The F1 thread

Nitefly

Fackin'ell - £70 mill just for being a "Long Standing Team"?

Also, it was very telling that Bernie's farewell message mentioned everyone except the fans ...

sinbaadi

I'd question whether Manor have done anything to deserve any more than a measly 47m dollars.
Of course Ferrari have held Bernie over a barrel.  F1 without Ferrari just wouldn't be the same and the massive revenue that they generate as a brand would go elsewhere.  
The revenue needs to be incentivised by performance on the track or else you're rewarding failure.  

Technical variation does not do anything to create racing with lots of equally matched cars fighting for pole position.  You can't do a lot to stop that without penalising anyone that makes a leap ahead of the pack, which I really don't like to see.  Imagine if they started adding ballast like BTCC.  Ughhhh.

Fretwired

sinbaadi said:

I'd question whether Manor have done anything to deserve any more than a measly 47m dollars.
Of course Ferrari have held Bernie over a barrel.  F1 without Ferrari just wouldn't be the same and the massive revenue that they generate as a brand would go elsewhere.  
The revenue needs to be incentivised by performance on the track or else you're rewarding failure.  

Technical variation does not do anything to create racing with lots of equally matched cars fighting for pole position.  You can't do a lot to stop that without penalising anyone that makes a leap ahead of the pack, which I really don't like to see.  Imagine if they started adding ballast like BTCC.  Ughhhh.

They got on the grid - you need a fairer share of the pot to have competitive racing. Imagine that F1 was competitive with wheel to wheel action and four or five drivers from different teams in with a chance of winning the WC. Viewing figures would rocket as would revenues - more money for everyone. As it is viewing figures are falling and teams go bust on a regular basis as they can't transition into a competitive team that can attract sponsorship.

stickyfiddle

sinbaadi said:

I'd question whether Manor have done anything to deserve any more than a measly 47m dollars.
Of course Ferrari have held Bernie over a barrel.  F1 without Ferrari just wouldn't be the same and the massive revenue that they generate as a brand would go elsewhere.  
The revenue needs to be incentivised by performance on the track or else you're rewarding failure.  

Technical variation does not do anything to create racing with lots of equally matched cars fighting for pole position.  You can't do a lot to stop that without penalising anyone that makes a leap ahead of the pack, which I really don't like to see.  Imagine if they started adding ballast like BTCC.  Ughhhh.

They scraped a 9th place in Monaco where it's impossible to overtake, on a budget of precisely fuck all. Isn't that enough?

The point is it's not a sport where you can just turn up and play without any cost (frankly it's barely a sport these days, but that's another discussion). You need to remember that the guys at the front only get the glory of winning if there are a significant number of guys for the to beat. 

Manor also had the best livery of 2016 by a country mile, which in my book is hugely important

sinbaadi

Fretwired said:

sinbaadi said:

I'd question whether Manor have done anything to deserve any more than a measly 47m dollars.
Of course Ferrari have held Bernie over a barrel.  F1 without Ferrari just wouldn't be the same and the massive revenue that they generate as a brand would go elsewhere.  
The revenue needs to be incentivised by performance on the track or else you're rewarding failure.  

Technical variation does not do anything to create racing with lots of equally matched cars fighting for pole position.  You can't do a lot to stop that without penalising anyone that makes a leap ahead of the pack, which I really don't like to see.  Imagine if they started adding ballast like BTCC.  Ughhhh.

They got on the grid - you need a fairer share of the pot to have competitive racing. Imagine that F1 was competitive with wheel to wheel action and four or five drivers from different teams in with a chance of winning the WC. Viewing figures would rocket as would revenues - more money for everyone. As it is viewing figures are falling and teams go bust on a regular basis as they can't transition into a competitive team that can attract sponsorship.

So maybe Ferrari need some extra money to catch Mercedes?
For what you say to happen you only need 2 or 3 teams to be on a level that means that most of the time they are competitive with one another.  If that happens, then Manor/Marussia/Caterham etc would be just as irrelevant as ever.   

I don't disagree with you entirely.  Rolling the dice with regulation changes can shake the order up a bit, at least in the short term, but a simple injection of cash will not necessarily have that effect.  RBR have the biggest budget of all at the moment, and yet it's a two-horse race where the two horses are the same horse.  (I don't actually mind that by the way, that is just what the formula generates sometimes.)

We'd probably be much better off with half a dozen 3 car teams and cutting the no-hopers loose completely.  There'd be a lot more chance of more than two drivers competing for wins and WDCs.  

Fretwired

sinbaadi said:

Fretwired said:

sinbaadi said:

I'd question whether Manor have done anything to deserve any more than a measly 47m dollars.
Of course Ferrari have held Bernie over a barrel.  F1 without Ferrari just wouldn't be the same and the massive revenue that they generate as a brand would go elsewhere.  
The revenue needs to be incentivised by performance on the track or else you're rewarding failure.  

Technical variation does not do anything to create racing with lots of equally matched cars fighting for pole position.  You can't do a lot to stop that without penalising anyone that makes a leap ahead of the pack, which I really don't like to see.  Imagine if they started adding ballast like BTCC.  Ughhhh.

They got on the grid - you need a fairer share of the pot to have competitive racing. Imagine that F1 was competitive with wheel to wheel action and four or five drivers from different teams in with a chance of winning the WC. Viewing figures would rocket as would revenues - more money for everyone. As it is viewing figures are falling and teams go bust on a regular basis as they can't transition into a competitive team that can attract sponsorship.

So maybe Ferrari need some extra money to catch Mercedes?
For what you say to happen you only need 2 or 3 teams to be on a level that means that most of the time they are competitive with one another.  If that happens, then Manor/Marussia/Caterham etc would be just as irrelevant as ever.   

I don't disagree with you entirely.  Rolling the dice with regulation changes can shake the order up a bit, at least in the short term, but a simple injection of cash will not necessarily have that effect.  RBR have the biggest budget of all at the moment, and yet it's a two-horse race where the two horses are the same horse.  (I don't actually mind that by the way, that is just what the formula generates sometimes.)

We'd probably be much better off with half a dozen 3 car teams and cutting the no-hopers loose completely.  There'd be a lot more chance of more than two drivers competing for wins and WDCs.  

F1 has been a snoozefest for years. Ferrari dominated for what seemed like eternity then Red Bull dominated for four years and now it's Mercedes turn. As much as I like Hamilton having him on pole and winning races from the front won't motivate me to watch.

Let's say Manor get loads more cash and Mercedes and McLaren get less. Mercedes could sell engines to Manor to recoup some cash and McLaren could sell some tech to Manor to help them be more competitive whilst also raising come cash. At least Manor wouldn't be a mobile chicane at the back of the field and we could have more midfield action and overtaking. It would need the engine supply rules changing. Alternatively you have B teams. Red Bull have two - Mercedes and Ferrari have other brands.

If the money were shared fairly and F1 was more competitive then you may get the likes of Porsche, Audi and Jaguar joining the grid or even a big US company like Ford.

TimmyO

Fretwired said:

F1 has been a snoozefest for years. 

Fucking hell, not this again.

It just hasn't. However many times you say it. 

Fretwired

TimmyO said:

Fretwired said:

F1 has been a snoozefest for years. 

Fucking hell, not this again.

It just hasn't. However many times you say it. 

I give you Sochi ... yawn

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/esp-formula-1-rampant-rosberg-raging-vettel-snoozefest-sochi-173613430--f1.html

Fretwired

The voice of sanity .. welcome back Ross Brawn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38734708

57Deluxe

BE is 86 for Gawd's sake so is only prudent to restructure now as he prob only has a couple of years of 'usable' time left to commit to F1

sinbaadi

Fretwired said:

The voice of sanity .. welcome back Ross Brawn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38734708

Weren't Brawn F1 Leicester before Leicester were Leicester?

He talks about rewarding innovation less, the double diffuser that won Brawn both titles that season is such an innovation.

I think once you get into the diminishing returns stages you really start to see the budgets have an affect.  If you remove opportunity for a young upstart to innovate not only will you have a lot of very similar looking cars, but you'll also get to a point where those that can afford it will squeeze the last tenths from what is available.  Those that can't will not and will not have any other avenues for development either.

Still, good the little goblin has finally handed over the reins.

Fretwired

sinbaadi said:

Fretwired said:

The voice of sanity .. welcome back Ross Brawn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38734708

Weren't Brawn F1 Leicester before Leicester were Leicester?

Not really - they had major support and R&D in the season before and a technical edge coming into the new season. That's why Brawn sold the team after one year - it would have been all down hill and the technical brains would have been poached by other teams. Mercedes saw a great opportunity.

sinbaadi

Honda were nowhere previously and cut their losses, Brawn ran the team as an independent in the hope that their hard work was going to pay off, the randomness of the rule change.

I put it to you that you would have got very very good odds on Honda winning the title had they kept control, and for it to be done by Brawn on relativity meagre budget with a bastardised car is as close to fairy-tale stuff as you get in f1.

Fretwired

sinbaadi said:

Honda were nowhere previously and cut their losses, Brawn ran the team as an independent in the hope that their hard work was going to pay off, the randomness of the rule change.

I put it to you that you would have got very very good odds on Honda winning the title had they kept control, and for it to be done by Brawn on relativity meagre budget with a bastardised car is as close to fairy-tale stuff as you get in f1.

Brawn did have good funding for one year .. it's not quite the rags to riches tale.  Yes they had to make some staff redundant but they had a good car. In the man's own words ..

"We didn’t want to close the company. We had what we felt was an exciting car and a lot of very dedicated people in team. When we looked at the numbers and looked at deal we were able to negotiate with Honda, it was kind of an 18 month extension of the closure. There was enough funding for a good year and most of second year if we needed to – and not be any worse off at the end of it if we closed the company there and then. We ended up in a no lose situation. It was fortunate the way things worked out.”

Garthy

sinbaadi said:

Honda were nowhere previously and cut their losses, Brawn ran the team as an independent in the hope that their hard work was going to pay off, the randomness of the rule change.

I put it to you that you would have got very very good odds on Honda winning the title had they kept control, and for it to be done by Brawn on relativity meagre budget with a bastardised car is as close to fairy-tale stuff as you get in f1.

First para: Honda had to sell the team to please their unions, many factories and suppliers were on 3 day weeks or hibernated shut down for 4 months. Brawn ran that team because the FIA chose to ignore a technical loophole that gave his car a 1 second+ advantage.

Second para- In December 2008 JB's odds were 15000-1, those odds didn't really get much shorter until late in winter testing because the bookies thought the sponsorless car was on a low fuel glory run at the previous tests. That budget wasn't small at all, the car had cost $300m, they had a $100m war chest for the year which is as much as Williams have had for the last three years concurrently and the car wasn't *that* bastardised. The merc lump was lighter, more economical, smaller and more powerful.

It was a fairy tale for people who don't pay attention. Brawn were not stellar once the rest of the field had the same floor and diffuser. Had the FIA closed that loophole then Red Bull would have walked that title.

sinbaadi

I don't know which parts of that are supposed to be in agreement or disagreement

So they were a massive longshot, total underdogs, and through an innovation (loophole or not) they beat the big gun favourites and won both titles.

Not exactly Bayern Munich winning the Bundesliga.

Anyway, my point is unless they make it a spec-series, removing the opportunity for such innovation will make this sort of thing less likely not more likely.

stickyfiddle

Good interview with Brawn on ESPN. Things are looking good for the future.

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18558949/ross-brawn-vision-f1-part-two

Fretwired

Manor gone .. shame.

stickyfiddle

Fretwired said:

Manor gone .. shame.

Yeah, massively so. And right at the point there looks to be light in the tunnel for the little guys.

TimmyO

stickyfiddle said:

Good interview with Brawn on ESPN. Things are looking good for the future.

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18558949/ross-brawn-vision-f1-part-two

ooh that's a good un - ta