Bernie returns F1 to survival of the fittest

[vintly]

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.

[Jericoke]

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. 

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

[Scott]

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.

[Jericoke]

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.

[John S]

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. 

 

[cosworth151]

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. 

[Jericoke]

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. 

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.

[Scott]

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. 

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.

[Irisado]

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.

[Jericoke]

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.

[F1fanaticBD]

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 

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.

[markfarrell9572]

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.

[John S]

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. 

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.   

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.   

[Irisado]

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. 

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. 

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.

[Jericoke]

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.