Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

2021 Budget Cap: Where will it end up?


  • Please log in to reply
284 replies to this topic

Poll: What Will the 2021 Budget Cap be? (54 member(s) have cast votes)

What Will the 2021 Budget Cap be?

  1. $175m (3 votes [5.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.56%

  2. $150m (12 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  3. $125m (14 votes [25.93%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.93%

  4. $100m (8 votes [14.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.81%

  5. Less than $100m (10 votes [18.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.52%

  6. No Cap (7 votes [12.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.96%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 thequadge

thequadge
  • Member

  • 525 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 05 April 2020 - 21:21

I have just read Zak Brown's comments on the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.u...rmula1/52175140) talking about the adjustment to the budget cap to try and keep the little teams alive for 2021 and beyond. I was wondering how much comprimise you really think is possible, do the big 3 care enough about keeping the others alive to lower it below $150m which Brown said has been agreed? My take is it will be hard but they will probably get it down to $125m largely as Merc/Renualt (both whom I don't expect to be in F1 for 2022) see the big hits to their bottom line.

 

Thoughts


Edited by thequadge, 05 April 2020 - 21:22.


Advertisement

#2 Branislav

Branislav
  • Member

  • 1,333 posts
  • Joined: January 16

Posted 05 April 2020 - 22:53

$50 M



#3 FirstnameLastname

FirstnameLastname
  • Member

  • 926 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 05 April 2020 - 22:57

They should do something whereby the top teams can spend whatever they want, but by doing so - fund the bottom teams.

So Ferrari want to spend £10million above whatever cap is put in place, they need to give half of that amount again to be split between all teams that finished outside of the top 3 last year.

Or something. A Robin Hood tax for F1.

#4 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 06 April 2020 - 05:43

They should do something whereby the top teams can spend whatever they want, but by doing so - fund the bottom teams.

So Ferrari want to spend £10million above whatever cap is put in place, they need to give half of that amount again to be split between all teams that finished outside of the top 3 last year.

Or something. A Robin Hood tax for F1.

 

Oh yay, punish the successful because the bottom teams cant compete in a competition they voluntarily signed up for and want to treat as a profit centre.  Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for those teams who don't want to find the funding to go race in their chosen sport - there is no relegation from F1, there is no promotion to F1, these teams are there voluntarily.  If they are feeling the pain then perhaps its not for them? 

 

You literally have rich boys trying to play with their expensive toys and whining because someone else in the group has better toys because they can afford to spend more on them.  And now we have people suggesting that the richer boys should be subsidising the less richer but still very rich boys because they are unhappy at being told to spend more.  

 

Any suggestion that leads to one team being punished for being more willing or more successful than another is just ludicrous.  The budget cap itself is ludicrous, but here we are - oh and look, now Liberty have managed to get the teams to agree on a budget cap, there is heavy discussion on it being reduced before it even comes into effect.  Chassis freezes, engine freezes, heavy restriction on development, budget caps...  The frog is being boiled.



#5 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 845 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 06 April 2020 - 14:53

As a purist, I do not like budget caps, development 'freezes',  standardized parts and so on, but I fear we could end up with a twelve car starting field.


Edited by Pingguest, 06 April 2020 - 14:54.


#6 68targa

68targa
  • Member

  • 182 posts
  • Joined: October 19

Posted 06 April 2020 - 15:47

I think Pingguest you may be right but 12 cars would be the end of F1 as we know it.

They could always make F2 the new F1

- Cheaper

- Close racing

- Full Grids

- Less bickering

 

just a thought :well:



#7 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 3,983 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 April 2020 - 15:52

As a purist, I do not like budget caps, development 'freezes',  standardized parts and so on, but I fear we could end up with a twelve car starting field.

 

I think we could end up with 12 cars, with the measures you mention. The purist plan  (no budget caps, development 'freezes',  standardized parts and so on) might very well result in a grid of  zero cars.



#8 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 845 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 06 April 2020 - 16:02

I think we could end up with 12 cars, with the measures you mention. The purist plan  (no budget caps, development 'freezes',  standardized parts and so on) might very well result in a grid of  zero cars.

 

One could expect teams to save quite a lot of money, if they would be allowed to use - for example - production-based engines. Ironically, the restrictive regulations do not allow teams to do so.



#9 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 3,983 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 April 2020 - 16:15

One could expect teams to save quite a lot of money, if they would be allowed to use - for example - production-based engines. Ironically, the restrictive regulations do not allow teams to do so.

 

Do you know of any series where this has actually worked to reduce costs? The only examples I have seen (albeit quite a while ago) showed no significant saving.



#10 Branislav

Branislav
  • Member

  • 1,333 posts
  • Joined: January 16

Posted 06 April 2020 - 18:21

Brawn say we could lose 4 teams...

 

edit: Zak Brown instead, but whatever


Edited by Branislav, 06 April 2020 - 19:11.


#11 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,731 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 April 2020 - 12:05

Personally I don't think the big teams should get a say, and the overall good of the sport should be the only concern. If the excuse is that the smaller teams are not spending it anyway, then that shows to me the teams could manage on a much restricted budget. They might be a tad slower, but that doesn't mean the racing would be worse.

#12 jee

jee
  • Member

  • 984 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 07 April 2020 - 12:20

What I have said for a long time: It should be affordable to race, not to win.

Also there should be more F1 series than the World Championship.

F1's exclusivity is killing it.


Edited by jee, 07 April 2020 - 12:21.


#13 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 4,152 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 April 2020 - 14:58

What I have said for a long time: It should be affordable to race, not to win.

The two things are connected to each other.

 

If it's too expensive to win, you can't expect a healthy and competitive grid.

 

Not many people are interested to invest in a team that doesn't have a chance to be competitive. At best we have some sort of a two-tier championship where the bottom teams are just B teams of top teams (which is not good as it means much more team-orders for example) or toys of some bored businessmen who withdrawn their support after a couple of years when they realise their team is going nowhere. I don't think it's a good model.
 



#14 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 10,012 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 April 2020 - 15:41

The two things are connected to each other.

 

If it's too expensive to win, you can't expect a healthy and competitive grid.

 

Not many people are interested to invest in a team that doesn't have a chance to be competitive. At best we have some sort of a two-tier championship where the bottom teams are just B teams of top teams (which is not good as it means much more team-orders for example) or toys of some bored businessmen who withdrawn their support after a couple of years when they realise their team is going nowhere. I don't think it's a good model.
 

 

That's not entirely true. I've always proposed that there be no tiered payments - every team taking part should get the same cut. If you had that system then there is a simple business model for entering - it'll cost you X to build and run the cars and your return will be Y. If your return is dependent on how well you do, then it turns into a bit of a punt.

 

I do not believe for one moment that teams will be less interested in doing as best as they can just because there's no extra money in it for them (which seems to be the only argument against equal payments). All of the top teams will be salivating over the thought of getting that trophy and each lower team will be salivating over the thought of beating that other team a couple of garages along the pit lane. These are competitive people.



#15 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 08 April 2020 - 05:03

Personally I don't think the big teams should get a say, and the overall good of the sport should be the only concern. If the excuse is that the smaller teams are not spending it anyway, then that shows to me the teams could manage on a much restricted budget. They might be a tad slower, but that doesn't mean the racing would be worse.

 

How far should that argument go?

 

What if a team came in and only spent $20million and shouted loudly about being outspent?  Should they be listened to?  $10million?  Where does it stop?  Should teams like Virgin, Marussia and Caterham be able to control the spending cap?

 

There are sports where those teams can compete in, except those sports just dont have the prestige of F1 and that is why they want to compete there - they just dont want to spend the money to do so.



#16 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 16,370 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 08 April 2020 - 07:55

Rather than a budget cap which will never be policed and open to suspicion, they should be looking at ways to make it far cheaper to compete.  There needs to be a balance- people can get all giddy about  a set threshold of $50m or $100m, but there is as much human cost in that as in losing teams.



#17 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 8,003 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 08 April 2020 - 07:59

I think people underestimate how a budget cap can be policed with audits from chartered accountants. Don't think it will be that easy to circumvent.


Edited by Ivanhoe, 08 April 2020 - 08:00.


#18 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 10,012 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 April 2020 - 09:58

Rather than a budget cap which will never be policed and open to suspicion, they should be looking at ways to make it far cheaper to compete.  There needs to be a balance- people can get all giddy about  a set threshold of $50m or $100m, but there is as much human cost in that as in losing teams.

