[Team] 8 teams with three cars?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Brawn is a unique case. It was a tasty Honda, tasty Merc, with a dialed in staff hot off the big teams. They won on the back of Honda factory muscle and coasted when the shortage of money began to bite. They would've been backmakers the following year if Brawn had not have been bought over.

The FIA has been asleep at the wheel and allowed this sport to become a collection of laptops on wheels.

Brawn is just an example of a designer finding a hole (pun intended!) in very tightly drawn regulations which everybody else missed. If the rules stopped trying to design the car and let the designers design the car, different designers are going to take different approaches. One team is good at (low drag) aero. Another good at weight reduction. Another good at packaging (their car is 3/4 the size of every body else's). Another is best at suspension. Each team would build on its strengths, and finding things in the areas they focus on that everybody else passed buy.

My view of this is colored from the design perspective, but in design school, there is always somebody who comes up with a solution to the problem everybody else is working on which makes everybody else go 'Dayum, I wish I had thought of that!'

Originally Posted by Teretonga

2nd part: Agreed but that requires careful regulation design to prevent teams chasing minute advantage by throwing heaps of money at it.

The thing is, you open the technical rules up and they aren't going to be chasing minute advantage anymore. They will be going after whole seconds! Or at least halves of seconds. The biggest problem for the FIA would be keeping lap times under control from year to year, and predicting how much development will occur over the next year. They would probably have to do mid-season fuel allocation corrections (sometimes up, sometimes down) to get the lap times where they wanted them. It would be just like the ACO's challenge for several years with the diesel equivalency because the diesels were developing so fast, only more so.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Brawn is just an example of a designer finding a hole (pun intended!) in very tightly drawn regulations which everybody else missed. If the rules stopped trying to design the car and let the designers design the car, different designers are going to take different approaches. One team is good at (low drag) aero. Another good at weight reduction. Another good at packaging (their car is 3/4 the size of every body else's). Another is best at suspension. Each team would build on its strengths, and finding things in the areas they focus on that everybody else passed buy.

My view of this is colored from the design perspective, but in design school, there is always somebody who comes up with a solution to the problem everybody else is working on which makes everybody else go 'Dayum, I wish I had thought of that!'



The thing is, you open the technical rules up and they aren't going to be chasing minute advantage anymore. They will be going after whole seconds! Or at least halves of seconds. The biggest problem for the FIA would be keeping lap times under control from year to year, and predicting how much development will occur over the next year. They would probably have to do mid-season fuel allocation corrections (sometimes up, sometimes down) to get the lap times where they wanted them. It would be just like the ACO's challenge for several years with the diesel equivalency because the diesels were developing so fast, only more so.

I'm not disagreeing with you so don't understand your point here. I think we're talking at cross purposes.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I'm not disagreeing with you so don't understand your point here. I think we're talking at cross purposes.

Just a different perspective.

I think if you open the technical rules up, teams no longer spend huge amounts of money for small gains. The gains come from unexpected places and the predictability of the relationship between spending and gains in lap time goes out the window. With the predictable ROI gone, budgets actually drop.

I realize it's counterintuitive.

Just as counterintuitive as what has happened to F1 budgets over the last 30 years following increasingly restrictive technical regulations that were intended to reduce spending but actually just drove greater spending because it was so much harder to find an edge.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Aren't there enough series already doing that?

Shouldn't F1 be different?

Bit by bit, almost every area of innovation has been closed down by regulation in order to keep costs in check. It hasn't worked and now we have the worst of both worlds - ridiculous amounts of money spent on socially useless development. Buried in the midst of all of this there is supposed to be a motor race among the world's best drivers - but most of them are trying to eek out a living outside of F1. Every single series has either died or gone spec. for the very reason F1 is in trouble right now. There's a lesson in there.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Every single series has either died or gone spec. for the very reason F1 is in trouble right now. There's a lesson in there.

*Every* series?

I think the various prototype, endurance, GT series would have a difference of opinion with you there.

That said, I'm liking this thread now, it feels productive. Not that it'll help F1, of course

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Greem

*Every* series?

I think the various prototype, endurance, GT series would have a difference of opinion with you there.

That said, I'm liking this thread now, it feels productive. Not that it'll help F1, of course

Oh the folly of a how a typo can completely change the meaning of a sentence I meant 'every single seater series'

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Casper

You missed my point completely. If the management tools can't be used they then have to limit what works without them. You could not run today's cars without all the data and engineering back up they have at the race track. Remove it and the cars have to be made simpler.

im not sure what you guys mean by 'simpler'.

for the last 20-25 years there have been numerous attempts to make cars simpler, more standardized, less driver aids, less aero etc and numerous innovations have been banned because they were deemed too costly and the only thing that happened during that period was that the sport became more expensive. money that should have been saved was simply spent on finding fractions in the ever decreasing areas in which the teams were allowed to focus on.

granted i may be misunderstanding what is meant be simpler.

short of actually restricting the size of budgets (which most seem to think is impossible...imo its just difficult) i dont see how removing the tech from f1 cars is the way forward.

but even if it was, lets say it was possible to create a set of simple low tech rules which all teams agreed too....how long does that paradigm have to exist for? rather what happens in year 2?

given that we are used to new cars every year, before how long does 'simple' become complex?

[Richard C]

Not sure where to put this given multiple thread include people tossing out their ideas on “how F1 should work.” Here is one I just cooked up. It is a sort of a modified NFL model…

* 10 (?) two car teams will operate as franchises under a commercial umbrella organization (not FIA, not CVC)
* Umbrella organization exists to manage the sport, and not to generate money for itself.
* Sponsorship deals are negotiated with the umbrella organization. This includes sponsorship that shows up on the cars. In short, if your company name is shown during a race weekend, it must come through the umbrella organization and it would go into the general revenue bucket (or maybe a large percentage goes into the bucket and the rest directly to the team). I am not exactly sure how this would work for manufacture sponsorship (i.e. Ferrari, Mercedes, etc.) but something would have to be worked out. In short, Ferrari might have to pay into the general bucket just to put “Ferrari” on their own car.
* Revenue (TV contracts and sponsorship) are shared equally by all teams regardless of place in the championship.
* There would be no cost caps per se, but the revenue sharing would be the core base “controlled operating budget”. Assuming the economics of this works, this should allow for the full funding of a team. It may not guarantee success, but it should prevent funding implosions. The more successful the series is at bringing in money, the larger everyone’s budget gets.
* The controlled operating budget would fund things like salary (design staff, operating staff, and drivers) and materials. There would be some restrictions on things such as compute power for CFD and wind tunnel.
* Size and cost of facilities and manufacturing equipment are generally open. If you want a billion dollar factory, go for it. Pay for it out of your controlled budget, or fund it separately. It is up to you. As mentioned above, there would be some limitations (computational power, wind tunnel, etc.)
* Size of on track hospitality are generally open. Pay for it out of your controlled budget, or fund it separately. You can have hospitality sponsors that are not negotiated via the umbrella organization, but those outside sponsors would be generally invisible to viewers.
* Track testing is open as long as it fits within your operating budget. Testing can’t be funded by external sources.
* Teams should theoretically not run out of money, but some may perform poorly on a consistent basis. Rules would be put in place that once any single team has consistently performed poorly (such as living at the very back of the grid for X number of years), then the umbrella organization can force the sale of the franchise.
* Teams can sale their franchise. A successful series should result in a market for franchises. Some level of approval (not unanimous) would be needed around new owners by the existing owners.
* No pay drivers. Or rather, if a driver brings personal sponsorship, either that goes into the general bucket (for distribution to all teams), or that sponsorship money pays for things that lives outside of the controlled budget. It could pay for team hospitality suites, factory space, equipment, etc. But does not go to the controlled team budget.
* Technical regulations would likely be much freer than today, but not radically so. However, a graduated reduction in “banned” concepts would be implemented over a long period of time (decade or more). This means there will be a level of constant change, but it should open up for more creative designs without huge initial disruption. Initial few years may likely have stable and unchanging rules at the expense of lesser options for creativity.


Advantages…

* More financial stability.
* Entire sport shrinks and grows based upon economic conditions vs. minnows dying off when things are rough.
* Potential for a larger number of teams to be “in the hunt” for championships, but still allowing for periods of team dynasties.
* Potential for more creativity. Teams free to do what they want within the controlled budget (i.e. testing)
* Not 100% cost capped. Big teams can still be big.


Why this is likely not to work/be implemented…

* Formula One Group/CVC has to shrink/go away. Money/profit moves from them to the teams. CVC would not allow this. Does not fit with existing contracts/agreements.
* Sponsorship model and revenue distribution is radical for the motorsports world. Just too different than today to gain traction.
* Larger teams become equals to smaller team in many way. Especially with respect to revenue sharing. Larger teams will not put up with this.
* Costs are not 100% capped, but it would still require forensic accounting. In short it has all of the complications that go along with enforcing cost caps. So if you oppose cost caps, you will oppose this.

I am sure there are other issues that makes this a "no go". Feel free to point them out.

Richard

[chillibowl]

love the NFL model as well as that of the NBA, MLB, and NHL.

someone had asked earlier on if there were examples of other sports leagues which faced a similar level of implosion.

all four of the above leagues have. each one has lost a significant amount of games and sometimes entire seasons due to players strikes. strikes essentially aimed at creating both a more equitable distribution of the profits between owners and players as well as between different owners leading to proposals aimed at equally dividing up TV and certain endorsement monies.

sometime it requires crisis for common sense to prevail...although its fair to say the cost to fans always go up as a result. instead of deciding how to divide a smaller pie (or how to create a smaller pie) consensus is usually found by deciding to split up a larger pie instead.

that said i still strongly agree that there are many many lessons to be learnt from N.American leagues.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

More suggestions of 3 car running next season but only if the numbers drop to 16, with Red Bull and Ferrari adding one more car to make 18.

Lets play along for a moment

Mercedes: Hamilton and Rosberg is secure
Williams: Bottas and Massa being secure
Red Bull: Ricciardo and Kvyat
Ferrari: Vettel and Raikkonen
McLaren: Alonso and Magnusson
Toro Rosso: Verstappen and ??
Sauber: Ericsson and Nasr
Lotus: Maldonado and ??

So sadly in the EXAMPLE Force India don't make it

We have seats in a Toro Rosso, and a Lotus together with Redbull 3 and Ferrari 3 to fill

Who gets them?
Button ...perhaps too old
Vergne ...If he's not in the Toro Rosso could he jump into the RB3
Grosjean ... if he's not in the Lotus
Hulkenberg ...only an example remember
Perez ... again only in this example
Chilton ... he has a superlicence
Kobayashi ... Japanese funding?
Alex Rossi ... needs to stay on the scene until Haas arrive in 2016
Carlos Sainz JR ... in the TR if Vergne steps up to RB3
Stoffle Vandoorne ... stay as Mclaren 3rd to be planted into the 2nd Honda team in 2016

10 names for 4 seats (swapping the Force India pair for the Sauber or Lotus or an other team)

One other thought springs to mind, if Red Bull have to fund and run a 3rd car, will that put a dent into their sponsorship/funding of Toro Rosso ....could the Baby Bulls be the team that makes way to force a 3rd car from McLaren or Williams or Mercedes ( I can't remember the order) as well ??

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

love the NFL model as well as that of the NBA, MLB, and NHL.

someone had asked earlier on if there were examples of other sports leagues which faced a similar level of implosion.

all four of the above leagues have. each one has lost a significant amount of games and sometimes entire seasons due to players strikes. strikes essentially aimed at creating both a more equitable distribution of the profits between owners and players as well as between different owners leading to proposals aimed at equally dividing up TV and certain endorsement monies.

sometime it requires crisis for common sense to prevail...although its fair to say the cost to fans always go up as a result. instead of deciding how to divide a smaller pie (or how to create a smaller pie) consensus is usually found by deciding to split up a larger pie instead.

that said i still strongly agree that there are many many lessons to be learnt from N.American leagues.

The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL model works, I don't see it working in F1.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL model works, I don't see it working in F1.

If you mean putting sponsorship into a common bucket I would entirely agree with you. The whole sport is too technically oriented for the idea of sponsorship going into a pool to work.
On the other hand having a limited prize pool (so many $ per point and the balance shared equally amongst 10 teams I could see working as long as the shared pool wasn't too big or too small relative to the prize pool.

Not at the moment because the contracts would have to run their course but Bernie wouldn't be involved.
This is simply because he preferred mode is to individually negotiate. He does this because divide and conquer is his preferred way of controlling his subjects.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

If you mean putting sponsorship into a common bucket I would entirely agree with you.

Yes Bernie is already doing that if you look at the trackside adverts they all have sponsored teams currently or in the past. The only problem is Bernie/CVC take their share out of the bucket and then the big teams get a much larger share because they are more equal than the smaller teams.

[csirl]

In the NFL, the 'bucket' is mainly TV money, league sponsorship and merchandise. It doesnt include teams own local sponsorship.

There is more than enough money in the F1 'bucket' to comfortably provide for 13 competitive teams. This money needs to be divided more equally.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by csirl

In the NFL, the 'bucket' is mainly TV money, league sponsorship and merchandise. It doesnt include teams own local sponsorship.

There is more than enough money in the F1 'bucket' to comfortably provide for 13 competitive teams. This money needs to be divided more equally.

That was generally the core of my attempt above (plus some cost caps). I just wasn't sure how to handle indivual team sponsors. Especially manufactures. For example I couldn't see how Ferrari would dump their own money into the bucket to share among all teams.

Teretonga posted this link in the "Hell freeze over" thread...

https://joesaward.files.wordpress.co...tructures3.jpg

Assuming that is accurate, it clearly shows why the revenue sharing is a problem. Especially for the teams at the bottom. I don't have large issues with financial reward for doing well in the championship, but I tend to think that financial reward likely would come externally (sponsorship) and should not come via the commercial rights holder.

Using the numbers from above, there is roughly 1.15 B that is allocated to the teams. If that was split evenly instead of having special break out payments to Ferrari, weighting payments based upon championship, etc. you would get...

10 teams = ~115 million each
12 teams = ~96 million each

That would be a hit for the larger teams (such as Ferrari who gets ~209 million) but would be a boon for a bottom team who gets ~10 million).

Richard

[SWCRacing]

The figures in that link from Mr Saward are flawed and the income / turnover of Formula One World Championship Limited is overstated by nearly $500 million

From the last company accounts filed with the authorities in the UK, the turnover was $1,294.3 million.

If you run that figure through using the same arbitrary percentage figures in that link, the $ income for the teams reduces to $826.42 million. The "profit" retained by F1WC ltd equates to just over 14% of turnover after all costs and taxes

Autosport recently did an article which stated that the teams costs were in the region of £1,600 million per year, which approximates to $2,500 million per year

The sport is not self sustaining in any way shape or form

[Casper]

Originally Posted by SWCRacing

The figures in that link from Mr Saward are flawed and the income / turnover of Formula One World Championship Limited is overstated by nearly $500 million

Joe Saward is never wrong....according to Joe Saward.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Super GP2? Two tier F1? Apparently it was discussed at Brazil.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116734

[chillibowl]

so one of the plans now is to let the smaller teams go in favour of replacing them with even smaller teams?

[chunterer]

So we will have Ferrari, RBr, Merc, Mclaren, Williams and Enstone in the top tier

And prezumably Force India, Sauber, STR and then Hass and 2 other customer teams in the 2nd tier?

24 cars?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

STR are a team that I feel a bit sorry for in all of this, they have come along way (albeit under Red Bull's financing). From originally running a previous years model, to adding their own aero to older cars, through to now and what I believe is their own chassis and aero, with the Renault/Red Bull power unit and gearbox.

Would Red Bull really want to shut down what is a proper manufacturer of genuinely upper midfield cars theses days in order to have STR run in the one make series.

Could Red Bull Corporate be far sighted enough to fund STR a 3rd car as well.

[bjohnsonsmith]

If GP2 cars are used in 2 tier F1, Dallara become the default customer chassis manufacturer, rather like March in the mid '70s.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

STR are a team that I feel a bit sorry for in all of this, they have come along way (albeit under Red Bull's financing). From originally running a previous years model, to adding their own aero to older cars, through to now and what I believe is their own chassis and aero, with the Renault/Red Bull power unit and gearbox.

Would Red Bull really want to shut down what is a proper manufacturer of genuinely upper midfield cars theses days in order to have STR run in the one make series.

Could Red Bull Corporate be far sighted enough to fund STR a 3rd car as well.

Adding to that, STR is part of the Red Bull driver programme.

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If GP2 cars are used in 2 tier F1, Dallara become the default customer chassis manufacturer, rather like March in the mid '70s.

And it wouldn't even be the only series in which they are the default chassis manufacturer: IndyCar is another.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Yannick

And it wouldn't even be the only series in which they are the default chassis manufacturer: IndyCar is another.

Having a default chassis comes with its own problems, which is why IndyCar are introducing aero-kits as from next season, in order to instill some visual variety.