Ferrari Leave Formula 1

Wildy

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
83
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Car(s)
Not My Car
So really all we've managed to prove in this thread is that firstly Ecclestone is an idiot, secondly, that the budget cap is far too low for the current teams to be able to restructure in a year, and lastly that Final Gear is probably more qualified to run the F1 then the FIA.
 

Buktu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
2,371
Location
Denmark
Car(s)
Suzuki Swift 1.3 2006
The focus of the teams have definitely changed since the beginning of this controversy.

Now it's not enough to just get rid of the two-tier system and raise the budget cap.. They want to get rid of Mosley, and they want to have more power in F1. It has become a much greater issue than "just" what the rules are in 2010.

It is going to be quite interesting to see what will happen next. It's quite a power struggle to say the least.. :)

And FIA could probably have avoided all of this, had they just taken a different approach to begin with. Mosley is way too power happy for his own good.. :b
 

Vambeer

Active Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
404
Location
Greece
Car(s)
2003 FIAT Punto Sporting 95HP, 2011 Volvo S60 1.6D
Since when having two set of rules for one champioship makes sence?!?!?! Especially when the championship is F1 (the pinnacle of technology, innovation and creativity) and the one set of rules say that you have benefits, you can spend your 40m pounds however you like but if you are too fast we will make you slower! That is probably the stupidest thing ever to appear as regulation in any motorsport!
 

Buktu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
2,371
Location
Denmark
Car(s)
Suzuki Swift 1.3 2006
It doesn't make sense.. It's a rubbish fix made in an effort to please the big guys. Unfortunately for Mosley, the teams aren't stupid.

And i doubt they actually ever thought they would get through with the two-tier system.. It is Mosley strategy, make a ludicrous proposal, and then tone it down during negotiations.

Even Ecclestone has said aftwards that he never really liked the idea.

I still do not see the point of forcing this through the way they have. If they had dropped the two-tier system, and just worked out the details, like the level of the budget cap, to begin with, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now.
 

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
Since when having two set of rules for one champioship makes sence?!?!?! Especially when the championship is F1 (the pinnacle of technology, innovation and creativity) and the one set of rules say that you have benefits, you can spend your 40m pounds however you like but if you are too fast we will make you slower! That is probably the stupidest thing ever to appear as regulation in any motorsport!
It allows the teams to carry on competing while they restructure. It makes perfect sense. If they just stopped bitching and all the existing teams agreed to break the limit for a year, there would be no problems. FOTA did suggest this at some point. The new teams would probably be at about the same pace even with the greater freedom.
Obviously the ideal solution is just to have the budget limit with no exceptions but this isn't practical and if you make it much higher it becomes pointless.
There wasn't two sets of rules anyway. There was one proposed that applied for all teams equally.
 
Last edited:

Buktu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
2,371
Location
Denmark
Car(s)
Suzuki Swift 1.3 2006
Well they would have to spend af bucketload of money to be able to compete with the capped teams. Some of the teams estimated that the capped cars would gain 2-3 second due to the fewer limits.

So if you have to spend a shitload of money to be competitive with team spending 1/5 or 1/10 of what you're spending, 1: how are you going to restructure at the same time and 2: what financial sense does that make?

So, you are forcing the big teams to spend a huge amount of money just to try and be competitive with much smaller teams, while at the same time going through a demanding downsizing. And how will you downsize if you need all your personel to be competitive? :b

It doesn't make any sense, the teams realize that, Ecclestone realize that, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Mosley knows it doesn't make any sense.
 

Sir Stiggington

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
3,885
Location
Cambridge, UK
Car(s)
McLaren Mercedes MP4/23 :P
It's a stupid idea, and no Peter3hg, it does not make sense. It comes down to a) Being slow and spending a lot b) Being fast and cheap, but not too fast or they'll screw you over. The regs are inherently different for budget, and non-budget cars, which destroys F1. Anyone here can see that.
 

ViperVX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
1,404
Since FIA (as it turns out) cannot install any financial regulations the cap probably will be scrapped, but, again, asking teams to downsize from 400 million to 100 million is bogus, as it's simply impossible to pull it off in a matter of months, without greatly disturbing the productivity of the whole team, not even talking about internal legal issues like prelimenary contract terminations, reducing negotiated salaries and the whole resturcturing process.

Not only teams will have to let go over 50% of personnel, because of new regulations they now need an engine RnD groups again. More importanly, new cap includes anything spent on developing 2010 cars, most if not all teams surely started the process, god knows how much money was invested already.
 
Last edited:

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
It's a stupid idea, and no Peter3hg, it does not make sense. It comes down to a) Being slow and spending a lot b) Being fast and cheap, but not too fast or they'll screw you over. The regs are inherently different for budget, and non-budget cars, which destroys F1. Anyone here can see that.
Everyone here sees what they want to see but nobody wants to face up to the truth. F1 cannot survive as it is in the current climate.
Since when did the original proposals allow for them to randomly slow down fast cars? People keep talking about this but I don't remember seeing it. Maybe I missed it.
Of course the rules are different for budget and non-budget cars, but that doesn't mean there are two sets of rules. That would only be the case if the FIA states which teams had to comply with the budget. If you make the (reasonable) assumption that a new team will be a few seconds off the pace in their first season anyway, the racing would be quite close.
After one season, the teams should have been able to restructure, or have redirected their efforts, sufficiently to all get under the budget limit.
The way I see it, it could be up to 10 years before we see companies such as Honda, Toyota willing to spend ?100m's on F1 again. To have a decently competitive field you either need a lot of big spending manufacturers or a lot of small spending (essentially privateer in scale) teams. The problem at the moment is we only have two teams who are realistically going to be able afford to spend huge amounts for years to come. This frightens off teams such as Honda and Renault as they are still spending a lot but aren't competitive, and it also stops small teams entering as they want to have the chance to be competitive.
For F1 to survive the next decade as any form of competition, the budget cap needs to be imposed quickly. If the teams can't restructure before next year, then the proposed system is the only sensible way to go (especially if the FOTA teams agree to voluntarily break the cap for a year).
Budget-capped F1 with greater technical freedom could bring back the glory days of F1.

Hopefully the teams will get together, realise a budget-cap is necessary, and all agree to abide by it from next year onwards. If they want the cap to be over ?50m however, the exercise will be largely pointless.
 

ViperVX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
1,404
Everyone here sees what they want to see but nobody wants to face up to the truth. F1 cannot survive as it is in the current climate.
Since when did the original proposals allow for them to randomly slow down fast cars? People keep talking about this but I don't remember seeing it. Maybe I missed it.
Of course the rules are different for budget and non-budget cars, but that doesn't mean there are two sets of rules. That would only be the case if the FIA states which teams had to comply with the budget. If you make the (reasonable) assumption that a new team will be a few seconds off the pace in their first season anyway, the racing would be quite close.
After one season, the teams should have been able to restructure, or have redirected their efforts, sufficiently to all get under the budget limit.
The way I see it, it could be up to 10 years before we see companies such as Honda, Toyota willing to spend ?100m's on F1 again. To have a decently competitive field you either need a lot of big spending manufacturers or a lot of small spending (essentially privateer in scale) teams. The problem at the moment is we only have two teams who are realistically going to be able afford to spend huge amounts for years to come. This frightens off teams such as Honda and Renault as they are still spending a lot but aren't competitive, and it also stops small teams entering as they want to have the chance to be competitive.
For F1 to survive the next decade as any form of competition, the budget cap needs to be imposed quickly. If the teams can't restructure before next year, then the proposed system is the only sensible way to go (especially if the FOTA teams agree to voluntarily break the cap for a year).
Budget-capped F1 with greater technical freedom could bring back the glory days of F1.

Hopefully the teams will get together, realise a budget-cap is necessary, and all agree to abide by it from next year onwards. If they want the cap to be over ?50m however, the exercise will be largely pointless.
Rules based on assumption...that's fresh. It seems you really don't get it, certain F1 teams like Williams or Brawns can make the cuts in time without disturbing pretty much anything, teams like Toyota and Ferrari will need a year for restructuring, at the same time you give budget-capped teams a serious 2-3s/lap advantage, while leaving one option for those who simply can't downsize, which is to spend whatever they want to in order to try and be competetive; now this is a complete waste of money for rich teams without any guarantees, therefore it's a two-tier and unfair system.

There's a number of reasons top teams are protesting the cap regulations, three biggest are: external spending control, inability to restructure in time or at all, severe short term financial damage such restructuring will cause.

It's very simple, top 5 (or 7) teams, do not want to spend 300+ million to try to keep up with capped teams, they cannot restructure in a dedicated time period, they do not want to bear the costs (and consequences) of forced downsizing, - it's a no-win situation for any of the rich ones, and they are the relative majority and for sure the ratings holders.

Furthermore, even if let's say in 2011 the cap is actualy passed, manufacturers, via financing certain projects through other "branches" will still have the advantage, probably even a bigger one; as private teams, having "extra" money, won't have the platform to utilize the funds.
 
Last edited:

Buktu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
2,371
Location
Denmark
Car(s)
Suzuki Swift 1.3 2006
Peter, to me it sounds like even the teams agree that a cap is a good idea.

The two-tier system, however, is ridiculous. It just doesn't work! Either you end up with the uncapped teams being faster, in which case you achieve absolutely nothing compared to the current situation, except you split the grid in two; you effectively have two championships. And if the uncapped teams turn out to be significantly faster, then you have some very big manufacturers, which are very important to the sport, spending big bucks on absolutely nothing.

If they are lucky, then the two tiers are equal and the racing will be great. But what are the chances of that, if we have to be realistic?

In either case the only way to get around is to either drop it all together, or make everybody operate under a budget cap. You just cannot have different rules for different teams. It just won't work.

They have to agree on a cap. What this cap will be is the big question. 40 mil. is too low - and a larger one will definitely work! Why not? If they set it at around a 100 mil, you would still have significant cuts at the larger teams, and a leveling of the playing field, even if the smaller teams won't be able to afford all 100 mil. You can buy your way to succes, but it is by no means a sure thing.

Maybe it won't attract new teams for 2010 in the same way as the 40 mil. cap, but then they could lower it some time in the future.

Mosley could have done it this way, and avoided if not all then most of these discussion. The sport would be in a much better light. It is called being diplomatic, something Max Mosley has lost sight of it seems.
 

Sir Stiggington

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
3,885
Location
Cambridge, UK
Car(s)
McLaren Mercedes MP4/23 :P
Yeah, I don't think any of us here are doubting that we need a cap, Peter, but rather how it will be implemented. And the current way is complete waste of money, which is the last thing we need now.
 

Hazardous

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
2,230
Location
Southern Finland
Car(s)
None :/
They have to agree on a cap. What this cap will be is the big question. 40 mil. is too low - and a larger one will definitely work! Why not?
Why it wouldn't work? For the reason any budget cap is unlikely to work in my view: Teams are going to find ways around them. I don't know what the rules are but if there are no massive grey areas in them I would be tremendously surprised. Say, having people hired by engine office (the budget of which is outside the cap) working as mechanics. Or the PR office (again, outside the cap) handing out big benefits to race mechanics in exchange for lower wage. Or drivers (whose wages are outside the cap) hiring their own engineers. Or exchanging development done by third party for sponsorship.

If the budget cap comes into place, the acocuntants are gong to have a field day on this.

I do see the budget cap as an interesting concept and an interesting challenge in F1 in theory. However, I simply cannot see it working in practise. I most certainly can't see FIA governing all that working, seeing the mess of things they are making with grey areas at the moment in WTCC.
 

Wildy

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
83
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Car(s)
Not My Car
Which is why the two-tier system made perfect sense.
In the sense that you would be punishing all the teams because they have no possible way to get themselves below the budget?

Why didn't they introduce a gradual budget change. Say in 2011 they had introduced a US$350 million limit, and then dropped it gradually over time?
 

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
To be honest, the teams are really pissing me off with all this. They don't want the FIA's system, fine, but then come up with a decent alternative. They want the FIA to have less control in these matters, but yet they seem incapable of coming up with an alternative. If they can't come up with an alternative by the 28th, then they should have to just like it or lump it. It is unfair for new teams to not know what rules they are applying to run under.
This whole saga has just shown me that F1 needs the FIA or some equivalent dictatorship. The teams would never be able to agree on important matters and the sport would collapse.

ViperVX said:
It seems you really don't get it, certain F1 teams like Williams or Brawns can make the cuts in time without disturbing pretty much anything, teams like Toyota and Ferrari will need a year for restructuring, at the same time you give budget-capped teams a serious 2-3s/lap advantage, while leaving one option for those who simply can't downsize, which is to spend whatever they want to in order to try and be competetive; now this is a complete waste of money for rich teams without any guarantees, therefore it's a two-tier and unfair system.
I would say it is you who isn't getting it. The budget cap needs to come into place, I think everyone agrees with that. To be any real point to it, it also needs to be implemented quickly. Unfortunately, the big teams probably can't restructure fast enough to get in next year. Therefore, if you just have a straight budget cap, the big teams couldn't compete until they sorted themselves out. The two-tier system lets them still compete, although at a disadvantage. That is only fair however. A budget cap that doesn't have severe consequences for breaking it is pointless.
How the teams want to spend the year restructuring is up to them. If they want to blow ridiculous money trying to keep up, then that is prerogative. If they are willing to run in the midfield for a year then that is up to them as well. I accept that 2010 would be a relatively crappy year but I think it would be a necessary transitional year.
Basically, the two-tier system isn't perfect, but it is the best suggestion that anyone has made at this moment in time. If the teams don't like it, they need to come up with a better suggestion.
 

vikiradTG2007

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
11,084
Location
The country UKIP is scared of
Car(s)
Working on it
I believe that the teams have already come up with a proposal that the FIA ignored, and that is of a budget cap, but not straight down to the 40 mil requested by the FIA, but of a more gradual decrease, around 120 mil. budgets for 2010 and then going down over 3 or 4 years to the FIA's 2010 figure of 40 mil.

It makes more sense than to abruptly cut budgets and leave teams in disarray and reorganization to save money all at the same time.
 
Last edited:

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
I believe that the teams have already come up with a proposal that the FIA ignored, and that is of a budget cap, but not straight down to the 40 mil requested by the FIA, but of a more gradual decrease, around 120 mil. budgets for 2010 and then going down over 3 or 4 years to the FIA's 2010 figure.

It makes more sense than to abruptly cut budgets and leave teams in disarray and reorganization to save money all at the same time.
OK, I hadn't seen that anywhere. Got a link?
I think a gradual reduction is just too slow to have a positive affect.
At most it should just come down over two years. Maybe ?100m next year and ?40m the year after.
 

vikiradTG2007

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
11,084
Location
The country UKIP is scared of
Car(s)
Working on it
OK, I hadn't seen that anywhere. Got a link?
I think a gradual reduction is just too slow to have a positive affect.
At most it should just come down over two years. Maybe ?100m next year and ?40m the year after.
IIRC, it was proposed in FOTA's first public press release.

And anyway, a gradual budget cap is better, and the new teams can just sign up to the cap that will be implemented at the end of the period of budget reduction.
 
Last edited:

ViperVX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
1,404
I would say it is you who isn't getting it. The budget cap needs to come into place, I think everyone agrees with that. To be any real point to it, it also needs to be implemented quickly. Unfortunately, the big teams probably can't restructure fast enough to get in next year. Therefore, if you just have a straight budget cap, the big teams couldn't compete until they sorted themselves out. The two-tier system lets them still compete, although at a disadvantage. That is only fair however. A budget cap that doesn't have severe consequences for breaking it is pointless.
How the teams want to spend the year restructuring is up to them. If they want to blow ridiculous money trying to keep up, then that is prerogative. If they are willing to run in the midfield for a year then that is up to them as well. I accept that 2010 would be a relatively crappy year but I think it would be a necessary transitional year.
Basically, the two-tier system isn't perfect, but it is the best suggestion that anyone has made at this moment in time. If the teams don't like it, they need to come up with a better suggestion.
We are yet to see any major team agree with the cap, teams are only confirming the initiative to cut expenses, and there never has been a motion to make it in an urgent and radical manner. FOTA has been pushing a step-by-step approach and still stands by it (meeting on tuesday to develop alternative proposal), i think it's Haug who said, that measures they introduced last year allowed them to save 30%, new proposals would save another 20%, that amounts to 45% over a period of 2.5 years, - very reasonable. Just seems you are panicking way too much, teams aren't broke, even though manufacturers are taking losses (with the exception of Ferrari), certain industries are posting record profits, TV Ratings for everything are on the rise, there is no need to rush anything.

Bernie and Mosley are already backing down, one says that there will be no 2-tier system, other says that the cap may be raised and may allow more exceptions, they are slowly stepping back (perhaps a good cop/bad cop routine), only thing that complicates their strategy is the lawsuit, which, if won by Ferrari, may as well mean the end of budget cap initiative altogether, at least until 2012. Even you are backing down, now "accepting" the possibility of ?100m cap, which, including engines, salaries etc will round up at around $220m.
 
Last edited:
Top