Money or Sport?

[Peter Mallett]

I'm prompted to ask this question by the SA saga.

It seems to me that the pinnacle of motorsport, is also the pinnacle of technical excellence/complication. And because of this it is also too expensive for teams, other than manufacturer backed teams, to compete.

I can't help thinking that whilst there is a logic to this, we've lost the plot, or have we?

When it began we had Maserati, Ferrari, Gordini, Vanwall, Mercedes, Cooper etc. With one or two exceptions they were manufacturers but for me there was a fundamental difference.

At that time whilst they used their own engines, gearboxes etc. they were not using the sport as a test bed for their products/ideas. It seems to me that there is now a fundamental shift from that ethos to a total R&D no limits approach. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of this I do think that a return to the roots of the sport would be of benefit to all.

By the roots I really mean that we should take away the advanced technologies that apply only to supercars (leave that for GT's etc.) and go back to basics with gearshifts (tiptronic possibly), rev limiters to stop overrevving, fuel injection with simple mapping, not the sophisticated items we have now and so on.

Allow the designers to work within an envelope but limit total area of aero, such as wings. This would facilitate innovation instead of the dreadful wings we see sprouting all over the place!

Doing this would IMO take things back to basics and maybe give drivers like Ant etc. more exposure.

I guess I'm a bit old fashioned but the manufacturers need to be reined in and grooved tyres and other gimmicks should be gone.

Discuss.

[Marbot]

If you bias things towards it being a drivers sport then things become cheaper.If you bias things towards it being an engineers sport then things become greatly more expensive.I think the answer lies in whether you think that the drivers championship is more important or that the manufacturers championship is more important.

[Peter Mallett]

But actually its the teams championship.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But actually its the teams championship.

Says who?

I thought it was the FIA Formula One World Championship.

Anyway,the teams would still be the 'teams' whatever cars they had.

[climb]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

...

Allow the designers to work within an envelope but limit total area of aero, such as wings. This would facilitate innovation instead of the dreadful wings we see sprouting all over the place!

Doing this would IMO take things back to basics and maybe give drivers like Ant etc. more exposure.

I guess I'm a bit old fashioned but the manufacturers need to be reined in and grooved tyres and other gimmicks should be gone.

Discuss.

IN theory you make good points, but from a practical standpoint, they're virtually impossible to accomplish: once you get a technologic improvement, the same discovery often teaches you how to get that advantage even if it got banned.

You can't stop progress; the only thing you can do is trying to address it in the most useful direction.

For example, provided most of the investments in aerodynamics are basically useless outside F1, if refuelling was banned, the F1 teams would be somehow obliged to invest a good share of their R&S efforts in fuel-saving technologies, that could happily be extended to millions and millions of vehicles in the world, with a huge general advantage.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by climb

For example, provided most of the investments in aerodynamics are basically useless outside F1, if refuelling was banned, the F1 teams would be somehow obliged to invest a good share of their R&S efforts in fuel-saving technologies, that could happily be extended to millions and millions of vehicles in the world, with a huge general advantage.

It is still advantageous for an F1 car to use as little fuel as possible even under the current rules.

In MotoGP the engines cannot run at their full potential because they have a 21 litre fuel limit.This has brought about some interesting technology with regards to getting the most power from a fixed amount of fuel.

All this is really off topic though isn't it.

The question here is really whether or not that F1 should be a technological showcase or should it be more driver orientated.

[kartracer41]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

The question here is really whether or not that F1 should be a technological showcase or should it be more driver orientated.

As I have learned with other types of racing and other series, it will never be just driver oriented. Even in spec series, the teams with the money will outspend and figure out ways to exploit the system to gain advantage. You put too many restrictions and it will turn into who spends the most money to cheat.

F1 needs to be both. The problem with spending, is that teams that can, will. So to limit spending, limit things that will make spending pointless and even the field. Then the big money guys can keep spending, because they are going to anyway, but have little effect. It's kind of hard though in such an aero sport. If it was going around in a circle, it would be easy. Stick them on a hockey puck for a tire. Power doesn't matter much when you can't get it too the ground.

[Teretonga]

My gut instinct is that the manufacturers should actually concentrate on sports car racing for technical development.

However the FIA in it's wisdom introduced the Manufacturers title and then amped it up in prestige.
The result has been that F1 became not only the premier series but it's significance was out of all proportion to the rest of the sport. For a decade sports car racing declined in importance under the shadow of F1. Some balance has been restored but the prestige of major races (outside of LeMans) is nothing like it was in the 50's & 60's .

Consequently the most prestigious form of racing is F1, and it is the one (apart from Le Mans) that manufacturers will trhow significant money at. But only a hadful of manufacturers have that soertr of money on tap and we have come to the end of a road on that one.

It is simply too expensive. Sports car racing was easier because the fields were full of privateers, but f1 is no longer like that.
The result is the pursuit of a totally artificial utopian dream, to have a dozen of the major manufacturers fighting out both a WDC and a constructors championship on a world stage...at a cost of 5 billion dollars a year (12x 400 mil. if we follow the top budgets)
Its simply unrealistic....
And it is not going to happen.

If the planet is approaching a recession then the money is not available. Honda recovering it's investment in Super Aguri?
Red Bull running TWO teams.....My guess is that our austrian billionaire has realised he underestimated the cost of two teams and the new concorde agreement to make your own cars just added 50%+ to his budgets for the operations....

Bernie and Max's dream for F1 is simply unrealistic...
But...
A championship of a dozen+ teams who could buy cars, and engines, and run a series of 16-20 races a year around the world for the ultimate drivers title would work admirably....and funnily enough that is what F1 used to be....

[JeremySmith]

In a way Peter I think you are talking about a controlled series... Back to basics if you will...Which in essence I don't disagree with..The only problem with this is the "progress" issue..

Put it back into the hands of the driver rather than basing it so much around the technolgy...

[Peter Mallett]

In truth all regulations define a formula or control. But my point is that the current regs are a recipe for disaster, being as teretonga points out, restricted to mega bucks corporations and thus they are driving the sport to levels that are beyond reason.

[chunterer]

I'm with you basically Peter.

For F1 to have any hope of continuing beyond the next handful of years, drastic measures need to be taken to ensure it's viability and wellbeing as a worldwide leading sport.

If it continues burning dollars at the current rate, we'll see manufacturers pulling out as well as independent teams.

The cost of entry, car developing, performance for the net exposure gained just doesn't add up anymore?

F1 bears little or no resemblance to the rest of sports economy or any business for that matter.

Sure on one hand it's about survival of the fittest (richest!) but we've got to bring back some core values of sporting prowess and excellence and get rid of the silly unecessary money burning excercises such as chimney's, flaps, endplates, and all that nonsense - it's just not necessary!!

You could have a more 'basic' set of regs that would still attract/retain manufacturers (there will always be some angle for technical development/advantage) that would remove excessive costs, promote cleaner, better racing and therefore keep million dollar sponsors happy too.

So why isn't this happening?!!!!

[JohnSSC]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

In truth all regulations define a formula or control. But my point is that the current regs are a recipe for disaster, being as teretonga points out, restricted to mega bucks corporations and thus they are driving the sport to levels that are beyond reason.

I agree. The difficulty is in writing the regs to keep the sport from continuing as a sort of giant R & D test sled for the manufacturers.

Teretonga makes a good point and one that I have used in other posts: with all the $$ available to spend, teams will spend the $$ even when the rules limit how much you can do.

Look at how much teams spend on Business Centre's and trees and hospitality. Not to pick on McLaren, but I would be willing to bet that the infrastructure (offices, hospitality suites, etc) that they bring to a race is likely worth more than the entire SA and Force India operations combined.

Once this investment is made, how do you tell teams to limit that? Budget limits? How do you police it? Limit the formula? The teams will just spend trillions of $$ refining aero that is half the size of what they are currently spending trillions on.

F1 is caught in a death spiral devoted to generating revenue. Either the teams will die off when the manufacturers stop spending due to the recession or they will die if they try to step off the treadmill (or cannot run fast enough) of generating revenue (see Williams).

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

My gut instinct is that the manufacturers should actually concentrate on sports car racing for technical development.

Yes.

If I were writing the rulebook I'd have it as follows:

1. Formula 1 - the blue riband, so make it attract the blue riband; open the formula entirely, BUT limit the spending to (say) £50m. Let's see who can REALLY use their brainpower.

2. Sportscars - anything goes again, no budget restrictions BUT the cars must be road-legal AND be able to carry a passenger. Make it road legal in France, after all that's where racing started and where Le Mans is, unless they get all p***y about protecting Panhard or something. So before any sportscar race entry the car must be driven around France with a fat ******* in the passenger seat;

3. GTs - anything goes yet again, BUT they must be road-legal AND there must be 100 examples;

4. touring cars - as above, BUT there must be 10,000 cars roll off the production line.

At least let's see how that goes for a couple of years before loopholes need to be closed...

[Peter Mallett]

It is worth pointing out that F1 is just the extreme. Chequebook racing happens all the way through the sport and in my bit it is turning people away.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

F1 is caught in a death spiral devoted to generating revenue. Either the teams will die off when the manufacturers stop spending due to the recession or they will die if they try to step off the treadmill (or cannot run fast enough) of generating revenue (see Williams).

Agreed.

[Pingguest]

The problem is the lack of a proper championship for manufactures. From the 1950's to the early 1990's motorsport was devided in two major categories: Formula 1 as the ultimate drivers' championship and Endurance racing as the ultimate manufactures' championship. As the Group C was killed off on command of Bernie Ecclestone the only thing manufactures could do was to enter Formula 1 or leave motorsports.

This led to an explosive rise of the costs, making it necessary in the eyes of Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone to introduce anti-autosport regulations, such as standardised tyres and electronics, 'semi-standardised' engines and post-qualifying parc fermé regulations. What the FIA should do is to re-establish a Group C-like Sportscar series and undo the anti-autosport Formula 1 regulations that have been introduced since Max Mosley took office.

If the manufactures would leave Formula 1 as a team, there will be room for new privatly-owned teams. I'm not against the presence of manufactures, but they should largely play a different role, as engine supplier.

[Peter Mallett]

History shows that when manufacturers get too much power they get bored and series die. The ETCC in 1985, the Group 5 WSC, then the Group C championships. All went downhill when the costs accelerated.

Now we can expect the same in WTCC and BTCC also I believe the DTM is not exactly burdened with variety.

[Pingguest]

There was nothing wrong with the Group C until the FIA introduced the 3.5 litre formula on command of Bernie Ecclestone.

[CDK 7]

[quote=Pingguest]

If the manufactures would leave Formula 1 as a team, there will be room for new privatly-owned teams. I'm not against the presence of manufactures, but they should largely play a different role, as engine supplier.


must be room for both as it looks like aguri is on the way out

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by CDK 7

If the manufactures would leave Formula 1 as a team, there will be room for new privatly-owned teams. I'm not against the presence of manufactures, but they should largely play a different role, as engine supplier.


must be room for both as it looks like aguri is on the way out

Sure, but I don't like it when almost all teams are owned by the large manufactures.

[Marbot]

This manufacturer won't be entering F1 anytime soon.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66708

[ensign14]

Sorry, VW are complaining about a sex scandal? What Max did is NOTHING compared to the culture amongst their executives. What a bunch of hypocrites.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Sorry, VW are complaining about a sex scandal? What Max did is NOTHING compared to the culture amongst their executives. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I think that it's probably just an excuse and the real problem is the 300 million Euros.

[Peter Mallett]

Both correct!

[chunterer]

[QUOTE=CDK 7]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If the manufactures would leave Formula 1 as a team, there will be room for new privatly-owned teams. I'm not against the presence of manufactures, but they should largely play a different role, as engine supplier.

Yes I agree with that too, I was gonna write the same earlier, but of course then I remembered Ferrari.....

Could you imagine a proper F1 without them as a complete entity? Well I guess their new A1 machine might give us a clue of them supplying engines only!
Seriously in the old days the makes couldn't design a car to ave their lives, but had the best engines. It was the teams that made the good chassis.

Nowadays the manufacturers are the teams - that's the difference.