**** American Grand Prix ***** (contains spoilers)
Discussion
Didn't get to watch qualifying but that must be an awesome lap by Nico. I don't think Lewis will be panicking yet but it certainly looks like we have a race. Can't wait for tomorrow, let's hope Nico and Lewis go at it from lap 2 or 3 all the way to the end with a good, hard (but clean) race. Having brake issues isn't going to help Lewis make the pass on track.
Crafty
Think Bernie has just read the latest report on autosport http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116578 & sh1 t a brick.
Massive egg on face if Lotus/Sauber/Force India pack up tonight, & he knows it.
After 2 team failures in 1 week, he has to act, & his pockets are VERY deep if that is the most imaginative solution he can come up with (or maybe the ONLY solution)
Think Bernie has just read the latest report on autosport http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116578 & sh1 t a brick.
Massive egg on face if Lotus/Sauber/Force India pack up tonight, & he knows it.
After 2 team failures in 1 week, he has to act, & his pockets are VERY deep if that is the most imaginative solution he can come up with (or maybe the ONLY solution)
Why would Bernie "s
t a brick" ?
Lotus have already said they are racing, Lopez claims to have been unaware of any boycott.
Kaltenborn was asked by Sky about a boycott and replied "I don't know what you are talking about". They've got Sutil in P10, if they can hold that position and do the same next week or at the last race they beat Marussia to 9th, worth quite a bit of money.
That leaves Force India. If they really want to boycott, they can. What will they achieve ? very little.
If all teams boycotted, that'd be different.
I think Fernley has been stirring it.
The press conference later will be a "we'll work on the problems". You never know, Bernie may throw them some more money as short term help.
Longer term they need to have all the teams agree to equal share of prize money. Should be an interesting conversation that.
ETA:
Will Buxton @willbuxton 4m4 minutes ago
So Lotus aren't boycotting, Sauber never had any intention of doing so, and Mallya already said yesterday Force India would be racing.
Will Buxton @willbuxton 4m4 minutes ago
Sounds like the only person boycotting anything is Bob Fernley.
t a brick" ?Lotus have already said they are racing, Lopez claims to have been unaware of any boycott.
Kaltenborn was asked by Sky about a boycott and replied "I don't know what you are talking about". They've got Sutil in P10, if they can hold that position and do the same next week or at the last race they beat Marussia to 9th, worth quite a bit of money.
That leaves Force India. If they really want to boycott, they can. What will they achieve ? very little.
If all teams boycotted, that'd be different.
I think Fernley has been stirring it.
The press conference later will be a "we'll work on the problems". You never know, Bernie may throw them some more money as short term help.
Longer term they need to have all the teams agree to equal share of prize money. Should be an interesting conversation that.
ETA:
Will Buxton @willbuxton 4m4 minutes ago
So Lotus aren't boycotting, Sauber never had any intention of doing so, and Mallya already said yesterday Force India would be racing.
Will Buxton @willbuxton 4m4 minutes ago
Sounds like the only person boycotting anything is Bob Fernley.
Edited by Crafty_ on Saturday 1st November 20:45
Fernley hasn't explicitly said they are boycotting, as far as I'm aware. Just said nothing is off the table, and hasn't denied a boycott. The media are giving it a good stir as always though, which is presumably exactly what those 3 teams want.
Probably a good idea, just very bad timing given that there is a Sauber in the top 10 and FI are still reasonably close to McLaren in the constructors.
Probably a good idea, just very bad timing given that there is a Sauber in the top 10 and FI are still reasonably close to McLaren in the constructors.
The new concorde agreement hasn't been signed yet as far as I can tell, and the way things look now it wont be anytime soon.
When you have a financial pot so large to be shared out, there should be no reason why you cant have a healthy sport with full grids, but as it currently works its an impossibility to be sustainable, when the lower teams may not receive a single penny from that pot.
You also have the current situation where not all the teams can even sit in on the discussions about the future direction, that seems very short sighted.
It was interesting to note that in sports like American Football, all the teams receive the same money from the pot generated via TV rights etc, if they wish to they can then generate more money from sponsors etc. With that kind of model there should be no problem with having more small teams. You will still have the big spenders winning, but at least the small spenders wont be at the mercy of the whims of an owners finances or be trading on the basis that their suppliers can pay for it when they go bust.
