Budget cap is ‘only way for F1 to survive’ – Gascoyne

F1 Fanatic round-up

Heikki Kovalainen, Caterham, Suzuka, 2012In the round-up: Mike Gascoyne says it’s “absolute madness” that some teams are spending ??300m (??360m) on F1.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Gascoyne sounds warning (Sky Sports)

“It is absolute madness. If you look at the budget a team like us run off, which is ??50m (??60m) and is still a huge amount of money, and then you have teams spending six times that – if you had 20 Caterhams on the grid painted different colours, would you actually notice a difference? I don’t think you would. And in this era, I think a budget cap is the only way for this sport to survive.”

F1 bribery trial ‘will be amusing’ – Ecclestone (The Telegraph)

“I’m prepared to give evidence in court and there will be a few others [who do so] as well. I wish they would bring it forward. It’s going to be amusing.”

Pirelli: 2013 tyres an improvement (Autosport)

“We are changing the structure of the tyres, changing all the four compounds and being more aggressive, and that will possibly create some challenges initially.”

A peek at the ancestry of Ferrari?s new Head of Communications (TheJudge13)

“He was Deputy Commercial manager for the Renault F1 team before moving to Ferrari where his rather broad title of ‘Business Development Manager’ tells us not a lot.”

The engines fire up at Campiglio (Ferrari)

“Today sees the start of ‘Wrooom,’ the Press Ski Meeting organised by Philip Morris International.”

Tweets

https://twitter.com/PaulHembery/status/290876429921562624

Comment of the day

Kevin Campos (@kcampos12) thinks F1 should explore less expensive ways of making the racing better:

If you want a larger audience, allow the cars to be more enjoyable to watch on TV.

Why not let the cars be more agile? Cut the minimum weight and ask Pirelli to make wider tires. All inexpensive ways to make more interesting racing with little development needed.
Kevin Campos (@kcampos12)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Ed!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Mario Andretti won the season-opening Argentinian Grand Prix 35 years ago today, still using last season’s Lotus 78.

Reigning championship Niki Lauda was second on his debut for Braham followed by Patrick Depailler’s Tyrrell.

Image ?? Caterham/LAT

Advert | Go Ad-free

89 comments on Budget cap is ‘only way for F1 to survive’ – Gascoyne

  1. GT_Racer said on 15th January 2013, 12:11

    I know a lot of people tend to dislike the idea of a budget cap & often suggest it would kill innovation etc… However I actually think it would work the opposite way if done in a sensible way.

    If you have a sensible budget cap, Then you would see innovation & smart thinking move teams to the front rather than having the current situation of those with the biggest budgets & those who can spend the most on development throughout a season leading the field.

    The smallest teams such as Caterham often get the ‘if you can’t afford it then pull out’ comment thrown back at them, However this is ignoring the fact that over 50% of the grid are struggling to afford the cost of F1 which is why you have many teams looking for drivers who bring some funding.

    The idea of total unrestricted spending & design would be interesting to watch im sure, However it would be a totally unsustainable formula, Can-Am spent itself into the history books by working like that.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 15th January 2013, 18:28

      Funnily enough F1 survived longer with unrestricted development than it has so far with all the restrictions.

      • GT_Racer said on 15th January 2013, 18:36

        F1 has never had unrestricted development, There has always been a set formula which designers/engineer’s have had to work within which limited what they could do.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 15th January 2013, 18:54

          Minimum weight, engine capacity etc. yes that is why they changed the name from F libre (free/unlimited) to F1, but those were broad parameters within which development was unrestricted.

    • I agree that F1 shouldn’t allow itself to get into the situation that Can-Am found itself in – costs definitely need to be controlled – but I feel that the regulations should be opened in combination with a “budget cap” (or whatever the alternatives are); that would give a true indication on which team is the best. Of course the regulations would need to continue to evolve as that is what spurs on designers (if the regulations remain stable for too long the cars will increasingly become carbon-copies of each other) to innovate but as long as we don’t find ourselves in the situation we are in now, with the changes in the cars ranging from 10mm of endplate to a slot in the rear wing (which lets be honest few people get excited about).

  2. HoHum (@hohum) said on 15th January 2013, 20:42

    P.Hemberey states again that they were guilty of going too conservative on tyre choice late in the season.
    I got the distinct impression that the USGP was a great success despite/because the tyres lacked grip and wore very well because of the new super-smooth track surface. Wish I had seen it. Was I wrong ? Was it a boring procession with no overtaking?
    If in fact it was a good race without many pit stops but plenty of passing as I understood what is PH talking about?

  3. Brace (@brace) said on 15th January 2013, 22:15

    I never understood this “costs are too high” thing. For whom are they actually too high? For all those people who are being laid off because some other 3 teams don’t want to invest in their own business?

    It would be like me opening a software development company, for example, and then telling Microsoft to lay off all of their hard working people for no other reason, except for me being incompetent to get enough money to start the business in the first place or being incompetent to make it sustainable.

    During all this talk about hard times, hard economy, I can’t for the life of me understand why are companies that actually have the money told not to employ people. Surely F1 teams should be encouraged to employ people if they can.

    Secondly, that’s actually the one area where money doesn’t disappear up someone rich guy’s ass (I’m looking at you Bernie), but is given as a paycheck to hard working engineers, to other firms outside of team who are in the similar line of work, like production of brakes etc.

    That money isn’t burned, it’s actually injected and should help economy, so why stifling it?

    Areas where money should be saved and budget caps set, is on the money Bernie is allowed to ask from race promoters, in other words, race fees. Too much of that money is going to Bernie and similar 1% filthy rich.

    This would in turn mean that any money that is being shared between Bernie and the teams, based on percentage, would be smaller, and that would mean that teams would have smaller budgets, which would in turn mean that teams would have less money to spend so it would bring the costs down inevitably, insuring costs can’t sky-rocket.

    But as long as we are hearing standard budget cap nonsense (and Bernie wouldn’t like it any other way, nothing that is too logical or actually practical and doable), costs WILL skyrocket and people who are doing the hardest work will be screwed even harder.

  4. F1fanNL (@) said on 15th January 2013, 22:57

    if you had 20 Caterhams on the grid painted different colours, would you actually notice a difference?

    Uhm, yes. I would. Most definitely.

    If they really introduce a budget cap of 50 million I will stop watching F1. F1 should be the pinnacle of motor sport. Not the pinnacle of regulations and limitations.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.