Grand Prix Rejects

Nin13 wrote:

Ataxia wrote:Oh, Nin13, you have no idea...

Next time if you want to be sarcastic, why don't you try actually finding out how to do it well? Your attempts at "humour" are like watching paint dry whilst slowly having my teeth removed with acid and a clawhammer.

Or why don't you actually try to understand what is written rather than jumping the gun? Making you understand is like teaching an alzheimer's patient not to poop in his pants.

I don't even know how to explain this idiocy.

Not that again Now guys let's be nice and insult each other in private messages, alright?

Sublime_FA11C wrote:

watka wrote:Seems like Horner is on Andretti's side:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29934672

Replace "should have been discussed behind closed doors" with "should have been discussed behind closed doors and all concerns dismissed by FIA and FOM telling them to lump it or leave". Not that we can really expect the big teams to just give up a share of their income though.

But why should they "give up" their share? That doesn't seem any more fair than Ferrari getting a bonus just for being Ferrari. In fact that at least makes a small measure of sense. Ferrari have been part of F1 since the beginning and are one of the icons of it's history.

If you were a smaller team and wanted to climb up in F1, wouldn't you want that kind of longevity and all those trophies? Would it not make sense that the sport is trying to keep you because you have been so succesfull and have generated income in the past? As a confirmation of your importance in the sport?

On the other hand you have these smaller teams, making deals which may or may not be dodgy, with investors that may or may not be shady, having development plans that may or may not lead to disaster, and after a number of years when they do end up in pig shite, they say "Give us money or we cant continue in the sport!"

Too bad? Williams went downhill, Sauber fell straight down after scoring some podiums in '12 and it's up to those teams to turn their fortunes around. How is it fair to just up and give them money for nothing? Amidst rumours of boycotts on top of it. What is unjust is that not all teams have equal voting rights, and some dont even have early information regarding some rule changes. It's also unjust that already cash strapped teams had no choice but to accept the opportunity to spend tons of money on engines that would not help them move up the grid in any way.

It's one thing to examine how prize money and income is distribued, and the distribution must make sense with regard to whatever technological or regulatory pressures teams face in a given "era" of F1, but just giving away money for nothing at all is neither fair nor healthy for F1. It's just a relatively inexpensive way to shut up the smaller teams.

Need to put some kind of avatar bet together where if I win you wear this avatar:


And if you win I wear this avatar:


Problem is that I'm about to lose an avatar bet about Sauber beating Marussia in the championship.


I guess it is true that Force India, Williams and Sauber don't have so much of a right to complain, so I apologise for being quite broadbrush with my statement. They don't receive that much less than the other teams in regards to the prize fund. What I have a problem with is the part of the prize fund that is split between the top 10 teams only. $35m makes a hell of a lot of difference, so Marussia have pretty much been stuffed from the moment they failed to beat Caterham in 2010. Bear in mind also that these new teams had start up costs and had creditors to pay from the very moment they were set up. Its at least a year and a half from the point that the entry is confirmed to the first payout of prize money so these teams are always in arrears, hence why Caterham has also struggled despite finishing 10th in 2010, 2011 and 2012. I can see Haas having the same problems unless they are heavily supported by Ferrari. New teams need more of a leg up to get into F1 in a sustainable way.

Nin13 wrote:Or why don't you actually try to understand what is written rather than jumping the gun? Making you understand is like teaching an alzheimer's patient not to poop in his pants.

Wow, comparing me to an Alzheimer's patient is ridiculously disrespectful...to the patient. Taxi ouuuuut.

Marussia and Caterham were indeed the only teams with a right to complain. Their payments are given out from CVC's share of earnings (which helps explain why Bernie pisses and moans about them begging for more cash) and are substantially lower than the top 10 teams' earnings plus they have signed up in 2010 with a budget cap in mind so their finances were organised with different limits. Since the budget cap never came to exist, they've had to spend more money to up their performance and hope to break through into the top 10 and that is partly what financially ruined them. Another huge contributing factor was the cost of V6 power units (according to Gerard Lopez about 70-80 million) which alone probably blew their budgets to bits. Caterham were rumored to be late on their payments to Renault around the time of the Japanese GP.

CVC made a predictable but giant blunder in refusing to carry part of the burden of V6s as that cost was forced onto the teams. However, all teams even Marussia and Caterham, independently signed a deal and accepted the terms. Fernandes was prepared for the worst and announced early on that he would pull out unless the team drastically improved under the new formula, and Marussia were probably hoping to at least try to bag some kind of result given this was probably they best (and last) chance. These two teams had invested a lot and got nothig but headaches in return so the regulation changes represented some hope of success. I can understand why they chose to sign on rather than walk away from F1 altogether.

Sauber, Force India and Lotus are in a different situation. Sauber are still going to reap the benefits of 2012 and get a much larger cut of the income than the teams outside the top 10. Their car is one of the most undrivable on the grid and it's their own fault they havent scored any points, although that is possibly harsh and i can't honestly criticise people who put that car together. It is a bad car though, no way around that. Lotus can at least blame Renault for some of their troubles. Lotus are actually the perfect example of a team fighting at the top yet losing massive amounts of money in the process. Some of it is probably their own falut, but it's ironic that their past successes have led them to financial struggles, which in turn affected their 2014 development, yet these past fortunes will earn them prize money that is probably comparable to if not higher than Williams.

But while Sauber and Lotus are complaining loudly and calling for action, they did sign the deal and entered into 2014. Unfair and costly though it was, they still signed it and they knew or were supposed to know what they were getting themselves into. Yet the rules of the competition aren't the same (because some teams get to vote and others dont) and the way prize money is distributed doesn't encourage competitivnes nor sustainability. So on the one hand it's their own fault and on the other they are blameless.

Now CVC is dangling a 100 million dollar carrot in front of the smaller teams and daring them to refuse. If they accept, i think the Strategy Group will simply "kick the can" further down the road with regards to restructuring revenue sharing, team voting rights and budget cap proposals. But that can only go so far... only about 5-6 teams can afford to race in F1 today, and even they wont cling on to sustainability unless costs are reduced (or CVC actually reinvests in F1 for once by covering some of this cost).

(You're on for any avatar challenge watka, but i don't understand the party mascots though. Why those avatars?)

Ataxia wrote:

Nin13 wrote:Or why don't you actually try to understand what is written rather than jumping the gun? Making you understand is like teaching an alzheimer's patient not to poop in his pants.

Wow, comparing me to an Alzheimer's patient is ridiculously disrespectful...to the patient. Taxi ouuuuut.

Will one of you behave like a grown up and just stop it? Bratty kids...

DanielPT wrote:

Ataxia wrote:

Nin13 wrote:Or why don't you actually try to understand what is written rather than jumping the gun? Making you understand is like teaching an alzheimer's patient not to poop in his pants.

Wow, comparing me to an Alzheimer's patient is ridiculously disrespectful...to the patient. Taxi ouuuuut.

Will one of you behave like a grown up and just stop it? Bratty kids...

I was drunk occifer, I swear!

Sublime_FA11C wrote:
(You're on for any avatar challenge watka, but i don't understand the party mascots though. Why those avatars?)

Just a broadbrush reflections of our apparent ideologies, although it appears that we actually agree. Democrats are more liberal and generally want to redistribute wealth and have more of a welfare state, Republicans are more conservative and generally want to keep taxes down and have a "make your own fortune" mentality.

Ok, gotcha. Although liberals and conservatives are much less "black & white" than that, it's a fair enough description. If i wanted to be cynical (and i am not being serious) i could see conservatives betraying a "make your own fortune, but we'll rig the game against you" mentality and a desire to keep only specific taxes down. I could give some pain to the other side, but i fear a political debate is a can of worms we do not want opened. :D

Let's instead compare both liberals and conservatives to garbage. They both start to stink real bad unless you take them out.

As someone who took extensive poly sci classes I can tell you this, A liberal screws you from the left side, a conservative screws you from the ride side.

Wallio wrote:As someone who took extensive poly sci classes I can tell you this, A liberal screws you from the left side, a conservative screws you from the ride side.

That sounds about right to me, it doesn't matter who's in power or what their ideology is, more than likely they'll screw you over. At least it's like that in Ireland.

This little BBC video from before the start of the 2010 is probably more interesting in hindsight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG7W3tqCqKM

Mexicola wrote:This little BBC video from before the start of the 2010 is probably more interesting in hindsight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG7W3tqCqKM

Yeah, that video is pretty interesting looking back on it. Then again, hindsight is always 20/20....

Frogfoot9013 wrote:

Wallio wrote:As someone who took extensive poly sci classes I can tell you this, A liberal screws you from the left side, a conservative screws you from the ride side.

That sounds about right to me, it doesn't matter who's in power or what their ideology is, more than likely they'll screw you over. At least it's like that in Ireland.

Not Ming. Ming would never screw anyone over.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

Frogfoot9013 wrote:

Wallio wrote:As someone who took extensive poly sci classes I can tell you this, A liberal screws you from the left side, a conservative screws you from the ride side.

That sounds about right to me, it doesn't matter who's in power or what their ideology is, more than likely they'll screw you over. At least it's like that in Ireland.

Not Ming. Ming would never screw anyone over.

Whoops, I forgot about him. Which is particularly silly for me considering that I live in County Roscommon.

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Whoops, I forgot about him. Which is particularly silly for me considering that I live in County Roscommon.

Good to know that people still live in Roscommon.

Simtek wrote:

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Whoops, I forgot about him. Which is particularly silly for me considering that I live in County Roscommon.

Good to know that people still live in Roscommon.

Just to think there's another Roscommon... in Michigan. Clearly named for the place in Ireland.

Onxy Wrecked wrote:

Simtek wrote:

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Whoops, I forgot about him. Which is particularly silly for me considering that I live in County Roscommon.

Good to know that people still live in Roscommon.

Just to think there's another Roscommon... in Michigan. Clearly named for the place in Ireland.

Of all the places to name a town after, why the backwater that is County Roscommon in Ireland?!?!

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Of all the places to name a town after, why the backwater that is County Roscommon in Ireland?!?!

Even better, there's a village called Leitrim in Ontario.

Simtek wrote:

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Of all the places to name a town after, why the backwater that is County Roscommon in Ireland?!?!

Even better, there's a village called Leitrim in Ontario.

Now that's really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Frogfoot9013 wrote:Of all the places to name a town after, why the backwater that is County Roscommon in Ireland?!?!

At least it's not named after the postmaster like dozens of towns in the US.

watka wrote:

Sublime_FA11C wrote:
(You're on for any avatar challenge watka, but i don't understand the party mascots though. Why those avatars?)

Just a broadbrush reflections of our apparent ideologies, although it appears that we actually agree. Democrats are more liberal and generally want to redistribute wealth and have more of a welfare state, Republicans are more conservative and generally want to keep taxes down and have a "make your own fortune" mentality.

And liberals tend to view existing social hierarchies as counter-productive and so push for more socio-economic equality, whereas conservatives feel that social hierarchies are natural and that resisting them is a waste of time, effort and money, so they want to work with it rather than tear it down.

Each side tends to portray the other in the most extreme version that they can. Liberals will accuse conservatives of looking out for the interests of big business and ignoring or exploiting lower socio-economic classes; conservatives will accuse liberals of wanting to abandon tradition and national history.

Captain Hammer wrote:

watka wrote:

Sublime_FA11C wrote:
(You're on for any avatar challenge watka, but i don't understand the party mascots though. Why those avatars?)

Just a broadbrush reflections of our apparent ideologies, although it appears that we actually agree. Democrats are more liberal and generally want to redistribute wealth and have more of a welfare state, Republicans are more conservative and generally want to keep taxes down and have a "make your own fortune" mentality.

And liberals tend to view existing social hierarchies as counter-productive and so push for more socio-economic equality, whereas conservatives feel that social hierarchies are natural and that resisting them is a waste of time, effort and money, so they want to work with it rather than tear it down.

Each side tends to portray the other in the most extreme version that they can. Liberals will accuse conservatives of looking out for the interests of big business and ignoring or exploiting lower socio-economic classes; conservatives will accuse liberals of wanting to abandon tradition and national history.

Liberal and conservative are not opposite to each other, as many liberals also tend to be conservative and vice versa. Conservative is opposite to progressive and liberal is sort of opposite to socialist. I don't know how these things work outside of Europe, but here, in almost every country this seems to be the same. In theory, of course. In here, liberal, conservative, nationalist and libertarian are all considered right wing and socialist, communist, ecologist and anarchist are considered left-wing. In 'Merica the lack of an actual left wing makes the liberals the left wing by default, but they're still right wing on the political spectrum.