Opinion on 2022 regulations

[NicoS]

Not really. In marketing terms alone F1 is a literal gold mine right now. Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point.

Can you supply any data the supports your claim?
Obviously without supporting information we can assume the statement to be non fact constructed in your own mind?

It's tough to put a definitive dollar value on how much a team generates in brand exposure, as much of the running of an F1 team is written of as marketing by parent companies, but here are some quotes. Also lets be quite clear that no board would actually sign off on spending hundreds of millions a year with no guarantee of a reasonable return on investment just so they can go racing.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/anal ... 8/3049999/

“I don’t want to say the precise number, but the marketing contribution from Daimler is around 10 percent of revenue,” Toto Wolff told Motorsport.com.

“Which is a fraction of the exposure they generate. It makes us profitable. The revenue growth is encouraging, and we’ve seen it in all sectors.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1-teams ... s-mclaren/

It's also estimated that Red Bull's investment in F1 around doubles their marketing exposure.

Now with Netflix (yes yes...) exposing many more people to F1 and starting to tune in more and more, and the way the world of marketing is evolving quite rapidly, and the changes Liberty has made (for better or worse), Zak Brown is quite literally on the money that in a few years an F1 team will be worth billions. Frankly speaking the F1 team is Mclaren's best asset right now. Same goes for Renault/Alpine

To drill down on a long winded beat around the bush media articles.
marketing does not generate bottom line income. your statement "Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point" is totally false.
yes, the exposure does provide marketing opportunities, does this translate to increased sales to offset this "marketing project"
How does MB sales growth compare to industry average over the last 5 years?
as for Mclaren, the whole business was built around F1 right from the beginning. it always was the only asset.

[holeindalip]

With power units being frozen and the new wind tunnel cfd usage along with the budget cap we are going to see a lot more of the drs trains all the way up until ‘26 unless they change the 85mm slot gap on the drs or something else to help. The cars can definitely follow closer but the actual overtake is probably harder….

[wesley123]

.
marketing does not generate bottom line income. your statement "Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point" is totally false.

It really isn't, because a decent amount of those are companies that have shareholders who would like to see a return on their investment. Those people really aren't all that keen on just giving money asway if it doesn't bring anything in return.

yes, the exposure does provide marketing opportunities, does this translate to increased sales to offset this "marketing project"

https://carsalesbase.com/europe-mercedes-benz/
Since 2010 Mercedes' market share has increased by 2%, and even more important, they sold better than their direct market competitors.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/daimler/revenue/
In the same period Daimler's revenue increased by ~$50B with a high of just under $200B in 2018. Earnings have doubled since 2010 as well.

And for example Red Bull, their whole brand and pretty much their existence thrives on marketing.

as for Mclaren, the whole business was built around F1 right from the beginning. it always was the only asset.

I really wonder if you could be more wrong here.
The McLaren group was founded in 1985. The racing team is merely a subsidiary, just like how McLaren Automotive is, or McLaren Applied, which produces the ECUs for every F1 team since 2008, as well as a variety of other sensors.

[Stu]

Can you supply any data the supports your claim?
Obviously without supporting information we can assume the statement to be non fact constructed in your own mind?

It's tough to put a definitive dollar value on how much a team generates in brand exposure, as much of the running of an F1 team is written of as marketing by parent companies, but here are some quotes. Also lets be quite clear that no board would actually sign off on spending hundreds of millions a year with no guarantee of a reasonable return on investment just so they can go racing.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/anal ... 8/3049999/

“I don’t want to say the precise number, but the marketing contribution from Daimler is around 10 percent of revenue,” Toto Wolff told Motorsport.com.

“Which is a fraction of the exposure they generate. It makes us profitable. The revenue growth is encouraging, and we’ve seen it in all sectors.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/f1-teams ... s-mclaren/

It's also estimated that Red Bull's investment in F1 around doubles their marketing exposure.

Now with Netflix (yes yes...) exposing many more people to F1 and starting to tune in more and more, and the way the world of marketing is evolving quite rapidly, and the changes Liberty has made (for better or worse), Zak Brown is quite literally on the money that in a few years an F1 team will be worth billions. Frankly speaking the F1 team is Mclaren's best asset right now. Same goes for Renault/Alpine

To drill down on a long winded beat around the bush media articles.
marketing does not generate bottom line income. your statement "Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point" is totally false.
yes, the exposure does provide marketing opportunities, does this translate to increased sales to offset this "marketing project"
How does MB sales growth compare to industry average over the last 5 years?
as for Mclaren, the whole business was built around F1 right from the beginning. it always was the only asset.

This is the whole premise behind the value of Tesla, emotional value against practical, financial value. Marketing value is such a fickle measure.

[NicoS]

.
marketing does not generate bottom line income. your statement "Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point" is totally false.

It really isn't, because a decent amount of those are companies that have shareholders who would like to see a return on their investment. Those people really aren't all that keen on just giving money asway if it doesn't bring anything in return.

yes, the exposure does provide marketing opportunities, does this translate to increased sales to offset this "marketing project"

https://carsalesbase.com/europe-mercedes-benz/
Since 2010 Mercedes' market share has increased by 2%, and even more important, they sold better than their direct market competitors.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/daimler/revenue/
In the same period Daimler's revenue increased by ~$50B with a high of just under $200B in 2018. Earnings have doubled since 2010 as well.

And for example Red Bull, their whole brand and pretty much their existence thrives on marketing.

as for Mclaren, the whole business was built around F1 right from the beginning. it always was the only asset.

I really wonder if you could be more wrong here.
The McLaren group was founded in 1985. The racing team is merely a subsidiary, just like how McLaren Automotive is, or McLaren Applied, which produces the ECUs for every F1 team since 2008, as well as a variety of other sensors.

Also you wrong by 4 years. (huge mistake) accuracy is important.

"The group was founded by Ron Dennis shortly after his acquisition of the McLaren Formula One team in 1981, as the TAG McLaren Group due to a partnership with Mansour Ojjeh's TAG Group."

[NicoS]

.
marketing does not generate bottom line income. your statement "Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point" is totally false.

It really isn't, because a decent amount of those are companies that have shareholders who would like to see a return on their investment. Those people really aren't all that keen on just giving money asway if it doesn't bring anything in return.

yes, the exposure does provide marketing opportunities, does this translate to increased sales to offset this "marketing project"

https://carsalesbase.com/europe-mercedes-benz/
Since 2010 Mercedes' market share has increased by 2%, and even more important, they sold better than their direct market competitors.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/daimler/revenue/
In the same period Daimler's revenue increased by ~$50B with a high of just under $200B in 2018. Earnings have doubled since 2010 as well.

And for example Red Bull, their whole brand and pretty much their existence thrives on marketing.

as for Mclaren, the whole business was built around F1 right from the beginning. it always was the only asset.

I really wonder if you could be more wrong here.
The McLaren group was founded in 1985. The racing team is merely a subsidiary, just like how McLaren Automotive is, or McLaren Applied, which produces the ECUs for every F1 team since 2008, as well as a variety of other sensors.

"In April 2021, Global Net Lease announced that it had agreed to acquire the McLaren Technology Centre in Woking for £170 million.
The group sold McLaren Applied to Greybull Capital in August 2021."

"In May 2018 it was announced that Canadian businessman Michael Latifi had purchased approximately 10% of the group with an investment of £200 million.This leaves the current shareholding at: Mumtalakat Holding Company 56.4%, TAG Group Limited 14.32%, Nidala (BVI) Limited (Michael Latifi) 9.84%, Favorita Limited 5.78%, Perlman Investments Limited 5.77%, McKal Holdings Ltd 5.24%, Acanitt Limited 2.65%."

[NicoS]

.
marketing does not generate bottom line income. your statement "Those 4 teams you named now all make more back in marketing than they put in it at this point" is totally false.

It really isn't, because a decent amount of those are companies that have shareholders who would like to see a return on their investment. Those people really aren't all that keen on just giving money asway if it doesn't bring anything in return.

yes, the exposure does provide marketing opportunities, does this translate to increased sales to offset this "marketing project"

https://carsalesbase.com/europe-mercedes-benz/
Since 2010 Mercedes' market share has increased by 2%, and even more important, they sold better than their direct market competitors.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/daimler/revenue/
In the same period Daimler's revenue increased by ~$50B with a high of just under $200B in 2018. Earnings have doubled since 2010 as well.

And for example Red Bull, their whole brand and pretty much their existence thrives on marketing.

as for Mclaren, the whole business was built around F1 right from the beginning. it always was the only asset.

I really wonder if you could be more wrong here.
The McLaren group was founded in 1985. The racing team is merely a subsidiary, just like how McLaren Automotive is, or McLaren Applied, which produces the ECUs for every F1 team since 2008, as well as a variety of other sensors.

The linked article to MB sales has a chart that shows continual decline in sales from 2016...
Also the data table above the chart shows no correlation between F1 success and vehicle sales growth...
The first paragraph of the article suggests new model releases as the driving factor for the average 2% growth.

I actually took time to read the article and not make off the cuff assumptions based on the first sentence.

[Edax]

<snip>

Share your thoughts ! Cheers.

For me it is a mixed bag. But over the past years I came to realize I might be asking for two incompatible things.

1) I want F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport.( Sic the fastest cars that are safely possible.)
2) Have exciting and close racing.

As a compromise I don’t find the current formula bad. It certainly has produced exciting races.

What I still miss is a bit more the human factor. Maybe it is me being sentimental, but I think it took a lot more skill and effort to be fast in the old cars. Conversely many of the overtakes were initiated by driver errors. Even people like Senna and Piquet made a lot of mistakes.

Missing shifts or getting caught by the turbo (lag) are unheard of these days. Maybe the drivers are better trained and more precise these days, but I think there is also an element of the cars being too easy on the driver, which could be addressed.

[Stu]

That is true, recent (post ‘92?) cars have become more automated (realistically that should probably be post ‘94 cars!!); this has lead to less driver errors (missed shifts, etc). However, the old days were not necessarily better, just different.

[dialtone]

It's a lot harder to create a competitive gap (e.g. where one car might be better but it's a bit behind in this race and thanks to that gap there's competition), when everyone is at the limit all the time. Teams get to a race knowing fairly well already how the whole package is going to perform and what they need to bring, in 1 hour they're done with setup work and at that point the ceiling of performance is set already, the drivers are basically machines themselves that can take the same car over 2 laps and be almost exactly identical telemetry wise.

Once upon a time you had Carlos Reutemann at the pool in vegas in between sessions enjoying the hotel amenities, today they analyse the hell out of everything to fix any single problem. The only margin left is miniscule.

[Spoutnik]

<snip>

Share your thoughts ! Cheers.

For me it is a mixed bag. But over the past years I came to realize I might be asking for two incompatible things.

1) I want F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport.( Sic the fastest cars that are safely possible.)
2) Have exciting and close racing.

As a compromise I don’t find the current formula bad. It certainly has produced exciting races.

What I still miss is a bit more the human factor. Maybe it is me being sentimental, but I think it took a lot more skill and effort to be fast in the old cars. Conversely many of the overtakes were initiated by driver errors. Even people like Senna and Piquet made a lot of mistakes.

Missing shifts or getting caught by the turbo (lag) are unheard of these days. Maybe the drivers are better trained and more precise these days, but I think there is also an element of the cars being too easy on the driver, which could be addressed.

I agree with you regarding the difficult trade off you described.
Nevertheless, these cars are described as harder to drive/push to the limit by the drivers..

[wesley123]

The linked article to MB sales has a chart that shows continual decline in sales from 2016...

Could be from other factors, couldn't it? Outside of that, it's still up.

Also the data table above the chart shows no correlation between F1 success and vehicle sales growth...

Just wondering, but how would one not directly involved in the business actually correlate both?

The first paragraph of the article suggests new model releases as the driving factor for the average 2% growth.

Yes, it's kind of a capitalistic thing to release new models for people to purchase.

Also, the first date named is 2012, whereas Mercedes had their own team from 2010. Market share already was up by 0,5% since then.

"In April 2021, Global Net Lease announced that it had agreed to acquire the McLaren Technology Centre in Woking for £170 million.
The group sold McLaren Applied to Greybull Capital in August 2021."

"In May 2018 it was announced that Canadian businessman Michael Latifi had purchased approximately 10% of the group with an investment of £200 million.This leaves the current shareholding at: Mumtalakat Holding Company 56.4%, TAG Group Limited 14.32%, Nidala (BVI) Limited (Michael Latifi) 9.84%, Favorita Limited 5.78%, Perlman Investments Limited 5.77%, McKal Holdings Ltd 5.24%, Acanitt Limited 2.65%."

And how exactly does that dispute the fact that McLaren is a company that reaches further than just F1? It apparently comes as a shock to you, but companies can sell off their assets. And perhaps even more shocking; rarely is a company actually owned by a single entity!

Also you wrong by 4 years. (huge mistake) accuracy is important.

"The group was founded by Ron Dennis shortly after his acquisition of the McLaren Formula One team in 1981, as the TAG McLaren Group due to a partnership with Mansour Ojjeh's TAG Group."

McLaren Group, founded on 2 december 1985. Ron Dennis' Project 4 and McLaren merged in 1981. And before you start disputing this, the found date is literally on the sidebar of the wikipedia article you quoted.

I took the time to fact-check it, and literally nowhere is a founding date of somewhere in 1981 mentioned. However what is mentioned on this news article is the following;

"The TAG Group first invested in McLaren in 1984 and is the longest standing of the McLaren Group’s shareholders."

I might of course be wrong here, but last I checked, 1984 came after 1981. This also aligns with the TAG-Porsche engines that McLaren ran in the MP4/2.

[Edax]

That is true, recent (post ‘92?) cars have become more automated (realistically that should probably be post ‘94 cars!!); this has lead to less driver errors (missed shifts, etc). However, the old days were not necessarily better, just different.

I agree, of course I have seen plenty off dull races as well.

But if I take for instance the gp of Brasil 1982 as an example and look at the gaps within the top 5 teams in quali:

Prost-Arnoux 1.3 s
Villeneuve-Pironi 1.5 s
Rosberg-Reutemann 0.8s
Lauda-Watson 1.8s
Piquet-Patrese 0.7s

That today would be unheard of. If a driver is 0.3 seconds slower than a teammate he should be looking for a different job.

I know that the statistics of one race are pretty lousy, but I am confident that these gaps are pretty normal for that period. For me it is evidence that the driver and how he drove that day was a bigger factor in those years.

I don’t necessarily want to go back, but I would like to see the driver being a bigger part of the equation.

[bas550]

The linked article to MB sales has a chart that shows continual decline in sales from 2016...

Could be from other factors, couldn't it? Outside of that, it's still up.

Also the data table above the chart shows no correlation between F1 success and vehicle sales growth...

Just wondering, but how would one not directly involved in the business actually correlate both?

The first paragraph of the article suggests new model releases as the driving factor for the average 2% growth.

Yes, it's kind of a capitalistic thing to release new models for people to purchase.

Also, the first date named is 2012, whereas Mercedes had their own team from 2010. Market share already was up by 0,5% since then.

"In April 2021, Global Net Lease announced that it had agreed to acquire the McLaren Technology Centre in Woking for £170 million.
The group sold McLaren Applied to Greybull Capital in August 2021."

"In May 2018 it was announced that Canadian businessman Michael Latifi had purchased approximately 10% of the group with an investment of £200 million.This leaves the current shareholding at: Mumtalakat Holding Company 56.4%, TAG Group Limited 14.32%, Nidala (BVI) Limited (Michael Latifi) 9.84%, Favorita Limited 5.78%, Perlman Investments Limited 5.77%, McKal Holdings Ltd 5.24%, Acanitt Limited 2.65%."

And how exactly does that dispute the fact that McLaren is a company that reaches further than just F1? It apparently comes as a shock to you, but companies can sell off their assets. And perhaps even more shocking; rarely is a company actually owned by a single entity!

Also you wrong by 4 years. (huge mistake) accuracy is important.

"The group was founded by Ron Dennis shortly after his acquisition of the McLaren Formula One team in 1981, as the TAG McLaren Group due to a partnership with Mansour Ojjeh's TAG Group."

McLaren Group, founded on 2 december 1985. Ron Dennis' Project 4 and McLaren merged in 1981. And before you start disputing this, the found date is literally on the sidebar of the wikipedia article you quoted.

I took the time to fact-check it, and literally nowhere is a founding date of somewhere in 1981 mentioned. However what is mentioned on this news article is the following;

"The TAG Group first invested in McLaren in 1984 and is the longest standing of the McLaren Group’s shareholders."

I might of course be wrong here, but last I checked, 1984 came after 1981. This also aligns with the TAG-Porsche engines that McLaren ran in the MP4/2.

This and your other post, exactly.

Can you supply any data the supports your claim?

Can you?

[NicoS]

The linked article to MB sales has a chart that shows continual decline in sales from 2016...

Could be from other factors, couldn't it? Outside of that, it's still up.

Also the data table above the chart shows no correlation between F1 success and vehicle sales growth...

Just wondering, but how would one not directly involved in the business actually correlate both?

The first paragraph of the article suggests new model releases as the driving factor for the average 2% growth.

Yes, it's kind of a capitalistic thing to release new models for people to purchase.

Also, the first date named is 2012, whereas Mercedes had their own team from 2010. Market share already was up by 0,5% since then.

"In April 2021, Global Net Lease announced that it had agreed to acquire the McLaren Technology Centre in Woking for £170 million.
The group sold McLaren Applied to Greybull Capital in August 2021."

"In May 2018 it was announced that Canadian businessman Michael Latifi had purchased approximately 10% of the group with an investment of £200 million.This leaves the current shareholding at: Mumtalakat Holding Company 56.4%, TAG Group Limited 14.32%, Nidala (BVI) Limited (Michael Latifi) 9.84%, Favorita Limited 5.78%, Perlman Investments Limited 5.77%, McKal Holdings Ltd 5.24%, Acanitt Limited 2.65%."

And how exactly does that dispute the fact that McLaren is a company that reaches further than just F1? It apparently comes as a shock to you, but companies can sell off their assets. And perhaps even more shocking; rarely is a company actually owned by a single entity!

Also you wrong by 4 years. (huge mistake) accuracy is important.

"The group was founded by Ron Dennis shortly after his acquisition of the McLaren Formula One team in 1981, as the TAG McLaren Group due to a partnership with Mansour Ojjeh's TAG Group."

McLaren Group, founded on 2 december 1985. Ron Dennis' Project 4 and McLaren merged in 1981. And before you start disputing this, the found date is literally on the sidebar of the wikipedia article you quoted.

I took the time to fact-check it, and literally nowhere is a founding date of somewhere in 1981 mentioned. However what is mentioned on this news article is the following;

"The TAG Group first invested in McLaren in 1984 and is the longest standing of the McLaren Group’s shareholders."

I might of course be wrong here, but last I checked, 1984 came after 1981. This also aligns with the TAG-Porsche engines that McLaren ran in the MP4/2.

This and your other post, exactly.

Can you supply any data the supports your claim?

Can you?

I did not make the claim? I am asking for supporting evidence on what you said. in other words, I want to understand how did you come to the conclusion you made.

I find it amazing on this forum that one can post an conclusion, then fight tooth and nail not to present the data that led you to the conclusion... light weight stuff!