221 replies to this topic

[FirstnameLastname]

https://www.motorspo...cerns/10566544/

If we’re heading down the ‘franchise’ model - can it be correct to have two teams so closely aligned? It’s ’in the rules’ - but should it be? And how closely can you quantify and police any advantage gained?

For those who are already frothing with rage and clearing their desks ready to smash out a ‘but Vowels at Williams’ post - that’s not the fight here. If there’s a conflict there then absolutely it should be investigated too - (it’s Zak Brown who has raised this - not me)

[JimmyClark]

I expect this will all be a bit under the radar somewhat, until the Racing Bulls qualify in the top 6 in Bahrain... 

[pacificquay]

I expect this will all be a bit under the radar somewhat, until the Racing Bulls qualify in the top 6 in Bahrain... 

 

Imagine what they’d do with consistent top tier drivers.

[PayasYouRace]

I expect this will all be a bit under the radar somewhat, until the Racing Bulls qualify in the top 6 in Bahrain...

If I had a quid for every time Toro Rosso/Alpha Tauri were expected to be actually good in the coming season.

[SenorSjon]

They had those complaints before.

 

We've seen Ferrari <> Sauber and Ferrari <> Haas before. Toto Wolff at one time had an interest in Williams and Mercedes and in the mean time was also haggling with the Merc engines at customer teams 

[Beri]

https://www.motorspo...cerns/10566544/

 

If we’re heading down the ‘franchise’ model - can it be correct to have two teams so closely aligned? It’s ’in the rules’ - but should it be? And how closely can you quantify and police any advantage gained?

 

For those who are already frothing with rage and clearing their desks ready to smash out a ‘but Vowels at Williams’ post - that’s not the fight here. If there’s a conflict there then absolutely it should be investigated too - (it’s Zak Brown who has raised this - not me)

 

Its funny that Brown raises this question and projects it onto Red Bull. Whereas Haas is operating under the exact same model as Alpha Tauri is. Apart from the owners, there is absolutely no difference in political involvement (both will trail their "parent" team), technical intertwinement and (franchise) value to Formula One in general.

[BobbyRicky]

Zak Brawn? 

Is he related to Ross Brown?

[Burai]

Its funny that Brown raises this question and projects it onto Red Bull. Whereas Haas is operating under the exact same model as Alpha Tauri is. Apart from the owners, there is absolutely no difference in political involvement (both will trail their "parent" team), technical intertwinement and (franchise) value to Formula One in general.

 

 

He mentions Haas in the interview. When Haas entered, the FIA was looking at Caterham, Manor, Sauber and Team Enstone circling the drain, and there was no cost cap, so a bit of a blind eye was turned for the overall health of the sport. We're not in that situation now, and it absolutely should have been reviewed, when the cost cap was introduced and tenders for new teams opened, with a multi-year framework to independence put in place for Haas.

 

Alas, the FIA and F1 have both been snoozing for competing, self-serving reasons, so now we have AlphaTauri operating an office out of Milton Keynes. It's not against the letter of the rules, but it's driving a truck straight through the spirit.

 

In what is, effectively, a franchise system, under a cost cap, with other teams beating on the door trying to get in, huge multinational conglomerations with operating profits in the billions of dollars should be expected, at the very least, to run their teams without having to resort to this sort of sh*thousery.

 

And if I were in possession of, not just one, but two teams and were claiming, with operating costs lower than ever, that I simply cannot run one of them effectively without taking massive liberties, then I might reasonably expect someone in a position of authority to suggest I might divest of that second team so that someone else can have a go.

[PayasYouRace]

That, or just allow owners to enter teams of as many cars as they want.

[IrvTheSwerve]

I’d have less of a problem with the B team thing if we didn’t have this crappy 10 team franchise model in place.

[Dunc]

That, or just allow owners to enter teams of as many cars as they want.

 

I've been saying this for ages. F1 used to have teams which only ran one car and sometimes had teams running three cars. I don't see why we couldn't use some variation of that model again.

Edited by Dunc, 02 April 2024 - 15:44.

[New Britain]

A few weeks ago we had a thread and poll addressing this very subject:

 

https://forums.autos...bullat-renamed/

 

The problem with this debate is that the current parties to the (worst) conflict of interest are a very popular and recently very successful team. What came through repeatedly in the previous thread was that many of the most opinionated members appeared to be Red Bull sycophants who could not differentiate between the principle under discussion and the fact that, if the conflict of interest were rectified, the team that would be most affected immediately would be their favourite.

[Nathan]

RB Gmbh can own RBR, Jnr Mateschitz can own Team Italia.  A solution that delivers the same problem.

 

I've been saying this for ages. F1 used to have teams which only ran on car and sometimes had teams running three cars. I don't see why we couldn't use some variation of that model again.

 

Because it's unfair for large teams and doesn't help small teams due to capex economics.  You are talking about a day and age when one could buy everything off the shelf and run it with 10 people.

Edited by Nathan, 17 January 2024 - 13:15.

[New Britain]

That, or just allow owners to enter teams of as many cars as they want.

That would be fine as, unlike at present, it would be transparent.

It would raise an interesting question: if one team had say 4 cars instead of 2, should that team's cost cap be raised in order to reflect the extra costs inherent in having more than 2 cars, or should the cap remain the same to compensate (however imprecisely) for the competitive advantages inherent in running more cars, being able to do more testing, et al.?

[New Britain]

 

 

 

Its funny that Brown raises this question and projects it onto Red Bull. Whereas Haas is operating under the exact same model as Alpha Tauri is. Apart from the owners, there is absolutely no difference in political involvement (both will trail their "parent" team), technical intertwinement and (franchise) value to Formula One in general.

 

'Apart from the owners'...!

That is the whole point - it is the common ownership that creates the direct conflict of interest. Being a PU or Transferable Parts supplier gives the supplier influence, but does not give them control. Common ownership gives complete control.

[PayasYouRace]

That would be fine as, unlike at present, it would be transparent.
It would raise an interesting question: if one team had say 4 cars instead of 2, should that team's cost cap be raised in order to reflect the extra costs inherent in having more than 2 cars, or should the cap remain the same to compensate (however imprecisely) for the competitive advantages inherent in running more cars, being able to do more testing, et al.?

I’d imagine that operating costs could be scaled but development costs kept the same.

[New Britain]

I’d imagine that operating costs could be scaled but development costs kept the same.

That is what a 3- or 4-car team would seek, but how would one compensate for that team's having twice as much testing and race data? It would be fair to scale some of the measurable testing and racing costs, but the IP generated through having extra cars would be immensely valuable.

[FullThrottleF1]

I’d have less of a problem with the B team thing if we didn’t have this crappy 10 team franchise model in place.

Right on

[PayasYouRace]

That is what a 3- or 4-car team would seek, but how would one compensate for that team's having twice as much testing and race data? It would be fair to scale some of the measurable testing and racing costs, but the IP generated through having extra cars would be immensely valuable.

Well the testing and race data would come under development costs, so could remain unchanged no matter how many cars you run. So you’d trade off running more cars at the same time for other development avenues.

But you’d have an extra allowance in operating costs to allow you to physically run the cars and have the staff to do so.

[New Britain]

Well the testing and race data would come under development costs, so could remain unchanged no matter how many cars you run. So you’d trade off running more cars at the same time for other development avenues.

But you’d have an extra allowance in operating costs to allow you to physically run the cars and have the staff to do so.

I think we're talking past each other.

 

If you have twice the number of cars testing, practising, and racing, you have twice as many data, you can test twice as many aero configurations, tyre pressures, tyre deg, et al. Those data are worth a lot. It has cost you no more to develop the template car in terms of fixed costs (engineers, tunnel time, computer time), and the FIA are allowing you to spend more to run the extra cars, but how would the FIA charge the team for the additional value of all the extra running data?

[PayasYouRace]

I think we're talking past each other.

If you have twice the number of cars testing, practising, and racing, you have twice as many data, you can test twice as many aero configurations, tyre pressures, tyre deg, et al. Those data are worth a lot. It has cost you no more to develop the template car in terms of fixed costs (engineers, tunnel time, computer time), and the FIA are allowing you to spend more to run the extra cars, but how would the FIA charge the team for the additional value of all the extra running data?

This is what got us bogged down in the other thread. I’m not doing this again.

[Alfisti]

I expect this will all be a bit under the radar somewhat, until the Racing Bulls qualify in the top 6 in Bahrain... 

In my pre-season predictions I had AT a clear 6th and maybe beating Alpine for 5th. 

[JimmyClark]

In my pre-season predictions I had AT a clear 6th and maybe beating Alpine for 5th.

Sorry, I should have put if not when. My opinion is that most teams won't make too much of a fuss unless there is a huge and obvious advantage. If Racing Bulls are still down in the lower midfield, it likely won't be much of an issue. Unless there is suspicions that the B team are running parts to benefit development of the A team outside the restrictions, of course.

[Nathan]

I think Zak is out of line in his approach.  It would be more appropriate to have said we have this situation now, thankfully there has never been evidence of wrong doing, but how about going forward we don't allow it.  Which is reasonable because normally you'd expect wrongdoing.  It's been 15+ years now and clearly there haven't been shenanigan's.  I believe the two teams have shared the same wind tunnel for some time now.  Personally, I think Ferrari have walked closer to the line with their customer teams both on and off the track over the decades.  I think some respect should be shown.  Or, maybe the recent Soprano's binging is getting to me.

[Alfisti]

Sorry, I should have put if not when. My opinion is that most teams won't make too much of a fuss unless there is a huge and obvious advantage. If Racing Bulls are still down in the lower midfield, it likely won't be much of an issue. Unless there is suspicions that the B team are running parts to benefit development of the A team outside the restrictions, of course.

I actually agree with you, if they are fighting for 6th in the WCC it is going to ruffle feathers. 

[New Britain]

This is what got us bogged down in the other thread. I’m not doing this again.

I'm not at all trying to revert to that point. I thought your post in this thread was interesting, which was why I addressed it.

 

I thought what got us (you and I) bogged down on the other thread was that we disagreed over to what extent could separate competing teams share data and whether the source and development of those data could be traced and their cost inferred. No?

 

Is not the present point quite different: for a single team - within which all data sharing would (one presumes) be legal - how would one calculate/put a value on the advantage gained by being able simultaneously to run 3 or 4 testing 'programs' rather than only the 2 that are possible at present? Surely that would not be a matter of establishing the origin of the data, which would be known all along.

[New Britain]

I think Zak is out of line in his approach.  It would be more appropriate to have said we have this situation now, thankfully there has never been evidence of wrong doing, but how about going forward we don't allow it.  Which is reasonable because normally you'd expect wrongdoing.  It's been 15+ years now and clearly there haven't been shenanigan's.  I believe the two teams have shared the same wind tunnel for some time now.  Personally, I think Ferrari have walked closer to the line with their customer teams both on and off the track over the decades.  I think some respect should be shown.  Or, maybe the recent Soprano's binging is getting to me.

Although it is true that, as far as one knows, to-date there have been no illegal 'shenanigans', what has changed is that Peter Bayer (and Horner, for that matter) has on a number of recent occasions made clear that the two teams intend to work much closer together than they have done in the past; indeed they have described the previous distance between the two teams as an organisational failure that they intend to remedy. If Red Bull and Racing Bull are saying, 'We're changing our MO', I don't see why another team principal is not entitled to ask questions about the propriety of that - especially since common ownership of two teams that are meant to be competing against each other is a practice that has been banned - on principle - in most properly-run team sports for ages.

[PayasYouRace]

I'm not at all trying to revert to that point. I thought your post in this thread was interesting, which was why I addressed it.

I thought what got us (you and I) bogged down on the other thread was that we disagreed over to what extent could separate competing teams share data and whether the source and development of those data could be traced and their cost inferred. No?

Is not the present point quite different: for a single team - within which all data sharing would (one presumes) be legal - how would one calculate/put a value on the advantage gained by being able simultaneously to run 3 or 4 testing 'programs' rather than only the 2 that are possible at present? Surely that would not be a matter of establishing the origin of the data, which would be known all along.

Ok.

So in development terms, you count testing programmes regardless of which car they run on. So for a fixed development cost, it doesn’t matter if you run one day with four cars or four days with one car. You get the same amount of data out of it all. So that count be limited to the same value no matter how many cars the team is running.

Running more cars per day is an operational cost, so that requires more resource.

So if you had four cars running on a race, you’d be sacrificing other parts of your development budget compared to the team that runs one. Not necessarily other test days, but your wind tunnel, or shaker rig, or anything else.

And these things are quantified like all engineering costs, in terms of man-hours, and direct costs.

[FullThrottleF1]

Nothing will happen anyway. Even if everyone in the paddock is against them, you can can't force Red Bull to sell Minardi/Toro Rosso/AlpaTauri/Racing Bulls

[Clatter]

That would be fine as, unlike at present, it would be transparent.

It would raise an interesting question: if one team had say 4 cars instead of 2, should that team's cost cap be raised in order to reflect the extra costs inherent in having more than 2 cars, or should the cap remain the same to compensate (however imprecisely) for the competitive advantages inherent in running more cars, being able to do more testing, et al.?

 

If the rule stands that they must have 2 cars, but they want to run more, then they should have to do that within the team budget. No reason to expect more money for wanting to do something you don't need to do.

[New Britain]

Ok.

So in development terms, you count testing programmes regardless of which car they run on. So for a fixed development cost, it doesn’t matter if you run one day with four cars or four days with one car. You get the same amount of data out of it all. So that count be limited to the same value no matter how many cars the team is running.

Running more cars per day is an operational cost, so that requires more resource.

So if you had four cars running on a race, you’d be sacrificing other parts of your development budget compared to the team that runs one. Not necessarily other test days, but your wind tunnel, or shaker rig, or anything else.

And these things are quantified like all engineering costs, in terms of man-hours, and direct costs.

 

How to treat the operational costs seems clear.

For testing you would limit it to 'X' testing days per team - cool.

 

How about for practice? Would you limit that to sessions per team or something similar to how you would treat testing?

(And obvs for the race all cars that qualified would need scope for completing the race distance, so allocating that by team rather than by car would be problematical.)

 

For development, are you saying that, in order to test new parts on track, the real cost of that would be incurred in the design/development/production stages which would be under the cap? I'll go along with that, but it still doesn't cover the advantages to be gained from all the feedback the team get and tweaking they do when at a race weekend - suspension changes, tyre deg. I guess that could be addressed by limiting practice sessions per team, so the overall quantity of information available to a 3- or 4-car team would be no greater than what is available to a 2-car team.

[PayasYouRace]

How to treat the operational costs seems clear.
For testing you would limit it to 'X' testing days per team - cool.

How about for practice? Would you limit that to sessions per team or something similar to how you would treat testing?
(And obvs for the race all cars that qualified would need scope for completing the race distance, so allocating that by team rather than by car would be problematical.)

For development, are you saying that, in order to test new parts on track, the real cost of that would be incurred in the design/development/production stages which would be under the cap? I'll go along with that, but it still doesn't cover the advantages to be gained from all the feedback the team get and tweaking they do when at a race weekend - suspension changes, tyre deg. I guess that could be addressed by limiting practice sessions per team, so the overall quantity of information available to a 3- or 4-car team would be no greater than what is available to a 2-car team.

Testing any parts on track would of course be part of the development budget. Want to run an extra car? Well that’s coming out of your budget, no matter which session you run it in. All that feedback, and handling of that data, is development too. No need to get complicated by limiting practice sessions and stuff. Run too many cars, you’ll blow your budget on gathering data in races and not have any left over for design, analysis, and production based on what you’ve gathered.

The operational costs are things like how many mechanics you have, how much fuel and tyres you use for an individual car. Those are the only things I’d have an extra allowance.

[Clatter]

Testing any parts on track would of course be part of the development budget. Want to run an extra car? Well that’s coming out of your budget, no matter which session you run it in. All that feedback, and handling of that data, is development too. No need to get complicated by limiting practice sessions and stuff. Run too many cars, you’ll blow your budget on gathering data in races and not have any left over for design, analysis, and production based on what you’ve gathered.

The operational costs are things like how many mechanics you have, how much fuel and tyres you use for an individual car. Those are the only things I’d have an extra allowance.

 

Your more generous than me. I wouldn't give them a penny extra, unless it was mandated they had to run more cars etc.

[mclarensmps]

Zak Brawn? 

Is he related to Ross Brown?

I didn't notice till you mentioned it 

[Clatter]

An interesting question would be what would happen if one of the other teams wanted start up a proper B team, and use one of the spare slots. Would they be allowed to? If the answer is a resounding no, then that the would put the RB situation in a different light.

[FullThrottleF1]

Lol if the teams could vote a couple of the other teams put they would. Which is why they should have no say in the sport

[Clatter]

Lol if the teams could vote a couple of the other teams put they would. Which is why they should have no say in the sport

 

Totally agree, but what would the vote be of those that do have a say?

[Stephane]

We need more teams, not less

[pdac]

Lol if the teams could vote a couple of the other teams put they would. Which is why they should have no say in the sport

 

The reality is that even if they have no say, they will still have a say. Workers generally have no say in management. But if there are, say, 10 workers and 1 owner/manager, those workers will inevitably have influence. A workforce that is united has power, whether it's given to them or not.

Edited by pdac, 17 January 2024 - 21:28.

[FirstnameLastname]

If Alan Permane had any secrets from Alpine (for arguments sake) do we believe Redbull Racing wouldn’t quickly get wind of them via his employment by Racing Bulls?

[Mark A]

I’d have less of a problem with the B team thing if we didn’t have this crappy 10 team franchise model in place.

 

This I think is the key issue. If the sport was open to new entries and teams were, as has been said in another post, allowed to run 1, 2, 3 or 4 cars if they wished then the 2 teams under one umbrella is a moot point, but when the entry of Andretti is being so heavily scrutinised and in reality blocked, then there is definitely an issue with one person/organisation being in charge of 20% of the grid.

 

Do we want a return to the days of Andrea Moda (great documentary on this BTW) where anyone with a few million can enter a team, I don't think we do. But, similarly, do we want  effectively a small handful of teams/organisations being in charge of a closed grid, especially when some are Car Manufacturers who, with the best will in the world have budgets that rise and fall based on the companies performance, again I don't think that is a good place to be either

[HP]

In an ideal F1 world, every team owner can do what he pleases. Alas..

[cjm321190]

The issue is at the moment F1 needs 12 teams if just to get the youngsters a chance.

We currently have 9.5 teams ( sorry Haas).

I do think Alfa Tauri ( Racing Bulls) have earnt their space on the grid but i also am in the camp that Andretti needs a chance.

I remember in 2009/2010 when Toyota , BMW, Honda all left. They did not car for their employees then unless it fitted their current PR BS.

We were very lucky that Brawn happened and Peter Sauber came back. This then created the farce of the 3 small HRT, Manor and Lotus entering with a ill thought out structure.

Know doubt they will use that as a reason not to let more people compete.

The big teams are exposed now they cannot spend their way out, eventually the best engineers can get more value for a team more efficiency.

Privateers race because that is their business win lose or draw. That is why they are i think more valuable to F1.

The americanisation franchise of F1 will kill it eventually in my opinion.

[Risil]

I feel pre-budget cap F1 had got into something that was worse than a franchise model, in that the barrier for entry was equally forbidding but it was defined by the level of technical investment needed to be competitive. Which resulted in the teams at the back being eaten away and gaps being filled by teams that did less and less of the design and engineering themselves.

 

Nowadays all 10 teams are valuable -- partly because they have an entry apparently as long as they want one, and partly because as a result of the budget cap it's possible for a well-managed team to be fighting at least for points every year. I don't think anyone in F1 has seriously started addressing the difficult part, which is how to ensure that the 10-team structure doesn't become a closed shop and stagnate, with a few teams at the back just happy to be in the show and collect cheques, and outsiders with initiative and new ideas being locked out and unable to challenge the top teams.

 

As to the topic of the thread though, F1 has had "B teams" since 2007 and they've never gone away. These complaints always resurface when one of them starts to look threatening.

[Clatter]

I feel pre-budget cap F1 had got into something that was worse than a franchise model, in that the barrier for entry was equally forbidding but it was defined by the level of technical investment needed to be competitive. Which resulted in the teams at the back being eaten away and gaps being filled by teams that did less and less of the design and engineering themselves.

Nowadays all 10 teams are valuable -- partly because they have an entry apparently as long as they want one, and partly because as a result of the budget cap it's possible for a well-managed team to be fighting at least for points every year. I don't think anyone in F1 has seriously started addressing the difficult part, which is how to ensure that the 10-team structure doesn't become a closed shop and stagnate, with a few teams at the back just happy to be in the show and collect cheques, and outsiders with initiative and new ideas being locked out and unable to challenge the top teams.

As to the topic of the thread though, F1 has had "B teams" since 2007 and they've never gone away. These complaints always resurface when one of them starts to look threatening.

It's pretty much seems a closed shop aldeady. Everything the existing teams say and do is to try and keep new teams out, and keep their cosy nest of ten feathered.

[Nathan]

I remember in 2009/2010 when Toyota , BMW, Honda all left. They did not car for their employees then unless it fitted their current PR BS.

We were very lucky that Brawn happened and Peter Sauber came back. 

 

It's amusing what you find lucky was the plan to avoid your accusation.

[H0R]

Why on earth do we debate this today? Even Vettel essentially had three drivers riding shotgun for him

[JeanAlesi27]

It's amazing how people continually confuse Brown and Brawn.    

[danmills]

I'd rather see 6 competitive Red Bull sister cars competing than watch the likes of Alpine and Haas circle the gutter with no chance.

 

Sign of the times, new F1 needs a new model.

Edited by danmills, 18 January 2024 - 19:10.

[Mc_Silver]

FIA and FOM are obliged to make sure there's is a fair competition among teams. If one team benefits from another team, it means massive advantage for the A team in this cost cap era. Zak has been voicing his concerns about the matter for years but it seems there are still gray areas in the regulation.

Edited by Mc_Silver, 18 January 2024 - 17:57.