so the lunatics are now in charge of the F1 asylum
Discussion
so what do you think will happen?
The 40m argument was all about keeping F1 open to the small enthusiast teams like Williams or in the past - March, Cooper, Lotus BRM etc etc. On the other hand the big car makers want it as a marketing exercise and dont want to throw away their major advantage - the ability to outspend everyone else. So I reckon that in the long term, F1 will end up like world cup rallying, with just one or two major manufacturer teams in it - after all, where's the business case at (say) BMW for spending £100m per annum to come last?
Personally I would like to see a 10million cap but that simply wont happen.
The 40m argument was all about keeping F1 open to the small enthusiast teams like Williams or in the past - March, Cooper, Lotus BRM etc etc. On the other hand the big car makers want it as a marketing exercise and dont want to throw away their major advantage - the ability to outspend everyone else. So I reckon that in the long term, F1 will end up like world cup rallying, with just one or two major manufacturer teams in it - after all, where's the business case at (say) BMW for spending £100m per annum to come last?
Personally I would like to see a 10million cap but that simply wont happen.
Funny thing is, for all this talk of manufacturers being able to outspend the rest, while it's true...it's not actually brought home the results has it? Only Ferrari are consistently near the front...
They all want to reduce costs and I daresay what BMW et al would want to spend isn't vastly different to what Williams et al actually can.
They all want to reduce costs and I daresay what BMW et al would want to spend isn't vastly different to what Williams et al actually can.
I have opposed budget caps solely because it's F1; you're expected to spend many millions. Restricting spending so heavily would devalue F1 into some crappy imitation of the support series. It's supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, best drivers, best cars, outrageously complex tech, mega spending etc etc.
The teams have said they will bring down costs to 1990's levels, which doesn't sound too bad, its not exactly a massive cut. The problem lies in the fact that all teams except Ferrari don't have tobacco sponsorship any more. Fair enough, in the new health and safety obsessed world where everything we do could destroy most of the earth, the last thing people want is fags pushed in your face, but in the old days, lots of us still resisted smoking even though Marlboro, JPS, Rothmans etc were shoved in front of us at 200mph every Sunday. Ferrari's deal with Marlboro means they got something like £1bn out of them, and the deal isn't expired yet , even though the Marlboro logo isn't even on the car. Smokers may be the government's second piggy bank after car drivers, but they still had that kind of money to pump into F1. If tobacco sponsorship was still allowed, all this cost cutting crap wouldn't have been thought of.
The teams have said they will bring down costs to 1990's levels, which doesn't sound too bad, its not exactly a massive cut. The problem lies in the fact that all teams except Ferrari don't have tobacco sponsorship any more. Fair enough, in the new health and safety obsessed world where everything we do could destroy most of the earth, the last thing people want is fags pushed in your face, but in the old days, lots of us still resisted smoking even though Marlboro, JPS, Rothmans etc were shoved in front of us at 200mph every Sunday. Ferrari's deal with Marlboro means they got something like £1bn out of them, and the deal isn't expired yet , even though the Marlboro logo isn't even on the car. Smokers may be the government's second piggy bank after car drivers, but they still had that kind of money to pump into F1. If tobacco sponsorship was still allowed, all this cost cutting crap wouldn't have been thought of.
DrTre said:
Funny thing is, for all this talk of manufacturers being able to outspend the rest, while it's true...it's not actually brought home the results has it? Only Ferrari are Ross Brawn is consistently near the front...
They all want to reduce costs and I daresay what BMW et al would want to spend isn't vastly different to what Williams et al actually can.
EFA. Study the history and you will find that the only time Ferrari has been consistently successful were the Schumacher/Brawn yeaars.They all want to reduce costs and I daresay what BMW et al would want to spend isn't vastly different to what Williams et al actually can.
But as for the original post, that is my fear for F1. Manufacturer's are fickle and will come and go at the board's whim. "Proper" racing teams like Williams will remain because that is their core business. I include Ferrari in this, they were a racing team first.
Edited by profstoff on Thursday 25th June 15:28
profstoff said:
DrTre said:
Funny thing is, for all this talk of manufacturers being able to outspend the rest, while it's true...it's not actually brought home the results has it? Only Ferrari are Ross Brawn is consistently near the front...
They all want to reduce costs and I daresay what BMW et al would want to spend isn't vastly different to what Williams et al actually can.
EFA. Study the history and you will find that the only time Ferrari has been consistently successful were the Schumacher/Brawn yeaars.They all want to reduce costs and I daresay what BMW et al would want to spend isn't vastly different to what Williams et al actually can.
But as for the original post, that is my fear for F1. Manufacturer's are fickle and will come and go at the board's whim. "Proper" racing teams like Williams will remain because that is their core business. I include Ferrari in this, they were a racing team first.
Edited by profstoff on Thursday 25th June 15:28
profstoff said:
EFA. Study the history and you will find that the only time Ferrari has been consistently successful were the Schumacher/Brawn yeaars.
But as for the original post, that is my fear for F1. Manufacturer's are fickle and will come and go at the board's whim. "Proper" racing teams like Williams will remain because that is their core business. I include Ferrari in this, they were a racing team first.
I was only speaking of recent times, ie the period from which the "ability to outspend" aspect/complaint has come on the radar (as mentioned by dpbird, prompted by a desperate scrabble for sponsorship) which I see as being the last ten to twenty years...although I did forget Renault. But as for the original post, that is my fear for F1. Manufacturer's are fickle and will come and go at the board's whim. "Proper" racing teams like Williams will remain because that is their core business. I include Ferrari in this, they were a racing team first.
Having said that, I still say Ferrari are and have been consistently near the front, certainly in comparison with other manufacturers.
While manufacturers are more fickle to F1 than say Williams Grand Prix Engineering, a company that exists for one sole reason: to contest Formula One races, that's not to say they don't want to limit their spending.
All I meant was that there's a bottom line outlay they're all willing to make for success/marketing purposes and so far the investment by Toyota, Honda, BMW in their own teams hasn't exactly been rewarded.
Put it this way, I certainly don't see it a case of the lunatics being in charge of the asylum.
Edited by DrTre on Thursday 25th June 16:06
DrTre said:
While manufacturers are more fickle to F1 than say Williams Grand Prix Engineering, a company that exists for one sole reason: to contest Formula One races, that's not to say they don't want to limit their spending.
All I meant was that there's a bottom line outlay they're all willing to make for success/marketing purposes and so far the investment by Toyota, Honda, BMW in their own teams hasn't exactly been rewarded.
Put it this way, I certainly don't see it a case of the lunatics being in charge of the asylum.
I'm sure you're right and they would all like to win for less money than they are now spending but they are competing and winning comes first. So they grit their teeth and spend whatever they think necessary and the sort of general unenforceable "we'll all cut back a bit" type of agreement they now have simply wont hold.All I meant was that there's a bottom line outlay they're all willing to make for success/marketing purposes and so far the investment by Toyota, Honda, BMW in their own teams hasn't exactly been rewarded.
Put it this way, I certainly don't see it a case of the lunatics being in charge of the asylum.
And if they dont get results after a while of spending serious money - well you've seen it with Honda already. And you've also seen that there are 3 empty spaces for new teams on the grid but so far no appearances.
Thats not accurate PW. Honda were in F1 for 4 years in the 60s and three years in this decade. Otherwise they supplied engines as indeed have a number of companies over the years. Same story with BMW. Toyota have been around for 7 years I believe. Porsche have neen and gone, ditto Ford ditto jaguar.
Big companies dont do things for sentiment or tradition. They ask themselves "what hard return do I get for £100m pa in F1?" and if the answer is not much then they will eventually pull out.
Big companies dont do things for sentiment or tradition. They ask themselves "what hard return do I get for £100m pa in F1?" and if the answer is not much then they will eventually pull out.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff