Moxie, I've no issue with your point of view, it is in fact very reasonable...if not one I share fully.
Moxie wrote: 1) Because it is boring to watch a "competition" where one team wins in excess of 60%of the races.
It's been like this for years. Brawn, Red bull, Ferrari and now Mercedes are achieving this. Yet the sport has grown considerable since 1990, itself a domination year for McLaren. And if we look at the gaps from winners to backmarkers, they have closed considerably since that time. And we have had some classic years between then and now.
Moxie wrote:2). The point is that I do not want to see a field full of "also-rans." I want to see more teams that have a real chance to reach the podium or even win at any given race. There will always be stronger teams and weaker teams, but two teams that win everything, makes everyone else "also-rans."
The field is currently fielding McLaren, Red Bull, Williams, Ferrari, Mercedes, and Force India as podium winners this year.
6 teams out of 11. I get your point, but it it doesnt add up to a field of also rans.
Moxie wrote:3). I am not suggesting "rewarding failure" or "propping them up." This suggests that they receive rewards that they do not deserve. I would strongly disapprove of a simple redistribution of money from wealthy teams to poor teams, as this certainly would be "rewarding failure." The changes I suggest is to adjust the economic incentives so that the teams at the rear of the field EARN a reward that is proportional to the risk that they take.
Who would risk something without any guarantees of reward? There needs to be something caste iron in this sense.
Otherwise lower ranked teams will be folding more frequently due to risking and then finding no reward due to their risk not paying off.
Moxie wrote:4) Bernie makes a ton of money putting on his circus, and these teams are his performers. Whithout them there isn't much of a show. Bernie needs to improve the product. Additionally. Marussia , Caterham and Sauber have fans too. Consider the financial cost to FOM of reducing the coverage of Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari by 120 seconds, and increasing the coverage of Marussia, Caterham and Sauber by 120 seconds. The risk for FOM is low for few Mercedes fans would notice that their favored cars are on the screen for 1 min less. At the same time FOM would be supporting a broader fan base as the Caterham fans would certainly notice that their favored car is on screen for 60 seconds as opposed to less than 20 seconds. The additional exposure will enable these teams to offer a return on investment to sponsors, which will help to improve their ability to compete.
This is the false fabrication of coverage which I think would not be at all helpful. How much extra would a team get if they are shown for a few seconds more? This sort of thing is expectant from prospective sponsors, and the extra would not really give these guys the magic 50/100 million they need to get closer.
A tenth of that....maybe.
Moxie wrote:5). I would not expect any of this to turn F1 around in a single season. I do think positive effects would be seen immediately, but a healthy, financially stable competition will take many seasons to develop and balance.
We have to consider that the environment in which Caterham, Marussia and even the defunct HRT entered the sport has changed.
They cannot be blamed for entering a sport promising a ridiculous 40 million budget, which then gets turned to the RRA which then gets ushered out the door.
But, in this case....what should F1 do? Admit a mistake was made and give the teams 2 options... allow full manufacturer support for their previous years total budget, or if this is not acceptable cut them lose.
Because the money side of things will not change, with or without bernie.
These lower rung teams just do not have the clout to be able to get more. FOTA was disbanded, Max has gone...and the landscape has changed for the minnows.
And it is with great irony that FOTA was disbanded in part due to lower rung teams constantly been swayed by Bernie's cash.
And as I mentioned before, why should the minnows be able to spoil innovation they cannot perfect as HRT did with EBD and Caterham with FRICS(alleged)?
There are 2 sides to this coin, and I know you can see my point as I see yours. I see a better F1 without these "new" teams, but would be equally happy to see them remain if they could buy off the shelf current parts all within a fiscally viable plan.
To qualify for the privilege just finish in the bottom 2 or three.
