Raikkonen and Alonso may be ‘recipe for disaster’

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Bahrain, 2014In the round-up: Alan Jones warns sparks could fly between Ferrari team mates Kimi Raikkonen and Fernando Alonso this year.

Links

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

Keeping Track – Episode 32 (Australian Grand Prix via SoundCloud)

Alan Jones: “I think it’s potentially a bit of recipe for disaster! I can’t see Kimi sort of pulling over and letting Alonso through.”

Ecclestone hopes every race will be like a wet race (Reuters)

“I hope every race is going to be like a wet race. Unpredictable is the word.”

Vettel ‘won’t be closest mate’ – Ricciardo (ESPN)

“Naturally, if I am competitive, I’m sure we’re not going to be the closest mates because he’s not going to like that and I’m not going to like getting my arse kicked if he’s going to be doing that.”

Symonds hails ‘superb’ Massa (Autosport)

“I didn’t know exactly what to expect because I didn’t know him particularly well before he joined Williams, but he is great.”

Chilton aiming for Melbourne points (The Telegraph)

“I’m hoping we can get that [first point] in Australia. If we can get some points there, then I might start to set myself some personal goals.”

Gerhard Berger suffers broken arm while skiing off-piste just over two month’s after Michael Schumacher’s life-threatening ski crash (The Independent)

“Former Formula One driver Gerhard Berger has suffered a broken arm while skiing in Austria, just 10 weeks after his old rival Michael Schumacher’s life-threatening accident that has left him in a coma in Grenoble University Hospital.”

Power steering (City AM)

“The closest F1 has to a successor is its chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, appointed in 2012. However, he does not have hands-on experience running F1 and, as chairman of food and beverage group Nestle, is already busy.”

14 things to look forward to this Formula 1 season (F1 Rejects)

“What we are looking forward to is how everything else going on in the field will render these gimmicks completely unnecessary, thus sending the message loud and clear that F1 doesn’t need to superficially spice up the show.”

Looking ahead to Sebring and beyond (The way it is)

“If we’re not careful the interest in the sport is going to slip away. I’ve got three kids in college and one of them is interested in what I do, but the other two couldn’t care less. They don’t understand why people would drive around in circles wasting fuel. That’s what motor racing is to a lot of people and we have to work very hard to change those perceptions and make the sport more relevant.”

Video – why 2014 changes equal innovation, speed and intrigue (F1)

Something of a departure for the official F1 website – a video guide to the new season which even includes some classic F1 footage. And don’t miss the slimy sales pitch for the super-bonus-double-points-season-finale-bonanza.

Formula One season preview: Biggest change in decades to shake up F1 (Unibet)

My thoughts on the season ahead for Unibet.

Tweets

Comment of the day

@Infernojim sees an upside to the Mercedes-powered teams leading the early running:

I’d rather Mercedes be “dominant” than Ferrari or Renault. And I’m talking about dominant “power-train” here.

That means, Mercedes, Mclaren, Force India and Williams all up the sharp end. Whilst Mercedes (the team) do appear to have the edge, I think that the other Mercedes powered teams will all be strong, and that will lead to competition!

Ferrari’s other cars are only Marussia and Sauber, neither of which would compete with Ferrari properly if they were dominant; and the sense is that Ferrari will actually be pretty good anyway, just not quite as reliable as the Mercedes.

And in Renault you’ve got Red Bull, Lotus, Toro Rosso and Caterham. If Renault was dominant then Red Bull would be dominant, with Lotus giving them a push from time to time. And no one really wants to see that.

I expect that over time Ferrari and Renault will catch-up with Mercedes in terms of the power units, but if you’re going to start with one dominant power train I’d say Mercedes is the best that we could have asked for in terms of the relative competence and ability of each of the teams using them…

I’m so excited to see how this weekend pans out!
@Infernojim

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Renegade.Ego!

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

Alain Prost tested McLaren’s MP4-9 at Estoril 20 years ago today while he considered whether to scrap his plans for retirement following his 1993 world championship victory.

Meanwhile a four-day test at Imola concluded with Michael Schumacher quickest on a 1’21.078, 0.166s faster than the Williams of Ayrton Senna.

