The F1 Strategy Group meeting is a secret business. Officially, we don’t even know how its membership is chosen. Go to the FIA website and type the words in the search box and nothing of interest comes up, except (ironically) a spiel all about governance which says that “the FIA has a clear structure”.
I am still laughing at that one… I guess that when the European Commission comes calling the parties involved will have to hand over all the documents and one day we might get a better idea, but at the moment it is about as clear as mud. Anyway, the F1 Strategy Group met last week and discussed whether or not to change the engine rules so that the engines will be cheaper and so that the manufacturers who did it all wrong can get a second chance to catch up with Mercedes. It is an absolute disgrace that such things are even being talked about. Cutting costs is easy. You tell the manufacturers to offer the engines to teams at a certain level of cost. If they don’t want to do that then they can leave Formula 1. If they do walk out then Mercedes can supply everybody, just like Cosworth used to do back in the dark ages of the sport. That could be a nice little earner and Mercedes would not have any need of a factory team so they could save money on that and earn money by flogging its technology. Other manufacturers would soon turn up because F1 is still a bargain if you do it right. The problem with this solution, of course, is that Ferrari is never going to accept a Mercedes engine and so, as always, the sport must kowtow to the Italian team because it is deemed to be important. I have long believed that it was about time that Ferrari was told to behave in a more sporting manner and to be treated in the same way as the other teams. Yes, it has value for F1, but like a Hollywood movie star, if one asks for too much money then people lose interest. New stars come along and the box office value of old stars declines. I am sure that the Italian team would be sensible about it, particularly if told that if it threatens to leave F1, sports car racing awaits them. I think they would be back at the negotiating table pronto For
political reasons Bernie Ecclestone never does that. He pays the Italians what they want (after some haggling) and all is well. To be honest, if Ferrari ever does start winning again it will not be as impressive as perhaps it should be, because we all now know that the team gets paid huge amounts more than its rivals and so it is not a level playing field. Winning if you have an advantage is not really winning, is it? It is amusing if one loves words to note that the European languages do not have words for “fair play” and tend to use the English expression when they want to mention the concept. People do not seem to understand that the joy of competition can come from taking part, not only from winning… Perhaps it is an old-fashioned concept in this dog-eat-dog world but people would have more fun if they adopted it.
In all likelihood the proposals for change will be stuck in some sub-committee for long enough to become irrelevant, which is fine. If things are not agreed by the end of February, nothing is possible for 2016. There may be some minor changes that allow engine upgrades during the season but Mercedes will get these as well as the others.
joeblogsf1 
people have short memories and 4 years of Red Bull dominance must have increased its (RB) brand awareness hugely, to the detriment of Ferrari, McLaren and Williams.
No, I think not. Ferrari is selling more than ever. McLarens are selling well and you cannot buy a Williams…
… unless you can find an old Williams-decaled Renault 5 of yesteryear. 🙂
Sorry Joe, You’re probably already on your hols. but I meant as a F1 brand, attracting viewers, tv coverage, sponsorship etc.
Red Bull and Williams don’t have road cars, yet…
Enjoy the break and looking forward to 2015
I would argue that the recent domination and the behaviour of its leaders, such as Horner and the way the Webber/Vettel conflict turned out, has done the brand harm. Red Bull wants people to believe its all about sunshine and lolipop (water), but its the rat cunning and such things as flexible nose has turned a lot of people off the team. A bit like what happened following the Schumacher/Ferrari domination years. The trick is to win without seeming to do so at all costs.
>> It is amusing if one loves words to note that the European
>> languages do not have words for “fair play” and tend to
>> use the English expression when they want to mention
>> the concept.
I didn’t know that. It’s more than just amusing, it’s actually quite remarkable. I had assumed that fair play was a universal idea. Now, I s’pose it should be added to the list of English inventions.
Amazing…
ps: Anybody know how Asian languages do on this point?
Not a clue. However, I think that fair play came about as a n English concept as the major sports were formalised on “the playing fields of Eton” and the concept did not follow the game abroad.
The expression “fair play” was popularised by the Scottish 18th century philosopher and economist, Adam Smith. The Theory of Moral Sentiments suggests that we should respond to unfair play by fair means: “There can be no proper motive for hurting our neighbour, there can be no incitement to do evil to another, which mankind will go along with, except just indignation for evil which that other has done to us.”
not only the “fair play” concept did not always follow the game abroad. It also happened to the concept to go abroad (or far away from England)….
“Fair play” in Korean? LOL
It took me years to learn the expression that conveys “common sense” (상식), and I still don’t have a usable way of expressing many English phrases after decades here.
It’s a concept/culture issue.
RShack,
I think no European languages have a idiom for “fair play”, because it’s too long been translated as “those stupid Brits think we’re not going to screw them!”.
At least, that’s the punch line of about every joke about the European Union: that we’re the punch line, and the butt of it. Who else demands rebates and thinks they are playing hard? And get accolades for “foreign policy gumption” at home, oh, dear.. Normal people just don’t pay unreasonable bills… we screw ourselves, usually.
Sometimes I think that was a big part the attraction of voting for Mosley as Prez. But I think, that Todt, too, has benefitted from a halo of British style collegiate management, as was successful and distinctive for so long, distinctive mainly because the English management style was such a difficult transplant for the Italian team to accept. Perception is such a funny thing.
A suitable French bon mot eludes me, but there probably isn’t a French, or European idiom, for what Oliver Hardy was given to exclaim so often, at Stan Laurel, either..
The German language has no literal translation for the word rude. Not surprising is it. Also, the Japanese have no swear words.
So what the hell do Japanese say when they accidentally whomp their thumb with the hammer? Or drop their meal on the floor? Or run into the back of the car in front? Or stub their toe on the furniture. Or etc., etc., etc.?
The Japanese say “f#$k” just like the rest of us! LOL
How did they manage before they were exposed to English expletives?
Now, I’m fascinated…
So Mercedes winning this year and probably next, isn’t that impressive considering they spent more than anyone else on engine development.
It’s the same old complaints and moans about money in F1, it’s as bad as the Premier Leauge. I’m glad that other manufacturers are backing other forms of racing.
“So Mercedes winning this year and probably next, isn’t that impressive considering they spent more than anyone else on engine development.”
It is impressive, and in all the circumstances, fair. The teams agreed to this thing after all, and voted not to impose a cost cap. They all had the same conditions to work under in that they could spend as much as they wanted. Fine. Therefore the other teams can’t turn around and say they want the rules changing just because they made a hash of the technology. I note that the teams making the most noise about this, Red Bull and Ferrari, are also the two teams who have also won back to back titles for several years on end. They never complained about the rules then, did they? It just comes across as poor sportsmanship and whining I’m afraid, and they should be told to either put up, shut up, or………..WORK HARDER.
Or vote for a cost cap.
We don’t know whether M-B spent more money on engine development. Perhaps they employed smarter people.
That long shaft running at turbo speed beside the engine to compress air? To achieve that, engineers thought differently but not necessarily expensively.
But cracking good engineering.
The notion that Ferrari would ever leave F1 for WEC is at best ridiculous. Top budgets in LMP1 are still very high even if not quite F1 level, but unlike in F1, you get very little ROI in WEC. Then, of course, there’s the whole winning thing, which certainly is no easier in LMP1 than in F1.
I say let’s call Ferrari’s bluff next time they threaten to withdraw from Formula 1.
Fine idea.
Allow me to second that.
I could easily accommodate a four year, or thereabouts, break from Ferrari’s meddling. The gods only know how much sympathetic a ear, those who have to deal with them directly, will lend.
Olli is bang to rights, about costs and ROI in WEC. It impresses, or rather, can impress, a influential crowd, certainly, but it’s not the game you need for a global company. What’s amazing, is how well the companies in WEC have exploited their engagement, even those not winning. How about transferring some of that facility to where you have a proper audience? I suspect, however, that it’s less a amazing feat of promotion, and more the fact that the WEC authorities let people get on with their sport.
Formula 1 is run by hugely successful international businessmen… who presumably have never played poker.
Ferrari uses the “threatening to withdraw” bluff on a fairly regular basis.
If they ever followed up on their threat they would then presumably enter the WEC, in opposition to Audi, Toyota etc. They might find it just as hard to win there, particularly as they would not be subsidised to be there.
It could quite conceivably cost them more money to race in a series with a fraction of the exposure.
It’s a bluff, call it !
I agree with almost-everybody that Ferrari’s bluff should be called… but, let’s face it, the reason their bluff works is not because F1 is cowed by them… and not because anyone takes their bluff seriously. Their bluff works for exactly one reason: Bernie *wants* their bluff to work.
By paying Ferrari a small-to-Bernie sum that comes out of pockets other than his own, Bernie achieves a guarantee that the teams will not unite against him. In that light, you can make a case that Ferrari is whoring themselves out for a lesser price than they might be able to get from Bernie who is paying them with money that isn’t even his.
That, Sir, would get my “comment of the season” vote.
Why else would Bernie be so happily explaining to us how Ferrari have him and everyone over a barrel? He’s parading the fact of his “weakness”! Oh, What A Lovely Sport…
When it was started the F1SG was punted as being composed of 18 participants. 6 from the teams, 6 from the FIA and 6 from Bernie. It required only a simple majority and would replace both the Technical and Sporting Working groups. I was not impressed, it spelled doom to me, I wrote a post in my own occasional blog on 7/11/12 “F1’s new structure, is it a killer?” I was wrong about the balance of power back then, thinking that the teams would get squeezed, but never dreaming that the extent and reach of the secret agreements would so basically undermine the structure of the sport to the point we now have where secrets supersede the written rules.
No word for fair play but they did come up with Schadenfreude 🙂
…which the English don’t have a word for…
I found (googled) spitefullness …
I think you don’t have “google” as a verb, we don’t have it either in Italian, nonetheless we use google quite often.. I believe also some brits mey profit from Schadenfrude and do not use enough fair play..
All the above just to ask to please stop this Ferrari bashing. F1 is asport AND a business ad if Rd or Horner or Toto could get more money from BE for their teams they would do it.
we could also find some “socialist, righteous” rule to fairly share money.. what about the following.. those with more wins get more money.. those who are in F1 since more years get more money.. those with more fans get more money.. those with more brand awareness get more money…
Hi Piero,
Your concern with Ferrari bashing may be realistic from a “fans” perception but not an objective one. Regarding your “socialst, righteous” funding approach, how about this?
All teams receive the same initial funding as entrants;
All teams receive a share in prize money, prorated 1-12;
What could be fairer than that?
It wouldn’t be the same sport without Ferrari, but the financial advantage(s) they receive from Bernie is one of many problems facing all of the teams.
> All teams receive the same initial funding as entrants;
> All teams receive a share in prize money, prorated 1-12;
Has Christian Horner accused you of being a socialist yet?
Or just of being a poor loser, lacking the competence to win a fair fight [sic]?
Interesting stuff Joe but, oh, how you like to bait us! I take issue with your comment about the ‘dark ages’ of the sport with everyone using Cosworths – some would say it was the best era. Not withstanding accident rates, that time produced good racing and gave the likes of McLaren (when Bruce was alive) a fair chance of a win or not championships. Much the same as now, in fact, eg Williams’ resurgence with Merc engines. Do fans really worry about the drive unit? You’re right though, Merc could easily just supply and Ferrari, well, do what normally do. Give them back their V12s (as you said, they’ve got all the money anyway) and back to the 60’s then – hooray!
Sorry, must have been dreaming.
Merry Christmas
Thanks! Seriously, it’s been a pleasure, as always, reading the blog. I know some don’t seem to appreciate how much effort you put in but here’s one who does. I’m subscribing again this year (I tried the other day but had problems with PayPal – I’ll try again) – should be interesting year one way or another, can’t wait. In the meantime a sincere Joyeux Noël to you and yours.
(Off topic, but since you mentioned PayPal)
I originally had a problem with that too. I think I had to re-enter the ‘quantity’ field with a value of ‘1’ on the PayPal form. Then it went through.
Thanks, I’ll try it. Not the first time I’ve had problems with PayPal.
It just seems that the control of the sport has been transferred from the FIA to Ecclestone and FOM. How they then convince the EU that this is a competitive setup with clear governance is hard to see.
It almost feels as if the FIA actively distance themselves.. I mean in the sense they wan the titular aggrandizement, but not the responsibility. Cold that be the actual intention? Think what a irritant this all must be!
Maybe, for those who convene in luxury to consider the “state of the nation” for their countries’ motorsport fans, the less mention of the realpolitik of fans, regular people, and — heaven forfend! — men and amen with dirty overalls, is too repulsive. I was viewing a program the other day, or caught a little of it, tuning in for news headlines, about Prince Phillip’s mother, Alice, and they showed footage of the Greek civil war. It was some time, before I could readjust from thoughts of the real horror, which was made then as I viewed the more acute by thinking how the incredible remoteness that modern life affords those in power, I believe even more so than it ever did create a protective barrier. Not, then, were there private jets, ready mercenary teams available on notice generals would dismiss in the last as fantasy, enclave retreats, and coterie of private billionaires all making up a much deeper world of practical illusion. Merely the facility available to the new echelons of the wealthy. I’d never known anything of Princess Alice: she struck me as a proper woman, someone who commands respect only because they have gained it. In comparison, those with social status, especially through “lowly origin” such as motor cars, les garagistes, may feel they cannot keep up, with the demands to meet yet higher patrons on a approximate comfort of footing. It was my father who first alerted me, to the fact that some careers cannot be elevated beyond a certain rung, without devotion to a society that cares little for why you may have become recognized through your endeavor. He played some of that game, but I think that whilst he had a talent for it, or could have had such a talent, he felt innately uncomfortable. Maybe not for him, but for others, and I’m thinking of our host here, it is actually a pity if some do not find a way to approach these terribly distinguished worlds.
As always an interesting piece. My first thoughts are about the Ferrari. The need to keep them on board has long long gone. F1 is no longer a baby racing series looking to grow into adulthood. Its a Global Corporation fully supported by other Global Motor Corporations – many of them much larger than this one Company.Circuits are built and paid for by Governments. The need to pay them off in this way no longer exists – and increasingly sullies the name of the sport.
Furthermore. Let there be no doubt; in F1 – Money is a Performance Enhancing Substance.
The fact that it is so openly and crudely handed out to larger teams – to the direct and unfair detriment of other competitors – is a grotesque distortion of the principles of sport and fair competition. Other sports dont allow substance abuse! Nor should we!
There was a time when a team found an advantage and assumed temporary domination the competition would dig in and pull back the advantage. There was room in the paddock to do that. To design. To hit back. To Compete. Now the rules are so overwhelmingly skewed no one it seems can react back without the help of the Series Organisors!
Where’s the Sport in that?
You may not agree with all I have written here, Joe – but I do applaud your efforts and those of others to get some transparency and Sport back into this whole exhibition. I for one view the whole thing with an increasingly weary eye – which is not what the Sponsors want is it.
Sport! Divide the money equally across the participants. Get on the grid – and the devil take the hindmost!
Thats Sport my friends!
Dear Iain,
By the time I was reading your third paragraph, I found myself checking it for punctuation… why? Because your words felt so much like my own unexpressed sentiment… and so now I am a little jealous of your expression, but much the happier how you have spoken. Dammit, yes, I agree with you.
I have long pondered the position Joe finds himself in, dint of his views and this blog, and pondered the more whenever there have been detractors and impertinent and downright rude comments. For there has oft been a line of accusation, overt or implied, that Joe by some means must represent the authorities, the powers or management, the status quo … and that is nit exhaustive, I could not write down the myriad connotations and subtleties of expression that are all presumptive about who what or how Joe is. I have usually dismissed them, the comments, entirely as merely ineffective debate. Yes, being a little condescending, I think some have been merely poorly expressed, ill thought through, and inadvertently come across as occasionally just mildly offensive. But, and this is not suddenly prompted, but nevertheless I echoed it earlier today, in wondering about the problems of the FIA’s appalling PR, or lack of it, today I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the reply to Joe’s articles, position and comment, here on his blog, are caused by the vacuum left by the supposed poses themselves. And it is all too easy, to imagine how, into this vacuum, it might be thought that, here steps forward a authoritative, articulate, knowledgeable, figure, who does in fact time to time argue the way things are, are not without reason, who sometimes does dismiss complaint as silly, when it is silly, and who, maybe virtue alone of bent the only voice who is prepared to entertain often unappealing pleas for elucidation, even from hostile voices, speaks so because he has to, because somehow it is his job. Utter tosh, of course, but now I think of it, this seems screamingly obvious to my dunce’s often undecided noodles, and much now makes far better sense than it did before. Well, they say no responsibility without representation, eh? I think I can agree with that argument…
Back to Iain, I’m not sure at all I know any fair way to divide incomes, and by fair, I mean that there is the problem that Johnny Come Lately’s ought not to be able to attain a sinecure of hard won income that’s actually won by the main competitors and the organization that’s built up around them. But, as to the v of the matter, I cannot fundamentally disagree with you. It shall be the New Year, by the time we convene again, informally, here, but I hope there shall be some Resolutions actually made, in the hearts of the heart of our sport. Very best form me to you and, if I manage to shut up before this delightful, and valuable, talking shop is shut down for the duration, to all and everyone here! All my best, & thanks for everything, it always is a good place to be, here. Yours. ~ john
In a recent post I wrote a lot (too much as always) about what I have seen as a continuing criticism of the FIA over a 40 year period. Joe was kind enough to take the time to give a better historical perspective and clear up some other matters.
In reading your words, JOJ, it gives me pause to consider if my post was one fo those, or at least of the types you refer to. If it did appear that way, I’d like to apologise to Joe, and anyone else who may have taken it as criticism of Joe, his blogs, or his continued analysis of the FIA’s role, or at this stage, lack of role, in Formula 1.
At no stage were my words intended as a criticism of Joe, or indeed anyone directly, and I am very sorry if they appeared to be so. My post was meant to be a general “Hey everybody, here’s a perspective”, simply as it looked to me that some of us were falling into a routine. Sometimes, it feels, as humans, we can end up criticising something so comfortably, because we have good reason to, that we don’t get beyond that and look for solutions, or alternatives. I’d never accuse Joe of that though. At the time I didn’t mean to sound like I was defending the FIA, or saying it was beyond reproach, it most definetely deserves criticism, and is most definetely letting the sport down.
I haven’t taken your post as directed at me John, that would require a level of paranoia I couldn’t muster, laughing to myself as I type this, all is well. It did trigger the thought in me though, that I might have looked like I was doing the kinds of things you write above. Given the time Joe took to reply to me I didnt think he felt set upon, but, I’m often not the best judge of how my words are received.
So, in the spirit of Christmas, let me apologise for any offence I might have caused anyone with that post, especially Joe. I sincerely didn’t think I was criticising anything Joe has said, just pointing out we all have a responsibility, especially team owners, and also the power, if we can find it, to change things. I don’t think I upset anyone, but I’d rather look silly for apologising when I didn’t need to, than assume I didn’t need to apologise, and leave people unsettled. Actually I think Joe is a stout enough soul I’d struggle to upset him, not that I would care to put that to test.
John (other John) I do agree though, that Joe, unfortunately perhaps, ends up filling the vaccumm created by others who should filling the space with positive F1 news, and genuine PR. He deserves official recognition for his continued support of a sport that seems unable to support itself these days. It is probably safer for him, and better for the rest of us that he remains on the outer. No compromises, you can’t buy that.
Hi Adam, and thanks for your thoughtful reply: I have to be brief (to a sigh of relief, maybe from many quarters!, but I didn’t think at all your post was the kind we discussed in maybe more detail than ever is needed. I didn’t pick up any such tone, at all. Nor, to assuage any last vestige of hypothetical paranoia, was any of it directed at you, I merely addressed you in thinking my thoughts!
But that question has been on my mind, a lot, over the hears (heck, it’s years now, since this blog started, and it’s been quite a journey) . I remember, at the start, I had to keep reminding people I had no role in F1! Well, more reasonably, I kept making it very clear I didn’t, because I couldn’t have that sort of confusion going on here. Now, now I see it very much, this whole confusion and question, as the thirst for quality speech about a sport that has almost no real voice. My father, dint writing well about technical Squash Rackets play, found himself at .. not quite loggerheads, but in a tension, with the sporting body, the SRA, as a result of his articles’ reach, as they did, often criticizing coaching and umpiring and general sporting concerns. And he would go to lengths to avoid direct criticism, his voice came across in asking questions of more subtle nature.
I think it’s a signal of the innate quality of thought that Joe puts in to this blog, and the magazine, that people feel. Rather than any outspokenness or direct challenge. Authorities are forever scared of the genuine article. Someone who cares and who has a mind of their own. Oh, heaven forfend they have the ability to write! They should not be so afraid, they ought to embrace such people in every way.
But such advice is seemingly beyond any part of human nature or instinct. Pathetically so. This is the fundamental nature of PR. Not as the flacks in offices see it, impart g the skills attained in a soft career option for who didn’t challenge themselves much at university, or elsewhere in their early life. I quickly start to feel sadness, how dim a vision is possessed of who can and should have the benefit of what should be their lifeblood, popular appreciation, understanding for a sport, and the warmth of caring attention. This applies, in terms of PR, to any endeavor, even those plainly corporate; one may appreciate the most harsh of industry, when they bring what you would not or could not endanger yourself to provide, in modern riches of life.
We all need a new attitude to F1. Not merely the powers and team owners and so on.
If we care that we are not being listened to, we need to speak up, and find a way to be heard. There must be a way. This is why I imagine this blog as a experiment, whereas I think some mistake it for a soapbox or a promotion or a private campaigning platform. I don’t think it’s any of those things, else I’d engage with it very differently.
Nor is Joe a misunderstood character. Just not everyone is bound to think, very much, about why anything is written.
But I think a lot of that will change, and before long, too. I think that new ways of thinking about F1 will arise, because we are undergoing a epochal change, and the vestiges of what we hang on to as nostalgia are not being erased but we are evolving past them distinctly, now, finally. So the discussion, the debate, how we engage, will change. And this, by far, has proven the best place in which to find new appreciation for what can happen. Good experiments soon become the more real.
Oops, of course I never am so brief as I wish, my thoughts seem time to time to be uncompressible, please forgive me. But that is the shortest sweetest note, on which I’d like to leave everyone’s company, until the New Year. High time we all made something of what we are gong on about.
Meanwhile, time to go about family life, and so all my very best and sincere regards to you, and to everyone, and so much, especially, to the silent majority who come by here, hopefully to find something different and stimulating. Very best from me, ~ john
Wow, such transparency. One wonders if mr todt and his cronies will be dining with sepp blatter et al. This christmas!
Speaking of which, a bloody merry christmas to you and yours joe, and a prosperous 2015 too.
Best regards, alex.
I was just thinking about the Sepp Blatter comparison (FIFA compared to the FIA). They appear to be similar in levels of ineptitude and transparency, but in fairness I don’t think the FIA is corrupted in the way that FIFA clearly is.
The concept of fair play is absent throughout the upper echelon in Formula 1. Just ask Mr Dennis or Horner or even Williams.
However Ferrari take it to a far different level and your point is spot on. I feel Mr Mattiaci was shown the door bevaluate he showed a willingness to work with others outside Ferrari for the good of the sport. I believe he made those comments publicly (but am far too lazy right now to look for them).
The time has come to whittle down the welfare payments to the richest teams. I am not all about a level playing field, but the efforts of some of the smallest teams such as Super Aguri to fight against all odds and budgets to almost get into mid-pack yielded admiration that I’ve never had for any Big team.
Ferrari can go start its own open wheel series. Maybe they’ll get one other team to follow. But they already had their hands in an open wheel series and they killed A1GP.
Yes, Ferrari are legendary. Yes, they are the epitome of Formula 1. But that does not give them the right to suck the life and an inordinate amount of money out of the sport.
The only people really sucking the life and cash out of F1 are Bernie,CVC and the Big teams, including Ferrari. It’s true that Ferrari should not get over ride monies, but also true that Mac/RBR/ and now Merc, should be reined in too. The expense of F1 is in no way justifiable, and borders the immoral in it’s profligate waste.
As to F1 without Ferrari ( the only continuous entrant since the WDC & WCC began ), well I was seriously wondering whether I can be ***ed to watch F1 next year, and if the Scuderia was not entered, I certainly wouldn’t as it would just be as attractive as Formula Renault 3.5 or GP2, if there were no Italian cars on the grid.
Hi Damian,
I think the only way to rein in the big guys, is to permit real economic competition. I’ve been echoing Joe and others, to say, why does it matter, if MB sell PUs across the board? That will only force them to be sold at a terribly harsh real price point that still makes a profit; one which is then so much more affordable.
But I shall keep on echoing my own vignette and circumspection of the problematic scene: that the value in equity is only in the will to meet, of a number, however many, of capable teams and not impecunious spectators. There are some things which shouldn’t be discounted to Net Present Value. I see the way a race series meeting is of value, in a series, as a problem better addressed by the concept of mutuality, of a mutual society. The problem, and this harks to my Father’s lifelong work, is that the knowledge and understanding necessary to run mutual companies, has never advanced, held to be, as it remains, the province of private partnerships (it is the 1907 Act, for those, in the UK which applies, with not one single amendment since then) all this because the impetus and interest was to further the limited liability incorporation, for there was the statutory, and fantastical, benefit and literal gift, of limitation of liability itself. A Holy Grail of business endeavor, afforded only on a quid pro quo basis; look at the vast legislation and the tremendous number of actual criminal offenses that are therein contained, all of which are never enforced, not ever, statistically insignificant efforts, if any. As a General Partner in once a much more complicated partnership, I have first hand understanding, of how deeply in need of better study is the mutual incorporation, whether private or public in interest and effect. I hope, after the holiday, to raid my banks of appreciation for such concerns, in a few comments, when the subject arises.
There are ways around these problems, ways that I think could satisfy the constituent interests in fact, and I shall bush up my logic, over the holiday. I am facing a similar, obviously far smaller, exercise in satisfying difficult interests, myself, now, so I hope I’ll be on the ball.
The fact is, though, that the way that CVC and Bernie “suck the life out of [F1..]” is not a straightforward rentier exploitation. Otherwise, they might be ignored, almost. That seems to be the effect, but we all know the connecting threads are more complicated. I’m going to try to not get caught, a fly in a spider’s web, when I attempt some hopeful but hopefully sane logic.
Before the shutters are closed on us, for Last Orders has soundly rung, I hear, here’s wishing you a great holidays, Damian, all my best to you & yours, and here’s wishing also that some, any, of our attempts at understanding what’s this malaise with the sport we love, will not all be in vain! Yours, ~ john
Some people forget that F1 has history in people using components from other teams to get their own car up and running. It’s not just engines, but other components, and it helped some teams get going before they started building their own chassis. No, I’m not advocating full customer cars, if it looks like that, but would we have had the Tyrell 003 without the Matra MS10?
Even now, are all cars still using a McLaren ECU? If we can share that component, surely it’s no great step to share others, engines, ummm, I’m not sure what other bits might be transferable, but surely designing and building your own car doesn’t mean building everything from the ground up. Actually in times when regs stabilise we see a convergence of design solutions, so the more stable rules are the less offensive this idea of shared components should become. As always there is a line, we will all have a slightly different idea of where that line should lie.
AFAIK, it’s just the carbon tub that must be made by the so-called “car manufacturer”. You can buy or rent all the metal bits, computer stuff, and design knowledge you want from others.
In other words, it’s only the one part that has absolutely nothing to do with real cars that defines who makes the F1 car. For all the parts that are related to actual cars, you can be a customer of others… but if you try to buy a carbon tub from somebody else, that one thing puts you in the dreaded category of trying to run an illegal customer car.
I’m sure this makes sense to someone somewhere.
I suppose we all need a scapegoat for the current state of F1. Let’s not blame CVC for the management of it. The fact that the FIA has not enforced a budget cap or caps on PU costs, this probably doesn’t make sense to people here. And the sound of those engines… just beautiful aren’t they???
Let’s get real people. The extra money Ferrari get, although you can debate whether this is fair, taking that away is not going to solve the current problem with F1.
Addressing the other much larger and fundamental issues will.
For gods sake i can’t even hear the engines on the TV coverage any more and at the track… underwhelming.
Instead of targeting the one team that epitomises the passion of the sport as being the culprit for the current states of F1, I think people should be looking at all the issues, ranking them in order of the negative effects they have on the sport and then this will provide to “hit-list” of things t be addressed.
– Budget cap is needed
– PU cost cap is needed
– Move towards more mechanical grip to promote closer racing
– Engine sound – please fix this
Then we can focus on income distribution, which again, if you have a budget cap for all the teams that extra income would not deliver greater on track performance, just bigger bottom lines for the star on the F1 grid.
Whether you like it or not. Ferrari is that star. If they were not they would not be able to agree more money from a very tight fisted Bernard and CVC.
I think Bernie , Red Bull and Ferrari have neatly packaged their individual agendas into one neat little package – Change the engine regs for 2016 or 2017.
Bernie has the noise agenda that hes been insisting (rightly or wrongly) since ages even before the year 2013 or so….
Red Bull and Ferrari cannot catch up with Merc in medium to short term and hence need to go back…I believe Ferrari in particular are actually quiet backward in their engine tech with regards to hybridisation in general…also their market does not require that terribly….Renault has simply lost face after jumping to introduce these rules….
All three and in particular Bernie is using this as a “Cost down” justification to “help” F1, when in reality distribution of wealth is the key issue..
I fear Bernie might just have his say on this one for the Noise and cost issue more than the “catch up” issue…atleast for a couple of years….before turmoils start again…Wow….
Distribution of wealth is not the key issue. It is just one of the issues.
If you stop them from spending too much each year then the breakdown of the distribution becomes less of an issue altogether.
I agree with Damian. You can’t just have such a simplistic view of how the monies should be divided amongst the teams. The biggest problem in F1 is not about who gets what sum of money, it is about there not being a budget cap and there not being caps on PU costs to the smaller teams.
The second one is easy to resolve if one had the courage and in actual fact it would make it unattractive for engine manufacturers to spend crazy amounts of money on their PU’s if there was no positive ROI.
If there was a budget cap for racing and the PU costs were capped then it would be a far more equitable formula.
Attacking the 1 team that has committed to F1 from the very start and is arguably the most known and followed brand in the world is not what i would call a fair and reasonable position.
If all the other teams got more money, what would they do with it? Spend it. They would still be losing money. Budget Cap is the only way and rewarding the jewel in the F1 crown (Ferrari) with cash for their bottom line which they can’t use to get a performance edge due to a budget cap would be fair as with Ferrari in F1, revenue’s will be guaranteed more or less and everyone is getting a slice of the whole pie.
If Ferrari went you would lose 30% of your audience overnight is my view.
Maybe Ferrari’s “30% of audience” would be less if the unfair distribution of money was known more widely (apart from Joe’s readers, who even is aware of that?)
It would be remiss, and a touch arrogant to make the assumption that the only people aware of Ferrari’s sign on bonus, extra cash, or whatever we call it, are the ones reading Joes blog. I was well aware of it before coming to this blog over the last 12 months. This is a great site, quality, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is the only place where F1 matters such as these are dissected and discussed. It may be the best site, but it’s not the only site.
I first became aware of many of the issues we discuss including Strategy Group, CVC, Bernie, distribution of monies, and the poaching of sponsors from teams, ie to trackside advertising instead of car side advertising before finding Joe’s blog. I first learnt of these matters, and damning indictments of them in a paper magazine, purchased openly in a newsagents, at the bottom of the world (based on Eurocentric maps). Anyone can walk into a news agency and find some of this stuff out, you don’t even need an internet connection, can you imagine that. Dangerous stuff, it could fall into the hands of anyone! Being a curious type it led me here, a rare case of paper media leading to better things perhaps.
I get more information here, more informed discussion (mostly-getting a bit tired of the “we had it better in our day, you kids don’t know what you missed” approach of some posters) and a perspective most other commentators shy away from. So yeh, this is an awesome place to talk and find out about F1. Don’t start kidding ourselves though that we are the only people aware of and discussing these issues, it simply isn’t true.
As a long term F1 fan, I am also a fan of most teams, and drivers. Some people say that’s impossible, that I can’t support Ferrari and McLaren concurrently, that I’m not a true fan if I don’t swear blood allegiance to one driver and damn everyone else. Whatever, I don’t believe in left vs right politics either, that seems to upset people as well. I think Ferrari are important to F1, but F1 can live without Ferrari, it can live without any particular team. It is harder for me to celebrate Ferrari successes and I would like to see their extra money stopped. I would like to see them brought into line with everyone else. I don’t like the unfair distribution money, and whilst Ferrari gets the biggest slice, they aren’t the only team getting a pre game payment anymore are they? Ferrari are the worst example, but the Strategy Group as it currently stands is itself unfair in my opinion, and should be revised to be truly inclusive. I think anyone who pays the fee to enter a team should get a seat at the table, and I think everyone should get an equal vote. Anything less leads to the sort of inequities we complain about.
I don’t understand it when people say dividing the pie up equally is some kind of socialist notion, but that seems to be a response that is used to stop that discussion in its tracks. As far as rewarding success, then everyone getting a slice depending upon where they finish, with no extra slice for who they are, or how long they have been in the competition seems reasonable and pretty standard given the way the West does business. This will of course lead to winners having more money to gain an advantage, unless we go with the sorts of ideas that Joe suggests. Cost cap PU purchase prices is a good way to start. If we did this well enough we might find that whoever wins the WCC has money it can’t spend on racing and can invest it in other areas, build a nest egg to cover times when sponsors are harder to find, earn interest off it, have it ready for the next set of regs changes and increased costs, save it to pay for future redundancies or whatever. This would take some of the sting out of winning teams having more money to keep on winning.
None of this is written to disagree with Joe’s well made points about Ferrari, I agree entirely with them. I’m just saying to all of us, Ferrari fans or otherwise, it is in the best interests of the sport to not treat any team as being more special than the others. The best way to ensure the continued survival of those racing names we hold dear is to support them all, and not use them to leverage off against each other in the way that Bernie and the Strategy Group continue to do. Ferrari need a good kick in the pants, and political distancing from Bernie, but so does Red Bull, and others. I will throw in, I feel a little sorry for Williams, they are at least at the table but seem stuck in between.
If someone delivers value they should be paid for it. Do more people watch F1 to see Caterham or Ferrari?
Up to a point
Do more people watch F1 to see Caterham or Ferrari? The simple answer is Ferrari.
The real answer is do people watch F1 for a particular team or for the racing, technology, spectacle? If Ferrari only raced in the Lawnmower league would people be drawn to watching it to see Ferrari? Substitute lawnmower league for anything else. No category other than LMP1 will draw attention, and LMP1 does not get anywhere near the global coverage that Formula 1 does. Further I don’t think Ferrari have anything to benefit from the LMP regs.
Currently f1 is the most accessible motor racing viewing globally. Impacted somewhat over recent years by pay tv deals. If I want to watch WEC I have to pay for it, if I want to watch F1 I have free live viewing nearly every second weekend of the season. Ferrari benefit from that immensely. If they leave F1 and focus on WEC I won’t pay subscription fees to follow them. Their brand disappears from a regular spot on my tv, and millions of other televisions around the world.
Enzo built road cars to fund his F1 team. What is Ferrari without F1?
Then we should pay the teams according to viewers provided and tickets sold. Sounds like a very promising plan for the pinnacle of motorsport.
I think I’ll start a team based on see-through uniforms for an all-babe pit crew. We might not win, but we’ll have the viewers. To increase our place in the standings, we’ll aim for the slowest possible pit stops so the girls can bend over the cars longer. I look forward to getting rich in racing by finishing last.
For those who might doubt the viability of this plan, I say It’s high time we took the notion of transparency in F1 seriously…
Dear RShack, I offer my services free of charge to, gee I don’t know, fill drink bottles, whatever for your team. I’m assuming that middle aged behind the scenes team members will be expected to be fully clothed.
In quadruple-layered nomex…
I’ll get back to you just as soon as I have the transparent nomex part figured out…
Very good. But I am not posting any more comments. Otherwise I’ll still be working… Merry Christmas
Agree with everything you say.
PS There IS a translation for fair play in Spanish. I should know. I’m Spaniard.
Good evening Joe!
Thanks for this great article, again!
I’d like to add a little detail to it, if I may. You wrote “European languages do not have words for “fair play” and tend to use the English expression” and in hungarian we have the word ‘sportszerűség’ or ‘sportszerű viselkedés’; ‘sportszerű játék’ when we want to talk about fair play. Tho I have to say the term ‘fair play’ also very commonly used and known what it means. The problem is in my opinion that in the junk media (in many forms) is spreading this foreign term and unfortunately many people with lesser education tends to repeat the words used too many times under the umbrella of junk medias. Which is a sad thing. Sad because individuals from the other nations see it, hear it as we or at least some of us using it too heavily. Sad times for our otherwise beautiful language.
The same time I can totally understand why do you have this impression.
Merry Christmas to you and your family too!
Gergely
I know at least one European language with the same term: Finnish “reilu peli”.
“back in the dark ages of the sport”
Come back the dark ages of F1 then, all is forgiven. At least it was more fun; drivers and team members were motivated more by winning, than money, cars were cars not cadcam software packages, and the there was no interference from the poisonous ****wits of the EU
Is your name Ben or Bern?
Are these the same poisonous ****wits of the EU who some of us are relying on to sort out the mess that Bernie and his secret contracts have created, or a different group of EU ****wits who you deem responsible for F1 woes?
Since it’s Christmas, it’ll be the wrong poisonous ****wits, Gromit!
Two questions… but no (initial) disagreement I see. Adam, the *wits of the EU impose job-stifling regulations and red-tape for many businesses (if you keep up with daily news you’ll nod in agreement); Bern, for all his wrongs has created many thousands of jobs in F1, directly (mine included) and indirectly…. at above-average salary levels I might add.
The caveat is that EU bureaucracy and cadcam (the IT revolution) have seen to it that working in F1 is, for most staff, most of the time, is aggro and hassles rather than challenges, and the to team owners we are just nameless numbers upon whom they rely, but wouldn’t recognize us twice if they walked past us in the street.
Hi Ben, prior to the two questions, but by way of context – I am several generation or so Australian, an alleged background potentially comprising Welsh/Swiss/German/Indigenous Australian – no confirmation or recognition of any of those, my family’s pre Australian history means little enough to my identity that I am not rushing to investigate it.
Also, not employed in F1, sigh, not employed anywhere at the moment. After several years, as part of a 1 in 4 “unemployed or underemployed” statistic in my home state, I struggle to express my anger/resentment/bitterness at not being able to find suitable employment – I am eminently employable, but so is everyone else that I compete against – still trying though, constantly trying. Irrespective of your description of your job I find the prospect of work within F1, nameless or not, quite glamorous – esp if it’s well paid thanks to Bernie. I readily acknowledge though there are many extremely mundane jobs in F1 so my desire for paid employment in an industry that I find generally fascinating may well be balanced against the reality of the employment of which you speak. I live in a country that has just witnessed a recently elected conservative govt oversee the complete dismantlement, and I stress complete dismantlement, of our car industry. It didn’t affect my lack of employment, I mention it as an example of how I understand politics can impact heavily upon industry, and that it’s never a good thing.
The last EU news I saw was the election of UKIP members as UK reps in the EU, what they stood for, and an analysis of where that positioned Cameron. I have a general understanding that a % of UK citizens dislike/resent involvement in the EU, and the restrictions it imposes – though I couldn’t guess to quantify that % in any terms, nor would profess to have any understanding of the issues, their legitmacy, or otherwise. I’m not one for “nodding along in agreement” to anything in many respects, but from my perspective as an Australian I understand you are broadly talking European politics. I also understand from reading many histories of European countries, including your own, that there is an extremely long history of emnity in some respects between the Continent and your Isle. As far as F1 goes I’ve heard it in Martin Brundle’s commentary, read it in the comments of some media reporters, and witnessed it in a variety of other ways. At it’s best it’s quaint, it’s not often at it’s best. Having said all that I don’t have a millenium + of European war and bloodshed to colour my perspective – so I can never have the level of engagement/history that you all have with each other in the Northern hemisphere.
I can’t comment on the EU or what they have done to F1 or your job. It would be wrong for me to do so. I believe that the UK has a democratic process whereby it could disengage from the EU, and I think UKIP strengthened that possibility (?) – although I could be mistaken in that regard.
As for IT – yes, it has impacted on many industries. Sometimes for the worst depending upon your perpective, usually for the best if you own a business, and worse if you do the business of business. I do sympathise in this respect, again, especially from my position as someone unemployed, I’m sure somewhere there is a job I could do being performed by a computer, and also somewhere a job I could be doing being done by a human, During my years of employment I did see challenging and enjoyable work replaced by annoyance and frustration due to IT. Man, I do get what you are saying from an IT perspective.
Irrespective – Bernie may have done great things for a great many people during his rise to King Lizard Gazilionairre. He’s been extremly well rewarded for it. Like most movers and shakers, he has aged, clearly lost touch with the times, should have moved on some time ago and like many approaching senility now needs to be forcibly removed before he sinks the ship entirely. Another courtcase tarnishing his reputation and by association, F1, just highlights this. I can quote a whole list of questionable people who have created many jobs for many other people, but it still doesn’t excuse them for being questionable people, or the acts they have committed which have hurt others or undermined an industry/sport/country/race.
I think we should be thankful that someone has the power to investigate the secret deals that Bernie has made. If it has to be the EU so be it. If the UK is incapable of putting him under an appropriate spotlight I’m glad th EU is there to do it – this is not a comment on whatever they have imposed upon the working conditions of the UK – that is a matter for your democratic processes. I had expected the UK revenue office may have instigated an investigation into Bernie based on the last court case, but am yet to hear anything of it.
F1 is International. It struggles to follow through on that – still predominately catering to European 2pm time slots and expecting the rest of the world to sit up late night or early hours. If it wants to maintain it’s International standing it needs to be accountable to wider governance than the UK. In the absence of an International power it makes sense that it’s the EU. The UK may be the silicon valley for F1 but the participants are just as largely European as much as they are UK – raw emploiyment numbers may skew this in favour of the UK but surely it would be incorrect to regard it as a purely UK industry?
I may be touching upon raw Nationalistic nerves here, but from an International perspective the UK/Euro bickering can seem a little semantic at times. That’s not intended to be insensitive to the losses to conflicts between the UK and the Continent, or what may be genuine grievance sbetween UK and EU. I apologise if that’s how you boil my comments down. To a large degree many of us just want a healthy sport, and I for one am hoping the EU rips a big whole in Bernice/CVC arrnagments and the Strategy Group.
Oi! This piece, Joe… never has a nail been hit so squarely and firmly on the head.
I’m so glad my desk has an impervious surface. The splatters of coffee were easily and completely wiped off.
“….the FIA has a clear structure”…. I was still chuckling about that as I sallied forth on my Christmas shopping expedition.
“It is amusing if one loves words to note that the European languages do not have words for “fair play” and tend to use the English expression when they want to mention the concept”
That explains a lot!
WRT “the dark ages of the sport” Last week I was talking to someone who was prolific in F1 “back in the day” and pointing to a Cosworth powered F1 car he said “That’s from a time when sex was safe and motor racing was dangerous”. 🙂
I agree with most of what you say, but I think you’re going over the top when you say ‘It is an absolute disgrace that such things are even being talked about.’ Certainly there’s an argument for saying that M-B have earned their advantage and they ought to be allowed to keep it. However there is also a valid counter-argument that it was fundamentally wrong for the main elements of the engine design to be frozen in their undeveloped state, before the manufacturers had even had a chance to see how they performed in a race. That isn’t a good way tomaximise F1’s contribution to technological progress.
As it happens, it seems that the principle is broadly accepted and the current dispute is not over whether those ‘who did it all wrong’ should ‘get a second chance to catch up with Mercedes’, but between the majority of the engine builders who want there to be 37 areas for development and M-B who insist on sticking to the already-agreed 32. If 32 is ok, can it really be a disgrace to talk about 37?
If anything is a disgrace, it is surely that these things are decided by vested interests, and that what might be best in the interests of the fans and of competitive racing can be vetoed by those who have a direct interest in the decision they are taking. It is quite wrong for any sport to be run on that basis.