Marussia to miss Austin GP
Discussion
zac510 said:
Crafty_ said:
Marussia's problem was it wasn't more prolific. No-one was out getting sponsors, or finding investment partners, at the same time the owner gave them just enough money to keep ticking over, no real investment to move them forwards.
From what source did you divine that information?There are just five teams that have 'enough' money to be competitive. All the rest will struggle under the current set-up.
Mosley was on R5 today suggesting that the fault lies with favouring certain teams. Well, he should know.
It feels as if the end of F1 is nigh. If only the manufacturers can afford to take part then they could close it on a whim.
Eric Mc said:
F1 has always sat uncomfortably with the mainstream motor car industry.
It's at its best when it knows and understands that it exists for itself and its fans - not to push environmental agendas or shift humdrum repmobiles and hatchbacks.
Totally agree. I think F1 is confused at the moment trying to be too many things to too many parties.It's at its best when it knows and understands that it exists for itself and its fans - not to push environmental agendas or shift humdrum repmobiles and hatchbacks.
Scuffers said:
RemarkLima said:
Scuffers said:
Well, i would take a bet on the UK audience being very significant over any other region.
What makes you say that? Not being contrary, just curious. I'd have thought Germany, Spain, Italy at the very least match the UK... UK was top of the list, by some way, followed by Italy, then Germany, Spain was not even close.
interestingly, when looking at the audience in the far east, a lot of it is made up of ex-pats.
not suggesting the UK is anything like the majority of the audience, but it's certainly the biggest.
Scuffers said:
entropy said:
The current turbos are better to watch on balance. The V8s were more point & squirt as power & torque was at the top end whereas its in the mid range in the turbos.
The engines sounds crap but at least you see Hamilton needing opposite lock and new underpants as he went up Eau Rouge.
That's more to do with the aero reduction than the powertrain.The engines sounds crap but at least you see Hamilton needing opposite lock and new underpants as he went up Eau Rouge.
So make the teams put the full 100 litres in their tanks & race with a bonus 2 points for a driver & team that's used the least & gone no more than 1 lap down this gives the smaller teams a chance to get a slice of the financial pie while the front runners will race hard.
Give the cars some noise facts are the noise adds to the drama, secondly the cost of sponsorship is far to high when other sports are offering more of a spectacle for less.
I went to Australia recently to see how they do it over there went to see the Supercar V8's they really seem to have an understanding of their market(apparently Ford were thinking of pulling out but the numbers men said the loss of brand exposure was to big so expect to see them using the Mondeo 2016) The noise is all important then the spectacle then the crowds at the track & viewers at home (I watch V8's over BTCC everytime because of the noise & the cars look better the spectacle is the same BTCC cars need an engine note a spec 2.0 V6 & loss the comedy wheel arches IMO) which in turn brings in the sponsors.
F1 needs to do this if it means you only have Three engine suppliers (I don't see Renault staying)& you can buy a spec chassis from the teams or from Lola etc steel brakes for cost reasons not spectacle. Aero is still down to individual teams
The big teams will still win the smaller teams have a clearer idea of cost & create a spectacle between themselves (as long as we can persuade Sky to show it) if they do then the smaller teams will draw in more sponsors, if you're putting your name on a car you want to see it on the TV.
These are just my thoughts as someone who looks after a Motorcycle race team I understand the need for sponsors to see their name on the TV & when they turn up to watch they want to see a show even if you're mid pack & they see you're racing the other teams around you then they're happy
ZX10R NIN said:
I think the problem with the current engines is the sound but secondly the teams never use all their allocation of fuel so the drivers are saving from start to finish.
So make the teams put the full 100 litres in their tanks & race with a bonus 2 points for a driver & team that's used the least & gone no more than 1 lap down this gives the smaller teams a chance to get a slice of the financial pie while the front runners will race hard.
where did you get that idea from?So make the teams put the full 100 litres in their tanks & race with a bonus 2 points for a driver & team that's used the least & gone no more than 1 lap down this gives the smaller teams a chance to get a slice of the financial pie while the front runners will race hard.
most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
Scuffers said:
Are there enough real sponsors these days?
There are, but few able or willing to pay the rates needed for teams to operate on sponsorship income alone - not that they ever have with share of the TV money and prize money filling the void but because of the costs involved now, that void is greater than it ever has been.Crafty_ said:
Lotus seem to have little problem picking them up this year, even with a dreadful car.
Not really, another benefit of the way Bernie is running is things is the move away from free to air tv.This means sponsors now in major markets have much more limited exposure, hence they have started to become even easier to find.
Don't let lotus fail you, those sponsors were mainly signed for a song, microsoft etc at way below the market rate. They had high hopes honeywell was going to become a major sponsor so weren't too worried selling the other spaces cheap to just get some money for them, honeywell would more than make up the difference. Honeywell didn't sponsor and they are then left with having sold those spaces on the cheap.
Derek Smith said:
Mosley was on R5 today suggesting that the fault lies with favouring certain teams. Well, he should know.
It feels as if the end of F1 is nigh. If only the manufacturers can afford to take part then they could close it on a whim.
Well you and me seem to agree on most things Derek and I have horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach you might be right about this one. I have never been so worried with regard to my favourite sport about what might happen in the close season and into 2015. I know a lot of people will be screaming rubbish but here's my reasons for concern.It feels as if the end of F1 is nigh. If only the manufacturers can afford to take part then they could close it on a whim.
Good things F1 has going for it in the future;
errr...
1.) Three car teams might been higher quality more competitive races.
2.) Don't worry, Team Haas are on their way.
3.) Don't worry, Audi are on their way.
Bad things F1 hasn't going for it in the future;
1.) Bernie
2.) Uncertainty about who will be owning the sport in the future.
3.) Too many races, spread too far over the world, with not enough people watching the races at the tracks.
4.) Too much reliance on pay per view TV at a time when people are be coming increasingly careful about what they spend on entertainment.
5.) The cars look rubbish, sound rubbish and no one really knows how the powertrains work.
6.) The constant hiring and firing of drivers. No one has the time to build up a fan base before they are sent off to obscurity.
7.) Hiring of ridiculously young drivers giving the impression that the cars can be driven like a video game. This being re-enforced by the over use of simulators.
8.) The lack of social media presence.
9.) The lack of major sponsors.
10.) The fact that a lot sponsors who might have been on cars before have worked out that they can get better exposure by going for the track side advertising instead. Which of course is looked after by....
11.) The poor distribution of the prize fund and TV money. Which of course is looked after by....
12.) The huge run off areas at some tracks meaning there is basically no consequences for bad driving.
13.) The over emphasis on engine reliability. Manufacturer led no doubt, as no company wants to see their cars sitting at the side of the road steaming but it doesn't push the boundaries of development & competition.
14.) Double points and the other gimmicks that someone floats and then ditches..
15.) Three car teams will cost more money, might make certain teams even more competitive, which will drive sponsors away from the smaller teams, which could drive more of them out of business.
IF and its a big if, Red Bull & the money they bring get bored and drift away, the sport will be in serious, serious trouble. With that in mind, remember that Newey is looking for a new challenge and Red Bull like being "right on"...
I believe that once they fix the changing cars in mid race issue that Formula E will become a proper threat. McLaren, Williams and Red Bull are already supplying parts, they are racing mainly on street circuits so easy to get to with cheap tickets for the punters, they are "right on" and they have already got some big sponsors and teams.
Plus one of the possible new teams (Audi) are already in through the back door with the ABT team.
In my humble opinion, F1 is in very big trouble and unless something major happens this close season it could be terminal. Bernie has always said the "show" is everything but there is no point in having a show if spectators and sponsors alike don't bother turning up.
Scuffers said:
where did you get that idea from?
most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
They aren't though. There are some races where they are fuel limited, however most of the time they are racing with around 80-85kg (merc engines are anyway) and fuel saving within their driving style, so it ultimately makes minimal difference to the performance. Previously cars were just driving slow to save fuel. This year has made the teams really think on how to drive fast and efficient at the same time. Its only when they are really in trouble they slow down.most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
The Hypno-Toad said:
Derek Smith said:
Mosley was on R5 today suggesting that the fault lies with favouring certain teams. Well, he should know.
It feels as if the end of F1 is nigh. If only the manufacturers can afford to take part then they could close it on a whim.
Well you and me seem to agree on most things Derek and I have horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach you might be right about this one. I have never been so worried with regard to my favourite sport about what might happen in the close season and into 2015. I know a lot of people will be screaming rubbish but here's my reasons for concern.It feels as if the end of F1 is nigh. If only the manufacturers can afford to take part then they could close it on a whim.
Good things F1 has going for it in the future;
errr...
1.) Three car teams might been higher quality more competitive races.
2.) Don't worry, Team Haas are on their way.
3.) Don't worry, Audi are on their way.
Bad things F1 hasn't going for it in the future;
1.) Bernie
2.) Uncertainty about who will be owning the sport in the future.
3.) Too many races, spread too far over the world, with not enough people watching the races at the tracks.
4.) Too much reliance on pay per view TV at a time when people are be coming increasingly careful about what they spend on entertainment.
5.) The cars look rubbish, sound rubbish and no one really knows how the powertrains work.
6.) The constant hiring and firing of drivers. No one has the time to build up a fan base before they are sent off to obscurity.
7.) Hiring of ridiculously young drivers giving the impression that the cars can be driven like a video game. This being re-enforced by the over use of simulators.
8.) The lack of social media presence.
9.) The lack of major sponsors.
10.) The fact that a lot sponsors who might have been on cars before have worked out that they can get better exposure by going for the track side advertising instead. Which of course is looked after by....
11.) The poor distribution of the prize fund and TV money. Which of course is looked after by....
12.) The huge run off areas at some tracks meaning there is basically no consequences for bad driving.
13.) The over emphasis on engine reliability. Manufacturer led no doubt, as no company wants to see their cars sitting at the side of the road steaming but it doesn't push the boundaries of development & competition.
14.) Double points and the other gimmicks that someone floats and then ditches..
15.) Three car teams will cost more money, might make certain teams even more competitive, which will drive sponsors away from the smaller teams, which could drive more of them out of business.
IF and its a big if, Red Bull & the money they bring get bored and drift away, the sport will be in serious, serious trouble. With that in mind, remember that Newey is looking for a new challenge and Red Bull like being "right on"...
I believe that once they fix the changing cars in mid race issue that Formula E will become a proper threat. McLaren, Williams and Red Bull are already supplying parts, they are racing mainly on street circuits so easy to get to with cheap tickets for the punters, they are "right on" and they have already got some big sponsors and teams.
Plus one of the possible new teams (Audi) are already in through the back door with the ABT team.
In my humble opinion, F1 is in very big trouble and unless something major happens this close season it could be terminal. Bernie has always said the "show" is everything but there is no point in having a show if spectators and sponsors alike don't bother turning up.
Time will tell, but it doesn't look good to me so far.
Scuffers said:
Derek Smith said:
Mosley was on R5 today suggesting that the fault lies with favouring certain teams. Well, he should know.
He sure would, after all, he is at the root of a lot of the st we are having now.ZX10R NIN said:
F1 will never be big in Spain, in terms of sport it's Football then Motorbike Racing F1 doesn't interest them MotoGP sees crowds of over 100000.00 at their races you'll never see that at F1
Really? Alonso was a big attraction in recent years2013: 94,831 at race day, 218,000 over the 3 days.
Valencia 2008: 112,000
Barcelona 2007: 132,600
Recent numbers have been lower, but the Spanish economy is a key factor.
Vaud said:
ZX10R NIN said:
F1 will never be big in Spain, in terms of sport it's Football then Motorbike Racing F1 doesn't interest them MotoGP sees crowds of over 100000.00 at their races you'll never see that at F1
Really? Alonso was a big attraction in recent years2013: 94,831 at race day, 218,000 over the 3 days.
Valencia 2008: 112,000
Barcelona 2007: 132,600
Recent numbers have been lower, but the Spanish economy is a key factor.
There have been other Spanish drivers in F1 over the years and it never drew massive interest.
With Alonso in the doldrums, the fans have stayed away.
ZX10R NIN said:
Scuffers said:
RemarkLima said:
Scuffers said:
Well, i would take a bet on the UK audience being very significant over any other region.
What makes you say that? Not being contrary, just curious. I'd have thought Germany, Spain, Italy at the very least match the UK... UK was top of the list, by some way, followed by Italy, then Germany, Spain was not even close.
interestingly, when looking at the audience in the far east, a lot of it is made up of ex-pats.
not suggesting the UK is anything like the majority of the audience, but it's certainly the biggest.
2013 Canadian Grand Prix:
Italy - 7.72m
Spain - 5.69m
Germany – 5.38m
UK – 5.23m
2013 Belgian GP:
Germany - 5.75m
UK - 4.40m
Spain - 3.69m
France - 0.85m
Belgium - 0.38m
All figures pulled from http://f1broadcasting.wordpress.com/
SteBrown91 said:
Scuffers said:
where did you get that idea from?
most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
They aren't though. There are some races where they are fuel limited, however most of the time they are racing with around 80-85kg (merc engines are anyway) and fuel saving within their driving style, so it ultimately makes minimal difference to the performance. Previously cars were just driving slow to save fuel. This year has made the teams really think on how to drive fast and efficient at the same time. Its only when they are really in trouble they slow down.most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
Scuffers said:
That's more to do with the aero reduction than the powertrain.
No doubt but still has stopped drivers expressing how use the powertrain characteristics are a challenge. Also worth considering that most teams struggled with coanda type exhaust which often gave a very narrow operating windowScuffers said:
where did you get that idea from?
most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
Fuel is ballast. most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
If you give the teams a bigger limit then teams will be looking to race with the least amount of fuel which is what happened previously.
entropy said:
Scuffers said:
That's more to do with the aero reduction than the powertrain.
No doubt but still has stopped drivers expressing how use the powertrain characteristics are a challenge. Also worth considering that most teams struggled with coanda type exhaust which often gave a very narrow operating windowScuffers said:
where did you get that idea from?
most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
Fuel is ballast. most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
If you give the teams a bigger limit then teams will be looking to race with the least amount of fuel which is what happened previously.
Scuffers said:
SteBrown91 said:
Scuffers said:
where did you get that idea from?
most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
They aren't though. There are some races where they are fuel limited, however most of the time they are racing with around 80-85kg (merc engines are anyway) and fuel saving within their driving style, so it ultimately makes minimal difference to the performance. Previously cars were just driving slow to save fuel. This year has made the teams really think on how to drive fast and efficient at the same time. Its only when they are really in trouble they slow down.most of the time, they are all 100% up against the 100L fuel limit, hence all the fuel saving.
if you want them to race harder, they need more than 100L of fuel to do so.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff