Success Tax.....

[006_007]

I am sitting here with misc. ideas floating through my head at what could make F1 more interesting. The thought moves to money making F1 go round. A brief thought of salary capping the drivers at a rediculously low rate (say 2 million) so even Minardi could afford Schumacher. Nah, that will never work, so how about a success tax?

Not so much a if team x wins they get y lbs added to their cars next race, but a financial figure. If a certain team wins then x% of their winnings from that race goes to the team that finished DFL. 2nd place x% to 2nd to last etc. That could even be applied to the overall standings at the end of the year, with Ferrari giving x% of their winning purse to Minardi and so on.

OK, end of hairbrained daydreaming. back to searching what will happen between JB and BAR (who would be giving x% of their winnings to Jordan?)

[Kicking-back]

Ridiculous.

The total opposite of meritocracy.

[ASCII Man]

Thou shalt be nicer to the little 'uns.

[Kicking-back]

I like Jordan and Minardi, but if they're to be assisted it shouldn't be by penalising success.

[ASCII Man]

Touché.

[006_007]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
I like Jordan and Minardi, but if they're to be assisted it shouldn't be by penalising success.

OK, how about reducing the amount that the successful ones get and increasing the amount the unsuccessful ones receive?

The successful ones still have their increased sponsorship budgets, the unsuccessful ones will have funds that might keep them afloat. I guess once we lose Minardi and Jordan we can always watch the remaining teams have 3 cars on the grid.

I can just see the records coming in : M.Schumacher, J.Button and R.Barrichello take 6th 1-2-3 clean podium sweep for Ferrari.......

[Kicking-back]

I'd reduce the costs of competing, as Max Mosley is proposing.

I definitely don't want three-car teams.

[006_007]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
I'd reduce the costs of competing, as Max Mosley is proposing.

I definitely don't want three-car teams.

Reducing the costs of competing is a great idea, but you do not want to eliminate the advancement of technology in F1. This is what F1 is all about.

Perhaps have a system where development is allowed to the fullest. Team X can develop traction control, and use it for 3 races, but AFTER those 3 races that technology must be made available for all other teams to purchase for a reasonable cost........

OK, I will go stand in the corner now.

[Knowlesy]

I think that would be an unfair ruling to be hones 006_007.

The sport needs to be kept pure, it needs to find other ways of boosting the smaller teams performance relative to others.

But, with Max Mosley extending his tenure, ho knows?

[006_007]

Originally posted by knowlesy
I think that would be an unfair ruling to be hones 006_007.

The sport needs to be kept pure, it needs to find other ways of boosting the smaller teams performance relative to others.

But, with Max Mosley extending his tenure, ho knows?

Like I said it, it was just a hairbrained idea I had floating around that accidently slipped out onto a keyboard through my fingertips. Was not anything that I thought out for days on end, and was not my idea of the ultimate answer, more just a "what if" scenario I guess....

[Super Tourer]

All this is based on the principle that money is the deciding factor, but it isn't.

Sure Ferrari have the biggest budget, but not by much - McLaren and Toyota are pretty much in the same area, yet look at the performance differential between them.

Even better example, look at Sauber's position compared to Toyota, yet Sauber have 1/3 rd of the budget that Toyota has.

The way forward, is to reduce costs across the board to increase the viability of running an F1 team, you can't run F1 on a 'Robin Hood' mentality, in any event the FIA benefits package is a relatively small element of leading teams budget (10% or less).

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by knowlesy


The sport needs to be kept pure.....

Pure?

That's a new one on me.

What exactly do you mean by "pure"?

And "kept"?

Is F1 "pure" right now then?

Lets have your purity thesis please knowlesy..........

[climb]

Reducing costs can only oass throu testing severe limitations, on in general, every non-racing activity.
Forgetting that, the richest teams would displace all the mony saved, say, reducing engine consumption, by increasing tests worldwide.

[RWC]

I say the max moansly dartboards are a better idea

[Cougar]

Originally posted by 006_007
...If a certain team wins then x% of their winnings from that race goes to the team that finished DFL...

The winning team would just make sure there 2nd car came dead last thus paying themselves

[garcon]

What worries me is that people seriously entertain the idea of success ballast or some such. This is NOT touring cars!!

[Knowlesy]

I didn't say that F1 is pure as it is Ayse....far from it in fact. It will never be totally pure.

But it does need to be as close to pure as is possible. By that I mean no artificial means of producing new winners, no rewarding teams for doing rubbish, no trac....you get the picture.

90% purity would be nice.

[jhansen]

Ah yes, the ageless battle between the haves and the have nots. Rubbish! As pointed out, money doesn't promise success. Money always follows success. And yes, sometimes money can be used to start success, but their are tons of rags to riches stories also.

Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps Ferrari are the best because they are the best at what they do?

[Omega99]

Everyone should paint their cars red and see if it helps.

[baclightning]

It wouldn't work - just look at baseball. Baseball teams pay a "luxury tax" if their payroll goes above a certain figure, with the money distrubuted to the poorer teams.

So what happens? The Yankees have a payroll of about $60,000,000 more than any other team, pay the luxury tax as if it were nothing, and still have the best record in baseball...