F1 and leading teams have an agenda - Force India BBC Sport - F1 and leading teams have an agenda - Force India F1 teams play down talk of US GP boycott F1 teams play down talk of US GP boycott - SuperSport - Motorsport Bernie: F1 could drop to 14 cars Bernie: F1 could drop to 14 cars | Planet F1 | Formula One News
....but we have Baku next year lol! Things are great! It is F1's problem to worry about F1. Too nice a day here to waste time on that. Almost feels like summer. Time for the mountain bike
Interesting article F1 heading for meltdown? F1 heading for meltdown? - Pitpass.com I like the comparison with GP2; F1 teams spend so much more than GP2 teams ($200m as opposed to $4m), just to go 6 secondes faster !!! I like GP2 more and more ...
It would serve F1 right if they did boycott the Austin race. Show the public what an unfair global sport it has become. I mean giving a team more of the pie because of "historic success", whats that about Give the smaller teams a bigger slice of the F1 pie.
I did write somewhere that the F1 model is at threat from the greed of top players. First, Bernie and CVC keep apparently 35% of the proceeds of F1. It's an enormous share of the loot, for what they provide. It's akin to a license to print money! Also, the top players, Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and McLaren apparently get the biggest share of what is redistributed to the teams. But they need the smaller teams to make up a field and compete against; otherwise, there would only be 8 cars on the grid, and not much of a race. But, Bernie and the top teams need the "minnows", the lesser teams, the back marker to sell the circus as an interesting proposition to the circuit owners, the TV channels and the sponsors at large. Instead, they slowly strangle them and push them to oblivion.
FOr the sake of completeness (as opposed to your apparent agenda) Lopez has denied the boycott allegation (indirectly referenced by you from motorsport.com too) Asked whether the trio of teams were planning to stage a boycott, Lotus owner Gerard Lopez told Press Association Sport: "I've just found out about the story now, so my answer is no. "I have to say I'm a bit surprised - but then nothing should surprise me in Formula One" Lotus F1 Team @Lotus_F1Team · 12h 12 hours ago For an absence of doubt, we will be racing on Sunday. That's kinda why we're here.
Outside of the Indy debacle, the field hasn't been this light since the FOCA boycott at Imola. U.S. fans have weathered enough of a shellacking from F1, I fear a boycott at COTA would put the last nail in the coffin. Although a boycott from the poverty pack might initiate an immediate revamp on fund distribution, COTA isn't the best venue strategically to highlight the issue. Selecting a race coinciding with the imminent crowning of a new WDC would likely generate a quick resolve.
And what agenda is that, may I ask? I reported articles published in newspapers here, and even put a question mark at the title of that thread. If the media report the threat of a boycott of the US GP by some teams to show their displeasure with Ecclestone and the FIA in general, am I also responsible? Here is also an article from a reputed newspaper here: US Grand Prix 2014: Lotus, Force India and Sauber all threaten to boycott race as F1 enters financial turmoil US Grand Prix 2014: Lotus, Force India and Sauber all threaten to boycott race as F1 enters financial turmoil - Telegraph Very often, there is no smoke without a fire ...
Revenue sharing has worked reasonably well in baseball. It could work in F1. Sports don't need the small fry to win the championship, but they do need them to be competitive. Watching the same teams win year after year, is boring, esp. if they are whipping teams that are an uncompetitive lot, just there to fill out a schedule. If fans of the small fry know a priori their teams have no chance, why watch? If fans of large fish know they are almost guaranteed a playoff spot, why bother caring until championship round? Eventually, interest wanes, the sport becomes irrelevant. Of course, as the fan of two big market, low recent success teams - NY Mets & Ferrari - my opinions will change if & when either gets good again! ...T
The sporting aspect has taken a back seat long time ago. Now F1 is just a business sold as entertainment. But if the show becomes no good, soon nobody goes to watch it...
Impo the F1 show has been bad since they got rid of refueling now the sound is gone. Micheal said that all you can do in roll around and look after your tires . With refueling if you car was hard on tires you could run light and make a extra pit stop . Pre 2003 you could start the race with a light fuel load and just go balls out and you couldn't let what to pass the guy in front because he might be on a different fuel load . All this drs and krs crap is to help passing passing it should be hard to pass just ask Fred he couldn't pass a back marker for half the race that's drama . I think all of can agree that all the rules changes are costing teams alot of money . Now you have f1 going green do you think putin liked his new grand prix because it's saving the mother earth sorry my russia friends mother russia
It's also a mostly pointless technical exercise meant to satisfy those who insist that F1 needs to be "relevant" to be successful. No it doesn't. It needs to be exciting.
True, it's the cost of technology that is killing the sport. There must be a way of finding out who is the best driver and presenting an exiting show at a fraction of the cost, without spending billions doing it. Now F1 has become a showcase for car makers to display their technology. The FIA has been too influenced by the car makers' agenda.
I agree up to a point, but the rule makers could specify 6 liter pushrod engines with mechanical fuel injection and the manufacturers would still participate simply because of the lower costs and the obvious marketing opportunities. All that talk about technical innovation and relevance is just eyewash to satisfy greenies, government nannies and gadfly shareholders.
If F1 pulls a stunt again similar to the 2005 USGP, I'm done for good. The only reason that didn't stop me from watching is that those were some of the fastest F1 cars ever (along with 2004) and weren't ugly like they are now. Hopefully this weekend goes smoothly.
THIS^! Only since the broadcast sound has been been turned down(off)is it even bearable for me to watch anymore. I am thoroughly disgusted with what F1 has been reduced to.
This year electric motors, next year small rocket motors attached to KERS, wing opens rocket motor fires for 3 seconds, parachute deploys slows you down to 200 mph and detaches ..... Ticket prices will increase to reflect research and development.
F1 is mandating high costs where it isn't needed (Powerplants) instituting cost cuts where they hurt the sport (testing bans) and sucking too much money out. Any one of these three could kill a 'sport".
I'm really starting to get turned off to F1. The "pinnacle" of F1 cannot develop their engines during the season, hardly any testing is allowed, my friend is at Austin now and says the cars sound like s_ _t, even Matt LeBlac in an interview at Austin said they're so quiet he doesn't need earplugs. Small teams complaining. It's an expensive sport, if you can't afford it why go into it? So now the top teams have to go down to their level? Unacceptable. You don't go into a Bentley dealership on a Russian Lada budget.
I think the small teams have made their case clearly. They are not looking for charity, but a more equitable share of the proceeds.
The question is what "equitable" is. My concern isn't for any particular team but for the sport. Before we decide how much should be awarded to whom we need to address how much money should be returned to the sport and how much is an "equitable" distribution to those who own it.
They might wind up "boycotting" COTA just because the tires didn't expect the cold snap. Skiing, anyone?
Well, as you know a lot of it is shrouded in secrecy. Bernie, the FOM and CVC keep 35% of the pot for starter. Ferrari is supposed to receive between $90m and $120m more than anybody else on the ground that it participates since 1950. They extracted that from Bernie early on. Also, McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, Williams are also rumoured to have "appearance fees", as "elite teams". Then, money is redistributed according to results. That favours the top teams as well. Apparently, Red Bull and Ferrari received in excess of $200m each last year, but Caterham about $6m, and Marussia the same. I quote from memory. The top teams already don't have problem to attract sponsorship, but for the minnows .... That model isn't equitable, I would think.
