McLaren-Mercedes, 1995-97.

[timbo]

True, but that could also be seen as there was eight teams to beat in 1995, while only five in 2010, correct?

And that gives us what?
You can look at another piece of info on reliability — top 3 teams in 1995 had 37 retirements combined (not all are technical, I don't have much time to get into details now, sorry), in 2010 top 3 teams had 12, and that with 2 more races.
So, which year it was easier to score a podium?

[munudeges]

The only wormhole here is a a fantasy to justify Mercedes running their own team while other manufacturers pulled out altogether or just focused on engine development.

It's clear Mercedes are going to have to pump in a great deal more than 80 million per year over and above what they put in now to get to where they need that team to be, i.e. winning, otherwise their investment simply isn't worth it. That puts its budget closer to 300 million in total (the average team's budget), and sponsors are not going to be picking that up because there aren't any. More money comes with climbing the constructors' championship. As Renault has already said, if you're not winning it's simply a money pit. They're going to have to sell several thousand extra cars every year off the back of Formula 1 just to justify it.

Trying to argue otherwise and that Mercedes were going to be able to run the operation on the cheap, as Norbert probably thought and sold to Stuttgart, is total nonsense regardless of what happens with the RRA. To have a shot at winning their spending is going to have to climb at least to where the top teams are, and probably over, without the constructors' prize money or sponsor money to cover it.

In short, this is going to have to be one gigantic money pit for Mercedes to get anywhere and that is surely to raise the ire even more of many within Daimler who couldn't understand what happened in 2009 when the rest of the company had to tighten its belts.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The only wormhole here is a a fantasy to justify Mercedes running their own team while other manufacturers pulled out altogether or just focused on engine development.

You mean during an era of RRA and staff limitations, in season testing bans as well as mandated wind tunnel hours as well as Computational limitations.

[...]

[Richard]

How about a bit of both sides....

McL-Merc showed steady improvement in number of points gained in the first 3 years, while Merc 2011 are in a decline.

95-97 was much less predictable than 2011. More retirements, more teams gettng on the podium, hence points shared across a bigger base.

So perhaps it is unfair to expect Merc 2011 to emulate McL-Merc 95. However a decline a points is a failure. Hence the reason Merc have reset the clock to year zero with their completely new leadership team. Meanwhile, McL in 95 brought an established winning team to the table, so they started much higher up the learning curve.


----------


I don't think running a works team is cheaper than going into partnership with an independent team. They'll cost the same. I'd go so far as saying the recent history of lavishly funding works teams (Toyota & Honda) shows that they tend to be less efficient at converting cash into points.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

True Richard.

But mercedes cannot circumvent the RRA to get to the staffing levels of said Honda and Toyota. Meaning spending is cut.
Further to this mercedes keep their sponsorship and prize money to reinvest in the team, a priviledge not afforded during the McLaren era.

[munudeges]

You can look at another piece of info on reliability — top 3 teams in 1995 had 37 retirements combined (not all are technical, I don't have much time to get into details now, sorry), in 2010 top 3 teams had 12, and that with 2 more races.

Assuming the unreliability also happened to McLaren, which it more than did, then you can argue that it was more competitive.

[xpensive]

No matter how you cut or slice it, podiums gives publicity and marketing kudos, you are up there with Ferrari and the rest, I don't think Daimler really worried too much how the six scored in 1996 came about, reliability is also part of racing.

[munudeges]

Meaning spending is cut.

Sigh..... Alas, spending is not being cut. It's just staffing levels, assuming they can actually be policed. There is always some simulation, experiment or software development to throw your money at and that has to be funded by other activities. Unless you're already winning, in which case it gets a bit easier. The RRA will solve nothing.

Further to this mercedes keep their sponsorship and prize money to reinvest in the team, a priviledge not afforded during the McLaren era.

The sponsorship and prize money is simply eaten by the budget and they will then have to make the difference if they want to win and get more prize money and sponsorship. That's why the other manufacturers pulled out and that's the very point being made.

[Richard]

Assuming the unreliability also happened to McLaren, which it more than did, then you can argue that it was more competitive.

mun - The points were spread around more teams in 95-97. In 1995, 13 drivers from 8 teams got on the podium in 17 races, this year it is down to 7 drivers from 4 teams in 17 races.

So it depends on what you mean by competitive. Teams were more evenly matched in 95, so 4th teams could pick up more points. However this season is more of an oligopoly, so it is much harder for a 4th placed team to compete with the big 3 teams.

In 1995, even Gianni Morbidelli (14th WDC) got a podium in the Footwork-Hart (8th WCC)

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

So staffing levels are cut... To the tune of around ten percent a year, teams are no longer allowed in season testing, manhours are limited as are wind tunnel hours, and computers are set to a limit of how powerful they can be....
And you think they still pay the same?

What logical explanation do you have mun?

[Richard]

JET - Shouldn't the funding of Merc 2011 be in the Merc 2011 thread?

Anyway, you are talking about the issue of funding of a Merc works team compared to McL-Merc partnership. They are both in the same environment and subject to the same RRA. Assuming they have comparable operating efficiencies then the cost of getting to the grid will be the same.

So the question is whether Merc will get a better return as a works team? They'll have more control, but less experience and lower profile for several years until they get it together (RB took 4 or 5 years).

Then we can get us back to topic. The Merc-McL arrangement in 95 enabled Merc to get the benefits of McL experience, hence get better (quicker) return on their investment than the high risk approach of building their own works team by purchasing a shell from Honda/Brawn

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The tangent arrived Richard, becuase a view was made that mercedes should have continued the McLaren arrangment due to mercedes not having to fork out vast sums as in the past with the manufacturers you mentioned.

The problem I see with this is that mercedes overall investment exposure is still pretty much the same as they gave McLaren 80m a year no questions asked.
So if they going to spend 80m anyways and gain 80m from sponsors if they have their own team, what is their net loss thus far other than not scoring as many podiums at the equivalent time in a more competitive and reliable formula?


What I do agree with is the team have regressed slightly but have still maintained position.

[Richard]

You’re not comparing like with like. If the cost of running a team has dropped as much as you say, then the cost of the McL partnership will have also dropped.

Running a 50% partnership (random number) with McL will obviously be half the cost of a 100% Merc works team. Then the greater success of McL with more prize money and sponsorship means the Merc works team has less income. Hence it costs Merc more run a works team.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I'm sure it costs mercedes more. But the 80 million was paid in 2009, the last year of the official involvement as we know it.

So we can deduce that mercedes where prepared to spend that correct? Now with prize money and the sponsorship deals, this was the domain of McLaren, mercedes pulled nothing from the team in return for the cars carrying mercedes badges and livery.

That they get this from having their own team tells me it should be included in any budget calculation. We are also forgetting here that mercedes pocketed a very tidy sum from their split. Fluctuates as to whom you believe but the figure is north of 200 million according to wiki and others.

So with 160 million in the pot every year and 200 million sat in the bank, why is mercedes going to be worried on f1 spending? If they are going above 160m it cannot be by much.

[Steven]

Eum, wasn't this thread about Merc in the past, rather than Mercedes GP?