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.
I'm so sick of hearing about cost caps and what not. I honestly wish a way existed to tell the slower teams to sit down and shut up. This is F1, it's supposed to be expensive.........
I'm so sick of hearing about cost caps and what not. I honestly wish a way existed to tell the slower teams to sit down and shut up. This is F1, it's supposed to be expensive.........
So you would enjoy watching a race with half or a third as many cars because the rest of the field has been priced out?
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
You both have a valid point. Ultimately though, the frustrating thing is that the people making the most noise about cost are the people most able to have an impact.
Don't like that the lower teams don't have enough cash to compete? Give more prize money to lower finishers and less to top finishers.
I'm so sick of hearing about cost caps and what not. I honestly wish a way existed to tell the slower teams to sit down and shut up. This is F1, it's supposed to be expensive.........
So you would enjoy watching a race with half or a third as many cars because the rest of the field has been priced out?
I like The Americas cup, and the last iteration had the lowest number of competitors in decades, and it was widely considered to be one of the most entertaining cups ever. The number of competitors don't make a competition interesting, it's how close the competitors are to each other, and how the competition plays out.
There are differences between motor sport and cup sailing.
The true reason we have the cost problem is the commercial structure. It makes more sense for the CRH to keep the money and run smaller grids than the fans would ideally like to see. For the sport it would be best to have full grids of 26 cars because more teams and drivers would mean more fans would be represented in terms of nationality and association.
Perversely everybody agrees to the need of cost control, but when it comes to implementing it the big teams simply block the action for selfish reasons.
If some of us are tired of the issue they should read elsewhere and should not open threads like this one.
There can be very little disagreement about the wish of the smaller teams to run profitably and see a more level playing field regarding the FOM pay out. The present system only serves FOM and a few top teams. If F1 was more affordable so that 20 teams were actually knocking at the doors for the 13 spots you could be sure it would be more interesting than it is now.
Lively competition in terms of numbers is the sign of a healthy racing series. To thin out the grids purely to make more money is not in the interest of the fans. If you have a wider audience you would also attract more sponsors and more manufacturers. All of this is not happenening because the sport is managed with the sole objective of maximizing the money flow to the owners of FOM.
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)
I am very much against cost control in F1. And why all that effort to keep those backmarker teams who are way behind the bigger teams. F1 should not be an even playground. There are loads of spec series which covers those needs.
If you can't afford to be in F1 then don't be in F1!!
I would rather loose a few teams and let the remaining teams have 3 cars each. Than having development removed because a few smaller teams cant keep up.
Holm86 wrote:..I would rather loose a few teams and let the remaining teams have 3 cars each. Than having development removed because a few smaller teams cant keep up.
A rather short sighted approach. It would quickly kill the manufacturer approach in F1 which is everything that stands between F1 and a spec series. If we want a good spectacle, a development race and good sport there is no way around maximum competition on a reasonably level playing field. Everything else means cutting the corners and paying dearly later for it.
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 wrote:
A rather short sighted approach. It would quickly kill the manufacturer approach in F1 which is everything that stands between F1 and a spec series.
Manufacturers have come and gone in F1 and it never was an issue nor did it ever cause it to become a spec series.
The backmarkers are still those with the lowest budget, and that always will be, and that is the case with every sport. The ones with the lowest budget are last. Much like the weakest of the pack wont be the alpha male. They try to fix something that is inevitable.
But in reality, it has got nothing to do with saving costs. The teams still spend the money they have to improve. The only difference is that it is more accessible, and thus it reduces the risk of teams not competing anymore. And that is the whole point, it would hurt F1 if teams would come and go. It would hurt F1 as a whole if next race there would only be 12 cars on the grid. It needs the consistency for people to keep watching. No one is going to watch a race to support a team that might not be on the grid the next race.
As a sport, I am tired of hearing about the cost. Nothing would change the sportsmanship if a team couldn't finance it's efforts anymore, but as a company, it would. And that in the end is the sole reason for the cost cutting measures.
i remember an interview with a engineer of a f1 team (maybe ferrari) some years ago:
He said that they have a budget for the f1 season and they are spending everithyng they have despite the regulation: "if the regulation force us to build a skateboard, every team will put all the money on that skateboard".
its a problem of budget not of costs. and its impossible to control budgets.
Holm86 wrote:..I would rather loose a few teams and let the remaining teams have 3 cars each. Than having development removed because a few smaller teams cant keep up.
A rather short sighted approach. It would quickly kill the manufacturer approach in F1 which is everything that stands between F1 and a spec series. If we want a good spectacle, a development race and good sport there is no way around maximum competition on a reasonably level playing field. Everything else means cutting the corners and paying dearly later for it.
You can't have a development race and a level playing field at the same time. They are mutually exclusive, furthermore in almost every facet of human history, a development race comes down to who has the biggest wallet.
I'm also sick and tired of all the cost whining. To semi quote a MotoGP post: "Bring back the ads for booze and fags - you won't have any budget problems!"
It has been my theory for a while that all the cost cutting measures are effectively hurting the chances of the small teams. The thing is, that the big teams will always have a big budget and they will spend it, no matter what. By clamping down on development like the engine freeze or spec parts, what happens is that small things become more important, particularly aero. And here, brute force trumps it all. A big team can test hundreds of aero configurations, changing the shape of one winglet in conjunction with a slightly different curvature on the bodywork, etc. The result could be seen in the past couple of years where the regulations were both tight and stable. While the overall difference in lap time between the front runners and the back markers was small by historic standards, the small teams were further than ever away from making an impact.
On the other hand, once you open up the rules, ingenuity becomes more important than brute force. A small team with smart people can outperform a big team again. This year is a good example for this. With the new engine formula, the teams did moan about the costs, but at the same time, the had to rethink many aspects of building a car, and low and behold, a small team like Force India is sticking it to the big guys, outperforming Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren. Sure, it won't last and with the regulations being as tight as they are and with ever more spec parts, they will fall back again sooner rather than later. Once everybody has settled into the new formula, brute force will once again triumph.
Therefore, I'm of the opinion that the best thing would be to completely open up the regulations once again. Throw out engine freezes, throw out spec parts or close to spec parts. Yes, that can make things expensive, but only for those who can't prioritize. A smart idea costs you nothing, but with the rules as they are, there's no room for smart ideas, everything is regulated.
At the end of the day, the costs are not determined by the rules, but only by the budget of the teams. Whatever they can gather, they will spend. The more we open up the regulations, the more things there are to spend that money on, the more room there is for failure as well as success. That would ultimately particularly benefit the smaller teams.
