Re: F1 General discussions The exact payment structure is complicated and unknown due to the various bi-lateral contracts between the parties involved.
One thing that is known is that the past performance get rewarded as it encourages teams to stay longer in F1, than just running away after winning a championship.
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.
The F1 strategy group meeting is the latest talk in town.
Ecclestone controls six votes, the FIA has six, and Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Williams and Force India have one apiece. Ideas that gain support are then forwarded to the F1 Commission, where all the teams are represented.
While every F1 fan hopes that they come up with good proposals and decisions to submit to the F1 commission and then to the world council, the increased engine allocation for 2014 proposal already looks doomed, 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.
Any proposal that gets passed to the F1 Commission will require unanimous agreement from the teams to get the green light. Such is the self interest among certain teams that there is already talk that they might scupper any bid by Marussia (Manor) to return to the grid, with an eye on the (rumored) £35m prize pot the British outfit has yet to claim.
One obvious agenda from BE is the threat of a cheap V8 engine which has parity with the current V6 hybrids to be used to force manufacturers to cut the prices they charge customer teams.
He tries to counter the argument that they are not the same by saying “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. If you give some of those teams the current Mercedes car and engine they will still be in that position – or probably just a little bit better off.”
It is believed that a compromise over tweaks to the current hybrid units to put out 1000bhp could get a consensus.
Further talks over the direction of car design, the ban of wind tunnels and whether to change the philosophy of the tyres as Pirelli's tender comes up for grabs is also likely to be brought up, notably a move to wider rear tyres.
More interesting is that the Pirelli proposed 18 inch wheels have received a boost as Michelin publicly backed the idea for an increase in the size of F1 wheels. There are technical reasons for increasing wheel rim size in F1 from a tyre manufacturer’s perspective, though at present the teams say that a change in wheel rim size fundamentally affects their current aero modelling and design. All the data the teams have collected over the years the sport has regulated for 13 inch wheels, becomes devalued if the rim sizes are enlarged. Again more testing & associated costs are brought up.
Some believe that the teams have to give up their rights on the sport’s regulations and in return, they must be offered sustainable levels of income to cover the ‘minimum’ annual cost that prevents them in future having to do separate deals with BE complicating the decision making process.
FOM’s various contracts weave a web of strong restrictions on the various parties so there is little room for creative maneuvering. Maybe some of those contracts will be broken, which may enable more freedom for key players to maneuver.
Jean Todt and the FIA are very quiet…
Last edited by jfxavier : 14th May 2015 at 15:50.
|