldn't just throw away its heritage.
Two years ago you probably thought Williams were rubbish.... now look at them. Generally as good as or better than Ferrari, Mclaren and Red Bull this year.
The sport needs the smaller teams. I can see more future in twin teams like Red Bull / Torro Rosso.
posted on 10/11/14
The sport needs the smaller teams. I can see more future in twin teams like Red Bull / Torro Rosso
----------------------------------------
That would be my preference. TBH i always thought Marussia where a sister team of Mclaren, where did i get that from???
posted on 10/11/14
makes alot of financial sense to have the whole grid populated by twin teams , it would probably end the pay driver scenario and stop the sorry plight that we have just witnessed with caterham and marussia ,
it would also benefit the teams driver development programmes, however the flip side being the fledgling teams would no longer enter F1 ,
personally i feel the grid is heading towards customer cars as a way of cutting costs and keeping the grid to a reasonable level , of course both these scenarios could be avoided if the big teams were not so greedy and could agree on the smaller teams having a larger share of the divvy --
posted on 10/11/14
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 8 hours, 14 minutes ago
The sport needs the smaller teams. I can see more future in twin teams like Red Bull / Torro Rosso
----------------------------------------
That would be my preference. TBH i always thought Marussia where a sister team of Mclaren, where did i get that from???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marussia had a partnership with McLaren for aero (i.e. using their wind tunnel) and a partnership with Ferrari for engines, drive train, gear boxes, etc.
posted on 10/11/14
comment by pob (U2695)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 8 hours, 14 minutes ago
The sport needs the smaller teams. I can see more future in twin teams like Red Bull / Torro Rosso
----------------------------------------
That would be my preference. TBH i always thought Marussia where a sister team of Mclaren, where did i get that from???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marussia had a partnership with McLaren for aero (i.e. using their wind tunnel) and a partnership with Ferrari for engines, drive train, gear boxes, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers Pob, thouggt there was a connection