Ruslan

Under New Management

332 posts in this topic

So far I am pretty impressed with the new ownership and very amused at the p**sy slightly anti-American comments coming from Bernie. Comments clearly show how out-of-touch Bernie is.

Anyhow, they now have racing series with two competitive teams thanks to Ferrari spending (a lot) more. But the only way they are going to get a truly competitive series is either a budget cap or spec series. As this is F1, it should not be a spec series (although in all reality, it was in the 1970s with almost everyone running Cosworth engines, Hewland gear boxes and Goodyear tires). Therefore, if we want a racing series with more than two teams competitive every now and then, then we probably need a budget cap. We shall see what the powers that be decide, but Todt clearly supports one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly no one of those advocating budgetary measures managed to explain how it can efficiently and effectively work. I went into trouble on several occasions explaining on the forum concerns and potential challenges in imposing red line on a technology sector, yet no one would open discussion and rebuke those concerns. Running merely around and trumpet to the whole world we take bold steps which sets us free...tadáááá, I fear is not enough. In fact, I feel more than slightly p----d to subsidies some parasitic non-value adding, expensive, entity sticking so they can stick their dirty hands and noses into EU' ledgers of private enterprises. Teams which exhaust budget in April can shuffle to US and race in Indy, because their season in F1 will be over for all practical purposes.

Teams run on team's budget, making CVC and alike rich. Stay with it. That's it.  If you think the F1 car should be less expensive, change a technical rule book by building less complicated car. Change rules to make them easy to understand, as opposed to being just restrictive!!! That could be done without converting to standard series.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the biggest challenge with a budget cap is that it is too the disadvantage of several teams to have one, because they benefit from it. That would certainly include Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull.

But one of the reasons I do like a budget cap is that you can free up design, rules restrictions and testing restrictions. Teams can make the trade-off as to where to spend their time and money. Right now, they are bending over backwards to try to control cost by design and testing restrictions. I don't think that is the way to go. The easiest way to control the money is to actually control the money.

I don't foresee a major problem with implementation (although there will certainly be a lot of minor annoyances). Accounting is not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ruslan said:

Well, the biggest challenge with a budget cap is that it is too the disadvantage of several teams to have one, because they benefit from it. That would certainly include Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull.

But one of the reasons I do like a budget cap is that you can free up design, rules restrictions and testing restrictions. Teams can make the trade-off as to where to spend their time and money. Right now, they are bending over backwards to try to control cost by design and testing restrictions. I don't think that is the way to go. The easiest way to control the money is to actually control the money.

I don't foresee a major problem with implementation (although there will certainly be a lot of minor annoyances). Accounting is not rocket science.

Haas

Budget - for good reasons - will be not accepted, and should not be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookkeeping is not a science, I do agree, however collecting sufficient, and non-contaminated data is something else (next to being inherently useless effort, and waste of money on non-value added activities).

Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, I do not see any evidence that empirical imposition of artificial limits on budget as a correct solution to whatever problem proponents of such measure want to solve. Badly defined aims, with haphazard solution equals to nothing but a lost decade of F1 in wilderness.

Teams operate on their own internal budget, and there is no need for another layer. Process is self-regulated by external economics. Works for me.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing extraordinary about putting in budget caps in sports. It has been done in NHL with great success and several other sports. It has even been used in some race series.

I have a very clear aim......more equal competition with 10-15 competitive teams. Tell me how to get there with your brand of "Darwinism"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you guys should actually define a problem which you are trying to solve with those insanely expensive and most likely ineffective budget ideas, because you are confusing heck out of what basic attributes of GP F1 and what it always was, and what you want to transfer into in your own vision. At the end you can want whatever you want, but I go with players on the scene. Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, Honda, etc. 

Natural solution to cost cutting is in a corresponding (proper) rule book. Stop jerking with rules every two weeks, stabilize development, and cost will come down without some parasitic entities being involved. Direction taken towards stability and simplicity, and having right entrants participating, that's what is required. Bookkeeper acting as an compliance auditor will not fix whatever you want to fix. 

As it was said - make it simple, but not much more simpler than is necessary, and sophisticated technology is part of the F1 charm. That's what most of us want, as opposed to come and drool over how cheap it is.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 4:23 PM, Sakae said:

Maybe you guys should actually define a problem which you are trying to solve with those insanely expensive and most likely ineffective budget ideas...

???  How is a budget cap "insanely expensive." I don't follow the logic here.

 I think I did define the problem I was trying to solve in my last post: Just to quote myself: "I have a very clear aim......more equal competition with 10-15 competitive teams."

<<.... but I go with players on the scene>>

Well, some of the players on the scene, including Jean Todt, parts of FIA, Max Mosely (and it pains me to agree with him on anything), and several of the smaller teams...want a budget cap. So, I guess you should state "I go with the players on the scene who agree with me.....and ignore the players on the scene who disagree with me." By the way.....I note that Dr. Marko was talking yesterday about needing a $10 million engine formula.

<<Natural solution to cost cutting is in a corresponding (proper) rule book. Stop jerking with rules every two weeks, stabilize development, and cost will come down without some parasitic entities being involved.>>

Really, stabilize the rule book and Mercedes will quit spending $700 million a year? Really? I doubt it. Instead of spending it on engines...they will spend it on aerodynamics....or something else. As long as any competitive advantage can be gained by spending more money, someone will spend more money. Only if there was no competitive advantage to be gained by further spending and development would spending stabilize. I don't think we have reached the point where no advantage can be gained no matter how much you spend. The only scenario that would change this is if you created a spec series. I gather that is what Marko is hinting at with the engines. Do we really want F1 to be a spec series? That is what Indy is (and NASCAR). It is working....except the engineering is not very exciting.

<<....and sophisticated technology is part of the F1 charm. That's what most of us want, as opposed to come and drool over how cheap it is.>>

Pretty certain F1 will still be pretty sophisticated at $180 or $240 million a team. I also think F1 needs to remain technologically sophisticated. I think the Indy car series is running on a few million a team. Cars at Indy were going 229 MPH (369 kph).

 

Now...your previous version your post made some negative comment about me comparing F1 to NHL (National Hockey League). You edited that out....but I did spot it when you first posted it. There are reasons to compare there two. First, NHL has had some success recently. They are up to 30 teams (used to be only 6 in the 1960s) and adding one more next year. Many of these newer teams are competitive. Right now, Nashville is in the finals for the Stanley Cup. That is right...Nashville...American....in the deep south.....the capital of country music....who have almost never seen snow....are playing hockey and......are competing for Lord Stanley's Cup. This seems like a success for the series, as opposed to having the same 3-4 teams competing for the cup year after year (as it was in the past).

But, it also makes another point relevant to grand prix racing....for now you have a regional North American sport (primarily Canadian) that has now grown to 24 American teams, with some in places like North Carolina, Florida, Nashville, Phoenix, Dallas, Los Angeles and so on, and that mostly are made up of foreigners. People are following it and not too bothered by the stars being Russian, Swedish, Canadian or Finnish. Sort of destroys a few stereotypes about America that I recall people stating on the old forum (not you mind you):

1. Americans won't accept foreign sports

2. Americans won't accept foreign players (drivers).

In fact, the growth of Hockey to be the 4th largest sport in the U.S. seems to defy those statements. Makes you wonder if they could also not grow F1 here.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a completely different subject: I note that Todt and FIA are now working to de-conflict the F1 schedule with other races series. This is nothing but a good thing. In the old days of Bernie and Max, they deliberately set up the schedule to conflict with Indy and Le Mans....because apparently they thought there was more strength in being controlling and exclusive (and they were a couple of obnoxious weenies). Anyhow, I would like to see F1 drivers get out more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ruslan said:

On a completely different subject: I note that Todt and FIA are now working to de-conflict the F1 schedule with other races series. This is nothing but a good thing. In the old days of Bernie and Max, they deliberately set up the schedule to conflict with Indy and Le Mans....because apparently they thought there was more strength in being controlling and exclusive (and they were a couple of obnoxious weenies). Anyhow, I would like to see F1 drivers get out more.

Get out more? Liberty is already on record, they want more races per season. From recollection, RD said once, that 19 races was probably max what he thought was manageable, yet some people began talking about 25 races per season.

Consider as an example a segment from Vettel's calendar (Ferrari's own website), all jammed into a few days of his life (realizing guy actually lives - or rather has his home address - with his family in Switzerland):

- Testing tires in Barcelona followed with pre-race festivities in Italy

- Racing week in Italy (Ferrari-land)

- Staying longer after race in Montmeló for testing and filming a new Ferrari road car in prep for Paris Motor Show.

- Then rushing to Hockenheim for another Ferrari's promotional engagement

- Then flying over to attend F1 race in Singapore

Now, you want him to still to do what? BTW, he actually was involved (and won) ROC, which was just little bit of diversional fun compared to some big races. The point however is, his calendar seems pretty jammed "all year around as it is" already, and despite that all of that sounds like fun-games, in reality seems to me his is pretty stressful life due to constant travel, while under public exposure, while wife and kids are far away accessible only on the phone, yet you think he could do more. So does Liberty, as it looks like. 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ruslan

Quote

"I have a very clear aim......more equal competition with 10-15 competitive teams."

Define "more equal" competition. Rule book(s) apply to them all already, which makes technical and sporting creative framework pretty much equal for all. What's wrong with that?

Do you want to go so far and create standardized series? The same engine, the same chassis, and Newey's body design for thirty cars? There is your dilemma, because if you reject standardization, the same amount money applied to the same technical rule book inadvertently has to yield very narrow set of optimized solutions, resulting in thirty alike cars on the grid. This is different type of standardization, this time in fifty shades of grey.  Do you think this will be attractive to fans, advertisers, and teams? Congratulation, because you have also effectively neutered WCC challenge.

So what's the solution? Toss out rule book, and everything goes for the same money? Nobody will agree to such state of racing, because F1 is not supposed to be Mad Max Derby, Australian style.

Solution is (methinks) in stable regulations permitting amortization of the initial investment, relaxing excessive restrictiveness, because finding alternatives is all too expensive. Effort in my perception should perhaps focus on building a simpler racing car by adopting different technical regulations over what we have today.

Regarding cash, let team's bookkeeper worry about money required for participation in the series.

BTW, I don't think that traditional circuits are suited for 30 cars lining up on the grid.

Remember what papa Marchionne said; after he has ordered an internal audit to find out how much money was saved due to restrictiveness imposed by FiA (with Fernley of FI and alike pushing regulators into that), and audit result was - nada, zilch, zero. Not a single EUR was saved by Ferrari, because they are still building an expensive, prestige car, but merely by alternative means (to restricted methods).

Remove pit-wall, simplify aero, etc. There is number of overpriced gadgets hung onto a car teams are forced to buy in UK. Let it go once for all. They could do that, IF THERE IS WILL.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is no good IMO.

There were similar secret meetings with FOM long time ago, and we know how that ended up. Liberty can talk about process transparency, but now we have this, and it will backfire. That's what i think. Teams are not stupid, and they will seek protection. I have no doubt about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Brawn is now talking about having 13 teams in F1. This is a very good thing in my opinion.

Again, so far, I like everything I am hearing. Definitely a better tone that the Ecclestone/Mosely era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 8:42 AM, Sakae said:

I think that's a bad move.

Well, I think it is better than the current status quo.....but I think what they should really do is put in a budget cap.

The current status quo is still not working. For example, the only chance for any other team to win is if all four Mercedes and Ferraris run afoul (as happened at Baku). This is really still not good racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collectively CVC and Liberty aren't going to cover any accrued debt they potentially incurred, if they convert series into 13 teams racing lawnmowers for cost saving purposes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they are hardly going to do that.....and its does appear that they are not going to pursue a budget cap for now. It does appear that they are going to work out the income redistribution to help the teams at the rear some and probably do something to encourage more teams to come into the formula. We shall see. You can't suddenly change everything overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is supposed to be a sporting series.....so all teams should be treated equally....but that would hardly be F1 like, now would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps not surprisingly I beg to disagree on definition or characterization of the F1. From a singular perspective, it is definitely not a sporting series in regular sense. I see a congregation of House of Lords in a place where excess is normal, and fairness a word missing from their vocabulary. Participant entered not to compete on equal basis, but win at any cost; it is a game of polo for rich and ultra rich, and if you have to worry about  budget, then you do not belong. If Liberty will think they can skim whatever they want and cut teams down, it will be teams who cut them down, methinks. Knowing your product would be good start, and I've heard nothing yet which would assure me that Malone knows what he is doing in this pot containing mix of high technology, dose of opulence and abundance of bloated egos.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 September 2017   8:27 (CEST)

Ross Brawn has hired Symonds, and now they are 4, planning to expand (of course, kingdom is growing) to 12. Has anyone any opinion about this group? I am personally disappointed. Where is the leadership in consultation with stakeholder how is series defined? How they are planning to optimize series if there is no common vision what the end product should entail? Ecclestone once suggested that Brawn, contrary to popular views, actually hasn't done any engineering, but he had people who has done it for him, while he was praised in public. I like Ross, but now I am dubious about his sense and direction where he is heading, because people around him seems to be the same people who created the mess in the first place, and I am seriously in doubt, that they have learned anything of it. Dumping hybrid engines, and shifting design trend into RBR design office - what that will solve? Mercedes's hegemony is not a cause, but symptom of flawed leadership in FiA's F1 branch, just as FOM commercial control, and without fixing the core issues first (top 20%), I am not sure what is Ross hoping to achieve.  

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 September 2017   8:19 (CEST)

Should we considered rumors as routine MO for killing time between races? Latest claiming that Honda will purchase TR, and Porsche RBR (in 2021) are really juicy ones, but I like it. Change is sometimes a way forward, and besides, I have enough of Horner and alike talking about their problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 October 2017   10:10 (CEST)

Quote

Speaking to the Daily Mail, Ecclestone said, “Chase had preconceived ideas of what needed to be done. But now he’s on board, it isn’t quite as easy as he thought. So I feel sorry for him.”

“They haven’t done anything yet as far as I can see. They said they wouldn’t talk, they would act. They said I talked before doing anything. I didn’t. I got things done quietly. All they do is talk.

Europe is dead, said Mr. Ecclestone in other time, and other place, so now he will move there to live for whatever time is left in his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sakae said:

16 October 2017   10:10 (CEST)

Europe is dead, said Mr. Ecclestone in other time, and other place, so now he will move there to live for whatever time is left in his life.

So much for the legacy of the man.

Time has moved on tho. No new ideas, the search for new territories for financial gain while killing of the European races, etc. Time has moved on, he had nothing new to offer, he had to go 

He was his own worst enemy... If it's true they don't even want him to attend races anymore, sad state of affairs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now