Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F1: Does It Cost Too Much?  
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

This is a topic which I've discussed a lot over the years, and it doesn't really fit into a season or race topic so I'm opening a new one...

During the qualifying yesterday Eddie Jordan was commenting on HRT, Marussia and funding, in that they are struggling to get a decent amount.

Funding, and the amount of money being spent in F1, has always been a hot topic with many complaining that the sport is too expensive for newcomers and thus should be artificially reduced. This has led to a lot of heated discussion on and off the race track, resulting in such rubbish as the "Resource Restriction Agreement" and other things.

Now we see ourselves in the situation where three new teams have entered but have yet to move from the bottom of the pack - they are in their third season and yet we have still to see them really becoming any sort of threat to the midfield, they've just moved other teams up in relative teams by lowering the bar.

And again the accusation is made (not by EJ in the above conversation) that the top teams are spending far too much money, which means bottom teams cannot compete, with new calls for spending limitations etc.

The problem is, restrictions like the RRA and whatever is enforced after it just lead to ludicrous situations where teams like Ferrari, Mclaren et al are contracting out wind tunnel testing to Toyota and other bodies because under the RRA any work you contract out does not apply to the limits set (thats a simplified understanding, but you get the drift - teams are outsourcing work they can easily and trivially do in house just to get around stupid limits).

My view is that F1 is a Gold Class sport, its top flight, its the creme-de-la-creme of motorsport. If you can't afford to compete in F1, you shouldn't be there - HRT, Marussia and Caterham have yet to add anything to the sport other than three new targets of derision, so why are they allowed to compete? They have even struggled to bring a car to the pre-season testing days - thats basic requirements for running a car, you need to make sure it works...

Far far too much emphasis is put on reducing F1s costs these days, and we end up with comments like Christian Horners, which echo my own very well, where he doesn't really question the legality of the Mercedes rear-wing f-duct, but he does question the validity of any ruling causing a rush to implement it when there are no guarantees it won't be banned at the end of the season, putting good money to waste... Too often have we seen that in F1.

F1 needs to be seen as the top flight, and quite frankly it needs the restriction of "if you can't afford it, don't pretend you can...", otherwise you just drag the top tier teams down in any efforts to haul the bottom tier teams up!

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7037 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1459 times:

Quoting moo (Thread starter):

My view is that F1 is a Gold Class sport, its top flight, its the creme-de-la-creme of motorsport. If you can't afford to compete in F1, you shouldn't be there

That's what it all boils down to, it's the pinnacle of motorsports, it's not supposed to be cheap. The only way to make it cheaper is to go to a standardised chassis. I've said a number of times having a standard chassis but allowing the teams freedom in aero and suspension would make F1 cheaper, F1 didn't go this route but the IRL have, the new DW12 chassis allows the teams the freedom to design the aero package.


User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Quoting moo (Thread starter):
The problem is, restrictions like the RRA and whatever is enforced after it just lead to ludicrous situations where teams like Ferrari, Mclaren et al are contracting out wind tunnel testing to Toyota and other bodies because under the RRA any work you contract out does not apply to the limits set (thats a simplified understanding, but you get the drift - teams are outsourcing work they can easily and trivially do in house just to get around stupid limits).

This gets to a Ron Dennis quote from years ago (I read it in some book I own, but can't cite or remember it).

A badly paraphrased version would be to the effect of: "An F1 budget consists of any money you can get your hands on. If you're pushing orange crates down a hill and you have 5 million dollars, you'll find a way to willingly spend 5 million dollars on R&D."



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 1):
I've said a number of times having a standard chassis but allowing the teams freedom in aero and suspension would make F1 cheaper,

I sometimes think that the FIA are going down that route bit-by-bit - chassis homologation, engine homologation, restricted development on the center section of the front wing, the four wheels must be in a set place etc etc etc

And I don't like it. We are seeing the areas in which full scale development can occur being made smaller and smaller, until we have hacks like the original F-Duct becoming a major part of a season.


Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 1):
F1 didn't go this route but the IRL have, the new DW12 chassis allows the teams the freedom to design the aero package.

There are significant limits on that aero package tho - they have to be available to other teams, they can't cost more than about $70K, they must be approved etc etc.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7037 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 3):

There are significant limits on that aero package tho - they have to be available to other teams, they can't cost more than about $70K, they must be approved etc etc.

The package is supposed to retail for 70k, there's not cap on the cost to develop it.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1425 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 4):
The package is supposed to retail for 70k, there's not cap on the cost to develop it.

As a team, whats the point in spending more than $70K developing it, if other teams can buy your fantastic $1Million aero kit from you and use it on their car for the same effect?

Its not a hard limit, more of a "duh" limit.


User currently offlineNSMike From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 251 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1380 times:

The rules for F1 should be simple:

Your car must fit in a box no larger than x by x by x.

Your NA engine can be no larger than x litres.

Your car + driver must weigh no less than x Kg at the end of the race.

That's it.

Oh and one more... you can't control any aspect of the car from the pits.

[Edited 2012-04-16 07:30:59]


Pearl Snares, Taye Drums, Sabian Cymbals, Remo Heads, Los Cabos Sticks
User currently offlinemmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1337 times:

This is why I am against F1... it's all about who has the deepest pockets.

I prefer to watch drifting and amateur racing, nothing like backyard mechanics going at it. In the true spirit of racing.

Sure Nascar is heavy in advertising, but ideally all the cars are setup the same. Tube chassis with a big block, and guys just going at it.



ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7037 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1324 times:

Quoting mmedford (Reply 7):
I prefer to watch drifting and amateur racing, nothing like backyard mechanics going at it. In the true spirit of racing.

D1 or Formula D isn't cheap, look at how well developed the cars being used are, it's also a sport for guys with deep pockets, it's come a long way from Japanese street racers drifting their cars on mountain roads.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Quoting mmedford (Reply 7):

I respect your opinion, but it would seem that all the reasons you dislike F1 are the reasons I like F1 - its about the big teams spending the money to come up with that tenth of a second improvement, its about the nifty diffuser designs and the aero packages, its about tuning the cars and running them at the very peak of their ability.

I'm a fan of stock car racing as well, but the thing that brings me to F1 is the technological pinnacle that it represents - it *is* the cutting edge, because thats where it needs to be.

I love work-arounds like the F-duct and engine mappings using overrun and off-throttle exhaust gas usage. Its the things like that that make F1 fun for me.

Gone are the real days of surprise in F1, the days of people suddenly discovering wings or ground effect, those were wonderous days when anything could turn up at a race. Today its very much more clean-room style scientific millimetre by millimetre improvements, but its still there for the most part.


User currently offlineGrahamHill From France, joined Mar 2007, 2801 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1318 times:

Quoting NSMike (Reply 6):
The rules for F1 should be simple:

That's the problem of F1: nothing is simple.

Quoting mmedford (Reply 7):
it's all about who has the deepest pockets.

Same in every sport, one might argue.

Quoting mmedford (Reply 7):
Tube chassis with a big block, and guys just going at it.

If F1 were standardized, it would not be F1 anymore.



"A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one" - Moliere
User currently offlinemmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1304 times:

I think I forgot to mention the idea...that I prefer to race the driver, not the car.


ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1289 times:

Quoting mmedford (Reply 11):

Again, I respect your opinion, so don't take this the wrong way, but if it were solely the driver I was interested in I could watch athletics...  


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1282 times:

This really isn't the problem that many new viewers to F1 think it is. Caterham and Marussia are running at the back, but somebody has to. They're not joke teams though, and it takes time- many years- to succeed in F1. Many now successful teams who seem new have actually been around for ages (e.g. Mercedes, who are a team that started in 1968). HRT of course are much worse, and they will no doubt run out of funding soon and disappear. So what- at least they gave it a go.

In the old days there were way more rubbish teams. Who can forget the likes of Simtek, Pacific, the hilarious EuroBrun, the even more hilarious Life. Oh that's right, everybody.

Even Minardi were mostly terrible. Here is a typically superb Minardi season:



At least these guys are making it to the end of the race most of the time. For the teams of old that was something to break out the champagne for.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 13):

My issue is not with the existence of the back markers or the fact that they are crap, it's the use of their failure to immediately succeed as a club to hit the top tier teams with - forcing them to support the lower teams, or to restrict their budgets.

If the bottom tier teams can't compete on their budgets, it's not the fault of the top teams...


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1261 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 14):
My issue is not with the existence of the back markers or the fact that they are crap, it's the use of their failure to immediately succeed as a club to hit the top tier teams with - forcing them to support the lower teams, or to restrict their budgets.

If the bottom tier teams can't compete on their budgets, it's not the fault of the top teams...

I misunderstood you then- my apologies. But again, this isn't a new thing. Paul Stoddart used to be a constant thorn in the side of the top teams for the same reasons.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1256 times:

The only way to level it out is to give each team the same budget for R&D, engine, suspension, etc and see what they do with it.

I think the amount of money spent on F1 now is a bad thing, it's ridiculous the amount the drivers are paid as well.

Raikonnen at Ferrari was on $50 million. That's a ridiculous amount of money for 4 hours of racing a month.


User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1501 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1244 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 16):
I think the amount of money spent on F1 now is a bad thing, it's ridiculous the amount the drivers are paid as well.

Drivers/players getting paid a ridiculous amount isn't limited to F1, though. What sports don't have massively overpaid people playing in them?

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17048 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1243 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 16):
Raikonnen at Ferrari was on $50 million. That's a ridiculous amount of money for 4 hours of racing a month.

Oh, yeah sure they only practice their sport 4 hours every month, nothing in between.  



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13010 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1182 times:

The real limits are based on how much revenues you can get from advertising, car makers, suppliers, fan tickets and TV ad revenues. With the economic problems in Europe and elsewhere in the world, for some teams revenues have declined. How many countries like Bahrain will be 'sugar daddies' to pay teams to appear for their leader's egos? Various ad sources like tobacco are long gone, alcohol ads are quite limited in many countries and how many brands are international enough in scope to make it worth while to be an F1 sponsor of a team? Thrown in the current economic problems in parts of Europe and elsewhere, and maybe it is time to push some spending limits to assure fairness, competitive balance and good racing more on the driver and not the car cost's of creation.

User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15693 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1167 times:

Quoting NSMike (Reply 6):
The rules for F1 should be simple:

Your car must fit in a box no larger than x by x by x.

Your NA engine can be no larger than x litres.

Your car + driver must weigh no less than x Kg at the end of the race.

That's it.

That's how I'd do it, but there could be an issue with safety as the cars get faster.

Quoting GrahamHill (Reply 10):
If F1 were standardized, it would not be F1 anymore

   If it ever becomes a spec series, I will completely lose interest.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1164 times:

Quoting NSMike (Reply 6):

The rules for F1 should be simple:

Your car must fit in a box no larger than x by x by x.

Your NA engine can be no larger than x litres.

Your car + driver must weigh no less than x Kg at the end of the race.

That's it.

Oh and one more... you can't control any aspect of the car from the pits.

How about adding that they can only use 3 meters of electrical wire. (hopefully they will use that for the kill switch on the magneto)

Okie


User currently offlineNSMike From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 251 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1144 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 21):
How about adding that they can only use 3 meters of electrical wire. (hopefully they will use that for the kill switch on the magneto)

Nope. That would make the rulebook too long...



Pearl Snares, Taye Drums, Sabian Cymbals, Remo Heads, Los Cabos Sticks
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1090 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 18):
Oh, yeah sure they only practice their sport 4 hours every month, nothing in between.

I said racing, not practicing.   They obviously have other commitments, but they are basically paid to race, are they not? Media events and the like are part and parcel of the job but any F1 driver is in the job to drive cars fast, not to do media events.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1048 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 23):
I said racing, not practicing.   They obviously have other commitments, but they are basically paid to race, are they not? Media events and the like are part and parcel of the job but any F1 driver is in the job to drive cars fast, not to do media events.

It's all part of the same deal. All F1 contracts include media events. It's incorrect to say they're just paid to race. It's a full time job for most, and as long as the worldwide audience for F1 remains at 500 million or more, the money is going to be there to pay them huge salaries. Ergo, they are not overpaid.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
25 moo : So all of the sim time, the fitness regimes, the strategy meetings, the planning, the post-race autopsies - they are all, what, just stuff the driver
26 CXB77L : It already is a level playing field. Each team plays by the same rule book. If some teams cannot afford to be in F1, then they shouldn't be there. As
27 moo : I must say that its amusing whenever someone comments on what someone else gets paid - what does it matter to you if Button got £1.50 per race or £
28 B747forever : Here is the answer: Greatly written.
29 bartonsayswhat : [Edited 2012-04-18 01:11:52]
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Much Does It Cost To Fill Your Tank? posted Thu Jun 14 2007 01:05:41 by AC773
How Much Does It Cost To Learn Driving At Sydney? posted Thu Apr 5 2001 05:28:02 by United Airline
How Much Does It Rain Where You Live? posted Fri Nov 30 2007 08:14:57 by Aviator1990
How Much Does A Rolex Cost? posted Tue Sep 12 2006 21:39:59 by BowflexBrennan
Does The US Have Too Much Power Over The Internet? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 18:44:29 by 9VSPO
Martha Stewart's Defense, How Much Did It Cost? posted Sat Mar 6 2004 15:33:37 by Regis
TV Coverage: Is It Too Much? posted Sun Mar 23 2003 08:25:54 by Artsyman
Biden: "it’s Just Too Hard To Explain" posted Thu Oct 14 2010 01:09:07 by fr8mech
Facebook Is Down! How Does It Affect You? posted Thu Sep 23 2010 13:17:56 by Part147
Binocular With Autofocus, How Does It Work? posted Thu May 27 2010 12:30:51 by vandenheuvel