United States Grand Prix 2014, Austin - Race 17/19
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Maybe. But even with only 18 cars taking part I wouldn't be too certain about Sauber scoring here. Or at the remaining rounds. They've had a bloody awful year.
They have signed Ericsson for 2015, so that's answered that one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 12,614
- Location
- Northants
Indeed though Sutil qualified 10th he won't beat Vettel so they're relying on a DNF from the big 5 teams to get a point. Besides they need 2 anyway as Bianchi came 9th in Monaco.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,166
Rosberg is under pressure now, I reckon Hamilton will get him on the start.
Didnt you write kvyat off before he sat in a toro rosso?
Sector 1 is so epic. Better than maggots becketts now for me.. and ive sat there at becketts before.
I am sure they are going to be really popular with Force India and Lotus.
Yep. And I've retracted my initial stance as he has turned out to not be bad.
But nobody is going to be fooled into thinking Sauber are signing Ericsson because they think he is an undiscovered tallent. He's a cheque that needs a company car.
Sauber have reached the stage where they are more concerned with just existing in F1 rather than any desire to actually compete.
Edit: are Sauber the only team in F1 that litterally do just F1? I can't think of any other series they are in, or any other technical area or business. Every other team does something else too. Maybe Sauber are forced into "just existing" in F1 because if they didn't, they wouldn't exist at all?
Last edited:
Except the point isn't to just mindlessly hand out more money. But hey ho.
Half of the F1 prize money is split evenly over the top 10 teams (with some clauses about being in the top ten in previous years), while the other half is spread across the top 10 based on position.
Splitting it evenly would see the winner take a 30m drop while the 10th place team gets 30m more. An even spread might help a bit, but its not going to solve the issue. Someone will still come last, they will just spend even more money to do so.
Half of the F1 prize money is split evenly over the top 10 teams (with some clauses about being in the top ten in previous years), while the other half is spread across the top 10 based on position.
Splitting it evenly would see the winner take a 30m drop while the 10th place team gets 30m more. An even spread might help a bit, but its not going to solve the issue. Someone will still come last, they will just spend even more money to do so.
Last edited:
Bernie did go on about how he is constrained by regulations and contracts with the teams.
Sorry Bernie, but who was it who negotiated the contracts in the first place? And you of all people know how worthless contracts are. How many have you cancelled with circuits?
Sorry Bernie, but who was it who negotiated the contracts in the first place? And you of all people know how worthless contracts are. How many have you cancelled with circuits?
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,175
- Location
- Europe
According to Lotus you only need £130m to be able to run and be competitive in F1. For a top tier sport that isn't a huge amount. £1.3bn an you're good for 10 years. The actual investment is less than that due to the sponsorship, prize money and other income.
Sure F1 could be cheaper, but it could also do more to attract money. Some football teams think nothing of spending £130 a season. Hell even Everton need £115m a season to meet there costs and they are hardly an elite European club.
Sure F1 could be cheaper, but it could also do more to attract money. Some football teams think nothing of spending £130 a season. Hell even Everton need £115m a season to meet there costs and they are hardly an elite European club.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Do people really want an F1 in which Caterham/Marussia, who have just provided absolutely nothing to the competitiveness of the sport, nothing at all, to be financially secure and able to be in F1, doing nothing, for the next 20 years because we need a situation in which teams can't fail......... screw that.
I'm sure there are many many hard workers in those teams who are genuinely talented, but there are likely a lot of guys simply not good enough to be in F1, they aren't making good cars. Frankly if you add up all the safety car laps, the crashes with better cars, the blocked qualifying laps as they trundle around at 4mph..... they've taken more from F1 than they've given back. I'm honestly glad to see the back of them.
Teams have failed for financial and sporting reasons and left throughout F1 history. They can and should continue to do so. Let guys come in, have a stab and after a few years of being utter turd, let them fail and make way for a new team to have a go.
The idea that F1 could be made financially safe so Caterham could effectively be in it indefinitely....... what a crap "show" F1 would become.
I think one of the worst things about these back end teams is, despite having basically nothing to lose they risk absolutely nothing. Of all the teams who should be trying ridiculous new idea's, insane shaped wings or sidepods you'd think those on a crap budget who just build random crap and race it with the hope that some wacky idea happens to work great. Instead they create stunningly boring looking cars that are slow, pointless and just get in the way.
If it went the way that we had 5 teams with an A and B team, it would still be better than having utterly woeful teams at the back doing nothing.
I'm sure there are many many hard workers in those teams who are genuinely talented, but there are likely a lot of guys simply not good enough to be in F1, they aren't making good cars. Frankly if you add up all the safety car laps, the crashes with better cars, the blocked qualifying laps as they trundle around at 4mph..... they've taken more from F1 than they've given back. I'm honestly glad to see the back of them.
Teams have failed for financial and sporting reasons and left throughout F1 history. They can and should continue to do so. Let guys come in, have a stab and after a few years of being utter turd, let them fail and make way for a new team to have a go.
The idea that F1 could be made financially safe so Caterham could effectively be in it indefinitely....... what a crap "show" F1 would become.
I think one of the worst things about these back end teams is, despite having basically nothing to lose they risk absolutely nothing. Of all the teams who should be trying ridiculous new idea's, insane shaped wings or sidepods you'd think those on a crap budget who just build random crap and race it with the hope that some wacky idea happens to work great. Instead they create stunningly boring looking cars that are slow, pointless and just get in the way.
If it went the way that we had 5 teams with an A and B team, it would still be better than having utterly woeful teams at the back doing nothing.
Football has a far bigger paying audience though, is more marketable and far, far more accessible. For £15 you can have access to the same equipment and have a go yourself.
Yep, it's because they are financially secure they aren't close. It still provides seats and still provides cars. You should watch the principle press conference. All teams should be able to afford minimum entry, which they can't at the moment, just to turn up, with a car and zero development is 70million.
And the big teams spend 300million more than gp2 for 6 seconds if that.
And the teams receive 900million a year. So if it was split more equally it could provide a huge amount of the back car teams budgets.
Qmd in Norway does finically safe mean they will stay the same entity, many mid field teams who have sensible budgets stilt change hands.
Someone has to be at the back.
Or you know a crape brain fart by you, there is no reason they would be crape for 20years, when they can't afford to develop what do you expect. Oh and the other massive error which has been pointed out to you already, is there's a lack of teams rushing to buy the entries.
Last edited: