Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Formula 1 - F1 - Current Season Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Formula 1 - F1 - Current Season Discussion - Page 131

post #1951 of 2507
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joffrey View Post

Why quit? They want to be in F1 but under fairer terms. Perfectly fair demand.

On the bolded, Why are blue flagged cars suddenly a problem? f1 has always had slower cars well behind the pace. Not to mention they offer an opprtunity to give young promising drivers a spot in the sport.

Quit because its unfair.

I'd rather see young drivers in a 5 car team where you can really weight them up against #1 drivers.
post #1952 of 2507
so what happens when mercedes or renault with 4-5 cars each drops out of the sport? Where do 10 cars come from?
post #1953 of 2507
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joffrey View Post

so what happens when mercedes or renault with 4-5 cars each drops out of the sport? Where do 10 cars come from?

Dunno, not trying to fix the world, just sharing what I'd like to see in a race. F1 needs some huge ass overhauls, perhaps a closed club of 5 mfgs, say Honda, Ferrari, Merc, Renault and X, I'm sure they wouldn't have a lack of bidders. Just force teams into a 10 year commitment. Fuck limited budgets. Factory teams only. Fuck engine size, fuck it all. Let's see cars accelerate at 3g and corner at 6. Lets see drivers earn those millions and really risk it, like MotoGP guys do.

F1 has become a pussyfest, and it's boring.
post #1954 of 2507
One of the reasons I don't think even money distribution is a good idea is because I think the smaller teams have some blame in the reason they are not in a good situation. Sure, the system is rigged so that the better performing teams get more money, but that just means you have to spend more upfront in order be successful, then you can be one of the top teams eventually and reap the rewards. I think the reason why Bernie is reluctant to give in to the smaller teams is because in a way the smaller teams are asking for upfront payment on their future success.

Also if you look at the money distribution figures, the middle teams like Force India are actually getting pretty decent money. Sure it's not anywhere as much as the top teams, but not insignificant either. I think the small teams are trying to spend pennies (exaggerating a little here) to get big money, when they should be spending everything they can even if it means losing money for a while to get to the top.

Not saying the current system is good, just pointing out the other side that the smaller teams are not all that innocent either.
post #1955 of 2507
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post

One of the reasons I don't think even money distribution is a good idea is because I think the smaller teams have some blame in the reason they are not in a good situation. Sure, the system is rigged so that the better performing teams get more money, but that just means you have to spend more upfront in order be successful, then you can be one of the top teams eventually and reap the rewards. I think the reason why Bernie is reluctant to give in to the smaller teams is because in a way the smaller teams are asking for upfront payment on their future success.

Also if you look at the money distribution figures, the middle teams like Force India are actually getting pretty decent money. Sure it's not anywhere as much as the top teams, but not insignificant either. I think the small teams are trying to spend pennies (exaggerating a little here) to get big money, when they should be spending everything they can even if it means losing money for a while to get to the top.

Not saying the current system is good, just pointing out the other side that the smaller teams are not all that innocent either.

Cash is king in F1. You are a second off he pace with 30m less in your budget. While Force India does ok, a couple of podiums in a season isn't exactly success either.
post #1956 of 2507
...but even if they received equal distribution, there is no guarantee they would spend it on R&D and close the gap. Maybe they would just fill their pockets and still be mid-fielders. I think that is the reason Bernie is not giving in...the teams have to prove themselves first.
post #1957 of 2507
Thread Starter 
I highly doubt this is the reason Bernie shafts small teams.
post #1958 of 2507
Why? What's the difference to Bernie if the total payout distribution is the same whether he gives more to the small teams or not? For example, if there was even distribution, a team like Haas could come in and spend pennies, run in the back and make a big profit for themselves. There is no guarantee that just because teams get more payout that they will strive to become better companies, spend much more on R&D, etc. For all we know, maybe teams like Sauber have been filling their pockets along the way when they should have been investing everything they have back into the company (just speculation, but possible).
post #1959 of 2507
Unequal distribution killed FOTA and also locked in "big teams" when CVC was planning an IPO. Both were to his advantage (it was merely convenient that it happened to be to the big teams' advantage too). Simple. Bernie will do whatever it takes to stay in power. If it happens to be good for the sport, great. Otherwise tough shit. The sport will get overhauled after he dies. OR if the EU Competition Commission ever rules against the sport
post #1960 of 2507
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joffrey View Post

Bernie will do whatever it takes to stay in power.

This
post #1961 of 2507
Bernie uses unequal distribution to destabilize the teams and promote discord. Divide and conquer. By waving a bunch of cash in Ferrari's face, he got them to fuck over the rest of FOTA. So, that is precisely what difference it makes to Bernie.

A more equitable distribution would not lead to "welfare queen" teams who show up to collect their cash but don't try to race. As it is, the midfield and poor teams spend every dollar (and more) that they get to be as competitive as they can be. Ron Dennis just recently criticized the backmarkers for spending more than they have, in fact. Sauber is not siphoning off cash. Vijay Mallya loves F1 so much that Force India is apparently the only solvent business he has left! There are a lot cheaper and easier ways to look like a big shot than fielding a team in F1.

Here are the current payouts:



But what if you instead did something like this:




All the teams would have a decent budget and there would be ample incentive to place as highly as possible. Plus, maybe fewer pay drivers...

Anyway, apropos of this money discussion, here's FOM landing a sponsor that in times gone by would have partnered with a team:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124706/heineken-launches-major-f1-deal
post #1962 of 2507
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Anyway, apropos of this money discussion, here's FOM landing a sponsor that in times gone by would have partnered with a team:

I annoys me to no end seeing all these cars without title sponsors only to see a headline like this. You don't see title sponsors anymore because the math isn't working. This sport is basically based on advertising, so there is a parallel to draw with the decline in the quality of the show and audience. Maybe it's a repercussion of the disappearance of tobacco, but with so much technology that has emerged that would love to be associated, why hasn't it? For example, why on earth wouldn't Tesla want a sponsorship stake in formula e?

In DTM, they have sponsors up the wazoo.

Anything that challenges Bernie's financial position is met with political maneuvers. There is not a team on the grid that wouldn't blow every nickel of payout money on their cars. For Bernie, it behooves him to keep a separation of his favorites with the also-rans. If he had a truly unified constructor front to face, he'd be marginalized. So you're correct, he fucks them.

I get the idea that Bernie grew the sport, but it wasn't just him. It was the personalities, the cars, and the influx of sponsors. He happened to be there when the confluence confluenced.

Never thought I'd see the day, but my attention is more on MotoGP now than F1. Those races from MotoGP down to Moto3 are fucking fantastic.

______


In other news, it seems like Lewis Hamilton and Justin Bieber are now best friends. Does anyone want to question Lewis's douchebag cred now?
post #1963 of 2507
I don't require alignment between the lists of People I Want To Watch Race and People With Whom I'd Want To Spend Time.

The last two MotoGP races have been stellar. (I am very pointedly not spoiling them here because I don't get to see them in real time, and I don't want to set a precedent that would come back to bite me in the ass.)
post #1964 of 2507
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Bernie uses unequal distribution to destabilize the teams and promote discord. Divide and conquer. By waving a bunch of cash in Ferrari's face, he got them to fuck over the rest of FOTA. So, that is precisely what difference it makes to Bernie.

A more equitable distribution would not lead to "welfare queen" teams who show up to collect their cash but don't try to race. As it is, the midfield and poor teams spend every dollar (and more) that they get to be as competitive as they can be. Ron Dennis just recently criticized the backmarkers for spending more than they have, in fact. Sauber is not siphoning off cash. Vijay Mallya loves F1 so much that Force India is apparently the only solvent business he has left! There are a lot cheaper and easier ways to look like a big shot than fielding a team in F1.

Here are the current payouts:



But what if you instead did something like this:




All the teams would have a decent budget and there would be ample incentive to place as highly as possible. Plus, maybe fewer pay drivers...

Anyway, apropos of this money discussion, here's FOM landing a sponsor that in times gone by would have partnered with a team:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124706/heineken-launches-major-f1-deal

Good points all across and I am not disagreeing with you, but I am just saying it may it not be so simple and the teams may not be as innocent as we think they are (Bernie = bad guy and Teams = innocent seems too easy). I think we can all agree that the Ferrari special payment of $70m is totally unfair. The "others" column is questionable as well as the "CCB" which probably needs to be looked at further. If those columns are sorted out, the current system of distribution is actually pretty fair and resembles your proposal (keep in mind even under the proposal 5th place and below are all only making current midfielder income anyway, so only the bottom few teams would see a difference. It would strengthen midfield racing somewhat but not change F1 drastically from today).

Ron Denis' comments about the backmarkers may be true, but he may be indirectly defending his own team as Mclaren is essentially a backmarker now too and risks being in their shoes soon. What if Mclaren didn't have the "CCB" bonus of $32m anymore? They would have actually only made the exact same as Sauber, so if the Honda stuff doesn't work out Mclaren may be the next Sauber very quickly. It may be in Ron's interest to defend the position of teams like Sauber now that there is a possibility that he may joining their side soon.

Also we have to remember that teams like Virgin who joined F1 with a promise of more equal distribution (probably like your chart), but they basically entered spending pennies. So the theory that new teams might enter spending pennies and getting $77m income in return is not far fetched. Sure there are teams that love the sport so much and will spend everything they have, but there are also businesses that would spend the minimum they can and try to pocket the rest.

I think Red Bull is a good example. They spend everything they could to build a reputable team and now they are included in the top tier payment scheme. Other teams could do the same thing if they spend the money and resources required, but they don't have the money and will to do so, and in a way "choose" to be midfielder, try to spend as little as possible and hope they end up with $10m~20m or so in their pocket at the end of the year.

So what I am trying to say is that maybe midfielder teams are in a way aiming to be good solid midfielders. I am totally guessing, but say a team like Force India might be spending $50m and making $67m with $17m gross profit...not so good, but not bad either. By pushing for more distribution, they might not be aiming for the top positions, but just to increase that $17m profit by as much as they can to make their business stronger. So under the proposal they would make $10m more, which really isn't that much and would not put them any closer to the top even if they spent all of it, so they would aim to pocket the extra $10m or most of it.
post #1965 of 2507
re Ron Dennis, he was criticizing teams like Sauber, not defending them. His point was that McLaren never spends enough to endanger the overall operation.

You could be right about the profit-taking, but I don't think you are.

Virgin came in more on the basis of restrictions on spending than on the promise of equitable distribution of revenue. Mosley sold them a bill of goods, and by the time that was confirmed, they were already committed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Formula 1 - F1 - Current Season Discussion