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

F1 Perspectives

Talk about the Teams & Drivers

Moderators: Lyria, Mafia, Lawrence, Administrator

F1 Perspectives

Postby Sakae on Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:53 pm

Aim of this tread is to consolidate various topics from different threads under one umbrella.

Formula 1’s major manufacturing teams are working to an agenda to streamline the sport and eliminate smaller independent outfits, Sauber team chief Monisha Kaltenborn has claimed.


It's late in 2014, and this sounds like a declaration of war between have, and have not. Whether this is a voice of desperation, feminine perspective, or calculated opening gambit to get this game into public eye and a peg up remains to be seen. Ecclestone will call his boss and ... well, stay tuned.
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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Sakae on Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:50 pm

Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport, however, reports that just as Red Bull mogul Dietrich Mateschitz is looking to cut funding to his second team Toro Rosso, the Faenza outfit could be able to lose its major sponsor Cepsa to the Real Madrid football team.
(GMM)

Not a big surprise, but there are increasing number of signs emerging, that owner is scaling down his flow of cash into F1. Expanded speculation (not too far fetched) included variant, in which Vettel's pay check was perhaps causing discomfort to him, and activation of the exit clause was rather well cultivated strategical training exercise, than just a random event.
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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Sakae on Tue Nov 11, 2014 5:11 pm

On subject of F1 existence, purpose, and self preservation...

I am uncertain who is among us on this forum expert on promoting luxury brands of automobiles, but Ferrari and Infiniti are in heavy predicament over their existence in F1, IMO (Merc use to be). Let me try an amateurish crack at it.

First, appreciation for product excellence is certainly not promoted by finishing in mid-cluster of "also run", whilst your competitor is dancing Moonlight Serenade in spotlight of TV cameras. Secondly, product differentiation is not promoted by Ferrari resembling Lotus, and the only difference between them is one is painted in RBG, and the other in red (lets ignore price).

Kaltenborn surely could understand fundamentals of that ridiculous mix we have now. For me first two points are of rather rudimentary nature and boring to argue about*, however thingies get somewhat more interesting, when we add just one point more for sake of simplicity, and that is self assertion, and how that will play out over the winter. What I fear is, that we will end up again with some convoluted compromise rather than core based fundamental change, front teams will be played against each other, and consequently next year will be even more messy than this one has been; but, it is our sport, and we will watch with hope that someone will inject some common sense into this.


_________

*My assumption is, that well off team using F1 as an advertising platform first, and sporting aspect is pushed back.
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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Mach on Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:44 pm

The political climate needs to be addressed first to get collaboration by all interested parties on;
- whether Small-Team crisis is really an issue
- unfreezing V6 formula
- Jules Bianchi potential lawsuit(s)
- declining TV viewership
- declining sponsorship companies and dollars
- Bernie Ecclestone's successor
- Number of cars per team to field going forward from 2015
- Concord agreement

: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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Sakae on Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:59 pm

Mach wrote:The political climate needs to be addressed first to get collaboration by all interested parties on;
- whether Small-Team crisis is really an issue
- unfreezing V6 formula
- Jules Bianchi potential lawsuit(s)
- declining TV viewership
- declining sponsorship companies and dollars
- Bernie Ecclestone's successor
- Number of cars per team to field going forward from 2015
- Concord agreement

:clint:


Pareto analysis will inevitably lead you to a principle of factor sparsity, or put it differently, identify and resolve 20% of your most pressing issues, and balance will be reduced to insignificance. Concorde Agreements cannot be touched without many people agreeing to that, so, I would not start with it. Based on principle better late than never, I would start with a business model on which F1 entity is based on, and in conjunction defining vision what F1 is, what kind of F1 we want in the future, and go from there, formulating subset strategies on those core principles. There is no point, as someone aptly noted the other day, to have a different plan every time there is a new interview conducted.
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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Lawrence on Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:32 pm

We have an engine thread to discuss engines (which are unfair), we have an budget cap thread to discuss budgets (which are also unfair). So what unfairness are we supposed to discuss here?
"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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Sakae on Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:55 pm

A lot of unfairness all over, so lets discuss fairness for a change. How about that? Joking aside, there is a lot cross-overs in some of those threads, so I though consolidation of various topics which do lead invariably into different directions could happen in here, but, I do not insist on it. Thread will die by natural causes, if no one will be interested.
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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Mach on Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:51 pm

Sakae wrote:
Mach wrote:The political climate needs to be addressed first to get collaboration by all interested parties on;
- whether Small-Team crisis is really an issue
- unfreezing V6 formula
- Jules Bianchi potential lawsuit(s)
- declining TV viewership
- declining sponsorship companies and dollars
- Bernie Ecclestone's successor
- Number of cars per team to field going forward from 2015
- Concord agreement

:clint:


Pareto analysis will inevitably lead you to a principle of factor sparsity, or put it differently, identify and resolve 20% of your most pressing issues, and balance will be reduced to insignificance. Concorde Agreements cannot be touched without many people agreeing to that, so, I would not start with it. Based on principle better late than never, I would start with a business model on which F1 entity is based on, and in conjunction defining vision what F1 is, what kind of F1 we want in the future, and go from there, formulating subset strategies on those core principles. There is no point, as someone aptly noted the other day, to have a different plan every time there is a new interview conducted.


You're missing the point Sakae. :tophat:

I just provided you the agenda for the next FIA & F1 meeting.

: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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Sakae on Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:04 am

Number of cars each team will have to field is an interesting sticking point. Figure that is floating around is about additional USD50M annually will be added to team's budget for carrying third car. Lauda meanwhile suggested, that this is foremost CVC's problem, not theirs. One can guess where is that hot potato heading. I am totally lost with time line to have this problem resolved, because I would have thought that a very substantial lead time is required to convert this idea into something materialistic which can stand on the grid and be competitive. Teams have optimized current operations, and expansion could be a huge monkey wrench between gears. It promises to be fun.

Clarification over cost alone for engines has obviously broader implications regarding level of voluntary budgets required to run and stay alive in F1 these days. Considering other fixed cost imposed upon teams (travel - Ecclestone, various regulatory devices and fees - FiA), it is obvious that annual expenditures below EUR150M is just an unrealistic dream, and for that money with current regulations might get a team just a point or two for having to bear designation "a back-marker". That's the state of 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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Lawrence on Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:41 pm

Sakae wrote:Figure that is floating around is about additional USD50M annually will be added to team's budget for carrying third car.


Yep. So why not just pull 20 or 30 million from the points fund of each the top four teams and move it to the poorer teams? Everyone gains. More to the point, they should have never set up a system where certain teams are regularly receiving significantly more money from Formula One than others. They do need a more equitable distribution of F1 money.

Lauda meanwhile suggested, that this is foremost CVC's problem, not theirs.


It is entirely CVCs problem. They own the rights to the series (but are not in charge of the rule making), make the profit from the series (900 million worth) and viewership is declining. It is their investment they need to protect in the long run.

They need to come up with a solution. I gather it is probably too late to do three car teams, so F1 needs to figure out how to save Caterham and Marussia. I suspect 20-40 million from CVC in each case would do the trick. Probably need to modify the payouts to the teams to be more equitable.

Anybow, they need to save F1 for 2015 and 2016, including balancing out the engines, but they also need to come up with a long-term sustainable future for F1, which is the bigger issue.
"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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Sakae on Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:46 pm

IMHO it takes intensive, and collaborative work for at least two full years before a successor will be ready with confidence to take over helm of F1 seamlessly after Ecclestone, who is now in blessed 84th year of his life, yet I do not see anyone by his side, visiting races, learning how paddock dynamics collude or resonate. If someone feels that F1 is under stress, just wait for trial and error years yet to come.
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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Paolo 2 on Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:07 pm

Lawrence wrote:We have an engine thread to discuss engines (which are unfair), we have an budget cap thread to discuss budgets (which are also unfair). So what unfairness are we supposed to discuss here?


Maybe we should discuss how unfair is a system that allows for so many unfair items to influence F1 :confused:
Paolo 2
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Lyria on Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:17 am

CVC should be protecting their investment and you're right Lawrence, they should be giving money to the smaller teams to help them survive, trouble is they've flatly refused to do so from what I read. So whatever happens now and however many teams we lose is down to them in a lot of ways. Bernie needs to shoulder a lot of blame too. It could end up being a very small grid next year if the three teams who are on the brink fall over the edge as well. Then what will they do?
User avatar
Lyria
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 17749
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 5:01 am
Location: England

Re: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Sakae on Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:59 am

I think momentum swung recently to a smaller grid, but where it is heading remains to be seen. Teams want to stay with two cars, and some promoters, notably the US man, who I think has Ecclestone's ear, is not too disturbed by possibility of F1 contraction. For years I have always felt that it fundamentally makes no difference to action at the front, whether there are twelve, or twenty-two cars. In a way, if anything, too many cars are hinderance to race flow and challenge at the front by inducing useless blockages, and that's not racing I like. Blue blood thoroughbreds, counting in total 12 to 16 cars are enough to produce an excellent race.
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: F1: FROM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE

Postby Lawrence on Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:31 pm

Paolo 2 wrote:
Lawrence wrote:We have an engine thread to discuss engines (which are unfair), we have an budget cap thread to discuss budgets (which are also unfair). So what unfairness are we supposed to discuss here?


Maybe we should discuss how unfair is a system that allows for so many unfair items to influence F1 :confused:


Well, the world is a very unfair place, but I would still like my F1 to primarily be a competition between drivers, teams, designers and crew chiefs. It is certianly not that at the moment.
"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

Next

Return to Formula One Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

cron

Copyright 1988-2011, Inside F1, Inc.