FIA introduces £30m budget cap

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.

Post Wed May 13, 2009 3:58 pm

Sorry for this but i see alot of topics that are all regarding the same : the future (2010-) of F1. So it like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Just this question is: why is the future called a two tied championship? Do they refer to the teams that are about to enter the F1 and the current F1 teams?

In my point of view this is because all the teams that are willing to enter the F1 in 2010 with the budgetcap of 45Million can test and spend whatever they want right now. Combined with the 'free'regulations that can result in a super car that can beat ferrari (And all the teams that are willing to quit F1) easily. Ferrari and the teams that are willing to quit how much can they spend on R&D? Because for what i know the budgetcap is not concering the R&D part right? So if the big fabric teams can spend as much on R&D to optimalize a supercar for 2010 then there is no problem? Or is it just because there is to little time left for the current competing teams due to this season racing?
The teams that are about to enter have a advantage in time because they can start right now...

Is my pov correct?
snowmansion
 
Joined: 27 Mar 2009

Post Wed May 13, 2009 4:02 pm

Renault have joined the chorus of teams who will not enter for 2010 if the budget cap is introduced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 048112.stm
BWP
Tripos Media Partners
#TriposMediaPartners
ben_watkins
 
Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Location: UK

Post Wed May 13, 2009 4:13 pm

snowmansion wrote:Sorry for this but i see alot of topics that are all regarding the same : the future (2010-) of F1. So it like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Just this question is: why is the future called a two tied championship? Do they refer to the teams that are about to enter the F1 and the current F1 teams?

In my point of view this is because all the teams that are willing to enter the F1 in 2010 with the budgetcap of 45Million can test and spend whatever they want right now. Combined with the 'free'regulations that can result in a super car that can beat ferrari (And all the teams that are willing to quit F1) easily. Ferrari and the teams that are willing to quit how much can they spend on R&D? Because for what i know the budgetcap is not concering the R&D part right? So if the big fabric teams can spend as much on R&D to optimalize a supercar for 2010 then there is no problem? Or is it just because there is to little time left for the current competing teams due to this season racing?
The teams that are about to enter have a advantage in time because they can start right now...

Is my pov correct?


Read the technical regulations as they stand now. They are on the FIA page. There are technical provisions particularly for the budgeted teams. One of significance is the movable rear wing. Pat Head reckons it is worth 1,5-2 s/lap. This alone will put you more than a lap down on the leaders if you have to carry just this handicap.

Most certainly the budget cap will cover R&D of any kind as well. If an automotive team will becaught outsourcing R&D and not showing it in the budget they would probably risk exclusion from the championship.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Wed May 13, 2009 4:33 pm

hey guys, I think the FIA should allow some smaller teams to run only one car if they don't have the finances to run two. Yeah, they're a little handicapped for the WCC, but if they are willing to not bother with that, why should we?
jddh1
 
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Location: New York City

Post Wed May 13, 2009 4:36 pm

luullaka
 
Joined: 13 May 2009

Post Wed May 13, 2009 4:43 pm

What catches my eye in this affair is the little consensus-building FIA is trying to do (if any at all). Who's behind this kind of technical recommendations? It doesn't seem to be the teams. I strongly feel that FIA is trying to rule based on the polls they did a couple of years ago: perhaps they think all they need is the public. FIA seems to think teams are disposable once you have a captive TV audience.

Now, how captive are we? I posted a poll in a different thread to find out.
Ciro
Ciro Pabón
 
Joined: 10 May 2005

Post Wed May 13, 2009 5:15 pm

We are witnessing momentous things. This is bigger than the FISA/FOCA war if only because of the scale of things economically. I see all this as part of a carefully crafted FOTA script. We are witnessing very extreme "quit F1" statements from huge corporate entities not given to making intemperate statements. First Toyota, historically the most passive and reluctant, then Ferrari (previously unthinkable), then Red Bull, an unentangled "independent", and now Renault.

I pause to interject that Enzo Ferrari used F1 to fund his Le Mans ambitions which he esteemed higher than F1. As F1 loses its "technical pinnacle" luster, LMP gains it with the diesels, and other innovations. F1 is not immortal. GPMA or whatever could replace it in a heartbeat if all the players go there.

Merc/Mac have to keep their threats muted because of "liargate" and I think even Whitmarsh's comment about the "impropriety of Toyota publicly threatening to quit" was part of the script so Merc/Mac would have political cover. And Williams lodging their 2010 entry is also part of the FOTA script because Willy can't do anything that will give RBS any excuse to void the remainder of their tenuous contract which is their life blood presently. After all, where are Williams going to get their 2010 engines? Cosworth? Don't make me laugh. Its all part of a plan to put pressure on the FIA and FOM.

The unity of the FOTA is resolute and has come at a vital time if F1 history. These various "quit F1" statements are well timed leading up to the 2010 entry deadline. A drip here, a drip there, time to percolate, stir, stew some more add another ingredient, stew some with low heat and things will be ready to serve on May 29th. BTW, I see Renault's statement regarding the "unilateral governance of F1" as a measured but targeted "new ingredient" in the stew.

Expect BMW to issue their "quit F1" statement within a few days. Things are just too well timed and the lack of any shock from any team at another's "quit statement" tells us all what is being discussed at these FOTA meetings.

Personally I would like to see a coup at the FIA whereby the manufacturers all economically pressure the local clubs and national associations that constitute the FIA to elect their chosen replacement for Max. Then they could rewrite the bylaws of the FIA so the the governance is more accountable and democratic. I grieved at the death of the GPMA as you all know. I have nothing against Max but despise anyone's dictatorial rule. Nevertheless it is Max that is the problem and almost anyone can see it now. Can a leopard change its spots? Neither can Max amend his ways. The teams should have listened to me a long time ago as I have been saying this for more than a decade when the 1998 narrow car grooved tire regs were foisted upon the teams. Most of you are tired of hearing my anti-Max rants but time is vindicating me. It is WAY past time for Max to go. But even more reforms are needed to the governing structure.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
gcdugas
 
Joined: 19 Sep 2006

Post Wed May 13, 2009 5:41 pm

By the way, I should note that I expect Max to call the teams' bluff and for things to get real ugly and drawn out.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
gcdugas
 
Joined: 19 Sep 2006

Post Wed May 13, 2009 7:25 pm

Here's an analogy...

Billionaires often pay pop stars (say Beyonce) to perform at private parties. They often ask for their favourite tunes to be added to the list. The pop stars don't mind since they get to play a bit, travel and get the cash.

Now imagine the billionaire says to Beyonce "I've done a deal and some foreign governments are paying me a back hand to host my party in their country. Even though I now have loads of cash, I've decided to pay you less ... and by the way I've decided that you are only going to play Enimem tracks."

Meanwhile Beyonce knows she can fill a stadium back home instead of a few folk at a private party, she can play her own songs, get a fair share of the cash, and more importantly, build her own brand. Brand leads to merchandise and sponsorships, and they pay for the spectacular show.

Bit of a no brainer isn't it?
Richard
 
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: UK

Post Wed May 13, 2009 7:31 pm

richard_leeds wrote:Here's an analogy...

Billionaires often pay pop stars (say Beyonce) to perform at private parties. They often ask for their favourite tunes to be added to the list. The pop stars don't mind since they get to play a bit, travel and get the cash.

Now imagine the billionaire says to Beyonce "I've done a deal and some foreign governments are paying me a back hand to host my party in their country. Even though I now have loads of cash, I've decided to pay you less ... and by the way I've decided that you are only going to play Enimem tracks."

Meanwhile Beyonce knows she can fill a stadium back home instead of a few folk at a private party, she can play her own songs, get a fair share of the cash, and more importantly, build her own brand. Brand leads to merchandise and sponsorships, and they pay for the spectacular show.

Bit of a no brainer isn't it?


Man, you need to work for The Enquirer! That was pure tabloid gold!
Conceptual
 
Joined: 15 Nov 2007

Previous

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesto, CCBot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], gray41, mikeerfol, Sasha, SectorOne, SilverArrow10 and 17 guests