Hoppy

I really don't think a common engine/gearbox is the way forward at all. The only thing that is sustaining F1 at the minute is the manufacturers - I can't see Mercedes/BMW/Renault/Toyota/etc etc wanting to put a Ferrari motor (or anything else) in their cars.

davyboy

I thought the single engine thing was bad too, but when I realised that the engine supplier may come from my home town, I think it's a great idea!

However, it would be a nightmare for the boys up the road in Brixsworth!

unclebuck

Gotta feel a bit bad for them. Imagine it - one minute you're a highly qualified and well paid F1 engineer - the next you are servicing Nissan Micra's at some shoddy down at heel dealership.

And that's the best case scenario...

Pumpkin

I don't want to see a common engine, but if they had to, then I would accept a common crankcase & block, lubrication and cooling, but the teams are free to develop cylinder heads, pistons, valves, cams, induction, exhaust, timing and fuelling. This gives them quite a lot of scope for tuning and development.

fast bloke

If I forked out a quid for Honda, could I keep the cars for a bit of craic and shut down the rest of it? I wonder if there are many tyres included in the quid

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

IMO Honda are using poor sales and the credit crunch as an excuse to avoid loss of face.

When they 'rejoined' F1 by taking over BAR they expected to be able to ride on the back of the momentum created by David Richards etc. and possibly win the championship or at least be a real contedner within 3 years.

Instead they have made a string of glaring mistakes in appointing the wrong personnel and consequently have designed cars that have fallen further and further behind the competition. Their driver choice hasn;t exactly been the wisest either with neither Rubens or Jenson being the greatest development drivers in the hsitory of the sport.

Now they have the perfect excuse to leave F1 without having to admit they just couldn't get it right and hence they have seized it. The Japanese do not like having to lose face and this extends all the way to the top of massive companies like Honda, this way they can simply point at the credit crunch and say goodbye.

I am not saying it doesn't also make sound financial sense to leave given the motor industry's current fortunes, but when in recent years did F1 ever make sound financial sense anyway?

RRH

There's speculation on crash.net that red bull are about to pull the plug...

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

They just 2 weeks ago bought back Torro Rosso so I doubt it.

p1mark

Latest info from within the Honda camp is this.

Honda is actively looking for a buyer, but they are bank rolling the Chassis to ensure it gets to the first GP at Melbourne. However it won't be using a Honda engine and the engine they do use will probably be a Ferrari lump.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Maybe it's time for a Ferrari B-Team! That'll please lot's of people!

Leslie

It has been a great excuse for Mosely to go on about his ideas for a single engine/transmission formula. That will kill F1 I reckon.

Its all; very well to accuse Button and Barrichello of being incapable of developing a car but in all honesty, what can they do with something that was always that poor anyway? They have both proved themselves as very good drivers in decent cars.

Les

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

I can't believe I had a bite so soon!

Petem95

Seems there is speculation Redbull plan on selling up (hence why they bought out Torro Rosso - easier to sell 2 complete teams, instead of one team and a stake in another), but seeing as there are likely to be no buyers out there then I wouldn't be surprised if they sold off Torro Rosso cheap (costs to Redbull are huge as the team only brings in $10m in sponsors - rest they bankroll)

As I've mentioned before as well, Toyota must surely be looking at their options - especially as Honda has gone. Unless their 2009 car looks like being a front-runner, then I wouldn't be surprised at all if they pulled the plug.

F1 is just advertising for big car manfacturers at the end of the day, and if hardly anyone is buying cars and money is very tight then advertising budgets get slashed, so that's why I don't think they'll hesitate pulling the plug (especially if the cars aren't doing well - then it's not even good advertising!).

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Yes but at least one of them has to be capable of helping make the car decent. F1 is a team sport and part of that team are the drivers and one of their roles is to help develop the car as part of that team. Honda had two drivers contracted neither of which is a good development driver. Regardless of how bad the base car is this is not a sensible move.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

How do you know that they are not 'good' development driver's? As both have had good season in the past. Ferrari's first recent championship win only came about when Rubens joined in 2000.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

..to drive a car developed for his team mate!

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

And he still did quite well with it if I remember correctly. He kept schumi more honest than most.

Petem95

Williams CEO: More teams will go - Yahoo! Eurosport UK

Sounds like Williams certainly won't be leaving F1, but they expect another manufacturer team to be gone before the start of the 2009 season...

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Er because it's obvious they aren't. Buton has never helped develop a successful car although to be fair he was not hired as a development driver. If he has stayed longer than a season at a team the subsequent seasons have usually been less successful than the initial ones - not a good indicator of a development driver.

As for your comment on Rubens you are having a laugh yes? Schumacher is one of the best development drivers in the sport's history and having joined Ferrari in 1996 he missed out on the championship by a whisker in 1997 and 1998 and if he hadn't broken his leg in 1999 he would have already have won it by the time Rubens joined. Ferrari also took the constructor's trophy in 1999 before Rubens joined. Sorry, but by the time Rubens arrived at Maranello Schumacher had already helped develop the car and in fact the whole operation into the team that would win 5 championships in a row.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

I agree with those facts, but I just fail to see from the position of an arm chair how you can tell if someone is a good development driver! And by doing so, placing all the blame in the driver's rather than the team.

Hoppy

Development work is done by designers, analysts and technicians. With the help of test drivers. Did Schumacher sit for days on end in a wind tunnel saying move this, and try putting a fin there? Or sit with the dyno guys tweaking the valve timing? Or did Ferrari say here are a few changes Mikey Boy, rag the **** off it and let's see where it's quicker? He'll then say it's better here, not so good there, and I could push harder here if I had more/less so-and-so.

How much development work did Lewis Hamilton contribute? It's not what he was hired to do. Not what Schumacher was hired for either and I find it hard to believe that his contribution outside the cockpit was really that pivotal to Ferrari's success. He could drive a car fast, any car, very fast, and sometimes in extremely difficult conditions. He was a great racing driver and gave the team confidence to push development.

That is his 'development' gift and a very valuable asset it is too, but it's not pure development work. Hamilton has also given McLaren great confidence. He's a driver that is faster than the car under him, and that will encourage McLaren to push further and more quickly. He will surely be hailed as a great development driver too, but that kinda misses the point.

Richard.

Leslie

I think you are being unfair really. To be honest we just don't know if they were both incapable of developing the cars, or whether it was down to the engineers' incompetence at finding effective modifications with respect to what the drivers were telling them. Are you saying that they should come in and effectively re-design the cars for the engineers according to what they report in the handling department?

Les

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

A 'development' driver is able to give very precise feedback on the real world differences the engineers' and designers' changes make to the car. Schumacher was a master at this as was Senna, possibly even more so than Schuamcher. Damon Hill was also very good at this helping to develop the 91/92/93 Williams for Mansell and Prost.

As for Schumacher not being pivotal to Ferrari's success outside of the cockpit I think you need to read a book called Team Schumacher - you will change your mind after that.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Please read the above post Les. Come on you know how this works I am sure as you have driven relatively competitively I believe. You can feel differences in a car that no engineer can wholly predict no matter how clever he/she is or how many computers they have at their disposal.

Oh and ChrisPurvis nowhere am I placing all the blame on the drivers so I really don't know where you got that from.

Hoppy

Yes, but saying this is better, and that is not so good, is (invaluable) 'feedback' that any decent driver can give. 'Development' is what the technical guys then do with that information, making changes. Are you seriously suggesting that, in the quest for more grip, or power, or reliability, or whatever, the team would actually ask Mr S how they should go about achieving it? C'mon! He's not a one man team

And I really don't buy this 'F1 is a team sport' stuff that you hear trotted out in press conferences. It's about a team, and two drivers. The latter come and go, they are hired and fired on race results, while the other guys stick together and carry on.

But what is this debate all about? It started when you laid the blame for Honda pulling out on Jenson and Rubens, which you attempted to defend by asserting, on the basis of nothing, that they were not good development drivers. I'm giving personal opinions, may be right or wrong. You are free to differ, but you are not stating 'facts' either

Richard.