Do we need some new tracks!

All the talk is about changing the cars. But if you do the math for ten teams maybe having some better tracks is the key. What do you guys think about Magnycourt (lots of run off)? It would be interesting to banter about the dollars or yen or euros to compare between holding back the teams or improving some of the tracks. Instead of changing the cars lets improve the track. What do you guys think?

 

Big, big $$$ in the tracks. And largely out of FIA's control.

F1 is a business... as such, they want to reduce expenses... however, the premise of the "formula" has a lot to do with maximum investment. So, I think, rather than trying to reduce absolute levels of investment by spec'ing things to eliminate the need for investment, they should instead be focused on best amortizing investment.

For example, the closer you keep the technology to usable on the road, then the more the expenses can be leveraged for use in road cars.

Putting that together with the goal of slowing things down to provide better and safer racing on existing tracks, rules that require minimum of 4" of road clearance and eliminate wings make a lot of sense. Why? Investing lots of R&D in wings and underbody aero that only works with 1" road clearance cannot be re-used much on road cars. But aero R&D on a wingless car with 4" of clearance... now that may be highly applicable.


Keeping the rules stable also helps amortize costs. And that's particularly important to the poorer teams. This is where FIA is screwing up worst... the more they change the rules to combat Ferrari dominance, the more they play into Ferrari's hands. Ferrari's budget allows them to quickly develop a great solution for a new ruleset. The other teams need to spread that R&D over several years... unfortunately, by the time they get it figured out, FIA has changed the rules again. Stupid.

Priority one with the new ruleset should be: after the next change, we leave the rules alone for the next 5 years, AT LEAST. And then expect the poorer teams to suffer for the first year, but slowly climb back towards the rich guys as their R&D returns are diminishing.

If they continue on the current path of making big changes that restrict and spec things in the vain hope to level the field, then they will find that Ferrari (and other rich teams) continues to dominate until they've fully spec'd F1, at which point F1 is no longer "formula one" and Ferrari and others leave, and the sport (as we know it) vanishes. Sad, really.

 

Actually Brian, Its the small poorer teams that keep crying foul and yelling that the rules should be changed. Jordan and Minardi keep trying to change the rules to get more air time. Believe it or not Ferrari management is getting pretty pissed at this continuous rules changing that is why Ferrari have talked about quiting F1. Not that Luca is ever going to let ferrari quit F1. That would be a disaster for F1 and for small teams like Minard and Jordon. No one would watch F1 anymore. So although Ferrari seems to have a limitless budget they are not too happy to have to spend so much every season to adapt to new rules. So its actually the smaller teams like Minardi and Jordon who want all the rule changes. The FIA and Ernie would be more than willing to stiick to the rules from 1999 and 2000. All this mess has been caused due to a battle for commercial rights to the huge television money Ernie earns. So the fight over televesion rights is affecting the technical rules of the sport too.

 

How does smaller engines and spec tires get them more air time?

I stick by my statements, no matter who's crying for the rules changes... as long as the rules are changing, the rich teams benefit. The rules may need some changing, but they need to change them and stabilize them.

On what do you base that assertion? I'm pretty sure FIA and BE want to boost viewership and are keen to change the rules to accomplish that.

And who's Ernie?

 

Unfortunately, the FIA doesn't grade tracks on their raceability, but by the quality of their amenities.

 

Like it or not, it remains the oldest, most historic and closest to original of all the tracks left in the world. Losing it would be losing a part of the History of Motor Racing.

 

Well Brian, This a double edged sword. There are two basic problems that F1 faces:
1) Commercial Problems. All the teams are demanding that they get a cut out of the TV rights that Ernie earns so much from. This demand is based upon the fact that costs of maintaining an F1 team are getting ridiculous and they need the money to help.

2) Technical problems. Instead of of distributing commercial TV rights to the teams, Ernie wants to reduce the cost of maintaining a team. He does not want to distribute this source of revenue so he promises to get costs reduced instead. So he has used his influence over small teams like Jordan and Minardi getting them to crib over rule changes so that costs can be lowered.

So all Ernie wants to do is keep the lucrative TV revenue. It is Jordan and Minardi that want to have more time on television for their sponsors. The smaller engine and tire specs will give teams like Minardi and Jordon the breathing room they need to survive. So then they will stop coplaining about costs. However, they will not get the TV money. While the teams like Ferrari and Mclaren will continue to spend huge amounts of money trying to stay ahead. This is why ferrari has threatened to quit F1 because they have to spend the money due to rule changes to stay ahead yet they do not get revenue from the TV rights.

Yes I agree 100%. Ernie wants to boost viewership for F1 as a whole. The small teams like Jordon and Monardi want to boost just their own TV time so they can get more sponsors. As long as they have an equitable share of Tv time they can demand higher prices. The problem is even with smaller engines and stable rules, Jordon and Minardi are still going to be backmarkers and not do too well. Its a fact of life. They are just not competitive. In order to be competitive they need to perform well. In order to perform well they need more resources. To get those resources they need money. And Ernie ain't going to give the money from the TV deals.

 

Ernie, huh?

I do understand the dynamics there.

What I've never understood is why, with the contract soon to end, Bernie has much influence at all. All the TV revenues should be going to the teams minus the expenses of running a joint marketing group to market and sell the TV rights... and the associated race/show expenses. As much money as the teams are spending, handling the marketing and TV production should be no problem to finance.

If I am Luca or Todt, I get with the other key team owners and walk. The rest of the teams will follow... especially if it means more profitability.

The only alternative is to be willing to pay Bernie a modest amount to be that marketing/production division (since he's been doing it). That is, the team owners get together and dictate how things are going to work after the contract runs out... and if Bernie doesn't like it, then the teams walk and he's gone.

So, what am I missing. Why aren't they kicking Bernie all over the place? And why does Bernie think he can continue to jerk the teams around? What is it that Bernie has that the team owners need? (post-contract) The "Formula One" trademark?

 

SHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh! We don't use the B any more
Ernie likes to Eat all the all money. Well I admit am horrible with names.

You are right Bernie owns the Formula 1 company and trademark. he has the uper hand. Ferrari and few other teams can quit and start their own series but can't call it F1. Its a big problem. F1 cannot live without Ferrari and Ferrari cannot have its own F1.

 

I disagree... F1 cannot live without Ferrari, true; but Ferrari can easily have its own Bernie-free Formula 1000 (or some unused variation) with just a little coordination (Williams, Mclaren, BAR).