While all this was going on a shock announcement came from America which would have devastating consequences for IndyCar racing. Indianapolis Motor Speedway president Tony George announced plans to start a rival series in 1996. The split lasted 12 years and ruined America’s foremost single-seater championship.

Image © Ferrari/Ercole Colombo

Advert | Go Ad-free

87 comments on Raikkonen and Alonso may be ‘recipe for disaster’

  1. matt90 (@matt90) said on 11th March 2014, 0:09

    I can’t see Kimi sort of pulling over and letting Alonso through.

    I can, assuming he thinks it’s reasonable/justified. He did just that for Massa in 2008.

    • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 11th March 2014, 1:25

      @matt90 While he was out of WDC contention and Massa was in it, yes. AJ was referring to a Hockenheim 2010 situation probably

    • uan (@uan) said on 11th March 2014, 1:52

      I think Kimi would move over – depending. The trick is whether Alonso would actually get close enough to make that an issue and I think that’s a rather large assumption. It could also be a case that Alonso is in front of Kimi and it’s another non issue. It reminds me of last year after Malaysia and folks were saying that Webber won’t help Vettel, won’t move over, etc… And it that turned out to be the largest non issue of the season.

      I guess the question is, will Alonso move over Kimi? That’s just as likely a scenario. But Ferrari was great with Massa during the early seasons not making him immediately give way, or giving him a preferred strategy with the pit stop (Melbourne 2013 comes to mind). So it should be quite interesting to see how it works out. I don’t think there will be fire works, both are seasoned pros, and this isn’t 2007 with an unknown surprising Fernando.

      • Todfod (@todfod) said on 11th March 2014, 5:25

        I think Kimi would move over – depending.

        Kimi didn’t move over for Romain even though his tyres were completely destroyed and he didn’t have the pace to keep Romain behind him.

        I really doubt he will move over for Fernando unless he is mathematically out of the championship and Fernando is still in it.

        • OOliver said on 11th March 2014, 5:43

          Kimi had not been paid.

          • Todfod (@todfod) said on 11th March 2014, 12:03

            Yeah .. that’s what a racing driver thinks about when he has a rival in a speeding car breathing down his neck – “Hmm.. Wonder if my pay check came in from my team…?”

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th March 2014, 14:48

            And Kimi’s pay was dependent on points scored.

        • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 11th March 2014, 7:14

          @todfod

          He did. Alain Permane swearing on the radio was the first time he was told to let him past in that race, and once he was told, Kimi let him past.

          Racing drivers won’t move over unless there’s a direct order from the team.

          • David Margono (@woshidavid95) said on 11th March 2014, 10:20

            @tmekt

            Thing is, you don’t need your team to tell you to move over for your teammate if you’re on heavily worn tyres with a rival team (Massa) right on your tail; I think it should be quite common sensical… granted Permane’s reaction was uncalled for as well but that’s a separate issue.

          • David Margono (@woshidavid95) said on 11th March 2014, 10:23

            Heck in that very race I believe Sutil let Di Resta through pretty easily (He was on a 1-stopper unlike his teammate) but hung on to keep a train of cars behind him and finish 9th right behind Di Resta… that is what Raikkonen should have done with Grosjean.

        • Jeevan (@jee1kimi) said on 11th March 2014, 12:24

          Oh yeah..Kimi’s job was to keep on looking for his best mate Romain in the mirrors,waiting ‘when my dear romain will come and overtake me’ ,when his own a** was on fire,what with worn out tyres to look after the whole race,due to a stupid call made by both the team and himself.. And didn’t every driver wanted to be as ‘far’ from Romain as possible??Ask Jenson…

          • David Margono (@woshidavid95) said on 11th March 2014, 13:59

            @jee1kimi

            If you want to be taken seriously, you could at least be more rational and not hurl unnecessary insults that’s not even related to the point being made.

            First off, if you’re at a severe disadvantage compared to your teammate then it’s only natural you let him through easily barring extenuating circumstances (Like it will cost you the WDC or something). Yes, it’s the team’s fault that he was even in that position but that’s not the point; it doesn’t mean you can just force your teammate off-track… even then if Grosjean can last a race with one-stop then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect Raikkonen to do the same, especially when people rate him higher.

            And as for your last sentence, that’s just plain ad hominem attacks which I shall not take seriously.

          • Jeevan (@jee1kimi) said on 12th March 2014, 12:31

            Thanks for the information..

      • I fully, and without a doubt, believe that Alonzo should drive for a one-driver team. He is, without a doubt, the most self-centered driver in F1 today.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 11th March 2014, 6:38

      In 2007 Massa moved away to let Kimi win in Brazil and win his WDC, he did the same in 2008 when he was out of contention for WDC… nothing special there.

    • TMF (@tmf42) said on 11th March 2014, 7:36

      I don’t see there a problem with the 2. Under special circumstances maybe but I don’t think these will apply this year.

      • I think it is a real shame when the concept of two gladiators duking it out on the track on a top team is termed a potential ‘disaster.’ Gee I thought this was supposed to be the pinnacle of racing.

        I think the onus is as much on Ferrari to honor their drivers and the viewing audience and not try to turn (in this case) KR into a bootlicker. The assumption being made by Jones of course being that it will be KR in that position.

        That to me would be the real disaster…ruining our chance to see a great rivalry with a decision in the boardroom, after them doing an about face and hiring a second rooster to begin with. The real disaster would be to slap KR and the viewers in the face by going back to their old ways.

        This is supposed to be racing….so let them race. I’d like to give Ferrari the benefit of the doubt for now that they would agree, since they did actually hire KR.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th March 2014, 14:52

          But we don’t know the terms of the contract or how much KR is being paid, he could be being paid a lot to accept a #2 supporting role.

          • Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty) said on 11th March 2014, 16:33

            Alonso $20m, Kimi $10m is what I’ve heard so far.. Montezemolo admitted as much that Kimi is their defacto #2. Unless things take a turn towards him early-mid season, we pretty much know what will happen if Ferrari can only support one shot at a WDC..

            I do think they’ll be closely matched, however.

  2. Maciek (@maciek) said on 11th March 2014, 0:34

    I really love that COTD. Hadn’t thought about it that way. Great points.

  3. Lewis McMurray (@celicadion23) said on 11th March 2014, 0:39

    Yes, a new F1 Rejects article :) they don’t come along often but they’re worth the wait!

  4. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate) said on 11th March 2014, 0:46

    If Alonso is the much more complete driver (to quote some posters), why would he need Raikkonen to pull over for him?

  5. Lin1876 (@lin1876) said on 11th March 2014, 0:58

    I think F1 Rejects’ comment is an interesting one, though it’s not a position I share. After all, power does not rest with the fans. The FIA/Bernie will, without doubt, see the correlation between unpredictability and the new rules, and declare an overall success, warts and all. While the new formula will have helped, the whole package was the root cause of whatever success F1 enjoys next season, and the gimmicks will remain.

    What none of this changes, of course, is that whether they help or not, F1′s gimmicks exist thanks to fundamental problems which are largely going unaddressed.

  6. prelvu (@prelvu) said on 11th March 2014, 0:59

    - CHILTON’s STRATEGY LEAKED -
    Qualify last.
    Drive slowly and gently.
    Wait for 15 cars to retire from race.
    Then with 8 laps down grab his first-last points.

  7. Kazihno (@kazinho) said on 11th March 2014, 1:19

    “I hope every race is going to be like a wet race. Unpredictable is the word.”

    After a full 5 laps of wet racing for the entire 2013 season, it looks like Bernie is going to get his wish: Australian Bureau of Meteorology Forecast for Melbourne.

    Things to note for Melbourne:
    1. Wind direction. When it blows from N/NW it is hot, wet weather comes from the W/SW. Hence Saturday forecast for 31°C with wind up to 30kmh from the North. Wind from the north is also responsible for cars going off at the T 9/10 chicane. Expect a few cars into the gravel while pushing hard in FP3 & Quali over a bumpy braking area with reduced aero and a strong tail wind.

    2. Sunday forecast. A minimum of 16°C and maximum of 19°C. Wind swinging from N to W during the day. That will mean a thick blanket of cloud that brings the rain later in the day. The full extent of the fuel saving requirements may not be evident during the race if it is wet for a majority of the race. We may just be treated to a race with drivers managing lower-aero spec cars with high torque on a wet track. Air temps 10°C lower than Friday & Saturday may also lower the attrition rate.

    3. Sunset time is scheduled for 19:38 local time. A 2hr race finishes at 19:00. With the expected cloud cover it is going to be very dark by the time the race ends – much darker than usual, and it could be even worse if there is a red flag at any time during the race.

    4. If there is one thing Melbourne has a reputation for amongst Australians it is that Melbourne weather is ALWAYS subject to change at a minute’s notice. Watch this space.

    • William said on 11th March 2014, 3:16

      I can’t wait for it to rain heavily at Albert Park. The rain is normal for the Aussie GP and it will be quite odd if it doesn’t rain at all. Expect SC and red flags during Melbourne and I thought it would of been a 2 and a 1/2 hour race not 2 hours. Sunday is very crucial as we will see similar story that we saw last year and I hope Amanda Duval provides us the weather information not Magdalena Rozs

      • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 11th March 2014, 9:36

        For a change I’m not sure I really want rain for the next race. I think there are quite enough variables and unknowns to create the excitement we need. Rain is likely to reduce fuel consumption, negate tyre choice and improve reliability (esp in those cars whose cooling is marginal) etc.

        I’m keen to find out how the land lies in a normal race, though there’s no doubt that a wet race and with all of that torque to control it would make for an exciting race.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 11th March 2014, 7:19

      Bring the rain!

      • William said on 11th March 2014, 8:07

        Scattered showers will develop around midday on Saturday while on Sunday the forecast is rain easing to scattered showers in the afternoon

    • Mike Dee (@mike-dee) said on 11th March 2014, 11:31

      I wonder whether Vettel is hoping for rain:
      - Should be good against overheating
      - Engine power less important as wheels spin anyway
      - RB10 seems to have more downforce than other cars, which especially helps in the wet
      - Vettel is probably an above average wet-weather driver

      So maybe those long betting odds for Vettel might actually be a smart choice.

      • Never been a fan of rain races personally. Nor do I want total unpredictability as that just makes it all a crap shoot. I think that if there needs to be rain to help F1, then there’s a problem with F1. There should be some predictability, and that should be that for sure there are going to be top driver’s on top teams duking it out on the track. Likely at the sharp end and for the bulk of the points. I’m fine with one of the drivers on the top 5 teams always winning. And I’m fine with the lesser teams working their way up and earning mid-pack points and better, on merit, not because rain and safety cars helped them fluke some points that have nothing to do with their actual place amongst the teams.

        Just keep the racing close and non-processional, and gone will be the cries for rain. And what I really don’t get is that on the very cusp of a whole new era that could potentially bring us the very type of racing there should be in F1 (forgetting about DRS for a second) it has to be muddied with double points, and now cries for rain. The unpredictability of the steepness of the teams’ learning curves, and all the money and time and energy that has been spent dealing with the new regs mean nothing then? Hey BE…if you have no faith in the new era, you should have fought for no changes whatsoever…it would have been far cheaper and far less grief for the teams to just install the sprinklers you so love.

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 11th March 2014, 16:58

        @mike-dee

        RB10 seems to have more downforce than other cars

        Based on what exactly?

        which especially helps in the wet

        Downforce is not important when it comes down to wet weather driving, mechanical grip is important. For instance, in 2007 Ferrari was the best car around downforce circuits, and McLaren was the best car around mechanical grip circuits. Who turned out to have the best rain car that season?

  8. DD42 said on 11th March 2014, 2:29

    I think concerns over the battle between Fer and Kimi are insignificant.

    Really what draws my attention is the fact that yesterday Mercedes had the cahones to use the tag “totonator” in reference to Wolff. Mercedes have the belief to promote a director as a terminator like character, when the only attribute he shares with the actual terminator is the fact they both originate from Austria.
    It’s quite strange alot of Germanies most powerful figures seem to have come from Austria. Hitler, who was a poor Austrian became probably being one of the most powerful figures of the 1900′s. Schwarzenneger came from an even more deprived Austrian family and went on to become ulitmately more successful than that **** b***rd Hilter.

    Anyway the way I see it Mercedes see the directors & team as being far more crucial than the drivers. I personally think that unless you have A Newey or equivalent your driver is probably your biggest asset, name wise.

    If it all is down to the teams in terms of WCC position and the drivers difference in ability will mean little in the fight, then the battle between the roosters in the Italian team will seem as important as any other, although clearly the battle will be more exciting than that between the Caterham & Sauber pairs: the only teams with drivers that I don’t see as being potential WDC’s – although I still rate Kamuii above Jenson.

    This isn’t even my personal lasting opinion, (and for gullible folks it’s clearly not a fact) it’s just how I felt like expressing my thoughts over the headlines from the past 2 days.

    I personally don’t think that ALO and RAI will clash, both will drive with all their might to become WDC and if that’s not possible they’ll be aiming to obtain the maximum points each race in order to win the the WCC for their team.

    If as some predict ALO will “throw his toys out the pram” at being beaten by RAI I’ll lose all respect for him, as I would for Kimi if he does the same, and RAI is one of my favorite drivers of all time..

    • DD42 said on 11th March 2014, 2:32

      Although I know Kimi will keep his cool…

      • Well I don’t know whether or not Mercedes considers their drivers less crucial, but if they do I think that might be because a) the teams (not drivers) have just had to undertake a monumental task designing and building whole new cars for a whole new era, and b) there is a very real possibility that the drivers will not actually be able to race much and rather will be there to monitor a moving science project while the crew tells them what lap times they have to maintain if they want to finish the race. So ya, unfortunately there is a risk the drivers will be passengers and the real ‘genius’ will have to come from the pits.

  9. Spencer Ward (@sward28) said on 11th March 2014, 2:31

    Has anyone bought the new F1 App? Wanted to know if it was any good this year before I spend any money.

  10. Joey-Poey (@joey-poey) said on 11th March 2014, 2:38

    I was 11 in 94. Up until the split, Indy Car to me was the ultimate test in racing. NASCAR was ok but American open wheels (as I had no exposure to F1) was king. I can’t tell you how frustrating it got as I got older trying to convince people that Indy Cars were a bigger deal than NASCAR. When people talk about the golden age of F1 with glossy eyes and lament about it declining, I don’t think they have had nearly the type of letdown us Indy car fans have had from 96 on. Tony well and truly killed the sport we love and it is only just on the past 3 years began to resemble a tenth of its former glory. So while the current crazy rules are making a mockery of things, just be glad for the talent and prestige it still holds. If something actually cataclysmic destroys F1, you’ll understand true heartbreak like Indy Car fans of the 90′s.

    • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 11th March 2014, 10:23

      @joey-poey You’re spot on. what Tony George did is unforgivable and will take many many more years to rectify. It’s easy to destroy, what’s difficult is to build

      • Robbie said on 11th March 2014, 12:26

        Well said @joey-poey Was just describing what happened to open wheel racing in NA to my Dad last night when he commented on the fact that JV will run the 500. Also, Montoya has left NASCAR and gone back to Indycar for the full season, so there’s a couple of more reasons and signs that the series is on a resurgence.

  11. HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th March 2014, 3:21

    The cityAm articles figures just don’t add up to me, 370 odd million seeming a lot more than 8.6% of 1.5 billion, and I can’t for the life of me see the teams taking 5 times as much as CVC even allowing for the teams now getting 63% rather than the 50% they have suffered with until last year. Any budding CFOs out there care to enlighten me?

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th March 2014, 14:13

      The trick is that Sylt plays down what CVC get by disregarding that the rest of the “cost” they have are interest on loans to themselves (FOM by CVC) and that those loans were taken on only to be able to pay CVC a dividend several times @hohum

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th March 2014, 17:09

        Thanks @bascb, either sloppy or intentionally misleading reporting I would say.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th March 2014, 17:45

          Given that he is Bernie’s media trumpet, I am certain its not an oversight @hohum

          • @bascb Your allegation is completely untrue and highly defamatory. Plainly, the meaning of it is that my writing is deliberately biased and this is obviously highly damaging to both my reputation and credibility. Your allegation is completely unsupportable due to its inaccuracy and the onus is on you to provide proof for your statements as you are legally liable for them.

            Ecclestone is integral to the business of F1 and since I am one of the only journalists worldwide who specialises im covering it I write about him frequently. It is no different to other other journalists’ regular reports on certain F1 drivers. It also needs to be pointed out that I am not paid by Ecclestone or the F1 Group in contrast to at least one other journalist who is paid by a company in which an F1 team principal has a stake.

            To address your comment in particular, my article in City A.M (http://www.cityam.com/article/1394422475/power-steering) clearly states that “team prize money is F1’s biggest cost and yields five times more than CVC’s profit share, which is equivalent to 8.4 per cent of the sport’s revenues.” This is entirely accurate and is in fact overly generous to the teams. The figures used in the article are the most complete set of publicly released data which is for 2011 and is contained in the F1 Group IPO prospectus. In 2011 the F1 Group did not declare a dividend at all so in truth CVC got nothing from F1. This is why its benefit is referred to as a “profit share” (because it was still entitled to it even though it was not paid out) rather than a dividend. The following year the F1 Group declared a significant dividend as I reported here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/privateequity/10358262/F1-investor-CVC-collects-865m.html) but the profit and loss data for 2012 has not been released so could not be used in the article.

            Accordingly, there was no attempt to hide or disguise the truth and I reject your defamatory allegation about this. The article makes it clear that it is concerned with where the money comes from in F1 and where it ends up. The tables in the print edition here (https://twitter.com/FormulaMoney/status/442892169716580352/photo/1/large) prove that point. Other transactions, such as the sale of stakes in the sport, are therefore not relevant though the article does not try to hide the fact that they have taken place and it clearly states that “since 1999 it has been sold four times.”

            If I had seen your comments sooner I would have responded before now. For the avoidance of doubt, I reserve all my rights in respect of the defamatory material to which I refer. Rest assured that I will take any action necessary to defend my reputation though hopefully we won’t have to get to that.

            @HoHum The information provided by @bascb is unsurprisingly inaccurate. The 8.4% does not refer to the $378m profit. The 8.4% refers to CVC’s share of the profit which is $132.3m (35% of $378m in line with its equity stake in the F1 Group). It is the $132.3m which is 8.4% of F1′s $1,580.4m revenue. For further reference, I will print below the full breakdown of where F1′s revenues end up.

            To get articles printed in a credible national newspaper they have to be seen by the business editor, the sub editor, the editor of the paper, the lawyer and sometimes the deputy business editor as well. Unlike publishing on a blog it is not a matter of hitting send after typing a stream of consciousness. Accordingly, there is often a great deal of supporting material which is used in early drafts but is not printed in the final article. I hope this helps:

            Team prize money: $698.5m (44%)
            Other running costs: $328m (20.8%)
            CVC (share of profit): $132.3m (8.4%)
            Debt costs: $118.3m (7.5%)
            Waddell & Reed (share of profit): $79m (5%)
            Lehman Brothers (share of profit): $46.5m (3%)
            Other financial investors (share of profit): $42m (2.7%)
            Staff costs: $39.8m (2.5%)
            Bambino Holdings (share of profit): $32.1m (2%)
            Bernie Ecclestone (share of profit and salary): $24.2m (1.6%)
            Management (share of profit): $22.3m (1.4%)
            Income tax: $13.6m (0.9%)
            FIA (share of profit): $3.8m (0.2%)

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th March 2014, 20:54

            Thank you for your detailed answer and supplying more information to a wider audience than what was included in the original article for added clarity Mr. Sylt.

            However, while these financial facts do show that CVC gets 8,4% of profits from F1, what ALL the owners+management take out of the total revenue adds up to more than 30 % (I include interest on loans, as from my knowledge a majority of those loans are made to enable paying dividends and a considerable part is indeed loaned from those owners), which is less than the teams receive but only 50% less, not 1/5th and would in my opinion be better served if a far larger portion of it got invested back into the sport.

            Off course CVC also (and on top of that) did get money from the owners they sold their stakes to watering it down from a majority to a far smaller percentage now. So when seen over the whole period since buying “F1″ (simplified for brevity), I do not think that the impression that CVC (or the owners to use a more general term) gets less than 10% of revenue generated by the sport which was the tone of your article, is a realistic view. Otherwise the franchise would not be valued at near 10 billion USD, as it was recently when the IPO was planned and stakes were sold.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th March 2014, 22:48

            Thanks for the tip off @bascb, Mr Sylts explanation of how he derived those figures provides a much clearer view of what I found incomprehensible in his original article. Mr.Sylt perhaps you could tell us how much CVC have derived in total from their investment in F1?

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th March 2014, 23:06

            Christian Sylt, thank you for the breakdown, I find curious your suggestion that the teams share is “overly generous” when you take into account that there are 11 teams with 22 cars and even the lowest budget team would spend more than one tenth of that 695 million, designing, buiding and racing those cars, without which there would be no product for Mr.Ecclestone to sell.

          • @bascb Adding up the stakes held by all of the owners is not reasonable as it includes management and the FIA who are obviously contributing to the sport and are directly responsible for generating the income which the teams receive. Nevertheless, despite this bias against the owners, their share still comes to far less than the teams receive. CVC’s share is one fifth of that and this is the point that was being demonstrated in my article. As I pointed out in the previous comment, nothing is hidden and it was entirely wrong of you to suggest that there was. I have pointed this out in detail and am prepared to leave it at that.

            Stakes in F1 have indeed been sold (as I pointed out in the article) though this was not the point of the piece which was specifically focused on where F1′s revenues come from and where they end up. Nevertheless, even if you include ALL the dividends and ALL of the revenue from the share sales, the amount that CVC has made from F1 is still only slightly more than the amount pocketed by the teams in prize money over the same period of time. This yields a total of $3.9bn for CVC compared to $3.7bn for the teams with the former outlined in detail in the article on the link below. To recap, this piece has been through an editing process and was not the product of a one-man-show wanabee business writer as you will find on other websites:
            http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/business/exclusive-how-formula-1-made-65-billion-profit-for-its-new-owner/4055.article

            Any owner of a business should not be prevented from making a profit on selling it as that is one of the reasons of ownership and this applies equally to the teams as to CVC. Accordingly the comparison above should really include the sums made from the sale of teams since 2006. Despite this huge bias in favour of the teams CVC has still only made slightly more than them.

            For the sake of clarity, it is not, as you claim, an “impression” that CVC gets less than 10% of revenue generated by the sport, it is a fact. It is therefore an entirely realistic view contrary to your claim. Likewise, it has nothing to do with the valuation of the franchise which is determined by its overall profits, contracted revenue etc.

            @hohum The total derived from CVC is stated above. My analysis was overly generous in that, in fact, in 2011, CVC got $0 from F1′s revenues whilst the teams got $698.5m. My article stated that CVC received a profit share of $132.3m which makes it appear as if it was taking more than it did.

            The fact that the teams spend their entire revenue (or more than it in some cases) on racing is the real cause of the financial problems which will eventually destroy many of them. Budget caps and Resource Restrictions simply treat the symptoms of the problem but the cause is that F1 teams spend all of the money they receive in a bid to win on track. The typical yardstick of success for businesses is profit but this is not the case with F1 teams and until that is resolved their costs will continue to accelerate and there will forever be a question mark over whether they will all be able to survive.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 14th March 2014, 19:56

            Interesting. As a business owner I am fully aware and supportive, of an owner earning a decent return on their investment in ideas, time, effort as well as investments everything else to bring my product to my customers.

            However its important to make a distinction between taxable income form revenues and numbers that are far more interesting for us as owners because it reflects what we can take out of a business without making it go bankrupt and plays a role in defining its worth to potential buyers.

            That is why I do not take the loans and interest payments as a cost on the same level as operating cost for FOM or payments to teams. The part that goes to the FIA and Management (apart from BE who is also a minority stakeholder) is only 1,8% as mentioned in the numbers above, so without that, the owners still receive more than 30%.

            Where the real difference in view lies between us however is that in your view you present it as if the teams should feel lucky or even embarrassed to receive more from F1 over the last 8 years than CVC, while I think that the sport suffers because such a big part of the revenue generated does NOT flow back into the sport (to teams, the FIA and also to the other contributors like the tracks).

            I compare it to having a shipping company and buying and selling transport services. Would it be regarded strange, if I would get to keep less than about 5-12% to cover both my costs and my share of the revenue, while the larger part would go to the shipping companies who run the sips, lorries, planes and operate the harbours.

          • The situation I present is not that the teams should feel lucky or embarrassed to receive more from F1 over the last 8 years than CVC. I said that my comparison was overly generous to the teams as it claimed that CVC had $132.3m of income from F1 when in reality it got $0. This is a fact.

            The purpose of my article was to reveal for the first time where F1′s revenue comes from and where it ends up. It showed that the teams are receiving the largest share of F1′s revenue which comes to $698.5m of $1,580.4m.

            It also showed that, in contrast, CVC’s share comes to five times less at $132.3m of $1,580.4m. That is also a fact and it is now on the record in a credible, widely-read publication.

            I rarely have the time to surf forums and web sites but I will try to do so more from now on. The vast majority of my articles are about the business of F1 but when I get news which is sports-related I write for the back pages and coincidentally this is what led me to your comments. I have written a sports news story for tomorrow’s papers and whilst I was doing research for it I saw your comments. Despite their inaccuracy I am glad that I found them as they gave me an opportunity to provide the additional numbers which further prove the points about the revenue received by CVC and the teams.

            Having accurate facts at one’s disposal is essential in order to correctly analyse F1′s business model so you were helping neither yourself nor the other readers here by suggesting that the situation is different to that which I outlined in the CityAM article.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th March 2014, 10:08

            Thank you for chipping in again Mr. Sylt. I certainly think that at least by drawing your attention and getting your thorough answers I have done myself and F1F readers a favour ;-) , and I would be happy to see your informed comments on issues more often because you are certainly right that a whole lot of misinformation is out there on the internet and makes it hard to get to a realistic view, and having accurate information should be the basis for any discussion or forming an opinion.
            So again, thank you for reading and adding to the discussion and clarity on the backgrounds of F1.

          • No problem. Let’s put this behind us. As I mentioned on the comments below the ‘Comment of the day’ I am particularly sensitive to the need for independence as I write for so many publications and deal with all the team bosses and drivers through the Zoom initiative that I set up. I can’t deny the frequency I write about Ecclestone though that is down to his position at the heart of everything in F1!

            Anyway, there has been a silver lining to this as it reminded me to get back in touch with Keith who I missed at the Zoom event last month and haven’t spoke to since 2008 when I sent him data for the site from my Formula Money report. I have bookmarked http://www.F1fanatic.co.uk now so if you would ever like numbers connected to the business side of F1 just shout my name and I will post whatever I can. I have got business data on all areas of F1 and I’m happy to chip in when I get a chance :)

  12. In_Silico (@insilico) said on 11th March 2014, 3:54

    I have no problem with double points but to have it at Abu Dhabi, the worst track on the calender, is just an appalling decision. A decision which could easily have been made mainly because of financial gain, rather than as an attempt to improve F1 as a whole, but I sincerely hope and expect that isn’t the case. I’d welcome double points at races like Monaco, Spa or Silverstone.. tracks which have a bigger chance of providing exciting races than Abu Dhabi, are classic racetracks, have a large number of fans attending and which the respective countries have had proper historical involvements in F1. So for the FIA to implement a change of rules which will eventually have a huge effect on the whole season, at a circuit and place such as Yas Marina in Abu Dhabi, is just bloody mental.

    • Double points at races in the middle of the sched would do nothing to guarantee for BE that the Championships are decided in the last race, hence potentially providing maximum interest and viewership for the entire season, not just the first 80 or 90% of it. I do take your point about there being better venues, though.

  13. evered7 (@evered7) said on 11th March 2014, 4:51

    It may be a recipe for disaster but it will get them cooking something. Massa just didn’t bring anything to the table nor the kitchen.

  14. Dr. Dan (@anikale) said on 11th March 2014, 5:00

    Only five more days to go!! Can’t wait!

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.