Spending loads of cash is no guarantee of success though. Didn't Toyota have a massive budget? What's Williams's budget these days compared to the big boys I wonder. And they are spending it very wisely as far as I can see.
I'm not sure they'd consider it a loss, the engine technology will no doubt be feed into their road cars in the future, you could call it an extra R&D expense.. And considering they spend billions on R&D for their road cars, this "extra" cost can no doubt be absorbed into that department.
That's what I was thinking. Furthermore, unlike Ferrari and McLaren which are niche brands, Mercedes shift a lot of cars around the world in many different areas of the market. They must see it as good business. Why are Honda coming back into the sport, one may ask? I'd love to know but I can only presume it's a fraction; makes their achievement this year all the more impressive.
£134m on engines? wonder how much of that they recoup? is it £15m-£20m a team? Scarily the £190m to run the team isn't that bad, I'm sure both Ferrari and Red Bull were in the £250m region!
Ferrari regularly spend over £250m a year, I wonder what their 2014 development costs were for the failure they produced?
[h=1]Formula 1's top teams not willing to sacrifice income[/h] Those who get the most for just turning up don't want to share the pie (Ferrari and Red Bull) Those who get a middle amount are willing to re-jig a little (Mercedes) Those who get nothing are left despairing (unworthy....) Bernie blames the teams, the teams blame Bernie. No one should get extra money simply for turning up, the sport will always be in trouble whilst the chosen few get special treatment.
I love the idea of Bernie's bosses going over his head. Long may that continue. I think I'd much rather see him slowly lose power and become more and more irrelevant than an overnight replacement.
I'm not sure CVC can exactly be cast in the role of white knights riding in to rescue the situation. What have they ever done for the sport? It's good if they talked the teams out of a boycott but they will only have done it to save their own face. If F1 is going to be fixed then Bernie and CVC are the problem.
As soon as the sport became something to be bought and sold, rather than being owned by the teams, there was always going to be someone reaping the profits for little action. Hopefully, this marks the end of CVC's absolute trust in Bernie though and they'll start to take steps to improve their product, starting with either a redistribution of prize money, or devising a way to increase the prize fund for the smaller/younger teams. That said, I don't think F1 can be fixed thanks to Bernie, Red Bull and Ferrari. A breakaway series is our best bet for an even playing field I think. Bob Fernley seems to be the man discussing strikes and the need for change, is it too far fetched for another team boss to run a racing series?
Much as I love what F-E is doing so far, it's going to be several years before it can begin to contemplate rivalling F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport, even if the big-guns from F1 were suddenly to apply themselves to the technological challenges of F-E. The future of top-level motorsport won't always be the internal combustion engine, but for now it is. My evenings ponderings have been dedicated to another idea though, "Could a 'Franchise' system save F1?" Currently teams receive a solidarity payment of around $34m annually, with prize money varying from about $96m down to zilch. What happens if we ditch prize money and distribute the whole fund to teams equally? All teams now receive just shy of $70m a year. Sauber, Toro Rosso, Force India, Caterham and Marussia all have 2014 budgets of less than $85m, so that would go a long way to securing the financial security of the smaller teams. Income from the sport, plus either decent sponsorship or a wealthy pay-driver should give you the budget to build and race a car capable of challenging the current midfield. At the top end (based on 2013 prize money), Mclaren and Lotus experience negligible differences in funding, with Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes the biggest losers. But, at the top end of the grid the teams are backed by very significant corporations for whom racing is a "Branding Exercise" (as Toto Wolff said so eloquently in the latest Team Principal's press conference.) Either they continue their branding exercise with a reduced budget, and risk losing the edge to their rivals, or they stump up some more of their vast wealth to plug the gap. In reality I suspect we'd see a bit of both, but the teams future is unlikely to be threatened as their existence is not dependent on racing income. It's possible some may consider the increased cost too great and quit, but when you've already committed the best part of $400m annually to fund your branding exercise, another $30m doesn't seem too great a stretch. Returning to the bottom of the grid, a fixed income poses the risk of "for-profit" racing, with teams doing the bare minimum to earn their solidarity payments. At the moment that would consist of attending each GP and generally qualifying within 107%, so I would suggest tightening this area up. Firstly, 107% is too lenient, when was the last time we saw a team fall foul of it? Despite all the financial difficulties at the back of the grid we've not seen anyone fail to qualify, so perhaps a reduction to 105% would help tighten the grid. A similar requirement would also have to be applied to race day, so that we don't see backmarker teams building cars that are only good on a single lap. If a team fails to make 105% in more than a quarter of quali and race sessions, they'd lose out on a significant proportion of their solidarity payments. This still poses the risk of teams doing the bare minimum to fit a set of regulations though, even if this new set would require them to be closer to the main pack. So the second change would be to make their place on the grid much less secure. So if a team finishes bottom of the constructor's for 3 consecutive seasons (or 3 in 4, or whatever stipulation you fancy), their place on the grid becomes available to any buyer for a pre-set sum. Rather than this entry fee going to FOM as entry fees currently do, instead it would go to the departing team to help ease their exit from the sport. So now if you wanted to milk F1 for profit over a sustained period, then you'll have to do it as a competitive, midfield outfit on a tight budget, rather than trundling round at the back of the grid. It might in effect create a 2-tier championship, with those looking to survive and profit not competing with the big guns looking to challenge for titles, but I don't think it's too different from what we currently see. Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso race to make ends meet and dream unrealistic dreams of titles, whilst potentially newer entries would race to make money and aim to do so whilst in a comfortable midfield berth. Over time you'd hope they set themselves loftier goals, or get bought out by people who do.
This for me is the biggest issue and you have raised some excellent points. I can understand the so called big teams questioning the distribution of wealth when the smaller teams offer so little to the spectacle, it sounds harsh but apart from the hardest of F1 fans who honestly watches the race to see the lapped cars? Whilst investment into performance becomes a deminishing return the closer you get to the front, I would imagine that there would be better performing tail end teams if the criteria for being allowed to compete was more stringent. I like the idea of an exit strategy aswell. I imagine that when a failing team is living day to day its hard to justify the pain unless there is a potential get out. I thought the gird looked very bare at the weekend which made me question the situation even more. I definatley want more teams and more cars, but I fail to see the relevance of just making the grid to add to the spectacle and drama of what is essentially F1- the race start - to then be seperated from the race effectively after half a dozen laps.
It's okay suggesting that you might get "for profit" racing from people at the back of the grid and they should suffer some kind of punishment if that's suspected, but that's exactly what the majority in the sport are there for. Merc and Red Bull for example don't just race for the fun of it, they race to shift a ton of product. The basic pay should be sufficient to survive and points bonuses large enough to promote racing.
My opinion on the whole affair is probably controversial, but I think anybody from Marussia, Force India, Sauber, or Caterham complaining needs to shut their cake-holes when talking about reasons for companies failing. These companies joined a sport under the current payout system, and if they are failing then it is squarely their fault. Whoever is in charge of Marussia and Caterham needs a slap, embezzlement investigation and a lifetime ban from F1, as there's no excuse for them going into administration. They've obviously just chosen to exceed their resources. Yes, the system of payout is utterly archaic and pathetic and needs to be made fairer, but it shouldn't have any impact on a debate about managing available resources effectively, because clearly in the case of two teams, that didn't happen. Whether the budget is £60mill or £200mill, it's all about managing what you've got, and they didn't do that. There should be a budget cap. But it should be different for each team depending on how much is viable.
How do you attract sponsorship when you are at the back of the grid? How do you ever progress from the back when you don't have the resources to progress forward? When you look at how difficult it is for any team at the back to come through to even the midfield and then you look at some teams being paid just to turn up when they already have colossal budgets it's just immoral. I think blaming the teams at the back for that is just adding insult on injury really. The reality is costs are rising and are a lot higher than they were even when these teams joined. If you are stuck in the poverty trap at the back you can't absorb those extra costs.
But they joined knowing their budget wasn't enough to compete? How is that anybody else's fault? Honestly? There was no agreement to change payment plan when they joined, so they have absolutely ZERO gripes. All their fault. If you can't afford to compete higher up, and you don't like it, don't join Marussia, as Virgin, thought they'd come into F1 and design a car solely on a computer and be competitive
