71 replies to this topic

[anbeck]

Okay, this may seem as a no-brainer to you, but I will explain myself:

Of course there is one reason why there's spent so much money in F1: because the teams think it's worth it. Huge car manufacturer's think it's good publicity, others do it because they want to win.

But why is there so much more money involved in F1 than in, say, sports cars? There are huge car manufacturers there, too, but everybody is happy to spend less. You might say that many sports cars are production based, but there are prototypes as well. But the factories are smaller, the staff numbers are smaller. Even with Peugot, Audi, Bentley and Toyota fighting for Le Mans wins, the racing was much more cost efficient.

But apparently the manufacturer's think that it isn't the "race" that has to be good, but the publicity. Audi thinks winning Le Mans a gazillion times is enough, but others seem to disagree and be willing to spend more in F1.

So is it the manufacturers who brought all the money into F1? Perhaps a part of it, but not all of it. There's more and more money spent in football as well on stadiums, players and everything. But there's no 'manufacturer' involved. And the teams as well don't do it for publicity's sake (in contrast to F1 they are probably more dependent on fans coming into the stadium, although the ratio of direct fan-spent money for tickets and merchandise to sponsor and TV money certainly has changed a lot in the past 20 years as well). Nevertheless expenses have exploded there as well.

We have to think of the Bernie factor. He thought the trademark 'F1' makes money. This is a kind of postmodern way to think of F1. Not the races are important. Not the fans are important. What F1 is isn't important. It is what it represents to those who want to invest money that is important.

But what came first? Those with the money? Probably not, as they could have gone elsewhere. Bernie's need to do business for the business' sake? Well, he didn't invent F1, but he has invented F1 as a trademark. Why does the trademark work? There were always many people that followed F1, but maybe never as much as in the 2000s. Does the trademark work because they are so many fans, or do we have so many fans, because the trademark works?

So in the end, is it the success of F1 that lead to its commercialisation and maybe its demise? Quite funny.... so stop watching F1 so I can enjoy it

Who can untangle this web of manufacturers, Bernie, fans, trade mark and maybe a little bit of sport?

a.

[noikeee]

TV contracts all over the world made in the 1980s.

[krapmeister]

Originally posted by paranoik0
TV contracts all over the world made in the 1980s.

so it was Bernie then...

[Imperial]

I don't think it stretches too far beyond the three biggest antagonists in F1: Bernie Ecclestone, the FIA, the manufacturers.

Ecclestone has made his bed with any circuit owner/promoter who doesn't live in Europe or North America.

The FIA's constant tinkering is utterly bewildering. It seems to be lost off on a man of Max Mosley's intelligence that maintaining the status quo can be just as beneficial, if not more so, than making constant changes.

The manufacturers have saturated the competitive element with money. That in itself is a hilarious contradiction as excluding BMW none of the 'new' manufacturers has had any kind of success or made real progress over many years now. The manufacturer thing was and always will be unavoidable, until the day the FIA ban manufacturer entries in F1.

[AlexS]

But why is there so much more money involved in F1 than in, say, sports cars?

Because F1 have a continous History and pedigree, because Ferrari is there since almost start that inerently makes F1 more trustable. While sport cars had too much ups and downs and races are much longer so not easy to be televisioned. That put bigger drivers out of Sport Cars to not talk about FIA messing. Well FIA is trying to destroy F1 after killing Sport Cars and Rally...

Traditional investors go for bigger TV exposure.

I think one of the crux of problem is that there is only one FIA.

[Imperial]

And basically also because sportscar 'racing' is boring as f.uck and nobody watches it.

[HDonaldCapps]

Sports car racing under the FIA seal of approval was systematically killed off so as to not allow any possible competition to the formula one gods to exist. Group C and the GT series never stood much of a chance once those in the FIFA started seeing the gold seams in formula one....

The money of any size or importance began moving in the direction of formula one in the early Seventies after the success of the Gold Leaf with Team Lotus. Big Lou Stanley managed to bring Marlboro into the series only to lose the sponsorship to McLaren, who had also taken his Yardley sponsorship away. However, this was chickenfeed compared to today's deals.

When the teams allowed Ecclestone to begin handling the affairs of the F1CA (later FOCA) in the middle Seventies, the used car dealer in Ecclestone's soul saw Opportunities where few others did. In his rather ruthless way, Ecclestone began squeezing blood from turnips and the others began enjoy letting Little Bernie and his sidekick Mad Max take care of business. Of course, the Late Unpleasantness -- the FIASCO War, truly set formula one on its way as a true mercenary adventure. It was all about the money when you cut through the crap and reduce it to its bare bones.

So, ignoring all the necessary discussion and whys and wherefores that are part and parcel of this, pin the rose on B.C. Ecclestone.

[pingu666]

Originally posted by Imperial
And basically also because sportscar 'racing' is boring as f.uck and nobody watches it.

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=MjWo8VdMb8I so boring

http://uk.youtube.co...feature=channel uuuhhh

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=DQX30sCYiuw ooooh this is horrid. please please give me full replays of spanish f1 races instead of this extreme boredom

[Poltergeistes]

Originally posted by Imperial
I don't think it stretches too far beyond the three biggest antagonists in F1: Bernie Ecclestone, the FIA, the manufacturers.

Ecclestone has made his bed with any circuit owner/promoter who doesn't live in Europe or North America.

The FIA's constant tinkering is utterly bewildering. It seems to be lost off on a man of Max Mosley's intelligence that maintaining the status quo can be just as beneficial, if not more so, than making constant changes.

The manufacturers have saturated the competitive element with money. That in itself is a hilarious contradiction as excluding BMW none of the 'new' manufacturers has had any kind of success or made real progress over many years now. The manufacturer thing was and always will be unavoidable, until the day the FIA ban manufacturer entries in F1.

You nailed it on the first paragraph, Bernie, FIA and the manufacturers, formula1 was so exciting and better for the fans (which should be who really formula one should try to please) when it was the other 3 factors: Drivers, Teams, fans.

Drivers would make it to the f1 because of their work and not just cuz they were friends with bernie etc.. as a matter of fact the good drivers from the past were known to be "bad boys" not to take orders from the big boss, Teams would just work towards having the best car and driver and not just compete to see who invested more money in, and the fans, who would go to see the show the big dogfights, but most of all, those were fans from britain, from germany, from italy, from brazil, not really from sepang, bahrain and so forth, im not saying they shouldn't have made f1 global as it is today, but if to race in the dsesert was at the expense of canada, france and so forth ... i wouldn't want that, we want to see our drivers not only on tv, we want to go see them live on track.

we also liked it when our teams and drivers were gods here ON EARTH, not some creature far beyond our reach, or that we had to spend thousands on traveling to some place in asia to see.

I wonder, if theres any person, any formula one fan, that likes ecclestone?

[Imperial]

Originally posted by pingu666


http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=MjWo8VdMb8I so boring

http://uk.youtube.co...feature=channel uuuhhh

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=DQX30sCYiuw ooooh this is horrid. please please give me full replays of spanish f1 races instead of this extreme boredom

And I'll throw a billion exciting F1 moments straight back at you for every 3 exciting sportscar moments you can find.

I hope you agree however that the lack of viewers compared to F1 cannot be disputed.

[wrighty]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Sports car racing under the FIA seal of approval was systematically killed off so as to not allow any possible competition to the formula one gods to exist. Group C and the GT series never stood much of a chance once those in the FIFA started seeing the gold seams in formula one....

The money of any size or importance began moving in the direction of formula one in the early Seventies after the success of the Gold Leaf with Team Lotus. Big Lou Stanley managed to bring Marlboro into the series only to lose the sponsorship to McLaren, who had also taken his Yardley sponsorship away. However, this was chickenfeed compared to today's deals.

When the teams allowed Ecclestone to begin handling the affairs of the F1CA (later FOCA) in the middle Seventies, the used car dealer in Ecclestone's soul saw Opportunities where few others did. In his rather ruthless way, Ecclestone began squeezing blood from turnips and the others began enjoy letting Little Bernie and his sidekick Mad Max take care of business. Of course, the Late Unpleasantness -- the FIASCO War, truly set formula one on its way as a true mercenary adventure. It was all about the money when you cut through the crap and reduce it to its bare bones.

So, ignoring all the necessary discussion and whys and wherefores that are part and parcel of this, pin the rose on B.C. Ecclestone.

every word's a gem, great post Mister H

[Ross Stonefeld]

Tobacco should not be overlooked or underestimated in getting the sport of auto racing to where it is today. For better or for worse they were the investment.

[Pingguest]

The big money was brought in by the manufactures after Bernie Ecclestone killed off the Group C.

[Dino Scuderia]

Peter Sauber himself said in 2002 i belive that until Mercedes joined F1 there wasnt too much money involved but when they joined they started trowing cash in like crazy and then the other manufactors joined in

[Welsh]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Tobacco should not be overlooked or underestimated in getting the sport of auto racing to where it is today. For better or for worse they were the investment.

Totally agree there.

[taran]

It is very easy to blame the FIA or Bernie but methinks the real culprit is Ron Dennis and his rivalry with Ferrari.

In the mid 1980s, a decent F1 budget was around $10m-$15m which was what teams like Brabham, Williams and Lotus had. Dennis and McLaren pioneered expensive technologies and ‘professionalism’ which drove up costs immensely. At that time, Ferrari and McLaren had budgets of $22m but Ferrari also had to design and build their engine while McLaren bought theirs from Porsche. In effect, Ferrari had about as much money as the other teams while McLaren was ahead of everyone else. Their success forced the other teams to also increase their budgets, staff members and technology base. Budgets doubled. McLaren, with Marlboro funding, was the richest team and could afford to outspend the other teams and buy success. And if some other team managed to use technology or a driver to do better, McLaren would 'steal' those assets; TAG used to be a Williams sponsor, Honda engines were used by Williams and Senna drove for Lotus first. I believe Dennis ability to largely ‘buy’ success is the underlying reason for his rivalry with Ferrari. Only Ferrari could compete with McLaren in the money stakes and attract quality staff & drivers with their image/attractiveness.

By the early 1990s, budgets had gone up to $40m for top teams and $20m for teams like Arrows and Ligier. Williams and Renault did extremely well on a relatively modest budget but McLaren and Mercedes got involved in a grudge fight with Ferrari which pushed up costs again. Between 1996 and 2000, budgets doubled overnight. For example, Ferrari spent more than $20m in a month’s time in 1997, developing its car for the finale in Jerez. That was in excess of its normal budget of $75m. McLaren, awash in West and Mercedes funds, could afford to R&D on a scale other teams could not match. McLaren young driver schemes, the most advanced driver simulator, a new building which costs more than $200m (allegedly) are all indicators of immense wealth flushing about. All teams needed to step up their budgets which many did, mostly by selling shares to investment companies rather than raising more sponsorship or by selling out to manufacturers. Stewart did a study before entering F1 and expected he needed a budget of $40m-$60m to be competitive. By 1998, he needed $80m-$100m which he could not raise at all. That was one of the reasons for selling out to Ford.
The new, ultra small and ultra light Mercedes engine of 1998 also forced Manufacturers to spend considerably more on engine budgets. Renault spent $20m on engines and a similar amount subsidizing Williams during their championship years. By 2000, a competitive engine budget was $100m-$125m (according to Peugeot).

Simply put, teams of 1,000+ staff to design, prepare and race two cars are obscene. It is only sustainable as long as manufacturers are willing to spend this kind of money. Just look at the facts; a big sponsor in F1 like ING or Panasonic ‘only’ pays around $40m in sponsorship. With secondary sponsors adding at best the same amount, that would mean a team could raise a maximum of $80m from sponsorship. Nobody really knows how much Concorde money is available but estimates suggest around 300-400 million for the teams. That’s ‘just’ an average of $30m per team. The rest of the bloated budgets come from manufacturers trying to outspend each other to gain succes. To a large part, this was originally instigated by Honda. Up till that point, BMW and the likes still operated on a strict budget. F1 was something their boards allowed if it didn't cost too much.

Honda pushed the envelope out of sight because of their racing mindset (and need to save face) but Renault did not follow as it also needed to stay within an acceptable budget. When Mercedes entered, it also brought a corporate 'spend what you need for success' mentality. This only increased when they failed to achieve initial success. That led to the era of unlimited spending.

[myF1dream]

I'm actually looking forward to the sport going back to its roots, this global depression will make a lot of things go back to where they should be.

The worlds just had a taste of hedonism for the last 100 years, things got better, shinnier, newer and the pace will have to slow down soon.

F1 will need people with passion back again maybe saving the big budgets by having more mechanical parts to play around with, people who wouldn't mind earning a basic salary of 12k to start with. Hell I and many others would like to jump on board with the sport with less technical knowledge but tonnes of passion for racing.

This will be good in the end, once Bernie and Max are out the sport can start from scratch again.

Ashley

**********************************
MYF1DREAM - passion for racing

[Rob]

The trouble is that the teams are too cosy and Bernie is all too happy to make circuits fork out lots of money to accommodate the corporate machine.

Lets reverse this trend. Lets go to circuits with basic pit facilities and small PR centres. Prohibit the teams from modifying the garages like they do now with the marble floors and spotless panelling. Then lets see how much money the manufacturers want to spend on the sport.

[angst]

Originally posted by Pingguest
The big money was brought in by the manufactures after Bernie Ecclestone killed off the Group C.

Exactly. And he knew what he was doing.

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Imperial
And I'll throw a billion exciting F1 moments straight back at you for every 3 exciting sportscar moments you can find.

I hope you agree however that the lack of viewers compared to F1 cannot be disputed.

You seem to have either an inflated view of formula 1 or a lack of knowledge of sports car racing or probably both. Don't judge sports car racing from the pathetic FIA Group C and other recent efforts in Europe. Until those who bought IMSA from John Bishop squandered their inheritance, that series alone was reason enough to follow sports car racing. The Forties, Fifties, Sixties, and even the Seventies along are enough to have you try to find many, many billions of "exciting F1 moments" to match those in sports car racing.

Ecclestone was the catalyst -- alchemist -- who transformed the existing lust for money into a level of greed that would make even Gordon Gekko proud. As Ross points out, the introduction of tobacco money, British Tobacco and Marlboro in particular, into "formula one" racing really changed the scheme of things and allowed BCE to push it to the next level.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The last two F1 champions who didn't have a tobacco company as their primary or joint primary sponsor.

2008 - Lewis Hamilton Vodafone McLaren Mercedes
1987 - Nelson Piquet Canon Williams (with prominent Mobil 1 branding and a small deal with Barclay cigs)

Big Tobacco was Big Money and only until recently matched the money put in by the car companies.

Imo it also had a significant but ignored impact on the rise and fall of 'Indycar' racing in the 90s.

[pingu666]

Originally posted by Imperial


And I'll throw a billion exciting F1 moments straight back at you for every 3 exciting sportscar moments you can find.

I hope you agree however that the lack of viewers compared to F1 cannot be disputed.

you gonna have a long time digging then ;) wasnt there a period of *years* where they was no overtaking for the lead in the dry?

and yes, f1 gets more viewers, that doesnt mean its better.

not many people watch wsbk compaired to f1, even fewer watch irish road racing

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=1lZvGjF_-IE

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=8Zjv0ZHvFIQ

http://uk.youtube.co...feature=related (just some brief shots of the 4-5 rider race for the lead, side by side at 160+mph on a public bumpy road)

nurburgring is normaly a pretty boring race track isnt it?

http://uk.youtube.co...feature=related ... well maybe in f1 it is

[D.M.N.]

Originally posted by taran
It is very easy to blame the FIA or Bernie but methinks the real culprit is Ron Dennis and his rivalry with Ferrari.

In the mid 1980s, a decent F1 budget was around $10m-$15m which was what teams like Brabham, Williams and Lotus had. Dennis and McLaren pioneered expensive technologies and ‘professionalism’ which drove up costs immensely. At that time, Ferrari and McLaren had budgets of $22m but Ferrari also had to design and build their engine while McLaren bought theirs from Porsche. In effect, Ferrari had about as much money as the other teams while McLaren was ahead of everyone else. Their success forced the other teams to also increase their budgets, staff members and technology base. Budgets doubled. McLaren, with Marlboro funding, was the richest team and could afford to outspend the other teams and buy success. And if some other team managed to use technology or a driver to do better, McLaren would 'steal' those assets; TAG used to be a Williams sponsor, Honda engines were used by Williams and Senna drove for Lotus first. I believe Dennis ability to largely ‘buy’ success is the underlying reason for his rivalry with Ferrari. Only Ferrari could compete with McLaren in the money stakes and attract quality staff & drivers with their image/attractiveness.

By the early 1990s, budgets had gone up to $40m for top teams and $20m for teams like Arrows and Ligier. Williams and Renault did extremely well on a relatively modest budget but McLaren and Mercedes got involved in a grudge fight with Ferrari which pushed up costs again. Between 1996 and 2000, budgets doubled overnight. For example, Ferrari spent more than $20m in a month’s time in 1997, developing its car for the finale in Jerez. That was in excess of its normal budget of $75m. McLaren, awash in West and Mercedes funds, could afford to R&D on a scale other teams could not match. McLaren young driver schemes, the most advanced driver simulator, a new building which costs more than $200m (allegedly) are all indicators of immense wealth flushing about. All teams needed to step up their budgets which many did, mostly by selling shares to investment companies rather than raising more sponsorship or by selling out to manufacturers. Stewart did a study before entering F1 and expected he needed a budget of $40m-$60m to be competitive. By 1998, he needed $80m-$100m which he could not raise at all. That was one of the reasons for selling out to Ford.
The new, ultra small and ultra light Mercedes engine of 1998 also forced Manufacturers to spend considerably more on engine budgets. Renault spent $20m on engines and a similar amount subsidizing Williams during their championship years. By 2000, a competitive engine budget was $100m-$125m (according to Peugeot).

Simply put, teams of 1,000+ staff to design, prepare and race two cars are obscene. It is only sustainable as long as manufacturers are willing to spend this kind of money. Just look at the facts; a big sponsor in F1 like ING or Panasonic ‘only’ pays around $40m in sponsorship. With secondary sponsors adding at best the same amount, that would mean a team could raise a maximum of $80m from sponsorship. Nobody really knows how much Concorde money is available but estimates suggest around 300-400 million for the teams. That’s ‘just’ an average of $30m per team. The rest of the bloated budgets come from manufacturers trying to outspend each other to gain succes. To a large part, this was originally instigated by Honda. Up till that point, BMW and the likes still operated on a strict budget. F1 was something their boards allowed if it didn't cost too much.

Honda pushed the envelope out of sight because of their racing mindset (and need to save face) but Renault did not follow as it also needed to stay within an acceptable budget. When Mercedes entered, it also brought a corporate 'spend what you need for success' mentality. This only increased when they failed to achieve initial success. That led to the era of unlimited spending.

Great post there.

If you are correct (I have no figures of my own) then yeah, the figures went up around 1997/98 time. However, at that point (in 1997) there were only 11 teams on the grid (12 if you include Lola). It was just a few years before that in 1994 where 15 teams I think it was were on the grid.

At the end of 1994 - Lotus and Larrousse shut their doors. Pacific were tailenders to say the very least. At the end of 1995, Pacific went - Simtek went just before hand after the 1995 Monaco Grand Prix. Forti's Grand Prix dream ended in mid-1996. A lot of these were Formula 3000 teams - tried to make the break into Formula One and inevitably failed - Simtek for instance never had the right backing - things went the wrong way for them in 1994. In my view, costs spiraled in 1994 immediately after Senna's death. The teams had to make cars safety. Parts cost money and when you need brand new parts, the money costs involve spiral.

I hate the people that say "Blame Bernie, Blame Max". They don't control how much the team spend - they don't tell them to spend until money comes flying out their asses. It's their choice inevitably - and I hope the situation of the last few days makes them realise that. Yes, cut down in a few spots but still be competitive. The FIA could have enforced a "Money limit" on teams - only spend $100 million this year to try and limit costs to give teams a fairer chance.

[Josta]

I remember back in 1995, reading that every team was scared of Ferrari because of their spending levels. It was presumed that they would thrash everyone at some point because of the cash they were spending. At the time, I laughed at it given their pathetic results, but 4 years later saw the start of an unbroken 6 year WCC run. Toyota and Honda clearly saw this and tried to mimick it, but they proved that money alone doesn't make it. Renault further proved in 2005 and 2006 that being frugal can still win.

I think that Honda is a great opportunity for someone to buy a team for nothing and create results fast. They have already spent the large cash wisely under Brawn, and can now go on and succeed with smaller budgets. They have top class guys in Brawn and Button, a fantastic infrastructure, and everything needed to win championships on a shoestring budget. In fact, if I were Frank Williams for example, I would take on Honda racing for a quid, close down their existing operations and move them all to Brackley. Williams could then gain a much bigger infrastructure, Ross Brawn and Button and a car that was started before the 2008 season even begun.

[Imperial]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


You seem to have either an inflated view of formula 1 or a lack of knowledge of sports car racing or probably both. Don't judge sports car racing from the pathetic FIA Group C and other recent efforts in Europe. Until those who bought IMSA from John Bishop squandered their inheritance, that series alone was reason enough to follow sports car racing. The Forties, Fifties, Sixties, and even the Seventies along are enough to have you try to find many, many billions of "exciting F1 moments" to match those in sports car racing.

Given the sometimes dull nature of F1 I'm very far from having an inflated view of how good it is. I believe though that when it delivers in excitement terms it really delivers. I've never seen that in sportscars.

I'm sorry if sportscar racing is no longer what it used to be, but in motorsport terms the 40's/50's/60's/70's are a long time ago to the point where they bear no relevance to today. I don't really understand why the past is being brought in to compare something that's in the present. Exciting sportcars may have been in the decades you mentioned, but it certainly isn't today. I would argue that much until the cows come home.

Let's not split hairs on the issue though.

The main point of this thread is why F1 is awash with money. Without trying to identify who put it in this situation, it's clearly obvious that it happened because someone thought it was worthwhile doing so.

Did anyone think sportscars were worth pumping money into? No.

And part of that is down to the fact that compared to F1 simply nobody watches sportscars or follows it. And that stems from it simply being neither particularly interesting or exciting.

If it was the planet would be watching that and not F1.

[anbeck]

Originally posted by Imperial


Given the sometimes dull nature of F1 I'm very far from having an inflated view of how good it is. I believe though that when it delivers in excitement terms it really delivers. I've never seen that in sportscars.

I have. For example during the 12 hrs at Road Atlanta (?) the cars fought until the final lap as during a WTCC race. And then again endurance racing isn't meant to be the same type of racing as sprint racing. Whether you use an electric guitar to play jazz or metal is up to your taste, but essentially you use the same instrument to make music.

And due to the nature of the rather long endurance events the media coverage is rather miserable...

[Ferrim]

It can seem obvious, but what I think is: no one brought the money into F1. A lot of people and things were involved. Tobacco, TV coverage, Bernie's greed, globalization... There was no "new world order" kind of project to bring money into F1, it happened and there's not a particular thing or people to blame for that.

Good thread BTW.

[pingu666]

Originally posted by anbeck


I have. For example during the 12 hrs at Road Atlanta (?) the cars fought until the final lap as during a WTCC race. And then again endurance racing isn't meant to be the same type of racing as sprint racing. Whether you use an electric guitar to play jazz or metal is up to your taste, but essentially you use the same instrument to make music.

And due to the nature of the rather long endurance events the media coverage is rather miserable...

yeah the petite lemans was awsome, think i posted a vid of the end of that...

only way(s) i can think of f1 being better is its high stakes, and the pinicle (surposidly) of its genre
much like the difference between a man utd vs Chelsea and swindon vs crydon. and the cars are faster and higher tech in some ways. we get far better media coverage of f1 too

sportscars give you far better racing, pretty much *any* series does.

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Imperial
I don't really understand why the past is being brought in to compare something that's in the present..

A lack of understanding of which is a major factor as to why stupidity continues to flourish in the present.

Keep in mind that formula one could vanish tomorrow and about 99.9% of the planet would not miss it nor care an iota that it was gone.

Simply reality.

That money flowed into formula one was more a factor of poor judgement, money-laundrying, egocentric nitwits sitting in boardrooms, and a nearly endless list of similar stupidities, all helped along the way of being separated from their money by eager beavers such as Ecclestone.

To go back to the original question, prior to The Dwarf being involved, credit for getting the ball rolling must include Colin Chapman and Big Lou Stanley. They were panhandling for cash and getting it before BCE appeared on the scene. BCE gets the credit for simply turning it into a cash machine, not for getting the ball rolling.

[noikeee]

Originally posted by anbeck
And due to the nature of the rather long endurance events the media coverage is rather miserable...

Which comes down to his original point... it has little media coverage not just because there's little money in it, but also because the nature of the sport itself makes it less prone to interest in it.

It isn't just inadequate to TV schedules given the races being too long for them - the races are also too long for the majority of the viewers, who have a short attention span and want to see action all the time.

[Aubwi]

I think a better question is "how did money become the problem?". In pretty much every other endeavor, and in other racing series, having lots of money to spend is seen as a very good thing. There must be some very perverse incentives at work that need to be eliminated.

[Kenaltgr]

Originally posted by taran
It is very easy to blame the FIA or Bernie but methinks the real culprit is Ron Dennis and his rivalry with Ferrari.

In the mid 1980s, a decent F1 budget was around $10m-$15m which was what teams like Brabham, Williams and Lotus had. Dennis and McLaren pioneered expensive technologies and ‘professionalism’ which drove up costs immensely. At that time, Ferrari and McLaren had budgets of $22m but Ferrari also had to design and build their engine while McLaren bought theirs from Porsche. In effect, Ferrari had about as much money as the other teams while McLaren was ahead of everyone else. Their success forced the other teams to also increase their budgets, staff members and technology base. Budgets doubled. McLaren, with Marlboro funding, was the richest team and could afford to outspend the other teams and buy success. And if some other team managed to use technology or a driver to do better, McLaren would 'steal' those assets; TAG used to be a Williams sponsor, Honda engines were used by Williams and Senna drove for Lotus first. I believe Dennis ability to largely ‘buy’ success is the underlying reason for his rivalry with Ferrari. Only Ferrari could compete with McLaren in the money stakes and attract quality staff & drivers with their image/attractiveness.

By the early 1990s, budgets had gone up to $40m for top teams and $20m for teams like Arrows and Ligier. Williams and Renault did extremely well on a relatively modest budget but McLaren and Mercedes got involved in a grudge fight with Ferrari which pushed up costs again. Between 1996 and 2000, budgets doubled overnight. For example, Ferrari spent more than $20m in a month’s time in 1997, developing its car for the finale in Jerez. That was in excess of its normal budget of $75m. McLaren, awash in West and Mercedes funds, could afford to R&D on a scale other teams could not match. McLaren young driver schemes, the most advanced driver simulator, a new building which costs more than $200m (allegedly) are all indicators of immense wealth flushing about. All teams needed to step up their budgets which many did, mostly by selling shares to investment companies rather than raising more sponsorship or by selling out to manufacturers. Stewart did a study before entering F1 and expected he needed a budget of $40m-$60m to be competitive. By 1998, he needed $80m-$100m which he could not raise at all. That was one of the reasons for selling out to Ford.
The new, ultra small and ultra light Mercedes engine of 1998 also forced Manufacturers to spend considerably more on engine budgets. Renault spent $20m on engines and a similar amount subsidizing Williams during their championship years. By 2000, a competitive engine budget was $100m-$125m (according to Peugeot).

Simply put, teams of 1,000+ staff to design, prepare and race two cars are obscene. It is only sustainable as long as manufacturers are willing to spend this kind of money. Just look at the facts; a big sponsor in F1 like ING or Panasonic ‘only’ pays around $40m in sponsorship. With secondary sponsors adding at best the same amount, that would mean a team could raise a maximum of $80m from sponsorship. Nobody really knows how much Concorde money is available but estimates suggest around 300-400 million for the teams. That’s ‘just’ an average of $30m per team. The rest of the bloated budgets come from manufacturers trying to outspend each other to gain succes. To a large part, this was originally instigated by Honda. Up till that point, BMW and the likes still operated on a strict budget. F1 was something their boards allowed if it didn't cost too much.

Honda pushed the envelope out of sight because of their racing mindset (and need to save face) but Renault did not follow as it also needed to stay within an acceptable budget. When Mercedes entered, it also brought a corporate 'spend what you need for success' mentality. This only increased when they failed to achieve initial success. That led to the era of unlimited spending.

Ferrari had a bigger budget than McLaren (and all other teams) throughout the 80's 90's. Ferrari's extra share of the TV revenue in the p;d concorde agreement was larger in the 1980's (but teams didn't care as they rarely won)

Autosport review fall 1994:
Team budgets (all costs)

Ferrari 102 Million
McLaren 64 Million (produced a lemon)
Williams (52 Million)
Benetton (47 Million)
Jordan (38 Million)
Sauber (33 Million)
Ligier (30 Million)
Tyrrell Racing (30 Million)
Footwork (23 Million)
Minardi (18 Million)
Simtek (17 Million)

[lustigson]

Originally posted by Kenaltgr
Ferrari 102 Million
McLaren 64 Million (produced a lemon)
Williams (52 Million)
Benetton (47 Million)
Jordan (38 Million)
Sauber (33 Million)
Ligier (30 Million)
Tyrrell Racing (30 Million)
Footwork (23 Million)
Minardi (18 Million)
Simtek (17 Million)

You could almost add a 0 to all the teams' budgets/costs, except for the top teams. That might partly explain why the field is so much closer nowadays than it was in the early to mid 90s.

[Orin]

Originally posted by taran
It is very easy to blame the FIA or Bernie but methinks the real culprit is Ron Dennis and his rivalry with Ferrari.
...

But Mosley has been responsible for keeping costs in check, and despite all his protestations the continual rule changes have done more than anything to make increased budgets worthwhile and usher in the manufacturer dominated sport we see today. I don't think it's solely down to stupidity, it suited Ecclestone & Mosley to make F1 the most expensive, the most excessive and the most exclusive sport in the world; glamour sells, their coffers swell and the privateers go to the wall.

[anbeck]

But until recently rule changes hadn't cost reduction in mind, but driver safety.

It might seem gruesome, but if it had only been an unlucky Austrian with a backmarker team who lost his life at Imola, we may have never seen such a massive push for safety. Sure, step by step, probably after further accidents, but not this rapidly.

I'd like to know how much money that has been invested in circuits in the past 15 years was for safety (run-offs, etc.) and how much was cosmetic and to host glamour parties...

Do known non-F1 venues such as Brands Hatch or Zandvoort have huge financial problems as well?

[Slowinfastout]

Originally posted by anbeck
But until recently rule changes hadn't cost reduction in mind, but driver safety.

It might seem gruesome, but if it had only been an unlucky Austrian with a backmarker team who lost his life at Imola, we may have never seen such a massive push for safety. Sure, step by step, probably after further accidents, but not this rapidly.

I'd like to know how much money that has been invested in circuits in the past 15 years was for safety (run-offs, etc.) and how much was cosmetic and to host glamour parties...

Do known non-F1 venues such as Brands Hatch or Zandvoort have huge financial problems as well?

That is painting stuff with quite a broad brush.

Explain how a new V8 is more safe than a rev-limited V10, and how much money went into that, then we'll go from there...

[anbeck]

Originally posted by Slowinfastout


That is painting stuff with quite a broad brush.

Explain how a new V8 is more safe than a rev-limited V10, and how much money went into that, then we'll go from there...

Apparently we have a different conception of recently. With the whole F1 history in mind I thought of recently rather as going back 3 to 5 years. The manufacturers moaning about cost reduction (which is very interesting, because it was them who brought the money in) is somthing rather recent.

I mean, when BMW bought Sauber with the 2006 season in mind. You don't want to tell me they didn't know about the cost of F1???
It's only now where nobody wants to buy their cars that they start to care.

When cost reduction was talked about before, it was to allow "privateers" to enter the sport! Cost reduction discussions were aimed at Super Aguri, Spyker, Prodrive and to some extent Williams. Cost reduction was about customer cars and stuff like that.

Where was Honda in 2005 demanding cost reduction?
Where was Toyota in 2005 demanding cost reduction?
Where was Mercedes in 2005 demanding cost reduction?
Where was BMW in 2005 demanding cost reduction?

Renault was avantgarde in that respect, but only because they always built cars that don't sell exceptionally well nor have any F1-appeal in general, they have lots of 'domestic' problems (with suicides and all that) and it was much more likely that they would be the first manufacturer to pull out. That's why Briatore wanted to reduce costs.

Honda, Toyota, Mercedes and BMW were implicitly agreeing on the financial overkill because they inveted it! Especially Honda and BMW entered F1 when everybody knew you would have to spend $400m to win the title. And Toyota had an overkill operation in mind from the very start. You cannot say that subscribing to these terms is a huge effort for cost reduction.

No, only when they saw it coming that their a$$ would next they joined the cost reduction chant. And that was rather recently.
And before that what they wanted was not cost reduction, but just more television money to support their overkill.
Or they wanted to spend the same but preventing Toyota from spending whatever they wished (budget cap comes into mind).

In the end, whatever the cost, everybody wants to spend more than everybody else. That's why we will always have some kind of "cycle" in top motorsport series with teams/manufacturers pulling out, with somebody restarting the whole cost explosion until the next crash. We will have to live with that if we don't want a spec series.

[Ben]

Originally posted by taran
It is very easy to blame the FIA or Bernie but methinks the real culprit is Ron Dennis and his rivalry with Ferrari.

You can't blame only one side in an arms race!

As usual, not liking Ron Dennis doesn't make everything his fault. The modern era of F1 really began in the 70s with Ecclestone and was cemented by the FISA/FOCA war. The rest is simple market economics. In that sense it's our fault (the fans) for continuing to pay. If we stop paying, market forces dictate that it's uneconomical to spend such stupid sums of money on motor racing.

Ben

[Orin]

Originally posted by anbeck


Apparently we have a different conception of recently. With the whole F1 history in mind I thought of recently rather as going back 3 to 5 years. The manufacturers moaning about cost reduction (which is very interesting, because it was them who brought the money in) is somthing rather recent.

I mean, when BMW bought Sauber with the 2006 season in mind. You don't want to tell me they didn't know about the cost of F1???
It's only now where nobody wants to buy their cars that they start to care.

When cost reduction was talked about before, it was to allow "privateers" to enter the sport! Cost reduction discussions were aimed at Super Aguri, Spyker, Prodrive and to some extent Williams. Cost reduction was about customer cars and stuff like that.
...

But this is precisely the reason WHY Mosley is to blame. It's not for BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, etc. to suggest measures to make life easier for their competitors. Mosley keeps harping on about the privateers, but his policies of continual change have actually encouraged huge budgets and driven small teams out of the sport.

[Rob]

Originally posted by Orin
But this is precisely the reason WHY Mosley is to blame. It's not for BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, etc. to suggest measures to make life easier for their competitors. Mosley keeps harping on about the privateers, but his policies of continual change have actually encouraged huge budgets and driven small teams out of the sport.

I don't believe Mosley cares about the privateers. It's a front. Why else are customer cars still banned? It's an easy solution to getting the privateers back in.

[lustigson]

Originally posted by Orin
Mosley keeps harping on about the privateers...

If he's so fond of privateers, then why doesn't he push through the customer car rules? The FIA is the rule maker, isn't it? He doesn't need approval from Williams, Force India or whomever.

And, if he's so fond of privateers, what's his problem with Ron Dennis?;)

[Ross Stonefeld]

The funny thing is the privateers scream the most against customer cars. I wonder why that is.

[lustigson]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
The funny thing is the privateers scream the most against customer cars. I wonder why that is.

Good point. But what we now call 'privateers' are as much constructors as are the manufacturer teams.

However, they (Williams) are likely to be influenced the most by allowing customer cars (from, say, McLaren, Ferrari or BMW Sauber).

[Rob]

Originally posted by lustigson
However, they (Williams) are likely to be influenced the most by allowing customer cars (from, say, McLaren, Ferrari or BMW Sauber).

It's still hypocritical of Williams to be against customer cars, given that Sir Frank got his start by running them originally. Why shouldn't others be given an opportunity like the one he had?

[Slowinfastout]

Originally posted by anbeck

...

No, only when they saw it coming that their a$$ would next they joined the cost reduction chant. And that was rather recently.
And before that what they wanted was not cost reduction, but just more television money to support their overkill.
Or they wanted to spend the same but preventing Toyota from spending whatever they wished (budget cap comes into mind).

In the end, whatever the cost, everybody wants to spend more than everybody else. That's why we will always have some kind of "cycle" in top motorsport series with teams/manufacturers pulling out, with somebody restarting the whole cost explosion until the next crash. We will have to live with that if we don't want a spec series.

You raised some good points.. the teams/manufacturers are more or less thinking short-term so they will spend whatever they can put their hands on, they are predictable...

This brings us to Bernie and Max again... they are the ones who should've been thinking long-term (maybe they have..) what happens if a giant leaves the sport? who can fill Honda's shoes now? Financial mess aside, this was a foreseeable problem..

The constant rules tinkering was/is impossible for small teams to follow, even big teams like BAR/Honda can't do it... nevermind the fact the big teams were allowed by the rules to become crazily BIG, to me it looks like Max/Bernie were happy to have these giants in the series, and a couple of months ago they were happy to conceive ways to make them spend without consideration.

You can't really blame the teams, their actions are shaped by what is and isn't allowed by Max and Bernie.
..nobody seems to be on the same page, even in the difficult times we are today.. but don't forget FOTA was formed before the money disappeared, so something was cooking... everything points to the rules and the boundaries being set by weirdos..

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Rob


It's still hypocritical of Williams to be against customer cars, given that Sir Frank got his start by running them originally. Why shouldn't others be given an opportunity like the one he had?

In 1968 you could run a team from the back of a camper van. There wasn't so much money around. Even into the 1990s the likes of Eurobrun and Life and Coloni could get into F1 by building their own car, or commissioning someone like Dallara to do so; there's no real block on entry that way.

[Orin]

Originally posted by lustigson

And, if he's so fond of privateers, what's his problem with Ron Dennis?;)

I think someone needs to ask Mosley this question!

Actually, I think as Rob suggests he's only ostensibly fond of privateers, his actions have been anything but friendly. Privateers like stability, the smaller teams close up to the big ones if the rules aren't changed about too much. Mosley's constant (and large) rule changes are the perfect justification for huge teams... then he pontificates about the enormous expenditure of the big teams.

[noikeee]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
The funny thing is the privateers scream the most against customer cars. I wonder why that is.

Established privateers wouldn't benefit from customer cars, it would only add more fierce competition against them. New privateers, who can't enter F1 right now, would like them.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by Rob


It's still hypocritical of Williams to be against customer cars, given that Sir Frank got his start by running them originally. Why shouldn't others be given an opportunity like the one he had?

He's pulling up the ladder behind him. Like everybody else.

[Rob]

Originally posted by giacomo
He's pulling up the ladder behind him. Like everybody else.

I know what he's doing, I just don't like it.