Join Grace and me as we discuss the weeks news including such gems as prize money, Williams F1, Marussia, Timo “the” Glock, Ron “the Hoover” Dennis, Paul di “good enough” Resta and more. We even tell you which drivers, given Sebastian Vettel’s car, could win the world championship.

Fashion award winner here.

Niki the tourist pic here.

Jessica’s eyewear here.

An F1 fan since 1972, NC has spent over 25 years in the technology industry focusing on technology integration, AV systems integration, digital media strategies, technology planning, consulting, speaking, presenting, sales, content strategy, marketing and brand building.
  • Rapierman

    1. So, we need someone to be the counter-balance to Bernie.

    2. So, who was right? Bernie or Max?

    3. Grace, I think they call it a “monopoly”. Even if the US laws can’t really touch the FIA, I’m pretty sure that the laws in Europe might have something to say about that.

    4. I don’t know what they’d call it in Europe, but I might be inclined to call it “hiding money to avoid paying taxes”.

    5. Ummm….yeah, I’m sure you’re kidding, because I would know what the Form 1040EZ would say, and I know it doesn’t say that. ;-)

    6. What, exactly, is the difference between “executive” and “non-executive”?

    7. “Last of the Mohicans”, anyone?

    8. Seems reasonable to let Kubizca do something for some money.

    9. I would be more inclined to say 83.3 percent.

    10. The answers are: Yes, Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, yes, no, yes, no, no, yes, no, no, no. 14 out of 22. Okay, not quite 83 percent…but that’s more than 50 percent.

    11. I really can’t consider bangin’ wheels a ‘good job’.

    12. Hey, even I know that Tebow is not a quarterback. Missionary for Jesus in India, maybe. Quarterback? No.

    13. …and Mark Sanchez will never live that down.

    14. Yeah, Perez does need some time….just be prepared for the inevitable crash.

    15. I’m not even sure that I’d want to see Flavio in that man-kini. :P

    16. So, if we get a Reggie Grosjean, would we have a “ReGro”? >rimshot<

    17. Marquez does bear watching.

    18. "Cirquis de Americano"? WHAT!?

    19. The only reason we talk about the tires is because THEY SUCK! When they stop sucking, we'll stop talking.

    20. Looks like Jessica's doing a take-out from the Mod 60s era.

    21. Yeah, gotta do better than that, Lauda.

    22. ….or maybe it's Fernando's mid-life crisis?

    23. Ye gods! Master of the obvious, isn't he?

    • Lol. I know for a fact that you know your way around a 1040EZ. :)

  • Menonitefury

    I agree with Grace. It’s definitely Pirelli’s fart.

  • MIE

    While I can agree with your assessment of which drivers could be champion given the right car, how many would actually be champion if Vettel was in the other car. I think it is a much shorter list (Alonso, Hamilton and possibly Raikkonen?).

    • HawkOfGP

      Exactly. I don’t think Todd and Grace thought about it from that angle, but I think that’s the crucial angle. I can believe that most of these guys would be winning races in Seb’s Red Bull, but the truth is that very few would be able to beat one of the top drivers in the same car or an equally competent one over a full season.

      • HawkOfGP

        In fact, I disagree completely with their idea of close to 80% (???) of current drivers being able to win a championship in the right environment. That’s just way too idealistic, cause you are assuming that they would for some reason get the number 1 driver treatment in a superb car when in reality most of these guys are not good enough to ever get themselves to that position! Given that, even Bob’s 50% thing is way too high.

        I subscribe to the theory that if you are good enough to win a championship, in most cases you will. Alright, yes, there are some cases of drivers in F1 history who obviously should have won a championship, but didn’t, but most of these are related to tragic accidents. And even so, I think there’s maybe about a dozen drivers in history you can include in that list. The rest simply weren’t quite good enough.

        I won’t discount all the young drivers out, because they may not have reached their full potential yet or had the chance to show what they are capable of (the sufficient data thing), but someone like Webber? You could say that he might have won a championship in 2010 if you had traded his team mate to an another B level driver like himself. So hooray! What does that prove?

        What is your methodology of figuring out who’s good enough for a championship, anyway? Do you need to be good enough to do it in a 2011 Red Bull? Cause Webber couldn’t do it. In a 1988 Mclaren? Against which driver, Senna or Prost? In a 1992 Williams? Would beating Patrese suffice?

        Overall, about 740 people have entered a world championship F1 race. Of these, 32 drivers won the drivers world championship. That’s about 4%.

        Let’s do an another test. One might say that getting to drive for Mclaren proves that you are world championship quality as they have been a top team for large portions of their existence in F1. So how many drivers to have EVER driven for Mclaren also won the world championship?

        Total number of Mclaren drivers in history: 46
        World champions: 14
        Not to mention that Rosberg, Mansell, Hulme, Alonso, Button and Fittipaldi (6 out of those 14) were already world champions before they set a foot in a Mclaren car.

        And by the way, Sergio Perez will not win a world championship. You can quote me on this 10 years later if he happens to luck into a dominant car with an another B level driver as a team mate, cause that’s the only way he’s ever going to do it.

  • Chris

    Relatively new to F1, so thank you for the podcast and site. They definitely help me enjoy the sport on a deeper level.

    While I know little about racing, I do know accounting. Simple way to put it: Williams can’t recognize the 9.4 mil of revenue because they haven’t earned it yet. They must complete their performance of the contract, which includes not voluntarily withdrawing from F1 before 2016. Until then, it should just sit on the balance sheet. They received the cash and it should be included in taxable income (though I am not an expert on UK taxes and their financials show the only income taxes they’re paying are Spanish withholding taxes).

    Oh, and receiving a bribe from Bernie is taxable, but he cannot deduct it.

    Ok, I’m done nerding out on financials. Back to loud fast things.

    • Good point, not sure when the actual cash is paid out. I suspect it is earned, in their mind, otherwise why mention it. Unless you’re just being cheeky with the numbers to limit the damage of losing 5 large. :)

    • Rapierman

      Nice to see how the UK tax laws work out compared to the US. However, you’re right, it’s taxable income, illegally gained or not, and I’m guessing that you’re either talking about “accounts receivable” or about something that was accrued and not converted into cold hard cash yet.

      • Chris

        That’s an interesting point. I’d be really interested to see how much tax a U.S. F1 team would be subjected to here in the U.S.. The U.S. has a tax credit for research and development similar to the one in the UK that is preventing Williams from paying income tax there.

        Just to clarify on Williams: They did receive the cash according to the financials. The issue is that they can’t call it income for financial statement purposes because there is a remote possibility that they would be required to return the entire 9.4 mil amount if they dropped out of F1 before 2016. The 9.4 mil will sit on the balance sheet as a “Creditor” balance until 2016 because they have the cash but may need to return it.

        Quick example: I give you $100 to count to ten and be alive at the end of the 2013 season. If you aren’t alive in one year I get the $100 back. You receive the cash right away, it is taxable income, but you wouldn’t be able to recognize it on your financial statements until the end of the 2013 season.

        It is a pretty conservative approach to accounting for the cash.

        • Rapierman

          Ah, yes, the “guarantee”. A legal accounting trick that works over here as well.

          Anyway, it would depend on how much in expenses was incurred. In this case, I’d be counting on the expenses of parts, payroll, taxes resulting from the payroll, etc. I would not be surprised if this went down as a loss and was thus a tax write-off.

  • MIE

    Congratulations to Jack Flash, it looks like Grace has finally forgiven you, or just forgotten. You are no longer the Lord Voldemort of F1B.