Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Should the FIA claw back some power from F1 teams, and eliminate 'B' teams?


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#1 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 17,493 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 18 January 2022 - 17:54

Zak Brown had some very interesting things to say yesterday re: the power some teams have gained over F1. He likened it to those teams "holding the sport hostage".  Among other things, Brown is saying what many of us here have been saying for years - that the teams, especially the bigger ones, have far too much control over rules, enforcement, policies, and the direction of F1, and that it's time for the FIA and FOM to start behaving once again like a governing body.

 

IMHO Brown is spot on in his remarks, and I hope someone who matters is listening.

 

I would normally quote some from the articles, but all of Brown's quotes from yesterday are incisive and insightful, imho, and I can't find anything I feel ok leaving out. We can't post articles in their entirety, so I'll just link them.

 

Some teams ‘holding F1 hostage’, B teams still a problem - Brown

McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown says Liberty Media and the FIA need to take more control of Formula 1 because some teams are “effectively holding the sport hostage”.

https://racer.com/20...-problem-brown/

 

There are also a few good quotes here that aren't in the Racer article.

 

Brown hits out at ‘pantomime antics’, urges reform 

McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown says Formula 1 at times resembled a “pantomime audition” in 2021, due to antics of rival team bosses, and has called for reform to the overall structure.

https://www.motorspo...s-urges-reform/


Edited by AustinF1, 18 January 2022 - 18:11.


Advertisement

#2 masa90

masa90
  • Member

  • 1,763 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:14

Agree. With these few teams having the edge, the whole sport and competitive order is pretty much determined.

 

Horrible stuff, been happening for a while, but been really apparent ever since hybrid rules.



#3 Izzyeviel

Izzyeviel
  • Member

  • 2,665 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:27

Anything that gets Red Bull out of the sport I'm all for.



#4 Lotusse7en

Lotusse7en
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:29

Anything that gets Red Bull out of the sport I'm all for.

Ditto Merc



#5 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,374 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:37

Anything that gets Red Bull out of the sport I'm all for.

 

 

Ditto Merc

 

Well that gets rid of half of the grid if they take their engines with them....



#6 Ultrav87

Ultrav87
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: August 18

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:38

Merc is the worst

 

Mclaren

Aston Martin

Williams

 

Control 40% of the grid through their engine allocation



#7 Ultrav87

Ultrav87
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: August 18

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:43

Anything that gets Red Bull out of the sport I'm all for.

 

Red Bull have saved the sport over the last 7 years if you haven't noticed...



#8 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 6,238 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:43

Well that gets rid of half of the grid if they take their engines with them....

They thought about it in 2009 and brought Cosworth in- ready to supply everyone who wanted.

 

But then they did what the big manufacturers wanted and the next generation of engines ensured it required ridiculous commitment to make a semi-competitive engine.

 

If the engine suppliers want to threaten to cut off engine supplies to half of the grid, I wouldn't mind a single engine supplier for the entire F1. For me the battle of engine manufacturers is not essential for the enjoyment of F1.



#9 Ultrav87

Ultrav87
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: August 18

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:50

They thought about it in 2009 and brought Cosworth in- ready to supply everyone who wanted.

 

But then they did what the big manufacturers wanted and the next generation of engines ensured it required ridiculous commitment to make a semi-competitive engine.

 

If the engine suppliers want to threaten to cut off engine supplies to half of the grid, I wouldn't mind a single engine supplier for the entire F1. For me the battle of engine manufacturers is not essential for the enjoyment of F1.

 

Me too. Innovation and Driver Skill is the be all and end all for F1 for me. I don't care if they all have the same engine. Let's see what the drivers and engineers can come up with to gain an advantage.



#10 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 13,133 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:53

Red Bull have saved the sport over the last 7 years if you haven't noticed...


I genuinely have not...

#11 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 13,133 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 18 January 2022 - 18:54

Whatever they do, which gets more actual race teams in to F1 gets my approval.

#12 Secretariat

Secretariat
  • Member

  • 396 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:12

I like these kind of topics and this a a very interesting one to wade through. I have a lot thoughts about it but will start small. To me his comments are self serving (nothing wrong with that given his role) and I think he is vocally asserting his presence for the American audience and a traditional team. I know he was not there but historically speaking McLaren had opportunities in the past to develop such partnerships when the modern A-B team thing really took off in the 2000's. Some of these comments are the fruit of that organizational miss. There used to be discussions about the bigger teams including McLaren fielding 3rd cars back then. Got to give Red Bull some credit in having foresight to create Red Bull Technologies when it did.

 

I think his idea of a F1 constructor is what has gone on with IMSA/sportscar racing in how they have engaged manufacturers (particularly in the US), which in my opinion is not what "genuine F1 construction" is either. However, it makes sense given his background. Still, part of what he says is anti-competitive to me because say I wanted to join in the way Haas or Super Aguri did? I don't see that as a problem. Perhaps better management of how staff are "loaned out" relating to resource management is the consideration.

 

Many people had been calling for F1 budget caps for close to 20 years and it is good thing that it exists, but F1 is expensive and I have always held it is not just racing (which I think is where he is partly coming from), but that F1 is industry onto itself. It is clear McLaren is trying to build its brand within racing and outside of racing without getting swallowed up by potential "A" teams if some rumors are to be believed.



#13 TennisUK

TennisUK
  • Member

  • 14,658 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:13

I want more engine manufacturers and no B teams.

The current situation is not good.

#14 pup

pup
  • Member

  • 1,994 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:15

Brown is treading a fine line given that McLaren is dependent on one of those A teams for engines that don't go boom.  Perhaps it's significant that they're rumored to be in negotiations at the moment for their future engine supply.

 

I've always thought that the simple solution to B teams was to take them out of the WCC standings/money.  


Edited by pup, 18 January 2022 - 19:17.


#15 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 17,493 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:18

Brown is treading a fine line given that McLaren is dependent on one of those A teams for engines that don't go boom.  Perhaps it's significant that they're rumored to be in negotiations at the moment for their future engine supply.

 

I've always thought that the simple solution to B teams was to take them out of the WCC standings/money.  

Yep. And perhaps it's also significant that McLaren is rumored to become an Audi team soon.



#16 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 41,277 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:19

Anything that gets Red Bull out of the sport I'm all for.

 


Why?

#17 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,757 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:23

Why?

For “Red Bull” read “Christian Horner and Helmut Marko” I think he probably means.

Edited by Maustinsj, 18 January 2022 - 19:23.


#18 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,267 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:25

I mean, in an ideal world, the FIA would absolutely be able to shrug off the demands and desires off the top teams, but I dont think the sport is in a strong enough position to do so.  

 

You cant replace the top competitors and still have a sport with the same level of appeal.  The FIA needs to make them happy by some means. 



#19 azza200

azza200
  • Member

  • 569 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:29

F1 needs more engine suppliers & not the manufactures currently supplying too other teams in the long run its not good. As all teams are running similar spec engines. I agree with Zak Brown 



Advertisement

#20 ColeTrickle44

ColeTrickle44
  • Member

  • 507 posts
  • Joined: December 21

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:36

Absolutely. It’s a farcical situation on so many levels. We have some teams who let some teams pass and actively race others.

Hopefully the cost cap attracts new teams to the sport, and stops the big teams and their B teams hoovering up all of the talent.

Would like to see steps taken to ban it

#21 Ultrav87

Ultrav87
  • Member

  • 93 posts
  • Joined: August 18

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:39

For “Red Bull” read “Christian Horner and Helmut Marko” I think he probably means.

 

Ah yes, that Christian Horner and Hemut Marko who are responsible for most of the talent that is on the F1 grid today? Vettel, Verstappen, Sainz, RIcciardo, Gasly, Albon and Tsunoda

 

That Christian Horner and Helmut Marko that have won 5 WDC's in the last 12 years.

 

That Christian Horner and Helmut Marko that brought Newey back which influenced the design of 60% of the grid who didn't have that Mercedes engine..

 

So so so teriible of them



#22 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 11,960 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 January 2022 - 19:52

Under Todt the FIA appeared asleep in its dealings with F1 teams. It's not like there was a unified front of teams to deal with, the sport was being held hostage by the wealthy, privileged teams of Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes. Maybe a more assertive governance style may be welcome, although that's not to say you want a capricious governing body lording it over the competitors. The Mosley and Balestre regimes were not good for anyone either. You also want to make sure no more power finds it's hands into FOM and Liberty. They are there to manage the commercial rights, not govern the sport.

 

Removing B teams would be nice. I guess you can only really get rid of the official ones, and bar anyone from owning more than one team. So bye bye Alpha Tauri, hello team that might challenge a Red Bull on track.



#23 Izzyeviel

Izzyeviel
  • Member

  • 2,665 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 18 January 2022 - 20:05

Why?

 constant whining to get rules changed to their favour & shafting of drivers. Control of 4 cars means the FIA have to bend over backwards to appease them.



#24 Chubby_Deuce

Chubby_Deuce
  • Member

  • 6,627 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 18 January 2022 - 20:09

Same as it always was. Ferrari got everything it wanted in the 2000s by threatening to take its toys to a rival series. Yes, the organizers should have more control but it's not like we're in some new era of teams having leverage.

 

One bit of context for Brown's comment: he runs a team with a rather expansive set of technical resources at its disposal, having invested heavily during its time as a factory outfit. If the B teams had to tool up and staff up suddenly it'd give him a nice buffer where his rivals aren't competitive as resources are poured into developing clean sheet designs. I don't think his views are plainly altruistic.



#25 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 14,060 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 January 2022 - 20:18

Easy to say that something should be done, but who's going to do anything?? There's a reason why some teams can hold the FIA and Liberty to ransom.



#26 Papaya

Papaya
  • Member

  • 44 posts
  • Joined: September 20

Posted 18 January 2022 - 21:11

A couple of people have mentioned new teams. It'll never happen, the FIA and the current teams have put measures into place to ensure F1 remains a 10 team franchise sport. You want new teams, they'll have to buy an existing one.

#27 azza200

azza200
  • Member

  • 569 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 18 January 2022 - 22:24

Which is stupid i mean who will wanna spend millions on buying a team and probably never getting a win when they put all their resources in either a LMP2 for example or another series and be involved in a better series where they have more chance of winning. 

 

The F1 manufacture control will eventually end the bubble will burst i mean look what happened too BTCC at the end of the Super Touring era and Audi,Porsche pulling out of WEC killed them categories F1 will end up down that route. 


Edited by azza200, 18 January 2022 - 22:25.


#28 midgrid

midgrid
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,116 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 18 January 2022 - 22:32

What's also interesting about Brown's comments is that the plans to run sprint races in 2022 may have to be abandoned if the teams don't agree with Liberty's offer to compensate them for the extra running, and potential damage.

#29 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 13,133 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 18 January 2022 - 22:52

What's also interesting about Brown's comments is that the plans to run sprint races in 2022 may have to be abandoned if the teams don't agree with Liberty's offer to compensate them for the extra running, and potential damage.

 

Oh noes.

 

Anyway. Would it not be nice to get in more independent teams, race-teams who are there for the sport, for the racing. I would love that.



#30 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 5,797 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 January 2022 - 23:01

Oh noes.

 

Anyway. Would it not be nice to get in more independent teams, race-teams who are there for the sport, for the racing. I would love that.

 

That sounds a little like IndyCar, which is okay with me.



#31 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 6,251 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 19 January 2022 - 09:46

Oh noes.

 

Anyway. Would it not be nice to get in more independent teams, race-teams who are there for the sport, for the racing. I would love that.

 

That boat has sailed with the current plans being there to create franchises.



#32 shure

shure
  • Member

  • 9,100 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 19 January 2022 - 10:03

I like these kind of topics and this a a very interesting one to wade through. I have a lot thoughts about it but will start small. To me his comments are self serving (nothing wrong with that given his role) and I think he is vocally asserting his presence for the American audience and a traditional team. I know he was not there but historically speaking McLaren had opportunities in the past to develop such partnerships when the modern A-B team thing really took off in the 2000's. Some of these comments are the fruit of that organizational miss. There used to be discussions about the bigger teams including McLaren fielding 3rd cars back then. Got to give Red Bull some credit in having foresight to create Red Bull Technologies when it did.

 

I think his idea of a F1 constructor is what has gone on with IMSA/sportscar racing in how they have engaged manufacturers (particularly in the US), which in my opinion is not what "genuine F1 construction" is either. However, it makes sense given his background. Still, part of what he says is anti-competitive to me because say I wanted to join in the way Haas or Super Aguri did? I don't see that as a problem. Perhaps better management of how staff are "loaned out" relating to resource management is the consideration.

 

Many people had been calling for F1 budget caps for close to 20 years and it is good thing that it exists, but F1 is expensive and I have always held it is not just racing (which I think is where he is partly coming from), but that F1 is industry onto itself. It is clear McLaren is trying to build its brand within racing and outside of racing without getting swallowed up by potential "A" teams if some rumors are to be believed.

I agree it's self-serving.  But it can still contain some core truths, though.

 

I think your point about the B teams is an interesting one.  Before the budget cap I would have agreed with you, but now I'm less certain of the benefits.  The whole point of the budget cap is surely to make it more viable for smaller fish, but if they still need "patronage" from eg Mercedes or Red Bull then should they be there?  

 

Reading Zak's entire article on the McLaren website, I think he does make some good points (even with the self-serving caveat!).  Fundamentally, removing B teams is tied to the broader argument of reducing the influence teams have on the regulations, and indeed the supervisory body itself.  In an ideal world, there shouldn't be power houses, but all teams should have an equal opportunity, and historically that opportunity has been almost directly tied to budgets.  McLaren used to be one of those power houses, and no doubt Zak would be singing a different tune if that were still the case, but as a customer, rather than a manufacturer, they have a steeper hill to climb.  Are B teams necessary now, would be the question I'd ask.  If the answer is yes, then the follow up would be is the budget cap working?



#33 William Hunt

William Hunt
  • Member

  • 8,245 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 19 January 2022 - 13:48

it is a problem but the only way to solve it is to allow more teams, meaning independent teams not B teams

Also if you have say 15 teams and 30 cars then the impact of B teams won't be as big as now


Edited by William Hunt, 19 January 2022 - 13:49.


#34 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 41,277 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 19 January 2022 - 15:50

it is a problem but the only way to solve it is to allow more teams, meaning independent teams not B teams

Also if you have say 15 teams and 30 cars then the impact of B teams won't be as big as now

 


The limit is only 13 teams, and I wouldn't pin my hopes on anyone taking the slots.

#35 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,267 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 19 January 2022 - 16:02

Same as it always was. Ferrari got everything it wanted in the 2000s by threatening to take its toys to a rival series. 

Yet it was a period that ultimately became heavily defined by rule changes designed very specifically to stop Ferrari.  

 

I'm not a fan of how much power some teams(including Ferrari) have over things, but I also think many people vastly overplay the power they individually have over the sport at the same time. 


Edited by Seanspeed, 19 January 2022 - 16:05.


#36 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 34,757 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 January 2022 - 16:09

Indeed. Anything above 13 becomes unsustainable because frequently DNQing only works for so long.

However, is there any need to stick to 2 cars per team so rigidly? Have four Red Bulls instead of a satellite team. Allow new or smaller teams to run a single car. This approach works in so many other series, including constructor series like the WEC.

#37 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 14,060 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2022 - 16:39

Indeed. Anything above 13 becomes unsustainable because frequently DNQing only works for so long.

However, is there any need to stick to 2 cars per team so rigidly? Have four Red Bulls instead of a satellite team. Allow new or smaller teams to run a single car. This approach works in so many other series, including constructor series like the WEC.

 

I'm fine with this as long as they DO NOT adjust the prize fund payments to take into account the number of cars each team fields and that any budget-cap adjustments only provide a small extra for each additional car (funding for additional cars should largely be paid for from additional funds raised by the team).


Edited by pdac, 19 January 2022 - 16:39.


#38 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 34,757 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 January 2022 - 16:43

I'm fine with this as long as they DO NOT adjust the prize fund payments to take into account the number of cars each team fields and that any budget-cap adjustments only provide a small extra for each additional car (funding for additional cars should largely be paid for from additional funds raised by the team).


Most of the money goes into development so I’m sure something reasonable could be put in place. Same as rules for scoring in the constructors championship.

#39 Red5ive

Red5ive
  • Member

  • 993 posts
  • Joined: May 20

Posted 19 January 2022 - 17:26

Well it wont happen but I have felt for a long time that F1 needs a complete ground up overhaul. 

 

The power taken away from the teams - especially Ferraris special treatment.  Further cut the budgets . If big manufacturers dont like it - they can leave and allow room for new independent teams to come in and actually have a chance at winning..

 

Yes it would be a major upheaval and many fans would be wringing their hands at the death of F1 etc but within a couple of seasons  it could be a great series again.



Advertisement

#40 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 6,238 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 January 2022 - 17:49

Indeed. Anything above 13 becomes unsustainable because frequently DNQing only works for so long.

However, is there any need to stick to 2 cars per team so rigidly? Have four Red Bulls instead of a satellite team. Allow new or smaller teams to run a single car. This approach works in so many other series, including constructor series like the WEC.

Have four Mercedes cars in 2020, yay! Almost 0 non-Mercedes appearances on the podium. :p

 

The more cars one team can field, the more team orders we will have. Team orders rarely make the sport more attractive. I'm against allowing more than 2 cars per team. I remember WTCC was sometimes a bit of a farce when I was watching it because of it. It may work in WEC because there are few cars on similar level of performacne there (and wheel to wheel is relatively less important when the races are so long) but I don't want to see it in F1.

 

Also having too many top cars will suffocate the midfield because they will be finishing 15th instead of 8th on a normal day for example. And they will not get an occasional podium because 2 or 3 out of 4 top cars having issues is realistic but 6 or 7 out of 8 much less so. This totally changes the perception of what's it like to be 4th or 5th best team and it makes this kind of teams far less attractive for drivers and sponsors and it tends to kill off a lot of teams in the long run (and we have too few independent teams already).
 


Edited by Anderis, 19 January 2022 - 17:56.


#41 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 14,060 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2022 - 17:55

Well it wont happen but I have felt for a long time that F1 needs a complete ground up overhaul. 

 

The power taken away from the teams - especially Ferraris special treatment.  Further cut the budgets . If big manufacturers dont like it - they can leave and allow room for new independent teams to come in and actually have a chance at winning..

 

Yes it would be a major upheaval and many fans would be wringing their hands at the death of F1 etc but within a couple of seasons  it could be a great series again.

 

But, unfortunately, the commercial rights to F1 are not held by the teams, they are held by Liberty. So Liberty will not allow anything to happen that might jeopardise their revenue. That means not p**ng off any teams until they are sure that they can be replaced and that the replacements will draw as much interest as the previous lot.

 

In short, that ship has sailed.



#42 Secretariat

Secretariat
  • Member

  • 396 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 19 January 2022 - 20:47

I agree it's self-serving.  But it can still contain some core truths, though.

 

I think your point about the B teams is an interesting one.  Before the budget cap I would have agreed with you, but now I'm less certain of the benefits.  The whole point of the budget cap is surely to make it more viable for smaller fish, but if they still need "patronage" from eg Mercedes or Red Bull then should they be there?  

 

Reading Zak's entire article on the McLaren website, I think he does make some good points (even with the self-serving caveat!).  Fundamentally, removing B teams is tied to the broader argument of reducing the influence teams have on the regulations, and indeed the supervisory body itself.  In an ideal world, there shouldn't be power houses, but all teams should have an equal opportunity, and historically that opportunity has been almost directly tied to budgets.  McLaren used to be one of those power houses, and no doubt Zak would be singing a different tune if that were still the case, but as a customer, rather than a manufacturer, they have a steeper hill to climb.  Are B teams necessary now, would be the question I'd ask.  If the answer is yes, then the follow up would be is the budget cap working?

True about core truths. In terms of A-B teams, I think it was fine when there were technical partnerships such as the one that existed with Force India and McLaren some years ago (i.e. if I like their gearboxes, I should be able to have it). I think a team like Super Aguri being "assisted" by Honda was also fine (i.e. if I can race old chassis and purchase an IP, I should be able to). Individual F1 race teams have racing technology to sell too, not just traditional suppliers. However, as noted for this era, perhaps better management of how staff are "loaned out" relating to resource management within the cap is the consideration because this is where the B team truly becomes a B team in my opinion...a high level of integration of staff on the technical side. One example of mitigating this is having mechanisms to deal with what went on with Simone Resta and disincentivize that from happening. 

 

I don't think B teams are necessary, I think it has evolved this way and I acknowledge some clean up is necessary. 


Edited by Secretariat, 19 January 2022 - 21:02.


#43 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 7,050 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 19 January 2022 - 21:36

They should claw back some power, but they will not. They should NOT eliminate B teams. B teams are more useful to the grid than they do harm atm. Nearly wrote harm to the sport, but F1 is not a sport imho. Maybe when there will be more engine suppliers with a strong tech background, B teams should - or can -be dealt with. Cost cap is not going to work, it never has. As for Mc, they should be making their own engines and be in the engine supply-chain for a decade now. Being an engine customer just makes them mediocre enough to get by behind the biggies, and in front of the runner-ups.



#44 Neno

Neno
  • Member

  • 2,327 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 19 January 2022 - 21:45

They should claw back some power, but they will not. They should NOT eliminate B teams. B teams are more useful to the grid than they do harm atm. Nearly wrote harm to the sport, but F1 is not a sport imho. Maybe when there will be more engine suppliers with a strong tech background, B teams should - or can -be dealt with. Cost cap is not going to work, it never has. As for Mc, they should be making their own engines and be in the engine supply-chain for a decade now. Being an engine customer just makes them mediocre enough to get by behind the biggies, and in front of the runner-ups.

They are super harmful. Because they are not independent teams in any way shape or form. And with each vote for regulations changes those who own both teams get essentially two votes and in other cases when you supplying half a grid with engines those teams vote how someone tells them. Otherwise some engine might explode here or there. You never know. 

 

F1 was never being worse through it's history.  


Edited by Neno, 19 January 2022 - 21:46.


#45 Secretariat

Secretariat
  • Member

  • 396 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 19 January 2022 - 21:58

They should claw back some power, but they will not. They should NOT eliminate B teams. B teams are more useful to the grid than they do harm atm. Nearly wrote harm to the sport, but F1 is not a sport imho. Maybe when there will be more engine suppliers with a strong tech background, B teams should - or can -be dealt with. Cost cap is not going to work, it never has. As for Mc, they should be making their own engines and be in the engine supply-chain for a decade now. Being an engine customer just makes them mediocre enough to get by behind the biggies, and in front of the runner-ups.

I agree and at the same time don't think B-teams in and of themselves are "necessary" for F1 to thrive. As a general point to everyone, (not entirely necessary but helpful imo) I think we all should agree on a basic definition of a B team. For example, is Haas a B team? Is Alfa now? Is Sauber in its previous life a B team? Is Alpha Tauri, etc? I don't want to derail the thread with this question but I think defining the box will help. So for my opinion, Haas, Alfa and Alpha Tauri are B teams, Sauber before Alfa tie up was not. 



#46 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 19,259 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 19 January 2022 - 22:05

Given the history of every successful team in F1, I'd argue that Zak Brown needs to thread a careful line for his message not to be seen as hypocritical.

 

When the FIA tried to gain control from teams it was Ron Dennis and the late Sir Frank Williams who opposed that strongly. Back then Ferrari and the FIA were to be seen as the villain. Still, the message about B teams from Zak Brown is not so much different from back then.

 

Though looking back at those times, when those 2 teams were dominant and what happened with engines, whoever had the best engines and engine manufacturer support usually won. Seeing how the latest involvement of Honda went, I wonder what Zak Brown would say had Honda been on target with their engine development. Wouldn't the McLaren boss push an entire different message these days? Ironically and to Zak Browns credit, nothing having a B team was also part of McLaren/Honda failure. However it's not a good foundation to base an argument against B teams.

 

To me these things go in circles. And that these types of arguments are being made after a change in F1 presidency or some-such are nothing new.

 

I'd say the FIA should run and and decide their things on their own, regardless of commercial, political entities, teams and manufacturers wishes, including Zak Brown. Remove all the political wrangling. What F1 needs though is that the FIA itself is being held accountable for their actions especially how they enforce rules. I don't think I'll see the day where everyone is happy with the FIA though, even less so that the lobbying from all sides (including Zak Brown) stops.

 

Maybe Ron Dennis should send the following short message to Zak Brown: "Welcome to the Piranha club". I recommend Timothy Collings book "The Piranha Club" to gain a little more insight, how we arrived where we are today in F1. The events around Michael Schumacher's entry into F1 for example shows the influence of Bernie Ecclestone representing the commercial side of the sport, Jochen Neerpasch, Mercedes motorsport manager was also instrumental in getting Schumacher from Jordan to Benetton. Behind it was the desire to establish a German star driver in F1. That's one example behind the machinery within F1.

 

I only see one way forward for F1 to get rid of undue influence. That is to become a commercial failure, so that all interests wane. F1 has become victim of its own successes in the past.

 

Good luck to the FIA trying to run F1 without undue outside influence.


Edited by HP, 19 January 2022 - 22:06.


#47 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 14,060 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 January 2022 - 22:22

They are super harmful. Because they are not independent teams in any way shape or form. And with each vote for regulations changes those who own both teams get essentially two votes and in other cases when you supplying half a grid with engines those teams vote how someone tells them. Otherwise some engine might explode here or there. You never know. 

 

F1 was never being worse through it's history.  

 

This is a very important point. If a team were to run 4 cars, rather than having a 'B' team, then they would only get one team vote. The current situation essentially allows them two votes.



#48 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 2,971 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 20 January 2022 - 10:21

I think we're conflating two issues here. One is the amount of power / influence the teams have; the other is the existence of B teams.

 

On the first, obviously the participants do and should wield some influence. Ultimately if they don't want to take part, the sport stops. (See:1909 Grand Prix). If you have a system where they're voting on rules, maybe you've moved from influence into power., which is a step too far.

 

B Teams? Not sure we really have any, apart from Alpha Tauri. And if we did, why not?



#49 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 14,060 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 20 January 2022 - 12:01

I think we're conflating two issues here. One is the amount of power / influence the teams have; the other is the existence of B teams.

 

On the first, obviously the participants do and should wield some influence. Ultimately if they don't want to take part, the sport stops. (See:1909 Grand Prix). If you have a system where they're voting on rules, maybe you've moved from influence into power., which is a step too far.

 

B Teams? Not sure we really have any, apart from Alpha Tauri. And if we did, why not?

 

You can still encourage and, likely, ensure that teams participate without them having any influence. It largely depends on the motivation for teams to take part. One way that has always worked with sports is to simply ensure that teams (all teams) can 'win' (earn) enough money out of participation to make it worth the effort.

 

I cannot see that being too much of a problem for F1. I'm sure that if there were no $200m fee to enter, then we'd be seeing some new applications right now (from teams that would not really want any influence).



#50 Secretariat

Secretariat
  • Member

  • 396 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 20 January 2022 - 12:53

I think we're conflating two issues here. One is the amount of power / influence the teams have; the other is the existence of B teams.

 

On the first, obviously the participants do and should wield some influence. Ultimately if they don't want to take part, the sport stops. (See:1909 Grand Prix). If you have a system where they're voting on rules, maybe you've moved from influence into power., which is a step too far.

 

B Teams? Not sure we really have any, apart from Alpha Tauri. And if we did, why not?

If I have read Zak Brown's comments correctly relating to power: A-B team situations essentially leads the B teams to effectively become political puppets of more powerful A teams, so F1 should have "genuine F1 constructors" to eliminate this puppet dynamic.