F1 2014

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Does FOM guarantee a min number of starters? If so how will only 18 cars starting affect Austin and beyond? FOM already screws the organizers so the only income to offset the sanctioning fee is ticket and concessions. How many will stay away with grids having gone from 24 down to 18 cars?

Brings back memories of the last pre-Austin US F1 race a bit, which should not be something F1 wants us to remember. 18 cars (with only 17 in quali due to Vettel sitting it out) is a far cry from the days when teams had to actually qualify to get into the race.

If Bernie really wants to ensure Caterham and Marussia are in Austin, he's got the money to make it happen. F1's been good to him, maybe it's time to reinvest. I know, there are all sorts of pitfalls there, but maybe it's a "fix it and see what happens" moment.

Audi? Here's Ullrich on the subject in 2011.
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/carracing/car-racing/why-audi-thinks-f1-is-irrelevant/

If the VW group wants to take on F1, I think the marque to stick on the car is Lamborghini.

Keith Tanner wrote: If the VW group wants to take on F1, I think the marque to stick on the car is Lamborghini.

Bugatti

In reply to MCarp22:

Nah, KT has the right of it, Bugatti has a whopping one offering, the exposure for Lambo as a brand would be much more effective.

Keith Tanner wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Does FOM guarantee a min number of starters? If so how will only 18 cars starting affect Austin and beyond? FOM already screws the organizers so the only income to offset the sanctioning fee is ticket and concessions. How many will stay away with grids having gone from 24 down to 18 cars?

Brings back memories of the last pre-Austin US F1 race a bit, which should not be something F1 wants us to remember. 18 cars (with only 17 in quali due to Vettel sitting it out) is a far cry from the days when teams had to actually qualify to get into the race. If Bernie really wants to ensure Caterham and Marussia are in Austin, he's got the money to make it happen. F1's been good to him, maybe it's time to reinvest. I know, there are all sorts of pitfalls there, but maybe it's a "fix it and see what happens" moment. Audi? Here's Ullrich on the subject in 2011. http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/carracing/car-racing/why-audi-thinks-f1-is-irrelevant/ If the VW group wants to take on F1, I think the marque to stick on the car is Lamborghini.

At the end of the day it is a business, and I don't think it would be wise to give any money to Caterham as I don't think they will be returning to the grid.

According to the report below Caterham will not be receiving any manufacturers money, for the 2014 championship, and honestly why should Marussia continue they are not going to beat Sauber and I don't believe they are obligated to finish all races to collect the money.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1955397-formula-1-prize-money-what-are-the-rewards-per-race-and-per-season

In reply to trigun7469:

Except Marussia already are beating Sauber and its imperative for the $'s to stay ahead of them. 2 points to 0 points so far.

trigun7469 wrote: According to the report below Caterham will not be receiving any manufacturers money, for the 2014 championship, and honestly why should Marussia continue they are not going to beat Sauber and I don't believe they are obligated to finish all races to collect the money.

IIRC, the Concorde agreement says that teams that voluntarily skip races are disqualified from the championship. The definition of "voluntary" is somewhat vague, but in previous cases the FIA has kicked out teams after missing a race or two for financial reasons. (Arrows and Prost went this way, IIRC).

Well I can't wait to see the new leaner meaner F1 run at Austin after a long break.

I wonder if RB, Ferrari, or Williams will be able to get up next to the MB's and actually make them sweat a little. Will Alonso finally announce where he is going? How about Vettel? I guess we will see.

trigun7469 wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Does FOM guarantee a min number of starters? If so how will only 18 cars starting affect Austin and beyond? FOM already screws the organizers so the only income to offset the sanctioning fee is ticket and concessions. How many will stay away with grids having gone from 24 down to 18 cars?

Brings back memories of the last pre-Austin US F1 race a bit, which should not be something F1 wants us to remember. 18 cars (with only 17 in quali due to Vettel sitting it out) is a far cry from the days when teams had to actually qualify to get into the race. If Bernie really wants to ensure Caterham and Marussia are in Austin, he's got the money to make it happen. F1's been good to him, maybe it's time to reinvest. I know, there are all sorts of pitfalls there, but maybe it's a "fix it and see what happens" moment. Audi? Here's Ullrich on the subject in 2011. http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/carracing/car-racing/why-audi-thinks-f1-is-irrelevant/ If the VW group wants to take on F1, I think the marque to stick on the car is Lamborghini.

At the end of the day it is a business, and I don't think it would be wise to give any money to Caterham as I don't think they will be returning to the grid. According to the report below Caterham will not be receiving any manufacturers money, for the 2014 championship, and honestly why should Marussia continue they are not going to beat Sauber and I don't believe they are obligated to finish all races to collect the money. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1955397-formula-1-prize-money-what-are-the-rewards-per-race-and-per-season

Depends. Are you investing in the business or in one of the teams? The US is F1's biggest untapped market, and they left with their tail between their legs shortly after the 2005 debacle. Do they really want yet another understrength field? It might be worth the investment in the long term health of the business to make a couple of phone calls and say "so, what would it take to get you to Austin?".

Not that this will ever happen, of course.

This is very relevant to F1....

http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/breaking-fiat-chrysler-is-selling-ferrari?src=soc_fcbks

Ferrari's pockets just got sewn to their own suits.

They'll just have to sell more teddy bears, cologne and Ferrari-branded everything. I suspect Ferrari as a brand has been in the black for a while.

Watch VW swoop in and buy them up bit by bit then shed Bugatti and Lamboghini

Keith Tanner wrote: They'll just have to sell more teddy bears, cologne and Ferrari-branded everything. I suspect Ferrari as a brand has been in the black for a while.

Takes a lot of teddy bears to get a battery for the F1 car.

