Fernandes of 5 team future

[Dare]

5 teams equals no F1 fan base,IMO

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/199196/1/fernandes-warns-of-five-team-f1-future.html

[cosworth151]

I've mentioned the NFL draft system before. They have built a hugely successful league by allowing the teams to draft incoming talent in reverse order of their finish. That is to say that the team with the worst record gets first choice of incoming players, the second worst record goes second and so on until the champions pick last.

Giving the best teams the lion's share of the money only perpetuates the situation. Give the tail enders more of the money, the top teams less and the problem will solve itself.

[F1fanaticBD]

FIA/FOM is drowning in its own delusion, but I guess the major responsibility for such dire situation goes to Bernie, because he is the connection between F1 & CVC, but because of his own greed he is squeezing every juice out of this sports, and thus making its future look grave. The wealth distribution will always be skewed, but atleast it should be able to make those team survive the grid. How many teams have left in last decade? And how many will if the current system continue to be cultivated? The worry comes to me when established multiple championship winning Williams team seems to struggle for sponsorship, when people like Peter Sauber have to consider giving up his operation due to lack of funding. These are veterans that have made F1 as it is now, but if they are struggling to survive, you must realize the sports itself is struggling to realize. The revenue of CVC might suggest something else, but the actual picture is CVC is just a equity firm with profit in their horizon, they are not passionate about it, they are not concerned about its future. They will be there as long as the profit is there. Bernie should have been the key integrator which would enable him to maintain a proper balance between future of F1 & hunger of CVC. Unfortunately he is now more concerned about his daughter's lavish lifestyle, wedding and etc.

[Jericoke]

I've mentioned the NFL draft system before. They have built a hugely successful league by allowing the teams to draft incoming talent in reverse order of their finish. That is to say that the team with the worst record gets first choice of incoming players, the second worst record goes second and so on until the champions pick last.

Giving the best teams the lion's share of the money only perpetuates the situation. Give the tail enders more of the money, the top teams less and the problem will solve itself.

I would love to see F1 reorganised as a sports league rather a group of semi autonomous engineering companies.

It's my understanding that the international aspect of the sport makes that troublesome:  dealing with 8 national governments of the teams owners/principle suppliers is nightmare enough without throwing in the EU.

Part of the problem is that the different teams have very different goals for what they get from F1.  Ferrari is trying to sell $300K luxury sports cars.  Red Bull is trying to sell $1 cans of whatever the hell Red Bull is.  Vijay Mallya is proving how fabulously wealthy he is.  Peter Sauber is just living out his passion.  Who knows what the people who own Enstone expect?

[F1fanaticBD]

I've mentioned the NFL draft system before. They have built a hugely successful league by allowing the teams to draft incoming talent in reverse order of their finish. That is to say that the team with the worst record gets first choice of incoming players, the second worst record goes second and so on until the champions pick last.

Giving the best teams the lion's share of the money only perpetuates the situation. Give the tail enders more of the money, the top teams less and the problem will solve itself.

I would love to see F1 reorganised as a sports league rather a group of semi autonomous engineering companies.

It's my understanding that the international aspect of the sport makes that troublesome:  dealing with 8 national governments of the teams owners/principle suppliers is nightmare enough without throwing in the EU.

Part of the problem is that the different teams have very different goals for what they get from F1.  Ferrari is trying to sell $300K luxury sports cars.  Red Bull is trying to sell $1 cans of whatever the hell Red Bull is.  Vijay Mallya is proving how fabulously wealthy he is.  Peter Sauber is just living out his passion.  Who knows what the people who own Enstone expect?

But every team wants to reach the flag in the fastest way they can, and as long as they achieve that they can celebrate whatever the way they want. Restructuring the system to help more and more people get there, more diversified and even more flamboyant people come and become involved in the team. I can't see the contradiction, if we could be able make an environment that will increase the sustainability of the teams.

[Jericoke]

But every team wants to reach the flag in the fastest way they can, and as long as they achieve that they can celebrate whatever the way they want. Restructuring the system to help more and more people get there, more diversified and even more flamboyant people come and become involved in the team. I can't see the contradiction, if we could be able make an environment that will increase the sustainability of the teams.

You sort of sum it up don't you, every team wants to do what they can, so you propose forbidding teams from doing what they can.  If Ferrari and Red Bull aren't allowed a return on investment, why should they invest?

I desperately want Peter Sauber, Frank Williams and all the dreamers following the footsteps of Enzo Ferrari, Colin Chapman and Andy Granatelli succeed.  But is the only way to do that to tear down the success of men like Ron Dennis, Luca di Montezemolo or Dietrich Mateschitz?

Yes, we can always give CVC a smaller share, and the teams a bigger share, but who do you think is going to get the bigger share?  The tail enders or the teams that draw in fans, sell merchandise and sign multi million dollar sponsors?

I think the easiest way to balance the sport is to remove the requirement for each team to build its own car.  That would take one of the largest costs out of the sport.  If they can use customer engines and tires, I don't see why they can't use customer chassis and aerodynamics.  If a team really wants to jealously guard their secrets, they're not required to sell chassis.  There will be others perfectly willing to fill the gap.

I'd even suggest working with IndyCar to harmonize the formulae a little bit.  F1 (spec) cars used to run at the Indy500, why not now?  Both series would benefit with some engineering cost sharing.  I do believe that the fan bases are distinct enough that they're not going to step on each others toes.

[F1fanaticBD]

But every team wants to reach the flag in the fastest way they can, and as long as they achieve that they can celebrate whatever the way they want. Restructuring the system to help more and more people get there, more diversified and even more flamboyant people come and become involved in the team. I can't see the contradiction, if we could be able make an environment that will increase the sustainability of the teams.

You sort of sum it up don't you, every team wants to do what they can, so you propose forbidding teams from doing what they can.  If Ferrari and Red Bull aren't allowed a return on investment, why should they invest?

Pardon me Jeri, but I never said forbidding teams from doing what they can. I suggested to give the smaller teams enough dough to survive the race, as long as the sports is generating profits. This cannot be healthy sports if it is making profits, yet teams are dropping off the grid.

Bringing customer cars will also eliminate the diversity of the teams, this will ensure the sports will loose its title as the pinnacle of the sports. I think the team will be able to sustain given a little help. All I am asking is to provide the teams a bit of breathing space, which is already there, only if CVC is just little less greedy

[Jericoke]

But every team wants to reach the flag in the fastest way they can, and as long as they achieve that they can celebrate whatever the way they want. Restructuring the system to help more and more people get there, more diversified and even more flamboyant people come and become involved in the team. I can't see the contradiction, if we could be able make an environment that will increase the sustainability of the teams.

You sort of sum it up don't you, every team wants to do what they can, so you propose forbidding teams from doing what they can.  If Ferrari and Red Bull aren't allowed a return on investment, why should they invest?

Pardon me Jeri, but I never said forbidding teams from doing what they can. I suggested to give the smaller teams enough dough to survive the race, as long as the sports is generating profits. This cannot be healthy sports if it is making profits, yet teams are dropping off the grid.

Bringing customer cars will also eliminate the diversity of the teams, this will ensure the sports will loose its title as the pinnacle of the sports. I think the team will be able to sustain given a little help. All I am asking is to provide the teams a bit of breathing space, which is already there, only if CVC is just little less greedy

You suggest that CVC give money only to the poor teams?

It's a good idea, but that would never fly.  What has Catherham done for F1 to deserve millions of dollars (or Euros or Pounds or Ringgits)?

If we just give low budget teams money, then you'll find Ferrari's budget is suddenly dried up, and they need a share to stay in F1 too.  RBR will decide they've been in F1 20 years, and they deserve a bigger piece than some Johnny Come Lately.

The only way to save the 'poor' teams is to find them sponsors or cut their costs.  The biggest cost is chassis design.  F1 has a HISTORY of customer chassis design, so we aren't even talking about thumbing our nose at the traditions of the sport.  The whole idea of creating distinct chassis was to stop shoe string operations pulling up for qualifying at Monte Carlo.  With Concorde in place, teams can't just suddenly show up, so we don't need that limitation any more.

I would LOVE to see 13 distinct F1 cars lapping around, but what's the point in Caterham constantly fielding a car that has no hope of competing with Red Bull?  Is an extra million dollars going to fix that?  How much money does a team need to defeat Adrian Newey?  Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes can't do it with unlimited budgets.

If we end up with three distinct cars, and 13 healthy teams, I call that a fair trade.

[cosworth151]

I have to disagree. The sport need distinct cars. The only way I would support customer cars would be third party units, i.e. designed & built by third party providers, not other teams. Lola or Dallara would be examples. That would give smaller teams a cost efficient method of getting equipment without F1 becoming a de facto spec racer series.

Regardless of how much prize money they get, teams like Ferrari, Red Bull & McLaren will still have sponsors throwing tons of cash at them. Businesses will want to be associated with top level teams. After all, who gets the lion's share of the TV time during a race?

[Scott]

I don't think BD was suggesting giving ONLY the little.teams money,  simply that they should spread around what there is.  No way does Caterham deserve more than RBR, but neither does RBR deserve 10x what Caterham get. 

[F1fanaticBD]

I am not asking to give Caterham equal amount as Red Bull or Ferrari, but should give then enough to survive, so that they don't have to depend of pay-drivers to run their operation, let young promising drivers drive, so that talent shines more than bucks. Because of the lack of that survival assurance Lotus is forced to take Maldonado, despite their preference for Hulkenberg. I have a feeling with a little more for the teams, other than CVC, such things will easily be prevented.

Adrian Newey started in a very small team of Fittipaldi, and made his way through now what he is. Small teams are not always about winning, but about getting the best out of everything, throwing the surprises, giving you goosebump of being able to watch a fairytale in front of you. Senna being able to put that astonishing race in 1984, Vettel getting that win in Monza with Torro Rosso, Fisichella pulling that amazing win for Jordan, Herbert winning for Stewart Ford, these are the circumstances where the small teams shine, where the future stars of F1 are born & nurtured. That is why I feel it is necessary for the sports to ensure these small teams survive, whether they would thrive or not, that should be depended upon them.

I would agree with Cossie about Chassis being supplied by third party provider, like Cosworth, which may help the smaller team reduce cost efficiently

[Irisado]

Diversity is the way to go.  Customer cars have been tried before and are not the solution.  In addition, if the parent company that makes the customer cars pulls out, the small team goes down with it, while outside constructors, such as Dallara and Lola have had very limited success in Formula 1.

If the FIA wants to have 13 teams on the grid, Ecclestone has to pay all the teams more money.  There is so much profit heading CVC's way that it's not healthy for the long term future of the sport.  It's the teams which are the lifeblood of Formula 1, and they should take the lion's share of the money, not Ecclestone and CVC.  Formula 1 will never be healthy until this is sorted out.

[Jericoke]

Diversity is the way to go.  Customer cars have been tried before and are not the solution.  In addition, if the parent company that makes the customer cars pulls out, the small team goes down with it, while outside constructors, such as Dallara and Lola have had very limited success in Formula 1.

If the FIA wants to have 13 teams on the grid, Ecclestone has to pay all the teams more money.  There is so much profit heading CVC's way that it's not healthy for the long term future of the sport.  It's the teams which are the lifeblood of Formula 1, and they should take the lion's share of the money, not Ecclestone and CVC.  Formula 1 will never be healthy until this is sorted out.

In an uncapped system, the 'small' teams will never be able to compete with the 'big' teams.  If you give Caterham more money, and you give Ferrari correspondinly more money, then Ferrari will spend it, and Caterham will fall further behind just trying to keep up.  Ferrari will continue to draw the big sponsors, and sponsors will have little interest in Caterham which is falling further behind.

In the past 'small' teams could gain an advantage by focusing on an area and be ready for their lucky break.  In today's F1 you could never expect both RBRs, both Ferraris, AND both McLarens to fail to finish a race, but in 1984, that wasn't impossible.  If you had the 10th fastest car, you could win if you could make the finish line.  A small team could prepare for that lucky break.

Or with loose aero, engine regs (not to mention safety regs), you could show up with something totally crazy for Monza, and 9 times out of 10 your driver wouldn't pass pre qualifying, but that 10th time, the risk pays off.  Again, the small teams can't afford to risk building a car that won't qualify because they can't rebuild a more conservative design.

All the 'cost cutting' from the past few years have benefitted the big teams, because they're the ones who can afford to try three different things and evolve a 'dog of a car' into a winner, where the small teams are stuck with what they have.

We need to find new ways for the small teams to take a chance.  To gain the notoriety that allows them to attact the sponsors they need to be in F1.  Minardi had the 'loveable losers' angle that just doesn't fit Marussia or Caterham (or Williams).

If we simply guarantee teams make a profit, you'll find owners who are in F1 for the profit, rather than the wins.  I don't think anyone wants that.

Like Cos said, the NFL approach would be ideal.  All ownership must be approved by the other owners.  They all get an equal share of the pie (though they're still allowed certain sidelines, which must be approved by the league).  It would be very difficult to get the big teams on board with this though.  The NFL approach is designed to guarantee that strong teams can't stay strong for long.  Would the tifosi really be happy to see Ferrari sign on for that?

[Irisado]

I don't disagree Jeri, I was just talking about that issue in isolation, which wasn't all that smart.

I want to see the issue of payments sorted out in conjunction with the issues which you're referring to.  Heck, if we went back to 1984 reliability levels, I wouldn't complain .  Funnily enough, I was reading Autocourse 1984 the other day.

I've talked about the issues pertaining to reliability and aero before, but I concur that the cars have to be less bullet proof and be redesigned, so that aero (which is very difficult and expensive for small teams to master) becomes far less critical to car performance.

[Jericoke]

I don't disagree Jeri, I was just talking about that issue in isolation, which wasn't all that smart.

I want to see the issue of payments sorted out in conjunction with the issues which you're referring to.  Heck, if we went back to 1984 reliability levels, I wouldn't complain .  Funnily enough, I was reading Autocourse 1984 the other day.

I've talked about the issues pertaining to reliability and aero before, but I concur that the cars have to be less bullet proof and be redesigned, so that aero (which is very difficult and expensive for small teams to master) becomes far less critical to car performance.

That's why I generally speak glowingly of Bernie.  It's hard to take any aspect of F1 in isolation, it's a gigantic tapestry that's been woven together over many years:  much of the work done by Bernie.

It's tough to argue he's done it perfectly, but it's made a lot of people very wealthy and famous, so you've got to agree he's done a good job at the very least.

The problem is, if you start pulling at the loose threads, there's the possibility of the entire thing unravelling (I know, we normally talk of F1 as a house of cards, so excuse the change in metaphor)

At the end of the day, the cut CVC gets, the cut the teams get, the tire contracts, the cost of water bottles trackside, videos being yanked from YouTube, it all forms one massive entity that is 'F1'.  For better or worse, Bernie has to control every piece, because that's the only way to hold it together the way it is.

When he is gone, it will come apart.  The question is will his replacement try to hold it together while it comes apart, try to rebuild it as is, or replace it with something new?  (The secondary question is, will fans, teams, suppliers and owners be patient enough for any of these options?)

The strength of small teams will certainly be a key piece of the puzzle, but I put forth one further question:  before Bernie/Concorde came along, how many teams had been in F1 for more than 10 years?  And how many since?  The small teams might not be healthy, but the big teams are far healthier.  There are 9 teams in F1 that can trace their heritage back more than 17 years.  In fact, there are only 4 defunct teams in the 64 year history of F1 that lasted longer than any current team (except for the 2 'new' ones):  Real Lotus, Brabam, Arrows and Ligier/Prost.

Statistically, F1 teams are downright stable, and Bernie will do the absolute minimum to ensure there are enough teams for people to enjoy the sport.