How can F1 secure itself in the economic and beyond?

[duke_toaster]

I define road relevance as the ability for two-way technology transfer between F1 and modern/near future road cars.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

The big problem is how the income is distributed and until the teams get together and do something about the "commercial rights" holder ther will never be a way to recover costs.

It seems that they are doing something.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72367

Originally Posted by Oldtony

And just to open another can of worms can anyone come up with a balanced explanation of the term "road relevance".

A cost effective usefull benefit for your mainstream 'Honda Civic'.Which is no doubt what Honda will be focusing on (and would have been even if they weren't in F1) now that it's seen the light.

I rather fancy that Honda will learn more from its MotoGP participation than from anything that it's done in F1.

[Dutton]

It is always going to be a tad tough to make "road relevant" connections between a prototype single-seater racecar and a road-going mass-market vehicle. They are truly very different things.

I can only see fuel economy development and long-life parts as being in anyway possible as being able to work in this context (including having one tyre for all weather conditions, able to last the whole season).

F1 cars and road cars...they are just totally different things!

[Marbot]

There are a great many car manufacturers that get by reasonably well without the need to spend masses of money on things they won't use on their road cars.

Back to "road relevancy"-Just how road relevant is two-and-a-half tonnes of BMW X5 ?

It's not like BMW have bothered to put it through a wind tunnel or even bothered to use weight saving materials.They did put a V10 in their 5 series though,but it doesn't rev to 20,000 rpm or have pneumatic valves.It does,I believe,have a gearbox built by General Motors and will imitate its so called F1 heritage by achieving single figure fuel consumption.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

I define road relevance as the ability for two-way technology transfer between F1 and modern/near future road cars.

First of all you need a road relevant series.

What SEAT and Audi (VAG) have done with their diesels as been far more road relevant than anything that F1 as done of late.

You would have to choose F1 from a marketing point of view,but you would have to choose some other series if you want it all to be relevant.

I understand that Mario Theissen (BMW) scoffs at the thought of having to race with a diesel engine.Well he needs to have a look at how many of his companies road cars are being sold with diesel engines.

[Bernard Bram]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It does,I believe,have a gearbox built by General Motors and will imitate its so called F1 heritage by achieving single figure fuel consumption.

Running at idle?

[JohnD]

The above comments seem to me to be split into three:
1/ The Sky is Falling! And it's all the fault of the FIA or the Manufacturers. Give up and wait for a New Dawn. Or a New Bernie.
2/ Return F1 to a development series for production cars.
3/ Tweak the regs, to get costs down.

But what about the poor punters? F1 nowadays is an event far better watched from an armchair, for a better view, better information and better beer. The spectators are charged enormous sums to sit hundreds of yards from the track, eat rubbish and never, ever get to see the cars except from that distance, even when they are stationary.

More spectators=more fans=more money for F1
Bring the spectators in by:
Improving the viewing facilities; better seats nearer the action.
Better food & drink. Draft in Delia!
Reduce the ticket cost. less than half of the earnings from media and advertising comes back into F1. Reduce the cost to circuits or even subsidise tickets from those funds.
Allow the fans into the pits; So? It'll get franticly crowded, but so are motor shows and people still come. They like to feel involved. If the teams get agoraphobic, tough.
Allow the fans contact with the drivers; see BTCC, drivers signing programmes until their arms ache. Encourage drivers to say something significant, or discuss their cars openly, not use corporatespeak.

John

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bernard Bram

Running at idle?

Running constantly at idle and assuming that the car is stationary,it will achieve 0 mpg/kml,as will any car.

[Bernard Bram]

Ah, now i get it, you're talking single figures in mpg.

[Teretonga]

JohnD
More spectators=more fans=more money for F1
Bring the spectators in by:
Improving the viewing facilities; better seats nearer the action.
Better food & drink. Draft in Delia!
Reduce the ticket cost. less than half of the earnings from media and advertising comes back into F1. Reduce the cost to circuits or even subsidise tickets from those funds.
Allow the fans into the pits; So? It'll get franticly crowded, but so are motor shows and people still come. They like to feel involved. If the teams get agoraphobic, tough.
Allow the fans contact with the drivers; see BTCC, drivers signing programmes until their arms ache. Encourage drivers to say something significant, or discuss their cars openly, not use corporatespeak.

Quite right.
The outflow of $$$ from the sport into the pockets of the 'owners' is a travesty that has ripped the heart out of the sport to benefit a few wealthy people.

I have no problem with the TV contracts etc but the on course advertising plus the enormous fees charged by Bernie to get to run the show are ludicrous.
The on track advertising, admission etc should be flowing back into the hands of the organisers and the teams, no one else, and ther needs to be a really strong rethink on allowing the 'audience' at the meeting a really close up hands on experience.

That will return some of the draw back to the events themselves.
Its as though Bernie figured he didn't really need the live audience and that they were simply a cash cow to be milked for as much as possible, and then left neglected, as though they didn't matter.

That sort of arrogance has probably been reposnible for the falling attendance and disenchantment of audiences in, for example, China and Germany lately.

[Marbot]

Martin Brundle has a plan!

"Martin Brundle: "The F1 feeder series, GP2, provides great racing entertainment for a team budget of £4m, rather than F1’s £200m. The FIA’s new F2 series is going to cost £250,000 per car. Taken to extremes, last weekend I watched Felipe Massa’s charity kart event where he, Michael Schumacher, Rubens Barrichello and others were wheel-to-wheel around a small bumpy track in Brazil driving £2,000 karts. It was great entertainment."

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Martin Brundle has a plan!

"Martin Brundle: "The F1 feeder series, GP2, provides great racing entertainment for a team budget of £4m, rather than F1’s £200m. The FIA’s new F2 series is going to cost £250,000 per car. Taken to extremes, last weekend I watched Felipe Massa’s charity kart event where he, Michael Schumacher, Rubens Barrichello and others were wheel-to-wheel around a small bumpy track in Brazil driving £2,000 karts. It was great entertainment."

There's a clear message there, people just need to be realistic.

[Marbot]

The full Martin Brundle "eight-point plan" article.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle5298985.ece

It's very good I think.

[duke_toaster]

Very good, but legalization of customer cars is one I would go for. As would looking to replace the 2.4 V8 after the recession.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Martin Brundle has a plan!

"Martin Brundle: "The F1 feeder series, GP2, provides great racing entertainment for a team budget of £4m, rather than F1’s £200m. The FIA’s new F2 series is going to cost £250,000 per car. Taken to extremes, last weekend I watched Felipe Massa’s charity kart event where he, Michael Schumacher, Rubens Barrichello and others were wheel-to-wheel around a small bumpy track in Brazil driving £2,000 karts. It was great entertainment."

Are you saying toss out the whole F1 structure and replace with GP2 to save costs?

[Mekola]

Not exactly. GP2 is a spec-series in all parts, monocoque, engine, tyres et al; with customer cars F1 could be back more like it was before the signing of the Concorde Agreement (1981-82), when lower teams tended to use customer chassis - but this not necessarily was translated into results. Customer teams could be successful (as was Rob Walker's, or Tyrrell on it first F1 years) or could be discrete (Rebaque - Lotus, RAM - Williams/March); that depends on the organization and the disposition of these teams.

I remind that F1 has a Constructor championship - and you have to note that isn't a Marques championship like it was in sportscars (or current FIA GT - WTCC), so it was prevented the idea about what happens if a customer team get points. These points must go to the chassis manufacturer - it means, a private McLaren sum points for McLaren team, albeit that car isn't managed by the operation directed by Ron Dennis.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Are you saying toss out the whole F1 structure and replace with GP2 to save costs?

No,I didn't say that,and neither did Martin Brundle.He didn't say that they should use £2,000 Go-Karts either.

What he is saying is that there is a conspicuous difference in costs between the series,which doesn't do anything for the 'real' attraction of F1.

[Marbot]

Red Bull gain another sponsor.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=36707

While Williams seem hell bent on wasting money! ?

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=36708

[Marbot]

But says it has plenty!

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/n..._30_years.html

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

No,I didn't say that,and neither did Martin Brundle.He didn't say that they should use £2,000 Go-Karts either.

Put the lot of them in long circuit gearbox karts. That'll sort the men from the boys.

James

ps. No I don't drive one. My tessies are not large enough.

[Pingguest]

A cost-cutting measure for after 2009: allow teams to run only one car if they want so.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

A cost-cutting measure for after 2009: allow teams to run only one car if they want so.

What about the minimum car entry number (14 I think it is) ?

[Dutton]

12.

[duke_toaster]

It's 12 in the sporting regulations ... but what is it in Bernie's contracts with the promoters? Estimates vary between sixteen and for some it's speculated to be a minimum of twenty!

[Dutton]

Right, it is all speculation. I am suggesting we go with what we actually know about until we are shown reason to think differently.