The current situation where you have Ferrari getting hundreds of millions, just because they are Ferrari is borked, no matter how you try and dress it up. They have the exposure and image to generate money anyway.
Teams also need to stop spending more than they have, if you had a model that gave all the teams the same slice of the pot, there can then be no issue with an audit taking place which makes sure the teams don't spend more than they have, if they do they simply lose their franchise and another team can enter. If the pot is big enough to sustain a team, you will have people queuing up to become the next franchise.
The current financial model is broken, now they can either decide to change it, or the sport is about to change enormously over the coming winter. Place your bets!
Getting back to the racing, Nico did a superb job in Qualy, should make for an interesting race up front hopefully.
When you have a financial pot so large to be shared out, there should be no reason why you cant have a healthy sport with full grids, but as it currently works its an impossibility to be sustainable, when the lower teams may not receive a single penny from that pot.
You also have the current situation where not all the teams can even sit in on the discussions about the future direction, that seems very short sighted.
It was interesting to note that in sports like American Football, all the teams receive the same money from the pot generated via TV rights etc, if they wish to they can then generate more money from sponsors etc. With that kind of model there should be no problem with having more small teams. You will still have the big spenders winning, but at least the small spenders wont be at the mercy of the whims of an owners finances or be trading on the basis that their suppliers can pay for it when they go bust.
The current situation where you have Ferrari getting hundreds of millions, just because they are Ferrari is borked, no matter how you try and dress it up. They have the exposure and image to generate money anyway.
Teams also need to stop spending more than they have, if you had a model that gave all the teams the same slice of the pot, there can then be no issue with an audit taking place which makes sure the teams don't spend more than they have, if they do they simply lose their franchise and another team can enter. If the pot is big enough to sustain a team, you will have people queuing up to become the next franchise.
The current financial model is broken, now they can either decide to change it, or the sport is about to change enormously over the coming winter. Place your bets!
Getting back to the racing, Nico did a superb job in Qualy, should make for an interesting race up front hopefully.
jsf said:
The new concorde agreement hasn't been signed yet as far as I can tell, and the way things look now it wont be anytime soon.
Concorde was signed last year for 2013-2020 by all teams. Lauda was bought in to Merc to help with sorting out the contract as Merc were struggling with Bernie.
ETA: Bernie has apparently said he will lower his cut if the big four do too and give the money to the smaller teams.
Just some bits of info to add:
Byron Young @byronf1 29m29 minutes ago
Historic day already as far as I am concerned. Bernie has offered to give up some of his F1 revenue if the leading teams will do the same
Ian Parkes @ianparkesf1 · 31m 31 minutes ago
Bernie claims he is hamstrung by regulations and contracts with the teams. If he had his way he would rip up all contracts and start again
Ian Parkes @ianparkesf1 · 26m 26 minutes ago
The bottom line for Bernie re finances: "The people involved in F1 who want to look after the sport will have to make sacrifices."
Ian Parkes @ianparkesf1 · 17m 17 minutes ago
. @andrewbensonf1 @virtualstatman -and here's his response "There is too much money probably being distributed badly - probably my fault."
Ian Parkes @ianparkesf1
, @virtualstatman - One idea is teams give up percentage of performance-related payments, he would match and give to small teams but no dice
Ball is in your court Merc, RB, Ferrari, McLaren.
Edited by Crafty_ on Saturday 1st November 22:36
Adam Cooper @adamcooperF1 1m1 minute ago
'@TheVijayMallya is in an optimistic mood after Bernie promised both him and Monisha K that he will address the $$$ distribution issue
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/210453/1/ecclestone-f...
'@TheVijayMallya is in an optimistic mood after Bernie promised both him and Monisha K that he will address the $$$ distribution issue
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/210453/1/ecclestone-f...
Gaz. said:
That said, if Force India collapse that is $26m per year they won't get back and a third car would cost them a further $30m per year..
care to explain how you cam up with that figure?making 3rd car costs peanuts compared to the first one, it's the developement that costs the money, once you have the first, duplicating it is just a matter of production, the only hard expense will the the powertrain, and that's the same deal for the engine makers, they then have more units to spread the costs over
Ensuring the survival of the small teams is obviously a good thing but they'll still trundle around at the back of the field if the big teams have virtually unlimited amounts of money to spend, money that doesn't come from F1 or sponsors.
Making the sport horrendously complicated and the regulations so tight doesn't help either. True innovation is effectively banned, instead the teams spend millions chasing each thousanth of a second advantage through infinitesimal improvements. The small teams can't afford it and the viewing public aren't interested in it.
Making the sport horrendously complicated and the regulations so tight doesn't help either. True innovation is effectively banned, instead the teams spend millions chasing each thousanth of a second advantage through infinitesimal improvements. The small teams can't afford it and the viewing public aren't interested in it.
RYH64E said:
Ensuring the survival of the small teams is obviously a good thing but they'll still trundle around at the back of the field if the big teams have virtually unlimited amounts of money to spend, money that doesn't come from F1 or sponsors.
Making the sport horrendously complicated and the regulations so tight doesn't help either. True innovation is effectively banned, instead the teams spend millions chasing each thousanth of a second advantage through infinitesimal improvements. The small teams can't afford it and the viewing public aren't interested in it.
The richest team in the pit lane has not always been the winner. It is often the best managed team that gets the extra couple of thousandths. Ferrari, which at times has had call on double the amount the teams that beat them have had access to, had their most successful period when the team was best managed.Making the sport horrendously complicated and the regulations so tight doesn't help either. True innovation is effectively banned, instead the teams spend millions chasing each thousanth of a second advantage through infinitesimal improvements. The small teams can't afford it and the viewing public aren't interested in it.
The fact that teams have to spend £millions for a slight advantage means that the lesser teams, despite a small R&D budget, can stay within shouting distance of those with money to spend. They can then copy what the big teams do.
The previous years have shown that big teams, despite their money, can take a wrong turn. For a few races, or even a season, the lesser teams can challenge.
In all sports there are those who take part without hope of winning. Tell me about it. There has to be a way of gaining experience.
Further, when the 107% rule was brought in there was a nashing of teeth from the smaller teams, suggesting that they would struggle. And they did. Yet I can't remember the last time a specific car was eliminated due to falling outside the limit. So something has improved from the 'good old days'.
Scuffers said:
care to explain how you cam up with that figure?
making 3rd car costs peanuts compared to the first one, it's the developement that costs the money, once you have the first, duplicating it is just a matter of production, the only hard expense will the the powertrain, and that's the same deal for the engine makers, they then have more units to spread the costs over
Then you need to get the third car to the track, have a bunch of engineers to look after it, carry more spares, buy more engines, more gearboxes, more fuel, more tyres etc.making 3rd car costs peanuts compared to the first one, it's the developement that costs the money, once you have the first, duplicating it is just a matter of production, the only hard expense will the the powertrain, and that's the same deal for the engine makers, they then have more units to spread the costs over
I agree to actually build a second or third car is relatively cheap, but to actually run it is no cheaper than the first.
Crafty_ said:
Then you need to get the third car to the track, have a bunch of engineers to look after it, carry more spares, buy more engines, more gearboxes, more fuel, more tyres etc.
I agree to actually build a second or third car is relatively cheap, but to actually run it is no cheaper than the first.
you don't need a 50% uplift in staff for a 3rd car, you maybe need 4 more people specific to it, the pit crew are already shared between the two cars, you don't need to increase the hostility staff count, management, etc.I agree to actually build a second or third car is relatively cheap, but to actually run it is no cheaper than the first.
Spares wise, they already carry more than a cars worth, the only real significant items are the powertrain and tub, and it;s not like the teams just run 2 tubs all year is it?
realistically, if worked out properly, I would suggest a 3rd car will actually cost an addition ~$10-15M, this is based on the engine makers spreading the costs of the engine deals over more units (thus individually they would be cheaper) and the same for the gearbox's, most teams already have spare tubs, making another one is not millions.
all that said, for a small team on the edge, it may well prove impossible, unless they can sell the 3rd seat for what it costs (or more).
As a concept, a 3rd car could be sponsored separately, and run for say a rookie championship points (and not score manufacturers points or count in places for manufacturers points etc).
Obviously just wild ideals, but it shows what could be done...
I would love to see grids of 36 cars again, and 11 teams running 3 cars would get there.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff