Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 2 votes

How many teams will remain in F1?


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

Poll: How many teams will survive to be on the grid at the start of 2014? (129 member(s) have cast votes)

Your guess:

  1. 11 (32 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. 10 (50 votes [39.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.06%

  3. 9 (23 votes [17.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.97%

  4. 8 (6 votes [4.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.69%

  5. 7 (17 votes [13.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.28%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:13

Right after Mike Gascoygne sounded his warning about the financial difficulties that especially "new teams" are facing, we have experienced hick-ups with Force India (being denied) and now the Timo Glock story.

It shows that F1 is in a sad state and the sales of the automotive industry, which decreased by more than 20% since 2007, the last quarter of 2012 being another disaster. So medium term there will be no recovery and F1 will need to drag in more and more sponsors from other industries, and will end up with more and more pay drivers.

Force India, Marussia and Caterham are all in danger, and careful planning like in the case of Caterham should assure that they will remain on the grid for years. However, it is no easy times and F1 could end up with as few as 8 teams by the start of 2014.

Needless to say, Bernie will then do something about it, but it might be a case of too little, too late.

Please express your opinion

- how many teams you think will be still on the grid by the start of 2014?
- can F1 teams survive on pay drivers alone?
- what can be possible mid term to long term solutions for the sport, that has entered another (for many so far invisible) crisis?
- will three car teams be the only solution long term?

Edited by aditya-now, 21 January 2013 - 11:35.


Advertisement

#2 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,856 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:26

To be honest the way this is going we're gonna end up with 9 teams sooner or later (Force India is too good to fold, there should be buyers). And since Mosley's great 2009 farce of low-cost F1, I've not seen any indication the FIA is opening up new slots in the grid neither.

Ferrari will love this given their constant push for 3 car teams, but the sport becomes poorer. I have still some faith in Todt however and the economy won't remain awful forever, so a little later on I think F1 will attract someone new, and that can only be the manufacturers with this size of budgets.

These things are cyclical so let's not get into panic mode yet.

#3 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:30

In terms of who is in, and who is out, one cannot escape wondering about Mr. Ecclestone's convictions. First this series underwent hurry up expansion under rather grey circumstances, presumably someone collected entrant’s fees, and now suddenly twenty-cars on the grid are enough. Beats me how did he have arrived to that number.
For my liking, and I have not changed my mind on this issue for several years in the row; I rather see twelve to sixteen competitive cars on the grid race-ready in mid-March, than what we have now, a state in which quantity takes precedent over quality, as teams will be debugging cars for half of a race season...


#4 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,936 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:31

It's certainly worrying times, especially with 2014 around the corner. Unlike Ferrari and Merc the smaller teams can undoubtedly not afford to run two car programs simultaneously, one for 2013 and one for 2014. Survival looks increasingly only possible through close collaboration. Life might financially be easier if HRT, Caterham and Marussia shared engine, gearbox and aero.

#5 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:36

Thanks for deleting the other thread! :up: :up: :up:

#6 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,256 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:37

Thanks for deleting the other thread! :up: :up: :up:

Your welcome :)

#7 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,936 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:50

To be honest the way this is going we're gonna end up with 9 teams sooner or later (Force India is too good to fold, there should be buyers). And since Mosley's great 2009 farce of low-cost F1, I've not seen any indication the FIA is opening up new slots in the grid neither.

Ferrari will love this given their constant push for 3 car teams, but the sport becomes poorer. I have still some faith in Todt however and the economy won't remain awful forever, so a little later on I think F1 will attract someone new, and that can only be the manufacturers with this size of budgets.

These things are cyclical so let's not get into panic mode yet.


I don't see this as giving ammo to Luca dM's wet dream of a three car garage. It would effectively kill F1. Imagine Red Bull having three top drivers in an Adrian Newey designed car?


#8 Zoetrope

Zoetrope
  • Member

  • 1,210 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:55

I don't see this as giving ammo to Luca dM's wet dream of a three car garage. It would effectively kill F1. Imagine Red Bull having three top drivers in an Adrian Newey designed car?


First of all, Newey is no god and doesn't guarantee success. Secondly, having three top drivers competing in the same spec car would also be exciting, wouldn't it? I can already see the fights on the forums :cool:

#9 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:00

I don't see this as giving ammo to Luca dM's wet dream of a three car garage. It would effectively kill F1. Imagine Red Bull having three top drivers in an Adrian Newey designed car?


....and imagine having another three Toro Rosso on the grid as well.


#10 eric2610

eric2610
  • Member

  • 62 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:03

I think there are to possible scenarios.

1. Only 7 or 8 of the 2013 Teams will make it to 2014. But they will not fold together like HRT. I think they will be sold and some Manufactuars will come back in 2015 (Honda, VW Group, maybe GM if the US Races stay succesfull).

2. Teams will threaten to brake together and the it will be allowed to use Chassis from other Teams.

I personally would like option 2. But only with strict limitations. Like Teams running a customer Chassis are only alowed to run rookies. Maybe a way to hold paydrivers out of these Teams.

#11 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,936 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:06

First of all, Newey is no god and doesn't guarantee success. Secondly, having three top drivers competing in the same spec car would also be exciting, wouldn't it? I can already see the fights on the forums :cool:


It would be bad for the sport since a dominant team would hog the podium not to mention the second fastest team taking a few podiums too meaning that the chance for seeing a midfield driver on the podium would be nill as the third car might even be used to hold rivals back or be used as an in-season testing car. But that's another story.

#12 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,479 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:07

Marussia must be looking a bit dodgy now they've been forced to ditch Glock for a paydriver, but I don't see any immediate problems for them. The rest of the teams don't seem to be in trouble though, and there's still enough people willing to invest in the event a team gets into financial problems.

#13 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,948 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 January 2013 - 13:41

First of all, Newey is no god and doesn't guarantee success. Secondly, having three top drivers competing in the same spec car would also be exciting, wouldn't it? I can already see the fights on the forums :cool:


With the loss of Kamui, Heikki and now Glock and how little everyone seems to care, I think maximum wank has been achieved over the top drivers.

At this rate there won't be a midfield place to prove drivers: it will be pay drivers at the bottom, 2 second drivers in each team who are contractually forced to ruin their chances, and pull over for one of those "top drivers" the fanboys get hard over.

Hulkenberg, Ricciardo, Bottas (unproven as of yet) and Maldonado are the only drivers who are currently in F1 I'd deem worthy of a chance in a top or upper midfield team. You could also float Pic if he has a good 2nd year.

Webber and Massa's days are numbered. Kimi and Button don't have any more than 5 years left in them. Perez, Rosberg, Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso are the other ones answered for.

Those ~12 (minus Massa and Webber with time) would fill up all 4 top teams if it came to 3 cars per team.

The rest will be "young guns" chosen for money over merit.



#14 Slackbladder

Slackbladder
  • Member

  • 1,197 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 January 2013 - 13:59

....and imagine having another three Toro Rosso on the grid as well.


That'll be 5 cars Vettel would be allowed an 'easy pass' on then..

a 3 car team would make for some 'interesting' strategies. You can do a lot more with 2 cars playing support than with 1.

Edited by Slackbladder, 21 January 2013 - 14:02.


#15 Brandz07

Brandz07
  • Member

  • 3,219 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 14:16

....and imagine having another three Toro Rosso on the grid as well.


I think someone would have to step in and stop that. It would be ridiculous.

#16 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 January 2013 - 14:27

With the loss of Kamui, Heikki and now Glock and how little everyone seems to care, I think maximum wank has been achieved over the top drivers.


I don't remember any year in the history of F1 that three drivers of the calibre of Kobayashi, Kovalainen and Glock have found themselves without a drive, while not at all being at the end of their career trajectories....

It seems that the current situation warrants an exclusive circle of top drivers, an ever decreasing number of midfield drivers and a growing number of pay drivers.

#17 SunnyENTP

SunnyENTP
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 21 January 2013 - 14:35

First of all, Newey is no god and doesn't guarantee success. Secondly, having three top drivers competing in the same spec car would also be exciting, wouldn't it? I can already see the fights on the forums :cool:



Top 3 drivers competing in the same car? No chance! You really think teams like Ferrari and RB and going to do this?. If anything the extra driver would be more likely to be recruited to be a number 3 with the sole purpose to hinder other cars competing against the number 1 driver of the rival team. I am sure the would be many GP2 and test drivers who would love the option just to drive an F1` can even if be only to be for team orders. F1 would become a complete joke and lose viewers in the millions. I know I would turn off.

#18 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,948 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 January 2013 - 17:44

I don't remember any year in the history of F1 that three drivers of the calibre of Kobayashi, Kovalainen and Glock have found themselves without a drive, while not at all being at the end of their career trajectories....

