I urge you to draw that chart up (income), then overlay it with the chart on this page showing expenditure.. Now that would be interesting!

The Japanese Bosses should take page from Carlos Ghosn’s book and the relation of Renault with their F1 team.

If I was part of Japanese management I would have pulled plug on the F1 operations

It’s easier to rate a team’s performance by stripping the quantitative aspect, and comparing them by rank. By contrasting a team’s rank in the constructors championship with their rank in the spending league, we can see how effectively they spend money.

Honda has the worst performance, from fourth in the spending league to ninth in the constructor’s championship.

Toyota is next, #1 in spending, but 4 places lower in the manufacturers’, at fifth.

Four teams are at the same position in the spending league and the constructors’ table – McLaren, Red Bull, Williams and Force India

Renault is fifth in the spending league, but finished 1 place higher – fourth – in the constructors

Ferrari finished two places ahead of their spending position – obviously first in the constructors but only third in spending.

BMW and Toro Rosso both finished 3 places higher in the constructors than in the spending league.

In terms of bang per buck, I would rank the teams:

1. BMW
2. Torro Rosso
3. Ferrari
4. Renault
5. McLaren
6. Red Bull
7. Williams
8. Force India
9. Toyota
10 Honda

However, there are other measures of exposure (eg in terms of TV coverage) which I can’t find a link to, and which the teams use to persuade their sponsors what good value for money they’re getting.

You could argue that Torro Rosso and Red Bull are really one big superteam, and should be considered together, but even their combined budget leaves them at the same place as Red Bull in the spending league.

You are dividing the teams’ yearly budget by an abstract performance indicator. E.g Ferrari are not $414,900,000.00 worse off than they were last season. A large amount of that money is sponsorship which they would not if the did not race and perform, and the rest comes from car sales which are boosted by the teams presence is F1.

So a lot of the Honda budget might actually translate into points next year.

The alternative route of establishing a base team unit comprising essential staff and the associated budgets for salaries, travel expenses and etc, might not necessarily be correct, as teams have different pay packages for their staff.

I have to say that at first I thought these numbers where phenomenal but on further reflection I realised they are slightly flawed. Not in pure mathematical terms but rather in rational terms. I’m not sure of the exact figure but I suggest that there needs to be an offset applied or baseline figure applied that would esssentially exclude teams that earned no points i.e. the “also rans”.

In other words there should be a figure applied (subtracted) for the cost of having a car on the track, before you can really determine who got the best value for money.

It made sense when I thought about it….since having written it though the lines have become a little blurred!