The madness of unneccessary F1 costs.

[bjohnsonsmith]

In the section Autosport Says, of Autosport's article about Bernie's renewed call for 1000bhp engines, it mentions two things that stand out.

Fourth paragraph down, "Furthermore, it will be just as expensive as the current rules to work to a set of regulations that will deliver 1000bhp V8s".

Sixth paragraph down, "Teams would also be forced to design all-new cars for the return of V8s. The current 100kg fuel limit means tanks are smaller nowadays, and no longer big enough to hold the petrol needed for the old engines to last a whole race".

It looks like Bernie hasn't thought this through at all and the end result will be just expensive, probably more, as the regulations and cars are changed in order to fulfill what appears to be a whim that doesn't address F1's problems which go much deeper.

[djinvicta]

Bernie hasnt thought this through, says it all.

[wolfhound]

It's just another headline grabbing diversionary tactic from Bernie to divert attention away from F1's real problems.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

...Teams would also be forced to design all-new cars for the return of V8s.

Don't bother us with details!

Richard

[P38 in workshop]

I have a constructive suggestion.To save wasted and frivolous expenditure simply fine any team that shows up with carbon wastepaper bins $1,000,000 per bin and share the proceeds between all the teams that don't have them.It ought to focus minds on developing faster cars rather than producing tat.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Bernie was obviously not at at Silverstone last weekend where we had great racing because of Hybrid power, considerably better than that which took place in China.

Oh and there was a few of Bernie's beloved V8's in some of the cars as well. Remarkably quiet some of the V8's were as well.

Bernie continues to talk out of his rear end....

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Don't bother us with details!

Richard

Tell that to Bernie,

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by SWCRacing

The teams know it is a business. A majority of team owners, principals or sporting directors (or whatever they call themselves) have become extremely wealthy because of BCEs control of the $$$. They also know that BCE (and more than likely the lawyers that make up the vast majority of the board of F1WC Ltd) would sue them back to poverty if they breached any fundamental contract that they have in place

Unfortunately, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.....

Teams cannot be forced to compete in F1. If most of them hung together and did a rerun of the FOCA bluff, they would have leverage. Especially considering there are a bunch of classic F1 tracks Bernie has left behind, to the disappointment of many fans, and creating an opportunity for someone.

It could happen all over again, if the teams felt they were getting abused enough by the current arrangements.

[Paradise City]

Bernie hasn't thought things thru, guys!!!

People are mistakin' Bernie for being an honest fellow. He's thought things through alright. He's trying to terrorise the teams with extreme proposals so they can come to the table and "compromise" at a certain point where Eccelstone really wants them. That and a divide and rule strategy against teams who are essentially paranoid of each other, means that despite the teams having all the power - they'll be putty in Eccelstone's hands.

Maybe Eccelstone can dip into his own pile of billions and help the manufacturers bear some of the cost of these motors that he's telling them to build.

[old man]

I really do like the idea of the circuits getting together to force a rethink. True they are all in theory together in the FIA but as that involves all the world circuits the group of 20 that make up the F1 calendar would be lost in the crowd in any discussion.

If a group does exist under RWalker then they need to speak up, if not they should get together, that is, of course, a big ask!

[Mike Harte]

It's nice to dream about what might be possible if all the teams created a united front as well as the F1 circuits doing the same, but the reality is that it is unlikely to happen, certainly in the short to medium term (or while BCE remains alive and in charge of the FOM).

BCE has created a universe where all the participants have to dance to his tune, and if you/they don't, then you/they are out. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that some of his public charades are a sign of senility or foolishness; they are far from it. For example, his clowning about as he entered the Courts in London doing a 360 degree in the revolving door was designed to grab the media's attention as well as the public. If he had just stopped and issued a few words before entering the court nobody would have taken much notice. As it was, it made the national news!

The current situation he has both the teams and the circuits in the palms of his money, all due to one thing and that is money. As things stand at the moment, on behalf of CVC, he controls the purse stings, and this allows the carousel to keep trundling around (please excuse all the metaphors). He determines how much the teams receive from the kitty, whilst he does the same in reverse to the circuits. He alone makes the rules on the commercial front of F1, and if you don't abide by them or you cross swords with him, then you are out.

He basically has just one weapon upon which he relies; money. To instantly split an alliance amongst the teams, all he has to do is offer one of them (usually Ferrari) a bit more cash on the side. Immediately, there is no longer a united front. As for the circuits, it is unlikely that they would ever form an alliance because of the way that he decides which venue will pay what amount for the privilege of holding a GP. Why on earth should, for example, Monaco threaten to withdraw from the F1 calender when they don't have to pay any sanctioning fees; BCE likes to be treated like royalty by the Crown Prince and his family, and they like the money that floats in along with all the gin palaces in the harbour. And can you imagine for one minute that Putin would join in a boycott of the circus, or for that matter the various rulers of Azebaijan, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and probably some others.

BCE is well aware of this conundrum, and he exploits it. My own view is that, having not spoken to him for many years, he no longer has a true passion for motor racing, and that F1 is, to put it crudely, just a game to keep him entertained. He and his family have more than enough money to last all their, and their offspring's, lifetimes, so he is not doing it to better his lifestyle. He just enjoys being the centre of attention, and being the ring-master of the circus.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It's nice to dream about what might be possible if all the teams created a united front as well as the F1 circuits doing the same, but the reality is that it is unlikely to happen, certainly in the short to medium term (or while BCE remains alive and in charge of the FOM).

BCE has created a universe where all the participants have to dance to his tune, and if you/they don't, then you/they are out. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that some of his public charades are a sign of senility or foolishness; they are far from it. For example, his clowning about as he entered the Courts in London doing a 360 degree in the revolving door was designed to grab the media's attention as well as the public. If he had just stopped and issued a few words before entering the court nobody would have taken much notice. As it was, it made the national news!

The current situation he has both the teams and the circuits in the palms of his money, all due to one thing and that is money. As things stand at the moment, on behalf of CVC, he controls the purse stings, and this allows the carousel to keep trundling around (please excuse all the metaphors). He determines how much the teams receive from the kitty, whilst he does the same in reverse to the circuits. He alone makes the rules on the commercial front of F1, and if you don't abide by them or you cross swords with him, then you are out.

He basically has just one weapon upon which he relies; money. To instantly split an alliance amongst the teams, all he has to do is offer one of them (usually Ferrari) a bit more cash on the side. Immediately, there is no longer a united front. As for the circuits, it is unlikely that they would ever form an alliance because of the way that he decides which venue will pay what amount for the privilege of holding a GP. Why on earth should, for example, Monaco threaten to withdraw from the F1 calender when they don't have to pay any sanctioning fees; BCE likes to be treated like royalty by the Crown Prince and his family, and they like the money that floats in along with all the gin palaces in the harbour. And can you imagine for one minute that Putin would join in a boycott of the circus, or for that matter the various rulers of Azebaijan, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and probably some others.

BCE is well aware of this conundrum, and he exploits it. My own view is that, having not spoken to him for many years, he no longer has a true passion for motor racing, and that F1 is, to put it crudely, just a game to keep him entertained. He and his family have more than enough money to last all their, and their offspring's, lifetimes, so he is not doing it to better his lifestyle. He just enjoys being the centre of attention, and being the ring-master of the circus.

Agree.

Factions that agree on specific topics may form on occasion, but as a group it is hard for them to coalesce for any length of time and as you say it is easy to split alliances via promises of advantageous and unequal monetary allocations. Until this changes there is little potential for significant change in F1.

Richard

[wnut]

Yup, divide and rule!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Are we going to see 1000bhp V6s in 2017, as Wolf and the other team owners want to keep V6 hybrids?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118591

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Are we going to see 1000bhp V6s in 2017, as Wolf and the other team owners want to keep V6 hybrids?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118591

I'm not against it, but I think it's all politics.

Personally I think there are two potential political games in play...

1. To oust Todt from the FIA or certainly his responsiblity for F1 within the FIA
2. To pressurise CVC to put up or sell up

Some of this may lead to wider regs changes, no other manufacturer is going to want to enter F1 with such restrictive test and development regulations.

VAG (for example) won't want to do a 'Honda' and spend a year effectively testing and developing in public. I think ultimately we will see big changes in this area, possibly tied to a huge increase in or even adoption of a seperate manufacturer F1 entry fee.

[Moneyseeker]

On another note I can't help but feel the contrasting objectives have somewhat backed some of the way F1 operates into a corner.

Take Bahrain, here we had maufacturers running their hybrid engines, so they can talk about eco efficiency and make it relevant to their 'green' road car credentials racing at a floodlit circuit, probably the equivalent to lighting up a small town...

We know why BE requires it, but surely it is entirely opposed to the objectives and message the manufacturers are trying to achieve.

As if that wasn't daft enough, F1 is littered with a whole ream of arbitory penalties (to slow going to the dummy grid C Sainz 5 sec penalty!) that only add to the indirect costs of running a team.

Personally I'm not a great fan of gearbox or engine penalties again for the entirely contradictory message that teams are shipping hundreds of tonnes of kit and people around the globe to then face penalties for using more engines than the rules decide. None of which adds to the 'show' and merely penalises the drivers who are powerless to do anything about it.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

I'm not against it, but I think it's all politics.

Personally I think there are two potential political games in play...

1. To oust Todt from the FIA or certainly his responsiblity for F1 within the FIA
2. To pressurise CVC to put up or sell up

Some of this may lead to wider regs changes, no other manufacturer is going to want to enter F1 with such restrictive test and development regulations.

VAG (for example) won't want to do a 'Honda' and spend a year effectively testing and developing in public. I think ultimately we will see big changes in this area, possibly tied to a huge increase in or even adoption of a seperate manufacturer F1 entry fee.

You are overlooking a number of factors in the above. Firstly, as stated by Todt, at either the end of last year or the beginning of this one, he is powerless to force through changes in F1. FOM and the “top” teams have effectively emasculated the FIA as far as F1 is concerned, except possibly in matters that relate to safety where they can still impose their revised rules. However, having said that, it is amazing how many times that the FIA’s new rules seem to be rescinded over a fairly short period.
Don’t forget that CVC have to sell their entire holding in F1 by some date in 2018. This was a condition laid down by CVC’s investors when they purchased the rights initially, and is a legally binding arrangement. They have been waiting for the most advantageous time to divest themselves of their holding, but, apart from the time they were proposing to float F1 on the Singapore market (they had to shelve the float due to the Euro crisis a few years ago), the markets do not seem ready for the sale.
As for VAG, I think that they will view things as do Renault, which I address below.

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

On another note I can't help but feel the contrasting objectives have somewhat backed some of the way F1 operates into a corner.

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Take Bahrain, here we had maufacturers running their hybrid engines, so they can talk about eco efficiency and make it relevant to their 'green' road car credentials racing at a floodlit circuit, probably the equivalent to lighting up a small town...

As far as I am aware, Renault were the driving force behind the moves to replace the previous thirsty V8s with a small block ICE that was turbocharged. They wanted a straight 4, but compromised by accepting the current V6. Again, as far as I know, their reasoning behind needing to change the format was that the main board demanded that the ICE was a unit that was relevant to their production cars. I do not believe that “eco effiency” was the raison d’etre, although it may well be a side benefit. Renault stated publically, as well as in private, that they would withdraw from providing power-units if the newer format was not introduced, and the FIA caved in.

I believe that VAG’s view would in all probability echo those of Renault. As Ford, I think it was, said many, many years ago, ‘Win on a Sunday, sell on a Monday’. If manufacturers are going to invest vast fortunes in F1, they need to see some return, and from that perspective they need components in “their” racing cars to have some road relevance.

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

We know why BE requires it, but surely it is entirely opposed to the objectives and message the manufacturers are trying to achieve.

We know why BCE claims that he wants the change, but he is totally ignoring all the other ills that F1 is suffering from.

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

As if that wasn't daft enough, F1 is littered with a whole ream of arbitory penalties (to slow going to the dummy grid C Sainz 5 sec penalty!) that only add to the indirect costs of running a team.

Some may seem arbitory, however quite a few were introduced for reasons of safety, such as the one you highlight. This one was to eliminate speed differentials when the cars were not racing which had caused problems in the past. All drivers have to abide by these speed limits, and in the same way, a minimum speed requirement applies to cars returning to the pits at the end of hot laps in practice and qualifying.

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Personally I'm not a great fan of gearbox or engine penalties again for the entirely contradictory message that teams are shipping hundreds of tonnes of kit and people around the globe to then face penalties for using more engines than the rules decide. None of which adds to the 'show' and merely penalises the drivers who are powerless to do anything about it.

As for penalties for using more than the mandated number of PSUs and gearboxes, this had to be introduced to try to reduce costs, and I do not believe that it is anything to do with the “show”. In much the same way that we now expect an engine on our everyday road car to do, and here I am plucking a number out the air, somewhere in the region of 120,000+ miles without needing major work, surely we must expect a F1 unit to last at least one or two thousand miles. And the only language that the teams understand is that of the penalties. Some of them, if left to their own devises, would probably re-introduce qualifying engines, etc. But, yes, I do feel sorry for the drives, but thems the rules and they apply to all.

[Paradise City]

This is Eccelscrooge's attempt to crush the teams because they are too powerful. The FIA is already toothless.

It's all very Bernie Stalin. First, in alliance with the teams, he conquers the FIA and now with the FIA a toothless shadow, he's turned on his old pals, the teams, and wants to bring them to heel.

[MoMedic9019]

Imagine if F1 stayed mostly in Europe and ran mostly Grade 2 tracks...

F1 is dying. Bernie knows it. He's out to wring every last penny out of everyone and everything before he dies.

[wolfhound]

It seems like the idea of a budge cap has not gone away from F1.

Max Mosley has been proposing a budget cap along with much greater technical freedom. This could run as a two tier F1 those operating to the budget cap rules or those operating to the current rules.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118698

I like the idea, Autosport also has a seperate article on budget caps.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118702

[wolfhound]

I remember recently somebody posting about GP track association. I cannot remember which thread and have been unable to find it but somebody from Silverstone must have been reading it.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118701

Silkverstone is proposing such an organisation as it would strengthen their position when it comes to negociations with FOM and promotion of F1.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

It seems like the idea of a budge cap has not gone away from F1.

Max Mosley has been proposing a budget cap along with much greater technical freedom. This could run as a two tier F1 those operating to the budget cap rules or those operating to the current rules.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118698

I like the idea, Autosport also has a seperate article on budget caps.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118702

A budget cap with much more open regulations (not 100% open) is at the top of my list of where to start with fixing F1. I know it has its challenges, but I do think it could be made to work.

I think the main problem with introducing a two tier solution is that those who are winners in the current solution (Mercedes and maybe Ferrari) may be unlikely to support a alternate path that might result in cars faster than what they are producing today. For those teams they feel the money is well spent (not saying they wouldn't like to have the same results for less money!)

From the first article above...

Speaking to German publication Auto Motor Und Sport, Mosley said: "I could imagine that very soon all the teams would be in the camp of the budget cap."

The implication is that the alternate tier will (by design) produce faster cars than the current rule set, and that eventually the voluntary cap will be the only path.

If the "majority" or "super majority" rules logjam can be broken then alternative solutions can be pushed through, but until then those who like the status quo (or are afraid of trying something new) will prevent progress. I don't follow the process close enough, but can a group of the little fish coordinate and push change through, or will vetos from the likes of Mercedes or Ferrari stop something like this?

Richard

[chillibowl]

its one thing to suggest budgets caps but they are not yet suggesting a framework. wish F1 would look outside at what other sports are doing and take some ideas which work elsewhere. ive talked about this before but i like the concept of the "Luxury Tax' particularly the concept of the 'soft cap used by the NBA.

set the cap and if the big teams want to overspend let them but for every dollar they spend over the cap they have to pay a corresponding fine of the amount they are over.

then redistribute what you collect in fines and give it to the teams who operated under the soft cap number. you could even do it in a delayed fashion so that teams had time to file their financials, time to review them etc.

for example if Ferrari spent 50mil over the cap in 2016 then their fine of 50mil would come due in lets say 3 years time so 2019.

further, require the teams to be listed on a European stock exchange so that any fraudulent reporting of their numbers or hiding of expenses would carry with it the weight of European law. effectively the FIA wouldn't even have to enforce this as the necessary European institutions to police this already exists.

theoretically the smaller teams would benefit from the redistribution and the big teams could spend what they want. if you look at other leagues which employ such a scheme overspending does not result in more titles but better decision making does.

[wolfhound]

I like your suggestion Chilli but getting it through the stratagy group would be the tricky bit.

However there might be a way to get a budget ap through the system and I think Max might be the catalist.

We know that Jean Todt is in favour of a budget cap as he has tried in the past to get the idea going. However to get past the stratagy group there are a majority of 18 votes required. The FIA have six, FOM have six and the six teams involved have one each. I cannot see a majority of those teams voteing for a budget cap.
There is another possible solution. Bernie and Max are old mates going back a long way and maybe Max is trying to get Bernie round to the budget cap idea thereby Todt and Bernie voteing in favour.
The advantages for Bernie are big including:
The smaller teams will go for it as they will be able to gain advantage from it and should no longer have to be calling on Bernie for more money.
Long term it should reduce demands for more money from Bernie for all teams.
Greater technical freedom should give us more interesting and innovative cars which should be good for fans.

I don't see any major downsides to budget caps other than enforcement.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I don't see any major downsides to budget caps other than enforcement.

The original plan as proposed in the last decade, was to cap the teams' expenditure. In case they would receive more money from sponsors than they would spend, teams would simply make a profit that they could pay out as dividend to their shareholders. Third parties could thus effectively influence a team's net result. This made me think about the criticism that a budget cap would unenforceable.
Because what applies to finance, applies to the sporting as well: third parties could effectively influence a team's result. If sponsorship is allowed to improve a team's financial results, there is no reason not to allow sponsorship for improve a team's sporting results. In other words: what is the main difference between a sponsor providing financial support and one providing non-financial support? Currently, teams already have sponsors that solely or mainly supply them products and services. One could think of oil and gas companies supplying lubricants and fuel. The so-called 'works' teams were traditionally sponsored by engine manufacturers, as they were not invoiced at all or just for fraction of all costs.

In this context, one should not be afraid for teams bending the budget cap. It should be enough to demand the teams being separate entities and transparent about their sponsors. This would still create a level playing field, especially if the regulations would allow more room for creativity and intelligence. Of course, teams would still have to find sponsors, but that is a natural part of their job.