What "Generation" are you?

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:11 am

Originally posted by Rob-hin

Indeed it is!
I feel sponsors do have a negative effect on F1. I don't follow the rest but I try to keep up with F1.

Just look at Ferrari. Micheal is champion before the season is half gone. Why should I watch? He ALWAYS wins. So they keep getting the best sponsors thus the most money. This way they keep on top.
They make money on the F1 while other teams loose a lott of money. If every team had the same buget, it would level the teams up and keep things interesting.

Thats true. The better a team does, the more sponsors will want to jump on board. I follow mostly NASCAR, though I keep up with CART and F1. I will give a NASCAR example-new teams that are not funded cannot even race more than 3 or 4 races per year, and often times do not attract enough attention for a sponsor-though in a few cases, thats not true. But the teams that have more sponsors tend to be able to run the season through and attract more sponsors. But I look at it this way: If racing didnt have sponsors-then racing would not be as safe for the drivers because they wouldnt be able to afford all the safety equipment. So there would be less drivers. And there wouldnt be as many tracks, and less fans, so in order to expand the sport, make it competitive, fun to watch and safe, sponsors ARE needed.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:22 am

Originally posted by Tybaltus

Thats true. The better a team does, the more sponsors will want to jump on board. I follow mostly NASCAR, though I keep up with CART and F1. I will give a NASCAR example-new teams that are not funded cannot even race more than 3 or 4 races per year, and often times do not attract enough attention for a sponsor-though in a few cases, thats not true. But the teams that have more sponsors tend to be able to run the season through and attract more sponsors. But I look at it this way: If racing didnt have sponsors-then racing would not be as safe for the drivers because they wouldnt be able to afford all the safety equipment. So there would be less drivers. And there wouldnt be as many tracks, and less fans, so in order to expand the sport, make it competitive, fun to watch and safe, sponsors ARE needed.

Yes, sponsors are needed.
But (yes there's a butt

)... teams should get the same chances. It isn't up to the drivers anymore. The team with the most money has the best technology, and they will win. And I don't want to chear for a compeny.
They should either have all the drivers drive the same cars (or just the motor), or level the bugets up. Safety can be in control of an independent organisation.
If they get more money from sponsors they can keep it for bad times or it should be put to good use.(safety, reserves etc.)

I think this could work. Checking if teams won't use outside knowhow or technologies to speed up their cars would be harder.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:35 am

Originally posted by Rob-hin

Yes, sponsors are needed.
But (yes there's a butt )... teams should get the same chances. It isn't up to the drivers anymore. The team with the most money has the best technology, and they will win. And I don't want to chear for a compeny.
They should either have all the drivers drive the same cars (or just the motor), or level the bugets up. Safety can be in control of an independent organisation.
If they get more money from sponsors they can keep it for bad times or it should be put to good use.(safety, reserves etc.)

I think this could work. Checking if teams won't use outside knowhow or technologies to speed up their cars would be harder.

Alright-lets see if I can tackle this post one step at a time.
First part-not up to the drivers? Well it is to an extent. If you are part of a well funded team then it is ALL the driver. If youve got a lot of money but a bad/inexperienced driver you wont get anywhere. I think racing can be boiled down to: Drivers/builders/pit crew/money/chemistry. If you have those 5 things with a bit of luck you will win a championship. But you NEED those 5 things.

Cheering for a company stinks-I agree with that.

Same teams/motors-well I dont think that will ever happen-1 because of the money 2-because its just another thing that defines a team. If you have money but poor builders then you still wont win championships.

Budget up-Thats a good idea-now if only we can convince the presidents of F1 CART and NASCAR to have a healthy donation to each team....

Safety-Everything costs money and where would the independant company get the safety things? The reason why NASCAR, CART and F1 have the safety equipment in the first place is because those pesky sponsors bring in the cash.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:54 am

I don't know anything about NASCAR etc. So everything I say is in a Formula1 context.

Ow, and I'll quote your post to make it easy to understand what i mean.

Originally posted by Tybaltus

Alright-lets see if I can tackle this post one step at a time.
First part-not up to the drivers? Well it is to an extent. If you are part of a well funded team then it is ALL the driver. If youve got a lot of money but a bad/inexperienced driver you wont get anywhere. I think racing can be boiled down to: Drivers/builders/pit crew/money/chemistry. If you have those 5 things with a bit of luck you will win a championship. But you NEED those 5 things.

Do you agree that money is the biggest of those 5 things?
If a team has money, surely they can get a good driver (and pit crew etc.). And a reasonable driver is way better in a good car, then a good driver in a bad car IMO. A "bad" driver IMO is Ralf S. still he gets points. Why? He drives a good car, simple as that.

Originally posted by Tybaltus

Cheering for a company stinks-I agree with that.

Thats one thing we agree in then.

Originally posted by Tybaltus

Same teams/motors-well I dont think that will ever happen-1 because of the money 2-because its just another thing that defines a team. If you have money but poor builders then you still wont win championships.

You have a point. Perhaps they can build/design their own stuff, and the FIA could make rules that the teams should stick to. Like electronicly limiting their cars? (I'm jst thinking out loud here.)

Originally posted by Tybaltus

Budget up-Thats a good idea-now if only we can convince the presidents of F1 CART and NASCAR to have a healthy donation to each team....

I don't know if teams get money per race victory or something. But they can use that money for support. Or bigger teams should pay contribution for the small teams.

Originally posted by Tybaltus

Safety-Everything costs money and where would the independant company get the safety things? The reason why NASCAR, CART and F1 have the safety equipment in the first place is because those pesky sponsors bring in the cash.

There is a solution for everything.

Since the buget used for car development is limited, the rest of the money can be used for safety of the drivers. This is unlimited. Small teams somehow can affort it now so I don't think that it would be a problem.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:06 pm

Do I agree that money is the most important of the 5?
Everything in the 5 is linked to money somewhere or another. But, maybe its because Ive been a race fan for 10 years now, and I have great respect for each and every driver. I have always believed in my heart that a driver is the most important thing. It is true that if you have a bad driver but you have the money, you will get a good finish here and there. Some teams invest a lot of money into a young driver that they feel has lots of potential, but the driver may turn out to be a failure. 1 example in this in CART (so far) has been Townsend Bell-he is a good driver but horribly impatient. This gets him into plenty of trouble. And in NASCAR, Loy Allen. He was a young driver with a well funded team, however his inexperience and lack of the ability to qualify for a race prompted the team to lose the sponsor and go backrupt. Loy Allen has since faded from the sport, though hes out there somewhere. Im not sure of any examples in F1-Could be Alex Zanardi (Who was a GREAT driver just couldnt perform in F1 for some reason) a couple years back or Juan Montoya-who has plenty of potential.

Big teams supporting little teams-I wish it were that simple. Its a really nice thought, but people can get greedy and when they get ahead they try and stay ahead. If big teams required to support little teams-I dont think many business men would get involved in the sport so not many people who would want to own a team, would, unfortunetly.

Safety-sounds good. I cant find any problems aslong as the budget is big enough, that could easily occur. The challenge is is to get the budget up.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:14 pm

Originally posted by Tybaltus
Do I agree that money is the most important of the 5?

I dunno. It was a question. Not a statement.

And about the support thing. It's a nice thought indeed, but in times like this it woud probably never work...

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:17 pm

Originally posted by Rob-hin

I dunno. It was a question. Not a statement.

And about the support thing. It's a nice thought indeed, but in times like this it woud probably never work...

Right. I answered that question by saying, in my heart I feel the driver is the most important of the 5.

Everything in this world has become greed and money, ultimately

Thats now the only way to get ahead in everyday life.

Logic IsAThreat · Post by **Logic IsAThreat** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:18 pm

that's why when i grow up i wanna be homeless! just like waverly

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:20 pm

@Tybaltus
Ah, I misread the money thing.

We've had some nice discussions so far haven't we?

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:28 pm

Originally posted by Rob-hin
@Tybaltus
Ah, I misread the money thing.

We've had some nice discussions so far haven't we?

I always get into conversations regarding racing.

Do you feel that money is what ultimately determines a team? I just believe that it is an overlying factor in all of it, but it doesnt ultimately determine whether the team is successful or not. Bill Davis in NASCAR is one of the richest guys out there, He has 2 race teams-and of 50 people in the points one is 20th in the standings and the other is 34th in the standings, I believe. Both drivers have done well in the past yet both struggle. I think another factor that is VERY important is team chemistry. Without that people dont get along and then a whole plethera of problems could occur.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:38 pm

Well, in the past money was not as important as it is now IMO.
Back then, people didn't even do it for the money.
Now, it's all about the money. You can have some good drivers/developers but they will all be bought out. It's true that they would have to work together for a good result, but there's always that financial/commercial side.

Money makes the world go round, that goes double for sport. Just look at the money involved these days, it's not normal anymore. millions and millions...

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:46 pm

Originally posted by Rob-hin
Well, in the past money was not as important as it is now IMO.
Back then, people didn't even do it for the money.
Now, it's all about the money. You can have some good drivers/developers but they will all be bought out. It's true that they would have to work together for a good result, but there's always that financial/commercial side.

Money makes the world go round, that goes double for sport. Just look at the money involved these days, it's not normal anymore. millions and millions...

I think of what Bloodstalker said a while ago when I was talking to him in the tavern. He said something along the lines of-when he watches little kids play backyard football, they probably will never become stars of the game and will never earn big money in the sport, yet they continue to play. They play for the sake of playing the game because its fun. I pondered over that sentence the next couple of days when I watched baseball. I realize Im watching millionaires play a game that supposed to be fun. Yet there is so much frustration and contract talk, trades, etc in baseball, that many people have lost sight of the game that is played because it is fun. But I still enjoy watching baseball, football, racing despite the fact that it has been conquered by money.

I mean theres one player in baseball, Alex Rodriguez, who is getting paid 200 million dollars. Whats he going to do with that money? Im really surprised that hes a nice guy in basball and the money hasnt really gotten to his head. For that I respect him. I did the math and he is getting paid 10,000 dollars per at bat, per at bat! Thats just crazy and unheard of.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:50 pm

Yup, it's not about the sport/fun anymore.
It's all about the benjamins baby.

( slang for dollars right?)

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:53 pm

Originally posted by Rob-hin
Yup, it's not about the sport/fun anymore.
It's all about the benjamins baby. ( slang for dollars right?)

I know not of that slang word...

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:57 pm

Nevermind

I was just trying to be hip.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 1:00 pm

Re: Nevermind

Originally posted by Rob-hin
I was just trying to be hip.

No worries.
Word. Thats right bro. He got game. There do I sound hip? I thought not.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 1:06 pm

Another generation difference, the slang.
Strangely, cool, is always "in". While other words go out of style... like hip

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 1:08 pm

Originally posted by Rob-hin
Another generation difference, the slang.
Strangely, cool, is always "in". While other words go out of style... like hip

I dont believe I have ever completely understood slang. Why does it evolve. How does it evolve? Who starts it? How does it start? Same thing with fads. Sounds like this could be a potential thread here...

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 1:12 pm

Originally posted by Tybaltus

I know not of that slang word...

Slang for money.

Look on $100.00 bill

Here

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 1:15 pm

Originally posted by Weasel

Slang for money.

Look on $100.00 bill

Here

Ah yes. It makes plenty of sense now that I think about it. Shows what I know about slang...