Comment deleted by Article Creator

Another thing I just don't understand is why a country / state / race track have to PAY Bernie and pals for the privilege of staging a GP?
They have to spend a fortune making the track and facilities suitable for the F1 circus. But then to have to pay more to host it just sucks.
And where does that money go? Well 80 million (dollars?) went to settle out of court so Bernie didn't end up in the slammer for using even more of the money to persuade someone to do something or other.
Use the money properly Bernie

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Whilst what you say about exposure is true, how often last week did we actually watch the two Mercedes. We saw more of the next four places than the top two. Should the money be distributed on a race by race basis on the exact amount of exposure they get.
I can see the two team structure as a way forward.

combination of two things have seen the demise of caterham and marussia , mainly bernie"s inability to divvy up the prize money in such a way to give the smaller teams a bigger slice and the horrendous expense of the new engine formula for the smaller customer teams who have to buy the engines -

should the new engine formula exist in F1 , i suppose F1 to a certain degree is governed by what the engine manufactures think is the future for there own road cars,

from what i gather merc , ferrari , renault , were all in favour of the new engine formula for the benefits further down the line it is going to bring to there respective road car divisions and of course with the price of oil only ever going to rise the logic of the hybrid units in road cars is inescapable -

must admit i have little time for the new engine formula but can fully understand why the engine manufactures want it -

See MA, we CAN agree on some things....
The excuse of using F1 to developer hybrid engines for road cars though is a bit lame. There are other more suitable formulas for doing that. Mugen/Honda already race hybrids elsewhere, and are just upgrading that technology for F1.
The car manufacturer who sell more hybrids than anyone else, Toyota, pulled out of F1 because of costs before the engine changes were announced.

End of the day F1 is the height of capitalism, survival of the fittest, ur not good enougg ur out. But as a capitlist orgabisation it needs to attract new investment. A roman abromovich type character to buy a mediocre team, just raises the bar and puts the squeeze on top. Bttom teams will come n go always, regardless

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Hybrid engines are a plaster over a lost limb, fuel cells n hydrogen are the real future

BWFCCLEGG, totally agree on your assessment of Hybrid. Fuel cells the only way to go. Who is holding back the technology?
If F1 want to be innovative and green why don't they invest some of the millions of income into developing that further.

The technology is very young. In this day and age you hear of new tech much earlier. Hybrid technology has been available for nearlt as long as internal combustion and its only now becoming prevalent. Fuel cell is very new so could be a while yet

comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 6 hours, 22 minutes ago
End of the day F1 is the height of capitalism, survival of the fittest, ur not good enougg ur out. But as a capitlist orgabisation it needs to attract new investment. A roman abromovich type character to buy a mediocre team, just raises the bar and puts the squeeze on top. Bttom teams will come n go always, regardless
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This

Will I miss Caterham or Marussia? Nope. Where was the outcry for HRT? Hispania etc? These things happen. I personally would prefer the major car manufacturers were further enticed to enter into F1.

The only people I feel for are the families of those who lost their jobs. These big teams started from tiny outfits years ago and built themselves up, why should they give handouts to the smaller teams? In terms of prize money, maybe we can look at divvying that up a bit but I would strongly resist anything else.

Again I believe we should do more to encourage factory teams to join the sport.

Porsche, Audi, BMW, Ford, Jaguar etc are where we should focus our attention on into getting them in the sport.

Whilst I agree to a certain extent MUDD, what would you think if Williams or Mclaren were to disappear from F1. Alright Mclaren are a manufacturer now, but the point us F1 was never really a manufacturers competition.
Other than Ferrari, other manufacturers have come and gone. Mercedes, Honda and others have had their 'own' teams in the past. But most buy into existing teams.
If you don't encourage the likes of Frank Williams, Ken Ken Tyrell, Colin Chapman etc. There will be no teams for them to buy.
When was the last time a manufacturer said, let's get into F1, and then went out and built a dedicated factory to create a racing car from scratch.
The answer, Toyota. At the time one of the best funded teams at the time. They lasted 8 years.
Manufacturers generally just cannot be bothered to design and build a prototype car year in year out at the costs it now needs to be SUCCESSFUL.
Note the emphasis. If they aren't successful it affects their branding.
If the Mclaren Honda turns out to dominate F1 for the next few years and Renault and Ferrari get to grips with their hybrid technology, how long do you think Mercedes will continue to race a losing car? It just isn't good for their image.

How is Fuel cell technology new?
Now this is where Wiki comes good.
It was invented in the 19th century. First demonstrated in 1838. Hardly new.
They are used for powering space probes etc.
Static fuel cells and home fuel cells are being run all over the world.
The big problem is getting it into a suitable package for cars. Toyota have done it already though.
So again why isn't the technology available to all?
Fuel Cell powered F1 cars would be very quiet though.... could the purists put up with that?

Still think they should forget green technology.

Use IC technology. No restrictions on numbers of cylinders etc. Just have a maximum power output.

Semi-automatic gearboxes with flappy paddles.

No ERS or KERS at all.

Passive active suspension allowed.

No trick aerodynamics, like DRS or flexible wings.

If the Americans can do it in Indycar why can't F1?

As I said, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of open seat RACING, NOT the pinnacle of GREEN technology.

Gc - i was honestly under.the impression fuel cell tech was new. There must be a reason it hasnt been broight forward?

Conspiracy theorists, (I like conspiracy theory occasionally), would say oil companies are holding back its development for automotive use, as it would impact too heavily on their income streams. They would rather develop alternative sources of oil, such as vegetable oils.

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.

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.

Would do*

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

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.

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.

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.

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???