Honda call for team budget caps in F1
Thoughts?
F1 Budget Cap?
Started by
tidwell
, Dec 28 2007 00:16
158 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
kNt
-
- 1,695 posts
- Joined: February 05
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 00:25
Certainly better than the "hour restrictions" etc. to cfd and Aerodynamics, but I don't know how well policeable it'll be.
#3
macoran
-
- 3,989 posts
- Joined: August 05
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 00:32
New business for Deloite Touche Ross and Price Waterhouse Cooper etc etc.
There will of course be "icing" to be paid to certain "gents" (ahum) in charge.
Teams lower on the picking order selling their allocation of cfd time etc for a price !
The latest in the "democratic" corruption of F1(A) ?, suggested by the greenest of teams ?
Edit: damn myself, I thought I was a Honda man ?
There will of course be "icing" to be paid to certain "gents" (ahum) in charge.
Teams lower on the picking order selling their allocation of cfd time etc for a price !
The latest in the "democratic" corruption of F1(A) ?, suggested by the greenest of teams ?
Edit: damn myself, I thought I was a Honda man ?
#4
Slowinfastout
-
- 9,681 posts
- Joined: October 07
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 00:37
Originally posted by tidwell
Honda call for team budget caps in F1
Thoughts?
Lets cap it at 100 millions and be harsh on repeat offenders
#5
Jackman
-
- 16,188 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 00:48
Well they would, wouldn't they? It's not as though they can now turn around and say "actually, we were only joking about all that environmental stuff - we're going back to having proper sponsors and not giving a stuff about that anymore."Originally posted by tidwell
Honda call for team budget caps in F1
Thoughts?
#6
Racer Joe
-
- 2,886 posts
- Joined: December 02
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 00:53
Originally posted by macoran
New business for Deloite Touche Ross and Price Waterhouse Cooper etc etc.
It is not even that. Say how does the FIA account for Honda's F1 effort that is being performed at one of their R&D centres in Japan? Or BMW's at Munich?
I don't see how they can effectively enforce a budget cap at all, when the vast majority of the expenditure is not salaries - unlike football and basketball teams.
#7
scheivlak
-
- 16,488 posts
- Joined: August 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:00
Apart from the -IMHO- hopeless task to monitor this all (how about the drivers' salaries, their personal sponsors etc ?), the next problem will be: do we choose euros, dollars, pounds?
And does every team pay all their R&D partners etc / are they paid by all their sponsors etc in euros, dollars, pounds etc respectively?
Can make a difference these days....
And does every team pay all their R&D partners etc / are they paid by all their sponsors etc in euros, dollars, pounds etc respectively?
Can make a difference these days....
#8
stevewf1
-
- 3,259 posts
- Joined: December 05
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:02
Why not?
Seemingly, everything else in F1 has been "capped", or at least limited - except for spending...
Seemingly, everything else in F1 has been "capped", or at least limited - except for spending...
#9
JForce
-
- 13,847 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:08
Originally posted by Jackman
Well they would, wouldn't they? It's not as though they can now turn around and say "actually, we were only joking about all that environmental stuff - we're going back to having proper sponsors and not giving a stuff about that anymore."
Word
#10
imaginesix
-
- 7,525 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 02:44
What a lunatic proposal, they can't even make it appear sensible to the press.
"Although it will be difficult to monitor, we think it can be achieved."
Understatement of the year (just in time for the awards too!)
"The concept of a budget cap a couple of years ago was thought to be fairly ludicrous. But if you look at the weaknesses of the counter-arguments and alternative solutions, you wonder whether budget-capping isn't the one you ought to find a solution for."
So it only looks like a good idea next to the acknowledged crazy ideas already in place? Wow, there's an endorsement.
"I'm not saying a budget cap is the easiest thing to apply, but is it any more difficult than the other things we're going to do?"
Ooops, careful there. You almost tripped over the truth.
"Although it will be difficult to monitor, we think it can be achieved."
Understatement of the year (just in time for the awards too!)
