88 replies to this topic

[king_crud]

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!?

And you end up with this year: the status quo stays the same as development is so restricted

[johnmhinds]

Honda, Toyota & BMW had some of the biggest budgets the sport has ever seen, what good did that do them?

[SenorSjon]

That again?

BMW had succes with Williams, but failed to develop in 2008 because of 2009. They had a shot at the title that year. 2009 was miserable and they quit, perhaps seeing no future in the restrictions on testing et al laid down in 2009. I guess it was the most sensible move instead of throwing money at something you cannot test.
Honda had (and have...) a poor engine.
Toyota is the only real failure I guess. I blame it on the style of management and the not-so-great driver lineups they had.

Most of them left with the financial crisis as moniker, but I guess they didn't like where F1 was heading to. And I think they were right to do so.

[4Wheeldrift]

I think they left because they couldn't find success and they had tried very hard to do so and failed.

 

Honda funded the Brawn team for the 2009 season didn't they?  Or at least gave it a good shove along the road.  That Brawn was running largely without sponsorship so the money must have come from somewhere.

 

Honda execs must have been chewing their desks during that year.  Didn't Brawn say they were never really happy with the packaging of the hastily arranged Mercedes engine or something?  So you'd have to assume, with the year's development the chassis had (Honda abandoned 2008 chassis development early in the season) and a well mated Honda engine it would have been just as successful.

 

Toyota, similarly, they gave it a punt for 8 seasons and spent all of the money doing so.  They managed a few second places and a few pole positions, but never the glory.

 

I don't think it was the cost per se, more that they were simply not getting bang for their buck.

 

Conversely Mercedes always maintained that F1 was their best marketing step - prior to their involvement with Sauber and McLaren Mercedes was a pensioner's brand (or the car of choice for Egyptian taxi drivers).  However rapidly the discovered their demographic getting younger and their sales increasing - which they put down to success with McLaren.

[johnmhinds]

That again?

BMW had succes with Williams, but failed to develop in 2008 because of 2009. They had a shot at the title that year. 2009 was miserable and they quit, perhaps seeing no future in the restrictions on testing et al laid down in 2009. I guess it was the most sensible move instead of throwing money at something you cannot test.
Honda had (and have...) a poor engine.
Toyota is the only real failure I guess. I blame it on the style of management and the not-so-great driver lineups they had.

Most of them left with the financial crisis as moniker, but I guess they didn't like where F1 was heading to. And I think they were right to do so.

 

I think it just shows throwing unlimited amounts of money at the problem doesn't automatically buy you out of whatever development holes you're in and make you competitive.

 

Toyota, Honda and BMW where reported to be spending around the same amount as McLaren and Ferrari from 2006-2008 and were getting absolutely nothing back for that heavy investment.

http://www.f1fanatic...1-budget-4456m/

 

Super Aguri had a budget 1/10th of Honda's and were humiliating them using their old cars.

[JHSingo]

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.

 

...

 

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.

 

 

Putting effort into finding a new owner is one thing, actually finding an owner is another. Brawn GP was the latest of last minute deals to save that team, when for many months it didn't look very good at all. Then there was the whole Qadbak situation at Sauber, which put them in a tricky situation too.

 

The thing is, F1 is already inaccessible to all but a very wealthy few. Arguably, the financial state of some of the smaller teams wouldn't be such a worry if there was a good number of new teams entering every year, like in the 80s or early 90s. But again: Haas is the first new team to enter F1 in six years, and of the last three recent teams to enter F1 in 2010, only one survives today. Those aren't good statistics. It is crucial that those small teams are protected, because not even the most successful junior teams like ART or Prema are currently in a position where they can enter F1. You already need a huge budget to be reasonably competitive, and if F1 goes even more crazy with the spending, who realistically will be able to enter? Only oil rich sheikhs and manufacturers probably.

Hell, even a team like McLaren can't attract a title sponsor at the moment. What hope as anyone else got?

 

As for the manufacturer point - no, they're not queuing up to enter. Honda was the first manufacturer to re-enter Mercedes took over Brawn. Renault was already producing these new engines anyway, and the deal with Lotus is basically a rebranding exercise. There was a lot of talk before these new engines were introduced that they were more appealing to manufacturers, that they would tempt more to enter. Well, where are they? VW has categorically said time and time again they're not entering, despite having a heavy presence in the WEC. Toyota show no signs of entering. Neither does BMW, Ford, or any of the other big names that compete in other forms of racing. It is very rare these days that we even hear of a new manufacturer being interested in entering F1, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Honda's very public struggles have put them off. So, you have to wonder, was it really worth the cost of these engines just for the sake of one manufacturer, who is only supplying one team?

[scolbourne]

The current situation is about the worst possible outcome.

 

One team is dominant and the rules will basically stop anyone else catching up. Who wants to sponser a guaranteed loser.

The poor teams  have no chance and can therefore not attract sponsers.

 

Removing all cost restrictions would be my preference. Ideally I would like to see all teams have the ability to design and run there own engines, or at least be allowed to freely modify them as required.

 

The actual engine specs. to me are fine and I am quite happy with the turbo hybrids. The sound is not an issue to me but the lack of competiveness of the non Mercedes engines definately is.

Red Bull should be allowed to buy their engines from who ever will sell to them  and then modify these to their own needs.

The token system should be scrapped immediately and testing should be unregulated.

[4Wheeldrift]

Hell, even a team like McLaren can't attract a title sponsor at the moment. What hope as anyone else got?

 

I think that's more because Ron Dennis believes that his team are the "Manchester United of F1" and that the title sponsor should be bringing 50% of the teams budget.

 

I think Ron needs to re-evaluate his rate card.  on both performance of his team and also the fact that marketing budgets in general aren't going to stretch to £200m necessarily but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be getting some money for the title.

Edited by 4Wheeldrift, 30 December 2015 - 13:38.

[sopa]

That again?

BMW had succes with Williams, but failed to develop in 2008 because of 2009. They had a shot at the title that year. 2009 was miserable and they quit, perhaps seeing no future in the restrictions on testing et al laid down in 2009. I guess it was the most sensible move instead of throwing money at something you cannot test.
Honda had (and have...) a poor engine.
Toyota is the only real failure I guess. I blame it on the style of management and the not-so-great driver lineups they had.

Most of them left with the financial crisis as moniker, but I guess they didn't like where F1 was heading to. And I think they were right to do so.

 

 

In 2002-2009 we had lots of big budget teams, so it is natural some of them had to lose (in this case Toyota, BAR/Honda, BMW).

 

As always, it is down to who has the best specialists and how they gel together. Not everyone can hire them at the same time.

 

For example Toyota had Gascoyne for a brief period (which included their most successful season of 2005), but mostly they were lagging behind in recruiting despite big budget. Also were too conservative, which is the problem current Honda PU department also has!

 

There have been claims that Toyota was held back by being located in Germany, while most of the teams and 'action' is in UK. Maybe there is some point in it.

 

As for drivers, they are not really the key part here, because most of the time Toyota's car was too far off the pace for a top driver to make a difference (bar an odd race win).

Edited by sopa, 30 December 2015 - 13:48.

[sopa]

I think it just shows throwing unlimited amounts of money at the problem doesn't automatically buy you out of whatever development holes you're in and make you competitive.

 

Toyota, Honda and BMW where reported to be spending around the same amount as McLaren and Ferrari from 2006-2008 and were getting absolutely nothing back for that heavy investment.

http://www.f1fanatic...1-budget-4456m/

 

Super Aguri had a budget 1/10th of Honda's and were humiliating them using their old cars.

 

That's the thing...

 

You may spend as much as McLaren and Ferrari, but if you can't hire engineers as good as them... or can't attract their engineers to your own team... then you are lagging behind.

 

As for Super Aguri, they never designed their own car, so in this context their budget doesn't matter that much... And BAR/Honda managed the stunning achievement of actually designing a worse car for 2007 than the car they had in 2006... So that's how Super Aguri could beat them with an outdated car!

Edited by sopa, 30 December 2015 - 13:55.

[Tsarwash]

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).

What Super Aguri and Torro Rosso did, isn't that just the same as people like Stirling Moss and others did in the fifties and sixties ? Buy year old cars and use them ? Times have changed and teams must make their own chassis and there's nothing wrong with that. But to 'criticise' teams who didn't from the perspective of the past days of F1 seems odd to me.
Personally I respect Hass for trying something different. HRT, Manor and Caterham all proved that trying it properly within the spirit of the rules just doesn't work.

[Timstr11]

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.

 

Where were you when CFD and WindTunnel resources were unrestricted?

The use of both resources was getting out of hand with teams investing in bigger and faster computer clusters and teams running parallel Windtunnel programs in more than one WindTunnel. All at the same time.

 

It is really naive to believe that if you free-up testing that all of a sudden less will be spent on other resources.

Reality has proven otherwise.

Edited by Timstr11, 30 December 2015 - 14:14.

[Tsarwash]

I think it just shows throwing unlimited amounts of money at the problem doesn't automatically buy you out of whatever development holes you're in and make you competitive.

That is true, but these days not spending large amounts of money is a guarantee to stay near the back of the grid. Have any low budget teams done anything since Brawn ? Williams I suppose, but I doubt their budget was that small in 2014.

[Fatgadget]

The current situation is about the worst possible outcome.

One team is dominant and the rules will basically stop anyone else catching up. Who wants to sponser a guaranteed loser.
The poor teams have no chance and can therefore not attract sponsers.

Removing all cost restrictions would be my preference. Ideally I would like to see all teams have the ability to design and run there own engines, or at least be allowed to freely modify them as required.

The actual engine specs. to me are fine and I am quite happy with the turbo hybrids. The sound is not an issue to me but the lack of competiveness of the non Mercedes engines definately is.
Red Bull should be allowed to buy their engines from who ever will sell to them and then modify these to their own needs.
The token system should be scrapped immediately and testing should be unregulated.

Er! When did a poor team ever had a chance at winning?
As for sponsors,most are in it for just being in F1.For the glamour!
I agree with most of what you say though.

[noikeee]

Where were you when CFD and WindTunnel resources were unrestricted?

The use of both resources was getting out of hand with teams investing in bigger and faster computer clusters and teams running parallel Windtunnel programs in more than one WindTunnel. All at the same time.

 

It is really naive to believe that if you free-up testing that all of a sudden less will be spent on other resources.

Reality has proven otherwise.

I agree and I also think people must have forgotten what happened when we had completely unrestricted testing - it resulted in similar domination because Ferrari could just lap Fiorano every single day. So if you want to open up testing, you better be prepared to force every team that's serious about winning to build a racetrack next to their factory.

 

I think it's a really tricky balance to get right, open up every rule and you end up with these ludicrous situations, possibly equally predictable racing as teams get prepared for absolutely every possible situation, and a spending war that ends in inevitable tears. But close up everything like we have right now, and it's also ridiculous that people are forbidden from improving when they have the resources to do so - we just end up with extremely predictable seasons as nobody's allowed to catch up, AND things are still financially unstable.

 

My favourite solution in theory is budget caps but they're really hard to enforce, specially when the whole point of the regulations is to allow technology to move to road cars, where does the road division of Mercedes ends and the F1 division starts? How can you regulate for something like that?

 

So there's not really a magical solution, I think they should open up things a little bit more though, you cannot have supercomplicated new engine rules and then not let the manufacturers test them at all. An idea that has been growing on me is a system to give more tokens to the less competitive manufacturers, it's maybe a bit of an unsporting handicap rule, but should allow a natural balance of power over time, whilst still giving some limited scope for Mercedes to increase their gap if they manage to do it with few tokens. And the financial structure of the sport is bullshit, "historical payments" are nonsense. But even if they equalize the payments a bit it won't magically make Manor and Sauber healthy and fighting for podiums.

[Nathan]

Well Caterham/.HRT/Virgin had the rules shifted somewhat as they entered believing a budget cap was looming and they based their businesses cases around a budget that in reality was half of what they needed.

 

Toyota and Honda were hampered by corporate management practices

 

 

Arguably, the financial state of some of the smaller teams wouldn't be such a worry if there was a good number of new teams entering every year, like in the 80s or early 90s.

If you go back and look at the championship tables year to year in a 10-year period between 1987 and 1996 22 F1 teams folded.  That is an average of two per year!  Those aren't good statistics either.  In fact it makes today's environment look upbeat.  If it were easier for new teams to enter F1 as a constructor current smaller teams would be of less value individually and have their sponsorship/pay driver opportunities diluted further.  More teams = more busts, this is what F1 history has shown us, and makes sense in any results driven business setting.

 

 

Hell, even a team like McLaren can't attract a title sponsor at the moment. What hope as anyone else got?

Yet Williams and Red Bull managed in the same time frame.  Again, if you actually look back there have been a good number of new sponsors entering F1 in the last 4-years - big name 'blue chip' companies.  Granted the financial numbers are not as big as they use to (probably the biggest part of McLaren's issue), but that is largely because the rise in European soccer on the global scale has created stiff competition for F1.  This is why you have an English football team and stadium sponsored by an Asain companies that don't even do business in the UK and others with pitch level advertising in Mandarain .

 

 

It is very rare these days that we even hear of a new manufacturer being interested in entering F1, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Honda's very public struggles have put them off. So, you have to wonder, was it really worth the cost of these engines just for the sake of one manufacturer, who is only supplying one team?

Fair points. In the same regard it does point out the longevity of those manufacturers who are in F1, and they all have increased their investment, so in that regard how soon are they really pulling out?  Four engine makers is pretty good.

Edited by Nathan, 30 December 2015 - 14:45.

[4Wheeldrift]

What Super Aguri and Torro Rosso did, isn't that just the same as people like Stirling Moss and others did in the fifties and sixties ? Buy year old cars and use them ? Times have changed and teams must make their own chassis and there's nothing wrong with that. But to 'criticise' teams who didn't from the perspective of the past days of F1 seems odd to me.
Personally I respect Hass for trying something different. HRT, Manor and Caterham all proved that trying it properly within the spirit of the rules just doesn't work.

 

It's what i think F1 should be, as I said I'm a dinosaur here.  But under the regulations (that have been in place for some time) the manufacturers name has to be displayed on the front of the car.  The nose of the Super Aguri or Toro Rosso was fibbing a bit back then, and whilst it will be true of Haas it's getting close to not being so and, as Haas have openly said, if the list of items they can't buy changes, they shall buy more bits (i.e. closer to the Super Aguri and Toro Rosso).

 

My criticism of Haas is completely different - it's more why then how - but i accept that is what some people want in the sport.

 

The indisputable point, however is that Mr Haas is not poor.  He is choosing to come into F1 with his bring -your-own-ferrari approach either because this is the only way he can afford it or because he doesn't see the value in making his own car from scratch and the extra costs involved.  

 

That is still a world away from "making the sport accessible to enter" because if you wanted to start up your own team you still need much money and a relationship with one of the manufacturers.  This is still meaning budgets of several £100m.

 

So since 1997 we have always been talking about a rarefied atmosphere of people who are able to enter F1.  This is by the teams choosing.  They created the bond system, the fixed the grid size at 12 teams.  They wanted the increased value onto their teams.

 

But this doesn't actually have anything to do with engine manufacturers, per se, but everything to do with Force India  (aka Jordan) and Sauber wanting to increase the value of their teams.  Now times have changed and they are locked into an expensive world part of the inflation of which they created.

Edited by 4Wheeldrift, 30 December 2015 - 15:15.

[Nathan]

^ Agreed. The team cap seemed to have came about when the midfield teams starting selling half of their companies to investment banks.

 

Is it better to have a 10-12 team grid where you lose a team every couple of years, or a 16-team grid where you are losing a team or two every year?  On one hand you have stability, on the other you offer opportunities to the EJs of the world.  I don't know if the corporate world has the interest to provide sufficient funding, which leaves us needing the ultra wealthy to make business sense out of ownership.  And I'm not sure FOM should be expected to fund the majority of their race budgets just because John Black was able to bring cars to Melbourne.

 

What if the teams in the bottom half of the CC table were allowed to sell customer cars?

Edited by Nathan, 30 December 2015 - 15:45.

[4Wheeldrift]

 

What if the teams in the bottom half of the CC table were allowed to sell customer cars?

 

 

This is a fantastic point.  Why is the assumption that only Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes will be selling chassis?  Why not Force India?  Why not Toro Rosso?  Customer chassis would be more of a revenue stream for the mid-field teams than the front runners.  It would be only fair to ensure the all teams get the ability to sell their chassis (and anyway Red Bull might not want to sell their best chassis to Manor, say, to run current Mercedes engines in).  And presumably a Red Bull chassis would cost a premium over a Toro Rosso.

 

So we could have a grid of several customer Toro Rosso (year -1) chassis potential running Ferrari year -2 engines (since that is what they might be designed for).

 

I don't think that is F1, personally.

[EvilPhil II]

Those that dont want a free for all development race are idiots. Particularly if you are a spectator. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

 

You know the difference right now compared to if they allowed a development spending war.... that you'd actually see the teams work each weekend rather than it being locked up in a wind tunnel, a rig or on a dyno for 12 months. 

 

If you think these big teams aren't spending more circumventing development restrictions and ensuring they don't make a mistake by homologating parts that simply dont work before they hit the track, then you are an idiot.

 

If you dont believe Mercedes, Honda and Ferrari and possibly even VW aren't running F1 engines of various specs on dynos 24/7 then you need to think about how risk adverse these companies and the size of the investment they have to make is. 

 

Was it not exciting when Mercedes introduced a new spec engine at Monza with great performance but leading to one of the engines failing? This is what it should be about. Rid of the engine per season limit and let them race. 

[4Wheeldrift]

agreed, I have never understood the limit on engine use.  R&D is expensive, tooling is expensive.  Cranking out more of the same design is cheap.

[Nathan]

I'm of the opinion customer cars have a place in F1, and if you want larger grids you simply have to allow it.  The initial capital outlay to build a factory and develop your first car from scratch, even ignoring the FIA fee, is quite large and adds to the risks.  It seems a waste to me to have so much invested in one car that is only used for one season.  By allowing the lower half to sell/lease their cars or IP it creates a better business case for them and new teams. You can avoid the situation of top team customer cars disadvantaging independent teams that construct their own cars, which is my opinion is a notch more important than having customer cars, as engineering and building cars is what F1 is about. To make it work you need rule stability over long periods of time, which allows those independent constructors to chip away at the large teams.

[hittheapex]

It never stopped being a spending war.

 

Crisis boils down to:

 

-Restrictive regulations that have done little to cut costs besides window dressing with staff number limits and components having to last longer. Teams always spend as much as they can, occasionally a little more.

-A lot of the savings were wiped out by the new spec of engines and stuffing as many races into the calender as possible has increased the bare minimum cost of competing. Moreover, the smaller teams were already performing on a shoestring far below the staff limit threshold so it didn't help the small teams in a meaningful way.

-More successful teams should still get more money as a performance incentive, but CVC could take a small haircut and still have plenty left over to gorge on. Problem is they want to sell it on later and reducing their cut isn't the way to get the best return for themselves.

 

Final point, it might help if teams were allowed more flexibility and creativity in sponsorship. Why do both cars have to look the same if a team and their sponsors can agree to run with different colours or different backing? Let a prospective sponsor test the water with one car and if they like the results maybe they'll increase their investment?

Edited by hittheapex, 30 December 2015 - 17:00.

[Nathan]

In all honesty if you are CVC, wanting to sell or not, why would you take a hair cut?  I can understand if it means down the road the income would increase (eg investing in marketing, TV production/distribution, attracting various participants etc.), but why would they do it for the purpose of giving more to the teams?  And if you had to weigh giving the teams more money versus reducing race hosting fees to make important races more viable, which do you choose? A little OT...

[Talisman]

Even though I support McLaren I don't agree with Boullier. He is right that top teams cannot bring their superior resources to bear to pull clear of lesser teams that have done a good job through a season but over several seasons they will still pull away. McLaren will likely leave the midfield behind next season if the Honda is ok and fight to be in the top four, you can't honestly say the same is true for say sauber or even Force India.

[4Wheeldrift]

Even though I support McLaren I don't agree with Boullier. He is right that top teams cannot bring their superior resources to bear to pull clear of lesser teams that have done a good job through a season but over several seasons they will still pull away. McLaren will likely leave the midfield behind next season if the Honda is ok and fight to be in the top four, you can't honestly say the same is true for say sauber or even Force India.

 

Which is all fair enough.  in 2009 it was a slam dunk for Brawn - they were going to win every race.  But Red Bull and McLaren were able to out develop and make the back nine a much closer contest.

[johnmhinds]

I'm of the opinion customer cars have a place in F1, and if you want larger grids you simply have to allow it.  The initial capital outlay to build a factory and develop your first car from scratch, even ignoring the FIA fee, is quite large and adds to the risks.  It seems a waste to me to have so much invested in one car that is only used for one season.  By allowing the lower half to sell/lease their cars or IP it creates a better business case for them and new teams. You can avoid the situation of top team customer cars disadvantaging independent teams that construct their own cars, which is my opinion is a notch more important than having customer cars, as engineering and building cars is what F1 is about. To make it work you need rule stability over long periods of time, which allows those independent constructors to chip away at the large teams.

 

Customer cars from other teams would only gut the workforce of the lower teams and give an even higher percentage of the money to the top teams.

 

If they don't need to do any R&D or make any parts then the teams at the back of the grid will be much smaller, and the top teams won't have anywhere to draw talented new people from.

 

And you're going to have bigger issues when a top team wants to pull out and that takes out the customer teams as well who wont have the expertise left to make their own cars.

[4Wheeldrift]

 

And you're going to have bigger issues when a top team wants to pull out and that takes out the customer teams as well who wont have the expertise left to make their own cars.

 

Top teams don't pull out though.  I can't think of one example where a top team has stopped running.  Certainly not one that has stopped and not sold on its team.  Teams only stop through lack of success.

Edited by 4Wheeldrift, 30 December 2015 - 18:43.

[SenorSjon]

Which is all fair enough. in 2009 it was a slam dunk for Brawn - they were going to win every race. But Red Bull and McLaren were able to out develop and make the back nine a much closer contest.

If testing wasn't banned, I bet Button/Brawn wouldn't be champions that year.

[Wingcommander]

If it's war you want, it's war you'll get. And there will be casualties. 

[johnmhinds]

Top teams don't pull out though.  I can't think of one example where a top team has stopped running.  Certainly not one that has stopped and not sold on its team.  Teams only stop through lack of success.

 

But who are you going to be able to sell it on to once you turn your team into a multi team supplier?

 

If Honda was still supplying customer cars and technical support to Super Aguri when they pulled out do you think Brawn would have been able to take over that whole operation and keep supporting Super Aguri as well?

 

And what happens if a top team switches engine manufacturers, do they then have to spend a year providing support for two different engine types as well as make parts for two different car designs?

 

Sounds like a nightmare.

[4Wheeldrift]

But who are you going to be able to sell it on to once you turn your team into a multi team supplier?

 

If Honda was still supplying customer cars and technical support to Super Aguri when they pulled out do you think Brawn would have been able to take over that whole operation and keep supporting Super Aguri as well?

 

And what happens if a top team switches engine manufacturers, do they then have to spend a year providing support for two different engine types as well as make parts for two different car designs?

 

Sounds like a nightmare.

 

 

I am not a fan of customer cars.  But also as i said i don't understand this idea that top teams leave the sport, since they don't.

 

However - i'll play along a bit! Brawn was funded for the year by Honda.  Who spent most of 2008 developing the 2009 car (they abandoned the 2008 one early doors).  So, i would assume that if they had contractual obligations to supply teams then Honda would have to fund Brawn to meet those obligations or compensate the customers.

 

But Honda were far from a top team.

 

If a top team switches engine manufacturers - you mean like Red Bull did in 2006 -from Ferrari to Renault? yet in 2008 the 2007 Red Bull (designed for a Renault engine) won the Italian Grand Prix for Toro Rosso with a Ferrari engine in the back?

Edited by 4Wheeldrift, 30 December 2015 - 20:53.

[Nathan]

 

Customer cars from other teams would only gut the workforce of the lower teams and give an even higher percentage of the money to the top teams.

I will assume you missed the part where I suggested only the bottom half of constructors be allowed to sell/lease a customer car.  So if what I suggested was in place for 2016, only Manor, Sauber, Torro Rosso, Lotus and McLaren would be available for a customer team.  Since I doubt Red Bull/TR, McLaren or Honda would want someone to put a rival PU onto the back of those cars, I would assume they wouldn't offer.

 

If people expect new teams to spend a $70-80 mln to build and equip a factory & design office, put together a race team, pay the FIA fee, and the cost to design the first car, don't expect too many new teams.

 

What I suggested would allow a junior GP2/F2 etc. team to make the attempt to do the jump because they would have most of the basic infrastructure (race bays, transport equipment, tools, pit equip etc.) in place to go GP racing with a customer car, and if they fail they don't have a race car factory and design studio with nothing to manufacture and design put the company out of business.  The bottom half can use the idea to share the cost of R&D, manufacturing equipment and additional staff.  If a bottom half constructor made it into the top half I assume the extra FOM money would offset any extra annual cost that is needed to provide customer cars in previous years (eg the loss of shared R&D costs, the extra manufacturing equip/staff etc.).

 

The top half of constructors gain nothing, the engine makers gain more customers.

Edited by Nathan, 30 December 2015 - 23:56.

[charly0418]

Ignore this clown, he's just a puppet

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/109216

[ANF]

Ignore this clown, he's just a puppet
 
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/109216

"Lotus boss Eric Boullier says the costs of competing in Formula 1 must be brought down in order to safeguard the future of the current grid.

Boullier believes that 80 per cent of teams are in favour of negotiating ways to reduce expenditure, but that a select few teams are preventing a consensus and creating an effective impasse."

[R Soul]

"These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."

[hittheapex]

In all honesty if you are CVC, wanting to sell or not, why would you take a hair cut?  I can understand if it means down the road the income would increase (eg investing in marketing, TV production/distribution, attracting various participants etc.), but why would they do it for the purpose of giving more to the teams?  And if you had to weigh giving the teams more money versus reducing race hosting fees to make important races more viable, which do you choose? A little OT...

 

 

 

CVC could take a small haircut and still have plenty left over to gorge on. Problem is they want to sell it on later and reducing their cut isn't the way to get the best return for themselves.

 

 

I agreed with you

[Clatter]

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.

Not sure what you read when I said policing the spend, but seems you have just slightly reworded it with the exact same meaning.

Edited by Clatter, 31 December 2015 - 12:16.

[Cirio]

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

The old joke about how to become a millionaire: start out as a billionaire and buy an F1 team.....