Money
Monday, February 14, 2011 at 11:09AM
They say money makes the world go round, and it certainly makes the F1 world go round. In fact it has enough money to go around, it just isn't being split up correctly at present. The Resource Restriction Agreement, RRA, was raised again by Horner, and Whitmarsh continued in the "we must be more relevant and not be seen as gas guzzlers" vein. F1 engines are I believe the most efficient engines around when you consider the power they produce from each gallon, and not just look at the miles per gallon. And there is that old "relevant" again. I guess the World Cup is relevant because most of us have kicked a ball around at some time in our life, but there again most of us have driven a car.
Bernie in responding to the Mayor of Melbourne about the value of an F1 GP compared it to the Olympics and the World Cup, and as far as the Olympics goes he is dead right. I was in Barcelona in 1992 and watched the Sydney Games lead up, and what a con job that is. Go and spend $6 bn on facilities you did not need and will not use again for two weeks of exposure that no one cares about afterwards. At least you get an F1 race each year. The World Cup has been different as the stadiums are used afterwards, although we now have South Africa looking for someone to run them and Qatar building stadiums in the desert.
Mark Hughes writing in Autosport the other week said "The sport can't afford to allow money to haemorrhage out." His article concentrated on the cost to promoters of staging a GP and where that money is going. The basic problem is it is not going back into the sport, it is going to a bunch of investors who have done no more than buy the rights. No one begrudged Bernie making a lot of money, he built this sport over many years and with his own abilities, and made others rich along the way, but the current situation with CVC is unsustainable. Hughes questions how many new countries there can be that will keep paying for GP's, and when the existing ones will get tired of it, like Malaysia and Bahrain. Now I met both those track chiefs in Cologne last year and they are already asking those questions. In Bahrain the Parliament is asking what they get for their money, and the circuit chief has a good answer. "What would it cost us to send everyone who watches the race a postcard?" It is a good argument, and has worked till now, but for how much longer? Malaysia says it has achieved it's objective of putting the country on the world stage, now they need the track to make money.
Joe Saward asks the question what these latest popular uprisings mean for F1? It is OK to go to all these exotic places with loads of money, but how safe and stable are they? Apparently there are stirrings in Bahrain today, and the F1 circus is headed there shortly. Would a new popular government be so keen to spend millions on a rich man's toy?
In a somewhat related article Sebastian Vettel is asking if the wheel has turned too far towards making F1 a "show" rather than a sport? Movable wings, KERS buttons, all to make the show better, but not for the driver. Alonso does not think it will be any easier to pass a car that is similar in speed, only those pesky back markers, and as I said a week or so ago, timing when to turn the wing back at the start of the braking zone is going to be a tricky problem, with some drivers missing it in early testing. So, we are spending loads of money on "widgets" that we are not sure even work. OK, KERS or some form of energy recovery system is going to be part of future automotive design, but that is being developed in spite of F1, not because of it. Porsche and Williams kept on developing their system when F1 had given it up.
So we have a situation where there is an incredible imbalance between the three parties to the deal. The promoters are not making money, the teams are getting some of the money coming into the sport, and a third party who are a silent partner effectively is creaming most of it off. Is this sustainable? Add to that the alienation of the traditional supporters of the sport by removing the opportunity to see it live and pandering to an elite who will lose interest and move on to the next big thing. Ask NASCAR how that is working for them. And while we are at it let's think about the "Car of Tomorrow" where the rules are so tightly proscribed it is almost spec racing. The teams spend enormous amounts on the smallest, silliest parts just to gain a thousand of a second, and as soon as they find it the part is banned. Does any of this sound "relevant" or "sustainable?" Oh yes, and now we are to have tires that wear out faster to make the "show" more fun, is that being efficient or relevant, or even safe? Interesting how the word "green" has disappeared from most of the motorsport vocabulary, apart from good old ALMS.
Bernie in responding to the Mayor of Melbourne about the value of an F1 GP compared it to the Olympics and the World Cup, and as far as the Olympics goes he is dead right. I was in Barcelona in 1992 and watched the Sydney Games lead up, and what a con job that is. Go and spend $6 bn on facilities you did not need and will not use again for two weeks of exposure that no one cares about afterwards. At least you get an F1 race each year. The World Cup has been different as the stadiums are used afterwards, although we now have South Africa looking for someone to run them and Qatar building stadiums in the desert.
Mark Hughes writing in Autosport the other week said "The sport can't afford to allow money to haemorrhage out." His article concentrated on the cost to promoters of staging a GP and where that money is going. The basic problem is it is not going back into the sport, it is going to a bunch of investors who have done no more than buy the rights. No one begrudged Bernie making a lot of money, he built this sport over many years and with his own abilities, and made others rich along the way, but the current situation with CVC is unsustainable. Hughes questions how many new countries there can be that will keep paying for GP's, and when the existing ones will get tired of it, like Malaysia and Bahrain. Now I met both those track chiefs in Cologne last year and they are already asking those questions. In Bahrain the Parliament is asking what they get for their money, and the circuit chief has a good answer. "What would it cost us to send everyone who watches the race a postcard?" It is a good argument, and has worked till now, but for how much longer? Malaysia says it has achieved it's objective of putting the country on the world stage, now they need the track to make money.
Joe Saward asks the question what these latest popular uprisings mean for F1? It is OK to go to all these exotic places with loads of money, but how safe and stable are they? Apparently there are stirrings in Bahrain today, and the F1 circus is headed there shortly. Would a new popular government be so keen to spend millions on a rich man's toy?
In a somewhat related article Sebastian Vettel is asking if the wheel has turned too far towards making F1 a "show" rather than a sport? Movable wings, KERS buttons, all to make the show better, but not for the driver. Alonso does not think it will be any easier to pass a car that is similar in speed, only those pesky back markers, and as I said a week or so ago, timing when to turn the wing back at the start of the braking zone is going to be a tricky problem, with some drivers missing it in early testing. So, we are spending loads of money on "widgets" that we are not sure even work. OK, KERS or some form of energy recovery system is going to be part of future automotive design, but that is being developed in spite of F1, not because of it. Porsche and Williams kept on developing their system when F1 had given it up.
So we have a situation where there is an incredible imbalance between the three parties to the deal. The promoters are not making money, the teams are getting some of the money coming into the sport, and a third party who are a silent partner effectively is creaming most of it off. Is this sustainable? Add to that the alienation of the traditional supporters of the sport by removing the opportunity to see it live and pandering to an elite who will lose interest and move on to the next big thing. Ask NASCAR how that is working for them. And while we are at it let's think about the "Car of Tomorrow" where the rules are so tightly proscribed it is almost spec racing. The teams spend enormous amounts on the smallest, silliest parts just to gain a thousand of a second, and as soon as they find it the part is banned. Does any of this sound "relevant" or "sustainable?" Oh yes, and now we are to have tires that wear out faster to make the "show" more fun, is that being efficient or relevant, or even safe? Interesting how the word "green" has disappeared from most of the motorsport vocabulary, apart from good old ALMS.
Reader Comments