88 replies to this topic

[JHSingo]

There has been a lot of unbelievably daft things said about the issue of 'fixing F1', but this one really takes the biscuit:

 

McLaren: Formula 1 costs needs a rethink

 

Formula 1 needs a rethink about how it approaches the whole issue of costs, reckons McLaren, amid concerns the push to drive down budgets is helping nobody.

The FIA has long made clear that one of its priorities is to ensure the survival of the smaller teams, who are struggling with finding an ever escalating amount of money.

 

But McLaren racing director Eric Boullier thinks all efforts to contain expenditure have failed, and all they are doing is preventing big-money teams at the front closing in on pace-setters Mercedes.

 

"I would back Bernie [Ecclestone] and say if you cannot afford it, don't come," Boullier told Motorsport.com.

 

"If you can afford it, then let teams do what they want.

 

"There needs to be a framework of regulations, I agree, but to force the costs down, this is the wrong way for me.

 

"If you want to come to F1 you should be able to afford it, and the manufacturers can afford it. So it is not question of being able to afford it or not.

 

"Who are those struggling in F1? The teams at the back of the grid. But the problem is you are hurting the big teams and saving nothing for the small teams. And it is pain for everybody."

 

Boullier goes as far as suggesting that there should be a costs free-for-all, as that would ultimately help in delivering a closer battle at the front.

 

"If somebody wants to have all their doors in gold then let them do what they want," he said.

 

"As long as you can frame the regulations – and allow the regulations to remain stable, then we will all get there.

 

"Then you will have a competitive field like 2012 and 2013 was."

 

http://www.motorspor...rethink-665162/

 

Wow, where to start...

 

I have several issues with this 'idea':

 

I think solely relying on manufacturers, or those 'who can afford it' is a very dangerous way for a racing series to go. What happens next time there's a global financial crisis, and manufacturers start quitting? We know that manufacturers come and go whenever it pleases them, and there are plenty of case studies out there to show what happens to a series that is too reliant on manufacturers. The one that springs to mind is the Super Touring era. That became a spending war, and promptly died a death. Spending wars never, ever end well.

 

And then, if there is a spending war...well, someone still has to come last don't they? I don't see a manufacturer being particularly happy spending £100m a year (or whatever) to come last in races or the championship.

 

And what about the teams that a spending war would put out of business? Teams like Force India, Sauber, and maybe even Williams? What about those people who would lose their jobs if the teams did go bankrupt?

 

It just amazes me that in a sport that employs so many intelligent people, they can still come out with some mindbogglingly stupid things, like this.

 

But what do you think? Do you agree with Eric Boullier? I can't see how this would be a good idea at all, but feel free to try and persuade me otherwise.

Edited by JHSingo, 29 December 2015 - 15:09.

[Marklar]

What a coincidence that his driver basically said the same last week

 

For sure they are not saying this because it is for McLaren the best

[SenorSjon]

His boss said the same in Japan in a BBC interview. And he is right. McLaren pays a hefty sum for a glorified test season whereas most issues could have been ironed out with proper testing beforehand. We now have Mercedes in front while their competitors have no chance to gain quickly. We hardly see teams develop their way out of trouble during the season. Most team positions are pretty stable throughout the season.

[Marklar]

His boss said the same in Japan in a BBC interview. And he is right. McLaren pays a hefty sum for a glorified test season whereas most issues could have been ironed out with proper testing beforehand. We now have Mercedes in front while their competitors have no chance to gain quickly. We hardly see teams develop their way out of trouble during the season. Most team positions are pretty stable throughout the season.

 

The specified restrictions like testing are rubbish, that is true. But to imply that it would be better that if just some manufacturers, who can afford the party but will be bored after some time anyway, should be in F1 rather than manufacturers and small/private teams under a restricted frame is utterly crap. Then the sport is dead.

Edited by Marklar, 29 December 2015 - 15:29.

[Fatgadget]

This current token cost cutting exercise hasnt worked has it now.And the rich teams only end up spending yet more money in exploring other avenues of getting around whatever restrictions are in place.Soo Boulier has a valid point.

[Nathan]

Generally, I don't agree with him. But...

 

Typically spending wars increase employment numbers, if you are concerned about that. 20 years ago 200 people on staff was a lot.  Now it is insufficient.

 

Typically when a manufacturer pulls out they leave behind a well-equipped team for an independent to take over and operate (Red Bull, Brawn, Sauber, LotusF1) Only Toyota is the exception, and that was because they use the setup for Le Mans and other things, but even then today small teams benefit from their wind tunnel.

 

I don't agree spending wars don't end well.  I think back to 1998-2006 as being very good, and those were spending wars at all levels - teams, engines, tires, drivers, engineers etc..  It all came apart come 2009, but its not like the sport/show fell apart because of that.

Edited by Nathan, 29 December 2015 - 16:03.

[Clatter]

I'm another that agrees with some of the sentiment. This "cost saving" era has done nothing to improve the lot of the smaller teams, has prevented others from catching up. and given Merc an almost free run at the last 2 seasons because the engine manufacturers can't make the changes they need to make. 

 

I don't want to see teams disappearing from the scene, but a better option would be a fairer distribution of the income rather than stifling competition.

[4Wheeldrift]

I don't think the sport has ever been dependent on manufacturers.  It has always been dependent on money and people prepared to spend everything they can get their hands on to compete.

 

Yes, there was a manufacturer period, for example when we had Ferrari, Ford, Mercedes (supporting McLaren), Honda, Toyota, BMW, Renault all racing either supporting or owning teams.

 

Then, they left.  But we still have Ferrari, Red Bull (ex ford), Mercedes (ex Honda), Sauber (ex BMW), Honda (now pouring money into McLaren) and now Renault again back in the sport.  Plus Williams and Force India and Manor and the Ferrari bucket'o'bits at Haas.

 

Of that entire list the most likely to leave is Red Bull and they are not a manufacturer team!

Edited by 4Wheeldrift, 29 December 2015 - 15:59.

[noikeee]

I think Eric's done a fantastic job of wording this the worst way possible.

 

Had he come out and said: "Why are we forbidden from improving our engine and car, when we have the resources to do so? Why can't we test and fix our issues? All these regulations do is stiffle competition, keep the winners on top and make the results predictable." The entire board would support him.

 

Instead it's, "hey guys why aren't we allowed to spend more money, the small teams are going bust anyway, **** the poor". Which is, well, essentially the exact same thing, but focusing on the negative and being an arse about it.

[Pingguest]

A spending war is just a bubble, that will burst sometime. Since the beginning of the current millennium, the legislator justifiably tried to reduce costs. However, one could doubt whether all efforts have had the right effect. Regulations have become very strict, forcing teams into the same direction and go into the small details. As Pat Symonds rightly said recently, that actually increases costs.

Edited by Pingguest, 29 December 2015 - 16:49.

[Cirio]

Maybe a reverse spending war is the way to go, by handicapping the successful teams, like they do in horse racing. So the amount any team can spend depends on the previous year's WCC position. The last team can spend 100% of the agreed amount, the next to last 95% and so on, with the most successful team spending the least. That should close the gap.

 

(Ducks below parapet)

Edited by Cirio, 29 December 2015 - 16:49.

[Clatter]

Maybe a reverse spending war is the way to go, by handicapping the successful teams, like they do in horse racing. So the amount any team can spend depends on the previous year's WCC position. The last team can spend 100% of the agreed amount, the next to last 95% and so on, with the most successful team spending the least. That should close the gap.

 

(Ducks below parapet)

Doesn't matter how you cut it it's an almost impossible job to police the actual spend.

Edited by Clatter, 29 December 2015 - 17:05.

[Rurouni]

Actually let the manufacturer spend as much as they want in exchange of cheaper engine. Surely if they don't mind spending a lot, then selling the engine for cheap shouldn't really affects their finances. If they can't afford to sell it cheap then don't spend too much on it.
You want spending war, fine. Just sell the engine @5mil euro. What, you guys don't want to sell it that cheap? Then don't pour so much money on it.

[jimjimjeroo]

It's F1. Let them go bloody crazy! !

[Lemans]

But...but everybody keeps telling me McLaren are the next Williams because of their lack of sponsors?

How could Eric say this?

[Clatter]

But...but everybody keeps telling me McLaren are the next Williams because of their lack of sponsors?
How could Eric say this?

Probably because their main problems are engine related and without the cost saving rules they might have been a damned sight further down the road of sorting them and becoming competitive.

[Lone]

Well, you would expect him to say that, wouldn't you? The teams trying to catch up with Mercedes feels their hands are tied and wants to put all possible resources to catch them. They can't do that today, so lobbying for what's best for them is what they do. If Ferrari didn't feel confident they could catch up with Mercedes they too would suggest alternatives, and look at Horner suggesting Mercedes is destroying F1. Everyone is looking out for their own interests and Bouillier is no exception, no matter what he suggest.

[pdac]

I would be quite happy to see year-on-year big changes to the tech regs, to basically send everyone back to the drawing board. The well-funded teams could then spend their hundreds of millions on trying to find the best solutions and then trying to perfect them. Meanwhile, the small-funded teams could spend what little they have to get a decent handle on the regs and maybe stumble on an innovative idea that could make them competitive with the big boys.

 

The way it is, though, with very restrictive technical regs and limited testing, it's impossible for someone to come up with something without megabucks available to them.

[Lemans]

Probably because their main problems are engine related and without the cost saving rules they might have been a damned sight further down the road of sorting them and becoming competitive.

 

No, they were trying to suggest bankruptcy was just around the corner.

[P123]

F1 has always been a spending war.  Those at the top spend daft sums of money.  Cost saving ideas such as restricted testing, limited wind tunnel usage and engine development don't appear to have enabled any cost cutting, instead only hindering the prospect of a team developing at a decent rate.  Unfortunately Ecclestone's continued poor negotiating over the commercial rights, especially the current agreements,  resulted in a money grab by the top 4 teams, which in turn endangered the financial health of the remainder of the grid, which then brings pressure on the sport to 'do something' to save costs. 

[JHSingo]

Typically spending wars increase employment numbers, if you are concerned about that. 20 years ago 200 people on staff was a lot.  Now it is insufficient.

 

Typically when a manufacturer pulls out they leave behind a well-equipped team for an independent to take over and operate (Red Bull, Brawn, Sauber, LotusF1) Only Toyota is the exception, and that was because they use the setup for Le Mans and other things, but even then today small teams benefit from their wind tunnel.

 

I don't agree spending wars don't end well.  I think back to 1998-2006 as being very good, and those were spending wars at all levels - teams, engines, tires, drivers, engineers etc..  It all came apart come 2009, but its not like the sport/show fell apart because of that.

 

Oh a spending war is great when all is well in the financial world, it's the problem that happen when it isn't. Manufacturers aren't committed to racing, even in F1, when they're feeling the pinch as we've seen before. It's great when manufacturers enter racing, but it leaves the sport in a mess when they all decide to quit. MotoGP was left in a precarious situation when several manufacturers quit in a short space of time, so much so they had to introduce the CRT class. BTCC is in good health at the moment, but was in a terrible state in 2000, 2001 when the Super Touring bubble burst. ALMS is another example I can think of that in its prime had several manufacturers, like Audi, Acura and Porsche racing in it, and struggled on after they left.

 

I also think that if F1 did become even more of a spending war, there would be even fewer manufacturers or others that were willing/able to take their place. I think the days of loads of manufacturers happily spending crazy amounts of money just for the sake of going racing are gone, otherwise surely there would be more manufacturers in F1 now. Yes, the regulations do their bit to put manufacturers off too, but I don't think you fix the problems F1 is facing currently by just spending even more money.

 

This "cost saving" era has done nothing to improve the lot of the smaller teams

 

That's because it's been done half heartedly, and any time the discussion of costs saving is brought up there are howls of protest from the bigger teams. It's like what I've said before, the big teams have too much control.

 

It's F1. Let them go bloody crazy! !

 

And your solution for when manufacturer suddenly decide they don't want to spend hundreds of millions on F1, and quit in a similar way to last time? Can't wait for the days when we've got three car teams and a grid struggling to even muster 15 cars!

Edited by JHSingo, 29 December 2015 - 19:33.

[Timstr11]

F1 has always been a spending war.  Those at the top spend daft sums of money.  Cost saving ideas such as restricted testing, limited wind tunnel usage and engine development don't appear to have enabled any cost cutting, instead only hindering the prospect of a team developing at a decent rate.

 

They have.

 

-Think about how thngs would have been if teams were allowed to run Wind Tunnels 24/7 (like it used to be in the past), instead of just 70 runs a week currently.

-Think about how things would have be if teams were allowed unrestricted CFD supercomputer resources, like it used to be in the past.

-Think about what it would be like if manufacturers were allowed to run/provide a new updated engine at every race.

-Think about how things would be if testing was unlimited/unrestricted, like it used to be in the past.

I could go on....

 

There would be no F1 at all by now, but something different with cost control in place (similar to what we have now).

 

How you select areas for cost control and at what level is up for debate, but that it works is unquestionable.

Edited by Timstr11, 29 December 2015 - 19:39.

[4Wheeldrift]

And your solution for when manufacturer suddenly decide they don't want to spend hundreds of millions on F1, and quit in a similar way to last time? Can't wait for the days when we've got three car teams and a grid struggling to even muster 15 cars!

But that didn't happen last time.  We didn't have either three car teams, not 15 cars.

 

So history would say that manufacturers pulling out is not a risk to the sport.

[JHSingo]

But that didn't happen last time.  We didn't have either three car teams, not 15 cars.

 

So history would say that manufacturers pulling out is not a risk to the sport.

 

So, you want to risk such a thing happening again?

[4Wheeldrift]

So, you want to risk such a thing happening again?

It didn't happen before.  There is no again!

[Hans V]

I'm not sure McLaren would survive that long in an escalating spending war as their warchest after the last seasons has to be thinning considerably. But they have Honda and you need a manufacturer with very deep pockets that is not particularly concerned about their ROI from F1 to come out on top from a spending war. So far Hondas F1 investment have been disasterous and they'll have to really up their game unless the Honda F1 chief has to committ harakiri to apologize for all the public humiliation Honda has suffered.

Just to say something like that if you cannot afford to participate you should get out is plane stupid in a situation with insane costs, mostly spent on completely irrelevant stuff like aerodynamics - and with public and corporate interest in the "sport" dwindling.

[Nathan]

 

Manufacturers aren't committed to racing, even in F1, when they're feeling the pinch as we've seen before. It's great when manufacturers enter racing, but it leaves the sport in a mess when they all decide to quit.

Between 2008 and 2009 we saw Toyota, Honda, BMW and Renault exit Formula-1 as corporate owned constructors.  What mess was left?  In fact I would argue F1 was better for the period because as I stated, the teams that were sold to privateers were better equipped than they were before the car makers bought them up.  Honda and Ford sold their teams off to people that turned them into champions.  It should be remembered when car makers pull out they still have a desire to minimize their liabilities for doing so.  None made the decision to shut down shop completely (nor did Ford when they pulled out).  Three sold the companies to others that continued on, Toyota simply changed the kind of motorsport their factory and design offices participated in.

 

So OK, in other racing series it doesn't end well but those other categories are not F1, and this type of thing recently happened in F1 in tsunami form.

 

 

I think the days of loads of manufacturers happily spending crazy amounts of money just for the sake of going racing are gone, otherwise surely there would be more manufacturers in F1 now.

Well Honda just came back to do so, Mercedes made the choice to do so, now Renault are doing it again, and Red Bull are acting like they just need a stop gag for two seasons.  Four car makers just invested HUGE sums into their F1 programs, and it is likely VW put some into a 'let's have a look' experimental program.

Edited by Nathan, 29 December 2015 - 21:03.

[Cirio]

Between 2008 and 2009 we saw Toyota, Honda, BMW and Renault exit Formula-1 as corporate owned constructors.  What mess was left?  In fact I would argue F1 was better for the period because as I stated, the teams that were sold to privateers were better equipped than they were before the car makers bought them up.  Honda and Ford sold their teams off to people that turned them into champions.  It should be remembered when car makers pull out they still have a desire to minimize their liabilities for doing so.  None made the decision to shut down shop completely.  Three sold the companies to others that continued on, Toyota simply changed the kind of motorsport their factory and design offices participated in.

 

So OK, in other racing series it doesn't end well, but those other categories are not F1, and this type of thing recently happened in F1, and in tsunami form.

 

Well Honda just came back to do so, Mercedes made the choice to do so, now Renault are doing it again, and Red Bull acting like they just need a stop gag for two seasons.  Four car makers just invested HUGE sums into their F1 programs.

I know it's just a typo, but RB really need a gag! And not just for 2 seasons.

[Lotus53B]

[4Wheeldrift]

I think the other point to consider is that, essentially, McLaren don't have anything else to do with whatever money they have.

 

I don't know the structure of the company - i.e. if the road car division is in anyway mixed up with the ring division.  But, assuming it isn't, then if McLaren can't spend money to catch up, then they may as well fold.  So, either spending too much, or not enough results in the same thing.

 

 

So if they find £1 down the back of the sofa they are going to spend it on the car.  As all the other teams do as well.

 

Therefore the fact that some have bigger sofas than others is just the way of the world.

[maximilian]

It's basically true that the so-called cost restriction measures in F1 have done almost nothing to contain the cost explosion, BUT it has given us some of the most hated aspects of F1 today:  "reliability" requirements for engines, and resulting ridiculous grid penalties, and almost complete lack of testing preventing not just chasing teams to from being able to close the gap, but also new teams from ever having a chance to establish themselves (as well as causing such bizarre nonsense as was the 2015 McLaren season).  It also makes life very difficult for rookie drivers.  I could certainly do without those two!

[Vettelari]

I am in favor of a luxury tax imposed similar to what they have setup in Major League Baseball. They have a salary cap, but if the Yankees want to spend more money they can. Whatever they spend over the cap gets "taxed" and redistributed to the teams under the cap.

For instance, set a spending limit of $250 million. Then if RBR, MB, McLaren, & Ferrari want to spend $400 they can. For every dollar spent over the $250 mill, they get taxed a dollar. That dollar then goes to the other teams under the limit. So if McLaren spends $150 mill over the cap they get taxed $150 million which gets redistributed to Williams, Sauber, FI, Manor, etc. The top teams get to spend whatever they want & the less wealthy teams benefit from it. Sadly, the rich teams would never agree to such a solution.

[JHSingo]

Between 2008 and 2009 we saw Toyota, Honda, BMW and Renault exit Formula-1 as corporate owned constructors.  What mess was left?  In fact I would argue F1 was better for the period because as I stated, the teams that were sold to privateers were better equipped than they were before the car makers bought them up.  Honda and Ford sold their teams off to people that turned them into champions.  It should be remembered when car makers pull out they still have a desire to minimize their liabilities for doing so.  None made the decision to shut down shop completely (nor did Ford when they pulled out).  Three sold the companies to others that continued on, Toyota simply changed the kind of motorsport their factory and design offices participated in.

 

The mess was more related to those other examples I mentioned. My point was, it's very naive ignore those examples from other forms of racing and just assume that F1 would be immune to such a thing happening. It's a doomsday scenario, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise that if you increase the spending in an already very expensive sport, it probably isn't going to end well - particularly when there's teams is danger of going under. When the manufacturers quit, you rely upon privateers. Turning a blind eye to their plight and putting them out of business is not just foolish, but will be very bad for the sport in the long run.

 

The manufacturers aren't exactly queuing up to enter, and are notoriously unreliable at guaranteeing they continued participation. I remember in '09, BMW and Toyota both supported the idea of a breakaway series. Then, not long after, they both quit F1.

 

And just look what Ferrari has said recently, yet again repeated threats to quit. Renault, before completing their take over of Lotus, openly considered exiting F1 entirely. As for any VW 'experimental programme' (if such a thing even existed), well, they've made it quite clear recently they're not coming. At this point in time, F1 relies on the likes of Force India, Sauber etc to get a half decent grid, partly because new teams are very rare - Haas will be the first new team in six years. That's why I find Boullier's comments so idiotic. He only cares about McLaren's best interests, not those of the sport. As someone else pointed out, he's basically saying "**** the poor", which is remarkable considering he came from Lotus. It's funny how people's agendas change over time.

Edited by JHSingo, 29 December 2015 - 22:54.

[Vettelari]

In my example above, if a limit of $300 million is imposed & the big 4 teams spend $400 million each, they pay a penalty of $100 million each. $100 mill x 4 = $400 mill. That $400 mill in "taxes" then gets distributed to TR, FI, Sauber, Haas, Williams, Renault, & Manor. $400 mill divided by 7 = $57ish mill each. Each of the 7 teams under the cap would receive $57 mill each under such a system. I think with those extra funds we would see the competition tighten up quickly. The larger teams would strive to be more thrifty, the smaller teams would have extra money to improve their cars/personnel, we would see a lot more teams wanting to join, etc. I know it'll NEVER happen, but I am a dreamer.

[4Wheeldrift]

I am in favor of a luxury tax imposed similar to what they have setup in Major League Baseball. They have a salary cap, but if the Yankees want to spend more money they can. Whatever they spend over the cap gets "taxed" and redistributed to the teams under the cap.

For instance, set a spending limit of $250 million. Then if RBR, MB, McLaren, & Ferrari want to spend $400 they can. For every dollar spent over the $250 mill, they get taxed a dollar. That dollar then goes to the other teams under the limit. So if McLaren spends $150 mill over the cap they get taxed $150 million which gets redistributed to Williams, Sauber, FI, Manor, etc. The top teams get to spend whatever they want & the less wealthy teams benefit from it. Sadly, the rich teams would never agree to such a solution.

 

Yeah but sport in the USA has always been very Marxist in redistributing the wealth in favour of the show.  European sports have generally put the sport on and if you like the sport then the show is enjoying the sport.

 

it depends if you think that is a good thing or a bad thing - clearly redistributing wealth (either directly by a tax or indirectly by virtue of the draft pick system)  provides a more level playing field.  But, equally in a meritocracy you would expect the best to get the most money which is likely to breed more success and more money - a virtuous circle.

 

Would you consider something like the MLS  where basically the league paid David Beckham's salary so that he would join the MLS, and thus promote the MLS abroad.  Even though, clearly he was more of an asset to LA Galaxy than any other team.

 

So, for example, should F! pay to put ALO in a Red Bull just so we could see the perfect storm of entitlement and toy throwing - for the benefit of the show of course.

[beute]

They have.

 

-Think about how thngs would have been if teams were allowed to run Wind Tunnels 24/7 (like it used to be in the past), instead of just 70 runs a week currently.

-Think about how things would have be if teams were allowed unrestricted CFD supercomputer resources, like it used to be in the past.

-Think about what it would be like if manufacturers were allowed to run/provide a new updated engine at every race.

-Think about how things would be if testing was unlimited/unrestricted, like it used to be in the past.

I could go on....

 

There would be no F1 at all by now, but something different with cost control in place (similar to what we have now).

 

How you select areas for cost control and at what level is up for debate, but that it works is unquestionable.

I like how you listed things that would never coexists in such a way.

there would be no unlimited CFD supercomputer spending if Wind Tunnels could actually run 24/7.

Likewise wind tunnels would not run 24/7 if teams actually had unlimited on-track testing...

 

there also would not be a new updated engine at every race, I mean there would be if it made sense, but it doesnt.

At some point the money you keep spending on "new updated engines" for every race would have been better used in a different area.

Teams do that anyway, as those examples should tell you:

you restrict testing, you get more wind tunnel spending.

you  restrict wind tunnel use, you get CFD supercomputer spending.

you restrict regulations on the mechanical side of things, you get teams spending quadzillion dollars on front wing flaps.

 

you get the idea...

teams are gonna spend their money somewhere as long as there is an incentive to do so.

You wont stop it with regulations and all those silly ideas, if teams can get an advantage by spending money, they will do so.

and here is the thing that is killing F1 right now: There is a point where technical regulations and other restriction get so damn big that teams start seeing the usefulness of spending money on the politics surrounding F1.

[Vettelari]

I agree withwhat you are saying, 4Wheel, but I would be happy with ANY system that involves a fairer distribution to the teams. They are the sport in my eyes. I chose the MLB as an example because it has produced obvious results. It allowed a small market team that rarely has excelled in the sport, Kansas City Royals, to win the World Series. If MLB were set up like F1, that would not be possible. Parity is great. It's one thing that professional sports in America understands really well, IMO. The large teams in F1 will never agree to a "hard cap". I think the compromise would have to be some kind of "luxury tax" that I have suggested if things are ever going to change. Parity & stability are needed in the current state of F1, in my worthless opinion.

[4Wheeldrift]

It's definitely a philosophical difference.  As you say in the USA it is understood that teams won't dominate, the system is weighted against that.

 

In the case of football, there are some notable examples of external money buying success (Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea, Manchester City, for example) but the general view is that Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester United earned their success and thus the rewards that not only came from the success but also came from the use of those rewards.

 

Equally those teams that had glory, or never had glory have a fan base that doesn't resent the meritocracy.  They do resent the artificial external money buying success, though.

 

I like your idea, making spending twice as expensive - o your overspend only goes half as far and the smaller teams get the cash.  But equally how else does a McLaren get back to the front?  It would be bloody expensive for them to get into the midfield now, given they would be giving a huge chunk of money to their competitors.

[Nathan]

 

My point was, it's very naive ignore those examples from other forms of racing and just assume that F1 would be immune to such a thing happening.

Let's look at the fundamental differences though.  BTCC, MotoGP, WRC etc., the participating teams are reliant on a manufacture to effectively provide the product needed to race.  I watch MotoGP, don't know the guts of the sport, but to my knowledge no 'customer' teams constructs their own chassis and buys a drivetrain from Honda/Yamaha/Ducati.  Same goes with BTCC and WRC that have required production numbers to be homologated.  In both cases if the main company pulls the plug the supply of bikes/cars is gone.  In F1 each team constructs their own chassis.  All but Ferrari can leave F1, at the end of the day all/most teams would have still access to a Ferrari powertrain, they can still build a chassis and go racing.  I would bet if even Ferrari left with the rest of them you would have some small race engine manufacture step into the vacuum.

 

In many cases small specialty race engineering companies (ProDrive, PoleStar, HWA etc.) are contracted by the auto makers to develop and build their WRC/BTCC cars and this is not the case in F1.  Thus for an auto maker in WRC/BTCC it is often a case of ending a contract with a contractor, in F1 you have an entire factory and workforce of 300+ to close down.   Shutting down an F1 engine department is one thing, you can use most of the equipment for road cars, the staff can be re-assigned, what do you do with a specialty factory employing specialized staff used to develop and build F1 cars?  This is probably why in every case of a car maker owned F1 team looking to leave F1 effort was put into finding a new owner, or a new purpose.

 

There is another significant difference in that F1 teams are more than just a racing team, they are a global marketing tool, and are thus leveraged by wealthy entrepreneurs to advertise their businesses. So again, a car maker can pull out but the odds are the team can still go about doing their business because there is someone that can make sense of buying and funding the team that now simply has to bolt a different engine to the back of the car.  BTCC/WRC doesn't present the same business case for someone selling drinks or clothes as it does a car maker to do the same.

 

 

The manufacturers aren't exactly queuing up to enter, and are notoriously unreliable at guaranteeing they continued participation.

Aren't they though? Honda came back, Renault is upping their participation, Mercedes took the big plunge, and all have in effect signed up to participate until 2020, Renault longer yet, perhaps even Honda if their 10-year deal with McLaren is water tight.  If the manufactures have shaky feet four of them wouldn't have made the investment (and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars here)  in the new PUs that require many years of racing to produce the ROI their boards will want.

 

 

And just look what Ferrari has said recently, yet again repeated threats to quit. Renault, before completing their take over of Lotus, openly considered exiting F1 entirely.

But these threats are always used as leverage to gain something.  Renault is saying "we don't know, we don't know", meanwhile they are signing and installing high priced staff, they are paying off debts and signing letters of intent with courts and creditors.  They were on the fence until Bernie gave them the money they wanted.  Ferrari has been making these threats almost since the day one 65-years ago.

 

 

At this point in time, F1 relies on the likes of Force India, Sauber etc to get a half decent grid...That's why I find Boullier's comments so idiotic.

Agreed, but I have to ask if those important mid-field teams are going to perform much differently, or have decreased viability, if the top 4/5 are spending twice as much or three times as much as them.  A few midfield teams like Sauber and Jordan made good money taking a gamble on a young driver and selling his contract to a bigger team. Again, it seems to me back 10 years ago when we had a spending spree the viability of the mid/back field teams was pretty much the same.

Edited by Nathan, 30 December 2015 - 00:24.

[Vettelari]

Great points. No system is perfect. I find the philosophical differences between finances in professional sports between Europe & America interesting as well. Domination is not healthy for any sport in the long run, if you ask me. Moreso in today's society than in previous generations. I believe that is what is helping the NFL flourish in popularity across the globe. Through the implementation of a salary cap, nearly every team has a chance to compete at an even level. Some franchises are still more successful, but between the cap & draft, no matter who your favorite team is they have a chance to make the playoffs at the beginning of every season with a little luck, unless you are an Oakland Raiders fan (Ha). I think F1 would benefit greatly from a similar system and we would see exponential growth in the fan base. I hate the fact that so few people follow Formula 1 here in Kentucky while over 75% of men my age have at least one item of clothing with a green #88 on it (me included) and follow NASCAR religiously. I think that F1 has lots more potential than NASCAR. Even in America. Something has to change for its popularity to grow, but nobody is willing to budge. Not even a little bit. I dream of the day Ford and GM decide to enter as manufacturers. I hope that everything is being done to convince them it is a worthwhile investment. They already spend a fortune on motorsports as it is.

Edited by Vettelari, 30 December 2015 - 00:33.

[Vettelari]

4Wheeldrift, do you feel that current top teams like McLaren would welcome Ford, GM, BMW, Toyota, and VW into Formula 1 for the benefit of the sport and to create more healthy competition? Sadly, I think the answer is a definite no, but I am curious of your opinion. I do not know how to interpret comments about unlimited spending in regards to new entrants. If they want financial freedom they know that smaller teams might get "priced out", but if we were talking about a Formula involving 10 manufactures rather than 4 would McLaren be making the same comments?

[RedOne]

I agree with him, all these restrictions do is further cement the dominant teams position. No money is saved and we get worse racing out of it. A complete joke if you ask me.

[V8 Fireworks]

Maybe a reverse spending war is the way to go, by handicapping the successful teams, like they do in horse racing. So the amount any team can spend depends on the previous year's WCC position. The last team can spend 100% of the agreed amount, the next to last 95% and so on, with the most successful team spending the least. That should close the gap.

 

(Ducks below parapet)

 

Too much!

 

Instead teams down the WCC should get more testing days IMO.

[Tsarwash]

What is required is a more free formula but an absolute spending cap. I have no idea how to achieve this. 

[Dolph]

Doesn't matter how you cut it it's an almost impossible job to police the actual spend.

 

That's not completely true, isn't it!? Why else would McLaren advocate more spending if the spending limits wouldn't hamper them. That alone proves that there is an effect. Perhaps what you meant to say is that is impossible to completely police the spending. And I guess anyone would agree with that.

[Cirio]

Too much!

 

Instead teams down the WCC should get more testing days IMO.

Actually that would work better.

[4Wheeldrift]

4Wheeldrift, do you feel that current top teams like McLaren would welcome Ford, GM, BMW, Toyota, and VW into Formula 1 for the benefit of the sport and to create more healthy competition? Sadly, I think the answer is a definite no, but I am curious of your opinion. I do not know how to interpret comments about unlimited spending in regards to new entrants. If they want financial freedom they know that smaller teams might get "priced out", but if we were talking about a Formula involving 10 manufactures rather than 4 would McLaren be making the same comments?

 

McLaren would (Honda aside) welcome them as a works partner.  For exactly the same reason that they did the deal with Honda.  Traditionally that would actually be Cosworth.  But the principle would be as supplying engine technology to the race team.

 

I don't believe that McLaren would have a particular opinion on whether or not Ford entered as they did Jaguar previously.  They would be another competitor - and McLaren was beating Stewart / Jaguar so I doubt they would fear them.  McLaren has raced and beaten nearly every manufacturer in that list.

 

I am of the opinion that people have got tied up in terms of budgets as though they are an issue but i am not sure I understand what the issue actually is.

 

Force India and Sauber may go to the wall.  That would be a terrible shame.  Just as it was when the original Lotus went bust back in the day.  But they may get sold on, just as both teams have been in the past (FI was of course originally Jordan and Sauber went to and fro with BMW).

 

But, in terms of budget caps, they were mooted asa way to attract new entrants.  And they did, HRT, Caterham and Manor.  the cap never happened, HRT and Caterham went to the wall, Manor and continuing on.  There will always be richer teams.  There always have been.  And, also, remember that unless the budget cap is broken down into R&D areas, one team will always spend more wisely than another.

 

McLaren invested heavily in simulation tools, whereas Ferrari (owning it's own track) preferred real-world testing.  When the cost cutting came in this hurt Ferrari more than McLaren in terms of on track testing.

 

Haas has come in - without budget cap.  Now, I am not a fan of the model they are using.  I feel it isn't F1 in spirit - but i am an old dinosaur and accept that this  is the way F1 wants to go. (I didn't see the point of Super Aguri or Toro Rosso when it was just a year old Red Bull either).

 

I doubt Force India and Sauber will actually both go to the wall.  Just as FI was originally Jordan, i would suspect there would be some buy-out. After all they're recent car launched not in the UK where they are based, nor India but Mexico.

 

Sauber is a bit more of a worry.  I don't think the backers there would buy the team, there is a lot of blank space on the car.

 

I quite like the luxury tax.  What i think they should do is just raise a testing levy based on WCC points from the previous year (much like they do entrance fees).  This testing levy then goes into a pot from which all teams are paid their costs for testing (shipping, hotels etc).  Through this you can limit the number of people that are attending the tests and thus cut costs. But, in principle there won't be any additional cost for Manor to go testing as often as Ferrari.

 

But, McLaren will still have better simulators that Manor ....

Edited by 4Wheeldrift, 30 December 2015 - 11:41.

[FullThrottleF1]

 

Force India and Sauber may go to the wall.  That would be a terrible shame.  Just as it was when the original Lotus went bust back in the day.  But they may get sold on, just as both teams have been in the past (FI was of course originally Jordan and Sauber went to and fro with BMW).

 

 

Yep, there are many people just waiting around to buy a F1 team   

[king_crud]

The teams have the money, they're just being told what they can and can't spend it on, I think this is the issue with Boullier. It's hardly been a case of "oh testing is banned, we'll just reduce our budget by 30%", it's a case of spending that money in other places.

Personally I think it should be a free for all. You have rules on the cars, spend your money how you want. New engines every race? Go for it. New aerodynamics? Sure. Go testing? If you've got the money, do it.

[Dolph]

The teams have the money, they're just being told what they can and can't spend it on, I think this is the issue with Boullier. It's hardly been a case of "oh testing is banned, we'll just reduce our budget by 30%", it's a case of spending that money in other places.

 

I believe they have to spend the money then in places where they gain a far less competitive advantage. That's OK isn't it!?