Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

V6T vs V8 NA


  • Please log in to reply
236 replies to this topic

#101 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 21:04

The Bosch coil suitable for F1 and other motorsport applications below cost 710 euros.


Yea.. cheap dirt cheap.... double the price i paid for my car for all 8. it all adds up.

And just because i got it wrong because titanium is better than aluminium in a spesific area doesn`t mean the idea about material spesification is wrong. Like alu intake and such.

You might be satisfied with the current engine prices but there is allways room for reductions if they was having a focus on it.

there is a huge potensial to improve the hp/cost for F1 cars and their components.

Tony might recognise this one. yours at around 15000 dollars
http://www.race-cars...098459638ss.htm

here is a 1992 modell cossie for 60 000 punds.
http://www.f1-sales.com/engines.htm

Just a poor comparison but you get the picture.

The Asia tech motor from 2002 is cheaper but mostly because its not a winner motor and maintenance and parts price and such is a pain i suspect.
http://www.carclassi...h_F1 Engine.htm

And saying steel suspention with limitations in manufacturing technicues would be more costly is just plain wrong.

the diff stuff i simply don`t believe. As said you can only do so much to a limited amount of parts. It might be costly initially but not in the long run.




Advertisement

#102 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 07 November 2012 - 22:41

OK it would actually be possible in theory. In practice, impossible. Here's some ideas: Gotta have a spec powertrain. Not just a spec engine but a sealed spec powertrain that the teams aren't allowed to open up or make any changes whatever to. Spec bolt-on powertrains that are given to each to each team before first practice randomly from a stock on hand. Rebuilt old NASCAR engines with carburetors and no ECU would be perfect. That would help but not be sufficient. To really work you'd need either a full spec car-- again randomly assigned to the teams at each race meeting or if that is too draconian at least a claiming rule whereby any team can buy any other team's complete rolling chassis at a fixed low price straight from the post race tech inspection. Maybe you could limit the cars subject to claiming to the podium or points scoring ones.

What the resulting product would have to do with F1 is probably about zero. But that wouldn't mean the FIA couldn't call it F1. Because F1 is, bottom line, whatever the FIA says F1 is.

#103 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 08 November 2012 - 00:29

OK it would actually be possible in theory. In practice, impossible. Here's some ideas: Gotta have a spec powertrain. Not just a spec engine but a sealed spec powertrain that the teams aren't allowed to open up or make any changes whatever to. Spec bolt-on powertrains that are given to each to each team before first practice randomly from a stock on hand. Rebuilt old NASCAR engines with carburetors and no ECU would be perfect. That would help but not be sufficient. To really work you'd need either a full spec car-- again randomly assigned to the teams at each race meeting or if that is too draconian at least a claiming rule whereby any team can buy any other team's complete rolling chassis at a fixed low price straight from the post race tech inspection. Maybe you could limit the cars subject to claiming to the podium or points scoring ones.

What the resulting product would have to do with F1 is probably about zero. But that wouldn't mean the FIA couldn't call it F1. Because F1 is, bottom line, whatever the FIA says F1 is.


One gets the feeling that we're not too far away from F1 being nothing more than a glorified spec race.

#104 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:19

DTM seems to have an odd way of cost reduction but more spec now.

:cool:

#105 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 13:07

I must say I find the wet behind the ears naïveté of those who think it would be possible to make F1 "affordable" or even "more affordable" through regulatory means charming.

That "wet behind ears faction" apparently include such luminaries as Jean Todt according to the latest Autosport news.
Todt speaks

We have to do things step by step. I am in favour of reducing the costs, improving the show, and implementing new technologies. So now we are seeing that we are on the way to having these working groups, advisory strategy group and the F1 Commission, and for me it has to be dealt with inside of those groups. As soon as we are able to do it, we will have a democratic way. No dictatorship. No pressure to do something. We will sit altogether and then we will do what the majority will decide on, which I feel is the most transparent way to run our business.
It will be unfair to have a cost restriction on chassis and do nothing on the engine. Our people have been working very hard with expert companies like Deloitte, KPMG, and other audit companies to see. First I had some doubts that we could do a good job. Now we know we can do a good job. But we have to include the engines. There are still some ongoing discussions. Once we have covered the engine situation, we should be ready to propose something by 2014. And by 2013 with our new groups, with the Concorde Agreement, we should be able to follow the protocol. So it should not be one team is against, one team is in favour. The majority will be able to guide the future of the sport.

Todt has reiterated that he wants to ultimately see costs reduced by one third over the next few years.

How much do we want to control? I hear $250 million. Who can afford $250 million? What is the situation for teams who are producing one engine? There are so many things I read which I am sorry to say are a bit superficial. We must get into the detail. Who is spending $250 million? Probably more than one team. But even if it is three or four, what about the other eight teams? We have to address the problem overall and I hope people will have the right concern to address it. At the end of the day, for me, democracy means that we must make shared decisions. The teams invest money, but do we need to have 150 people or 200 people in a wind tunnel to have a good show? I don't think so. I really hope that people will be happy to realise and undertake some drastic reduction in costs.

Very sensible ideas! So if we have three teams spending $250m the target would be to have that come down to $165m. If an engine company like Mercedes in Brixworth spends $75m now it would come down to $50m. So a manufacturer team like Merc or Ferrari would have a combined budget of $215m. That is a far cry from the $400m+ they used to have six years ago. Perhaps they will agree to reduce it a bit further once they see that profitability would improve.
It is good to see that the FiA have looked into the issue and is committed to drive the issue forward. It is also very good to have Todt come forward and say that budget control on both chassis and engines is feasible and necessary.


#106 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 08 November 2012 - 14:19

WhiteBlue-

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how you police an altogether separate company like Red Bull Technology who may develop everything at high cost, then sell it back to Red Bull F1 for artificially low prices.

That is why the RRA is a colossal sham. There are so many ways to complete sidestep the entire thing, and you know what, I hope every team sidesteps such crap.

#107 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 15:34

WhiteBlue-
I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how you police an altogether separate company like Red Bull Technology who may develop everything at high cost, then sell it back to Red Bull F1 for artificially low prices.
That is why the RRA is a colossal sham. There are so many ways to complete sidestep the entire thing, and you know what, I hope every team sidesteps such crap.

That may be your perception. But in reality it will not be such a problem. Anything that crosses the boundaries of a budget controlled entity has to be valued at arms length. Auditors are very familiar with evaluating the correct values. This is particularly true if 90% of the business is aerodynamic research. There will be a lot of scrutiny by the auditors and they will have vast experience of the value of certain deals related to it.
The RRA was very different. Apparently they never put specific boundaries for budget controlled entities in place. And if they did the other teams thought that they cannot legally challenge Red Bull's interpretation that allowed them an foc transfer between RBR and RBT. That will not be possible with the FiA controlled budget cap. There will be water tight definitions and stringent verification. The punitive measures will be established right away and a quick process to deal with perpetrators as well. If I understand Bernie correctly there will be sporting sanctions - teams will loose several races worth of points - personal sanctions in terms of cash penalties for the responsible managers and potentially loss of the FiA license for the directors. It would be a very dicey proposition to mess with an FiA enforced budget cap compared to the team RRA. The RRA was not set up to really stop development cost or they had agreed on a very different system of verification and punishment. The RRA was primarily aimed at tangible resources which they could agree to limit in a majority decision of FOTA at the time. Comparing the two systems is like comparing apples and bananas.

#108 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 08 November 2012 - 16:15

That may be your perception. But in reality it will not be such a problem. Anything that crosses the boundaries of a budget controlled entity has to be valued at arms length. Auditors are very familiar with evaluating the correct values. This is particularly true if 90% of the business is aerodynamic research. There will be a lot of scrutiny by the auditors and they will have vast experience of the value of certain deals related to it.
The RRA was very different. Apparently they never put specific boundaries for budget controlled entities in place. And if they did the other teams thought that they cannot legally challenge Red Bull's interpretation that allowed them an foc transfer between RBR and RBT. That will not be possible with the FiA controlled budget cap. There will be water tight definitions and stringent verification. The punitive measures will be established right away and a quick process to deal with perpetrators as well. If I understand Bernie correctly there will be sporting sanctions - teams will loose several races worth of points - personal sanctions in terms of cash penalties for the responsible managers and potentially loss of the FiA license for the directors. It would be a very dicey proposition to mess with an FiA enforced budget cap compared to the team RRA. The RRA was not set up to really stop development cost or they had agreed on a very different system of verification and punishment. The RRA was primarily aimed at tangible resources which they could agree to limit in a majority decision of FOTA at the time. Comparing the two systems is like comparing apples and bananas.


You do know F1 cannot audit a separate company right that is outside of the scope of the teams right?

How do you suppose the auditors could ever get into the door of some company that is setup independently from a race team, but has a clear mandate as to what they are doing.

If I am Ferrari, I could go open up a business somewhere in the Italian countryside, and just have the indoors dedicated to running a wind tunnel 24/7. Then I can just claim the entire thing is for the road cars if asked. If anyone wants to see it, "Well sorry, it's proprietary information chap." Then transfer all the numbers on a USB stick to the F1 team. I'd like to see how the FIA or auditors could even do anything with that. The fact is they cannot because they don't have that sort of authority. You seem to think they have the powers of the gestapo.

You're so out of your depth on this, that you should refrain from even commenting.

There's how the real world works, then there's your fantasy land that doesn't exist.

#109 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 November 2012 - 19:40

One thing FIA needs to remove is the rule thingy that says old cars from competitors can`t be bought and raced. thas is probably one of the weirdest rules around.

Edited by MatsNorway, 08 November 2012 - 19:42.


#110 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 08 November 2012 - 20:15

You do know F1 cannot audit a separate company right that is outside of the scope of the teams right?
How do you suppose the auditors could ever get into the door of some company that is setup independently from a race team, but has a clear mandate as to what they are doing.
If I am Ferrari, I could go open up a business somewhere in the Italian countryside, and just have the indoors dedicated to running a wind tunnel 24/7. Then I can just claim the entire thing is for the road cars if asked. If anyone wants to see it, "Well sorry, it's proprietary information chap." Then transfer all the numbers on a USB stick to the F1 team. I'd like to see how the FIA or auditors could even do anything with that. The fact is they cannot because they don't have that sort of authority. You seem to think they have the powers of the gestapo.
You're so out of your depth on this, that you should refrain from even commenting. There's how the real world works, then there's your fantasy land that doesn't exist.

I'm much impressed by your overwhelming politeness and your knowledge of contractual arrangements between engineering companies. But you seem to overlook the minor point that a great many companies that place important orders with suppliers require them to conform to their auditing systems. That is something almost universally done in the automotive industry. So what would stop F1 teams and F1 engine operations to impose FiA auditing on the whole supply chain if required by the FiA? In fact I fully expect that to be one of the conditions of the budget control system.

Your little fantasy about a secrete Ferrari aero department is equally unrealistic. In the first place it would be illegal under the rules. You could certainly try to get away with it but I bet that neither Montezemolo nor Domenicali would even contemplate it. There are always whistle blowers and disgruntled engineers involved in any clandestine operation. If it would not come out in the first year it would come out later and that would be the end of any manager or director who would share the knowledge or responsibility. Don't you think that the competitors would not keep track of how the capacity matches the developments that come out of the legal development department? If Ferrari were involved in a championship fight against Red Bull or McLaren they would have the auditors around the supply chain three times before race 15 of the championship. That is the level of mistrust that the competitors have with each others. You see the same thing in the technical regulations. Red Bull and Ferrari had at least 2-4 cases each of involving the technical department of the FiA with questions about the legality of the competitors that we know of. How many do we not know of? Probably another 3 cases. If Todt is confident that it can be done I trust the man to know how to do it. The little French man knows one or two things about cheating.


#111 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,154 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:31

Call me naive but I don't believe direct targeting of expenditure (budget caps etc) is a realistic way to limit expenditure. Start by changing the technical rules to eliminate/minimise expenditure in development areas that have little benefit to the real world. (I'm thinking aero for starters) Mandate some spec aero devices that benefit the following car. Open up the rules to encourage development in areas that benefit the real world. Free-up the engine rules to encourage combustion, energy recovery and materials research. Ditto for transmissions. There are lots more areas affecting road safety, environment, conservation etc if you think about it.

#112 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:53

Call me naive but I don't believe direct targeting of expenditure (budget caps etc) is a realistic way to limit expenditure. Start by changing the technical rules to eliminate/minimise expenditure in development areas that have little benefit to the real world. (I'm thinking aero for starters) Mandate some spec aero devices that benefit the following car. Open up the rules to encourage development in areas that benefit the real world. Free-up the engine rules to encourage combustion, energy recovery and materials research. Ditto for transmissions. There are lots more areas affecting road safety, environment, conservation etc if you think about it.

If you think about the balance of power in the future strategy group and the F1 commission you will see that the political forces of F1 will not take that direction. You have seven point scoring customer teams McLaren, Red Bull, Lotus, Williams, Sauber, Force India and Toro Rosso. You have two manufacturer teams Ferrari and Mercedes. And you have three non scoring teams Caterham, Marussia and HRT. Those will not have a voice in the F1 commission in the future. So the voting balance will be seven to two when the issue will be put to a vote. Sooner or later Caterham will probably get a vote and the ratio will be 8:2. The customer teams will see to it that their expertise in the chassis development will not be too much eroded by allowing the manufacturers to gain significant advantages. They have gone down the road already to set a very narrow spec for the power train and still everybody expects a big cost race with the engines unless something is done very quickly. So in the abstract your proposal seems to make sense but in reality it is doomed by the politics of F1 and by the long time experience that narrowing a spec will never stop a cost race unless of cause you end up with total spec cars, which nobody wants.

