I’ve been on the road for the last couple of days, driving to England for some meetings and being in places where even mobile phone signals have yet to arrive. Now I’m back at Eurotunnel waiting in the parking area as they have (as usual) managed to change the times of the shuttles. It is nice to know that nothing changes…
Hopefully that will not be the case in Formula 1. There was a meeting yesterday of the F1 teams to try to sort out some of the questions regarding cost cutting. The big teams are trying to head off a full blown cost cap with a plan to have certain common parts. That works for them and would help the little guys, but it would still mean that money is a weapon in the F1 game and some would argue that it would better to stop messing about and create a level playing field now that there seems to be an opportunity to do it. The small teams have got everyone’s attention and while compromise is the easy way out, it might not be what is best for the sport.
Others argue that money has always been a factor in F1 and it should remain that way.
My view is that money has always been a performance factor but that does not make it right. It should probably have been addressed decades ago but no one had the will to change because they were up against forces that they did not wish to challenge. If tradition is illogical then why not change it when there is an opportunity?
The meeting yesterday was a step forward and let us hope that the FIA now gets serious about protecting the possibility for an ingenious small team to climb the greasy pole and win, using initiative and not leaving victory exclusively for the big teams.
Obviously the big teams may object to that, but some of them should remember that not so long ago they were small operations and the system allowed them to grow to become winners. That is how it should be. There has to be potential for a Force India or a Sauber to win races one day if they get it right and others get it wrong.
Having said all of that, there is no reason why the European Union’s potential interest in the sport would change as a result of the meeting, except that if there was a small team willing to make a complaint, that might now have been persuaded not to go down that path.
I think everyone agrees that we don’t want Eurocrats crawling all over the sport for years to come, however if the people running the sport have broken rules then are we supposed to ignore that and hope that the EU lumbers off elsewhere? Or is it better for things to be tidied up and a few wrists slapped?
The best thing would be for the sport to act quickly and be 100 percent sure that its house is in order. That would involve putting its head in the lion’s mouth and asking the EU if all is well. That way they are showing willing.
Certainly it would do no harm for the sport to ask the EU for an opinion about a Strategy Group that excludes the small teams, about the financial arrangements that gives more money to the big teams and about the deal signed last summer between the FIA and the Formula One group that seems to have affected the federation’s powers as the governing body.
My feeling is that the EU will be happy to be asked. If they think there is a problem they will give an opinion and the sting will be taken out of the process. And remember they don’t really need a complaint if they want to take a look at the sport. They can do it on their own – and in that case it would really be down to whether or not they see it is as a slam-dunk, easy victory. The problem, I suspect, is that it would not be easy to change the current arrangements without a lot of negotiation so there is no quick solution. Having said that, those involved only have themselves to blame for any troubles if they did not consult the EU on such matters, or employed legal people who did not warn of the dangers they were walking into.
Is it possible that all of this will go away without a mess? A few years ago one might have been tempted to say yes because no one wanted to rattle any cages, but today things are different. Bernie Ecclestone’s position is currently unclear. CVC Capital Partners probably has a plan but they are not saying anything until they need to action that plan. The FIA has the most to lose financially, but if there are problems of governance it would give the federation back the power it should have and give them the chance to negotiate a different deal. One does have to ask, however, whether it would be wise to have the same people negotiating a new deal.
That is where we are at now.
joeblogsf1 
What I don’t understand is how the Strategy group were “unanimous” in kicking out the cost cap.Williams and Lotus are in dire financial situation(Atleast, they seem to be..) and why those two would oppose a cost cap is beyond me. Are they somehow going to come into a great deal of money very soon? Or did they get finger lickin’ good engine deals from the manufacturers?
It just doesn’t add up.
Pressure
But pressure from whom?.. And with what are they being pressured.?
Think about it, you are a Mr. Lopez who urgently needs the funds to pay a driver, his suppliers (maybe including your engine supplier), and probably some other employees as well. Now you either go with what the big teams want and what Bernie wants and get that payment earlier. Or you go against that, and have to wait another nice couple of months …
Easy decision? I don’t think its all that different for Williams, except that his engine supplier would also be able to put pressure on top of that
Some questions spring to mind:
1 – Those small teams who want the EU to come in and give them a bigger slice of the cake ….. maybe they would also like the EU to look into their own affairs to see what needs tidying up there?
I’m thinking J Mallya … Lopez … ?
2 – Is it possible F1 could cease to exist if they complain enough to outsiders who care much less about F1 than they do?
3 – Should / can we look for perfection in the historical arrangements that built up this sport?
4 – Was it Ron Dennis who said if you can’t afford it, don’t get into F1?
I can only answer the last one.
Seems Ron’s got it right
That is a typical traditionalist view without considering that the world has changed and perhaps the sport should change too. In case you have not noticed the sport IS broken and needs fixing. Saying nothing should change is not a very thoughtful nor forward-thinking response.
I’m just saying can small get big to change by calling in the EU?
maybe David ought to find for himself where the chink in the armour of Goliath is. [eg, Brawn 2009]
We’ve got three Davids lined up against four Goliaths. The chaps who would come from Brussels will have their own agenda that neither Goliath nor David like.
The three Davids have no desire to muddy the pond, as they see themselves as future Goliaths. They want all the current benefits to be there when they get to the top.
Remember that Brawn in 2009 was basically Honda with a different name on it. Why Honda would pay so much to develop the car and still make sure it ran for 2009, but not put their name on it, I’ll never know (I’m guessing a board decision to save any costs after the recession took hold).
I think you forgot a key point. Mercedes engine
Precisely…
Ron is a fantastic business man and I respect him a lot but that statement was total garbage and one area Martin Whitmarsh really understood better than Ron. McLaren can’t win championships if everyone else is bankrupt and nobody is watching. Teams need a degree of massive self interest but poisoning the well means nobody wins.
So, if there’s really only 4 or 5 teams that can afford to race in F1 (and one being a fizzy drinks company that has little core attachment to the sport other than purely advertising – is that what F1 is all about?), having 10 or less cars running around is the solution? What other premier global sports have only 4 or 5 entrants? This theory may have been acceptable 20-30 years ago where teams were virtually lining up to get into F1 and where one failed another was right there to step in, but that isn’t the case anymore. If the majority of the entrants in F1 can’t really afford to compete and no replacements readily available, then that says something about the state of the sport…
Winning means little if you’re only competing against 1/2 a dozen other competitors. What value does it have if virtually half the field gets to the podium?
And the question about those 4 or 5 teams, infact more likely it is just 4 at most, is what happens when the Main Board at 2 of them decides to save money by not being there? Then there are only 2 left who can afford it.
The problem has been brewing since the mid 90’s, and can easily be overcome by the simple expedient of reducing the burden of unnecessary costs such as Wind Tunnels and over elaborate computer tech. Also of course, stupidly expensive engine power trains. Simplifying F1 would not in anyway reduce the series,, it would enhance the racing and provide more chances for the small teams to have glory days. But big business and greedy team owners, don’t want to kill the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs. However by forcing F1 down the route it has taken over many years, it is being pushed over the edge into oblivion.
Even a simple thing like allowing teams to sell cars to other teams would cheapen matters a lot. Cutting team size to an absolute max of say 150 or even 100 including drivers and mechanics would also help.
In the world of 2014, there isn’t room for the excesses that arose from the 1980’s onwards, and for which F1 has never actually carefully examined as to whether required or not, or just window dressing to bamboozle big money!
It seems finally a good tipping point. Let’s go racing, transparently. And let efficiency rule, not money mogul legislation.
An agile operation, with happy people for the press to promote. That’s what I would run!
Stepney.
So, as “cost-cutting measures” they agreed to ban tyre blankets (as if their price was high!), change to R18 wheels (how’s that supposed to cut expences? Last time I was in tyre shop, R18 wheels was more expensive than R13! Not to mention that teams will need to re-design braking systems) and introduce common parts like active suspension (which would be more expensive to develop and maintain than current systems). In other words, they did nothing decisive.
Another question, though, is how budget cap can help small teams. Sure, it can help them to survive – but will it help them to win, or at least grab some points? Sauber and Force India demonstrated that they can fight for podium if they got it right – but Caterham, which has budget comparable to that of Sauber, couldn’t get out from 0-point area for four years, and unable to do it now. Heck, I can’t point a race where Caterham and Marussia finished in the same lap as winner! And now they whine about Strategy Group and budget caps. Sure, it’s easy to blame rich teams for your own inability to build a car that can at least fight for Q2…
I don’t find it surprising that in 3 seasons the two start up teams haven’t earned a point. In a normal business it takes about 3 years, from start up, to make it work. The new teams have closed the gap to the mid pack while still putting the inner workings of the team in place.
I think the small teams have done a decent job considering they entered the sport with the enticement of having a spending cap and have stayed through a world recession despite not having the promised budget restraints.
You’re quite right about the three years.
But Marussia and Caterham have been around organisationally since early/mid 2009, and competing since 2010. That’s 5 years of corporate existence, and well over 4 years of on-track competition with 5 generations of chassis design.
Canny piece Joe. Very…
“One does have to ask, however, whether it would be wise to have the same people negotiating a new deal.”
Well at least Max won’t be there saying “lets make it a hundred years”
and Bernie most probably won’t either.
I am intrigued by the dismissal of the cost cap by the policy group, because I am pretty sure Bernie was for it and Todt gave the appearance of being for it so it should have been a 2 to 1 vote in favour. (or a 6 to 2 or 12 to 6) so presumably Bernie sided with the monied teams or maybe it was the dreaded veto!
You are right to mention this. A big problem is that everything in this sport is designed to be opaque.
If the EU could achieve anything it would be to make every decision transparent.
My guess is that a bucket of whitewash will be the only colour used.
As Joe says, this is a great opportunity. The first aim needs to be to get younger and new bums on seats. This will not be achieved by going to Azerbaijan, or by having 3, or, 4 teams. Or by having teams unable to compete at a serious level with underperforming cars piloted by big-pay drivers.
I suppose no carmaker would take part in anything that displeases the EU, and I guess the future of F1 depends on these two sides of the matter agreeing. As you said, Joe, answering to Off Track: the world has changed. And so did the fans.
Things to be considered
Oh dear, quite a labyrinth to negotiate whilst balanced on a tightrope. I fear just asking the EU for an opinion will allow the camel to stick their nose in the tent, and you know what happens then. Won’t be able to close that door once opened.
This is a complex issue that may best be negotiated when there is clear leadership of the sport, but perhaps that is too much of a luxury considering the pressures.
If a good result can be achieved, then someone will have earned their salary.
A couple of years ago when new F1 rules were discussed (the rules that apply this year), manufacturers were keen that the power plant was perceived to be relevant to the car industry. That deal was necessary in order to retain Mercedes and Renault as engine builders and for Honda to return.
Today it is relevant to consider F1 financial rules in order that there are more than 12 cars on the grid in 2016. F1’s credibility and appeal to manufacturers is based on there being teams to beat. F1 lost World Championship status in the 1950s because Alfa Romeo pulled out and race organisers did not believe that BRM would turn up to challenge Ferrari. The current series is in nothing like that mess but it is heading in the wrong direction.
The modern F1 brand is established on its high tech credentials but perhaps it needs to return to “purity”, a championship for the best drivers and the best organised, most thoughtful teams. F1 has not always been the most expensive racing class yet some long lasting technology (eg bath tub monocoque chassis) evolved in response to tight regulations.
A lot of F1 tech is irrelevant to the rest of the world (assuming that the tech is more than a placebo, which is a generous thought given the way some drivers race a damaged car). McLaren’s shadow team, operating at the base to recommend strategy based on car and track data forwarded from the track, is an indulgence.
It is a pity that the new engine/power plants are so expensive but that cost accelerates the need for savings elsewhere. As one commenter has noted, saving money means more than a ban on tyre warming blankets — which probably reduce cold tyre accidents and hence save money. One might even question whether somebody who proffers such a ban is serious about reducing costs to keep the small teams in business.
Incidentally, how many cars do Bernie and CVC guarantee to organisers for a race? If CVC give proportionately more money to middle-sized and smaller teams to keep them afloat, I’m all in favour — but I’d like to see some transparency.
I don’t like the scraps the stragety group is throwing out at moment, front wing limitations, tyre warmers, generic components etc.
To me it F1 has always been about innovation to get that extra edge pushing the boundaries and rule book.Personally if they need a cap it should be a spending limit say £150 mill and may the best team win.
by evidence of the recent chit chat, WHO wins is a matter of political negotiation and pressure.
I see cost cutting as innovation cutting. The technology of F1 is second to none in motor sports. If budgets are reduced won’t technology be reduced. I want to see F1 succeed but only if the technology continues. Going back to traction control and active suspension isn’t going forward technologically it’s going backward.
I really do not care if the back markers do not have the money to be competitive. They are not the reason I watch F1. I watch so that the top 5 or 6 teams can race each other and spend what they want to spend. If a cost cap is implemented and all technology is hindered because of cost what would make F1 special. It would just be a spec series. Oh joy!
“The technology of F1 is second to none in motor sports.”
You must have been watching a different F1 series from me in recent years. The most technologically advanced racers have been the pure prototypes in sports car racing. F1 was lumbered with an engine that was practically a spec device with KERS as an interesting bolt-on experiment. Aerodynamic developments were (and still are) irrelevant to any real world vehicle. Regulations for the chassis are so restrictive that there have been no big breakthroughs in material science. The world has been improved by CFD (computational fluid dynamics) but finite element analysis is about as sexy as baked beans.
Let us imagine that F1 teams did not have to worry about raising money. If you gave engineers another £10 million, they’d spend it on incremental upgrades that gain milliseconds per lap, or less than the time lost when a driver goes off line. To get true innovation back into F1, the technical regulations need to be relaxed and non-power plant budgets have to be capped.
From what I saw of the Strategy Group’s proposed 3-year cost cutting plan, I don’t see it having much effect. While banning tire warmers and standardizing a few components cuts costs, that just moves the money around – a team that spend $100 million a year on F1 will just spend more in the wind tunnel or on hiring more engineers with the money they saved on tire warmers.
A change of tyres often used to put drivers out of the race, back in the days before tyre warmers. Drive’s innate skill, or lack of it, showed itself as cold tyres made the first few laps after a tyre change, like driving on ice. We had gravel traps then, proper ones, maybe with catch fencing, so if you went off you stayed off. Is it too easy now? Like the risk of injury diminishing as safety is designed in to cars and tracks, has too much of the danger of going off been removed? It used to be the end of the race. Large run-off areas have replaced gravel traps so there is no physical penalty for going off in a lot of the modern tracks. Drivers can now flout the limits with impunity.
I’m more concerned about the drivers on cold tyres being a liability and a crash risk for everyone else. At best they’ll be moving roadblocks for a lap or two, at worst a genuine danger into every corner as they’ll likely have little idea of the braking distances.
Watching a driver accelerate out of the paved run off area drives me crazy. The walk of shame, from the gravel trap, is the penalty for getting it wrong..
Can anyone in the EU, even a private citizen, make a formal complaint and ask to have the governance issues investigated or will that only be acted upon if it comes from someone from inside the system (and therefore directly affected)?
Although it’d be an annoyance to have ‘ Eurocrats crawling all over the sport’ as you put it Joe, the common report that they’re all desperate to stave off any type of investigation surely doesn’t inspire confidence. Wouldn’t an organisation that was confident all would be found to be above board be more ambivalent to such scrutiny? It comes across as though they’re all aware there’s something to hide.
Surely Todt’s position would become untenable if an investigation found the current arrangement had broken the rules – he signed off on it after all, no doubt encouraged by the wads of money the FIA would receive. Maybe Bernie wouldn’t mind that too much, assuming a friendly party was elected to the vacated position, which I’m sure he could try to assist. That’s all a very long way off though and he’s got more to think about than that in the mean time.
And finally, where has the idea of standardised active suspension sprung from? (Excuse the pun.) It’s not simply something new but a complete about-face in terms of the technical rules of recent years and besides, how does spending new money on that figure in cost-cutting discussions?
I sure hope this “standard parts” business stops immediately. it would seriously damage the value of the constructors championship by killing the spirit of technical innovation. it would become a championship of “can you afford wing A or wing B”? instead of building your own and living up to it. ridiculous.
If you go back 20-30-40 years, there were 30-34 car entries, sometimes more, for most races. That’s what I call healthy, as the talent that burst out was memorable….these days it’s the same guys every year + one or two people with large wallets helping them…..we had brilliant racing with V8 and V12 engines, and loads of top drivers. The only down side was that the cars & circuits were much more dangerous. But the series went perfectly well with new teams being able to buy cars from established teams, usually the previous year’s cars but still not a problem and the rules were simple and few. And still people built cars like the Token & Connew, young designers had a chance at building something literally in their own garage, and racing it in a Grand Prix. Magic in my book, and so much easier to relate to for the fan, than the modern corporate business that F1 is nowadays.
I’m with you there.
Would sooner see customer cars then this standard parts solution.
Thinking that we’re all going to get squeezed, real soon……..
Customer cars is a worse disaster than common parts
Reality is that we have had “common parts” in recent years owing to technology sharing agreements between manufacturers, for example, McLaren and Force India. And there is no way to create a hybrid energy pack, the unit that used to be called an engine, which does not require use of other “common parts”.
But a regulatory design for the steering rack? How does that encourage creation of something better and/or cheaper?
A short and incomplete list of companies that sold F1 cars to customers: Ferrari (but only to special friends), Maserati, Cooper, Lotus, Brabham, March, Surtees, Tyrrell, Ensign, Williams. With the possible exception of Maserati (for a special customer called Stirling Moss), none of those customer cars matched team spec. All of the buyers conducted separate development, with varying results. Lotus went so far as to sell a customer car but turned up at races with something from outer space.
Hesketh Racing, having bought a March, decided to employ the engineer who best understood it. Once they understood it, the engineer suggested a new Hesketh model — which is currently available to us at auction if we have the dosh.
When it works, inheritance of F1 tech — from manufacturer to customer — works to create a new team. I’m thinking of a team that wants to extend inherited tech, to understand it completely and to create something that wins. But I can only think of two who made it work: Walker and Hesketh.
No customer cars, please, in this higher tech era. It would just work out badly.
Absolutely
Lotus beat McLaren by 315 points to 122 in 2013, and yet they received just 60% of the FOM money that McLaren received… F1 needs these basic things sorted out, doing well should be rewarded properly and fairly, and teams should be playing to equal rules of engagement whoever they are.
+1.