Love it, welcome to the 21st century.The GPDA tells the FIA to go bleep themselves.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2024 Formula 1 Season thread
- Thread starter Apple fanboy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would costs tens to scores of millions per year and how does the FIA fund that? They've only collected $250,000 by fining the drivers for swearing and wearing jewelry.
Do they gut the CC payouts? And if they do, then the teams needs to seek more sponsorship money to cover that loss and that means keeping "the old timers" around because they bring in the big bucks, which is something you have consistently complained about.
It incentivizes the teams and drivers to take care of the cars as they can either spend money developing the car or repairing it.
If a team like AMG Mercedes cannot properly budget a season, well that kind of explains why they're in the position they are, isn't it?
It is like this, you have a something, say a car, it is insured... That insurance has to be insured, by a re-insurer, Llyods, and a few others, to insure F1 would cost pennies per race, the chance of a payout is low, so if they insure 20 cars, and 1 is damaged, they are out the cost of 1 car.. profit off the 19 that were not damaged..
My point is that the cost cap covers too much, it should only cover development and maintenance, accident damage during any on course event should be covered by 3rd party insurance, of which each team pays per car, and the FIA/Liberty/F1 pays as well..
The reason teams are hurting makes sense, it is no different to owning a car, and some drunk totals your car, and you have to pay all the expenses of towing 2 cars, two totaled cars, lawyers fees, and your insurance as well.. Why should Liberty benefit from the race, and have no expenses? Without cars, there is no race.. So to punish the teams, really explain how that is fair?
My point is that the cost cap covers too much, it should only cover development and maintenance, accident damage during any on course event should be covered by 3rd party insurance, of which each team pays per car, and the FIA/Liberty/F1 pays as well..
The reason teams are hurting makes sense, it is no different to owning a car, and some drunk totals your car, and you have to pay all the expenses of towing 2 cars, two totaled cars, lawyers fees, and your insurance as well.. Why should Liberty benefit from the race, and have no expenses? Without cars, there is no race.. So to punish the teams, really explain how that is fair?
I am not in the insurance industry (my sister is, but it is maritime) but I expect those premiums are not going to be anywhere near "pennies" considering how much the components cost and the possibility of something like Monaco 2024 where multiple cars are totaled.
Then the cost cap needs to be lowered even more since the teams do not need to hold a contingency reserve for repairs.
If personal car insurance was not a thing, then a prudent driver should set aside money to handle potential accident damage repairs - especially if they were routinely driving in situations where such accidents had a decently high probability of happening.
It should be no different for an F1 team, IMO, and the cost cap takes into account. Think of it as "self insurance", if you like.
No, as I explained, the cost cap should cover development, and regular service/upgrades, accidents should be a 3rd party cover, one of the reasons for having a cost cap is to give a $ value to each car, and each component on each car, so that teams are forced to stay within the budget..
Add to that accident cover, you run the risk of in year 2, after lessons learnt in year 1, we will not develop this or that, keep that money aside.. OK, you plan for retirement, but have a car accident, some drunk 19 yr old car thief, totals the car, so you use retirement money to replace the car..
The FIA/Liberty/F1 should offer insurance to cover replacement.. That ship Evergiven that blocked the Suez Canal, the re-insurance paid out what $800 million, to them, no issues, NONE.. why? They probably insure 100 000 ships a day, and how many cost them $800m in a payout, NONE!!! So to pay out once in a decade, is pennies on what they earn..
Same with F1, you have 20 cars, 24 races, 20 cars at what $50m per car, $100m x 24 races, $2.5billion.. But you are not destroying $2,5b worth of cars, you might have 5 cars totaled over the year..You are already in profit..
To insure that is almost not worth the effort, it is such a low value item, Apple probably has more insured shipping iphones from China to the US/Europe every month..
The point is, teams should cover certain costs, the employer, the risk.. In many jurisdictions, in order to host an event, or be open to the public, you need what is called slip/fall insurance.. public liability insurance, this covers costs for slips/falls, injuries that happen in a public access venue..It is mandatory, you could have 250 000 attend a sports event, and say the cover per person is $10, that is $2.5b in cover, the $10 is covered by the ticket price...
A person is injured, it costs nowhere near $2,5billion, maybe $25 000 even $100 000.. The insurance provider is laughing, pays out no question.. profit...
Here in 2024, you have the threat of a weakened event, a lack of cars due to accidents.. Costs that should be covered by the owner of the event.. It makes no sense to NOT insure, as you know going in the costs, the risk of accident is extremely low, we went how many races without a safety car? And even then, how many cars, 20x24 is 480 cars, and of the 480 cars, how many destroyed 100% of book value? Even at 20% that would be low..
Why do I say 480 cars? Each car is insured for each event then at the end of the event, the cover lapses.. So if you insure each car, and there is no damage/accident claim, the insurer wins, and so does the FIA/the teams and the fans who get to see 20 cars on the grid for the next event, next season..
To insure each car is not going to be all that expensive, it takes the burden off the 10 teams, who at this point technically self insure, which is expensive, as opined by Toto.. Self insuring is risky, and a bad investment...
Of course the muppets that run the teams/FIA/F1/Liberty, and the flocks of accountant/legal beagles all know way more than I do.. If course they have investigated and rejected this concept.. Maybe I am so far off the mark?? I accept that..
Why make the teams pay 3 times? Twice should be enough!!!
Last edited:
I think that what would be a decent change to the cost cap situation is that where another driver was at fault (using current regulations and this the penalty system) the driver naturally still gets the penalty but the team needs to pay the other team for the repair costs.
You know when you look at the nonsense of Russel being able to DNF another driver but only getting 5s when the other driver not only did not finish but is also saddled with big repair costs. Or like when Lewis took out Max, and so on.
You know when you look at the nonsense of Russel being able to DNF another driver but only getting 5s when the other driver not only did not finish but is also saddled with big repair costs. Or like when Lewis took out Max, and so on.
When you break it down, constructor points really pay for any loss due to accidents, and I am pretty sure it counts towards the cost cap, but it seems that somewhere, somehow someone has figured out the system, and playing the teams for fools.. Every other sport has insurance to cover accidents, but F1 teams have to cover all the costs of the car, under every circumstance.. Take the car on fire, a total write off, 100% total constructive hull loss.. The team has to rebuild a brand new car, and cover all the costs, out of a tiny budget, no help from anyone...That seems wrong...
One team paying another, no.. That cannot work, for a lot of legal reasons, you would have to sue for damages, in my proposal, McLaren would sue the FIA for damages, and the FIA insurer would pay out, there has to be a party liable for costs, it is how insurance works, what insurance does is get the insured party whole, back to where they were 1 second before the loss, not to enrich...
So the FIA would issue each car a book value, for example in aviation, commercial jets, come in pairs, one on paper, one the pilot flies, every report, repair, is recorded on the paper plane, so the same would be for F1 cars, each car is a once off car for each event, for purpose of insurance..
The car on paper has to be detailed to show $ value of every part, nut, bolt, screw, hose, tape, so that if there is damage during a live event, FP/Sprint Race, Race, this is outside of the control of the team, each part on the physical car that needs replacing is reflected in the paper car excel worksheet, and this cost is billed to the FIA insurance..
The teams pay and are reimbursed after each event, or every quarter, but the point is, teams are no longer carrying 3 costs, but only 2.. Some teams will not claim, but the actual loss is that for the insurer, and they suffer no loss.. No way in a season of 480 cars, will they pay out even a total hull loss once.. So why is this not mandatory? It makes sense.
One team paying another, no.. That cannot work, for a lot of legal reasons, you would have to sue for damages, in my proposal, McLaren would sue the FIA for damages, and the FIA insurer would pay out, there has to be a party liable for costs, it is how insurance works, what insurance does is get the insured party whole, back to where they were 1 second before the loss, not to enrich...
So the FIA would issue each car a book value, for example in aviation, commercial jets, come in pairs, one on paper, one the pilot flies, every report, repair, is recorded on the paper plane, so the same would be for F1 cars, each car is a once off car for each event, for purpose of insurance..
The car on paper has to be detailed to show $ value of every part, nut, bolt, screw, hose, tape, so that if there is damage during a live event, FP/Sprint Race, Race, this is outside of the control of the team, each part on the physical car that needs replacing is reflected in the paper car excel worksheet, and this cost is billed to the FIA insurance..
The teams pay and are reimbursed after each event, or every quarter, but the point is, teams are no longer carrying 3 costs, but only 2.. Some teams will not claim, but the actual loss is that for the insurer, and they suffer no loss.. No way in a season of 480 cars, will they pay out even a total hull loss once.. So why is this not mandatory? It makes sense.
Chatter is that Qatar is going to buy a minority stake (25% or less) of the Audi F1 team leading into the Qatar Grand Prix.
www.motorsport.com
Qatar poised for buy-in of Audi’s F1 team
Chatter is that Qatar is going to buy a minority stake (25% or less) of the Audi F1 team leading into the Qatar Grand Prix.
Qatar poised for buy-in of Audi’s F1 team
Embarrassing, totally the wrong direction and one the sport should be heading away from.
I see 3 letters ahead, we know the 3 letters and what this has done to a certain walk ruined, LIV...
Like VAR, and in many regions VAT... How this ruins a product...
Yeah, it took this long, impressive, would have thought at least 15/20 yrs late, but as they say, better late than never..
RIP F1, 1950 t0 2024... You fought well..sometimes..
Like VAR, and in many regions VAT... How this ruins a product...
Yeah, it took this long, impressive, would have thought at least 15/20 yrs late, but as they say, better late than never..
RIP F1, 1950 t0 2024... You fought well..sometimes..
Alpine has announced a deal with Mercedes to provide power units and gearboxes starting with the 2026 season.
www.formula1.com
Aston Martin has announced that Dan Fallows will step down as Technical Director of the F1 team, though he will stay with the group.
www.astonmartinf1.com
Alpine to use Mercedes power units and gearboxes from 2026 | Formula 1®
Alpine have secured a deal with Mercedes to run the German manufacturer’s power units and gearboxes from 2026 until at least the end of 2030.
Aston Martin has announced that Dan Fallows will step down as Technical Director of the F1 team, though he will stay with the group.
Team announcement
Aston Martin Aramco Formula One Team and Technical Director Dan Fallows announce that from November 2024, Dan will no longer serve as Technical Director of the Formula One Team.
www.astonmartinf1.com
ok, so we are heading towards a 1 supplier formula... F2+ maybe instead of F1? Teams should develop own parts, or every part costs points per race loss.. Power units and gearboxes, basically 2/3rds of a car.. So that means Merc are running 2, 3, 4 teams?? Red Bull 2..
Mercedes will be supplying the same number of teams as now because Aston Martin are moving to Honda in 2026
We are heading towards F2+, where all teams use the same power, the same brakes, tyres, fuel, and because physics is taught all over the world, the same aerodynamics, F1 will cease to exist as a viable formula.. With 2 or 3 engine suppliers, why not 2 or 3 tyre brands? F1 is on a slippery slope to become a 1 supplier formula.. F2+ F2 but with an extra 2% spice..
You could allow teams unlimited budgets and scope on aerodynamics and we’d still end up with the same product. Single teams rise to the top and dominate. The sport has to be managed for the longevity of the grid, avoiding teams going bankrupt mid season like we used to see in the early 90’s and to make sure it fits as a development category for the automotive sector.
Avoid the teams going bankrupt mid season? I wonder why that might very likely happen? If 1 or more teams end up in bankruptcy, who's fault is that? 2nd the cost cap automatically has the desired effect of reducing F1 to what is a better F2 but is not F1.. What we have now is F.95.. It is almost F1, but not...
The cost cap reduces evolution, it prevents investment, it prevents innovation, if it is combined with having to pay costs 3 times.... F1 is no longer F1, it is all but in name only, in reality it is a super F2 brand now...
The cost cap reduces evolution, it prevents investment, it prevents innovation, if it is combined with having to pay costs 3 times.... F1 is no longer F1, it is all but in name only, in reality it is a super F2 brand now...
It's usually down to smaller teams overspending to close performance gaps towards much richer teams who can commission qualifying tyres, fuel companies to develop bespoke mixes and charter jets to fly unlimited parts to race weekends etc. Hence why teams like Footwork Arrows, Lola, Larrousse, Dallara, Layton House and Ligier wound up in so much debt in the 90's and had to sell out.
Cost caps don't reduce evolution, they challenge designers and engineers to innovate within a tighter set of constraints. It is actually more impressive when a concept is realised this way, rather than throwing hundreds of millions at projects and employing hundreds of engineers.
Always has confounded me that the smaller teams couldn't find a way to work together on stuff like that.
Probably because they were all scrapping over the last of the constructors money should any of them score points. It became pointless for these teams to participate in the end and sponsorship ceased due to very little TV time. When McLaren started producing ECU's and engines were frozen to stop customer engines being older tech, we started seeing the grid close up a bit and the racing improved. So many fans have this romantic view of 30+ years ago with the Mansell's and Senna's dominating, but in reality backmarkers were often 10 seconds a lap slower on tiny budgets and faloing to the trackside through unreliability. F1 is in a better state now in terms of performance and competiton but as with anything, the best people generally design the best cars, big budget or not.
Aston Martin has announced that Dan Fallows will step down as Technical Director of the F1 team, though he will stay with the group.
Team announcement
Aston Martin Aramco Formula One Team and Technical Director Dan Fallows announce that from November 2024, Dan will no longer serve as Technical Director of the Formula One Team.
Adrian engaged in housekeeping while gardening…
I'm up to the Austrian GP now, what....the.....hell.....was......that? In my eyes Lando was in the clear, Max drove like a right ******** and pushed Lando off and Lando gets a penalty?? And then Max blocks Lando whilst he has a puncture!! Sorry Max needs some serious points in his licence for that one.
I can see as I watch more it's dirty games on to dictate the winner... but in Austria Max was a VERY dirty driver.
I can see as I watch more it's dirty games on to dictate the winner... but in Austria Max was a VERY dirty driver.
Last edited:
Ah bless Lewis all chocked up for his Silverstone win, he drove really well. Cool race. Good race too. Lead changing multiple times.
McLaren strategy let them down.
McLaren strategy let them down.
Last edited: