ad
Countdown to 2016 Australian Grandprix:
2016 Formula1 World Championship Calendar

Australia | Bahrain | China | Russia | Spain | Monaco | Canada | Baku | Austria | Great Britain | Hungary | Germany | Belgium | Italy | Singapore | Malaysia | Japan | USA | Mexico | Brazil | Abu Dhabi

FiA & F1

Talk about the Teams & Drivers

Moderators: Lyria, Mafia, Lawrence, Administrator

FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:16 pm

Election of a new FiA president is underway, and in excellent F1 tradition Briton David Ward hasn't met yet a single mud pit, which he didn't liked on his drive for a cushy chair he desires. Is this guy for real or what? He didn't really tell us in his manifesto what he will do other than what he will dismantle what JT achieved with MM embedded leftovers in post MM' era.

My Con - almost everything Ward stand for but a single issue.
My Pro - FiA should have full time F1 commissioner, for series is complex, commercially major factor for FiA, and requires daily attendance. This idea however has not originated with Ward, and JT had similar thought during his first campaign drive, yet why he has not pushed for it later on escaped me.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Silver Fox on Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:23 pm

Ward is spanky's and the midgets man. That alone is enough to say he's not the right guy for the job. Trouble is my guess is that spanky's probably already corralled all of the votes necessary to get him elected... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Proud sponsor of 'The Team with No Name...'
User avatar
Silver Fox
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:01 am
Location: Nottinghamshire

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lawrence on Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:02 am

Yeà, I am not to happy with Todt, especially as I think he completely dropped the ball on the financial issues and badly handled the tire and testing fiascos....but.....for the reasons SF stated, I am very suspicious of Ward. I mean his reform manifesto is basically to undo the system that Max put into place to guarantee he could not be unseated (unless caught in a "nazi-like" S£M orgy).

We shall see. Nothing will be clear and transparent.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:54 am

JT has not "dropped the ball" on budget caps, but in democratic fashion he stepped down of the issue after he learned that not all teams wish to adopt a such solution. Sounds reasonable to me, as opposed to some archaic, imperial, dictatorial approach. Of course I do not know anything about commercial conditions stated in the new agreements in place until 2020, and whether capping of expenses is on the table in some form.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:35 am

Lawrence wrote:Yeà, I am not to happy with Todt, especially as I think he completely dropped the ball on the financial issues and badly handled the tire and testing fiascos....but.....for the reasons SF stated, I am very suspicious of Ward. I mean his reform manifesto is basically to undo the system that Max put into place to guarantee he could not be unseated (unless caught in a "nazi-like" S£M orgy).

We shall see. Nothing will be clear and transparent.

Shouldn't we call it rather Made in Britain SEM orgy, since this was British idea executed in GB, in British style?
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:24 pm

What's the true purpose of placing limits on spending through budget caps?

There are several conflicting issues on the table which are not very easy understood in terms of reconciliation for an outsider. In finite set of numbers if you plug a hole here, you need to take it from somewhere else, but still on the same balance sheet.

Some thoughts:

- reducing budget most likely will result in loss of employment for many departments, and we have seen the aftershock at Brackley once already
- FiA is getting more money, but not the teams; budget limit is a limit, and by definition new money-in from mother ship cannot be used
- management of back to back races which are at distant locations might require deployments of one or two new setup crews (which do not exist now), and shall cost pretty penny; here again they will suck up funds from the same budget, so something else will have to give

This all begs a question then; what was saved by capping budget which will get Sauber and alike out of jam? What will be net effect on sophistication of machinery through this type of underfunding that we shall see on track, unless we are inevitably heading for specification series?

Well, it seems that I will need to say good bye to F1 at some point anyway, and perhaps this might do the trick nudging me out...
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lawrence on Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:56 pm

Sakae wrote:JT has not "dropped the ball" on budget caps, but in democratic fashion he stepped down of the issue after he learned that not all teams wish to adopt a such solution. Sounds reasonable to me, as opposed to some archaic, imperial, dictatorial approach. Of course I do not know anything about commercial conditions stated in the new agreements in place until 2020, and whether capping of expenses is on the table in some form.


Was there a vote and the majority of the teams rejected it? I don't think so. Did a few well-heeled team object because it would undermine their advantage.....I believe that did happen. I don't see any evidence of democratic decision making here.

In fact, in recent times I know of only one major series that operated democratically, which was CART. It was actually a great series until it was destroyed by some spoilt rich kid. FIA has never run formula one as a democracy.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:44 pm

Would should have JT done then? Act in similar fashion like MM&BE, and enforce what? I am not even certain at the moment whether he had legal authority to first undertake such direction without consent of all, and then trying to figure out how to police it and enforce it. Those things do not happen in vacuum.

Voting was not in cards, as there is no equality in F1, as we have witness when a new CA was negotiated. I would assume that Mercedes, RBR, Ferrari and McLaren would have to agree among themselves what they want to do, but since Todt knows them all quite intimately, but he was not going to get publicly like a fool embarrassed, and vote on what he knew in advance was a lost cause.

Today, since commercial side has changed, he might have a new chance to do something and reach some sort of an agreement, but I am not sure what it is. From my own perspective I would change specs to built a simpler (and less expensive) car; forget about adding and paying attorneys and bookkeepers for some off-track parasitic, and non-value activities.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lawrence on Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:14 am

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:24 am

The article in general terms is rather unpleasant reading for my liking.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:41 am

Automaker Renault is seeking government's financial help. This act EU commission approved as not anti-competitive. How does this situation affects F1 side of business is not entirely clear (to me), but I doubt they will be buying Lotus and run it as a factory team any time soon, as some rumors of that kind are floating around.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Lawrence on Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm

Sakae wrote:Automaker Renault is seeking government's financial help.


Can they obtain government help and still provide four teams in F1 with engines? When Renault pulled out of F1 in 1986, it was very much due to appearance and political issues during tough economic times.
"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature; but it is easier understood than explained...Speed is the second oldest animal craving in our nature..." -- T. E. Lawrence
User avatar
Lawrence
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10465
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:01 am
Location: United States --- Washington DC

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:53 pm

Report on Renault is quoted in German media.

http://www.dw.de/eu-executive-approves- ... a-17131580

I have no clue how to interpret the news within F1 context.
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Silver Fox on Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:13 pm

Sakae wrote:JT has not "dropped the ball" on budget caps, but in democratic fashion he stepped down of the issue after he learned that not all teams wish to adopt a such solution. Sounds reasonable to me, as opposed to some archaic, imperial, dictatorial approach. Of course I do not know anything about commercial conditions stated in the new agreements in place until 2020, and whether capping of expenses is on the table in some form.


Since when was sport a democracy?

The ruling body makes the rules. Competitors decide whether they want to compete. If the competition is unfair the sport disintegrates unless the rules are changed to even up the competition. Want an example? Just look at Moto GP with their CRT category that they are - year by year - bringing up to the performance level of the factory teams via advantageous rule changes.

Today's F1 is totally false due to it's total reliance on 'brand values' to square the economic circle. In many ways its only one step removed from a technological Ponzi scheme with new entrants, sponsors, advertisers and TV paying extremely large lumps on money to already hugely rich financial institutions in the hope that they will somehow benefit financially from even newer entrants following them in.

Guess what: the music's stopping...
Proud sponsor of 'The Team with No Name...'
User avatar
Silver Fox
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:01 am
Location: Nottinghamshire

Re: FiA & F1

Postby Sakae on Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:53 am

Silver Fox wrote:
Sakae wrote:JT has not "dropped the ball" on budget caps, but in democratic fashion he stepped down of the issue after he learned that not all teams wish to adopt a such solution. Sounds reasonable to me, as opposed to some archaic, imperial, dictatorial approach. Of course I do not know anything about commercial conditions stated in the new agreements in place until 2020, and whether capping of expenses is on the table in some form.


Since when was sport a democracy?

The ruling body makes the rules. Competitors decide whether they want to compete. If the competition is unfair the sport disintegrates unless the rules are changed to even up the competition. Want an example? Just look at Moto GP with their CRT category that they are - year by year - bringing up to the performance level of the factory teams via advantageous rule changes.

Today's F1 is totally false due to it's total reliance on 'brand values' to square the economic circle. In many ways its only one step removed from a technological Ponzi scheme with new entrants, sponsors, advertisers and TV paying extremely large lumps on money to already hugely rich financial institutions in the hope that they will somehow benefit financially from even newer entrants following them in.

Guess what: the music's stopping...

You have managed to touch upon numerous issues, and it may probably come as a surprise to you, but I do not quarrel much about sentiment expressed, however in my initial comment I was focusing onto budgetary issues, and a point, whether it was really only up to FiA's president to set it up, as Lawrence suggested, as I understand it. FiA is primarily, as pointed out previously, an enforcer of rules, not a commercial law maker after all. MM would have most likely overstepped his authority, but that's past, and no need to speculate about it.

With respect to overall F1 finances, a subject I know very little about, I shall restrain to a simple comment, that a business model can be perceived by outsider as mortally flawed, and therefore unsustainable. We, on the outside, for fun of it can merely discuss what should potentially change. Some want cap budget, others want something else; for the record, I am in the later category.

Returning back to beginnings what GP competition represented, we should not forget that it was a sport of rich and have. It was anything but equality and/or a specification series; that was the essence and allure of F1, which is being stamped into the ground today. That place was not intended for HRT and alike (tier 2, if you like), and if formation of F1 intended otherwise, than perhaps a commercial rights holder can kindly explain how he has managed the circus, and process, which got us where we are today. Superficial analysis can talk about riches and monetary value, but I would be careful about it. Story of Blackberry (former RIM) pops into my mind. One day very high, next day lost somewhere in the bushes.

Teams invest, teams work, undertake all risk, and look who is collecting enumeration. Brand value trend you mentioned is a symptom of times, not a cause, since commercial arrangement necessitated adaptation and creation of marketing budgets for justification to stay in this rocket.

Why FiA needs the extra money? Why we need to have such expensive and senseless calendar? Why commercial owner cannot share more of his pie? Why we cannot have less complicated normative references (forget 2014)? There are many questions to ask, but capping budgets will not save money, but merely flow of funds shall be relocated to different (and somewhat questionable) directions. Money are still needed, yet how much of it Sauber and alike shall be getting under new CA?

So, what was solved, and what capping would do which B-model failed to do?
Whatever you do, don’t just do it. Push it forward! [Whitelines]
Sakae
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: EU

Next

Return to Formula One Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron

Copyright 1988-2011, Inside F1, Inc.