Manufacturers to blame for Honda Exit?

[PolePosition_1]

I've been obviously following the exit of Honda with detail, and reading 'expert' analysis and also reading around the message boards, and seem to see a huge blame laid on Bernie and Max for ruining everything and being cause of putting F1 in a state where Honda have pulled out.

Personally, I cannot understand this “its Bernie and Max’s fault” idea everyone is giving.

From my perspective, its 95% the manufacturers faults. They entered F1 during a boom in the global economy, they were able to walk into F1, and pour what was to them relatively small amounts of cash, and be best funded team on the grid. As more and more manufacturers joined, the cost escalated. The manufacturers have been responsible for bringing the costs up by such a huge amount.

I remember Max and Bernie saying years ago when manufacturers were pouring into F1 that it was unsustainable for Formula 1 to relay heavily on them, as manufacturers see F1 as a business opportunity, nothing else. Max has been active and upfront about the need to cut costs, but obviously with manufacturers having biggest budgets, they have dragged their heals in doing this, as it would give independent competitors a more equal playing field.

In many ways, its highly ironic that one of the first victims of the credit crunch is one of the main culprits to making F1 economically unsustainable in the first place.

I’m a realist, so I’m not going to say Bernie and Max are cleaner than white, both, in particular Max, have messed up. With the rule changes, intended to decrease costs have in reality brought up costs, and introduction of KERS etc, its clearly not best timing.

But their line of thought has been correct. With Bernie, many have a go at him for hogging all the money F1 makes. Well I’m afraid he fully entitled to do that. CVC own 70% of Formula 1, Bernie only owns 10%, but is spokesman for CVC. CVC and their shareholders paid billions of pounds for F1, its Bernie job to make sure the shareholders get a good return on their investment. Why should CVC pay billions for F1, only for the profits to be given to someone else?

All the teams currently in F1 entered Formula 1 knowing the financial set up, now we’re hitting tough times, they want to be bailed out by more profits from F1. I just don’t think its right. At best, it would only be a short term solution, it wouldn’t be a good incentive to reduce costs if they’re bailed out, I say leave them struggle, they’ll be forced to cut costs, and it will be better for F1 in the long term.

I just don't see how people can lay the blame primarily at Max and Bernie, surely the blame should be laid towards the manufacturers, who have purposely and knowingly brought the budgets up to current levels, compared to lets say Max, who has fought for years and years to bring the costs down, however, in instances has by mistake brought costs up slightly.

So I was just wondering, how do people justify it being primarily Max and Bernie faults for high costs of F1 which has led to exit of Honda?

I'm not saying your all wrong, maybe I've forgotten about certain parts, I just want to understand the majority view.

[ArrowsFA1]

I've seen Ron Dennis blamed because his team raised the stakes with use of carbonfibre on the first MP4 :laugh: :laugh:

Bottom line is that it's the economic situation to "blame". We know the manufacturers come and go, and right now Honda have decided they cannot justify spending any more. Jaguar made a similar decision for similar reasons in different times.

We can blame the tv deals Bernie made 30yrs ago which began a "boom" time for F1. More money came into the sport because it was reaching so many more people, and money follows money.

We can blame all the sponsors, particularly tobacco, who were clamouring to have their names all over the cars, and were happy to pay a fortune for that.

We can blame the manufacturers who have willingly spent a fortune to enhance their brands and chase that win in F1 which is great when used to promote their latest model.

We can blame the FIA who have constantly tinkered with the rules, adding cost for the teams.

We can blame anyone we like, but the fact is there is less money available to teams, sponsors, and manufacturers.

[Valve Bounce]

Look!! their sales plummeted, the shareholders got angry, they had to fire staff, and the board had no alternative. Am I that far wrong?

[ioan]

Personally, I cannot understand this “its Bernie and Max’s fault” idea everyone is giving.

Try harder.

[ioan]

Look!! their sales plummeted, the shareholders got angry, they had to fire staff, and the board had no alternative. Am I that far wrong?

Not at all.

[Mark]

Look!! their sales plummeted, the shareholders got angry, they had to fire staff, and the board had no alternative. Am I that far wrong?

Exactly. It's the team reason Renault left in the 1990's. The same reason Ford (as Jaugar) left and Citroen quit the WRC, (then came back again a year later)

[wedge]

I blame the manufacturers. They can come and go as they please.

It was going to happen sooner or later.

Manufacturers came in thinking they could buy success but the constructors are organic institutions, built from nothing. That's why independents are the blood of motorsport

[PolePosition_1]

Try harder.

A typical post from Ioan, 'try harder' has absolute no purpose whatsoever, why bother even posting it?

I've been reasonable, in giving my opinion, and asking for the "bernie and max are satan" crew to just justify their view points. And I ain't seen anyone manage to justify their reasoning behind that, apart from V12, who I have replied to and awaiting response.

To me, a post of "try harder" just tells me you've no foundations behind your beliefs, other than listening to others who have based their claims on unfounded facts.

[Knock-on]

I blame the manufacturers. They can come and go as they please.

It was going to happen sooner or later.

Manufacturers came in thinking they could buy success but the constructors are organic institutions, built from nothing. That's why independents are the blood of motorsport


What's wrong with that.

The manufacturers are not betrothed to F1 but use it as a show case for their expertise. F1 is a business now and no business can afford to bankrupt itself.

There is 1 team out there that exists to race and that's Williams but they are in danger of being priced out of the sport.

Ferrari sell cars to race and may leave F1 in the future if they are not allowed to showcase their technology or their shareholders pull the plug.

McLaren have become more of a brand than a pure race team but could possibly leave F1 if the return wasn't worth it or their shareholders pull the plug.

There 3 teams are the modern heart of Formula 1 and none of them can you put your hand on your heart and say they will be in F1 in 3 years with the way it's going.

So, who is to blame?

The current economic situation is not the cause of the problems in F1. The teams, whether independence or manufacturers, develop to the extent they are allowed. Exotic materials, Mega computer systems and incredibly expensive wind tunnels. The possibilities were only constrained by their sponsors pockets and the glamour of F1 meant those pockets stretched quite deep indeed. Like alcoholics in a brewery, they gorged to gay abandon but eventually the piper needs paying.

I think it's pretty obvious that to succeed under the rules, the teams had to spend obscene amounts of money. Every year, the stakes raised higher and higher. The FIA are stewards of the sport and must put their hands up.

So, now, where are we and where will F1 be in the future?

We have lost independant teams like Arrows, Minardi, Jordan etc because of the past. It now needs to stop. It's time for a cull to restore the racing series F1 used to be and it's not that hard.

Standardise the rules, not the engines and gearboxes. Get the sport back to what the fans want and if you don't know what that is, look at the threads on here. TC, LC, ABS, CFD etc. Get rid of it.

Standardise the aero's, limit the RPM and let's get back to racing.

[ioan]

A typical post from Ioan, 'try harder' has absolute no purpose whatsoever, why bother even posting it?

Really? "Try harder" has no purpose whatsoever? It has the purpose to make try to see the other side of your reality too. But hey, it's easier to dismiss it.

As for answering your question, there are already pages of replies about it.

[PolePosition_1]

Really? "Try harder" has no purpose whatsoever? It has the purpose to make try to see the other side of your reality too. But hey, it's easier to dismiss it.

As for answering your question, there are already pages of replies about it.

Well, surely me creating a topic is trying to understand the other perspective, for people to then not be able to justify their reasoning behind it by just saying "try harder"......hypocritic strings to mind.

And whilst there is many topics about the current state of F1, with many laying into Bernie and Max as the main people responsible, I ain't seen any justification.....hence I created this topic, not to tell people they're wrong, but to be open minded and try understand a different view point to mine, even if I might ultimately disagree.

[PolePosition_1]

What's wrong with that.

The manufacturers are not betrothed to F1 but use it as a show case for their expertise. F1 is a business now and no business can afford to bankrupt itself.

There is 1 team out there that exists to race and that's Williams but they are in danger of being priced out of the sport.

Ferrari sell cars to race and may leave F1 in the future if they are not allowed to showcase their technology or their shareholders pull the plug.

McLaren have become more of a brand than a pure race team but could possibly leave F1 if the return wasn't worth it or their shareholders pull the plug.

There 3 teams are the modern heart of Formula 1 and none of them can you put your hand on your heart and say they will be in F1 in 3 years with the way it's going.

So, who is to blame?

The current economic situation is not the cause of the problems in F1. The teams, whether independence or manufacturers, develop to the extent they are allowed. Exotic materials, Mega computer systems and incredibly expensive wind tunnels. The possibilities were only constrained by their sponsors pockets and the glamour of F1 meant those pockets stretched quite deep indeed. Like alcoholics in a brewery, they gorged to gay abandon but eventually the piper needs paying.

I think it's pretty obvious that to succeed under the rules, the teams had to spend obscene amounts of money. Every year, the stakes raised higher and higher. The FIA are stewards of the sport and must put their hands up.

So, now, where are we and where will F1 be in the future?

We have lost independant teams like Arrows, Minardi, Jordan etc because of the past. It now needs to stop. It's time for a cull to restore the racing series F1 used to be and it's not that hard.

Standardise the rules, not the engines and gearboxes. Get the sport back to what the fans want and if you don't know what that is, look at the threads on here. TC, LC, ABS, CFD etc. Get rid of it.

Standardise the aero's, limit the RPM and let's get back to racing.

I don't quite agree here Knock On. But firstly I must ask what you mean by 'standardise the rules'?

Secondly, from what I can recall, since I been watching F1, any rule changes have had the heart in the right place, to improve safety and reduce costs.

When you say less rules, I have to disagree, I think if the teams had less regulations, the cars would be much much faster, therefore more dangerous, and the gap between slowest and fastest would be much greater, making it pointless for the lower end teams to compete.


Whilst the FIA and Bernie aren't whiter than white in their approach, I'd lay the blame at the hands of the manufacturers.

Thats said, a case could be said that short of banning full manufacturer teams, or budget caps, there isn't much which could have been done.

[Knock-on]

I don't quite agree here Knock On. But firstly I must ask what you mean by 'standardise the rules'?

Secondly, from what I can recall, since I been watching F1, any rule changes have had the heart in the right place, to improve safety and reduce costs.

When you say less rules, I have to disagree, I think if the teams had less regulations, the cars would be much much faster, therefore more dangerous, and the gap between slowest and fastest would be much greater, making it pointless for the lower end teams to compete.


Whilst the FIA and Bernie aren't whiter than white in their approach, I'd lay the blame at the hands of the manufacturers.

Thats said, a case could be said that short of banning full manufacturer teams, or budget caps, there isn't much which could have been done.

You know what PP. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I disagree. However, I always respect your opinion as you're a knowledgeable and courteous poster. :up:

OK, Standardise may be the wrong word. Perhaps I should have said to make them clearer and without the ambiguity.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate development and innovation but the FIA seems to use this ambiguity to it's advantage rather than the innovators.

There should be fairness, transparency and stability.

Second. There have been rule changes that have increased safety. Max has done a good job on this as I have acknowledged previously. OK, some bits need rethinking such as the endless tarmac runoffs with no penalty (unless you're a McLaren ;) ) but in the main, they have been positive.

However, there have been a lot of changes that just seem knee jerk and have disadvantaged the smaller teams.

To name a few.

KERS
Grooved Tyres (in fact, slick to groove to slick)
3.0 V10 to 2.4 V8
Engine to last 1 full race weekend, then 2, then 3
Same with transmission but needs to last 4 races

All of these things required large amounts of redevelopment budget that drained resources from other areas. OK with the big teams but it's killing / has killed the smaller ones.

They have done some good such as banning exotic materials but come on. Billions have gone down the swanny because of the FIA and their knee jerk rule changes.

The rest I can agree with you on. The manufacturers have been gratuitously frivolous with their budget. They have tried to "out do the Jones's", spent small fortunes, been allowed to get away with it and what has been the result. Better racing? I don't think so.

So, perhaps it's time to listen to the fans a bit. :)

[gshevlin]

Car manufacturers can always withdraw from F1, because it is not their core business. Contrast that with Williams Grand Prix Engineering (notice the name) and you can see the difference.
F1 has to structure its operations so that it does not rely on the presence of auto manufacturers. If it does not do this, there is a virtual certainty of a "boom to bust" event as manufacturers leave one after another, with teams being sold for nothing, many thousands of jobs being lost, marketing budgets disappearing, and F1 being seen as a dying sport.
The FIA standard engine, unpalatable though it may be for the technology purists, may be a key element of a solution.

[RWD]

We can blame all the sponsors, particularly tobacco, who were clamouring to have their names all over the cars, and were happy to pay a fortune for that.


You could blame the EU for banning tobacco sponsorship and leaving a void in the sponsorship market for teams.

[BDunnell]

You could blame the EU for banning tobacco sponsorship and leaving a void in the sponsorship market for teams.

You could, but I think it was a step that needed taking, and there is no good reason for F1 having been so dependent on one particular type of sponsor. If it is such an excellent draw for backers as those in charge of the sport would like to think it is, F1 ought not to have been affected too badly by the ban.

[Hawkmoon]

The thing I find amusing is that people around here were all for the manufacturer owned and run GPWC.

What would have happened to a series where it's not just a participant leaving but an organiser, administrator and rule maker leaving?

[BDunnell]

The thing I find amusing is that people around here were all for the manufacturer owned and run GPWC.

What would have happened to a series where it's not just a participant leaving but an organiser, administrator and rule maker leaving?

Despite the legitimate criticism of Bernie and the FIA, quite how the GPWC would have ended up being a stable series in terms of manufacturer involvement I don't understand. Would it somehow have been immune from wider commercial pressures? Clearly, the answer is 'no'.

[wedge]

What's wrong with that.

The manufacturers are not betrothed to F1 but use it as a show case for their expertise. F1 is a business now and no business can afford to bankrupt itself.

There is 1 team out there that exists to race and that's Williams but they are in danger of being priced out of the sport.

Ferrari sell cars to race and may leave F1 in the future if they are not allowed to showcase their technology or their shareholders pull the plug.

McLaren have become more of a brand than a pure race team but could possibly leave F1 if the return wasn't worth it or their shareholders pull the plug.

There 3 teams are the modern heart of Formula 1 and none of them can you put your hand on your heart and say they will be in F1 in 3 years with the way it's going.

So, who is to blame?

The current economic situation is not the cause of the problems in F1. The teams, whether independence or manufacturers, develop to the extent they are allowed. Exotic materials, Mega computer systems and incredibly expensive wind tunnels. The possibilities were only constrained by their sponsors pockets and the glamour of F1 meant those pockets stretched quite deep indeed. Like alcoholics in a brewery, they gorged to gay abandon but eventually the piper needs paying.

I think it's pretty obvious that to succeed under the rules, the teams had to spend obscene amounts of money. Every year, the stakes raised higher and higher. The FIA are stewards of the sport and must put their hands up.

So, now, where are we and where will F1 be in the future?

We have lost independant teams like Arrows, Minardi, Jordan etc because of the past. It now needs to stop. It's time for a cull to restore the racing series F1 used to be and it's not that hard.

Standardise the rules, not the engines and gearboxes. Get the sport back to what the fans want and if you don't know what that is, look at the threads on here. TC, LC, ABS, CFD etc. Get rid of it.

Standardise the aero's, limit the RPM and let's get back to racing.

Independent teams more likely to work within their means whereas manufacturer teams less so.

Independent team can evolve with various engine supply deals whereas manufacturers are answerable to powers above them such as shareholders.

Manufacturers pull out whenever they like, independents end up picking up the pieces.

[nigelred5]

In this economy, I like the standard engine package. I suspect we'll see ferrari build their own engines, and possibly mercedes. I believe they should also allow the customer cars. let a company like mcLaren or Ferrari that may still have the resources and facilities to manufature a run of customer cars do so for anyone that wants one. Bring back the spirit of the 70's F1. A grid full of cosworth marches with a mix of cosworth powered independent chassis and a handful of teams making their own engines like Ferrari. I welcome a return to a grid of more independent teams. It doesn't have to be a spec series just because the engine is standardized and aero regulations are much tighter. I think we may see a far more competetive grid with the potential to let the true driving talent shine in the next couple of seasons.

[gshevlin]

Max Mosley has made it clear that if teams want to continue to build their own engines or take a manufacturer-supplied engine they can do so, but the performance of other engines will be pegged to the performance of the standard engine. It is far from clear how this will be achieved, but I suspect that Formula 1 may soon revert to the engine supply model of the 70's, with one dominant engine (the standard unit) and one or two teams using their own powerplants (a la Ferrari and Alfa Romeo). The price of the standard engine and transmission package will allow teams to operate from a much lower cost base than at present. The major remaining issue is whether a regulation package can be found that does not result in teams spending $10-20m a year on wind tunnel time to find .2 of a second improvement in lap times.

[555-04Q2]

Its the manufacturers fault. The big teams have been spending money like there is no tomorrow for too long now, and guess what, Honda just found out that there is a tomorrow and responsibilities!!! Sadly, I expect more teams will follow...

[Roamy]

mosley fuched the whole deal up. allowing all the little gay winglets he created a wind tunnel windfall. Then he couldn't control the electronic components like the seamless shifter. Now I understand that f1 is to be the tech leader than spills down to our road cars. But if you make every component on the car subject to millions and millions in research to gain 1 tenth then you are a bit out there. I was driving a mercedes suv and it had little gay shift buttons on the inside of the steering wheel. well the turning radius of the steering wheel made these a joke as you have to move your hand. This is a trinket bullsh!t deal. Worthless and the car can't even begin to perform. Then on top of it MopHead takes all the money and the car owners can't afford to run competively - this whole deal is out of hand and for one needs a new leader. You don't need a automatic transmission in a f1 car - you need a man that can work a shifter and a clutch. You don't need a whole car of winglets - you need a driver that can slide the ass out and stand on the gas. you don't need at 0000001 shifter in your road car. There is so much radar out there it don't matter how fast the gear box s - what you need is a radar jammer and that ain't in f1.

[ioan]

mosley fuched the whole deal up. allowing all the little gay winglets he created a wind tunnel windfall. Then he couldn't control the electronic components like the seamless shifter. Now I understand that f1 is to be the tech leader than spills down to our road cars. But if you make every component on the car subject to millions and millions in research to gain 1 tenth then you are a bit out there. I was driving a mercedes suv and it had little gay shift buttons on the inside of the steering wheel. well the turning radius of the steering wheel made these a joke as you have to move your hand. This is a trinket bullsh!t deal. Worthless and the car can't even begin to perform. Then on top of it MopHead takes all the money and the car owners can't afford to run competively - this whole deal is out of hand and for one needs a new leader. You don't need a automatic transmission in a f1 car - you need a man that can work a shifter and a clutch. You don't need a whole car of winglets - you need a driver that can slide the ass out and stand on the gas. you don't need at 0000001 shifter in your road car. There is so much radar out there it don't matter how fast the gear box s - what you need is a radar jammer and that ain't in f1.

Calm down, you're a few years late cowboy, the winglets and the electronics are gone (well the electronics are very restricted and standardized).

If we could get mophead to give back more money to those who really invest in this sport than we wouldn't be in this stupid situation.

[PolePosition_1]

If we could get mophead to give back more money to those who really invest in this sport than we wouldn't be in this stupid situation.


So you think bailing the manufacturers out is way to go?

You think that despite CVC paying billions and billions of dollars to own this revenue entitlement, should just give it out to the teams.

Only way the FOTA can justify a bigger revenue intake of the sport, would be if they joined resources, and actually brought a stake in the Formula 1 Group.

[PolePosition_1]

You know what PP. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I disagree. However, I always respect your opinion as you're a knowledgeable and courteous poster. :up:

OK, Standardise may be the wrong word. Perhaps I should have said to make them clearer and without the ambiguity.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate development and innovation but the FIA seems to use this ambiguity to it's advantage rather than the innovators.

There should be fairness, transparency and stability.

Second. There have been rule changes that have increased safety. Max has done a good job on this as I have acknowledged previously. OK, some bits need rethinking such as the endless tarmac runoffs with no penalty (unless you're a McLaren ;) ) but in the main, they have been positive.

However, there have been a lot of changes that just seem knee jerk and have disadvantaged the smaller teams.

To name a few.

KERS
Grooved Tyres (in fact, slick to groove to slick)
3.0 V10 to 2.4 V8
Engine to last 1 full race weekend, then 2, then 3
Same with transmission but needs to last 4 races

All of these things required large amounts of redevelopment budget that drained resources from other areas. OK with the big teams but it's killing / has killed the smaller ones.

They have done some good such as banning exotic materials but come on. Billions have gone down the swanny because of the FIA and their knee jerk rule changes.

The rest I can agree with you on. The manufacturers have been gratuitously frivolous with their budget. They have tried to "out do the Jones's", spent small fortunes, been allowed to get away with it and what has been the result. Better racing? I don't think so.

So, perhaps it's time to listen to the fans a bit. :)

Feeling is mutural Knock On, whilst I sometimes disagree, I do respect that you take time out to justify your views, so even if I disagree, I can appreciate where your viewpoint originates.

To be fair, I agree with all of what you have just said.

Though with regards to introduction of KERS, change of engine rules etc etc. Whilst they have all increased costs, the aim has been to reduce costs. Obviously they've failed, but the intention was in right place, and I think that should be remembered.

If you look at the manufacturers, who have purposely driven costs up in the drive of success, and I think thats the primary factor in the current economic situation of F1.

So I think we pretty much agree on 95% of what has been said, but main difference may be the primary cause of cost increases, whilst I understand (from what you've said) you believe its the rule changes at fault for high costs of F1, I think its the manufacturers 'invest at all costs' philosophy they have adapted.

[Valve Bounce]

Well, surely me creating a topic is trying to understand the other perspective, for people to then not be able to justify their reasoning behind it by just saying "try harder"......hypocritic strings to mind.

And whilst there is many topics about the current state of F1, with many laying into Bernie and Max as the main people responsible, I ain't seen any justification.....hence I created this topic, not to tell people they're wrong, but to be open minded and try understand a different view point to mine, even if I might ultimately disagree.


Read my post above, then tell me where I went wrong. OK??

[Valve Bounce]

Though with regards to introduction of KERS, change of engine rules etc etc. Whilst they have all increased costs, the aim has been to reduce costs. Obviously they've failed, but the intention was in right place, and I think that should be remembered.

.

Could you please explain in simple terms so I can understand how KERS was introduced to reduce costs, please. Thanks!

[Knock-on]

If you look at the manufacturers, who have purposely driven costs up in the drive of success, and I think thats the primary factor in the current economic situation of F1.

So I think we pretty much agree on 95% of what has been said, but main difference may be the primary cause of cost increases, whilst I understand (from what you've said) you believe its the rule changes at fault for high costs of F1, I think its the manufacturers 'invest at all costs' philosophy they have adapted.

Manufacturers have driven up costs. It should be no more than about £40m for any F1 team. It just shouldn't be but with some drivers commanding nearly that amount, it is.

So, we have teams spending 1/4 of a billion quid on going racing, paid for by sponsors, teams and fans.

When the FIA come along with their new initiatives which cost £10M to implement, it can be swallowed.

That's OK but with a team only having £40M to play with, it's untenable.

Teams will spend all they can. Human nature. However, the FIA should have a set of rules that doesn't benefit the team with the fattest cheque book and bankrupts the rest.

[PolePosition_1]

Read my post above, then tell me where I went wrong. OK??

Wasn't directed at you Valve, from what I've seen, your not part of the "bernie and max are satan" crew.

[PolePosition_1]

Could you please explain in simple terms so I can understand how KERS was introduced to reduce costs, please. Thanks!

My bad, I wasn't too clear in my post, in relation to KERS, it was made to make F1 more relevant to road car technology, improve a technology which will likely be very important in the years to come.

Though with reading my post again, I can see how it may look like I was implying it was implemented to reduce costs - I should have made my post clearer.

[PolePosition_1]

Manufacturers have driven up costs. It should be no more than about £40m for any F1 team. It just shouldn't be but with some drivers commanding nearly that amount, it is.

So, we have teams spending 1/4 of a billion quid on going racing, paid for by sponsors, teams and fans.

When the FIA come along with their new initiatives which cost £10M to implement, it can be swallowed.

That's OK but with a team only having £40M to play with, it's untenable.

Teams will spend all they can. Human nature. However, the FIA should have a set of rules that doesn't benefit the team with the fattest cheque book and bankrupts the rest.


See, I agree with that, though with you thoughts of "the FIA should have a set of rules that doesn't benefit the team with the fattest cheque book and bankrupts the rest.".

In relation to this, I would say that surely more regulations, tighter restrictions would solve this. If there is only so much teams can change, no matter how much money they spend, they'll only be gaining hundreds of a second rather than seconds.

So say a team can spend £20m finding 0.1s, that way, even if budget difference is £100m +, the fastest car willl only be 1s faster.

For me, if they did as what I understand you suggested, loosen up restrictions on regulations, surely teams would find much more time, and big budget teams would be able to go 3s a lap faster.

Does that make any sense to you? Not sure if I'm explaining it too well.

[Valve Bounce]

My bad, I wasn't too clear in my post, in relation to KERS, it was made to make F1 more relevant to road car technology, improve a technology which will likely be very important in the years to come.

Though with reading my post again, I can see how it may look like I was implying it was implemented to reduce costs - I should have made my post clearer.

There's no may about it - that was exactly what you said regarding both KERS and reducing engine size their aim was to reduce costs.

This is arrant nonsense - the reduction of engine size was meant precisely to reduce cornering speed - that was Max's idea. This was aimed at making F1 safer. Unfortunately, it had the opposite effect by increasing cornering speed.

KERS had nothing to do with reduction of costs, and you will find that KERS will end up costing a helluva lot to develop. http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/081210091524.shtml

I know that you like to introduce new themes for discussion here which is what this forum needs; but for God's sake, get your facts right before you do, OK??

[Valve Bounce]

And by the way, if you want to reduce costs, ban on board computers and all that aero. This alone should reduce the costs of F1 by around 90%.

[ioan]

So you think bailing the manufacturers out is way to go?

I think you don't get the point.

The ones investing money in F1 are, in the right order of investement made:

1. The teams (manufacturer backing + sponsorship)
2. The media (TV) that pay the rights for broadcasting
3. The tracks that pay mopheads fees

The ones getting money from F1 are:
1. CVC + Bernie
2. TV's (they charge a fortune for advertising during F1 races + consumer fees)
3. The teams

IMO the only ones getting a fair return for their investement are the media.

The teams are ripped off getting a return of around max 25% of their investment in case they have good results and much less if not.

CVC and Bernie invest nothing ATM and get more the rest of the revenues.

The tracks are in the worse position as they get squat out of it (mophead takes the ticket fees and sponsorship fees).

Why do you call a fairer revenue for the investment a "bailout"? It's not a bailout, it's equity.


You think that despite CVC paying billions and billions of dollars to own this revenue entitlement, should just give it out to the teams.

You think that CVC will get any revenue if the teams pack it in and go home or play somewhere else? :rolleyes:


Only way the FOTA can justify a bigger revenue intake of the sport, would be if they joined resources, and actually brought a stake in the Formula 1 Group.

The FOTA members are paying for F1 every year more than what CVC paid for the commercial rights. Who do you think that pays for the cars, fuel, tires, testing days, all the material and most importantly team personnel? Huh?!

I just realized that you are placing the blame on the manufacturers without knowing who does what.

[ioan]

Wasn't directed at you Valve, from what I've seen, your not part of the "bernie and max are satan" crew.

Well, I'm not saying that "bernie and max are satan" either, I only think that about the lil' one.

[Valve Bounce]

Well, I'm not saying that "bernie and max are satan" either, I only think that about the lil' one.

Bernie is simply greedy, and Max is nuts. I would dearly love to see these two get stuck in a lift for 24 hours.

[Knock-on]

See, I agree with that, though with you thoughts of "the FIA should have a set of rules that doesn't benefit the team with the fattest cheque book and bankrupts the rest.".

In relation to this, I would say that surely more regulations, tighter restrictions would solve this. If there is only so much teams can change, no matter how much money they spend, they'll only be gaining hundreds of a second rather than seconds.

So say a team can spend £20m finding 0.1s, that way, even if budget difference is £100m +, the fastest car willl only be 1s faster.

For me, if they did as what I understand you suggested, loosen up restrictions on regulations, surely teams would find much more time, and big budget teams would be able to go 3s a lap faster.

Does that make any sense to you? Not sure if I'm explaining it too well.

I think the problem is that the regulations are a little too loose as it is and intentionally so as it allows the FIA flexibility.

I propose removing the ambiguity of the rules. Standardising them, making them more transparent.

Sure, teams will be able to sink millions into development but for the minuscule advances you mention, there's little point.

What we should end up with is good, clean, fast racing with little controversy and the skill of the drivers becoming the main success criteria.

[Knock-on]

Bernie is simply greedy, and Max is nuts. I would dearly love to see these two get stuck in a lift for 24 hours.

:laugh: Now, that would be funny :D

[ArrowsFA1]

CVC and Bernie invest nothing ATM and get more the rest of the revenues.
Nothing? Nothing :confused:

I do think the teams should get a greater share of the sport's profits, which is what FOTA are seeking.

[wedge]

I think the problem is that the regulations are a little too loose as it is and intentionally so as it allows the FIA flexibility.

I propose removing the ambiguity of the rules. Standardising them, making them more transparent.

Sure, teams will be able to sink millions into development but for the minuscule advances you mention, there's little point.

What we should end up with is good, clean, fast racing with little controversy and the skill of the drivers becoming the main success criteria.

F1 is also a technological sport, that's what makes F1 the 'pinnacle' in motorsport (though some would argue it's shifted towards Le Mans), that's why the rules are vague - to allow designers to design and be somewhat innovative, and is less likely to be achieved with strict regulations.

Innovation requires money so how does F1 remain the pinnacle in cost-cutting times? Or is it the end of F1 as we know it?

[Sleeper]

The manufacturers arent to be blamed for the huge increase in costs as the door has always been open to one team/manufacturer coming in and outspending its rivals since the very early days of Grand Prix racing. Mercedes did this to Alfa Roemo twice, in the 30's and 50's. Manufacturers, sponsors and other investers will always put in what they feel is value for money, either right now or in the mid to long term.

The problem is that with Bernie's marketing, the commercial "value" of F1 sky rocketted towards the end of the 80's and into the 90's, making it more viable to spend ever larger sums of money on the sport, to the point were teams now spend as much as 1/3 of a billion dollers. When Max became FIA president he could undoubtedly see that the ever increasing manufacturer involvment would lead to spiraling costs, and if he couldnt then he is badly incompitent, and actively tried to entice more manufacturers into the sport with Bernie.

Max and Bernie are the fault because they have encoureged greater spending in the past and now find it untenable, and worse than that they have left the sport in nthe hands of a company that accumulated massive debts to get it and are taking money out of the sport to pay it off, and the need to pay it off is forcing Bernie to rase the cost of hosting a race, whilst not allowing any returns for the tracks. The result is we are heading towards a Midle Eastern championship on dull Tilka-dromes being run by someone making ever more ludicrous decisions (Standard engines, KERS etc).

Personally, I think the sport needs to start again, throw away the rule book, throw away FOM and CVC, throw away Max and Bernie and write a rule book with clear lines of what cannot be done but leaving open enough room for inovation and variation betwen the cars whilst not allowing them to require huge expenditure to achieve it. An excedingly tall order but something that has to be done.

[Sleeper]

F1 is also a technological sport, that's what makes F1 the 'pinnacle' in motorsport (though some would argue it's shifted towards Le Mans), that's why the rules are vague - to allow designers to design and be somewhat innovative, and is less likely to be achieved with strict regulations.

Innovation requires money so how does F1 remain the pinnacle in cost-cutting times? Or is it the end of F1 as we know it?

The rules are very strict, but they are also very vague at the same time, its why whenever a team develops something new they have to talk constantly to the FIA about it and then, when they race it, are likely to have another team protest it and possibly have the whole thing banned, despite the FIA's consultation on it. Just ask Renault about their mass damper.

[ioan]

Personally, I think the sport needs to start again, throw away the rule book, throw away FOM and CVC, throw away Max and Bernie and write a rule book with clear lines of what cannot be done but leaving open enough room for inovation and variation betwen the cars whilst not allowing them to require huge expenditure to achieve it. An excedingly tall order but something that has to be done.

:up:

[Knock-on]

The problem with tearing up the F1 rulebook and starting again is the FIA.

Let's say for example that FOTA sets up a new Formula like GP1 (if they could wrest the trade mark from Bernie.

They would still have to race it somewhere and that would mean having the series recognised by the FIA.

There does have to be a root and branch review of F1 but it must be done with the FIA unfortunately :(

[PolePosition_1]

There's no may about it - that was exactly what you said regarding both KERS and reducing engine size their aim was to reduce costs.

This is arrant nonsense - the reduction of engine size was meant precisely to reduce cornering speed - that was Max's idea. This was aimed at making F1 safer. Unfortunately, it had the opposite effect by increasing cornering speed.

KERS had nothing to do with reduction of costs, and you will find that KERS will end up costing a helluva lot to develop. http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/081210091524.shtml

I know that you like to introduce new themes for discussion here which is what this forum needs; but for God's sake, get your facts right before you do, OK??


Valve, I'm not going to argue with you what my thoughts are, I think you'll find I probably have a better idea of what I was trying to say than you, unless you can read my mind. I've owned up to being misleading in my original post. I've never believed or intentionally claimed KERS was ever intended to decrease costs.

I know that you like to make posts which have no relevance whatsoever, which are at best mildly amusing, which is what this forum needs; but for God's sake, please don't assume that you understand someone else's thoughts better than the person themselves, OK?? :)

[PolePosition_1]

I think you don't get the point.

The ones investing money in F1 are, in the right order of investement made:

1. The teams (manufacturer backing + sponsorship)
2. The media (TV) that pay the rights for broadcasting
3. The tracks that pay mopheads fees

The ones getting money from F1 are:
1. CVC + Bernie
2. TV's (they charge a fortune for advertising during F1 races + consumer fees)
3. The teams

IMO the only ones getting a fair return for their investement are the media.

The teams are ripped off getting a return of around max 25% of their investment in case they have good results and much less if not.

CVC and Bernie invest nothing ATM and get more the rest of the revenues.

The tracks are in the worse position as they get squat out of it (mophead takes the ticket fees and sponsorship fees).

Why do you call a fairer revenue for the investment a "bailout"? It's not a bailout, it's equity.



You think that CVC will get any revenue if the teams pack it in and go home or play somewhere else? :rolleyes:



The FOTA members are paying for F1 every year more than what CVC paid for the commercial rights. Who do you think that pays for the cars, fuel, tires, testing days, all the material and most importantly team personnel? Huh?!

I just realized that you are placing the blame on the manufacturers without knowing who does what.

Ioan, I do understand your point, but I think your viewing it from a sportsman’s point of view, and the economics of F1 is not a sport, it’s a business.

Formula 1, the sport, is owned by a group called the Formula 1 Group. This is a plc company, 70% owned by CVC, 10% Bernie, and 20% by another TNC, with Bernie being a spokesman for CVC.

Now, it doesn’t matter who invests money in making the sport (essentially the foundations of which the business) work. CVC and co own the Formula 1 Group, so legally, and from a business perspective have a right to the revenue.

Surely, CVC would be absolutely slaughtered by their shareholders if they decided to give more revenue to the teams, their stock price would drop etc etc. So it seems pretty obvious to me that unless the FOTA are willing to buy a stake in the Formula 1 Group off CVC or anyone, they not going to GIVE AWAY hundreds of millions to other companies. Its just simply not how business works.

For sure we can go on about how what is fair and what is not, but EVERY SINGLE TEAM currently in F1 entered F1 knowing the financial set up of it. If it bothered them that much, they shouldn’t have entered in first place. My feeling, is that they’ve driven up the costs so much, and with the credit crunch, even they can’t afford to keep doing it, so now want more revenue, but unless they’re willing to buy a stake of F1, I honestly cannot see how that’s going to happen.

You think that CVC will get any revenue if the teams pack it in and go home or play somewhere else? :rolleyes:

Well the teams can leave if they like, as far as I’m away none are contracted to stay in F1.

I know exactly who does what, I’m just looking at it from a business perspective, as this part of F1 is handled in a business manner.

To be honest, as a fan of Formula One, I agree with you, I do think the teams deserve a higher share of the revenue, but I’m also a realist, and it ain’t going to happen unless they buy stakes in F1, or CVC are very understanding! And I don’t think it’s a good solution to the current economic situation in F1.

[Sleeper]

For sure we can go on about how what is fair and what is not, but EVERY SINGLE TEAM currently in F1 entered F1 knowing the financial set up of it. If it bothered them that much, they shouldn’t have entered in first place. My feeling, is that they’ve driven up the costs so much, and with the credit crunch, even they can’t afford to keep doing it, so now want more revenue, but unless they’re willing to buy a stake of F1, I honestly cannot see how that’s going to happen.

Not true as McLaren, Ferrari and Williams have all been there for well over 30 years, before the current financial system was even considered. More to the point, the current financial set came about only a few years ago, they were getting even less before that.

[ioan]

Ioan, I do understand your point, but I think your viewing it from a sportsman’s point of view, and the economics of F1 is not a sport, it’s a business.

Formula 1, the sport, is owned by a group called the Formula 1 Group. This is a plc company, 70% owned by CVC, 10% Bernie, and 20% by another TNC, with Bernie being a spokesman for CVC.

Now, it doesn’t matter who invests money in making the sport (essentially the foundations of which the business) work. CVC and co own the Formula 1 Group, so legally, and from a business perspective have a right to the revenue.

Are you kidding me?
CVC only own the commercial rights and that only for a limited number of years. They do not own the sport and certainly not the participants.
In fact they are at the mercy of the participants and still they are the ones taking away most of the money.

And no I'm not looking at F1 from a sportsman POV, I'm looking at it from a pragmatic POV of a person who after investing year after year would like to get enough buck back from the business to be able to continue to run the business.

I'm a motorsport fan, but IF the demise of F1 means that we get rid of the CVC and Bernie Ecclestone kind of parasites than so be it, I'm all for it.

[Valve Bounce]

Personally, I think the sport needs to start again, throw away the rule book, throw away FOM and CVC, throw away Max and Bernie and write a rule book with clear lines of what cannot be done but leaving open enough room for innovation and variation between the cars whilst not allowing them to require huge expenditure to achieve it. An exceedingly tall order but something that has to be done.

D'Accord!! :up: :up:

(P.S. Sleeper, if you use Mozilla Firefox for your posts, you will get an automatic red line underneath words that are mispealt - great help; n'est ce pas??)

[Valve Bounce]

Valve, I'm not going to argue with you what my thoughts are, I think you'll find I probably have a better idea of what I was trying to say than you, unless you can read my mind. I've owned up to being misleading in my original post. I've never believed or intentionally claimed KERS was ever intended to decrease costs.

I know that you like to make posts which have no relevance whatsoever, which are at best mildly amusing, which is what this forum needs; but for God's sake, please don't assume that you understand someone else's thoughts better than the person themselves, OK?? :)

I'm not arguing what you are thinking or may have meant to say - I am pointing out what you have said here, which was arrant nonsense.

Basically, you used both KERS and reduction in engine size specifically as methods of reduction in costs, which is nonsense.

[wedge]

The manufacturers arent to be blamed for the huge increase in costs as the door has always been open to one team/manufacturer coming in and outspending its rivals since the very early days of Grand Prix racing. Mercedes did this to Alfa Roemo twice, in the 30's and 50's. Manufacturers, sponsors and other investers will always put in what they feel is value for money, either right now or in the mid to long term.

The problem is that with Bernie's marketing, the commercial "value" of F1 sky rocketted towards the end of the 80's and into the 90's, making it more viable to spend ever larger sums of money on the sport, to the point were teams now spend as much as 1/3 of a billion dollers. When Max became FIA president he could undoubtedly see that the ever increasing manufacturer involvment would lead to spiraling costs, and if he couldnt then he is badly incompitent, and actively tried to entice more manufacturers into the sport with Bernie.

Max and Bernie are the fault because they have encoureged greater spending in the past and now find it untenable, and worse than that they have left the sport in nthe hands of a company that accumulated massive debts to get it and are taking money out of the sport to pay it off, and the need to pay it off is forcing Bernie to rase the cost of hosting a race, whilst not allowing any returns for the tracks. The result is we are heading towards a Midle Eastern championship on dull Tilka-dromes being run by someone making ever more ludicrous decisions (Standard engines, KERS etc).

Personally, I think the sport needs to start again, throw away the rule book, throw away FOM and CVC, throw away Max and Bernie and write a rule book with clear lines of what cannot be done but leaving open enough room for inovation and variation betwen the cars whilst not allowing them to require huge expenditure to achieve it. An excedingly tall order but something that has to be done.

How have Max and Bernie encouraged teams to spend more?

I can only applaud Bernie for turning F1 into a mainstream international sport. If manufacturers want to participate in one of the biggest sports in the world then they have that right but we are in a society where spending heaps amount of money will solve problems, owning and running an F1 team a passport to success.

Is it down to Bernie that manufacturers and executives got a bit greedy?

[Valve Bounce]

How have Max and Bernie encouraged teams to spend more?

I can only applaud Bernie for turning F1 into a mainstream international sport. If manufacturers want to participate in one of the biggest sports in the world then they have that right but we are in a society where spending heaps amount of money will solve problems, owning and running an F1 team a passport to success.

Is it down to Bernie that manufacturers and executives got a bit greedy?

Go to Sleeper's post; do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

[cjent]

In this economy, I like the standard engine package. I suspect we'll see ferrari build their own engines, and possibly mercedes. I believe they should also allow the customer cars. let a company like mcLaren or Ferrari that may still have the resources and facilities to manufature a run of customer cars do so for anyone that wants one. Bring back the spirit of the 70's F1. A grid full of cosworth marches with a mix of cosworth powered independent chassis and a handful of teams making their own engines like Ferrari. I welcome a return to a grid of more independent teams. It doesn't have to be a spec series just because the engine is standardized and aero regulations are much tighter. I think we may see a far more competetive grid with the potential to let the true driving talent shine in the next couple of seasons.

I agree totally Nigelred5. I hadn't even thought about the '70s F1 rules, but what is purposed would seem to lead to the same type of racing. I hope you are right.

[PolePosition_1]

Not true as McLaren, Ferrari and Williams have all been there for well over 30 years, before the current financial system was even considered. More to the point, the current financial set came about only a few years ago, they were getting even less before that.

Thats a fair point, but what I say still doesn't change, the teams were made aware of any changes within the financial set up, and they would have had the opportunity to pull out if they were totally dissatisfied .

[PolePosition_1]

Are you kidding me?
CVC only own the commercial rights and that only for a limited number of years. They do not own the sport and certainly not the participants.
In fact they are at the mercy of the participants and still they are the ones taking away most of the money.

And no I'm not looking at F1 from a sportsman POV, I'm looking at it from a pragmatic POV of a person who after investing year after year would like to get enough buck back from the business to be able to continue to run the business.

I'm a motorsport fan, but IF the demise of F1 means that we get rid of the CVC and Bernie Ecclestone kind of parasites than so be it, I'm all for it.

Ioan, but the commercial rights of the sport is where all the money is made. The FOTA want a greater cut of the commercial revenue.

I wasn't aware it was only for a limited number of years - can you give me more information with sources regarding this? I'm quite interested in this, and have done some research but ain't had the luck of finding that out.

Regarding them being at the mercy of the participants, thats true. But same could be said to the teams. F1 provides those participants a platform to be viewed by hundreds of million of people all across the world, putting the participants in a position to get silly amounts of money to have a sponsors name on their car.

Whilst to be fair, you've explained yourself, and I appreciate where your coming from, and from a sports fan perspective I agree with you, I think Bernie and CVC have acted accordingly to their roles within F1.

[PolePosition_1]

I'm not arguing what you are thinking or may have meant to say - I am pointing out what you have said here, which was arrant nonsense.

Basically, you used both KERS and reduction in engine size specifically as methods of reduction in costs, which is nonsense.

What can I say, I didn't re-read my post before posting it, I never intended to imply that and I definately never thought it.

[Valve Bounce]

What can I say, I didn't re-read my post before posting it, I never intended to imply that and I definately never thought it.

Well, I could suggest you send your posts to ioan for editing before you post them, but that's a bit extreme, I suppose. :(

[Valve Bounce]

:p :

[leopard]

point taken ...

Among various causalities that may prompt Honda left F1, just because they can't take the heat of the kitchen.

[ioan]

Well, I could suggest you send your posts to ioan for editing before you post them, but that's a bit extreme, I suppose. :(

Wait a moment, I don't have time to rewrite all his posts! :D

[PolePosition_1]

Well, I could suggest you send your posts to ioan for editing before you post them, but that's a bit extreme, I suppose. :(

Well, I could suggest you don't keep on going on about an error in an original post I have admitted to after you first pointed this out, but that's a bit extreme, I suppose :(

[Knock-on]

Blimey VB. I didn't know you were so anally retentive :laugh:

PP said it was an oversight. The sort of thing that gets done all the time. Give the lad a break ;)