A Cost/Benefit Analysis on F1 ?

acotrel65 · 5 Jul 2009, 08:04 (Ref:2495986)

Judging by Bernie Ecclestone's comments about Adolph Hitler and other dictators, it must be about time some authority performed a cost/benefit analysis on F1 ?

Armco Bender · 5 Jul 2009, 08:16 (Ref:2495988)

It costs a lot......and there are no benefits.

Super Hans · 5 Jul 2009, 10:52 (Ref:2496042)

Costs - £Billions
Benefits - Gives us something to talk about

Gingers4Justice · 5 Jul 2009, 11:00 (Ref:2496045)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Costs - £Billions
Benefits - Gives us something to talk about

Correction: Gives us something to argue about!

Marbot · 5 Jul 2009, 14:07 (Ref:2496117)

It costs too much (and will continue to do so).It will only benefit the manufacturers if they can use relevant technology on the cars,and they also race the cars in countries where they can sell new road vehicles (think more Bulgaria and less Belgium).

**Bononi** · 5 Jul 2009, 14:39 (Ref:2496124)

Ahn... We're talking about Bernie, right ? About FOM, about CVC, I guess, right ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by acotrel65

Judging by Bernie Ecclestone's comments about Adolph Hitler and other dictators, it must be about time some authority performed a cost/benefit analysis on F1 ?

There's a thread about BE and his comments, which hopefully he doesn't relate to F1 apart from his unfortunate comment about Max Mosley.

If anyone wants to comment about cost/benefit analysis in F1, and if I understood the meaning of that, which in my opinion is a matter for people that run the business, then th answer is yes, that's a very profitable business, as we all already know.

In economics terms, cost/benefit is a study where one defines if his investment in a particular venture will bring him benefits - read profit+investment money - to keep him running it.

If anyone wants to elaborate on that aspect of the business, then this thread will remain opened, otherwise I'll close it before any thread hijacking.

JABWOA · 6 Jul 2009, 01:10 (Ref:2496337)

The Market will give an effective anaylsis and with more teams wanting to join, obviously F1 provides a benefit greater than cost it involves (future budget cap provisions ignored for now.)

HughGJohnson · 6 Jul 2009, 01:30 (Ref:2496339)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Correction: Gives us something to argue about!

No, it doesn't.

Marbot · 6 Jul 2009, 07:47 (Ref:2496410)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JABWOA

The Market will give an effective anaylsis and with more teams wanting to join, obviously F1 provides a benefit greater than cost it involves (future budget cap provisions ignored for now.)

While ever F1 teams take money from their 'parent' companies then F1 teams in themselves will remain unprofitable.Not so bad if you're a manufacturer team and your main reason for being in F1 is to sell road cars,not so good if you're just a 'racing team' that doesn't sell road cars and has no other income except from sponsorship.

So the effective analysis is that unless you're a manufacturer (and one that's not going bankrupt) you are going to struggle.

So it really depends on who you are as to whether F1 (without budget cap) is a benefit to you or not.Which is what the fighting is all about.

And,of course,if your 'parent' should suddenly decide to cut your allowance off.............

Marbot · 6 Jul 2009, 07:48 (Ref:2496412)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HughGJohnson

No, it doesn't.

Oh,yes it does!

**Bononi** · 6 Jul 2009, 12:12 (Ref:2496530)

Is there a misunderstanding here ? I want some clarification about this subject. We're not talking about the teams, but about the FOM which doesn't relate to teams/manufacturers/sponsorship in terms of costs or benefit. Is that right ? This is not about the teams, right ?

Marbot · 6 Jul 2009, 12:33 (Ref:2496551)

"some authority performed a cost/benefit analysis on F1 ?"

We may not be "authorities" on it,but the subject in question is clear.

**Bononi** · 6 Jul 2009, 12:49 (Ref:2496568)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

"some authority performed a cost/benefit analysis on F1 ?"

We may not be "authorities" on it,but the subject in question is clear.

You didn't answer to my question.

Marbot · 6 Jul 2009, 13:19 (Ref:2496585)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

You didn't answer to my question.

Since the FOM,FIA and FOTA all come under the umbrella of F1 I think that I may have.

If you would choose that we should stick to just one of the 'Fs' then I'm all for that.

**Bononi** · 6 Jul 2009, 14:05 (Ref:2496621)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

Since the FOM,FIA and FOTA all come under the umbrella of F1 I think that I may have.

If you would choose that we should stick to just one of the 'Fs' then I'm all for that.

It's not that simple. The cost/benefit for FOM is unrelated to the teams costs/benefit. The teams are in F1 and the money they spend, financially speaking doesn't affect FOM. As we all know, FOM has the commercial rights for F1, in other terms, they run F1 not the teams.
Based on this, the analysis would be about FOM and not the teams. If anyone would be interested about the costs/benefit of running a team, then the discussion should be different than this one.

**Bononi** · 6 Jul 2009, 14:07 (Ref:2496623)

Oh... and FIA is not under the umbrella of F1...

Marbot · 6 Jul 2009, 14:20 (Ref:2496631)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

It's not that simple. The cost/benefit for FOM is unrelated to the teams costs/benefit. The teams are in F1 and the money they spend, financially speaking doesn't affect FOM. As we all know, FOM has the commercial rights for F1, in other terms, they run F1 not the teams.
Based on this, the analysis would be about FOM and not the teams. If anyone would be interested about the costs/benefit of running a team, then the discussion should be different than this one.

Agreed.And if the thread starter had been more specific...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

Oh... and FIA is not under the umbrella of F1...

Indeed it is not,which is probably why it keeps getting 'rained' on all the time.

acotrel65 · 6 Jul 2009, 23:42 (Ref:2496945)

Bernie Ecclestone's comments were about his liking for dictators. I was simply wondering how he'd like some 'authority' telling HIM how to live his life? Conducting a 'cost/benefit analysis on F1' would only ever be done where governments were desperately looking for the most efficient way of using available funds in society. And it could only happen in the worst kind of 'nanny state'. However I suggest that is where Bernies kind of thinking leads. It seems to me he's out of touch when he claims democracy hasn't served humanity well.

PTRACER · 6 Jul 2009, 23:56 (Ref:2496957)

The benefit is for those who run the thing and rake in billions each year.

acotrel65 · 7 Jul 2009, 13:59 (Ref:2497293)

Bernie Ecclestone needs to learn that 'authoritarianism stifles creativity'. The major benefit from F1 is the information it provides and the training of engineers and scientists. In Australia we've lost nearly every industry which does those things. We used to have an aircraft industry, and defence manufacturing. The cost/benefit analyses of various governments finished them. Let's face it, some things are just worth doing. However I'd question the mentality of a leader like Bernie.

**Bononi** · 7 Jul 2009, 17:10 (Ref:2497389)

Quote:

Originally Posted by acotrel65

However I'd question the mentality of a leader like Bernie.

Well, I wouldn't call it exactly a leader, instead I would consider him pretty much a deceiver...

Marbot · 7 Jul 2009, 17:46 (Ref:2497411)

Quote:

Originally Posted by acotrel65

Bernie Ecclestone needs to learn that 'authoritarianism stifles creativity'.

Many would say that the Germans were at their most 'creative' during their most 'authoritarian' period.An example of which was a project called 'The Bell' which was basically a device (aircraft) that was said to have overcome the force of gravity electrochemically! A process that apparently cost the lives of many of their finest scientists,and unfortunately for the ones that survived that experience they were then to befall another as it was deemed necessary to bury them alive along with the project at the end of the war.Ouch!

**Bononi** · 7 Jul 2009, 19:09 (Ref:2497442)

Youv'e been watching "Nazi Secret weapons" from Discovery...

acotrel65 · 7 Jul 2009, 23:15 (Ref:2497546)

Project Dora was mostly run on slave labor. How successful was that? (V2 rocket). I suggest that if Germany had industrial democracy during WW2, they would have won. They had Werner Heisenberg working for them, they had heavy water, and a means of delivering the H bomb, if they got there! It was a close run thing. However the Yanks had much more going for them. It's a matter of motivation. Taking a big stick to society is pretty stupid. Bernie needs to take a long hard look at himself, and consider his position. We couldn't really say that F1 is essential to the continuation of the human species? Perhaps we're going to use the technology to get us to Mars?

JeremySmith · 8 Jul 2009, 00:53 (Ref:2497569)

I think if Bernie took along hard look at himself, well you get the point I am sure..

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Who would benefit most from the demise of F1?	pink69	Formula One	18	11 Jul 2009 06:26
Will Sportscar Racing Benefit from the high cost of F1?	jhansen	Sportscar & GT Racing	24	20 Jan 2004 14:32
Floatation could benefit F1 teams...	Super Tourer	Formula One	1	29 Apr 2002 13:02
F1 auctions to benefit children of Sept 11 tragedy	steve nielsen	Formula One	3	31 Oct 2001 22:19