Re: Haas F1
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:07 pm
Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.
bradtheboywonder wrote:This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?
Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?
moby wrote:bradtheboywonder wrote:This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?
Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?
I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.
I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.
I always assumed they had those votes anyway if they really wanted them. Much like Mercedes and their customers.mikeyg123 wrote:Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.
In that regard Renault has to have the worst bargaining power of any team, since their customers are both top teams with little need of discounts and strong agendas of their own. Both Ferrari customers and all the Merc customers are distinctly second-tier teams.Lotus49 wrote:I always assumed they had those votes anyway if they really wanted them. Much like Mercedes and their customers.mikeyg123 wrote:Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.
Always a deal to be done under the table regarding supply if you want something bad enough(Discount,Fuel,lubricant or Software upgrade etc..).
Agree for their current situation anyway,absolutely.Exediron wrote:In that regard Renault has to have the worst bargaining power of any team, since their customers are both top teams with little need of discounts and strong agendas of their own. Both Ferrari customers and all the Merc customers are distinctly second-tier teams.Lotus49 wrote:I always assumed they had those votes anyway if they really wanted them. Much like Mercedes and their customers.mikeyg123 wrote:Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.
Always a deal to be done under the table regarding supply if you want something bad enough(Discount,Fuel,lubricant or Software upgrade etc..).
paulsf1fix wrote:moby wrote:bradtheboywonder wrote:This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?
Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?
I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.
I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.
Red Bull won't be without an engine deal for 2019, they have links with Aston Martin and Honda.
Just a quick thought on Haas I am surprised that no blue-chip American company have come forward to sponsor them, I like to see them do well.
But neither Haas nor Sauber have a vote in the F1 Strategy Group. And Ferrari have their infamous veto anyway. Thankfully I don't see how this arrangement further strengthens their political power within the sport, I think it is just for marketing purposes.mikeyg123 wrote:Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.
They threaten to pull out and it seriously effects almost a third of the grid. Look at the extra power Having STR got Red Bull. Bernie bribed them to leave FOTA. With two teams the result of a pull out is more severe so the threat has to be taken more seriously.j man wrote:But neither Haas nor Sauber have a vote in the F1 Strategy Group. And Ferrari have their infamous veto anyway. Thankfully I don't see how this arrangement further strengthens their political power within the sport, I think it is just for marketing purposes.mikeyg123 wrote:Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.
Yeah it would be in their best interest not to supply more teams. Didn’t see it that way. I was seeing it from an alternate world, where they might offer 4 teams Ferrari Engines, 4 teams Alfa Engines and 4 teams Maserati Engines* and have a monopoly on votes etc. But yeah, that would mean that they’re building 24 Engines from the same place, which would be a nightmare.moby wrote:bradtheboywonder wrote:This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?
Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?
I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.
I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.
Having a junior team is arguably an effort to do just thatReservoirDog wrote:Maybe Ferrari should spend more effort on winning a title than creating 10 baby-Ferraris.
Well according to Gene Haas that is by design. Not only are they getting their PUs from Ferrari but also a lot of their suspension components and running gear. Gene is quoted as saying "Take the steering rack. It's incredibly complex. If we decide to design our own, we need designers, engineers, test equipment... and if you make it perfect, you wind up with the same steering rack as Ferrari. Steering racks are already at such a high level there are really no gains to be made."sandman1347 wrote:I think the paddock will be a bit upset by Haas though. It appears that the 2018 Haas and the 2017 Ferrari have quite a lot in common...
Exaggerate much?ReservoirDog wrote:Maybe Ferrari should spend more effort on winning a title than creating 10 baby-Ferraris.
Historically not. Or nothing similar to the pattern between Ferrari and Sauber.Blake wrote:Exaggerate much?ReservoirDog wrote:Maybe Ferrari should spend more effort on winning a title than creating 10 baby-Ferraris.
All the whining here and in the pre-race broadcast, trying to make more out of this Haas/Ferrari relationship than there is is actually funny. Extra votes, last years Ferrari car. A "junior team" is hardly a new idea is it? As for the three Ferrari engined teams... as was said earlier, do you not think Mercedes did not have "votes" from their engine customers? Seriously?
Infidelity wrote:If at first you don't force a VSC, try again.
Re: Ferrari Haas, Aus GP 2018
I don't mind which multimillionaire wins a Formula 1 race. But it is what it is.Blake wrote:[tweet][/tweet]Infidelity wrote:If at first you don't force a VSC, try again.
Re: Ferrari Haas, Aus GP 2018
Don't choke on those sour grapes.
Apparently so....mikeyg123 wrote:Does anyone seriously believe Haas threw this race?
Ofcourse not otherwise what was the point of winter testing. The blame put on Haas a few comments back is way too far to accept.mikeyg123 wrote:Does anyone seriously believe Haas threw this race?
Blake wrote:[tweet][/tweet]Infidelity wrote:If at first you don't force a VSC, try again.
Re: Ferrari Haas, Aus GP 2018
Don't choke on those sour grapes.
I think there are several tin hats floating about in this thread to say yes to that one...mikeyg123 wrote:Does anyone seriously believe Haas threw this race?
Well, I don't. The conspiracy theory IMO is wild and far off the mark. I have to admit I thought the same about crashgate, though.mikeyg123 wrote:Does anyone seriously believe Haas threw this race?
Infidelity wrote:If at first you don't force a VSC, try again.
Re: Ferrari Haas, Aus GP 2018
Agree with you on Crashgate, but I just can't believe this one. First off, I don't think Haas would do it. It would destroy their image forever if it gets out, it would be ridiculously hard to keep under wraps, and it cost them a chance to get some wonderful publicity by finishing the first race in 2nd in the WCC.Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, I don't. The conspiracy theory IMO is wild and far off the mark. I have to admit I thought the same about crashgate, though.mikeyg123 wrote:Does anyone seriously believe Haas threw this race?
Mort Canard wrote:Cell phone: Ring, Ring....
Hello, this is Gunther.
Gunther, it's Maurizio. We need a safety car. Can you screw up a wheel attachment on Roman's pit stop?
Aw man, we just lost Kevin. Don't ask me to take Roman out of the race just so you can leapfrog Lewis on your pit strategy.
Gunther! Do you want the latest software to go with your Ferrari engines for the rest of the year?
Aw come on Maurizio, don't do that to me!!!!!
Do it Gunther!!!
Yes sir!! (Click)
I agree.Exediron wrote:Agree with you on Crashgate, but I just can't believe this one. First off, I don't think Haas would do it. It would destroy their image forever if it gets out, it would be ridiculously hard to keep under wraps, and it cost them a chance to get some wonderful publicity by finishing the first race in 2nd in the WCC.Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, I don't. The conspiracy theory IMO is wild and far off the mark. I have to admit I thought the same about crashgate, though.mikeyg123 wrote:Does anyone seriously believe Haas threw this race?
Now, how it really did happen is a question that may lead to heads rolling. But I don't buy the conspiracy theory for a second.