Curiouser and Curiouser
Discussion
If we start with accepting that the Spank may not be completely off his trolley (bear with me on this one) then there must be another reason for his attempt to destroy F1 as we know it. So, if we follow the money thery not in the direction of who has most to gain but who has most to lose we can discount the circuits as they are spread all over (almost) the world and cannot collectively have annoyed him that much. The teams? Not them surely they were quietly going along trying to build faster cars and mostly minding their own business when they were hit by rule change after rule change designed to provoke them. So who is left? Who could lose big time? Bernie and his management mates seem the obvious targets - could they have set Mad Max up for his 'interview' with the press? He is out to nail someone in a big way for sure (sorry). Any other suspects?
Many of us have followed a similar train of thought - perhaps in a slightly different direction, namely how does all of this benefit Max or Bernie?
Not having a current Concorde agreement in place must be a large part of it. The previous one tied most things down. Without it everything is up for grabs. Clearly weakening all the participants before forcing them to sign up allows Bernie to maximise his stake and Max to go on an even bigger power trip.
It really is time for them to go.
Not having a current Concorde agreement in place must be a large part of it. The previous one tied most things down. Without it everything is up for grabs. Clearly weakening all the participants before forcing them to sign up allows Bernie to maximise his stake and Max to go on an even bigger power trip.
It really is time for them to go.
Bernie needs to help CVC repayservice the debt they took on to buy into the sport. Thus he wishes the extract more money from the circuits/tv & pay less to the teams so a budget cap would suit him. A load of new teams scared to rock the boat would suit Max.
What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
german tony said:
Bernie needs to help CVC repayservice the debt they took on to buy into the sport. Thus he wishes the extract more money from the circuits/tv & pay less to the teams so a budget cap would suit him. A load of new teams scared to rock the boat would suit Max.
What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
How is it "diluted"? As RBR have shown, all you need is a modest budget and the right staff and you can challenge for wins; meanwhile Ferrari, McLaren, BMW et al have shown the converse.What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
If anything, a budget-capped, experiment-all-you-like format with lots of hungry new entrants unburdened by historical baggage could produce some great racing and some continual changes of order, which would only be good for the sport IMHO.
skwdenyer said:
german tony said:
Bernie needs to help CVC repayservice the debt they took on to buy into the sport. Thus he wishes the extract more money from the circuits/tv & pay less to the teams so a budget cap would suit him. A load of new teams scared to rock the boat would suit Max.
What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
How is it "diluted"? As RBR have shown, all you need is a modest budget and the right staff and you can challenge for wins; meanwhile Ferrari, McLaren, BMW et al have shown the converse.What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
In addition Mclaren/Ferrari were develing there car for as long as possible to make sure they were competative and had the edge to win the championship.
In addition to this RedBull and Brawn developed there car last year while there was no real on circuit testing limits.
There was a falling out of the terrible two around the time of the Indy FiAsco and later (I've forgotten which particular debacle it was) there was a report or two about Bernie yelling at Max down the phone in a very public location.
After the NotW revelations as to Mosley's peculiar tastes and preferred scenarios Bernie said, quite unconvincingly, that it all came as a surprise to him.
Well, I believed him. Honest.
It was all rather odd.
Whilst I'm unaware of any evidence one way or the other, it would surprise me if Bernie was the one who tipped the press off as it had the possibility of harming his financial interests. But then, of course, I know so very little about the details.
There are so many people with a grudge against Mosley and there were lots more whose financial interests he was harming. There's a simple method of lining up suspects: who benefits from the particular action. If the intent was to get him out of the FiA (not a forgone conclusion of course) then my bet would be on who would replace him or who would be pulling the strings on his replacement. It's simplistic but then most motives are.
After the NotW revelations as to Mosley's peculiar tastes and preferred scenarios Bernie said, quite unconvincingly, that it all came as a surprise to him.
Well, I believed him. Honest.
It was all rather odd.
Whilst I'm unaware of any evidence one way or the other, it would surprise me if Bernie was the one who tipped the press off as it had the possibility of harming his financial interests. But then, of course, I know so very little about the details.
There are so many people with a grudge against Mosley and there were lots more whose financial interests he was harming. There's a simple method of lining up suspects: who benefits from the particular action. If the intent was to get him out of the FiA (not a forgone conclusion of course) then my bet would be on who would replace him or who would be pulling the strings on his replacement. It's simplistic but then most motives are.
stevieb said:
skwdenyer said:
german tony said:
Bernie needs to help CVC repayservice the debt they took on to buy into the sport. Thus he wishes the extract more money from the circuits/tv & pay less to the teams so a budget cap would suit him. A load of new teams scared to rock the boat would suit Max.
What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
How is it "diluted"? As RBR have shown, all you need is a modest budget and the right staff and you can challenge for wins; meanwhile Ferrari, McLaren, BMW et al have shown the converse.What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
In addition Mclaren/Ferrari were develing there car for as long as possible to make sure they were competative and had the edge to win the championship.
In addition to this RedBull and Brawn developed there car last year while there was no real on circuit testing limits.
Edited by mikefacel on Saturday 6th June 14:04
I think its pretty simple; the huge budgeted F1 teams absolutely hate the idea of a budget cap because it means they will be on a more level playing field with the others. They won't be able to just spend their way to success, like they have done before.
I actually think Max & Bernie (for a change) are on the right track with this and F1 will be better off for it. I'm old enough to remember the classic years of F1 when the spending was more even amongst teams and the racing was superb and unpredictable.
I actually think Max & Bernie (for a change) are on the right track with this and F1 will be better off for it. I'm old enough to remember the classic years of F1 when the spending was more even amongst teams and the racing was superb and unpredictable.
I also think that Mosley forces himself onto the sport so as to make it appear as if he's important. If he did not try to continually change the rules, and instead allowed a period of regulatory stability and sound governance, he would be ignored, sitting quietly in the background. As it is, it seems that he puts himself into the middle of these 'F1 storms' to appear important, powerful, and necessary to the survival of F1. It's typical political nonsense. Instead of really doing something, one resorts to enacting needless initiatives and gives it an inordinate amount of media coverage.
skwdenyer said:
german tony said:
Bernie needs to help CVC repayservice the debt they took on to buy into the sport. Thus he wishes the extract more money from the circuits/tv & pay less to the teams so a budget cap would suit him. A load of new teams scared to rock the boat would suit Max.
What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
How is it "diluted"? As RBR have shown, all you need is a modest budget and the right staff and you can challenge for wins; meanwhile Ferrari, McLaren, BMW et al have shown the converse.What they have both ignored is that a diluted F1 will be less attractive to the fans & it's the fans that ultimately pay the bills.
If anything, a budget-capped, experiment-all-you-like format with lots of hungry new entrants unburdened by historical baggage could produce some great racing and some continual changes of order, which would only be good for the sport IMHO.
McLaren: $433.3m
Ferrari: $414.9m
Honda: $398.1m
Renault: $393.8m
BMW Sauber: $366.8m
Red Bull Racing: $164.7m
Williams: $160.6m
Toro Rosso: $128.2m
Force India: $121.85m
Super Aguri: $45.6m
Red Bull were spending $165m, so about £100m.
A budget cap of £40m is just too low if they want this to be kept as the pinnacle of the motorsports.
Why not just limit to £100m. Seems fair enough to me, if they are demanding on a limit. Due to the "credit crisis".
touring fan said:
I think its pretty simple; the huge budgeted F1 teams absolutely hate the idea of a budget cap because it means they will be on a more level playing field with the others. They won't be able to just spend their way to success, like they have done before.
I actually think Max & Bernie (for a change) are on the right track with this and F1 will be better off for it. I'm old enough to remember the classic years of F1 when the spending was more even amongst teams and the racing was superb and unpredictable.
My understanding is that the 'big budgeted teams' such as Mclaren are in full support of a budget cap. In fact they were pushing for procedures which limit their costs. Ron Dennis was highly critical of some of the Mosley regulation changes because of the cost implications. KERS, for instance, was largely derided as a waste of money by everyone but Mosley. Everyone, it would appear, was right. Everyone but Mosley. There was major criticism of these rapid and contradictory regulation changes with regards to engines which have cost the teams £millions, and all, rather bizarly, in the name of cost cutting.I actually think Max & Bernie (for a change) are on the right track with this and F1 will be better off for it. I'm old enough to remember the classic years of F1 when the spending was more even amongst teams and the racing was superb and unpredictable.
The impression I get is that Mosley doesn't want an even playing field amongst the manufacturers and others: he wants the manufacturers out.
As for the days when racing was superb and unpredictable: what about this year? 2009 is, after all, under the 'old' regs. And I'm old enough to remember 2007 and 2008 when racing was exciting.
As for Bernie, I don't think he is a mover and shaker in the case of budget limits. This weird and dangerous desire of Mosley to keep changing the regulations is his and his alone.
The FOTA demands are the reasonable ones. Phase in the budget changes so that masses of staff are not put out onto the streets. Seems sensible to me. The biggest changes to the F1 regs ever, and Mosley wants it done in a fortnight. That, to me, lacks sense and sensibility.
The starting grid for Trukey is quite close. Whatever happens next year can hardly be less predictable. Without KERS there would, probably, be more overtaking.
An alternative view to take would be to set a target budget cap - say $100m. Don't worry about some teams exceeding it, instead adapt the regulations as and when it becomes apparent that any team is taking liberties. By purely using regulation of sporting and technical regs you ought to be able to make it less and less worth spending too much - limit the number of personnel at the track and in the pits - limit the ridiculous hospitality trailers (with the profits F1 makes, provide a standardised one for all teams so that the smaller teams get equal footing.
Banging an old drum - drastically limit aero and harden the tyres. Why the FIA ignores the easiest way of limiting costs - via control of the contact patch - astounds me. Now that they have a single tyre supplier they ought to be able to make small increments of downforce gains less and less relevant - just force a standardised floor and substantially reduce the overall grip provided by the tyres. We could have the old balloon slicks back!
With agreement of the teams, any team overtly exceeding the budget could be embarrassed into towing the line.
Banging an old drum - drastically limit aero and harden the tyres. Why the FIA ignores the easiest way of limiting costs - via control of the contact patch - astounds me. Now that they have a single tyre supplier they ought to be able to make small increments of downforce gains less and less relevant - just force a standardised floor and substantially reduce the overall grip provided by the tyres. We could have the old balloon slicks back!
With agreement of the teams, any team overtly exceeding the budget could be embarrassed into towing the line.
Derek Smith said:
My understanding is that the 'big budgeted teams' such as Mclaren are in full support of a budget cap.
True but they want a much bigger budget cap (100m? - more than twice what is proposed), so that it keeps them on a different level to the new teams that can't raise that sort of funding.touring fan said:
Derek Smith said:
My understanding is that the 'big budgeted teams' such as Mclaren are in full support of a budget cap.
True but they want a much bigger budget cap (100m? - more than twice what is proposed), so that it keeps them on a different level to the new teams that can't raise that sort of funding.More to the point, Mosley's proposals exclude just about everything that costs so if anything the teams will be spending more than £100M. However the vagueness of the regs puts too much power in the hands of the descredited FiA stewards.
FOTA are the sport. Mosley is nothing other than the regulator. The problem is that in recent years, Mosley has changed the sport fundamentally without any negotiation whatsoever. The FiA should keep out of the sport unless required, and they should not be required all that often.
I have an idea: how about a concorde agreement whereby any changes must be agreed by a 3/4 majority of everyone concerned? If it was brought in now the sport would be stabilised and not changed two or three times a season. We don't get this in any other sport that I'm aware of. How many regulation changes can you think of with tennis? Yet we've had tyre changes, engine changes and engine changes and engine changes, qually changes and qually changes. And all this down to Mosley. It really is quite stupid. And how long are these new regs going to last? FOTA are demanding stability. Mosley is deaf to this. Change costs. If a team some in with £40m the whole budget would be used up coping with Mosley's changes.
touring fan said:
I think its pretty simple; the huge budgeted F1 teams absolutely hate the idea of a budget cap because it means they will be on a more level playing field with the others. They won't be able to just spend their way to success, like they have done before.
I actually think Max & Bernie (for a change) are on the right track with this and F1 will be better off for it. I'm old enough to remember the classic years of F1 when the spending was more even amongst teams and the racing was superb and unpredictable.
One cannot be in favour of a permanently lopsided competition. Genuine competition is preferable for many reasons.I actually think Max & Bernie (for a change) are on the right track with this and F1 will be better off for it. I'm old enough to remember the classic years of F1 when the spending was more even amongst teams and the racing was superb and unpredictable.
However, some of the biggest, most successful teams started out as underdogs themselves. From humble beginnings, they have spent decades, and untold blood, sweat and tears, in building teams of people, securing funding, making long-term investments, and earning their way to the top. One can appreciate how they, after having done that, would resent being forced, without even having been consulted beforehand, to throw away the fruits of their success because of the whims of a guy whose greatest life achievement was inheriting a bunch of money from his mother.
Isn't F1 meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport? An enforced yet unenforceable, arbitrary budget cap surely against that grain?
As for the rose tinted good old days when everyone worked on more or less the same budgets, is this really true? Even before advertising came onto the scene, do we genuinely think all teams were equally funded?
Of course they weren't.
One of the great aspects of F1 was that an innovative, balls out little guy could come along and piss on the chips of the established teams. So why isn't that happening now?
Not totally sure, but I would guess some things that aren't helping are:
1) An overburdened rule book...
2) ....that constantly changes, seemingly to outlaw creative thinking.
3) Engine regulations (technical and supply) that prevent minnows getting a genuinely good powertrain. We might argue that this season is showing this may be getting better (?). Not quite like the DFV days though.
4) Ridiculous costs of entry imposed by the regulators.
Everyone is free to go out there and get whatever sponsorship they can, sink their own funds etc. Equally they are free to not spend quite so much if they think the costs are hefty. Why does the regulator need to get involved in this?
(I have a broadly similar view on the speed of the cars and the tech restraints designed to slow them down. Totally against the ethos of the sport IMO, and am not sure why the regulator has to get involved. The driver can always lift if he thinks it's getting dodgy after all - it used to be why these boys got the respect, and pay, they got).
As for the rose tinted good old days when everyone worked on more or less the same budgets, is this really true? Even before advertising came onto the scene, do we genuinely think all teams were equally funded?
Of course they weren't.
One of the great aspects of F1 was that an innovative, balls out little guy could come along and piss on the chips of the established teams. So why isn't that happening now?
Not totally sure, but I would guess some things that aren't helping are:
1) An overburdened rule book...
2) ....that constantly changes, seemingly to outlaw creative thinking.
3) Engine regulations (technical and supply) that prevent minnows getting a genuinely good powertrain. We might argue that this season is showing this may be getting better (?). Not quite like the DFV days though.
4) Ridiculous costs of entry imposed by the regulators.
Everyone is free to go out there and get whatever sponsorship they can, sink their own funds etc. Equally they are free to not spend quite so much if they think the costs are hefty. Why does the regulator need to get involved in this?
(I have a broadly similar view on the speed of the cars and the tech restraints designed to slow them down. Totally against the ethos of the sport IMO, and am not sure why the regulator has to get involved. The driver can always lift if he thinks it's getting dodgy after all - it used to be why these boys got the respect, and pay, they got).
elster said:
Toyota: $445.6m
McLaren: $433.3m
Ferrari: $414.9m
Honda: $398.1m
Renault: $393.8m
BMW Sauber: $366.8m
Red Bull Racing: $164.7m
Williams: $160.6m
Toro Rosso: $128.2m
Force India: $121.85m
Super Aguri: $45.6m
Red Bull were spending $165m, so about £100m.
A budget cap of £40m is just too low if they want this to be kept as the pinnacle of the motorsports.
Why not just limit to £100m. Seems fair enough to me, if they are demanding on a limit. Due to the "credit crisis".
But those figures are their TOTAL spend on F1. Don't forget that the cap does not cover hostility, drivers' extortion (sorry, salaries), the cost of Flav's office or Gurning Fool's orthodontics work. The fact that Team Willy have signed up suggests that they believe they can operate under the current cap of circa £40m. McLaren: $433.3m
Ferrari: $414.9m
Honda: $398.1m
Renault: $393.8m
BMW Sauber: $366.8m
Red Bull Racing: $164.7m
Williams: $160.6m
Toro Rosso: $128.2m
Force India: $121.85m
Super Aguri: $45.6m
Red Bull were spending $165m, so about £100m.
A budget cap of £40m is just too low if they want this to be kept as the pinnacle of the motorsports.
Why not just limit to £100m. Seems fair enough to me, if they are demanding on a limit. Due to the "credit crisis".
The sensible approach is to phase this cap in over a couple of years; how would you feel if you were one of those employees of an F1 team that would be out of job in 2010 if the cap were to be enforced? I also wonder whether you have a case for constructive dismissal against your employer if they did sign up?....Also, employment law is a b
h in some countries (Switzerland for instance) so any team wishing to comply with the cap needs to square it with the FIA that any redundancy costs...or costs of reassigning individuals to some desk job, are not included in the cap.Murph7355 said:
1) An overburdened rule book...
2) ....that constantly changes, seemingly to outlaw creative thinking.
3) Engine regulations (technical and supply) that prevent minnows getting a genuinely good powertrain. We might argue that this season is showing this may be getting better (?). Not quite like the DFV days though.
4) Ridiculous costs of entry imposed by the regulators.
1) I don't mind that - ref. R Brawn esq.2) ....that constantly changes, seemingly to outlaw creative thinking.
3) Engine regulations (technical and supply) that prevent minnows getting a genuinely good powertrain. We might argue that this season is showing this may be getting better (?). Not quite like the DFV days though.
4) Ridiculous costs of entry imposed by the regulators.
2) ditto number 1
3) one good thing Mosley did was force manufacturers to offer powertrains at sensible money to the grid at large. In any event, just hire Luca Marmorini and in a tick your engine will be up there with the others on the grid
4) The new teams won't have to post that bond
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff