**** American Grand Prix ***** (contains spoilers)
Discussion
Crafty_ said:
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.
So which current team owners do you approve of? I'd say Williams, Sauber, and McLaren (though I've always found it hard to warm to Ron Dennis), and that's about it.Scuffers said:
I would argue F1 is pretty close to being a spec series...
more and more std parts, power-trains are 'spec' to a large extent, wheels/tyres are spec, brakes might as well be, etc etc..
Errm, really ?more and more std parts, power-trains are 'spec' to a large extent, wheels/tyres are spec, brakes might as well be, etc etc..
GP2 cars are identical, bar the paint.
F1 cars have different chassis, cooling setups, chassis, suspensions, gearboxes, driveshafts, bodywork. Even the smallest details are different. I've just been looking at some pictures of front brake assemblies, three pictures, three different cooling solutions. Take a look here, this guy collects hi res close up pictures at each race, http://cubejam.imgur.com/
Regulations are tight, but theres more than one way to skin a cat still, which I guess is part of the money problems.
RYH64E said:
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.
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?
The teams entered the sport largely as political pawns for spankies axis at a time when the sport was threatening to tear itself apart.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?
That when the dust settled the landscape wasn't something they were promised when they backed the wrong horse is a moot point.
Crafty_ said:
On top of that it was pretty clear the big teams weren't going to let a budget cap happen. FOTA had already been formed to oppose them and there was resistance to the idea before that.
The idea of a budget cap has always been laughable and impractical. Hell, it was hard enough to ban Traction Control until they finally introduced a regulation ECU. How much harder to police a budget cap? You'd need a team of Investigative Accountants and even then it would be ridiculously easy to circumvent. Especially for manufacturers like Ferrari and Mercedes - they could spend millions and millions on R&D and simply account for it in their road cars division, then claim they spent a fraction of that for their F1 solution because they just 'happened' to get it right the first time. 
JonRB said:
Crafty_ said:
On top of that it was pretty clear the big teams weren't going to let a budget cap happen. FOTA had already been formed to oppose them and there was resistance to the idea before that.
The idea of a budget cap has always been laughable and impractical. Hell, it was hard enough to ban Traction Control until they finally introduced a regulation ECU. How much harder to police a budget cap? You'd need a team of Investigative Accountants and even then it would be ridiculously easy to circumvent. Especially for manufacturers like Ferrari and Mercedes - they could spend millions and millions on R&D and simply account for it in their road cars division, then claim they spent a fraction of that for their F1 solution because they just 'happened' to get it right the first time. Talking of spanky, I'm surprised that particular pompous rent-a-gob hasn't seized the opportunity to elucidate anyone who'll listen how he could have saved F1 from itself, has he finally learned to shut up?
hairyben said:
Talking of spanky, I'm surprised that particular pompous rent-a-gob hasn't seized the opportunity to elucidate anyone who'll listen how he could have saved F1 from itself, has he finally learned to shut up?
Radio 5 Live went to him for a comment but to be honest it wasn't too much of a "I told you so", therefore it didn't get much coverage elsewhere.
PW said:
Here's a bold idea - we get people with £80+M a year, not people with £40m, who struggle to get a car together, scrape through the 107% every race, then collapse 3 races before the end of the season leaving £40M of debts
Then come back 3 years later with another £40M they duped from someone else...
The bold idea would be to make F1 a sustainable business model rather than a basket case for rich egos to play at?Then come back 3 years later with another £40M they duped from someone else...
PW said:
That's ridiculous. F1 is a business. The teams are businesses. Why should they not have to fund themselves?
If they're making a loss then they're a poorly run business - get out of F1 and do something you CAN afford.
It's a sport, they're not saving the world and i don't get the impression many in the sport are living on the breadline - they do NOT deserve to be gifted millions just because they want to go racing in F1.
They should make it fair and worth taking part, but that idea is nonsense.
Why is that nonsense? I am just saying that a team should not be *expected* to operate at a loss. If they're making a loss then they're a poorly run business - get out of F1 and do something you CAN afford.
It's a sport, they're not saving the world and i don't get the impression many in the sport are living on the breadline - they do NOT deserve to be gifted millions just because they want to go racing in F1.
They should make it fair and worth taking part, but that idea is nonsense.
And if teams shouldn't be gifted millions then why the hell does Ferrari get something like $100 million just for turning up?
Apparently F1 generated $1.5 billion for the 2011 season, yet 2 teams have just gone into administration
Ok, let me put it this way in personal terms. Say you're a skilled craftsman working as an employee. Each thing you produce, your employer gives you £200 for but sells it for £20,000. But they also charge you rent for the place on their premises, and a charge for using the tools they supply (and don't allow you to use your own tools). And they also mandate that you have your lunch in their canteen that has exorbitant prices. So in actual fact, you probably end up getting £20 for each thing you produce, after deductions. But it costs you £30 in travelling expenses. So you end up making a loss.
Would it not be fair to say "hold on a mo - I generate rather a lot of money for you. How about I actually get some of it so that it's actually worthwhile me working for you?"
Your reply seems to be along the lines of "why should we gift you money for making what you make?"
weyland yutani said:
If Rosberg gets a good start he'l lead for 25-30 laps but Hamiton will reel him in and win. Happens almost every time in this situation, Rosberg just doesn't have the race pace over Hamilton.
Or the race craft. Lewis might just bide his time and put in a stonking lap or two at the pitstop window, we will see.Scuffers said:
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.
Hang on though the engine manufacturers are not spreading the costs over any more engines, in fact they are potentially spreading them over less. At the last race we had 22 cars, which need 22 engines. However it is understood that the requirement is for 20 cars, and thus 20 engines so 10% less.Potentially this could increase the engine cost by 10%, there are certainly no additional economies of scale.
Why does Nico come across as smug?
When interviewed on the BBC with regard to Mercedes taking the constructors championship, he implied that the gloves where now off and he could race without compromise. I got the impression that he was trying to say that he has not been fighting his hardest against Lewis for the greater good of the team.
And after Russia he was strutting around all proud with himself having completed the race on one set of tyres. The fact that he f
ked up the first set and was really lucky the Pirelli made a bad call on the prime tyre's compound seemed to be lost on him.
I think he just need to admit when he's lucked out/been out driven after a weekend and I'd have a lot more respect for him.
When interviewed on the BBC with regard to Mercedes taking the constructors championship, he implied that the gloves where now off and he could race without compromise. I got the impression that he was trying to say that he has not been fighting his hardest against Lewis for the greater good of the team.
And after Russia he was strutting around all proud with himself having completed the race on one set of tyres. The fact that he f
ked up the first set and was really lucky the Pirelli made a bad call on the prime tyre's compound seemed to be lost on him.I think he just need to admit when he's lucked out/been out driven after a weekend and I'd have a lot more respect for him.
PW said:
That's ridiculous. F1 is a business. The teams are businesses. Why should they not have to fund themselves?
If they're making a loss then they're a poorly run business - get out of F1 and do something you CAN afford.
It's a sport, they're not saving the world and i don't get the impression many in the sport are living on the breadline - they do NOT deserve to be gifted millions just because they want to go racing in F1.
They should make it fair and worth taking part, but that idea is nonsense.
Clearly it's not just that they're poorly run businesses, at the back of the grid the figures simply don't work full stop, it would seem. Marussia seemed like a very, very tight ship, and even doing relatively well they were still not sustainable. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see small independent teams on the grid, so many great drivers have got their foot in that way.If they're making a loss then they're a poorly run business - get out of F1 and do something you CAN afford.
It's a sport, they're not saving the world and i don't get the impression many in the sport are living on the breadline - they do NOT deserve to be gifted millions just because they want to go racing in F1.
They should make it fair and worth taking part, but that idea is nonsense.
Meanwhile Ferrari get a whole heap of cash just for being Ferrari (despite arguably needing F1 at least as much as F1 needs them), and RB, McLaren and Merc have thrashed out their own secret deals to take as much of the pot as possible.
Splitting a significant percentage of the revenue equally, then adding in bonuses for points/standings would be the logical thing to do. Teams are still then free to attract sponsorship, and hopefully the smaller teams can at least then weigh up a pay driver vs a talented one rather than have no choice but to take the pay driver.
Whilst we're at it, significantly reduce circuit fees so they can exist as sustainable businesses without requiring government assistance. To balance things out a little the rights holders can control commercial revenue from the circuit (i.e. event naming rights) but the circuit fees should be low enough that the circuit can make a decent profit from ticket sales alone.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff