GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: John S on April 29, 2013, 07:49:16 PM
-
Only top ten teams will get end of year prize money in future. :swoon:
Since it's now 3 years since Mosley and the FIA bought budget teams in to F1 moneybags Bernie is delighted to stick the boot into the remaining back markers. Survival of the fittest >:D
Well $10 mill not spent is a nice extra profit for him and the suits at CVC. :crazy: Can't help thinking this decision just might come back to haunt FOM, if these rear end teams wither away where is the protection for the series promoter if one of the other teams calls it a day, there's a minimum grid Bernie must field - isn't there?
The team that finishes last will no longer receive any formula one income, Bernie Ecclestone has revealed.
Marussia officials have been puzzling as to why they were not offered a new Concorde Agreement for this season and beyond.
The truth now emerges: F1 chief executive Ecclestone has revealed he has scrapped the $10 million prize-money for any teams that finish the constructors’ world championship outside the top ten.
"They (Marussia) don’t have a commercial agreement because they are not in the top ten. We pay the top ten, that’s what we do," he told F1 business journalist Christian Sylt in the Telegraph newspaper.
"For three years we did something different because we had an agreement with (former FIA president) Max (Mosley) but from now on we will pay the top ten and that is it."
Ecclestone also revealed that the sport is pushing ahead with plans to float on the stock exchange.
"We have agreed to do it," he said. "It will happen this year and it will be up and running.
Nextgen-auto.com, Today.
-
I think Bernie has issued this now to ensure there is no late scrap from the Marussia lawyers for the money at the end of season.
-
I think it's a lowdown blow fitting of FOM >:D.What's 10 million
to them to keep a struggling team on the grid?
It makes me :sick:
-
Bernie has stated in the past he only needs 10 teams, and isn't particularly interested in maintaining back-markers. If the other teams have signed, I hope Marussia beats Caterham at least, just to embarrass the dwarf.
-
That's another door shut on up and coming drivers.
-
It's such a retrograde step.
It makes me really angry that Ecclestone is such a miserable little miser. It's hardly a major problem to pay out for eleventh place, and without payments outside the top ten, we'll just lose teams.
Formula 1 needs more than ten teams.
-
A terrible, stupid, short sighted idea that will do real damage to the sport. Just what I'd expect from
Gollum I mean, Bernie.
-
F1 doesn't need a team that's on the grid just to collect $10 million. It needs teams that are trying to win, constantly improving, and are financially sound.
Let's face it, if $10 million is the difference between racing and staying home, the team isn't going to be competing with the big boys anyway.
I agree that the three 'budget teams' were hamstrung from the get go (at least US GP realised it, and folded before they could embarass themselves), and there is a big barrier to entering the sport.
A gold star for perfect attendance won't fix it.
-
I'd say just the opposite. F1 needs the small teams. First, they are the traditional nurseries for new drivers. They are also the into to F1 for new fans. How many new F1 fans would there be here in the States if USF1 had gone ahead? Also, they exist for F1. As we've discussed before, the big budget manufacturers can and do withdraw at a moment's notice.
Do you really think that F1 would be a better place if it never had Minardi, Jordan, Stewart, Super Aguri, Brabham, Hesketh and so many others?
-
I agree. New fans flock to the sport every time a new team starts, especially if it is a team from a new country or at least funded from a new country (as in a country not yet involved in F1). $10m means so little to Bernie, yet so much to the small teams. :fool: :fool:
-
F1 doesn't need a team that's on the grid just to collect $10 million. It needs teams that are trying to win, constantly improving, and are financially sound.
Let's face it, if $10 million is the difference between racing and staying home, the team isn't going to be competing with the big boys anyway.
Its not just 10 million Jeri, its a cushion of 10 million for the team. You may raise your money from sponsor, pay drivers and many other methods and can spend it with a 10 million cushion, which makes a whole lot of difference to that team. So instead making a 8 million loss, they could make a 2 million profit, and thus ensure the viability of the team.
-
I think ten teams is fine in terms on new drivers getting into the sport. This year may be slightly unprecedented, but there are 5 new rookies on the grid. Five! The sport doesn't need anything like that, nor should it. One or two maybe.
With ten teams, there are twenty drivers. If three drivers leave the sport every two years, that equates to an average career time in F1 of 15 years per driver - which is plenty. This makes for 3 new drivers every two years. Sounds about right to me.
-
But Vintly, Bernie lured the last few teams into F1 with the promise of a more even playing field, budget limits, and of course appearance money. So when the next couple of teams pull out, I hope anyone new out there wanting to put up the money to start an F1 team reads the details and makes sure they sign at least a 10yr contract with Bernie including guarantees.
If 10 teams is the minimum, and I've heard 12 teams is the maximum, why on earth wouldn't the bottom two teams at least get appearance money? When one of the big manufacturers pulls out, isn't it better to have a one or two team cushion? I like the backmarkers being there.
-
Sometimes Bernie does something which actually makes sense if properly explained (I will explain my reasons below) but his arrogant 'dictates' explain nothing and everyone believes (on most occasions, accurately) that there is self-interest at the heart of it!
I do think there is some sense to this decision. The back-marker teams are not helping the sport.
They are not in the real race (let's face it they are generally over a second a lap off the pace, and several laps down at the end of a race); they are not a 'breeding ground for young drivers' because they are taking pay-drivers so they are just a 'breeding ground for rich drivers'; they will never catch the big teams on $10million. In effect they are in a different series to the main stream F1 and other F1 feeder series already exist so F1 does not need a two-tier race structure.
This said, I would still like to see something done to encourage the addition of more competitive teams and I suspect this will need some serious cost controls, lower cost of entry and some long term consistency to the regs.
-
Actually it wasn't Bernie who lured the new teams in, it was Max. He was the one who badgered the teams about cost control, and promised the new teams a budget cap. But why choose Caterham over Marussia? Yes they have beaten Marussia in the points (so to speak), but Marussia has been creeping closer and now that they have KERS, they seem to be fairly even. Nothing against Caterham, but I hope Marussia gets 10th this year just to embarrass Bernie. :tease:
-
But Vintly, Bernie lured the last few teams into F1 with the promise of a more even playing field, budget limits, and of course appearance money. So when the next couple of teams pull out, I hope anyone new out there wanting to put up the money to start an F1 team reads the details and makes sure they sign at least a 10yr contract with Bernie including guarantees.
If 10 teams is the minimum, and I've heard 12 teams is the maximum, why on earth wouldn't the bottom two teams at least get appearance money? When one of the big manufacturers pulls out, isn't it better to have a one or two team cushion? I like the backmarkers being there.
I don't disagree. I'm not saying there isn't a problem with the decision on various financial grounds, and on that subject I don't feel qualified (or bothered) to comment. Bernie is predictable when it comes to money, and as for even playing fields, when did that influence his decisions?
I was solely referring to the number of rookies each year, nothing else.
-
Actually it wasn't Bernie who lured the new teams in, it was Max. He was the one who badgered the teams about cost control, and promised the new teams a budget cap. But why choose Caterham over Marussia? Yes they have beaten Marussia in the points (so to speak), but Marussia has been creeping closer and now that they have KERS, they seem to be fairly even. Nothing against Caterham, but I hope Marussia gets 10th this year just to embarrass Bernie. :tease:
Seems to me Bernie was against the small teams from the start. His idea of F1 has always to be the biggest and best. The small teams just aren't that, and just don't seem to be heading in that direction either.
F1 isn't about having the biggest budget. Look how Honda did, and then look how Brawn did.
I do believe that F1 needs a healthy grid, from top to bottom. That's what Concorde was supposed to provide. A healthy team wins, or at least competes. I'd ammend Bernie's 'rule' about the top 10 getting paid. I'd adjust it so that only points scoring teams get paid.
Or gotten out of Q1 at least once.
Or completed a certain percentage of race laps.
Give the teams a goal that contributes to F1 more than showing up
-
F1 isn't about having the biggest budget. Look how Honda did, and then look how Brawn did.
Legend (or myth?) - Brawn did it with Honda's money - infrastructure. And just by the hair of his teeth thanks to no development money. No small budget team today could duplicate that, even with Newey on board.
Fine, you guys don't want track sweepers or rolling chicanes. I like bigger grids and more backmarkers. More stuff happening. There were even a few races with good challenges between the backmarkers last year and it was good fun to watch who would get 14th or whatever.
Healthy teams, top to bottom you say? Easy, redistribute the wealth, and hand over profits from paddock, race fees, and on-track advertising to the teams as well as the TV money. Put the money back into F1 (i.e. the teams) and not Bernie, Paddy's and CVC's pockets.
-
F1 isn't about having the biggest budget. Look how Honda did, and then look how Brawn did.
Legend (or myth?) - Brawn did it with Honda's money - infrastructure. And just by the hair of his teeth thanks to no development money. No small budget team today could duplicate that, even with Newey on board.
Fine, you guys don't want track sweepers or rolling chicanes. I like bigger grids and more backmarkers. More stuff happening. There were even a few races with good challenges between the backmarkers last year and it was good fun to watch who would get 14th or whatever.
Healthy teams, top to bottom you say? Easy, redistribute the wealth, and hand over profits from paddock, race fees, and on-track advertising to the teams as well as the TV money. Put the money back into F1 (i.e. the teams) and not Bernie, Paddy's and CVC's pockets.
I know that Brawn was a weird situation. Just happens to bolster my argument. I'll cherry pick facts if I want. (I personally believe they won because of the double decker diffuser. If the FIA wasn't so keen to have a 'full' grid, there's no way they'd have gotten away with it. Renault had already been told the design was illegal in winter testing.)
Alonso's championships for Renault were done with much more modest midfield budgets though.
I don't really mind the idea of redistributing wealth. That's how 'successful' sports leagues do it in North America. However, the NFL only operates in the USA, so the laws are much simpler to navigate. Even then though, teams are required to put forther a certain degree of effort.
-
The only way I can see a similar scenario to football being used is to bring a relegation rule into play, the last team on the grid must leave F1 and join GP2 whilst the top GP2 team moves up to F1. ;)
Now that should focus the minds, and hopefully performance, of both the backmarker F1 teams and the GP2 outfits. :D
-
I think Jeri was referring to the NFL. They hold a draft of new players every off-season. The teams pick in reverse order of how they finished the season, i.e. the worst pick first. The new player can only sign with the team that drafts him.
Also, the NFL divides revenues equally between the teams.
-
The only way I can see a similar scenario to football being used is to bring a relegation rule into play, the last team on the grid must leave F1 and join GP2 whilst the top GP2 team moves up to F1. ;)
Now that should focus the minds, and hopefully performance, of both the backmarker F1 teams and the GP2 outfits. :D
I love the idea of relegation/promotion, but it's my understanding that the difference between GP2 and F1 is just too wide. A GP2 team couldn't possibly compete in F1 without new everything.
Perhaps the solution is to pump up GP2. Let them run customer F1 cars, or their own design, instead of a standard chassis. Gives F1 teams a chance to sell their designs. Let GP2 use the new engines, but last all season. Then it is more possible for a GP2 team to jump to F1, or for an F1 team relegated to continue to run an F1 type programme.
-
The only way I can see a similar scenario to football being used is to bring a relegation rule into play, the last team on the grid must leave F1 and join GP2 whilst the top GP2 team moves up to F1. ;)
Now that should focus the minds, and hopefully performance, of both the backmarker F1 teams and the GP2 outfits. :D
I love the idea of relegation/promotion, but it's my understanding that the difference between GP2 and F1 is just too wide. A GP2 team couldn't possibly compete in F1 without new everything.
Perhaps the solution is to pump up GP2. Let them run customer F1 cars, or their own design, instead of a standard chassis. Gives F1 teams a chance to sell their designs. Let GP2 use the new engines, but last all season. Then it is more possible for a GP2 team to jump to F1, or for an F1 team relegated to continue to run an F1 type programme.
It would be great fun to watch the last place team in F1 fight for survival and give the top GP2 team a lot more motivation to win. But you're right Jeri, a GP2 team joining F1 would need completely new infrastructure. Customer cars would be a good answer (but also for the other backmarker F1 teams). Both series regs would need to change. I think it would also draw more F1 fans to pay more attention to GP2, especially toward the end of the season.
They do it in the Swiss hockey leagues each year. In fact there is a final 7 game series between the last place team in the A league vs the 1st place team in the B league. If the B team wins, they advance, if not, both teams stay in their respective league. There is also a stipulation that the advancing team must meet certain criteria with regards to arena seating capacity and other infrastructure details without which they won't advance anyway. It motivates the B teams to keep upgrading their arenas (our local B team has announced they will build a new arena this coming year, which would meet the A team regs - a good thing since they have won their championship twice in the past 5 years and once beat the A league team in the playoff). It could also motivate the top GP2 teams to invest more in the hope that they can advance.
They could enforce that is the ONLY way to get into F1, so if some rich guy comes along, he will have to start a GP2 team and show his mettle before advancing to the glamour of F1. Only serious buyers need apply.
-
I disagree with a number of the anti-small team points made in this thread.
For a start, let's consider that, based on how things used to be, the entire grid is competitive. Back in old days of small independents (i.e. pre-1996), you regularly had cars which were over five seconds off the pace at best, and, in the late 1980s in particularly, almost half a grid's worth of non-qualifiers. You could argue that the sport had far too many entrants back then, and some were of a very dubious calibre.
Now, the sport cannot even get a full grid. There are 26 slots, and they cannot be filled. This is immensely worrying. Not only is it fewer opportunities for the drivers, but also fewer opportunities for mechanics, engineers, new team bosses, and so on. Drivers, in particular, have to start somewhere. Just look at the world class drivers who started their careers off with a small team (Alonso, Webber, Hakkinen, Hill, Senna are five names which immediately spring to mind). This is a great opportunity for drivers to learn their craft, and impress, without being under the harsh glare of the spotlight too early, and this, to my mind, is important. Small teams can act as a proving ground for future stars. Lose them, and you lose that part of the Formula 1 chain.
Next, I find a lot of the small teams far more interesting than the big corporate teams at the top. Yes, you can argue that Formula 1 is all about winning, but it's also about doing the best job with the funds, and equipment at your disposal. Look at the failures of BAR, Honda, Jaguar, Toyota, and BMW, and you realise that these manufacturer teams often fail to deliver, and then pull out when the going gets tough, because they only care about car sales. You cannot run a sport based on the whims of car manufacturers, and without the small teams, that's the risk you run.
Think about why small teams were encouraged to join in 2010 in the first place. The sport was losing multiple manufacturers, and was facing a severely depleted grid. Is that what those of you who are against small teams want to see? I don't. The whole reason I watch Formula 1 is to follow the midfield, and back of the grid, teams, especially in this era of tedious Vettel domination.
The few remaining small teams in this modern era of Formula 1 are doing the very best they can, in the face of a set of rules which they didn't sign up to (what they were promised never materialised), and that speaks volumes to me. Even Hispania did a lot better than I thought they would, given the circumstances that the team faced.
Ecclestone is completely wrong in his approach (not for the first time), and when, in a few years time, there's another grid crisis, owing to this policy, he'll be forced to back track again, in order not to have a half empty grid.
-
I disagree with a number of the anti-small team points made in this thread.
For a start, let's consider that, based on how things used to be, the entire grid is competitive. Back in old days of small independents (i.e. pre-1996), you regularly had cars which were over five seconds off the pace at best, and, in the late 1980s in particularly, almost half a grid's worth of non-qualifiers. You could argue that the sport had far too many entrants back then, and some were of a very dubious calibre.
Now, the sport cannot even get a full grid. There are 26 slots, and they cannot be filled. This is immensely worrying.
I'm not opposed to 'small teams'.
I'm opposed to teams that are in Formula One for the money, rather than for winning.
Getting $10 million for showing up isn't helping the sport.
Bernie seems to think that anyone not helping the sport shouldn't get the sports' money.
As for 'driver development', I think we can agree that F1 has one of the strongest driver line ups of all time, and yet all WDC on the grid started in seasons that featured 11 teams.
We don't need 30 teams to have great drivers. We need great organisations that bring drivers into the sport. Minardi's organisation is still in F1, as is Jordan's, Tyrell's and Stewart's. Not to mention Williams', McLaren's and Ferrari's. They've all had a great eye for developing racing talent, and they're all still there.
Who's missing? March. Prost. Aguri. HRT. Toyota. Nothing against the people behind these organisations, but they simply couldn't survive in F1.
-
Fewer teams is never a good sign for any sports. And all the teams cannot be equal as there are infinite amount of factors are involved, and specially in F1, there will never be such deal that the revenues will be equally shared. There will always be the big shark's with major share of sponsorship, and everything while the back-markers will always be the scrap hunters. But is this good for the long term of the sports, no never :nono:
Because you need teams to keep the versatility in the sports, as well as make it a better show, and also chances of sponsors as well as drivers to be promoted. So why is Bernie being so much against such?
In my opinion, Bernie is only considering the profit of CVC and his, and perhaps the floatation of F1. I think he knows he does not have that much of days as the top of the circus. So he trying take as much as possible with him, without giving any head to what happens to this sports about one or two decade down the line.
Why do people forget that you need technical people, who will bring fresh ideas in the sports, who can start their journey in the small teams? It is not always the drivers the small teams promotes but also the mechanics, as well as other key people who may shape the face of the sports in the next decade. For them as well we need the small teams.
-
I think all teams participating in F1 should be entitled to some payout. Might be possible if CVC didn't take so large a chunk out. Marussia aren't doing a bad job, and aren't embarassing themselves, or indeed the sport. The team is made up of true racers, in the Frank Williams mould. Maybe they will never ever come anywhere close to winning a grand prix, but don't deserve to be effectively driven out because Bernie wants more cash. Marussia adds a little variety, and I'm sure even as a minnow it has a dedicated loyal bunch of fans. It also provides a training ground for young drivers. I just think that Bernie would be happy with a grid made up of ten Red bulls and ten Ferraris. Each team contributes to the show, and yet of the ten teams six are believed to be struggling for survival. No teams=no sport, no sport=no tv revenue. Maybe Bernard and CVC Capital Partners should keep this in mind.
I've loved F1, always have, it for me has been the absolute pinnacle of motor racing, however a couple of weeks ago I watched BTCC from Donnington instead of F1, just because it has that variety, there are teams and drivers that are no hopers, but they add... something. I'm not saying F1 should welcome all comers, but hard working, hard trying, ever improving teams like Marussia, like Caterham, shouid be embraced, not surreptitiously driven out. Once a team goes, the fans who supported it, and only it go too. With them fans goes tv viewing figures, and when the tv viewing figures go, so too does tv revenues.
-
It would appear this default back to the old Concorde terms by Bernie, well at least about how many teams get paid, has another sting in the tail for Marussia. Even if the struggling team finish in tenth place this year they will still get no money at season end but rivals Caterham will. :swoon:
Only a team who has acheived 10th or better in 2 years out of 3 can collect prize money, so Caterham will still get tenth place prize money for 2013 even if they finish last. Marussia face both this year and next without any funds from Bernie, and worse than that they must finish at least tenth in both years to get any in 2015. :o
It makes no difference to FOM whether Marussia sign a commercial agreement or not, which is why Bernie is not negotiating with them, all the rest have signed and so the circus rules will remain against the team. :(
The only advantage Marussia enjoy presently, as far as I can see, is an ability to consistently vote against any and all decisions that require total gird support, after all they are official participants under the FIA rules. They may just be able to frustrate enough people for Bernie to make a financial offer. However even this strategy may not have much impact as there has been moves towards majority decisions for a lot of things. ::)
-
I'm not opposed to 'small teams'.
I'm opposed to teams that are in Formula One for the money, rather than for winning.
Getting $10 million for showing up isn't helping the sport.
I can't think of a single serious small team that has ever been in it 'for the money', and most F1 projects have been serious in terms of the enthusiasm, and will to get it right, even if they didn't have enough financial backing. As a result, I'm confused as to how you are trying to define this.
As for 'driver development', I think we can agree that F1 has one of the strongest driver line ups of all time, and yet all WDC on the grid started in seasons that featured 11 teams.
Think about the number of talented drivers who may have missed out through a lack of opportunities though. Think about experienced drivers who lost their seats because so many teams need drivers who bring finance. Both of these are serious concerns for the sport's long term future.
We don't need 30 teams to have great drivers. We need great organisations that bring drivers into the sport. Minardi's organisation is still in F1, as is Jordan's, Tyrell's and Stewart's. Not to mention Williams', McLaren's and Ferrari's. They've all had a great eye for developing racing talent, and they're all still there.
They aren't all still there. Minardi doesn't exist any more (save for the factory in Faenza). It's a just a grotesque Red Bull marketing exercise run by a team principal who is extremely unpleasant from everything I've read about him. Tyrrell's culture was completely destroyed by BAR, and everything that was good about Stewart was ruined by the Jaguar corporate steamroller. I'm sorry, but I just cannot see how any of these teams live on now; indeed BAR (Honda) almost disappeared for good, and Red Bull completely changed everything at Jaguar (thankfully).
Who's missing? March. Prost. Aguri. HRT. Toyota. Nothing against the people behind these organisations, but they simply couldn't survive in F1.
Some of them could have, had the agreed budget been stuck to. Remember, small teams were supposed to receive help which they didn't get, and that's what put an end to Hispania.
The list of casualties in Formula 1 is enormous Jeri, and is it really fair to say that they all fell because they didn't deserve to be there? I don't think so.
I also agree with Mark's point about the BTCC. Yes, there are entrants who are never going to win, but this year's grid is large (27 cars), there are no really bad drivers, and there's fierce competition throughout the grid. 20 cars (which is what F1 is in danger of returning to) simply isn't enough in my view.
It would appear this default back to the old Concorde terms by Bernie, well at least about how many teams get paid, has another sting in the tail for Marussia. Even if the struggling team finish in tenth place this year they will still get no money at season end but rivals Caterham will. :swoon:
Only a team who has acheived 10th or better in 2 years out of 3 can collect prize money, so Caterham will still get tenth place prize money for 2013 even if they finish last. Marussia face both this year and next without any funds from Bernie, and worse than that they must finish at least tenth in both years to get any in 2015. :o
This only applies to new teams right John? I seem to recall that established teams would still get the payout even if they had not finished tenth for two years in a row.
Either way, it's a stupid rule, which should, in my view, be scrapped.
-
I'm not opposed to 'small teams'.
I'm opposed to teams that are in Formula One for the money, rather than for winning.
Getting $10 million for showing up isn't helping the sport.
I can't think of a single serious small team that has ever been in it 'for the money', and most F1 projects have been serious in terms of the enthusiasm, and will to get it right, even if they didn't have enough financial backing. As a result, I'm confused as to how you are trying to define this.
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.
As for 'driver development', I think we can agree that F1 has one of the strongest driver line ups of all time, and yet all WDC on the grid started in seasons that featured 11 teams.
Think about the number of talented drivers who may have missed out through a lack of opportunities though. Think about experienced drivers who lost their seats because so many teams need drivers who bring finance. Both of these are serious concerns for the sport's long term future.
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'.
Fewer teams, more champions.
If there are more teams, then sponsorship dollars are spread thin: teams need more pay drivers, not less.
We don't need 30 teams to have great drivers. We need great organisations that bring drivers into the sport. Minardi's organisation is still in F1, as is Jordan's, Tyrell's and Stewart's. Not to mention Williams', McLaren's and Ferrari's. They've all had a great eye for developing racing talent, and they're all still there.
They aren't all still there. Minardi doesn't exist any more (save for the factory in Faenza). It's a just a grotesque Red Bull marketing exercise run by a team principal who is extremely unpleasant from everything I've read about him. Tyrrell's culture was completely destroyed by BAR, and everything that was good about Stewart was ruined by the Jaguar corporate steamroller. I'm sorry, but I just cannot see how any of these teams live on now; indeed BAR (Honda) almost disappeared for good, and Red Bull completely changed everything at Jaguar (thankfully).
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.
Who's missing? March. Prost. Aguri. HRT. Toyota. Nothing against the people behind these organisations, but they simply couldn't survive in F1.
Some of them could have, had the agreed budget been stuck to. Remember, small teams were supposed to receive help which they didn't get, and that's what put an end to Hispania.
The list of casualties in Formula 1 is enormous Jeri, and is it really fair to say that they all fell because they didn't deserve to be there? I don't think so.
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'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 ;).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 GB£30 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."
-
For once, Wikipedia actually provides some pretty accurate information there :D.
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 à la Dallara and Lola.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...)
-
- apart from the fact that I loved the F5000 cars).
Now wouldn't that be something to bring back F5000 as a series. :yahoo: :yahoo: I remember them thundering round Brands Hatch in the 70's as if it was last month. :swoon:
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. :crazy:
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. ::)
-
Just for the record, I am not against smaller teams and I do want more entrants.
I did pick that up from your previous post Monty, I just didn't comment on the bits I agreed with, as that seemed unnecessary :).
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 still can't grasp how you (impersonal) decide what constitutes being way off the pace though. I cannot think of an F1 team that has been way off the pace since Lola's 1997 fiasco at the Australian Grand Prix (I discount Hispania's failures to qualify at the same event for two years, owing to the huge improvement which they made immediately afterwards).
Regarding fighting for points, I don't see how the second half of the grid can realistically fight for points very often in this era. Reliability being what it is, and circuits being so forgiving when drivers go off the track means that around 18-20 cars finish every race, and with points being awarded to the top ten alone, how is the second half of the field going to score regularly? They could be 0.1s behind the car that finishes tenth every time, and still not score. This is why I have a problem with the points mean prizes argument.
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?
I ceased paying as much attention to the races once Minardi disappeared. I often do other things at the same time, and often feel myself nodding off during races these days (and I'm not that old :D). This never used to happen in the 1990s and early 2000s when I had a team to support, because I was always keeping an eye on how they were doing.
It has become even worse since around 2009, as reliability levels have become so silly, that I can pay even less attention, and not really miss anything.
-
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?
I ceased paying as much attention to the races once Minardi disappeared. I often do other things at the same time, and often feel myself nodding off during races these days (and I'm not that old :D). This never used to happen in the 1990s and early 2000s when I had a team to support, because I was always keeping an eye on how they were doing.
It has become even worse since around 2009, as reliability levels have become so silly, that I can pay even less attention, and not really miss anything.
[/quote]
Now hold on. Part of the increased reliability was specifically to keep costs down.
Engines that lasted 120 miles were the norm, and it turned out many only lasted 100 miles. That was exciting, and expensive.
Customised breaking and suspension parts for each track, machined to just under 1/1000 an inch of what was required provided unreliable performance, and cost much more to make.
Even if Marussia gets the extra $10 million, going back to better days would cost them a heck of a lot more!
(I miss the 90s and 2000s constant cycle of development and testing to the edge too.)
By the way, did you stop watching when Minardi sold the team to Stoddart? Or when Stoddart sold the team to Mateschitz?
-
Now hold on. Part of the increased reliability was specifically to keep costs down.
Agreed, but it's the wrong way to go in my view. It also hasn't done enough to keep costs down, otherwise there would have been no talk of budget caps, and other such financial assistance for teams in the build up to the 2010 season. In other words, this idea that increased reliability is some kind of solution to the expensive nature of Formula 1 was smoke and mirrors.
Simply put, there actually needs to be budget cap, not only in terms of expenditure, but also in terms of how much can be charged to the small teams for a customer engine. Neither will happen, but that's how to level the playing field (in terms of finances) in my opinion. 'Uber reliability' is not the answer.
Even if Marussia gets the extra $10 million, going back to better days would cost them a heck of a lot more!
Without looking at budget caps, then yes it would, but as you can see, I'm suggesting doing things a different way, rather than going back to the old system as it was. I do want unreliability though, as that's actually one of the few ways the smaller teams used to be able to score - through having better reliability than the top teams, particularly at the start of a season.
By the way, did you stop watching when Minardi sold the team to Stoddart? Or when Stoddart sold the team to Mateschitz?
Neither ;).
I just paid, and continue to pay, far less attention to what goes on during a race since Stoddart sold the team. The team was still Minardi under his tenure after all, although it wasn't quite the same as it had been before.
-
Minardi was still the same spirited, punching-over-their-weight team whne they were owned by Stoddy. Now they're just a farm team for RBR.
Let me ask it this way: has anybody started to watch F1 because of the loss of teams?
Remember the old Index of Performance at Le Mans? How about a similar situation for F1. Have a second team championship based on the teams with the lowest money spent per point scored ratio.
-
Remember the old Index of Performance at Le Mans? How about a similar situation for F1. Have a second team championship based on the teams with the lowest money spent per point scored ratio.
I quite like that idea, although in view of how F1 operates, I can't see the powers that be ever agreeing to anything like this.
Another thought to cross my mind was to introduce some kind of class system. For those with long memories, when the turbos were phased out in the late 1980s, there was, in 1987, the Colin Chapman trophy awarded to the top driver/team, of the normally aspirated cars that year. While it didn't mean much, this is something which could be built on, in that teams willing to run to a limited budget, could receive prize money on a different/separate scale, independently from the top teams.
-
Remember the old Index of Performance at Le Mans? How about a similar situation for F1. Have a second team championship based on the teams with the lowest money spent per point scored ratio.
I quite like that idea, although in view of how F1 operates, I can't see the powers that be ever agreeing to anything like this.
Another thought to cross my mind was to introduce some kind of class system. For those with long memories, when the turbos were phased out in the late 1980s, there was, in 1987, the Colin Chapman trophy awarded to the top driver/team, of the normally aspirated cars that year. While it didn't mean much, this is something which could be built on, in that teams willing to run to a limited budget, could receive prize money on a different/separate scale, independently from the top teams.
Even if there isn't an official 'sub class', the teams themselves could certainly organise one. The owners could work out their own system of awards, have news conferences, driver ceremonies, sponsorships etc.
I think that fans would love this, and it doesn't need any input/control from Bernie, the FIA, or even Ferrari.
-
Well I think the unreliability and cost cutting issue can be handled simultaneously if they are handed out a budget cap for certain parts, where they have to produce certain parts within that limit, and have to run them up to certain distance. And they will fail, they will have to incur penalties. And also there must be a limitation to the updates that you can bring into your car, as because they might have banned testing, but simulator means that the teams with big budgets will keep putting unaccounted number of updates.
-
Well I think the unreliability and cost cutting issue can be handled simultaneously if they are handed out a budget cap for certain parts, where they have to produce certain parts within that limit, and have to run them up to certain distance. And they will fail, they will have to incur penalties. And also there must be a limitation to the updates that you can bring into your car, as because they might have banned testing, but simulator means that the teams with big budgets will keep putting unaccounted number of updates.
Budget caps would be impossible to enforce across the various jurisdictions of the sport, not to mention teams that routinely approach the sport's rules as obstacles to get around, rather than guidelines to live by.
(That's one aspect that Bernie is the master of, negotiating the complicated web that holds F1 together)