Bernie returns F1 to survival of the fittest

[Irisado]

I'll give you the language barrier on this one.

I'm saying that if a team is in F1 and needs that $10 million to continue, what difference is $10 million going to make?  What last place team is just $10 million dollars from winning a championship?

Either they're committed to the sport, and willing to spend what it takes/manage the resources they have, or they're not.

Again, I don't follow.

A team can be fully committed to the sport, but without having the full funds to be able to do it without receiving travel/prize money from the FIA.  If that prize money means the team keeps going, then why not have it?  All teams should get prize money in my view, based on their finishing position.  Just because the team is last doesn't mean it's not good enough, or wasn't trying hard enough.

When I started watching F1 in 1996, Michael Schumacher was the defending champion.  They were coming off a season with 13 teams and there was 1 WDC in the lineup.  ONE from THRIRTEEN teams.  1995 featured 35 drivers.  Only three of them went on to win championships.

Now we have 11 teams, and 5 WDC in the lineup, with other drivers clearly 'potential WDC'.

It's a false comparison Jeri, because you've removed the historical context.

Piquet retired in 1991, Prost retired in 1993, Senna was killed in 1994, and Mansell retired in 1995.  Consider that those four had dominated from 1985-1990, yet all were gone in quick succession, and it created something of a void.  A void which was quickly filled by Hill, Villeneuve, and particularly Hakkinen.

1995 and 1996 were watershed years, in the sense that this was when the independents really started to be hammered by the sport's governing body.  Remember how well small teams were doing prior to the massive rule changes following Senna and Ratzenberger's deaths in 1994?  Arrows and Minardi were up there mixing it with front running teams in the first two races.  Comas was 13th on the grid in a Larrousse in the opening round.  The competition was tight, as the removal of all the gizmos and gadgets which had given the top teams a massive advantage in 1992 and 1993, had really helped the small teams.

The lack of financial support/prize money, and the ever increasing costs, which have still not been adequately addressed in my view, are to blame for the state of things, not the teams being poor.  Heck, if they hadn't introduced the 107 percent rule, Forti might even have carried on for a while.

Fewer teams, more champions.

If there are more teams, then sponsorship dollars are spread thin:  teams need more pay drivers, not less.

There were, arguably, more sponsors doing the rounds in the late 1990s than there are now, owing to the current financial climate.

As for fewer champions, we're currently in an exceptional period of driving talent.  There may yet be a change when someone dominates once more, or there are only two world class drivers on the grid, all these things come in cycles.

STR, Jaguar and BAR could easily have built new teams, like Toyota, Marussia and the other new teams, but instead they saw a quality team to build off of.  True, not all were great stewards of the teams, but the teams survived.  They had been built by the men who knew F1, and survived the men who didn't.

No, they saw a way to get prize and travel money by buying an existing team, and avoid having to lay down a new team deposit.  They also thus avoided falling into being covered by that rule John outlined in his post.

There's also no way STR had the finances to build its own team.  Remember they used customer cars for the first few years of their existence.

HRT, Virgin/Marussia, Lotus/Caterham, and USGP really did get screwed over.  'Fair' hardly applies to F1.  But that's partly my point.  There are some truly great people who just weren't meant for F1, and some truly... repugnant... people who just fit right in with the the sport.  If you can't swim with the sharks, then get out of the pool.  I'm not cut out to run an F1 team.  Bernie would eat me alive.  Anyone shocked by Bernie's methods doesn't have a place in F1. 

However, I have faith in Mr. Eccelstone.  It was never guaranteed that F1 would become the dominant motorsport.  It was never guaranteed that teams, tracks and 'rights holders' would get to share billions of dollars.  He's the architect of that.  He's just growing the pot.  He might be arrogant and spiteful, but he's always willing to admit his mistakes and change course.  If it turns out that paying Marussia $10 million dollars for having perfect attendance is good for the sport, he will do it.

I've never known him to admit that he made a mistake.

I have no confidence in him at all, and I have no time for his methods.  I suspect that's why, at its heart, we have vastly different opinions on this subject .

[lkjohnson1950]

I'm afraid I must agree with Irisado about Bernie. A careful look at his actions over the years shows he is a good businessman and indeed has "grown" F1 into what it is today. He is not a good caretaker for the sport however. He wants to be rid of the classic circuits like Spa and Monza so he can run races through downtown Paris, London and Rome. There may be something romantic about F1 cars rocketing by the Houses Parliament or the Colosseum, and no doubt having the races at tourist central solves a lot of logistical problems, but I'll take the great circuits. He does nothing to support the track owners and race organizers, taking every bit of extra revenue for FOM. Anyone who runs a venue these days will tell you that ticket sales don't cover your costs. And he keeps raising his fees, not only to line his pockets, but to force governments to pop for the cost. With the European countries being in tough financial straits, we are really in serious danger of losing the traditional European season. France is gone, Spain and Germany are teetering on the brink, SPA and Monza are under pressure of both money and environmental groups. In 10 years the European schedule could consist of Monaco and Britain. No Mr Ecclestone has not been good for the sport of F1.

[Jericoke]

I'll give you the language barrier on this one.

I'm saying that if a team is in F1 and needs that $10 million to continue, what difference is $10 million going to make?  What last place team is just $10 million dollars from winning a championship?

Either they're committed to the sport, and willing to spend what it takes/manage the resources they have, or they're not.

Again, I don't follow.

A team can be fully committed to the sport, but without having the full funds to be able to do it without receiving travel/prize money from the FIA.  If that prize money means the team keeps going, then why not have it?  All teams should get prize money in my view, based on their finishing position.  Just because the team is last doesn't mean it's not good enough, or wasn't trying hard enough.

A 'prize', in English, is a reward for an accomplishment.

I would agree that there is room to adjust the prize schedule.  I think that awarding any team that earns points would be fair, whether they finish first at the end of the season, or 31st.  Points earned are prize worthy.  From that point of view, Bernie is generous to give prizes to teams that don't earn points, but finish in the top 10.

I'm not suggesting that Marussia isn't trying, or doesn't deserve to be in F1.  I'm suggesting that $10 million isn't the difference between them becoming champions.  If they're worried about the $10 million, then how can they expect to compete with Ferrari, who's champagne bill is $10 million? 

If you don't plan to compete with Ferrari, then what is the point of being in F1 besides making money?

It's a false comparison Jeri, because you've removed the historical context.

Piquet retired in 1991, Prost retired in 1993, Senna was killed in 1994, and Mansell retired in 1995.  Consider that those four had dominated from 1985-1990, yet all were gone in quick succession, and it created something of a void.  A void which was quickly filled by Hill, Villeneuve, and particularly Hakkinen.

1995 and 1996 were watershed years, in the sense that this was when the independents really started to be hammered by the sport's governing body.  Remember how well small teams were doing prior to the massive rule changes following Senna and Ratzenberger's deaths in 1994?  Arrows and Minardi were up there mixing it with front running teams in the first two races.  Comas was 13th on the grid in a Larrousse in the opening round.  The competition was tight, as the removal of all the gizmos and gadgets which had given the top teams a massive advantage in 1992 and 1993, had really helped the small teams.

The lack of financial support/prize money, and the ever increasing costs, which have still not been adequately addressed in my view, are to blame for the state of things, not the teams being poor.  Heck, if they hadn't introduced the 107 percent rule, Forti might even have carried on for a while.

I can only comment on what I've seen.  But what I have seen in the 2010's a very competitive group of drivers and a growing core of competitive teams.  Seasons like 1998 seem ridiculous by comparisson.

Fewer teams, more champions.

If there are more teams, then sponsorship dollars are spread thin:  teams need more pay drivers, not less.

There were, arguably, more sponsors doing the rounds in the late 1990s than there are now, owing to the current financial climate.

As for fewer champions, we're currently in an exceptional period of driving talent.  There may yet be a change when someone dominates once more, or there are only two world class drivers on the grid, all these things come in cycles.

That's my point though, all this exceptional talent, and yet every single WDC started when there were 11 teams.  F1 has enough teams to support great drivers.

STR, Jaguar and BAR could easily have built new teams, like Toyota, Marussia and the other new teams, but instead they saw a quality team to build off of.  True, not all were great stewards of the teams, but the teams survived.  They had been built by the men who knew F1, and survived the men who didn't.

No, they saw a way to get prize and travel money by buying an existing team, and avoid having to lay down a new team deposit.  They also thus avoided falling into being covered by that rule John outlined in his post.

Yeah... that's why Bernie ammended his rule to include name changes, which is why Sauber ran as BMWSauber when BMW had left, and why the fight over the Lotus name was so important.

It's a pretty sleezy rule on the surface, but what other brand builds itself by constantly renaming itself?

Could anyone imagine the New York Yankees, or Man U changing their name?

Motorsports in general seems to be a little behind other pro sports in this aspect, even though the value of continuity, such as Ferrari and McLaren, has been long established.  I expect Williams' name will continue once Frank leaves the sport.

There's also no way STR had the finances to build its own team.  Remember they used customer cars for the first few years of their existence.

Red Bull, the sponsor, was getting away with what they could.

Those are FIA rule changes, not FOM, nor Bernie.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why there aren't more 'B' teams in F1.

STR has always been intended to develop drivers and personnel for the 'big team'.  If that's Marussia's role in the sport, there's room for McLaren and Ferrari Lite as well.

HRT, Virgin/Marussia, Lotus/Caterham, and USGP really did get screwed over.  'Fair' hardly applies to F1.  But that's partly my point.  There are some truly great people who just weren't meant for F1, and some truly... repugnant... people who just fit right in with the the sport.  If you can't swim with the sharks, then get out of the pool.  I'm not cut out to run an F1 team.  Bernie would eat me alive.  Anyone shocked by Bernie's methods doesn't have a place in F1. 

However, I have faith in Mr. Eccelstone.  It was never guaranteed that F1 would become the dominant motorsport.  It was never guaranteed that teams, tracks and 'rights holders' would get to share billions of dollars.  He's the architect of that.  He's just growing the pot.  He might be arrogant and spiteful, but he's always willing to admit his mistakes and change course.  If it turns out that paying Marussia $10 million dollars for having perfect attendance is good for the sport, he will do it.

I've never known him to admit that he made a mistake.

I have no confidence in him at all, and I have no time for his methods.  I suspect that's why, at its heart, we have vastly different opinions on this subject .

He's not going to hold a press conference to admit he made a mistake.  He'll sweep it under the carpet and hope no one brings it up.

His failed attempt at high def pay per view racing, which he pulled the plug on, would be a pretty good example.

If there was someone better for F1 than Bernie, I would gladly love to see them takeover, but I honestly don't believe there is any one person who understands the sport like Bernie does.  Hopefully I'm mistaken, as I'd hate to see the sport slip in his absense.

As for the approach to the sport, it is common in North American pro sports to enforce 'parity', that is each team is expected to spend the same amount of money to operate... not just a cap, but also a 'floor'. 

If it's fair for 11th place to get a part of the prize money, then it's fair to expect them to put a certain amount into the sport.  Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. 

Right now, if 11th gets paid per the old Concorde, the minimum contribution to the sport is showing up for every race weekend.  Is that enough to get part of the prize money?  Or is it fair to expect more? 

[Irisado]

A 'prize', in English, is a reward for an accomplishment.

Right, but an accomplishment is subjective.  Finishing x number of races is an accomplishment for a small team in its first season.  Are you saying that this doesn't deserve a reward?  Remember too that, unlike years gone by, there is now a fixed limit of 13 teams.  No more are allowed, so why not allocate prize money to all those teams?  Finishing last doesn't mean the team deserves nothing.

I would agree that there is room to adjust the prize schedule.  I think that awarding any team that earns points would be fair, whether they finish first at the end of the season, or 31st.  Points earned are prize worthy.  From that point of view, Bernie is generous to give prizes to teams that don't earn points, but finish in the top 10.

I'm not suggesting that Marussia isn't trying, or doesn't deserve to be in F1.  I'm suggesting that $10 million isn't the difference between them becoming champions.  If they're worried about the $10 million, then how can they expect to compete with Ferrari, who's champagne bill is $10 million? 

If you don't plan to compete with Ferrari, then what is the point of being in F1 besides making money?

He isn't generous at all.  The man doesn't know the meaning of the word.

I would have no complaints about the prize money for tenth being significantly more than the prize money for eleventh, and that is, based on my understanding, more or less how the current system works.  This just a matter of him (Ecclestone) being a miser who doesn't want to spend money.  It's not about improving Formula 1, as the standards are already so high.  Any argument he makes along those lines is nothing more than a smokescreen.

As for your last point, passion, and the love of racing are reasons enough to compete.  Not everyone wants to, or is even capable of, challenging the top teams.  The sport is not solely about winning.  That's very much a false evaluation of Formula 1.  It's only all about winning for a small group of teams at the top.  For the rest, it's about doing the best they can with the equipment, and resources, at their disposal.

I can only comment on what I've seen.  But what I have seen in the 2010's a very competitive group of drivers and a growing core of competitive teams.  Seasons like 1998 seem ridiculous by comparisson.

1998 was a year in which there was a reasonably large disparity between the front and the back of the grid, because there was a rule change.  The cars were very different from 1997, which had seen very close grids, and whenever there is a large rule change, the small teams always suffer more, since they don't have the resources to adapt to the changes as quickly, or as effectively, as the top teams.

Also, note that in 1998 Tyrrell produced a good car, but didn't have the drivers to do it justice, owing to Craig Pollock's decision to hire pay drivers, rather than keep Verstappen or Salo, so Tyrrell's performances were below par for the car that they had, and Minardi performed better than expected, when you consider that Nakano and Tuero were hardly the best driver line up ever to grace the Italian team's seats, so it's all relative.

I'd much rather go back to 1998 for levels of reliability than that which we have now to be honest, so I don't view this modern era in quite the same way as you seem to .

That's my point though, all this exceptional talent, and yet every single WDC started when there were 11 teams.  F1 has enough teams to support great drivers.

You can't conclude that so definitively.  How many more good drivers have never managed to get a seat, or have had their careers ended prematurely?  We'll never know.

Yeah... that's why Bernie ammended his rule to include name changes, which is why Sauber ran as BMWSauber when BMW had left, and why the fight over the Lotus name was so important.

Yes, but said amendment occurred after the cases that you and I had been debating.  STR abused the previous rule, and the rule on customer cars to a great deal, and Gerhard Berger had the audacity to keep going around reminding everyone how they used to be Minardi, and how bad Minardi was, and how much better STR were doing with the resources they had.

Well, yes Gerhard, of course the team did better, because it had Red Bull funding, a customer Red Bull chassis, and technical support from Milton Keynes, so it was bound to do better really......

Red Bull, the sponsor, was getting away with what they could.

Those are FIA rule changes, not FOM, nor Bernie.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why there aren't more 'B' teams in F1.

STR has always been intended to develop drivers and personnel for the 'big team'.  If that's Marussia's role in the sport, there's room for McLaren and Ferrari Lite as well.

Ecclestone has some influence over FIA rules.  He could have said that teams using customer cars would be ineligible for prize money from the constructors' championship from the word go.

As for B teams, there sort of are, when you consider how many teams have deals to run component parts made by other teams.  I wouldn't want to see any more Toro Rosso type teams though.  They have no soul at all in my opinion.

Right now, if 11th gets paid per the old Concorde, the minimum contribution to the sport is showing up for every race weekend.  Is that enough to get part of the prize money?  Or is it fair to expect more?

That's easily fixed.  To receive prize money, the team must finish in the top twenty x number of times.  There we go, job done.  That imposes some kind of minimum standard (i.e. if you keep failing to qualify, you won't get any prize money), without forcing a team that's remotely capable, but just can't get into the points (and let's face it, with current reliability levels, scoring points is hard - ask Williams) out of the sport.

[Scott]

A fascinating debate, by two very knowledgable members...great fun to watch (and learn). 

One question though for Irisado - you mentioned the Tyrell and that Craig Pollock was responsible for hiring pay drivers.  Didn't BAR (led by Craig Pollock) buy the failing Tyrell near the end of '98, and wasn't Pollock's first hire, our own (us Canadians) Jacques Villeneuve, who wasn't a pay driver by any stretch of the imagination, in fact many speculate he was the highest paid driver on the grid that year at around $20m?

Never mind...go on, you two.

[Irisado]

One question though for Irisado - you mentioned the Tyrell and that Craig Pollock was responsible for hiring pay drivers.  Didn't BAR (led by Craig Pollock) buy the failing Tyrell near the end of '98, and wasn't Pollock's first hire, our own (us Canadians) Jacques Villeneuve, who wasn't a pay driver by any stretch of the imagination, in fact many speculate he was the highest paid driver on the grid that year at around $20m?

Correct Scott, without a doubt, but that was for the 1999 season.

Ken Tyrrell had wanted Jos Verstappen to partner Tora Takagi at Tyrrell for the 1998 season, but Pollock insisted that the team take Rosset, which resulted in Ken handing in his notice before the season started, leaving Harvey Postlethwaite to run the team in its final season.  Pollock and BAT bought Ken out at the end of 1997 if memory serves, but definitely before the beginning of the 1998 F1 season.

[Scott]

I thought BAR bought Tyrell during the '98 season, near the end.  I didn't realize Pollock had any influence on the '97 season at Tyrell.

[John S]

I thought BAR bought Tyrell during the '98 season, near the end.  I didn't realize Pollock had any influence on the '97 season at Tyrell.

Irisado is correct Scott, this is a diect quote from Wikipedia about the BAR Racing team.

"British American Tobacco (BAT) had been involved in Formula One for many years, with several of its brands being displayed on F1 cars run by various teams.
In 1997 the corporation was convinced by Craig Pollock to provide most of the equity to purchase the Tyrrell Formula One team for GBŖ30 million.[1] Pollock, Adrian Reynard and Rick Gorne were the minority partners. The deal was announced on 2 December 1997.[2] The team was still officially known as Tyrrell in 1998, before it became BAR the following year.

The team had Reynard chassis and Honda engines (although in the maiden season they used Supertecs instead).

On 23 July 1998 BAR announced the signing of World Champion Jacques Villeneuve away from Williams with a lucrative contract for the 1999 season.[3] Pollock had managed Villeneuve throughout his racing career."

[Irisado]

For once, Wikipedia actually provides some pretty accurate information there .

The only slight issue is that it wasn't a Reynard chassis.  The chassis was designed under the guidance of Adrian Reynard, but the chassis itself was actually the work of Malcolm Ostler.  It wasn't a Reynard customer chassis ā la Dallara and Lola.

[Monty]

Wow there is some interesting stuff here. You guys (and in that, I obviously include girls) have better memories than me!
Of course the rub is that whatever we think, Bernie will do what he wants (as always). I can't stand the little weasel but I often wonder (worry) what will happen to F1 when he has gone. F1 run by committee doesn't bear thinking of! I think the business (because it is no longer a sport) needs a dictator (I mean autocrat) to control it.
Returning to the 'Bernie bonuses' I still think $10million is irrelevant to the success or otherwise of a F1 team. Obviously $10million is a lot of money under any circumstances but it just isn't going to make a Marussia suddenly compete with a Ferrari.
I am in favour of more teams entering the F1 arena but they have to be able to compete on a level(ish) playing field.
This is why there has been so much discussion about trying to reduce costs but this in turn negates one of the key concepts of F1 which is to push technical boundaries.
Having followed F1 for so many years I still cannot see the perfect solution (although I definitely feel it is essential they stop messing around with the Technical Regulations).
I do not feel sorry for the smaller teams because there are so many good racing series available, far more than in some of the decades that have been discussed in this thread. There was a time when in Europe the only serious series were F1, F2 & F3 (sorry but I have no knowledge of American history - apart from the fact that I loved the F5000 cars). Now there is a plethora of good, commercially successful open wheel racing series for lower budget teams to be involved with.
I still maintain that having a sub-group of so-called F1 teams punting around circuits at 1second+ a lap slower than the rest of the field does nothing for the sport or the spectators and I say this even though I am a keen supporter of Caterham. Indeed, they are a perfect example because when they were paying good experienced drivers and improving the car it looked like they could become a 'proper' F1 team. But now they have rich kids paying to drive the cars and results have slumped mainly because their budget is possibly $50million short of the succesful teams.

[cosworth151]

I do agree that history shows that racing series seem to grow best when steered by one person who loves racing. Tony Hulman (Indy), Wally Parks (NHRA) and Bill France Sr. (NASCAR) are prime examples. The younger Bernie might well have fit into that group. That said, he is well past his sell-by date. He no longer cares about the racing, just the payoff.

Actually, there used to be a larger variety of racing in the U.S. USAC had a stock car series that rivaled NASCAR, along with a number of circle track open wheel series. The IHRA was real competition to the NHRA. The Trans Am, Can Am, USRRC, F5000 and other road racing series flourished.

Every racing series I've ever seen has back marker teams. They're a part of racing. I've been to many races over the years that suffered from too few cars. (Yes, I was at the 2005 USGP) I've never seen any that suffered from having too many entrants. They have their fans. They bring fans to the sport that wouldn't be there otherwise. Some people love to cheer for the underdog.

Besides, without back marker teams, that 2005 race would have just been 2 Ferrari's. 

[Irisado]

I still maintain that having a sub-group of so-called F1 teams punting around circuits at 1second+ a lap slower than the rest of the field does nothing for the sport or the spectators and I say this even though I am a keen supporter of Caterham.

There's a slight problem with that Monty, in the sense that when some of the top teams get it wrong, they've often been over 1 second off the pace.  Witness McLaren in 2009 as a recent example, and Ferrari's car last year started the season well off the pace too.  Heck, if you go back to the 1990s, McLaren were routinely 1s from the pace in 1995 at almost every race.

It's also a slightly false representation in the sense that the performance gap is always relative.  As I said previously, it shrinks when the technical regulations are stable, and grows when they are significantly altered.  As a result, I don't think that an arbitrary time gap is of any value at all.  Remember, the entire midfield is normally around 1s off the pace, and is it fair to say that they aren't doing a good enough job?  I wouldn't say so.

Also, if we were to go back to the 1980s/1990s, the performance of Caterham, and Marussia would be easily good enough for the midfield.  Formula 1 doesn't have any bad teams any more - the standard is just so high - it seems, therefore, to my mind ludicrous that Ecclestone continues to undermine the small teams.

[Monty]

It is obvious that several of us have entrenched views that we are not going to change. Everyone has the right to an opinion and I'm not trying to convince anyone (and since only Bernie's opinion can actually change anything it would be pointless anyway).
Just for the record, I am not against smaller teams and I do want more entrants. However, I still maintain that there is no merit in back-marker teams consistently running way-off the pace (no fixed arbitrary time) season after season and certainly no justification for them to be paid prize money for their poor performance. I genuinely hope that Williams will find success and that Marussia, Caterham, Sauber, et al will find suitable sponsorship and continue to improve so that they can realistically fight for points.

[Jericoke]

I have one final argument I haven't brought up yet.

People discuss how important the 'small teams' are to F1.  However, has anyone stopped watching F1 because of the departure of Minardi, Jordan, Wolf, Lola, HRT? 

How about BMW, Ford, Maserati or Porsche?

Real 'Lotus'?

Is there any team that has ever left Formula One, and hurt the sport's commercial interest?

Is there ANY single team on the grid, that when lost, would cause F1 trouble?  (Yes Ferrari for sure.  McLaren maybe...)

[John S]

- apart from the fact that I loved the F5000 cars).

Now wouldn't that be something to bring back F5000 as a series.    I remember them thundering round Brands Hatch in the 70's as if it was last month.   

I am a keen supporter of Caterham. Indeed, they are a perfect example because when they were paying good experienced drivers and improving the car it looked like they could become a 'proper' F1 team. But now they have rich kids paying to drive the cars and results have slumped mainly because their budget is possibly $50million short of the successful teams.

Surely this is a causal effect of Bernie's return to paying only 10 teams, and then only teams that were inside top 10 for 2 out of 3 years. Caterham will have signed a contract with Bernie, they all have except Marussia, and will therefore know they will get a payout at the end of the year no matter what they or Marussia do. 

This has led Caterham to save cash this year to have more money available for the new era cars. We know engines are going to be more expensive and a completely new chassis is also required.

So rather than stimulate competition, for this year anyway, Bernie has actually allowed the 10 who have signed a choice of money saving or a balls out season, depending on their own projected finances next year.