6 ms·

This is unrelated to the OP because Honda exclusively supply engines and do not have a works Grand Prix team. When the sport was awash with tobacco money about

by DC-3 6y ago

This is unrelated to the OP because Honda exclusively supply engines and do not have a works Grand Prix team. When the sport was awash with tobacco money about 15 years ago, the big teams all had an entire testing team, completely divorced from their race team, which would spend most days of the year simply hammering around the racetracks of Europe, at astronomical expense. Such things are illegal now because if they were not the sport would be dead within five years.

erichocean 6y ago
> Such things are illegal now because if they were not the sport would be dead within five years. It's already dead. Might as well have the testing.
- DC-3 6y ago
  Grand Prix racing is not dead. Don't hyperbolise.
  - mcv 6y ago
    Well then, how would it be dead in 5 years? That sounds every bit as hyperbolic.
    - Milner08 6y ago
      Because only a small set of teams would be able to afford the testing, and you'd end up with a tiny starting grid with only a few cars. It'd be crap.
      - oarsinsync 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_winners#Most_wins_per_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix... It's not been interesting for a while. There may be > 10 cars, but there's very few that actually make it to a win, and there's been only one that's mattered each year for almost a decade.
        dagw 6y ago
        The question I guess is how much less exciting would the race be if it was only the 4 cars that might win racing compared to today where there are those 4 cars + 14 others.
elcomet 6y ago
I don't understand why it would kill the sport, could you explain?
- pangoraw 6y ago
  I think this is mostly to give teams with smaller budgets a fighting chance against teams like say Mercedes who have an astronomical budget and could finance R&D all year long.
- nindalf 6y ago
  They mentioned astronomical expense. I’m guessing if one deep pocketed team did it and gained an advantage, the others would be forced to do the same. These teams would risk bankruptcy if they didn’t win. And not everyone can win.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
  Expenses. Currently the top spenders are Ferrari and Mercedes. Both spend somewhere around $330 million (US) per year (and Mercedes has spent a total of $1.4 billion over the course of these current engine regs developing their car -- that's just development, not race expenses.). This is a beyond insane figure, but it's worth it to them for the marketing. Meanwhile smaller teams -- the teams you need to actually fill out a grid so there's actual racing to watch -- are probably around the $100 million/year mark. F1 is almost purely play-to-win, to use a modern coinage. The aerodynamics involved have been so insanely optimized that teams spend millions per year to employ some of the best aerodynamicists in the world to eke out another 0.005 secs/lap over the competition. The performance gap between the top and the rest is fairly proportional to the spending gaps. In recent years it's been Mercedes winning every championship, with Ferrari winning a share of races and Red Bull stealing one or two. Those top 6 cars are often a full minute ahead of the pack after just a dozen laps or so. The rest of the cars have no chance at all. This year it's even worse as Ferrari got caught doing something illegal so their engine has been nerfed. Mercedes just drive away at the start and are almost never remotely challenged. Now in this environment, how many sponsors/car companies want to spend hundreds of millions per year just to tool around multiple minutes behind the Mercedes cars? It's just not a good investment. And many good ideas to counteract this (reverse-grid sprint races on Saturday to decide starting order on Sunday, as opposed to traditional qualy, at select tracks) are lampooned by the fanbase for being untraditional. Unfortunately if the sport continues like this there won't be any traditions left to uphold at all; I understand their complaints but it's a delicate balance. The latest attempt to restore some modicum of balance is spending caps. The only chance F1 has to survive long term is to encourage new teams to the sport and discourage current ones from leaving, and that means (a) limiting spending across the grid, and (b) not allowing the top engine manufacturers free reign over the formula. Unrestricted research/testing would hasten its demise because it's just another opportunity for the rich teams to spend more. And point (b) above is what killed the LMP1 class; engine manufacturers exercise political sway to make it harder for other manufacturers to enter/win/compete, but then the grid starts dying and those manufacturers pull out, leaving a set of ossified regulations that make it almost impossible for new engine manufacturers to enter.
pmontra 6y ago
> This is unrelated to the OP because Honda exclusively supply engines and do not have a works Grand Prix team. Honda had a works team and pulled out at the end of 2008. They sold the team to Brawn which won the 2009 title with a low budget by exploiting a loophole in the rules. The other teams couldn't catch up soon enough. Brawn had no money left and sold to Mercedes. Red Bull won the next four titles and Mercedes all the other titles up to now.
- gbrown_ 6y ago
  > They sold the team to Brawn which won the 2009 title with a low budget by exploiting a loophole in the rules. Williams and Toyota started with a double diffuser as well. Also to be clear Honda had planned for double diffuser on the 2009 car before being bought by Brawn.
wh1t3n01s3 6y ago
And, do not forget, a lot of people died during racetrack tests due to lack of man assistance. Elio De Angelis and Michele Arboreto for example, but I’m sure there are a lot more.... (both of them would be alive if there was someone to take their bodies from the vehicles in time)
_where 6y ago
> When the sport was awash with tobacco money about 15 years ago, the big teams all had an entire testing team So, we just need companies with a lot of money that are interested in technical advances and advertising and don’t care about RoI like banks might? What about Google, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, ... any takers?

by DC-3 6y ago

erichocean 6y ago

> Such things are illegal now because if they were not the sport would be dead within five years. It's already dead. Might as well have the testing.

DC-3 6y ago
Grand Prix racing is not dead. Don't hyperbolise.
- mcv 6y ago
  Well then, how would it be dead in 5 years? That sounds every bit as hyperbolic.
  - Milner08 6y ago
    Because only a small set of teams would be able to afford the testing, and you'd end up with a tiny starting grid with only a few cars. It'd be crap.
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_winners#Most_wins_per_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix... It's not been interesting for a while. There may be > 10 cars, but there's very few that actually make it to a win, and there's been only one that's mattered each year for almost a decade.
      - dagw 6y ago
        The question I guess is how much less exciting would the race be if it was only the 4 cars that might win racing compared to today where there are those 4 cars + 14 others.

elcomet 6y ago

I don't understand why it would kill the sport, could you explain?

pangoraw 6y ago
I think this is mostly to give teams with smaller budgets a fighting chance against teams like say Mercedes who have an astronomical budget and could finance R&D all year long.
nindalf 6y ago
They mentioned astronomical expense. I’m guessing if one deep pocketed team did it and gained an advantage, the others would be forced to do the same. These teams would risk bankruptcy if they didn’t win. And not everyone can win.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
Expenses. Currently the top spenders are Ferrari and Mercedes. Both spend somewhere around $330 million (US) per year (and Mercedes has spent a total of $1.4 billion over the course of these current engine regs developing their car -- that's just development, not race expenses.). This is a beyond insane figure, but it's worth it to them for the marketing. Meanwhile smaller teams -- the teams you need to actually fill out a grid so there's actual racing to watch -- are probably around the $100 million/year mark. F1 is almost purely play-to-win, to use a modern coinage. The aerodynamics involved have been so insanely optimized that teams spend millions per year to employ some of the best aerodynamicists in the world to eke out another 0.005 secs/lap over the competition. The performance gap between the top and the rest is fairly proportional to the spending gaps. In recent years it's been Mercedes winning every championship, with Ferrari winning a share of races and Red Bull stealing one or two. Those top 6 cars are often a full minute ahead of the pack after just a dozen laps or so. The rest of the cars have no chance at all. This year it's even worse as Ferrari got caught doing something illegal so their engine has been nerfed. Mercedes just drive away at the start and are almost never remotely challenged. Now in this environment, how many sponsors/car companies want to spend hundreds of millions per year just to tool around multiple minutes behind the Mercedes cars? It's just not a good investment. And many good ideas to counteract this (reverse-grid sprint races on Saturday to decide starting order on Sunday, as opposed to traditional qualy, at select tracks) are lampooned by the fanbase for being untraditional. Unfortunately if the sport continues like this there won't be any traditions left to uphold at all; I understand their complaints but it's a delicate balance. The latest attempt to restore some modicum of balance is spending caps. The only chance F1 has to survive long term is to encourage new teams to the sport and discourage current ones from leaving, and that means (a) limiting spending across the grid, and (b) not allowing the top engine manufacturers free reign over the formula. Unrestricted research/testing would hasten its demise because it's just another opportunity for the rich teams to spend more. And point (b) above is what killed the LMP1 class; engine manufacturers exercise political sway to make it harder for other manufacturers to enter/win/compete, but then the grid starts dying and those manufacturers pull out, leaving a set of ossified regulations that make it almost impossible for new engine manufacturers to enter.

pmontra 6y ago

> This is unrelated to the OP because Honda exclusively supply engines and do not have a works Grand Prix team. Honda had a works team and pulled out at the end of 2008. They sold the team to Brawn which won the 2009 title with a low budget by exploiting a loophole in the rules. The other teams couldn't catch up soon enough. Brawn had no money left and sold to Mercedes. Red Bull won the next four titles and Mercedes all the other titles up to now.

gbrown_ 6y ago
> They sold the team to Brawn which won the 2009 title with a low budget by exploiting a loophole in the rules. Williams and Toyota started with a double diffuser as well. Also to be clear Honda had planned for double diffuser on the 2009 car before being bought by Brawn.

wh1t3n01s3 6y ago

And, do not forget, a lot of people died during racetrack tests due to lack of man assistance. Elio De Angelis and Michele Arboreto for example, but I’m sure there are a lot more.... (both of them would be alive if there was someone to take their bodies from the vehicles in time)

_where 6y ago

> When the sport was awash with tobacco money about 15 years ago, the big teams all had an entire testing team So, we just need companies with a lot of money that are interested in technical advances and advertising and don’t care about RoI like banks might? What about Google, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, ... any takers?