Actually Renault has only been an moderate spender in F1, and they've have a competitive car for about 3 years befor Alonso left for Mclaren for the 2007 season. That's good maangement right there.
Anyway, I don't like what's being proposed. I don't mind the progessive method, but I think the amount should be much lower than the 110 Million cap for the future, mainly because the independent teams and sponsors are struggling to reach even 100 Million, plus recall what happened to Super Aguri.
Also, I'm worried that excluding the driver's salary from the budget cap would result in a bidding war for the best drivers between teams, which would drive up the costs big time.
As for excluding the engine and the KERS from the budget cap, I'm kinda mixed on that because it would make sense to not place restrictions on areas of technology which could contribute to the "green" area, however I'm worried that most of the budget would go to that technology, and thus cost will go up again.
If this is going to work, there would have to be a budget cap on everything, then the teams cannot reidrect their high spending on another department.
110 million Euros is roughly $170 million, but the engines/salaries will end up doubling that easily, so the top teams will still have a budget of $350,000,000+.
If this is going to work, there would have to be a budget cap on everything, then the teams cannot reidrect their high spending on another department.
Agreed. Also getting this in place with the correct oversight by 2009 seems pretty ambitious especially with a lame duck FIA president that no one wants to be seen with.
110 million Euros is roughly $170 million, but the engines/salaries will end up doubling that easily, so the top teams will still have a budget of $350,000,000+.
And the current average according to the Speed crew is $200 million. I don't mind the idea in principle, but there are a lot of things to be worked out.
It sounds to me like nobody really knows what that proposal would cost per team total. Even Flavs off the cuff answer seems like a guess as to what he would spend in 09.
It seems as if good technology would come out of KERS for a while without a cap and then at some point the F1 boys will take it to extremes and the things wont have any road car relevance since they will be made out of nanotubes and unobtainium and cost 1 mil each...
The NFL cap makes more sense because all the teams get it. Pool the money and distribute it. I just dont buy into that idea would be unfair to the big teams...they will still dominate with their personnel.
It sounds to me like nobody really knows what that proposal would cost per team total. Even Flavs off the cuff answer seems like a guess as to what he would spend in 09.
It seems as if good technology would come out of KERS for a while without a cap and then at some point the F1 boys will take it to extremes and the things wont have any road car relevance since they will be made out of nanotubes and unobtainium and cost 1 mil each...
The NFL cap makes more sense because all the teams get it. Pool the money and distribute it. I just dont buy into that idea would be unfair to the big teams...they will still dominate with their personnel.
Ferrari and Mclaren for example have larger budgets due to their record of success over a longer period of time. Why should they be hamstrung because the smaller teams, who also haven't put in the years, need a boost to be competitive? Why take from the better to improve the not-as -good? I would certainly never give up a good sales lead or account to improve the standing of one of my competitors. Screw 'em if they can't hang.
F1 is the top level of racing competition not some tee-ball league.
IMO...this is more a social activist and political agenda rather than a sporting solution. I'd love to tear into a terrific political rant but...I won't here.
Level it all out, make 'en all equal and maybe little Johnny can go home with a trophy and some self-esteem. Bah humbug... I hate it!!!
It sounds to me like nobody really knows what that proposal would cost per team total. Even Flavs off the cuff answer seems like a guess as to what he would spend in 09.
It seems as if good technology would come out of KERS for a while without a cap and then at some point the F1 boys will take it to extremes and the things wont have any road car relevance since they will be made out of nanotubes and unobtainium and cost 1 mil each...
The NFL cap makes more sense because all the teams get it. Pool the money and distribute it. I just dont buy into that idea would be unfair to the big teams...they will still dominate with their personnel.
Ferrari and Mclaren for example have larger budgets due to their record of success over a longer period of time. Why should they be hamstrung because the smaller teams, who also haven't put in the years, need a boost to be competitive? Why take from the better to improve the not-as -good? I would certainly never give up a good sales lead or account to improve the standing of one of my competitors. Screw 'em if they can't hang.
F1 is the top level of racing competition not some tee-ball league.
IMO...this is more a social activist and political agenda rather than a sporting solution. I'd love to tear into a terrific political rant but...I won't here.
Level it all out, make 'en all equal and maybe little Johnny can go home with a trophy and some self-esteem. Bah humbug... I hate it!!!
Completely agree. The fact that marketing costs are also not included means the rich teams can market more effectively and attract more sponsors, not to mention pay the top drivers. This sounds like one of those initiatives to handle things that are already being done in the sport and won't really change much of it, if at all.
How are they supposed to police it? FIA accountants in every team? Designated supplies with fixed costs? Fixed income for every position in the teams except the drivers?
Ferrari and Mclaren for example have larger budgets due to their record of success over a longer period of time. Why should they be hamstrung because the smaller teams, who also haven't put in the years, need a boost to be competitive? Why take from the better to improve the not-as -good? I would certainly never give up a good sales lead or account to improve the standing of one of my competitors. Screw 'em if they can't hang.
F1 is the top level of racing competition not some tee-ball league.
IMO...this is more a social activist and political agenda rather than a sporting solution. I'd love to tear into a terrific political rant but...I won't here.
Level it all out, make 'en all equal and maybe little Johnny can go home with a trophy and some self-esteem. Bah humbug... I hate it!!!
I agree. I personally am against such nonsense.
For me it's not how much you spend, but what you spend it on. If it's spent on innovation that relevant to the automotive industry and/or the aerospace&defence;industry and/or motorsport industry then good its fine by me. But burning 120 million to gain 10-12 hp over the opposition is not.
If this is going to work, there would have to be a budget cap on everything, then the teams cannot reidrect their high spending on another department.
The problem is, a spending cap will only hurt the smaller teams no matter what the way it's implemented. The manufacturer teams will be easily able to hide their spending. "What? Oh that? That's some new brake designs for our next road going supercar...." Okay, a bit of an oversimplification and ludicrous example, but unless the FIA can somehow completely police everyone and watch them like hawks, it's never going to work.
That said, I'm totally against spending caps. Lets open up the rules a bit more. That way maybe someone can come up with a novel (and possibly) cheaper way to go faster.
