F1 2018
- Thread starter 1%er
- Start date
1%er
Well-Known Member
Did Mercedes punk Ferrari
Reviewing the Spanish GP is appears that Mercedes tricked Ferrari in to a second put-stop and broke the rules in doing so. Article 28.12 of the 2018 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations clearly states that: “Team personnel are only allowed in the pit lane immediately before they are required to work on a car and must withdraw as soon as the work is complete”. One of the reason for this rule is to prevent teams from bluffing each other by pretending to be going for a pit-stop.
During the VSC, there was a lot of activity in the Mercedes garage, with the TV broadcast showing the Mercedes crew waiting with the tyres out and ready to go. Even though both teams were in their respective pit boxes, only Ferrari pitted. Mercedes did not pit Bottas, as originally expected. So the mechanics returned to the garage. However, this is technically against the regulations.
It is not uncommon for teams to play this game and they have to leave the garage to be in breach of the rule, as other teams have done this in the past without penalty, it would be hard to penalize Mercedes, but I think the FIA will need to look at this and reinforce the rule to teams to ensure it doesn't become a habit.
Halo-mounted wing mirror rules are a mess
Formula One teams are still allowed to mount mirrors on the Halo but the FIA will not permit the style of design used by Ferrari at the Spanish Grand Prix. The dispute over Ferrari’s Halo-mounted wing mirrors centred on the extent to which the team had tried to gain an aerodynamic benefit from the design. Teams were told in an FIA technical directive earlier this year they may mount wing mirrors onto the Halo (TD/014-18 is the technical directive permitting Halo-mounted mirrors). The FIA has told teams the mountings must “provide a meaningful structural contribution to the mounting system” and “be mounted to the lower and/or inboard surface(s) of the mirror housing.” Teams which use more than one mounting, as was the case with the design Ferrari used in Spain, may be required to demonstrate why they are needed from a structural point of view.
The FIA have released a statement about the issue that says “Whilst the FIA accepts that teams will legitimately design the mirrors, housings and mountings to minimise any negative aerodynamic effects they may cause, we believe that any aerodynamic benefits should be incidental, or at least minimal. As the criteria for determining the eligibility of a mounting are to some extent subjective, the FIA would be available to discuss the legality of a new design before [teams] introduce it in a race, to avoid wasting resource, time or money. For the sake of clarity, the various provisions made in TD/014-18 still apply for halo-mounted mirrors. The FIA expect to have full compliance with the present technical directive by the next race. The FIA do acknowledge that the rules currently in force with regard to mirrors are not perfect, and will strive to propose a more complete set of rules in terms of mirror position, mountings, visibility, etc… in the near future, with the aim to get a unanimous support for such changes for 2019".
Really the FIA needs to at itself over a number of rules. With the amount of lawyers involved and employed by the FIA you would think it wasn't beyond the wit of these people to make rules that are clearly objective rather than subjective, as so many rules appear to be.
Reviewing the Spanish GP is appears that Mercedes tricked Ferrari in to a second put-stop and broke the rules in doing so. Article 28.12 of the 2018 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations clearly states that: “Team personnel are only allowed in the pit lane immediately before they are required to work on a car and must withdraw as soon as the work is complete”. One of the reason for this rule is to prevent teams from bluffing each other by pretending to be going for a pit-stop.
During the VSC, there was a lot of activity in the Mercedes garage, with the TV broadcast showing the Mercedes crew waiting with the tyres out and ready to go. Even though both teams were in their respective pit boxes, only Ferrari pitted. Mercedes did not pit Bottas, as originally expected. So the mechanics returned to the garage. However, this is technically against the regulations.
It is not uncommon for teams to play this game and they have to leave the garage to be in breach of the rule, as other teams have done this in the past without penalty, it would be hard to penalize Mercedes, but I think the FIA will need to look at this and reinforce the rule to teams to ensure it doesn't become a habit.
Halo-mounted wing mirror rules are a mess
Formula One teams are still allowed to mount mirrors on the Halo but the FIA will not permit the style of design used by Ferrari at the Spanish Grand Prix. The dispute over Ferrari’s Halo-mounted wing mirrors centred on the extent to which the team had tried to gain an aerodynamic benefit from the design. Teams were told in an FIA technical directive earlier this year they may mount wing mirrors onto the Halo (TD/014-18 is the technical directive permitting Halo-mounted mirrors). The FIA has told teams the mountings must “provide a meaningful structural contribution to the mounting system” and “be mounted to the lower and/or inboard surface(s) of the mirror housing.” Teams which use more than one mounting, as was the case with the design Ferrari used in Spain, may be required to demonstrate why they are needed from a structural point of view.
The FIA have released a statement about the issue that says “Whilst the FIA accepts that teams will legitimately design the mirrors, housings and mountings to minimise any negative aerodynamic effects they may cause, we believe that any aerodynamic benefits should be incidental, or at least minimal. As the criteria for determining the eligibility of a mounting are to some extent subjective, the FIA would be available to discuss the legality of a new design before [teams] introduce it in a race, to avoid wasting resource, time or money. For the sake of clarity, the various provisions made in TD/014-18 still apply for halo-mounted mirrors. The FIA expect to have full compliance with the present technical directive by the next race. The FIA do acknowledge that the rules currently in force with regard to mirrors are not perfect, and will strive to propose a more complete set of rules in terms of mirror position, mountings, visibility, etc… in the near future, with the aim to get a unanimous support for such changes for 2019".
Really the FIA needs to at itself over a number of rules. With the amount of lawyers involved and employed by the FIA you would think it wasn't beyond the wit of these people to make rules that are clearly objective rather than subjective, as so many rules appear to be.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
The rule about not bluffing a pit stop is rubbish. Why shouldn't they do this? Adds a bit of drama and fun.
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
I can see the point about pit-stop bluffing under normal racing being unsporting. But under a safety car every team has to prepare for a last-second, opportunistic pit-stop by one or both cars (and double stack them if need be).
Mercedes - well, any team - could argue they were gearing up for a probable pit-stop that the analysts and drivers had yet to call, and they needed more time to get tyres, people and equipment in place than the notice analysts and drivers would give them. Then they argue the pit crew stayed out because, you know, drivers, tsk! What are they like? Dithering and fickle. Hopeless.
I doubt Ferrari were truly tricked into doing something that they didn't think would give their car a race advantage. And if they were, I don't think they'd admit they got fooled.
Mercedes - well, any team - could argue they were gearing up for a probable pit-stop that the analysts and drivers had yet to call, and they needed more time to get tyres, people and equipment in place than the notice analysts and drivers would give them. Then they argue the pit crew stayed out because, you know, drivers, tsk! What are they like? Dithering and fickle. Hopeless.
I doubt Ferrari were truly tricked into doing something that they didn't think would give their car a race advantage. And if they were, I don't think they'd admit they got fooled.
1%er
Well-Known Member
Silly season rumors or a real possibility
Fernando Alonso has been the center of silly season rumors for many seasons and this year is no different with the Spaniard now linked to Haas. With McLaren having so far failed to meet expectations rumors around Alonso continue, reports in the Spanish media have reached fever pitch, with a number of rumors about his future. It seems he could be looking to focus full time on the World Endurance Championship (but he could win that this year anyway), also as above moving to Haas. The American team have invested millions into F1 and their car and are said to be looking for "a top driver" to move them further forward. One report is claiming that he will move to Haas and replace the under-fire Romain Grosjean
Other reports are saying that Flavio Briatore is working hard in the shadows to get him a move to the Renault works team. Never a dull moment in the press about Fernando.
Talking about McLaren, it seems that Eric Boullier is under massive pressure and could be out of a job very soon if McLaren don't improve. They are well behind Red Bull and have now dropped behind the Renault factory team in the constructors championship, while it is very early days in the season McLaren have signaled a willingness to remove people from top posts already this season, having removed Tim Goss from his role as technical director.
It seems that all is not well with-in the strategy group, Christian Horner is hoping mad at the Aero changes to be introduced in 2019, according to Toto Wolff he has "never see Horner so angry". It seems that Christian believes the new aero rules mean a total redesign of the car for 2019 and it will cost millions just two years before the new concorde agreement.
He is reported as having told Sky F1 "Sometimes this sport has the ability to shoot itself in the foot. The work that’s being done for 2021 is all good stuff. The problem is a snapshot of that has been taken, it hasn’t been fully analysed, there are no proven conclusions from it. It’s then been rushed into a set of regulations which completely conflict existing regulations so now they’re scrapping around trying to tidy that up. I just find it frustrating that decisions are made on zero evidence or zero conclusions, on theories and the burden of costs is passed onto the teams. Is it going to guarantee that the cars can follow closer next year? Probably not. We talk about costs and being responsible, what’s just been introduced is a completely new concept, a completely new car that will cost millions and millions of pounds”.
Fernando Alonso has been the center of silly season rumors for many seasons and this year is no different with the Spaniard now linked to Haas. With McLaren having so far failed to meet expectations rumors around Alonso continue, reports in the Spanish media have reached fever pitch, with a number of rumors about his future. It seems he could be looking to focus full time on the World Endurance Championship (but he could win that this year anyway), also as above moving to Haas. The American team have invested millions into F1 and their car and are said to be looking for "a top driver" to move them further forward. One report is claiming that he will move to Haas and replace the under-fire Romain Grosjean
Other reports are saying that Flavio Briatore is working hard in the shadows to get him a move to the Renault works team. Never a dull moment in the press about Fernando.
Talking about McLaren, it seems that Eric Boullier is under massive pressure and could be out of a job very soon if McLaren don't improve. They are well behind Red Bull and have now dropped behind the Renault factory team in the constructors championship, while it is very early days in the season McLaren have signaled a willingness to remove people from top posts already this season, having removed Tim Goss from his role as technical director.
It seems that all is not well with-in the strategy group, Christian Horner is hoping mad at the Aero changes to be introduced in 2019, according to Toto Wolff he has "never see Horner so angry". It seems that Christian believes the new aero rules mean a total redesign of the car for 2019 and it will cost millions just two years before the new concorde agreement.
He is reported as having told Sky F1 "Sometimes this sport has the ability to shoot itself in the foot. The work that’s being done for 2021 is all good stuff. The problem is a snapshot of that has been taken, it hasn’t been fully analysed, there are no proven conclusions from it. It’s then been rushed into a set of regulations which completely conflict existing regulations so now they’re scrapping around trying to tidy that up. I just find it frustrating that decisions are made on zero evidence or zero conclusions, on theories and the burden of costs is passed onto the teams. Is it going to guarantee that the cars can follow closer next year? Probably not. We talk about costs and being responsible, what’s just been introduced is a completely new concept, a completely new car that will cost millions and millions of pounds”.
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Monaco!
Not necessarily the most thrilling race, but probably the most scenic. Safety cars likely, and complaints about the track being dodgy where parties have spilled (literally and figuratively) onto the roads.
As usual here, the event days are Thursday, Saturday and Sunday.
The UK times are:
Thurs 24 May
FP1 - 10.00
FP2 - 14.00
Sat 26 May
FP3 11.00
Qual - 14.00
Sun 27 May
Race - 14.10
Happy days.
Not necessarily the most thrilling race, but probably the most scenic. Safety cars likely, and complaints about the track being dodgy where parties have spilled (literally and figuratively) onto the roads.
As usual here, the event days are Thursday, Saturday and Sunday.
The UK times are:
Thurs 24 May
FP1 - 10.00
FP2 - 14.00
Sat 26 May
FP3 11.00
Qual - 14.00
Sun 27 May
Race - 14.10
Happy days.
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Unsurprisingly, the Red Bulls were top of the timings in FP1. Max might get a bit of a spanking for reversing back onto the track.
Depressingly, Nico Who? the F1 refugee was omnipresent, jumping in front of every TV camera he could find, gurning like an infant. For a guy who abandoned F1, sprinting away from the paddock faster than a cheetah from a salad bar, he sure feels the magnetic attraction of F1. Nico Who? - a man with the personality of a windsock and spine made of custard.
Depressingly, Nico Who? the F1 refugee was omnipresent, jumping in front of every TV camera he could find, gurning like an infant. For a guy who abandoned F1, sprinting away from the paddock faster than a cheetah from a salad bar, he sure feels the magnetic attraction of F1. Nico Who? - a man with the personality of a windsock and spine made of custard.
1%er
Well-Known Member
Snippets of F1 news and gossip
Christian Horner has had a little dig at Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton's contract talks during the team bosses press conference. when the subject of Lewis's contract came up Horner said “I should think it’s such a grotesque amount of money that Toto is talking about, it probably is what’s making his [Toto's] and Niki’s [Lauda] eyes water at the moment, he [Hamilton] has an expensive lifestyle. He’s a four-time world champion and I doubt he’s cheap. I can only envisage that that’s probably got something to do with the delay”. Toto's response was a quick “There is a bit of email ping-pong on details".
As I think I mentioned before, the Formula 1 promoters association (FOPA) are talking about trying to reduce hosting fees and Baku is the latest to go public on the subject. According to the F1 accounts hosting fees now make up the largest slice of the pie, apparently even more that TV rights. The 2016 accounts claim that race hosting fees contributed £470m ($653m) of F1's £1.2bn ($1.8bn) revenue. Arif Rahimov the promoter of the Azerbaijan Grand Prix says he wants to renegotiate terms of the agreement. The current agreement is for 10 years signed in 2016 running until 2015, there is, as always a "mid-term break clause", but this needed to be actioned before this years race (2 years before the mid-term which is 2020). Baku pays one of the largest hosting fees, but it was negotiated by Bernie's mate Mr Briatore who added to the contract a massive annual commission to be paid to him by the promoter (for bringing the two sides together). As a Wall Street-listed company, I'm sure Liberty wouldn't be heartbroken to loose Baku as it is up there with Bahrain in the "bad publicity" stakes and for sure Liberty as a listed company has to look at things very differently than Bernie did. F1 has done a great deal for Azerbaijan, tourism is up 20% and continues to grow, but the Baku race doesn't have the clout in my opinion to force Liberty to lower their fee, it isn't a Monaco, Silverstone or Spa. With the list of countries waiting to host a race, very few if any circuits have the power to put pressure on the rights holders nowadays.
Whilst Ferrari have sorted out their mirrors, other teams are still pushing the FIA and Charlie Whiting over the amount of oil the car is using. They want to know if the 0.6kg per 100km oil consumption limit for the power-unit also applied to the turbo. Whiting has said "yes it does", so one would assume that the FIA look at this during post-race examination of the car. Other questions are also being asked about the legality of the Ferrari battery, Charlie Whiting has said "it should be clarified over the course of the weekend".
Edit to clarify the Ferrari battery story.
It is being claimed that Ferrari are using two energy stores inside one housing, which is illegal under the rules. The rules suggest that there should be a single energy store but such units consist of an array of lithium-ion cells which together can deliver up to four mega-joules of energy per lap. The definition of what constitutes a single energy store is the area which is apparently unclear. The danger of having two energy stores within the same unit is that one could be measured and meet the limits required by the rules, while the other could be used independently to provide additional power that could not be measured. This would be illegal, but it could be quite hard to prove that it was being used in this way even if the hardware (wires) were to be discovered. Teams want the FIA to define exactly what is allowed to close the loophole and clear up any suspicion that such a system could have been used in races this year. Bringing this up in the media is a way of trying to force the FIA to act.
Christian Horner has had a little dig at Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton's contract talks during the team bosses press conference. when the subject of Lewis's contract came up Horner said “I should think it’s such a grotesque amount of money that Toto is talking about, it probably is what’s making his [Toto's] and Niki’s [Lauda] eyes water at the moment, he [Hamilton] has an expensive lifestyle. He’s a four-time world champion and I doubt he’s cheap. I can only envisage that that’s probably got something to do with the delay”. Toto's response was a quick “There is a bit of email ping-pong on details".
As I think I mentioned before, the Formula 1 promoters association (FOPA) are talking about trying to reduce hosting fees and Baku is the latest to go public on the subject. According to the F1 accounts hosting fees now make up the largest slice of the pie, apparently even more that TV rights. The 2016 accounts claim that race hosting fees contributed £470m ($653m) of F1's £1.2bn ($1.8bn) revenue. Arif Rahimov the promoter of the Azerbaijan Grand Prix says he wants to renegotiate terms of the agreement. The current agreement is for 10 years signed in 2016 running until 2015, there is, as always a "mid-term break clause", but this needed to be actioned before this years race (2 years before the mid-term which is 2020). Baku pays one of the largest hosting fees, but it was negotiated by Bernie's mate Mr Briatore who added to the contract a massive annual commission to be paid to him by the promoter (for bringing the two sides together). As a Wall Street-listed company, I'm sure Liberty wouldn't be heartbroken to loose Baku as it is up there with Bahrain in the "bad publicity" stakes and for sure Liberty as a listed company has to look at things very differently than Bernie did. F1 has done a great deal for Azerbaijan, tourism is up 20% and continues to grow, but the Baku race doesn't have the clout in my opinion to force Liberty to lower their fee, it isn't a Monaco, Silverstone or Spa. With the list of countries waiting to host a race, very few if any circuits have the power to put pressure on the rights holders nowadays.
Whilst Ferrari have sorted out their mirrors, other teams are still pushing the FIA and Charlie Whiting over the amount of oil the car is using. They want to know if the 0.6kg per 100km oil consumption limit for the power-unit also applied to the turbo. Whiting has said "yes it does", so one would assume that the FIA look at this during post-race examination of the car. Other questions are also being asked about the legality of the Ferrari battery, Charlie Whiting has said "it should be clarified over the course of the weekend".
Edit to clarify the Ferrari battery story.
It is being claimed that Ferrari are using two energy stores inside one housing, which is illegal under the rules. The rules suggest that there should be a single energy store but such units consist of an array of lithium-ion cells which together can deliver up to four mega-joules of energy per lap. The definition of what constitutes a single energy store is the area which is apparently unclear. The danger of having two energy stores within the same unit is that one could be measured and meet the limits required by the rules, while the other could be used independently to provide additional power that could not be measured. This would be illegal, but it could be quite hard to prove that it was being used in this way even if the hardware (wires) were to be discovered. Teams want the FIA to define exactly what is allowed to close the loophole and clear up any suspicion that such a system could have been used in races this year. Bringing this up in the media is a way of trying to force the FIA to act.
Last edited:
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
I do think promoters get rinsed by Bernie / Liberty. The business model they use to plan these contracts must be pretty marginal from the outset. But it's all cash in the pocket for Liberty, so they won't want to be lenient or to set a precedent. The problem is that if there's a conveyor belt of enthusiastic places eager to stage a GP, there's no pressure on Liberty to stop sweating the assets. It's a shame, because if F1 is to thrive, all the main players have to make a profit.
(In some ways, the situation reminds me of the near-fraud the UK's pub-cos operate on new pub tenants. The tied-house business model cannot work. But for every pub tenant who just hands back the keys, there'll be another sucker with a retirement lump or a redundancy cheque who believes the promotional videos the pub-cos put out. The conveyor belt rumbles on. )
The sting in the tail for F1 is if Liberty allow the Bakus to walk away (which they will, rather than lower the fee), the chances are that F1 will become more of an American shopping channel (as Sergio Marchionne put it). Races will increasingly be tourism showcases, with pretty pictures and glamorous celebs to keep bovine viewers glued to the sofa for a few minutes between commercials, while the tracks are a secondary concern. And if there isn't a track at all, they'll cobble together another street circuit.
Today, my glass is half empty!
(In some ways, the situation reminds me of the near-fraud the UK's pub-cos operate on new pub tenants. The tied-house business model cannot work. But for every pub tenant who just hands back the keys, there'll be another sucker with a retirement lump or a redundancy cheque who believes the promotional videos the pub-cos put out. The conveyor belt rumbles on. )
The sting in the tail for F1 is if Liberty allow the Bakus to walk away (which they will, rather than lower the fee), the chances are that F1 will become more of an American shopping channel (as Sergio Marchionne put it). Races will increasingly be tourism showcases, with pretty pictures and glamorous celebs to keep bovine viewers glued to the sofa for a few minutes between commercials, while the tracks are a secondary concern. And if there isn't a track at all, they'll cobble together another street circuit.
Today, my glass is half empty!
1%er
Well-Known Member
I agree.I do think promoters get rinsed by Bernie / Liberty. The business model they use to plan these contracts must be pretty marginal from the outset. But it's all cash in the pocket for Liberty, so they won't want to be lenient or to set a precedent. The problem is that if there's a conveyor belt of enthusiastic places eager to stage a GP, there's no pressure on Liberty to stop sweating the assets. It's a shame, because if F1 is to thrive, all the main players have to make a profit.
(In some ways, the situation reminds me of the near-fraud the UK's pub-cos operate on new pub tenants. The tied-house business model cannot work. But for every pub tenant who just hands back the keys, there'll be another sucker with a retirement lump or a redundancy cheque who believes the promotional videos the pub-cos put out. The conveyor belt rumbles on. )
The sting in the tail for F1 is if Liberty allow the Bakus to walk away (which they will, rather than lower the fee), the chances are that F1 will become more of an American shopping channel (as Sergio Marchionne put it). Races will increasingly be tourism showcases, with pretty pictures and glamorous celebs to keep bovine viewers glued to the sofa for a few minutes between commercials, while the tracks are a secondary concern. And if there isn't a track at all, they'll cobble together another street circuit.
Today, my glass is half empty!
When you look at F1 as a whole, only the British GP doesn't get money from local, regional or national government. While Monaco doesn't pay any hosting fee, some money is spent by the government on the race, circuit and in other areas. one of the big problems nowadays is the cost of building a purpose-built tracks, which is said to be a minimum of $300 million and could be as much as $500million. This is why new circuits tend to be on public roads which are millions of $ cheaper to set up (the USA GP circuit was built part with government money and part private, it will take decades to recoup that cost and is the reason that any other race in the USA, such as New York, LA, Miami, Las Vegas are all based on a street circuit). They are also preferred by the funding governments as they showcase the Cities they are in. Although it must be pointed out that while the capital cost to build a purpose-built track is high the annual running cost is far greater for street circuits. This is largely due to the cost of transforming public roads into a race track. Temporary structures, such as grandstands, need to be bought or hired and the roads need to be upgraded to meet F1’s strict safety standard, known as Grade 1 homologation, which is set by its governing body the FIA.
According to a report in Forbes, a total cost of around $16 million, staffing is the biggest single expense for operators of street races with the budget for the marketing and organisation team alone coming to around $6.5 million. Next is rental of grandstands which costs around $14 million for structures with 80,000 seats. Securing a 3.2-mile street course with safety barriers and fencing costs in the region of $8 million which is also how much it costs to rent the pit buildings. Vehicle, office and utilities payments are around $6 million with a further $4.5 million of miscellaneous costs. Capping it all off is a payment of around $1 million for insurance.
In total, the annual operating cost of an F1 street race is in the region of $57.5 million. Then comes the hosting fee. According to Liberty’s filings, in 2015, the hosting fees paid by the 19 races which took place generated a total of $599.1 million. It gives an average fee of $31.5 million per Grand Prix but there is a sting in its tail. Liberty’s filings reveal that the race contracts “may allow for flat fees over the term, but more typically they include annual fee escalators over the life of the contract, which are typically based on annual movement in a selected consumer price index or fixed percentages of up to 5% per year.” Most new F1 race contracts are for a total of ten years so by the end of the agreement the annual fee comes to $48.9 million as shown in the table below.
It means that over the ten year race duration the hosting fees total an estimated $396.2 million with the costs of running the race coming to $575 million. It brings the overall expense close to a billion Dollars. As mentioned above, one way to avoid the high annual running costs is to host a race on a permanent facility. Whilst this doesn’t require re-purposing roads and building temporary facilities every year it does incur a huge upfront cost. For example the Circuit of the Americas is believed to have cost between $270 million and $300 million, Abu Dhabi is said to have cost $500 million.
At the end of a ten year contract the cost for both types of race track is around $1billion
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Tip-top info there, 1%er.
As I understand it. FOM also keeps the TV rights and advertising income form every race. Which means the promoter only makes money from ticket sales, hospitality and the hot-dog franchise. Okay, fag-packet time:
It looks look a race costs $100m or so to stage, and it takes a good deal of year-round organisation, involving a big team. Given the level of risk, what sort of Profit margin would you want? Well, 20% would be very modest - it's what a risk-free accounting firm might net out per year. So, if the race costs $100m to stage, you need to turn over $125m to give you $25m or 20% profit.
In 2017, total attendance at 20 races was 4.1m, ranging from 71k in Baku to 360k in Canada. So average attendance is 205k, a promoter needs to generate about $610 per attendee as a global average. In half a dozen countries where races happen, that's not even remotely feasible.
So the local or national government (read: taxpayers) step in to make the numbers right. I can see how they might be willing to step in to provide a short-term boost to a local economy, but no public sector policy is stable for 5 years, let alone 10 years for a race contract.
It seems to me that promoters carry the highest risk and the business model is predicated on taxpayer subsidies. Given the rat-gagging amounts of money that have been extracted from the sport by Bernie and others over the years, it does seem a bit steep for taxpayers to reaching into their pockets to keep the show - quite literally - on the road.
Tamara Ecclestone gives fans a tour of her £70m mansion with 50 staff, a gold bath and luxury toys for daughter Sophia in trailer for new reality show
I better stop before I break out into a tearful rendition of The Red Flag.
As I understand it. FOM also keeps the TV rights and advertising income form every race. Which means the promoter only makes money from ticket sales, hospitality and the hot-dog franchise. Okay, fag-packet time:
It looks look a race costs $100m or so to stage, and it takes a good deal of year-round organisation, involving a big team. Given the level of risk, what sort of Profit margin would you want? Well, 20% would be very modest - it's what a risk-free accounting firm might net out per year. So, if the race costs $100m to stage, you need to turn over $125m to give you $25m or 20% profit.
In 2017, total attendance at 20 races was 4.1m, ranging from 71k in Baku to 360k in Canada. So average attendance is 205k, a promoter needs to generate about $610 per attendee as a global average. In half a dozen countries where races happen, that's not even remotely feasible.
So the local or national government (read: taxpayers) step in to make the numbers right. I can see how they might be willing to step in to provide a short-term boost to a local economy, but no public sector policy is stable for 5 years, let alone 10 years for a race contract.
It seems to me that promoters carry the highest risk and the business model is predicated on taxpayer subsidies. Given the rat-gagging amounts of money that have been extracted from the sport by Bernie and others over the years, it does seem a bit steep for taxpayers to reaching into their pockets to keep the show - quite literally - on the road.
Tamara Ecclestone gives fans a tour of her £70m mansion with 50 staff, a gold bath and luxury toys for daughter Sophia in trailer for new reality show
I better stop before I break out into a tearful rendition of The Red Flag.
1%er
Well-Known Member
For those without C4 or sky there are 9 links here, find the best one for you
1%er
Well-Known Member
Its an interesting question, who would replace Danny Ric? Neither of the Toro Rosso Drivers appear good enough, so maybe they would bring someone in, but I can't think of a top driver who is available, so maybe they would have to put all the Red Bull eggs in Max's basket for 2019 and bring Gasly or Hartley throughwho can they put in the car against max next year so he won't run into a wall in a practise session
whilst attempting to Boss his team mate
Stroll
1%er
Well-Known Member
Good morning, I hope you are all enjoying your bank holiday weekend 
Not a holiday here but everyday is a holiday for me nowadays Despite that I had to get up an 5:30 this morning to take my car to the local garage, there is some sort of strike on across Brazil (not really sure of the details)I think it is a tanker drivers strike so no petrol. As we are a small place the garage called me and said bring your car and leave it here, if we get a delivery we will fill it up and whatapp you Great service small town
Looks like the FIA have cleared Ferrari over their battery, but the other teams have 14 days to appeal the FIA decision.
Max get a 10 place grid penalty but is starting from the back anyway for changing MGUK and gearbox
Not a holiday here but everyday is a holiday for me nowadays
Despite that I had to get up an 5:30 this morning to take my car to the local garage, there is some sort of strike on across Brazil (not really sure of the details)I think it is a tanker drivers strike so no petrol. As we are a small place the garage called me and said bring your car and leave it here, if we get a delivery we will fill it up and whatapp you Great service small town Looks like the FIA have cleared Ferrari over their battery, but the other teams have 14 days to appeal the FIA decision.
Max get a 10 place grid penalty but is starting from the back anyway for changing MGUK and gearbox
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
I read somewhere that Marko thought Max's crash was down to impatience, which is a bit harsh. He was an inch or two out at high speed with a sudden slow car. But if he starts from last, we should see a car that the track suits with an aggressive driver on a circuit that doesn't lend itself to overtaking. Max could be fun to watch today.
