63 replies to this topic

[RealRacing]

I don‘t understand why I‘m not supposed to want F1 teams to be able to get their hands on the best drivers just because I regard F1 as primarily a competition between teams (including drivers) rather than purely a competition between drivers. The problems with the single seater ladder are, in my view, merely examples of a wider trend where there is no support for measures that would be good for the sport as a whole, merely because most teams can‘t see how it would give them an advantage over the others.

The reason for my confusion over team orders is that I am the worst kind of pedant and you said you wanted to see them "eliminated again" rather than "banned again", and team orders still cropped up fairly frequently even when they were banned. For what it‘s worth, though, I don‘t agree that even an effective ban on team orders, assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing is possible, would encourage teams to spend money on hiring better drivers more so than if team orders were allowed. Indeed, some teams might take it as encouragement to sign a worse second driver than they otherwise would have as a way of making sure they can still have a de facto number 1 driver, especially if there‘s an opportunity to make extra money from the second driver‘s sponsor by doing that. The countervailing factor, which applies equally whether team orders are possible or not, is that it is in any team‘s competitive and financial interests to maximise its WCC points and to use both its cars to take WDC points off their rivals, so it‘s a financial balancing act between hard cash and potential results. Hard cash often wins out.

Everybody is free to want the best pilots to drive for their favorite team, that goes without saying.

 

IMO, however, fans that see F1 primarily as a team competition, should not be as bothered by pay drivers as fans that see F1 primarily as a driver competition. It may well be the case that a pay driver will help the cause (win the WCC) to a higher degree than a more talented non-paying driver because he brought money that helped the team make a better car.  In my case, a person who does not care which team wins but wants to see the best driver talent showcased, I am fairly bothered when a pay driver, or a driver that has had his chance is occupying valuable F1 seats. My thought is, simply, that I'd rather watch a F1 season with amazing displays of driver talent (Senna at Toleman, MS at Jordan, SV at STR, etc.) than watching a very close WCC definition...

 

You are right, an effective ban on TOs would probably not have a direct influence in the hiring of pay-drivers. I was seeing it more as a possible positive effect of giving the WDC more weight than the WCC (giving more importance to the drivers). If they did that and allocated points in a smart way for the WDC, it could change the focus of teams.  Maybe it would be more in their interest to hire two even-matched drivers, forget the No. 1, No. 2 policy and TOs would just not be that convenient.  This would be a good scenario for fans as well.

 

I still believe a ban on TOs could be policed with low-tolerance measures and aided with technology, but, as said, that's outside the scope of this thread.

[redreni]

Everybody is free to want the best pilots to drive for their favorite team, that goes without saying.
 
IMO, however, fans that see F1 primarily as a team competition, should not be as bothered by pay drivers as fans that see F1 primarily as a driver competition. It may well be the case that a pay driver will help the cause (win the WCC) to a higher degree than a more talented non-paying driver because he brought money that helped the team make a better car.  In my case, a person who does not care which team wins but wants to see the best driver talent showcased, I am fairly bothered when a pay driver, or a driver that has had his chance is occupying valuable F1 seats. My thought is, simply, that I'd rather watch a F1 season with amazing displays of driver talent (Senna at Toleman, MS at Jordan, SV at STR, etc.) than watching a very close WCC definition...
 
You are right, an effective ban on TOs would probably not have a direct influence in the hiring of pay-drivers. I was seeing it more as a possible positive effect of giving the WDC more weight than the WCC (giving more importance to the drivers). If they did that and allocated points in a smart way for the WDC, it could change the focus of teams.  Maybe it would be more in their interest to hire two even-matched drivers, forget the No. 1, No. 2 policy and TOs would just not be that convenient.  This would be a good scenario for fans as well.
 
I still believe a ban on TOs could be policed with low-tolerance measures and aided with technology, but, as said, that's outside the scope of this thread.

That‘s all fair enough in principle but there are a couple of factors that muddy the water, in my view. First, the distinction between paid drivers and pay-drivers seems rapidly to be getting superceded by the distinction between pay-drivers and pay-more-drivers. Look at Kobayashi; Sauber told him they thought he was better than Gutierrez but that he needed to bring money, and he went out to find sponsorship. If he‘d raised enough, he‘d have stayed in F1 as a pay driver, but I reckon most neutral fans would have preferred that to what actually happened. But wouldn‘t it be nice if teams like Sauber could afford to hire any driver, without having to demand money?

As it is, though, pretty much every driver brings sponsors with them, not necessarily because they couldn‘t get a drive otherwise, but because it‘s financially beneficial for both team and driver to have, for example, Santander backing. But I don‘t think there is a financial filter stopping drivers who are good enough to drive for Ferrari from doing so. There are financial filters stopping talented young drivers from getting into F1 in the first place and that‘s due to the financial health of the backmarker and midfield constructors.

It costs a fortune, using your own IP, to construct two F1 cars that comply with the regulations and are fast enough to be allowed to race, and to cover your running expenses for the season. If you don‘t have enough money to do that without taking pay drivers, then obviously you‘ve no choice but to take them. If you still have money left after you‘ve covered your essential costs, you can choose to spend it on either car development or drivers. With car development, the value you get from every 100K you spend, in laptime terms, will start off quite high, because you‘ll have lots of scope to improve the car, but then the more you spend, the more the laptime returns diminish as you get closer to fulfilling the car‘s potential. As long as teams are relatively skint, and find themselves unable to spend enough on their cars to get off the steep part of the development curve, they will always look to get money from drivers and spend it on the car because of the significant laltime return that is available. If the costs of competing in F1 could be brought down, or the smaller teams‘ incomes increased, they might be able to afford to develop the car to the point where the development curve is starting to flatten, at which point they would start to ask themselves if they wouldn‘t be able to find more performance by hiring a professional driver than by continuing to spend on the car. It ought to be in teams‘ and fans‘ mutual interests to have the best drivers in F1.

[purplehaireddolphin]

The reason it's different is that the Super License applies to only F1 and is not granted solely for results in GP2. Many of the current drivers have skipped GP2/F3000 entirely or have come to F1 by other means. That's what I want clarified. Why can't it be stricter?

 

Under my suggestion only (if we say top 5) Leimer, Bird, Colado, Nasr and Coletti could be granted F1 licences for next year. This is based on the implicit assumption that they only arrived at GP2 by being in a top 5 position in GP3, etc.

There needs to be a structured way into F1. I know some drivers came into F1 skipping a few of the lower series and have done well (Kimi) but I agree with you, I think that getting a superlicence should be made harder, you need to have competed (and succeeded) in GP3 and GP2 to earn the right to test for a superlicence.

That test could be carried out by the FIA after the last race of the season and only if the drivers obtain a certain time will they be granted a superlicence.

That way you have a structured ladder to F1 and the knowledge that the drivers with the licences have the skill to drive in F1

 

For drivers like Bird and Colado to struggle to get into F1 just cos they dont have the backing is criminal, if the licences were limited to just the top 5 in GP2 then at least you could maybe get a reserve driver role, even without a wallet thicker than Bernies

[rhukkas]

There needs to be a structured way into F1. I know some drivers came into F1 skipping a few of the lower series and have done well (Kimi) but I agree with you, I think that getting a superlicence should be made harder, you need to have competed (and succeeded) in GP3 and GP2 to earn the right to test for a superlicence.

That test could be carried out by the FIA after the last race of the season and only if the drivers obtain a certain time will they be granted a superlicence.

That way you have a structured ladder to F1 and the knowledge that the drivers with the licences have the skill to drive in F1

 

For drivers like Bird and Colado to struggle to get into F1 just cos they dont have the backing is criminal, if the licences were limited to just the top 5 in GP2 then at least you could maybe get a reserve driver role, even without a wallet thicker than Bernies

 

 

 

The problem you're creating there is saying you need to have a certain level of 'success'. How do you define 'success'? There is the very real possibility someone in 10th, could in theory, be taking his car closer to the limit than any other driver. So what in fact  you are doing is placing a higher price ona  super licence because it will take longer to achieve one. If you haven't got the budget, you're screwed.

 

The reason all the classes underneath F1 are so expensive is because they are....  wait for it.... underneath F1. Making F1 the primiary goal for race drivers naturally inflates prices. Simple supply and demand economics.

 

As spectators of motorsport is we are ONLY interested in f1, then that means it's the only motorsport with any real market penetration. it's the only motorsport where a driver can 'earn' a wage, though that notion is dying.

 

Unless drivers have real professional opportunities in various categories then this problem of 'pay' drivers will only continues. But as most of you ONLY care about F1 then that's why the situation will remain.

[purplehaireddolphin]

The problem you're creating there is saying you need to have a certain level of 'success'. How do you define 'success'? There is the very real possibility someone in 10th, could in theory, be taking his car closer to the limit than any other driver. So what in fact  you are doing is placing a higher price ona  super licence because it will take longer to achieve one. If you haven't got the budget, you're screwed.

 

The reason all the classes underneath F1 are so expensive is because they are....  wait for it.... underneath F1. Making F1 the primiary goal for race drivers naturally inflates prices. Simple supply and demand economics.

 

As spectators of motorsport is we are ONLY interested in f1, then that means it's the only motorsport with any real market penetration. it's the only motorsport where a driver can 'earn' a wage, though that notion is dying.

 

Unless drivers have real professional opportunities in various categories then this problem of 'pay' drivers will only continues. But as most of you ONLY care about F1 then that's why the situation will remain.

GP2/GP3 are spec series, placing more emphasis on driver talent. If you're 10th, then you're not setting the car up as well as those ahead, or you're just not good enough. Of course, being in a better team will help, cos they'll be helping more in setting up the car and giving advice etc, but it's still down to the driver, certainly more than in F1

[rhukkas]

GP2/GP3 are spec series, placing more emphasis on driver talent. If you're 10th, then you're not setting the car up as well as those ahead, or you're just not good enough. Of course, being in a better team will help, cos they'll be helping more in setting up the car and giving advice etc, but it's still down to the driver, certainly more than in F1

 

Some teams are better than others and prices will reflect that. Also, if you're 10th in your first ever race as oppose to someone who's 5th and in their 4th season who is the more 'successful'. I am highlighting that in motorsport success is not a clear cut concept.

[RB1]

The EU needs to bans fast food and junk food adverts on television but allow them to carry on advertising at sporting events.

 

Then we won't need drivers who bring loads of cash to teams, it will be easy to get a major sponsor.

 

McDonalds McLaren Honda

PizzaHut Williams Mercedes

KFC Force India Mercedes

Burger King Sauber Ferrari

 

There's more than enough to go around.

 

The liveries won't be very nice but it will help solve the pay driver problem.

 

It happened with tobacco in the 70's and 80's, maybe it will happen with junk food.

[tifosi]

.

 

Many other sports have entries to competition based solely on results in lower leagues. Why can't this be the case in F1?

 

  Many?   Which ones?

[redreni]

There needs to be a structured way into F1. I know some drivers came into F1 skipping a few of the lower series and have done well (Kimi) but I agree with you, I think that getting a superlicence should be made harder, you need to have competed (and succeeded) in GP3 and GP2 to earn the right to test for a superlicence.

That test could be carried out by the FIA after the last race of the season and only if the drivers obtain a certain time will they be granted a superlicence.

That way you have a structured ladder to F1 and the knowledge that the drivers with the licences have the skill to drive in F1

 

For drivers like Bird and Colado to struggle to get into F1 just cos they dont have the backing is criminal, if the licences were limited to just the top 5 in GP2 then at least you could maybe get a reserve driver role, even without a wallet thicker than Bernies

 

The reality is, if an F1 team wants to sign you, as long as they give you the minimum amount of testing mileage, you will get a Superlicense even if you come nowhere near meeting the results-based criteria. Look at Sirotkin. The fact is the teams take the view that they should be able to sign whoever they like and there's not very much the FIA can do about it. Imagine if FIFA started telling football clubs in the top leagues what players they could or couldn't sign. There would be uproar.

 

Forcing drivers to compete in GP3 and GP2 in order to get a Superlicense would be a great way for the FIA to open itself up to lawsuits from drivers who have been denied a Superlicense despite being demonstrably better than somebody who does qualify, from teams seeking to sign a driver who has been denied a Superlicense despite being demonstrably better than somebody who does qualify, and from the promoters of competitor series to GP2 such as FR3.5 or Indycar or DTM, and from the promoters of competitor series to GP3 such as F3 European Championship, FR2.0, Formula Nippon (aka "Super Formula"), British F3, Auto GP etc etc..

[JSDSKI]

Interesting discussion - and without the usual forum histrionics!  Amazing. 

 

Athletic talent will find a way to express itself.  Mostly determined by environment and cost.  It's far cheaper to start in a sport with a ball (football - Euro or American, basketball) than a sport that demands investment.  Trying to eliminate those barriers to the expensive sports is missing the market and the forces that affect that market.  You still will never change the fundamental:  sail boats are more expensive than cars, which are more expensive than skiing, golf, or hockey, which are more expensive than tennis, which is more expensive than baseball or soccer.  There is a hierarchy of investment.  It's like saying, "I want to make titanium as cheaply as leather".   

 

Why are we assuming teams are missing magic talent in the lower formula?  Because there are a lot of talent scouts, engineers, journalists, sponsors, and owners out in the  world comparing notes.  Looking for the next great talent. They really don't miss as much talent as some here seem to think.   And even the silver spoon drivers have to meet a base standard or else a team cannot compete for sponsors or points.

 

But if trying to increase the possibility of "reduced circumstance" driving talent into F1 is the goal, What about a FIA scholarship system. Have FIA dump some extra funds into a pot to which sponsors and those teams that want to participate donate.  Hell, let the fans send in cash (ie, purchase stock) for their favorite. Let the fans nominate young talent. Have drivers from all over nominated.  Let a "FIA Training Group" review and interview the applicants and then pick exactly the same number of scholarship drivers as there are teams participating.  Have an F1 Simulator Series (pat pend, coopyright 2013) in which the nominiees compete live online the same weekend and at the same circuit as the F1 circus. They win points. Top point winners are selected.  Have the WDC draw their names out of a hat at the end of the year awards dinner.  The reward?  Individual training, sponsorship, an F3 ride.  Let the teams trade their picks if they want - that would be fun and keep fans involved. Now the "unknown" has a full year to demonstrate and develop their talent - with team support. Not the whole one race - one shot theory.

 

At that point the youngsters still have to make their way to F1.  But at least they get a real shot for a career in motorsport.

Edited by JSDSKI, 06 November 2013 - 18:02.

[V3TT3L]

[sopa]

 

Did Alonso really get paid so much at Renault in 2008-09? I thought they had reduced budget after 2006.

And why does the Ferrari salary fluctuate each year, on what does it depend? 

[V3TT3L]

Did Alonso really get paid so much at Renault in 2008-09? I thought they had reduced budget after 2006.

And why does the Ferrari salary fluctuate each year, on what does it depend? 

No idea, sorry.

[LuckyStrike1]

Performance bonuses most likely.