F1/GP2 Manager - 2007 Season - American GP -F1 Race Page 34!
Posted by F1_Manager
I'm not quite so sure about that since especially the financials vary massively from last to first place. I know it's not quite fair to compare last to first, but I just want to show the extreme case: The winner of the championship has 20 million more than the last team. While that team can barely afford engine and breaks with the money it gets (given that you usually have to pay quite a bit more than the standard price to get a decent engine), and hasn't signed a single driver from it yet, the winner team can afford just the best in everything and still will have a couple of millions left for upgrades. So the back-end team has worse equipment, worse drivers and no money for upgrades. Multiyear contracts alone can't save much money there, and especially it doesn't solve the problem that you'll have a multiyear contract with a worse driver and better teams have multiyear contracts with better drivers. That doesn't compensate for anything, you'll always have the worse package. Same for brand loyalty. Sure you can be loyal with a bad engine supplier and gain some BHP from it over time. But the other teams will do the same and gain BHP as well, especially so if they have a good engine already, so why swap? Hence, no compensation here as well. I get your point, but in my opinion it doesn't work because the other teams mostly do the same as well and the compensation doesn't work out the way it does when you only look at a single team.
Especially I think the WCC reward shouldn't have such a big gap from first to last and especially the lower teams need to get a bit more than they get now. Cause with 30 million, you can barely buy a decent engine, good breaks and a decent driver alongside two young drivers. The WCC reward is the only way for teams to get money, so it has to be sufficient to buy decent packages. Only 5 millions more would help there already. Or alternatively we'll have to think about other ways to generate budget, like paydrivers for example
In real F1, it's a way many teams use. So instead of paying for a young driver, we could gain money from them, with more budget coming the longer they're signed.
Finally, the rules say that we have to cope with RL changes like team takeovers. Then real budget situations should be considered, too, and RB should receive an extra 100 million per year!
(joking here of course, although it would make sense )
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
Especially I think the WCC reward shouldn't have such a big gap from first to last and especially the lower teams need to get a bit more than they get now. Cause with 30 million, you can barely buy a decent engine, good breaks and a decent driver alongside two young drivers. The WCC reward is the only way for teams to get money, so it has to be sufficient to buy decent packages. Only 5 millions more would help there already. Or alternatively we'll have to think about other ways to generate budget, like paydrivers for example
In real F1, it's a way many teams use. So instead of paying for a young driver, we could gain money from them, with more budget coming the longer they're signed.Finally, the rules say that we have to cope with RL changes like team takeovers. Then real budget situations should be considered, too, and RB should receive an extra 100 million per year!
(joking here of course, although it would make sense )GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
Strong qualifying 
GPGSL -
GPGSL-3 - Pizza Party Racing manager and driver
Nations Cup - Team Scotland manager
GPGSL -
GPGSL-3 - Pizza Party Racing manager and driver
Nations Cup - Team Scotland manager
JohnMaverick Schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not quite so sure about that since especially
> the financials vary massively from last to first
> place. I know it's not quite fair to compare last
> to first, but I just want to show the extreme
> case: The winner of the championship has 20
> million more than the last team. While that team
> can barely afford engine and breaks with the money
> it gets (given that you usually have to pay quite
> a bit more than the standard price to get a decent
> engine), and hasn't signed a single driver from it
> yet, the winner team can afford just the best in
> everything and still will have a couple of
> millions left for upgrades. So the back-end team
> has worse equipment, worse drivers and no money
> for upgrades. Multiyear contracts alone can't save
> much money there, and especially it doesn't solve
> the problem that you'll have a multiyear contract
> with a worse driver and better teams have
> multiyear contracts with better drivers. That
> doesn't compensate for anything, you'll always
> have the worse package. Same for brand loyalty.
> Sure you can be loyal with a bad engine supplier
> and gain some BHP from it over time. But the other
> teams will do the same and gain BHP as well,
> especially so if they have a good engine already,
> so why swap? Hence, no compensation here as well.
> I get your point, but in my opinion it doesn't
> work because the other teams mostly do the same as
> well and the compensation doesn't work out the way
> it does when you only look at a single team.
>
> Especially I think the WCC reward shouldn't have
> such a big gap from first to last and especially
> the lower teams need to get a bit more than they
> get now. Cause with 30 million, you can barely buy
> a decent engine, good breaks and a decent driver
> alongside two young drivers. The WCC reward is the
> only way for teams to get money, so it has to be
> sufficient to buy decent packages. Only 5 millions
> more would help there already. Or alternatively
> we'll have to think about other ways to generate
> budget, like paydrivers for example In real
> F1, it's a way many teams use. So instead of
> paying for a young driver, we could gain money
> from them, with more budget coming the longer
> they're signed.
>
> Finally, the rules say that we have to cope with
> RL changes like team takeovers. Then real budget
> situations should be considered, too, and RB
> should receive an extra 100 million per year!
> (joking here of course, although it would make
> sense )
I can echo what you say in this message. It is what also popped into my head when I read the message on the previous page. I have a good team en don't wanna lose my position. But I agree the lower teams need to get a better chance to improve otherwise it's a endless vicious circle.
Brand loyalty is good, but tbh I don't really like it that it's rewarded. I mean, I have Ferrari. I will never switch engines. That would mean I get the biggest possible reward for it. On the other hand, choosing another power unit (better or cheaper) gives you less, because of the loyalty reward teams will be reluctant to switch power units if other teams keep their reward, at least that's what's (going to be) happening in my eyes.
I like the idea of pay drivers to generate extra budget for a team.
If you are racing, keep on racing and get some points!
GPG Super League S11 | Driver #41 | Team-manager | Snake Motorsports Racing Group | Next Race: Emmeloord - Flevoland GP | Constructors: 10th | Best Race Finish: 1st
GPG Super League Season 9 Testers Champion*
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not quite so sure about that since especially
> the financials vary massively from last to first
> place. I know it's not quite fair to compare last
> to first, but I just want to show the extreme
> case: The winner of the championship has 20
> million more than the last team. While that team
> can barely afford engine and breaks with the money
> it gets (given that you usually have to pay quite
> a bit more than the standard price to get a decent
> engine), and hasn't signed a single driver from it
> yet, the winner team can afford just the best in
> everything and still will have a couple of
> millions left for upgrades. So the back-end team
> has worse equipment, worse drivers and no money
> for upgrades. Multiyear contracts alone can't save
> much money there, and especially it doesn't solve
> the problem that you'll have a multiyear contract
> with a worse driver and better teams have
> multiyear contracts with better drivers. That
> doesn't compensate for anything, you'll always
> have the worse package. Same for brand loyalty.
> Sure you can be loyal with a bad engine supplier
> and gain some BHP from it over time. But the other
> teams will do the same and gain BHP as well,
> especially so if they have a good engine already,
> so why swap? Hence, no compensation here as well.
> I get your point, but in my opinion it doesn't
> work because the other teams mostly do the same as
> well and the compensation doesn't work out the way
> it does when you only look at a single team.
>
> Especially I think the WCC reward shouldn't have
> such a big gap from first to last and especially
> the lower teams need to get a bit more than they
> get now. Cause with 30 million, you can barely buy
> a decent engine, good breaks and a decent driver
> alongside two young drivers. The WCC reward is the
> only way for teams to get money, so it has to be
> sufficient to buy decent packages. Only 5 millions
> more would help there already. Or alternatively
> we'll have to think about other ways to generate
> budget, like paydrivers for example
In real> F1, it's a way many teams use. So instead of
> paying for a young driver, we could gain money
> from them, with more budget coming the longer
> they're signed.
>
> Finally, the rules say that we have to cope with
> RL changes like team takeovers. Then real budget
> situations should be considered, too, and RB
> should receive an extra 100 million per year!
> (joking here of course, although it would make
> sense
)I can echo what you say in this message. It is what also popped into my head when I read the message on the previous page. I have a good team en don't wanna lose my position. But I agree the lower teams need to get a better chance to improve otherwise it's a endless vicious circle.
Brand loyalty is good, but tbh I don't really like it that it's rewarded. I mean, I have Ferrari. I will never switch engines. That would mean I get the biggest possible reward for it. On the other hand, choosing another power unit (better or cheaper) gives you less, because of the loyalty reward teams will be reluctant to switch power units if other teams keep their reward, at least that's what's (going to be) happening in my eyes.
I like the idea of pay drivers to generate extra budget for a team.
GPG Super League S11 | Driver #41 | Team-manager | Snake Motorsports Racing Group | Next Race: Emmeloord - Flevoland GP | Constructors: 10th | Best Race Finish: 1st
GPG Super League Season 9 Testers Champion*
Super Nova
Great job by Piquet, our objective is to finish in the podium, Bruno is in a good place for score some points, and that's exactly what we need now
Great job by Piquet, our objective is to finish in the podium, Bruno is in a good place for score some points, and that's exactly what we need now
@John and @Maikel
Pay drivers is a very good suggestion and something that could easily be implemented. That's something I can definitely included right away for the next lot of negotiations
On the brand loyalty issue, yes at the moment I can't really disagree that it doesn't make sense to switch manufacturers, especially if you're already paying for the best. However, I have had a few ideas for 2009 (no prizes for guessing what that might be ), as well as 2010 when the new teams arrive although that's quite a way away at the moment obviously.
Right now I think I have come up with a solution to solve the problem of being disadvantaged whilst switching engines, however I'd like to keep it a secret at least for a couple more races as we get nearer the negotiations. Rest assured though, I'm pretty sure the smaller teams will like it a lot
Also the action from Day 2 is being uploaded right now so expect it any minute!
Interested in managing an F1 team? Sign up for the Grandprixgames F1 Manager game here
Pay drivers is a very good suggestion and something that could easily be implemented. That's something I can definitely included right away for the next lot of negotiations
On the brand loyalty issue, yes at the moment I can't really disagree that it doesn't make sense to switch manufacturers, especially if you're already paying for the best. However, I have had a few ideas for 2009 (no prizes for guessing what that might be
), as well as 2010 when the new teams arrive although that's quite a way away at the moment obviously.Right now I think I have come up with a solution to solve the problem of being disadvantaged whilst switching engines, however I'd like to keep it a secret at least for a couple more races as we get nearer the negotiations. Rest assured though, I'm pretty sure the smaller teams will like it a lot
Also the action from Day 2 is being uploaded right now so expect it any minute!
Interested in managing an F1 team? Sign up for the Grandprixgames F1 Manager game here
Day Two's Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, what happened? we lost 7 positions with each driver 
McLaren
It looks like we'll be able to fight for the win again. Kimi did a great job, just missed out on pole by a tiny bit. Robert is running a slightly different setup, he should be able to gain some positions in the race. Also once again a fabulous job by Ryan in free practice.
Some mods
F1 1996 | F1 2002 | F1 2007 | F1 2011 | F1 2013 | F1 2015 | F1 2018
It looks like we'll be able to fight for the win again. Kimi did a great job, just missed out on pole by a tiny bit. Robert is running a slightly different setup, he should be able to gain some positions in the race. Also once again a fabulous job by Ryan in free practice.
Some mods
F1 1996 | F1 2002 | F1 2007 | F1 2011 | F1 2013 | F1 2015 | F1 2018
Regarding the current discussion that it's difficult for a team to improve:
I think this shows that it's possible to improve/fall behind, though difficult. Imo we shouldn't change too much at once, instead try step by step if different changes work out, or if they don't. Paydrivers is a good start, and also realistic. They shouldn't all have an endless Maldonado-like amount of money however, maybe also with the possibility that they can only afford a certain amound of races, or run out of money, as Chilton almost did (maybe, really not sure if that would work & be easy to implement).
Some mods
F1 1996 | F1 2002 | F1 2007 | F1 2011 | F1 2013 | F1 2015 | F1 2018
I think this shows that it's possible to improve/fall behind, though difficult. Imo we shouldn't change too much at once, instead try step by step if different changes work out, or if they don't. Paydrivers is a good start, and also realistic. They shouldn't all have an endless Maldonado-like amount of money however, maybe also with the possibility that they can only afford a certain amound of races, or run out of money, as Chilton almost did (maybe, really not sure if that would work & be easy to implement).
Some mods
F1 1996 | F1 2002 | F1 2007 | F1 2011 | F1 2013 | F1 2015 | F1 2018
I don't think we should make things too complicated for Jack. There are endless possibilities for further manager actions, but that all means work for Jack and must have to be considered. The paydriver option is one with very few extra work and could have an impact. And again, I agree that time-wise the teams aren't that far off each other. But results-wise there is a tendency noticeable. And Tobi's chart shows that it's a lot easier to drop back than to get up again, plus it's solely based on the old rules while I still think that the new rules make it even harder to fight back. I'm looking forward to Jack's suggestions in a few weeks.
In terms of the qualifying:
Red Bull
..... *sighs*
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
In terms of the qualifying:
Red Bull
..... *sighs*
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.