Is Ferrari not Mercedes in pole position for F1 season start?

[lkjohnson1950]

Renault boss says they believe they have fixed their problems:

http://www.eatsleepsport.com/formula-one/renault-overcome-engine-problems-1711833.html#.UwI4HmJdVO8

[Irisado]

( I will always have the a soft corner for this team, as I still consider this team as the Minardi with a Red Bull sponsorship)

Sadly, the team is barely a shadow of Minardi.  All that's left of that wonderful little team is the factory in Faenza and a few of the mechanics.  The rest of it is a glorified marketing exercise on behalf of Red Bull, which is utterly devoid of any soul or character.

I am really surprised to see so many people ready to dismiss the 2014 Renault. Don't forget that Renault already have turbo experience.

Yes, that is true, but let's remember that Renault were well down the pecking order in terms of power and reliability when turbo engines were last used in Formula 1.  They may have pioneered turbo technology in the late 1970s, been the first turbo engined team to win a race, and arguably should have won the 1983 world championship with Prost, but their engine became increasingly less competitive and more unreliable throughout the 1980s.

I'm not suggesting that the performance difference between Renault and Mercedes and Ferrari will be anything like the gap between the Renault turbo of the 1980s and the Tag Porsche and Honda engines, but I do expect them to start the season on the back foot somewhat.

[Jericoke]

[quote author=Irisado link=topic=17985.msg108387#msg108387 I'm not suggesting that the performance difference between Renault and Mercedes and Ferrari will be anything like the gap between the Renault turbo of the 1980s and the Tag Porsche and Honda engines, but I do expect them to start the season on the back foot somewhat.
[/quote]

That's one of the things that bothers me most with modern F1.  The engines aren't allowed to evolve any more.  They show up with engines at race one, and they use the exact same design the last day of the season.

Now that the engines have new designs and limited testing windows (RBR has shown quite clearly that there's a world of difference between benchmarking an engine and putting it in a real car), what can be done by Renault, and their partners, is limited to the point where they might wonder why they bother showing up for the European part of the season  (I hope not... but it's not impossible).

[Scott]

But Jeri, I thought you generally agree to cost savings...there is nothing more expensive than engine development.

[Jericoke]

But Jeri, I thought you generally agree to cost savings...there is nothing more expensive than engine development.

I agree that F1 doesn't have enough strong teams to allow unlimited budgets, and that mechanisms must be in place to let teams grow.

But paying for a losing engine isn't helping anyone.

[John S]

But Jeri, I thought you generally agree to cost savings...there is nothing more expensive than engine development.

I agree that F1 doesn't have enough strong teams to allow unlimited budgets, and that mechanisms must be in place to let teams grow.

But paying for a losing engine isn't helping anyone.

Hey they can't all win Jeri - or even get guaranteed regular points - that'd spoil the game. 

 

[Irisado]

All teams have paid for losing engines down the years, so to speak.  It's also worth pointing out, when referring specifically to fiscal costs, that some of the manufacturer (free) engines were worse than customer (paid) engines.  Just ask Eddie Jordan about those Yamaha motors from 1992 .

The broader point about engine development is one I agree with, I'd like to see it return, but the only way it could is if the teams were given more money from other sources to pay for, and that's not going to happen while Ecclestone and CVC remain in charge.

[John S]

The broader point about engine development is one I agree with, I'd like to see it return, but the only way it could is if the teams were given more money from other sources to pay for, and that's not going to happen while Ecclestone and CVC remain in charge.

Well according to Christian Sylt, on Pitpass.com see below, the teams get substantially more money now from CVC than they ever did.

However this bigger amount doesn't necessarily percolate down fully to the lower reaches of the grid, Sylt doesn't rationalise this part of the new deal, but the total payout is impressively much larger.

I guess in the sense of the lower part of the grid your comment's valid Irisado, but the bigger teams get substantially more now.

"In 2012 the teams' prize money came to Ģ450.7m ($751.8m) which is over four times more than the Ģ103.9m ($173.4m) they took home in 2005. Likewise, their global footprint has grown as new races in wealthy nations such as Singapore, Russia and Abu Dhabi have been added to the calendar under CVC's watch.

True, this is largely down to F1's chief executive Bernie Ecclestone but CVC threw its support behind him from the moment that it became a shareholder so it too has played a significant part. Crucially, the teams don't just get increased exposure from the new races but more money too. Their prize money comes from a 63% share of F1's underlying profits which is more than double the cut that they previously received. It means that the more high-paying races which are added to the calendar, the more the teams benefit."   
Extract from longer article about CVC's positive involvement in F1 on Pitpass.com, Today.

[Irisado]

It's true that's more than I thought, but I maintain that they should still receive more.  Note that I am particularly talking about the midfield and lower grid teams when I say that.  The top teams don't really need additional funding.