#113 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,154 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:46

So perhaps some way of distributing the drivetrain IP to the poorer teams. If you are a developer -mandatory availabilty of your engines/transmissions to all comers at a ceiling price? Kills both birds with one stone. Provided the ceiling price is high enough to encourage R & D.

Edited by gruntguru, 10 November 2012 - 02:48.


#114 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 10 November 2012 - 09:53

Yes, I believe that manufacturer teams should be able to pass the manufacturing, component sourcing and servicing cost onto their customers with a reasonable factor for profit, lets say 100%. All development cost beyond that ceiling they should have to bear for themselves. Typically after the end of the freeze we will see manufacturer and customer specs drifting apart again. So mid field customers can expect to receive two or three less recent development levels with lower performance than the main works team. There would also be a minimum and maximum supply rule to make sure all teams would be supplied.

#115 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 November 2012 - 18:58

Call me naive but I don't believe direct targeting of expenditure (budget caps etc) is a realistic way to limit expenditure. Start by changing the technical rules to eliminate/minimise expenditure in development areas that have little benefit to the real world. (I'm thinking aero for starters) Mandate some spec aero devices that benefit the following car. Open up the rules to encourage development in areas that benefit the real world. Free-up the engine rules to encourage combustion, energy recovery and materials research. Ditto for transmissions. There are lots more areas affecting road safety, environment, conservation etc if you think about it.


Agree, Formula 1 of today has grown into an almost bizarre focus on aerodynamics, where probably the bulk of development-money goes,
when RBR presents a new front-wing at each and every race, something clearly needs to be done in that very area, no?

#116 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 November 2012 - 22:06

Agree, Formula 1 of today has grown into an almost bizarre focus on aerodynamics, where probably the bulk of development-money goes,
when RBR presents a new front-wing at each and every race, something clearly needs to be done in that very area, no?


One way to limit the focus around that is to force a more simpler design. Say only two planes and one singular endplate. +++ to remove the loopholes.

It would be much easier to get into the rulebook.

#117 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 November 2012 - 05:39

Or simply ban the abomination altogether? But most important of all would be a flat-bottom rule worth its name, as long as there's a car to measure.

If the FIA could have seen that back in 1982, instead of limiting the rule to between wheel-centers, Formula one could have been much different today.

Edited by Rasputin, 11 November 2012 - 07:57.


#118 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 13 November 2012 - 17:34

Relative to the way things are now, I have to believe that were these ridiculous front wings ended, among other things, it would put a stop to a lot of the spending that goes on.

If the FIA was serious about reducing costs, they never would have allowed this foolishness with these turbo engines to occur.

Here's the other converse, trying to restrict everything stifles innovation altogether. Although I suppose that was always Mosley's end goal anyway.

#119 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 18 November 2012 - 19:55

Yea.. cheap dirt cheap.... double the price i paid for my car for all 8. it all adds up.

And just because i got it wrong because titanium is better than aluminium in a spesific area doesn`t mean the idea about material spesification is wrong. Like alu intake and such.

You might be satisfied with the current engine prices but there is allways room for reductions if they was having a focus on it.

there is a huge potensial to improve the hp/cost for F1 cars and their components.

Tony might recognise this one. yours at around 15000 dollars
http://www.race-cars...098459638ss.htm

here is a 1992 modell cossie for 60 000 punds.
http://www.f1-sales.com/engines.htm

Just a poor comparison but you get the picture.

The Asia tech motor from 2002 is cheaper but mostly because its not a winner motor and maintenance and parts price and such is a pain i suspect.
http://www.carclassi...h_F1 Engine.htm

And saying steel suspention with limitations in manufacturing technicues would be more costly is just plain wrong.

the diff stuff i simply don`t believe. As said you can only do so much to a limited amount of parts. It might be costly initially but not in the long run.


Well, the coils in your car would most likely not meet the requirement of a F1 engine, after all production engines usually don’t rev to 18,000 rpm. With lower requirements and a much higher production volume it is certainly possible to make cheaper coils than those used by F1 engines. But even if we redesigned the engines for millions to save at most a few thousand euros per engine (these coils can probably be checked and reused) it wouldn’t save any money. Even if we mandated the use of a standard production engine teams with money will find some way to spend it. If there is an advantage to be had, it will be found and paid for.

