[Purple-banana]

There's no way they would make change to aero regs for next season. So little time and no budget in the teams for it to happen. If they change the front wing, the whole car needs changing.

They knew all this when these regs were written up for 2017. They messed up so they should suffer the consequences. 2021 isn't too far off, so just get it right then.

They did it with the Halo.

I'd take a compromised 2019 for a better 2020, rather than 2 more seasons of what we have now

[Monster Hesh]

Valid point PB. Maybe a little harsh to impose such high impacting changes two years in a row. Lower teams just wont be able to afford it, so the two tier would open further.
Cheapest solution would probably be to open freedom of DRS for chasing cars.

[Jody Barton]

I agree Hesh. Increase DRS detection / deployment to 2 seconds. See how that goes, still might not be enough to get past the car in front, maybe allow the car behind to use DRS wherever as opposed to specific zones. Might make it too easy, I don't know, but changing such a major aero component won't harm the big boys. Never does. It just widens the gap.

[LotusLover]

So there was discussion on lack of teams within the sport currently and the Toto Wolff article in relation to Ocon and the Mercedes drivers programme, in truth it is not just Mercedes programme it’s Ferraris and RBRs also, there are too many drivers coming through and just not enough seats, this will always be a problem as there will never be enough seats, that’s life to be honest, look at recently Lando has landed the Mclaren recently which is great but look at Russell? On the verge of winning F2 yet will he drive in F1 for 2019 it seems unlikely and that’s a shame because he has fought hard to get that opportunity. It would appear the system is flawed. On the point of teams this was raised on another thread and F1 could benefit from more teams no doubt. LM are new owners and it will take time but realistically in this Hybrid era there appears to be a reluctance to invest into F1 mainly I suspect, because of cost. I think it’s quite worrying for the sport and as Jody highlighted the “Pay per view” is bring audience figures down, CH4 in UK only does part coverage which is a shame because this season is quite tense and they are missing a trick here to collect more viewers. Now how do they fix it??

[NeilP]

First thing they need to do is to more fairly distribute the revenue created by F1. The current system is grossly unfair, no team should face closure when there is so much money to be had.

Secondly, everyone fans included need to stop trying to level the playing field completely. That is not F1. This is a modern disease that everyone needs to get a trophy attitude that prevails among people today. Its perfectly okay to have winners and losers that is what life and in particular sports is all about. I will temper that comment by saying we do need more competitive racing, it may be a poor topic on my behalf and yes I am well aware of what is going on in the real world but tyres are a great example. They are managed so heavily they allow very little room for divergence and possible advantages. Rather than budget caps how about relaxing SOME of the regulations that will allow room for even more innovation especially with small teams and up and coming race engineers? To my eye there are far too many regulations on the cars, its about racing, yes the technology is a vital component of that but lets not forget the big picture which I think sometimes gets lost in a sea of details.

Third, stop beating up on the engine manufacturers. If it were not for likes of Renault, Honda, Mercedes and Ferrari where would be ; watching cars with vastly inferior performance and god knows what in reliability terms. These companies spend millions in development and I can be fairly certain that despite how much they charge for their products they lose money doing it. The engines are a lot closer than people realize, obviously all have different characteristics just as people do so the Honda engine may need more fuel that others, let it have it again its over regulation.

Four you need more teams. Liberty are spending all sorts of times talking to engine manufacturers about entering the sport does that mean they will be creating new teams or just want to supply. We dont especially need more engine suppliers. Its nice to have more options for sure but its more teams we need right now not engine suppliers alone. Do away with the stupid rule that you have to be in F1 for so many years before you get a share of the pool!

Five: I understand its all about money, it is a business after all but you need to be inventive about how you raise that money. Selling rights to pay per view may be good in someways but you are severely limiting your potential audience. Find ways to broaden the outlook, bring in more sponsorship. Its all about marketing, dont be a sheep be a shepherd, lead dont follow.

There, that is a start, its not simple its complicated and many decisions is some areas massively affect others but I always say come back to the point of the sport, its about racing at its cutting edge level. Keep it that way.

[LotusLover]

Good post Neil, would you agree that with less engine suppliers there is a problem that effectively you have b teams and then it entwines with the driver programmes run by the big two currently Ferrari and Mercedes RBR are slightly different as are Mclaren in the fact they are supplied just a thought?

[NeilP]

Good post Neil, would you agree that with less engine suppliers there is a problem that effectively you have b teams and then it entwines with the driver programmes run by the big two currently Ferrari and Mercedes RBR are slightly different as are Mclaren in the fact they are supplied just a thought?

Diversity is what you want in anything for it to truly blossom. Rather than manufacturers having undue influence on otherwise independent teams why not let the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari or any other manufacturer run their own two factory teams why stop at one?

That said its not a simple outlook. For example would Sauber have survived if Ferrari did not step up and supply?  Would Haas have even been able to enter F1 without Ferrari support.  Ferrari come in for a lot of grief from people yet these two examples get overlooked often without thought or comment. Nobody saved Manor or Caterham and they are sad losses.

Everyone wants to win but F1 is and always has been slightly different, many teams enter and race for other reasons they know they dont have a snowboard in hells chance of winning the WDC or Constructors. However these teams are invaluable for other reasons.

It all comes down to one thing, Money.  If Liberty want to increase interest and revenue then any business model (well 99% anyway) will tell you expansion is the way forward and I believe that is true here. Obviously that means more teams but you are going to have to eliminate enough of the financial risks for new teams to feel comfortable enough to take that step. Quite how you do that is only known to Liberty. Are they being too 'greedy' with their profit expectations, do they have the ability to look beyond the current situation, what are their long term goals?  Without knowing these things its impossible to say.

Personally I think too much is being made of engine manufacturers involvement certainly given the Ferrari example above do we expect them to be totally benevolent, no. Red Bull have a junior team why should Mercedes and Ferrari not have the same situation (obviously with Ferrari in essence they have at least one foot on the door at Sauber). I really dont get the Mercedes situation and the grief people are giving them when Ocon leaves Force India where are their Juniors driving, the answer nowhere!

[LotusLover]

Good post Neil, would you agree that with less engine suppliers there is a problem that effectively you have b teams and then it entwines with the driver programmes run by the big two currently Ferrari and Mercedes RBR are slightly different as are Mclaren in the fact they are supplied just a thought?

Diversity is what you want in anything for it to truly blossom. Rather than manufacturers having undue influence on otherwise independent teams why not let the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari or any other manufacturer run their own two factory teams why stop at one?

That said its not a simple outlook. For example would Sauber have survived if Ferrari did not step up and supply?  Would Haas have even been able to enter F1 without Ferrari support.  Ferrari come in for a lot of grief from people yet these two examples get overlooked often without thought or comment. Nobody saved Manor or Caterham and they are sad losses.

Everyone wants to win but F1 is and always has been slightly different, many teams enter and race for other reasons they know they dont have a snowboard in hells chance of winning the WDC or Constructors. However these teams are invaluable for other reasons.

It all comes down to one thing, Money.  If Liberty want to increase interest and revenue then any business model (well 99% anyway) will tell you expansion is the way forward and I believe that is true here. Obviously that means more teams but you are going to have to eliminate enough of the financial risks for new teams to feel comfortable enough to take that step. Quite how you do that is only known to Liberty. Are they being too 'greedy' with their profit expectations, do they have the ability to look beyond the current situation, what are their long term goals?  Without knowing these things its impossible to say.

Personally I think too much is being made of engine manufacturers involvement certainly given the Ferrari example above do we expect them to be totally benevolent, no. Red Bull have a junior team why should Mercedes and Ferrari not have the same situation (obviously with Ferrari in essence they have at least one foot on the door at Sauber). I really dont get the Mercedes situation and the grief people are giving them when Ocon leaves Force India where are their Juniors driving, the answer nowhere!

Well the first paragraph seems to rotate back round to Mercedes and Ferrari getting the lion share of money, so this maybe a point where potential suppliers think "why bother" if, as we are pretty much agreed that equal distribution was enforced then the sport may become more attractive, but again we go to the point of "cost to, produce, run and maintain" the hybrid engines and all components.  Its fascinating to see this technology but it is detrimental in terms of who can or, wants to spend vast amounts of money? that leads to, teams who want to race cars at a affordable level however, the factory teams will undoubtedly be at an advantage (not a problem i believe) i suppose it is about "inclusion" which ultimately opens up more seats for more drivers does it not? Personally i am sceptical that hybrid is truly necessary in the world of motorsport. it is the way forward for day to day car usage but we now have Formula E to develop that concept rather than good old fashioned noisy brutes of cars

[NeilP]

Lotus - It does not have to be equal distribution just fairer. I agree about the V6 Hybrid engine but that was a demand of the engine manufacturers they wanted F1 to have some relevance to road cars which is of course where these guys make their money. Naturally you can argue about that relevance all day just like you can who the best driver or car is. Lets not forget without engines there is no F1, yes it would survive but it would not be F1 and that is crux of the arguments or discussion here.

Formula E is great, I dont watch but great for motor racing its gives people a choice and that is what I cannot seem to get through to so many people. If you dont like F1 go watch something you do like. Stop trying to change things. F1 has always been cutting edge by its very nature money talks, its never been any different why should it change.

Going off at a bit of tangent here but all this talk of Electrically operated cars being the future I have yet to see someone come forward and tell me how we are going to generate enough power to satisfy that demand (bear in mind some countries want to be all electric is a very short time) last time I looked most countries electrical supplies are running at 99 and 100% of consumption!!!!

[Jody Barton]

I have to say the hybrid engines being the "big cost" barrier is actually a bit of a red herring. I just don't buy it. One of the biggest costs for the top teams is wind tunnels, every season it's the same, running wind tunnels and CFD models. Next, and the differentiator I think that really matters in suspension. I think it was 2015 when I read that Mercedes had spent over £100m developing their FRIC suspension. RBR and Ferrari were spending similar sums developing their suspensions, and at the time Eddie Jordan commented that was probably close to the entire budget the likes of Sauber and Manor had to spend on their entire cars. So yeah, costs are certainly part of it, but how do you police it?

This gets partly to the crux of F1's problem. When F1 has introduced standard components it has closed up the competition, be it ABS, power steering or the tyres. I mean it stands to reason right? If the teams have standard components that are the same for everyone there is less scope to 'gap' other teams with development in these areas. But, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing, so it's supposed to be bespoke and an engineering formula as well. Right now though by banning things like active suspension, which are super cheap now, just ask the privateer WEC teams, encourages excessive spend from teams who can spend it in these areas. FRIC as good as it was, was nowhere near as good as an average active suspension system could achieve and cost significantly more to produce. So yes there's cost problems, but these are often a direct result of regulations within the sport.

So I think there's a few things around cost of the sport being too high, almost see saw relationships where the balance is current wrong. The regulations need shifting away from some bespoke solutions towards some more generic solutions. That's one thing. The other is then budgets. Do you impose budget caps? They're always fiercely resisted in F1, and when the caps were introduced into WEC the number of competitors dropped. Do again the sport has to be careful about caps. There's distribution of revenue, I think that's certainly part of it. The likes of Ferrari, Mercedes and RBR start with a massive budget before they get their slice of the pie, and their slice of the pie is way bigger than other teams. Again, this wouldn't be so much of a problem IF the sport was attractive to sponsors and the teams were better able to generate their own revenue, but they aren't for a number of reasons:

1) The sports viewing figures have plummeted after Bernie negotiated pay-per-view TV deals around the world. In Sweden before it went pay-per-view F1 used to regularly hit viewing figures of 1m to 2m that's huge in a nation of 9.5m people. It rarely tops 100,000 now. The rights holders might generate more money from these deals, but it limits the value of advertising space for teams. Again it's a seesaw relationship that's gone too far in the wrong direction.
2) It's not a competitive field, so if you sponsor Williams you aren't ever likely, right now, to see your name on the podium. In previous eras if the big teams screwed the pooch the little guys got some exposure, which made taking a punt sponsoring a Jordan or Arrows or Tyrell worth it to Marketing Departments because there was a chance of some exposure for your brand. That's not there now, and coupled with point one, well, it makes sponsoring F1 teams a dumb business decision.

So we're back to either needing regulations to close the gap up again, and or better distribution of funds to do so, so that the sport actually becomes closure and more appealing for investors.

This so brings us to the lack of teams. I removed hearing people at the time saying losing Caterham and Manor was no big kiss the sport because they were cack. This was partly true, but I always felt the reason they were cack was because F1 was utterly cack at the time s d being run to the detriment of the sporting side of things, which again is detrimental to its commercial appeal. New teams aren't going to jump into the sport right now because:

1) the economics don't make sense
2) the regulations mean you'll be onto a hiding for nothing
3) the sport doesn't have the exposure it once did
4) Even if the first 3 issues didn't exist all engine manufacturers are claiming to be at capacity.

There is a reason the like of me have said the only way we'll see new teams is if they're manufacturers. Only the likes of the Volkswagen Audi Group with Audi or Porsche, or Toyota have the wherewithal to actually give F1 a shot, partly because the technical challenges are so stupidly high (when they needn't be with solutions like active suspension waiting in the wings) and because it only makes sense to manufacturers right now given the financial situation and not privateers. Gene Haas originally thought he'd have a build it and they will come attitude, that American manufacturers and sponsors would flood to him if he just did it. Right now I worry that Haas are close to pulling out because that's just not happening...

God that's all depressing, and I've not even started. There are a series of very complex interlinked issues with F1 as it stands now, and I think there is no silver bullet to the issues. And I actually think the commercial concerns of the rights holders are actually detrimental not only to privateers, but also the manufacturers. There needs to be a realignment of not only the sports priorities, but also the relationships before they can even think about fundamentally tackling the issues F1 currently faces.