Christian Horner, Red Bull, Interlagos, 2014

New engines to blame for teams collapsing – Horner

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Red Bull team principal Christian Horner says the costs associated with the V6 turbo engines are to blame for the loss of Marussia and Caterham, as Mercedes’ rivals lobby for greater development freedom.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Red Bull warns of engine development spending war (Reuters)

“The costs of these power units has driven two teams out of this sport already and it is a big issue.”

“Beim V8 ist Mercedes nicht dabei” (Auto Motor und Sport, German)

Niki Lauda says Mercedes will quit F1 if rival teams force a switch back to V8 engines.

Wolff hopes double points not decisive (BBC)

“Hopefully double points will not make a difference. It would put a big shadow over the championship if it was turned by a technical issue.”

Start, GP2 Asia, Losail International Circuit, 2009Qatar poised to join F1 calendar (Motorsport)

“According to well-placed sources, plans for the inaugural race are much farther along than most expected, and the track, Losial [sic] International Circuit, is likely to join the calendar in 2016, or 2017 at the latest.”

Alonso finalises switch to McLaren (Autosport)

“Fernando Alonso’s switch to the McLaren Formula One team is set to be confirmed before the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, once the team knows who his team mate will be.”

Red Bull’s £196m budget highlights Formula One inequality (The Independent)

“The budget for the Milton Keynes-based team, who go into the season-ending Abu Dhabi Grand Prix on 23 November with no chance of winning a fifth consecutive World Championship, stands in stark contrast to the sport’s backmarkers, who spend well under half of that figure.”

Francois Guiter 1928 – 2014 (Joe Saward)

“It has been said that he almost single-handedly created the French F1 boom in the 1970s and 1980s.”

F1 teetering on the precipice (ESPN)

“A two and half hour summit meeting of team principals and Bernie Ecclestone yielded no clear progress on Saturday night and left the sport’s three smallest teams convinced there is some kind of agenda in place.”

Lewis Hamilton’s dramatic duel with Nico Rosberg more than F1 deserves (The Guardian)

“While Formula One has Hamilton it doesn’t need the ridiculous contrivance of double points in Abu Dhabi, which has cheapened what has been an extraordinary, thrilling season, much better than this shambolically run sport deserves.”


Comment of the day

Is F1 doomed to become increasingly corporate and unappealing?

The financial model that has been set up means revenue for the shareholders is the primary objective. If smaller teams become a hindrance, they’ll be ditched in pursuit of higher profits.

The way F1 seems to be going is inevitable, given the financial model that has been adopted.

But I won’t be paying much attention to F1 if the smaller teams are forced out in pursuit of profit for shareholders. Even modern day soccer, driven as it is by the very rich teams, allows the minnows a chance at glory.

I don’t find the idea of watching a sport, comprised solely of huge, corporate entities even remotely appealing. The soul and the spirit of F1 would have been lost.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Brendan, Catalina and Drmouse!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

One years ago today Daniil Kvyat earned his superlicence. Less than 12 months later he was announced as Red Bull’s next driver alongside Daniel Ricciardo for 2015:

Image © Red Bull/Getty, GP2/LAT

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 154 comments on “New engines to blame for teams collapsing – Horner”

    1. Disgusting. Horner KNOWS it’s not about the engines. Marussia and Caterham would have folded regardless of this year’s rules because F1’s financial system isn’t sustainable for smaller teams. Horner doesn’t care at all about them – he just wants to keep playing the WAH WAH MERCEDES PLAY FAIR agenda.

      1. he’s also forgetting how Renault threatened to leave the sport if this changes wasn’t made. Talking about hypocrisy

        1. and Mercedes as well

          1. Precisely. And do you think that Ferrari would be willing to supply engines to Red Bull, Mercedes, Lotus & McLaren? And do you think that those teams would want to run a Ferrari engine? Not to mention that we wouldn’t be getting Honda back either.

            1. Lotus apart, no! Part of the reason RBR, Mercedes and (not that much but still) McLaren are in F1 is to beat Ferrari! So, there’s no way we’ll see RBR and McLaren with Ferrari engines. If there’s no other engine manufacturer, I’m pretty sure they’ll start manufacturing their own engine!

      2. @reiter
        They are all acting like children, not just Horner. There is some truth to what he is saying, the new engines are expensive. However, like you said, that is not the main problem. The main problem with F1 is greed. Bernie and his partners know that F1 is dying and they are going to do all that they can to suck as much money up for themselves before the end.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          11th November 2014, 1:22

          Let’s see what happens before Abu Dhabi. I think Lotus, Sauber and FI need to make a stand, otherwise they probably deserve what they reap. After all, they’ve allowed this to happen.

        2. [Bernie and his partners know that F1 is dying and they are going to do all that they can to suck as much money up for themselves before the end.]

          I was thinking about this issue for quite a while ago already. The ego of BE saying “There you are F1 can’t go on without me”.

        3. YEah, but the most expensive part about them was developing them in the first place. Adding more intensive development surely is not the right solution to that @irejag!

        4. The old V8 engines were not exactly cheap either though – even under a frozen engine formula, Renault gave an interview to James Allen in 2013 stating they were still spending €120 million a year on their V8 engines.

          It was only because Renault were willing to absorb half of those costs that their customers were paying a cumulative charge of €60 million – and given that Red Bull would have been getting a heavily subsidised engine deal due to their works status, most of the charge for that would have been levied on Lotus, Williams and Caterham.

          1. The amount that could be asked for engines under the frozen V8 formula was capped anon (not sure but it was something around 10 million)

            1. I believe there was a proposal that the V8 engines would be cost capped at $15 million a year, although the cost of the KERS unit was not included within that price. I am not sure if that proposal was fully implemented however, nor for how long that proposal stayed in place.

              Now, I got the year slightly wrong – it is 2011 rather than 2013 – but this is the direct quote from Caubet, the individual responsible for Renault Sport’s F1 engine development division, on their sales revenue:
              “We are a total cost around €120m,” said Caubet, explaining how much they spend on the existing engine programme. “The net cost – total cost minus sales – is €60m.”

              It’s worth noting that, at the time, Renault was only supplying three teams – Red Bull, Lotus and Team Lotus (before it became Caterham) – suggesting that the cost of the Renault power train in that year was more than the proposed cost cap.
              Caterham also mentioned that the Renault engines were more expensive than the Cosworth V8’s, which is not something you’d expect to hear if the prices of the V8’s were being held down at an artificially low level.

      3. @reiter – Good points. As they say in TV detective shows and politics, just follow the money.

        Not only that, Mercedes will leave if they go back to V8s. Even though Button said this was the most powerful package he has ever raced at Brazil.

        The change to this formula has been known for some time, it is not a surprise. However, if the engine freeze is lifted, that may cause a spending feeding frenzy that the freeze was meant to prevent. That could hurt the smaller teams that Horner doesn’t care about. – Admittedly, I would love to see the freeze lifted just to see what the different power unit wizards could do. But, that will cause some big money spending for sure.

        1. Not to mention, that Honda only decided to return for the interesting package with the V6 hybrid powertrain too, @bullmello, @reiter, I doubt they will want to “return” to V8 engines

      4. I don’t know about Horner’s motives, but I can’t help but question the logic behind switching to the most complex and expensive power units ever conceived, while saying that something has to be done urgently to reduce costs.

        1. @ironcito The V6 engines were developed to make the series more technologically relevant to the motor industry and attract manufacturers and sponsors back to the sport.

          The initial development cost was always going to be high, but then the limitations to the changes made through the years due to the token system would mean the spend over the next 4-5 years would be heavily controlled…

          Also, as said above, the V8’s were hardly cheap (especially for the non-works teams) and were a known, dead-end technology. Because there was no development what so ever, the more expensive and unpredictable aero-war happened (hence Red Bull’s success).

          1. @optimaximal despite the (unsourced) assertions above, the V8 engines were much cheaper than the current engines – about 8 million per season versus 28 million per season for the V6s (or 40 million for the “total package”).





            Which explains why Gary Anderson said that the engines had tripled or quadrupled the teams’ engine costs this year:-


            1. @tdog Quite possibly, but their cost had nothing to do with the problems facing half the teams… They’re not $20 million short, some of them were/are $50-60 million short.

            2. @optimaximal It certainly doesn’t help. Initial development costs aside, the cost of just building and maintaining these engines on an ongoing basis is considerably higher than it was for V8s. I understand the “road relevance factor”, but if things are so desperate and F1 is in a budget crisis, they should’ve kept the good ol’ V8s for the time being, or maybe switched to turbo V6s without the energy recovery system, or something.

            3. @ironcito No, it really would not have made any difference. Infact, it’s dodging the point. Caterham and Marussia were *still* going to go out of business after spending 4 years of spending above their means with no chance of going forward. Heck, if the sport had kept the old engines, they’d have even less chance because the regulation change was effectively their one chance to leap above the established teams.

              It would also have likely meant a further year of the Red Bull show up the front of the field, given the only reason Mercedes have stolen a march on RBR is because their horsepower advantage allowed them to run barn door wings and generate huge amounts of downforce – we know the RB10 is still a monster in corners, it’s just got a hamster wheel at its core.

              Taking V6 engines without ERS wouldn’t have worked either, because they’d be markedly less powerful. Some of the idiots decrying the new Formula were saying the new powerplants would be slower ‘because they have less cylinders/they have to run less fuel/they’re not as noisy’. Imagine if they didn’t have that extra 150bph of ERS power? Running a equivalence formula also wouldn’t work, because it worked *so* well in the 80’s.

            4. @optimaximal Red Bull’s domination is unrelated to the issue of reducing overall costs. Likewise, even if the new engines had suddenly made Caterham and Marussia into midfield teams, then it would just be some other team at the back and struggling. They didn’t change the engines to mix things up. The fact remains that the new engines are considerably more expensive, at a time when everyone in F1 is talking about ways to drastically and urgently reduce costs. It’s contradictory.

            5. @ironcito

              Red Bull’s domination is unrelated to the issue of reducing overall costs.

              It’s MASSIVELY related to the issue.

              Red Bull spent more on chassis development throughout their championship-winning years (thanks to essentially a blank cheque from Red Bull management), actively opposed cost-capping (the manufacturers hide their costs in engine development) and investigations into their spending (why should we be penalised for their success), torpedoed the Resource Restriction Agreement and (along with Ferrari) caused FOTA to collapse, all the while pushing the boundaries on acceptability with expensive (and exclusive) composite research that allowed them to essentially pass FIA body flex tests with what amounts to illegally flexible wings.

              You’re right, the engines are an expensive luxury for a sport in a financial black hole, but it was done with the express goal of attracting sponsorship into the business through manufacturers wanting to develop road-relevant technology and companies wanting to be associated with a (slightly) greener form of motor sport.

              It certainly doesn’t help that:
              a) the CRH is both actively talking down the benefits of the sport and its new technology whilst sapping money AND sponsorship opportunities out of the realm of the teams,
              b) two of the three incumbent manufacturers did a terrible job, each for different reasons and
              c) nearly all of the pure racing teams with no other ongoing money-pipes are doomed to fail because their business model is essentially broken, because they can’t win races.

            6. @optimaximal None of the problems that you mention were solved by changing the engine. The new engine spec may be what the manufacturers wanted, but it goes against the quest for cost reduction, and it certainly didn’t help small teams.

              I don’t envy the conundrum that F1 is facing.

              If they want the pinnacle of motorsport, it’s going to be expensive. They need to develop, to innovate and be at the forefront of technology, and that’s expensive.

              If teams with more resources can use those resources to be better and win, then teams with fewer resources will struggle and eventually perish. If regulations become more and more restrictive so that no one can develop anything, then F1 will lose its appeal.

              F1 is between a rock and a hard place.

      5. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        11th November 2014, 1:20

        Yes, it is the engines that were part of the new regs – the teams have had to make serious investments in the new cars but that ship has already sailed. The solution to allow in-season development is even more ridiculous as it will actually add even more cost.

        Why don’t car manufacturers not change engines every 3 months??? Because it’s ridiculously expensive.. That’s why! I don’t know why Red Bull is complaining – they are solidly in P2 with a slower engine and 3 wins in a year dominated by 1 constructor. It’s only bad if you came off 9 consecutive wins right before that.

      6. Yes! Exactly!!

      7. I find it fascinating that Horner now claims that unrestricted engine development will save the teams a fortune but maintaining a structured development formula will send teams into bankruptcy. I wish I could believe him.

      8. In all due respect to the current discussion, I would never have thought Red Bull would be second in constructors with a Renault. Even though it sounds like Horner is whining, we must give him some respect because he engineered a second in the constructors, without running a Mercedes. I have to admit this is pretty amazing. he has won the right to whine a little.

        1. No, this is just sour grapes. Red Bull have been spitting fire over the last year about the FIA trying their best to hamstring the team with aero lockdowns and have viciously blamed the sport for bringing in these engines to make it ‘an engine formula’ – you know, to again control RB because they’re not a works team.

          This of course completely ignores the facts, including a) Red Bull have been the works team for Renault since Enstone lost relevance b) F1 was stagnating heavily in an aero-war that they [RB] were winning through shear resource and c) Renault massively dropped the ball with an expensive and (in retrospect) relatively poorly-designed engine.

        2. Only if he has the correct argument, which he hasn’t in my view.

          What has crippled the lower teams is lack of points, and how can they get points with this push for reliability. With this reliability it is almost guaranteed that the top teams will fill the points scoring positions, with the mid range teams picking up the crumbs and the bottom end teams having virtually no chance. Which means virtually no money from FOM.
          If they go to 3 car teams it will just push the mid range teams into leaving, unless the third car is excluded from team points and those points are redistributed.

      9. Horner can’t see the wood for the trees. The extra expense for the new engines, sorry, “power units” is just the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The unfair distribution of multi-billion dollar profits is what really separates the haves and have-nots.

      10. @reiter

        Obviously it’s also about the engines.

        The reg change increased the development cost significantly for the engine manufacturers and the cost falls upon to the customers. We only have three engine manufacturers in the sport so there isn’t enough competition in that area to bring the customer prices down.

        It’s like Gerard Lopez said, the small teams have a bunch of fixed costs which are already more than what they can afford so there isn’t much they can do until either the costs come down or income goes up. We need more engine manufacturers, more sponsors and more equal money distribution (you need to be careful with that though to not drive away the big teams who might not be there for the long term if they start losing money; Red Bull and Mercedes for example).

        A lot of the problems would be solved if F1 can make the sport more compelling for engine manufacturers and sponsors, which would probably happen if they open up the development a bit (more freedom to manufacturers) and try to increase the viewership figures and really expand to new markets like the US and Asia (to make it more attractive for sponsors). In the end, that’s beneficial for the commercial rights holder as well so the incentive is there.

      11. I find Christian Horner a very unlikeable man.

        1. so he is destined to take over from Bernie after all.

          1. A giant +1 to both of you!

            @danbrown180 @boylep6

        2. Thats why Bernie likes him, and want him to be F1s next boss!

      12. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MORAL – all teams and team bosses are doing what’s best for their team and themselves.

      13. I didn’t realize how well Horner was suited to politics. Really turning out to be a disgusting person.

      14. Actually what Horner is saying makes perfect sense, if a little tongue in cheek. What he is saying is that F1 need a full and competitive grid and anything that gets in the way of that should be called into question, be it the new engine rules or the share out of money.

        Technical innovation is a interesting and worthwhile part of F1 but it must never mean teams simply cannot afford to be on the grid let alone be competetive.

        Remember the days of the Cosworth DFV when most of the grid had the same engine? It enabled many teams to come from the lower formulae and be competitive. F1 was just as colourful and exciting then as it is now and for a fraction of the cost in real terms.

        I think F1 need to get serious about saving money and giving smaller teams a chance to compete and if we lose a few big manufacturers like Renault and Mercedes along the way so what, if it enables 4 smaller teams to get on the grid.

    2. I for one am thrilled that a decent track like Losial International Circuit is being considered and hopefully approved to on future F1 calenders. The tracks is amazing, perfect for overtaking and high speeds too. Like Bahrain, I reckon this track would be a perfect night race for F1.

      1. It’s a lot better than Yas Marina but how many would attend the race?

      2. @mattypf1 The track was built for F1 but never made it to the calendar until now, 20 years past. @stigsemperfi The track has just one massive stand and it’s usually compiled of tourists as of motogp races, in many ways like Abu Dhabi.

      3. I am not. We already have two races in the Middle East, in fact, two races in the Arab Middle East. If you want to get into detail, it’s two races in the Arab Persian Gulf. It’s gonna be three soon according to sources. Wasn’t the idea of F1 races being spread-out what precipitated the loss of Magny-Cours, Imola, etc, etc? I’d rather have those back.

      4. @mattypf1 I’m not so convinced. Decent Moto GP tracks don’t really make good F1 tracks and vice-versa in terms of racing. Based on the last two years alone, the Qatar Motorcycle Grand Prix was a cracker both times!

        1. …to have 3 of the 20 races within 300 miles of each other.

      5. The GP Masters series races at Qatar & it wasn’t exactly that good an event, Really shoddy marshaling as well.

    3. In these last few days, I have a growing desire to attack some of these team principals, Bernie Ecclestone and the CVC. That, and a growing feeling that if F1 folds on it own idiotic foolishness, I’ll be laughing, saying ‘I told you so’ and just moving on to follow DTM and WEC more closely.

      F1 thinks it’s the center of the world, but it really isn’t, and either it comes down to earth and starts solving its problems, or we can kiss goodbye to it.

    4. If Red Bull want to return to the V8 2.4 litre engine for next year, why not let them? Mind you, we’d have to keep the 100kg fuel limit, of course. Wouldn’t want an unfair playing field, would we?

      1. and allow refuelling, that would be EPIC.

        1. No thanks. Notice how Formula One wasn’t exactly a fantastic spectacle until Formula One banned refuelling once again.

        2. Think you missed the tone.

          Johnny Five (big up the Short Circuit by the way) was saying, sure, let them have the V8, but keep them limitted to 100kg fuel and 100kg/hr flow rate. The V8 would not be able to keep up with those limitations.

        3. No, Refueling should stay banned.

          I hated refueling when it was in F1 the last time, Turned the races into a strategy game where the fuel strategy & what happened in the pit lane was usually more important than what happened on the racetrack.

          The stats back that up as from the very 1st race after refueling was re-introduced (Brazil 1994) the on-track overtaking stats plummeted as a majority of the passing was done via the pit stops rather than on the track.
          Look at that 1st race, Great battled between Senna/Schumacher going on, They pit with Schumi coming out ahead & he then flew off into the distance to a dominant win. Without refueling to get the lead/win Schumi woudl have had to overtake Senna on the track instead of just sitting behind him waiting for the stops & it would have been a far more exciting race.

          1. You cannot refuel with all that electrical energy buzzing away….

      2. My thoughts exactly, why make everyone do things more or less the same way, set a regulation and let them solve the problem how they want, if that means V8’s for some and turbo V6’s for others all for it.

        1. The thing with an open formula is that one solution will prove to be better & that eventually everyone will go towards that formula.

          Look at the V10’s, It started out where you had V8/V10/V12’s, Yet the V10’s proved the best package & eventually everyone had a V8.

          Its also worth remembering that it was the engine manufacturer’s who wanted the small capacity turbo’s with ERS that we now have, So its likely that even if you allowed V8’s everyone would stick with the current V6 turbos anyway because its the formula that the engine manufacturer’s themselfs pushed for.

      3. Haha! As if Red Bull would respect the fuel limits! They have form in that area :P

    5. Another race in a country that has no history of motor sport, to my knowledge, thus no discernible fanbase; no doubt the stands will be full with Qatar’s rich and popular.

      Another race added to the calender that has basically been bought to come to their island.

      1. Upon further inspection; peninsula.

      2. @frankjaeger – But, they do have plenty of cash for Bernie and CVC.

      3. well, until Alonso what was the Spain history in motor racing? or in Hungary? Let me get this clear: i know Bernie is chasing money, i won’t argue with that, but don’t talk about “history of motorsport” because, if that’s the case, i don’t understand how Argentina haven’t a GP or France for that matter…

        1. Yeah it is quite ridiculous how France doesn’t have a GP; 4 frenchmen on the grid in 2013 and 3 this year, plus heaps of history. I agree, countries with little motorsport history and an inability to attract fans do provide a weaker justification for holding a GP.

          1. “actually care”, damn late edition to remove just Bernie from the accusation…

        2. Because money. If Argentina and France could come up with the money to pay Bernie and CVC (or wanted to, I’m sure both can come up with it), then they would have a GP again.

          I’m really sorry to see F1 in the state it is in now, but I don’t think any of the people making decisions actually cares about the history of the sport. And it has been like that for a while…

        3. If there is any interest at all in F1 on the Iberian Peninsula, it is because of Alonso. Bikes was always their passion and they cared little for cars until sweet FA came along.

          I would guess the reverse would also be true unless he had a Spanish successor.

      4. The MotoGP races in Qatar are fun.

    6. Horner has pontificating sound bites on nearly any and every F1 subject every day now. He used to deny having any interest in Bernie’s job when he retires, but he hasn’t denied it lately. It goes beyond just answering a question from a reporter. It’s like he is telling everybody how they should think about everything or else.

      I think Horner definitely has aspirations for a higher job than his current one. Bernie may eventually retire, or whatever, Newey is phasing down his RBR F1 duties, Vettel, is going… Horner is looking out for Horner.

      There must be some reason Horner is not complaining about the unfair F1 financial distribution situation that affects the smaller teams more than the larger teams.

      Looks like 3 car teams with all their confusion and controversy will be coming because Bernie wants them more than he does small teams. That is sad. Somebody should ask Bernie where he started out in F1. Did he start at the top? He seems to have forgotten his own heritage.

      1. @bullmello No, Bernie wants customer cars – he wants to ‘rescue the sport’ by ‘brokering the deals’ that people always refer to. He keeps calling back to his Brabham days when talking about them…

        Three-car teams present logistical, technical and regulation problems for the sport – not to mention the ‘problem’ of Mercedes locking out the entire podium for the foreseeable future.

    7. If we return to V8s then we might as well rename this sport “Formula Ferrari” because none of the other manufacturers would bother wasting money on horribly outdated technology.

      1. @jackysteeg Well the brands wouldn’t but the actual people that make engines would, Mercedes powerplant in Brixworth former Ilmor would enjoy building engines for racing and so would Judd and Hart and Climax and BRM and so forth. F1 was once like this. F1 once had 5 BRM on the field as late as 72. Ken Tyrrel run Matras and Williams wasn’t originally a constructor. So think a little when saying that F1 is losing it self.

        1. Very interesting @peartree. You say that according to @jackysteeg F1 is losing itself. But he only mentions that a “return” to V8 engines would likely mean Mercedes, Honda and probably Renault (altough RBR might take over the engine if it wants) getting out. Cosworth have a design ready, but its not been developed or in production for 2 years now (Bloudhound originally used a Cosworth F1 engine as fuel pump but had to change that because none was available anymore).
          Brixworth would go on to build engines likely for things like DTM or maybe Sportscars, but unless Mercedes sell it off, its doubtfull they would be building F1 engines. So in effect, its likely that we would either have 1 engine or maybe 2 engines (the RBR/Renault one and the Ferrari). Not all that great news, and worlds away from the 1960-1970.

          1. @bascb Jackysteeg said “none of the other manufacturers would bother wasting money on horribly outdated technology.” I assumed that Jacky meant that F1 was in risk of losing out if we where to revert to V8 engines. I disagree, it’s not a perennial question. Reverting would however weaken the economical security of the top teams, except Ferrari. With further restrictions on the use of exotic materials you could see F1 fielding as many engines as WEC’s LMP2 category. This is not to mention that the designs of the BMW, Toyota, and Honda engines must be up for grabs, and I also doubt that Mercedes would keep their factory in Brixworth, they employ over 100 people there, it’s more than double of what Ferrari and Renault are willing too.

            1. Why on earth would the likes of BMW, Toyota and Honda give their designs to someone to build an F1 engine with?
              This is their IP they have no interest in selling it, or they would have already done so. And what makes you think that F1 teams would suddenly agree on restrictions on materials when they can’t agee on anything else that influences their relative competativeness.

              For Mercedes employing 100 people in Brixworth is not the issue. They have ample other racing they can employ them with, or alternatively let them focus on just making high performance engines for their AMG badged cars.

              But all of this is very interesting, but misses the point. You assumed something from what Jackysteeg wrote and then go on to disagree with that. But you are only arguing with your own interpretation of something here.

        2. @peartree, Renault have repeatedly stated that they do not want to persist with the V8 engines, and nor do Mercedes.

          As for the independent manufacturers you name, Judd has no interest in F1 and has made that abundantly clear (they’ve almost pulled out of sportscar racing because of the costs of competing against manufacturers, let alone the cost of F1), whilst all of the others you mention have long ceased to exist.
          The only independent outfit which might be able to supply a V8 engine would be Cosworth, but they have indicated in the past that this would not be economically viable for them either. Outfits like Judd do not make racing engines purely because they like it – they make them because they expect to turn a profit, with enjoyment being a consequence of that.

          1. Anon in this scenario of going backwards the loss of the main brands would entice many new engine builders, it was not the technology that led toyota, bmw and honda out, it was the cost vs the exposure, some more rules restricting exotic materials would see engines much cheaper than the older V8 5m price tag, not to mention stricter freeze. It’s all in the details. WEC has many engine suppliers, and besides the brand names the rest is focused on petrol and diesel engines so none of the newer expensive technology.

    8. I don’t understand.

      How does NOT unfreezing the engines mean MORE money will be spent on them?

      Surely if the teams can work on 100% of the engine they will spend more money than if they could only work on 92%.

      Something key must lie in the 8% that Mercedes got right and Renault/Ferrari want to copy ( I’m not including Honda because their engine isn’t frozen)

      But Horner needs to cut the ** and start telling it like it really is. Unfreezing the 8% has nothing to do with cash and everything to do with making up the deficit.

      Would Ferrari and Renault catching up be good for the sport? Maybe, or maybe the neweydynamics would become the dominating factor again. I hope Honda come thru with a good engine tho.

      1. This is it – Renault and Ferrari have all but admitted they made fundamental mistakes in the design of the engine.

        My guess is, they’ve had a good look at the high-res photos released as part of the PR surrounding the Dewar Award, coupled with investigations around the paddock through-out the year and come to the conclusion that the current token system will not allow them to essentially ‘clone’ the Mercedes engine within the regulations – even more so if they don’t get it right next year and have even less scope the year after.

      2. @ rsq_donz

        There are three scenarios:

        (1) Engine ‘freeze’ stays as it is, costs remain relatively low
        (2) In season engine freeze is lifted for 2015, engine costs will rise.
        (3) Entire concept of frozen engines is scrapped from 2016, engine war starts up and development spending goes through the roof.

        What Horner (and the other non-Mercedes power holders) are saying is either you give us 2 or we’re going to stick you with 3 in revenge. It’s not a suggestion that not relaxing the current restrictions will increase costs but a threat to intentionally increase costs massively if they don’t get what they want.

        It reminds me of a child in the street trying to apply his own unequal football rules with the threat of “it’s my football, you either play my way or else I take the ball and go home”.

        I think that the irony is that of all the engine manufacturers it is probably Mercedes who would throw the greatest resources at an all-out engine war so it doesn’t seem like much of a threat to me. I hope Mercedes stand their ground.

    9. ColdFly F1 (@)
      11th November 2014, 0:47

      Horner misses the point. The 3 PU manufacturers had exactly the same time/opportunity to build something good for this year; but 2 were clearly asleep.
      Now they all have exactly the same chance before next season’s start. But again it seems that 2 teams are once again behind and not ready.

      Renault & Ferrari should stop arguing that they need more time, but instead focus on building the best PU possible. Arguably it is easier for them as they have more room to improve, having a good idea of where they are behind (Mercedes cannot learn as much from the others).

      1. Exactly, and even though is true that Mercedes spent a lot more money than Renault and Ferrari developing the engine, is also true that Red Bull spend more money than their rivals in their run of 4 consecutive world championships.

      2. @coldfly

        Now they all have exactly the same chance before next season’s start. But again it seems that 2 teams are once again behind and not ready.

        No, they don’t have the same opportunity. A portion of the engine (8%, I believe) is completely frozen and any further development is at behest of a token system, with all components of the engine weighted differently.

        I don’t know the exact weighting, but my guess is if they decided to copy the split-turbo design with integral MGU-H, they’ll run out of tokens. This is especially true for Renault, who’s MGU-H is external to the engine-V, causing packaging issues as it pushes the gearbox even further back.

        I believe Craig Scarborough indicated Ferrari’s MGU-H is in the engine V, but is nowhere near as big as Mercedes so doesn’t generate enough power.

    10. F1 is a prime example of the world that we live in. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. And the poorer you are the more you get stomped on until the rich can no longer hear you. Bernie has gotten to the point where he is now so rich that he no longer hears the fans complaints, and the complaints of small teams are just a distant whisper. All he cares about is making as much money as he can before he dies, even if that means killing F1 in the process.

      1. Globally the demographics has shown the middle class is getting wiped off, so there will be very rich people and very poor people. Welcome to the new world, it has begun, honestly. It’s sad though.

    11. To be quite honest, I have no idea what is going on anymore. One day Bernie admits it’s his fault, says something has to be done, and that he’s going to talk to the CVC about the money situation. The next weekend he’s saying there is no crisis and that his meeting with the CVC has nothing to do with the money situation. Then he says we need third cars, then he says forget them. I don’t know. No other sport in the world acts this way. Can someone maybe give me a hand and name another sport in the world that’s run by an 84 year old?

      The only thing that keeps me interested is the racing, and the musical chairs of race seats that is going on right now. Everything else makes me want to puke.

      1. until a couple of months ago, the argentinian football was ruled by someone who was almost every bit just like Bernie. He did the same: gave more money to the big ones (River and Boca) and strangled the little ones. Sold cheap the tv rights, but he was handsomly payed for doing so. Long story short, today all the clubs are bankrupt, and struggle to survive with debts in the order of the 20mill U$D. (each team). But who was more powerful and richer than all the teams combined? Julio Grondona, AKA the Bernie from Argentinian Football. Take a good look at this example, because maybe that’s where the F1 is going to…

      2. LOL! you’re not wrong from your comments. At 84 I think at times you forget what you say.

      3. The Galactic Empire!

        Oh no wait, you said sport.

        F1 is a fictional dictatorship created solely for entertainment.

        The Empire is a sport.

        Oh no wait, I’m confused again…….

      4. Not sure banging on about Bernie’s age is either fair or relevant.

        I’ve been following F1 closely since about 1990, and he’s always been erratic, vague and evasive. I’ve never found his public pronouncements satisfactory, but in the end, F1 has always carried on and grown, so he’s gotten away with it. I don’t like it or him much, at best I find him to be a funny little clown, but in the end its how he has always been. Being 85 is, IMHO, irrelevant.

        Hopefully the difference here is that he has to answer to CVC. Question is, how long will they put up with it?

    12. I am so glad that there is an V8 Supercars weekend coming… finally I will be able to focus on some good racing without stupid politics all over the place. It’s so depressing reading all these news… and it’s not the first time I say that here.
      Even if you try to forget about all of the issues with the teams, finances etc. there is still an issue of double points finale in the middle of the money infested desert.

    13. Qatar has no business hosting a Grand Prix of any kind, two or four wheels. Having a MotoGP race there is bad enough- but not an F1 Grand Prix (or a World Cup), please.

    14. To be honest, I really think Mercedes should relent on their decision to block a partial unfreeze, as all it is going to lead to is they will end up getting rail-roaded by the 3 other PU providers on a majority call to completely lift the freeze for ’16, ’17 and ’18, causing a spending war of gargantuan proportions. Forcing extra cost to ALL the teams but really hurting the one’s hanging on to their F1 entry with their finger tips.
      I would like to see the manufacturers ALL given 13 extra tokens to use on their upgrades, even Mercedes should get them so it’s fair, then with some luck the others will stick to the homologation glide path to over the next 5 years rather than blowing £millions on getting a couple of tenths of lap time and sending the smaller teams to the wall.

      I feel that Gene Haas knows things we don’t with regards to customer cars, or at least a big relaxation on what a team MUST manufacture in house

      I have followed F1 since I was a kid and throughout that period somewhere somebody is always claiming F1 is in crisis and on the verge of collapse. I strongly believe that the FIA (Jean Todt) have sat back far too long, they dropped a bollock with the strategy group putting everything to committee for a decision means that they simply cannot push through changes easily, especially if it hurts the teams with a seat on the group. The FIA desperately need to take control of the rising costs or it won’t be 8 teams running 3 cars, it will be 3 teams running 8 cars.


      1. @thebullwhipper

        I really think Mercedes should relent on their decision to block a partial unfreeze, as all it is going to lead to is they will end up getting rail-roaded by the 3 other PU providers on a majority call to completely lift the freeze for ’16, ’17 and ’18, causing a spending war of gargantuan proportions.

        It is by no means a given that Horner’s doomsday scenario will come to pass, and I’m sure Toto Wolff will be reluctant to give the impression that all anyone needs to do is threaten him to get what they want.

        To me, Horner’s ‘threat’ sounds more like a bitter parting shot from someone who knows he’s lost this round.

      2. As for the 3 car teams, its just not going to happen @thebullwhipper. It makes no sense for anyone.

        We’ve had McLaren, and I think Mercedes mentioning a cost of about 20 Million extra for them to run a 3rd car and just look at Horner claiming his team would need about 35-40 Million EUR for a 3rd car –;utm_medium=twitter;utm_source=twitterfeed
        How could that be cheaper for Bernie than to just pay the small teams more – 2 cars times the amount Horner mentions is more than what any team downward from Williams is currently spending per year and more than double what many of those teams get from FOM currently. If anything, that should show us its not going to happen (because Bernie would end up paying more).

        Not to mention it also shows its not the smaller teams being stupid with their spending (after all they spend less and it included development compared to just building and running that car!), but the sport is just too expensive to be viable and distribution of available is skewed.

        1. @bascb Why would Bernie end up spending more? It works for him because he pays for teams, not cars.

          Of course, he recognises that it would be heavily damaging for F1, which is why he wants customer cars. All the benefits of three car teams, dressed up to look like nothing is wrong.

          1. Because the teams have to run extra cars to help fulfill FOMs obligations towards the FIA, its highly unlikely that the cost for that would not be at least partly have to be taken on by FOM @optimaximal.

            Why would these teams even mention how much it would cost them otherwise, if not to warn Bernie to make his calculations.

            1. @bascb There-in lies the cleverness of Bernie’s argument – he wants the teams to be run as what he deems ‘proper businesses’. If they say it costs $20-30 million more to run another car, they need to find the money or not spend what they don’t have to do it.

              The teams are required to bring cars to events – Bernie was clever enough to negotiate his contracts for a smaller number (suspected to be 14) whereas the FIA require 18. This means Bernie can always blame the FIA for any rules requiring either third cars or customer cars, because someone else’s contract requires it.

              Likewise, he built his contracts with the teams to allow them to miss 3 races a year, whereas the FIA have to lodge missed races with the stewards who have to ‘allow’ it on a race-by-race basis. It paints Bernie/FOM in a better light.

              It’s all an elaborate shell game that is designed to a) bring more money into the CRH and b) remove any blame from the CRH when problems arise from a)…

            2. @bascb Whoops, submitted early…

              Going back to his mea-culpa between Austin and Brazil – he was an old-man in panic mode in the US paddock, forced into interviews by the media, which he doddered through – admitting fault painted him as the white knight, facing up to the big teams with their suited shareholders and the FIA, with their silent, expensive engines that do nothing for the sport.

              Either he collected his thoughts across the week and decided that now the heat was off, its back to being brash – business as usual – or he really is showing his age and he completely forgot his words from a week earlier, which would indicate that CVC would have to replace him immediately.

              If you asked him, it would be the former.

    15. Interesting to hear of poor BBC highlights ratings. Meanwhile, Will Buxton is dropping his GP2/GP3 world feed commentating gig to focus on the US F1 coverage, which is apparently doing well enough to occupy him more fully.

      1. @scalextric I salute Will’s passion but the current crop of UK pundits are ripe with sensationalism, it’s like a disease. It starts with Kravitz making an unfortunate comment, Croft gets infected, Herbert joins the party and raises the bar somehow Hill gets in and Brundle to surmise stamps the bill. I have nothing against a joke but lately it’s not joking it’s bullying. I can recall Brundle on ITV having fun at introducing a strange word or expression to a broadcast, that’s innocent fun. These days sky and bbc don’t miss a chance of failing at journalism. Sky’s pressured to shove in their product, that I understand but in my view this is not cutting it. I prefer the BBC service, even if they too suffer from the same disease to a less extent. I want to go back to Brundle and Coulthard on the races, keep Hill and Coulthard for insights and inner workings, put the jokers for the practice sessions.I miss Murray Walker that’s my conclusion, F1 from the tv is lacking his suspense.

        1. Re the low bbc viewing figures. I think the timing of bbc highlights was unfortunate on Sunday. I avoided all news so as not to spoil my watching of a recording late on Sunday night. The rest of the family already new the result earlier in the day and the race became old news. Why would the casual f1 watcher miss the next part of a series such as Homeland to watch a race which had already been summarised elsewhere ?

        2. Watch some classic races and you’ll soon get over the loss of Murray, he was enthusiastic and passionate but more often than not he had little to no idea what was going on, missed important events, confused drivers and generally got more wrong than he got right. If he was commentating now the internet would explode with constant complaints from F1 fans.

    16. I don’t trust Horner.

      1. Horner doesn’t trust Horner.

        1. Mrs Horner doesn’t trust Horner

    17. I thought Vettel was supposed to be the Red Bull guy who turned into an incessant whining machine when things didn’t go his way?

      1. Hmmmmm now we know where he got it from – Horner

      2. It’s part of being with the team. Even Newey seems to have caught it.

        I just hope Ricciardo stays immune, he’s actually really, really likeable.

    18. So let me get this straight, by 2016 we will have 22 races and 6 of those could be night races if Sochi makes the change, that’s more than a quarter of the total number of races!

      When Singapore came in 2008 it was something special because it was the only night race but now everyone’s jumping on the bandwagon and it doesn’t feel the same, this is way too much.

      1. Honestly @mantresx, I think 22 races are too much, and especially when too many of them are in uninspiring places as well. This year its fine but in the last 2 years I was weary of F1 3 races before the season was over already.

        And when even Blatter now mentions another reason not to go to Quatar for the world cup (apparently he mentioned Quatar financing IS), F1 really should not go there. But we all know that for Bernie its almost extra reason to go (and ask for even more money)

        1. Maybe if Bernie takes money from Qatar, then they cannot fund IS.
          Imagine greedy Bernie helping world peace. (@bascb)

          1. cunning plan to solve a war @coldfly!

    19. I just have one question. Isn’t the budget difference between the top teams and the bottom teams have always been present in Formula1? If I am not wrong during the Ferrari Schumi days the budget of Ferrari was above 300million wheres as teams like Jordon were hanging in there with 60million or so ?

