10 responses to “#TJ13 #F1 Courtroom Podcast: “Do you have a problem with that?””

1. Can we make it just a bit more …. grown up? It’s great underlying content but just a bit ‘student’.

   • What do you mean by ‘a bit student’?

   • Richard,

     Thak you for your feedback. I’m glad you find the underlying content great. I’m sorry that the style of the podcast isn’t to your taste. I hope you will listen again in the future to see if we might grow on you.

     Spanners

2. Ok, so an idea I have to help take some of the disparity between teams away.

   Lets expand the token system and make some changes.
   They have already developed a system to weight the different elements of the PU, and then allow upgrades to the PU based on the “development tokens”. Lets expand the system to cover all aspects of car development.
   The suspension, the gearbox, front and rear aero, etc.

   Tokens are then handed out to the teams at the end of the season in an inverse relationship to the money. Simply, the higher up the grid you finish, the more money you make, but the less development tokens you get.
   The further down the grid, the less money, but the more tokens. It would be done based on team points, not individual driver points.

   Then, you make the tokens a marketable commodity. Lower teams can sell tokens to upper teams. The FIA could set a minimum value, let’s arbitrarily set the number at 1 million dollars. But its an open market, so if a backmarker with lots of tokens needs money, they can charge Big Team X whatever they want above 1 million per, as long as Team X is willing to pay.

   This system has an inherent problem though, because some big teams, and some backmarkers share PU manufacturers. It puts us in a potential scenario of the backmarker being able to use tokens to develop the engine, but the Big team doesn’t have enough tokens to use that development.

   There are a few different ways to deal with the situation.
   1) you could allow it to happen, so that it is possible an engine manufacturer would have to have Power Units running in different configurations with each team, possibly even supplying a better PU then they have in their competitors car. There are some definite cost disadvantages to this scenario for the engine manufacturers. However, the positives are that the little teams would end up with potentially better power units, that they would have had to go through the growing pains with. I would argue the actual costs would not change much. The teams are developing constantly now anyway, they just aren’t allowed to use those developments until the end of the season.

   2) you could mandate that engine upgrades can only happen if all teams running that PU agree to simultaneously use their tokens to upgrade all teams. So the actual cost of a PU upgrade for an engine manufacturer supplying three teams would be token cost x3, with the cost spread equally among all 3 teams. If the big teams really want to upgrade, they would have to buy the tokens they need to do it, or use the few tokens they have and not upgrade other aspects of their car.

   In either case, this system would allow the smaller teams to have more control over their future. It would be a fine line between selling too many tokens and having cash, but not being able to develop as much. Or holding on to those tokens, injecting more outside cash into the team and doing a ton of development, allowing them to catch the big team next year, who will have not been able to develop as much.
   If this is done right, the little teams would have a much better chance. If they actually succeed in knocking a big team down the next year, the big team would end up with more development tokens and be able to catch up again.
   The cycle continues.

   i guess if you boil the idea down to it’s core, it is just a roundabout way of forcing the big teams to give the little teams more money, but it ties development to success in a way that might work.

   Yes, I am fully aware that a restructuring of the core payment system is necessary and that would help solve the problem as well. But even if that were to happen, I think the token system for all development would still be a better way to manage things. The current regulations are a mess.

   I welcome criticism and discussion.

3. Your Honour:

   Ravetto said this:

   Ex-boss says Caterham demise ‘strange’ (Autosport)

   “Ravetto hopes when the truth of what has happened at Caterham comes out in court it will prove who was to blame for the team’s troubles. ‘I do hope so, because I very well remember, and I still feel it under my skin, being humiliated in public interviews with all sorts of humiliating questions being asked when you cannot answer with the full truth’.”

   Maybe you could remind him – and the world – that Mr. Ravetto CHOSE not to tell the complete truth…it was his choice to obfuscate and deceive.

   • …Absolutely… either that or he truly is the Manuel “Hi know nothing” of F1

     This is also a deceptive comment, because when is there a court date set for “”the truth to come out….”?

     What we will hear is – An offer of sale was made – the owner was happy for interim agency management of the business to occur toute suite, whilst the sale negotiations took place.

     This was never finalised – and during the failing negotiations/promises of “the cheque in the post”, (Remember how long Mansoor Ijaz strung Lotus along with these promises last year) even Fernandes realised the inevitable path in which this would head – ie the business being placed into Administration and wound up.

     At least Kolles et al would take some flak for this if they were at the helm at the time.

     So, we could even conclude this was a punt from Fernandes to get out – to stop him having to pump cash into the business – instead of winding up the company himself back in June, eventually let someone else take responsibility.
     But it was certainly a “Nothing ventured… nothing gained” process Fernandes entered into – maybe even a “win win”.

     If Ravetto wants to be respected ever again in F1 – he has to come clean – not perpetuate lies and stare at us with his wounded puppy dog eyes of innocence.

4. Interesting ‘cast.

   The engine regs are restrictive sure, but that’s what everyone signed up to. Sometimes a team legitimately earns a dominant position, and then naturally holds on to it. I think Mercedes deserves a few years of dominance, even if it may not be all that exciting. That’s how F1 usually works.

   I’m too tired to check right now, but I was pretty sure that at Suzuka Irvine had to pass Hakkinen to win the title, and to do that he had to at least be behind Schumacher, who was chasing Hakkinen, which he wasn’t. As I recall, Schumacher did his best, but Irvine just wasn’t fast enough to be in position to benefit from Schumacher’s help anyway.

5. Dear God, comment of the week should have been re-christened as ‘comment of the fortnight’ as I think it took about two weeks to listen to…

   Good job guys, the last two Podcasts I have been enjoying more, the balance is getting better, so its still had some good comment without removing some of the fun. Thanks for all your efforts as always.

6. Re: Customer cars

   It has been suggested that customer cars (unlike 3rd cars) are part of the DNA of F1, as historically many entries have been customer cars. I believe that nowadays customer cars could be as devastating and cock-handed as 3rd cars.

   Take 2014. If we had 3 car teams, then we would have ended up with 3 teams locking out the Top 9: Merc, RB and Williams. Well, maybe Fred in his Ferrari would have taken 8th place from time to time, but we would have definitely seen a trampling by Merc and the Bullies.

   Hmm, and what would be happening with customer cars? Well, let’s see. We would find ourselves with Top 12 being locked out by 3 designs. First would come the rampaging Merc with its customer team Williams (places 1 to 4). Then would come the angry Bullies followed by their younger, Italian selves (places 5 to 8). And then we’d have 4 Ferrari designs, with Ferrari locking out the last points-scoring positions while Marussia (or Haas in the near future) covering it up in 11th and 12th.

   Either scenario is just as scary. You think it’s tough for Sauber not being able to score this season? Imagine McLaren, Lotus and Force India systematically fighting for places 13th to 20th. How long before Lotus goes belly up, or Mallya turns away in disgust and does a Fernandes?

   People often talk of Ferrari being the beginning and the end of F1, and that if Ferrari walks away F1 would die. I disagree. If Ferrari goes away, it would lose a whole chunk of its brand image, while F1 wouldn’t as much as blink as long as the likes of McLaren, Williams, Enstone and Sauber persist. However if McLaren folds, this would be an unmistakable sign that F1 as we know it is dead. Unlike Ferrari who used F1 as a “branding exercise” for much of recent history, McLaren was always here to go racing. Plain and simple racing. If McLaren goes down, I weep for F1…

   • Andretti says a third car gave him his start in F1.

     The problem with both historic ideas set in modernity, is reliability.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.