I’ve never seen a titanium intake manifold, and I’m unlikely to see one unless there was some unique requirement. For engine intakes aluminum, magnesium or composites are generally used; that goes for both racing engines and production engines. Engine manufacturers often prefer composite manifolds these days (nylon + glass fibre) but their production methods require large volumes to be cost effective, as the tools required to make them are expensive. You get many manifolds for the cost of the tools alone with production methods more suitable for low production volumes.

Comparing the costs of new racing engines with prices of used racing engines is hardly relevant. It’s sort of like comparing the cost of a used car with the costs of developing a new car model; the former has very little relevance for the latter.


Advertisement

#120 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 18 November 2012 - 20:04

Or simply ban the abomination altogether? But most important of all would be a flat-bottom rule worth its name, as long as there's a car to measure.

If the FIA could have seen that back in 1982, instead of limiting the rule to between wheel-centers, Formula one could have been much different today.


If something, the flat bottom rule needs to be erased completely. The only thing this rule has caused is a shift in how the downforce is produced, which in turn have lead to cars that are more sensitive to the wake of another car while at the same time being less efficient.

#121 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:24

If something, the flat bottom rule needs to be erased completely. The only thing this rule has caused is a shift in how the downforce is produced, which in turn have lead to cars that are more sensitive to the wake of another car while at the same time being less efficient.

I beg to differ, almost everything that is done aerodynamic-wise on an F1-car today is aimed at increasing air-speed under the car, funny exhaust-devices and ugly vanes.

I think a flat-bottom rule would do away with all that.


#122 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 19 November 2012 - 15:04

From a fans' or spectators' perspective what does it matter whether they are throwing their millions on infinitesimal L/D gains in the underbody or the more visible bits?

#123 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:23

From a fans' or spectators' perspective what does it matter whether they are throwing their millions on infinitesimal L/D gains in the underbody or the more visible bits?

As long as they constantly dabble with meaningless aerodynamic configurations it means nothing really. To me and many technically interested fans it would mean a lot if a bigger chunk of the money were spend on non aero developments like engines, energy recovery, suspensions and competitive energy management. Together with a sensible policy on budget control this could attract more manufacturers and make F1 interesting again. I accept that the team's competence is aerodynamic but it has played out its entertaining value since 2007. We should hopefully see the end of the sterile "aero only" development from 2014. The races have become more entertaining but only if you are a Red Bull fan you can enjoy the results any more.


#124 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 November 2012 - 19:36

From a safety view its not good with a too low nose. Because that can cause the car behind to wedge itself under the car rather than going over it. Like Webber did in valencia, Trulli in monaco and so on.

#125 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:07

J.Edlund.
Motorbike engines does those revs all the time and im sure those coils are not hugely costly.

http://www.ebay.com/...d...coils&rt=nc
http://motorcycle.mo...isort=pricehigh

I am no expert but those things down those lists looks a lot cheaper. And they will probably work the distance. Forcing teams to run their coils for a comparative time period to the current ones would stop the constant replacement of them. Who would be the first big cost hurdle.

A good spesification would take care of this. The coils doesnt have to be tiny and light and spit out a jigawatt pr hour. No one gives a shit about coils anyway as long as they work decent.

What we should discuss is about those who do deliver to F1. Like Magneti Marelli. Do they sponsor F1 teams or how does this work? Because as long as there is sponsor systems it might negate the need for specing on cost reasons.

Edited by MatsNorway, 19 November 2012 - 20:21.


#126 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 22 November 2012 - 15:01

Back to topic.

During Austin GP i believe they said that 10lites equals about 0.4sec pr lap.

#127 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:35

So if the cars start with 50L less fuel they would be 2s faster initially per lap. Obviously that advantage would reduce as they burn off more fuel.

#128 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,668 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:39

How much faster would they be if they started with no fuel at all?

#129 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2012 - 02:29

One of the biggest current costs in F1 is salaries for the driver, crew and engineers. Two drivers at $10M each, 30 engineers/analysts at an average of $150K each, and another 50-60 mechanics/machinists/composite techs/electronic techs/etc at $100K each. That works out to over $20M just for salaries in a typical F1 team.

Raw material costs are nothing in comparison. At 1100 lbs, even if the raw materials for an F1 car were $1000/lb, that would only amount to $1.1M per chassis.

#130 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,668 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:49

If you were to limit the number of pit crew working on a car during a pit stop how much money would it save over a season?

#131 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:34

If you were to limit the number of pit crew working on a car during a pit stop how much money would it save over a season?


Surely its just the mechanics that also do the pitstops?

#132 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:27

As long as they constantly dabble with meaningless aerodynamic configurations it means nothing really. To me and many technically interested fans it would mean a lot if a bigger chunk of the money were spend on non aero developments like engines, energy recovery, suspensions and competitive energy management.
...

Which is why you need to do away with incentives for aerodynamic nonsense, a flat bottom-rule, as long as there is a car to measure, should stop the relentless search for increased air-speed under the car.

Other than that, a standardized front-wing, a far cry from today's monstrosities, in order to stop this ridiculous flexing/bending/twisting and poking fun at Charlie Whiting and his pathetic vertical load-tests!

I wish to see Vettel/Newey and Alonso/Fry and Button/Lowe shooting it out at a reasonable cost without all the nonsense.

What I don't appreciate is to introduce a new formula like the 1.6 V6T without room for creativity, all that spending for the same engines only with different valve-covers? F1 would be better off with the V8s.

#133 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 24 November 2012 - 18:18

On safety reasons its not necceary a good idea to have the nose fully lowered to the ground. I thought i mentioned it.

it might do so that the car goes under rather than over the car it crashes. Basically it would force the car into the face of the driver.

The height for the noses in 2013 is probably a decent height.

What could be done is forcing a flat bottom between the axles.

#134 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 25 November 2012 - 03:05

Which is why you need to do away with incentives for aerodynamic nonsense, a flat bottom-rule, as long as there is a car to measure, should stop the relentless search for increased air-speed under the car. Other than that, a standardized front-wing, a far cry from today's monstrosities, in order to stop this ridiculous flexing/bending/twisting and poking fun at Charlie Whiting and his pathetic vertical load-tests!

Standardization in areas that are key competitive battle fields are politically no goes. The economic circumstances in F1 - particularly the engine freeze together with the 2008 recession - have conspired to make aerodynamics much more prominent in terms of expenditure as they have ever been. In 2006 at the hight of the manufacturer spending war teams spend on average 50% of their budget for the engines. Now it is 7%. It is impossible to reverse this situation - as it should - without specific budget control separately applied to power trains and chassis development. You need to have a look at the money trail to determine how you can fix the current situation that makes F1 barren for technology and kills its attractiveness for manufacturers. Playing with technical specifications and narrowing them down has never ever achieved meaningful cost control unless you shut it down completely (freeze). Unless F1 gets itself out of the aero masturbation it will loose one of its strongest historical contributing stake holders, the manufacturers and the automotive industry. While I have always been reluctant to give the automotive companies card blanche to dominate F1 I see an emergency situation now. F1 is about to become a sterile racing series with no input from the global automotive business and with no appeal to participate unless it makes a big change and fixes the development spending opportunities.

I wish to see Vettel/Newey and Alonso/Fry and Button/Lowe shooting it out at a reasonable cost without all the nonsense.

There is no alternative to separate budget/resource control for both aero research and power train spending IMO.

What I don't appreciate is to introduce a new formula like the 1.6 V6T without room for creativity, all that spending for the same engines only with different valve-covers? F1 would be better off with the V8s.

I definitely do not agree at all. The current 2014 tech regs are a starting point that was agreed in a compromise in order to break the freeze and stale mate. If the cost control is handled correctly there is a lot of scope in the new fuel flow method to generate meaningful development by feeing consequtive new areas of development over the years. It all depend of the affordability of the power trains to the mid grid teams. At the moment there are not enough manufacturers to go round to fill a grid and that situation has to be addressed first to make things healthy again. Once the likes of Porsche, Honda and Hyundai have been lured into F1 things will look much better. We could even have BMW coming back - which would absolutely thrill me.


#135 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:08

Standardization in areas that are key competitive battle fields are politically no goes.
...

I don't think so, engines are almost standardized as it is. Those hideous front-wings and the cost of their development is ridiculous, if not standardized, limit the width to 1000 mm then.

A budget cap is a nice idea, but will of course never work in reality, something I believe Red Bull already ave given example of with outsourcing development to "Red Bull Technologies".

On topic again, the V6 Turbos will just be a knee-jerk to adopt a "greener" image, if the FIA was serious about it they would have given the engine-designers far more freedom.

#136 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 25 November 2012 - 13:54

if the FIA was serious about it they would have given the engine-designers far more freedom.


Perhaps but the risk is that they destroy F1 because of insane costs.

#137 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 26 November 2012 - 00:56

A budget cap is a nice idea, but will of course never work in reality, something I believe Red Bull already ave given example of with outsourcing development to "Red Bull Technologies".

It is kind of strange that people make this kind of predictions without any data to support their claims. There are many particular interests in F1 that work against budget caps on aero and engines. So naturally there are lots of critics. But there is no hard evidence that a budget cap with proper auditing and meaningful sanctions would not work. They have not even tried it. It looks to me that repeating the mantra makes it no more valid.


#138 Boing Ball

Boing Ball
  • Member

  • 108 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:22

From a safety view its not good with a too low nose. Because that can cause the car behind to wedge itself under the car rather than going over it. Like Webber did in valencia, Trulli in monaco and so on.


I understand your concern. However, I doubt that they would go for a wedge like nose like Ferrari F1 640. They might still want to put a splitter in the front of the car and the tip of the nose on top of that. That is, the floor would indeed be low above the ground, but the tip of the nose on top of the floor would still be higher - just like it is now but under the drivers feet. FIA might also require a mandatory height at the front axle section to prevent that.

#139 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 19:55

It is kind of strange that people make this kind of predictions without any data to support their claims. There are many particular interests in F1 that work against budget caps on aero and engines. So naturally there are lots of critics. But there is no hard evidence that a budget cap with proper auditing and meaningful sanctions would not work. They have not even tried it. It looks to me that repeating the mantra makes it no more valid.


It's sort of strange that people make the sort of prediction that a budget cap can actually work, when Red Bull already flaunts how ineffective it really is. After all, the FIA is really setup to be a bean counter agency.

A hard cap would just be an exercise in seeing how many teams can set up side ventures where those places do all the R&D.

"Oh look, we have a new cascading front wing that cost us 5 euros to buy from a company that told us they guaranteed it would work quite well on our car. Good heavens, we can't believe our good luck as the gods smile down upon us favorably with this bargain!"

:stoned:

Even better, why I can see Ron and McLaren using their road car production facilities to do all sorts of F1-related research. After all, even now, whose to say they aren't doing this?

"Hi Ron, the FIA sent me to audit your F1 finances to see where the team budget is being spent, and to make sure nothing is being spent elsewhere."

Meanwhile in the background a sheet is thrown over 12 different front wings that are hidden among the P12 chassis.

Advertisement

#140 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 November 2012 - 20:12

---
But there is no hard evidence that a budget cap with proper auditing and meaningful sanctions would not work. They have not even tried it. It looks to me that repeating the mantra makes it no more valid.

I belong to those who believe that the burden of evidence lies at the door of those who claim that it will work?


#141 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 20:28

I belong to those who believe that the burden of evidence lies at the door of those who claim that it will work?


Can you imagine if science worked in a manner where you just had to make a claim about something, then it was up to everyone else to disprove said claim?

I can only imagine the outrageous things that would be said.

#142 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 November 2012 - 20:31

Can you imagine if science worked in a manner where you just had to make a claim about something, then it was up to everyone else to disprove said claim?

I can only imagine the outrageous things that would be said.

In the context of the existence of Santa perhaps?

#143 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 26 November 2012 - 20:57

In the context of the existence of Santa perhaps?


Yes.

Or perhaps, "If you build it, he will come."

#144 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 26 November 2012 - 22:15

I belong to those who believe that the burden of evidence lies at the door of those who claim that it will work?

Isn't that a bit silly? You claim one thing and I claim another. We can both provide no hard data to proove the counter claim because the experiment was never conducted. So I would call that insufficient evidence for either claim.
Btw the FiA have been in contact with some of the most experienced auditors and have expressed the confidence that they can do a proper job of policing a budget cap. I can quote Jean Todt on this again if you want.
Comparisons between the FOTA RRA and a FiA run budget control are equally inconclusive. It is like comparing melons with cherries as fruit size goes. No point really but having some fun. I thought this was a serious technical forum
.

#145 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:40

Isn't that a bit silly? You claim one thing and I claim another. We can both provide no hard data to proove the counter claim because the experiment was never conducted. So I would call that insufficient evidence for either claim.
Btw the FiA have been in contact with some of the most experienced auditors and have expressed the confidence that they can do a proper job of policing a budget cap. I can quote Jean Todt on this again if you want.
Comparisons between the FOTA RRA and a FiA run budget control are equally inconclusive. It is like comparing melons with cherries as fruit size goes. No point really but having some fun. I thought this was a serious technical forum
.


Please provide proof that the FIA has been in contact with the most experienced auditors out there. You have this real nasty habit of claiming certain things as gospel even though there's nothing that validates it.

Don't be so quick to claim that Rasputin hasn't provided proof. Red Bull Technologies is all the proof you need about how unenforceable any agreement is regarding a budget cap is.

#146 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 November 2012 - 06:16

Please provide proof that the FIA has been in contact with the most experienced auditors out there. You have this real nasty habit of claiming certain things as gospel even though there's nothing that validates it.

Don't be so quick to claim that Rasputin hasn't provided proof. Red Bull Technologies is all the proof you need about how unenforceable any agreement is regarding a budget cap is.

But Red Bull has a german driver.


#147 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 27 November 2012 - 14:47

But Red Bull has a german driver.


Oh yes...I quite forgot, the peacock struts his feathers when the benefits are to his liking.

#148 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 November 2012 - 23:17

Please provide proof that the FIA has been in contact with the most experienced auditors out there. You have this real nasty habit of claiming certain things as gospel even though there's nothing that validates it.

Todt speaks on Autosport about cost control:

We have to do things step by step. I am in favour of reducing the costs, improving the show, and implementing new technologies. So now we are seeing that we are on the way to having these working groups, advisory strategy group and the F1 Commission, and for me it has to be dealt with inside of those groups. As soon as we are able to do it, we will have a democratic way. No dictatorship. No pressure to do something. We will sit altogether and then we will do what the majority will decide on, which I feel is the most transparent way to run our business.

It will be unfair to have a cost restriction on chassis and do nothing on the engine. Our people have been working very hard with expert companies like Deloitte, KPMG, and other audit companies to see. First I had some doubts that we could do a good job. Now we know we can do a good job. But we have to include the engines. There are still some ongoing discussions. Once we have covered the engine situation, we should be ready to propose something by 2014. And by 2013 with our new groups, with the Concorde Agreement, we should be able to follow the protocol. So it should not be one team is against, one team is in favour. The majority will be able to guide the future of the sport.

Todt has reiterated that he wants to ultimately see costs reduced by one third over the next few years.

How much do we want to control? I hear $250 million. Who can afford $250 million? What is the situation for teams who are producing one engine? There are so many things I read which I am sorry to say are a bit superficial. We must get into the detail. Who is spending $250 million? Probably more than one team. But even if it is three or four, what about the other eight teams? We have to address the problem overall and I hope people will have the right concern to address it. At the end of the day, for me, democracy means that we must make shared decisions. The teams invest money, but do we need to have 150 people or 200 people in a wind tunnel to have a good show? I don't think so. I really hope that people will be happy to realise and undertake some drastic reduction in costs.

Don't be so quick to claim that Rasputin hasn't provided proof. Red Bull Technologies is all the proof you need about how unenforceable any agreement is regarding a budget cap is.

It is nonsense to compare a proper FiA policed budget cap with the RRA that had no independent auditors, no stringent definitions, no verification, no threat of penalties and no negative publicity threat behind it. Do you think the readers of this forum are all dumb? You call for quotations and I give them to you because you obviously do not read what Autosport publishes about the budget issue. That is fine and dandy. But don't rely on me to do the leg work all the time.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 27 November 2012 - 23:22.


#149 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 28 November 2012 - 16:31

Do you think any of the team sponsors are going to even allow FIA auditors near their door?

There are so many work-arounds to any budget cap, that to even think something is within the realm of reality is disturbing.

What happens when teams start farming out R&D to sponsors who most certainly will not even let a single FIA auditor in their door? If anything they will just laugh at them.

I can see Ferrari farming out work to Fiat or Maserati in the same way Red Bull does with Red Bull Technologies. Here's the fact, even if the teams AGREE to a budget cap, you can be sure that they have already determined how they will be circumventing it. They'll pay lip service to it in media interviews and press releases, then while they are talking a truck will be dropping off all the completed parts for pennies on the dollar in the receiving area.

Here's the other thing too, capping the engine costs per season is a sure way to guarantee engine suppliers pulling out if they aren't going to be able to recover the money spent. I find that most places aren't going to produce a product that they sell for large losses with no way of making money back. That's just me.

#150 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 28 November 2012 - 19:11

How about this: make sponsorship illegal. Prohibit the placing of any form of advertising on the car or at the circuits. Limit the resources available to the teams to spend in a robust way. Stopping revenue sharing of the broadcasts and indeed putting the broadcast feed out there in the public domain for anyone to rebroadcast and letting spectators into the venues free would also help. You want to take the money out of the sport? Take the money out of the sport. The only way to effectively limit spending is to limit the inflows of capital into the sport.

Budget capping is like supply side economics, it is based on a completely false set of fundamental economic assumptions.