Letting teams spend what they want ruins racing – Carey

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Formula One CEO Chase Carey sets out his case for capping how much teams can spend in Formula One.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Surely there’s an obvious solution to Pirelli’s tyre-naming confusion:

It’s time to make the hard ‘super hard’ and knock the compounds up one. It’s ridiculous to have hard, medium and soft and then have a super soft, ultra soft and mega soft or whatever they will call it.

Beyond the names this all just looks like Pirelli have no idea what they are doing.
ADD (@Addimaf1)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Thenikii, Sid90 and Piotr Zukowski!

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

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.

52 comments on “Letting teams spend what they want ruins racing – Carey”

  1. I agree with that bottom tweet, the coverage was very good.

    The walls being so close to the circuit allows the cameras to get closer and the cars also appear faster relative to the wall behind them, the way the cars handle becomes much clearer and appears more incredible, and they are of course driving on the edge as a result of the narrow layout and close walls. The microphones are positioned closer to the track, so the sound is much stronger. The short layout means FOM’s cameras can cover parts of the circuit with more angles, and so they can switch to the next camera much faster, which gives a greater sense of speed. The elevation changes mean the relative height or angle of view can change quickly as the cars fall or rise.

    And it was all helped by the sunshine today making the colours brighter and more intense.

    Towards the start of the sky pre-race coverage they had a very interesting behind the scenes piece about how FOM organise their footage directing.

    1. @strontium Disagree with the FOM kudos. You are congratulating FOM for still using the same camera positions they’ve been using for the past 30 years. The coverage was good because as an old track they’ve kept the old positions, not the original obviously but still old, which were great, great because they knew what they were doing back then, these days they zoom-in so much that often you don’t see the corner, it was a problem here on the in field, zooming in can be a big downer as you don’t see a static reference so you don’t see speed, you see a sponsor on the car a jerky footage.

      1. @peartree I’m not congratulating FOM, I’m crediting the track, exactly the same as you are.

        Except for that last paragraph, because it really was very interesting (and definitely not technology they had 30 years ago)

    2. i didn’t think it was any better than normal. that moving onboard camera on hamilton’s car didn’t work for me at all. i miss the roll hoop cameras – i know they are not representative of what the driver sees but they give a good ‘arcade’ style perspective.

      however, (and i should point out i’m not an engine sound zealot at all) one thing i thought was really noticeable was the engine sounds were much better. perhaps, i just caught a few good moments when the commentators weren’t wittering away, but i definitely remember enjoying the sounds more than i have done of late.

      1. that moving onboard camera on hamilton’s car didn’t work for me at all

        +1 to this @frood19.

        The view from that moveable onboard camera is incredibly disorienting. I don’t know if the relative motion of the car alongside is due to one car overtaking another, or because the camera is panning. Given that both cars are moving, it also takes away any trackside reference points.

        Its dramatic to show “something’s happening” but pretty useless in conveying information.

        1. The concept can work as Indycar and MotoGP have demonstrated, but I don’t think it works well on that ‘side’ mount.

      2. At first it made me feel that Hamilton lost control and was spinning!!!

      3. @frood19 @phylyp I agree about the sound and the moving camera. They’ve trialled the moving camera before and it’s never really worked.

        Formula E sometimes put 360° cameras on top of the cars. That’s something that could work a lot better, and in a replay they can choose appropriate angles to look from

  2. Interesting, on NBC sports, unlike previous races I thought the cars sounded real good today.

  3. Couldn’t disagree more with Richard Williams. Both Massa’s retirements were touching and his words were lovely, today the crowd was energetic whilst a bit disconnected with Felipe nevertheless even I got a little moved.
    I can’t agree with that tweet because Felipe has never been a lovely bloke, he’s never been modest, he’s never been pure class. Recently we read what he had to say about Di Resta and Kubica, one of a 1000 examples.
    The main reasons why the British press and as a consequence everyone watching, loves him so much is down to Massa’s loss of the 08 title and also because of his Hungary incident and his status as a Ferrari victim on the eyes of the British press. Massa the person, if you read what he says, to both the English speaking and the Portuguese speaking press you wouldn’t love him, like him perhaps not love.

    1. @peartree I agree. Maybe he’s a modest man in his personal life, but as a driver, he has one of the biggest ego out there. This is the guy who spent majority of his career prefer to crash out rather being overtaken, then blame the other party for the crash. Did we ever hear he accept the blame for anything?

      Lucky for him, I guess, the biggest things happened to him always put him in the victim role. Losing 2008 WDC while winning the last race, freak spring to head accident, “Fernando is faster than you”, and Ferrari no 2 driver.

      1. Thank you @sonicslv for being one of the very few f1 spectators with a sense of reality. It’s not like we hate Massa it’s just there’s no real reason to love him, you made some very pertinent remarks about his crashing, some people with flaky memories just adore him, and even they don’t know or even care why, they just say

        “we all love this little fella”

        I’m quoting sky.

    2. Well all F1 grid have a different opinion than yours if you watch last year retirement all the teams are praising him. But maybe you know more about him than the people that actually work near and at his side every race.

      About DiResta and Kubica comment, he didn’t told any lie or difamation. DiResta is 11th on DTM and Kubica drive with one hand and he only explained that he can’t believe anyone can be competitive in F1 with that limitation, and many many people said the same thing.

    3. @peartree i’m just curious, do you speak portuguese fluently?

  4. Teams should have worn a black badge in protest against the robberies. This is absolutely unacceptable.

    1. Nice first world “outrage” for some formula one related rich stuff. In Brazil this is a daily fact of life.. where is the outrage for that?

      1. Oh but what about!…

        You know your are still allowed to be disturbed or angered by an incident even if there are worse incidents that take place. It isn’t a zero sum game.

      2. Brazil haves 2730 miles or 4394km of extension, it’s a bit too much to say that “robberies” is a fact of life. The life in big cities is completely different than the rest of the country. It’s a major problem of big cities like Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

    2. Yeah because wearing a black badge would make a big difference to those that were robbed and those doing the robbing wouldn’t it. Maybe we should all change our facebook profile pictures too.

      The only people at fault here are the thieves and the people who did not take responsibility for their own safety. The latter is easily overcome for next year.

      Hint: When visiting impoverished, crime ridden places, do not stick out like a sore thumb and do follow the advice of security professionals

      1. Stop blaming victims for the things criminals did to them. How were they supposed to not stick out like a sore thumb when every year, formula one is targeted. How were they supposed to follow security advice when the advice was inadequate?

        No, a black badge may not “directly” solve a problem, but isn’t it remarkable how quick action can be when a government is embarrassed. Nothing embarrasses a government more than a symbol, if you don’t believe in the power of symbolism, then go to the parliament building of your capital city, and set fire to a flag of your country.

        1. Exactly. F1 is broadcast globally and when everyone watches the teams protesting, the authorities are bound to at least take notice.
          Look matt, if this continues, there would come a day, when no teams would want to go there.

      2. Here’s another hint: Don’t stage Grand Prix in crime-ridden places unless you provide adequate security for everyone.

  5. Letting Americans run European automotive business of any kind is always a bad news. Recent press conference from Opel headquarters revealed how toxic it is to let them ‘earn money first’ and secondly think about the car production. It’s like dropping a nuke bomb. Even if they go radiation stays for long time.

    1. Letting Americans run European automotive business of any kind is always a bad news. … how toxic it is to let them ‘earn money first’ and secondly think about the car …

      Damn, I didn’t know Bernie was American :-)

  6. I’m a bit surprised that this circuit although a good one is still part of the Championship considering how long these type of things have been an issue. They should really threaten the drop this circuit from the race calendar if the situation will never improve.

  7. For all the outrage at the race organisers and Liberty over security, you can’t help but notice it isn’t drivers or team bosses being involved.

    Hamilton revealed he has security and a police escort, but the chaps in the rest of the team are left to fend for themselves. I guess they’re lives aren’t as important to protect.

    If the organisers won’t step up and take care of the teams staff, then it has to fall to the teams to protect they’re own staff that they’re asking to enter an environment they know is unsafe rather than just crying about it.

    1. They might as well remove this race from the calendar if it continues like this. Tightening security is still a big risk. We would suggest making the f1 teams spend the weekend in the paddock instead of having their hotels outside of the track. If it still continues, then they might as well take this race down.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        13th November 2017, 11:47

        They’ll keep racing until something really serious happens and then they’ll cut the race. That’s how F1 works – keep ignoring problems until you can’t anymore.

    2. @philipgb, as I understand it, most teams do try to provide additional security men for their mechanics – they’re not just “left to fend for themselves”, as you put it.

      The problems seemed to be that the police only provided protection for a limited area around the circuit itself, and most of the attacks took place once the mechanics were beyond the police lines. Some of the Sauber personnel suggested that somebody had tipped off their attackers about their route to their hotel and when they’d be out of range of the police, indicating that attack might have either had inside help or detailed surveillance of the circuit by the attackers.

      Incidentally, contrary to what you say, drivers have been attacked in the past – hijackers attempted to attack Button’s car in 2010, and I have a recollection that, a few years later, Rosberg had his possessions stolen when his car was broken into (part of the reason why Hamilton has that level of protection was because of that break in).

  8. Born today in 1999: Lando Norris

    Holy hell, that made me feel old! When people say what year they were born in I instantly think of who won the world championship that year to put their age into context. In this case, it just makes me feel incredibly old because I remember the 1999 season like it was yesterday!

    1. @geemac
      Yeah, it doesn’t seem long since drivers my age were considered youngsters joining F1, now they’re ten years younger!

  9. Agree with the COTD.
    The hardest compound was only available for one race this season and it was not used in that race.
    So Pirelli should ditch that one and just shift all the names to one compound softer.
    Can’t be THAT hard.

    1. I like that. *Screams croftily*”And Hamilton into the pits and he puts on a Set of one compound softer. That might put him at a disadvantage later on against Vettel who is on a new Set of one compound softer. Interesting to See Red Bull going more conservative on the one compound softer however”

  10. It is disturbing and sad that for such a big event that gets world wide coverage we keep hearing about the poor security for the staff. But nobody even cares to cover the crime against the fans.
    But for some reason nobody seems to remember that in other countries there is the same issue. What about Bahrain? Force india bus being attacked.
    I have not heard anyone complain about that in a while. As long there is money to be made by the organizers and F1, nobody will stop holding a race in a area like that.
    The teams could have gotten better security up front. I bet the drivers, team bosses have really great security to and from the track.
    The reason most of the other staff dodn’t was most likely because they are more easily replaceable.

  11. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
    13th November 2017, 13:10

    Carey is correct, letting teams spend what they want is to the detriment of the racing. The problem is a budget cap would be a nightmare to police. It would be so easy to get around.

    I believe in Liberty. I think in sporting terms they are coming from a good place. They want the best drivers in the fastest cars with the chance of at least 8, 9 or more drivers having a reasonable chance of winning on any given weekend.

    The rules need to be framed such that customer cars can be competitive, or it should be possible for a team to buy components to assemble a car at a reasonable price that allow them to be competitive. F1 has some clever people, surely they can work this out.

    I understand some fans concerns at the mention of standard/spec parts etc to cut costs and make the racing closer but something has to give. I don’t believe F1 should be a 100% spec series but the rule makers may not have a choice soon. Surely someone can think of a better way. It can’t go on the way it is.

    The way it is:
    1. The best drivers quite often dont get into F1 because pay drivers get priority in the less well off teams.
    2. Only a few drivers and teams have the chance of winning titles – boring.
    3. The current cars are so aero dependant, most of the time they can only overtake with the unfair and ridiculous DRS system.
    4. The cost and complexity for a new engine supplier, even with the new proposed rules is off the chart and not worth bothering with.

    Don’t get me wrong. I love F1. I just want to see some good close unpredictable racing. Is that too much to ask?

    1. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk If you think teams spending as much money as they do with only a handful of drivers standing a shot at winning boring then don’t watch F1 because that is the way F1 has always been.

      Handicapping the top teams just to artificially create more winners would not be a positive IMO, Giving no-name teams a shot at winning by allowing them to buy the best car & beat teams such as force india who build there cars from scratch would not be a positive either.

      if teams have a budget of £400m then they should be allowed to spend all of that in any way they see it, if a team only has £100m then its unfortunate for them but find a way to compete within that budget or find a way to increase that budget (sponsors) & if they can’t then again tough. in f1 there has always been the top teams that have bigger budgets & the small teams that don’t, that is just the way the sport works & handicapping the top teams or artificially making the small ones competitive just for the sake of the ‘show’ will do nothing but ruin f1.

      f1 is what it is and if you don’t like the way it is then go watch one of the many spec categories.

      f1 should not change everything just because ‘some’ fans find the way it’s always been boring because for many of the long time, f1 fans that get & love what f1 is those changes will turn them off. it’s already half ruined thanks to gimmicks like drs and the rubbish tyres pirelli bring, adding further show gimmicks will destroy it completely.

      1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
        13th November 2017, 21:20

        RogerRichards I think I should qualify my ‘boring’ comment. F1 isn’t boring. Of course not. I meant comparatively boring to what it could be.
        The argument F1 should stay as it is because ‘that’s the way it’s always been’ is absurd. It’s the formula for failure. Everything can be improved.
        I never mentioned handicapping. That would be wrong. I don’t know where you got that from. As for ‘no-name’ teams getting the chance to win occasionally, what’s wrong with that? Are you saying reputation is more important?
        As for the budget. I agree budget capping in unworkable. I believe a team should spend what it can afford. The trouble is there isn’t enough big money to go around. The answer is to frame the rules (not handicapping) to make spending oodles of money less effective. It should be possible to win without spending ridiculous amounts, else it’s just not a sport. I’ve outlined this previously.
        I do watch spec series as you suggest. It is very entertaining. Close with lots of overtaking and different winners. Of course the problem with these series is they don’t have the fastest cars nor the best drivers. These are very important aspects for F1. That’s why I will always watch it. These are the two key aspects with which F1 keeps its audience…just about.
        My dad worked in F1 during the 70s and 80s. I’ve followed it religiously since that time so I feel qualified to comment.
        As for DRS I agree. Its rubbish. It unfairly handicaps the car if front.
        As for Pirelli they have produced the tyres asked of them based on a flawed concept. Not their fault. This years they are much better for racing.
        I know you are a true F1 fan so happy F1 watching!

    2. @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk, They have tried “standard parts” for decades now. More and more of them. Did it bring the top and mid/back field any closer together? No it didn’t.

      Budget cap is hard to police? Well so is a technical regulation. Why bother with any regulation then?

      Even if it doesn’t work 100% it still would bring down the gap a lot more than handing out some extra prize money to smaller teams or whatever else people seem to think might work.

      1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
        13th November 2017, 17:14

        IMO standard parts have made a difference. Tyre and ECU the most obvious. Granted its hard to gauge how much but I’ll stick to my guns.

        Technical regs are easy to police in comparison to budgetary control. The width of a wing or the weight of a car versus endless auditing of invoice paper trails. I could give a more in depth analysis but. I’ve argued this many times. Nobody has given me a good argument against.

        1. You might think that it is straightforward, but you will find that designers can come up with some very creative interpretations of the regulations.

          One of the most extreme examples that I can think of actually occurred in the WEC, but it demonstrates how something that might seem obvious can be reinterpreted to an almost ludicrous degree. It might seem rather obvious to you what a gearbox is – however, a few years ago Audi managed to subvert the regulations so their gearbox was technically classified as part of the bodywork, making it possible for them to change it without incurring any penalties.

    3. Having a budget cap is also detrimental to racing since it makes the money spent more important than the actual racing. Most racing fans have no interest in a money hide&seek/forensic accounting/penalty backlash competition. We want to see improved racing.

      Tech regs is a better way to go to limit costs starting with aero. Where is the majority of money being spent by teams? That will tell them where to cut regs. See if aero regs can be used to make it easier to follow and pass with simpler regs that involve less development and implementation cost.

      How many freaking wings are there on current F1 cars anyway. I would love to see an actual count of all wings and winglets, side plates, vanes, t-wings, other aero devices, etc. on a single F1 car. What’s a good guess? 25? 30? More? 50?

      How much does each wing, winglet, miscellaneous device cost from inception, R & D, manufacturing to implementation and then replacement costs when cars are crashed? I’m all for high tech, but with the multi-winged front wings and all the other tacked on extraneous aero gizmos and gadgets that each team needs to employ just to try and keep up it seems quite excessive. Especially since with all that the cars are unable to follow closely for any length of time without overheating engines or ruining tires.

      1. @bullmello Problem is if you ban or put a limit on the various little flaps & winglets teams will take the money they would have spent on developing those & spend it on something else.

        I also think that a budget cap is the wrong solution as not only do I believe its unenforceable but I also think that if a team has a bigger budget than another they have the right to do what they wish with it. Telling a team with $400m that they can only spend $150m of it seems stupid to me, I mean what if one team finds an advantage & there closest rival trying to develop there own version of whatever the other team has hits there spending cap half way through the year, What good does that do to the competition.

        You also have the situation where Ferrari, Mercedes & Renault produce everything in house while other teams are buying engines, gearboxes & stuff from elsewhere. Do you include engine development into the cost cap? And if the cost of buying an engine is part of the cap then a team buying a customer engine is automatically down on budget compared to a factory/factory backed team that may not have to buy an engine.

        I think a cost/budget cap is something that sounds good in theory but in principle has a ton of problems.

  12. First and foremost, Liberty and the F1 teams need to decide if F1 is to be the pinnacle of racing and automotive technology or not. If it is, then a spending cap, testing restrictions etc have to go as they are contrary to that goal. If F1 is to no longer be the pinnacle of racing and automotive technology, then Liberty should change the rules so that a competitive car can be built without a wind tunnel, super computer, exotic metals etc. Innovation is usually not cheap, so trying to make F1 cheap while continuing to create and develop new technologies is folly.

    1. I agree 100% with Velocityboy Chase Carey comments remind me of Tony George who single handily almost totally ruined CART with his Indy Racing League concept for personal business reasons. Only today after ten years of really horrible racing has the IRL starting to slightly recover. But sadly it will never be as good as CART was. Sometimes it is best not to mess with success. I think Chase Carey’s ego is bigger than his Formula One knowledge base and should leave whats not broken alone. F1 fans would leave in droves if Carey pulls a Tony George and ruins six decades of F1 success, only a fool would believe it would be better racing for the Teams or fans.

      The real question is will Liberty Media and Chase Carey ruin Formula One the way Tony George ruined CART with the pathetic IRL rule changes, I hope not.

      1. In fairness to CC, I think he likely knows all the aspects and angles that need to be considered in this balance they’re trying to find for a better product post-BE. I didn’t want to bother registering with The Times in order to read the full article, but @velocityboy did he actually say he is trying to make F1 ‘cheap’? I’d be surprised if he is interested in anything but simply trying to rein in the big spenders a bit so that it isn’t just the usual he-with-the-most-resources-wins kind of series.

        And @stomin Tony George took his Indy 500 venue and made his own separate series. I agree with you the affect that that had on open wheel racing in North America, but I fail to see how this is relatable to F1 under Liberty since I am unaware that they plan on splitting into two series, one of them being for those that want to play on the cheap. One would think Carey would be well aware of what happened because of Tony George, and would have learned what not to do from that.

    2. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
      13th November 2017, 22:03

      Velocityboy! F1 is a sport. The thing that matters is the racing, the competition, the finishing positions. The fact that some believe it should be the pinnacle of automotive technology is secondary. The racing is king. Its why everyone turns up at the weekend.

      F1 does not need to develop new technologies. Its expensive. Leave that to the automotive industry. You are right. F1 needs to make a decision. The decision should be put the racing first. Technology second. The crowds will come.

  13. @stomin – I agree more with the gist of what @velocityboy said that a budget cap is less preferable to tech reg changes to make F1 better.

    The proof will be in the pudding regarding Liberty and their management of the future of F1 while maintaining its legacy. I like some things they have done – movement toward better tech regs by bringing in Ross Brawn and letting him assemble a team to do it right, improved online presence (making vintage F1 videos available) while hopefully improving the broadcast possibilities. Other things I’m not so crazy about – Overdone TV extravaganza like the Austin driver intros and the possible budget cap. Too early to judge many of the details or overall direction. They don’t seem to be rushing to change things. We’ll see.

    Having experienced the Tony George era of CART/IRL I can see I do not yet see any similarities with Chase Cary and Tony George. Tony George I believe is one of the most selfish, egomaniacal, destructive persons to be involved in motorsports in a major way. He used the one main asset he had, the Indy 500, as a weapon to try and force his will and domination over single seater open wheel racing in North America. When he couldn’t get his way, he forced the split with CART and the rest is history. He very nearly completely destroyed everything at the expense of teams, drivers, tracks, support industry and companies as well as fans. Even at his own expense because of his ego and greed. As you mentioned IndyCar racing is till recovering from the mess he started and it is still not at the same level as CART was in its heyday.

    So, while the jury is still out on Liberty and on Chase Cary, I do not see anything resembling Tony George. If I ever do, I’ll be the first to complain and say I was wrong.

    1. This was meant to be a reply to @stomin on the OP by @velocityboy

  14. No Chase, what ruins racing are technical regulations which are extremely complex, meaning that only a handful of companies in the world can get within a few percent of the maximum, and at massive cost. What ruins racing are regulations which change every few years, requiring every team to go back to the drawing board and come up with totally new concepts. What ruins racing are technical regulations which incline the cars to generate large wakes of drty air, and have a high degree of sensitivity to it, so that they can’t follow closely.

    If you look historically, it’s not periods of high spending where there have been the biggest gaps from best to worst. It’s the periods where the rules have been technically very complex, and there have been frequent changes quite specifically to the engine concept.

    If you want to bring the racing closer, first make the engine designs simpler, reduce the aero dependence particularly on the front wing, and then leave the rules in place for at least 5 years, but ideally even longer than that. And by the end of it you’ll have a field of teams very close together, which can follow closely and race together. Regardless of budget.

Comments are closed.