FORUMula1.com

[sagi58]

With a little help from your friends:

[sagi58]

Personally I think the more you restrict and cap the more you guarantee the richest win.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/sport ... ctory.html

And, as a ""drinks company"" just proved FOUR years in a row, just because you're a luxury car manufacturer doesn't guarantee you success, either!

[CookinFlat6]

Sagi58, you do know that your chart shows Ferrari as the highest spenders in 2013 right?

Whats that got to do with Red Bull and Merc? Red Bull spent more than Merc and got more points, they both spent less than Ferrari and got more points

[spankyham]

Those figures are guesses because teams aren't audited. And we all know spending can easily be hidden. We do know for example that Mercedes had a team of over 400 working on this years new engine while Ferrari had 120. And by company capacity it is abundantly clear that both Red Bull and Mercedes has way more to spend than Ferrari.

We also know that no matter how you try to dress it, over the past 4 years only one team won, and only 3 teams dominated the top three positions.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

[sagi58]

Seriously... do you really think I'm that stupid?? Because, I'm NOT!!

First of all, because your post:

2013 F1 Teams: Value for Budget
Team Budget* (in millions of £) Points £ Per Point (in millions of £)
Red Bull 235.5 596 0.40
Lotus 130 315 0.41
Mercedes 160 360 0.44
Ferrari 250 354 0.71.............

was so difficult to read, I thought I'd be nice and use my newly acquired knowledge on how to use the Snip-It tool to post that table. Hence my comment:

With a little help from your friends:

Secondly, even if I don't particularly like statistics, I can read them and I can analyze them!!
((Even if they are simply projected figures.))
So, yes, I do know that Ferrari spent more and accomplished less with that money.
I also know that, in spite of your flippant denigration of spanky's opinion:

Let the smaller teams have room to create. That's how it worked in the past. The garragistas won because they could be creative even though they had nowhere near resources of the big teams.

And how many of those garagistas are still around who were not owned by manufacturers with deep pockets?

I commented that:

And, as a ""drinks company"" just proved FOUR years in a row, just because you're a luxury car manufacturer doesn't guarantee you success, either!

The deep pockets of said manufacturers is NOT what's been the deciding factor, is it?

Better??

[Jabberwocky]

The fact they build road cars is irrelevant. It is not as if the W05 has the same central locking mechanism as an S class.

I think a car manufacturer will learn from an F1 and not the other way around.

Sent using NCC-1701

[What's Burning?]

Sagi, sounds like after four consecutive WCCs Red Bull is close to popping your Tifosi.

[sagi58]

It's always a possibility; but, if their engine woes aren't sorted, soon, it won't be a probability!!

[CookinFlat6]

The fact they build road cars is irrelevant. It is not as if the W05 has the same central locking mechanism as an S class.

I think a car manufacturer will learn from an F1 and not the other way around.

Sent using NCC-1701

The fact that they build road cars is very relevant in that the ONLY sustenable business model for an F1 team to stay at the front is a budget from a big manufacturer in leu of marketing. So they can spend big amounts they never expect to get back and the increase in car sales justifies it.

Now RBR also have big funding that the backer doesnt expect to get back, hoping to sell more foul and putrid tasting fizzy drinks. The kicker though, is that they do not make engines and are therefore reliant on the engine maker, and their massive funding doesnt have any control of that budget.
There are NO firms out there who can justify peeing 200 mill a year on the back of publicity for their product, there arent even any title sponsors who see the benefit anymore

This is why Ferrari - backed by Fiat, and Mclaren - previously backed by Merc have been able to spend the amounts needed to stay at the front. Renault - backed by Renault did it for a while, won a couple of things and quit, Honda and Toyota and BMW despite outspending everyone for a few years couldnt make it work and left
All we have left along with Ferrari who have had this business model for decades are Merc - backed by Daimler and RBR backed by Red Bull.

The rest are struggling because F1 is not a profitable business
Lotus - backed by an investment firm that are just realising they aint getting their money back
Force India - backed by a diversified corporation cannot justify not seeing their money back - deep trouble when the backers realise this
Sauber - deep trouble
STR - RB have tried hard to get rid of it
Caterham - business model similarly untenable - Owner says football better business, he is off in 1 year
Williams - went for the public company route, cannot kep up with big spenders, and so lives within its means and is therefore always back of the grid

The rich car maker owner who can also bung in free engines is the holy grail and Bernie wishes he had a whole grid of them

and thats why Lewis, Nico, Alonso and Kimi are the smartest drivers for ending up in these premium seats

[Jabberwocky]

So if for example Microsoft decided to back a team they would not have deep enough pockets to enter F1. Maybe their is not enough computer power going on in F1 to justify them doing so!

Sent using NCC-1701

[CookinFlat6]

If Microsoft backed a team, they would have to be prepared to see 200 mill leave their pockets permanently every single year, more if they want to actually win.
Microsoft or Apple would be mad to spend 200 mill a year on raising awareness of their brand, I mean really barking. Now imagine they are barking and spend that, would they want to win? at least once or twice or would they be happy to just make up the numbers so that their investment hardly gets airtime?
No one is gonna buy windows 8 ONLY because MS have a mid grid F1 team. Whoever is gonna buy windows is going to anyway and the majority of its market dont follow F1. But lots of people would buy a Merc if the WDC Lewis advertised it
My first car was an old Honda Accord and it had a sticker on the sunroof that said McLaren Honda World champions. I loved that sunroof

[Jabberwocky]

We are getting back to the point of is F1 sponsorship worth it again.



Sent using NCC-1701

[spankyham]

We are getting back to the point of is F1 sponsorship worth it again.

Sent using NCC-1701

Agreed. And it is all moot anyway. We are already committed down the more-rules-caps-limits path. I keep an eye on LM racing as they don't have caps and the competition there is getting stronger each year. I'm sure my team is doing the same.

[sagi58]

... But lots of people would buy a Merc if the WDC Lewis advertised it...

First of all, I'm sure people will continue to buy Mercedes vehicles, even if Hamilton doesn't win the title.

Secondly, that sort of "fan boy" statement, although cute and endearing, doesn't give the buying public
much credit for having a brain and using it wisely when reaching for their cheque book!!

Sheez... and you talk about the Tifosi having rose-tinted glasses!!

[1Lemon]

I think Cookin' is very correct (Yeah I'm as shocked as you are ) F1 is not sustainable unless you're riding on the back of a big car company; and there isn't enough incentive to join F1 when half the races are spent outside of your target market.

Yeah the smaller teams need the ability to innovate and I would love to see that, but that's a rule issue and not a fundamental issue with F1 itself; which is what we're talking about right now. Allow the engineers more freedom but cap the spending, it will generate innovation and actual different looking cars; this would up the rating and therefore sponsors and team would be able to stay in F1 for longer than just a few seasons.

Something needs to be done soon, else there will only be one team in red left.