92 replies to this topic

[kayemod]

This is one of the best pieces on what's wrong with F1 in its current form that I've seen, and it's in the Guardian of all places, well known as stout champions of the motor vehicle in all its forms. Richard Williams is one of the best and most thoughtful motor racing writers around, and I think it will be hard for most of us to disagree with much in this article.

 

http://www.theguardi...tone-max-mosley

 

Motor racing is not well served by motoring writers in the UK daily press these days, especially if you aren't a Hamilton fan, though I don't remember standards being much higher in years gone by. Keith Botsford was no better years ago in The Sunday Times, and there were others even worse than him. He'd been promoted from being that paper's tennis writer, and he should have stayed on-court. The one who's work I see most these days of is Kevin Eason also in The Times, and he's about as misguided on the subject as they come, I'm sure that Sniff Petrol's Troy Queef is modelled on him, apologies if he's the offspring or son in law of someone on here.

 

The really tragic thing about the problems with F1, motor racing in general in fact, is that the real issues and the mistakes that have been made are so plain for most of us to see, and the solutions though far from easy, are so obvious. I think it would be a waste of time to post this on Racing Comments, any serious thoughts on the problem would be shouted down by what seems to be a majority who seem to be OK with the current situation, but what do the deep thinkers of TNF think about the points that Richard Williams makes?

Edited by kayemod, 25 October 2015 - 11:11.

[Nemo1965]

This is one of the best pieces on what's wrong with F1 in its current form that I've seen, and it's in the Guardian of all places, well known as stout champions of the motor vehicle in all its forms. Richard Williams is one of the best and most thoughtful motor racing writers around, and I think it will be hard for most of us to disagree with much in this article.

 

http://www.theguardi...tone-max-mosley

 

Motor racing is not well served by motoring writers in the UK daily press these days, especially if you aren't a Hamilton fan, though I don't remember standards being much higher in years gone by. Keith Botsford was no better years ago in The Sunday Times, and there were others even worse than him. He'd been promoted from being that paper's tennis writer, and he should have stayed on-court. The one who's work I see most these days of is Kevin Eason also in The Times, and he's about as misguided on the subject as they come, I'm sure that Sniff Petrol's Troy Queef is modelled on him, apologies if he's someone on here's offspring or son in law.

 

The really tragic thing about the problems with F1, motor racing in general in fact, is that the real issues and the mistakes that have been made are so plain for most of us to see, and the solutions though far from easy, are so obvious. I think it would be a waste of time to post this on Racing Comments, any serious thoughts on the problem would be shouted down by what seems to be a majority who seem to be OK with the current situation, but what do the deep thinkers of TNF think about the points that Richard Williams makes?

 

First of all, what I can see at Racing Comments is that most of the 'shouters' are people who relish in either Mercedes possible cut down to size or Red Bull cutting off their own nose... I can see no shouters who are 'OK with the current situation'. Most of the shouters I see are people revelling in humiliation of this or that party. Second of all, TNF has his own shouters, so don't get me started.

 

To adress your post directly: the article is very good, though it contains a paradox. If we think, as he writes, that 'a return to the old reliance on internal combustion engines, instantly depriving Formula One of a hard-won chance of regaining its technological relevance to a future in which every street will have recharging points for electric cars, would be a final insult...', several of the problems where F1 is in, get a different light.

 

As as I see it, we have a governing problem (which the article addresses very well) with Ecclestone and Todt and Mosley either being central, or not helping at all. And we have a sport-problem, i.e: that the sport is too technical, too computery, too DRS'y or what have you.

 

Ecclestone keeling over and Todt being replaced and getting someone sensible would solve the governing problem but not the sport-problem. Then we would still have: 'The sound of drivers being told how to take corners by people who have never raced in their lives (...)' or 'groups of data analysts sitting at desks in English industrial estates, staring at banks of computer screens and crunching numbers before sending instructions to a track thousands of miles away, where they can be relayed to the driver by his race engineer in the sort of dispassionate tone your dentist might use when inviting you to open a little wider.

 

If we want to have AND a sport AND a 'continuous development' AND we don't want to slap manufacturers like Mercedes and Honda in the face... well, I think the 'twain shall never meet'. The idea that we can have a sport that connects with the past we loved AND kind of have our share of the modern times (number-crunchers in Milton Keynes) is, methinks, impossible.

 

F1 has too choose, I think. Either it is a sport - and then technical developments would only be allowed when it increases competition. Or it is a showcase of technological developments... and then we risk that a good team like Mercedes can change the record-books.

Edited by Nemo1965, 25 October 2015 - 11:18.

[HP]

I'm not a TNF frequent at all, but most of the points made in the article I have suggested years ago. So while I nod, no one has figured yet how to wrestle control out of the hands of Ecclestone and co and put it in the hands of someone how is genuinely interested into racing, while at the same time keeping F1 relevant to current times and technology. That issue of control needs a bright idea and capable hands.

[kayemod]

First of all, what I can see at Racing Comments is that most of the 'shouters' are people who relish in either Mercedes possible cut down to size or Red Bull cutting off their own nose... I can see no shouters who are 'OK with the current situation'. Most of the shouters I see are people revelling in humiliation of this or that party. Second of all, TNF has his own shouters, so don't get me started.

 

 

But surely the very fact that they contribute to Raving Comments must mean that they're more or less OK with what the sport has become, they wouldn't be there otherwise. I'm not a regular visitor to RC these days, but I certainly don't get the impression that most of the current lot are Mercedes or Red Bull fanboys arguing with each other.

[Nemo1965]

But surely the very fact that they contribute to Raving Comments must mean that they're more or less OK with what the sport has become, they wouldn't be there otherwise. I'm not a regular visitor to RC these days, but I certainly don't get the impression that most of the current lot are Mercedes or Red Bull fanboys arguing with each other.

 

I don't think so. Basically over there you can see that F1 itself has gotten itself into a kind of gymnastic split. There are lot of F1 fans who have followed the sport over ten, twenty, thirty years and every group has it's own melancholic memories about F1. And every group rues the changes and longs for a rekindle of past memories... look at Lewis who wants to emulate Senna...

 

And at the same time there are fans who are growing their memories NOW. In ten years time, I am sure, they will think fondly of the same cars the author of this Guardian-article is loathing. Again, look at Hamilton and his fans.  I think that Lewis especially has a following who has much less with the nostalgic longings of us, old anoraks. Just imagine that Ecclestone manages to destroy the new engine-formula, gets his dearest wish. Then Hamilton's run of successes will be cut short, not by lack of talent, not by lack of engineering-skills by Mercedes, but just because of a political move. How will his fans then feel? 'Lewis was the best driver of his generation. I loved F1 back then. But Bernie Ecclestone murdered his career. Then I stopped watching.'

 

Not implausible at all, right?

 

So my impression is that a lot of fans - and drivers - are still in love with the sport but at the same time loath everything that gets stuck between their memories and the current times... and there are fans who love F1 and just don't get why Mercedes is not allowed to do the same as Red Bull has done - dominate. So both groups of fans are not okay with the current situation, I feel. They are just powerless - and in many times clueless - what they could do about it.

 

And the worst thing is, as it is society in a whole: labelling the current situation as scandalous is a kind of public-relations also. I am sorry, but almost ALL the parties in F1 that matter, throw up smokescreens how terrible F1 is so the fans won't see what is really happening. The problem is that there are also sincere souls - like the author of the Guardian-article and some fans here... but who can recognise the sincere lament in a storm of bitching and moaning?

 

Sorry if I am rambling on.

Edited by Nemo1965, 25 October 2015 - 16:18.

[Terry Walker]

Hard to disagree with anything in that article. I've become so bored with the identikit, unidentifiable circuits, the bizarre telemetry and two-way radio business (okay, why don't Grand Slam tennis players have earpieces in, and get coaching while they play? Why not have radio link from team captain to the batsmen during test cricket?) and the use of unnecessary pit stops as a means of creating drama where there is none, that I've gone to MotoGP as my main international motorsport fix.

 

Just think: No radios, just pit boards; no fuel stops,  the only option being if the track gets wet, they can swap to a second bike with wet tyres fitted. When the rider gets on the bike at the start he's on his own all the way to the flag.  He makes his own mistakes, but he also wins his own races.   

 

I don't mind the DRS and the other stuff, but the radio gives me the pip. "Your back brakes are a little hot... you have 2 lb pressure loss in your front left tyre..." 

 

Look, let the driver work it out, that's what he's there for. Talk about back-seat driving gone mad.

