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

[GitanesBlondes]

Biggest cost this year?

Those silly engines.

These engines were the dumbest thing that F1 ever pursued.

Mercedes and Renault were out of F1 without those silly engines. Spec Ferrari might sound great with howling 1000hp V12s but you can just watch 458 Challenge cars if you want to see screaming red-orange cars be driven around by rich people.

Oh, so two engine manufacturers being out of the sport is somehow worse than possibly losing 1/4 to 1/2 of the grid because half the teams cannot really afford the engines?

[astracrazy]

Engine manufacturers held the sport to ransom and look what it's done

Tbh how can an engine which is way more complicated than a road engine, millions of £' more expensive than a road engine, less fuel efficient than a road engine, more powerful than a road engine (needed from a 1.6), less reliable than a road engine and needs more servicing than a road engine ever be relevant to a road engine?

And tbh a lot of road cars use basically what is ERS already anyway.

[Richard]

Those numbers aren't how much the engines cost, it's how much the engine supplier thinks they can charge.

Let me explain - Engine suppliers work out how much cash they can squeeze from the teams (inc a share of prize money from the works team), direct sponsorship, their own HQ. They add all that up, and then work out how to spend it.

For instance there is a Renault interview where they disclose their budget was based on $60m from direct income (Renault HQ & sponsorship presumably) and $60m from customers. Hence they set out to spend $120m. If the customer teams only supplied $30m the budget would come down $90m and everyone would still get their engines.

The teams could halve their budgets and still have engines. The big boys could chop their budgets from $300m to $200m and still thrash the others. The silly cost of the engines is a symptom of the silly arms race chasing diminishing returns.

[FoxHound]

Oh, so two engine manufacturers being out of the sport is somehow worse than possibly losing 1/4 to 1/2 of the grid because half the teams cannot really afford the engines?

Did you honestly think losing Caterham and Marussia would be worse than losing Mercedes and Renault, leaving ONLY Ferrari as engine provider?

[FW17]

Oh, so two engine manufacturers being out of the sport is somehow worse than possibly losing 1/4 to 1/2 of the grid because half the teams cannot really afford the engines?

Did you honestly think losing Caterham and Marussia would be worse than losing Mercedes and Renault, leaving ONLY Ferrari as engine provider?

Things did not look bad after bmw toyota and honda left

and not like it is difficult to source a v8

[XRayF1]

And tbh a lot of road cars use basically what is ERS already anyway.

Comparing a road car 'ERS' to a F1 car ERS system, is like comparing apples with oranges. Both are fruits, but that's were the similarities end.
The one is built for lasting for a car's life time, say 10yrs and 200,000 miles, the other for 4 races and 2,000 miles.

It is always easy to say, it is basically the same, while everybody knows it is not.

[FW17]

In 2006 F1 made a allowance to the smallest team Minardi to run a V10 when all others were running V8's. This was even allowed when the team was taken over by Red Bull and they used the RB1 with a V10.

This effectively was a 2 tier F1. The same could have been done this year too when lower teams said they could not afford the new engine costs.

[Andres125sx]

Oh, so two engine manufacturers being out of the sport is somehow worse than possibly losing 1/4 to 1/2 of the grid because half the teams cannot really afford the engines?

Did you honestly think losing Caterham and Marussia would be worse than losing Mercedes and Renault, leaving ONLY Ferrari as engine provider?

This

Caterham and Marussia are a lot easier to replace than Mercedes, Renault and Honda (remember Honda is coming back because of turbo engines... and maybe Audi too)

Caterham and Marussia leaving?

Who cares if we see Ferrari, Mercedes, Reanult, Honda and Audi in F1?

If the options were 11 teams including Caterham and Marussia but only Ferrari engines, or all the above engine suppliers with 9 teams assuming no other team will entry (what is a big assumption)... I´d be surprised if any of you prefer first option

[thedutchguy]

Oh, so two engine manufacturers being out of the sport is somehow worse than possibly losing 1/4 to 1/2 of the grid because half the teams cannot really afford the engines?

Did you honestly think losing Caterham and Marussia would be worse than losing Mercedes and Renault, leaving ONLY Ferrari as engine provider?

I think we've had this discussion before: If F1 would have stuck with the V8's then Cossworth would still be in the game, and assuming that Renault (probably) and Mercedes (who knows) would have left, I'm quite sure that the powers that be might have persuaded Zytec, Mugen or some other race engine manufacturers to step in as well.

However, the bottom line of this whole clusterf*ck is the totally unfair way money is distributed in F1. First there is the promoter (Bernie, working for CVC Capital) who takes a far too large share of the sports S1.8 Billion annual income. Earlier this year Bernie paid the German court $ 100.000.000 Dollar to get out of a trail he would have probably won, but which inconvenienced him too much. That's probably pocket change for him, while some teams have annual budgets which are smaller than that.

Second there's the way money is divided between the teams. Not only does the current system (which divides the money based upon a teams position in the world championship) mean that the back markers will have no way to move forward, there are also 'special' deals for certain teams. Ferrari gets about $100 Million every year just to show up, and Red Bull are rumored to also have constructed a special deal for themselves. And what does the 11th team get? Nothing!

F1 can look at all sorts of silly solutions like 3-car teams, unmanageable cost-caps and customer cars, but it's time to address the cause of the problem and make sure that more money goes to the teams, and most of all to the teams at the bottom end of the grid.

[FW17]

If the options were 11 teams including Caterham and Marussia but only Ferrari engines, or all the above engine suppliers with 9 teams assuming no other team will entry (what is a big assumption)... I´d be surprised if any of you prefer first option

F1 was doing great when there were only 2 manufacturers and Cosworth. No one would have cared if a manufacturer left.


The question is not who is participating but the disparity between the top half and bottom half of the grid and the cost of competing in f1.

Audi WEC probably has a budget less than that of the 120 million required to break even this year and that includes a hi-tech diesel engine development programme. WTF........


F1 would still be the same (fast and glamorous) with factories restricted to 100 people and 25 at the race track.

[emaren]

F1 can look at all sorts of silly solutions like 3-car teams, unmanageable cost-caps and customer cars, but it's time to address the cause of the problem and make sure that more money goes to the teams, and most of all to the teams at the bottom end of the grid.

But that suddenly smells of 'participation trophies', where even the losers get rewarded. F1 has never, ever, rewarded mediocrity and I am not sure it is time it did.

Running down that road gives out points for everyplace, so one point for 22nd all the way up to (say) 100 points for first. Throw in points for the fastest lap (say 10) and maybe points for pole position too ?

At the end of each race the purse is divided based on how many points you scored, the absolute minimum would be, I presume, three points (1+2), the maximum say 100 (1st) + 60 (2nd) + 10 (fastest lap) + 10 (pole), so 180.

if the pot for each race is $10M, then based on ~450 points total available, each point is worth $22K or so

So the worst team would get $66k, just for running two cars around one lap. The best team, (1st, second, pole, fastest lap) would see $4M in the bank.

Obviously that sort of payback would be vastly more beneficial to the winners, and so it should in my opinion.

But if you simply award 22 points to the winner and 1 to last, then we would be looking at $36k / point - so the worst result (21/22) would be worth $110k. But the best result would only make the team $1.5M.

Is this fairer ?

Personally I think not - the winners should be rewarded, F1 is not a charity.

If next year, Marrusia are Ferrari 'B', Caterham are Lotus 'B' and Force India are Mercedes 'B', will that be any different to the current situation where Scuderia Torro Rosso are Red Bull 'B' ?

Personally I think it would be great, the 'B' teams grow the talent and then graduate. The racing would be more fun, there would be many more 'giant killing' opportunities too.

I will not miss Caterham on the grid, all that they have done is devalued the Caterham name IMHO.

[ErnestoAlfredo]

Hi everyone long time reader since 2007 but never posted before so hello.

At the moment the problems facing the small teams and the solution offered to them dropping out i.e. the top teams fielding 3rd non points scoring cars seems to me to be a compounding of the problem. That is the midfield cars drop further down the order, giving them less exposure therefore less sponsorship etc etc until a new set of teams is ready to fold leaving us with a 4 or 5 team championship a la Nascar with all the negatives associated with it.

How about we turn the solution on its head and please hear me out I really think if approached in the right way this could work!

The bottom 3 teams in the championship are offered the opportunity to run a 3rd car - if we accept that the main costs in F1 are engines, factory staff, R&D, wind tunnels, CFD etc, these costs are already existent and can be (with the exception of engines) amortised across 3 cars. The additional running costs of the 3rd cars - race crews, transport etc would be covered by an F1 "fighting fund" this could be a levy that all teams pay or could be one of F1s main sponsors e.g. DHL who take title sponsorship space on the cars as well as their traditional trackside spots or guest sponsors for particular markets who could cover the costs for their GP as part of an F1 sponsor exposure package e.g. a major US brand with limited European or Asian markets might pay for the 3 additional cars to be run in the US and Canadian GPs where the investment is worthwhile for them for market specific exposure.

The teams gain from the following benefits:

1. Additional sponsorship space on the 3rd car which they are completely free to sell to existing sponsors, sponsors for specific GPs, other teams on the grid, driver sponsors etc - More income.

2. Freedom to rotate in whichever drivers they wish - pay drivers, young guns from other teams who pay for the seat, local drivers for a particular GP which helps to drum up fan interest - More income, more exposure.

3. UNLIMITED TESTING & DEVELOPMENT MILEAGE & TYRES rules for the 3rd car during the GP weekend (and at other times if they can afford it) and freedom to run one of the teams 2 main drivers in the development car in every session up to end of FP3. - Improves the quality of the grid, makes the smaller teams an attractive proposition for partnership with bigger teams and also tech sponsors / partners e.g. a team could field a 3rd car running an experimental ERS system in partnership with an engine manufacturer or supplier, effectively allowing them to sell development and testing services to other teams who don't have the same unlimited testing opportunities.

4. THE 3rd CAR SCORES POINTS!!!!!!! - if the team fielding it finished in the bottom 3 of the previous years championship. This creates a 33% better opportunity to fight for increased prize money - More interest in the lower order competition and increased income and exposure.

Obviously this could not be done without offering the bottom teams initial assistance to absorb the costs of producing and running an additional car and giving them the choice to opt out if they wish, but ultimately once it was up and running, it gives teams who have already done all the heavy lifting of investing in factory and race infrastructure the opportunity to capitalise on this investment by effectively selling the services of their 3rd car to sponsors, pay drivers and other teams / tech partners. It would also help to increase the market value of these teams as a potential investor or buyer for a struggling team would have a much bigger sponsorship offering and additional sources of revenue in the form of pay drivers, testing mule services etc. It might also help to propel these teams up the grid through improved revenue and the opportunity to test on track more than their rivals to supplement their smaller budgets for high cost simulation, wind tunnel and CFD development.

[thedutchguy]

F1 can look at all sorts of silly solutions like 3-car teams, unmanageable cost-caps and customer cars, but it's time to address the cause of the problem and make sure that more money goes to the teams, and most of all to the teams at the bottom end of the grid.

But that suddenly smells of 'participation trophies', where even the losers get rewarded. F1 has never, ever, rewarded mediocrity and I am not sure it is time it did.

I'm not suggesting that F1 should become an automatic money making machine for everyone who shows up, but we're now obviously in a situation where half of the grid is struggling to make ends meet, or has already failed to do so. That's completely sily in a sport which is filled to the brim with money.

I'm just saying that it should be a little less skewed than in currently is. Right now it's a unbreakable circle: Be successful, get loads of money from the promoter, be able attract good sponsorship deals to get even more money, and thus be able to develop a good car for next year etc... However when a team performance perform bad, the get very little or no money from the promoter, have to scrap for sponsorships and can't develop a good car for next year.

[FW17]

F1 can look at all sorts of silly solutions like 3-car teams, unmanageable cost-caps and customer cars, but it's time to address the cause of the problem and make sure that more money goes to the teams, and most of all to the teams at the bottom end of the grid.

But that suddenly smells of 'participation trophies', where even the losers get rewarded. F1 has never, ever, rewarded mediocrity and I am not sure it is time it did.

Running down that road gives out points for everyplace, so one point for 22nd all the way up to (say) 100 points for first. Throw in points for the fastest lap (say 10) and maybe points for pole position too ?

At the end of each race the purse is divided based on how many points you scored, the absolute minimum would be, I presume, three points (1+2), the maximum say 100 (1st) + 60 (2nd) + 10 (fastest lap) + 10 (pole), so 180.

if the pot for each race is $10M, then based on ~450 points total available, each point is worth $22K or so

So the worst team would get $66k, just for running two cars around one lap. The best team, (1st, second, pole, fastest lap) would see $4M in the bank.

Obviously that sort of payback would be vastly more beneficial to the winners, and so it should in my opinion.

But if you simply award 22 points to the winner and 1 to last, then we would be looking at $36k / point - so the worst result (21/22) would be worth $110k. But the best result would only make the team $1.5M.

Is this fairer ?

Personally I think not - the winners should be rewarded, F1 is not a charity.

If next year, Marrusia are Ferrari 'B', Caterham are Lotus 'B' and Force India are Mercedes 'B', will that be any different to the current situation where Scuderia Torro Rosso are Red Bull 'B' ?

Personally I think it would be great, the 'B' teams grow the talent and then graduate. The racing would be more fun, there would be many more 'giant killing' opportunities too.

I will not miss Caterham on the grid, all that they have done is devalued the Caterham name IMHO.

By that logic why not reward only the top 3 or even only the winner?

F1 is a broadcast sport where in every participant needs to be paid. Have they not qualified to race within the 107% ???? Money paid is for appearing on TV or in front of a few thousand people just like you are likely to be paid for your picture on a magazine.

[FoxHound]

Oh, so two engine manufacturers being out of the sport is somehow worse than possibly losing 1/4 to 1/2 of the grid because half the teams cannot really afford the engines?

Did you honestly think losing Caterham and Marussia would be worse than losing Mercedes and Renault, leaving ONLY Ferrari as engine provider?

Things did not look bad after bmw toyota and honda left

and not like it is difficult to source a v8

So you suggest technological regression, resorting to antiquated V8s as the solution?
Also, it should be noted that when bmw honda and Toyota left, there were still 3 manufacturer participants.
How bad do you want it to look with just Ferrari?