F1’s inequality revealed as Strategy Group meets

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: The extreme inequality of Formula One’s revenue distribution has been revealed ahead of a crunch meeting of the Strategy Group, which will be attended by the chairman of F1’s owners CVC.


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

Formula 1 teams' 2014 payouts revealed (Autosport)

"Williams, which finished third in the constructors' championship and scored nine podiums, was fifth overall with $83million."

Formula One chiefs seek solutions at latest crisis meeting (The Telegraph)

"What many believe to be the real issue – the skewed distribution of the prize money – is not on the agenda. That requires the contracts to be torn up, but they are locked in until 2020."

Four grands prix and no Pastor Maldonado crash … is F1 getting too easy? (The Guardian)

"The meeting of F1’s strategy group will include the six biggest teams, as well as the sport’s chief executive, Bernie Ecclestone, the governing body – the FIA – and possibly Donald Mackenzie, the co-chairman and co-founder of CVC Capital Partners, the biggest shareholders in the sport."

F1 revamp on agenda at 'crucial' strategy meeting (Reuters)

"The increased engine allocation proposal already looks doomed, however, with Mercedes-powered Williams and Force India against it on grounds of cost and a reluctance to help Renault-powered rivals Red Bull in the championship battle."

Bernie Ecclestone: 'You know I don’t like democracies...' (Adam Cooper's F1 Blog)

"Ecclestone says that it won’t make any difference if the cheaper engine did have less performance. 'The people that are running eighth today will be eighth. It’s not nice what I’m going to say, but it’s probably true.'"

F1 race promoters demand 'urgent' engine rule change (Motorsport)

"Why do the majority of fans come and watch Formula 1? It's not to experience new rules each year or to witness new engine development."

Why Ferrari hasn’t been cheating (MotorSport magazine)

"Could Ferrari possibly be using the wind tunnel time, additional to its own allocation, of a customer team? That was the competitive paranoia view."

Ferrari can’t kick 20-year tobacco habit despite Formula One ad ban (Toronto Star)

"While tobacco brands can’t feature on race cars, Ferrari’s vehicles feature a red-and-white square that resembles a Marlboro cigarette pack."

Drivers will ask fans about state of sport (BBC)

"Pirelli's contract runs out at the end of 2016 and the FIA will conduct a full tender process to find the next tyre supplier, with French company Michelin, held in high regard by the F1 teams, considering a bid."

Red Bull ‘very similar’ to Toro Rosso – Gasly (F1i)

"In terms of lap time it is pretty much the same. So there were some small differences but also the conditions were a bit different to yesterday – the wind was not in the same way."

Arai talks ‘pressure’ and McLaren podiums by mid-season (Crash)

"Maybe in Monaco or Canada we will have a much better chance of getting points, and then to achieve a podium in the middle of the season – we hope."

Yesterday's Man (Darren Heath)

"As the Ferrari sped through the Sauber team’s pit stop box the car could easily have hit a team mechanic, an FIA official and/or a photographer. Needless to say, serious injuries could have been the least of our concerns. The fact that a simple reprimand was the Finn’s only punishment reflected very poorly on the powers that be."

Susie Wolff: The day I earned the respect of Sir Stirling Moss (BT Sport via YouTube)


Comment of the day

Does recent history show Alonso is right to be sceptical about whether Ferrari has genuinely improved?

Look back at 2010. The so called ‘atmosphere’ in the team was far superior to this new era of Arrivabene and Vettel. People had really high hopes of Alonso and the team was more motivated than they had ever been. It only took three to four seasons of non-stop failures to start breaking the atmosphere in the team completely down.

Arrivabene and Vettel are only five races in to the new era. Give them two to three seasons of not winning another drivers or constructors championship and just see how toxic the environment gets at Ferrari, and whether Vettel is replaced or not when he grows tired of finishing in second or third in the championship.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Hyoko and Jen Campbell!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Michael Schumacher led a one-two for Benetton in the Spanish Grand Prix 20 years ago today. Damon Hill started the final lap in second place only for his car to stop with a hydraulic problem. He was classified fourth behind Gerhard Berger’s Ferrari.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

95 comments on “F1’s inequality revealed as Strategy Group meets”

  1. Totally agree with COTD. I bet things in Italy are a lot calmer these days, at least Ferrari is getting podiums. The media is hopeful and they even won a race, the first in almost 2 years, so things are “alright”. But a race win and some podiums won’t cut it… Now they are saying what they said when Fernando drove for them: “we’re catching up”.

    Again, as COTD says, back in 2010 things had been quite bad the year before, and the team was very hopeful of the new car and driver. And it was the strongest car Ferrari made over the past 7 years, during one of F1’s most competitive seasons. And look how that turned out.

    1. Absolutely agree with CotD and yourself @Fer-no65.

      I remember back in 2010 there was so much buzz around Ferrari.. It was going to be their next great era and Fernando was going to be fulfill the prophecy…who knew eh?

      Let’s see how Vettel does when next year the car doesn’t improve.

    2. Only a little change from Alonso’s period at Ferrari is that Vettel has not yet been involved in any controversies. Alonso had issues in McLaren, Renault and then in Ferrari. Even in his McLaren return, the statements given about his crash by himself and his team contradict each other.

      The common denominator in all these instances being Alonso cannot be just a coincidence.

      The man can drive, I don’t discount it at all, but the man is far from being the ideal team player.

      1. @evered7 Yes, but that’s what Ferrari wanted from a driver (not the public bashing) and why they hired Fernando ahead of Kimi. In Kimi, Ferrari had a very good driver, but they decided to pay double the salary (Alonso + Kimi) just to have Fernando because of his demanding personality and fire.

        1. They decided to pay double salary because Santander paid for both…

          1. And Santander did it to have Massa+Alonso in the team.

      2. What controversies was he involved in at Ferrari?

      3. I dont think Alonso’s controversies had any effect when he joined Ferrari. In fact his arrival in Maranello was a much bigger affair than even Vettel joining them this year.

        When Alonso scored a win on his debut, there were all kinds of comparisons made between Alonso and Schumacher, and how he is probably the best driver to ever drive for Ferrari, etc. He was immediately a part of the ‘culture’ of the team etc.

        The point is that things change when you are not winning, and I don’t see a driver such as Fernando or Seb staying calm and easy when they are not winning. The atmosphere will break down if a WDC or WCC isn’t secured within a season or two

        Thanks for the COTD @keith . It’s been a while since I’ve had one :)

  2. Sean (@spaceman1861)
    14th May 2015, 0:31

    Those price differences are weird. I would like to think that it could be more fairly distributed but as i understand it the people who really decide how it gets distributed are the people who run the teams getting the money… so that aint gonna happen.

    Also it might just be me but does the PM cope way to much flak. He seems to me to be having a relatively unlucky season and is taking alot more blame then he should.

    1. Yeah, it never fails to amaze me how money is shared in F1.

      Can someone explain how Redbull is the second highest earner in F1 considering how long they have been in the sport compared to the other teams?

      Did they invest more or just have a stronger political clout?

      1. They won 4 consecutive championships and committed until 2020.

        The pay out for championship position isn’t limited to just the following year, it’s paid out on subsequent years as well to incentivise not grabbing a championship and then bailing when things get bad.

        If Mercedes win again this year, next years payment will include money from last years win as well.

        1. That is the key point – from what I’ve seen, the payment system takes into account the finishing position over multiple seasons.

          In the case of Red Bull, their payments not only reflect the fact that they finished 3rd in 2014, but also their championship victories in 2013 and 2012 – similarly, thanks to Ferrari finishing in 2nd and 3rd in 2012 and 2013 respectively, they are still given a fairly healthy payment too (asides from the much debated premium for their brand).

          As for Williams, their situation is the reverse – whilst they finished 3rd last year, they only managed 9th in 2013 and 8th in 2012.

          1. Um, Red Bull were second last year

      2. Very simple, they negotiated a better deal to screw over FOTA, once Bernie had Ferrari and RBR the others became less valuable so got less.

      3. So their earning position is down to championship finishing position over a period of time and deal negotiations, albeit backroom as it does seem at times.

        Still an impressive feat for a team that hasn’t been in the sport for such a long period of time compared to the likes of Williams and Sauber.

    2. I would like to think that it could be more fairly distributed

      @spaceman1861 Does it need to be more fairly distributed?? F1 is a meritocracy, not a democracy. If a team is worth more to the sport and/or it performs well in the championship it gets a bigger slice of the pie. Sounds fair to me.

      1. F1 is a meritocracy

        @tomcat173 This statement is correct, but even if the premium payments were simply respread according to the meritocracy formula used for the main payouts the smallest five teams would each get 40% more in funds. That could make a huge difference to survivability and also the level of competition. This would be more fair distribution and still retain the principle of meritocracy.

      2. Yes it does need to be more fairly distributed. Because success in F1 is roughly proportional to the amount of money a team can spend. Those that spend the most, tend to be the most successful. While those that spend the least will always be relegated to the back. So when you give huge sums to the teams which are already doing very well, you ensure that they will continue to exist at the top, and deny the rest the chance to catch up. It’s a reverse handicap – those that do the worst receive effectively a sporting punishment. You may as well start putting ballast into people’s cars the further down the grid they end up.

        1. ” Because success in F1 is roughly proportional to the amount of money a team can spend”

          As a general rule, it sounds right, but remember how well RBR have performed this and last year. How well Ferrari performed with Alonso. This is not really the case. While money is a “key” factor, it does not determine success by itself.

          I agree though, I think it’s probably right to share the money equally (or more equally), give every team a vote, let the drivers and constructors seek their respective championships for the glory/prestige/marketing value only. But, don’t let teams mooch off the welfare at the back of the field for too long, there needs to be real incentive to improve, otherwise what’s the point?

      3. Sean (@spaceman1861)
        14th May 2015, 23:27


        I had not taken into account earning more money for the results of previous seasons.

        At first glance that makes sense to me.

        But I dont think ferrari should get dosh just because they are ferrari.

        Predominately and my main point is that you can keep a merit system. But i believe it should be normalized. The gaps should come down and the money more evenly distributed.
        This would a even out the playing field a bit, make is so teams at the lower end could survive easier and give winning teams a bit less ability to pull away from the field. Normalization of the distribution of the funds is key…. at least on my soapbox :P

  3. I don’t quite understand Ron Walker’s point.
    How does adding a second turbo make the engines less complex and cheaper?
    Surely the engine manufactures will still have to spent on R&D and push technology to be better than the next manufacture.
    Can someone, please, explain it to me?

    1. You need to bear in mind that Walker happens to be a very close associate of Bernie, so his comments tend to reflect on Bernie’s point of view as well. There is a suggestion that the threats to change the regulations are a way of pressuring the manufacturers to cut the fees they are charging their customers given that the cost caps introduced to subsidise the V8 engines have expired.

    2. Interestingly, also Horner and Red Bull werde opting for biturbo configurations…quite arrogant from Walker btw to assume that every fan is against the New Engines as sites like f1fanatic prove us the opposite.

  4. I fear that crash at Indy is just the start… aerokits on;y work in one direction.

    Sure, F1 has aerokits, but they don’t race on super speedways…

    1. Helio said in an interview afterwards that they were trying something new with the car, I also saw some images before the crash of new sidepods been tested on his car.

      There was another spin/crash later in the session & it showed no sign of lifting off so it was likely just Penske testing something new.

    2. Newgarden’s car also flipped after hitting the wall and travelling backwards – not to the same degree as Helio’s as more speed was taken out by the first hit but, two in two days seems odd

  5. I’d like to see the engine noise poll re-done, to see have people’s views changed since last year. The last poll was on the very first weekend of the new V6s and I imagine there was quite a bit of resentment that didn’t last.

    1. Totally agree with you.
      There should be a new poll on this topic.

  6. BJ (@beejis60)
    14th May 2015, 1:05

    Didn’t MAL turn in on GRO and cause contact and eventually cause his rear wing endplate to fail? Or is a crash considered contact with something or someone and cause an immediate car stoppage?

    1. More like Grosjean understeered in Maldonado, although there was probably nothing to do

      1. Pastor is always there to be touched @mashiat. Too close, too aggressive, time after time. It’s ridiculous he has a licence.

    2. yeah. I thought Maldonado has been involved in an incident every race weekend this year, and crashed a few times in preseason testing as well. I guess when he mentions ‘crash’ he means an absolute totaling of the car.

      I’m pretty sure that Pastor can crash even during a grid walk.. I mean its just a part of his DNA. He’s in pretty good form with racing incidents, and it’s just a matter of time before he starts totaling his own car and other’s on a more regular basis again. I don’t think the FIA should be worried about it… even Crashtor has his slump, but he’ll be back

  7. I’m a little tired about all this talk about Ferrari gaining speed this year by “cheating” somewhere! Will this be the reaction we will get every time someone get near the perfect (and it really is perfect) Mercedes?!?

    For me, Barcelona would always be a problem for Ferrari and a dominant win for Mercedes! If you look at the race’s stats, Ferrari lost almost 0,5s-1s just in the last sector and lost almost all of its time in the last stint with the hard tires. They can’t work the hard tire as well as the medium or the softs because it takes to long to heat it them up. If you check the last stint times, Vettel needed around 10 laps until he did his best time with the hard tires (losing more than 1,5s per lap most of the stint). So in my opinion it was a combination of Mercedes aero+mechanical grip masterpiece (that car is glued to the track) plus Ferrari with too many changes, needing to find a new and good set-up plus the hard tires.

    1. Swings and roundabouts there, the tyres giveth and the tyres taketh away, these tyres are temperature dependent , if the car keeps the tyres from getting too hot on a very hot track then it will probably keep them too cool on a cold track and vice versa.

  8. I wonder what standard Ron Walker uses to claim the Melbourne GP “the most successful”, maybe it’s the most money extracted from a Govt.

    1. Or the most money extracted by Ron Walker…

  9. The more I have read about the noise issue, the more I see that it seems to depend on which website you read to get opinions. I was astonished that in the F1 Fanatic poll, 47% of folks rated the current engines as sounding ‘very good’ or ‘good’. Over at Motorsport though, there was and is almost unanimous horror of the sound.

    I also must question how many of those 47% here who liked the sound of the engines had actually heard one for real, rather than on TV? It seems almost impossible to me that one could hear these cars live, against what we have had in the past, and actually, genuinely approve…………….

    1. @paulguitar
      I never really loved the sound of the V8’s, or the V10’s. They never sounded as good as a V12’s from the early 90’s.
      To be honest, I don’t really understand why people get so worked up over the noise the engines/power units/whatever makes as it’s generally unrelated to its performance.
      I find the current engines far more interesting than the V8’s, I also consider them to be far more impressive.

      1. @beneboy

        We certainly agree the V12’s were the best sounding engines of all……..:)

        I don’t know how to explain exactly why it is that the sound is so important to me. I am a professional musician, so ‘sound’ is a very large part of my day to day life, and yet, away from work, what I usually seek is silence and peace. But……., this issue of F1 noise is really important to me. I think it is because, for me, this was what used to separate F1 from all of the other racing series more than anything else. F1, historically, has certainly not provided the best ‘wheel to wheel’ racing. If one wants that, go directly to karting, or Formula Ford.

        No, for me, what I loved about F1 was the visceral thrill, and the sound was a MASSIVE part of that. Now, the cars are slow (relatively), heavy, quiet, and the actual sound is appalling. I am a loyal fan, but I am getting impatient now.

        Already I have postponed future trips to F1 races, having previously been to 37 GP events. It is getting close to the point now where I might consider doing something other than watching the races on TV as well.

        I never, ever, thought I would type those words.

        1. @paulguitar
          I do love the sound of big, powerfull engines. I can happily spend my weekends at classic car events listening to big American V8’s and Italian V12’s being revved to within an inch of their lives. I just don’t rate it that highly when I’m watching racing.
          I think the TT Zero has also prepared me for the current F1 engines, the 1st time I saw the electric bikes running at the TT I was genuinely shocked by the lack of noise – and performance. The bikes were heavy, slow and almost silent. Over the (very few) years the bikes being entered have become much lighter and faster. There’ll never be anything like sitting on the mountain and hearing superbikes flying towards you, but I have grown to love the electric bikes and love that I’m getting to see them develop in the way our great-grandparents got to see traditional bikes develop a century ago.

    2. It seems almost impossible to me that one could hear these cars live, against what we have had in the past, and actually, genuinely approve…………….

      @paulguitar I have heard them live & I do genuinely like them, Especially when compared to the V8’s.

      I never really liked the 2.6Ltr V8’s, Yes they were very loud but the actual sound wasn’t really that good as it was very flat & there wasn’t that much of a difference between each manufacturer. I think Will Buxton put it best at Monaco last year when he said that the V8’s were “Just a very loud noise”.
      I hated the V8’s from the very 1st time I heard them at Silverstone in 2006, They just sounded crap compared to engine’s from F1’s past & they never got any better over the years they were used.

      The old 3/3.5Ltr V8’s sounded better & yes the V10/V12’s sounded better still but even when compared to those I still don’t think the current V6’s sound bad.. There quieter yes & in some ways that does make them a bit less impressive but I don’t think the actual sound they produce is bad.

      1. @PeterG

        I understand that the V8’s could be a little, well…….tiring. Having said that, I would just love to hear them again, and I will at Goodwood next month, along with all of the really special V10’s and V12’s from the past, as well as flat 12’s………..:)

        I just think that the noise was a massive part of the appeal of F1.

        It’s gone, and I find that really depressing.

        1. @paulguitar, The original poll on the y14 V6 sound resulted very approximately iirc in about 1/3 dislike, 1/3 like, and 1/3 neutral, there were many good explanations from the pro V6 group as to why they preferred the quieter sound. I think the rot set in as soon as off-throtle exhaust blowing came into use which, decelerating, made them sound like old misfiring bangers with broken exhaust manifolds, accelerating created a deafening screech without the musicality of earlier engines.

          1. @hohum

            I accept the diffuser and even worse, traction control sounds were pretty awkward. What a relief we lost traction control!

            What we have no though, is just deeply unimpressive. Quiet, to the point of unintentional humour, and actual sound itself is awful. To me, anyway. I know others have differing views, or regard engine noise as ‘wasted energy’. I can’t see it like that, to me that’s like saying an orchestra is ‘wasting energy’ when they are playing a Mahler symphony, just because they could be at home resting instead!

    3. Hm, well, the thing is with internet polling, you do not know who votes, nor how many times they do so (IP checks can be circumvented), that is why Keith changed to allowing only registered members in the polls @paulguitar.

      On the other hand, I think it rather reflects how the “average” poster on F1Fanatic is far more into F1 and less likely to be easily influenced by hearing the likes of Bernie, Luca, ChristianH along with BEs pet media and friends (Ron Walker) taut the idea that the engines are rubbish.

      If you look back, its pretty clear that BE had a direct influence (via FOM TV sounds) on making the engines sound even less loud.
      The thing is, while the V8 were incredibly loud, their sound was never very interesting or variable between teams. And the years before we had the V6s they had these pops and chokes from the blown exhaust too. Meaning that their sound was never really great, like the sound of some of the V10s and even more of the V12s were in the past.

      For me, I like to see them use more of the engergy that is in the fuel tank to actually get the cars ot go instead of blowing it off as sound. And they certainly do sound more variable between the manufacturers at least for now.
      It also has the added benefit of more easily getting people to take children to a race and somewhat lessens pressure from surrounding communities about sound limits.

      1. @bascb If you look back, its pretty clear that BE had a direct influence (via FOM TV sounds) on making the engines sound even less loud.

        I was able to download some stuff from the raw satellite feeds coming straght from FOM (Which is what the broadcasters pick up) last year & the audio on that was fine, A lot louder than what we eventually heard on TV.

        It seems that the track audio volume was been lost a lot on the broadcasters end as they mixed in there commentary tracks & it seemed to vary between broadcasters.

        I uploaded some stuff from the raw feed last year:

        1. That’s all very well about the TV feed, but I have been trackside where you can actually have a conversation with F1 cars going by, and that’s just wrong!

          I also accept that they various engines sound a bit different to each other, but they are just various versions of crap sounding, and how is that good?

  10. The McLaren looks 100 times better with flow vis paint all over it. Keep this as your livery please

    1. @macca This makes me wonder, why hasn’t any team ever gone for a fluorescent color before like bright yellow or orange or green.

      1. Hans (@hanswesterbeek)
        14th May 2015, 5:54

        Minardi did in 2000.

      2. Weight I would guess.

        Even just switching away from silver is meant to have saved a few kilos.

      3. Brawn GP anyone?

      4. The Brawn GPs!!!!

    2. Initially I wondered what team Jenson had been driving the test for!

  11. Thanks Gasly for the confirmation that RBR has really lost it’s magic, sure Toro Rosso improved a lot, but they only have a third of the budget!
    What have Red Bull done with those extra 100m throw them away or something? unbelievable.

    1. They probably spent it on someone trying to spin their woes on Renault.

  12. Funny how some people say that customer cars or even customer parts will lead to a two tier championship, but as you can see from the earnings, we clearly already have one.

    And these are just the money from FOM, bigger teams earn a lot more from sponsors than the smaller ones.

  13. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
    14th May 2015, 1:57

    ….and there you have in one, simple table the biggest fundamental issue with finance and money in the sport of F1.

    1. You are missing the line that shows FOM expenditure = approx $350million, FOM profit = approx $320million, a nice little earner that.

  14. That $249m ‘premium’ payout should be cut & used to give more to the smaller teams. I’d also raise the split the teams get to at least 75% as I’m sure Bernie, FOM, CVC & whoever else gets a slice can survive on the millions they would get from the remaining 25%.

    With an estimated $1.650Bn flowing into the sport its unacceptable to have teams struggling like we do & its about time those at the top of the sport wake up before we reach a point where its too late for the smaller teams.

    Regarding everything else, To be quite honest from an actual racing point of view I don’t think there’s really much wrong with F1. The tyres could be a bit more durable & I’d rather we lose DRS but overall I think the racing is fine & team finances to one side the racing should be the next most important thing.
    All this talk of changing everything because these people seem to think that if they meddle with ‘the show’ everything else will be fine is misguided & the wrong area of focus.

    Sort of the financial structure, Ensure a more healthy grid with 10-13 teams that will provide a competitive field from front to back & that will do more for the racing than anything else.

    1. +1!! Spot on!

      1. I don’t know. I think this is all just one big boys club with a bunch of individuals and top teams simply looking out for themselves. That’s ‘fine’ in the sense that it is what it is. F1 is it’s own unique entity. BE decries democracies and says they need one person telling F1 this is the way it is, deal with it. I don’t disagree, even though I will always be for democracies. I believe a leader should be democratically selected, and then given the power to lead. So as long as said leader is elected and not shoehorned in with some personal agenda, that should be acceptable to everyone.

        I think what I find so disingenuous is that nobody has forced F1 to be the way it is. It is a club with several entities having the power to disagree such that nothing gets done…but they all agreed that this is how F1 is run. They all agreed on the current engines so to immediately decry the lack of noise or the cost seems ridiculous. They had to have known what they were getting into before agreeing to spending the hundreds of millions needed to move to this current formula. But they are all (perhaps with the exception of Mercedes) acting like this current format was thrust upon them out of the blue and now they have to deal with it.

        It would seem F1 has some issues, and I think they have been accented now that we have been in a global recession and money is tighter not only for those involved in F1, but for fans to participate as well. But I’m really getting tired of F1 acting like this is all new to them and has been thrust upon them and now major overhauls are needed. They themselves are the only ones responsible for how F1 is today. They voted for how it is today. To claim that this is locked in place by contracts and bemoan that, makes me think they are only publicly bemoaning the state of F1, while behind closed doors continuing to wring their hands at the money they are making.

        As long as the top teams are not seriously threatened by a downturn in revenues, nor even a downturn in viewership, as there still seems to be enough of that to keep things rolling, this big boys club will just continue to plod along acting like victims while actually being the perpetrators.

        1. @robbie And I agree with almost everything that you said! F1 should be mostly ruled by one person and teams should only have power over technical rules because they know what they can do or create new, but the last word should always be from someone or some group outside the sport who just thinks in terms of marketing and exposure of F1. Not from someone who’s competing and only wants to win!

          But again that person or that group (aka Bernie or CVC) shouldn’t also take personal advantage with that strong position!

  15. Watching today’s ‘On this day in F1’ I couldn’t help but think about how it is now time for a Senna-style Schumacher documentary.

    Take all my money and give me this.

  16. “The people that are running eighth today will be eighth.”

    And that is because the tea running 6th or 7th probably ends up getting $50,000,000 more than them. The revenue distribution model is completely ridiculous. Dieter Renken did a great article on autosport.com explaining the intrecacies of the distribution, and it makes genuinely awful reading.

    Bernie needs to get a grip, there is nothing wrong with the engines. The cars are slower now than they were in 2004 because the tyres don’t ptoduce the same grip they did then and because the aero regs have hauled the cars back (twice) since then.

    1. Oh yeah, and because the cars now weigh 800,000 tons.

    2. Bernie needs to get a grip

      Bernie has a grip, on the teams genitals, and that is the problem.

      1. He actually lost the grip on F1 when he sold out the FOM rights to investors. He can’t do anything about the money distribution either because the investors will never let him.

    3. Only if there’s still eight of them left.

  17. The yesterday man article on Raikkonen is pretty pointless…

    He’s a consistent point scorer with an introvert character. Is it so hard to understand Kimi?

    1. Yeah it’s funny how Raikkonen’s Bahrain performance race was heralded his resurrection of and one race later he’s written off already.

      He’s a bit overly particular to what he needs in a car, but several teams (including Ferrari) have been able to give him a car he can get things done with.

      Throwing away his own race in Spain just to help the team collect data shows how much of a team player he is as well.

      1. It’s interesting to observe that Jenson Button’s inability to deal with a car which isn’t to his liking is used as a criticism of Button, whereas when Raikkonen suffers the same thing, it’s a criticism of his team for not giving him a car to his liking.

        1. I don’t know other people, but I don’t criticize Button for his problems with the cars. It’s pretty straightforward, develop the car in a way your drivers’ would prefer as much as possible. They are not manufacturing road cars anyway, it’s predetermined who will be driving the car, same 2 people and generally for years.

          1. Its all very well and good people saying drivers like Alonso are great in bad cars but in the end it only matters how good a driver is in a good car as only good cars enable any driver to win the title.

            Coulthard beat Hakkinen in a bad car but roles reversed in a good car.

    2. agreed yesterday man sounded more like someone trolling on a facebook status rather than an article

  18. Lewisham Milton
    14th May 2015, 9:09

    Great, a load more “news” that hasn’t happened yet. Already had a titful of that last week, with the election.

  19. My be this solution that will work for the financial problems that teams work.

    Put regs. in place that forces all teams to be profitable.

    Put in place regs. in place that fine teams hard that are not profitable.
    Example : For every 1 pound you have mad a loss you have to pay 2 pounds as a fine. If Merc makes a loss of
    100 million pounds they will have to pay a fine of 200 million pounds.

    Put regs. in place that will divided the money that comes from the fines equally between the teams that are profitable.
    Exsample : If the 4 teams total fines added up to 120 million pounds the other 6 teams will get 20 million each.

    No mother company input money can be declare as sponsor money.
    Example :What this means is that Merc AMG team can not declare the money the money they get from Merc as sponsor money. If Merc gives the team 100 million pounds the team have to make a 100 million to show a profit.

    This will stop teams from spending to much and bring cost down and will insure that teams are financially secure in the sport. It will also make it really easy to monitor.

  20. apex assassin
    14th May 2015, 10:20

    I AGREE WITH RON WALKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is the worst era I’ve ever witnessed in my several decades of money spending fanaticism. I hate the engines. They sound awful and just aren’t “F1” whose hallmark is a shrieking, high revving monster that junior drivers fear and lust after. Fuel flow? Lift and coast? Audible beeps and tones to cue lifting. braking, acceleration, and the lame “drs”? No wonder the other series are reaping the rewards of the great F1 exodus!

    Combine all that and put it on crappy Pirellis and congrats! You just made a sh!t sandwich.

  21. If you want to make F1 fair, the only way to do that is to take that money and simply divide it equally between every team. Not only will that prevent the current top teams from having an enormous sporting advantage, it’ll also ensure that smaller teams have enough money to remain competitive and in business. All of the talk of cost capping can then just disappear in one swoop.

    But of course in order for that to happen, the teams would need to voluntarily tear up contracts which give them a huge sporting advantage. Who thinks that’ll ever happen?

    1. There should be some incentive to perform better though. Sports are not a communist event. People or teams are not equal. Some are better than others and that needs to be rewarded.

      Of course the problem now is that the best teams don’t get paid the most. So indeed I agree that there should be a fixed part of the money distributed evenly among the teams and then the rest according to performance.

      1. @patrickl
        Why does that incentive need to be money from FOM ?
        Surely the prestige of winning, and the financial rewards that come with winning are enough of an incentive for the teams.
        Even if every penny FOM generates was split equally amongst all teams I reckon Ferrrari would still be making several times more than some other teams from sponsorship and partnership deals.

      2. Considering that finances and budgets have a direct impact on performance, anything which favours one team over another one financially gives them an artificial sporting advantage. In the end, the ‘best’ teams aren’t best because they do the best job, but simply because they have the most money. Of course, there will always be desperate underachievers who fail to capitalise on their financial advantages – like Toyota and Ferrari – but generally speaking giving one team more money than another will create sporting inequality. If you want to believe that F1 is a fair and equal environment where every team has the same opportunity to be successful, it needs to be an environment where no team is given an artificial advantage over their rivals. Of course, in some sports, the advantage is given to those who perform badly, in order to level the competition and make the sport more exciting – look at things like success ballast etc. But in F1, they literally give the biggest boost to those who are already winning. Is it a surprise that Ferrari dominated so successfully in the 00’s, when they were given a massive advantage by the governing body? Is it any surprise that big names in F1 like RBR and Mercedes have seen periods of dominance when they’re given a similar advantage?

        If a team needs a big financial reward in order to motivate them to try and win, you have to wonder what they’re doing in motorsport in the first place. What happened to the spirit of competition? Winning simply for the glory of it?

  22. Zak Misiuda (@)
    14th May 2015, 11:45

    With reference to the “Toronto Star” article- Does this then mean that Mercedes are also sponsored by JTI as there livery vaguely resembles their Sterling Fresh Taste range packet?
    Yes whilst it is universally known that Ferrari have/had ties with Marlboro I find it incredulous that their company logo is now considered an under-hand sponsor for a cigarette company! Honestly my 13 year old sister could write a more relevant story than half of the ‘motor sports journalists’ of today.

    1. Zak Misiuda (@)
      14th May 2015, 11:46


      1. @zakmf1 Not sure I understand your beef. If you are saying Ferrari’s continued tie in with Marlboro is universally known, then how is this article offensive in pointing out the relationship just got extended? How is the reminder of that box on the side of the car offensive?

        I think you have missed that this article was actually in the Business section of The Star, not written by a ‘motor sports journalist’ as claimed by you with the insinuation half of them are scum. They haven’t claimed other teams are ‘hiding’ tobacco sponsorship. They have merely pointed out the business relationship that still exists and has been extended between Philip Morris and Ferrari, and I for one had no idea the money that was still involved, nor that Arrivabene worked there. I find it quite fascinating from a business standpoint and certainly do not take from it some scathing indictment of underhandedness by Philip Morris nor Ferrari. The article simply points out the facts.

