Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

F1 set to drop to eight x three driver teams in 2015?


  • Please log in to reply
624 replies to this topic

Poll: With the Caterham and Marussia news, will three car teams happen in 2015? (202 member(s) have cast votes)

With the Caterham and Marussia news, will three car teams happen in 2015?

  1. Yes (74 votes [36.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.63%

  2. No (61 votes [30.20%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.20%

  3. Don't know (67 votes [33.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.17%

Do YOU want three car teams to happen?

  1. Yes (83 votes [41.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.09%

  2. No (103 votes [50.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.99%

  3. Don't know or care (16 votes [7.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.92%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#601 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 November 2014 - 21:30

So, Sauber has confirmed Ericsson, and will probably confirm another pay driver for 2015 soon enough. Despite their good result today, I fail to see the point of them being in F1.

 

Did you watch F1 before your join date? Two years ago Sauber were fighting for podiums.



Advertisement

#602 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 November 2014 - 22:15

This is looking unlikely to happen next year. It's already too late and the only ones who are completely for it are Red Bull.

You really think they will running 5 cars in two teams? Looks like a neat exit strategy to dump Toro Rosso without being cast as the villains!

#603 Emilvang

Emilvang
  • Member

  • 965 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 01 November 2014 - 22:27

Did you watch F1 before your join date? Two years ago Sauber were fighting for podiums.

 

Bit pretentious, but yeah, been watching for 4 years. I saw their relevance in 2012 with Koba and Perez, good drivers with real talent, and Hulkenberg in 2013. This year, Sutil and Guti, what's the point? And next year with Ericsson with either Sutil/Guti/VDG as the other driver..Not much better is it? The ideal scenario for the smaller teams would be to bring through the real talents like Vandoorne, Nasr or Frinsj(sp?), and not pointless drivers with backing.



#604 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 01 November 2014 - 22:42

Bit pretentious, but yeah, been watching for 4 years. I saw their relevance in 2012 with Koba and Perez, good drivers with real talent, and Hulkenberg in 2013. This year, Sutil and Guti, what's the point? And next year with Ericsson with either Sutil/Guti/VDG as the other driver..Not much better is it? The ideal scenario for the smaller teams would be to bring through the real talents like Vandoorne, Nasr or Frinsj(sp?), and not pointless drivers with backing.

 

The whole point is that they don't have the money needed to bring in those guys.....

 

In Ericsson comes along with £20million and that money is what keeps the Sauber team going for another year then they have to take it.


Edited by johnmhinds, 01 November 2014 - 22:46.


#605 Emilvang

Emilvang
  • Member

  • 965 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 01 November 2014 - 22:57

The whole point is that they don't have the money needed to bring in those guys.....

 

In Ericsson comes along with £20million and that money is what keeps the Sauber team going for another year then they have to take it.

 

And my point is, that if they have to bring in two pay drivers, then why stay in the sport at all? Ericsson and paydriver number 2 will never get them up the field. Will cruising at the back of the grid really bring that much exposure? They seem to think so, and good for them, I guess. I just wouldn't care if they left. At least with Marussia they had a real talent in Bianchi, but yet he was only there because of Ferrari.



#606 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 02 November 2014 - 00:19

I repeat. What a steaming bucket of sh*t.

#607 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 02 November 2014 - 01:26


Monisha Kaltenborn said something which particularly struck me where she mentioned that back in what I assume is the mid-late 2000s the large manufacturers gathered around to support a smaller team (I'm guessing Midland/Spyker) and she simply said that couldn't happen today.

 

 

I thought she was referring to Brawn GP.

 

There's clearly a very different attitude today towards teams which are in danger of dropping out. I'm not quite sure why.

 

Do the top teams actually want to run 3 cars, even though they are acting a bit reluctant? Do they see it as an opportunity for themselves to squeeze more money out of Bernie?



#608 Newbrray

Newbrray
  • Member

  • 2,750 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 02 November 2014 - 02:18

Ecclestone: F1 issues ‘probably my fault

http://gptoday.com/f...bably_my_fault/

 

Asked if there was anger and frustration at the situation, Ecclestone replied: "Absolutely. 

"The problem is there is too much money probably being distributed badly - probably my fault. But like lots of agreements people make, they seemed a good idea at the time." 

And Ecclestone believes he and the teams “should tear all of the current contracts up. Tear them all up, start again.” 

With Fernley saying a boycott of the United States Grand Prix was a genuine possibility on Saturday, Ecclestone said there is no chance of a team pulling out of the race. 

“Forget all that crap. I promise they will be racing. They will be racing, I give you a guarantee – but I worry if they will be racing next year.” 

While Ecclestone is keen to make changes, he says it will be difficult as a result of the complexity of regulations at present because unanimous agreement is required on many matters. 

“We have to decide the best way to sort this whole thing out. Frankly, I know what's wrong but don't know how to fix it. No one is prepared to do anything about it because they can't. The regulations have tied us up. 

“If we were in a position where we could help these teams in trouble, we would do it. But we are not allowed to. They say if you give this team $10,000, everyone has to have $10,000. The trouble with lots of regulations and lots of contracts is that we don't think long-term. 

“It makes no difference to me how the money is shared out. If they sat down here with me now and said they want to share out all of the money we get in a different way, I would say, 'Good, give me the bit of paper'.”

 



#609 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,125 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 02 November 2014 - 03:00

Ecclestone: F1 issues ‘probably my fault[/size]
http://gptoday.com/f...bably_my_fault/

You missed the most important part of this article, from Racer:

Ecclestone denied there was a threat of a boycott this season, even though Force India's Bob Fernley repeatedly suggested it was an option.

"Forget all that crap," Ecclestone said. "I promise they will be racing. They will be racing, I give you a guarantee – but I worry if they will be racing next year."

He also played down the possibility of three-car teams.

"Forget third cars," he said. "Nobody can afford two cars."

First we're doing it, now we're not. Something's up behind the scenes.

#610 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 02 November 2014 - 06:20

And my point is, that if they have to bring in two pay drivers, then why stay in the sport at all? Ericsson and paydriver number 2 will never get them up the field. Will cruising at the back of the grid really bring that much exposure? They seem to think so, and good for them, I guess. I just wouldn't care if they left. At least with Marussia they had a real talent in Bianchi, but yet he was only there because of Ferrari.

To be in F1 you first need to survive. Pay drivers buy you time to achieve that goal. I've followed F1 for over 30 years as have many on this forum. The product you are watching now bears no resemblance to the racing of the late 80s and early 90s when there were 17 2 car teams.

#611 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,785 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 November 2014 - 09:17

More quotes via Adam Cooper

 

Bernie Ecclestone has taken the huge step of admitting in public that the distribution of funds among the F1 teams is not equitable – and that he is responsible.

Ecclestone insists that he will attempt to address the issue and try to save the ailing teams, although contracts make that difficult.

“I know what’s wrong, but don’t know how to fix it,” he told PA and other British media outlets. “No-one is prepared to do anything about it because they can’t. The regulations have tied us up. If we were in a position where we could help these teams in trouble, we would do it. But we are not allowed to.

“If one team is given $10,000, everyone has to have 10,000. The trouble with lots of regulations and lots of contracts is we don’t think long term.”
Regarding the specifics of the distribution of the F1 fund, he said: “It makes no difference to me how the money is shared out.

“If they sat down here with me now and said they want to share out all of the money they get in a different way, I would say, ‘Good, give me the bit of paper’.

“The problem is there is too much money being distributed badly – probably my fault – but, like lots of agreements people make, they seemed a good idea at the time.”

Ecclestone said it wouldn’t be easy to override the existing deals: “I would say to people getting a chunk of money that I would like to take a percentage of their performance-related payment. I would put that money together to divide among the three or four we know are in trouble, and then I would put in the same amount of money. But there would not be one team that would think it was a bloody good idea.

“In the old days, the people sitting around a table would be the guys who could say yes or no. They would ask me to sort it out and it would be sorted. But none of the modern guys can agree anything, even if they wanted to. They all have to report back to somebody.

“I’d take all the money, pay all the teams’ debts that should be paid so people haven’t suffered because of Formula One, and people haven’t got credit for Formula One.

“I’d then say this is what you are going to get next year, this is the amount of money we’ve got, and this is what is going to happen from now on in. It’s percentages. It’s a case that the people involved in the sport will have to want to look after the sport and be prepared to make some sacrifices.”

 


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 02 November 2014 - 09:17.


#612 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 6,385 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 02 November 2014 - 15:42

To be in F1 you first need to survive. Pay drivers buy you time to achieve that goal. I've followed F1 for over 30 years as have many on this forum. The product you are watching now bears no resemblance to the racing of the late 80s and early 90s when there were 17 2 car teams.


Problem is, once you hire two pay drivers you tend to enter a downward spiral. Less points, less exposure, less money. You generally don't recover from it.

#613 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,156 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 02 November 2014 - 17:02

There's been a few (rare) exceptions. Williams a couple years ago had Maldonado and Bruno Senna both as paying drivers, now they're regularly battling for podiums. Force India were as bad as it gets when VJ took over, picked up into a solid midfield team for a few years. Etc.



#614 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,143 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 November 2014 - 10:22

F1 is emphatically *not* a capitalist model. It guarantees minimum levels of payment to particular teams on spurious historical grounds irrespective of their level of performance or sponsorship monies. Other teams are denied such income streams irrespective of their performance.

Like most of contemporary "capitalism" this is in reality a form of neo-aristocratic wealth hoarding that masquerades as "free competition."

Not that I agree with it in the slightest but there is not such thing as the "historical" portion of the payments. Its a combination of factors including history but also other parts such as brand equity within F1. It is NOT spurious. I'm no fan, but Ferrari's participation is inextricably linked to F1's global popularity and appeal. They get more out because they effect the fact there is more in. The only debate is how much. 

 

And of course that portion is irrespective of performance. The performance payment (constructors championship) is another pot.


Edited by Rinehart, 03 November 2014 - 10:31.


#615 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,077 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 November 2014 - 12:39

Not that I agree with it in the slightest but there is not such thing as the "historical" portion of the payments. Its a combination of factors including history but also other parts such as brand equity within F1. It is NOT spurious. I'm no fan, but Ferrari's participation is inextricably linked to F1's global popularity and appeal. They get more out because they effect the fact there is more in. The only debate is how much. 

 

And of course that portion is irrespective of performance. The performance payment (constructors championship) is another pot.

 

How can you be sure about this? Ferrari are there and so there are Ferrari fans. If Ferrari were not there whose to say whether those fans would disappear from F1 or ally themselves to another F1 team?



#616 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 6,385 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 03 November 2014 - 13:53

There's been a few (rare) exceptions. Williams a couple years ago had Maldonado and Bruno Senna both as paying drivers, now they're regularly battling for podiums. Force India were as bad as it gets when VJ took over, picked up into a solid midfield team for a few years. Etc.

 

Sure, but I'd say there's a difference between a pay driver and a 'paying driver'. Almost all new drivers not coming up through one of the big teams acadamies bring some money. And Maldo, for all his faults, was a GP2 champ. 



#617 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 November 2014 - 14:11

In a FOTA survey few years back Ferrari was the favorite for 30% of fans. But McLaren was not far behind at 19%.

 

Should popular drivers get a piece of the TV money too? They do bring viewers. Kind of like big stars in Hollywood.

 

It's all nonsense. Spread the TV money based on what is good for the sport. Popularity can be cashed on via sponsorship and fan products.



#618 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,143 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 November 2014 - 14:24

So who would these A/B Teams be then?

 

If that happened, I'd assume the "senior team" could construct all 4 cars - saving the B team considerable money...

 

Red Bull / Torro Rosso = Renault

 

Mercedes / Manor  = Mercedes

 

Ferrari / Hass = Ferrari

 

McLaren / Force India = Honda

 

Williams / Lotus = Cosworth (badged Mercedes???) 

 

Sauber / ??? = Ferrari (badged something???)



#619 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 15,143 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 November 2014 - 14:29

How can you be sure about this? Ferrari are there and so there are Ferrari fans. If Ferrari were not there whose to say whether those fans would disappear from F1 or ally themselves to another F1 team?

Lots of expensive marketing research. 

 

F1's brand recognition is significantly driven by Ferrari, so even if the fan is a fan of another team, a large portion got to that destination via their original awareness. So its not a question of saying, well how many fans does Ferrari have and where would they go. Other fans are brought to the sport by Ferrari in the first place. 

 

In case people only read the last post before responding. Don't shoot the messenger. To reiterate, I am not in favour of Ferraris exceptional income, I'm just commenting on how its calculated. 


Edited by Rinehart, 03 November 2014 - 14:31.


Advertisement

#620 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,491 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 09 November 2014 - 14:46

Kevin Eason says Ferrari and RBR will run three-cars in 2015.



#621 TheRacingElf

TheRacingElf
  • Member

  • 2,267 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 09 November 2014 - 14:59

In my opinion it's very unfair if several teams are allowed to run 3 cars and some aren't.. not only for constructor points but also for data gathering. If you have 3 cars you can test a lot more things than teams with just 2 cars.



#622 smr

smr
  • Member

  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 09 November 2014 - 15:02

Kevin Eason says Ferrari and RBR will run three-cars in 2015.


If true who would they run in the 3rd cars?!

#623 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 09 November 2014 - 15:05

In my opinion it's very unfair if several teams are allowed to run 3 cars and some aren't.. not only for constructor points but also for data gathering. If you have 3 cars you can test a lot more things than teams with just 2 cars.


Exactly - I'm actually quite annoyed McLaren don't have a 3rd car as it could be quite useful to use one to 'test' things and the others to prepare for the race.

#624 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 November 2014 - 11:32

Horner: "We cannot afford a 3rd car and have not been asked to supply one for 2015"

http://en.espnf1.com...ory/183577.html

 

The 3rd car 'confirmation' was just one of those empty Bernie remarks made in the context of hard negotiations with Lotus, FI and Sauber about a cash injection.  



#625 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 6,385 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 11 November 2014 - 17:27

'We cannot afford a third car' my arse! You mean you'd rather spend the money elsewhere, Christian.

Edited by billm99uk, 11 November 2014 - 17:27.