      1. @aks-das The point is, Jordan and co filled out their coffers with money from sponsors – Jordan was basically funded entirely by Benson & Hedges for the last 6 years of its existence. F1 was also considerably less expensive at the time, because the technology was, in essence, simpler.

        Caterham, Marussia, Sauber and Force India are/were either almost entirely bereft of cromulent sponsorship or its a shell-game full of brands owned or related to the team owners (Force India), meaning there’s very little money heading inwards.

        The only odd-one-out is Lotus, who now seem to have solid enough financial backing thanks to PDVSA, but are paying the price for underinvestment last year, couple with Renault’s broken concept of custom-building engines for each team’s chassis, which hamstrung overall development. Lopez is cleverly playing his team as a poor garagista, ignoring the fact that (this year) Lopez is on the Strategy Group.

        Similarly, are Force India not due to replace them next year?

      1. That’s been going on in Russia for years.

    20. Wouldn’t it be great if someone could point out to Horner what an obnoxious, lying hypocrite he is?

      1. He’s a rich man, a businessman, an F1 team principal and possibly even a replacement for Bernie.

        It’s a given.

    21. Thanks for the birthday shout out @keithcollantine.

    22. If Mercedes are willing to quit over V8s then there obviously not that passionate about f1.

      1. The next time you invest hundreds of millions of euros on a project which gets sabotaged by your jealous rivals, people should remind you to keep staying ”passionate”.

        1. Certainly true. They have invested a boat load of money into developing the new engine. They will have assumed that those costs can be spread over several years. Now, because they have done a great job, their rivals are calling for it all to be chucked out.

          Would you stay?

      2. Renault were also willing to quit. Ferrari were also willing to quit had they moved to V4/Straight-4s…

    23. I am personally OK with V6 engines but i hate these hybrid engines. I don’t think they fit very well to F1 and we already have another race category to cater for electrical trickery. Also being extremely complicated they cost a lot. Let engine manufacturers play with for example: twin turbos (supercharger+normal turbo combo)

      Or they could just change the name of F1 to Formula 1 endurance with batteries. Because that what it is now regarding all the tire, fuel, engine saving and energy harvesting.

      1. F1 should be pushing the bounds of automotive technology. Big petrol engines are last centuries technology. Electric, in some form or another, is the future.

        So you would prefer F1 remains in the past and goes slowly out of date, fading into irrelevance?

        Personally, in an ideal world, I would set the regulations such that you can only load a certain amount of energy into it, whether in petrol, hydrogen, battery storage, and have a maximum power input (that’s basically the fuel limit and fuel flow limit, but in generic terms), then let them do what they want, whether that’s a large engine, small turbo engine, hybrid or not. The problem is that this would be vastly more expensive.

        The hybrid systems on F1’s engines are a great compromise, and will only get better. They are helping advance technology for everyone, as F1 should. Abandoning them now would be a step backwards.

        Also, twin turbos are not supercharger+turbo combo, they are 2 turbochargers.

        1. @drmouse, ” vastly more expensive” ? only if all teams but 1 or 2 went down a path so uncompetitive that they had to start again, (deja vu ? ). @alipappa probably meant “twin air”*tm.

          1. @hohum: Yes, vastly more expensive. Every manufacture would have to run a proof of concept on several available configurations. From there, they would be unlikely to be able to just choose one. They would have to then continue development of 2-3 options for a reasonable way, and then make a judgement call on which was going to be the best design. They would then develop that design into the final product.

            It is incredibly likely, then, that one mfr would come out with a vastly superior design. I am not talking about Mercedes’ level of superiority this year, but beyond that. In addition, it is likely that one mfr would produce an absolute pig. Again, far beyond Renault’s. This would force at least the one who designed a pig to start from scratch.

            In the current regs, Renault and Ferrari may have made some “mistakes”, but they do not have to start from scratch. They may have to back track a reasonable way, but this is far less expensive than throwing everything away.

            As for the “twin air”, if you mean the Fiat TwinAir/MultiAir, this does not even involve a turbo. It can, just as any piston engine can, but MultiAir is just a system for controlling inlet timing and profile. TwinAir is just a 2 cylinder MultiAir.

            I have always heard people call a supercharger/turbocharger combo a superturbo, although I haven’t heard much about them. Twin turbo normally involves a large turbo, able to produce the level of boost required, and a small turbo, which can spin up quickly to reduce turbo lag. As turbo lag is (nearly) eliminated in these cars by the MGU-H, twin turbo is not required.

            1. @drmouse, I was thinking of the VW Golf small super+turbo charged engines, I thought “twin air” was their name for it.
              It may be a new era I suppose but in the past designers would come up with an idea and go for it, a year on the track would provide the proof of the pudding.

    24. “Fernando Alonso’s switch to the McLaren Formula One team is set to be confirmed before the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, once the team knows who his team mate will be.”

      I would love McLaren to keep Button alongside Alonso and put Magnussen back to test driver, just for one more year mind. I think in Button and Alonso, you have 2 quite different driving styles and 2 very experienced drivers, who can provide all the developmental feedback that they will need next year. It will also give Magnussen a real challenge in terms of having to proove himself, not only against Jenson (which he has done pretty well this year), but also against Fernando – If he does that in testing through 2015 then he will truly be considered a worthy adversary in a race seat in 2016!

      Then again, I have always been a fan of Button, so maybe I’m a little biased :)

      1. @ginja42 People have said that Alonso doesn’t deserve that McLaren seat because he has been playing Button around even though he doesn’t deserve it. Well, sources in McLaren say that he wants Button to stay as it will help Honda improve even more.

        1. @mashiat Interesting, cheers (first response ever to one of my comments!!).
          I not only think they would be right to keep Button as the pair of them would be good for development, but also Button is a good advertising pawn, with previous Honda experience (albeit through a tough period for them) and a lot of support in Japan. So you would think Button/Alonso would be a more appealing choice on the sponsorship/financial side of things too – That said, no-one tells Ron what to do ;)

          1. @ginja42 I’m flattered to be the first person to respond to one of your comments! But back to the point. McLaren, don’t forget, is not exactly a team with very deep pockets of cash compared to Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari. In fact, they’re losing plenty of money due to the lack of a title sponsor. Due to that, it seems as though Magnussen will stay on at McLaren, as his salary is somewhere between £1,000,000 to £1,500,000 while Jenson’s salary is over ten times more at £16,000,000. So it seems as though Jenson would be the driver that McLaren would want to keep, but financially, Magnussen is much cheaper. And they’re probably hoping that another couple of years and he could be the next Daniel Ricciardo,

            1. @mashiat All fair points, and I do think that you will likely be proved right. I would have hoped that Honda would have had some sway, given that the last thing they want is to come back without impressing enough to get at least one more customer for 2016. But, I concede that as much as I would like to see Button race F1 for one more year it is looking unlikey, and Magnussen hasn’t exactly had a bad year, particularly when you look at him pound for pound compared to Button.

              I did spot an article elsewhere, where Jenson talks about how being part of a family was more important that the cash, but I seriously doubt he will take anything close to that sort of pay cut – TBH he would probably be better cutting his losses and getting over to the WEC (if that rumour is true) rather than potentially spend another year at Mclaren like his last couple.

            2. @ginja42 Yes, and his recent comments in the Brazilian GP show that he is indeed going to be rejected by McLaren. I do wish that he would stay along with Alonso. Even if they might not have the best car, they could still win both championships (although if someone had to win the WDC, I would put $500 on Alonso instead of Button) if the Mercedes advantage isn’t that big and they trip over each other (although personally I believe that Hamilton will just run away with the 2015 title similar to Vettel in 2011 as he is quite clearly the quicker Mercedes driver with a FAR superior car)

    25. As part of the track upgrades, they should re-dedicate the Senna Esses to Bruno Senna.

    26. -Horner can’t be morally trusted. Have known that ever since Turkey 2010.

      – It would be ridiculous if these engines weren’t kept for at least 10 years (even if the other was V10’s, it just doesn’t make sense to change now).

      – Qatar joining the calendar should not jeopardise a quality race track.

    27. For the first time in 20 years my f1 watching is seriously in decline.
      – It’s now behind a paywall
      – Boring desert races so Bernie and cronies can get a little oil money
      – Only a few teams left
      – Little fan influence
      – Weak governing body
      – Double points and other gimmicks
      I should be excited for the season finale but I just don’t feel it. Maybe next year I won’t be watching at all.
      The above is said with a sigh and not an angry rant, it is what it is and it makes no difference if I watch or not obviously.
      Good luck to Lewis for the final race.
      Peace all.

    28. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      11th November 2014, 14:28

      I guess Bernie is going to coincidentially break the age record and be around here for another 25 years . Can F1 survive that long? Let’s see which one lasts longer.

    29. ANOTHER MIDDLE EAST RACE?!?!? Abu dhabi should be kick out of the calender (of course that will not happen)

    30. “While Formula One has Hamilton it doesn’t need the ridiculous contrivance of double points in Abu Dhabi, which has cheapened what has been an extraordinary, thrilling season”

      Oh, for God’s sake … if Hamilton was even a fraction as brilliant as his over-the-top fans make him out to be he’d have sewn up the title already. And this year has been average at best, it’s only being made out to be extraordinary because Hamilton looks like taking the title. If it were Massa and Perez in that dominant W05 finishing one-two in race after race, nobody would be gushing about what a thrilling season we’re having.

    31. The reason for teams collapsing, Christian baby, is that two teams ratted out FOTA for loadsa Bernie’s ill-gotten money.

      Now the boot’s on the other foot, and afaic you can suck it up, and Marco Mattiacci with you.

      1. FOTA was a joke anyway.

        The teams could never agree to anything & each team just tried to push through things to benefit themselfs & they never actually listened to the fans.
        Look at the mess FOTA made of organizing the young drivers test in 2011? Eeach team pushed to have it at a track that benefited there needs & in the end you just had a big mess which the FIA had to step in & sort out.

        The teams should have no say over rules/regulations, Time & time again we see teams pushing only for whats best for them, Was the same with CART which is a part of why CART was a mess that went through a dozen CEO’s & eventually went bankrupt.

        The FIA shoudl set the rules & if the teams don’t like it there free to go race elsewhere, They shoudl have no say over the rules to stop the mess we have now where every team seems to be pushing there own agendas depending on what benefits them most.

    32. I get the feeling that Christian is angling to get 3 car teams into the sport. His comments lately have been completely against the back marker teams and I fail to see any reason why that should be so. He might as well blame the smaller teams failing on a disturbance in the force.

      I was sad when HRT left, resigned when Caterham left and shocked when Marrusia did as well. I’ve begun losing faith that Bernie or CVC or even the teams for that matter will do something to save the sport. What’s worse is that I had at least expected some of the big teams to speak in as much favor of equitable revenue distribution as they had on cost cutting measures.

      1. Talking of three car teams, why not change the World Championship for teams from total points to average points per car? That would mean that whether a team has two or three cars it doesn’t matter, what matters is how well they all do, and that the team with the best average wins the trophy.

    33. Just thinking about the go-back-to the-V8 threat – all the engine manufacturers are pushing hybrid road cars, even Ferrari, so I don’t see it. For 2016 regs I think Merc will have Honda and probably Renault in their camp, and if they vote for a spending race then only Honda can live with Mercedes. If the Honda engine is good then lo they’ll be all for a freeze too.

      I can only imagine behind the scenes there’s a lot of linkage going on: Ferrari’s 2.5%, the weird prize money distribution, engines, and number of races.

      I reckon Bernie is mad with the three rebel teams but won’t finally put them to the sword, just give them a good kicking.

    34. Nigel Mansell is probably right, in that watching F1 cars race is probably a great sight, unfortunately F1 management believe it is an exclusive right, reserved for those dedicated to a sport like rugby or league.

    35. Anyone remember the days when F1 played second fiddle to golf or Gardeners Question Time amongst other things? If the race overran, they just cut it. Dead.

    36. I don’t really see why Ferrari/Renault believe that an engine un-freeze would allow them to catch Mercedes given how an un-freeze would also allow Mercedes to further improve there power unit.

      I was also under the impression that over 90% of the engine components were open for development next year anyway.

      1. Although most of the engine can be developed, they can only change part, using a token system.

        I am not going to go through the rules exactly and don’t know the numbers. But basically to develop one part, they must use a number of tokens. They have only a certain number of tokens. So, even though most of the engine can still be changed, they cannot change all those parts.

        Renault & Ferrari’s arguments suggest that they feel they need to change more than the token system will allow.

    37. Horner sulking because the changes this year have meant they haven’t done very well, there’s a surprise. He’s as trustworthy in F1 as he is in his personal life (splitting with wife and young child for Geri Halliwell ouch!!!)

    38. Night race in Qatar would be brilliant, the place looks so good under the lights! i hope they get it!

      As for the engines, i know it might never happen nor would it work very well, but i liked the sort of free-for-all regulations that we saw in the early nineties where teams were merely limited by the amount of cylinders they could run (12) we saw v8s battling with v10s battling with v12s. I always liked how it seemed to mix up the field depending on what whether it was a horsepower or a handling circuit

    39. This is Horner crying because he is not winning, its pretty simple, the big teams are taking all the money and the small teams are left with the change, nothing to do with engines, Horner is just trying to change rules to suit redbull, i for one am happy that rebull are no longer winning

    Comments are closed.