It seems that the current situation warrants an exclusive circle of top drivers, an ever decreasing number of midfield drivers and a growing number of pay drivers.


Heikki had his top team chance, but I think it is monumentally damning for F1 that guys such as Glock and Kobayashi - proven podium getters in midfield teams who showed world beating, top 2 on the day, pace - are missing out on even a sniff at a top team. Hell, Hulkenberg - seeming future WDC - was dead and buried after 1 average season in 2010.

- Mansell was taken in by Williams after a number of seasons showing podium pace in a Lotus: Became WDC.

- Button, a prior winner, was very unique in that he capitalized on the Brawn takeover. But he still went to McLaren: Became WDC (at Brawn)

- Fisichella was picked up by Renault for two seasons after some good showings in years past.

- Webber had podiums before his RBR team transformed into a true challenger with Newey and the 2009 regulations.

- Alesi could have been a WDC but for the fact he made an error and went to Ferrari instead of Williams. Still a good "midfield" driver who moved up the ladder to what seemed to be a top team.

- R. Schumacher. Yes he is a bit of a joke today, but he showed form at Jordan and scored a chance at Williams on merit. Troubled JPM as well.

We lost the backmarkers that nurtured young talent, now we are losing the midfield. Soon all the drivers that enter F1 will fall off production lines from the top teams into a top seat or just be paydrivers.

Edited by Jimisgod, 21 January 2013 - 17:46.


#19 TheUltimateWorrier

TheUltimateWorrier
  • Member

  • 860 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:58

Needless to say, Bernie will then do something about it, but it might be a case of too little, too late.

Problem is he won't. The proverb 'a stitch in time saves nine' rings true with Bernie. Rather than sort out problems with the 'sport' now for the long-term, he's just letting them build up offering 'quick-fixes' so his daughters can continue to use their crystal bath. Yay.

If things really are this bad, it just surprises me there is no breakaway series or strikes like you get with the NFL, NBA or NHL to make the management sweat. But everybody seems to want to appease Bernie, like he's Kim Jong Il.

Advertisement

#20 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,563 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:09

1. Merc will acquire everyone else's personnel.

On a more serious note : problem is not so much who runs out of money (it happens) but who, if anyone, will jump in to take their place.

We have many teams with money problems and a more expensive F1 in 2014. It doesn't look good if F1 stays the same.



#21 TheUltimateWorrier

TheUltimateWorrier
  • Member

  • 860 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:31

On a more serious note : problem is not so much who runs out of money (it happens) but who, if anyone, will jump in to take their place.

There will always be new teams to jump in to Formula 1 pool but then drown in debt after a year or two (like HRT most recently). Who knows, perhaps we'll get to the point in 2015 where only Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Mercedes and Toro Rosso survive and they're forced to submit 4 car teams.

#22 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,936 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:34

1. Merc will acquire everyone else's personnel.

On a more serious note : problem is not so much who runs out of money (it happens) but who, if anyone, will jump in to take their place.

We have many teams with money problems and a more expensive F1 in 2014. It doesn't look good if F1 stays the same.


Merc are becoming the Chelsea FC of F1. They have scooped up enough top talent to allow for designing of two cars at the same time, the 2013 and 2014 cars. For smaller teams this is terribly unfair and I fear we will see another 2011 where the gap between front runners and everyone else was monumental.

#23 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,871 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 22 January 2013 - 15:19

- HRT is out and will probably not be sold and relaunched.
- Marussia and Caterham have let go of their experienced paid drivers in favour of younger drivers with backing. Gascoyne's recent comments suggest that both teams will find it a challenge to survive in the long term.
- Dark clouds are hanging over Force India, with potentially two paying drivers being taken on amid recurrent rumours about the team's financial situation.
- Toro Rosso is for sale to the right buyer.
- Sauber and Williams both rely on one driver with significant financial backing. Personal sponsorship also seems to have influenced Lotus and McLaren's line-ups.
- The top teams do not need to hire paying drivers, but financial factors still exist (e.g. Alonso's Santander deal, Massa's relevance in the Latin American market, Rosberg's nationality). Of course, when a driver is successful and popular, then the financial bonus is an inevitable and welcome bonus to the existing high level of performance.
- There is no firm evidence that any car manufacturers or other entities outside F1 are considering an entry (except perennial pretenders like Stefan GP).

On the plus side, there may soon be scope for the teams to secure a greater share of the TV money as part of the renegotiation of the Concorde Agreement/management changes caused by Ecclestone's retirement or death. But on the whole, I'll be pleasantly surprised if all of the current teams survive into 2014.

Edit: I would also consider a Mercedes withdrawal likely if the team is not competitive in 2014 (although not as an engine supplier).

Edited by midgrid, 22 January 2013 - 15:24.


#24 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 22 January 2013 - 15:42

Bring back pre-qualifying + any team can enter + no-one is forced to participate full season + customer cars allowed

But since that unfortunately won't happen... I think that by 2014:
9 teams = 18 cars

#25 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 15:56

I expect within another season we'll be down to 9 teams.

What could cause F1's downfall is that it is run as an investment first, and a sport second.

Until that changes, the future is never going to look quite as bright as it once did.

Turning the entire thing into a borderline spec series takes away from the uniqueness of the sport. It once blazed the way forward with technical advancements, only to be taken hostage by a bunch of perpetual whiners who think there need to be cost restrictions.

#26 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:12

Only four teams (Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Mercedes) are financially safe according to a new BILD story (BILD has been quite active recently with revealing a number of news concerning Timo Glock, Toto Wolff and Mercedes).

Make that three teams if the last hooray that Mercedes are staging now would fail - I think a lot depends on how competitive their engine will be from 2014 onwards.....

#27 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:25

AMuS goes even one step further: they suggest that Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull and Mercedes could each race with four cars, if the trend continues.

That would be the end of modern F1 as we know it and a return to the 1950s. Not to say that there was not high quality racing in the 1950s, though.....

#28 TheUltimateWorrier

TheUltimateWorrier
  • Member

  • 860 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:34

Who knows, perhaps we'll get to the point in 2015 where only Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Mercedes and Toro Rosso survive and they're forced to submit 4 car teams.

AMuS goes even one step further: they suggest that Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull and Mercedes could each race with four cars, if the trend continues.

I'm not one to big myself up :cool: but great minds think alike and all that :smoking: .

#29 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,535 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 23 January 2013 - 15:00

Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren, Caterham and Sauber are ok by all accounts.
Mercedes are a manufacturer, will only be in F1 whilst it makes sense.
Lotus, Force India, Marrussia need significant investment/sale to continue
Torro Rosso are for sale
Williams will be kept afloat by Bernie, so long as Bernie is in charge.

I'd say in 5 years time it could be as good as 10 teams, as bad as 7 depending on how the dice roll.

#30 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 23 January 2013 - 15:36

only to be taken hostage by a bunch of perpetual whiners who think there need to be cost restrictions.


You haven't read this thread up to this point? The exact problem with F1 now is that its so darned expensive to be competitive. I cannot see a single benefit this big-budget extravaganza has brought to the sport.... it has however meant F1 is no longer a meritocracy or a sport in the truest sense. Its simply a case that the teams with the biggest budgets win :confused:



#31 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 23 January 2013 - 15:45

You haven't read this thread up to this point? The exact problem with F1 now is that its so darned expensive to be competitive. I cannot see a single benefit this big-budget extravaganza has brought to the sport.... it has however meant F1 is no longer a meritocracy or a sport in the truest sense. Its simply a case that the teams with the biggest budgets win :confused:


That all didn't work out so well for Toyota and Honda.

The name of the game is refining everything which costs a hell of a lot more money than anything else to make all the various tweaks to aerodynamic packages. When you have Red Bull bringing a new front wing design to every race over the course of a season (2011) how much money do you think that costs? Aero is insanely expensive to effectively develop, and since it's the only thing really left to develop...well costs are what they are. I don't know why people care so much about budget caps. It's a way of rewarding mediocrity.

#32 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 23 January 2013 - 16:51

Its an easy one - but a difficult one to swallow - budget cap and open regs within the limits of safety. You can spend Xm on whatever you want as long as it passes the tests.

There would be a lot of crying about a team that found a sliver bullet, but it would make for some interesting developments.

#33 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,256 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 23 January 2013 - 17:10

Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren, Caterham and Sauber are ok by all accounts.

I wouldn't be so sure about Sauber. I assume you've put them because of Mexican backers, but if Perez is superb at McLaren and Guiterrez flops, they could be in trouble again.

#34 TheUltimateWorrier

TheUltimateWorrier
  • Member

  • 860 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 23 January 2013 - 17:25

I wouldn't be so sure about Sauber. I assume you've put them because of Mexican backers, but if Perez is superb at McLaren and Guiterrez flops, they could be in trouble again.

