You seem to forget that Ferrari already vetoed a cap ; ) What makes you think they can't veto being forced to sell to someone also? ...and if F1 loses Ferrari and Mercedes right now, there is no F1. So I think you are oversimplifying things. Honda and McLaren also already have an exclusive deal which predates any new rules as well.
Remember 1967 Indy when STP entered a 4wd Pratt & Whitney turbine powered car. It was 8 laps from victory when a $2.00 bearing in the transmission failed. After 1968, USAC banned turbines and 4wd.
F1 Commission rejects alternative engine - PlanetF1 : PlanetF1 Looks like another boring year in F1 for 2016. I think I will be "sleeping in" instead of watching the yawn train...
They need new suppliers outside the sport. Less complicated engines, allow testing and developments, and it's game on again. Now, the current engines sound crap, too expensive, and the whole formula that was supposed to appeal to manufacturers have failed.
I cannot understand why Renault stays in F1 making engines that guaranty that the user will be uncompetitive. Or, why Honda decided to jump into the swamp after giving Mercedes and Ferrari a head start and spent mist f the season hoping to be able to still be running at the finish. Both look like manufacturers of cheap sedans trying to compete with the big dogs. That can't help sales.
I'm pretty sure the executives, and shareholders, value the exposure. That is what they are paying for with F1, and really all racing. On paper they are losing money, but the marketing around it is massive.
Yes, I do remember, but Andy Granatelli had announced the turbine car long time in advance, so it wasn't a surprise. What was a surprise was to see it romp away in the lead. It's a pity a bearing failed and the car was sidelined. But that gave the rulemakers some idea and they started immediatly to restrict turbine cars. The pushrod Mercedes was never advertised before it came in Indiana and its arrival caused a furore before the start; it was not in the "spirit of the rules" they said. The rivals knew that, apart from a failure, they were beaten before the race. Penske won with Mercedes, and that's all that mattered. Of course, the pushrod was later banned!! History repeating itself...
I agree with you about Renault. I have been saying for years that Renault has no place in F1 or any top series, because its customers or prospective market is not there at all. Renault is a manufacturer of small to middle size cars; they are practical, fuel efficient, but not sporty at all. Furthermore, I can almost guaranty that 90% of their customers are not interested in F1. A Clio or a Megane buyer couldn't care less about F1; all he is interested is MPG, insurance rate, rear leg room, boot space and steering radius!! Success in F1 will not make Renault sell more cars, because there is no connection; the buyer knows it. Renault should rather get involved in rallying, touring car racing, or rallye raid where the customers can at least identify with the vehicles. Renault used to be good in national series, in rallies where its audience is, and it should go back there. They used to have the Renault Gordini Cup, for tuned little saloons, that brought more bums on seats during the season than the French GP ever did !! It's also a mistake to think that a car maker should essentially get involved in motor racing for exposure; sponsoring ocean racing, football, skying, cycling offers the same return as motor racing in terms of advertising. Renault is simply in the wrong game!
Don't be so naive. The executives mostly value the personal benefits they get out of it, like free tickets, free travels abroad, functions, and other gimmicks offered to them. I worked for a multi national. I can explain you how it works if you want. For a company, the sponsorship account is always a good way to spend some profit and hide some other unexplainable expenses. It's better to give it to the gladiators than to the taxman! As for the shareholders, they are often not consulted about sponsorship, and they don't question it as long as they receive a satisfactory divident every year. It's a cosy arrangement; "I close my eyes as long as you keep me sweet". I have never heard shareholders asking for a company to spend more on sponsorship, but I have seen shareholders rebelling because their dividends was less than expected!
Err...... I'm pretty certain that FOM (Formula One Management Ltd) need F1 for sales! It would be pretty hard to sell F1 to the TV companies and to the circuit owners if you didn't have F1!
+1 Either spend the cash as ''advertising'' (and sure, to a certain degree your product is being advertised), or give it to the taxman. I know what I'd do... To sponsor an F1 team these days your company is doing very, very well that most people in the western world are familiar with your product or the existence of it. It's a tax loop hole they can turn into company events with other executives and clients. No biggie...I know I would too if my company was big enough. Give it to the government and watch them spend it doing pointless things or give it to an F1 team and turn it into noise and personal enjoyment. win.
Slip of the tongue by Sainz...Ferrari engines for STR next year. Nice one for the young lads; they'll get a decent company car!
Getting a deduction on advertising is a little bit different than handing it all over though. You save the tax % on the deduction, you don't "save" the full amount. In other words, it reduces your taxable income - at least that is how it works in the US. So there is still significant cost. In addition, how much of the R and D can be saved also is a better question for a proper accountant than a guy on the internet - referring to engine suppliers here, not just people advertising on cars.
They better start rebranding the drink Toro Rosso as well as that'll probably be the better team of their two.
In Europe it varies by countries a lot, and enough rules to make you tear your hair out. Which is why tax lawyers make so much money .
I'm very happy with it; hopefully they get the final spec 2015 engine which will be very strong. fingers crossed! Hope their new car will be as good as this one chassis/aero wise, just with a stronger engine. The kids may bag a podium here and there!
I believe it. My brother in law is an accountant in Munich. His life seems very difficult. I had an accounting professor in college; highly regarded - had someone else do his taxes because he hated tax law ; )
In Britain plenty of small businesses sponsor their children but using their "advertising" account. You see small shutter companies, minicabs offices, grocery shops, small garages, food suppliers, transport firms, etc... sponsoring family members in amateur sports, motorcycling, rallying, etc... Just a few stickers on the car or the bike, eh presto !! It's at nice way to spend your hard earned profit instead of giving it to the taxman.
Bernie Ecclestone ready for fight with engine manufacturers | F1 News Bernie appears to be ready to confront the Mercedes and Ferrari domination.
The take-away here is that Bernie wants Todt out of F1 because he is no good for the sport and lets the inmates run the asylum.