        1. Zak Misiuda (@)
          14th May 2015, 14:43

          My ‘beef’, as you so eloquently put it, is not with the relationship between Ferrari and Marlboro. It is, however, with the fact that this article is making news. As I said, everyone is aware of their business ties and so why do we need to be told that the logo on the engine cover slightly resembles the corner of a cigarette packet? I’m not offended, nor do I have a problem with who sponsors whom but this is a piece of journalism that I don’t expect to see on a site as reliable as this one.
          It is a non-story, if you like. I’d much rather find no news than needless news, and given the other stories on the round-up I don’t feel it has a justified place here.

          As for your assumption about me insinuating half of motor sports journalists are scum, that is both inaccurate wildly over the top. All I meant by that comment was that, irrespective of the fact it is a business article, the level of journalism one can expect from today’s authors relating to Formula 1 is mediocre. Again going back to the non-story, it’s unnecessary compared to the other article available.

          1. I’m afraid I’m with @robbie – I don’t understand the point you’re making. You call it poor journalism, while also acknowledging that it is basically true. I mean, it is tru isn’t it. Phillip Morris give Ferrari a ton of money, and Ferrari run a big white and red logo on the side of their car which looks quite a bit like a Marlboro logo (and nothing like the Ferrari logo) in an age where tobacco sponsorship is meant to be banned. Is that a non story? I don’t think it is, really.

          2. So tobacco advertising is banned?
            Yes, that’s why we dropped the word Marlboro from our name
            But you still have a Marlboro logo on the car.
            No no, that’s the Scuderia logo
            It looks a lot like the Marlboro logo
            No, it’s totally different, you see, ours is a red swoosh whereas their is a red chevron. Any perceived similarity is totally coincidental.
            I see. But they still give you huge sums of money?
            Yes of course! We don’t advertise them at all. They just give us lots of money, because they really, really, really like us.
            So let me get this straight. Tobacco advertising is banned. Phillip Morris, who own Marlboro, give you millions of dollars, and you have a logo on your car which looks a lot like the Marlboro logo, but this is merely a co-incidence and you are definitely not breaking the ban on tobacco advertising?
            Yes, this is completely correct.

          3. @mazdachris If only Ferrari were this innovative in designing their cars. Really have to give it to them for coming out with such a logo.

            You see it but you don’t. Mission accomplished.

          4. @zakmf1 I for one did not know the extent of the relationship, nor the money involved, and the true business news in this is that the relationship has been extended as of last year. The Star finds it interesting how covert this has been too, but they don’t dwell on it nor accuse Ferrari or Philip Morris of some gross misdemeanor. The article is in the Business section of The Star, and so it is highly likely that most readers of the article know little about Formula 1. It is a business related article and is not trying to pass itself off as Motorsport journalism. Sounds like your criticism should be more toward Keith for putting up this article, like it must have displaced something far more important that you have now been robbed of, rather than The Star and it’s Business Section’s journalist, for informing it’s readers interested in business articles.

            I knew scum wasn’t really the right word but I was trying to save time, so I acknowledge that could have been better worded, but I find your insinuation about Mercedes then also being accused of covertly doing tobacco ads due to their paint color far more over the top than anything I and The Star article have said, which is what compelled me to respond in the first place.

            Frankly, now that you’re brought it up, and now that I know the levels of money we’re talking about (I assume you already knew everything about this) then I am surprised more teams haven’t tried to do this all along, and perhaps it speaks to the level that Ferrari is engrained in F1 that this has been allowed to happen, even to the extent that Ferrari F1 team members are actually investors in or have even worked for Philip Morris.

  23. Also in the news is this article about the Kyalami circuit.

    I have had my eye on this track for a long time, so I think this is fantastic, but still a shame that they cannot host F1 races.

    1. but still a shame that they cannot host F1 races.

      If you were talking about the <a href="

      but still a shame that they cannot host F1 races.

      If you were talking about the original circuit I’d agree, But the current circuit is a bit crap & the last F1 races it hosted (1992/1993) were also rather crap & the drivers didn’t like it either.”>original circuit I’d agree, But the current circuit is a bit crap & the last F1 races it hosted (1992/1993) were also rather crap & I seem to recall that a lot of the drivers weren’t fond of the circuit either & that nobody really missed it when it was dropped for 1994.

  24. I don’t think that it will be changes.

Comments are closed.