"The concept of a budget cap a couple of years ago was thought to be fairly ludicrous. But if you look at the weaknesses of the counter-arguments and alternative solutions, you wonder whether budget-capping isn't the one you ought to find a solution for."
So it only looks like a good idea next to the acknowledged crazy ideas already in place? Wow, there's an endorsement.
"I'm not saying a budget cap is the easiest thing to apply, but is it any more difficult than the other things we're going to do?"
Ooops, careful there. You almost tripped over the truth.
#11
tidwell
-
- 41 posts
- Joined: April 07
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 03:17
I agree with the majority that it'd be nearly impossible to monitor.
I also disagree with Honda's point of view that monitoring spending is just as difficult as the other changes being introduced by the FIA.. It's certainly a lot easier to put a limit on something the car can do or what the teams can do to their car than it is to keep tabs on the dollars a team spends.
I also disagree with Honda's point of view that monitoring spending is just as difficult as the other changes being introduced by the FIA.. It's certainly a lot easier to put a limit on something the car can do or what the teams can do to their car than it is to keep tabs on the dollars a team spends.
#12
AyePirate
-
- 5,823 posts
- Joined: April 00
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 05:00
Originally posted by Jackman
Well they would, wouldn't they? It's not as though they can now turn around and say "actually, we were only joking about all that environmental stuff - we're going back to having proper sponsors and not giving a stuff about that anymore."
It does come off as self serving bullshit doesn't it. Better be careful though that's how the current V8 came about - a bad suggestion by a team
that Max took a shine to.
I wonder if anyone has ever considered just calling the ciggie companies and getting that revenue stream going again.
#14
AyePirate
-
- 5,823 posts
- Joined: April 00
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 05:24
They could just make F1 "Open Source", then there would be little point in spending $500M/year to gain a couple of tenths. Most of the manufacturers would leave though. But then that poses the question "is that F1?",
#15
Dmitriy_Guller
-
- 6,120 posts
- Joined: July 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 05:39
I disagree with people scoffing at the notion that spending should be controlled, I think it is a very serious problem that endangers the long-term health of the sport, but I agree that this proposal is just cannot be enforced.
#16
Go_Scotty_Go!
-
- 455 posts
- Joined: February 07
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 06:04
Stupid idea and impossible to police.
We are on the right track, freeze the current engine and open other areas for innovation (KERS). Massively reduce testing and wind tunnel use - ban the winglets - keep adding more races...reduce downforce, get rid of traction control...
Some people actually support what Max is doing - if we really do get a car on slicks with a massive reduction in downforce in 2009 - then that is what this BB has been calling for (on the whole) for years...what is the problem??
We are on the right track, freeze the current engine and open other areas for innovation (KERS). Massively reduce testing and wind tunnel use - ban the winglets - keep adding more races...reduce downforce, get rid of traction control...
Some people actually support what Max is doing - if we really do get a car on slicks with a massive reduction in downforce in 2009 - then that is what this BB has been calling for (on the whole) for years...what is the problem??
#17
Jodum5
-
- 1,247 posts
- Joined: July 04
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 06:18
Some of the biggest sports in the world (NFL and NBA) have spending/salary caps. I dont see why it couldnt work in F1. It's the FIA's sport, if they want to regulat spending they could. Will they really? Well that's a question for the prophets...
#18
WACKO
-
- 2,293 posts
- Joined: June 03
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 08:58
Uncontrollable and definitely NOT Formula One. This is not budget racing. If Honda feel they can't keep up, let them start their own budget capped series. F1 has always been much of a free market and it has progressed because of that. Each and every team on the grid has benefited massively from that.
Controlling budgets is madness and won't be a success, because sponsors will just donate material assets. What for instance would anyone try to do against Marlboro paying Ferrari's drivers? Marlboro wants to, the drivers accept, but it relieves Ferrari from paying them. And there are many other examples.
Honda say they want equality, but indeed certainly won't be willing to exclude resources flowing from the corporation to the race team. Other privateer teams that don't have that would still be at disadvantage.
Controlling budgets is madness and won't be a success, because sponsors will just donate material assets. What for instance would anyone try to do against Marlboro paying Ferrari's drivers? Marlboro wants to, the drivers accept, but it relieves Ferrari from paying them. And there are many other examples.
Honda say they want equality, but indeed certainly won't be willing to exclude resources flowing from the corporation to the race team. Other privateer teams that don't have that would still be at disadvantage.
#19
ensign14
-
- 61,947 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 09:07
I've advocated that for ages. Make it a free formula but limit spending and tech. It'd make it more of a constructors' challenge than driving, but what the hey, you can't win a GP in a BMW let alone a Williams barring miracles.
Advertisement
#20
Buttoneer
-
- 19,094 posts
- Joined: May 04
Admin
Posted 28 December 2007 - 09:42
Great idea, but still impossible to police.Originally posted by Go_Scotty_Go!
Stupid idea and impossible to police.
I would much rather see the rules freed up to be used within a budget than have unlimited budget and forever tightening rules and closer and closer specs. Brawn talks about the creative and efficient use of budget and I find it hard to disagree with the sentiment. I'd love to see what the teams could do with, say, £150m and a much freer formula that allows us to see lots of different ways to create a racing car.
This would still be formula 1 and IMO would encompass much more of what I love in Formula 1. Tech being stretched to the limits and achievements from creative solutions and not sheer wallet-power.
#21
angst
-
- 7,135 posts
- Joined: December 03
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 10:10
Originally posted by Dmitriy_Guller
I disagree with people scoffing at the notion that spending should be controlled, I think it is a very serious problem that endangers the long-term health of the sport, but I agree that this proposal is just cannot be enforced.
This is stupid. The only reason that everybody gets all het up is because some of the manufacturers might leave. Of course spending is getting (getting?) ridiculous, because the manufacturers have upped the stakes. The spending has been so ludicrous that virtually all semblance of independent race car constructors competing has gone. In a way I think that F1 'eating' itself would be great. Let's say the manufacturers pull out (and if the economic picture doesn't improve then there's every chance that that will not be too far away), what will F1 be left with? Without tobacco money budgets will have to be small. It might be enough to put Bernie off, for a start (hooray!) - and with Bernie disinterested, there'd be little reason for his pal to stay on for much longer. That would leave the way open for independent constructors and engine manufacturers to enter the fray - within reasonable budgest. There'd be no Concorde Agreement. Customer chassis would be a reasonable way to go racing (Dallara, Lola etc.) without upsetting the likes of SFW.
Bring it on, I say.
#22
F1Champion
-
- 3,268 posts
- Joined: September 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 10:17
Originally posted by Racer Joe
It is not even that. Say how does the FIA account for Honda's F1 effort that is being performed at one of their R&D centres in Japan? Or BMW's at Munich?
I don't see how they can effectively enforce a budget cap at all, when the vast majority of the expenditure is not salaries - unlike football and basketball teams.
Totally agree they'll be loopholes exploited all over the place.
I'm surprised Honda's asking for this given that last year they were reputed to be one of the biggest spenders, spending around on the works team, Super Aguri and a new wind tunnel.
#23
Ross Stonefeld
-
- 70,106 posts
- Joined: August 99
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 10:18
It's contrary to science, business, and human nature. How on earth do they think it can work?
#24
JForce
-
- 13,847 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 10:49
You people who advocate an "open design within a budget" approach aren't thinking things through.
At the end of the day, there is a way that is better. The only variables are how long it takes and how much it costs you to figure it out.
So as soon as a team discover THE WAY (eg turbos), then everyone else is screwed until they copy it.
It wouldn't lead to close racing, or revolutionary cars and technical ideas, because we're at the stage where F1 is about the small advances. The nth degree of refinement.
And imagine how much money you'd spend if the regs were open? Forget a budget cap, because they'll always find a way. The manufacturers would spend billions attempting everything.
A cap on budgets in F1 cannot work. The reason it works in other sports is that the team members salaries are the costs, the parts that are capped. The NFL doesn't stop a team spending billions on stadiums, marketing, endorsements, just on the people on the field.
You could cap the drivers salaries. The team salaries. But can you actually expect to cap spending on R&D? You don't think Mercedes will just suddenly start doing R&D as part of their road division? That Ferrari won't start testing the **** out of every FXX out there with F1-related stuff? All to avoid the cap?
At the end of the day, there is a way that is better. The only variables are how long it takes and how much it costs you to figure it out.
So as soon as a team discover THE WAY (eg turbos), then everyone else is screwed until they copy it.
It wouldn't lead to close racing, or revolutionary cars and technical ideas, because we're at the stage where F1 is about the small advances. The nth degree of refinement.
And imagine how much money you'd spend if the regs were open? Forget a budget cap, because they'll always find a way. The manufacturers would spend billions attempting everything.
A cap on budgets in F1 cannot work. The reason it works in other sports is that the team members salaries are the costs, the parts that are capped. The NFL doesn't stop a team spending billions on stadiums, marketing, endorsements, just on the people on the field.
You could cap the drivers salaries. The team salaries. But can you actually expect to cap spending on R&D? You don't think Mercedes will just suddenly start doing R&D as part of their road division? That Ferrari won't start testing the **** out of every FXX out there with F1-related stuff? All to avoid the cap?
#25
Tenmantaylor
-
- 18,124 posts
- Joined: July 01
Member
#26
Risil
-
- 61,745 posts
- Joined: February 07
Administrator
Posted 28 December 2007 - 11:48
Originally posted by JForce
And imagine how much money you'd spend if the regs were open? Forget a budget cap, because they'll always find a way. The manufacturers would spend billions attempting everything.
But considering how Toyota have clearly stated that their lack of results is not a worry due to the positive publicity F1 generates for them (and ING have said the same thing as to Renault), would the risk of flouting these regulations and being caught with a Mclaren-sized fine or worse, plus the accompanying massive PR fallout, really be worth it?
In a few years' time, all the 'racers' and 'winners' will be lower down the teams' structures than they are at present - the people who would exploit any loophole, or break any rule, in order to gain a competitive advantage (as was displayed in a little too much detail in the recent Mclaren/Renault/Ferrari shenanigans), will be unable to contravene this proposed regulation. Except, I'd imagine, Ferrari, who are a special case.
#27
WHITE
-
- 1,498 posts
- Joined: July 05
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 11:48
Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
It's contrary to science, business, and human nature. How on earth do they think it can work?
#28
Spunout
-
- 12,351 posts
- Joined: April 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 11:54
Spending cap is ridiculous idea. There is no way to control the F1-related spending of car manufacturers. When BMW tests materials, components, aero, etc for their newest sportscar...some of that know-how or even parts can be used for F1 cars as well. If employee John Smith from Toyota works at road car department but happens to pay few visits to F1 department, who is there to monitor him? Just two examples.
Spending cap is not only impossible to govern, it would kill any chance of privateers entering F1. They would spend much of their say, 100 million per year for stuff car manufacturers already have or could easily get from their road car operations.
Spending cap is not only impossible to govern, it would kill any chance of privateers entering F1. They would spend much of their say, 100 million per year for stuff car manufacturers already have or could easily get from their road car operations.
#29
kanec
-
- 2,083 posts
- Joined: May 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 12:06
Originally posted by Spunout
Spending cap is ridiculous idea. There is no way to control the F1-related spending of car manufacturers. When BMW tests materials, components, aero, etc for their newest sportscar...some of that know-how or even parts can be used for F1 cars as well. If employee John Smith from Toyota works at road car department but happens to pay few visits to F1 department, who is there to monitor him? Just two examples.
Spending cap is not only impossible to govern, it would kill any chance of privateers entering F1. They would spend much of their say, 100 million per year for stuff car manufacturers already have or could easily get from their road car operations.
How is that any different to controlling time(?) with CFD and wind-tunnels? I wonder if that's the point Brawn and Fry are making.
#30
Buttoneer
-
- 19,094 posts
- Joined: May 04
Admin
Posted 28 December 2007 - 12:11
It is. Problem is there are flaws and limitations in policing both.Originally posted by kanec
How is that any different to controlling time(?) with CFD and wind-tunnels? I wonder if that's the point Brawn and Fry are making.
#31
Owen
-
- 13,178 posts
- Joined: September 06
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 12:20
Clearly Ross has had a look at the Honda budget (and done a mental comparision with the Ferrari resources) and realised they will struggle to beat them with this level of funding. Hence the plea for a budget cap.
Or am I being cynical?
Anyway, this would be a nightmare to police and would ensure lots of off track debate and dity politics which F1 doesn't need right now.
Or am I being cynical?
Anyway, this would be a nightmare to police and would ensure lots of off track debate and dity politics which F1 doesn't need right now.
#32
Buttoneer
-
- 19,094 posts
- Joined: May 04
Admin
Posted 28 December 2007 - 12:46
As we all know, Ferrari is a garagiste independent while Honda has all the resources of a global motor manufacturer behind it. Brawn probably has so many resources that he just doesn't know where to put them all, thus his call for a budget cap.Originally posted by Owen
Clearly Ross has had a look at the Honda budget (and done a mental comparision with the Ferrari resources) and realised they will struggle to beat them with this level of funding. Hence the plea for a budget cap.
Or am I being cynical?
#33
kar
-
- 10,434 posts
- Joined: January 06
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 12:47
Honda have spent a fortune, realised that didn't help them at all, so now they want to cut the budgets so that at least while losing they aren't spending a fortune doing it.
#34
miniman
-
- 2,457 posts
- Joined: May 00
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 13:28
By floating this idea, Ross already has the support of some teams, most prominently Ferrari. My gut instinct is that Ferrari can't sustain their current level of expenditures and if the budget wars continue their dominance will disappear in a few years time.
Budget caps will mainly benefit Ferrari by helping them extend by a few years their current superiority; It will also help some of the less well funded teams by allowing them to wallow in mediocrity rather than forcing them into downright embarrassing on track performances.
I don't know what the answer is, the quasi spec rules in effect today coupled with future budget caps will take away from the concept of F1 as we know it. On the other hand, unrestrained spending will drive all privateers and some cost-aware companies away, benefiting only 2 or 3 large global companies.
A partial solution lies in a judicial enactment of rules by FIA. I think that restricting aero development by mandating teams to use only FIA owned wind tunnels would be a compromise worth looking into. FIA can't police budgets but they can police on-track testing and wind tunnel use.
Budget caps will mainly benefit Ferrari by helping them extend by a few years their current superiority; It will also help some of the less well funded teams by allowing them to wallow in mediocrity rather than forcing them into downright embarrassing on track performances.
I don't know what the answer is, the quasi spec rules in effect today coupled with future budget caps will take away from the concept of F1 as we know it. On the other hand, unrestrained spending will drive all privateers and some cost-aware companies away, benefiting only 2 or 3 large global companies.
A partial solution lies in a judicial enactment of rules by FIA. I think that restricting aero development by mandating teams to use only FIA owned wind tunnels would be a compromise worth looking into. FIA can't police budgets but they can police on-track testing and wind tunnel use.
#35
dgduris
-
- 251 posts
- Joined: June 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 13:55
Originally posted by Jodum5
Some of the biggest sports in the world (NFL and NBA) have spending/salary caps. I dont see why it couldnt work in F1. It's the FIA's sport, if they want to regulat spending they could. Will they really? Well that's a question for the prophets...
Yeah! But F1 is (predominantly?) about the technology, not the athletes. So you are spending money to CREATE the ultimate solutions to a given set of rules. That's hard to cap.
Think about these dynamics, though: Honda and Toyota are vast corporations. Ferrari and McLaren are relatively small and, I suspect, it is relatively easy to go over there and see what's going on (presence of discs and documents from other teams aside). Honda and Toyota, though, are globally located companies. How difficult would it be for some little division of either of those global giants to "help" with a little research for the F1 boys?..and how easy would that be to keep hidden?
When F1 gets too expensive, Todt and diMontezemolo will theaten to pull the Cavallino from the grid and Max will come up with a solution.
#36
Motormedia
-
- 2,024 posts
- Joined: April 07
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 14:07
I have long since advocated a change of the economical structure of the sport (not that I expected anyone of merit to listen, but as an enthusiast...) as the only means to cut the escalating costs. A budget cap would be very hard to police. It would probably require the teams to be put under FIA:s custody. The teams would also have to work as complete separate and completely independent entitites, in every sense, from any manufacturers. All work has to be done in house. No commisioning of jobs to sponsors, partners or owners/manufacturers. However, I can't see this happening.
Another way of dealing with the problem is to lessen the incentive to spend. It could be done by inversing the television money. The lesser teams get more. Another idea I have is that the lesser teams get more windtunnel- and CFD-time than the better teams. It should be possible to sell the time and thus the lesser teams can spend the money where they feel they need it most. In the end, it might even out the competition. But somehow, I don't see this happening either...
Motormedia
Another way of dealing with the problem is to lessen the incentive to spend. It could be done by inversing the television money. The lesser teams get more. Another idea I have is that the lesser teams get more windtunnel- and CFD-time than the better teams. It should be possible to sell the time and thus the lesser teams can spend the money where they feel they need it most. In the end, it might even out the competition. But somehow, I don't see this happening either...
Motormedia
#37
kanec
-
- 2,083 posts
- Joined: May 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 14:43
Originally posted by Buttoneer
It is. Problem is there are flaws and limitations in policing both.
Exactly the point I was trying to make, and the issue that I think they might be raising.
Spending cap vs limiting aerodynamics - It's just as possible as it is absurd.
The difference is that one will have an effect (attempted) that is targetted at overall expenditure.
Are they trying to reduce money or are they trying to reduce aerodynamics? What's more important?
#38
undersquare
-
- 18,929 posts
- Joined: November 07
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 15:05
Even if it could be defined and enforced, it would reduce F1 to the level of Scrapheap Challenge. Raising sponsorship is part of the challenge.
All that's needed is a set of rules, and distribution of income, that allows a clever team to climb the ladder, and the bottom teams to at least stay in business.
All that's needed is a set of rules, and distribution of income, that allows a clever team to climb the ladder, and the bottom teams to at least stay in business.
#39
Dudley
-
- 9,248 posts
- Joined: March 00
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 15:09
Well of course Honda want this. Of all teams they have the most places to hide extra spending. R+D at Honda's road facilities, Super aguri's budget etc.
Perhaps Honda wouldn't have a problem with money in F1 if they didn't pay $80m a year to run a completely separate 2 car team.
Those sports don't have overt team sponsership.
Lewis Hamilton signs for McLaren for 1p a year.
Lewis Hamilton signs up to make a commercial for Mercedes for £20m.
Problem solved, he costs McLaren 1p.
Perhaps Honda wouldn't have a problem with money in F1 if they didn't pay $80m a year to run a completely separate 2 car team.
Some of the biggest sports in the world (NFL and NBA) have spending/salary caps
Those sports don't have overt team sponsership.
Lewis Hamilton signs for McLaren for 1p a year.
Lewis Hamilton signs up to make a commercial for Mercedes for £20m.
Problem solved, he costs McLaren 1p.
Advertisement
#40
Dudley
-
- 9,248 posts
- Joined: March 00
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 15:12
Originally posted by Dmitriy_Guller
I disagree with people scoffing at the notion that spending should be controlled, I think it is a very serious problem that endangers the long-term health of the sport, but I agree that this proposal is just cannot be enforced.
I don't think THAT many people have a massive problem with the concept, they're just inteligent to know that with big companies involved it's just not workable.
#41
AyePirate
-
- 5,823 posts
- Joined: April 00
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 15:21
Originally posted by kanec
Exactly the point I was trying to make, and the issue that I think they might be raising.
Spending cap vs limiting aerodynamics - It's just as possible as it is absurd.
The difference is that one will have an effect (attempted) that is targetted at overall expenditure.
Are they trying to reduce money or are they trying to reduce aerodynamics? What's more important?
Well I guess the theory is that if there is reduction of aerodynamics that at least you render expenditure on aero useless.
You can still keep two wind tunnels running 24/7 it just won't do you any good. Now I think the teams will just spend the big budgets
somewhere else like KERS, but at least that technology is in its infancy.
Seems to me low downforce formula is easier to enforce than trying to figure out if manufacturer x is hiding F1 spending
somewhere else in its corporate labyrinth. At least with the aero limits what you see is what you get.
Will we be left with something that is more akin to a more powerful GP2 (or *gasp* and open wheel NASCAR) ? I don't know if that is such a bad thing. I haven't watched a lot of GP2 but I have noticed a lot of people saying that the racing is miles ahead of its big brother.
In the mid 60's the cars were pretty much all alike and that was considered a golden age.
#42
WHITE
-
- 1,498 posts
- Joined: July 05
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 15:25
Teams spend as much money as they can get. In other words : expenditures depend on incomes.
Suppose a budget cap is stablished, what if a team is able to rise much more money than it is allowed to spend ?
Anyway, it scares me whenever people talk about limiting costs. Whatever made in that direction has had just the opposite effect ( eg. sole tyre supplier ). Why would it be different now ?
Suppose a budget cap is stablished, what if a team is able to rise much more money than it is allowed to spend ?
Anyway, it scares me whenever people talk about limiting costs. Whatever made in that direction has had just the opposite effect ( eg. sole tyre supplier ). Why would it be different now ?
#43
kanec
-
- 2,083 posts
- Joined: May 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 15:28
Originally posted by Dudley
Well of course Honda want this. Of all teams they have the most places to hide extra spending. R+D at Honda's road facilities, Super aguri's budget etc.
Perhaps Honda wouldn't have a problem with money in F1 if they didn't pay $80m a year to run a completely separate 2 car team.
Those sports don't have overt team sponsership.
Lewis Hamilton signs for McLaren for 1p a year.
Lewis Hamilton signs up to make a commercial for Mercedes for £20m.
Problem solved, he costs McLaren 1p.
Which is abuse of the imposed system. It's found out and McLaren fined 100m and docked of constructors points.
Canterbury Bulldogs (Aussie Rugby League) did the same discretion if I recall correctly and they ended up with a similiar punishment and officials were jailed. However, the 'salary' cap is easier to police than R&D.
#44
LePatron
-
- 296 posts
- Joined: September 03
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 15:35
Originally posted by Buttoneer
Great idea, but still impossible to police.
I would much rather see the rules freed up to be used within a budget than have unlimited budget and forever tightening rules and closer and closer specs. Brawn talks about the creative and efficient use of budget and I find it hard to disagree with the sentiment. I'd love to see what the teams could do with, say, £150m and a much freer formula that allows us to see lots of different ways to create a racing car.
This would still be formula 1 and IMO would encompass much more of what I love in Formula 1. Tech being stretched to the limits and achievements from creative solutions and not sheer wallet-power.
I pretty much agree with Buttoneer on this. I might also add that the cap could only be applicable to a team's operating budget and not their capital budget. Otherwise how could a lower tier team add say a full sized wind tunnel similar to those used by the top teams.
#45
kanec
-
- 2,083 posts
- Joined: May 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 15:36
Originally posted by AyePirate
Well I guess the theory is that if there is reduction of aerodynamics that at least you render expenditure on aero useless.
You can still keep two wind tunnels running 24/7 it just won't do you any good. Now I think the teams will just spend the big budgets
somewhere else like KERS, but at least that technology is in its infancy.
Seems to me low downforce formula is easier to enforce than trying to figure out if manufacturer x is hiding F1 spending
somewhere else in its corporate labyrinth. At least with the aero limits what you see is what you get.
Will we be left with something that is more akin to a more powerful GP2 (or *gasp* and open wheel NASCAR) ? I don't know if that is such a bad thing. I haven't watched a lot of GP2 but I have noticed a lot of people saying that the racing is miles ahead of its big brother.
In the mid 60's the cars were pretty much all alike and that was considered a golden age.
That's a bloody good final point.
#46
imaginesix
-
- 7,525 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 16:02
It's hard to sneak a player on the field who doesn't appear in the payroll.Originally posted by Jodum5
Some of the biggest sports in the world (NFL and NBA) have spending/salary caps. I dont see why it couldnt work in F1. It's the FIA's sport, if they want to regulat spending they could. Will they really? Well that's a question for the prophets...
#47
WHITE
-
- 1,498 posts
- Joined: July 05
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 16:24
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jodum5
Some of the biggest sports in the world (NFL and NBA) have spending/salary caps. I dont see why it couldnt work in F1. It's the FIA's sport, if they want to regulat spending they could. Will they really? Well that's a question for the prophets...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote by Imaginesix:
It's hard to sneak a player on the field who doesn't appear in the payroll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not now much about how sports in the USA work but wasn't the 25 year contract that Magic Johnson signed with the Lakers an example of how circunventing a salary cap ? It meant that he was only being paid 1M $ yearly.
As Dudley mentioned, Hamilton could be "oficcially" paid 1 $ and I would add that McLaren could hire his father as a sort of advisor ( or whatever they might like ) and pay him 20M $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jodum5
Some of the biggest sports in the world (NFL and NBA) have spending/salary caps. I dont see why it couldnt work in F1. It's the FIA's sport, if they want to regulat spending they could. Will they really? Well that's a question for the prophets...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote by Imaginesix:
It's hard to sneak a player on the field who doesn't appear in the payroll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not now much about how sports in the USA work but wasn't the 25 year contract that Magic Johnson signed with the Lakers an example of how circunventing a salary cap ? It meant that he was only being paid 1M $ yearly.
As Dudley mentioned, Hamilton could be "oficcially" paid 1 $ and I would add that McLaren could hire his father as a sort of advisor ( or whatever they might like ) and pay him 20M $
#48
scheivlak
-
- 16,488 posts
- Joined: August 01
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 16:31
Originally posted by AyePirate
In the mid 60's the cars were pretty much all alike and that was considered a golden age.
Very superficially...
Or maybe you mean the mid 70s?
In 1965 you had monocoques and tubes, V8s of all kinds, flat12s, that Honda screamer....
And let's not start about '66 and '67 when everybody was pioneering in a new formula! H16s, V8, V12s of all sorts, 2, 3 and 4 stroke engines...
And for me, and I guess for quite a few other people as well, that variety was part of the appeal!
#49
AyePirate
-
- 5,823 posts
- Joined: April 00
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 16:36
Originally posted by scheivlak
Very superficially...
Or maybe you mean the mid 70s?
In 1965 you had monocoques and tubes, V8s of all kinds, flat12s, that Honda screamer....
And let's not start about '66 and '67 when everybody was pioneering in a new formula! H16s, V8, V12s of all sorts, 2, 3 and 4 stroke engines...
And for me, and I guess for quite a few other people as well, that variety was part of the appeal!
Sorry I was unclear. I meant from an aerodynamic standpoint.
#50
Dudley
-
- 9,248 posts
- Joined: March 00
Member
Posted 28 December 2007 - 18:33
Originally posted by kanec
Which is abuse of the imposed system. It's found out and McLaren fined 100m and docked of constructors points.
Canterbury Bulldogs (Aussie Rugby League) did the same discretion if I recall correctly and they ended up with a similiar punishment and officials were jailed. However, the 'salary' cap is easier to police than R&D.
Yes but obviously it wouldn't be as blatent as paying Lewis a 1p.
You can't ban him from doing paid Mercedes work though. I'm just saying the price of that will increase a little bit.
And that can apply to every aspect of the business, especially for the manufacturer teams.
What if Timo is paid £1m to drive for Toyota F1, but another £2m as an ambassador for Toyota's road cars including appearances and adverts.
How is that even an abuse? But even though it couldn't be counted in a cap, it's effectively his Toyota salary.
