Mosleys thoughts on a budget cap & how we got to where we are today.

It bothers me so much when they say they want a budget cap of 30 or 50 million (whatever numbers where thrown about in his final year)...It's like you say ''can't stand the heat..GTFO''.

If you only have 50 million to play with, you are in the wrong sport if you want to see results. Double that money, and feed it 100m per annum for 3 years straight and you might get a point or two. That's how is, and has been for a very long time...it's not something that suddenly happened.

Lets see if my football analogy works here (I don't know much about the ball kicking sport):

It's not very fair if some local team from the Midlands decided to play a game against the top premier league team (presumably the richer one) on Sunday, then the small team complains it's not fair because they can't afford good players and fancy food and drinks to keep their players in top running order, so everyone from the premier league should saw their legs of at the knees to keep a level playing field, is it?

---

I still quite like my idea. It helps the poorer teams to get ahead by either getting more money fairly by selling (part of) their testing mileage or they try their own at testing and gain more experience to get closer to the top...I'd say it's pretty damn fair for all teams involved, without resorting to some sort of socialist regime.

 

I like that a lot Ian; perhaps the starting figure KM's is a bit too high but that's for the powers that be to decide.


@Bernie Ecclestone, I want recognition .

 

And I love chops and sauce but I don't listen to their advice.

 

Yeah fair enough. I'd love a paddock pass Bernie! I'll have a coke (or Red Bull?) with Max and a case of beers with Kimi...haha.

Yes I'm sure that helps a bit, thanks Neuro! Fingers crossed .

 

That's a very interesting proposal, I like it.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Mosley wanted to allow 4wd to teams spending less than a threshold. I would have liked that. Regarding more tests for back markers, testing costs money which back markers don't have. They would be forced to sell them to top teams, who often already struggle to get paid for their engines or are even under the same owner, making them slower still. I don't see allowing a greater degree of business freedom between teams as an improvement.

 

That's kinda the idea...selling their mileage (not all of it if they don't need to) to raise their own funds and can therefore improve and we'll have much more interesting battles for the rest of the points.

It's only really Lotus of the top teams that has struggled to pay their people but that was mostly through their own sheer impotence.

Obviously there should be a limit on how much they can sell a block of their mileage for and IMO, the mileage bought HAS to be used...we can't have 1 team buying all the mileage and then stick 2 fingers up at the other teams.

 

Impotence or incompetence?

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Has anybody other than the FIA or Mosley said there was a budget issue with F1?

I bet the top teams don't give a rats @rse.
Pete
ps: As Mosley has explained and is correct on, relax the rules to reduce cost as tightening the rules does the opposite as they will spend a fortune on things that otherwise would not matter. Conclusion: there is no budget issue

 

Maybe both.

 

Yes most definitely the money gained from selling testing should stay within the team for development/future development and to not go into Kolles' wallet .

 

My point is that as Ferrari dictates Marussia which drivers they should run in change of the technology partnership, they would then include all Marussia's tests as well as part of the deal.

My idea would be to abolish the money awarded to constructors for the championship and make it equal for all teams

 

Frankly F-1 should be spend what you want. if you can earn it great, and then the FOM / has to ensure there are 10 teams or more for each race. promote GP2 teams up to F-1 to fill out the grid - but then you have to alow teams to purchase cars & engine packages.

In the history of F-1 there has always been 1-2 top teams each year who are capable of winning the WDC/ WMF some years more some less. this is just how it is. it should be embraced.

i think its like kids sports - everyone gets a trophy for showing up.... why. F-1 is hard and to succeed you have to be better than the rest. that is what it is all about.

 

I would like him to explain the V10 to V8 engine change. An absolutely mind blowing waste of money.

 

If the small, call them less funded teams, throw in the towel, what remains to make a series?

I just do not think it would be interesting to watch a race with only 10-12 cars, or more if they went to 3 car teams. If one were at the track, you may end up spending 75% of your time watching the Jumbotrons until a pack of cars came by again.

I think it important to protect those smaller teams, it sounds from all I have read that without them the fear is F1 goes away.

 

Your just scratching the surface there, try this for starters.

Max Mosley's U-turns for 2009 and 2010 - F1 Fanatic

 

Complete deregulation is an option for F1 which needs a sharp shock treatment.
Unlimited budget and more design freedom.
You spend what you like and you choose your technical solutions within minimal parameters.
Just let the small teams fall by the wayside and have a smaller field made up of teams that can actually afford to be there, rather than being spoon-fed by Ecclestone.
It F1 survive that shake up; it's good.
If it doesn't; just too bad.
Another series can always be reborn out of the ashes within a couple of years.