Agree there, the article is suggesting that only Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes and Toro Rosso (because of their rich backers) are they only ones which aren't in some kind of financial peril.

#35 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,535 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 23 January 2013 - 17:30

I wouldn't be so sure about Sauber. I assume you've put them because of Mexican backers, but if Perez is superb at McLaren and Guiterrez flops, they could be in trouble again.


I'm not entirely confident, but relatively they are well run and not nearly as critical as Lotus or FI as I understand it. Also, they exist to be a racing team, which helps.

#36 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 23 January 2013 - 17:34

That all didn't work out so well for Toyota and Honda.

The name of the game is refining everything which costs a hell of a lot more money than anything else to make all the various tweaks to aerodynamic packages. When you have Red Bull bringing a new front wing design to every race over the course of a season (2011) how much money do you think that costs? Aero is insanely expensive to effectively develop, and since it's the only thing really left to develop...well costs are what they are. I don't know why people care so much about budget caps. It's a way of rewarding mediocrity.


Honda and Toyota (and Ferrari for many years) were prime examples of how to squander a huge budget through mismanagement.... Money doesn't automatically bring success in F1, but success is nigh on impossible without it. There's a direct correlation in F1 between budget size and success, and this trend has only increased in the last 20 years. If you ask me the current formula is more of a reward for mediocrity, since top teams know that they can spend their out of trouble and into success, while promising lower tier teams are held back in a classic chicken and egg scenario.

Since the top teams consistently show they are too selfish to act within the spirit of the rules, which would benefit the long term future of F1, they need to be made to do this. Max Mosley was right when he said the current model of F1 is unsustainable in the medium to long term, it needs to lower costs on every level or ultimately die.

Edited by wepmob2000, 23 January 2013 - 19:08.


#37 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,535 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 23 January 2013 - 18:00

I don't know why people care so much about budget caps. It's a way of rewarding mediocrity.


If budget caps reward mediocrity, then a lack of them evidently kills sport.

The big cost to F1 is the arms race in season, but they're all spending between £1m and £200m essentially running to stand still. If in-season development had been totally banned last year, McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari and Lotus would have been fighting at the front, Merc, FI, Sauber and Williams in the middle and TR, Caterham, Marussia and HRT at the back. Performance would still have varied track to track based on the car, track and tyres. So we have to ask, what is the ****ing point?! About the only thing the arms race achieves is that it stops a season from being a right off it a car isn't quick at the first race, but as it is, teams with a poor car seem to divert all their attention to the following season in about June anyway... thereby self administering a "right off" as they chose not to throw good money after bad.

Really the lack of budget cap (or as I prefer a rules mechanism to limit the return on development expenditure) is rewarding insanity, if anything.


#38 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 23 January 2013 - 19:15

Its an easy one - but a difficult one to swallow - budget cap and open regs within the limits of safety. You can spend Xm on whatever you want as long as it passes the tests.

There would be a lot of crying about a team that found a sliver bullet, but it would make for some interesting developments.


Couldn't agree more, it would open up an era of innovation similar to the 1970's. With the budget constraints it might even lead to useful ideas - concepts that have a wider application than just motorsport. Its got to be glaringly obvious that the current model of F1 is unsustainable, but the team bosses seem incapable of grasping this idea. Like so many people now, they seem only able to think of the short term :|


Edited by wepmob2000, 23 January 2013 - 19:15.


#39 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 23 January 2013 - 19:32

If budget caps reward mediocrity, then a lack of them evidently kills sport.

The big cost to F1 is the arms race in season, but they're all spending between £1m and £200m essentially running to stand still. If in-season development had been totally banned last year, McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari and Lotus would have been fighting at the front, Merc, FI, Sauber and Williams in the middle and TR, Caterham, Marussia and HRT at the back. Performance would still have varied track to track based on the car, track and tyres. So we have to ask, what is the ****ing point?! About the only thing the arms race achieves is that it stops a season from being a right off it a car isn't quick at the first race, but as it is, teams with a poor car seem to divert all their attention to the following season in about June anyway... thereby self administering a "right off" as they chose not to throw good money after bad.

Really the lack of budget cap (or as I prefer a rules mechanism to limit the return on development expenditure) is rewarding insanity, if anything.


If anything, the season long arms race rewards mediocrity. Year after year we see jumbled competitive grids at the start of the season, then high budget teams that haven't done such a good job over the winter increasingly dominate. Two prime examples are McLaren in 2009 and Red Bull in 2012, where neither team started well but were able to finish well due to spending power. This is real mediocrity in action, as smaller teams that do a stellar job over the winter see their hard earned improvements wiped out, surely this is the antithesis of 'sport'?



Advertisement

#40 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,142 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:11

If budget caps reward mediocrity, then a lack of them evidently kills sport.

The big cost to F1 is the arms race in season, but they're all spending between £1m and £200m essentially running to stand still. If in-season development had been totally banned last year, McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari and Lotus would have been fighting at the front, Merc, FI, Sauber and Williams in the middle and TR, Caterham, Marussia and HRT at the back. Performance would still have varied track to track based on the car, track and tyres. So we have to ask, what is the ****ing point?! About the only thing the arms race achieves is that it stops a season from being a right off it a car isn't quick at the first race, but as it is, teams with a poor car seem to divert all their attention to the following season in about June anyway... thereby self administering a "right off" as they chose not to throw good money after bad.

Really the lack of budget cap (or as I prefer a rules mechanism to limit the return on development expenditure) is rewarding insanity, if anything.


I disagree about Ferrari, if they had been locked into their Melbourne performance, their season would have been f****d after the first race, Malaysia notwithstanding. They would have then spent every penny they had to prepare for 2013. I'm not sure that this would save costs.

#41 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 24 January 2013 - 00:00

If anything, the season long arms race rewards mediocrity. Year after year we see jumbled competitive grids at the start of the season, then high budget teams that haven't done such a good job over the winter increasingly dominate. Two prime examples are McLaren in 2009 and Red Bull in 2012, where neither team started well but were able to finish well due to spending power. This is real mediocrity in action, as smaller teams that do a stellar job over the winter see their hard earned improvements wiped out, surely this is the antithesis of 'sport'?


You haven't been following F1 for very long then if you really believe that whatever a team achieves over the winter should somehow entitle them to having an entire season of success.

F1 has always been about moving forward rather than standing still...well at least up until more recent times.

#42 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 24 January 2013 - 00:37

You haven't been following F1 for very long then if you really believe that whatever a team achieves over the winter should somehow entitle them to having an entire season of success.

F1 has always been about moving forward rather than standing still...well at least up until more recent times.


Probably been watching longer than you Sonny Jim :p I didn't say that teams should be entitled to anything, but its the opposite of sport when outstanding performance can be swept away by teams with deeper pockets, and when results ultimately come down to money and nothing else. Its a classic chicken and egg situation for smaller teams, who need money to get the results, need results to get the money, and so ad infinitum. In the days before this overblown ridiculous spending, a genius could come along and establish a top team on a tiny budget (e.g. Lotus, McLaren, Brabham). This was a meritocracy, not a mediocracy.....

(And thats also why English Premiership football is pants!!! To me, buying championships a sport does not make.)


Edited by wepmob2000, 24 January 2013 - 00:39.


#43 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:18

Probably been watching longer than you Sonny Jim :p I didn't say that teams should be entitled to anything, but its the opposite of sport when outstanding performance can be swept away by teams with deeper pockets, and when results ultimately come down to money and nothing else. Its a classic chicken and egg situation for smaller teams, who need money to get the results, need results to get the money, and so ad infinitum. In the days before this overblown ridiculous spending, a genius could come along and establish a top team on a tiny budget (e.g. Lotus, McLaren, Brabham). This was a meritocracy, not a mediocracy.....

(And thats also why English Premiership football is pants!!! To me, buying championships a sport does not make.)


But that's always been the case in Formula 1. To develop a (good) race car you need money to do it. An idea is worthless without the money necessary to bring it into existence.

Anyway, where is all the money being spent in the current formula anyway?

#44 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,552 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:35

(And thats also why English Premiership football is pants!!! To me, buying championships a sport does not make.)

Good point.

Tennis is much fairer as any tennis player can attempt to qualify for Wimbledon, and subsequently win if they are good enough. Of course, however, it does not help that travel/coaching costs are greater than prize money for mediocre players making it quite a tough career if you are not so skilled as the best players or do not have big academy paying these costs for you.

#45 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,552 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:40

Its simply a case that the teams with the biggest budgets win :confused:

Of course McLaren and Ferrari had choice to invite DM for dinner in 1994, lavish praise on his excellency and sign a 20 year sponsorship contract with Red Bull (a blue Ferrari :eek: )... they chose not to, and to become enemies instead. :D

All they needed was a crystal ball and the guts to get on with a little bit of brazen Sauber sponsor poaching. How hard can it be? :rolleyes: :p

#46 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:34

Of course McLaren and Ferrari had choice to invite DM for dinner in 1994, lavish praise on his excellency and sign a 20 year sponsorship contract with Red Bull (a blue Ferrari :eek: )... they chose not to, and to become enemies instead. :D

All they needed was a crystal ball and the guts to get on with a little bit of brazen Sauber sponsor poaching. How hard can it be? :rolleyes: :p


What you suggest would be even two less teams on the grid - if Dietrich Mateschitz would have sponsored Ferrari or McLaren it would mean no Toro Rosso, no RBR - surely an even less constructive situation than the situation we have now.

Come to think of it, that would mean only Ferrari, McLaren, Renault (Lotus), Williams and Mercedes would be still there - and Force India as the continuation of Jordan. That would be six teams only and, as you know, Force India is threatened as well, it would give us only five to six teams then (10 - 12 drivers on the grid). So we can count ourselves lucky that Mateschitz chose to invest in the sport that decisively and bought up the original Stewart GP and the Minardi F1 Team.

#47 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:07

Interesting article by Joe on the art of buying a collapsed team for only peanuts....

Joe writes:

"As an example, back in the autumn GenII Capital came very close to selling the Lotus F1 Team, even if they will not admit it. The goal then was to find a way to get rid of debts that some believe are in the region of $100 million. The deal did not go through, but we hear that soon afterwards Gerard Lopez was able to find another $35 million in loans to keep the show on the road. When a team does well on the race track there is always more money coming in, not just in larger sums of TV and prize money, but also as a result of new sponsors. Borrowing is fine as long as a company can go on finding people willing to loan money and there are sufficient assets that are available to be pledged. This is the kind of juggling that one is seeing more and more and one has to wonder where it will all end. Lopez was fortunate in that he got the team for next to nothing, with a $30 million loan from Renault to help him on his way, so if he has to sell every penny beyond the debt will be profit and he will still have had three years of free advertising for his company.

Over at Force India, one has to ask similar questions.

But for now the jugglers are all still there, even if the bankers behind HRT have dropped the lot and are now busy wiping egg off their faces…
"

Sounds to me like producing a bubble that might eventually burst, like we have seen many times now in big economics....

#48 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:44

With the current rulemaking proces, defining everything makes it more difficult to find extra performance.
For example:
in the past, an upgrade that gave 0,3 seconds was not deemed worthy and the upgrade was further developed.
Now, if an upgrade gives 0,05 seconds, it is bolted on. There is no way to test it and with more races, anything goes. It bears no explanation more parts are produced for small gains. Big teams can pay for this, but in the long run over the season, with 20 upgrades made, worth a second. They lose to much time.

It resembles a Schumacher interview in which he stated there was about a second margin for a driver to prove his worth in the nineties. This time is reduced to about 0,1s in 2010+. The cars are way more advanced in the areas they still can develop. I would love to see overpowered cars again. They used to have far more power than grip. It heightens the margin for error (you can power out of a problem) and gives the possibility to race a different line and still lose no time. Watch some mid nineties races and you can see what I mean.

#49 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 24 January 2013 - 19:21

Of course McLaren and Ferrari had choice to invite DM for dinner in 1994, lavish praise on his excellency and sign a 20 year sponsorship contract with Red Bull (a blue Ferrari :eek: )... they chose not to, and to become enemies instead. :D

All they needed was a crystal ball and the guts to get on with a little bit of brazen Sauber sponsor poaching. How hard can it be? :rolleyes: :p


But McLaren and Ferrari do have huge budgets. A little better performance compared to Red Bull is all they need, their own failings have led to their paucity of results in recent years. For a smaller team, it doesn't matter how much they improve, their lack of funding will always hold them back over a season.



#50 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 24 January 2013 - 19:24

Good point.

Tennis is much fairer as any tennis player can attempt to qualify for Wimbledon, and subsequently win if they are good enough. Of course, however, it does not help that travel/coaching costs are greater than prize money for mediocre players making it quite a tough career if you are not so skilled as the best players or do not have big academy paying these costs for you.


Agreed, it is one sport where natural talent will get a person so far, although the entry requirements probably make it less meritocratic than cricket or football for individual players.