Imhotep Evil

>
^ The teams need to get rid of FIA and Mosley. This is becoming another spec crap series.

Centurion

^^
That would be hard because Bernie has an iron fist around around F1 and GP2.

450SEL6.9

^^ I don't dislike Max and Bernie as much as most F1 fans because I think they have very tough jobs. Specifically, all sorts of fans, especially casual F1 newbies, ripped them for being biased Ferrari helpers during the spy scandal, a scandal that they didn't start.

Let's not kid ourselves, Max and Bernie are really smart guys. They've held on to power in the world's richest sport for so long. They are the type of guys that should cause you to sweat if you sit across the table from them on a business deal.

I think they've figured out that constant development in F1 has implications for more than team budgets. The problem with advancing technologies, changing regulations and so forth is that part of the cost go to the many F1 suppliers. If teams suddenly have to use long-life tyres, the tyre suppliers have to spend money to develop that. As long as technologies keep being pushed to the moon and/or technical regulations keep changing, suppliers will feel it. If they think the costs of being involved as a supplier exceeds the payoff, as many have, they'll leave. That's not good for F1 either.

A few factory teams and suppliers have come and gone from World Rally Championship series over the last few years. I don't think their exodus has made WRC any better.

Imhotep Evil

>
^ I disagree, not that their jobs aren't tough, but that they come with wrong solutions.
The suppliers didn't like the engine freezes, in fact I've read they signed with the likes of Peugeot for Le Mans to compensate for the loses done by F1 freezes.

Bernie wants F1 to be a superstarsport package racertainment close-field nonsense, not a real cut-throat motorsport racing series. And Mosley is just helping him.

The point Grand Prix racing is that technologies have to be pushed to the moon. The ever faster ever more advanced winning grand-prix machine is what men like Vittorio Jano, Ferdinand Porsche, Enzo Ferrari and Colin Chapman wanted.

To survive you have to catch up, to win you have to innovate, that's Grand-Prix racing.
Because it was the ultimate anti-communist cut-throat darwinist series, because it paid the highest price, it was so great, it was the pinnacle.


WRC or anything else is not Grand Prix racing.

450SEL6.9

I haven't read whether the engine manufacturers are backing the freeze or not. I think those who truly hate the idea are from engineering departments because it crimps their budget and the scope of their work. If the costs skyrocket even higher, sooner or later the finance dept. and shareholders of these companies will hate the lack of an engine freeze even more.

Only in an ideal world can those technologies be pushed to the moon. If that burden is constantly put on technical suppliers, they need to have higher economic returns to compensate for that ever-increasing cost. Sooner or later the law of diminishing returns will catch up to them and a bunch of technical companies will be forced to re-evaluate their involvement.

I disagree in that I think technologies have to be pushed higher only if it maintains a workable balance with the associated costs that will be incurred by teams, sponsors, suppliers, TV rights holders, etc . . .

Imhotep Evil

Simple solution, unlock/un-tighten the regulations to allow innovation, BUT cap the budgets to let's say ~300 to 330 million (the amount of money it took Renault to win in 2005 and 2006).

From - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER
NOVEMBER 23, 2007
Why F1 needs a brave new world

"What is really valuable in the real world is not the ability to spend money (anyone can do that) but rather the ability to get the best value for money. Some of the F1 teams are remarkable in this respect as they produce the same results as teams spending twice the money that they are spending.
...
So what is the answer to all of F1's problems?

The logic suggests that what automobile manufacturers would like to see would be some form of budget-capping. This would enable them to use the sport to advertise their efficiency, which would reflect on the perception of their cars. Technical rules would still need to be tight but they must leave open areas where new development can be done.
...
Perhaps the FIA should create a structure to require the teams to make full financial disclosure about how budgets were spent and if there were any anomalies there could be investigations by accountants and lawyers versed in such matters, backed up by suitable administrative and civil punishments as necessary. This would make any offence criminal as it would, in effect, be defrauding the other teams. This would function along similar lines as stock exchange commissions around the world. Commissioners would have to have suitable qualifications and be non-partisan and have staggered five-year terms thus creating enough stability for the job to be interesting but enough changeover to ensure that no bad habits were allowed to develop.

The United States's Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established as a result of the Wall Street Crash of 1929. When the markets fell public confidence in the industry fell with them. That faith had to be restored and the SEC was the result. Perhaps a similar response would be the smartest solution to the problems of F1 today. The espionage scandals of 2007 are shaking confidence in the sport and the FIA would be wise to look at a much broader picture than the "fire-fighting" work of today."