Fundamental Change to F1 governance and capital allocation.

[JimClarkFan]

Recently I have been watching more of MotoGP, and to be honest I have been enjoying it a lot more than F1 for the most part. There are a lot of gimmicks in F1 these days, it seems to be more about pit stops, and strategy rather than racing, and there are numerous other aids such as DRS and Kerrs in an attempt to keep the sport exciting. Steve Parish (MotoGP commentator and former racer) said something with regards to team performance, which I guess I have heard in many guises, but never put in such an implicit way - ''You're only job is the maximise your speed based on how big your cheque allows'' (paraphrased).

It is a slightly different take on the, more money = more speed, and puts more emphasis on the fact that if you don't have enough money don't even bother shooting for the stars. I think that is a catch 22 situation, and the whole introduction of different tyres, DRS and Kers seems to be a way of glossing over what are big problems for the sport, currently and going forward.

F1 is unique in some respects, the big manufacturers don't control sport in the same way that they do in MotoGP. Highly skilled, semi independent teams run the sport, one way or another. If the big manufacturers left, I don't think the sport would lose much of it's shine. But if what Steve Parish says is true, and lets face it, it most definitely is, then how can we reasonably expect teams further down the grid to improve on such a low budget yet deride them for a lack of performance.

The way the sport is set up a the moment, keeps the front runners running at the front, and prevents excellence of technical thought in the lower teams, should it exist, from coming through simply because of money constraints. Additionally there is a new impedance for cost restructuring given that most of the teams are now struggling to refinance their operations.... Sauber, Lotus, Force India being notable cases in the last few months. A recent article in the Huffington post, suggested that only 4 teams had no difficulties in refinancing their operations; RB, Ferr, Merc and Macca.

What I believe is required is not a cap on costs, but rather a centralised collection and redistribution of money to make it more level playing field. I would like to see, sponsors of F1, tracks, media and even the teams themselves invest in the F1 franchise rather than individual teams to provide a yearly float for continued operations. This float would have no cap as such. Individual teams would front an agreed entry fee, from private backers, or money streamed for their other businesses, a fee agreed upon year on year which puts them in the Formula. This fee should be flat for all teams. The only monetary issue not included in central collection should be the payment of driver salaries.

That money would be centralised and an equal portion of the total pot (say 50% of total funds) distributed at the start of each season to each of the teams. The remaining money (50%) will be handed out to the teams based on their relative placing in the constructors performance, this money should be enough to reward the teams performance from previous year, thereby providing an incentive for performance, but no so much that it prevent other teams from catching up through advances of thought. Sponsors who paid the most in, would get their pick of where they could put sponsors, perhaps even sponsor rotation?

I think this would close the field up, and allow innovation to come from a much wider range of teams rather than simply the front runners. Additionally, with the teams in closer competition, all sponsors would get more air time.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue, any major hurdles that would prevent the implementation of such a strategy? Would this kill F1, or would it make it better in your view? I think something needs to be done, something more fundamental than the gimmicks of DRS to aid overtaking, or Kerrs boost, of tyres that go off every 10 laps.

Edit - excuse the typos

[GitanesBlondes]

No offense, but this is the general line of thought that has helped make F1 increasingly irrelevant year-after-year in comparison to sports car racing.

What do I mean?

Innovation and creativity has been so completely stifled because of this on-going need to try and close the field up. It's less a rulebook now, and more of a list of what you cannot do that you need translated by lawyers.

We've had an overly stagnant formula for a few years now that hasn't even seen an engine developed in 5 years. Next year's formula is going to be a bigger joke than anyone realizes. Remember, it costs more to produce fewer of something than a lot of something - just remember Henry Ford if you don't believe that. Mosley's idea of having restrictions on the number of engines allowed per season was another one of those novel ideas that sounded ok on paper until one considers there's a way things operate in the real world as opposed to Max's delusional mind. Instead, the cost of the engines is liable to bankrupt the lesser teams as there is no real way to drive costs down without providing subsidies from FOM, and that is unlikely to happen.

Innovation comes from less restrictive rules not more restrictive rules.

Every great F1 designer simply would have never been heard of if they designed cars in a formula such as the current one.

If you want a (more) egalitarian F1, you wind up with something like IRL, which might be fun to watch, but attracts the attention of very few these days.

F1 has so many problems, that simply throwing all money into one giant pot isn't the answer. The sponsors have to be convinced that there is a ROI on sponsoring a team. Best as I can figure, that isn't even done right as most F1 sponsors in my estimation have little relevance to anyone since they're the sort of thing geared towards the nouveau rich, much like the overall atmosphere of F1 is nowadays. Little attention seems to be paid to the middle class fan, the one that was there through it all in every era of grand prix racing till they were marginalized for the upper class. Even simple things like putting together a coherent TV production is beyond the capabilities of FOM. The sport as a whole is worse off than it was 15 years ago, which is something I can't say about too many other sports on this planet.

[Shrieker]

I watched the GP2 feature race this morning and it was a really really good race. Watching the F1 race I couldn't help but feel scrapping the ground effect regulations for 2014 was a big mistake.

Centralized money ? You fXXXing commie

[JimClarkFan]

No offense, but this is the general line of thought that has helped make F1 increasingly irrelevant year-after-year in comparison to sports car racing.

What do I mean?

Innovation and creativity has been so completely stifled because of this on-going need to try and close the field up. It's less a rulebook now, and more of a list of what you cannot do that you need translated by lawyers.

We've had an overly stagnant formula for a few years now that hasn't even seen an engine developed in 5 years. Next year's formula is going to be a bigger joke than anyone realizes. Remember, it costs more to produce fewer of something than a lot of something - just remember Henry Ford if you don't believe that. Mosley's idea of having restrictions on the number of engines allowed per season was another one of those novel ideas that sounded ok on paper until one considers there's a way things operate in the real world as opposed to Max's delusional mind. Instead, the cost of the engines is liable to bankrupt the lesser teams as there is no real way to drive costs down without providing subsidies from FOM, and that is unlikely to happen.

Innovation comes from less restrictive rules not more restrictive rules.

Every great F1 designer simply would have never been heard of if they designed cars in a formula such as the current one.

If you want a (more) egalitarian F1, you wind up with something like IRL, which might be fun to watch, but attracts the attention of very few these days.

F1 has so many problems, that simply throwing all money into one giant pot isn't the answer. The sponsors have to be convinced that there is a ROI on sponsoring a team. Best as I can figure, that isn't even done right as most F1 sponsors in my estimation have little relevance to anyone since they're the sort of thing geared towards the nouveau rich, much like the overall atmosphere of F1 is nowadays. Little attention seems to be paid to the middle class fan, the one that was there through it all in every era of grand prix racing till they were marginalized for the upper class. Even simple things like putting together a coherent TV production is beyond the capabilities of FOM. The sport as a whole is worse off than it was 15 years ago, which is something I can't say about too many other sports on this planet.

I understand completely what you are saying.

I too want simplification of rules, I think this artificial push to make the teams closer is wrong and it doesn't address the underlying issue regarding discrepancies in performance. Namely, a lack of resources.

Rather I would to see the FIA give the lower teams the ability to compete themselves naturally by providing a base level of support for all teams. I would think of this as akin to the FIA making the Formula 1 an open market, teams buy in, and then they compete within that market for dominance.

The current set up simply does not allow that. I don't remember seeing anything of the lower teams in todays race, and I mean not a single clip other than the williams driving into diresta. All the sponsorships are naturally aimed at the top end of the field. If the lower teams don't get coverage, how can they attract sponsorship, and if they don't get money, how can one expect them to compete.

I really think a better balance can be achieved. In many ways I think it must.

I watched the GP2 feature race this morning and it was a really really good race. Watching the F1 race I couldn't help but feel scrapping the ground effect regulations for 2014 was a big mistake.

Centralized money ? You fXXXing commie

Lol, I get the same feeling. I watching MotoGP, and then turned over the F1, and at the moment there is no comparison in what is the best to watch. I am miffed actually why MotoGP does not have broader appeal.

Also no commie here lol

[GitanesBlondes]

No offense, but this is the general line of thought that has helped make F1 increasingly irrelevant year-after-year in comparison to sports car racing.

What do I mean?

Innovation and creativity has been so completely stifled because of this on-going need to try and close the field up. It's less a rulebook now, and more of a list of what you cannot do that you need translated by lawyers.

We've had an overly stagnant formula for a few years now that hasn't even seen an engine developed in 5 years. Next year's formula is going to be a bigger joke than anyone realizes. Remember, it costs more to produce fewer of something than a lot of something - just remember Henry Ford if you don't believe that. Mosley's idea of having restrictions on the number of engines allowed per season was another one of those novel ideas that sounded ok on paper until one considers there's a way things operate in the real world as opposed to Max's delusional mind. Instead, the cost of the engines is liable to bankrupt the lesser teams as there is no real way to drive costs down without providing subsidies from FOM, and that is unlikely to happen.

Innovation comes from less restrictive rules not more restrictive rules.

Every great F1 designer simply would have never been heard of if they designed cars in a formula such as the current one.

If you want a (more) egalitarian F1, you wind up with something like IRL, which might be fun to watch, but attracts the attention of very few these days.

F1 has so many problems, that simply throwing all money into one giant pot isn't the answer. The sponsors have to be convinced that there is a ROI on sponsoring a team. Best as I can figure, that isn't even done right as most F1 sponsors in my estimation have little relevance to anyone since they're the sort of thing geared towards the nouveau rich, much like the overall atmosphere of F1 is nowadays. Little attention seems to be paid to the middle class fan, the one that was there through it all in every era of grand prix racing till they were marginalized for the upper class. Even simple things like putting together a coherent TV production is beyond the capabilities of FOM. The sport as a whole is worse off than it was 15 years ago, which is something I can't say about too many other sports on this planet.

I understand completely what you are saying.

I too want simplification of rules, I think this artificial push to make the teams closer is wrong and it doesn't address the underlying issue regarding discrepancies in performance. Namely, a lack of resources.

Rather I would to see the FIA give the lower teams the ability to compete themselves naturally by providing a base level of support for all teams. I would think of this as akin to the FIA making the Formula 1 an open market, teams buy in, and then they compete within that market for dominance.

The current set up simply does not allow that. I don't remember seeing anything of the lower teams in todays race, and I mean not a single clip other than the williams driving into diresta. All the sponsorships are naturally aimed at the top end of the field. If the lower teams don't get coverage, how can they attract sponsorship, and if they don't get money, how can one expect them to compete.

I really think a better balance can be achieved. In many ways I think it must.

Regarding camera time of teams, that's an issue with FOM more than anything. They only show the teams that have any value in their estimation. Although with Williams, it is interesting to consider how last season they gave a great deal of (onboard and normal) camera time to Bruno Senna, whereas the exposure the team has gotten this year is so minimal each grand prix, that it's easy to forget Williams exists outside of when Maldonado is being Maldonado. Part of that may be down to teams fielding drivers that do not have much of a fanbase.

But here's what it all comes down to. F1 is being run as an investment first and foremost on behalf of CVC. For as long as it is run in such a manner, everything else does not matter. Closing up the field more and more each year is down to trying to generate interest so FOM can continue taking all of the money out of the sport to line the pockets of CVC.

But if you want to possibly address the gap between the lesser teams and the top teams, banning front and rear wings, and bringing back ground effects might have helped on that front since all the money is currently being spent on this idiotic aerodynamic model. Nothing else can be developed, yet budgets are still very high among top teams? Why? Refining of aero costs a ton of money...and it also has no relevance to the average consumer.

Even the push to be more "green" is just more stupidity as the fuel savings to be had next season is minimal. The engine suppliers should have had the go-ahead to do whatever they feel like with the engines. As long as it is a 1.5L V6 turbo, anything goes.

F1 has this problem in my opinion of not even really knowing what it wants to be anymore. Even if you ask the fans what F1 should be, you can get twenty different answers if you ask twenty different fans. It tries to wear as many hats as possible, and ultimately fails on all fronts.

[GitanesBlondes]

Something I saw today that I wonder if it could factor into potential motorsport sponsorship that is widespread, that may be of interest to JimClarkFan or others...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-2 ... etail.html

It was mentioned to me that there are certain e-cigarette sponsors in some very low level motorsports already, but with Reynolds backing their own product, I wonder if that could be the backdoor for Reynolds, Philip Morris, and others to get their sponsorship back onto F1 cars?

It's all well known at this point how much money the tobacco companies pumped into F1 in the past, and were the one's most directly responsible for keeping the sport afloat during leaner economic times. Instead of the sport realizing that the days of easy money were gone, and actually addressing things that might have caused a legitimate downsizing of team budgets, that never happened.

While it is still early, and I don't know how the legal side of it will go, I do think the future of F1 sponsorship could be linked to e-cigarettes depending on whether or not they take off in any meaningful manner. If they did, it'd be interesting to see if Philip Morris decided to develop a "Marlboro e-Cigarette" or one with a different name, but using the same type font, so they could get back onto the engine covers without resorting to subliminal advertising.

The initial sign seems to be that the traditional cigarette manufacturers think there is money to be made in this e-cigarette market. Of course how much money to be made, remains to be seen.

[JimClarkFan]

Something I saw today that I wonder if it could factor into potential motorsport sponsorship that is widespread, that may be of interest to JimClarkFan or others...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-2 ... etail.html

It was mentioned to me that there are certain e-cigarette sponsors in some very low level motorsports already, but with Reynolds backing their own product, I wonder if that could be the backdoor for Reynolds, Philip Morris, and others to get their sponsorship back onto F1 cars?

It's all well known at this point how much money the tobacco companies pumped into F1 in the past, and were the one's most directly responsible for keeping the sport afloat during leaner economic times. Instead of the sport realizing that the days of easy money were gone, and actually addressing things that might have caused a legitimate downsizing of team budgets, that never happened.

While it is still early, and I don't know how the legal side of it will go, I do think the future of F1 sponsorship could be linked to e-cigarettes depending on whether or not they take off in any meaningful manner. If they did, it'd be interesting to see if Philip Morris decided to develop a "Marlboro e-Cigarette" or one with a different name, but using the same type font, so they could get back onto the engine covers without resorting to subliminal advertising.

The initial sign seems to be that the traditional cigarette manufacturers think there is money to be made in this e-cigarette market. Of course how much money to be made, remains to be seen.

Thanks.

Yes that is interesting. You have a great grasp of financials behind F1 I must say, and you are making sense.

I don't have an issue with F1 being run as an investment, I think that perhaps it could be run better though.

I will reply more thoroughly when I get a chance.

+1 btw for your thoughts

[JimClarkFan]

I'm bumping this post because there is some talk in other threads about the way F1 is funded and the amount of pay drivers currently on the grid. Of particular concern is the ability of good drivers to get seats.

Interested to hear what others peoples thoughts on this are.

[timbo]

I watching MotoGP, and then turned over the F1, and at the moment there is no comparison in what is the best to watch. I am miffed actually why MotoGP does not have broader appeal.

I think you should think twice before comparing F1 to MotoGP. First off, they're effin bikes ! There's just no way car racing can have as much overtaking going simply because of car width.
Secondly, MotoGP has client teams, and this is very different to current F1.
Thirdly, some criticize the lack of innovation in F1. It has a point, but IMO no way is MotoGP has a forward hand in this. IMO they're too in a diminishing returns game when it comes to performance, with electronics being their "aero".

[timbo]

I'm bumping this post because there is some talk in other threads about the way F1 is funded and the amount of pay drivers currently on the grid. Of particular concern is the ability of good drivers to get seats.

I said it before, IMO the current "pay" drivers can give a good run for the money (heh) to half a grid during '80s or early '90s.
Perez, Maldonado, Petrov are all fast.
They are definitely not what Belmondo or Deletraz were.

[Cold Fussion]

Lol, I get the same feeling. I watching MotoGP, and then turned over the F1, and at the moment there is no comparison in what is the best to watch. I am miffed actually why MotoGP does not have broader appeal.

Motogp is just as guilty as producing boring races as formula 1, and for the last couple years, certainly after the switch to 4 stroke bikes, have produced a far higher percentage of processional races than in F1. This season of mtogp was the most exciting in many, many years and it's unfair to compare it to the red bull dominated 2013.

Let's not forget that Maldonado is a race winner, so while he is a pay driver, it's not at all like the garbage from the 80s and 90s.

[JimClarkFan]

^^^For flip sake, the point of mentioning MotoGP is specifically to address the comments of Steve Parish wrt to Formula 1 and to highlight that you can have good racing without DRS or Kerrs anything else. It isn't a MotoGP vs F1 thread.

The point of the thread is how, if at all, F1 should change how it structures itself, its strategy for producing better racing, the pay driver debacle etc etc.

I wish I had not of bothered with the MotoGP reference.

[turbof1]

Since I this year followed motogp at a 'raceweekend base', I'd also like to give a very detailed opinion about this. I'll be updating this very post often over the next few days as I have to gather some more information about the structure, transparency and workings of the FIM.

Firstly, I'd like to say my interests for racing is twofold: on one side there's the racing/'show' part, on the other hand, and the regular fan probably isn't as interested in this, is the technical side.

-Concerning racing/showmanship motogp wins hands down. Unlike F1, riders can be literally within inches behind eachother. This has alot to do with the inert properties of both sports: both have a big focus on aerodynamics, but where formula 1 is on that front all about downforce and L/D, motogp has no known benefits from downforce, therefore the only factor that counts is drag! In motogp they want to have as minimal drag as possible. Therefore, driving behind eachother in corners has minimal to no negative effect. In F1, negative effects are starting to be felt within 2 seconds behind a car in front, resulting in loss of downforce and thus cornering speed. This very inherent issue to F1 does not exist in motogp, simply because they have no downforce.

A relative recent element making further matters worse in F1: going off line means going into the marbles. This is not an inert issue to the sport but more to the tyres. In motogp they drive with bridgestone tyres, which have a comparable wear to the pirelli tyres in f1 yet don't produce marbles. Extrapolating the advantage: motocycles have a bigger ratio what I call 'ideal race line width/vehicle width' ratio.

Also an element I personally like: in normal circumstances there are no pitstops in motogp. While F1 needs pitstops to make things alteast a bit exciting, the close, 'mano a mano' racing in motogp means pitstops would probably be negative element.

The final thing that makes motogp better: the rider is a bigger performance differentiator. The best bikes will still be on top, but we did see that riders like Bautista and Crutchlow, both on CRT bikes, could make Rossi's life, being on a manufacturer bike, very miserable. Also we did see Lorenzo fighting with all his heart on a slightly less bike against marquez, giving very exciting racing. The way you perform in F1 is much more dependent on the performance of the car.

-About the technical part, I believe F1 wins. Changes throughout the season are, for me atleast, very hard to find on a motogp bike. It also kind of seems to me that motogp doesn't have the continual technical evolution f1 has. Not one race goes by, even this late into the season, that for instance ferrari didn't bring anything new. Sure all small things. A little cut in the wing here, a small alteration to the turning vane there, some diffuser modifications,... . Still for a fan for the mechanical side, this is a very fun part to the sport. For me personal the best part. Motogp is more about revolution I believe: Yamaha for instance has been busy for months if not more to develop the seamless gearbox. For several races this was the only thing you'd hear about in that regard. There was also a question if they, along Honda, would introduce the 2014 bike earlier. So no (atleast notable) continual small changes. If something was introduced, it was big. I think that is inherent to the sport: a bike is so compact and doesn't have to mess around with downforce, the question would be "what kind of small performance updates can we do?". Not much I suppose.

That being said, I also believe a big part of the cost difference between motogp and f1 sits in this. Each time when there are updates in F1, new parts have to be produced and old parts became redundant. I remember Williams talking about a potentional exhaust alteration costing about 300,000 pounds, in motogp they can get a whole bike with that, just to produce. New parts also have to be tested first, involves small scale versions for the windtunnel. Running windtunnels costs huge sums, and they run it as much as they can. Then they have to shipped, more often then not last minute (and they go far with that, using private planes or helicopters). It's this need for continual updates that explain a big part of the need for rigorious amounts of capital.

(Will update later on)

[JimClarkFan]

Seems like we are destined to plunge down this road - so be it lol

Timbo... +1

Edit - Turbo....... lol

[turbof1]

Seems like we are destined to plunge down this road - so be it lol

Timbo... +1

Thanks, but it is "turbo" . I often am having this when timbo and I post in the same topic and page!

made an update to the previous post.