 

Why do you think it won't be policed? They are introducing a budget cap right now. I've not yet heard any of the teams complain that it won't be policed. Maybe once it's in place that may change. But right now all of the teams are happy to accept it (they are just arguing about whether the cap should be lower).



#19 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 16,370 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 08 April 2020 - 10:26

I think we will end up with a situation like football finds itself with the FFP rules.... and a lot of recrimination years later about previous championships and whether a certain team or teams were fiddling figures or hiding expenditure.



Advertisement

#20 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 10,012 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 April 2020 - 10:34

I think we will end up with a situation like football finds itself with the FFP rules.... and a lot of recrimination years later about previous championships and whether a certain team or teams were fiddling figures or hiding expenditure.

 

So if you remove the word 'figures' and replace 'expenditure' with 'things', it's just the same as always ....

 

a lot of recrimination years later about previous championships and whether a certain team or teams were fiddling or hiding things

 

Same F1 as we've all grow accustomed to.


Edited by pdac, 08 April 2020 - 10:35.


#21 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 08 April 2020 - 21:08

So if you remove the word 'figures' and replace 'expenditure' with 'things', it's just the same as always ....

 

a lot of recrimination years later about previous championships and whether a certain team or teams were fiddling or hiding things

 

Same F1 as we've all grow accustomed to.

 

This - the budget cap is just another thing to protest over, another tool in the arsenal of things to beat other teams over.  Expect to see it being used a lot - more investigations, more bad press, more cost, more negativity.  Very little positivity will come out of it, the top teams wont change, the middle tier teams aren't hitting the caps anyway so they wont change, Williams will still be bottom until they leave in mid-2020 or 2021.

 

Wait for a few years and then driver salaries become included in the cost cap, and then watch the drain of top driver talent from the sport - I wouldn't be surprised if China started up a super league in the next decade when they decide to focus on sport (similar to the Indian cricket league which saw a lot of worldwide talent moving there) as a prestige item.  The cost cap is already going to push top engineer talent elsewhere when a team can't afford a pay bump to keep them.



#22 Branislav

Branislav
  • Member

  • 1,333 posts
  • Joined: January 16

Posted 08 April 2020 - 23:33

https://www.youtube....h?v=t4NkL4D0P8A

 

I don't have time to watch it right now so if anyone watched can please tell us in short lines what is important pronounced



#23 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 09 April 2020 - 01:42

https://www.youtube....h?v=t4NkL4D0P8A

 

I don't have time to watch it right now so if anyone watched can please tell us in short lines what is important pronounced

 

No, its not even worth watching because its not even a discussion - it's 4 people who all support the cap going "ra ra ra" about it.  They could have done it in a circle with one hand each and it wouldn't have come across any different.



#24 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 3,983 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 April 2020 - 02:42

Rather than a budget cap which will never be policed and open to suspicion, they should be looking at ways to make it far cheaper to compete.  There needs to be a balance- people can get all giddy about  a set threshold of $50m or $100m, but there is as much human cost in that as in losing teams.

 

Personally, I think it will take a combination of both. I would like to see measures (as you said) to make it easier to compete, an equalization of payments to the teams (they are free to raise additional money to the cap limit, and both a cap and floor for teams' expenditures.



#25 Branislav

Branislav
  • Member

  • 1,333 posts
  • Joined: January 16

Posted 09 April 2020 - 07:52

https://www.youtube....h?v=LCk2wJCb3RA

 

What Is The Future Of F1? With Jean Todt

#26 Branislav

Branislav
  • Member

  • 1,333 posts
  • Joined: January 16

Posted 09 April 2020 - 08:25

So new rules up there. Budget cap $150 M for small teams and $300 M for big teams don't include engine development. Am I wrong?



#27 absinthedude

absinthedude
  • Member

  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 09 April 2020 - 08:27

I am something of a purist but my biggest objection to a budget cap is....how will it possibly be policed? If the likes of Mercedes, RBR and Ferrari have hundreds of millions of dollarpounds available....what is actually to prevent them from spending that money? 

 

The purist in me has no problem with a budget cap in the sense that it's fair for everyone....unlike "success ballast", DRS or franlky insane ideas such as random sprinkler systems on tracks. You provide a set of spending rules which is the same for every team ad tell them "That's what you've got to spend....do it how you will". 

 

I am reminded of the late John Cooper talking in the mid 1980s about how he and Jack Brabham put the whole title winning Cooper F1 team together in the late 50s for about £10k...."whereas nowadays I believe they're talking £15-20 million". And today? Maybe hundreds of millions. It's all unnecessary. A team with a quarter the staff of Mercedes and a fifth the budget could still produce a car within half a second of the Merc. 



#28 oli4

oli4
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 09 April 2020 - 10:28

That's not entirely true. I've always proposed that there be no tiered payments - every team taking part should get the same cut. If you had that system then there is a simple business model for entering - it'll cost you X to build and run the cars and your return will be Y. If your return is dependent on how well you do, then it turns into a bit of a punt.

 

I do not believe for one moment that teams will be less interested in doing as best as they can just because there's no extra money in it for them (which seems to be the only argument against equal payments). All of the top teams will be salivating over the thought of getting that trophy and each lower team will be salivating over the thought of beating that other team a couple of garages along the pit lane. These are competitive people.

 

So if X < Y then all those teams have to do is turn up at every race and make a nice profit. Don't think that has anything to do with racing or sport in general.



#29 oli4

oli4
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 09 April 2020 - 10:28

If we'd lose a couple of teams would 3 cars per team be back on the table?



#30 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,731 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 April 2020 - 11:14

If we'd lose a couple of teams would 3 cars per team be back on the table?

16 cars was the minimum required in the concorde agreement, I assume that's still the same. There is a rule allowing 12, but think that's to cater for exceptional circumstances. In theory they could lose 2 teams without needing 3 car teams.

#31 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 10,012 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 April 2020 - 11:34

So if X < Y then all those teams have to do is turn up at every race and make a nice profit. Don't think that has anything to do with racing or sport in general.

 

That's exactly how it should work. Why does that not have anything to do with racing or sport? It's a sporting contest linked to commercial activities. If you participate, you get paid. If you win, you get a trophy.


Edited by pdac, 09 April 2020 - 11:36.


#32 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 3,085 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 April 2020 - 12:05

The biggest change regarding the number of staff is the people at the factory isn't it? 

 

In the early days majority of the personnel travelled to the race but now the number of travelling personnel is near the same as it was but there's huge number of personnel who work in the factory during the race weekend.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=6uAN0YoiUT0



#33 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 3,983 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 April 2020 - 17:55

So if X < Y then all those teams have to do is turn up at every race and make a nice profit. Don't think that has anything to do with racing or sport in general.

 

So you have a spending floor, as well as a cap. For example: each team receives $50 million from F1, the cap is $100 million, and the floor is $50 million. (these $$$ are just off the top of my head) If teams spend over the cap there is a tax (financial penalty), and if they spend under the cap, they have to refund the balance. Details about the cap (what is covered, what is not) tbd.



#34 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 36,276 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 13 April 2020 - 08:57

Todt is saying that they are currently negotiating whether to reduce the budget cap to 130 m or step by step to 140, then 130 and then 120.

Exceptions like driver salaries would remain, it would be impossible to remove them right now.

He also said that the big teams demanded even more exceptions but he declined that.

He also mentioned that there is currently the discussion on whether to introduce a two tier budget cap for works teams and customer teams since the engine costs are much higher for the former, but he doesnt like that idea (arent engine costs excluded anyway?)

https://www.auto-mot...ferrari-streit/



#35 FirstnameLastname

FirstnameLastname
  • Member

  • 926 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 13 April 2020 - 10:54

Excuse my potential ignorance, but what would be to stop a ‘consulting’ company headed up by an ex f1 employee... selling designs to an F1 team, for say £1000....

And that consulting company being headed up by Adrian Newey...

... And this company which is outside of F1 getting many many millions of pounds from various sources not connected to an f1 team directly. But ultimately being able to sell designs to the team to help them achieve their aims but at a cost acceptable to the budget cap?

#36 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 10,012 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 April 2020 - 11:54

Excuse my potential ignorance, but what would be to stop a ‘consulting’ company headed up by an ex f1 employee... selling designs to an F1 team, for say £1000....

And that consulting company being headed up by Adrian Newey...

... And this company which is outside of F1 getting many many millions of pounds from various sources not connected to an f1 team directly. But ultimately being able to sell designs to the team to help them achieve their aims but at a cost acceptable to the budget cap?

 

The regulations, perhaps?

 

(or do you mean, how will they find that out - which, again, will be covered in the regulations).


Edited by pdac, 13 April 2020 - 11:55.


#37 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,838 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 April 2020 - 13:54

Excuse my potential ignorance, but what would be to stop a ‘consulting’ company headed up by an ex f1 employee... selling designs to an F1 team, for say £1000....

And that consulting company being headed up by Adrian Newey...

... And this company which is outside of F1 getting many many millions of pounds from various sources not connected to an f1 team directly. But ultimately being able to sell designs to the team to help them achieve their aims but at a cost acceptable to the budget cap?

Regulations like this:

"c. any agent, contractor (or sub-contractor) or other person or entity (including any corporate or unincorporated body) that is set up or used by a Competitor to circumvent the requirements of this Article "

 

https://www.fia.com/...on/category/110



#38 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 14 April 2020 - 00:54

Regulations like this:

"c. any agent, contractor (or sub-contractor) or other person or entity (including any corporate or unincorporated body) that is set up or used by a Competitor to circumvent the requirements of this Article "

 

https://www.fia.com/...on/category/110

 

Hmmm, I wonder what that means for Red Bull and AlphaTauri, considering the latter was used as a development platform for Hondas engines for an entire season solely to benefit the former.



#39 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 4,710 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 14 April 2020 - 19:48

Alejandro Agag thinks it should be slashed to $75m 

 

https://www.motorspo...y-agag/4780623/



Advertisement

#40 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,566 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 14 April 2020 - 20:19

Here’s a thought: why not allow teams that cannot downscale quickly enough to meet a significantly lower budget cap to run more than two cars?



#41 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 10,012 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 April 2020 - 21:46

Here’s a thought: why not allow teams that cannot downscale quickly enough to meet a significantly lower budget cap to run more than two cars?

 

Only if they revise the points system to give points to every car that finishes.



#42 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 2,748 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 14 April 2020 - 21:58

Here’s a thought: why not allow teams that cannot downscale quickly enough to meet a significantly lower budget cap to run more than two cars?

 

It's a tricky thing.  I would like to know whether allowing Ferrari, Merc, and RB 3 car teams actually ends up giving them more of an advantage than otherwise. 

 

On the one hand, 3 cars means a larger capital investment to build 3 cars and 2-3 spares which would reduce the amount you can spend on development.

On the other than, they now have 3 cars worth of testing mileage each weekend to fine tune setups, tire choice, race simulations, get a better handle on promising or futile development directions (saving money indirectly) and so on. (but maybe there can be restrictions on the number of development parts to bring to each weekend so the third car doesn't become a test mule)

 

Many other pros and cons to be discussed.


Edited by ARTGP, 14 April 2020 - 22:00.


#43 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,566 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 15 April 2020 - 06:44

Only if they revise the points system to give points to every car that finishes.

 

Absolutely. Perhaps it could be mandatory to have rookie drivers in those extra cars, who would then not be able to score points for the WDC and/or WCC, and perhaps not even step onto the podium. It would need further thinking.

 

It's a tricky thing.  I would like to know whether allowing Ferrari, Merc, and RB 3 car teams actually ends up giving them more of an advantage than otherwise. 

 

On the one hand, 3 cars means a larger capital investment to build 3 cars and 2-3 spares which would reduce the amount you can spend on development.

On the other than, they now have 3 cars worth of testing mileage each weekend to fine tune setups, tire choice, race simulations, get a better handle on promising or futile development directions (saving money indirectly) and so on. (but maybe there can be restrictions on the number of development parts to bring to each weekend so the third car doesn't become a test mule)

 

Many other pros and cons to be discussed.

 

Good points. Would certainly require further discussion.

 

Here's another idea: a lower fuel flow limit for the extra cars, perhaps?



#44 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 15 April 2020 - 07:21

Absolutely. Perhaps it could be mandatory to have rookie drivers in those extra cars, who would then not be able to score points for the WDC and/or WCC, and perhaps not even step onto the podium. It would need further thinking.

 

 

Why would the teams run those cars?  It would be pointless for them.

 

The costs that Liberty are trying to rein in are mainly related to development, not production - if they had to run extra cars, the development would remain the same (same bits to investigate, research and develop) but now the teams have to run an extra car, with extra engineers to support that, the extra costs to build and maintain a third chassis, extra engines etc etc etc.  All of that would be extra cost compared to what the teams invest today - it might replace development costs, but if it doesn't help them in the competitions, its wasted money.



#45 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 5,566 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 15 April 2020 - 07:31

Why would the teams run those cars?  It would be pointless for them.

 

The costs that Liberty are trying to rein in are mainly related to development, not production - if they had to run extra cars, the development would remain the same (same bits to investigate, research and develop) but now the teams have to run an extra car, with extra engineers to support that, the extra costs to build and maintain a third chassis, extra engines etc etc etc.  All of that would be extra cost compared to what the teams invest today - it might replace development costs, but if it doesn't help them in the competitions, its wasted money.

 

I was mainly thinking about headcount: Mercedes, Ferrari, and Red Bull have hundreds of people on their payrolls, and if they can't scale back quickly enough to meet a lower-still budget cap, they might offset that with extra cars. It would mean extra wheels on the circuits, extra mileage and data for the teams, but not extra points (nor money?) for the championships. It would likely need to be a stop-gap measure, of course. And if it's not feasible at all, just let it go.  :)



#46 ARTGP

ARTGP
  • Member

  • 2,748 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 15 April 2020 - 07:41

Ferrari, Red Bull seem quite narrow minded...with the money that RB, Ferrari, and Mercedes would be saving on a 75 million budget cap, and the extra staff overhead why don’t they just use the overhead to operate a race team in a different series for more brand exposure (Indycar, Le Mans, MotoGP, WRC, and so on).

What board room wouldn’t want the same amount of money and even even larger exposure? Seems certain teams are insistent on laying all their eggs in one basket.

#47 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 15 April 2020 - 09:11

Ferrari, Red Bull seem quite narrow minded...with the money that RB, Ferrari, and Mercedes would be saving on a 75 million budget cap, and the extra staff overhead why don’t they just use the overhead to operate a race team in a different series for more brand exposure (Indycar, Le Mans, MotoGP, WRC, and so on).

What board room wouldn’t want the same amount of money and even even larger exposure? Seems certain teams are insistent on laying all their eggs in one basket.

 

Theres a reason they spend what they do now rather than spend what Haas or Williams does to still get a decent level of exposure from being in F1...

 

If push comes to shove, theres no reason to keep the staff around just because - if they aren't needed and can't pay their way, they will either be transferred to other parts of the business or laid off.  Simple as, really.  Theres a reason they compete in the sports they currently do - the other sports aren't what they want to compete in.

 

Theres also a reason that Mercedes et al are happy spending huge amounts of money - because they want to win.  With a budget cap, they can't outspend the other teams to gain an advantage, so the sport becomes less enticing.  The harsher the budget cap, the harder it becomes to retain key members of staff, as they can earn more in other industries or sports and so will leave.  With a $75million budget cap, don't expect F1 to be the pinnacle any more.



#48 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 1,980 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 15 April 2020 - 09:59

Theres a reason they compete in the sports they currently do - the other sports aren't what they want to compete in.

 

Red Bull do compete in other categories, as do Ferrari. Here's an extract from Ferrari's website:

 

"GT cars are an integral part of the Ferrari DNA. The 488 GTE and the 488 GT3 are the ultimate expression of Ferrari competitiveness in closed-wheel racing. Two turbo cars designed to compete and triumph in the most renowned endurance races such as the 24 Hours of Le Mans, as well as the leading national and international competitions."



#49 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 4,710 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 15 April 2020 - 10:13

 With a $75million budget cap, don't expect F1 to be the pinnacle any more.

Why would it cease to be the pinnacle (whatever that means)? 



#50 Branislav

Branislav
  • Member

  • 1,333 posts
  • Joined: January 16

Posted 15 April 2020 - 12:07

https://www.youtube....h?v=gkM49Gg21O8

 

Will More Race Series Have To Merge?

 

Good stuff :up: FE, F1...