**** American Grand Prix ***** (contains spoilers)
Discussion
The team principal's press conference makes for interesting and sobering reading:
http://www.fia.com/news/2014-united-states-grand-p...
http://www.fia.com/news/2014-united-states-grand-p...
thegreenhell said:
The team principal's press conference makes for interesting and sobering reading:
http://www.fia.com/news/2014-united-states-grand-p...
Thanks for posting - between Bernie's interview and this transcript you have to feel there'll be more action behind the scenes than on the track this weekend. Overall not a very clever position to be in as it's not the first time the F1 circus has arrived in the States looking like a bunch of amateurs who can't get it together.http://www.fia.com/news/2014-united-states-grand-p...
thegreenhell said:
The team principal's press conference makes for interesting and sobering reading:
http://www.fia.com/news/2014-united-states-grand-p...
That was a depressing 15-minute read.http://www.fia.com/news/2014-united-states-grand-p...
We've got the same massive disagreement between the top teams and the also-rans, one that is fostered by the organisation of the sport. We have valid arguments from each side which cannot be sorted under the present arrangements.
The top teams are not going to vote for lower funding for them and considerably higher for the smaller teams. The reason they are in the sport is to win and make money. Or do I mean make money and win?
The business model is failing and at the moment it appears nothing is being done about it. The top teams are the ones on the decision-making panels and the lesser teams are told.
The richest teams get more money. To an extent I can understand and support this: there has to be reward for winning, but the balance - well, there is no balance.
There used to be feeder series for the sport but these have, for whatever reason - it's another thread - been removed so the lesser teams have to learn as they go along. The massive budgets required just to get a car on the grid are a nonsense.
The sport has never been more competitive. Who can remember the last time the 107% rule was enforced?
There was open criticism of the creaming off that CVC do in the press conference. It is unfortunate that Ferrari were not present to put their point of view as, despite being also-rans, they also run the sport to a great extent.
Mention was made of the cost-cutting solution of running smaller engines actually coming in at significantly higher costs. It has happened time and again. Change costs, and is probably one of the most significant costs around.
F1 is falling apart and all Ecclestone finds to complain about is the sound of the engine.
Both the press conference and the Ecclestone interview were depressing for different reasons. At least in one of them the future of the sport was a subject of some concern.
vonuber said:
Typical Guardian. "Any boycott would bring back memories of the 2005 US Grand Prix at Indianapolis. Only six cars raced after seven of the teams decided to pull out of the race after completing the first lap as they protested against unsafe tyres." Absolute b
ks. They were told they COULD NOT race by Michelin and that they might be exposed to criminal liability if they did. However, it's true that if the smaller teams did boycott then it would be immensely embarrassing for Bernie. But I really don't think he gives a s
t any more (if he ever did, that is).
JonRB said:
If you didn't catch the interview, Sky have just posted it.
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/95...
Just typical Bernie misdirection. You can actually see the moment he decides to stop answering Ted's questions and change the direction and start answering questions that were not even asked.http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/95...
Politicians do it all the time, and they do it somewhat better.
vonuber said:
My reading between the lines is "we want more money". thegreenhell said:
The team principal's press conference makes for interesting and sobering reading:
http://www.fia.com/news/2014-united-states-grand-p...
Interesting stuff. Thanks for that. http://www.fia.com/news/2014-united-states-grand-p...
Jasandjules said:
My reading between the lines is "we want more money".
Yes and no. The smaller teams not only receive less money but they have higher costs. The teams get perks like free air freight once they get a certain number of points. They get paid just for turning up when they get a certain number of points. Things like that. So for the smaller teams their fixed costs are higher right from the beginning. And their income stream is smaller. It's massively skewed. The Hypno-Toad said:
Just seen that Bernie interview.....
He has lost the fking plot. He looks like doddling old man who should be in a care home worrying about his cocoa. To me he looks very ill, if you look at his bottom lip it's trembling all the time and he is hanging onto that Golf cart for dear life.
I said on another thread I was very worried about what might happen to the sport over the close season. I'm now very worried about what might happen to it over this weekend. Surely he can't think that he can run this sport with just the big five teams? I mean if you wanted to look on the dark side you could say;
Red Bull & Torro Rosso - they make fizzy drinks and it's a marketing exercise. If taking part in F1 doesn't make them sell fizzy drinks then they pull the plug.
Williams - bearly has enough cash to keep going now. Have nearly gone down the pan several times and personally I think the only reason they are around today is that Bernie loves Frank.
Mclaren - no title sponsor and have clearly been short of cash for a number of years. A few years ago Ron would have spent his way out of trouble by hiring the best designers, that is obviously no longer an option. Now he's in bed with Honda who have not the most consistent record of staying in F1 when times get tough and must be looking at the what's gone on in the last month thinking "what the juddering duck have we got ourselves into?"
So that only leaves two teams, Ferrari and Mercedes and no matter how Bernie & Sky might try to hype it, that's not really a sport.
As for the rumours about Audi coming in or even Fred & Lewis setting up their own teams, would you? If you were a CEO of a Fortune 500 company would you even think about suggesting that F1 was something you should be involved in as a sponsor? The board would think you were cuckoo for coco pops.
This morning we could be looking at the end game for our sport. Somebody needs to lean in, take the keys out of Bernies hands and say, "Sorry sir, we don't believe you are in fit condition to drive anymore,"
The above post probably makes no sense at all because it's two in the morning, I've got terrible insomnia and it's on my IPhone.
Pretty sure Williams are profit making, so you lost me there. He has lost the f
king plot. He looks like doddling old man who should be in a care home worrying about his cocoa. To me he looks very ill, if you look at his bottom lip it's trembling all the time and he is hanging onto that Golf cart for dear life. I said on another thread I was very worried about what might happen to the sport over the close season. I'm now very worried about what might happen to it over this weekend. Surely he can't think that he can run this sport with just the big five teams? I mean if you wanted to look on the dark side you could say;
Red Bull & Torro Rosso - they make fizzy drinks and it's a marketing exercise. If taking part in F1 doesn't make them sell fizzy drinks then they pull the plug.
Williams - bearly has enough cash to keep going now. Have nearly gone down the pan several times and personally I think the only reason they are around today is that Bernie loves Frank.
Mclaren - no title sponsor and have clearly been short of cash for a number of years. A few years ago Ron would have spent his way out of trouble by hiring the best designers, that is obviously no longer an option. Now he's in bed with Honda who have not the most consistent record of staying in F1 when times get tough and must be looking at the what's gone on in the last month thinking "what the juddering duck have we got ourselves into?"
So that only leaves two teams, Ferrari and Mercedes and no matter how Bernie & Sky might try to hype it, that's not really a sport.
As for the rumours about Audi coming in or even Fred & Lewis setting up their own teams, would you? If you were a CEO of a Fortune 500 company would you even think about suggesting that F1 was something you should be involved in as a sponsor? The board would think you were cuckoo for coco pops.
This morning we could be looking at the end game for our sport. Somebody needs to lean in, take the keys out of Bernies hands and say, "Sorry sir, we don't believe you are in fit condition to drive anymore,"
The above post probably makes no sense at all because it's two in the morning, I've got terrible insomnia and it's on my IPhone.
REALIST123 said:
Bernie's done though, isn't he? He comes across as nothing more than a senile old man, who doesn't have a clue any more about what his business is and where his customers are.
He really should go now, before it's too late.
Thats exactly what he thinks you want to think.He really should go now, before it's too late.
Edited by REALIST123 on Saturday 1st November 09:18
Boycott - Don't believe it for a minute. The teams are instantly in breach of contract and would be held to it.
Aside from that look at the WCC:
Force India trying to beat McLaren, they need every point they can get. If the McLarens are going to be unsettled by crosswinds (as Button said after FP2) they might be in with a shout of doing something here.
Sauber have a chance of beating Marussia to 9th, thats going to be worth quite a bit of money
Lotus are still struggling, but Lopez claims to be unaware of the situation. In any case, no team is going to go it alone on this.
Whilst Bob Fernley is one of the longest serving guys in the pit lane he does like to stir it every so often.
The Team Principals press conference - Its interesting that all the points of view/opinions are quite correct - everyone has a valid point, even if they contradict each other.
VJ's point on the diminishing returns is interesting, but he's comparing a spec series to a prototype series.
The two class series is worth considering, but I don't recall a series that had two classes run to the same rules (e.g. car spec, driver status etc). Is a two tier F1 what we want ? Would the B class have to be run to different rules to make it cheaper ? dare I say a spec class that allows cheap entry so a team can get established and then move to the A class ? Does that negate the point of GP2/WSR ?
Until the teams, FOM, FIA all agree to stop thinking of themselves and sit down to work something out I don't see much changing.
Such short sighted reasoning in that press conference-it's a joke 
Dead simple solution;
You buy an entry into F1 for £X
This gives you 6 power units from any manufacturer
Air freight to all races
Any basic chassis from any manufacturer
Any tyres you want
As much fuel as you need from any manufacturer
Anything else is up to you.
Any manufacturer, be it chassis, fuel engines etc must sell their product to F1 for a fixed fee.
F1 then sell this package on to the teams for a fixed fee, no dealing direct with the manufacturer themselves.
To stop a 2015 season of Mercedes chassis & engine clones, each team has to purchase & choose their components 1 year in advance, plus each manufacturer only need supply X amount of teams, say no more than 3 (if their are enough manufactures around-more if necessary).
Dead simple solution;
You buy an entry into F1 for £X
This gives you 6 power units from any manufacturer
Air freight to all races
Any basic chassis from any manufacturer
Any tyres you want
As much fuel as you need from any manufacturer
Anything else is up to you.
Any manufacturer, be it chassis, fuel engines etc must sell their product to F1 for a fixed fee.
F1 then sell this package on to the teams for a fixed fee, no dealing direct with the manufacturer themselves.
To stop a 2015 season of Mercedes chassis & engine clones, each team has to purchase & choose their components 1 year in advance, plus each manufacturer only need supply X amount of teams, say no more than 3 (if their are enough manufactures around-more if necessary).
Crafty_ said:
Thats exactly what he thinks you want to think.
Boycott - Don't believe it for a minute. The teams are instantly in breach of contract and would be held to it.
Aside from that look at the WCC:
Force India trying to beat McLaren, they need every point they can get. If the McLarens are going to be unsettled by crosswinds (as Button said after FP2) they might be in with a shout of doing something here.
Sauber have a chance of beating Marussia to 9th, thats going to be worth quite a bit of money
Lotus are still struggling, but Lopez claims to be unaware of the situation. In any case, no team is going to go it alone on this.
Whilst Bob Fernley is one of the longest serving guys in the pit lane he does like to stir it every so often.
The Team Principals press conference - Its interesting that all the points of view/opinions are quite correct - everyone has a valid point, even if they contradict each other.
VJ's point on the diminishing returns is interesting, but he's comparing a spec series to a prototype series.
The two class series is worth considering, but I don't recall a series that had two classes run to the same rules (e.g. car spec, driver status etc). Is a two tier F1 what we want ? Would the B class have to be run to different rules to make it cheaper ? dare I say a spec class that allows cheap entry so a team can get established and then move to the A class ? Does that negate the point of GP2/WSR ?
Until the teams, FOM, FIA all agree to stop thinking of themselves and sit down to work something out I don't see much changing.
Ecclestone doesn't care what 'we' think. He wants to keep up the value of F1 for the sell off. I can see no evidence of any other motive.Boycott - Don't believe it for a minute. The teams are instantly in breach of contract and would be held to it.
Aside from that look at the WCC:
Force India trying to beat McLaren, they need every point they can get. If the McLarens are going to be unsettled by crosswinds (as Button said after FP2) they might be in with a shout of doing something here.
Sauber have a chance of beating Marussia to 9th, thats going to be worth quite a bit of money
Lotus are still struggling, but Lopez claims to be unaware of the situation. In any case, no team is going to go it alone on this.
Whilst Bob Fernley is one of the longest serving guys in the pit lane he does like to stir it every so often.
The Team Principals press conference - Its interesting that all the points of view/opinions are quite correct - everyone has a valid point, even if they contradict each other.
VJ's point on the diminishing returns is interesting, but he's comparing a spec series to a prototype series.
The two class series is worth considering, but I don't recall a series that had two classes run to the same rules (e.g. car spec, driver status etc). Is a two tier F1 what we want ? Would the B class have to be run to different rules to make it cheaper ? dare I say a spec class that allows cheap entry so a team can get established and then move to the A class ? Does that negate the point of GP2/WSR ?
Until the teams, FOM, FIA all agree to stop thinking of themselves and sit down to work something out I don't see much changing.
As for two classes: it's been done before of course. Turbos and normally aspirated. It added to the grid, didn't upset the manufacturers and gave the impression the sport was healthy.
GP2 is a driver route and has little use for a team. We have enough drivers, we are short of teams. The initiatives need to help the expertise in designing chassis, aero and all the other gubbins. At the moment it is straight into the maelstrom.
The main problem is that most of the viewing public would not be bothered with a spec series. The cars look similar enough to seasoned F1 nerds, so it will make little difference in the end. I doubt this will suit those in authority as the benefits of having rich manufacturers populating the paddock will be lost.
That doesn't solve anything. If you allow unlimited development the big teams will spend hundreds of millions on R&D.
Mercedes can afford that.
Sauber cannot.
Mercedes will win lots of races.
Sauber won't.
Aside from that the teams can already buy engines, suspension setups, drivetrains from other teams, there is a limit on how many teams an engine manufacturer can supply. Why does tying this in to the entry solve anything ?
Engine/Chassis/Fuel supply as part of a package precludes corporate deals - e.g. Petronas sponsor Mercedes and supply the fuel. If the only way to get fuel is through the entry package Merc just lost a sponsor.
Mercedes can afford that.
Sauber cannot.
Mercedes will win lots of races.
Sauber won't.
Aside from that the teams can already buy engines, suspension setups, drivetrains from other teams, there is a limit on how many teams an engine manufacturer can supply. Why does tying this in to the entry solve anything ?
Engine/Chassis/Fuel supply as part of a package precludes corporate deals - e.g. Petronas sponsor Mercedes and supply the fuel. If the only way to get fuel is through the entry package Merc just lost a sponsor.
Clearly the current "points mean prizes" regime has some merit, as it gives the lower teams something to compete for. But I think there has to be some sort of redistribution of the money pot and the perks, so that the smallest teams don't go under.
As I said yesterday, their fixed costs are higher than the richer teams and their income lower. So they're hamstrung from the start.
As I said yesterday, their fixed costs are higher than the richer teams and their income lower. So they're hamstrung from the start.
I'd be surprised if the smaller teams do boycott the race. The reality is that if the smaller teams were given the free travel etc that the bigger teams get it would help significantly
Someone needs to do some sums on how much you realistically need to run a team even at the back and then ensure the rewards for participating cover that. Then sponsorship can be used to improve their position.
Bernie looks so old in that interview with Sky and I should imagine that CVC will have seen it with horror. The only reason they can in theory run with 14 cars is that the other teams will have to run 3 cars each. That will add significant cost to them, with no real benefit.
Its a shame the teams let FOTA go, the big teams really need to wake up and see the issues, the world has changed since they started. Whilst a cost cap would help it is as Toto say unenforceable, so just improving the position the lower teams is the solution and having proper control to ensure their governance is correct and they dont go bust owing large sums to all and sundry/
Someone needs to do some sums on how much you realistically need to run a team even at the back and then ensure the rewards for participating cover that. Then sponsorship can be used to improve their position.
Bernie looks so old in that interview with Sky and I should imagine that CVC will have seen it with horror. The only reason they can in theory run with 14 cars is that the other teams will have to run 3 cars each. That will add significant cost to them, with no real benefit.
Its a shame the teams let FOTA go, the big teams really need to wake up and see the issues, the world has changed since they started. Whilst a cost cap would help it is as Toto say unenforceable, so just improving the position the lower teams is the solution and having proper control to ensure their governance is correct and they dont go bust owing large sums to all and sundry/
Crafty_ said:
Isn't air freight part of the FOM deal ? I was still under the impression that FOm still organised it and the teams got it as part of the deal or all paid a given amount for it ?
My understanding is that, once you get to a certain point in the Manufacturers Championship leader board, your air freight for the following year is free. The lower teams (the ones who actually would benefit the most) still have to pay for it. Really it should be the other way round - although of course nobody wants to see the poorer teams competing to finish behind each other. 
Chrisgr31 said:
Someone needs to do some sums on how much you realistically need to run a team even at the back and then ensure the rewards for participating cover that. Then sponsorship can be used to improve their position.
Yes, exactly. If competing in F1 makes absolutely no financial sense then people won't do it. Edited by JonRB on Saturday 1st November 10:24
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff