Only in F1 https://www.planetf1.com/news/horner-libertys-democratic-approach-all-wrong/ “The problem is, the way Liberty are trying to operate in a democratic way” Problem?
Democracy doesn't always deliver the goods, and it doesn't seems to work in F1. Too many different interests in conflict.
It’s already an autocratic sport.... Mercedes are in charge, and the rest either tow the line or get their cars hobbled by biased scrutineers....... just like Ferrari were early last year as soon as they could make a challenge, and confirmed by the illegal/legal ******** of Mercedes cheating wheels later on, that were legal until the title was won, and then removed ‘in case they are illegal’ once it was mathematically safe to do so
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/141363/f1-cost-cap-risks-helping-big-teams--horner Formula 1 risks giving its biggest teams a clear advantage with Liberty Media's current cost cap plan, Red Bull boss Christian Horner has warned. F1 teams are in ongoing discussions with the championship's owner Liberty about the scale and scope of a cost cap that is being planned to come into force for 2021. But the complicated nature of policing it, plus the different ways that the companies are structured, has exposed problems in ensuring a level playing field. Horner, whose Red Bull team is a standalone operation from its energy drinks company parent, fears the fact Mercedes and Ferrari's organisations are closely tied to their road car businesses means there could be scope for them to better exploit any grey areas. "What is incredibly important for Red Bull is that we are afforded the same opportunities as our competitors like Ferrari and Mercedes," said Horner, speaking about the state of negotiations ahead of F1's 2021 revamp. "We believe we have earned that in the time that we have been in F1, and it is vitally important that any financial restrictions that are bought into the sport are on a fair and equitable basis, and are not in any way discriminatory against any one team. "Financial regulations and governance is an extremely hard thing for the FIA to police fairly, and we are waiting with interest to see how they propose to do that." It is understood that one of the proposals being considered is to have different versions of the cost cap to suit different team structures: so manufacturers could be treated differently to independent teams or standalone operations. But Horner is sceptical about that being fair, and is concerned teams could be given a back door route to hide expenditure. "I don't think there is any team in F1 that would not like to see its cost base go down," he added.
The problem is as follows: Mercedes has the strongest engine, so obviously tries their best to keep that advantage. Supplying many teams with their engine helps with the ''we'll quit'' threats, in addition that building a decent engine replacement for Mercedes will be extremely expensive, or in my opinion, a case of not going to happen...likely if Mercedes where to quit and remove their engines, the grid would be made up of Honda/Ferrari/Renault and a move to a easy to develop (for by example Cosworth) replacement engine formula will be done within 2 years. Red Bull has the best aero doctor in the house, so they try everything they can to have as much aero freedom as possible. Owning 2 teams outright helps with the ''we'll quit'' threats. Ferrari has heavily invested now in a competitive engine. But I have no clue which way they will vote or threaten to quit. Whichever way the wind turns for them, really. I don't take their quitting threats very serious anyways. Renault isn't strong anywhere and I don't understand why anyone listens to them anyways. They've quit and come back more times than I like to count. Then we have all the teams that are supplied by any of the big manufacturers. they don't wan't to admit it but they'll say whatever the supplying team wants them to say. These teams are constantly indebted by the big teams, whether they receive engines, gearboxes, drivers or have some sort of technical agreement with each other....(this all became much worse the moment the hybrid formula started, btw, due to sheer cost increase), so they haven't a leg to stand on. Mercedes has the biggest ear to FIA right now so they set the most rules. I genuinely believe that if F1 moves to a cheaper engine (Say a 3.5 V10 for arguments sake, much like the rules we had in the V8 era where the engines where very balanced IMO and all had their strengths and weaknesses without any one being overly the best), and simplifies the aero even to the extent that Newey huffs and puffs and quits again (for being bored), most teams will stay. In fact the only one I can seriously see leaving is Mercedes. Now this has nothing to do with my dislike for the current Mercedes team, but I don't think F1 will miss anything at all if they where to leave. They're only 8 years old at the moment, anyways. Even Red Bull, without arguably their strongest asset potentially leaving, will stay. Their costs will go down massively and their exposure is still massive, so why would they leave? But the clock is ticking. Time and money is running out. Williams can't survive much longer. I strongly suspect Mclaren will be out of money before long if they continue their piss poor results. Racing Point can be dumped at any moment. Alfa is not a rich company, the moment they're hit financially expect a for sale sign on their team. Haas doesn't have reason to stay if they're bottom team. Tick tock.
Its DTMized F1. 3 teams who can win. Im amazed at other teams wasting time and money in the effort to not win. Hard to see a future as industry and tech change. That simple.
I know if they did, they would go back to V-10's and a more "visceral" F1. Red Bull denies any interest in acquiring F1 Helmut Marko, adviser to the Red Bull team, has said that rumors about a possible purchase of F1 shares by the brand of the energy drink lack any kind of sense. After the rumors about a possible sale of the category by Liberty Media after a dispute that continues today with the promoters of most of the lines that make up the competition calendar of the new season, the Austrian brand has rejected any link to the purchase of F1 shares. The only representative of Red Bull who has spoken on this issue has been the adviser of the team of Milton Keynes, Helmut Marko, who has been blunt in his statements regarding a possible purchase of the category. " It does not make any sense on our part, " he said in statements for the German magazine Auto Bild. One of the few faces that have spoken about the meetings between Liberty Media and the promoters of the circuits has been Georg Seiler , responsible for the Grand Prix of Germany. The Teutón has recognized to be one of the representatives against the measures adopted by the leaders of the queen category. "It is important to note that the conversations with Liberty Media are being positive, but like the rest of promoters, we believe that we are in the background when it comes to making important decisions about the future of F1, " he explained. . On the other hand, the owner of the brand of energy drinks based in Austria, Dietrich Mateschitz, was undecided about the possible acquisition of part of the sports actions at the beginning of the year 2017 . The Austrian manager came to meet with Chase Carey and Bernie Ecclestone in his homeland to negotiate without reaching any agreement a posteriori. In fact, Mateschitz commented that the MotoGP showed more benefits in the Red Bull Ring of Austria, also of his property. In this way, the direction of the premier category of motorsport remains uncertain despite recent reports in which Liberty Media denied a possible sale of the sport. The current leaders are still in talks with the promoters of the circuits to reach an agreement that benefits both parties. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=https://soymotor.com/noticias/red-bull-niega-cualquier-interes-en-comprar-la-f1-959822&prev=search
This is no more than wishful thinking and unrealistic, in my view. Do you really believe that F1 will go backward and adopt 10 or 15 years old engine rules because they are cheaper? And after that what next ? F1 would be completely discredited in the eyes of many as "the pinacle or motorsport' if it did that !! You cannot stop progress, whatever it costs. I think we should let market forces influence F1. Tracks or countries that cannot afford the licence fees should be dropped from the calendar Those who can't afford to run competitive F1 teams should stop F1 and try F2 or F3 instead. If Liberty overplays its hand, it will go down.
I think the fundamental problem is that the current owners of F-1 teams are in it for the money. its a business, and all of the teams are owned by share holders. Even Ferrari have to balance its F-1 budget with its overall business plan. The F-1 team turns a profit. may be small to break even, but its not a drag on the company. ( advertising PR etc.. ) Every team is expected to make money vs. be an outright front runner. its about image and branding vs. racing. Mercedes have an F-1 team because it suits their image of sexy, high end cars... living a rich lifestyle. Ferrari are in it because of their history and again image to sell cars & products.... the other teams are in it for the same thing. Where major manufacturers are involved its about marketing and is attributed to an expense ... even Sauber and Haas are marketing tools. If F1 were run by enthusiasts like Enzo Ferrari and Frank Williams and Ron Dennis it would be different - manufacturers would be technical partners vs. owners... and we'd still have uber expensive cars and teams, but the profit motive would be much smaller... but still there. I think that F-1 should take over promotion and running of every GP - and sign an agreement with tracks on their own like NASCAR does - or purchase the tracks outright. its the only way of ensuring safety and profit. if they keep having track owners who want to earn a profit ( heaven forbid!!! ) then you will never be stable, as you have to deals with each track.... F-1 owns the means of TV production that is the source of income - they need to buy up the tracks ( core tracks - Silverstone, Monza, Paul Ricard, Nurburgring, Barcelona, Spa, Sao Paulo - long term deal with Monaco ) and factor all that into its pricing for TV revenue.... and then price tickets accordingly.... produce the same high quality show everywhere. then run the tracks like Nascar do .... focus on contracting with tracks outside of Europe that can pay more. F-1 has moved too far into the global Elite.. its great if you are in the Paddock, you are in the 1% club. problems is those people rarely are paying and are there as guests of large sponsors... they need to figure out how to maximize return with average fan, and show more value for a GP weekend. it should be a non stop action packed weekend... with F-1 as the ultimate star show. Each host city should have a F-1 Fanzone the week before and after with driver appearances, lots of Clebs, and engagement for fans and customers.... clothes, shoes, watches, TV etc... a huge market place that comes into town once a year.
I don't see it as a problem if F1 has become a business. In this case, the teams should be run like any other companies. In the commercial world, companies come and go everyday, profitable ones swallow the minnows, and only the strongest survive. Why should it be different in F1 ?
We're still recovering from the last time we let the market decide. There must be a balance, or we'll end with grids of 6 cars running in a non descript desert with empty grandstands.
If that's the case, the power behind F1 will decide that their business model is not compatible with the economic trend and adjust it. It's done all the time in the real world, and those who don't react quickly enough go out of business. If F1 cannot substain itself, then it will disappear.
That was a last minute boycott in response to the FIA's refusal to listen to safety concerns from Michelin-shod teams. 20 cars were present, but 7 teams refused to race because the FIA didn't want to reach a compromise, namely introduce a chicane. So instead of having a race, the FIA prefered to put the Michelin teams on the spot, and ruin the show.
Ferrari won, who’s complaining! And Definately not the perennial losers that came third and got their biggest single points haul that season!
Ah, yes, I´ve already heard that. The last time the economy "self-readjusted" a few were richer and the rest of the world was in recession. We´ll be ****ed if they only react when the F1 has already crashed. Do you think that Mercedes or Red Bull care about the F1 in the long term, or even Liberty? They want their dough and don´t care if Silverstone or Monza disappear. I´m a long term customer of their product and I want Monza. Monaco doesn´t pay any fee because of its historic significance. Liberty has to understand that Monza has its significance too and doesn´t need to compete for a slot in the championship with a non-descript track in the middle of the desert.
We have lost tracks of "historical significance" in the past, and other tracks have been emasculated beyond recognition too (Nurburgring and Hockenheim). We lost the Dutch GP, the Swedish GP, the Argentinian GP, etc... we lost the French GP for 8 years ! There was no US GP for years too. But F1 survived, so I don't think losing Monza, or Silverstone, or Mexico will make much difference. F1 footprint moved Eastwards towards the Gulf, and the Far East where exist emmerging and rich nations. That reflects economic reality: European countries are in decline. Liberty will never recover its investment if it mis-manage F1, but I rather think it will crumble Under the weight of contradictions. The teams need more money to bring more and more complex cars. The circuits feel the cost of promoting races beyond their means. The public is increasingly squeezed out of money by ticket prices, paying TV channels, etc ... The sponsors see their return diminishing with the reduced audience. This will become impossible to balance at some point, and F1 as we know it will have to adapt or decline to oblivion.
