the Cost Cutting saga continues

[windwaves]

Well, I have said it before and I will say it again: the hell with the small teams !!!

With their cost cutting proposals they are truly destroying F1. It all started with Eddie Jordan …. remember ? what a complete idiot.

You ain't got the money, you don't belong. You are slow ? you do not belong. So stay out. Don't cry about it, about "costs being too high". Most of the smaller teams add absolutely nothing to the sport and certainly though make things look stupid and dangerous quite often.

The large teams on the other hand try to exploit cost cutting measures/plans in order to benefit their particular outfit.

No gains whatsoever from these costs cutting b/s but for sure F1 is losing.

F1 being left with just a few teams ? hell yes ! fine. Perfect. Do not care a bit about that. I care that it remains F1, with emphasis on the "1".

The last one on this topic is from today in the news: in order to further cut costs small teams propose the reduce free practice to just one 90 min session …… it gets worse, just see the articles around the F1 sites.


And by the way it is not clear at all that cost cutting measures introduced so far have actually reduced costs. While Eddie Jordan takes delivery of his $52 million yacht. Cool.

[Sanomas]

To be honest I don't get it but I can say if anyone in F1 think it should be about 'sport not the money...then they would be happy for it!

[Alesi1]

Well, I have said it before and I will say it again: the hell with the small teams !!!

With their cost cutting proposals they are truly destroying F1. It all started with Eddie Jordan …. remember ? what a complete idiot.

You ain't got the money, you don't belong. You are slow ? you do not belong. So stay out. Don't cry about it, about "costs being too high". Most of the smaller teams add absolutely nothing to the sport and certainly though make things look stupid and dangerous quite often.

The large teams on the other hand try to exploit cost cutting measures/plans in order to benefit their particular outfit.

No gains whatsoever from these costs cutting b/s but for sure F1 is losing.

F1 being left with just a few teams ? hell yes ! fine. Perfect. Do not care a bit about that. I care that it remains F1, with emphasis on the "1".

The last one on this topic is from today in the news: in order to further cut costs small teams propose the reduce free practice to just one 90 min session …… it gets worse, just see the articles around the F1 sites.


And by the way it is not clear at all that cost cutting measures introduced so far have actually reduced costs. While Eddie Jordan takes delivery of his $52 million yacht. Cool.

+1- to hell with the teams who can't afford to be there. If they perform well, then they can get sponsors and survive. Survival of the fittest. Don't destroy our sport so that they can be there. In fact be gone jean Todt, bring back max

[Tony]

I'm not sure it will be seen as a legitimate sport when you have only 3 or 4 teams racing each other....

[vcs316]

All teams should have access to a common simulator through which they can race remotely from their factories (kinda like online racing). ZERO cost (well almost)

[Stino]

I'm not sure it will be seen as a legitimate sport when you have only 3 or 4 teams racing each other....

I somewhat agree, but on the other hand, FIA WEC gets away with just that.

[Rob]

I somewhat agree, but on the other hand, FIA WEC gets away with just that.

what do you mean?

[Hornet]

The problem is F1 is not attracting the right teams. Some of the back end teams sometimes seem more interested in the commercial aspect rather than competing. (ie. not wanting to test but wanting to attend more races for more money).

F1 needs team like Honda, BMW, automakers with their own racing program. These are the teams that will take racing more seriously.


In fact be gone jean Todt, bring back max

Lets not have Mad Max back. The FIA under Mad Max once proposed that F1 use a single homologated engine design by a single supplier.

[Rob]

+1- to hell with the teams who can't afford to be there. If they perform well, then they can get sponsors and survive. Survival of the fittest. Don't destroy our sport so that they can be there. In fact be gone jean Todt, bring back max

"small teams" would be in better $$$$$ situations if half the F1 profits didnt go out of the sport to pay for over peoples debts.

[Stino]

what do you mean?

I meant they get away with having only 2-3 teams racing each other in LMP1.

[Rob]

I meant they get away with having only 2-3 teams racing each other in LMP1.

3 teams teams, 6 cars. But also have the Rebellion squad, thats another 2 cars. But that isnt just them on the track. Theres 30+ cars. For me, i love F1, but WEC is now becoming my fav series.

[Kiwi Nick]

F1 needs team like Honda, BMW, automakers with their own racing program. These are the teams that will take racing more seriously.

So many of the changes to the F1 rules are antithetical to many of the manufacturers who might compete. Particularly the engine regulations. Why the FIA believe they need to spec the engines right down to the valve size is ridiculous. VW were prepared to enter with a 1.6 turbo engine, but they wanted it to be an in-line 4. The FIA said V-6 and VW said bye-bye. Past history would say that BMW would have preferred to see an in-line engine rather than a V.

If the engine spec was simply 1.6 litres, turbo charged and run on 100 octane gasoline, you certainly would see some innovation, verity, and more manufacturers willing to enter because their F1 cars might be more relevant to their road cars. Why not find a way to include diesel?

The last time we saw engines with such a small displacement was in the 1960s. In 1964, the 1.5 liter normally aspirated engines came in the following configurations: in-line 4, flat-4, flat-12, V-6, V-8, V-12. And they were manufactured by Ferrari (V-6, V-8, F-12), Climax (V-8), Porsche (F-4), Ford (I-4), BRM (V-8), Honda (V-12) and ATS (V-8).

The point is; more restrictions = fewer manufacturers and less innovation, fewer restrictions = more manufacturers and more innovation.

[Nero Horse]

The problem is F1 is not attracting the right teams. Some of the back end teams sometimes seem more interested in the commercial aspect rather than competing. (ie. not wanting to test but wanting to attend more races for more money).

F1 needs team like Honda, BMW, automakers with their own racing program. These are the teams that will take racing more seriously.

Agreed. But the problem is that all the big car manufacturers are simply afraid of failing. If they can't win races and championships then it could be very damaging to their image and sales, and that's why they rather stay out of F1. Entering F1 with a full factory-backed team presents a huge risk for car manufacturers. BMW and Toyota tried and failed miserably, so I'm sure we won't be seeing them anywhere near F1 anytime soon. But I agree that F1 needs more teams with some car manufacturer behind them, because they would certainly take racing in F1 seriously and therefore increase the competitiveness and excitement levels in the sport.

[aroutis]

So many of the changes to the F1 rules are antithetical to many of the manufacturers who might compete. Particularly the engine regulations. Why the FIA believe they need to spec the engines right down to the valve size is ridiculous. VW were prepared to enter with a 1.6 turbo engine, but they wanted it to be an in-line 4. The FIA said V-6 and VW said bye-bye. Past history would say that BMW would have preferred to see an in-line engine rather than a V.

If the engine spec was simply 1.6 litres, turbo charged and run on 100 octane gasoline, you certainly would see some innovation, verity, and more manufacturers willing to enter because their F1 cars might be more relevant to their road cars. Why not find a way to include diesel?

The last time we saw engines with such a small displacement was in the 1960s. In 1964, the 1.5 liter normally aspirated engines came in the following configurations: in-line 4, flat-4, flat-12, V-6, V-8, V-12. And they were manufactured by Ferrari (V-6, V-8, F-12), Climax (V-8), Porsche (F-4), Ford (I-4), BRM (V-8), Honda (V-12) and ATS (V-8).

The point is; more restrictions = fewer manufacturers and less innovation, fewer restrictions = more manufacturers and more innovation.
Whole heartedly agree.
Let them do what they want. Whoever wants to compete, so be it, and bring what they be.

[wisepie]

Just regulate the engine size and let the teams and/or manufacturers innovate in that way, more relevance to road cars, more variations on themes means more hurdles jumped, limit aero, and just allow teams to race their cars. The whole issue of cost-cutting is a joke when you consider how much money will have been spent designing and producing new engines and technology, just to be seen to be more environmentally friendly. We need the small teams, though, otherwise there is would be no F1 at all, and they sadly don't have the money to compete on a level playing field. A vicious circle, indeed.

[Alesi1]

"small teams" would be in better $$$$$ situations if half the F1 profits didnt go out of the sport to pay for over peoples debts.

Yep instead of 800 million dollars a year lining bernies pockets. Who needs that sort of money anyway.

[abbottcostello]

Last I recall hearing, the way money gets distributed to the teams is a joke, the rich get richer.

I think if you don't keep the small teams you'll lose a LOT of fan interest. I, for one, would be giving a hard look to see if it was worth my time anymore (been a F1 fan for 40+ years) & I think it would kill the lucrative broadcasting revenue, maybe not in Europe, but probably the rest would be gone or badly diminished.

[anacleto]

Just imagine Red Bull in F1 without restrictions. They could spend a million to every dollar other teams have to spend. That #1 finger would be in our face for years one end! I'd like to believe a good team with a good driver still has a shot at a podium finish.

[Hornet]

So many of the changes to the F1 rules are antithetical to many of the manufacturers who might compete. Particularly the engine regulations. Why the FIA believe they need to spec the engines right down to the valve size is ridiculous. VW were prepared to enter with a 1.6 turbo engine, but they wanted it to be an in-line 4. The FIA said V-6 and VW said bye-bye. Past history would say that BMW would have preferred to see an in-line engine rather than a V.

If the engine spec was simply 1.6 litres, turbo charged and run on 100 octane gasoline, you certainly would see some innovation, verity, and more manufacturers willing to enter because their F1 cars might be more relevant to their road cars. Why not find a way to include diesel?

The last time we saw engines with such a small displacement was in the 1960s. In 1964, the 1.5 liter normally aspirated engines came in the following configurations: in-line 4, flat-4, flat-12, V-6, V-8, V-12. And they were manufactured by Ferrari (V-6, V-8, F-12), Climax (V-8), Porsche (F-4), Ford (I-4), BRM (V-8), Honda (V-12) and ATS (V-8).

The point is; more restrictions = fewer manufacturers and less innovation, fewer restrictions = more manufacturers and more innovation.

I would love to see such freedom, and I agree that we are going to see many interesting ideas and innovation. Unfortunately, it's unlikely the FIA will ever do that as they have been trying to restrict spending on engine development.

So I guess all the cost cutting restriction meant to keep the smaller teams in place is also keeping the bigger teams out

[Gerard]

I wonder how many manufacturers look at the F1 rule book and think it is too thick, rather go elsewhere and have a chance at winning, or at least doing well.