FORUMula1.com

[Hammer278]

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.

Exactly....but as for your last line if nothing is done..... I'm thinking major car manufacturers, 3 cars per team. Merc, Ferrari, Honda, McLaren Honda, BMW, Williams BMW.

[CookinFlat6]

I think Cookin' is very correct (Yeah I'm as shocked as you are )

It can be very shocking when one realises that the truth transcends personal wishes or bias. When we can say 'this is how it is' as opposed to 'this is how my own experience or ability understand it to be'

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.

Everyone knows something needs to be done, but instead of offer alternatives, most focus on the negative aspects of the alternatives offered by others

The problem is simple - The income from F1 doesnt cover the spending required to have any chance of winning things
The solutions are either cut the spending required or increase the income available
The second option can only be achieved by an overhaul of the commercial structure of the series. Breakaway and recreate a top series where the income is fairly divided to the teams

Cutting costs - there obviously has to be action to prevent spending in search of diminishing returns.
Engines are already spec, so make customer chassis available also. Any team can buy from the proven makers. Cost capping is hard to enforce, so change the regs to see who can get most performance out of a spec where the expensive elements are fixed. Set a cap and have each team declare how much they spent with penalties for breaching the cap, leave it to the teams to be honest. They would honour this as the bad publicity when found out would be embarrassing

Budget cap 60 mill, for every mill you declare spent above 60 you start with 1 point deficit

[What's Burning?]

The first thing that needs to be cut is the team coming in last makes no money. If lower the amount of money available from prizes and make the television revenues flat then two things happen. Team won't spend as much automatically. Teams that score sweeter sponsor deals are going to be able to spend a bit more. Sponsors want to sponsor success. It's a simple model, and any team that wants to throw a ton of money and come out in the red season after season is welcomed to it.

[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

If its irrelevant if they build road cars, there must be some other reason to be there

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



Sent using NCC-1701

Or is it better to be a car manufacturer owning a car racing company instead of a sponsor

[1Lemon]

Customer cars are a great idea and I've no idea why so many teams are upset about them, Sauber were a team complaining, well if you don't like them, don't buy them. You could have teams taking a year old Red Bull design, then modifying it to suit their needs and we may even end up with close fighting cars.

[Hammer278]

Customer cars are a great idea and I've no idea why so many teams are upset about them, Sauber were a team complaining, well if you don't like them, don't buy them. You could have teams taking a year old Red Bull design, then modifying it to suit their needs and we may even end up with close fighting cars.

With a chassis a year old, I really doubt you'd have close racing since the cars improve by around 2-3 seconds a lap through a season. Could a Caterham built in 2015 beat the current car of the eventual 2014 WCC? I'd believe so.

[spankyham]

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

Ferrari would be long gone. F1 will exist and continue in that new form but without Ferrari. IMO they will only stay in F1 for as long as:-
1) F1 is the pinnacle of motor racing and
2) where there is quality marquee competition
3) where being creative and leaders is the prime objective of the competition without reference to budget or caps
4) while no other competition serves 1) 2) & 3) better

Exactly....but as for your last line if nothing is done..... I'm thinking major car manufacturers, 3 cars per team. Merc, Ferrari, Honda, McLaren Honda, BMW, Williams BMW.

As soon as F1 becomes a competition for mass car manufacturers and driven by relevance to bulk car sales, I believe it will lose its attraction for Ferrari.

[1Lemon]

Customer cars are a great idea and I've no idea why so many teams are upset about them, Sauber were a team complaining, well if you don't like them, don't buy them. You could have teams taking a year old Red Bull design, then modifying it to suit their needs and we may even end up with close fighting cars.

With a chassis a year old, I really doubt you'd have close racing since the cars improve by around 2-3 seconds a lap through a season. Could a Caterham built in 2015 beat the current car of the eventual 2014 WCC? I'd believe so.

Red Bull took 2012 car and 'evolved' on it to make it 2-3 seconds faster, there's nothing preventing customer teams doing that either, it's hard but not impossible.

[What's Burning?]

Red Bull took 2012 car and 'evolved' on it to make it 2-3 seconds faster, there's nothing preventing customer teams doing that either, it's hard but not impossible.

Well, yes there is the matter of about 200 million that it costs to do so.

[1Lemon]

Red Bull took 2012 car and 'evolved' on it to make it 2-3 seconds faster, there's nothing preventing customer teams doing that either, it's hard but not impossible.

Well, yes there is the matter of about 200 million that it costs to do so.

It cost Red Bull 200 million to take that car, design the new evolved one, get all the parts, make all the parts, hire people to attach, glue, build, transport these parts and then maintain the car/development of the car.

A customer chassis team would just buy the car then design new things around the one they've been given, allowing them more funds on developing it rather than creating an entire car by scratch (This also requires less staff)

[CookinFlat6]

If regulations are stable, why would the chassis need 2000 mill spent? If Bernie stopped messing with the rules and regs, allow customer chassis, fix the expensive stuff and then allow everything else goes on what can be done within those rules plus introduce a cap and self declared penalty system

Would work

[racechick]

I think the constant messing and tinkering with rules denigrates F1. Fans want to see the best up against the best...be it teams, engineers or drivers. I don't want to see gadgets and tricks to make things 'more interesting' . I want to see the best flat out.......I don't know why I've said all this now but that's what I think anyway

[Hammer278]

They don't tinker and mess around for no reason though. Before, it was about cars becoming too fast and the need to slow them down which I felt was fair....and then the tinkering with quali rules and whatnot because of the Ferrari domination period came about....don't know how much that helped but anyway. And now, some major tinkering again due to F1 going down the road of conforming with the general road car industry which I think is great. Thanks to F1, we have shift paddles in even crappy new cars now, and TC, even LC on a few affordable sports cars.

Pretty sure this change will help the automobile industry bring out better and more efficient hybrids way faster than if F1 had stuck to a regular engine. Tech moves quickest in events of war, and F1 is the war of the automobile. I just wish we had more engine manufacturers, at least 6-7. 3 is way too few.

[CookinFlat6]

I just wish we had more engine manufacturers, at least 6-7. 3 is way too few.

We have 2 and a half at present, as Renault have yet to produce an engine that performs to the spec laid out for 2014.

We had more manufacturers, Toyota, Honda, BMW, but they all left because it was an expensive corrupt and inefficient venture

and they didnt even know about the Ferrari extra help and vetos at that time

[racechick]

Here is a great read!! A question and answer session with Andy Cowell. He's managing director of Mercedes AMG Performance Powertrains. He's talking about the engines, about the importance of working closely with Petronas and getting their competitive edge.

http://www.mercedesf1.com/en/news/2014/ ... l-q-and-a/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;