Ferrari calls for urgent cost reductions to safeguard F1

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/100328

So, what can we fans do to help F1 cut costs?

- Limit costs of motorhomes to 10.000$ per team.
- Easyjet tickets for everyone.
- Maximum driver salary: 700.000$ per year.
- Highest non driver salary: 400.000$.
- Make gearboxes, brakes, exhausts last 8 races.
- Limit number of factory workers to 200.

There, should at least save over 100 million a year.

Your ideas?

Why not make them drink tap water as well!

I think, as far as F1 goes, it's pretty lean. Leaner than it has ever been at least.

But there's a fine line between sorting out costs - and making it a clubman series.

Roles, norms, and values etc.........

Not go to Bahrain and Abu Dhai. And Valencia. And China.



Allow customer cars.

I.e. we can't spend as much as RedBull and Santander might scale back their involvement?

Simplify aerodynamics.

http://forums.autosp...w...=162027&hl=

Not go to Bahrain and Abu Dhai. And Valencia. And China.



Allow customer cars.

This!

I.e. we can't spend as much as RedBull and Santander might scale back their involvement?

And sounds like this.

Motor homes are part of the sponsorship offering and lavish entertainment that they consider is paid for when space is bought on an F1 car. They won't want that.

Easyjet is already used by a lot of team members in a lot of teams. Not by all, though so yeah, why not?

Driver salaries like that will mean the best talent will not necessarily be attracted to F1 but instead NASCAR etc where they can become rich rich rich. Besides, it's too easy to get around this rule. Ferrari already does. Not to mention that drivers have a short career in which to earn the big bucks and it seems a bit unreasonable to limit superstar drivers to small numbers like this. Many of the same arguments for tech talent. Newer would just bugger off and build an America's Cup yacht, and that would be a great shame.

Spec or endurance parts I agree would help. I always thought the single-race tyre was a great idea, and I think more homologising of parts would be worth doing and still provide the ability for teams to be creative with their designs. F1 is and should remain a prototype series. The big downside with this is that a team which starts badly will end badly. I don't suppose Luca would like that one much.

Factory worker numbers I have no idea on. Do HRT even have 200 factory workers? How do you make sure that Ferrari & Mclaren don't employ their road car team in their F1 efforts occasionally? We've had threads before discussing resource restriction so it may be worth doing a search and seeing what arguments were raised back then. The lack of any real monitoring process always causes the big problems.

Is this the same boss of Ferrari that was totally against the budget cap in 2009?

And the same boss of Ferrari whose team takes most of the cash under the new Concorde Agreement?

Hmmm. Has one of Ferrari's main sponsors perhaps indicate they won't be hanging around much longer?

Why not make them drink tap water as well!

I think, as far as F1 goes, it's pretty lean. Leaner than it has ever been at least.

But there's a fine line between sorting out costs - and making it a clubman series.

Roles, norms, and values etc.........

Well, its Ferrari that says we realy must cut costs. Im just thinking along with Montezemolo:)

Ive another, real crazy idea: why dont we give the teams much more income from the tv-rights and bernies salary? And why dont we just split it evenly, instead of the rather unfair idea now, that the team with the most wins (Ferrari) gets the most money? How about it, mr Montezemolo?

Edited by TheBunk, 12 June 2012 - 19:12.

Posts deleted. Casual accusations of cheating are off topic. Please respect the intentions of the opening post and discuss your ideas for cost savings.

Well, its Ferrari that says we realy must cut costs. Im just thinking along with Montezemolo:)

Ive another, real crazy idea: why dont we give the teams much more income from the tv-rights and bernies salary? And why dont we just split it evenly, instead of the rather unfair idea now, that the team with the most wins (Ferrari) gets the most money?

Someone tweeted this on twitter:

http://www.jamesalle...molo-to-mosley/

Someone tweeted this on twitter:

http://www.jamesalle...molo-to-mosley/

Hah, yeah. Indeed more proof Montezemolo doesnt think straight. They said that better in the Scarface movie ;)

How about it, mr MOntezemolo? Time to share some of your big fat piece of pie?

Financial crisis looming in Spain, Santander is a huge Spanish bank, and now Ferrari, suddenly, are calling for cost cutting. Interesting.

Montezemolo always talks about the good of F1 but he always only really cares about himself. Sounds extreme, yet I feel it's become a fair generalization given his history. My interpretation of his change in pitch is that he is in trouble at Ferrari and is looking out for his own job now. In other words Piero what Ferrari F1 to cost the company less.

A few months ago Monte was crying for more testing, more cars, getting rid of low-budget teams, the whole nine yards. Because he thought it would promote Ferrari winning again (ie profit him). Now we see he's complaining the complete opposite. Who knows what it will be next time around. That is, if there is another time around for him. I think Ferrari is getting tired of him and his failure to succeed.

As far as ways to cut costs, I simply do not know enough about what costs money in F1 to express opinion. I generally think the opposite of what Monte has been arguing for recently, however. I think limited testing and number of cars per team are very good ideas for keeping costs down.

Well, its Ferrari that says we realy must cut costs. Im just thinking along with Montezemolo:)

Ive another, real crazy idea: why dont we give the teams much more income from the tv-rights and bernies salary? And why dont we just split it evenly, instead of the rather unfair idea now, that the team with the most wins (Ferrari) gets the most money? How about it, mr Montezemolo?

Vary fair indeed.... and I totally agree with you (WTF?! )....... But it's a bunch of big boys playing with their big toys.

I think the FOTA led, quasi-Kaizen approach that has been apparent of late is probably about right...... ergo ..... in a strange way.... teams pulling out of it.

I think that the new turbo engines, at this time, are a mistake though (thus agreeing with Monty).

Edited by maverick69, 12 June 2012 - 19:35.

Financial crisis looming in Spain, Santander is a huge Spanish bank, and now Ferrari, suddenly, are calling for cost cutting. Interesting.

This ... I wonder if Perez will get perferential treatment next year, if he is the one bringing in the money

Edited by jjcale, 12 June 2012 - 19:40.

Is this the same boss of Ferrari that was totally against the budget cap in 2009?

And the same boss of Ferrari whose team takes most of the cash under the new Concorde Agreement?

Hmmm. Has one of Ferrari's main sponsors perhaps indicate they won't be hanging around much longer?

Very much my thoughts. Weren't Ferrari on the verge of being the lynchpins of a breakaway series so that they could spend what they want?

Say what you want about Max Moseley, I think he was bang on the money on some issues, costs being one of them.

I tentatively welcome Luca's comments about cost cutting as I think it is for the benefit of the sport. Even if I am cynical about his motives.

Quit F1

Less money to BE, split money equally, sue Pirelli for breach of contract, lower salaries of executives like LdM, eliminate bad tracks that require a lot of $$ for logistics, eliminate need to spend money by trying to find loopholes by simplifying aero rules, have only one driver (what's the point of 2 at Ferrari anyway), ban TOs and fine teams for the least presumption, sell driver action figures ($$millions business with all the fanboys) , patent and sell Bernie's haircut as a funny helmet...

Edited by RealRacing, 12 June 2012 - 20:14.

One solution would be not to pay Felipe c.$10m a year to do sod all, but then I guess he helps open up doors in South America for Fiat.

I think this is a sign Luca wants to save money at Ferrari, without saving resources somehow. Ie, we want to cut our costs, but only if everyone else cuts theirs by the same amount. Ferrari don't want to be seen to be tight with money, although the team with the most cash doesn't always win - case study: Toyota.

Once again, please respect the intent of the opening post. This is not a thread for discussion of how hypocritical you think Ferrari and Luca are, it is for you to discuss cost saving measures.

Very much my thoughts. Weren't Ferrari on the verge of being the lynchpins of a breakaway series so that they could spend what they want?

Say what you want about Max Moseley, I think he was bang on the money on some issues, costs being one of them.

I tentatively welcome Luca's comments about cost cutting as I think it is for the benefit of the sport. Even if I am cynical about his motives.

Yeah, he was bang on the money only after being instrumental in creating many of the problems in the first place.

How many forumers here could possibly be knowledgable enough to have opinions on this topic? I have never seen real information on what the costs of participating in F1 are. So I am not able to judge how to reduce them. If anyone has some kind of resource that lists this information then please share.

Of course, I think nothing will happen much beyond what has already been happening over the last couple years. In other words, I don't think LdM getting upset about prospect of Ferrari losing their Spanish bank bailout money will bring about new fundamental changes. It might just remove one things that has prevented a higher rate of adoption of cost reductions that have already been being pursued.

Motor homes are part of the sponsorship offering and lavish entertainment that they consider is paid for when space is bought on an F1 car. They won't want that.

Easyjet is already used by a lot of team members in a lot of teams. Not by all, though so yeah, why not?

Driver salaries like that will mean the best talent will not necessarily be attracted to F1 but instead NASCAR etc where they can become rich rich rich. Besides, it's too easy to get around this rule. Ferrari already does. Not to mention that drivers have a short career in which to earn the big bucks and it seems a bit unreasonable to limit superstar drivers to small numbers like this. Many of the same arguments for tech talent. Newer would just bugger off and build an America's Cup yacht, and that would be a great shame.

Spec or endurance parts I agree would help. I always thought the single-race tyre was a great idea, and I think more homologising of parts would be worth doing and still provide the ability for teams to be creative with their designs. F1 is and should remain a prototype series. The big downside with this is that a team which starts badly will end badly. I don't suppose Luca would like that one much.

Factory worker numbers I have no idea on. Do HRT even have 200 factory workers? How do you make sure that Ferrari & Mclaren don't employ their road car team in their F1 efforts occasionally? We've had threads before discussing resource restriction so it may be worth doing a search and seeing what arguments were raised back then. The lack of any real monitoring process always causes the big problems.

I think Bernie (of all people) touched on the subject of (too) lavish motorhomes a few weeks ago. Considering even Williams has a multi story, multi million motorhome perhaps a limit should help a little. Teams like Ferrari, Red bul and Mclaren have small palaces worth over 10 million dollars. in Montezemolos words: 'thats not really in touch with reality'.

I mentioned easyjet as an extreme opposite to various teams, drivers using private jets. Also a little out of touch with a 50% unemployment in Spain.;)

I exaggerated the driver and team salaries too, but im sure some middle ground can be foud between the insane amounts some drivers (and designers) now take home. Even Ron Dennis said something like that last weekend. (Much to my suprise.)

The limit on factory workers would at least bring costs down too. Mclaren, Ferrari still use up to 700 people to run 2 race cars.

Anyway, I think the most effective way would not just cutting costs, but more effective spread of tv-rights income. The concorde agreement. Less cut to Bernie. Id taken Montezemolo a lot more serious if hed touch on those subjects too.

How many forumers here could possibly be knowledgable enough to have opinions on this topic? I have never seen real information on what the costs of participating in F1 are. So I am not able to judge how to reduce them. If anyone has some kind of resource that lists this information then please share.

Of course, I think nothing will happen much beyond what has already been happening over the last couple years. In other words, I don't think LdM getting upset about prospect of Ferrari losing their Spanish bank bailout money will bring about new fundamental changes. It might just remove one things that has prevented a higher rate of adoption of cost reductions that have already been being pursued.

Exact numbers are difficult. But overal I think big teams budgets have been brought down from 400 million plus, to about 300 just out of the engine freeze alone. (Still a huge amount for just 16 engines though.)

Last year the mid teams couldnt keep up with EBD development, some would estimate that to be around 15-20 million extra in their budget. Then that is the amount it should be reduced. I think wel never see big teams work below 200 million but that already is a huge cut. Id settle for 250 million max a year, including drivers wages.

Crazy amount of speculation in here.

Anyways, Ferrari have always been for cost saving measures. They just have their own opinions on how the cost savings are acheived.

Santander are going bust, as well as Ferrari and Fiat not being in as good a position as they claim.....................

This doesn't come out of the blue for nothing.

Edited by cilurnum, 12 June 2012 - 22:11.

This ... I wonder if Perez will get perferential treatment next year, if he is the one bringing in the money

Stranger things have happened.

Cost reduction happens naturally.
Just look at Williams and how losing works support and sponsors over the years focuses spending cuts without the need for any cost reduction rules.
The issue is to lower the cost to be competitive at the back of the grid, not the front.
Customer cars and limiting updates to say 2 performance packages per season is the answer. rather than an arms race.
As revealed McLaren brought a Canada spec only suspension to Canada. That is just excessive.

Cost reduction happens naturally.
Just look at Williams and how losing works support and sponsors over the years focuses spending cuts without the need for any cost reduction rules.
The issue is to lower the cost to be competitive at the back of the grid, not the front.
Customer cars and limiting updates to say 2 performance packages per season is the answer. rather than an arms race.
As revealed McLaren brought a Canada spec only suspension to Canada. That is just excessive.

and yet they still spend far less than ferrari have each year untill santader money runs out

Might this be related to the new engine issues apparently bubbling along under the F1 facade? See Benson's take here and specifically the potential 4x cost of the new engines at least in the first few years as the manufacturers strive to recoup development costs. Quote:

"F1 is in theory committed to the new engines. Renault and Mercedes want them to happen, and Ferrari dismiss rumours they would prefer them to be dropped by saying they will happen."

Or in other words, Ferrari isn't madly in love with the V6 turbos for 2014 and fluffing up the costs issue in general is a way to dent those plans without publically breaking ranks with the FIA. Of course I could just be on my 4th strong coffee and thinking too much into this, but I always prefer a nice alternative motive F1 politics angle if there's one to be found

Cost reduction happens naturally.
Just look at Williams and how losing works support and sponsors over the years focuses spending cuts without the need for any cost reduction rules.
The issue is to lower the cost to be competitive at the back of the grid, not the front.
Customer cars and limiting updates to say 2 performance packages per season is the answer. rather than an arms race.
As revealed McLaren brought a Canada spec only suspension to Canada. That is just excessive.

As soon as you do that you condemn a team to a poor season by denying them the oppurtunity to correct a design error in a timely fashion. Or you gift wrap the season to a team that gets it right out of the box as the rest of field won't be able to catchup. That's a recipe for getting people to turn off.

Well, Ferrari could start by sacking the person who writes the Horse Whisperer blog posts. Then cut Massa's salary to about a fifth (he can have some back if he performs a bit better) and let go of the engineers who made Ferrari's nose the ugliest on the grid.

Always hard to find a good balance between cutting costs and not harming the sport. I'm sure having standardised parts would save a lot of money, but I certainly can't support eliminating car development or locking in teams to bad designs for a season. I also find it hard to agree to limiting team sizes since that seems to be so easily bypassed and probably only really harmful to the midfield teams that aren't large enough to hide extra employees in different companies. Not to mention the bigger picture issue in cutting jobs in a time of recession.

I think Bernie (of all people) touched on the subject of (too) lavish motorhomes a few weeks ago. Considering even Williams has a multi story, multi million motorhome perhaps a limit should help a little. Teams like Ferrari, Red bul and Mclaren have small palaces worth over 10 million dollars. in Montezemolos words: 'thats not really in touch with reality'.

"hey vodafone, thanks for the ~40 million a year, please sit in these 12 dollar plastic chairs under the 500 dollar tent we bought at the local hardware store. Dont mind the rain!"

Financial crisis looming in Spain, Santander is a huge Spanish bank, and now Ferrari, suddenly, are calling for cost cutting. Interesting.

Ron Dennis mentioned about pay cut for Hammy.
Ferrari can do likewise for Alonso reduce from 30 million to 16 million (same as Hammy & 6 million more than Vettel)
& they would save $$$millions.

and yet they still spend far less than ferrari have each year untill santader money runs out

You dont know that.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/100328

So, what can we fans do to help F1 cut costs?

- Limit costs of motorhomes to 10.000$ per team.
- Easyjet tickets for everyone.
- Maximum driver salary: 700.000$ per year.
- Highest non driver salary: 400.000$.
- Make gearboxes, brakes, exhausts last 8 races.
- Limit number of factory workers to 200.

There, should at least save over 100 million a year.

Your ideas?

Now seriously, there are workable measures...

1. Limit of personnel at the race track, even more. If it is now 75, let's make it 40. Do they really need 6 Renault engineers to look after Petrov's V8, and another 6 for Kovalainen's? For the pitstops, a limit of one tyre changer per wheel, as in Indycar.

2. Get rid of KERS, waste of money, it is only relevant to passenger car brands, of which there are only two in the sport. Is Ferrari really interested in making hybrid supercars for the road?
The turbo and efficiency methodology is the right way though, just turn up the boost and revs on the 1.6L V6s, give them 850 hp from petrol instead of the 550 hp they plan to boost with the kers.

3. Controversial - reduce the aerodynamic differences... A standardised floor profile (ideally for ground effects), two element front wing limit and standardised fw end plates etc. Keep their aero designers in check. Got to slash that aero development IMO, but the cars still look different.



Are the drivers paid too much? Would a salary cap (effectively limiting each team to 1 x Alonso + 1 x Grosjean - set at say $22m - and banning a Vettel/Hamilton type combo at $40m) help?


Furthermore you could *potentially* allow current or year-old customer spec cars, for a modest and controlled price. Why not keep the crash tests the same for three years, and even allow the old tubs/race cars to keep on racing instead of going to the museum or demo duties? Imagine Toro Rosso with last year's Vettel/Webber chassis, Force India with last year's Hamilton/Button chassis and Sauber with last year's Alonso/Massa chassis? Hopefully that would slash costs?

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 13 June 2012 - 03:40.

I remember an interview where Kimi said team Lotus travels on the same airplane. My first thought was, if all of the people and all of the goods and services travel through disparate channels, the cost of doing business would most likely get out of hand. My second thought was, teams that travel, eat, sleep and play together are probably better at communications and problem solving.
.

1. Limit the amount of downforce a car can produce.
2.Free up the regulation.

These 2 changes would mean that the teams would no longer spend milions on aerodynamics and would focus on other areas. And a 1-2 year old aero package would stilll be competitive.

Edited by mlsnoopy, 13 June 2012 - 05:43.

I remember an interview where Kimi said team Lotus travels on the same airplane. My first thought was, if all of the people and all of the goods and services travel through disparate channels, the cost of doing business would most likely get out of hand. My second thought was, teams that travel, eat, sleep and play together are probably better at communications and problem solving.
.

It's more to do with the fact logistically it's easier and less expensive in the long run to charter in that situation. You control the schedule. Imagine an Easyjet flight cancelled and the crew can't make it to the paddock in time to set up on Thurs. Plus the additional time involved to deal with the airport. All of this disappears when you charter. Flying commercial is not going to save any money in a meaningful way and present potentially more issues than it solves.

1. Limit the amount of downforce a car can produce.
2.Free up the regulation.

These 2 changes would mean that the teams would no longer spend milions on aerodynamics and would focus on other areas. And a 1-2 year old aero package would stilll be competitive.

you do realise doing what you want willl not make one iota of a differnce to how much they spend on aero as its not just about downforce?
However it would allow them to massively increase their total spending as they suddenly started spending just as much as they now do on aero on engines and a million and one other areas (on top of their aero spend)

This ... I wonder if Perez will get perferential treatment next year, if he is the one bringing in the money

No!
Montewhatever wants a slice of what Frank's got.
Maldonado to Ferrari..............I wish both of them well.

two words - budget cap.

more words...which is something that ldm veremently opposed when it was on the table and up until VERY recently was gunning hard for 3 cars!!

This guy is full of it and it's people like him who are so bad for the sport..

The driver salaries are ridiculous so maybe something could be done about that and tighten the RRA. Seems like the most likely/effective solutions to me...

Funny, that they say that after they raided McLaren for half their design team, presumably by offering higher wages.

The article itself is really about keeping the current V8 donk a few more years. It's an easy way to save a lot of money especially for the smaller teams.

Ferrari in financial trouble - lol

Reasonable ways to grow F1 while keeping it sustainable/afforable
1) customer cars
2) change emphasis/scope for improvement away from aeros back to mechanics (its cheaper to develop cars and aircraft)
3) more race development in target markets ie USA
4) a bigger share of the total pie (read that as meaning take away from Bernie's share and give to the teams). It should go to the teams but must be based on performance and following.

How about

* Not making changes to the regulations each and every year forcing teams to spend money developing stuff thats alowed only one season (at best).

* Follow that up with not bullshitting teams to develop things saying they are within the regulations, just to ban them when they ready to use...

How about

* Not making changes to the regulations each and every year forcing teams to spend money developing stuff thats alowed only one season (at best).

* Follow that up with not bullshitting teams to develop things saying they are within the regulations, just to ban them when they ready to use...

I'd think it would be best to ban things immediately when they are illegal - not let teams use them and benefit from them to the disadvantage of the teams following the rules.

The 2009 proposed budget cap was opposed by not only Ferrari but all of FOTA. The 2009 plan was going to create a two tier formula within F1 if all teams didn't go with it. It was also impossible to get all the teams and the FIA to agree to how a budget cap would even be monitored.

At the time it was suggested Ferrari didn't like the whole idea because it was going to remove their ability to outspend the other teams. So now the idea is they want it because they're being outspent.


Three years on not a lot has changed, all the teams want to achieve a more cost effective Formula One but they can't for the life of them agree on how to do it. This time round the FIA aren't as vocal so its hard to know the direction they'd try to impose.

The article itself is really about keeping the current V8 donk a few more years. It's an easy way to save a lot of money especially for the smaller teams.

There it is.

Driver salaries like that will mean the best talent will not necessarily be attracted to F1 but instead NASCAR etc where they can become rich rich rich. Not to mention that drivers have a short career in which to earn the big bucks and it seems a bit unreasonable to limit superstar drivers to small numbers like this.

I am sorry to say this is just plain nonsense. There is no other racing series in the entire world which pays drivers so much money. Even NASCAR doesn't come close. A top team in NASCAR would be lucky to have a budget of $30m which allegedly is less than Alonso is paid. Even an 'average' driver in F1 earns more than a star in NASCAR. NASCAR's attraction is that its safer than Indycar and drivers can compete longer, thus extending their careers.

The whole 'short career thing' is also so much BS. Drivers drive because they love driving, not to make money. There are few sports in which competitors can make enough to last a life time. Most do it for love of their sport and then go find a job like everybody else once their sporting career is over. And as formula one drivers in the past did, and current drivers in lesser series do, if you take every drive on offer, you can still make a good living doing something you love.