Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett
As ever you ignore the main point. NOBODY WHO IS NOT A MANUFACTURER CAN BUILD A SUITABLE CAR AND ENTER F1.
Hence caping a non existent budget is facile.
I'm afraid IMHO we have to get real and yes, if there is going to be a grid then it needs to can the expensive technology and return to a racing championship.
Tell me I'm wrong but stop repeating the same old attacks on those with a bit of a realist approach.
|
To be fair Peter, I actually was having a hard time understanding exactly what points you and coppice were trying to make. As I mention in my post above, I see points made in the same post that are contrary to each other. I frankly wondered if the posts were tongue in cheek.
To your points above, I broadly agree. F1 is too expensive as it focuses on expensive technology. Much of which is esoteric and optimization of technology that exists because the rules says to use it (such as complex mechanical suspension). Some of it is very high tech and bleeding edge such as the power units.
As to non-existing budget. I agree. If teams have no budget there is no team. The saying for space exploration applies to F1. "No bucks, no Buck Rogers!"
My comments on budget caps assumes there is going to be budgets. And I think that is a fair assumption to make. I will even argue that having caps in place will seed the ground to actually get sponsors and have a budget.
Even pre-pandemic, my opinion is that it is absolutely nuts for anyone (manufacture or otherwise) to enter the sport. Teams like Mercedes and Ferrari are reaping the benefits of years and decades of investment in building up infrastructure, weeding out poor management (Ferrari struggles with this) and gathering the best technical experts. The cost to get to where they are today is huge.
Even with caps, it will likely take many years, maybe a decade for those older investments to depreciate (think "stale bread" not the financial term). But in a caped environment you can only be "out spent" by a fixed and finite amount.
Right now, the amount that you can be outspent is entirely unknown and out of your control. Who in their right mind would approve a plan in which your competition is an established player AND is able to outspend you by levels that is totally unknown! THAT is why we don't have groups knocking down the door to enter F1. The only ones who do are lead by super fans who frankly are living delusions of grandeur (and as a fan, sure more power to them, they are living the dream even if they are lemmings walking off a cliff)
To my point about caps actually helping seed budgets, if you have a system in which the upper cost is fixed.
You can make a case to sponsors. If we get X amount of money (with X ideally being somewhere in the ballpark of the cap) then you will be either on or nearly on a level playing field. Can Williams say that to anyone today (ignoring future cost cap regulations?). Truthfully they can't. Maybe if you have a good sales person you can convince a sponsor otherwise.
As to realists approach. Generally speaking (and your approach above does this) negative replies to my ideas does not attack where I am wrong, but just say... I am wrong with no details as to why. I do try to provide examples as to why I think others are wrong. If I am doing a poor job, then attack my points not me. Tell me where I am wrong.
So again, actually we agree for the most part. You may not agree with caps (make your points and we can also agree to disagree). I agree that caps doesn't work if everything has crumbled as teams do not exist. Caps ALSO does not work if the cap is so high that it doesn't pull budgets for the big boys down (that is the current dispute).
If you look at the Zak Brown article that started this discussion they have agreed to come down to $150 from whatever it was previously ($200?). No doubt it was a number the large teams liked and the small teams didn't like, but were mostly powerless to address. Now the crisis has shown up. And the big teams are afraid of loosing either the entire series or the legitimacy of having competition (even if token as it is now), and are willing to re-open negotiations. Now they are trying to pull it down to $100 with Zak saying $125 might be a compromise. That, plus the monitoring system (which is dynamic) is REAL change. But yes, if the cap is too high, and doesn't impact the top teams enough, then it is pointless. Make it a Billion or Trillion dollars. It wouldn't matter.
Do you think you will see a difference in a Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull if their budgets drop from $200 to $100 million. Immediately? Slightly, but probably not significantly. Long term (a handful of years)? Absolutely (or at least my opinion is yes). If they can maintain their current level of dominance on half their budget then holy cow they are wasting money today!
Will teams cheat at caps? Sure they will. Will it be significant enough to make the caps pointless. My opinion no. As my posts above say, there are already resource restrictions today. Tunnel time, size/hours of CFD, summer holiday. Are teams cheating on that now? In a significant way, probably not. Caps is no different. The counter argument is (they will just bury the cost elsewhere). Maybe they will. But consider giving forensic accounting a chance. Another argument is that they will not open their books. Fine, don't race. We complain about the manufactures as it is. Don't let the door hit your backside on the way out.
Richard