Tous Avec Jules #17
Sochi 2014
Russian Grand Prix
Deadline passes for higher 2013 entry fees
News
XPB
Posted By: James Allen  |  30 Nov 2012   |  9:40 pm GMT  |  89 comments

The closing date for Formula 1 teams to pay the full increased entry fees to race in the 2013 season passed today, with the total revenues received by the FIA set to be in excess of $15 million.

As confirmed recently in next season’s sporting regulations after months of deliberations, all teams now have to pay a flat fee of $500,000 at the time they submit their entries for the following year followed by an additional sum per point scored in the Constructors’ Championship at the completion of that particular season.

The general per-point fee is $5,000, however, the constructors’ champion team, in this case Red Bull, has to pay an additional $1,000 for each point scored.

The balance of the total entry fee was due by today (November 30) and with RBR having ended last weekend’s Brazil race with a total of 460 points from the season, it therefore had to pay an additional $2,760,000 thus bringing its total entry cost for 2013 to $3,260,000.

Having beaten McLaren to second place in the constructors’ championship on 400 points, Ferrari’s total cost, including the basic fee, comes in at $2.5m exactly with its Woking rival’s fee $110,000 less.

Lotus is the only other team with a total entry fee of $2m or more, with Mercedes, Sauber and Force India all just at over $1m and the five teams from Williams downwards all below that mark.

Having still to score a point in F1 after three years, Caterham, Marussia and HRT were all therefore only required to pay the basic $500,000 rate. However, it’s doubtful whether HRT has even got that far with the team’s Spanish investment owners Thesan Capital having put the Madrid-based backmarker up for sale earlier this month.

Although HRT had said at the time of the announcement it hoped a takeover deal would be completed in the “upcoming weeks”, the vibe coming out of Spain and the team itself at Interlagos last week was somewhat sombre and it is believed its employees have been served with redundancy notices.

With no white knight appearing to be in sight, and Spain’s economic situation hardly conducive for a local takeover, it looks increasingly likely that the grid will be down to 22 cars next season.


Read all about the big political stories from behind the scenes this season in the JA on F1 2012 yearbook – The Year of Living Dangerously, which is published on December 7th priced at £10.99; it’s a 256 page large format paperback with stunning Darren Heath images and signed copies are available to order via our online shop now.

Featured News
MORE FROM JA ON F1...
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
89 Comments
  1. Bjornar Simonsen says:

    What was the fee like before?

    1. Julian says:

      Ferrari should snap up HRT and rename it Red Horse Racing! Their RH1 can be used to test parts for the main team, since they seem to be greatly disadvantaged by the ban on testing! ;-)

      1. Jenks says:

        You know what, that’s not a crazy idea. For Ferrari, the cost would be like running an extensive test team. Of course, there’s a slight problem of the teams having to use different cars, but…….

      2. Mike says:

        The practice of using one team to develop for another is not allowed. For example, Torro Rosso has an independent design team.

      3. Prisoner Monkeys says:

        If Ferrari genuinely wanted HRT, don’t you think they would have purchased it by now?

  2. Sebee says:

    Hope everyone enjoyed the full 24 car grid while it lasted. Thanks for that Max! Honestly a thanks – no sarcasm. Without doing what Max did we would maybe be down to 18 cars by now.

    Wonder what F1 GPs would look like with 33 cars – as in 3 per team.

    1. Rich C says:

      That’d be increasing the cost of competing by 50%.

      Several teams would drop out and you’d have fewer cars on the grid and the big bucks would *really rule!

      But, maybe The Red Sleds would finally be able to win another championship, so I’m sure ol’ 3-Car Monte would love it!

      1. Luciano says:

        Increase of 50%? Really?

        The cost is in car development, not manufacturing. Build 6 cars, the increase in cost won’t be that much.

        But of course I am just stating the obvious.

      2. Sebee says:

        What if only top two cars scored points toward WCC? Actually designated two cars because top two would be a DNF insurance policy.

    2. Wayne says:

      But we have been down to 18 cars (HRT and MAUR are not actually F1 cars are they?). Seriously the backmarkers had long enough by now to at least get properly onto the back of the midfeild. They take up grid space but give nothing back to F1. They bring nothing to the table at all.

      1. a user says:

        It’s actually a shame that Max did not grant Durango or Stefan GP a place, they couldn’t possibly have done worse than HRT. I guess he may have been forced to do so by Cosworth demanding to supply no less than 3 teams. These teams were trying to get some rebadged Toyota engines as far as I read.
        Speaking of Cosworth: They didn’t cover themselves with glory either. Had the engine been better, they would’ve supplied better teams by now. In fact every team that waved Cosworth goodbye managed to improve. Seems Cosworth were out for a gain on a low budget and haven’t stood 100% behind their Formula-1 effort, which is a shame if you think of their once glorious history.

      2. verstappen says:

        Check the history, the gap is close now.
        I say, the more, the merrier!

      3. Martin says:

        Not exactly generous of you Wayne, or I think fair.

        At a functional level on during P1 and P2 in particular, more cars on the track give the speactators more to look at when the track is often quiet. Greater field spread during the race also means there is more to see if you haven’t paid for a seat with a big screen. The three bottom teams still raced each other, so that provided more passing in the field than would have been the case without them.

        The difficulty the teams have in closing the gap gives interesting insights into how advanced the current cars are. The effect that Pay Symonds and John Illey had on Marussia was also interesting to see.

        Without the backmarkers we wouldn’t have discussed cucumbers this year, and Hamilton wouln’t have won in Austin. Put those together and Brazil would have been a dead rubber.

        I imagine the extra teams add to the economies of scale of the F1 industry. The teams also give an avenue for new drivers, which right now otherwise seems very limited to about one seat per year.

      4. Wayne says:

        Thanks, Martin, there is the issue of safety to consider balanced against the spectacle and having soemthing, anything, to look at. These cars are often dangerously slow, the closing speeds are enormous and we have seen more than one incident where a front running car has misjudged the braking zone or cornering speed of a backmarker in the heat of the race. They also test very late, sometimes releasing their car after testing has finsihed – therefore the tst becomes the first race of the season – this too seems dangerous to me.

        To me these cars are simply (slow) moving bilboards, obstacles to be navigated – F1 is not supposed to be an obstracle course. Three seasons should be enough to reasonably expect these teams to get on the back of the mid-field I reckon.

      5. Prisoner Monkeys says:

        And what would you propose? Just kicking them out, even though they pay their entry fees on time, attend every race and qualify within 107% of the fastest time in Q1?

        There’s no grounds for booting them out of the sport, and so if you kick them out, it’s going to be harder and harder to justify keeping the last-placed team around.

        So long as a team can qualify, they are allowed to race. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it when Minardi were also filling out the back row, so why the sudden change? Minardi, like Marussia, Caterham and HRT, had to start somewhere. But they gained a reputation as fan favourites simply because they showed up and raced even when they knew they didn’t stand a chance. If Marussia and/or Caterham are still around in twenty years and they’re still at the back of the grid, nobody is going to care too much that they never competitive in their first three years of competition.

      6. David Ryan says:

        This does rather beg the response: if you feel it should be that straightforward, by all means go and set up your own F1 team and show them how it’s done. Or put together an agreement to buy HRT’s assets and do likewise. Therein lies the danger of making proclamations about what a new team should or shouldn’t be achieving. After all, Toro Rosso haven’t set the world alight either recently.
        Leaving that aside, the biggest issue the new teams have is that F1 has become so aero-reliant that unless you’ve got about $50m to spend on a windtunnel programme (which they don’t by all accounts) and the experience to go with it then you don’t stand much chance against the Red Bulls, McLarens and Ferraris. The established teams have had ongoing design approaches and operational structures to fall back on, whereas the new teams have had to set up everything from scratch. With that in mind, getting to the point where they are within 3 seconds of the outright pace is an achievement in itself. It’s certainly better than BRM managed for the first part of their existence after all, and let’s not even mention teams like Andrea Moda or Life…

      7. Wayne says:

        No David, this really does not ‘beg that response at all’. It’s one thing to disgaree as others have done it’s another that to suggest that my point of view is not valid unless I can set-up my own F1 team or put a plan together to buy their assets. There is a fine line between wit and ridiculousness. Therefore I won’t bother to answer the rest of your point.

      8. David Ryan says:

        Apologies Wayne, it was not my intention to claim your point of view is not valid. It was solely to illustrate the inherent dangers in trying to set a timeline within which a team should have achieved success, because F1 is not a sport in which there is linear progression. Toyota’s effort is a good illustration of this, as is Toro Rosso whose form yo-yos from race to race as well as season to season. Many more teams have tried and failed to establish themselves in F1 than have succeeded, hence why I feel for these teams to have managed that is something in itself.

  3. What’s the balance with the prize fu d as this taken in isolation looks to punish those who achieve most?.

    1. AuraF1 says:

      It’s not confirmed but the places difference can be tens of millions so it’s still very much in the teams interest to move up the standings.

      Not to mention that higher finishers get bigger sponsor deals in the off season, so it costs maybe a million more in entry fees but you might get 20-30 million more in prize and sponsors. Still worthwhile fighting.

    2. Wayne says:

      It does, on the basis that the top achievers can afford to pay the most. It’s just sheer greed, though, FIA use F1 to run all of their hairbrained schemes elsewhere (and probably pay themselves ridiculous salaries) that have little or no impact. Inside F1, the FIA have done great things for safety – other than that…. They are usually causing controversy and being too busy politicing to actually drive the sport forward.

  4. Stormbreak says:

    It seems a bit ridiculous to make teams pay such a large amount of money for each point they score. What’s to stop them from not scoring any more points once they’ve secured their championship position? For example, Lotus could have just decided to stop scoring points for the last few races because they had secured 4th and were unlikely to get to 3rd.

    1. Wade Parmino says:

      Well that type of scenario would give some smaller teams a shot at some decent points as points would benefit them more so than be a liability.

      Red Bull’s entrance fee is probably comparable to it’s lavish catering costs. McLaren are the big losers here I think; their entrance fees only being $110’000 less than Ferrari, yet this year’s WCC winnings for 3rd place many millions less.

    2. Nick says:

      Because from what I understand from all the Caterham/Marussia talk, the higher up the order they finish, the more money they recieve…Caterham’s 10th place ensured they received an extra 10 million. So teams want to finish as high as they can.

      2+ million for top tier teams like RBR, Ferrari and McLaren is nothing, with all the success they have they can get sponsorship money to pay for that. With the lower teams I guess Pay Drivers come into the equation somewhat…

      I guess the point is if you have the chops to finish near the top…then you most likely have the money to cover it.

    3. Wayne says:

      Because thye have sponsors to appease for a start, and that’s where most of the money comes from.

      This is just like tax, really, the highest earners in society pay the mosy tax – same here.

    4. JR says:

      Because the prize money is vastly more than the entry fee money.

    5. [MISTER] says:

      One word! Sponsors!
      Lotus’s sponsors would like exposure. You get exposure by finishing higher up the grid..not lower.

  5. Simon Lord says:

    With Aston Martin up for sale (again), is there any chance that David Richards and Prodrive might divert cash and attention into F1 at last by buying HRT? Or did the disagreements last time really put an end to such a possibility?

    They were the one potential entrant in the last round of expansion who really had the experience, leadership and guts to make it work – and I am fairly confident that Prodrive would have score at least one point in three years.

    1. SteveH says:

      I believe that Prodrive was interested in entering when there was going to be a cost cap. Without controlled expenditures they aren’t interested in joining the circus.

    2. a user says:

      No chance in hell. Not for 2013, with a big regulation change for 2014 on the doorstep, that would be a suicide mission.
      2014 however would be a perfect time to start a new F1 effort, as it’s a big regulation change for everyone and no one can profit from detailed experience.

    3. Andrew M says:

      He had a chance to join the grid in 2011 due to the failure of USF1, but said F1 was no longer in Prodrive’s plans. HRT will almost certainly go to the wall, there doesn’t seem to be any interest from anyone for a team based in the middle of nowhere (in F1 terms).

    4. Prisoner Monkeys says:

      I shudder to think of what might happen if Prodrive made it into Formula 1. They’ve bungled their last three projects, and badly.

      When they applied to join the grid in 2008, their bid hinged on their ability to use customer cars. Although they were given assurances that those regulations would be approved, and although those regulations never happened, the fact that they had no alternative plan – and that it apparently never occurred to them that existing teams might oppose customer cars (which they did) – demosntrates that they were unfit for Formula 1.

      When they moved the Aston Martin brand to Le Mans, it was a downright embarrassment. The Aston Martin AMR-One qualified twenty seconds off the pace at Le Mans and the two cars completed just six laps between them in the race before retiring. The team quickly abandoned the car and started running the older (but faster) Lola-Aston Martin B09/60 a few races later.

      Finally, they started developing the John Cooper Works WRC for MINI. Their 2011 season was pretty good and the car showed plenty of promise, but then they went and upset MINI at the start of this year and lost all manufacturer support. MINI’s Portuguese arm threw some money behind Armindo Araujo and Paulo Nobre so that there would at least be *some* manufacturer presence for the marque, but MINI is withdrawing entirely from the WRC in 2013 (though they will make the John Cooper Works WRC available to anyone who wants to use it).

      So, three projects, three dismal failures. Let’s hope they never get anywhere near Formula 1 again.

      1. David Ryan says:

        First one is fair enough, but I think you’re being somewhat uncharitable with the latter two. The AMR-One was hindered by a rushed (and very public) testing schedule and an engine concept which didn’t have enough development time either, so it was no surprise it didn’t fare well at the ultimate car-breaker. Prior to that, Prodrive had run the Lola-Aston Martin B09/60 you mention and the GT1 programme, with no small success in both categories, and they still run the GTE programme so with respect you are being somewhat selective in your recollection there. As for the MINI WRC programme, I think it was less a case of Prodrive upsetting MINI so much as BMW cutting the funding in December 2011 in order to bankroll the DTM programme and Prodrive taking exception to that. The withdrawal of factory support entirely next year would seem to support that. Prodrive may not have covered themselves in glory recently, but claiming incompetence on their part due to a rushed timescale from one manufacturer and funding cuts from another is somewhat misleading.

  6. Gord says:

    I wonder how much are they charging for HRT ?

    1. Werewolf says:

      My understanding is that HRT has very little to sell, especially if it has no entry, because its premises are rented, it has no ongoing sponsorship contracts and no prize money. I am guessing that leaves only equipment, the slowest cars in F1, possibly personnel (based in an unattractive location both economically and in terms of the F1 community marketplace) and, of course, its debts.

      Any realistic asking price would have to be very low … and, unfortunately, the judgement of the buyer questionable. Very sad.

      1. Wayne says:

        Will be sold for £1. No, seriosuly.

  7. James Farish says:

    Why don’t Ferrari buy HRT and pull a Red Bull/Torro Rosso type deal? They are always pushing to have three car teams. This way they would have even more voting power for the technical regulations (or is this different now under the new regs?), they would have an extra 2 wingmen to back them up and cause mischief if needed and they could field and evaluate up and coming talent. They could maybe even use the 2nd team to try aggressive but risky development strategies. I don’t think any other team could afford it, even McLaren, but if HRT are that desperate to sell up, they must be going at a reasonable price.

    1. Sebee says:

      Sauber?

      1. [MISTER] says:

        What’s Ferrari’s relationship with Sauber other than supplying them with engines?
        Is it the same as Helmut Marko from RBR deciding the driver line-up for TR? Who from Ferrari decides the Sauber driver line-up?
        Is it the same on track like the TR moving off the track to let the RBR passed? Who from Sauber did that for a Ferrari?
        Be objective please!

    2. Bjornar Simonsen says:

      +1 It’s a bit “unfair” that Vettel has 3 cars to move over for him as opposed to Alonso’s 1.

      1. Wayne says:

        4 if you count Schumi!

      2. JR says:

        It is very unfair. Inded they were 4 cars in the last race, as Schumacher moved over (only for Vettel) as well.

      3. a user says:

        At the same time, Alonso wasn’t torpedoed by any car out there, so what’s your point? That Vettel had an easier race? Sorry, but I don’t buy that.

      4. Bjornar Simonsen says:

        a user:

        Not talking about one single race, but all of them. The company Red Bull has four F1 cars.

      5. Andrew M says:

        It’s not the case any more, but Ferrari used to have the same advantage that Red Bull had now, they’ve just lost it.

        Before they were sold to BMW, Sauber behaved very similarly to Torro Rosso: the Ferrari engine deal came with a clause saying Sauber had to back Ferrari on all technical matters, Sauber drivers were notorious for holding up Ferrari’s competitors in the race (see Fontana on Villeneuve Jerez 1997 and Frentzen on Montoya Monza 2003) and would dive out of the way if they were being overtaken by a Ferrari works car.

        They can hardly complain about another team having that kind of clout on the grid when they’ve enjoyed very similar advantages in the past.

      6. Bjornar Simonsen says:

        Yes and You would be right to complain about it then as I have a right to complain now.

        It is by definition unfair for any outfit to have an advantage others don’t.

        “They can hardly complain about another team having that kind of clout on the grid when they’ve enjoyed very similar advantages in the past.”

        So You mean one fault can justify another? Eye for an eye?

    3. Simon Donald says:

      Equipo de Caballo Encabritado doesn’t have quite the same ring to it as Scuderia Toro Rosso. Maybe keep it Italian as Scuderia Rampante Cavallo is a bit better! :-)

    4. DB says:

      Ferrari does that with Sauber, to some extent. But with rumours of Sauber looking for new engines for 2014, it might make sense for Ferrari to look for a replacement.

    5. vettelfan says:

      good point

    6. vettelfan says:

      thank you james one week after the end of the season and you still come up with great articles, making the withdrwal from the off season less sever, thank you

    7. mark says:

      Thats good thinking James.

      They wouldn’t be abel to share chassis but you would think some of Ferrari’s knowledge could get them up the field as per Torro Rosso….

      DO HRT have a wind tunnel yet…?

      If so, is it better than ferrari’s?…

      Seems like ANY wind tunnel might be better than ferrari’s! ;)

      1. Davo says:

        They just need to start up an outside design company like Red Bull Technology. Then Ferrari and HRT (Ferrari B) can both be ‘customers’. They changed the rules a little after RBR and STR used identical chassis but I’m sure there are still plenty of ways around it.

    8. Prisoner Monkeys says:

      “Why don’t Ferrari buy HRT and pull a Red Bull/Torro Rosso type deal?”

      If they really wanted to, don’t you think they would have by now?

  8. personally i think that moseleys legacy was a complete waste of money. the bottom three teams really don’t feature and are more of a nuisance at the end of the day.

    i would far rather see three car teams, at least they would spice things up and be far more competitive. let’s face it, the bottom three are/were going absolutely nowhere, slowly.

    1. Werewolf says:

      I tend to agree with the first point, the issue appearing to me to be Mosley’s egomaniacal rejection of all the stronger applications in favour of the less able but politically less powerful entities that would have to rely on Cosworth power.

      I am not personally in favour of three-car teams because of the potential risk of midfield constructors being unable to compete with cheaper, year-old Red Bulls, Ferraris and McLarens. There is also the issue of engine compatibility and, of course, from where customer cars would be sourced and/or how they would be affected by regulation changes (without unattractive class divides or equivalency formulae).

  9. Wade Parmino says:

    If there is only 22 cars on the grid next season, will the first 2 sessions of qualifying be altered at all?
    Q1: pos. 17-22. Q2: pos. 11-16. Q3: no change.

    1. Andrew M says:

      I imagine that’s exactly what it would be like, meaning there’ll be two “established” drivers dropping out in Q1.

    2. Toby Liggins says:

      I would imagine it’d go 6, 6, 10 as you describe. Would make the competition to get out of Q1 more exciting (providing STR can start competing on equal footing with Sauber and Co).

  10. Wade Parmino says:

    Would it be a conspiracy theory to say that Merecedes have deliberately scored very few points in an effort to scrounge together a few extra dollars so they can afford to pay Hamilton’s salary? ;)

    1. Dmitry says:

      Yes! And a great one =))

      Hope they will do well… they need Lewis to score big points now to cover all future costs =)

  11. Tim says:

    Sorry to see anybody lose their livelihood, but it became glaringly apparent that HRT were endangering lives (not purposely), when NK lost hydraulics and Rosberg nearly ran over the top of him. HRT didn’t have $ to grid a proper F1 machine.
    I’d like to, belatedly, tip my cap to both HRT drivers for trying to compete with “crossed fingers”, a “lucky horseshoe” & a “lucky rabbit’s foot”, in the hopes of seeing checkers for just one more GP.

    Tim

    1. AuraF1 says:

      +1!

      If people thought the championship protagonists were brave, spare a thought for the two dare devils in the HRT. getting in a car capable of 200mph but being told your brakes had only a 50% chance of surviving every corner is real pioneering test pilot stuff.

      I’m also amazed the FIA let them run. But I’m sure those two drivers wanted their last chances on an F1 racetrack – even if it was a pretty good chance they’d end up in a barrier in a half funded car.

    2. Werewolf says:

      I agree. HRT were sailing close to the wind this season with brakes as well as hydraulics. I wonder how many of the highest paid drivers would have (not unreasonably)baulked at racing in one.

      There were too many serious accidents in my youth and I have to say there is no place in modern F1 for cars or teams that compromise safety, which begs the question of the FIA’s view on the repeated brake failures.

    3. Peter bell says:

      No one in a top team has ever lost power of course.
      I don’t think HRT were a credible team but the Rosberg incident Is Irrelevant.

      1. Tim says:

        This was not power to the engine. It affected the steering/brakes. Serious stuff. At speed. Tell Rosberg and Karthikeyan it was irrelevant.

        Tim

      2. SteveH says:

        Power steering maybe, but not power brakes.

      3. Tim says:

        SteveH,
        From the F1 website:
        “Formula One cars must have one brake system operated through a single brake pedal. However, the system must comprise two hydraulic circuits – one for the front wheels and one for the rear.”
        Here’s the link -
        http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8696/

        Tim

      4. SteveH says:

        What that means, Tim, is that there are two master cylinders activated by a single pedal. One cylinder activates the front brakes and the other activated the rears. If there is a failure of one circuit the other still operates (although poorly if it’s only the rears) so the driver has some control. These are hydraulic brakes, meaning there is brake fluid that transmits force to the brakes. This does not mean that they are driven by the hydraulic pressure that operates the gearbox or throttle, etc. A failure of the hydraulic pump or system will not affect the brake circuits, which are a seperate system. The brakes are not power assisted by rely onbly on the pressure applied by the drivers foot.

      5. Tim says:

        SteveH,
        Understood. My point, to keep it simple, was that hydraulics were involved/used, not that it was specifically “hydraulic pressure”. There are loads of sites explaining all this in detail. We could take it to the level of maths equations & Newtons. I didn’t want to get bogged down in it.

        I do appreciate your post.

        Tim

    4. TitanRacer says:

      I was a bit of a fan of HRT as the ultimate underdog. interesting thought about Ferrari – I wonder if they are giving any thought to snatching up HRT?
      I am also interested in seeing if there is going to be any backlash from promoters complaining about higher sanctioning fees for a smaller and less Global circus…

  12. Anne says:

    Another problem small teams have is t.v. rights. They don´t get a single pound while RB, Ferrari, McLaren, etc are the ones cashing extra money. That´s very unfair. In football even the most irrelevant teams have their share of money for being on t.v.. I know this is something HRT has been complaning about.

  13. AMSG says:

    When I was at the first race in Melbourne. The HRT’s just looked so slow from the stands. That after a whole winter to develop something. They were never going anywhere. Sad but not the first / last..

    1. Anne says:

      I went to a race before the summer break in August. And the HRT still looked very slow from the stands compare to other cars. They never have the money to make big improvements. So it looks like having Karthykayn and the(celebrated by the media) chinese driver didn´t help them at all from the money point of view.

  14. Wahida says:

    James, can you post something on the prize money awarded to all the teams after the championship ends pls. Don’t actually know how much exactly team get. Tq

    1. SteveH says:

      James, this is taken directly from Joe Saward’s blog. If this violates any rules or laws please don’t post it.

      From Joe Saward’s Blog:

      “The numbers change each year, based on the revenues generated, but in 2011 the teams divided a prize fund of close to $700 million between them.

      Ferrari has a special deal at the moment that means that the Italian team takes two and a half percent of the prize money straight off the top, which means that it got $17.5 million in 2011, leaving the prize fund with $682.5 million.

      This money was then divided into two equal payment schedules, each worth $341.25 million.

      The first fund was divided equally between the top 10 teams, giving them each $34 million.

      The second fund was divided up based on performance, with the winning team in the Constructors’ Championship getting 19 percent and the other nine teams taking percentages of 16, 13 11, 10, nine, seven, six, five and four. The 11th and 12th teams get $30m apiece and fewer benefits so the fight for 10th place is particularly fraught. But what is it really worth?

      With the numbers we have above, one can calculate with reasonable accuracy the prize money that was paid out last year. First place would have paid $64.8m, plus the $34m share, giving Red Bull Racing a total of $98.8m in prize money. Second place (McLaren) would have been worth $54.6 plus $34m, giving $88.6m; while third-placed Ferrari ended up with $95.8 million (more than McLaren) because third place would have been worth $78.3m plus the team’s special payment of $17.5m.

      Fourth place was worth $71.5m; fifth $68.1m; sixth $64.7; seventh $57.8; eighth $54.4; ninth $51m and 10th $47.6m.

      From these figures one can extrapolate the value of each place gained in the Constructors’ Championship, so one can ascertain the difference between first and second at $10.2m; second and third $10.3; third and fourth $6.8m; fourth and fifth $3.4m; fifth and sixth $3.4m; sixth and seventh $6.9m; seventh and eighth $3.4m; eighth and ninth $3.5m; and ninth and 10th $3.4m. The reason the little teams get so excited about being 10th is because there is a difference of $17.6 million between the two places.”

      1. Fahim says:

        Thanks for posting this. Great piece of information!!

  15. F430-Fox says:

    Is there any chance that the FIA could get agreement from the teams to tweak qualifying format to cope with only 22 cars starting in Q1?

    For example, eliminating P17 after Q1 instead of P18 as is currently the case?

      1. Stephen Taylor says:

        Yes didn’t they have that format up to Spain 2008?

  16. Dmitry says:

    I am not a fan of such price increase, especially because it’s not totally clear what way will all the additional money go, but I am glad it will bar some joke-like teams from entering F1.

    F1 should NOT be available for anyone just to try their skills for own amusement.

  17. Frank says:

    I will not miss them. They made a big mistake, when they moved the whole team to spain.

    Now there are two slots available for new teams.

  18. David Ryan says:

    There are reports that HRT has not appeared on the FIA list of entries for 2013, so looks like it’s game over. Sad really – much as their pace left a lot to be desired, to build an F1 team from scratch is no mean feat and they seemed a professional enough outfit. The Karthikeyan-Rosberg crash in Abu Dhabi was a low point, certainly, but hydraulic failures happen to teams up and down the grid so you can’t really hold that against them. Here’s hoping they can all find employment with other teams.

    Be interesting to see if anyone bids for their slot assuming rumours of their demise are accurate.

  19. there has to be a better way of structuring the grid. when i ,mentioned three car teams i , more or less, meant three factory cars with maybe the third car farmed out to an independent team or a full factory drive.

    the racing does seem too contrived these days as the probability of any one after the sixth place on the grid usually has no way of ever getting onto the podium.

    i would far rather see the slowest cars start first and fastest last as in any handicap system. then we would really see just who had best cars and drivers.

  20. Alex says:

    It’s a shame that HRT couldn’t pull this off. I know that the new teams get a lot of stick for perceived lack of progress but aren’t the terms on which they thought they were entering f1 on different to what has actually happened in terms of budget caps?

    I wonder if it could have been different if the 3 teams could have had an opportunity to collaborate on designing one car amongst the 3 teams. Pooling resources, sharing out start up risk and building up resources and know how over the course of 3 or 4 years.

  21. PDiddly says:

    HRT only existed because they were part of some dark skulduggery by Moseley to get 3 more teams on the grid who were on his side… “a nice way of putting it” that JA and his Legal Eagles should be OK with.

    Many other teams, including the excellent Prodrive spent ££ on preparing entries, only to be told the day before they needed Cosworth engines… Those on Max’s side were tipped off, it was just another snide attempt to control F1 for his own ends.

    For this I will be raising a glass or two to celebrate the demise of HRT.

  22. Noel Condell says:

    Delighted to see the back of HRT. Waste of time space and resources. Formula 1 should be about quality not quantity. In my 20 odd years following the sport HRT are easily the worst team I have ever witnessed.

    1. James Allen says:

      You never saw Andrea Moda, then?

      ..or Life F1?

    2. SteveH says:

      For some great entertainment and some great education on poor performing teams and drivers visit http://www.f1rejects.com/.

      This is a great site. You’ll think HRT were pretty good after seeing the really bad.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Top Tags
SEARCH News
JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer