Future of F1.

[steveaki13]

Right bare with me here. :)

I was reading the rumours of Caterham & Marussia having some of the weakest driver line ups for many years, I assume in order to aquire money and secure the teams futures. Now whatever we feel about the drivers that must be the most important thing.

The same can also be said to an extent with Force India if Bruno Senna is signed to Force India. There are clearly going to be some good F1 drivers around with no drive. Kobayashi, Kovalainen, Petrov. etc.

While reading this it made me think about the state of F1 and how some of the currant teams and potential new teams will enter and survive in F1 for the longer term.

Now while not Invincible the top teams are clearly in a decent position to stay in F1, but looking down the grid some teams are less than likely to be around for long. Afterall in F1 history how many teams last 20 years?

Red Bull, Ferrari, Mclaren I would all expect to stay in F1 for the next few years and longer. Even if Red Bull sells up its now a well run team and I believe would carry on.

Now the teams behind that could last anything from 1 or 2 seasons up to 5-10 years probably.

Mercedes- Well if they dont get success will they just sell or just quite like BMW, Lotus/Renault/whatever they end up are not secure either.

Williams are a long term team but as time passes they appear to be weakening and after Frank quits will Williams F1 be able to continue? Debateable.

As for the rest they are small teams. Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso could all faulter in the next few seasons.

As for Marussia & Caterham they are prone every season to financial issues and folding.


Afterall that my point is this. F1 is hugely expensive and we have discussed this many times before, but if money gets tight again and a few Manufacturers start quitting again and a few of the small teams fold, soon we could end up with only 5 teams left of the currant lineup.

So is there any chance of new teams being able to join F1. We have seen Caterham, Marussia, HRT join F1 and get no where(yet). So what is F1's approach?

How can F1 get some more teams to join F1 before too much longer. Are we only going to see manufacturers joining F1 from now on, or can smaller teams still join?

Or is there a danger that all the big manufacturers leave F1 and that then meaning either the end of F1. Or will F1 change and make itself open for an influx on Private teams like 20 years ago? i.e cost cutting on a mass scale.

We heard about Lola joing F1 in 2014 a couple of years ago, but I assume that was completely unfounded? Do you see any new teams joining F1 soon?

I am worried about the future of the sport I love here. I want to see more teams and cars being able to enter so that F1 can have a full grid for years to come.

[gloomyDAY]

Small teams are screwed! This issue was supposed to be rectified in 2008 with customer cars, but Williams F1 threw a hissy fit and threatened to file a law suit. Each team was to be their own constructor and that costs bucket loads of cash. Here's what I'd do:

1) The vetting process should be made to distinguish which team can do the best whilst in F1, and not who can put more money into the pocket of Max Mosley.

2) Customer cars should be allowed.

3) There has to be a spending cap!

I think the last point is the most important. Formula 1 is quickly turning into a sport that's just going to be too expensive to bother with. This kind of reminds me of the the old GT series in Japan, which of course is now defunct due to its skyrocketing price tag. Jean Todt needs to fix this problem fast because the costs for engines in 2014 alone is going to make teams like Caterham, Marussia, and Sauber go bust.

[BDunnell]

I honestly don't know what the answer is. Budget caps are notoriously hard to enforce, while Caterham and Marussia would still, surely, get through any quality threshold one might seek to see enforced. Both, to say nothing of HRT, have demonstrated just how incredibly difficult it is for a new team to 'make it' in F1 — that, to an extent, is how it should be. However, do we really want F1 to be a 'closed shop' for ever more? I'd argue not, because that way lies complete dependence upon manufacturers. As things stand, does anyone consider it truly practical for a new non-manufacturer team to come into the sport and expect to do any better than have Lotus/Caterham and Virgin/Marussia?

[steveaki13]

2) Customer cars should be allowed.



I think this could be an answer as any new teams these days would find it quite difficult to produce an F1 car from scratch.


I honestly don't know what the answer is. Budget caps are notoriously hard to enforce, while Caterham and Marussia would still, surely, get through any quality threshold one might seek to see enforced. Both, to say nothing of HRT, have demonstrated just how incredibly difficult it is for a new team to 'make it' in F1 — that, to an extent, is how it should be. However, do we really want F1 to be a 'closed shop' for ever more? I'd argue not, because that way lies complete dependence upon manufacturers. As things stand, does anyone consider it truly practical for a new non-manufacturer team to come into the sport and expect to do any better than have Lotus/Caterham and Virgin/Marussia?

Good points.

Exactly what I fear. F1 has now become so expensive we are looking at a manufacturer lock in, with only new manufacturers being able to replace old ones. It becomes clear that these teams are quite fickle. BMW & Toyota for example.

I also agree sadly that F1 as it is now can hardly ever have a new team that isnt manufacturer back or run.

As for the answer I am not sure. All I know is I think it needs to be changed soon.

[jens]

Oh, the future of F1. Just happened to already write in another thread about the depth of the midfield drivers and possible prospects. :p : But in terms of teams...

Well, while discussing anything, it comes to mind that the whole world is like one organism. And we need to take a look at the big picture to guess, what could happen. For instance, the future of the economy and European Union is rather unclear, so F1 racing could keep suffering from some tough times as well. And this will influence the health of the teams. We have seen the struggle of Moto GP and WRC. In this context F1 has done well to hold onto 20-24 participants consistently for a long time already. But obviously they have to be careful.

The idea of customer cars has been going around for some time. But F1 likes to define itself as a leader of innovation, not a spec-series (with 3-4 chassis designers and all others being customers, like in many other series). So maybe they will simply opt for standardizing even more parts, so that every team has at least something to completely design on their own. By and large it has been going in that direction recently. For example Force India buys the whole drivetrain in addition to the engine - in fact, they have been doing so since 2009. So maybe in the future the teams will develop mainly aerodynamics and everything else is bought in. But the customer parts will be made further cheaper, perhaps even spec.

In Moto GP there is a big dilemma whether the future are the expensive GP-machines or CRT-bikes. It may not be far, when F1 will have to start thinking about something along the lines as well.

[zako85]

Allowing new teams to use customer cars will be unfair to teams like Sauber or Williams who spend a lot of money to design their own chassis. One compromise decision could be to allow customer chassis to be used only for the period of say two years and only by a brand new team. I fear though that such system will be gamed by some teams. I also don't think that customer cars will eradicate rampant favoring of the pay drivers. Just look at teams like Williams or Sauber in 2013, who should have money to get by without pay drivers.

[BDunnell]

The sad thing is that significant elements of this entire discussion could apply to almost any significant motorsport series. In the background is the fact that the majority of major championships, whether international or national, have been forced to adopt artificial means of equalising performance and spicing the racing up — DRS, weight penalties, turbo boost changes, reverse grids, tyre restrictions, explicit performance balancing and so on. Gimmicky they may be, and sometimes totally unnecessary, but one cannot deny that certain series had become boring to all but the most devoted aficionado — and I say that as what I'd consider to be a 'proper' enthusiast myself. So, what's next for F1 in this sense?

[Hawkmoon]

Personally I'd like to see three things happen:

1. Equal distribution of revenue amongst all teams. Even though I'm Tifosi and always will be I don't agree with Ferrari getting more money. I also don't agree with payments being awarded based on position in the WCC. It's not fair on the small teams and even though they aren't fighting for the championship they contribute to the show and should be compensated as such. Nobody wants to see a grid made up of just Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull. Teams get prize money for winning races and championships so success is still rewarded but the small teams get a stable revenue base that they can build upon.

2. Customer cars are a problem with significant pros and cons. On the plus side it gives small teams a competitive package which is, on the surface, a positive. However I think Williams had a point in that if you let teams buy front running cars you could end up with only three or four chassis on the grid which isn't sustainable. Perhaps allow new teams to use a customer car for the fist two or three years to give them time to gain experience and build up their engineering base before they introduce their own car.

3. Free up the technical constraints on engines. Let the engine designers go nuts and keep them in check by limiting the capacity of fuel tanks. If the cars get too fast reduce the amount of fuel they can use. The engineers will be constantly balancing power and economy. The car manufacturers should find this enticing as fuel economy and alternate power sources a big issues for the future. I think this would create a big link between F1 and road cars that the manufacturers would be keen to exploit.

[truefan72]

Personally I'd like to see three things happen:

1. Equal distribution of revenue amongst all teams. Even though I'm Tifosi and always will be I don't agree with Ferrari getting more money. I also don't agree with payments being awarded based on position in the WCC. It's not fair on the small teams and even though they aren't fighting for the championship they contribute to the show and should be compensated as such. Nobody wants to see a grid made up of just Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull. Teams get prize money for winning races and championships so success is still rewarded but the small teams get a stable revenue base that they can build upon.


This to me is the most important thing and the single most impactful thing a team can benefit from :up:

[zako85]

Equal distribution of money does sound like rewarding mediocrity. Any run out of the mill team could show up at GPs, barely quality and collect the money as well as sponsor money without making an effort to improve. I team needs to be aware that if their performance is mediocre, then it will not be on the grid forever. Do we really need a team like HRT, the way it was usually performing. hang out in F1 forever?

Certainly, the distribution of income could be made more egalitarian. I never liked it that the top teams get to collect some "extra" money that's set aside before distributing the prizes to all others.

[Rollo]

Now while not Invincible the top teams are clearly in a decent position to stay in F1, but looking down the grid some teams are less than likely to be around for long. After all in F1 history how many teams last 20 years?
Red Bull, Ferrari, Mclaren I would all expect to stay in F1 for the next few years and longer. Even if Red Bull sells up its now a well run team and I believe would carry on.
Now the teams behind that could last anything from 1 or 2 seasons up to 5-10 years probably.


In F1 history how many teams last 20 years? - I could be wrong, but I think that I've only found 7 teams who have ever had any run of more than 20 years of continued existence in F1: Lotus, McLaren, Tyrell, Ferrari, Brabham, Williams and curiously Minardi.
Not even teams like March Engineering or Benetton can claim that.

I expect that because Ferrari and McLaren are the only two F1 teams which sell road cars (go on the factory tour, they are adamant that Ferrari is an F1 team and not a car company) they have the best chance of being around in 20 years.

I think that once Red Bull's results start to head downwards and Mateschitz loses interest it would be sold off. I actually think that Williams will be around in 2023 because once Sir Frank dies, Jonathan and even more so Claire will take over. I've seen Claire being interviewed and she seems prepared to take even less nonsense than her father.

I honestly always expect to see someone like General Dynamics or Boeing enter F1 to give their engineers a challenge but it hasn't happened yet.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I think something has to be done about how the money is distributed. It is a travesty that Marussia doesn't have a concorde agreement yet only because Bernie doesn't want more than 10 teams. They were hardly world beaters, but both Caterham and Marussia resisted the urge to go the pay-driver only route by keeping Kovalainen and Glock. Now that both teams have been drained of resources, getting nothing back for their effort, they have to revert to pay drivers and proven podium candidates have lost their rides in favour of mediocre guys with fat wallets.

I can understand that Williams isn't too hot on customer cars, but there is an easy solution. First of all, if you buy a customer car, it must be one from the year before - adapted to any rule changes. And it must be from a team that was at best 4th in the standings. The big three get an extra wad of cash from Bernie, but by allowing a newcomer team to buy last years Sauber or Lotus would give those teams a way to generate income and the newbie team a reasonably competetive car. Certainly better than anything that HRT came up with on their own.

[Garry Walker]

1. Equal distribution of revenue amongst all teams. Even though I'm Tifosi and always will be I don't agree with Ferrari getting more money. I also don't agree with payments being awarded based on position in the WCC. It's not fair on the small teams and even though they aren't fighting for the championship they contribute to the show and should be compensated as such. Nobody wants to see a grid made up of just Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull. Teams get prize money for winning races and championships so success is still rewarded but the small teams get a stable revenue base that they can build upon. How typical of the attitude so often met these days in every aspect of life, trying to hurt those who actually are good at what they do.
Failure should not be rewarded, winning should be. You want the money, well, be smart about things and be better than others, then you will get your share. It would be idiotic and unfair to give a joke of a team like HRT the same money as to teams who actually are serious about winning. The less jokes like HRT we have on grid, the better. I am very happy we won't have them on grid this year, the only thing good thing they ever did was having that idiot bieber crash into their car at Malaysia last year, the rest of the time they were just slowing down the leaders when getting lapped.



3. Free up the technical constraints on engines. Let the engine designers go nuts and keep them in check by limiting the capacity of fuel tanks. If the cars get too fast reduce the amount of fuel they can use. The engineers will be constantly balancing power and economy. The car manufacturers should find this enticing as fuel economy and alternate power sources a big issues for the future. I think this would create a big link between F1 and road cars that the manufacturers would be keen to exploit.
Yeah, that sure will be cost-cutting and will help the little teams to keep afloat.

[Knock-on]

Oh bugger, I have to agree 100% with Gazza. How sickening is that!!!

I hope whoever suggested an equal share of the pot was trying to be funny because if not, I despair.

[Garry Walker]

Oh bugger, I have to agree 100% with Gazza. How sickening is that!!!
You know you love it :laugh:


I hope whoever suggested an equal share of the pot was trying to be funny because if not, I despair.
They were not joking, some people actually think that. How sickening is that?

[steveaki13]

I also dont think Prize money should be equal. I would like to see F1 reduce initial costs and introduce a way to allow new manufacturers or just new teams to enter F1.

However the prize money is exactly that prize money. Meaning if you win you collect the biggest prize.

Surely I am not too deluded to think F1 needs new teams to come in as others leave. Because leave they will, at times.

Lets hope F1 can find a way to help keep teams in F1 and bring in fresh blood.

[gloomyDAY]

F1 is a sport between a rock and a hard place. You have to come up with a minimum of $100M/annum to compete at the top, and even then being competitive is not guaranteed (Toyota). Nobody has that kind of cash to come into the sport at the present moment!

Why has the FIA been so slow to conform to a financial crisis that happened less than 5 years ago, and the eventual fallout to the teams? Look at what happened to Caterham. They were a team that had a chance to actually cut into the midfield, but they've been ostracized by the FOM and their funds have dried up, so now we get mediocre pay drivers just so the team stays alive.

I think that the suits are taking a cue out of American politics and just sticking their heads into the sand. The price for the new engines are going to cost 20% more in 2014, and that means that the smaller teams (bottom 6 teams) are going to take an even harder hit to their ability to manufacture and compete in F1. Do something, Jean! Find a way to make the teams spend less money before the sport prices itself into the ground.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I am very happy we won't have them on grid this year, the only thing good thing they ever did was having that idiot bieber crash into their car at Malaysia last year, the rest of the time they were just slowing down the leaders when getting lapped.


Why don't you just do all of us a favour and ****ing kill yourself. This is a thread where people discuss the future of F1 and thankfully for once Vettel or Red Bull weren't mentioned in it in any way. Yet you numbnut creep in and derail the thing again to sprout your hatred and get another nasty dig in. I beg thee. Please direct your pathological hatred at thyself and ****ing off yourself. We'll all be so much better off with that! Just go away idiot!

[Ranger]

Personally I'd like to see three things happen:

1. Equal distribution of revenue amongst all teams. Even though I'm Tifosi and always will be I don't agree with Ferrari getting more money. I also don't agree with payments being awarded based on position in the WCC. It's not fair on the small teams and even though they aren't fighting for the championship they contribute to the show and should be compensated as such. Nobody wants to see a grid made up of just Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull. Teams get prize money for winning races and championships so success is still rewarded but the small teams get a stable revenue base that they can build upon.

The counter-argument is that no one wants to see more hapless teams like Mastercard-Lola turn up on the world stage and have no chance of even qualifying. Which is what would happen if you have an equal distribution of revenue.

I would be in favour of all teams being remunerated a (comparitively small) base amount of money, but the meritocracy of prize money is absolutely justified and should stay.

[zako85]

I can understand that Williams isn't too hot on customer cars, but there is an easy solution. First of all, if you buy a customer car, it must be one from the year before - adapted to any rule changes. And it must be from a team that was at best 4th in the standings. The big three get an extra wad of cash from Bernie, but by allowing a newcomer team to buy last years Sauber or Lotus would give those teams a way to generate income and the newbie team a reasonably competetive car. Certainly better than anything that HRT came up with on their own.


Normally, I am very wary of the idea of of customer cars in the light of Ferrari constantly demanding that they be allowed to put a third car on the grid. A customer car would effectively side skirt the issue of third car, allow Ferrari and others have a third (and fourth) car and screw up the mid-field teams.

Now yours is an interesting idea. This would actually help to prop up the mid-field teams. After all, I assume that the mid-field teams would get paid a fair enough price for their car designs. Fans and team managers would also be able to draw some interesting conclusions from watching the performance of back-marker team pilots in the older cars, and then comparing that to lap times of the original car from a year ago.

The distribution of money does have to be addressed, although I am against the idea of lavishly rewarding mediocre teams. Under one scheme, we could end up with backmarker teams that automatically get paid well enough to afford a customer chassis regardless of how they perform, and ride along forever. Regardless of how it may have hurt to see the original Lotus/Pacific or Ligier/Prost disappear, I think we need to agree that there needs to be a mechanism for expulsion of a mediocre team from sport in order to clear the space for the others. Being broke has worked well enough in the past.

[D28]

In F1 history how many teams last 20 years? - I could be wrong, but I think that I've only found 7 teams who have ever had any run of more than 20 years of continued existence in F1: Lotus, McLaren, Tyrell, Ferrari, Brabham, Williams and curiously Minardi.


I think that BRM competed for over 20 years and would qualify for the list.

[BDunnell]

I can understand that Williams isn't too hot on customer cars

I wonder whether it would now be keener on them if its cars were regular front-runners, and thus more attractive to potential customer buyers?

[BDunnell]

I hope whoever suggested an equal share of the pot was trying to be funny because if not, I despair.

If we were talking about prize money rather than revenues, I'd agree.

[dj_bytedisaster]

When I think "fairer distribution" of money, I don't think about showering mediocre teams with money. But, as a rule of thumb, I'd think even the lowest ranked team should get some money back for its effort. As it is now, Marussia doesn't see a single penny of the TV money, yet they participated in each and every GP, built a safe and rule-abiding car and they had exactly the same amount of points as Caterham had - Zero. So giving money to Caterham, but leaving Marussia out appears to be completely arbitrary to me. It's unfair.

[steveaki13]

When I think "fairer distribution" of money, I don't think about showering mediocre teams with money. But, as a rule of thumb, I'd think even the lowest ranked team should get some money back for its effort. As it is now, Marussia doesn't see a single penny of the TV money, yet they participated in each and every GP, built a safe and rule-abiding car and they had exactly the same amount of points as Caterham had - Zero. So giving money to Caterham, but leaving Marussia out appears to be completely arbitrary to me. It's unfair.

This is exactly right. Dont even out the prize money. First deserves more than second. etc. but as you say to have a team completely shut out despite all that effort is not right and its hardly a draw for new teams is it.

[Duncan]

First post here (:wave :) .

I agree that the lower placed teams should be getting a more sizeable cut of TV revenues; the sport needs them to show up to make an event... I can't imagine a race with only 5 teams involved. It takes a considerable investment just to qualify, and their contribution should be recognized. As many others have commented, though, for sure, prize money also needs to reward the winners. I just have to be a little concerned for the long term viability of the sport if the current level of concentration of overall distribution remains in place...

[steveaki13]

First post here (:wave :) .

I agree that the lower placed teams should be getting a more sizeable cut of TV revenues; the sport needs them to show up to make an event... I can't imagine a race with only 5 teams involved. It takes a considerable investment just to qualify, and their contribution should be recognized. As many others have commented, though, for sure, prize money also needs to reward the winners. I just have to be a little concerned for the long term viability of the sport if the current level of concentration of overall distribution remains in place...

Hi

I agree and welcome to the mad house.

[Rollo]

I think that BRM competed for over 20 years and would qualify for the list.

Oh huzzah. 1954-1977. Well played sire.

I recall reading BFH and BFP4F Battlefunds will be shared. However, i want to know, will the battlefunds previously bought on BFH before Bfp4f came out, be transfered as well? I know this is in the future, but it might help your best players commit to the Open beta phase to the game.

[steveaki13]

I recall reading BFH and BFP4F Battlefunds will be shared. However, i want to know, will the battlefunds previously bought on BFH before Bfp4f came out, be transfered as well? I know this is in the future, but it might help your best players commit to the Open beta phase to the game.


I agree. :s hrugs

[lars75]

Why is it that Caterham and Marussia have the worst line-up in years?

After that people think it's sad that Kobayashi is out off a drive! I also think it's sad because a saw some talent in that guy before he made it to F1. But what are his stats before landing a F1 seat whit Toyota back-up? His score is lame to nothing comparing it to vd Garde and Pic. So what justifice such an opinion?

Webber and Irvine are both well respected in the F1 drivers scene, both did close to nothing important in their way to F1.

There is more that meets the eye than just simple statistics and championship standings. I think that Razia, vd Garde and Pic dissurved every bit off a chance in F1 based on there stats. It's a shame that they have to pay such big amount aff money to get there, but never the less they earned it fair and square.

[Koz]

In F1 history how many teams last 20 years? - I could be wrong, but I think that I've only found 7 teams who have ever had any run of more than 20 years of continued existence in F1: Lotus, McLaren, Tyrell, Ferrari, Brabham, Williams and curiously Minardi.
Not even teams like March Engineering or Benetton can claim that.


This is my take on it:

Does ownership of a team make it a new team?

Is the Genii Lotus not an evolution of Benetton?

What about Sauber? This will be their 20th year in F1.
Jordan to Force India?
Minardi to STR?

They all seem to have a pedigree.
The ownership has changed, people have come and gone but these teams have in one shape or form survived.

When was the last time a NEW team came into F1 and did anything?
Stweart to Red Bull? (And Toyota?)

In a way this seems pretty depressing and disheartening to anyone seriously looking to come into F1.

[Rollo]

This is my take on it:

My answers...

Does ownership of a team make it a new team? - For the purposes of answering the question I assumed so.
Is the Genii Lotus not an evolution of Benetton? - No.
What about Sauber? This will be their 20th year in F1. - Re Your First question. BMW Sauber is a different entity.
Jordan to Force India? - No.
Minardi to STR? - No.