Jump to content


Photo

F1 budgets over the years (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,144 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 02 December 2003 - 13:50

With the astounding numbers that get tossed around for F1 budgets these days, I was wondering if there was much information concerning team budgets in the 60's. Did any teams manage to run successful F1 programs just from sponsorship and winnings, or did they all need some sort of financial boost from elsewhere?

My guess is that teams such Ferrari and Lotus could help pay for F1 from road car sales. Brabham, Lotus, March, and Cooper could all draw on the race car sales, but how heavily was BRM a loss for Rubery Owens? Also, how much sponsorship was there before cars began being entered in sponsorship liveries? Using Brabham as an example, was he in some way supported by Esso and Goodyear? He seemed to have a long relationship with both companies.

Were the Rob Walker and early Williams & Tyrrell efforts simply examples of people spending their own money to race?

I think I remember that Lauda's first season in F1 (BRM?) cost him just over $100K, but was that an accurate reflection of actual cost?

Advertisement

#2 ian senior

ian senior
  • Member

  • 2,140 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 02 December 2003 - 14:12

Yes, it was another world then, wasn't it?

There certainly was trade support for the teams, by means of money handed down from oil and tyre companies, but even picking and choosing your races could be a source of income. Prize and starting money varied according to how generous GP organisers were, some being particularly lucrative - the US Grand Prix always paid well, and a good performance there could probably keep some of the smaller teams ticking over for a while.

Also, don't forget the non-championship races that proliferated for a while in the 60s. Again, these were a source of extra revenue for some teams. Some of the organisers of such races often paid decent starting money to attract a reasonably competitive field to their far flung and obscure event, and even if such races were spurned by the big boys they helped boost the coffers of private entrants.

#3 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 02 December 2003 - 14:49

Originally posted by MPea3


I think I remember that Lauda's first season in F1 (BRM?) cost him just over $100K, but was that an accurate reflection of actual cost?


Lauda's F1 debut was with March, in '71 and '72. March would take a driver's money and give him a car, but by '72 the cars they had were occasionally pretty bloody awful - Niki wanted nothing to do with the 721X, and regarded the 721G as a horrid lash-up (although I reckon it's a lash-up that if they'd started the season with, they might've developed to the point that Hesketh got to with the 731 next year, and won races with...) - he despaired of how he'd ever get out of March...

I suspect a lot of Niki's money went towards making a slightly less bad car for Ronnie Peterson. That's the way the cookie crumbles with No. 2 drivers. :/


(I don't think he broke his contract with them, mind... although he did to get out of an equally shambolic BRM to go to Ferrari, IIRC).

#4 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 December 2003 - 16:05

In the 1960's, the numbers in the GP team budgets for a season probably wouldn't run the catering for a single event today.

The fuel/oil companies were actively engaged in spreading some money around, but the numbers were not huge, some on the order of £5K, £8K, or even £10K or so -- outright; tire company money was provided "in-kind," in the form of tires and fees for some of the testing.

Starting money for a GP team in 1964 was either £800 or £600 per car -- or something similar in some cases, Ferrari usually brokering deals for a tad more than the rest whenever possible.

Assuming two cars per event, £1,600, and 10 events, that means that Team Lotus saw approximately £16,000 in startng money -- the US and Mexican GP events being somehat different, but in the ballpark plus travel, of course -- on the championship events, plus the starting money for the non-championship events, which was often a (good) bit less, but not always.

So, £16,000 in starting money for the championship events, plus another £10,000 let's say in non-championship GP events, the Esso retainer -- £10,000? -- and other monies from the Motor Industry -- brakes, pads, plugs, and so forth -- and you can see that Team Lotus was, perhaps, bringing in about £40,000 for its GP efforts. This does not include anything from the sales of chassis or components to those using customer cars, "spill-over" from the sales of road cars, and whatever else.

This is all balanced against the cost of gearboxes, labor costs, entry fees, and so forth and so on and on and on.....

Even Rob Walker got a stipend from BP and other sources. In some cases, the driver fees were paid by an oil company or another sponser leaving the team to sort out the rest of the monies necessary to compete. And the prize money in GP racing was nice, but rarely substantial.....

#5 jph

jph
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 02 December 2003 - 16:41

The recently published Jackie Stewart biography (haven't finished reading it yet, but thoroughly enjoying it) suggests that Tyrell's budget for 1968 was £80,000, of which £20,000 was JYS's retainer. Whether he had to buy the Matra chassis etc, not entirely clear.

Even allowing for thirty five years' general inflation (so multiply the number by, say, 15), it really underlines how budgets are now completely ridiculous.

#6 Mallory Dan

Mallory Dan
  • Member

  • 2,673 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 02 December 2003 - 16:58

Dinosaur time again !! But does anyone at TNF really think todays F1 is better than, say the 60s, 70s, even early 80s. I know that most of us look through rose-tints, but even so... For me the rot set in about 1984, when the manufacturers and turbos started to dominate. I've always thought it was these 2, linked, developments that set the costs gong loony.

Its no longer a sport, meant to entertain us, but a branch of the marketing or tech industries, take your pick. Any wonder Historics are so popular.

Money has ruined it all, much like it is doing with F-----ll.

I'll get my coat .

#7 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 02 December 2003 - 17:24

Originally posted by Mallory Dan
Dinosaur time again !! But does anyone at TNF really think todays F1 is better than, say the 60s, 70s, even early 80s. I know that most of us look through rose-tints, but even so... For me the rot set in about 1984, when the manufacturers and turbos started to dominate. I've always thought it was these 2, linked, developments that set the costs gong loony.

Its no longer a sport, meant to entertain us, but a branch of the marketing or tech industries, take your pick. Any wonder Historics are so popular.

Money has ruined it all, much like it is doing with F-----ll.

I'll get my coat .


The rot set in when Colin Chapman got Gold Leaf to sponsor his cars, although at the time he wasn't to know that.

As tobacco adverts found themselves more and more restricted, the baccy firms pumped more and more into racing - thereby inflating the amount of money available for the teams to burn.

And as the rules grew more and more restrictive, that money has to be spent on smaller and smaller refinements, tinier increments to cars that are all virtually identical anyway. And far too much of that money has gone on electronics, because the optimal mechanical configuration and aero configuration of the car is something that's pretty much constant across all the teams.

We've ended up, effectively, with the most expensive spec-chassis formula in the world, and the one that has the least scope for drivers to make a difference.


At least with f-----ll (a sport I must admit that I find it hard to stay awake during) it's still eleven blokes against eleven with a ball on a field. The money might well price people off the terraces, but the sport is still recognisable even if the egos and pay-packets are utterly bloated....

#8 Mallory Dan

Mallory Dan
  • Member

  • 2,673 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 02 December 2003 - 17:53

Pete

Agreed with bulk of that, but are you sure about Chapman/Gold Leaf ? After this in 68, surely you'd agree there was at least 15 years of great stuff. Great drivers and characters on and off the track, varied cars, brilliant circuits/races, fantastic years in Sportscars/F2/F3 Atlantic,CanAm....

Btw are you on for the Northern TNF meet ??

#9 rdrcr

rdrcr
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 02 December 2003 - 18:29

Originally posted by jph
The recently published Jackie Stewart biography (haven't finished reading it yet, but thoroughly enjoying it) suggests that Tyrell's budget for 1968 was £80,000, of which £20,000 was JYS's retainer. Whether he had to buy the Matra chassis etc, not entirely clear.

Even allowing for thirty five years' general inflation (so multiply the number by, say, 15), it really underlines how budgets are now completely ridiculous.

Converting to USD, £80,000 is approx. $160,000. Adjusted for inflation, the amount spent in 1968 is equivalent to $829,352.

Here is a web-based Inflation Calculator (in USD) for figuring that stuff out.

In any case, it was still quite a sum for JYS or Lauda to spend. In Lauda's case, was he the best pay driver to ever emerge?

#10 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 December 2003 - 18:42

The root of the problem, perhaps, is that today F1 truly believes it is the Alpha and Omega of motor sports simply because it practices the most overt display of conscpicuous consumption in with the assumption that this alone is enough to trhill the proles into gluing themselves to the TV screen or shelling out truly obscene amounts of money for the privilege of watching the performance.

Being up to my eyebrows in the 1964 season, I am perhaps a tad more conscious of the contrasts than I might otherwise be on this topic. Money was an issue and a problem in 1964 and that has not changed one little bit since then. Of course, the numbers have changed and to a degree that would be literally unimaginable back then, but whereas money is not a topic that many spoke about openly back then with any real precision, not much different today when you realize how tightly much of the information is attempted to be held.

Given my druthers, I would pick the 1964 season any day of the week over any recent season of the past few decades. It is intereresting to contemplate the isolation of F1 today in regards to what it was four decades ago. The true degree of the rot really surfaced when F1 became a closed shop, a process that really took wing in the 1980's and was accomplished in the early 1990's.

I try to continue to keep my deep and abiding interest in GP racing -- now officially "F1" -- but some days it is not very easy. My visit to the 2002 USGP did little -- to my honest surprise -- to rekindle that spark. I though that the Product left much to be desired. Contrasting it to my last visit to a NASCAR Winston Cup race, not contest. If it weren't for the HGP folks having been there along with some of the Usual Suspects such as Burt Levy.....

#11 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,144 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 02 December 2003 - 19:15

Originally posted by rdrcr

Converting to USD, £80,000 is approx. $160,000. Adjusted for inflation, the amount spent in 1968 is equivalent to $829,352.


Was the Pound only worth $2US in '68?

Even at $829K, or approximately $400K per car, I'd be interested to know what sort of budget it takes these days to make a serious run an SCCA amatuer championship in, say, Formula Ford. I'll bet it's considerable. For that matter, when I raced quarter midgets with my son in the early 90's I knew one person who was spending somewhere around $50K a year just on that (for a 7 year old kid at that).

I've often wondered as you about Lauda being the best ever "pay" driver. How did he ever raise that money back then?

also, was there a generally accepted percentage of winnings that a driver took home, or did this vary? I assume that a driver like JYS also made money from contracts outside the sport, and that his income might have been much greater. I also assume that other drivers might not have been in such a position.

#12 Ruairidh

Ruairidh
  • Member

  • 1,073 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 02 December 2003 - 19:19

Originally posted by MPea3


I've often wondered as you about Lauda being the best ever "pay" driver. How did he ever raise that money back then?


IIRC there was a friendly bank manager involved.

Incidentally, dashing through O'Hare airport last week I was amused to see LaudaAir (sp?) having a desk. Is it still going?

#13 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,144 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 02 December 2003 - 19:25

Originally posted by Don Capps
The root of the problem, perhaps, is that today F1 truly believes it is the Alpha and Omega of motor sports simply because it practices the most overt display of conscpicuous consumption in with the assumption that this alone is enough to trhill the proles into gluing themselves to the TV screen or shelling out truly obscene amounts of money for the privilege of watching the performance.


While I agree with you concerning modern F1 vs. the sport I fell in love with some 35 years ago, I'm reminded of something that happened to me in the late 70's.

A bunch of friends and I were driving across Pennsylvania in the middle of the night, and they all put me behind the wheel, deciding that I was the best driver and the most awake. The rest of them piled into the van and promptly fell asleep. At about 3am, coming down I-81 near Frackville, I too fell asleep and ran the van off of the highway and nose first into a soft dirt embankment. Fortunately no one was hurt, and we managed to get the van back up onto the highway. The others decided that in spite of the accident, I was still the best driver and the most awake, so they put me back behind the wheel and on I drove.

That's kind of how I feel about F1 these days. It may not be the sport I fell in love with, and it may have what I think are serious flaws, but there's no place I'd rather be during race weekends than glued to the tube at 8am, and I'll continue to go to Indy as long as they continue to have the race.

#14 rdrcr

rdrcr
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 02 December 2003 - 20:23

Originally posted by MPea3


Was the Pound only worth $2US in '68?

Even at $829K, or approximately $400K per car, I'd be interested to know what sort of budget it takes these days to make a serious run an SCCA amatuer championship in, say, Formula Ford. I'll bet it's considerable. For that matter, when I raced quarter midgets with my son in the early 90's I knew one person who was spending somewhere around $50K a year just on that (for a 7 year old kid at that).

I've often wondered as you about Lauda being the best ever "pay" driver. How did he ever raise that money back then?

also, was there a generally accepted percentage of winnings that a driver took home, or did this vary? I assume that a driver like JYS also made money from contracts outside the sport, and that his income might have been much greater. I also assume that other drivers might not have been in such a position.


On a moments notice, the best I could do was January 1, 1973 (so at least we have an idea of the equivalent exchange of the Niki Lauda business) the rate was £1.00 GBP = $2.34 USD.

That "friendly banker" Ruairidh spoke of, was probably holding trust over much of the family accounts... As Lauda was a member of the "lucky sperm club" - being born into a wealthy family of Austrian industrialists, who owned a string of paper factories.

Good question on the percentage of winnings and how all that was disbursed...

#15 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 02 December 2003 - 20:43

Originally posted by Mallory Dan
Pete

Agreed with bulk of that, but are you sure about Chapman/Gold Leaf ? After this in 68, surely you'd agree there was at least 15 years of great stuff. Great drivers and characters on and off the track, varied cars, brilliant circuits/races, fantastic years in Sportscars/F2/F3 Atlantic,CanAm....

Btw are you on for the Northern TNF meet ??


Oh, I am not claiming that GLTL instantly turned top-level racing into the tedious mess it is these days, but that it opened the floodgates for a lot of money to come in and make a mess of it.

I'd say there were maybe another 12 good years, up to about 1980. The politics and money in F1 became distasteful circa 1980....

I'm afraid every remaining weekend this year's already fully booked so I won't be able to make the TNF Northern gathering.

#16 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 02 December 2003 - 20:47

Originally posted by Ruairidh


IIRC there was a friendly bank manager involved.

Incidentally, dashing through O'Hare airport last week I was amused to see LaudaAir (sp?) having a desk. Is it still going?


If it is, Niki isn't involved any more - he sold out in 2000. He's just (and I mean in the last week or two) bought into another airline though, aiming for the cheap'n'cheerful end of the market.

#17 David Beard

David Beard
  • Member

  • 4,887 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 02 December 2003 - 21:20

Originally posted by petefenelon
I'm afraid every remaining weekend this year's already fully booked so I won't be able to make the TNF Northern gathering.


The proposed date is a Monday. Better excuse needed.;)

#18 lanciaman

lanciaman
  • Member

  • 552 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 02 December 2003 - 21:32

Originally posted by rdrcr

Converting to USD, £80,000 is approx. $160,000. Adjusted for inflation, the amount spent in 1968 is equivalent to $829,352.

Here is a web-based Inflation Calculator (in USD) for figuring that stuff out.

In any case, it was still quite a sum for JYS or Lauda to spend. In Lauda's case, was he the best pay driver to ever emerge?


Thanks for the link. :clap:
My modest racing budget in 1971, with which I raced two MGs and hauled them on a custom double deck transporter, would cost 5x that now. :eek:

#19 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 02 December 2003 - 21:43

Originally posted by David Beard


The proposed date is a Monday. Better excuse needed.;)


I'm back in work by then :(

Advertisement

#20 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 December 2003 - 21:55

Originally posted by MPea3
That's kind of how I feel about F1 these days. It may not be the sport I fell in love with, and it may have what I think are serious flaws, but there's no place I'd rather be during race weekends than glued to the tube at 8am, and I'll continue to go to Indy as long as they continue to have the race.


I keep wondering why we have to settle for something that is seriously flawed. Even if I were home at 0800 on Sunday mornings, I am not sure how great the motivation would be to watch F1 with anything resembling a serious interest. Even when I catch it on the rebound at 2100 that evening, I find myself doing other things and not really "getting into it" as I once did. Perhaps it is fortunate that the events are only, what, 75 to 90 minutes long. I often find myself reading books with only an occasional glance at the sceen. I often watch without any sound as well. However, I must add that is how I "watch" most other sports on television, so F1 is not being singled out.

What really, really bothers me about F1 is that all the resources -- literally billions of $$$$ in the last decade alone -- that have been poured into F1, it does not seem to have improved the product very much over the days when budgets were just a miniscule percentage of those being spent today. It is hard to get worked up over a sport where a team pours hundreds of millions of $$$$ into an activity and the reaction is, "So?"

Some questions on F1: Is this series for science projects or a racing series? If it is a series to advertise the products, why do they charge admission? If it is a racing series, why is there so relatiively little racing? Why don't the drivers race elsewhere? Why is F1 struggling in the USA?

Or, is all a gigantic money-laundrying operation?

I started following GP racing five decades ago, but while change is evitable, nothing says you have to like it. I find myself lacking the the same level of dedication MPea3 has to F1. I don't dislike it, but it is not the same for me that it was years ago. It just seems so isolated and remote compared to what I once considered it to be. The drivers and the others on the teams are just as talented as they ever were, but there is the problem that the technology has simply overtaken the sporting aspects of the game.

Perhaps I am just a Racing Luddite at heart. Perhaps the basic challenges have been resolved by the development and employment of technologies in the series. The status quo is not dissimilar to the conditions that have resulted in revolutions -- minor and major -- in times past.

#21 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,565 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 02 December 2003 - 22:17

fron another thread http://forums.atlasf...e starting cash

as per Rob Walker in R&T mag
in 67 only Watkens Glen paid a prize cash, $20,000 us, for the winner
indy 500 paid about $100,000 and was the big payday

the euro GPs paid only starting mony and not very much of that
500 to 3000 avg
main cash cows were the tyre and gas corps
with oil and sparkplugs in secondary roll

68 was the year of change with MC offered starting or prize cash
but not both, choose before the race, Rob wanted the same as lotus got, $3,000
as he had the same car a 49 as they did, but he was offered 1/2, $1500
he finaly got his $3,000 but his car was 2nd and would have paid $6,000
if he had gone for the prize mony deal

at an other race Rob said he broke even on the weekend ,[ spain?]
after rebuilding two ford v8s at 500lbs each
plus hotel and travel costs
but as he said, his whole team could fit in a FIAT rental car
inc driver and Rob and his wife

Dan the man claimed to burn thru over a million USA$ on his eagels
in less than 3 years 66-68 in F-1 but inc the cost of building both cars and motors

#22 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,946 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 02 December 2003 - 22:29

I can't find it now, but at some time Alan Jones sent us a tape (at Racing Car News) which was for transcription to be published as a column by him.

It must have been at the end of the solo season, when the team were going to two cars for the following year... anyway, the figure they budgeted for was 39 million. Pounds or dollars, I'm not sure now.

Don... money laundering? Yeah, you're probably giving squandering surplus tobacco dollars a very correct description there.

I see the big problem being that F1 got into bed with the tobacco people with the intention of screwing what they could out of them. Tobacco interests, however, had a different agenda, but F1 hasn't been smart enough to get a divorce.

Indy was able to get away with the 'junk formula' in the depression... is weaning off the tobacco money any less of a 'depression' for them? Such an adjustment would do a lot of good...

#23 lanciaman

lanciaman
  • Member

  • 552 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 02 December 2003 - 23:08

I think the biggest condemnation of contemporary F1 is that the cars are a technical tour de force at the expense of actual racing. You could start them 5 seconds apart and still see virtually the same incredible cornering and braking.

The cars all look pretty much the same-- ugly-- and the drivers don't elicit any passion. I began following F1 nearly 50 years ago, as another poster noted he did, and I knew the names of drivers (who also could be followed in sports cars races around the world) and cars and their distinctive features. The absurd expense of competition hasn't made the product any better, just more scientific. This isn't simply nostalgic geezerhood longing for The Day. Like boxing, racing grew more grotesque and less entertaining as Big Money took over and the corporate creatures began running things. Bernie and Company have obscenely enriched themselves and I don't see how anybody can argue that F1 is better for it, even taking into account the somewhat amateurish nature that was F1 which enabled him to become the Grand Poobah.

Come to think of it, Bernie is rather like the Don King of racing.... :eek:

#24 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 December 2003 - 23:23

Originally posted by lanciaman
Come to think of it, Bernie is rather like the Don King of racing....


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Gawd, that is perfect! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

And spot on the mark. :lol:

#25 Ian McKean

Ian McKean
  • Member

  • 480 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 02 December 2003 - 23:34

Originally posted by ray b
fron another thread http://forums.atlasf...e starting cash

Dan the man claimed to burn thru over a million USA$ on his eagels
in less than 3 years 66-68 in F-1 but inc the cost of building both cars and motors



IIRC Dan paid Weslake a lot less than Ford paid Cosworth for the DFV (reported at £100,000. It seems ridiculous but a figure of £25,000 suggests itself from the recesses of my addled brain. Perhaps someone can add further info or correct me on this...

#26 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 686 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 02 December 2003 - 23:40

The root of the problem, perhaps, is that today F1 truly believes it is the Alpha and Omega of motor sports simply because it practices the most overt display of conscpicuous consumption in with the assumption that this alone is enough to trhill the proles into gluing themselves to the TV screen or shelling out truly obscene amounts of money for the privilege of watching the performance.



I`m really glad that we Australians seem to get such a good deal then for the GP here. The first year I went to Albert Park we forked out for seats in a grand stand which cost ( I cant remember the exact figure ) around A$350 for the 4 days. Since then though we buy the general admission tickets, around $150 for 4 days, and never have a problem getting a good viewing position ( even one in front of a super screen ). A$150 for 4 days entertainment seems to be bloody good value to me. The only thing that annoys me a bit is the price of beer and food once inside the gates, so nowadays we buy some bread rolls and salad and make our food before we go into the track, have a beer or two once inside and it turns out to be a cheap days entertainment compared to some other sports or entertainment. There are events all day long and plenty of displays and exhibitions all around the track, so value for money wise its pretty good.

Oh, and this year the F1 race was exciting too!! One mate of ours made the comment ( whilst it was wet early on ) " my knees are shaking and I cant work out if its because Im cold or excited!!! "



So whilst I agree some GP`s seem to be obscenely expensive, the Australian GP is definately not...

#27 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,565 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 03 December 2003 - 04:19

Originally posted by Ian McKean



IIRC Dan paid Weslake a lot less than Ford paid Cosworth for the DFV (reported at £100,000. It seems ridiculous but a figure of £25,000 suggests itself from the recesses of my addled brain. Perhaps someone can add further info or correct me on this...


from Dan's AAR web site on the weslake cost
" Our total budget for 4 new engines (including the prototype) was roughly $600,000. That we even managed to get it running, setting up all the facilities including dynamometer to test it and actually setting lap records and pole positions (Brands Hatch) and winning races (Brands Hatch and Spa) was a minor miracle. Contrast this with today's motor racing scene where the development of a from-scratch formula 1 racing engine runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. "

thats just the 4 v12 motors not the 66 fourbangers or the cars or running the team ect

#28 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 2,589 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 20 October 2011 - 18:28

This list is from "Auto, Motor und Sport"

1. Red Bull (mehr als 200 Millionen Euro)
2. Ferrari (circa 200 Millionen Euro)
3. McLaren (180 Millionen Euro)
4. Mercedes (170 Millionen Euro)
5. Renault (100 Millionen Euro)
6. Toro Rosso (90 Millionen Euro)
7. Force India (80 Millionen Euro)
8. Sauber (circa 80 Millionen Euro)
9. Williams (circa 80 Millionen Euro)
10. Lotus (60 Millionen Euro)
11. Virgin (40 Millionen Euro)
12. HRT (30 Millionen Euro)

I've found this list for 1996 season.
Ferrari 120 Millionen Dollar
McLaren 85 Millionen Dollar
Williams 75 Millionen Dollar
Benetton 60 Millionen Dollar
Sauber 50 Millionen Dollar
Jordan 45 Millionen Dollar
Ligier 22 Millionen Dollar
Arrows 20 Millionen Dollar
Tyrrell 20 Millionen Dollar
Forti 14 Millionen Dollar
Minardi 12 Millionen Dollar

What was the budget in 2006/2007?
What in the 70s?
What before and after that?
Has anyone a list of team budgets over the years in GP racing?



#29 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,946 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 20 October 2011 - 20:55

When Williams went to a 2-car team in 1980, their budget was 39 million...

But I don't remember whether that was pounds or dollars.

#30 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,469 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 20 October 2011 - 21:42

What was the budget in 2006/2007?
What in the 70s?
What before and after that?
Has anyone a list of team budgets over the years in GP racing?


The search function of this site is your friend, e.g. http://forums.autosp...w...3&hl=budget which gives a list of 2006 like

McLaren: $400m
Toyota: $393m
Honda: $382m
BMW: $378m
Ferrari: $329m
Renault: $300m
Red Bull: $201m
Williams: $134m
Super Aguri: $95m
Midland: $75m
Toro Rosso: $66m

Or this one from 2001 http://forums.autosp...w...8&hl=budget

Ferrari (Bridgestone) Employees: 681 Budget: $284.35m
1: Michael SCHUMACHER (Germany)
2: Rubens BARRICHELLO (Brazil)

McLaren-Mercedes (Bridgestone) Employees: 450 Budget: $274.55m
3: Mika HAKKINEN (Finland)
4: David COULTHARD (Scotland)

Williams-BMW (Michelin) Employees: 380 Budget: $192.95
5: Ralf SCHUMACHER (Germany)
6: Juan Pablo MONTOYA (Colombia)

Benetton-Renault (Michelin) Employees: 336 Budget: $180.95
7: Giancarlo FISICHELLA (Italy)
8: Jenson BUTTON (England)

BAR-Honda (Bridgestone) Employees: 321 Budget: $195.45m
9: Olivier PANIS (France)
10: Jacques VILLENEUVE (Canada)

Jordan-Honda (Bridgestone) Employees: 240 Budget: $172.9m
11: Heinz-Harald FRENTZEN (Germany)
12: Jarno TRULLI (Italy)

Arrows-AMT (Bridgestone) Employees: 310 Budget: $73.65m
14: Jos VERSTAPPEN (Netherlands)
15: Enrique BERNOLDI (Brazil)

Sauber-Petronas (Bridgestone) Employees: 260 Budget: $82.65m
16: Nick HEIDFELD (Germany)
17: Kimi RAIKKONEN (Finland)

Jaguar-Cosworth (Michelin) Employees: 320 Budget: $177.425m
18: Eddie IRVINE (Northern Ireland)
19: Luciano BURTI (Brazil)

European-Minardi (Michelin) Employees: 160 Budget: $47m
20: Fernando ALONSO (Spain)
21: Tarso MARQUES (Brazil)

Prost-Acer (Michelin) Employees: 235 Budget: $47.5m
22: Jean ALESI (France)
23: Gaston Mazzacane (Argentina)

No guarantee of truth included I guess......

There have been threads about budgets in the 60s and 70s as well on TNF.

#31 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,345 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 20 October 2011 - 22:20

Cooper Car Company - 1959 - £10,000 for three cars, three drivers...result - their first of two consecutive Formula 1 Constructors' Championship titles. :smoking:

DCN

#32 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,611 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 20 October 2011 - 22:55

When Williams went to a 2-car team in 1980...

Splitting hairs, but Willies became a two-car team in 1979.

...in 1980, their budget was 39 million...

But I don't remember whether that was pounds or dollars.

Are you sure? As far as I'm aware, the Team Lotus budget for 1985 was 5 million - likewise, I'm unsure of the currency - which I compared to that of the RAM budget for the same season in a letter to Autosport (Haymarket staffers were often asked to contribute back then as deadline approached!) in which I suggested that the latter team should be awarded the 'Inflation-related F1 World Championship' that season! John MacDonald appreciated it anyway.

I would say, however, that after twenty-six years I might have mis-attached that 1985 sum to Lotus instead of to RAM. Regardless, my theory was at the time based upon the budget McLaren (a team similar in status to that Lotus enjoyed thirteen years later) benefitted from in 1972 which was GBP 250,000.

I'll do some digging to establish who had the 5m in '85...


#33 TennisUK

TennisUK
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 21 October 2011 - 23:21

I'll do some digging to establish who had the 5m in '85...

I vaguely recall the budget from Players was around 5 million, but there was cash from other sponsors (olympus etc)?

#34 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,258 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 October 2011 - 23:53

I'd have thought 3.9mil for a front running team in 1980.

The early to mid 00s budgets always seemed dramatically overblown. Where they based on something like public financial records for the corporation? Because the 2010/2011 team budgets are much more realistic. And from a practical standpoint I'm not entirely convinced that a team like McLaren could rake in 400mil, even in the tobacco era. Unless a lot of that 400mil is based on valuing what Mercedes spends on R&Ding and supplying an engine pre-freeze/rev limit/multi-weekend-use rules.

In other words hard to imagine team budgets suddenly halved.

#35 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,049 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 22 October 2011 - 20:50

I suspect that some team budgets include money spent on behalf of sponsors in promotion work (Think of the JPS girls at GP's in the 70's etc) and in corporate entertainment "Our sponsorship includes entertaining a group of in-country representatives iand guests n a hospitality suite) and some don't. This could make a significant difference to the amounts quoted.

#36 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,469 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 22 October 2011 - 22:09

I'd have thought 3.9mil for a front running team in 1980.

The early to mid 00s budgets always seemed dramatically overblown. Where they based on something like public financial records for the corporation? Because the 2010/2011 team budgets are much more realistic. And from a practical standpoint I'm not entirely convinced that a team like McLaren could rake in 400mil, even in the tobacco era. Unless a lot of that 400mil is based on valuing what Mercedes spends on R&Ding and supplying an engine pre-freeze/rev limit/multi-weekend-use rules.

In other words hard to imagine team budgets suddenly halved.

I feel the same.

That said, the effect of the drastic reduction of testing might be quite significant.
I was amazed to see how intensive testing was in quite recent years: http://www.forix.com...&...=902005&c=0
No less than 88.000 laps in 255 test days at 25 circuits in 2005, in which the teams covered a greater distance than from here to the moon.....

#37 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,245 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 25 October 2011 - 07:41

I remember in 1979 the Hector Rebaque F1 team had a budget of around $3mil ,not bad for the last private F1 team.

#38 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,245 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:13

Incidentally, dashing through O'Hare airport last week I was amused to see LaudaAir (sp?) having a desk. Is it still going?


This is how it all started.
Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

#39 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,245 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 29 October 2011 - 05:07

I know it not F1 ,however check out these 1978 prices for MARCH cars.


Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Advertisement

#40 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 31 October 2011 - 21:48

Three points on budgets

I you go to www.companieshouse.co.uk you can find the accounts for each of the F1 teams based in the Uk plus MB engines ( Ilmor). You have to pay a fee but it is official public accounting data. It shows revenue and profit therefore costs. You can also work out average wages per team ( knock say, 15% off the apparent number for pensions/social security). About two years ago when I checked the average team employee makes UK £ 30K per year plus. As that includes admin. staff it suggests the average team technical person could be on £35K yr plus or 160% of UK average wages.That is big difference from teh "good old days" when pay was IIRC pretty poor.

Secondly some funny things have gone on with racing and tax "optimisation" over the years if various rumours are true. So sponsorship = $10M, all tax deductible. Team spends $5M and puts $5m into sponsors Swiss account. At 35% corp.tax team costs sponsor $1.5M. Difficult then to know the real costs as th swiss money is reported by the team as a cost. I guees that doesn't happen now.

Lastly I don't go too much on modern F! but the safety improvements since the 1960's/70's are huge. Mechanics don't work 100 hour weeks and risk mistakes via fatigue but that means more team staff. Parts are lifed and junked on time so worn parts don't kill people so much. The teams have full inbound inspection and drawing work is backed up by FEA etc. That all adds to budgets and swells team sizes but it helps save lives.

So I mis the old days but I am glad the cars are run on budgets that minimise risk

#41 maplestone71

maplestone71
  • Member

  • 58 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 01 November 2011 - 00:26

I had a look at some of the Companies House data a while ago.

A couple of stats:
1985 turnover
Team Lotus £6.4m
McLaren £13m

1990 turnover
Williams and McLaren had grown to £15m and £22m respectively, TL at £10m

I seem to remember a Peter Warr quote saying how shocked he was one time when Ron Dennis let him know how much bigger McLaren's budget was (partly a legacy of the whole sorry De Lorean affair, but let's not open that one up again) ...

#42 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 2,589 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 November 2011 - 21:45

I had a look at some of the Companies House data a while ago.

A couple of stats:
1985 turnover
Team Lotus £6.4m
McLaren £13m

1990 turnover
Williams and McLaren had grown to £15m and £22m respectively, TL at £10m

I seem to remember a Peter Warr quote saying how shocked he was one time when Ron Dennis let him know how much bigger McLaren's budget was (partly a legacy of the whole sorry De Lorean affair, but let's not open that one up again) ...


are these us dollars?

#43 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,049 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 November 2011 - 21:55

No, the sums are in pounds sterling.

£ is the symbol for the Pound. It actually stands for "Lira" the Roman currency which is why £ was also the symbol for the Italian Lira before the Euro. Pre decimalisation, in Britain we had Pounds, shillings and [old] pence, the symbols were £ s d and stood for "Lira" "Solidi" and "Denarii"

Edited by D-Type, 10 November 2011 - 21:56.


#44 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 2,589 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 November 2011 - 23:07

Sorry :blush:
Have not read it exactly enough...

#45 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,026 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 11 November 2011 - 00:33

I had a look at some of the Companies House data a while ago.

A couple of stats:
1985 turnover
Team Lotus £6.4m
McLaren £13m

1990 turnover
Williams and McLaren had grown to £15m and £22m respectively, TL at £10m

I seem to remember a Peter Warr quote saying how shocked he was one time when Ron Dennis let him know how much bigger McLaren's budget was (partly a legacy of the whole sorry De Lorean affair, but let's not open that one up again) ...

Are the McLaren and Williams figures the tunover of the F1 team or the total Group? Does the McLaren 1985 figure include money paid to Porsche for engines?

#46 TennisUK

TennisUK
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 11 November 2011 - 21:54

Are the McLaren and Williams figures the tunover of the F1 team or the total Group? Does the McLaren 1985 figure include money paid to Porsche for engines?

That was paid for by TAG but who knows was accounting gymnastics may have been performed.

#47 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,258 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 11 November 2011 - 23:04

I wouldn't have thought Williams and McLaren had much outside the race team in those years ?

Interesting that McLaren's budget was double that of Lotus when both(?) had works engines and both had major tobacco sponsors. Or is that simply the difference in rate card due to McLaren being the current top team and Lotus being slightly lower than they had been in the 70s.

#48 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 11 November 2011 - 23:20

Was it the chicken or the egg?