**** American Grand Prix ***** (contains spoilers)
Discussion
I think that the biggest issue with 3 car teams is that the 3rd car would take away points from the cars that finish behind them, thus making the meagre financial pickings at the back of the grid even more meagre.
The absolute core of this issue is the distribution of revenue to the teams. That's what needs to be addressed above all else.
The absolute core of this issue is the distribution of revenue to the teams. That's what needs to be addressed above all else.
JonRB said:
I think that the biggest issue with 3 car teams is that the 3rd car would take away points from the cars that finish behind them, thus making the meagre financial pickings at the back of the grid even more meagre.
The absolute core of this issue is the distribution of revenue to the teams. That's what needs to be addressed above all else.
exactly.The absolute core of this issue is the distribution of revenue to the teams. That's what needs to be addressed above all else.
until the TV/fees money is distributed flat, that's always going to be a problem.
why have prize money at all? big shiny trophy's should be it.
Derek Smith said:
The richest team in the pit lane has not always been the winner.
When was the last time a backmarker or even mid-field team won a race? Maybe Williams in 2012, the year of the great tyre lottery. Opening up the rules to allow for innovation might help a small team gain a short term advantage, but as it stands the race winner is going to be driving for one of the top few teams.Derek Smith said:
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.
And Brawn in 2009..RYH64E said:
When was the last time a backmarker or even mid-field team won a race? Maybe Williams in 2012, the year of the great tyre lottery. Opening up the rules to allow for innovation might help a small team gain a short term advantage, but as it stands the race winner is going to be driving for one of the top few teams.
That's not really the point he is making. The likes of Ferrari (now) and Toyota (previously) have spent obscene amounts and been resoundly beaten by teams with significantly lower budgets. Good management and personnel count for a lot more than massive budgets. Look at Marussia this season, as far as I understand they were operating on peanuts even compared to Caterham, but held their own against them.It doesn't need to mean race wins for the backmarkers teams, Bianchi at Monaco was like a race win for those guys and for me at least the story of that was far more exciting than Rosberg driving around at the front.
Scuffers said:
until the TV/fees money is distributed flat, that's always going to be a problem.
why have prize money at all? big shiny trophy's should be it.
I think there has to be some incentive for teams to aspire to though. The back markers fight so ferociously because the difference in the WCC between 9th and 10th, say, is a whole lot of money. If everyone received a flat amount then there would be less of an incentive. why have prize money at all? big shiny trophy's should be it.
I don't know what the solution is. But clearly, as Martin Brundle said yesterday, no team should be expected to make a loss; that's just not a sustainable business model and yet teams are being expected to operate as if it is.
Scuffers said:
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.
rscott said:
If you double your estimate, you're nearer the figure Claire Williams quoted earlier this year (£20 million) . That's cost of parts, extra personnel and freight costs.
There's another thing Bernie could do to help out teams - all air freight paid for by FOM/CVC. Maybe set an upper limit to prevent the big teams getting even more ridiculous with their mobile hospitality buildings though. JonRB said:
Scuffers said:
until the TV/fees money is distributed flat, that's always going to be a problem.
why have prize money at all? big shiny trophy's should be it.
I think there has to be some incentive for teams to aspire to though. The back markers fight so ferociously because the difference in the WCC between 9th and 10th, say, is a whole lot of money. If everyone received a flat amount then there would be less of an incentive. why have prize money at all? big shiny trophy's should be it.
I don't know what the solution is. But clearly, as Martin Brundle said yesterday, no team should be expected to make a loss; that's just not a sustainable business model and yet teams are being expected to operate as if it is.
Why are these teams unable to budget within their means? Thats a issue in itself, if they're pathetically slow for doing so then this may then be an issue but the inability to budget is no-one fault but the team.
I'm not saying there isn't a issue and that the dosh shouldn't be better spread, but the failure of spankies weakling teams was inevitable in my eyes and should be considered a measure of the sports health the same way a corner should be considered dangerous if maldonardo crashed there and massa said he was scared of it.
hairyben said:
This. This whole things got an air of the pathetic hand wringers who ban school sports days or give a medal to every child so no-one feels a loser.
Why are these teams unable to budget within their means? Thats a issue in itself, if they're pathetically slow for doing so then this may then be an issue but the inability to budget is no-one fault but the team.
I'm not saying there isn't a issue and that the dosh shouldn't be better spread, but the failure of spankies weakling teams was inevitable in my eyes and should be considered a measure of the sports health the same way a corner should be considered dangerous if maldonardo crashed there and massa said he was scared of it.
These teams came into the sport with the promise of budget caps, when engines cost a fraction of the £20m today's power units cost, and when Bridgestone supplied tyres for free. Today's sport is hugely more expensive for the teams, the chances of winning virtually zero unless you're Mercedes or Red Bull, and attendance at races is declining. If F1 was booming maybe the increased costs wouldn't be such a problem, but making it hugely more expensive for the teams without improving (ruining imo) the show for fans makes no sense.Why are these teams unable to budget within their means? Thats a issue in itself, if they're pathetically slow for doing so then this may then be an issue but the inability to budget is no-one fault but the team.
I'm not saying there isn't a issue and that the dosh shouldn't be better spread, but the failure of spankies weakling teams was inevitable in my eyes and should be considered a measure of the sports health the same way a corner should be considered dangerous if maldonardo crashed there and massa said he was scared of it.
I was watching the Red Bull demo runs at Austin in the RB7 yesterday, I wonder if the spectators would have been so impressed if they'd used the RB10?
Agreed. I'm still not convinced that the team owners of the "new" teams were the sort of people we wanted in F1.
In other news Mario Illien has been hired by Renault: http://www.racer.com/f1/item/110458-report-renault...
In other news Mario Illien has been hired by Renault: http://www.racer.com/f1/item/110458-report-renault...
Crafty_ said:
Agreed. I'm still not convinced that the team owners of the "new" teams were the sort of people we wanted in F1.
In other news Mario Illien has been hired by Renault: http://www.racer.com/f1/item/110458-report-renault...
not disagreeing with you specifically, but who do you want as team owners?In other news Mario Illien has been hired by Renault: http://www.racer.com/f1/item/110458-report-renault...
let's be blunt here, who is going to write off £80+M a year owning an F1 team?
I actually think we need to get the manufacturers influence down to a minimum, maybe just as power-train suppliers?
look at GP2 from a racing perspective, I would argue it's a better show from a spectator view, from more simple cars (all be it still costs a shed load for what it is).
RYH64E said:
Derek Smith said:
The richest team in the pit lane has not always been the winner.
When was the last time a backmarker or even mid-field team won a race? Maybe Williams in 2012, the year of the great tyre lottery. Opening up the rules to allow for innovation might help a small team gain a short term advantage, but as it stands the race winner is going to be driving for one of the top few teams.Mid-field teams need stable regulations. Over recent years these have changed on a whim with major modifications to engines, aero, transmissions and chassis. It is a massive waste of resources for the smaller teams.
When regs change we tend to get two or three teams at the top for some time as the smaller teams have to catch up due to their lack of research.
When the DFV was competitive there were umpteen teams up at the front.
I remember Williams being aghast that Ferrari used new suspension reservoirs for every race when they had one chap whose job it was to refurbish them.
Clever management can mean that small teams can compete. Changing the engine and aero - can you imagine what that means for small teams?
If the regs were less restrictive then those teams with lots of money can experiment and test. The history of the revolutionary modifications tends to suggest that the majority come from the big teams.
What we need for stability is a lack of change, or at least expensive change, a restriction on aero and a sensible allocation of resources.
ukaskew said:
That's not really the point he is making. The likes of Ferrari (now) and Toyota (previously) have spent obscene amounts and been resoundly beaten by teams with significantly lower budgets. Good management and personnel count for a lot more than massive budgets. Look at Marussia this season, as far as I understand they were operating on peanuts even compared to Caterham, but held their own against them.
It doesn't need to mean race wins for the backmarkers teams, Bianchi at Monaco was like a race win for those guys and for me at least the story of that was far more exciting than Rosberg driving around at the front.
Just seen this:It doesn't need to mean race wins for the backmarkers teams, Bianchi at Monaco was like a race win for those guys and for me at least the story of that was far more exciting than Rosberg driving around at the front.
Wot 'e said.
Scuffers said:
not disagreeing with you specifically, but who do you want as team owners?
let's be blunt here, who is going to write off £80+M a year owning an F1 team?
I actually think we need to get the manufacturers influence down to a minimum, maybe just as power-train suppliers?
look at GP2 from a racing perspective, I would argue it's a better show from a spectator view, from more simple cars (all be it still costs a shed load for what it is).
GP2 is a spec series. We can make F1 very cheap if we go down that road. Get someone to make the chassis, Nissan can provide the engines and off we go, £10m a season, tops.let's be blunt here, who is going to write off £80+M a year owning an F1 team?
I actually think we need to get the manufacturers influence down to a minimum, maybe just as power-train suppliers?
look at GP2 from a racing perspective, I would argue it's a better show from a spectator view, from more simple cars (all be it still costs a shed load for what it is).
On team owners, I'd much prefer to see guys who are in it for the racing and make the business side work, rather than be in it for money and the racing e considered a necessary evil.
Crafty_ said:
GP2 is a spec series. We can make F1 very cheap if we go down that road. Get someone to make the chassis, Nissan can provide the engines and off we go, £10m a season, tops.
On team owners, I'd much prefer to see guys who are in it for the racing and make the business side work, rather than be in it for money and the racing e considered a necessary evil.
I would argue F1 is pretty close to being a spec series...On team owners, I'd much prefer to see guys who are in it for the racing and make the business side work, rather than be in it for money and the racing e considered a necessary evil.
more and more std parts, power-trains are 'spec' to a large extent, wheels/tyres are spec, brakes might as well be, etc etc..
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff