Saving F1 - the new approach?

[ESPImperium]

You've obviously put a lot of thought into that, but reality has a tendency to resist cookie-cutter solutions such as the ones you've proposed. One-size-fits-all anything rarely ever works.

True, cookie cutter solutions dont have much of a impact, however id propose a real and propper freeing up of the technichal regulations. Like freeing up alot of engine related regs and electronics regs, this should make development faster. Give in one hand but take away in another.

There's nothing to nudge. It simply won't happen.

Trying to get Bernie Ecclestone to take less money is like trying to get Bernie Ecclestone to take less money. You'd have more luck getting water from a rock.

FOM's fees are so skewed that they have absolutely nothing to do with race attendance or TV viewing figures. That blows my mind.

Bernie taking less money is like blood from a stone, but im sure that if you put it where he got €25m from every promotor, and then a share in the promotors profits, say 40% of the profits from a F1 event, he would want F1 to go to venues that are sell outs with thirty 5,000 seater grandstands arround it would mean that tracks would have arround 150,000 people at each event minimum.

F1 has to be affordable, and also a sport where the promotors and rights holder need to act in the good of the sport in order to maximise revinues.

If the teams were giveb a gaurenteed ammount of money, say €25m a year from FOM with prize money split like this from another thread aboput prize money F1 would be in a far better shape financially and if teams were better off financially there would be less bickering and a better spectacle and a better sport due to it.



It would mean there would be more of a rerward to be fast as there is alot you can do with €8m and even more you can do with €35m in one occurance.

Its all about getting their heads and battering them all together to act in unity for the best intrest for the sport and not whats best for them.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

1. F1 is not road relevant nor is it necessary to be road relevant.

2. Manufacturers are not required for F1 to exist.

3. F1 is not road relevant nor is it necessary to be road relevant.

4. F1 is not road relevant nor is it necessary to be road relevant.

5. F1 is not road relevant...you get the idea, I'm sure

1. Why have KERS? Why have branded tyres? Why have anything remotely automotive related in that case?
I read a quite exquisite post(different site) the other day where a student mathematically deduced that at speed, and F1 car is utilising more aircraft technology than automotive. It has grown into this, and the FIA have allowed it to be so.

2. Without manufacturers, there would be no F1. This is something you have skirted around for too long.
Pre war racers, like Maserati, Alfa Romeo, Talbot, Ferrari and Mercedes-Benz(1954) returned after the war in 1950 to compete in the inaugural F1 season. You could argue that Ferrari where indies, but the reality is that Ferrari always had intentions of becoming a manufacturer to the rich and famous, just a matter of time.
Without the manufacturers F1 would not have taken off when it did. Again you could argue it being a matter of time. But I can guarantee you, the publics imagination where not captured by the small teams but by the grandiose Alfa, Maserati and Mercedes teams duking it out. After that it snowballed.
And its interesting that alot of the manufacturers helped the smaller teams go racing.

I wont go off on one about the intricacies of that, google is your friend.

3,4,5.
So you keep saying J_A_F, the longer F1 keeps the distance between itself and the cars you can buy the quicker it loses it's relevance and becomes a circus with tit for tat arguments on who's developed what. Oh wait.......
You see, there is a reason the Chinese, turks etc dont buy F1. And alot of these new territories love automobiles.
They dont see any commonality at all. None.
McLaren sold us the F1.
Mercedes the 300SL
Honda the NSX
Ferrari have sold us many cars using F1 inspired technology.

When has this drip down effect last taken place? 20 odd years ago? No coincidence then that the Aero domination happened around the same time, is it?
It's a big tangled web that will need sorting out. Everything is linked to the other in F1.
If you changed the rules to overcome aero reliance, you start to make the series attractive to Manufacturers. They came back, and followers of the brand(millions in many cases) are instantly interested.

The focus becomes the driver, the engine the suspension etc. Not the fancy new flexing wing wich cost god knows how much to implement. Aerodynamics take up a vast percentage of a teams budget, by making it LESS relevant you free up funds for real automotive innovations and relevance. Ferrari want it, and have been vociferous about it too. An irrelevance I can here you think already

But what is wrong with at least trying it? There is not alot to be gained by continuing F1's current strategy. Hell, the FIA took a short cut these last 2 seasons by asking Pirelli to produce comedy tyres! I'm not sure even this is the right course of action. The underlying problem here is that F1 should be about cars and not upside down aeroplanes mimicking automobiles.

I could be very wrong, but who can honestly counter otherwise until it has at least been given a chance to succeed?

