F1T regulations proposal

[Just_a_fan]

So they need better sponsors not cheaper regulations. Notice how the budget limitation mostly affects big teams? It won't do anything for the small, dropping out teams.

If you're sponsoring a back marker team you're not going to be giving them as much money for your logo as you would Ferrari or Mercedes. So the teams get less per logo so they get less overall income. Less income means they can't do as much as the big teams so they can't compete. If you don't compete and don't get media coverage, you don't get sponsors queuing at your door to give you money. It's a vicious circle - a negative feedback loop if you like.

You need to reduce the big teams' budgets in order for the smaller teams, who can't get the big budgets because they get less sponsorship, to have a chance.

It really isn't difficult to understand.

[f1316]

So the teams get less per logo so they get less overall income. Less income means they can't do as much as the big teams so they can't compete.

Take your point here but I don't agree that every extra dollar adds competitiveness .

Pat symonds said the same only this week: yes it's harder with a smaller budget, but it's still possible to win by working smarter. Personally, I think customer chassis would also help in this regard, and don't think it's at all antithetical to the spirit of F1 (think of hesketh, for example).

[mertol]

No if you reduce the money of the big teams you reduce the appeal of the sport overall and sponsors don't come at all. When a team like mclaren can't find sponsors you know you have a problem.
Whatever limit on budgets you put it will either be higher than what backmarkers spend currently so not helping them or it will be so restrictive that it will ruin it for the big teams which actually bring the fans and therefore sponsors in the sport.

[Just_a_fan]

So the teams get less per logo so they get less overall income. Less income means they can't do as much as the big teams so they can't compete.

Take your point here but I don't agree that every extra dollar adds competitiveness .

True, if you have $200m and I have $180m then I can compete by being a bit more clever. If I only have $50m then I'm not able to compete because being clever won't make up that much of a funding shortfall.

Manor have $80m, the big three have $400m+. Manor will never be clever enough to make up that shortfall. Next year's at they'll have even less because the FOM money will be less I believe.

Edit: Added to the above, when the rules are tightly defined, as now, and stable for a period of time, again as now, a less well funded team will struggle. Why? Because with tight rules and rule stability it becomes increasingly difficult (and hence expensive) to find any performance gains. If the rules were more open then teams could try novel solutions with some chance of finding a "magic bullet". Sure, others will then copy it but it gives the originating team a bit of a head start and thus allows points to be accrued. At the moment, the teams have basically found the "free" performance in the rules and are working through a list of "expensive" performance items. These tend to be aerodynamic and that requires expensive wind tunnel time. CFD alone isn't enough to find these sorts of gains.

[Just_a_fan]

No if you reduce the money of the big teams you reduce the appeal of the sport overall and sponsors don't come at all. When a team like mclaren can't find sponsors you know you have a problem.
Whatever limit on budgets you put it will either be higher than what backmarkers spend currently so not helping them or it will be so restrictive that it will ruin it for the big teams which actually bring the fans and therefore sponsors in the sport.

According to this piece http://www.f1technical.net/news/20123 McLaren have plenty of sponsorship income.

Look at the budgets and tell me how the teams in the lower end of the grid can compete. The reality is that without the little teams, F1 is dead. No one is going to watch grids of 6 or 8 cars so F1 needs to keep the little guys there. They need breadcrumbs and the only place that's going to come at this stage is from FOM. For a start, Ferrari's payment from FOM should be reduced and the difference shared out at the back.

[mertol]

They don't need to compete with the big teams. They should compete with the middle teams first which is totally feasible.

[Just_a_fan]

If you're going to insist that there is a "them and us" stratification between the front and back of the grid, perhaps F1 should become split championship. It works in other categories - sports cars have grid with different performance levels and you get interesting racing.

Perhaps there should be three classes:

• F1,
  F1GT (Formula 1 Getting There) and,
  F1M (Formula 1 Maybe [we'll last the season] - could be called F1TT (Formula 1 Tryout Team) as that has a historic connection from when TT meant Tourist Trophy).

Teams can then choose whether to compete in a lower class or make up the numbers in a class above.

And yes, I'm being serious.

[mertol]

Nope only you are insisting that small teams need some handycap like budget limitations. I insist that they can do a good enough job with a lot less money than top teams happened a lot of times before.

[Just_a_fan]

Then you're wrong. F1 is about competition; the guys at the back aren't there to "make up the numbers", they want to compete and win. I can quite safely state that Manor will never win a Grands Prix on technical merit - the only way they'll win is if there's a huge incident that wipes out most of the grid in the style of the "Great Indie Tyre Farce". So they're effectively wasting their time and money (not that they've got much in the first place).

[Moose]

Then you're wrong. F1 is about competition; the guys at the back aren't there to "make up the numbers", they want to compete and win. I can quite safely state that Manor will never win a Grands Prix on technical merit - the only way they'll win is if there's a huge incident that wipes out most of the grid in the style of the "Great Indie Tyre Farce". So they're effectively wasting their time and money (not that they've got much in the first place).

Just like Minardi will never win a race on merit... oh... wait.

[Just_a_fan]

When did Minardi win a race? They never got on the podium.

If you mean after they became Torro Rosso, that would be after the time they got a big load of money and technical input from Red Bull. You know, the stuff we've been talking about.

[Moose]

When did Minardi win a race? They never got on the podium.

If you mean after they became Torro Rosso, that would be after the time they got a big load of money and technical input from Red Bull. You know, the stuff we've been talking about.

Yes, I do mean after they became Torro Rosso, the point being that back markers are valuable. You can't simply say "Manor will never win a race" - they may actually become that team that provides the useful starting point for getting into F1, just like Minardi does. They may well be laying the ground work for winning races right now.

[Just_a_fan]

So Minardi didn't win a race after all. Torro Rosso won in strange circumstances (a wet Monza) when everyone else was doing silly things. And the driver went on to win 4 titles so it wasn't down to the car being suddenly a clever design.

I agree that F1 needs these teams but it won't keep them if they are so far behind. They're more likely to bring on talented drivers if they don't need to rely on pay-drivers just to keep the lights on at the factory.

Let's look at it another way; you say that teams don't need big budgets to be worthwhile and competitive. Fine, so why do Ferrari et al need $400-500m a year? If being clever is all that's needed, make them compete with no more than $100m a year. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - to use an underused idiom.

[mertol]

I never said that. You are the one who wants smaller budgets by limiting everyone. This is a communist-like aproach and it never works. Instead of having equality in competition you will have every team struggle like manor.

[Just_a_fan]

S'funny that suddenly the idea of teams being clever with a limited budget doesn't appeal when it's applied to the front of the grid..."communist-like approach", gotta love it.

Instead of having equality in competition you will have every team struggle like manor.

If they're all equal in budget then they should be equal in competition, except for those teams that can do clever things on limited budgets...they'll rise above the others and win. Hey, we've stopped being commies again!