Wonder if this will finally force F1 to have a budget limit.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Watch VW swoop in and buy them up bit by bit then shed Bugatti and Lamboghini

Bill Jr is heading to Italy, going to get them I hear. Better deal than his Uncle would have gotten.

alfadriver wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Watch VW swoop in and buy them up bit by bit then shed Bugatti and Lamboghini

Bill Jr is heading to Italy, going to get them I hear. Better deal than his Uncle would have gotten.

Brushing up on my Italian then

I've read elsewhere, that Fiat owns 90% and is selling 10% … so not really much is going to change

this from another forum:

from another thread & WSJ it sounds like they're just doing an IPO of 10% of the company and FIAT will retain 80% (they only have 90% today).

wbjones wrote: I've read elsewhere, that Fiat owns 90% and is selling 10% … so not really much is going to change this from another forum: from another thread & WSJ it sounds like they're just doing an IPO of 10% of the company and FIAT will retain 80% (they only have 90% today).

But they are giving the other 90% of shares to existing Fiat owners. So instead of owning say $100 of Fiat stock they will find they own $99 of Fiat Stock and $1 of Ferrari stock, or at least that's how I read it.

In reply to wbjones:

It does indicate that Ferrari doesn't get the deepest pockets on the planet anymore. Unless they can do more of their own fund raising. It may be a small part, but the message to the FOM is pretty loud.

I've never figured out how Fiat justified the massive flow of money to F1. At least they put some F1 themes into the cars to have the owners pretend that they are racers. But are the sales large enough to justify the cost....

alfadriver wrote: I've never figured out how Fiat justified the massive flow of money to F1. At least they put some F1 themes into the cars to have the owners pretend that they are racers. But are the sales large enough to justify the cost....

According to this this article Ferrari's 2012 revenues were 2.4B Euros (something like 3B USD at the current exchange rate -- dunno what it was in 2012).

The Scuderia annual budget isn't public, but is estimated to be around $500M. They do get a bunch of sponsorship from other companies, plus there are the big piles of FIA cash that people are always complaining about being unfair. If we assume Fiat is putting in $100M of that for general brand marketing, that's actually not all that unreasonable.

In reply to codrus:

Our profits last year was more than Ferrari's revenue (I think by about 4x). And there's no way Ford will do a total F1 program. Spending 13% of your entire revenue (not profit) on racing is very unreasonable for a car company. Good thing they have sponsors.

But that's why you see so few OEM's in the game- cost to benefit. One thing for Ferrari- their entire advertising budget can go into the F1 program.

Well I don't think it will matter eitherway. The Ferrari F1 team is essentially a separate company with a marketing agreement with Ferrari road cars. Fiat HAD to buy Chrysler to retain their only source of consistent good profit. Ferrari is definitely profitable but also high risk.

It is very likely that the new 10% owner of Ferrari will be from Singapore or China to gain further rights to sell in country.

I guess I don't really care. They are not any more special these days from any other cars. Just a lot more $$$ artificially held there by low supply. Not discounting what they make is very good just that it isn't that much more special over what the Porsche/Lambo/Audi triplets can put out plus guys like Pagani and Koenigsegg.

BACK to F1

Hope Hamilton can win all the remaining races I don't want the double points to matter this season. Or they need to go into the last race with 6 points between Rosberg and Hamilton.

I hope Bottas wins the race in Abu Dhabi lol.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to codrus: Our profits last year was more than Ferrari's revenue (I think by about 4x). And there's no way Ford will do a total F1 program. Spending 13% of your entire revenue (not profit) on racing is very unreasonable for a car company. Good thing they have sponsors. But that's why you see so few OEM's in the game- cost to benefit. One thing for Ferrari- their entire advertising budget can go into the F1 program.

It would make absolutely no sense for Ford to do that, you are right. Ferrari is a very different company from Ford, and people buy Ferraris for very different reasons. Fords are for driving the kids around, for commuting to work, or for DOING work. Nobody buys a Ferrari for that -- they buy them for image, for brand heritage, and for fun. Ferrari's success in F1 is a big part of that.

And of course Ford did own a F1 team, first with sponsorship and engines for Stewart, and then they bought the team and changed the name to Jaguar. They've been there already and moved on.

racerdave600 wrote: And of course Ford did own a F1 team, first with sponsorship and engines for Stewart, and then they bought the team and changed the name to Jaguar. They've been there already and moved on.

Everybody was doing it in those days. Jag, BMW, Toyota, Honda, they all had factory teams. And McLaren was kind of a half-factory Mercedes team at the time.

codrus wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to codrus: Our profits last year was more than Ferrari's revenue (I think by about 4x). And there's no way Ford will do a total F1 program. Spending 13% of your entire revenue (not profit) on racing is very unreasonable for a car company. Good thing they have sponsors. But that's why you see so few OEM's in the game- cost to benefit. One thing for Ferrari- their entire advertising budget can go into the F1 program.

It would make absolutely no sense for Ford to do that, you are right. Ferrari is a very different company from Ford, and people buy Ferraris for very different reasons. Fords are for driving the kids around, for commuting to work, or for DOING work. Nobody buys a Ferrari for that -- they buy them for image, for brand heritage, and for fun. Ferrari's success in F1 is a big part of that.

I've seen plenty of F-cars used for work. They pick up points & trophies!

racerdave600 wrote: And of course Ford did own a F1 team, first with sponsorship and engines for Stewart, and then they bought the team and changed the name to Jaguar. They've been there already and moved on.

Yeah. Supposedly shortly after they launched Jaguar, the CEO was looking over a list of the highest paid employees at Ford. He got to the top and asked "Who the hell is Edmund Irvine?!?!?!?". :-)