Parr says only eight teams next year, three car teams.

[Miguel]

F1 teams up and down the order has not been able to replace tobacco sponsorship. If there was enough money from sponsors then why do we see more than half the grid with blank sidepods and no title sponsorship?

So true! Think about it, even McLaren has what's essentially a sponsor-free car. McLaren! What chances does a team like Sauber have, then, to have any sort of decent sponsor?

[SectorOne]

So true! Think about it, even McLaren has what's essentially a sponsor-free car. McLaren! What chances does a team like Sauber have, then, to have any sort of decent sponsor?

Ah yes, Mclaren...

The same team that won their last constructor title 16 years ago. We are talking about the 90´s here!
As far as i´m concerned they should be grateful that they have had some of the big sponsors with that kind of track record.
One little blip of success in 2008 and if we remove that then it´s 15 years since the last driver´s title.

Since their WCC title in 98, Ferrari (which is also in deep sh*t) has managed to rack up a total of 8 WCC titles since then.

So why are people surprised the sidepods of the Mclaren is empty? Seems pretty obvious to me to tell you the truth.

[wesley123]

Ah yes, Mclaren...

The same team that won their last constructor title 16 years ago. We are talking about the 90´s here!
As far as i´m concerned they should be grateful that they have had some of the big sponsors with that kind of track record.
One little blip of success in 2008 and if we remove that then it´s 15 years since the last driver´s title.

Since their WCC title in 98, Ferrari (which is also in deep sh*t) has managed to rack up a total of 8 WCC titles since then.

So why are people surprised the sidepods of the Mclaren is empty? Seems pretty obvious to me to tell you the truth.

Williams' last title was in '97, now they got a nice, big Martini logo on their car.

Tobacco sponsorship was huge money 10 years ago and was something that paid the bills for pretty much everyone on the grid. With that almost every team had a title sponsor. Not the case anymore. Only Williams and Ferrari have a title sponsor now.

It'can't be denied that the ban on tobacco sponsorship has left a huge, gaping hole in the teams budgets that now, in the economy where companies have to do more with less, can barely be filled by new sponsorship money.

[Miguel]

So why are people surprised the sidepods of the Mclaren is empty? Seems pretty obvious to me to tell you the truth.

I'm surprised because, in those 16 years that you mention, McLaren may be (haven't checked, TBH) the third most successful team in race wins, after Ferrari and RBR. Because only RBR have won more races in the last 5 years. Because they would have "won" in 2007. Because in the last 16 years, McLaren have been 2nd in the WCC 7 times. Because they had Hamilton & Button as extremely likely title candidates three races into 2012, and Hamilton was on the title run until the last race in 2010. Because McLaren are almost certainly the most popular british team. And because only two years ago their car was full of stickers.

Yes, McLaren isn't the most successful showcase in F1. Do you have a better choice than that? Bear in mind RBR just showcases itself. With 4 bloody cars.

[Glyn]

So true! Think about it, even McLaren has what's essentially a sponsor-free car. McLaren! What chances does a team like Sauber have, then, to have any sort of decent sponsor?

Ah yes, Mclaren...

The same team that won their last constructor title 16 years ago. We are talking about the 90´s here!
As far as i´m concerned they should be grateful that they have had some of the big sponsors with that kind of track record.
One little blip of success in 2008 and if we remove that then it´s 15 years since the last driver´s title.

Since their WCC title in 98, Ferrari (which is also in deep sh*t) has managed to rack up a total of 8 WCC titles since then.

So why are people surprised the sidepods of the Mclaren is empty? Seems pretty obvious to me to tell you the truth.

WCC wins.... do not equal tv time and worldwide exposure.

[Gaz.]

Ah yes, Mclaren...

The same team that won their last constructor title 16 years ago. We are talking about the 90´s here!
As far as i´m concerned they should be grateful that they have had some of the big sponsors with that kind of track record.
One little blip of success in 2008 and if we remove that then it´s 15 years since the last driver´s title.

Since their WCC title in 98, Ferrari (which is also in deep sh*t) has managed to rack up a total of 8 WCC titles since then.

So why are people surprised the sidepods of the Mclaren is empty? Seems pretty obvious to me to tell you the truth.

Williams' last title was in '97, now they got a nice, big Martini logo on their car.

Tobacco sponsorship was huge money 10 years ago and was something that paid the bills for pretty much everyone on the grid. With that almost every team had a title sponsor. Not the case anymore. Only Williams and Ferrari have a title sponsor now.

It'can't be denied that the ban on tobacco sponsorship has left a huge, gaping hole in the teams budgets that now, in the economy where companies have to do more with less, can barely be filled by new sponsorship money.

The Williams Martini sponsorship is $15m per year for 5 years. By contrast the Vodafone title sponsorship was estimated at £40m per year.

http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/will ... itle_deal/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1989 ... re-in-2014

The Johnnie Walker sponsorship for Mclaren is $20m. A whole car in your colours or for $5m more you can have some tiny black signwriting on a silver car.... Ron mentioned earlier this year that he had several companies in negotiation but commented that they are trying to push the rate card down but he's not having any of it. It looked like Rakuten might be the title sponsor from Bahrain onwards for $40m but that deal fell through, despite Honda joining Mclaren next year.

[langwadt]

Ah yes, Mclaren...

The same team that won their last constructor title 16 years ago. We are talking about the 90´s here!
As far as i´m concerned they should be grateful that they have had some of the big sponsors with that kind of track record.
One little blip of success in 2008 and if we remove that then it´s 15 years since the last driver´s title.

Since their WCC title in 98, Ferrari (which is also in deep sh*t) has managed to rack up a total of 8 WCC titles since then.

So why are people surprised the sidepods of the Mclaren is empty? Seems pretty obvious to me to tell you the truth.

Williams' last title was in '97, now they got a nice, big Martini logo on their car.

Tobacco sponsorship was huge money 10 years ago and was something that paid the bills for pretty much everyone on the grid. With that almost every team had a title sponsor. Not the case anymore. Only Williams and Ferrari have a title sponsor now.

It'can't be denied that the ban on tobacco sponsorship has left a huge, gaping hole in the teams budgets that now, in the economy where companies have to do more with less, can barely be filled by new sponsorship money.

maybe the budgets have just gotten more extreme.

after a little googling:
McLaren 1993 budget: $82M, in todays money that is $133M
McLaren 2014 budget: $290M

though I don't know how accurate those numbers are

[Glyn]

Ah yes, Mclaren...

The same team that won their last constructor title 16 years ago. We are talking about the 90´s here!
As far as i´m concerned they should be grateful that they have had some of the big sponsors with that kind of track record.
One little blip of success in 2008 and if we remove that then it´s 15 years since the last driver´s title.

Since their WCC title in 98, Ferrari (which is also in deep sh*t) has managed to rack up a total of 8 WCC titles since then.

So why are people surprised the sidepods of the Mclaren is empty? Seems pretty obvious to me to tell you the truth.

Williams' last title was in '97, now they got a nice, big Martini logo on their car.

Tobacco sponsorship was huge money 10 years ago and was something that paid the bills for pretty much everyone on the grid. With that almost every team had a title sponsor. Not the case anymore. Only Williams and Ferrari have a title sponsor now.

It'can't be denied that the ban on tobacco sponsorship has left a huge, gaping hole in the teams budgets that now, in the economy where companies have to do more with less, can barely be filled by new sponsorship money.

maybe the budgets have just gotten more extreme.

after a little googling:
McLaren 1993 budget: $82M, in todays money that is $133M
McLaren 2014 budget: $290M

though I don't know how accurate those numbers are

Has the tv revenue and prize money got more extreme too?

[wesley123]

maybe the budgets have just gotten more extreme.

after a little googling:
McLaren 1993 budget: $82M, in todays money that is $133M
McLaren 2014 budget: $290M

though I don't know how accurate those numbers are

Compared to 1993, yes, they certainly have become more extreme. Compared to 2004? I'm not so certain.

Compared to the rest of the field, McLaren had been one of the very few to carry a major sponsor, having worn Vodafones logo and name from '07 until '13. Other than Vodafone, it had been pretty dead on large-scale sponsorships.

On medium to low scale sponsorships, the teams are set, but that hardly fills anything compared to the $$$ Big tobacco paid to have their logos on the cars.

[FW17]

3 car teams will not work. What is the incentive for Lotus Williams and Force India to run 3 cars next year?

Regulation? From what i´ve gathered it´s already in the rules if some teams can´t make it to the grid next year everyone else will have to field three cars.

That is not regulation, it was probably part of the previous Concord agreement. Currently there is no agreement between teams and FOM other than one financial agreement with individual teams for prize money for 2013 season.

[FW17]

Comments in red ...

Problems of F1 cannot be solved by running 3 cars. F1 problems are;

2) too high a cost for operation due to restricted regulation - The teams will always spend as much money as they can. The regs simply say where they can spend it.

Just an example of a rear wing.

> There is only so much down force that can be run with a engine regulation

> Say you want to have a down force of 1000 kgs. on the rear. Large team is able to run 600 kgs from the diffuser while smaller team is able to do only 500 kgs. The remaining is from the rear wing.

> FIA regulations make development of the rear wing so complex
1) Position of the rear wing is to be right over the rear axis while previously it was further behind
2) Height of the wing is so high up
3) width of it reduced
4) number of element reduced to 2 while in the 90's people ran with even 6
5) drag lesser in a multi element rear wing in comparison with one with just 2 elements
6) depth of the wing element reduced

Designing a wing with so many parameters is so much more difficult and resource intensive than simpler regulation. For a top team they need to design a wing to produce 400 - 500 kgs of down force. While a smaller team has to use the same parameters to design one which produces 450 -550 kgs

Why be wasteful with such tight regulations when it is known that with certain horsepower only so much speed is possible.

[SectorOne]

3 car teams will not work. What is the incentive for Lotus Williams and Force India to run 3 cars next year?

Regulation? From what i´ve gathered it´s already in the rules if some teams can´t make it to the grid next year everyone else will have to field three cars.

That is not regulation, it was probably part of the previous Concord agreement. Currently there is no agreement between teams and FOM other than one financial agreement with individual teams for prize money for 2013 season.

"We have a regulation that says if we lose three teams the other teams will run three cars," Ecclestone confirmed to Sky Sports News HQ ahead of this weekend's Singapore GP.

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/report/124 ... ms-in-2015

[FW17]

"We have a regulation that says if we lose three teams the other teams will run three cars," Ecclestone confirmed to Sky Sports News HQ ahead of this weekend's Singapore GP.

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/report/124 ... ms-in-2015

Regulations are only what the FIA writes, there is no FIA regulation which talks about 3 car team. In fact if FOM fails to provide a full grid of cars (I think it is 20) then it becomes an event of default in the 100 year agreement between FIA and FOM.

[SectorOne]

I´m more inclined to believe Bernie as well as other teams saying if it comes to it, they will also field three cars.
They won´t field three cars because it´s fun, it´s because it´s in the rules.

[Richard]

It seems Bernie is referring to a clause in the Concord agreement. That's where the commercial side is dealt with, including the number of teams. Remember new teams apply to FOM to enter F1 (ie concord). The FIA regulations only apply to technical and sporting matters.

As for funding, this is one of the richest sports in the wold but teams are struggling for cash. Since we know lots of cash is sloshing around it is clear that the teams are struggling because the money goes to FOM. This is compounded by a shift in who the sponsors deal with. In the rose tinted past global sponsors focused on teams, while circuits were sponsored by local firms.

Nowadays the circuit sponsorship is owned by FOM and the TV contracts & feed are owned by FOM. Hence FOM control a lot (most?) of the global exposure, so they grab a lot of the available sponsorship. Firms like Emirates would rather sponsor the entire sport for guaranteed wall to wall coverage as opposed to sponsoring a team with the hope it might appear on the TV feed. Finally the biggest money in all sports these days lies in TV rights, owned by FOM.

So that's why there's more money than ever in F1 but teams struggle for cash. Its also why the circuits also struggle for money. It's because FOM dominate the sources of money. Having 3 cars per team won't fix that, it simply reduces the variety of competition.