[bhall]

F1 has to be affordable, and also a sport where the promotors and rights holder need to act in the good of the sport in order to maximise revinues.

On this, I agree with you 1,000,000%. Empty seats need to mean something more than just an additional challenge for the director of the world feed.

We, the fans, have been completely written out of the equation, and that means we don't have the power of the purse that the vast majority of consumers of everything else enjoy. It's given F1 the license to operate with impunity, because there are no consequences for stupid decisions, and that's simply not healthy for anyone or anything. I submit that this is the #1 reason for why F1 has turned into a bloated monster.

I don't know how to fix it, though. The solution has to respect both the market and the interests of fans, which I contend is synonymous with the best interests of the sport. That's just tricky when F1 has essentially become a planet unto itself and when what's needed is a complete paradigm shift.

This is the one aspect of racing in which I think F1 could learn a lot from NASCAR.

[ESPImperium]

F1 has to be affordable, and also a sport where the promotors and rights holder need to act in the good of the sport in order to maximise revinues.

On this, I agree with you 1,000,000%. Empty seats need to mean something more than just an additional challenge for the director of the world feed.

We, the fans, have been completely written out of the equation, and that means we don't have the power of the purse that the vast majority of consumers of everything else enjoy. It's given F1 the license to operate with impunity, because there are no consequences for stupid decisions, and that's simply not healthy for anyone or anything. I submit that this is the #1 reason for why F1 has turned into a bloated monster.

I don't know how to fix it, though. The solution has to respect both the market and the interests of fans, which I contend is synonymous with the best interests of the sport. That's just tricky when F1 has essentially become a planet unto itself and when what's needed is a complete paradigm shift.

This is the one aspect of racing in which I think F1 could learn a lot from NASCAR.

Thats pretty much the way i feel, F1 can learn from the NASCAR model, however not convert to the NASCAR model in whole.

I think there is plenty to learn from MotoGP as well, as if F1 was to use a creative numbering system, like following number 46 is like following Rossi, Lorenzo as 99, Toesland ad 55. Following a number for a driver will ensure that there is consistancy in the sport, only the number 1 will be used by a champion of the previous season if he wants to.

I think there is a revinue stream there, FOM licences out the numbers to the teams or drivers and then in return they get 50% of all merchandise profits, whitch would then be diluted into the sport elsewhere. Say Jenson or Lewis wanted to keep the number 22 after their WDC win, they could pay the rights holder €2m a year for the number, and or up to 50% of the profits of merchandise.

This way i think F1 could push themselvs into a more comercially viable posistion.

There is much more that F1 can do, but they are choosing not to at the moment due to the turkeys all not voting for christmas and deciding they want to be eaten at easter or thanksgiving.

[SeijaKessen]

F1 has to be affordable, and also a sport where the promotors and rights holder need to act in the good of the sport in order to maximise revinues.

On this, I agree with you 1,000,000%. Empty seats need to mean something more than just an additional challenge for the director of the world feed.

We, the fans, have been completely written out of the equation, and that means we don't have the power of the purse that the vast majority of consumers of everything else enjoy. It's given F1 the license to operate with impunity, because there are no consequences for stupid decisions, and that's simply not healthy for anyone or anything. I submit that this is the #1 reason for why F1 has turned into a bloated monster.

I don't know how to fix it, though. The solution has to respect both the market and the interests of fans, which I contend is synonymous with the best interests of the sport. That's just tricky when F1 has essentially become a planet unto itself and when what's needed is a complete paradigm shift.

This is the one aspect of racing in which I think F1 could learn a lot from NASCAR.

It's funny how you mention the fans being completely written out of the equation in F1. I've had that feeling for quite a long time with how the sport is administered.

There really is no simple solution on how to fix things per say, since one group is likely to be left feeling like they got screwed out of something, and may become even more resentful as a result. This forum is a prime example of it...imagine trying to get a general consensus amongst the posters regarding how to "fix" F1. It's not particularly likely since many cannot even agree on what is wrong with the sport...or they feel the answers are so simple to implement, and totally disregard how the world operates in reality. I know my views on where I would like to see the sport go are ultimately unrealistic...and untenable in certain regards.

I do believe a lot of the problems regarding F1 as a whole, stem from certain individuals who have been in power for far too long, and control much, if not all of the decision-making processes...or they have been hand-picked successors to carry on ideas of prior leaders. I would not advocate going to a decision-making process where you have a board that votes because things become more bloated with more bureaucracy involved. It would be ok to have a board that gives their recommendations to a senior person, but nothing more than that. I would personally like to see people in charge that do not have long-standing links to F1. What we have are people running the sport who have been around the sport for too long. Not that their knowledge or experience cannot be valuable, but freshness is a good thing. Sometimes it is best to seek leadership from outside to give everyone a swift kick in the ass, so to speak. However, the likelihood of that happening is slim.

[Cam]

I don't know how to fix it, though. The solution has to respect both the market and the interests of fans, which I contend is synonymous with the best interests of the sport. That's just tricky when F1 has essentially become a planet unto itself and when what's needed is a complete paradigm shift.

It's interesting that GP1 rules are being drafted. Why? I'm still trying to figure that out and what the consequent might be. Could in fact a formal split be on the cards or at least in the form of a Plan B? These new agreements might all have 'switch to GP1' clauses in them, for all we know. It would be smart to hedge bets.

Would people (fans) come across if the half the teams broke away and started GP1? I mean, F1 is just a brand and it'll be no different to going from Adidas shoes to Nike shoes. If the teams choose not to subscribe to that brand, the teams still actually have all the gear to start up tomorrow under a new name. They wouldn't even miss a beat. I bet they'd be 20 tracks around the globe offering good rates too.

Would the fans follow though? Same cars, teams, basic premise - new name. How many here would watch?

[bhall]

F1 teams aren't going anywhere. They're signed up for F1 because the money is in "Formula One."

Here's Ecclestone's latest salvo into the heart of goodwill.

Bernie Ecclestone suggests free-to-air Formula One could end on BBC

[Cam]

F1 teams aren't going anywhere. They're signed up for F1 because the money is in "Formula One."

Here's Ecclestone's latest salvo into the heart of goodwill.

Bernie Ecclestone suggests free-to-air Formula One could end on BBC

So as the global crunch continues and people pull out of every subscription service they have - only the wealthy can view?? I guess the majority of people on the planet (not wealthy) now know MeE thinks you're scum not worthy of watching F1 unless you have a disposable income fit for it. Instead of offering perhaps a 'budget' free to air service and a 'all access, all options' premium service, now it's all or nothing. I may be alone in this thinking - but that move is insanity.

I feel like F1 simply don't want me. They don't want me at the track, want me to view it on tv or want me involved at all.

It's almost discrimination based on social status. Hmmm... lawsuit?

[bhall]

I don't think the legal system would respond favorably to your almost lawsuit. You don't even almost have a right to watch television.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the way Ecclestone manages F1; he's following microeconomic principles to a T. The problem is that he's doing it on a macroeconomic scale.

If the F1 circus went solely to the highest bidders, F1 would be an Asian-oriented series. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, either. But the reason F1 can command high fees there is because of its historic roots in long-established markets elsewhere. Bahrain doesn't pay millions of dollars for F1 to advertise itself to Bahrain, Bahrain pays millions of dollars for F1 to advertise itself to Europe and the rest of the world.

Ecclestone leverages F1's large worldwide fan base to attract promoters in emerging economies. He then leverages the astronomical fees paid by those emerging economies to extract more money from "legacy" circuits.

This practice would be fine if it pitted circuit against circuit, but it doesn't. The way Ecclestone plays the game, it's circuits versus governments, many of whom are accountable only to themselves, not who they represent.

He's playing Three Card Monte with the world, and we're always the losers. It's the con of the century.

As I've said before, this is unsustainable, because eventually the pawns - us, the fans - will no longer be able to afford to be the audience Ecclestone relies upon to generate his massive fees. Then the system implodes. Bernie doesn't care about that, though. He's 80-something years old and has more money than God; he does this --- because he enjoys it, not because he needs to. But F1 is bigger than that, and it's certainly bigger than him. The rules of the game need to be reset to reflect that.

I just don't know how.

[Cam]

I don't think the legal system would respond favorably to your almost lawsuit. You don't even almost have a right to watch television.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the way Ecclestone manages F1; he's following microeconomic principles to a T. The problem is that he's doing it on a macroeconomic scale.

If the F1 circus went solely to the highest bidders, F1 would be an Asian-oriented series. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, either. But the reason F1 can command high fees there is because of its historic roots in long-established markets elsewhere. Bahrain doesn't pay millions of dollars for F1 to advertise itself to Bahrain, Bahrain pays millions of dollars for F1 to advertise itself to Europe and the rest of the world.

Ecclestone leverages F1's large worldwide fan base to attract promoters in emerging economies. He then leverages the astronomical fees paid by those emerging economies to extract more money from "legacy" circuits.

This practice would be fine if it pitted circuit against circuit, but it doesn't. The way Ecclestone plays the game, it's circuits versus governments, many of whom are wealthy monarchies who are accountable only to themselves.

He's playing Three Card Monte with the world, and we're always the losers. It's the con of the century.

As I've said before, this is unsustainable, because eventually the pawns - us, the fans - will no longer be able to afford to be the audience Ecclestone relies upon to generate his massive fees. Then the system implodes. Bernie doesn't care about that, though. He's 80-something years old and has more money than God; he does this --- because he enjoys it, not because he needs to. But F1 is bigger than that, and it's certainly bigger than him. The rules of the game need to be reset to reflect that.

I just don't know how.

"Three Card Monte with the world" -

"The rules of the game need to be reset to reflect that." = [-o<

[Cam]

Seems MrE has clarified the reason for the switch away from BBC was also due to complacency. Personally, I'd have kept free view access as an option and given the BBC a boot in the a$$ to pick up its act. Everyone can watch free to air, not everyone has pay tv, so how he figures a better penetration is beyond me. Happy for it to be explained.

[SeijaKessen]

Seems MrE has clarified the reason for the switch away from BBC was also due to complacency. Personally, I'd have kept free view access as an option and given the BBC a boot in the a$$ to pick up its act. Everyone can watch free to air, not everyone has pay tv, so how he figures a better penetration is beyond me. Happy for it to be explained.

That's the great thing about being Bernie.

You don't have to explain anything, you can just spout off factually incorrect statements all day long because even when you are wrong, what's going to happen?

[Cam]

nice article from Autosport: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100328
"The world economic situation, and that of Europe in particular, is very serious and the world of Formula 1 cannot ignore the fact," di Montezemolo told the official Ferrari website."We cannot lose any more time: we need to tackle urgently and with determination the question of costs. Ferrari is in agreement with the FIA's position that drastic intervention is required. We are absolutely convinced that, as I have always said, the teams and the commercial rights holder must work together with the Federation on this front.

Drastic intervention? That would suggest dire circumstances. Italy has now been put on the radar ("Because Italy does not have enough economic growth to generate money, the government will probably have to borrow it at high interest rates, adding to an already heavy debt load"). No wonder Ferrari are $hitting themselves screaming for savings.

One feels it's only a matter of time before F1 goes or is so drastically different in every form than what it is now that it would;t be F1.

You wouldn't own F1 shares for any price now would you.

[myurr]

Drastic intervention? That would suggest dire circumstances. Italy has now been put on the radar ("Because Italy does not have enough economic growth to generate money, the government will probably have to borrow it at high interest rates, adding to an already heavy debt load"). No wonder Ferrari are $hitting themselves screaming for savings.

One feels it's only a matter of time before F1 goes or is so drastically different in every form than what it is now that it would;t be F1.

You wouldn't own F1 shares for any price now would you.

Italy is in trouble as it has to provide 20% of the bailout funds to Spain, borrowing at rates higher than it is lending to Spain. This is going to worsen the problems in Italy itself even without there being any runs on their exposed banks or the credit reference agencies taking another look at Italy's finances.

The Eurozone hasn't got a clue how to fix its economy so despite all the triumphant rhetoric after they 'solve' every crisis, they're really just stumbling uncontrollably from one crisis to the next. The big one to watch out for is that if Greece exits the Euro then the ECB is effectively insolvent and will need it's own bailout (I've heard figures of up to EUR 500bn), but the ECB is effectively keeping several Eurozone countries afloat as no one else wants to lend money to them. So there isn't any way for those countries to get the money they need to bail the ECB out. Either they're going to have to persuade Germany to underwrite the entire project (good luck getting that past the voters) or they're going to have to start printing money at an enormous rate, pushing up inflation and probably leading to higher interest rates to try and keep it under control. If that looks like it could happen then expect a run on the currency itself as those holding Euros sell them off as fast as they can and switch to a stronger currency.

[Cam]

I know, the whole region is f*#ed. So how is a sport allowed to blow billions, and I mean billions, each year while families don't eat because they're trying to save their home? Then promoters whinge ticket sales are down. You think! Any sensibility left F1 years ago. The rose colored glasses MrE talks of are on his own face. F1 is no longer a great sport fans are flocking too and it's no longer viable. Bring back the bare bones racing, or disappear. As a 'purist' the GFC maybe the best thing to happen to F1.