3-car teams makes more sense now than ever. Perhaps this will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back on this issue. Three or even four cars on a team simply makes sense. Right now entire multi-billion dollar organizations are built around just two cars on the grid. If you can have a 24, 25 car grid on just 7 or 8 teams, the total costs for F1 would drop considerably. Sponsors would be willing to put up more money when they'll get more exposure with 3 or 4 cars on the grid and 3 or 4 brand ambassador drivers for their marketing departments. Really restrictions on how many cars there are on a given team is counter-intuitive. For a small outfit it might make more sense for them to run only one car and employ only one driver. Per-race consumables costs (which are peanuts for the big guys, but huge for these small teams) would be cut in half.
I think that we agree on a lot. I just think that class B will be more successful in a series of their own. Most fans don't look past the first three finishers in any race. Unless they have their own races to win the Class B guys won't build a fan base.
The smaller outfit still has to be a constructor and absorb the astronomical cost of developing their car even if they only run one. It would also be interesting to see if teams could squeeze more money out of sponsors if they run three cars or more and if those sponsors are even required to pay more.
If a team relies on pay drivers a one car team cuts their potential income in half. If they don't mind stealing (another) page from NASCAR let multi car teams run cars in different liveries lowering sponsorship costs.
When BAR tried to do that, the FIA/FOM stopped them. I also cannot see why a team cannot have just one car, if that's all it can afford. F1 needs to be completely deregulated, instead of having a rulebook taylored to suit Bernie. There is a lot of ideas from NASCAR that could be copied. For a start, I would adopt their pit stops protocal and limit the staff in the pit lane in a GP; that would cut the payroll by half at least!
Hopefully those that complain that the sport has been distorted by the factory racing budgets and conglomerates and complain about the formula as it currently stands, would vote with their eyes and wallets and support those racing in a Class B. Perhaps it would even encourage more teams to join? I think those current back markers and mid-tablers have a better chance of building a fan base winning a customer championship than winning nothing at all and being constantly on a financial knife edge. They can't compete with the factories and they are constantly out performed and lapped. We might as well accept that and make changes that encourage them to build sustainable teams as opposed the debt factories they have become. I absolutely concede I don't have all the answers nor am I privy to their accounts but I do wonder would Caterham, Lotus, Marussia, Sauber etc be more financially stable if they were no longer constructors and stopped deluding themselves that they can take on teams with £200m a season budgets.
I thought that was a foolish restriction then too. If a team can make a one car squad work let them. I suspect that these restrictions are to limit the team's potential income streams. Bernie wants them to be beholdin' to him. Cutting the pit crew would have a relatively small effect on an F1 teams budget. They'd probably bring the same number just to cover the setup work.
ME????? For a look at how a league protects the value of its teams, here is a quick read on the single greatest sports deal ever. Two brothers turn a bankrupt ABA team into a billion dollar fortune. Revisiting 'The Greatest Sports Deal Of All Time' - Forbes NBA Settles ?Perpetuity? Deal With Former Owners Of ABA Spirits « NBA.com | Hang Time Blog with Sekou Smith
One way to stop the spending is to stop changing the rules every 2-3 seasons. Next, F1 is meant to be the best, it's not a place for any budget team. Period.
Even though they still "exist" no one cares about the Bucks anymore...they are the the Caterham of the NBA, the Brewers still pull fans because 1. it's an event to go to during the summer and 2. they give the hope of making the playoffs most years recently....but I digress as someone who grew up cheering for those teams......
You have a point, but you can't have competition if the odds eliminate most of the competitors, can you? Grand Prix was supposed to be a contest among drivers. It has now become mostly a fight between commercial enterprises. It used to be a sport; it is now a business. Something should be done to redress that.
Has anybody got enough disposable personal income to enter the F1 playground, on here. Damn crickets, I can't hear myself think. I wouldn't mind earning Bernie's or for that matter any team bosses tax bill. IMO Bernies business model ain't broke is it..? it's amazing.
The vast majority of the time the rule changes actually are logical. They have altered to give those factory teams what they wanted in terms of engines, changes have been made in attempt to make the sport safer and have also been made to tune down the cars performance so that they don't outgrow the tracks that pay up. I'm also pretty sure all teams have budgets. Some larger than others. Williams budgets aren't close to Mercedes, Ferrari nor Red Bull. They operate further down the financial ladder and therefore could be viewed as not being amongst 'the best'. The question then is should teams like Williams depart along with other smaller budget teams because they can't afford to spend what the teams at the top do, 'the best'? Where is the cut off point for 'the best' exactly?
Engine changes may well have been suggested by car manufacturers, but probably not by those teams that buy their engine. Only Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari build engine at present and sell them, the others buy them. The present "power unit" are a lot more complicated than the previous ones and cost more, a lot more. I doubt very much if Williams, Force India, Marussia, Caterham, Marussia, McLaren and else rejoiced at the increased cost of engines per season: from $4/5 million to $20/25 millions allegedly. Their budget didn't grow accordingly. I suggest that the price of engines is the main reason of Caterham and Marussia's collapse, and it could well kill Force India as well. Renault had to start legal procedures to get some installments on his engine supply to Caterham, and Mercedes has been chasing Force India for late payments too. I think Marussia throwing the towel and Sauber feeling hot under the collar has something to do with Ferrari wanting payment at half season.
F1 is a sport in crisis after Marussia follow Caterham into administration F1 is a sport in crisis after Marussia follow Caterham into administration - Telegraph "A business model 'nobody can afford' is putting other Formula One teams at risk after negotiations fail to save Banbury-based outfit from administration " The current recipe, in terms of sporting and technical regulations, has ¬produced a sport that nobody can afford.
+1 How many damn threads on this topic do we need? I think everyone here gets it; you believe F1 is dying. But do we really need tens of threads all saying the same thing?.... Ian
This article off Autosport is most interesting for its budget approximation of USD 120 million per year The breakdown for an average team went as follows: Hybrid power system $28 million Gearbox and hydraulics $5 million Fuel and lubricants $1.5 million Tyres $1.8 million Electronics $1.95 million IT $3 million Salaries $20 million Travel and trackside facilities $12 million Chassis production/manufacturing $20 million Windtunnel/CFD facilities $18.5 million Utilities and factory maintenance $2 million HR and professional services $1.5 million Freight $5 million TOTAL $120.25 million Analysis: Why small teams can't afford F1 amid Caterham/Marussia woe - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com
So in essence by the sport relenting to the pressure of the two largest teams and the engine supplier to the third, they have jeopardised the future of many of the rest of the field? That is increasingly obvious, sadly. There were rumours Mercedes and perhaps Renault would leave and Honda wouldn't come back if they didn't adopt the new turbo's. I won't mention the Audi rumours too. It seems Bernie et al have chosen which side they back and its the conglomerates and engine builders that need to justify their spending to shareholders and board members. Perhaps my suggestion of a two tier F1 is dead in the water in terms of customer teams buying chassis' and engines from the larger teams. With this new generation of engines most cannot even afford to purchase their engines any longer nevermind any other components, unless their savings through not building the rest of the car themselves would make the engine budgets more manageable?
I suggest that a customer team would buy 2 or 3 chassis for the season, instead of having engineers designing them and technicians building them at huge costs. So they wouldn't need the team of the engineers, technicians and fabricators they have now; they would just have racing mechanics to service, set up and occasionally repair the chassis. Cutting away the designing team, the fabrication team, the research team (all high wages) would reduce the staff, and consequently the payroll, the traveling costs, the need for large facilities, etc... The cost of engine/power units would be the same; often those are returned to the factory for servicing anyway. The Autosport figures mention $120.5 m, but apparently Marussia has a $70m budget. No wonder teams get into debts just to survive, until the mountain of debts, compounded with interests catches up with them. Many also have cash flow problems because most of the costs have to be paid at short notice, but the FOM windfall from Bernie comes at the end of the year. Some may receive some "advances" during the season if they are struggling, but that is at the discretion of FOM.
That article suggests that smaller teams receive $55m from the commercial rights per season. Do you think it would be remotely feasible for a customer team to operate on that plus whatever they receive in way of sponsorships?
They would certainly get a better chance to survive than under the present system. If you don't have to "create" your car every year, just just buy one, operate it only, you cut a lot of costs. By the same token, if a manufacturer can sell several chassis to different teams, its research, design, manufacturing and development costs will be spread. It's not rocket science!
The "Bottom Line" in that article; '...But unless the sport faces up to the fact that there is a fundamental problem with the way it is structured, there will be no impetus to change the way teams risk being driven out of business.' As I've sated before elimination of current bottom teams will only mean the current mid-fielders will be the next bottom teams with all that means as far as revenue and potential sponsorship. Then its their turn out the door. The system is broken. Meanwhile Bernie and CVC could give a crap. Their share is secure. For now.
