More shennanigins
Discussion
Here we go. If Monisha Kalenborn thinks there is an agenda lurking, I'm pretty sure she will be correct. She strikes me as a pretty straightforward person.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116734
Bernie and CVC are getting out of hand now. Surely they can't be allowed to dilute the sport with 'B' class cars, its not right. Yes, I realise that the dwindling number of smaller teams are effectivly so, but thats not the point, they always have the hope to get a lucky result, move up or be super innovative.
All this has come about from the ridiculous costs of the new engine regs forced on all teams which has just broken the bank for some. It's all very well for Ecclestone to blame the minnows for overspending, but it was he and the FIA that dramatically moved the goalposts.
What were the smaller teams supposed to do, bail out when they saw the underestimated and optimistic cost projections?
Ecclestone has done more changes of direction on this subject than when he was famously filmed getting stuck in the revolving door at the Old Bailey.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116734
Bernie and CVC are getting out of hand now. Surely they can't be allowed to dilute the sport with 'B' class cars, its not right. Yes, I realise that the dwindling number of smaller teams are effectivly so, but thats not the point, they always have the hope to get a lucky result, move up or be super innovative.
All this has come about from the ridiculous costs of the new engine regs forced on all teams which has just broken the bank for some. It's all very well for Ecclestone to blame the minnows for overspending, but it was he and the FIA that dramatically moved the goalposts.
What were the smaller teams supposed to do, bail out when they saw the underestimated and optimistic cost projections?
Ecclestone has done more changes of direction on this subject than when he was famously filmed getting stuck in the revolving door at the Old Bailey.
andygo said:
All this has come about from the ridiculous costs of the new engine regs forced on all teams which has just broken the bank for some. It's all very well for Ecclestone to blame the minnows for overspending, but it was he and the FIA that dramatically moved the goalposts.
Whilst we take what Bernie says with caution, I thought he'd been consistently against the new engines from the start?That may well be the case, but it's a bit off to suggest that the smaller teams merely overspent themselves into bankruptcy without acknowledging the fact the far higher costs of the imposed new regs were the root cause and completely out of their control.
The small teams don't even get equal voting rights.
The small teams don't even get equal voting rights.
with respect, this situation has it's roots in the FIA and teams.
Bernie is only where he is because the teams abdicated responsibility to him years ago, and since then have done nothing to manage the situation, preferring to get one over on each other at every turn, whilst the FIA have basically sat on their hands and done nothing.
Maybe it's time the FIA looked at how Nascar is run? yes, it's a massive dictatorship, but it's always in the interests of the sport, not appeasing a single team.
what the FIA have done is preside over ruinously expensive regulation changes that are simply not affordable, the world has been in recession for 5 years now, F1 is not immune from the effects.
at some point, the ccts are going to cry ENOUGH, they cannot go on losing money for the privilege of hosting a GP with less and less cars in it and dwindling fan support.
I suspect Sky are losing money on F1 at the moment, they won't stand that for ever either
the writing is on the wall, things need to change, CVC and co. need to be binned, the commercial rights should be managed by a trust setup with the teams owning it, but managed externally.
Bernie is only where he is because the teams abdicated responsibility to him years ago, and since then have done nothing to manage the situation, preferring to get one over on each other at every turn, whilst the FIA have basically sat on their hands and done nothing.
Maybe it's time the FIA looked at how Nascar is run? yes, it's a massive dictatorship, but it's always in the interests of the sport, not appeasing a single team.
what the FIA have done is preside over ruinously expensive regulation changes that are simply not affordable, the world has been in recession for 5 years now, F1 is not immune from the effects.
at some point, the ccts are going to cry ENOUGH, they cannot go on losing money for the privilege of hosting a GP with less and less cars in it and dwindling fan support.
I suspect Sky are losing money on F1 at the moment, they won't stand that for ever either
the writing is on the wall, things need to change, CVC and co. need to be binned, the commercial rights should be managed by a trust setup with the teams owning it, but managed externally.
Scuffers said:
with respect, this situation has it's roots in the FIA and teams.
Bernie is only where he is because the teams abdicated responsibility to him years ago, and since then have done nothing to manage the situation, preferring to get one over on each other at every turn, whilst the FIA have basically sat on their hands and done nothing.
Maybe it's time the FIA looked at how Nascar is run? yes, it's a massive dictatorship, but it's always in the interests of the sport, not appeasing a single team.
what the FIA have done is preside over ruinously expensive regulation changes that are simply not affordable, the world has been in recession for 5 years now, F1 is not immune from the effects.
at some point, the ccts are going to cry ENOUGH, they cannot go on losing money for the privilege of hosting a GP with less and less cars in it and dwindling fan support.
I suspect Sky are losing money on F1 at the moment, they won't stand that for ever either
the writing is on the wall, things need to change, CVC and co. need to be binned, the commercial rights should be managed by a trust setup with the teams owning it, but managed externally.
I think that's a bit harsh on the teams. Bernie is only where he is because the teams abdicated responsibility to him years ago, and since then have done nothing to manage the situation, preferring to get one over on each other at every turn, whilst the FIA have basically sat on their hands and done nothing.
Maybe it's time the FIA looked at how Nascar is run? yes, it's a massive dictatorship, but it's always in the interests of the sport, not appeasing a single team.
what the FIA have done is preside over ruinously expensive regulation changes that are simply not affordable, the world has been in recession for 5 years now, F1 is not immune from the effects.
at some point, the ccts are going to cry ENOUGH, they cannot go on losing money for the privilege of hosting a GP with less and less cars in it and dwindling fan support.
I suspect Sky are losing money on F1 at the moment, they won't stand that for ever either
the writing is on the wall, things need to change, CVC and co. need to be binned, the commercial rights should be managed by a trust setup with the teams owning it, but managed externally.
Ecclestone was a team manager, and a good one. He took over transport of the cars to circuits and this saved the teams money. Their argument at the time was that they did what they knew well, and the more mundane admin was best left to one person.
The big difference was not the teams but the sale of the rights. Once Ecclestone had his hands on that the game was over.
The teams will obviously try to get one over each other. That is their function. It has been so for as long as I can remember. They compete with one-another. If a hundredth of a second can cost £millions then cooperation is problematical. Trust is not there. And for good reason. There is one team which feels it is the most important in the sport and wants rewarding for it. Why should they cooperate with other teams?
You seem to be suggesting that NASCAR is successful because it is a dictatorship. Yet the FIA is virtually a dictatorship, and certainly was under the previous bloke in charge. And he all but destroyed some forms of motorsport. Look how popular WSC was before he took over. I remember queuing to enter a forest in Wales at 4.30am to see fifteen minutes of top class rallying along a quarter mile length of track. It was packed. It was on TV. It was news. But the dictator had little interest in it.
In some ways a failure of F1 might well be in the interests of the sport. There is no way the FIA can afford to buy back the rights, not at the moment. They are too valuable. However, if SKY, for the second time, find that they are not getting a return on their investment, they will dump it as they have no interest in it other than as a source of money.
The BBC were forced to let it go - one of their flagships - so where it would go from there I have no idea. But it might allow the sport to rebuild.
It is not at the top by right but by hype. Take that away and it will fail.
B teams have been in F1 before, and in lower formulae. It is an admission of failure on behalf of the governance of the sport but it might work but at the sacrifice of the smaller teams. We have similar gradings in sports cars, but I'm not sure it would make good TV.
Worrying times, and oddly after such a riveting season.
To me it does look like the plan is now to run 3 car or customer car teams.
I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Torro Rosso or Minardi ?
OK Minardi gave us some fun - Webber in Oz was great - also think they stole a Fp1 in the wet once at Magny Cours. But that's about it.
The racing would be closer and more competitive. I guess the only real problem is that the team that consistently finishes last for a few seasons may start to have the same financial issues as well. So loose 1 team = 4 cars.
woof said:
Torro Rosso or Minardi ?
OK Minardi gave us some fun - Webber in Oz was great - also think they stole a Fp1 in the wet once at Magny Cours. But that's about it.
Minardi got pole at Phoenix in about '91 with Martini. Plus, of course, they won at Monza with Vettel under the Torro Rosso name.OK Minardi gave us some fun - Webber in Oz was great - also think they stole a Fp1 in the wet once at Magny Cours. But that's about it.
Half the F1 field full of Dallaras would be a disaster.
woof said:
To me it does look like the plan is now to run 3 car or customer car teams.
I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Customer cars are potentially a worse solution than 3 car teams.I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
At least the general plan with 3 car teams is 2x championship cars and 1x non-scoring rookie/guest/pay driver car. If you have customer cars who's going to be queuing outside anyone but Merc. F1 showroom door in the morning? And so the 2015 Australian GP ends with the Merc./Merc. first and second, the Lotus/Merc. cars third and forth, the Sauber/Merc. cars fifth and sixth,...
Presumably we would end up with 3 championships too - constructor, driver and team - or do Merc. win the constructors by round 5 thanks to their customers/a Merc. customer team never finnish lower than 4th but end up behind (and so get a smaller share of the money than) Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull because they build their own cars?
The thing that no-one has explained to me is why all teams signed the Concorde Agreement last year ?
By the time they were signing they would have known costs for this year and could obviously see how much they'd get from FOM.
If this was unsustainable why sign the contract ?
Its a bit like me going to a car dealer, signing up for a lease I can't afford and then complaining to the manufacturer about it 6 months later. I don't get it.
By the time they were signing they would have known costs for this year and could obviously see how much they'd get from FOM.
If this was unsustainable why sign the contract ?
Its a bit like me going to a car dealer, signing up for a lease I can't afford and then complaining to the manufacturer about it 6 months later. I don't get it.
Crafty_ said:
The thing that no-one has explained to me is why all teams signed the Concorde Agreement last year ?
By the time they were signing they would have known costs for this year and could obviously see how much they'd get from FOM.
If this was unsustainable why sign the contract ?
Its a bit like me going to a car dealer, signing up for a lease I can't afford and then complaining to the manufacturer about it 6 months later. I don't get it.
EDIT: Talking rubbish I thought James Allen had said this recentlyBy the time they were signing they would have known costs for this year and could obviously see how much they'd get from FOM.
If this was unsustainable why sign the contract ?
Its a bit like me going to a car dealer, signing up for a lease I can't afford and then complaining to the manufacturer about it 6 months later. I don't get it.
There isn't a concorde agreement this year is there?
//j17 said:
woof said:
To me it does look like the plan is now to run 3 car or customer car teams.
I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Customer cars are potentially a worse solution than 3 car teams.I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
At least the general plan with 3 car teams is 2x championship cars and 1x non-scoring rookie/guest/pay driver car. If you have customer cars who's going to be queuing outside anyone but Merc. F1 showroom door in the morning? And so the 2015 Australian GP ends with the Merc./Merc. first and second, the Lotus/Merc. cars third and forth, the Sauber/Merc. cars fifth and sixth,...
Presumably we would end up with 3 championships too - constructor, driver and team - or do Merc. win the constructors by round 5 thanks to their customers/a Merc. customer team never finnish lower than 4th but end up behind (and so get a smaller share of the money than) Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull because they build their own cars?
REALIST123 said:
//j17 said:
woof said:
To me it does look like the plan is now to run 3 car or customer car teams.
I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Customer cars are potentially a worse solution than 3 car teams.I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
At least the general plan with 3 car teams is 2x championship cars and 1x non-scoring rookie/guest/pay driver car. If you have customer cars who's going to be queuing outside anyone but Merc. F1 showroom door in the morning? And so the 2015 Australian GP ends with the Merc./Merc. first and second, the Lotus/Merc. cars third and forth, the Sauber/Merc. cars fifth and sixth,...
Presumably we would end up with 3 championships too - constructor, driver and team - or do Merc. win the constructors by round 5 thanks to their customers/a Merc. customer team never finnish lower than 4th but end up behind (and so get a smaller share of the money than) Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull because they build their own cars?
Crafty_ said:
The thing that no-one has explained to me is why all teams signed the Concorde Agreement last year ?
By the time they were signing they would have known costs for this year and could obviously see how much they'd get from FOM.
If this was unsustainable why sign the contract ?
Quite simply the guys at the front knew they could afford it and the guys at the middle/back had a simple choice, sign and race or don't sign and fBy the time they were signing they would have known costs for this year and could obviously see how much they'd get from FOM.
If this was unsustainable why sign the contract ?
k off!Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff