The problem with Formula one?

[DanJR1]

I just had a thought. Formula one is trying to cut costs right? so more teams can compete on level terms. Now they are talkin about using standard parts but the rich teams will still use their money on other things (3rd wind tunnel etc) so the only way i can see Formula one cutting costs and making it more exciting is cutting the amount of races greatly to say 4 or 5 a year. Then the special event that a formula one race is would be enhanced but then the amount of money the teams could get from sponsership would fall so it would require less money to compete. the teams simply wouldnt be able to spend as much as before. The drivers could then all drive in other series throughout the year and become multi disipline champions rather than just formula one champions. just a thought

[Raglanparade]

Ive often thought the same. But i think 5 races is a little too little.

I think the ideal world championship should be between 10 and 12 races.

Also, the cars shouldnt be allowed to be updated mid-season. This stops McLaren and Williams developing B-spec cars. You have less updates, you save costs.

There should be a rule that the car you enter at the first race of the season is the car you have to race for the whole year.

The main cost is not with the cars themselves, but with all the personell the teams have. Does Ferrari really need 400 people to build 2 cars ??? No !!

They should limit teams to 40 Staff (Including Pit Crew and Drivers).. Teams that build there own engines (Ferrari and Toyota are allowed 50 Staff)..

Imagine the cost savings if that happened.. anyone else who the teams wanted to us could not be payed... hence you would have volunteers who are F1 enthusiasts maybe helping Ferrari here and there..

You cut the opporturtinity to develop the car race by race, and make them keep the same one all season... and you slash the allowable amount of team personell, and suddenly, the cost is a lot less.

[Skam85]

That could work. I like the idea about no updating of a car throughout the season, but unfortunately it would be nigh on impossible to get all the teams to agree on that. Look at McLaren last year to know why no one would agree. Minardi probably would but that's about it.

As for the volunteers, I'm not sure that would be a good idea, security-wise. But sure, limit staff too maybe 80-100.

[SetikX]

The problem with f1 is we are looking down the throat of perhaps the greatest season of the last decade, and your all still whining? F1 is fine. Ferraris dominance maybe diminishing the lay viewer, but F1 never has been about popularity.

I say people should stop making new rules to better f1, and let the old rules, evolve. Its a fact, that with the old rules, one teach reaches dominance, then they slip, another team reachers dominance, then it slips. With all these rule changes, we dont let ourselves enjoy the wait for more good times.

Im tired of reading threads like these, I really am.

[N I Tram]

So you think a Formula 1 engine can be designed, built and maintained by 10 people?

A better route to follow would be to have more races and less testing, as well as restriction on upgrades and technology. NASCAR has 36 races a season, and even the relatively-small CART and IRL have tended to have between 14 and 20. There's no way F1 should cut off some of its promising or traditional markets.

[Super Tourer]

Originally Posted by DanJR1

I just had a thought. Formula one is trying to cut costs right? so more teams can compete on level terms. Now they are talkin about using standard parts but the rich teams will still use their money on other things (3rd wind tunnel etc) so the only way i can see Formula one cutting costs and making it more exciting is cutting the amount of races greatly to say 4 or 5 a year. Then the special event that a formula one race is would be enhanced but then the amount of money the teams could get from sponsership would fall so it would require less money to compete. the teams simply wouldnt be able to spend as much as before. The drivers could then all drive in other series throughout the year and become multi disipline champions rather than just formula one champions. just a thought

It makes a good theory, but cutting races by that extent would work out more expensive in the end. Team like Williams, which are a pure race business, couldn't fund 12 months costs out of the income from 4 or 5 races.

Their core costs like people, premises, investment in technology, etc would still tick away over the course of the year. It's works out much worse financially pro rata. All you are doing is actually reducing the teams incomes and assuming that costs will fall by the same or a greater amount.

Manufacturer teams wouldn't consider it a viable series either.

I believe that we are actually coming towards the end of the major spending cycle. If we add to this that the 'new F1' will bring more money to the teams either via BE or the GPWC (or whatever merges from the two) and things like one make tyre supply will dramatically cut test costs.

The fact that no new manufacturers have come into F1 despite the virtual 'give away' that Jordan and Jaguar were, and that of the current big spenders at least two of those are uttering the first words about cost v results - add in the general state of the car market and absence of many major new sponsors on cars launched so far (RBS aside) and you have a natural heading towards cost reduction.

[Inigo Montoya]

I'll repeat what I have said before. IMHO, F1 is for big teams, with lots of money. its not *meant* to be cheap to run an F1 team. To use the cliche, its the pinnacle of motor sports. If the smaller teams cannot compete, so be it. There are plenty of other cheaper racing series they can compete in.

[Gabrio]

I agree that F1 is not meant to be cheap. However we have entered such a period of inflationary costs, that F1 will only be viable if there are no social problems with the manifacturers involved in F1. How would Daimler-Benz or BMW or Renault explain that they are spending hundreds of millions on F1 while having to lay off people? That is what drove Renault out of F1 a few years ago and it may happen to any manifacturer. That is why it is absolutely necessary to drive costs down.

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by Gabrio

I How would Daimler-Benz or BMW or Renault explain that they are spending hundreds of millions on F1 while having to lay off people?

Fiat has no trouble explaining their interest in F1, despite the terrible shape its in. I do agree with you that costs are very high, but its what the business demands.

If it really gets to the point that manufacturers can't afford it, they will stop bickering over the details, get serious, and work together to lower costs. Until then, I can't help thinking that many of the measures being discussed to reduce costs are really just to "shake up" F1 in the hopes that the men and women from Maranello stop making fools of the rest of them.

[Knowlesy]

Well if costs didn't need to be cut, teams wouldn't be going to the wall....

[Inigo Montoya]

Are they really serious though, knowles? I am not so sure. Pretending to cut costs while introducing a new engine format? That's not cheap, and there are other ways of slowing down the cars...

[Super Tourer]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Fiat has no trouble explaining their interest in F1, despite the terrible shape its in. I do agree with you that costs are very high, but its what the business demands.

Fiat's contribution to Ferrari's F1 budget is negliable.

Ferrari exists in F1 almost entirely on outside sponsorship, if they had to rely on Fiat for funding it would be game over for Ferrari and F1.

To put this into figures - according to the 2004 budget figures I have - out of a total Ferrari budget of $336M - Fiat's input was $10M of which $4M was non cash and $6M was cash.

If we assume that the $4M is a figure put on 'trade support'- only $6M cash out of the $336M budget came from Fiat.

[Knowlesy]

This is true Inigo.....

Most of the teams couldn't give a toss anyways could they?

But costs do need to be cut to, at the very least, stop the upward spiralling.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

I'll repeat what I have said before. IMHO, F1 is for big teams, with lots of money. its not *meant* to be cheap to run an F1 team. To use the cliche, its the pinnacle of motor sports. If the smaller teams cannot compete, so be it. There are plenty of other cheaper racing series they can compete in.

Absolutely correct. Over the last 54 years, automobile manufacturers have played a major role. It is the exception, rather than the rule, when a kit car constructor has been successful.

[Inigo Montoya]

[QUOTE=Super Tourer
To put this into figures - according to the 2004 budget figures I have - out of a total Ferrari budget of $336M - Fiat's input was $10M of which $4M was non cash and $6M was cash.

If we assume that the $4M is a figure put on 'trade support'- only $6M cash out of the $336M budget came from Fiat.[/QUOTE]

These are startling figures that I was not aware of. Do you have a source, ST?

Thanks

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Gabrio

I agree that F1 is not meant to be cheap. However we have entered such a period of inflationary costs, that F1 will only be viable if there are no social problems with the manifacturers involved in F1. How would Daimler-Benz or BMW or Renault explain that they are spending hundreds of millions on F1 while having to lay off people? That is what drove Renault out of F1 a few years ago and it may happen to any manifacturer. That is why it is absolutely necessary to drive costs down.

Funding Formula One or anything else is like funding research. Money is fungible. Employment figures for various groups vary over time, regardless of funding for racing, development, research, etc.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

This is true Inigo.....

Most of the teams couldn't give a toss anyways could they?

But costs do need to be cut to, at the very least, stop the upward spiralling.

As Banjo Mathews said, "Racing costs money, kid. How fast do you want to go?" Costs will always increase unless we enter a period of deflation of the currency.

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally Posted by Gabrio

I agree that F1 is not meant to be cheap. However we have entered such a period of inflationary costs, that F1 will only be viable if there are no social problems with the manifacturers involved in F1. How would Daimler-Benz or BMW or Renault explain that they are spending hundreds of millions on F1 while having to lay off people? That is what drove Renault out of F1 a few years ago and it may happen to any manifacturer. That is why it is absolutely necessary to drive costs down.

I'd completely agree with this. Ford have already gone, and Toyota must be only one year away from contemplating going to supplying engines only.

As for private teams not generally being successful, how about Cooper, Lotus, Brabham and Williams, all of which took their first titles without any manufacturer support - primarily through individual engineering genius and racing passion. I know F1 is expensive, but above all it should be for the best, not the richest. You can talk about how there are other cheaper forms of racing, but how much respect do you really give those? Most people don't regard champions of various Indy/Touring/Sportscar champions as highly as F1 champions, often citing the lack of technology in those series. You can't have it both ways.

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Most people don't regard champions of various Indy/Touring/Sportscar champions as highly as F1 champions, often citing the lack of technology in those series. You can't have it both ways.

My point exactly Boots... You can't have it both ways. Technology IS expensive. If you want to compete with the big boys, you have to be one of the big boys. The examples of teams you cite winning without big manufacturing support are from ages ago... in a time when technology was less expensive. Those days are gone... no matter how nostalgic we might feel.

The fact is if you want the highest tech, you need the highest dollar. Just look at some of the suggestions at reducing costs - one tyre manufacturer, standardized parts, etc... these will all serve to reduce the technology... and make F1 more like the "lower" series.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

As for private teams not generally being successful, how about Cooper, Lotus, Brabham and Williams, all of which took their first titles without any manufacturer support - primarily through individual engineering genius and racing passion.

Cooper took its first title in 1959, long before Formula One became big business.

Lotus took its first title in 1963, also long before Formula One became big busineee.

Brabham took its first title in 1966, with a close association with Repco.

Williams first title was 1980, as a more modern age of racing was dawning. 1980 was also an interesting year, in that 8 of the top 10 finishers in the championship were kit cars powered by the great FORD DFV. 1980 was in many ways, a fluke.

However, all of these championships came at least 25 years ago, before the modern era of commercialization of Formula One.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by agwiii

As Banjo Mathews said, "Racing costs money, kid. How fast do you want to go?"

All very well, but if costs carried on spiralling and we were left with two teams I think you'd be pretty unhappy about it.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

All very well, but if costs carried on spiralling and we were left with two teams I think you'd be pretty unhappy about it.

Is that your prediction? Two teams left standing when the music stops?

Technology costs money, and is the way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Knowlesy]

No, my prediction is we'll have a stable number of teams because one day costs will be cut.

A forlorn hope of mine!

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

No, my prediction is we'll have a stable number of teams because one day costs will be cut. A forlorn hope of mine!

Over the last 54 years, we've had a relatively stable number of teams. Some come and disappear. Some come and go. Ferrari has the best record of stability.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

My point exactly Boots... You can't have it both ways. Technology IS expensive. If you want to compete with the big boys, you have to be one of the big boys. The examples of teams you cite winning without big manufacturing support are from ages ago... in a time when technology was less expensive. Those days are gone... no matter how nostalgic we might feel.

The fact is if you want the highest tech, you need the highest dollar. Just look at some of the suggestions at reducing costs - one tyre manufacturer, standardized parts, etc... these will all serve to reduce the technology... and make F1 more like the "lower" series.

The two greatest failures of Formula One over time have been efforts to slow the cars, followed by efforts to reduce costs.

If we want inexpensive racing, we'd stay with Fomula V/Ford/Renault/Saab/etc.

If we want to take the cars out of the equation, IROC would be popular.