Why a FOTA-backed series won't happen

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 15 Jun 2009, 14:17

Everywhere I go on the internet that discusses Formula One - which, outside Facebook, Television Without Pity and the odd James Bond forum is pretty much everyhwere I go full stop - I'm seeing an increasing number of people throwing their support behind FOTA establishing a rival series to the FIA for 2010. Somewhat alarmingly, a lot of these people seem to not simply be unconcerned if negotiationsfall through, but actually willing them to fail. Personally, I believe this outcome will be a disaster to which the CART/IRL falling out will pale by comparison. I think a FOTA series will be doomed to fail, and this is why

Firstly, the FIA Formula One World Championship will be going ahead in 2010 regardless of whether the FOTA members are a part of it or not. Even if all eight leave, another eight will be chosen from those who applied for the vacancies alongside Campos, Team US-F1 and Manor GP. With each passing day, FOTA will have less and less time to establih their own series, and if they do not get started in 2010, they may not get started at all. If the FIA series is the only one being held, it will be the one people watch and by the time FOTA get off the ground in 2011, they're going to have to steal back a lot of territory that will have been safely in the FIA's hands for a year.
All the current teams are obligated to see out the 2009 season. And because Formula One is constantly changing and the cars developing in order for teams to stay on top, this means that FOTA will have to organise a championship in between racing and preparing their cars for the next event.
In the event that FOTA break away, they will only have a handful of teams. As few as six and as many as eight, which translates into twelve to sixteen cars on the grid. With Formula One looking to expand to twenty-six, eight teams on the grid will not be enough. It may be possible to get more, but where will they come from? Fifteen teams expressed interest in joining Formula One for 2010, and from the twelve that missed out, you can bet the FIA will take the top eight and fill the grid up with them, and the other four - like the fan-supported MyF1Dream - will likely be so poor that FOTA will not want them. Those teams expressed interest because the FIA were removing barriers to entry. FOTA will have to look elsewhere to find five teams willing to establish themselves from the ground up. The FIA and FOM are offering financial assitance and security within the sport; a FOTA series cannot.
In six months, FOTA will have to establish at least fifteen races around the world. However, the threat of a breakaway series has been used quite often in the past, but it has never gained momentum. You can understand why cirtcuit owners and event organisers would be hesitant to enter into an arrangement. They would want assurance that the races would happen and that FOTA would not return to the FIA if it were offered. Likewise, you can also bet that Bernie Ecclestone will be out and about signing contracts with owners and organisers allowing him exclusive rights to host those races if he hasn't done so already.
FOTA will also have to negotiate commercial and broadcast rights around the world, which can only be done once they've established a calendar. The negotiations are likely to be very extensive and thus will take time, time being a currency FOTA do not have.
They will also need a set of technical regulations to play by. It's all well and good to suggest copying the FIA rulebook verbatim, but if the FIA series is running with the latest cars, no-one will want to watch a FOTA series with last year's cars.
Likewise, FOTA are in no position to govern their own series. The whole point of the FIA as adjudicator is that they are impartial, and for the most part they are (whatever you think of Mosley). No-one in the sport's governing body can be a team owner because it introduces the potential for bias into everything from dispute resolution through setting new regulations.

As such, a FOTA series will very likely be in trouble from the day it is conceived, if it isn't simply stillborn.

StoneColdSpider · Post by **StoneColdSpider** » 15 Jun 2009, 14:30

nice post Mr Hammer....

what do u think the chances are of FOTA taking over from A1GP.... Ferrari already have there branding there and i hear noises about A1GP being in money trouble....
that *could* cutdown on a bit of the leg work in the beginning....
i know A1GP runs in the "offseason" but im sure they could get circuit/TV dates changed....

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 15 Jun 2009, 14:39

It still doesn't do anything about the need to - at the very least - match this year's grid in terms of the number of cars on it. I don't think FOTA would want to inherit a financially-stricken series whn they could still negotiate with the FIA.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 15 Jun 2009, 18:35

I agree with what you say, Captain. I especially agree with the following two points:

Captain Hammer wrote:[*]FOTA will also have to negotiate commercial and broadcast rights around the world, which can only be done once they've established a calendar. The negotiations are likely to be very extensive and thus will take time, time being a currency FOTA do not have.
...
[*]Likewise, FOTA are in no position to govern their own series. The whole point of the FIA as adjudicator is that they are impartial, and for the most part they are (whatever you think of Mosley). No-one in the sport's governing body can be a team owner because it introduces the potential for bias into everything from dispute resolution through setting new regulations.[/list]As such, a FOTA series will very likely be in trouble from the day it is conceived, if it isn't simply stillborn.

I would like to add another one, because I think that's what people are forgetting when they discuss this: business. The car manufacturer's business is to produce and sell cars. That's what they're good at (well...), that's where their expertise lies, that's where their money comes from. Formula One is an expense in everyone's books, and they make a cost-benefit analysis in which they try to determine is the exposure they get from competing in Formula One (and winning, when they do) will reap a benefit.
None of them wants to go into the business of organizing international racing competitions. That's FOM's (and FIA's) business. They use F1 as a vehicle, but they're not willing to run it. I suppose Renault, Toyota and BMW are finding it hard to even justify being in F1 nowadays. An increase in costs and the uncertainty of returns due to what Captain Hammer mentioned would bring them no benefit, so they won't do it.
Besides, which new team would want to compete in the "new" Championship? Remember, that is a boys' own club. Go in there, and you'll be mince meat before you even say "Hi!".
Overall, I think Ferrari is pushing this. They are the ones that believe they might have the clout to push this through; no wonder the FIA admitted them, no discussion, on the 2010 Championship: they trying to break FOTA apart. They might succeed.
As for Ferrari going away and trying Le Mans, let me just mention this: Audi and Pug's diesels would walk over their faces in the first year; then Luca would start complaining to the ACO, asking for a rule change. Trust me, there's simply no point.

People sounding like they'd actually like this to happen? Well, everyone loves bombastic news and a conflict. I actually thing Renault and possibly BMW are going to use this mess to pull out of F1, saying it's the FIA/FOM's fault, essentially doing what Honda did but without dealing with the marketing fallout.

rffp · Post by **rffp** » 15 Jun 2009, 19:06

Some points have to be considered:

- The A1GP takeover alternative has been hailed as a possibility by some. I think it makes sense.
- As for twelve to sixteen cars limitation, that number can be easily increased by allowing teams to field 3 to 4 cars, or even allowing customer cars in the FOTA championship. It is not cheap, but it is easy! The only teams that opposed Prodrive customer car plans were Williams and Spyker, and both of them are loyal to FIA.
- In Brazil, there are at least two TV networks that would be interested in buying the rights for the FOTA championship, and I believe there are more worldwide.
- There are plenty of circuits that would like more to have Ferrari running on them than Manor and/or Campos!

Looking back at 1996, when the American civil war started, the real reasons for not breaking up, IMHO, are the tactics employed in an unavoidable war of attrition that can result in fatal injuries:
- There would be legal actions from both sides, and costly ones;
- FIA and FOTA would clash dates on purpose undermining each other championships;
- The drivers would be split between the two series and there would be doubts on who would be actually the world champion. For those who followed boxing, check what happened in the 90s with that sport when the unified title was dismembered;
- FIA championship would be plagued with teams with no tradition and doubtful financial strength that could fold in the blink of an eye;
- FOTA championship would demand an initial financial commitment that might be the perfect pretext for the manufacturers board to "pull the plug". Basically, they would have to cut costs at first.

I believe budget cap is a terrible idea and despite all the talk made by FIA, I have serious doubts that it can be imposed. Other mechanisms should be sought instead, and that is the point that FOTA is trying to make.

Bleu · Post by **Bleu** » 15 Jun 2009, 19:25

If FOTA backed series happens they are rumoured to race in many circuits which have been dropped by F1. Surely they would like to have race in USA and I'm quite sure they would have Montreal as well. In Europe they could probably take Imola, Jerez, Magny-Cours and Silverstone. Also if Monaco would move with them it would be great boost.

Looking at Asia and Australia, Adelaide could be one option and I could see them racing at Fuji too, especially if Suzuka gets permanently F1 again as it now looks.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 15 Jun 2009, 19:45

Bleu wrote:If FOTA backed series happens they are rumoured to race in many circuits which have been dropped by F1. Surely they would like to have race in USA and I'm quite sure they would have Montreal as well. In Europe they could probably take Imola, Jerez, Magny-Cours and Silverstone. Also if Monaco would move with them it would be great boost.

Looking at Asia and Australia, Adelaide could be one option and I could see them racing at Fuji too, especially if Suzuka gets permanently F1 again as it now looks.

The question is that any circuit that moved in to accept the new series would be sidelined by the FIA in no time. That has consequences.

rffp · Post by **rffp** » 15 Jun 2009, 20:32

CarlosFerreira wrote:The question is that any circuit that moved in to accept the new series would be sidelined by the FIA in no time. That has consequences.

Any circuit in North America would care less about them. If FIA imposes sanctions on them, they could always join IRL.
Also, leftout circuits such as Imola, Magny-Cours, etc could also jump ship and join FOTA as long as they feel that their underutilization might be more prejudicial than a possible sanction.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 15 Jun 2009, 20:58

rffp wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote:The question is that any circuit that moved in to accept the new series would be sidelined by the FIA in no time. That has consequences.

Any circuit in North America would care less about them. If FIA imposes sanctions on them, they could always join IRL.
Also, leftout circuits such as Imola, Magny-Cours, etc could also jump ship and join FOTA as long as they feel that their underutilization might be more prejudicial than a possible sanction.

The FIA runs a whole bunch of Championships. Plus, many of the national championships are run by the local federations, that work with the FIA, and obey it. F1 is quite literally the tip of the iceberg. The FIA could well and truly toast the organisers of what they perceive as a "rogue championship".

rffp · Post by **rffp** » 15 Jun 2009, 22:06

CarlosFerreira wrote:The FIA runs a whole bunch of Championships. Plus, many of the national championships are run by the local federations, that work with the FIA, and obey it. F1 is quite literally the tip of the iceberg. The FIA could well and truly toast the organisers of what they perceive as a "rogue championship".

True what you say, but still questionable. The perception of a potential profit in the FOTA championship might be very tempting. In Europe, a circuit like Imola might still host a lot of non-F1 races. But what about countries outside Europe? A road circuit in Australia or Indonesia? Montreal won't care if the FOTA-1 is labeled as "rogue championship"

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 15 Jun 2009, 22:26

rffp wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote:The FIA runs a whole bunch of Championships. Plus, many of the national championships are run by the local federations, that work with the FIA, and obey it. F1 is quite literally the tip of the iceberg. The FIA could well and truly toast the organisers of what they perceive as a "rogue championship".

True what you say, but still questionable. The perception of a potential profit in the FOTA championship might be very tempting. In Europe, a circuit like Imola might still host a lot of non-F1 races. But what about countries outside Europe? A road circuit in Australia or Indonesia? Montreal won't care if the FOTA-1 is labeled as "rogue championship"

You're right there, the argument probably won't hold on the case of non-permanent circuits. I suppose Adelaide only hold OZ champs and as result couldn't care less for the FIA. And Montreal in only a circuit when F1 comes to town, right?
But I suppose those are exceptions. Someone mentioned Fuji; well, Fuji is going away from F1 because of financial problems - can't quite see what difference does it make that it's FIA F1 or FOTA F1 coming to town.

Paul Hayes · Post by **Paul Hayes** » 16 Jun 2009, 09:21

CarlosFerreira wrote:Fuji is going away from F1 because of financial problems - can't quite see what difference does it make that it's FIA F1 or FOTA F1 coming to town.

I suppose the difference might be that they wouldn't have to pay a FOTA series such an extortionate fee.

As for a small grid for a FOTA series, they could get around that by running three-car teams, which with the current eight would give them a 24-car grid.

I am pretty sure the FOTA series won't happen, though. I hope it doesn't, anyway - it would be the death-knell of F1.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 16 Jun 2009, 11:56

It's all well and good to say they can run three-car teams, but that would just make things more expensive when FOTA agree with the FIA as to the need for cost-cutting.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 16 Jun 2009, 13:57

The one problem that aa breakaway series won't suffer from is a lack of willing drivers. On the Autosport website today, both Massa and Webber have come out in support of a breakaway series. But there again, they both drive for teams that were given entries with their conditions ignored...

Jordan192 · Post by **Jordan192** » 16 Jun 2009, 17:38

While there may be several circuits that might be interested in taking on a FOTA race (Silverstone in particular stands out, due to the long-standing acrimony between Bernie and the BRDC), there's no way they'll be willing to pay anything even close to F1 money to do so. The share FOTA get of the FOM money pot may be a chunk less than the teams are happy with, but I can't imagine that they'll get anything close to a comparable cash amount from the TV and race rights for a breakaway series. You're better off with 50% of €250 million than 100% of €25 million.

Also, while there are real problems with a FOTA series' long-term prospects if it'll cost 3 times as much as F1 for a team to enter and lock out the back row, I think if a breakaway were to happen, the deciding factor would be Monaco.

Initially after the IRL/CART schism, the IRL was a joke, all the good teams and drivers went to Champcar. But as time went on, just as Tony George had maintained all along, what mattered was the Indy 500. CART teams started making Indy-only appearances at first, before eventually migrating en masse. If your series doesn't have it's blue-riband event, it loses too much. American single-seater racing is the Indy 500.
Sportscars is much the same. one event defines the category so much that the local club that organises that event is the de facto governing body for the category.

If you're not at the Indy 500, you're not top-line American single seaters
If you're not at Le Mans, you're not top-line sportscars.
If you're not at Monaco, you're not F1.

(edit for typos. oops.)

Yannick · Post by **Yannick** » 16 Jun 2009, 18:45

Of course, Tony George had the advantage that the entry list to the Indy 500 was open to cars starting for only a single race.
But you can only get into the Monaco GP if you are competing for the whole season of F1.

The problematic issue for the race tracks would indeed be the compatibility of having a FOTA race and other FIA-relegated events at the same time. With the WTCC being regulars at Valencia's Ricardo Tormo racetrack, that rules out the hilarious possibility of having both the FIA and the FOTA series staging 2 races on 2 different racetracks on the same day in the very same city of Valencia.

johnston21 · Post by **johnston21** » 16 Jun 2009, 20:08

Whether a FOTA series is successful or not may now be the question. It's looking all the more likely that it will happen, or at a minimum FOTA is sounding willing to "give it a try."

...Success may be another issue. I know where as a spectator I would spend my $'s, and it would not be in "Max's revised series!"

I think the only hope now of retaining FOTA is for Max to depart "once and for all." Bet Bernie would agree with this statement. :mrgreen:

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 16 Jun 2009, 20:22

Captain Hammer wrote:Everywhere I go on the internet that discusses Formula One - which, outside Facebook, Television Without Pity and the odd James Bond forum is pretty much everyhwere I go full stop -

Is the 'odd James Bond Forum' the one that discusses the merits of Woody Allen versus David Niven ? :mrgreen:

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 16 Jun 2009, 20:42

Captain Hammer is completely correct this time. (Although I suspect he is Max. :shock:

)

The manufacturers won't go for a breakaway series, because why go through all that hassle when there are plenty of other ways to spend your marketing budget. Or even better, save your marketing money for a few years until F1 sorts itself out.

The only people the series makes sense for is Ferrari, and would you join a series organised by Ferrari ?

No the manufacturers will just go do other things, like Le Mans and Indy.

What FOTA wants is an end to the regime where Max hits them with a big stick whilst Bernie takes the money. They will be quite happy to sit things out for a few years whilst Max and Bernie take the flack for destroying F1. When the regime changes they will be back.

johnston21 · Post by **johnston21** » 16 Jun 2009, 20:58

Ross Prawn wrote:Captain Hammer is completely correct this time. (Although I suspect he is Max. )

Now that's a conspiracy theory (had to check my spelling), that I "may be able to" jump-on-board with! :mrgreen:

Jordan192 · Post by **Jordan192** » 16 Jun 2009, 21:15

Ross Prawn wrote:No the manufacturers will just go do other things, like Le Mans and Indy.

This is the thing that confuses the most about the manufacturers' position:

The board give you €200 mill to spend marketing through motorsport, and naturally you spend it all on F1, because that's how much F1 costs.
If the rules change and F1 now only costs €80 million a year, it's still bloody F1 - you still get exactly the same publicity and exposure because, well, it's F1.
Now, you can either:

a) Throw a huuuge effing wobbly and sack 2/3 of your motorsport division;
b) Redeploy them, so that for the same spend as before, you now get the benefit of fully viable F1, Le Mans, and WRC programmes (or whatever particular mix you happen to fancy)

The budget cap doesn't devalue F1 in terms of publicity and brand association, but losing too many teams at the same time would. And the teams are only leaving because they seem really sold on option a) above being the one they'd rather go for.

LukeB · Post by **LukeB** » 16 Jun 2009, 21:31

Maybe if the teams haden't spent god knows how many years squabbling like spoiled children Max would never have gotten ahold of the big stick with which he beats them (there's a joke in there somewhere...). The only thing worse then having a sport governed by Max "for-the-love-of-god-man-it's-time-to-retire" Mosley is a sport governed by 8-12 whiny millionaires in direct competition with eachother.
For all Mosleys failings his goddamn stools would still make for a better administartion then any that involved Flavio Briatore!

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 16 Jun 2009, 21:49

Jordan192 wrote:
The board give you €200 mill to spend marketing through motorsport, and naturally you spend it all on F1, because that's how much F1 costs.
If the rules change and F1 now only costs €80 million a year, it's still bloody F1 - you still get exactly the same publicity and exposure because, well, it's F1.
Now, you can either:

a) Throw a huuuge effing wobbly and sack 2/3 of your motorsport division;
b) Redeploy them, so that for the same spend as before, you now get the benefit of fully viable F1, Le Mans, and WRC programmes (or whatever particular mix you happen to fancy)

The budget cap doesn't devalue F1 in terms of publicity and brand association, but losing too many teams at the same time would. And the teams are only leaving because they seem really sold on option a) above being the one they'd rather go for.

What the manufacturers want is a stable situation that they can plan for. Up to now F1 has been a demanding sport that takes a five year investment minimum for you to get competitive. Take Toyota for instance, they've spent six or seven years and 100's of millions getting to the point where they have a capable team that might be able to win a race. And the FIA wake up one day, and proclaim that that is not what they want, and they are now going to have to savagely cut back the capability they've built over that time. Of course they are not happy.

Suddenly having to sack 200 people from a team is no joke. And because the consultation between the teams and the FIA is so small they have the suspicion that some new FIA initiative could arise at any time that will have similar major effects.

Give the teams a stable situation, with progressive cost reduction and some consultation and they will stay. Expect them to obey a new initiative every month that Max has dreamed up in the bath and rail-roaded through, and they will go.

Fitch · Post by **Fitch** » 17 Jun 2009, 03:42

WARNING: If your name is Captain Hammer or you are offended by poor sentence structure then you shouldn't read this post. Any replies berating the Grammatical structure of said post and not the actual Contents of said post will be ignored...... You've been warned

The only thing worse then having a sport governed by Max "for-the-love-of-god-man-it's-time-to-retire" Mosley is a sport governed by 8-12 whiny millionaires in direct competition with each other.

That would be what we, here in the states, once referred to as CART.....and where are they now??..........

As much as I hate Fascist Max, and his FIA Cronies......I think they have the right idea.....I also think the FIA is right in that there are certain elements or Factions within FOTA who are saying no simply to cause trouble.......Most likely, someone has spotted an opportunity to finally force Max out and have jumped on it...my guess is Ferrari, why?......Who will likely replace Mosley when he finally is gone??........Jean Todt......and if you think Max is bad.....just wait.....

This reminds me of Eastern Airlines..........In the Mid-80's Frank Lorenzo, a Texas Millionaire and staunch Anti-Unionist bought Eastern Airlines, He began a campaign of trimming the airline down, partly to part some of it out to his other Airline and partly to bring the Company back into the Black. The Machinists Union were not happy about this mostly because they were not getting the pay hikes they were demanding. they then went on Strike and told the Public at large they would Bankrupt and shut the Airline down Forever if Lorenzo was not removed from the Airline.....The result, Eastern Airlines went bankrupt in 1990 and was shut down and Liquidated in 1991. The Unions claimed a HUGE Victory, and the public began blaming Frank Lorenzo for the destruction of the Airline. When in reality Lorenzo and the Machinists union share the responsibility about 50/50.

Prices are Abstract.....Teams pay the huge amounts they pay for parts and what-not because the Vendors know that is what they will pay........If you introduce the Cost Cap, I guarantee you prices will come down so that within 5 or so years spending will be on Scale with what it is now......

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 17 Jun 2009, 06:54

Fitch wrote:WARNING: If your name is Captain Hammer or you are offended by poor sentence structure then you shouldn't read this post. Any replies berating the Grammatical structure of said post and not the actual Contents of said post will be ignored...... You've been warned

I was actually thinking more of the forum at large when I said that. Largely because not everyone here speaks English as a first language.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 Jun 2009, 09:11

Jordan192 wrote:
Ross Prawn wrote:No the manufacturers will just go do other things, like Le Mans and Indy.

This is the thing that confuses the most about the manufacturers' position:

The board give you €200 mill to spend marketing through motorsport, and naturally you spend it all on F1, because that's how much F1 costs.
If the rules change and F1 now only costs €80 million a year, it's still bloody F1 - you still get exactly the same publicity and exposure because, well, it's F1.
Now, you can either:

a) Throw a huuuge effing wobbly and sack 2/3 of your motorsport division;
b) Redeploy them, so that for the same spend as before, you now get the benefit of fully viable F1, Le Mans, and WRC programmes (or whatever particular mix you happen to fancy)

The budget cap doesn't devalue F1 in terms of publicity and brand association, but losing too many teams at the same time would. And the teams are only leaving because they seem really sold on option a) above being the one they'd rather go for.

Not only I agree with Ross Prawn mentioned above, I want to add a couple of points.
1. Manufacturers don't want the budget cap because they have the possibility of spending more money, being closer to the front and getting more and better exposure. Never forget that. F1 brings exposure; winning in F1 brings a hell of a lot more exposure.

2. Of you don't spend you €200m/yr, and stick to spending only about half, do you know what happens next year? Your budget is halved. Capital is re-allocated. It happens in departments everywhere. And no, you can't decide to spend the left-overs in Le Mans or something really quickly, because that takes time, isn't the same thing, and the people you need aren't the same. To win Le Mans, you need Le Mans-savvy people, not F1-savvy people. Labour might be re-allocatable, but there's an efficiency cost involved.

DonTirri · Post by **DonTirri** » 17 Jun 2009, 10:15

Ya know. I dunno if anyone has mentioned this, but I think the only reason why the FOTA-teams are a against the budget cap is this:

With it, they would lose probably the only thing that keeps them winning. The advantage of being able to spend more money than the other teams.

Because quite seriously, if the series becomes about "Getting the most from what you have" instead of "Spending the most to get what you want", do you really think Toyota, Renault, McLaren, Ferrari and BMW would be even close to the top?

I don't think so.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 Jun 2009, 10:17

DonTirri wrote:Ya know. I dunno if anyone has mentioned this, but I think the only reason why the FOTA-teams are a against the budget cap is this:

I did. In the post immediately above! :mrgreen:

DonTirri · Post by **DonTirri** » 17 Jun 2009, 10:28

CarlosFerreira wrote:
DonTirri wrote:Ya know. I dunno if anyone has mentioned this, but I think the only reason why the FOTA-teams are a against the budget cap is this:

I did. In the post immediately above!

*facepalm*
GODDARNIT.

*mental note* remember to read topics fully before posting *end mental note*

Jordan192 · Post by **Jordan192** » 17 Jun 2009, 12:38

CarlosFerreira wrote:Not only I agree with Ross Prawn mentioned above, I want to add a couple of points.
1. Manufacturers don't want the budget cap because they have the possibility of spending more money, being closer to the front and getting more and better exposure. Never forget that. F1 brings exposure; winning in F1 brings a hell of a lot more exposure.

The boards of the manufacturers will almost certainly welcome the cap. It's their F1 teams that don't.
If you're a manufacturer team with a blank chequebook and produce a dire car, you can throw money at it until it sorts itself out, even Honda finally got it right, despite losing their nerve about 3 months too early to see the benefit of it.
However, if you're a manufacturer team not bringing in the goods, and can't cure it, you're not going to be a manufacturer team for an awful lot longer.

As for Le Mans, by having Luca di Montezemolo start the race this year, Ferrari are already trying to give the impression that they'll leave F1 to do Le Mans, and there's no way that would involve a budget on a par with Formula 1. It's as much spite as anything else that says "Fine, if F1 is only going to cost €100 Million a year, we're going to leave F1 and spend €50 million on Sportscars instead".

Well, it may also be the desire to finally get rid of Max after all the false hope of last year. That's an aim i can wholeheartedly relate to, at any point in the last 15 years I'd have danced a merry jig on his presidency's grave.
But this issue is the wrong one to be fighting that battle on. The only real argument against the budget cap is Carlos' above. It's good for the sport, it's good for the independent teams, it's even good for the manufacturers themselves. The only people it's not good for is manufacturer teams.

Debaser · Post by **Debaser** » 17 Jun 2009, 14:03

To answer the thread's question, another reason a FOTA championship won't happen is the sheer cost of starting a championship. In the long run it would be profitable, but in the short term the costs would give accountants collective heart failure. Also it would be a PR disaster for F1 to split and manufacturers wouldn't want bad PR, or to be in a championship which could collapse if, for example, Toyota and Renault buggered off to Le Mans as a cheaper alternative to F1. On the cap, I think its a good idea but not very well thought out. Budget/salary caps work well in American sports and cut costs but the 2 tier idea was ridiculous and to treat FOTA with near contempt wasn't wise on Max's part.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 Jun 2009, 14:21

Jordan192 wrote:The boards of the manufacturers will almost certainly welcome the cap. It's their F1 teams that don't.
If you're a manufacturer team with a blank chequebook and produce a dire car, you can throw money at it until it sorts itself out, even Honda finally got it right, despite losing their nerve about 3 months too early to see the benefit of it.
However, if you're a manufacturer team not bringing in the goods, and can't cure it, you're not going to be a manufacturer team for an awful lot longer.

I agree with the distinction. It's the manufacturer teams, of curse. Not the manufacturers themselves.

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 17 Jun 2009, 14:48

The budget cap proposals still massively favour the manufacturers and the big teams.

Because if you are big there's nothing to stop you from having an R&D department somewhere thats doing lots of fundamental research on say aerodynamics or braking systems. Or there's nothing to stop you from setting up a Le Mans or Indy car project, which will have lots of facilites available to it. And theres nothing to stop the engineers in that team to have a friendly chat with your F1 team and maybe sharing a few interesting ideas and some data. There are so many ways for a manufacturer to avoid the cap.

This is a lot less possible for small dedicated F1 type organisations. They won't be able to hide such efforts, even if they could avoid it.

The budget cap is a nice idea in principle, but will be a nightmare to enforce in practice. So much so that F1 will become a lawyers championship, fought every two weeks at court hearings in Paris.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 Jun 2009, 15:18

Ross Prawn wrote:The budget cap proposals still massively favour the manufacturers and the big teams.

Because if you are big there's nothing to stop you from having an R&D department somewhere thats doing lots of fundamental research on say aerodynamics or braking systems. Or there's nothing to stop you from setting up a Le Mans or Indy car project, which will have lots of facilites available to it. And theres nothing to stop the engineers in that team to have a friendly chat with your F1 team and maybe sharing a few interesting ideas and some data. There are so many ways for a manufacturer to avoid the cap.

This is a lot less possible for small dedicated F1 type organisations. They won't be able to hide such efforts, even if they could avoid it.

The budget cap is a nice idea in principle, but will be a nightmare to enforce in practice. So much so that F1 will become a lawyers championship, fought every two weeks at court hearings in Paris.

I've been wondering about these same issues. There is nothing stopping the F1 teams establishing some sort of consulting partner that does the research and is paid by the manufacturer. They can even cover it up as safety testing or something.

rffp · Post by **rffp** » 17 Jun 2009, 15:43

CarlosFerreira wrote:I've been wondering about these same issues. There is nothing stopping the F1 teams establishing some sort of consulting partner that does the research and is paid by the manufacturer. They can even cover it up as safety testing or something.

That question was asked to FIA and either Sam Michael or Adam Parr (from Williams), and the answers were that this would be cheating and the manufacturer's board wouldn't allow that kind of funds misuse. So naive...

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 Jun 2009, 15:47

rffp wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote:I've been wondering about these same issues. There is nothing stopping the F1 teams establishing some sort of consulting partner that does the research and is paid by the manufacturer. They can even cover it up as safety testing or something.

That question was asked to FIA and either Sam Michael or Adam Parr (from Williams), and the answers were that this would be cheating and the manufacturer's board wouldn't allow that kind of funds misuse. So naive...

I imagine it'd be a PR nightmare if such scheme was traced back to the manufacturer. We're talking Toyota in the WRC in 1996 scale! But I do consider there could be some bending of the rules along the way.

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 17 Jun 2009, 17:39

CarlosFerreira wrote:
rffp wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote:I've been wondering about these same issues. There is nothing stopping the F1 teams establishing some sort of consulting partner that does the research and is paid by the manufacturer. They can even cover it up as safety testing or something.

That question was asked to FIA and either Sam Michael or Adam Parr (from Williams), and the answers were that this would be cheating and the manufacturer's board wouldn't allow that kind of funds misuse. So naive...

I imagine it'd be a PR nightmare if such scheme was traced back to the manufacturer. We're talking Toyota in the WRC in 1996 scale! But I do consider there could be some bending of the rules along the way.

Its a massive grey area. obviously setting up a phantom F1 team would be cheating. But funding a university researcher, or allow your F1 and Indy car teams to talk to each other?? At some level, its unavoidable, unless you prevent your F1 team from talking to anyone else in the organisation.

Accusations of cheating will arise, inevitably. (Are legal fees within the cap?)

BB01 · Post by **BB01** » 18 Jun 2009, 00:37

CarlosFerreira wrote:
rffp wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote:I've been wondering about these same issues. There is nothing stopping the F1 teams establishing some sort of consulting partner that does the research and is paid by the manufacturer. They can even cover it up as safety testing or something.

That question was asked to FIA and either Sam Michael or Adam Parr (from Williams), and the answers were that this would be cheating and the manufacturer's board wouldn't allow that kind of funds misuse. So naive...

I imagine it'd be a PR nightmare if such scheme was traced back to the manufacturer. We're talking Toyota in the WRC in 1996 scale! But I do consider there could be some bending of the rules along the way.

It wouldn't be motorsport if there weren't some rule bending. Its certainly an interesting proposition. What would be there to stop a Formula 1 team setting up a LMP1 team? Let's face it, they'll have a lot more money around if they cut their "official" spending by 300m euro, so its not like they couldn't afford it. I realise LMP1 cars are sportscars but there must be some significant technology overlap between them. And racing in another series would mean more sponsorship money, so they could make more money than they currently are.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 18 Jun 2009, 08:48

BB01 wrote:It wouldn't be motorsport if there weren't some rule bending. Its certainly an interesting proposition. What would be there to stop a Formula 1 team setting up a LMP1 team? Let's face it, they'll have a lot more money around if they cut their "official" spending by 300m euro, so its not like they couldn't afford it. I realise LMP1 cars are sportscars but there must be some significant technology overlap between them. And racing in another series would mean more sponsorship money, so they could make more money than they currently are.

I'm not sure about the last part. There has to be some sort of diminishing marginal returns to investment in competition, or else everyone would be in every single category.

But sure, nothing would stop teams developing and testing specific tech in other series; my point was they might pay some consultancy (like Lola...) to test these specific technologies for them - for instance, the pharmaceitical industry has been sub-contracting the testing of new medicines to companies that specialise in that business area.

StoneColdSpider · Post by **StoneColdSpider** » 18 Jun 2009, 17:03

i cant wait till this all ends one way or another....
without this i dont think there would b any F1 news...
there is a race this weekend apparently.... :lol: