Great expose` on F1 mechanics

Ha! Do you actually believe that will happen for one minute?

The market is set. Someone will pay Max. Organizing to control wages in an industry is actually illegal in this country FYI. Not sure how it works in GB. That's why there are player unions for all major sports here.

Are you actually suggesting that Motorsports is the only sport in the world where athlete development and ability has decreased over time?

 

ROFL!

At silverstone? Bwahahaha.

Most lay people will be many seconds off race pace in a formula ford let alone f1....assuming they complete a lap facing the right direction.

 

Williams had been chasing Senna for a long time, but he didn't want to leave McLaren yet.
So they lured Prost who had taken a sabbatical year after being sacked by Ferrari.
Prost knew Williams was after Senna, so he warned them that he wouldn't drive with him alongside. Williams said, no, no, don't worry.
During the season, Senna had a change of heart and agreed to sign for Williams.
As soon as he heard that, Prost announced that he would leave at the end of the year, not wanting to repeat the rivalry he had experience with Senna at McLaren.
So, "retirement" was somehow forced on him, but he clinched the titled.

As for Mansell, it's not because he wanted more money that the deal fell through. Mansell wanted Williams to book him more accommodation at each GP for his entourage, his personal sponsors, etc... Williams refused to give more access to the garage, or to pay fopr extra transport and hotel rooms as Mansell asked. Here again, there was bad blood between Mansell's wife and Patrick Head. Williams though Mansell would bow down, but he signed for Newman-Haas instead and won the Indy title!

Williams has the habit to fall out with his drivers, and not to rewards those who drive for him. He was ruthless in sacking Reggazoni who won Williams first GP. Same with Piquet, Rosberg Senior, etc...

 

I don't understand--for the life of me--why any one of you feels you have the right to tell someone else how much they should be paid (or how much they should pay someone). Or, how you determine how much is too much or how much is not enough.

There are names for this . . . and none of them are flattering.

How would you like it if I came to your office and suggested that you should make less, because there are monkeys who could do your job?

 

That's right. I believe it was someone with racing experience.
Here's another example: back when they were both in F1, Taki Inoue was at times faster than Max Papis. Inoue is known as one of the worst F1 drivers in history, while Max went on to do relatively well for himself. My point is that things are not as clear cut as they might seem.

Here is a fact for you: kids who have been through childhood trauma or brought up in poverty have much faster reflexes than rich kids who have never been through adversity. There are papers on this. Except for Hamilton, you have a full grid of coddled kids.

Look at the women who have tested F1 cars lately: the Spanish girl who lost her eye, Toto's wife and that piece of ass Carmen Jordá. Any guy with some F. Ford success would destroy them on the track.

 

Salary scrutiny is standard fare for any entity which receives state subsidies. Our industry recently went through top pay scrutiny

Ariel - BBC slices £33m off talent bill

 

Well, I concluded by saying, regardless of our feelings, it's a free market and the teams are free to pay what they wish to. I think it's perfectly fine, however, to discuss and evaluate the value contributed and compensation paid. I'm not making the decision, and I rather doubt that anyone in senior management is paying much attention to this thread, but, for all the professional leadership in place, has the Scuderia been rewarded with either a WDC or WCC in the last nine years after ALL the money they poured into KR's, FA's and SV's bank accounts? Are they even within spitting distance of one at this point? So, it can certainly be argued that this has been a poor allocation of resources. Perhaps, the Scuderia might benefit from a re-building effort? Get rid of the high-priced drivers, go back to the engineering drawing board and fix the design problems so as to actually give the car a fighting chance on race weekends. Once they're at that point, maybe the driver becomes a more important element of the equation. Until then, MB is just playing with everyone, they're fighting for second (or third) best only. These are only comments and ideas, though, so it's not worth getting upset about it. I'd be pretty shocked if the Scuderia's (or any team's) driver line-up was dictated by our Internet commentary.

But, it was Sir Jackie Stewart, an experienced (driver and team-owner), well-informed F1 insider, who made the comment about the monkeys. Sorry if a driver's fragile ego is hurt if they don't like what he said. But, maybe, they need to understand that they're just one bit of the sum of the parts. They get the glory, sure, when things go well, because they're being interviewed, photographed and seen on the podium. They are the "face" of the operation. But, in the end, without the equipment and personnel behind them, what can they accomplish by themselves?

Arguably, there are lots of over-paid (and, possibly, even under-paid) people out in the world. We're probably not going to change that, herein. That said, compensation for many is often dictated by things like union contracts or minimum wage. So, wouldn't you advocate that those restrictions be lifted and the free-market function for those, too, then?

CW

 

Well said.

 

Still don't believe you or this person who supposedly told you this story. There is a huge difference between a bad f1 driver and a random board member with some unknown level of experience.

Not a fact without a source. You are also wrong about the grid. Reaction time is only a part of Motorsports. You make it seem like these people have no experience. All of them have been through many series before they arrive in f1 with various types of cars.

Zero starts between them. Because they aren't qualified. Actually, to my knowledge Jorda never tested at all she just stood around.

You realize most racing drivers have formula ford experience right? ...or experience driving many different cars?

...and as someone who has raced formula fords and driven f1 cars new and old in a simulator, I can tell you factually that there is nothing easy about driving f1 cars on pace.

 

Just like some board members of major car companies are complete zeros between the ears, there are drivers racing in major series - F1 included - who are slow.
F. Ford success ≠ F. Ford experience.
I personally know three racers (one of which has raced in F1) who are, for lack of a better word, complete retards. If they didn't have double digit IQs they would have done better on the track.
And yes, F1 is subsidized. It is a semi-socialist sport, just like soccer, the most boring sport in the known universe. Rant over

 

Read up on hypervigilance. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

Simply untrue. You can look up the racing records of everyone on the grid and what series they came from. With the exception of Haryanto, they have all proven themselves at variously levels. If they were slow, that would be reflected in their results - in karting, FF, R2.0, F3, GP2, GP3, etc. It appears to bother you that there is a huge cost associated with getting to f1. That's life. The kids can't change the fact that they are rich. And there are a LOT of them and intense competition. The money gets you in the game, but it doesn't win it for you.

If you think there is a person in the world that can drive an f1 car but would struggle in a FF, then there is simply no help for you.

Actually I know of one racer that went from FF to FR2.0 (super easy to drive compared to f1) too early. He was very fast in FF. Got dismantled in FR2.0.

I also know 3 F1 drivers. One of which had many starts. I've never caught any of them telling me how easy it was. They are all highly intelligent however. Of course intelligence plays a role. It does in just about every complex sport.

I won't even touch the football comment. Too funny.

 

Um that is a bad condition, not a positive one. But assuming you are referencing the idea of threat assessment etc - that is exactly what they learn karting. It's fast, dangerous, and intense. Nothing like breaking both your legs in a karting accident to help you mature.

 

I have no problem with the fact that individuals and corporations spend stupid money on motor racing. It's their money to burn. I spend stupid money on cars as well. My problem is with the public subsidies and the political meddling that the sport attracts. And yes, there are top drivers out there who are functional retards (in F1 and otherwise) who got where they are through chicanery. Do you want to know what's even more egregious than socialist F1 and bread-and-circus soccer? The Le Mans 24 hours. My opinion after some serious scrutiny is that the organizers aren't consistent, the grid is full of mediocre pay drivers, the rule book is bent and twisted like an olympic gymnast on her honeymoon, etc... What the hell? Maserati's MC12 couldn't take part but Ford's new GT is kosher. On Audi's old R8 the entire transaxle could be swapped out while the other teams were forced to replace their parts. Pescarolo should have won in 2000, that's for damn sure. They should call it the VAG 24 Hours. And that rule that disqualified the Toyota that almost won this year is retarded. Screw F1, soccer and the 24 hours of Brad Pitt.

 

If you don't like it, what are you doing here then

 

I like motor racing. It's what goes on behind the scenes that I don't like and turns me off.

 

Voicing an opinion, perhaps?

CW

 

Not for me to defend the Le Mans organisers (the ACO) on every point you raised, but I would say this.

The Maserati MC12 wasn't built according to the spirit of the GT category and was refused at Le Mans, because it didn't respect dimensions regulations of the time: the bodywork was too wide by a couple of inches, and it had too long overhang front and rear. Maserati refused to alter these. Stephan Ratel accepted it in his FIA World GT Championship, but penalised it with a huge ballast. Without it, the Maserati would have been head and shoulders above all other GTs. That was the first time the Balance of Power was introduced in motor racing.

I agree though, that accepting the Ford GT this year contravened Le Mans rules too, as some other teams have claimed. My guess is that the Ford influence is more powerful than Maserati was.

Le Mans accepts 60 cars now, which means 180 drivers. You cannot expect the field to be made up of professionals only. Amateurs have their place too, and many actually support their team financially. The LMP2 and GT AM categories are precisely for private teams and non-professional drivers. I don't know if they are mediocre, but they have to satisfy some criteria before being allowed to race at the Sarthe.

Re. the Audi gearbox. I think the Ricardo quick-change gearbox on the Audi was banned after one year. But I agree that the ACO regulations favoured the diesel engines for many years. Audi was the only manufacturer that wanted to support Le Mans, so one may understand why, even if one doesn't approve.

I have no idea about the "disqualification" Toyota received this year. Their leading car broke down on the last lap and was unable to finish the lap under the minimum time; so it was eliminated according to the rules. I cannot see anything controversial in that.

 

I think it's time for me to pit in on this exchange. Excuse me, box!

Have a good one man! You should start some new topics in F1 or the other motorsports sections if you really want to dive into all this stuff. I'm not really interested in endurance racing at all quite honestly, but I do think Le Mans was total BS.

 

Would you care to explain ?

 

So, today's Malaysian GP results were another perfect example. For all the dollars spent on driver talent, the Scuderia couldn't even muster a podium. Again. And, this, when one of the MBs blows up (while leading, of course), and the other one has all kinds of racing issues (yet battles back onto the podium from WAY back in the field...passing KR).

To add insult to injury, KR finishes behind BOTH RBs, too. Which both drivers are paid considerably less than he is. Really quite a dismal result for the Scuderia. And, a mostly "boring" race by all accounts (until LH's engine let go).

Of course, driver matters. But, car matters more. Spending huge sums on driver talent, if you don't have the h/w underneath it, is pure silliness.

CW

 

+1
Put DR or Max in the Merc and watch them cruise to the top step, despite being paid a fraction of Hamilton. Hamilton is certainly no Schumacher

 

Fixed it.

But, all joking aside, RB and its' drivers are doing what they need to. Still not going to challenge when the MBs don't have problems, but they're making progress.

CW

 

Without the top tier drivers, the sponsors wouldn't be interested, and therefore the money you want to save to spend on the cars wouldn't be available. Ferraris issue isn't who drives the car, nor the staff developing it. It's the rules that prevent teams spending millions from testing components and honing them to improve the car, which means that by the time the car gets a bit faster. Everyone has moved on exactly the same, hence the status quo in results. It would take extremely good luck for anyone to beat merc at the moment unless the rules change and allow development and testing. That's it. No testing, how can you hone your car properly, it has to be safe and not explode or run straight off track killing someone, so you can't develop at a pace because you are testing in race trim at the race weekend, not behind closed doors in a safe environment

 

No doubt the lack of testing has indeed impaired the teams' ability to make headway against the MBs. They got it right, and continue to build on that. Just the way RB did before them, the Scuderia before that, and at times Williams, McLaren and Lotus before that. So, spending on driver talent is, basically, waste. Sponsor-driven or not. WTF does a sponsor know about designing, building or driving race cars, anyway? But, it's their money, and they're free to throw it around however they might choose to.

And, the Scuderia has always been the place that the drivers wanted to be at. It was validation that they'd "arrived." To be the number one at the Scuderia was the realization of a dream, I think. Maybe not so much any more, but there's such a long, rich history it's hard to believe otherwise.

But, I agree that, to some extent, there is a logical flaw in wanting great development drivers when you can only design on computers and not test much. Still, if the WCCs and WDCs are won in the off-season in the engineering department, spending $40MM on SV and $10MM on KR can't change that. All it does is enrich SV and KR, when there are other drivers who can get similar (if not, perhaps, the same) results out of the latest from Maranello.

But, to tie it back to crew, if you're paying your drivers $50MM but the crew guys $30K, $50K or $75K each, what message is that sending? A team wins or loses as a team. The guy who screws up a tire change, or forgets to tighten that bolt or doesn't remember to do whatever it is he didn't remember to do can cost a win (and a championship) just as easily as a misstep by SV or KR on-track.

It just sends a signal that everyone but the driver is not considered as adding value. Again, it's a free market. And, if you want the best, you pay for it, I assume. But, would SV drive any less motivated if he made, say, $20MM and the other half went to the crew and improvements in the car? Don't know if that's the case, but, at some point, does money lose its' incentive value for a driver?

CW