FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jabberwocky]

If all the teams are given the same amount of money plus prize money.

Eg 30mil plus prizes

Then all the teams will just spend 30mil more a year. Why? Because everyone that supplies them think Pirelli, engine manufacturers, paint manufacturers, and so on will know about it and want their piece of the pie.

If you doubled the wages of everyone in a country overnight how long would it be before McDonald's doubled their prices?!?

Sent using NCC-1701

[sagi58]

Segregate the revenues from the prizes. You should reward teams that win, but reward them from a prize money pool, not from splitting TV and commercial rights revenues in a completely unfair way...

It's true, winning teams should get an incentive; but, not to the point of financially crippling teams that don't win.

How's this:

All the monies go into a pot, 80% of that money is divided up EQUALLY amongst ALL teams!

The remaining 20% can be divided based on the top five final positions,
e.g., WDC team gets 8%, Runner up gets 6%, Third place team gets 3%,
Fourth gets 2%, and Fifth gets 1%.

How about 50% are divided equally, and 50% based on top 10 final positions?

Sure, that's a good example and might be more readily
accepted by the teams closer to the top...

Mind, I would imagine there can be a case made for both,
and other scenarios in between!!

[sagi58]

If all the teams are given the same amount of money plus prize money.

Eg 30mil plus prizes

Then all the teams will just spend 30mil more a year. Why? Because everyone that supplies them think Pirelli, engine manufacturers, paint manufacturers, and so on will know about it and want their piece of the pie.

If you doubled the wages of everyone in a country overnight how long would it be before McDonald's doubled their prices?!?

Good point; but, there could possibly be an addendum where the teams have to invest in young drivers, etc?

Besides, the "only" difference would be instead of having 11 teams spending 30 million more we have 5 teams
spending more than double that each year...

[1Lemon]

I thought the judge had a nice spin on it.


The saving Ecclestone would make from losing 3 teams would be in the region of $130m, and for the grid to be once again no less than 20 cars, this would require 4 teams to put up their hands and volunteer.

Of course, Ecclestone would gladly use the savings to fund these 4 extra cars, because should the grid fall below 20 cars, the FIA would cancel the 99 year long commercial agreement, and CVC and Bernie would be out of F1. 3 teams failing = 6 cars out, 4 cars funded by Bernie/CVC.

So it was hardly surprising at the weekend, that Ecclestone had this to say. “I think we should do it anyway. I would rather see Ferrari with three cars or any of the other top teams with three cars than having teams that are struggling.”

[1Lemon]

Segregate the revenues from the prizes. You should reward teams that win, but reward them from a prize money pool, not from splitting TV and commercial rights revenues in a completely unfair way...

It's true, winning teams should get an incentive; but, not to the point of financially crippling teams that don't win.

How's this:

All the monies go into a pot, 80% of that money is divided up EQUALLY amongst ALL teams!

The remaining 20% can be divided based on the top five final positions,
e.g., WDC team gets 8%, Runner up gets 6%, Third place team gets 3%,
Fourth gets 2%, and Fifth gets 1%.

As long as Ferrari get their extra 2.5% every year for being Ferrari right?

[sagi58]

Segregate the revenues from the prizes. You should reward teams that win, but reward them from a prize money pool, not from splitting TV and commercial rights revenues in a completely unfair way...

It's true, winning teams should get an incentive; but, not to the point of financially crippling teams that don't win.

How's this:

All the monies go into a pot, 80% of that money is divided up EQUALLY amongst ALL teams!

The remaining 20% can be divided based on the top five final positions,
e.g., WDC team gets 8%, Runner up gets 6%, Third place team gets 3%,
Fourth gets 2%, and Fifth gets 1%.

As long as Ferrari get their extra 2.5% every year for being Ferrari right?

That was NOT my intention...

[Hammer278]

I wouldn't mind 3 cars at all. No pain in seeing a full podium of Mercedes Petronas liveries.

[Jabberwocky]

Well with 2 teams already collapsed. 3 car teams are a hot topic

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-266293.html

Apparently Bernie has come up with the idea that a top team should give caterham / marussia one of their cars and all the parts they need and let them run them. Sounds like he is trying to get customer cars back.

It is interesting the order Bernie is asking to produce the 3 cars in.

[What's Burning?]

So the essence of being a manufacturer is building your own car... In this scenario teams would be breaking the FiA rule that defines a manufacturer and therefore forfeit their standing.

[Jabberwocky]

What Bernie wants, Bernie gets.

[Murphy]

I remain unsure about three-car teams.

I'm a big fan of the underdogs, I love nothing more than a little team having their occasional moment in the spotlight.
On the other hand, having three-car teams would probably mean a bigger grid, meaning more chance of putting drivers on the grid who deserve a chance.

There's always the potential for three or six-way title battles, too...

[Roth]

It's a short term solution to a long term problem. Not dissimilar to Ferrari and FIAT going separate ways. The quick gain has to be sustained, and if it can't be at what point do they revert to the present system, and with what excuses. There's a lovely irony in Bernie wanting to fix a money problem by spending even more money, when he's holding a huge slice of the purse for himself. If it was such a great idea it would be imbedded into F1, not coincidentally coming at a time when teams are falling away because of funding issues.

It's just another Bernie band aid, and he throws in the daft ones like sprinklers just to make almost equally daft ones such as this more palatable.

[darwin dali]

It's just another Bernie band aid, and he throws in the daft ones like sprinklers just to make almost equally daft ones such as this more palatable.

There's method to his craziness.

[CookinFlat6]

Anything Bernie says about 3 cars etc will be whatever he feels he needs to say, as the triggers and conditions for major changes like that for the teams will be defined in the Concorde and bilateral contracts he has with each team and will be protected by a confidentiality clause. Therefore anything he says cannot be taken for granted until we read official amendments to the issued mandates. So all the stuff about certain teams giving cars to other teams etc is more than likely a complete bunch of toss and bait for gullible reporters

IMHO

[Roth]

Bernie and the big boys smell fear in those small teams. They passed the double points, they'll find a way of passing this. When your only worry is the logistics of the move, it's different to if your livelihood is on the line. For Wolff it's business, the arrogance of the successful, banging on about Lufthansa, but doesn't realise the importance of the smaller teams. His radar doesn't go beyond Merc's success. It's like Vettel's 'balls' comment - you can get away with it when you're at the top, but people remember. Merc almost pulled out because they couldn't hack it and it's only this year's success that's kept them in, and that's with a huge budget. Bernie is the man, or the one in such a position, who should be halting this thought process not encouraging it. F1 is in danger of shrivelling up like the WRC to a dominant team and a few passers by gamely throwing their hand in from time to time.