United States Grand Prix 2014, Austin - Race 17/19
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
It's OK, Rosberg will fly off the track at some point.
Just a thought, it's not a single agreement any more is it? The overarching Concorde agreement expired about 2009ish. All the teams now how individual contracts with FOM.
So it really isn't that easy to change any more. The teams wouldn't agree to a single agreement, so have individual ones, and now that makes it very difficult for FOM or FIA to impose a change.
Thinking about it that way, the big teams really do have Bernie and FOM by the balls with this. There is litterally very little they can do.
Perhaps if the teams had agreed to a single agreement it would be better... maybe the teams need less power in F1? They define the money split, the regulations, the engine rules. Perhaps the FIA should grow a pair and take back its own sport?
So it really isn't that easy to change any more. The teams wouldn't agree to a single agreement, so have individual ones, and now that makes it very difficult for FOM or FIA to impose a change.
Thinking about it that way, the big teams really do have Bernie and FOM by the balls with this. There is litterally very little they can do.
Perhaps if the teams had agreed to a single agreement it would be better... maybe the teams need less power in F1? They define the money split, the regulations, the engine rules. Perhaps the FIA should grow a pair and take back its own sport?
Only just saw this, but reading your reply you kind of agree with what I said, not disagree
The revenue should be distributed equally to each team regardless of who you are, and the cost of certain things, the amount of performance upgrades permitted during a season should all be limited. Thus is what Lopez was saying in the team PC.
I don't see how equally distributing revenue can be a bad thing. If Ferrari get the hump because they feel they are entitled to more just for turning up and being part of history, then they can do one for all I care.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,145
- Location
- one nation under sony
hope rosberg wins
I still think Hamilton is in with the best chance of winning this.
Only once, all season, has Rosberg managed to hold off Lewis in a fair fight and that was at Monaco where it is famously impossible to pass - in Bahrain, Canada and Japan Rosberg was on pole and Hamilton second and Lewis finisihed ahead. In Hungary Lewis started 21 places behind Rosberg and came through to beat him.
Yes, Lewis messed it up yesterday in Quali and damaged his tyres in the process but he was imperious through the practice sessions and time-and-again we've seen how much better under race conditions he is than Rosberg.
Only once, all season, has Rosberg managed to hold off Lewis in a fair fight and that was at Monaco where it is famously impossible to pass - in Bahrain, Canada and Japan Rosberg was on pole and Hamilton second and Lewis finisihed ahead. In Hungary Lewis started 21 places behind Rosberg and came through to beat him.
Yes, Lewis messed it up yesterday in Quali and damaged his tyres in the process but he was imperious through the practice sessions and time-and-again we've seen how much better under race conditions he is than Rosberg.
Only just saw this, but reading your reply you kind of agree with what I said, not disagree
The revenue should be distributed equally to each team regardless of who you are, and the cost of certain things, the amount of performance upgrades permitted during a season should all be limited. Thus is what Lopez was saying in the team PC.
I don't see how equally distributing revenue can be a bad thing. If Ferrari get the hump because they feel they are entitled to more just for turning up and being part of history, then they can do one for all I care.
Distributing all the revenue evenly might help, but it won't solve it. F1 does not make money. Its always going to, on average, cost more to compete than teams make.
Top teams show you can easily spend $300m. Imagine if everyone spent that. They wouldn't all win, there would still be someone coming last. The the structure of the sport would be the same, but now it costs $3.3bn (11 teams) to put on the F1 show, compared to $1.4bn (11 x the current average budget of $125m).
My point is you can't fix the fact F1 costs too much by just giving the teams more money. If a crack addict is robbing shops to fund his addiction, do you just give him the money to buy the crack instead, or send him to rehab?
Distributing the revenue differently needs to be considered, but its only the start. At the moment there seems to be this feeling that all FOM would need to do is share the money our evenly and everything will be magically fixed, but it won't.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,958
Agreed, Hamilton is lighter on fuel and his tires. I wonder if he has gone for a better race setup over one lap pace for quali.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Only just saw this, but reading your reply you kind of agree with what I said, not disagree
The revenue should be distributed equally to each team regardless of who you are, and the cost of certain things, the amount of performance upgrades permitted during a season should all be limited. Thus is what Lopez was saying in the team PC.
I don't see how equally distributing revenue can be a bad thing. If Ferrari get the hump because they feel they are entitled to more just for turning up and being part of history, then they can do one for all I care.
Equally distributing money happens in no other sport. If there is equal distribution what incentive is there to win? Not a financial one for sure. There is a reason that distribution of money is not equal in most sports, it's to give teams incentive to improve. If Caterham/Marussia got the same money as Williams from but they would get the same money even if they came 5th in the constructors championship, then you face a situation where just competing, then saving any extra cash turns into profit. They become safe, have little incentive to improve and can turn to chasing profit rather than speed. You need in any sport a mechanism by which the worst teams leave and new teams come in to be given a chance. Has Toro Rosso ruined F1, has having effectively a B team made the racing crap?
Don't forget that Caterham have frequently received around the same level of earnings as Williams, Sauber, TR of late yet it's the sponsorships where those other teams make the difference in overall budgets, not earnings direction from F1 revenue.
In football you have relegation/promotion to deal with those that try to compete and fail and to give new teams a chance to do so. If Caterham/Marussia can't compete what is the point of them being there?
Budgets are difficult to compare because well Merc/Ferrari build engines, Red Bull don't, Mclaren don't, so those two pretty much spend around 100mil more than Red bull or Mclaren.
As for Glaucus, spending X amount more to be 6 seconds faster than GP2... wow, what a ridiculously pointless comparison. Completely different cars, one is designed to do races that are double the length, carry enough fuel to complete that longer race, actually last through the races and conserve tires over a much much longer distance.
Then in terms of the actual budget difference, again Ferrari/Merc budgets at that level include developing engines, take out engine development costs and the difference is MUCH smaller than you're suggesting. You're also comparing an older GP2 series with a completely new spec engine/series effectively. The cars will gain speed like during any period of regulations. Also suggesting that 6 seconds difference is small is pretty ridiculous in and of itself.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It's almost a certainty, it was clear since Rosberg has been at Mercedes, against Schumy he clearly had a quali focused setup with Schumy often looking better in the race. Against Hamilton last year and this year, Hamilton eats him alive in races but it's closer in quali. Hamilton qualifies on a car setup for the race and does exceptionally well, Rosberg qualifies on a car setup for qualifying and does okay(he loses often and the gaps are usually very small when he does beat Hamilton in qualifying) but is almost universally slower in races. That strategy of being faster in qualifying but not in race has worked pretty much once now, at Monaco, because of the track. Again Hamilton stuck to his exhaust but there was just no where to pass against a similarly good car.
There was a concorde agreement signed last year - runs through to 2020.
http://www.fia.com/news/concorde-agreement
I don't think the spit of FOM money is in the Concorde agreement any more. All the teams have individual contracts with FOM.
And regarding drunkenmasters long point, the joy and excitement Marussia and Bianchi had in scoring those 2 points in Monaco is entirely down to the extra prize money that wins. If you remove any prize for any position other than 1st, what does that do to the WCC? We have seen epic battles late in the season over 6th and 7th in the WCC. McLaren and Force India are currently battling over their places. If you give them all the same, why would they bother? It nullifies the whole WCC.
Just lol, extra fuel, twice the distance is not 300million, 300million, do you realise how much that is. Mainly because of over restrictive rules, which means you need to spend 20million for say 0.1seconds of aero, which is not relevant development for anyone.
Money shouldn't be split equally, but it should be split more.
And no, in no world can you say team budgets are much closer they simply aren't.
The new teams where expecting 40million cap, it costs 70million just to turn up. And big teams can and have spent well over 3000million.