ad
Countdown to 2016 Australian Grandprix:
2016 Formula1 World Championship Calendar

Australia | Bahrain | China | Russia | Spain | Monaco | Canada | Baku | Austria | Great Britain | Hungary | Germany | Belgium | Italy | Singapore | Malaysia | Japan | USA | Mexico | Brazil | Abu Dhabi

FiA & F1

Talk about the Teams & Drivers

Moderators: Lyria, Mafia, Lawrence, Administrator

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Mach on Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:03 pm

Paolo 2 wrote:let's not forget that Williams used to be a hopeless backmarker in the 70s, or that what is now Lotus struggled for ages to get through pre-qualifying... they were given a chance, first of all a chance to compete, and then a chance to grow.


The difference between 1970's and current state of F1 is how much cheaper F1 was for a team to operate back then compared to now.

:clint:
:clint:
"We exercised our veto in compliance with our legitimate commercial right to do business as a powertrain manufacturer" Maurizio Arrivabene
User avatar
Mach
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:02 pm

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Paolo 2 on Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:02 am

Mach wrote:
Paolo 2 wrote:let's not forget that Williams used to be a hopeless backmarker in the 70s, or that what is now Lotus struggled for ages to get through pre-qualifying... they were given a chance, first of all a chance to compete, and then a chance to grow.


The difference between 1970's and current state of F1 is how much cheaper F1 was for a team to operate back then compared to now.

:clint:


and that's the whole point isn't it? have increased costs given us an improved show? no way! the main difference from "back then" is that a few people have benefitted, the money generated from the sport has been invested somewhere else and whereas in the good old days F1 (as for most other sports, let's be honest about it) had been used for some minor tax avoidance now many people believe that what lies behind some moves are fully fledged money laundering schemes. that's hardly progress
Paolo 2
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:10 am

Cost in F1 is driven by three factors. (1) Commercial owner's business model, (2) FiA, and (3) Regulations that set framework in which the teams operate. Cost and insolvency are effect, not a cause IMO. (Admittedly there is probably also some bad team management involved, but that's not a governing factor in this malaise. Sauber is well managed, and regulations are financial burden just as much for them as it is for Mercedes).Take just the latest, if you doubt me. On the technical side - flow monitoring sensors in the news this year. A British firm got a contract, good for them, cost of one is rumored to be heavenly, but fact is, RB has to pay for it just as Caterham had to. Was this device however really necessary and supportive of better F1 races? How would budget cap helped to decrease cost of that gadget? Nada, zilch.
We could go on and on, but at the end I can only repeat what I have posted some time ago, sometimes it is better (and less expensive) to burn all down, and start all over, than try to repair irreparable. With increasing frequency I think this series is ready for it. They should get rid of all people with so called `experience`, transfer proportional ownership to the teams that are actually investing some real (not on speculative basis) money in this sport, and get in thinking people with open mind with eye on a racing ball. On US sporting non-automotive scene there are some useful models to learn off (not necessarily NASCAR).
Last edited by Sakae on Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:07 am

Lawrence wrote:But there is another process here which I don't think Max Mosely and Bernie Ecclestone ever understood (and why I still fault them both for the current problem)...which was that if you are not growing...then you are dying. Teams come and go, nothing new there.


How ironic, as you are I think one of the defenders of engine freeze, which I do oppose.

Alain Prost on engine development freeze

“A total freeze as it is now is synonymous with stagnation,” Prost argued.


This post for benefit to all who argued that freeze is a "good-thing".
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lawrence on Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:48 pm

Sakae wrote:How ironic, as you are I think one of the defenders of engine freeze, which I do oppose.


No....I believe I freeing up engine design,car design and testing, but only if there is budget cap place. It is the absence of any cost control that leads to poor solutions like engine freezes.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:20 pm

I am not alone in disbelieving that budget cap, treated in isolation, is not a viable option for many reasons, main one perhaps is, that it will not solve the issue, but I now yield to others to make the case one way or another. I have written enough on that subject. In last post - with respect of a budget cap imposed upon expensive technology - sounds like a dream... I give up.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lawrence on Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:12 am

Well, unrestricted budget is probably unsustainable in the long run, and it appears most of the teams and people running F1 fear that option. So, instead we have a bizarre cost control system where engines are frozen, testing is limited, designs are restricted, etc. No seems quite happy with that (including neither you or I). Therefore, what is the third option?
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lyria on Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:13 pm

Looks like just the threat of a boycott and the unrest the teams are feeling was enough to spur CVC into action. Apparently they're going to shell out another £100 million to the smaller teams to help them balance the books. It's just a shame they let things get this bad before they did anything isn't it? What about Marussia and Caterham? Marussia might get some help as they still hope/plan to race in Abu Dhabi, the report didn't suggest Caterham would be in a position to do so.

Full story: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/n ... strugglers
User avatar
Lyria
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 17749
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:01 am
Location: England

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lawrence on Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:32 pm

Well, sometimes the peasants need to revolt !!!

Now they need to figure out how to make F1 sustainable, so that we have competive seasons and multiple competitive teams. In the early 1980s we had 7 teams that could win a GP on any given day (and 7 teams did win in 1982). We also had many promising start-ups. Now we have seasons where only 3 drivers win (vice 11 in 1982) and no start- up team has a chance unless the arrive with a billion dollar budget (like Red Bull did).

Time to produce real solutions.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:23 pm

I would ask different questions.

1. Do financially stable teams want their peers who can afford F1, or dreamers who do hope to make it on borrowed money?
2. Can anyone describe or define current business model?

