128 replies to this topic

[Timstr11]

http://www.motorspor...t_12031606.html
(By Dieter Rencken)

Apparently 10 (of the 12 ) teams have officially approached the FIA to take over policing of the Resource Restriction Agreement via the Sporting Regulations.
Both RedBull's teams did not sign the proposal.

A new working group on cost control will be launched, to be led by Pat Symonds and Patrick Head.
The core task of this working group will be:
-To investigate how to cut costs further without spoiling the show
-To create a framework for mandatory audits. This is to enable auditors to inspect all records of the teams in order to determine whether they adhere to the actual conditions of the RRA

--------

This will be an interesting development.
Really hope they can work out an agreement with the FIA.
A majority vote form the teams will be enough to get this through.
So far, RedBull are isolated.

[nbhb]

http://www.motorspor...t_12031606.html
(By Dieter Rencken)

Apparently 10 (of the 12 ) teams have officially approached the FIA to take over policing of the Resource Restriction Agreement via the Sporting Regulations.
Both RedBull's teams did not sign the proposal.

A new working group on cost control will be launched, to be led by Pat Symonds and Patrick Head.
The core task of this working group will be:
-To investigate how to cut costs further without spoiling the show
-To create a framework for mandatory audits. This is to enable auditors to inspect all records of the teams in order to determine whether they adhere to the actual conditions of the RRA

--------

This will be an interesting development.
Really hope they can work out an agreement with the FIA.
A majority vote form the teams will be enough to get this through.
So far, RedBull are isolated.

There are so many voices and signs that RBR are spending much more... You have to wonder why....

[george1981]

Pat Symonds? Isn't he still technically banned by the FIA and can't be employed directly by a team yet. He wass a contractor at Marussia unless his ban has been lifted.
This isn't a personal attack on Pat at all, I think he was treated very badly by the FIA in this incident which had the hallmarks of a Max Mosley witchhunt.

[Rob]

Pat Symonds? Isn't he still technically banned by the FIA and can't be employed directly by a team yet. He wass a contractor at Marussia unless his ban has been lifted.
This isn't a personal attack on Pat at all, I think he was treated very badly by the FIA in this incident which had the hallmarks of a Max Mosley witchhunt.

The ban was deemed to be illegal by the courts I seem to remember.

[slideways]

He can't return to a top position until next year, I guess he'll be a 'consultant' for this project.

[wrcva]

any initiative that gives more power to FIA cannot be good for sporting ... but of course it will be ideal for Bernie and others collecting $.

adding RRA to sporting regulations still will not be enough for policing unless FIA takes full financial control of every business entity, including budgets, purchasing, payables, and bank accounts (and have them on the same accounting system). you know where this is going = FIA issue stock car...

[freya]

This seems like FOTA teams setting their marks and basically ferrari was smart enough to play along too. RBR will regret that decision.

[anbeck]

Great. A Working Group. They seem to like that.

Sarcasm aside, I am all for it, but there will always be teams b*tching around, and there will always be ways to circumvent it, and people will always say it's either unfair to or gives an advantage to those teams also building their own engine (Ferrari, Mercedes). But I prefer them to be limited to, say, 150 millions and cheat themselves to 170 millions each, instead of having teams with 50 millions and teams with 400 millions. This won't make HRT a better team, but it would ensure a healthy top drawer of the sport and more interest from small and upcoming teams to fill the spots that HRT and Marussia will leave. For nearly 1 and a half decade F1 has lived on manufacturers and then billionaires (RB, TR, FI , Virgin and now Sauber - there were also negotiations with Arrows and mid-easter oil sheiks, but Arrows just was too early to make it work against manufacturers). Even if there were enough billionaires around, F1 should not count on their charity, but rather provide a sound business model to attract teams like Williams and Jordan.

Purists will whine a lot. But in any game the goal is to make the most of a given rule set to be the best. And there is no reason why spending cannot be included in this rule set. Chess is not one of the greatest games because its rules are so loose, but because its rules are so strict.
They will soon stop whining, and when resource restriction (water, air, fuel, etc.) have become a part of all our lives in 20 years, Formula 1 will not only have long accepted it, but might also have been a good example to think about being sustainable, instead of its 1970s/80s image of 'throw all at it'. You've got to go with the times. Or better go ahead, otherwise F1 will soon become an anachronism. Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall: embrace resource restriction and make F1 something that will survive!

[saudoso]

My opinion stays the same, you just cant enforce it. So if some teams (most of them?) want to fool themselves by adhering to the limit and believing everyone else will let them

[Stormsky68]

I'm not normally one for handing more power to the FIA, but the teams have shown they are incapable of self policing this, whilst there have been a lot of signs RB has simply stick 2 fingers up to the whole agreement

A necessary evil I'm afraid

[WhiteBlue]

any initiative that gives more power to FIA cannot be good for sporting ... but of course it will be ideal for Bernie and others collecting $.

adding RRA to sporting regulations still will not be enough for policing unless FIA takes full financial control of every business entity, including budgets, purchasing, payables, and bank accounts (and have them on the same accounting system). you know where this is going = FIA issue stock car...

I totally disagree. There is no way around some form of cost control in F1. Historically we already had the situation in 2008/9 that all teams were in agreement except Ferrari at that time who had a secrete veto. Instead of implementing what they had worked out in the working group they finally did the RRA which is better than nothing but worse than a sensible solution because it does not cover the drive train, marketing, hospitality, driver salaries, dividends, director salaries, fuels and a bunch of other things that give the rich top teams additional spending room to gain competitiveness.

The FiA has been completely inactive about this issue and there is no reason whatsoever to bad mouth them here. If a budget cap has any influence on the diversity it is not going to be reduced. We currently have technical and sporting rules that are solely motivated by cost cutting. Those can actually be abolished when true budget control is established. Perhaps you remember that the same was proposed in 2009.

I reckon it is still the objective to go back to spending levels of the mid 90ties. Par Head and Pat Symmonds should both be familiar with that situation. I expect that they will keep the tyres standardized because a tyre influenced championship serves no team and only drives cost.

[zyphro]

There are so many voices and signs that RBR are spending much more... You have to wonder why....

Indeed, how on earth are Torro Rosso still there? They're blatantly red bull no.2.

[Drummingcat]

My opinion stays the same, you just cant enforce it. So if some teams (most of them?) want to fool themselves by adhering to the limit and believing everyone else will let them ;)

I know what you are saying mate. But if they FIA get involved, use majority rule given that 10 out of 12 have agreed and tell RB that if they dont comply, they can still race but their results will be excluded.

This story makes me really angry, Capitalism in a nutshell, even in a world with vast wealth such as F1, the wealthiest will still take the piss.

[sharo]

If I may rephrase a saying: If you want something botched, create a committee (a working group in this case)

[saudoso]

I know what you are saying mate. But if they FIA get involved, use majority rule given that 10 out of 12 have agreed and tell RB that if they dont comply, they can still race but their results will be excluded.

This story makes me really angry, Capitalism in a nutshell, even in a world with vast wealth such as F1, the wealthiest will still take the piss.

The FED can't keep track of bank's money, the IRS of peoples. Why do you think the FIA would?

You just build a wind tunnel here in Brazil, email me the drawings and I'll email you the test results. Call it the Red Bull Reno Racers studio. Say you are developping planes here.

Next to it we can build an engine test bed. Who will know?

It's really much esier to relly chocke the effin aero rules really tight and this money race will run a lot slower.

Edited by saudoso, 16 March 2012 - 16:36.

[D.M.N.]

I see a few team bosses have commented on this in today's Press Conference: http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/98300

Q. (Dieter Rencken – The Citizen) Christian, last week in the press conference, the team principals that were present confirmed that ten of the twelve had signed a copy of the letter to the FIA regarding cost-cutting and policing of the Resource Restriction Agreement (RRA). I believe that your team and your sister team didn't sign; is there a particular reason for that?

Horner: Yeah. We didn't see the letter. Simple. I can't sign something I didn't see. Whether or not we agree with the content is something else. Firstly, I think what I would like to make clear is that Red Bull is absolutely fully behind cost control in Formula One. Whether the RRA is the right route to achieve that is what we question. I believe that letter, from what I read, requested for the FIA to police the RRA which, in our opinion would be the wrong route. We believe full-heartedly in controlling costs in Formula One and not frivolous spending, but we think that there are better ways of doing that and containing that through sporting and technical regulations as opposed to a resource restriction that relies on equivalence and apportionment of time and personnel, which is always tricky in subsidiary companies, particularly of automotive manufacturers. So we would be totally open to any discussion that involves cost control that pursued those avenues.

Q. (Ian Parkes – Press Association) Continuing on that thread, why would you not want to be policed when ten other teams would agree to that? That would suggest you've got something to hide in your accounts or the way you manage your finances?

Horner: Or it would suggest that we're structured in a different way, as a single entity as a race team, and I think that there are things that, when FOTA was first created, did that: clear and tangible restrictions in personnel, restrictions in the amount of engines, restrictions in the amount of gearboxes, restrictions in the amount of testing that has been permitted. All things that you can see policed and genuinely save costs and we think they're the type of things that should be focused on rather than apportionment of people's time and equivalence which is, in any formula, in any mechanism, is fraught with problems and difficulties. I think it was well intended at the time but I think – as with all these things – when you drill into the detail, it's something much harder to police, especially when there are companies or teams which are subsidiaries of other organisations. So for us we would prefer to keep it simple and go on tangible, measurable items.

Q. (Ian Parkes – Press Association) Following that up with Martin and Stefano, can you appreciate what Christian is saying?

Whitmarsh: I think the challenge of controlling costs in Formula One is something that we've all had a go at and if you can do it by a simple singular number that you can count, see, feel, touch then it's quite a nice simple thing to do. So I can relate to everything that Christian has said. We've done some of those things, we need to do more, and I think you've to carry on. The fact is at the moment we in this room all know that there are Formula One teams that are struggling to survive which tells us that we're not doing enough and that's why we've got to keep pushing.

Domenicalli: What I can add is that for sure that is something that we were discussing. We said – well, we were putting on the table certain conditions for us to be considered part of the general picture, because as we said, this could be a fragment of what is really controlled through the sporting and technical regulations, because that, at the end of the day, is the biggest thing that you can consider tangible and you can see would be some effort in saving money, so I think that overall this is the target we should aim at and I would say that if I have to look at Ferrari's interests, thank God that our financial situation is really good in terms of general financial position for the future. But we know that the situation of Formula One is not so stable. We know that there are a lot of struggles around so we need to put aside our self-interest a little bit, to make sure that we can look ahead in order to make sure that we are a lot competing in Formula One, because this is a very critical period, where everyone is smiling but we know that it's very tough.

Q. (Dieter Rencken – The Citizen) Christian, back to the letter: does it worry you that ten people had actually left the two Red Bull teams off the list of invitees, and secondly, being one who has never really been slow at coming forward, did you not consider getting a copy of the letter and seeing if you would like to append your signature?

Horner: Maybe it will be printed on the internet, you never know. Maybe you've got a copy that I can look at later, Dieter. As I've said, cost control is something that is important, it's something that Red Bull fully supports but we don't agree with the current RRA. Within the RRA you've got restricted and non-restricted areas. How on earth can KERS be non-restricted, a gearbox be non-restricted? So open resources and spend allowed on those areas. So that's why we think a more workable solution… and indeed, we've sat down and tried, certainly prior to Christmas, and I don't think our teams are so different in structure that we can't find a solution and hopefully, with some productive discussion, moving forward, a solution can be found, to make Formula One cost control for the top teams, but also, importantly, as Martin says, make it affordable for the teams in the middle of the grid and at the back of the grid. The cost to be competitive in Formula One at present is too high. I don't think anybody will dispute that. The debate is how we achieve it.

Q. (Dieter Rencken – The Citizen) Did you not try and get yourself a copy of the letter?

Horner: If I don't agree with the content of the letter then why do I need a copy? Thank you.

Talk about contradicting yourself Christian, you can't really say you agree or disagree without seeing the full letter. At least request a copy of the letter and then come to that conclusion instead of taking what people tell you at face value.

[PassWind]

So clearly this thread is lining up as another in the long line of Red Bull bashes, well done! At least its predictable........

So to the matter at hand, in a commerce based society where the method of aquiring goods or services is based on the value prercieved or restricted by virtue of bottom line costs YOU CANNOT set a limit on cost of expenditure when there is a competitive outcome that is performance based in the way F1 is.


Is Adrian Newey (Insert your favorite teams tech guru, Adrian Newey is not the issue) worth the same money as John Smith the paper plane aero guru?

The teams think they can set a cost against the developement of an idea? ********, this is a competition and in all cases no matter how specified the rules are you cannot set spending limits. There will always be a way around it, and on that premise there is no advantage to anyone doing this just to have the attachement of cost removed from the sport, it would actually be more expensive to maintain hiding the costs.

Even if the FIA installed a team of people into each racing team that took over control of direct expenditure, they pay all the teams bills and conduct a huge amount of audits to ensure nothing that goes into, on, is developed or prototyped does not appear as an expenditure in the teams sheets it would still fail. (easily got around as all the teams employees sudenly work on a volunteer basis and have personal sponsors just because they are nice people). Hi my name is Adrian I would like to donate a wing to RedBull.

So given the driving factor which is the reason why teams spend a lot of money is to gain a competition edge is winning races, the way you change costs is to change the way you win. So that would mean the race results are given on performance vs costs expended, not who came first, it may be the last guy in the race if his expenditure has such a multiplier that he wins anway, horse and cart anyone. All bodes well for exciting racing, rather go to the local rodeo.

[Sakae]

RRA and Budgetary restrictions in F1 are really not correct instruments for cost control, and should not replace team's home steering committee and their in-house budget. Technical and Sporting regulations should suffice to keep everyone's feet on the ground.

Edited by Sakae, 23 March 2012 - 23:01.

[One]

Reflecting the Ferrari domination era, I love the current racing a lot more, simply because the competition between the drivers are a lot more edgier and the fall of fate is more drastic. There are teams going up harder like Williams and falling quicker like FI. Never the less, the shortage of money got some Good Side in structurising this 'level playing field' by taking too expensive performance differentiaties like excentric metal and excessieve use of computers science away even from the richest teams...

It is none sense there fore to connect this attempt to introduce limit on spending and Red Bull. As a matter of fact Newey may yet again prove his worth simply because he is smarter than any other gurus on the grid. Red Bull after all may prove its smart organization up against the like of Ferrari and show the way. In fact that is what Mclaren us doing now and that is impressive enough to me.

So what is wrong with fighting with poorer guys on equal terms? There is no emotional damage made to richer guys by doing so? I think it will be fun to think in other way round, to voluntarily accept the spending limit to make the racing a lot more exciting. I guess I am not the only one who think that Formula one will win a lot more by doing So...

Edited by One, 23 March 2012 - 23:29.

[engel]

Horner's problem isn't the RRA itself, it's the fact he views some teams steering the RRA away from Horner's strenth (aero) and towards their strength (mech/electrical) so of course he's not going to agree to it.

Personally I kinda agree with his point. Assign a budget, assign maximal employees/work hours/whatever. But why do you need to control how many hours go into CFD and how many go into KERS? Should be up to the individual teams to decide where their priorities lie.

[One]

It is like tire. Every one gets the same sets of soft and same sets of rain and so on. The one put inter on wrong moment will lose. Smarter one win. If every one gets 20000 hours of aero smarter ones know exactly what to test and achieve results.

[pingu666]

kers is unlimited because its ment to be relivent to road cars and other things that might use it, aero is now about slight increasemental gains.

how many hours do they get per year now for aero?

[DrProzac]

I wouldn't give the FIA control over and old shed, not to mention this. They've already shown how incompetent they are, numerous times.

Personally I kinda agree with his point. Assign a budget, assign maximal employees/work hours/whatever. But why do you need to control how many hours go into CFD and how many go into KERS? Should be up to the individual teams to decide where their priorities lie.

Exactly, ridiculous idea.

[Sakae]

Reflecting the Ferrari domination era, I love the current racing a lot more, simply because the competition between the drivers are a lot more edgier and the fall of fate is more drastic. There are teams going up harder like Williams and falling quicker like FI. Never the less, the shortage of money got some Good Side in structurising this 'level playing field' by taking too expensive performance differentiaties like excentric metal and excessieve use of computers science away even from the richest teams...

It is none sense there fore to connect this attempt to introduce limit on spending and Red Bull. As a matter of fact Newey may yet again prove his worth simply because he is smarter than any other gurus on the grid. Red Bull after all may prove its smart organization up against the like of Ferrari and show the way. In fact that is what Mclaren us doing now and that is impressive enough to me.

So what is wrong with fighting with poorer guys on equal terms? There is no emotional damage made to richer guys by doing so? I think it will be fun to think in other way round, to voluntarily accept the spending limit to make the racing a lot more exciting. I guess I am not the only one who think that Formula one will win a lot more by doing So...

I always thought that F1 is about Ferrari, Mercedes, and another six or eight teams like them, rather than ten times "two guys garage".

[Octavian]

Great news.
It's very telling that RBR haven't signed - it's clearly obvious they were massively overspending on the RRA. If teams can't be trusted to stick to a gentleman's agreement which is in the very best interests of the sport then the FIA should become involved in regulating it.

[NotSoSilentBob]

Indeed, how on earth are Torro Rosso still there? They're blatantly red bull no.2.

In the same way that Sauber were / are always Ferrari #2 on important decisions.

[One]

kers is unlimited because its ment to be relivent to road cars and other things that might use it, aero is now about slight increasemental gains.

how many hours do they get per year now for aero?

This opinion to make Kers budgets limited is a bad idea IMHO. In principle anything you do must be limited in right amount. This is crucial as well to set the exact amount that allow teams to cut their knowledge on their cars.

[D.M.N.]

http://www1.skysport.../12433/7633145/

"Representatives from five teams - Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Williams and Marussia - are due to meet in Paris on Thursday to discuss the way forward for the RRA in greater detail"

[KirilVarbanov]

C. Horner told Sky:

"But there are better ways of doing that and containing that through the sporting and technical regulations as opposed to a resource restriction that relies on equivalence and apportionment of time and personnel.

[pingu666]

im of the opposite view, I mean there still spending a ton more than they would have in the 60s,70s,80s, despite the rules getting ever tighter, and engines becoming a smaller cost proptionatley. and the budget cap in lmp2 seems to be working well...

[Sakae]

Great news.
It's very telling that RBR haven't signed - it's clearly obvious they were massively overspending on the RRA. If teams can't be trusted to stick to a gentleman's agreement which is in the very best interests of the sport then the FIA should become involved in regulating it.

Horner is actually close to my way of thinking. I would rather drop RRA (just as budget control) of the agenda, and ensure that F1 becomes WCC through competition of ideas, rather than worrying who is testing what and how many hours. Since I like small, but effective government, I do not want FiA to get involved in cost control at all. They have messed up (IMO) sporting and technical regulations for quite a long time, why we need more of it? If I had one wish to raise with JT, I would say, please, fix normative references on the books first, before you make some additional ones.

[outofbounds]

ensure that F1 becomes WCC through competition of ideas, rather than worrying who is testing what and how many hours.

Problem is some ideas cost a hell of a lot more than others to implement.

[Sakae]

Problem I think partially is in flawed thinking, that BE has invented racing. What Mr. BE invented was how to turn someone else's good idea into a cash-cow for himself. Returning back in history of GP concept, it was endeavor in which automakers fielded their products, and focus was on making name for their company by being best, rather than supporting and being equal to 2-guys garage just because 2-guys garage brings some additional cash to the equity firm. F1 initially was never about being equal to someone, a concept of defeat, it was about being special, different, something which got lost along the way. I would like nothing more than having more automakers to join the table, and develop common technical regulations as they see it, rather than as FiA sees it. Cost of that technology is the natural restrictions RRA seeks (unsuccessfully). I am sure those are corporate men who know a lot about business, and could unleash technical potential of the sport once again, rather than dwelling on stupid ideas whether exhaust should aim this way or that way. On cost side, well, let global market regulate what companies spend. They have their internal budgets, bookkeepers, steering committees, and ultimately a law of diminishing returns, which puts lid on overspending, per Toyota example. I trust that system rather more, than giving nonsensical penalties to drivers just because team had to change a gearbox.

[Timstr11]

Horner is actually close to my way of thinking. I would rather drop RRA (just as budget control) of the agenda, and ensure that F1 becomes WCC through competition of ideas, rather than worrying who is testing what and how many hours. Since I like small, but effective government, I do not want FiA to get involved in cost control at all. They have messed up (IMO) sporting and technical regulations for quite a long time, why we need more of it? If I had one wish to raise with JT, I would say, please, fix normative references on the books first, before you make some additional ones.

I don't think you have understood what Horner wants.
Horner does want further restrictions via Sporting and Technical regulations, namely for engines, gearboxes and KERS. Horner believes manufacturer teams like McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes have an advantage in those areas.
He wants more and stricter regulations in those areas. Is that what you want?

If you want F1 to be more about competition of ideas, certainly more and stricter technical rules will not help.
I agree with the direction of the FOTA members and Ferrari to look at the resource side, be it money spent and/or the use of R&D tools. This coupled to freeing up the technical regulations will lead to more technical freedom, which is the fabric of this sport.

Personally I think the FIA is doing a good job, given that it's a very difficult task to police F1 regulations, both sporting and technical. They don't always get it right, but there is no anarchy by any stretch of the imagination. it's all going fairly well.

Edited by Timstr11, 28 March 2012 - 14:14.

[mclarensmps]

Keep the FIA out of this. We don't need them to have more control, it will only be bad news. Those who think RB are not agreeing to this because they are overspending are looking at this very short sightedly. In the long run, this is always going to be bad for the sport... the more the FIA meddles, the worse it is for the sport, as has been in the past.

[Sakae]

Horner does want further restrictions via Sporting and Technical regulations, namely for engines, gearboxes and KERS. Horner believes manufacturer teams like McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes have an advantage in those areas.
He wants more and stricter regulations in those areas. Is that what you want?

There must be some misunderstanding of his agenda then. Without seeing specifics of it, it's difficult to argue about it, but on face of it as written in here, I think that's perhaps one way how to interject a cost-controlling factor, but is it good for F1 image? I doubt it, if the goal is to preserve developments in all aspects of motor-sport. AN purportedly is good in aerodynamics, and we do not want to accuse Mr. Horner to gain advantage having AN on his team, without others having equal brain on their team. My idea is to interject technology into F1 which is interesting, yet economical enough that eliminates need for additional cost control instruments. This is not going to be accomplished by JT standing in the front of F1 paternity and saying - in 2015 we will be on the moon, but let engineers to do what they do best. Let them innovate, let them loose, instead talking to lawyers how to circumvent regulations and get away with it. These things have habit to sort out themselves by law of physics, affordability, and common sense. In fact, I would go as far as let them to build an electrical car standing next to V12, and see who is competitive, rather than to dwell how many RPM you should run during a race. Pilots know how fast they dare, and that's where I leave it.

If you want F1 to be more about competition of ideas, certainly more and stricter technical rules will not help.
I agree with the direction of the FOTA members and Ferrari to look at the resource side, be it money spent and/or the use of R&D tools. This coupled to freeing up the technical regulations will lead to more technical freedom, which is the fabric of this sport.

Forgive me, but I do remain doubtful we are on the same page. Rhetoric is one thing, Ferrari's budget another. Old wisdom states, that you should not introduce a law which is not needed, or you cannot police it. Nature of the beast build in current technology is expensive, and to believe that by repeating thousand times we can make it for half price is more of a slogan, than reality.

Personally I think the FIA is doing a good job, given that it's a very difficult task to police F1 regulations, both sporting and technical. They don't always get it right, but there is no anarchy by any stretch of the imagination. it's all going fairly well.

Here we disagree. Working technical groups made mockery out is the sport and should take a huge slice of credit for the mess we are in. Groove tires, and all those corrections in the middle of the game. I am sorry for being so crude, but I do not know how else to describe it.

Edited by Sakae, 28 March 2012 - 15:08.

[cheapracer]

-To investigate how to cut costs further without spoiling the show

In order to cut costs you need the people at the top satisfied with less money in their pockets and that will never happen.

Example, if you go to a sponsor with proof it costs $120 million to run the team to be competitive, figuring on hiding say $10 million for your own pocket (8%), how are you going to hide $10 million when it's a whopping 25% of $40 million? You're not, so who's going to chop their income from $10 million to $4 million?

Team owners, the business ones, will do as much as they can to keep the costs falsely high, wouldn't you ... has nothing to do with the show or the fans and little to do with motor racing, that's just the vehicle.

it's a very difficult task to police F1 regulations, both sporting and technical.

Rubbish.

Edited by cheapracer, 28 March 2012 - 16:02.

[tifosi]

Personally I kinda agree with his point. Assign a budget, assign maximal employees/work hours/whatever. But why do you need to control how many hours go into CFD and how many go into KERS? Should be up to the individual teams to decide where their priorities lie.

So how do you control that?

Let's say Sergio, who works for FIAT AG's r&d department, spends a few 10s of million developing a new valve train.

One day Sergio happens to be having lunch with Fabio, a cousin of his who works For Ferrari Racing. He happens to mention a new idea on his valve train that results in 5% fuel reduction.

After lunch Fabio heads back to his home Maranello, and voila!, the next day has this awesome new valve train ready to install that saves Ferrari 5% on fuel.

How do you police that?

Simply put, manufacturers will simply move their R&D departments to their "civilian" counterparts, or perhaps Mercedes start developing an Indy-car engine that is remarkably similiar to their F1 engine . You can't police the exchange of ideas.

[Dunder]

Horner is actually close to my way of thinking. I would rather drop RRA (just as budget control) of the agenda, and ensure that F1 becomes WCC through competition of ideas, rather than worrying who is testing what and how many hours. Since I like small, but effective government, I do not want FiA to get involved in cost control at all. They have messed up (IMO) sporting and technical regulations for quite a long time, why we need more of it? If I had one wish to raise with JT, I would say, please, fix normative references on the books first, before you make some additional ones.

The policing of costs was universally welcomed by teams because the realised they had to be saved from themselves.
The amounts being spent in the mid-late 2000's were completely unsustainable by any measure.

[Sakae]

Autosport: Horner reckons the RRA is too restrictive and not the best way forward. F1 'should not be run by accountants'

"We have been talking about a budget cap for about five years now. The hardest thing in the world is to police what a com!pany spends," Horner told reporters at the Malaysian Grand Prix.

"A resource restriction is an agreement that is fundamentally flawed because of the structures of different companies: Ferrari operates in a completely different way to McLaren or Mercedes or Red Bull.

"The best way to control costs is through stable regulations.

Absolutely, Mr. Horner. Very few understand this fundamental principle how to preserve essence of racing.

[undersquare]

Autosport: Horner reckons the RRA is too restrictive and not the best way forward. F1 'should not be run by accountants'

Absolutely, Mr. Horner. Very few understand this fundamental principle how to preserve essence of racing.

'Very few understand' lol. Just Sakae and a select few .

""The best way to control costs is through stable regulations." is the exact opposite of the truth.

With stable regulations it turns into a development competition where money is absolutely key. Each year of stable regulations there is less and less scope for innovation, everybody has copied last year's good ideas, and tiny differences derived from massive experimentation and testing hand victory to the big teams.

To give small teams a chance you need change so that innovation and creativity have a chance.

Red Bull are big spenders and don't want to lose that advantage, is all. Adrian Newey has 100 design engineers working away at least; no surprise Horner wants to keep that edge, and no surprise he's using sound bite bull to try and sell it.

[Sakae]

'Very few understand' lol. Just Sakae and a select few .

""The best way to control costs is through stable regulations." is the exact opposite of the truth.

With stable regulations it turns into a development competition where money is absolutely key. Each year of stable regulations there is less and less scope for innovation, everybody has copied last year's good ideas, and tiny differences derived from massive experimentation and testing hand victory to the big teams.

To give small teams a chance you need change so that innovation and creativity have a chance.

Red Bull are big spenders and don't want to lose that advantage, is all. Adrian Newey has 100 design engineers working away at least; no surprise Horner wants to keep that edge, and no surprise he's using sound bite bull to try and sell it.

Well, we disagree then, and quite strongly at that on more than one point you raised. Regardless of Horner's motives, his objection is quite accurate in content, IMO.

Edited by Sakae, 08 April 2013 - 15:33.

[Seanspeed]

I don't think our teams are so different in structure that we can't find a solution

------------------------------

A resource restriction is an agreement that is fundamentally flawed because of the structures of different companies: Ferrari operates in a completely different way to McLaren or Mercedes or Red Bull.

So which is it Horner? lol

I mean, I cant blame him for not wanting to agree so they can keep their competitive advantage, but you dont need x-ray vision to see through his comments clearly.

And how do manufacturer teams get an advantage in a resource restriction? Not only do they have to design and build a chassis and an aero package, but also engines/drivetrains.

And no, Horner, stable regulations are crap.

Edited by Seanspeed, 08 April 2013 - 15:51.

[undersquare]

Well, we disagree then, and quite strongly at that on more than one point you raised. Regardless of Horner's motives, his objection is quite accurate in content, IMO.

Yes OK but why should anyone agree with you?

It's quite obvious RBR have the current regs and the current lack of budget restriction working in their favour. That's why Horner likes them, not for any sporting reason.

From anyone else's point of view, with RBR heading for 4 years of both championships, change is desperately needed. I would at least de-regulate the areas where Red Bull pushes the envelope - front wing height and linear floor, bendiness.

In fact I'd chuck the whole car up in the air and see how teams get on with designing a NEW car. Low-profile tyres for example and different wing sizes, drop the plank. Big budgets would still be an advantage of course but smaller teams would at least be in with a chance, whereas in a narrow development race they have no chance.

[redreni]

Getting control of spending in F1 can only be achieved by doing just that - controlling what teams spend through regulation. Nothing else will work. You must ban teams from spending more than a certain amount, and make sure you are able to enforce the limit. The only exemptions should be FIA entry fees and fines.

Nothing short of that is even worth bothering with in my opinion because it won't affect what teams spend, the most it could do is stop teams spending money on what they'd most like to spend it on, in which case they'll spend it on something else which will still allow them to gain car performance, albeit less efficiently than if they'd been allowed to spend the money the way they wanted. For example, the restrictions on wind tunnel usage just increase the cost of gaining a tenth of laptime, because you have to go about finding the performance in a less cost effective way than by using the wind tunnel. It has the benefit that those who couldn't have afforded the extra wind tunnel time anyway lose less laptime to their richer competitors than they otherwise would have, because the richer teams have to spend the extra money they have less efficiently. But it's a funny old way to save money.

Overall team spending in practice can only be limited by (a) their capacity to raise funds or (b) regulation. If there's no effective regulation they'll just spend everything they can on going faster.

So the FIA needs to ask itself if it wants or needs to get involved in policing a system that would have to include extensive and intrusive auditing of every team on the grid. As much as most teams seem currently to be supportive of FIA-policed cost capping, I doubt many would support it if it was going to be done properly as they wouldn't want to open their businesses up to the level of scrutiny required. Which is unfortunate, because it leaves F1 open to the same ridiculous cycle of manufacturer spending war followed by mass exodus leaving F1 with smaller, lower quality grids. It would be in the teams' own interests to have things organised so that the cost of competing is permanently lowered to a level where they were making rather than losing money, but unfortunately they're not going to open their books to the level of scrutiny that would be needed to give them confidence that their rivals are sticking to the limit, so it isn't going to work.

All we'll get is something similar to FIFA fair play, where teams that had been trading at a massive loss all of a sudden have balanced books, even though they still pay the same huge wages and they still lose tens of millions on the transfer market every season. You want to make a debt-laden, loss-making business look like it is breaking even? With a good enough accountant, you can. You want to make a team that spends $400 million look like it only spends $100 million? Unless somebody's really checking up in a pretty forensic manner, teams will find a way.

[fabr68]

Let Red Bull spend what they want but bring back open in-season testing.

[Sakae]

...And no, Horner, stable regulations are crap.

Constantly changing regulations, and consequently constantly re-designing a car, making new tooling, changing equipment, conducting research on the fly with design validation on the weekends is then cheaper way to go then? Weird; I came out of the automotive industry, but there is first time for everything then, including to hear such wisdom. On technology side - yes, there is a challenge. While stable regulations eliminate or diminish many (costly) activities, from product differentiation point of view one has to be careful not to fall into IRL trap. Perhaps stable regulations, but less restrictive developments within framework of those regulations could support creativity that would keep us interested.

[Sakae]

Getting control of spending in F1 can only be achieved by doing just that - controlling what teams spend through regulation. Nothing else will work. .....

All we'll get is something similar to FIFA fair play, where teams that had been trading at a massive loss all of a sudden have balanced books, even though they still pay the same huge wages and they still lose tens of millions on the transfer market every season. You want to make a debt-laden, loss-making business look like it is breaking even? With a good enough accountant, you can. You want to make a team that spends $400 million look like it only spends $100 million? Unless somebody's really checking up in a pretty forensic manner, teams will find a way.

You started badly, but finished on top. Why institute a law that cannot be enforced? I hate to think that foreign accountants sticking their dirty hands into private business. That's first. Secondly, teams will find way how to disperse efforts beyond scope of an audit, and unless you want forensics being involved, there is snow ball chance in hell, that you will find the (correct) bottom line. I said this before, and say it again, let economy dictate what teams will spend. There is an internal budget, and if RBR wants to spend a 1 Bill., let them, as there are several natural safeguards in place. One, money alone will not buy you engineering brilliance and good ideas (ask Toyota). Secondly, there is something as saturation of resources, which means, no more people, no more real estate, and no more other resources will assist you with solving an engineering issue. There is optimality how many people can work effectively together on one project, and that's the limit.

F1 is two or three tiers sport club, and I think it remains so.

[SpaMaster]

http://www.motorspor...t_12031606.html
(By Dieter Rencken)

Apparently 10 (of the 12 ) teams have officially approached the FIA to take over policing of the Resource Restriction Agreement via the Sporting Regulations.
Both RedBull's teams did not sign the proposal.

A new working group on cost control will be launched, to be led by Pat Symonds and Patrick Head.
The core task of this working group will be:
-To investigate how to cut costs further without spoiling the show
-To create a framework for mandatory audits. This is to enable auditors to inspect all records of the teams in order to determine whether they adhere to the actual conditions of the RRA

--------

This will be an interesting development.
Really hope they can work out an agreement with the FIA.
A majority vote form the teams will be enough to get this through.
So far, RedBull are isolated.

I am not sure about the majority vote of teams. I think that is for FOTA. Here, FIA can introduce whatever rule they want. FIA can form a group to come up with finding and recommendations. After that, it is up to FIA to decide on it. Red Bull opposed it under the conditions of unanimous agreement within the teams when teams wanted change a few things for a period where the rule have already been laid out . In this case, FIA does not need that. That said, I would be very surprised if FIA goes with what all the other teams suggest and not consider Red Bull's inputs. Red Bull's contention has always been that manufacturer teams can do so much in-house without incurring new cost and they want that to be be given a cost factor and taken as part of RRA. FIA would be likely to take that point onboard also if they go ahead with RRA and Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes won't be too happy about that. So, this is not as much as against Red Bull as it may seem. FIA has always wanted to cap the overall expenditure. Teams like Ferrari strongly objected it saying F1 should not be run by auditors. Now you see that auditing procedures have sneaked in to the proposed agreement. In many ways, this is FIA cleverly convincing teams like Ferrari and McLaren in the name of Red Bull. So, in reality this may be FIA wanting what they have always wanted and this would probably take them to expenditure-cap some time in the future. Red Bull shouldn't mind this too much as long as they make a stance to get their point across. Real beneficiaries from this may be teams like Lotus, Force India and Sauber.

BTW, I don't agree with Horner's stable regulations comment. That is bogus. It helps maintain status quo.

Edited by SpaMaster, 08 April 2013 - 17:14.

[Timstr11]

Stable regulations to control cost is a very, very poor argument because technology moves on.
As technology moves on => more advanced windtunnels, more advanced simulators, in general more advanced research tools => higher spend.