 

Grumble grumble grumble.

[E1pix]

Formula One's fall is that we had an art worthy of an opera hall, but turned it into a science worthy of cubicles.

[Jack-the-Lad]

Artifice: tires designed to degrade, fuel limitations, driver assists, gimmicks to facilitate passing because design parameters don't permit it, "race management", and, worst of all.........."relevance."

F1 should be about ultimate performance and on-track competition. Period. If it has to be relevant to survive, then let it die. It's supposed to be sport, not a laboratory.

[john aston]

There are many problems and most of them are spelt BCE , MM or CVCC. Between them they have screated the biggest problem of all- once there was motor sport wih F1 at the top but now there is F 1 and motor sport . Few of the former's fanbase knows or cares anything about the latter. 

[Doug Nye]

Seems to me that John's second premise is certainly, sadly, correct. Not quite so sure about the first - although it is certainly difficult to defend any of that trio with real confidence, since so much of the truth about what has gone on has been kept behind closed doors. Essentially Formula 1 is trapped by its own public profile, since sensible moves to render it more exciting, more spectacular, more competitive and more aesthetically appealing would almost certainly attract condemnation for making it less safe and - in every modern sense of the term - less 'relevant'.  Basically, the march of civilisation is making gasoline sports - of all kinds - at their pinnacle level, ever less sustainable...  Which is sad - but perhaps inevitable.  I conclude that we have, indeed, seen the best of it ... never to be repeated...  

 

DCN

[Ross Stonefeld]

There's a whole host of of problems that F1 needs to deal with, many of them in direct contradiction of each other.

 

Everyone wants more action but they don't want gimmicks.

 

They wan't innovation but don't like the side effects of it.

 

They want unrestricted competition, but want the series to be healthy/sustainable.

 

 

F1 will basically never be fixed. It's probably the worst series for having the attitude to change with the times/think ahead, and it's the series most exposed to those issues. It's always had a 'Free Market' approach to the rules and competition, then it got out of hand and there's the occasional "Reckon all that rain is coming through the gaping hole in the roof?" "Might be, should we find a small bucket?" "Yeah that will do for now".

 

 

 

 

[Bloggsworth]

Governance is the first problem, in the form of Todt who, being French, has his eyes on some future political post, so doesn't want to upset anybody who could make the transition difficult; this, allied to the totally unfair distribution of the monies generated by F1 are crippling the sport. No-one who has any hand in making the cars should have any hand in framing the regulations as they nix any attempt to make it more competitive and less expensive. I have no beef with the mechanical advancements at all, it is the total reliance on aerodynamics which prevent more competitive racing as well as costing a king's ransom, a ransom which the smaller teams cannot afford to play. The more efficient, aerodynamically, the front wings become, the less effective they become when following another car...

[kayemod]

There are many problems and most of them are spelt BCE , MM or CVCC. Between them they have screated the biggest problem of all- once there was motor sport wih F1 at the top but now there is F 1 and motor sport . Few of the former's fanbase knows or cares anything about the latter. 

 

The first two I'd agree with, but not the third. CVC are a finance company, they exist to make money for the funds and people involved in their Company, that's what they do. Of course they put nothing back into the sport, but anyone who ever expected anything different is deluded, why should they? They saw a money making opportunity and they grabbed it, they attract criticism of course, but people are aiming at the wrong target, it's BCE, MM and a few others who we should blame, for letting in CVC in the first place. It could be said of course that by investing in the sport they "own", CVC would make it healthier and grow their investment, but that would be long term thinking, which isn't something that organisations like theirs do. They'll sell out at a profit sooner rather than later, a good result, job done, but who's going to take their place? It probably won't be the benevolent white knight that we're hoping for.

 

Apologies if I've depressed any F1 followers further with this sad but realistic post. We're in a mess, and most of us know it.

[E1pix]

Truth never needs an apology. It IS depressing, though.

[Odseybod]

So long as F1's owners describe it as an Entertainment rather than a Sport, and engineer it on that basis, I fear we who pine for it as it was and still could be, are urinating directly into a Force 10.

[Doug Nye]

....but then it comes up with a race like today's, on a circuit which by current standards is a halfway decent one...  Tee-hee.

 

DCN  

 

PS - Sadly, though my instinct is to do so, after his post-race infantilism I find it difficult to sympathise with Britney...

Edited by Doug Nye, 25 October 2015 - 21:13.

[Vitesse2]

Well, the weather gods played a part - in more ways than one - but that was one of the best F1 races I've seen in some considerable  time.

 

The boy Hamilton done good. Back-to-back SPOTY too?

[Ross Stonefeld]

It's funny to see people here bemoaning that it's too much of a Entertainment or too much even Sport, rather than engineering. It has a long way to go before it's even a sport, nevermind entertainment. Which is one of the fundamental problems.

 

Racing can't live in a bubble. You'd have thought the end of the tobacco era, the recession led manufacturer exodus(across all forms of racing) etc would have clued people into that.

[E1pix]

....after his post-race infantilism I find it difficult to sympathise with Britney...

I'm remote so missed the race, but 'Britney...?'

We were really tempted to have this year's USGP be our first since 2002... mainly because we'd have loved to see Elton John perform after the race...

[Odseybod]

It's funny to see people here bemoaning that it's too much of a Entertainment or too much even Sport, rather than engineering. It has a long way to go before it's even a sport, nevermind entertainment. Which is one of the fundamental problems.

Racing can't live in a bubble. You'd have thought the end of the tobacco era, the recession led manufacturer exodus(across all forms of racing) etc would have clued people into that.

Tsk, tsk, someone's clearly forgotten the famous Hemingway quote: "There are only three sports - bull-fighting, motor racing and mountaineering. All the rest are merely games."

May grumble about some of the company we keep, of course, at least n those days, but maybe it's akin to not being able to choose your family. Or nowadays, owners.

Edited by Odseybod, 26 October 2015 - 07:22.

[Vitesse2]

I'm remote so missed the race, but 'Britney...?'

Rosberg junior. Coined by Mark Webber when they both drove for Williams - see the sidebar here for the story behind it http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/23073995 and this not entirely serious blog https://thepitwalk.w...y/nico-rosberg/

[Slurp1955]

Richard Williams has long been a fine writer. He has a great (mostly music) blog at thebluemoment.com ,  JohnP

Who would be a F1 journo? Asking inane questions to a bunch of nabobs who don't want to tell you anything about their little world of "secrets"  

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by E1pix
.....mainly because we'd have loved to see Elton John perform after the race.

I don't know how people can think any kind of musical performance has a place at a Grand Prix or any other motor racing event.




.

Edited by Ray Bell, 29 October 2015 - 14:32.

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

From the Guardian piece...

 

"...These self-proclaimed saviours are the very people whose activities over a 30 year period created the setting for the present mess..."

 

Farther back than that.  More like 40 years when the little imp invoked a power-play to get the 1975 Canadian GP cancelled in a dispute over $$$ with Mosport management.

[Kpy]

I don't know how people can think any kind of musical performance has a place at a Grand Prix or any other motor racing event.

Why ever not? It's hardly novel.

 

"For those motor-racing enthusiasts who appreciate good jazz music, and there are a great many, including myself, the concert put on by Chris Barber and his band, with Humphrey Lyttelton joining in, rounded off the day in a splendid fashion, and a more orderly and appreciative audience would have been hard to find."

DSJ, report on British Grand Prix, Motor Sport.  August 1964

 

For instance.

[cpbell]

I'd broadly agree with most of Richard Williams' opinions, though I thought the Pirelli dig was a touch unwarranted.

 

For what it may be worth, my prescription would be along these lines (personal opinion only):

 

1.  End the single tyre supplier era.  Yes, costs will go up, but there are surely better ways to ensure that the sport is affordable.  One of the things we lost with single-supplier regulations and the ludicrous insistence on using two widely-differentiated tyre compounds at every circuit irrespective of suitability was the decision a driver/team had to make regarding whether to use a harder tyre and try to avoid stopping, or going with a softer tyre and making a tyre stop.  Speaking of which...

 

...2.  Restrict the number of personnel allowed to work on the car in the pit stops.  This would reduce costs, as expensive technologies to shave 1/10th of a second from the stops would be useless as the lower limit would be how long it took a limited number of people to change all four wheels and tyres.  It would also improve safety, as there would be fewer team members in the firing line should the driver misjudge his approach.  My suggestion would be four - one per corner, plus jack operators and a "floating" person who could clear wings of debris, clean the driver's visor etc. as required.

 

3.  Retain the current wing dimensions, but allow one main plane, two endplates and two flaps (one per side) for the front wing, and one mainplane, two endplates and one flap for the rear.

 

4.  Reintroduce a limited form of ground effect (no sliding skirts, but tunnels allowed in a limited area of the floor).  This would get rid of the stepped floor, a short-term means of slowing cars in the wake of Imola 1994 that has lingered for no appreciable reason.  Its main effect would be to eliminate the need for DRS by reducing the adverse effect of turbulence on the front wing of a following car, thereby getting cars into one anothers' slipstreams more often through corners, enabling overtaking on the straights.

 

5.  Retain the fuel capacity limit, but eliminate the fuel-flow rate restrictions.  Teams/drivers would have the choice of increasing flow to gap the driver behind, and take the pain of fuel-saving at elsewhere in the race, or maintaining an even pace.

 

6.  Ban the transmission of data away from the circuit, thereby reducing coasts as the armies of data analysts back at the factory would no longer be necessary.  Yes, it means some job losses, but, if it saves the sport from declining, it will save jobs in the long run.

 

7.  Implement a budget cap.  I've read some comments suggesting that it would be utterly unenforceable, which makes me wonder how accountancy and the submitting of annual returns operates.  Do any members with professional knowledge have any views on this?

Edited by cpbell, 26 October 2015 - 13:18.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I don't know how people can think any kind of musical performance has a place at a Grand Prix or any other motor racing event.

As long as it's not during the race, what's the harm? You can probably sell more tickets, particularly to casual fans, on the back of F1 race + concert by fairly major act. And if you can turn that casual fan into a lifelong fan by exposing them to the sport, how is that not a good thing?

[Ross Stonefeld]

7.  Implement a budget cap.  I've read some comments suggesting that it would be utterly unenforceable, which makes me wonder how accountancy and the submitting of annual returns operates.  Do any members with professional knowledge have any views on this?

How do we police the spending of Mercedes(road car company) vs Mercedes(F1 team)? What do we do when Honda employs McLaren designers to do wind tunnel work and gives the designs to their team for 'free'? I could very quickly, and probably easily and legally, turn Red Bull F1 into a company with a turnover not much higher than the budget to pay the stuff and the utility bills.

[Charlieman]

Richard Williams has long been a fine writer. He has a great (mostly music) blog at thebluemoment.com ,  JohnP

Who would be a F1 journo? Asking inane questions to a bunch of nabobs who don't want to tell you anything about their little world of "secrets"

Richard Williams is one of those writers who is so talented that you feel sick in admiration. His biog of Enzo Ferrari is infuriating owing to silly errors, but it is a good read. I've just put his book about the 1957 Pescara GP in my read again pile. I often find myself reading Williams's sports columns about things I'm not bothered about. The problem is that when he is writing that stuff, he's not getting on with his Richard Seaman biography.

 

Not bad for a lad who learned his craft at Melody Maker.

[kayemod]

How do we police the spending of Mercedes(road car company) vs Mercedes(F1 team)? What do we do when Honda employs McLaren designers to do wind tunnel work and gives the designs to their team for 'free'? I could very quickly, and probably easily and legally, turn Red Bull F1 into a company with a turnover not much higher than the budget to pay the stuff and the utility bills.

 

I really can't see the enforcement of an agreed cost cap as a problem, any competent forensic accountant could see through dodges and false accounting of that kind in an instant, it's what they do all day long, as anyone who has ever been subjected to an HMRC investigation will confirm. The problem though is the same as it's always been, getting large and small teams together to agree on a realistic figure. Large and wealthy teams will fight to retain all their advantages.

[Charlieman]

I don't know how people can think any kind of musical performance has a place at a Grand Prix or any other motor racing event.

Go to Silverstone and consider the "much improved" access roads and public transport links. If the organisers put on a show after the racing, as at the Silverstone Classic, they can stagger people leaving the circuit or going back to their camp site. Attendance is not compulsory, but you will be subsidising the people who go so that you can get home more quickly.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I really can't see the enforcement of an agreed cost cap as a problem, any competent forensic accountant could see through dodges and false accounting of that kind in an instant, it's what they do all day long, as anyone who has ever been subjected to an HMRC investigation will confirm.

 

Let's take MotoGP as an example. I can get a works Honda for probably 1/10th of what it cost Honda to design/build. And hell, that's only a lease.

 

It's a somewhat poor example because the governments go out of their way to not get in the way, but as an analogy look at corporate tax dodges.

[Charlieman]

6.  Ban the transmission of data away from the circuit, thereby reducing coasts as the armies of data analysts back at the factory would no longer be necessary.  Yes, it means some job losses, but, if it saves the sport from declining, it will save jobs in the long run.

Allow data transmission from the engine to be monitored in real time, in order to reduce messy blow ups. Chassis/brake/aero performance data should be recorded but inaccessible until 48 hours after the end of the race.

 

End radio communication for anything that is non-urgent. Urgent means black flag, red flag, stop-go penalty, imminent car failure etc. All the rest should be communicated via pit boards.

[E1pix]

Rosberg junior. Coined by Mark Webber when they both drove for Williams - see the sidebar here for the story behind it http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/23073995 and this not entirely serious blog https://thepitwalk.w...y/nico-rosberg/

Oh, that really is lovely. I call him "Pretty Boy," so same gig. ;-)

I've simply never been a fan. Maybe because his old man was so amazing in F-Atlantic (!!!) and beyond, and was such the Real Deal, it was a hard act to follow. Or maybe I've just never been a Britney fan and find it hard to carry on.

Thanks for the link, loved it. :-)

[Charlieman]

Let's take MotoGP as an example. I can get a works Honda for probably 1/10th of what it cost Honda to design/build. And hell, that's only a lease.

Err, you can't. LCR Honda have a 20 year relationship with the manufacturer team. Sometimes LCR have a bike that is one step behind the main team, and at other times they race last year's (reliable) bike. It takes a lot of time to develop the relationship with the manufacturer, and the deals with Tech3 or LCR will be very complicated.

 

A few years ago, MotoGP had a rule that new riders could not be signed up by a manufacturer. The rider had to race with a satellite or independent team for a season before racing a full factory bike.  MotoGP understands that the non-manufacturer teams are important.

[E1pix]

I don't know how people can think any kind of musical performance has a place at a Grand Prix or any other motor racing event.

Because otherwise all there would be to do was watch a Grand Prix in Texas.

I do know what you mean Ray, but we're talking about Elton John here -- not Marilyn Manson.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Err, you can't. LCR Honda have a 20 year relationship with the manufacturer team. Sometimes LCR have a bike that is one step behind the main team, and at other times they race last year's (reliable) bike. It takes a lot of time to develop the relationship with the manufacturer, and the deals with Tech3 or LCR will be very complicated.

 

A few years ago, MotoGP had a rule that new riders could not be signed up by a manufacturer. The rider had to race with a satellite or independent team for a season before racing a full factory bike.  MotoGP understands that the non-manufacturer teams are important.

 

With enough money I literally could, but I think most people would understand what I mean by the example. You can always move the costs off your own books.

[cpbell]

Allow data transmission from the engine to be monitored in real time, in order to reduce messy blow ups. Chassis/brake/aero performance data should be recorded but inaccessible until 48 hours after the end of the race.

 

End radio communication for anything that is non-urgent. Urgent means black flag, red flag, stop-go penalty, imminent car failure etc. All the rest should be communicated via pit boards.

 

Agree regarding data transmission, but I still think it ought to be engine/transmission at the circuit only - no live data stream back to base.  I'd love for the radio to become near-extinct, but I fear that's trying to un-invent a bit too much.  Then again, we'd never have had Raikkonen's iconic "I know what I'm doing!" outburst in Abu Dhabi a few years back, which probably summed-up our dislike of race/data engineers coaching drivers had your proposal been in place.

 

Speaking of which, anyone who doesn't think that the Abu Dhabi site wouldn't be better as the wild island it apparently was as opposed to that awful, artificial, excessively twisty and dull circuit has no feeling for motorsport, in my opinion.  Impressive architecture, maybe, but the circuit is dreadful.

Edited by cpbell, 26 October 2015 - 14:45.

[kayemod]

You can always move the costs off your own books.

 

...where any competent forensic accountant will always find it.

[Ross Stonefeld]

A Honda Indycar engine supply costs about a million dollars for an entire season. What would the accountants say about that?

 

I would love to see a budget cap, or controlling revenues, or something that puts a ceiling on how much money they can throw into the fireplace. But I just don't think it's workable even with all the will in the world. There will always be someone trying to get around it, and I rather fancy the chances of the poachers than the gameskeepers.

[Slurp1955]

Why a budget cap? Let them spend what they like, and if they employ 1200 people doing it, so what?. And scrap 90% of the rules, and the stupid tokens. And all the ridiculous artifice. And scrap limits on testing. Despite all the endless crap, you still end up  with a dominant team, and mid-table outfits that even can't pay their hotel bills. F1 is like watching Italian Serie A. Every now and again you will see a great game, or a great race such as Austin. JohnP  

[kayemod]

A Honda Indycar engine supply costs about a million dollars for an entire season. What would the accountants say about that?

 

 

Maybe not a great deal on some points, accountants don't make the rules, but they would tell you who'd spent what, who'd paid what, and what all the nuts bolts and washers cost. You'd get however deep an investigation you were prepared to pay for, and the World being what it is, probably one that covered the rulemakers' arses.

[Charlieman]

With enough money I literally could, but I think most people would understand what I mean by the example. You can always move the costs off your own books.

You're not buying two stroke 500cc Suzukis any longer.

 

You can't get a deal with the top three MotoGP manufacturers unless you have a motor sport record elsewhere. The manufacturers have credibility and they're not going to toss it away in a quick deal with a nomark from nowhere. LCR and Tech3 get great deals with manufacturers because they are compliant; they are helped to find sponsors and riders who may be quick, and they don't make a fuss when the manufacturer team pulls a tech rabbit out of the top hat. 

---

MotoGP has demonstrated a series organiser which acknowledges problems. MotoGP has changed the technical rules a few times in order to encourage new teams and reduce costs. It is looking good for the future.

 

F1 business does not see any problems, because it makes money, and it fails to understand that everyone could be richer if F1 business sorted out its act.

 

It's a bit like when Bernie headed F1CA; if you twiddle it a bit here and there, there is a lot of money in F1 for the teams and circuits. But F1 business aren't paying up and most team managers appear to be neutralised.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Look how quickly VDS got themselves an HRC bike. If you have money all things are possible. This is racing.

 

But the point remains, how the hell do you police a budget cap. People can say forensic accountants until they're blue in the face but this is a sport that runs on money and loopholes. And now we want to ask them to find financial loopholes? Has no one seen the finance industry

[E1pix]

I wonder how much less money would be needed if they got rid of all the ridiculous computer crap and staff to run it...

F1 was absolutely awesome until Renault came in with the first turbos, and from there it's been all about high-tech nonsense.

Edit: banning turbos for 1989 brought in another great era, later destroyed by... too much tech!!!

Edited by E1pix, 26 October 2015 - 16:34.

[Charlieman]

F1 was absolutely awesome until Renault came in with the first turbos, and from there it's been all about high-tech nonsense.

When Renault built their first F1 turbos? They were partly a joke but everyone knew that if it worked, the rules would be changed. Nobody expected Renault to sort it out so quickly.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The blame is turbos and not say, aerodynamics? Or the development of computer technology?

[E1pix]

Ross, I mentioned computers and the staff running them first. :-)

I fully agree on aero being a big part of the high-tech issues that got us into this unsustainable mess.

Turbos did drive up costs, but perhaps more critically, removed ambient sounds that *made* F1 so special.


Charlieman, I missed the joke part... Jabouille looked good straight away by season's end over here. I saw the darkness, maybe because I'd already witnessed Death by Turbo with our Can-Am.


Memo, no offense intended.

[Charlieman]

Charlieman, I missed the joke part... Jabouille looked good straight away by season's end over here.

When Renault turned up at an F1 race with their new engine tacked into an F2 tub, it was difficult to take them seriously. That's the joke. It was not a joke when Renault learned their lessons.

 

Jabouille was good. He developed a car and raced it.

[E1pix]

When Renault turned up at an F1 race with their new engine tacked into an F2 tub, it was difficult to take them seriously. That's the joke. It was not a joke when Renault learned their lessons.

Jabouille was good. He developed a car and raced it.

Okay, gotcha.

I wasn't much a fan but respected Jabouille a lot. He had all the pressure of developing the only manufacturer beyond Ferrari and had very little time to do it. Seems only Mario was older (Edit: Regga, too).

Edited by E1pix, 26 October 2015 - 18:34.