So what happened to the new teams?

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 Jun 03, 2009 5:18 pm

Let me further discuss my thoughts.
We have a problem in F1 in that incomes are smaller than expenses. Budget cap does address expenses inflation but it does nothing about incomes. That's why my concerns with new independent teams. Moreover with this concern is in case of reduced budgets do you think the sponsors won't cap their offers? Probably Bernie may support new teams (and I heard they are given 10 mil advance, and transport is partially payed).
The way it is logical to address F1 situation is to make something like this. You impose budget cap on all technological expenses but the sum is fully provided by FOM (maybe + transport). Manufacturers may have unrestricted engines that they must provide engine to clients at fixed price. Number of engine updates is regulated, expensive materials are banned. Teams must pay their personnel + marketing themselves.
timbo
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:23 pm

bjpower wrote:the teams will spend what they can and thats grand
if its caped for the car and block then it will be more about the creative engineers.

but the teams will spend any left over on everything else
did the cost of racing come down when they stoped engine dev.
na they just pumped it into something else.

you give them 40 mill on the car
they will spend 300 on the engine.


cant spend 300 mil on the engine if it is Frozen
cant spend it on the car if it is capped
that is the point of the cap.
the teams are obviously spending more than they can afford, especially since all the sponsors are pulling out because of the economy... The teams are short sighted while the FIA is looking at the future of the series. The manufacturers can survive without F1... but as things are now F1 would collapse if all the manufacturers decided to pull out because of the high costs like Honda has done. That is why Max, got cosworth back into F1.
ISLAMATRON
 
Joined: 1 Oct 2008

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:24 pm

ISLAMATRON wrote:200 mil is not sustainable except for the 5(now that Honda are gone) manufacturers... do you want to see a 10 car grid?

It is top figure. It would mean that a team mid be a solid midpack contender with 100 mil or less.

Many teams won championships with DFV's that were cheaper than today's engines, were they "diminished technology" in their day?
The engines have much room still for cost reduction, especially with a new engine formula on the horizon.

Back then, F1 was not a technological pinnacle of motorsports. Sportscars and CanAm had more advanced machinery. It is 80's and 90's that put F1 clearly ahead of its rivals technology-wise. Surely you can produce engines for 1 mil or less but I doubt their performance would be better than of, say, IRL engines or anything else.
timbo
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:41 pm

timbo wrote:
ISLAMATRON wrote:200 mil is not sustainable except for the 5(now that Honda are gone) manufacturers... do you want to see a 10 car grid?

It is top figure. It would mean that a team mid be a solid midpack contender with 100 mil or less.

Many teams won championships with DFV's that were cheaper than today's engines, were they "diminished technology" in their day?
The engines have much room still for cost reduction, especially with a new engine formula on the horizon.


Back then, F1 was not a technological pinnacle of motorsports. Sportscars and CanAm had more advanced machinery. It is 80's and 90's that put F1 clearly ahead of its rivals technology-wise. Surely you can produce engines for 1 mil or less but I doubt their performance would be better than of, say, IRL engines or anything else.


I think we have come to the conclusion that we all have a different definition of what Pinnacle means, I still think that thru the 70's F1 still had the most powerful engines.

The Cosworth champcar engines were cheap and highly powerful... of course they were turbo'd... I think they cost the Champcar teams a little less than 2 mil US a year... 2 mil US is still alot less than the current 5 mil Euro(10 mil US), what the cosworth F1 lease is set at for next year.

IRl engines are severly detuned because they have to reign in speeds on the ovals... they still qual almost 225 at Indy with only 650 hp or so
ISLAMATRON
 
Joined: 1 Oct 2008

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:52 pm

ISLAMATRON wrote:I think we have come to the conclusion that we all have a different definition of what Pinnacle means, I still think that thru the 70's F1 still had the most powerful engines.

Porsche 917


PS to me the indication of a quality of engine is the power from 1 liter of displacement, non-turbo.
timbo
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:55 pm

timbo wrote:
ISLAMATRON wrote:I think we have come to the conclusion that we all have a different definition of what Pinnacle means, I still think that thru the 70's F1 still had the most powerful engines.

Porsche 917


PS to me the indication of a quality of engine is the power from 1 liter of displacement, non-turbo.


To me only turbo engines are quality engines... I get 550Bhp out of 1.3L on one of my racecars... better ratio than F1!

did the Ferrari 312 & the 917 race on any of the same tracks where we could match their speeds? both had flat 12's but the FErrari lump was only 3L... what was its power output?
Last edited by ISLAMATRON on Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ISLAMATRON
 
Joined: 1 Oct 2008

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:58 pm

ISLAMATRON wrote:To me only turbo engines are quality engines... I get 550Bhp out of 1.3L on one of my racecars... better ratio than F!!

Well, you can account turbo to some extent considering turbo-pressure.
If you have twice the atmo pressure it effectively (well, I'm simplifying a lot but anyway) twice the displacement.
I agree turbo is good, but you have to come to a common denominator.
timbo
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:41 pm

timbo wrote:
We have a problem in F1 in that incomes are smaller than expenses. Budget cap does address expenses inflation but it does nothing about incomes. That's why my concerns with new independent teams. Moreover with this concern is in case of reduced budgets do you think the sponsors won't cap their offers?


This is a point the Max sycophants refuse to address. The total income from F1 is vast. The amount that actually reaches the teams is inadequate. FOTA wants a radical change in F1, a change that will put in place a realistic management structure and procedures that will pay the teams a more equitable amount. The fight over budget cap and two-tier F1 are just outward manifestations of their overall position.

Assume Max's budget cap is put in place. Do you think this scenario is NOT likely:
1) Since the team's spend less, Bernie will pay them less.
2) Since F1 will be seen (at least by some) to be devalued, and definitely cheaper, sponsors -- of teams and tracks -- will pay less.
3) Gate receipts, track sponsorship, and TV revenues will decline without the persenc og the "name" teams.
4) Despite 3), Bernie will NOT reduce the fees he charges the tracks to hold an F1 event.
5) More "classic" tracks lose their F1 race (see 2), 3), and 4) above).
6) F1 becomes more and more centered in OPEC countries and others whose governments are willing to foot the bill, regardless of interest in F1 (or its lack) in their countries.
7) Ad nauseum
Enzo Ferrari was a great man. But he was not a good man. -- Phil Hill
donskar
 
Joined: 3 Feb 2007
Location: Cardboard box, end of Boulevard of Broken Dreams

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:57 pm

No doubt they should see more money from FOM but I dont see FOTA playing hardball with Bernie.

When Ferrari was part of the GPMA they had a chance to help all the teams get more money from BE but they sold out and left the GPMA, now when MAx wants to cut costs they complain and try to go to court.

If they wanted more money from BE than they should have stayed in the GPMA and made BE put forward a new concorde that paid ALL the teams a higher %. Instead they sold the other teams out... and now that Max want to help the smaller teams from going bankrupt they are complaining.

TAke off your red tinted BLINDERS and see what really happened.
ISLAMATRON
 
Joined: 1 Oct 2008

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:00 pm

Bernie can't keep all the money if the teams do not sign contracts beyond 2013. They will automatically get more if they stay united and wait until the contracts run out. That the right thing to do. You cannot go back on something that you have agreed to before.
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 Jun 03, 2009 10:21 pm

ISLAMATRON wrote:
bjpower wrote:the teams will spend what they can and thats grand
if its caped for the car and block then it will be more about the creative engineers.

but the teams will spend any left over on everything else
did the cost of racing come down when they stoped engine dev.
na they just pumped it into something else.

you give them 40 mill on the car
they will spend 300 on the engine.


cant spend 300 mil on the engine if it is Frozen
cant spend it on the car if it is capped
that is the point of the cap.
the teams are obviously spending more than they can afford, especially since all the sponsors are pulling out because of the economy... The teams are short sighted while the FIA is looking at the future of the series. The manufacturers can survive without F1... but as things are now F1 would collapse if all the manufacturers decided to pull out because of the high costs like Honda has done. That is why Max, got cosworth back into F1.


I though they relaxed the restrictions if you took the 40 million.
but the point is they will spend the money any way they can.
if they dont spend it on the car they will build bigger server clusters, or something "not in the spirit of the rules"

hell they did it during the motor freeze
they worked on any little part they could.
and thats part of f1 now any little increse to get ahead.

its both a strenth and a flaw.

i can see the point of alot of the regs that have come out
ie dont spend money on what the fans cant see and chat about in places like this.

i think the engines should be allowed to develop.
eg if you take the toyota celica 2 1.8 L engines one at 140bhp the other at 190 bhp

i like the idea that engine development can filter down ( not saying the 50bhp had anything to do with f1)
but let them go nuts 2l anything goes.


audi did it for the la mans 24.

i think also one of the issues teams have is the getting cought out this year
at least they can throw everything they have at it and make up ground.
bjpower
 
Joined: 17 May 2009

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:25 pm

N.Technology submits F1 application

Where do they come from, these F1 teams? :D
Paul
 
Joined: 25 Feb 2009

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:39 pm

Paul wrote:N.Technology submits F1 application

Where do they come from, these F1 teams? :D


N.Technology joins Prodrive, Lola, USF1, Team Superfund, Epsilon-Euskadi, Campos Meta 1 and Litespeed on the list of new teams to have confirmed their applications for a place in Formula 1 next year.


16 cars! What a great field! Can you imagine how these teams will pack the grandstands?!

N Technology has been very successful in sedan/saloon car racing. So maybe NASCAR technology CAN translate to F1! :lol: (Yes, I know, very different levels of technology.) Do you remember that the N Tech Alfas came with a "factory" rear spoiler packed away in the trunk?
Enzo Ferrari was a great man. But he was not a good man. -- Phil Hill
donskar
 
Joined: 3 Feb 2007
Location: Cardboard box, end of Boulevard of Broken Dreams

Post Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:43 pm

That's 19 entries now :shock:
Image
'10-'11 Head of Powertrain - Glasgow University Formula Student
Scotracer
 
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Post Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:15 am

What's the maximum number of cars allowed on the grid?
freedom_honda
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2007

PreviousNext

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CBeck113, Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], langwadt, megz, RSS Junkie [Deamon], sectionate, Shakeman, the_end90 and 17 guests