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!!!
That isn't exactly a fair analogy. If you had enough money to buy the best sales leads, and your competitors couldn't afford anything even close... and you had 100 guys working for you, making calls on the leads, while your competitors could only afford 5.... maybe.
The point is that no matter how smart and how clever guys are on a team like Menardi/Arrows/Jordan/Force India/Aguri/Toro Rosso/Spyker... they just don't have the money to be compeititive. Those guys could come up with superior ideas and design, but never implement it cause of money.
I'm not in favor of a spending limit either... but the fact remains that the races are HORRIBLE to watch and they need to do something. Did you guys catch WSBK at Monza last week? They showed just how good a show you can put on at that track.
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps. "Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results? F1 is the ultimate "results oriented" motorsports endeavor is it not?
Franks "reasoning" of the debate is exactly why I can't get behind the idea. He wants the front to be held back so his team can catch up.
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps. "Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results?
Resources are not always earned through results. They've earned a lot , but they are also simply willing to spend more on racing than other manufactures. Several teams could outspend Ferrari 10 fold if they chose to do so. Their bosses just don't allow it. So you can either have Ferrari running around a track by themselves (which would seem to suit some Ferrari fans just fine) or you can have them racing other manufactures on a somewhat level playing field.
I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end if the racing comes down to who can outspend each other what's the point? It's not a great solution but something has to be done or the grid will continue to shrink.
Besides, everyone is for the budget cap with the exception of Ferrari which tells me it's probably a good idea. It's also going to happen.
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps. "Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results?
Resources are not always earned through results. They've earned a lot , but they are also simply willing to spend more on racing than other manufactures. Several teams could outspend Ferrari 10 fold if they chose to do so. Their bosses just don't allow it. So you can either have Ferrari running around a track by themselves (which would seem to suit some Ferrari fans just fine) or you can have them racing other manufactures on a somewhat level playing field.
I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end if the racing comes down to who can outspend each other what's the point? It's not a great solution but something has to be done or the grid will continue to shrink.
Besides, everyone is for the budget cap with the exception of Ferrari which tells me it's probably a good idea. It's also going to happen.
One of the solutions to a shrinking grid was the idea of customer cars. Yet, Frank Williams was totally opposed to the idea because it undermined his team's standing within F1. He didn't like the idea of a team arriving on the scene and being able to compete on less money and time served to the sport. Kind of interesting that he has not a problem with undermining the resources of the teams ahead of him in budget resources earned through results when it can benefit his outfit.
BTW...I define "earned" as having a record of success that sponsors can relatively rely on to bring them exposure and TV time for their investment. Ferrari and Mclaren would be my examples of teams who have earned sponsor dollars and confidence from those sponsors through years of success and achievement.
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps. "Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results?
Resources are not always earned through results. They've earned a lot , but they are also simply willing to spend more on racing than other manufactures. Several teams could outspend Ferrari 10 fold if they chose to do so. Their bosses just don't allow it. So you can either have Ferrari running around a track by themselves (which would seem to suit some Ferrari fans just fine) or you can have them racing other manufactures on a somewhat level playing field.
I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end if the racing comes down to who can outspend each other what's the point? It's not a great solution but something has to be done or the grid will continue to shrink.
Besides, everyone is for the budget cap with the exception of Ferrari which tells me it's probably a good idea. It's also going to happen.
One of the solutions to a shrinking grid was the idea of customer cars. Yet, Frank Williams was totally opposed to the idea because it undermined his team's standing within F1. He didn't like the idea of a team arriving on the scene and being able to compete on less money and time served to the sport. Kind of interesting that he has not a problem with undermining the resources of the teams ahead of him in budget resources earned through results when it can benefit his outfit.
BTW...I define "earned" as having a record of success that sponsors can relatively rely on to bring them exposure and TV time for their investment. Ferrari and Mclaren would be my examples of teams who have earned sponsor dollars and confidence from those sponsors through years of success and achievement.
That kind of hypocrisy is not exclusive to Frank. It's standard procedure for every team principal. Granted some more than others.
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps. "Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results?
Resources are not always earned through results. They've earned a lot , but they are also simply willing to spend more on racing than other manufactures. Several teams could outspend Ferrari 10 fold if they chose to do so. Their bosses just don't allow it. So you can either have Ferrari running around a track by themselves (which would seem to suit some Ferrari fans just fine) or you can have them racing other manufactures on a somewhat level playing field.
I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end if the racing comes down to who can outspend each other what's the point? It's not a great solution but something has to be done or the grid will continue to shrink.
Besides, everyone is for the budget cap with the exception of Ferrari which tells me it's probably a good idea. It's also going to happen.
One of the solutions to a shrinking grid was the idea of customer cars. Yet, Frank Williams was totally opposed to the idea because it undermined his team's standing within F1. He didn't like the idea of a team arriving on the scene and being able to compete on less money and time served to the sport. Kind of interesting that he has not a problem with undermining the resources of the teams ahead of him in budget resources earned through results when it can benefit his outfit.
BTW...I define "earned" as having a record of success that sponsors can relatively rely on to bring them exposure and TV time for their investment. Ferrari and Mclaren would be my examples of teams who have earned sponsor dollars and confidence from those sponsors through years of success and achievement.
You missed the main point of macphisto's post which I hi-lited and enlarged. Ferrari's funding isn't based soley on the results they have earned in F1. When Ferrari went from 1984-1998 without winning any championships they were still one of the best funded teams through Marlboro sponsorship. That doesn't even consider the funds Ferrari makes selling road cars for the soul intent of funneling it back into the F1 team. I just don't see the comparison between limiting how much teams may spend (i.e., the proposed budget cap idea) versus allowing a team to be competitive with only a portion of the expenditures or investment (i.e., allowing customer cars).
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!!!
Cerino, your stance is an easy one to take in a vacuum...popular I am sure. But we have yet to see anything good come out of this ongoing "cost reduction" Formula One Championship era.
Fia is telling the teams exactly what they can and cant spend money on. They have homologated the engines and let the aero guys run wild. It sucks.
I am sure you would change your tune if Boeing came into the sport, announced they sold planes to go F1 racing and spent five times Ferrari's budget. You would be huddling up with Frank in no time.
The bottom line is there has to be some control of spending...the question is how, not if.
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps. "Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results?
Resources are not always earned through results. They've earned a lot , but they are also simply willing to spend more on racing than other manufactures. Several teams could outspend Ferrari 10 fold if they chose to do so. Their bosses just don't allow it. So you can either have Ferrari running around a track by themselves (which would seem to suit some Ferrari fans just fine) or you can have them racing other manufactures on a somewhat level playing field.
I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end if the racing comes down to who can outspend each other what's the point? It's not a great solution but something has to be done or the grid will continue to shrink.
Besides, everyone is for the budget cap with the exception of Ferrari which tells me it's probably a good idea. It's also going to happen.
One of the solutions to a shrinking grid was the idea of customer cars. Yet, Frank Williams was totally opposed to the idea because it undermined his team's standing within F1. He didn't like the idea of a team arriving on the scene and being able to compete on less money and time served to the sport. Kind of interesting that he has not a problem with undermining the resources of the teams ahead of him in budget resources earned through results when it can benefit his outfit.
BTW...I define "earned" as having a record of success that sponsors can relatively rely on to bring them exposure and TV time for their investment. Ferrari and Mclaren would be my examples of teams who have earned sponsor dollars and confidence from those sponsors through years of success and achievement.
You missed the main point of macphisto's post which I hi-lited and enlarged. Ferrari's funding isn't based soley on the results they have earned in F1. When Ferrari went from 1984-1998 without winning any championships they were still one of the best funded teams through Marlboro sponsorship. That doesn't even consider the funds Ferrari makes selling road cars for the soul intent of funneling it back into the F1 team. I just don't see the comparison between limiting how much teams may spend (i.e., the proposed budget cap idea) versus allowing a team to be competitive with only a portion of the expenditures or investment (i.e., allowing customer cars).
Maybe I was the one who's point was missed.
I'm not talking about recent results achieved, I'm speaking of decades of participation and the prominence earned through successful campaigns. Frank should understand that perfectly. He's been participating for decades and has a very successful record of achievement.
Case in point those years you make mention of. Ferrari were not successful on track but it was the years of participation and the brand prominence earned that made Marlboro want to sponsor an otherwise uncompetitive team. Years go by and the record of success is built allowing a warehousing of resources to be built up. Now, some of those resources would have to be let go to satisfy the budget cap for the benefit of the otherwise non-competitive teams.
The only comparison I was making between the two ideas is in the hypocrisy of Frank Williams.
I am always in favor of free enterprise in business and minimal controls in markets. But this is sport and left unfettered, people die. So controls over teams must occur for the good of the sport. So F1 is not a free market, today.
Applying ones desires to see unfettered development or competition or dominance in F1 isn't useful. That era passed long ago.
All sport is challenged by what money does to it...it is a corrupting force. When large imbalances occur the sport usually loses its "sport" if you will. Competition for the sake of competition. So money regulation comes in at some point.
See the NCAA, track and field, baseball, NFL, Olympics, Hockey, Nascar, Tour de France, etc.
Sport has to try and insulate itself from the corruption of money. The best way to do that in my view is to level the money playing field. Take it out of the equation for winning as much as possible. That way the sporting values of a team rise to the fore rather than its business values.
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps. "Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results? F1 is the ultimate "results oriented" motorsports endeavor is it not?
Franks "reasoning" of the debate is exactly why I can't get behind the idea. He wants the front to be held back so his team can catch up.
Frank is being rather hypocritical. First, he's not at the back of the field. Second, he famously remarked, when they were changing the rules about active suspension (to help the less successful teams who apparently couldn't afford to develop and run such a system) that the ban was wrong, and the reasons were wrong, because no one ever helped him when he was coming up through the ranks to prominence (back when they were prominent.)
Of course, budgets are even larger now, apparently, and he is, thankfully, opposed to customer teams as they would drive him, and I suspect all the privateers, right out of F1, but this stinks of meddling again for no good reason other than to "level" the field. If that's what the FIA really want, then make it a spec series entirely, get rid of the constructors aspect by having only one chassis, get rid of the engine aspect by having only one engine, and make it a setup and driver series at whatever cost is determined to be sustainable.
Otherwise, I don't see a budget cap, even if it can be enforced, making any difference whatsoever. The myriad of ridiculous rule changes we've had over and over for the last 15 years hasn't changed the balance of power either.
With all this talk about F1 being a "sport" what gets lost is that it is first and foremost a BUSINESS.
Nobody, anywhere is doing this for free - at some point every parts supplier, engineer, team owner etc gets "paid" - either in cold cash if you are lower down the ladder, or in prestige, PR, etc if you're at the top of the heap and you are the one SPENDING money to get something less tangible, but nonetheless something you value, in return.
And F1 (the business) thinks their product (F1 - the sport) has an image problem. The amount of moeny spent is considered by some to be obscene, and that threatens the appeal of the product and it's marketability. This has nothing to do with good teams getting to spend more, "earning" their place at the front, preventing charity payments to backmarkers. Just like the enviro initiatives meant to appease critics of useless fuel burning and irrelevant technological advances, the people running the business think the image of the frivolous consumption of billions of dollars is bad PR, and thereby bad for business.
My suggestion? A claiming policy. At the end of the season, the last place team has the right to buy the first place teams cars (impounded after the race, of course!) for some amount that seems like a lot but really isn't, say $1 million. the 11th place team gets the 2nd place teams cars, etc on down the line. (yes, you will have to award points all the way down to last place, etc to make sure there aren't 6 teams tied for last with zero points, like there are now)
Not only does this level the playing field and maybe make the racing better, but teams will have no incentive to spend $500M building and developing a car if they have to sell it to their competitor for $1M, or maybe they will, who knows. That is still their choice, it's not imposed on them, and it's easy to police. Of course this is insane, but I think it is the SORT of thinking that will need to happen.
Just my 2c.
"F1 is not racing. It's a time trial, followed by a drag race, followed by a demolition derby, followed by a parade..."
With all this talk about F1 being a "sport" what gets lost is that it is first and foremost a BUSINESS.
Nobody, anywhere is doing this for free - at some point every parts supplier, engineer, team owner etc gets "paid" - either in cold cash if you are lower down the ladder, or in prestige, PR, etc if you're at the top of the heap and you are the one SPENDING money to get something less tangible, but nonetheless something you value, in return.
And F1 (the business) thinks their product (F1 - the sport) has an image problem. The amount of moeny spent is considered by some to be obscene, and that threatens the appeal of the product and it's marketability. This has nothing to do with good teams getting to spend more, "earning" their place at the front, preventing charity payments to backmarkers. Just like the enviro initiatives meant to appease critics of useless fuel burning and irrelevant technological advances, the people running the business think the image of the frivolous consumption of billions of dollars is bad PR, and thereby bad for business.
My suggestion? A claiming policy. At the end of the season, the last place team has the right to buy the first place teams cars (impounded after the race, of course!) for some amount that seems like a lot but really isn't, say $1 million. the 11th place team gets the 2nd place teams cars, etc on down the line. (yes, you will have to award points all the way down to last place, etc to make sure there aren't 6 teams tied for last with zero points, like there are now)
Not only does this level the playing field and maybe make the racing better, but teams will have no incentive to spend $500M building and developing a car if they have to sell it to their competitor for $1M, or maybe they will, who knows. That is still their choice, it's not imposed on them, and it's easy to police. Of course this is insane, but I think it is the SORT of thinking that will need to happen.
Just my 2c.
"F1 is not racing. It's a time trial, followed by a drag race, followed by a demolition derby, followed by a parade..."
That last part is funny...
As for the first part...its foremost a sport, its primary goal is to entertain. The business aspects must all consider that first in everything they do. It isn't new news that the entertainment value goes up when the results aren't practically pre-determined.
Having multiple teams and drivers battling it out is far better broad appeal entertainment than two teams with title hopes and the rest not being able to win even one race.
The business must reflect the sport, not the sport reflecting the business.
