That’s overoptimistic IMO. The virus could be with us for a couple of years. F1 has already messed up through underestimating the seriousness of the situation, and planning for things to be more or less back to normal by the summer could just mean that a load more plans just have to be ditched. It might lead to fewer races, not more, as you could run into last minute cancellations again. I suspect sponsors, having paid up on the expectation of a full ‘2020 season’ would not be happy with F1 partially ditching this year in order to keep next year as normal. And something is going to have to be done to help the teams keep costs down, delaying the introduction of a new set of regs is an excellent way to do thatAMG.Tzan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:25 amThat's what they'll do! Another showcase of awful decisions if they manage to hold the 2021 cars back to 2022!
No need to get on with the 2020 season if we can't! Just try to race in as many venues as possible until December 10-15th wherever we can and then go ahead with 2021! I am hopeful that the corona virus situation will get better mid to end of summer!
yes it depends if Liberty are hoping to still get a race fee, for an event with no spectators! Perhaps they could be, or just concentrating on their TV partners and sponsors and teams
Why move Silverstone forward to April? If they're lucky it could be dry. But more likely it'd be coldish and damp/wet.
i was think of an extra Silverstone, and if we're not there it won't matter being cold and wet will it?Just_a_fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:39 pmWhy move Silverstone forward to April? If they're lucky it could be dry. But more likely it'd be coldish and damp/wet.
I doubt the circuit's owners would want to run it behind closed doors. That would be a big loss of revenue unless FIA/FOM/Liberty are going to waive the hosting fees for the year. Indeed, Silverstone couldn't afford to run the race without the 125,000 crowd and the money they represent.
Why? They don't get paid to turn up at each race. They get money from sponsors and they get end-of-season reward for their place in the constructors' championship.
deferring the rule change to 2022 would be even worse, you would give the big 3 two years to work on those cars before even hitting the trackAJI wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:23 amThey've proven they can produce a race winning PU. A championship would be nice, but it's not as bad as the noughtiesbosyber wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:38 amOn the other hand, Honda, while they felt they had to withdraw last time, also felt it was a defeat; added to that the difficult McLaren years and them only now feeling competent and capable of being competitive, they have something to prove both on the race track and off it.
It's not abandonment, it's a logical business decision. HPP could still supply PU's, if the series still exists...Mercedes is in a different situation, but to be seen to abandon a series over something like this, I don't think that would be a great PR image for them either.
I disagree. The fact they can't market their product isn't their fault.Red Bull, well, they might, but it would still look like throwing toys out of the pram as they can clearly afford it; I don't think that they would go.
Clearly, we will have to see how the year goes, and it might be very tough for quite a few teams...
No races = no marketing. ROI for sponsors has a definitive answer for the first time ever, it's zero. This is bad.
Prize money is based on income. Let's just assume they run the minimum number of races for a WDC/WCC, so, 8. I'm guessing that's somewhere in the realm of 40% of projected income...
Another reason to defer the rule change to 2022. It's not fair for the small teams.CFD stuff can be done from home, I suspect; and with presumably less testing, it will be freed up a bit - might very well be redirected to 2021.