The Manor-Marussia Saga

  • Thread starter Thread starter TenEightyOne
  • 601 comments
  • 36,664 views
prisonermonkeys
Manfredi Ravetto offers his thoughts:

http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/10/30/former-caterham-f1-boss-ravetto-gives-his-side-of-the-story/

Of everyone involved in the Caterham mess, he seems a beacon of common sense.
Click to expand...

He's always been very eloquent, that's why he's been Kolles' right-hand-man for so long.

There's a lot of sense in what he says, definitely, but as part of Team Kolles his natural bias seems evident... it's all the other guy's* fault.

*Not Felipe Massa
 
One of the issues is that the FIA only has around 30% influence over setting the regulations. Considering they're the ones that run the sport, it's kind of wrong that the teams have that much power over them. Then no major sponsors in the last 2 years due to the exorbitant costs and the prize money not being split very well is to blame also.

Budget caps can work, they just don't want to reduce their spending. I'm sure that with a budget cap, the top teams will continue being the top teams. Not sure why they're so worried about it.
 
Here's the press conference:



And the transcript: http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/10/16551.html

prisonermonkeys
... the proof that the teams are to blame...
Click to expand...

When teams agree to disagree (expected from competing forces), isn't it time for the governing body to take their responsibilities? Liaising is supposedly a good thing, but at some point decisions need to be made.

In the end as TW said there are different agendas, curious to see the ones that emerge after all this debacle...
 
Soundtrack
When teams agree to disagree (expected from competing forces), isn't it time for the governing body to take their responsibilities? Liaising is supposedly a good thing, but at some point decisions need to be made.
Click to expand...
Last time they did that, the teams declared their intentions to break away and form their own series. And while the FIA should try and rein them in, the teams can oppose and vote down any changes they don't like.
 
I was supportive of Mosley’s intentions to bring cost caps to the sport back then, and yes I remember the (empty?) threat of a dissidence. At this point a status quo is not an option anymore.
 
Bob Fernley, deputy team principal of FIF1, has come out to complain about the way the teams' collective $1billion per annum is divided. He says he thinks Bernie (and CVC) have an agenda to force smaller teams out leading to a model where larger teams supply cars. Clearly that would lead to even more of the split going to the big teams than it does now.

James Allen reports rumours that three teams are considering boycotting the US GP over the whole issue; likely an empty threat but a believable precursor to more schism in F1.
 
prisonermonkeys
Here we have it, the proof that the teams are to blame:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/10/31/top-teams-still-convinced-budget-cap-can-work/

Cutting costs is the most effective way to secure the future of the sport. But no, the teams are resisting it.
Click to expand...
Teams and Top teams are two different things, the current structure of making all teams approve of something for it to go ahead is incredibly dated and doomed for an end game result.

The top teams will not stay around long when they force everyone else off the grid.
 
Of course the big teams don't want change as it will obviously be taking the cut from their end, it's no secret to why Williams changed their attitude in the last season thanks to their results of this season.
 
mustafur
Of course the big teams don't want change as it will obviously be taking the cut from their end, it's no secret to why Williams changed their attitude in the last season thanks to their results of this season.
Click to expand...

It's not purely on results, part of it is the mysteriously described "history in the sport". That makes Ferrari and McLaren clear beneficiaries, presumably Williams too.
 
History of the sport doesn't help current year events.
 
No, but Ferrari use it for leverage over the FIA and FOM. If they don't get paid, they threaten to leave the sport.
 
If you were to ask me personally, instead of squabbling over third cars F1 should look to MotoGP for a solution to its ongoing problems. When I say look to MotoGP I mean just as factory teams in MotoGP are allowed to sell a complete chassis package to privateers(as Honda and Ducati currently do) or allow the factory works teams to have satellite teams then things would probably start getting better.
 
A2K78
If you were to ask me personally, instead of squabbling over third cars F1 should look to MotoGP for a solution to its ongoing problems. When I say look to MotoGP I mean just as factory teams in MotoGP are allowed to sell a complete chassis package to privateers(as Honda and Ducati currently do) or allow the factory works teams to have satellite teams then things would probably start getting better.
Click to expand...

The problem is this; let's say that this year we'd had the same system. How would Marussia in their Mercedes customer car have done in comparison to Caterham in their Ferrari customer car? Do you think the results would have been a fair reflection on each team's comparative technical attainment?

How would Ferrari look if Caterham turned out to be so technically inept that the showroom customer Ferrari still finished 19th week after week?
 
Nobody understood the Claiming Rule Teams rules, anyway.

Personally, I think the solution is to introduce customer cars in such a way that customer teams have a legitimate claim to the car. Rather than buying the finished product, they and other customer teams would pool their resources at the end of the season and develop the car jointly for the next. Every team who contributed would be free to develop the car on their own throughout the year, on the condition that they make the parts they develop available to the other teams using the car (and to make things fair, there would be a minimum requirement of parts they had to develop).
 
TenEightyOne
How would Ferrari look if Caterham turned out to be so technically inept that the showroom customer Ferrari still finished 19th week after week?
Click to expand...

With no smaller teams to fill the grid, isn't a top team’s car bound to finish last anyway?

They’d probably be more concerned if a customer’s car outperformed their, like Super Aguri did.
 
ukfan758
Yes it is Mr. Ecclestone.
Click to expand...
That doesn't exonerate the teams. Why on earth do Ferrari need $80 million just for showing up?

The biggest teams get the biggest cut - and in most cases, they don't need the money. But they won't give it up, either. Monisha Kaltenborn has been particularly critical of this, pointing out that for all their talk about the need to help smaller teams, the bigger teams haven't lifted a finger to help.
 
Basically what Bernie says is don’t count on CVC’s or my personal share of profit to sort your troubles out.
 
Adam Cooper has some more details on what Bernie is thinking:

http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/11/02/ecclestone-promises-to-redistribute-f1s-wealth/

The short version is that he attributes the problem to a lack of long-term foresight in managing the commercial side of the sport - he has been dealing with the teams individually rather than collectively. As a result there are some complex contracts out there that must co-exist without contradicting one another, which naturally limits the scope of what they can do when it comes time for renegotiation.

Even though he says he knows what the problem is, if not how to deal with it, he does float one major idea - a fund for smaller teams, with the money coming from the performance multiplier and matched dollar-for-dollar by Ecclestone. But he reckons someone is going to oppose it.
 
How generous of him to offer his help on the basis of an unachievable prerequisite...

Eric Boullier and Toto Wolff about the possibility of having a cut in their share:


EB: No.

Q: Toto?
TW: We laugh about Eric’s answer but this is why he’s paid. He’s paid to bring performance to the team, sporting performance and financial performance. And, again, this is like it is out there in any other businesses. Now, I think we are all… and here we are having good relationships and we understand that we need to look at Formula One in total and overall… but would you… I wouldn’t know any entrepreneur out there - and I’m getting a cheque and I’m writing one actually so I’m in a different role - any entrepreneur giving up on an upside… would you let a client go, would you not accept the income. The answer is no. None of us, none of the five of us would.
Click to expand...
 
And that's why the big teams are the problem. Gerard Lopez put it best on Friday when he pointed out that it costs a team €4 million to compete in GP2 - but it costs €200 million (or more) to be competitive in Formula 1 when the difference between the two categories in only a few seconds per lap.

Say the five biggest teams give up 5% of the income that they would normally receive from the prize money. Just the prize money, mind you; not their other sources of income. How much will they actually lose on the track? The pecking order won't really change - maybe it will from race to race, but certainly not over the long term.

The smaller teams aren't asking the big teams to give them so much money that they steal positions away from the big teams. They just want enough money to be stable enough to compete over the long term. But here, the big teams refuse to give up money, refuse to cut costs and refuse to generate any ideas to save the smaller teams.
 
Despite the big teams reluctance to give up on their privileges, I believe their is enough in the F1 business revenue to give the back-markers some breathing air. It should at least if you consider the growing calendar and inflation off the hosting fees...

The FIA inaction on the matter betrays the ineffectiveness of partnering competitors in the policy-making arm, and unfortunately fuels the idea of a behind the scenes agenda.
 
Soundtrack
Despite the big teams reluctance to give up on their privileges, I believe their is enough in the F1 business revenue to give the back-markers some breathing air. It should at least if you consider the growing calendar and inflation off the hosting fees...
Click to expand...

Easily enough, 63% of all F1's income is distributed amongst the teams. As noted here already the imbalance is in the big players getting a vast share of that.

Soundtrack
The FIA inaction on the matter betrays the ineffectiveness of partnering competitors in the policy-making arm, and unfortunately fuels the idea of a behind the scenes agenda.
Click to expand...

What? Not to anyone who knows what the FIA is, they're a regulatory body for many series. F1 is a business that buys in governance from the FIA, as do many other sports.
 
Soundtrack
The FIA inaction on the matter betrays the ineffectiveness of partnering competitors in the policy-making arm, and unfortunately fuels the idea of a behind the scenes agenda.
Click to expand...
The FIA has tried, but any meaningful changes would need the support of the teams, since they're the ones directly affected by it - and the teams won't agree to it.
 
Back