During US event we have actually received partial answers. No to point 1 - Wolff, and hard to say - point 2. Ecclestone doesn't want beggars, so we heard, and he is OK with 14 cars on the track, so he stated as well. I would say then, if teams want to stay in pits in last two races, fine, so be it, no problem, and no grid license for them next year either.

It is now obvious that I have aversion to blackmailing, but it is clear that there have to be change in a business model, and regulation, that solves both issues of affordability, and competitiveness. (No to budget cap).
If Wolff wants to hold equipment advantage for next several years for one team and one driver, then I am all for RB and Ferrari to give notices and simply leave F1 as well.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Mach on Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:55 pm

Sakae wrote:I would ask different questions.

1. Do financially stable teams want their peers who can afford F1, or dreamers who do hope to make it on borrowed money?
2. Can anyone describe or define current business model?

During US event we have actually received partial answers. No to point 1 - Wolff, and hard to say - point 2. Ecclestone doesn't want beggars, so we heard, and he is OK with 14 cars on the track, so he stated as well. I would say then, if teams want to stay in pits in last two races, fine, so be it, no problem, and no grid license for them next year either.

It is now obvious that I have aversion to blackmailing, but it is clear that there have to be change in a business model, and regulation, that solves both issues of affordability, and competitiveness. (No to budget cap).
If Wolff wants to hold equipment advantage for next several years for one team and one driver, then I am all for RB and Ferrari to give notices and simply leave F1 as well.


Why are seasoned F1 fans the only people who know who the unstable financial teams are?

:clint:
:clint:
"We exercised our veto in compliance with our legitimate commercial right to do business as a powertrain manufacturer" Maurizio Arrivabene
User avatar
Mach
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:02 pm

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:58 am

It's not up to fans to change (improve) F1; we provide feedback in terms of viewership, but that's all. For F1 to survive on long term basis, it has to fundamentally change, instead just undergoing some minor cosmetic adjustments; that's an opinion, not an assessment, and I do hope there is more than one person who agree with that, however why some people prefer to emulate ostrich, one has to ask them.

Wolff said last week - I have no solution (to current situation), thus it is up to someone else to find one for him, and do I suspect massive fundamental changes in technical and sporting regulations is a good start (JT leading the assault), changes in business model is another (CVC ought to be leading that effort, since there is a lot of fixed cost involved). Car, based on simplicity of construction, can be less expensive, thus operating cost shall consequently decrease, especially if drivers get their money through personal external sponsorship. Team should pay only for business related expenses, and maybe 100k salary, and that's it. I would not object capping that limit for any driver in F1. If however a driver's sponsor(s) wants to pay another 20+ Mill to him, so be it. Changes in PU and several others regulatory impositions will be hard to crack for a while, yet they should try it nonetheless. (New PU was really expensive change, no doubt about it).

Itemized break down of cost indicates, that F1 is an expensive undertaking due to its nature, especially now when teams travel the Globe, and not too many entities can actually afford it, thus selection process of entrants should be under scrutiny as well. Looks like if a team cannot live on (voluntary, self controlled) budget of 150 Mill with some 800 Mill in piggy bank (escrow), one shouldn't get involved in this. For that money a team can survive five years with no championship to their credit, unless technical changes are implemented, and unshackled inventiveness - not regulatory avoidance, finds its way back into mainstream, and brainy technical guys with exceptional drivers will lead the pack again, winning on merit. Maybe some find fun doing that, who knows.

A modern German build road car is providing today an electronic feedback in the excess of one thousand parameters to the manufacturer/owner/insurance companies, etc. I am not convinced we need the same in F1.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lawrence on Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:34 pm

Well, looks like the peasant revolt got noticed. I gather the head of CVC is now directly involved. It is about time that CVC started looking after the long term health of its investment instead of trusting that incestuous collection of insiders like Ecclestone, Todt, Mosely and some of the team owners. In the end, viewership is down because the product has become less attractive.

Modern F1 (last 30 years) started with a major peasant revolt led by Bernie Ecclestone.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:34 pm

Lawrence wrote:Well, looks like the peasant revolt got noticed. I gather the head of CVC is now directly involved. It is about time that CVC started looking after the long term health of its investment instead of trusting that incestuous collection of insiders like Ecclestone, Todt, Mosely and some of the team owners. In the end, viewership is down because the product has become less attractive.

Modern F1 (last 30 years) started with a major peasant revolt led by Bernie Ecclestone.

Are you suggesting that CVC instead taking out some 47% or whatever the figure is, suddenly they will take only 1.5% which is about size of the return on your savings what bank gives you these days? Well, it's one way to address cash shortage back-markers are complaining about.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lawrence on Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:18 am

Sakae wrote:Are you suggesting that CVC instead taking out some 47% or whatever the figure is, suddenly they will take only 1.5% which is about size of the return on your savings what bank gives you these days? Well, it's one way to address cash shortage back-markers are complaining about.


Well, I doubt they would do anything that drastic, they are profit making company, their goal is to squeeze the consumer for every dime possible. I gather they are talking about moving some of the money from the bigger teams to the smaller teams, but may have to chip in some themselves to make it work. We shall see.

Clearly something needs to be done,because fields of 12 cars won't be good for business. Just a shame F1 can't solve their problems until they blow up on the world stage. At some point CVC has got to get tired of this business lurching from crisis to crisis.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

PreviousNext

Return to Formula One Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

Copyright 1988-2011, Inside F1, Inc.