Italian Grand Prix 2015, Monza - Race 12/19

Sparky-F1 said:
F1 is an expensive sport to reach the top. We crash tested so many noses to comply with the new regs it was insane. To have the best chance to succeed you have to throw money at it, its not nice to be a smaller team but, thats what it is. this is why I have stated that the divide in prize money between the top well funded teams and the lower ranked smaller teams should be closer. Like it or not, it is all about money. We once spent 300k hiring a jet to fly to Japan and painted a nose assembly on the way, that is insane but if it gets you more points it is what you have to do.
Click to expand...

Any chance you could say how many you tested, there was some pretty out there rumours about numbers of noses RBR tested. I think the crazy one was like 50-60, after that, it's been ages but I guess people were saying 12-15.

AS you say, F1 isn't cheap, it will never be cheap, but securing(as my previous post) a fair chunk that the lowest teams can at least count on and work to as a budget. This situation where you need say 70mil to even take part in a season but the bottom teams can barely get 40-50mil and being 11th rather than 10th means losing 30mil of funding isn't sensible.
 
So you could split more of the prize money and give the teams an extra $10m, and still have massive field spread and teams going bust, or you could allow customer chassis and save the smaller teams $50m+.

Spending thousands on developing nose cones is less stupid if its being used by 3 teams rather than 1.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Any chance you could say how many you tested, there was some pretty out there rumours about numbers of noses RBR tested. I think the crazy one was like 50-60, after that, it's been ages but I guess people were saying 12-15.

AS you say, F1 isn't cheap, it will never be cheap, but securing(as my previous post) a fair chunk that the lowest teams can at least count on and work to as a budget. This situation where you need say 70mil to even take part in a season but the bottom teams can barely get 40-50mil and being 11th rather than 10th means losing 30mil of funding isn't sensible.
Click to expand...

Was less than 50 , more than 20.
 
Skeeter said:
So you could split more of the prize money and give the teams an extra $10m, and still have massive field spread and teams going bust, or you could allow customer chassis and save the smaller teams $50m+.

Spending thousands on developing nose cones is less stupid if its being used by 3 teams rather than 1.
Click to expand...

This even further discourages new teams to make new cars. It means literally every single car aside from the big teams can only ever be a most likely slightly gimped copy of the 3-4 main cars.

Currently if you had customer cars you'd have Williams spending what 100-150mil making their car and being spanked, literally spanked by Manor running Ferrari B spec car while spending 60-70mil to do it. The only way Williams could survive would to become a customer team, same for TR, Sauber, Manor, Caterham, HRT, Lotus(currently maybe less so if Renault do buy them).

You'd have Merc and mini Merc 1 and 2, Ferrari and mini Ferrari 1 and 2, RBR and mini RBR 1 and 2. It would be infinitely worse and a new team would have absolutely no chance ever of coming in, building their own car and coming anything other than dead last by a huge margin.

If you limited each big team to a single customer car, then the 4 richest teams would effectively team up with Merc, Ferrari, RBR and... Mclaren(maybe in the future), with the remaining teams never able to bridge the gap.

Customer cars would utterly ruin F1, completely, it would turn it an almost spec series.

imagine if at Monza you had Merc 1-2, then Williams in a Merc car 3-4 but 10 seconds behind. Ferrari 5-6 25 seconds down on Williams, with Sauber/Haas 10 seconds behind them, RBR another 10 seconds down and TR 10 seconds behind them.

Every race would be a procession AND teams that wouldn't fight each other. You'd have Williams running interference for Ferrari, etc all the way up and down the grid.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Any chance you could say how many you tested, there was some pretty out there rumours about numbers of noses RBR tested. I think the crazy one was like 50-60, after that, it's been ages but I guess people were saying 12-15.

AS you say, F1 isn't cheap, it will never be cheap, but securing(as my previous post) a fair chunk that the lowest teams can at least count on and work to as a budget. This situation where you need say 70mil to even take part in a season but the bottom teams can barely get 40-50mil and being 11th rather than 10th means losing 30mil of funding isn't sensible.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I am saying the divide in prize money is wrong. F1 is not something you can muster up a few million and expect to get a 60m payout, it has never been that way but, if you are an established team and you are competing year in year out you should get a bigger slice.

Even if it is just enough for you to stay in the black, keep employing people and hope for a better season. Nobody wants to see 3 teams getting all the wins, [cant believe i am saying this] and i dont think anybody expects a tail end team to come up with some magic design that wins races but i think we all want to see teams able to pay thier staff and make the grid without issues.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
So you could split more of the prize money and give the teams an extra $10m, and still have massive field spread and teams going bust, or you could allow customer chassis and save the smaller teams $50m+.

Spending thousands on developing nose cones is less stupid if its being used by 3 teams rather than 1.
Click to expand...

Who said an extra 10, 2014 money each team EXCEPT last place got 42million, that is right Sauber got 42million more than Caterham. By coming last they got zero on merti whiel Sauber got another 14mil.

The second last team got 56million, Catheram got 10mil. Mercedes got 108mil.

If 1mil reduction on the merit payment all went to last place that would get Caterham 10mil, if each team took 2mil less on the equal payment Caterham would get 20mil with the others getting 40 instead of 42mil.

Small changes could make a huge difference to the bottom placed team. In 2013 I think it is Marussia took 10mil from F1, Ferrari took 210mil and 50 times as much as Marussia in sponsorship. RBR got 200mil, Mclaren 120mil, Merc 140mil, Caterham(2nd last that year) got 60mil.

How can teams survive when you get 60mil one year and work to that budget but can receive 10mil the next year, a 50mil shortfall is nuts.
 
Sparky-F1 said:
This is exactly why I am saying the divide in prize money is wrong. F1 is not something you can muster up a few million and expect to get a 60m payout, it has never been that way but, if you are an established team and you are competing year in year out you should get a bigger slice.

Even if it is just enough for you to stay in the black, keep employing people and hope for a better season. Nobody wants to see 3 teams getting all the wins, [cant believe i am saying this] and i dont think anybody expects a tail end team to come up with some majic design that wins races but i think we all want to see teams able to pay thier staff and make the grid without issues.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, as my last post with numbers, you just can't plan a team around say spending 70-100mil a year, in which one year you receive 60mil in prize money and the next you receive 10mil.

I'm actually less against historical payments than some people, I think they shouldn't be as big because Ferrari getting 90mil simply for being Ferrari when the title winners got 81mil straight up is nuts, though Red Bull getting 78mil for winning sevearl titles in a row might be a a bit unfair also. I think the historical, Ferrari and you've owned the past 3 years extra payments should be scaled back to say half and redistributed into the equal shares to also include every team.

Maybe cap all the historical/past constructors payments at say 30-40mil and put that back in to include the last placed teams in the equal share.

EDIT:- actually on the second sentence of yours, is there a feeling amongst the grid as to what Manor is up to exactly? are they trying exactly that, put a cheap team together hoping for a payout or is their a feeling they will actually be trying properly in 2016/17?
 
It is something i really would not want to get into. I feel for the workforce but also feel they knew what they were getting into when they signed up, infact i know they do as a good friend is on one of the the front right wheel guns.
 
All this talk about how the payments are split is missing the fact that the only reason it exists is because the teams couldn't come up with a single agreement they all agreed on!

Each team holds its own contract with FOM and those with good bargaining power got better deals. Any rearranging would require the teams to work together, and the suggestion of that is just laughable!
 
Youre comment on historical payments is interesting. Just because you have been in F1 a longtime entitles you to a bigger payout? How is that encouraging for a new team to sign up? Yes maybe you should get an extra payment for championships won, thats understandable. Maybe that should be restricted to a set amount because , lets face it, the teams in that position are already financially secure.
 
Skeeter said:
All this talk about how the payments are split is missing the fact that the only reason it exists is because the teams couldn't come up with a single agreement they all agreed on!

Each team holds its own contract with FOM and those with good bargaining power got better deals. Any rearranging would require the teams to work together, and the suggestion of that is just laughable!
Click to expand...

Adam I agree, I think it should be taken out of the teams hands.
 
A split from the FIA I would fully support, they have done nothing but show how incompetent they are.

But the sport needs a greedy powerful presence to run its commercial side, and the teams shouldn't be involved. The fact the teams are involved in anything (like the rules) is just causing issues and delays that could kill the whole sport.

The regulator should lay out the rules, the promoter lays out the show, and the teams decide if they want to play or not.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Customer cars would utterly ruin F1, completely, it would turn it an almost spec series.
Click to expand...

I t would become much like WTCC, where Citroen produced a car which is dominating, and one other team (Mehdi BENNANI) bought a Citroen and has more wins and podiums than other teams who have their own cars.

I think the only way to make customer cars workable would be to seperate customer chassis and customer engines, and ensure no chassis manufacturer uses their own made engine.
Let's say 4 teams make a chassis (e.g. Ferrari, Merc, RBR and Mclaren), and 4 companies make engines (e.g. Renault, Honda, Ford and VW).
That way one team making a chassis has no more of an advantage because they still have to make the correct decision on what engine to use.

I know this would never happen as Ferrari and Merc will never use someone else's engine and would leave before that happened, but it would at least in part get around some of the issues DM noted because you could end up with the same chassis with different engines, and different chassis with the same engines.
 
The way I look at it is imagine how much closer the racing would be if you had a field of 24 made up of 6 each of Mercedes, Ferrari, Williams and Red Bull chassis. Rather than the current field spread now of 5+ seconds and at least 2 or 3 teams serving no purpose at all at the back, you get a much closer grid, and much cheaper costs.

It requires a seperation of Team from Manufacturer, but then you could have people making chassis who don't run their own team. So Lola and Honda make chassis, and Force India buy each, bolt them together, and go racing. The World Constructors Championship turns back into a World Teams Championship.

Its happened in the past fine, why couldn't it happen again? It wouldn't be a spec series at all as there would be multiple manufacturers. What it would be is aligned to every other single seater series in the world. No other series forces each team to build their own chassis.

There are teams in F1 who want to be seen as constructors, but then there are others who really couldn't care less. Do you think Force India really care if they make their chassis or if they bought one? For those who want to build cars, let them, and let them then sell them to those who don't.
 
I think that can only happen if they open things up more with regards visibility and secrets.
If Merc or Ferrari make a chassis or engine, there is no way they are going to provide it to another team for them to beat them, financially that makes no sense. There will always be things developed that do not get passed on, or the builder will always have an advantage because of extra data found during design.
Have it so everyone can see what each team is doing, then cross development will improve, and teams are less likely to be able to streak ahead for so long like RBR did and Mercedes are doing.
 
Which is exactly why I said separate teams from manufacturers. Your scenario isn't an issue if Mercedes make engines and chassis but don't own a team.

HRT effectively did this by outsourcing their chassis the first year (was it Dallara?). There's people out there who are specialists in making race car chassis, and there are specialists in running successfully race teams. F1 tries to force only people who are both to compete at the top. Remove the Factory/Customer team situation and the playing field gets much more even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom