Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Budget cap and less technical restrictions, would it work?


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

Poll: Budget cap and less technical restrictions, would it work? (71 member(s) have cast votes)

Budget cap and less technical restrictions, would it work?

  1. Yes (38 votes [53.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.52%

  2. No (33 votes [46.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.48%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,134 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 20 June 2014 - 09:26

As there's no budget cap, costs have been tried to cut by some technical restrictions. I've never really liked the longlife engines and gearboxes, and even less the engine homologation for multiple years.

 

But would it work if a budget cap were introduced and restrictions removed? If there were a budget cap, I think there'd be no need for restrictions aimed for cost saving. For sure, there wouldn't be a return to the days of qualy engines but there'd be more freedom for engineers, yet they should work within a restricted budget.

 

I'd prefer F1 with less restrictions, a bigger engineering challenge.



Advertisement

#2 FullThrottleF1

FullThrottleF1
  • Member

  • 417 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 09:28

You'd have manufacturers leaving :-)



#3 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 June 2014 - 09:52

Less restrictions means that there will be more opportunities to search for the most optimal solution, they call such research.

Research mostly demands ever more money to find that optimal solution.

 

So I don't think it will work, I can't envision how you can make it work when you want to spend less money but create more areas/opportunities to poor money into.....

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 20 June 2014 - 09:53.


#4 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:19

Mandatory FIA Safety Cell with seat+driver weighing 90kg, balanced around the seat to match real world weight distribution.

Engines cost 5m/year max for a team.

Max width, height and length of the car for practical reasons.

 

Besides that, Go!

 

The engine price cap will keep developing engine manufacturers honest about their spending. Why build engines from Expendium and Unobtainium while no-one can pay them? The mandatory safety cell will prevent larger drivers from starving and balancing out smaller or larger drivers. It is also cheaper for teams to bolt the rest of the car to the safety cell and no more crash tests needed before entering parts.



#5 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,652 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:25

No. Budget caps will never work.

#6 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,134 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:26

You'd have manufacturers leaving :-)

Yeah, manufacturers must love spending hundreds of millions on an almost-spec series.

 

Less restrictions means that there will be more opportunities to search for the most optimal solution, they call such research.

Research mostly demands ever more money to find that optimal solution.

 

So I don't think it will work, I can't envision how you can make it work when you want to spend less money but create more areas/opportunities to poor money into.....

 

Henri

 

That's why the budget cap. You must spend less money but it'd enable some creativity.



#7 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,371 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:29

You'd have manufacturers leaving :-)

 

And?  How many manufacturers were there when it was McLaren v Brabham v Ferrari v Lotus v Williams v Surtees v Hesketh v March v Tyrrell v Tecno v BRM v Shadow v Ensign in the mid-70s? 

 

Less restrictions means that there will be more opportunities to search for the most optimal solution, they call such research.

Research mostly demands ever more money to find that optimal solution.

 

Which means that they would have to focus their minds.  If I've got £10m to spend on something, I just won't spend £20m.  I'll do the best with the £10m.  I might find the optimal, I might not. 

 

It's effectively what happened in F1 for ages anyway.  The budget required in the past was not as eye-wateringly impossible as now.  Wolf won its first race.  Imagine Haas doing the same.



#8 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,604 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:35

I would love to be proven wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that the only cost cutting measure that would stop the teams from spending as much as they possibly can on making their cars faster and more reliable would be a rigorously and effectively policed regulatory cost cap, but as the teams are opposed to the idea of FIA accounts having unfettered access to their books, and having observers in the factory checking there's no off-the-books assistance comingfrom parent mmanufacturers, it's a non-starter.

Talk of cutting costs by banning specific things misses the point. It may reduce what teams have to spend to get vaguely into the area of competitiveness, but it won't reduce the amount the teams will spend, and if anything it will increase the cost of getting a competitive edge over your rivals.

#9 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,134 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:46

Talk of cutting costs by banning specific things misses the point. It may reduce what teams have to spend to get vaguely into the area of competitiveness, but it won't reduce the amount the teams will spend, and if anything it will increase the cost of getting a competitive edge over your rivals.

 

Yeah, if the FIA prevents you from spending $10M on something that'd bring .5sec but you can find something for that $10M that'd bring .2sec, you're still gonna spend the same amount of money.



#10 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,442 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:54

No. Budget caps will never work.

 

 

Indeed, they are simply unenforceable.



#11 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 20 June 2014 - 11:22

I really can't think of any major sports franchise that has a budget cap which actually works. 

 

It's like telling someone you can't earn 'x' amount because the others get 'y' less than you. 



#12 F1matt

F1matt
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 20 June 2014 - 11:24

I am not convinced we need a budget cap in F1, we have yet to see a team go bankrupt with huge debts unlike some football teams you hear about. The most simple solution would be better distribution of the prize money to teams and a reduction in fees for circuit owners, but that is to simple isn't it?

#13 Imateria

Imateria
  • Member

  • 377 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 11:44

Mandatory FIA Safety Cell with seat+driver weighing 90kg, balanced around the seat to match real world weight distribution.

Engines cost 5m/year max for a team.

Max width, height and length of the car for practical reasons.

 

Besides that, Go!

 

The engine price cap will keep developing engine manufacturers honest about their spending. Why build engines from Expendium and Unobtainium while no-one can pay them? The mandatory safety cell will prevent larger drivers from starving and balancing out smaller or larger drivers. It is also cheaper for teams to bolt the rest of the car to the safety cell and no more crash tests needed before entering parts.

What the hell is real world weight distribution!? Talk about making crap up.

 

Your also talking about a spec chassis, something I am vehemently opposed to.

 

With the way F1 has been allowed to grow over the last 25 years it would be impossible for cost cuts that don't turn it into yet another spec series to work, there are several teams with budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds that will spend that money come what may and there is no way for the smaller teams to realistically gain anything like that in sponsorship or even prize money with Bernie's rigging.

 

I honestly believe that the FIA needs to tear it up and start again, without Bernie/CVC and other leeches of the sort (if that means dropping the F1 name because of Bernie's licensing then so be it), a promoter who will actually promote the sport to it's fullest, more equitable and fair payouts of the sports income and a budget cap that would allow for a freer set of technical regulations with only certain things banned (like hot blown diffusers and sliding skirts) for cost and safety reason driver aids for sporting ones. If it requires an army of accountants to make work, well it'll still be better than what we have now. 



#14 beute

beute
  • Member

  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 June 2014 - 12:40

The fairest approach would be no cap and more open technical regulations.

 

teams spend as much as they think is worth it. that's it.

if they happen to spend too much, well, tough luck, get your act together. It's the teams own responsibility to keep their spending on a sane level.(eg: there is a good return for their investment)

 

For that to work we obviously need a more liberal approach from all the parties involved.



#15 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 12:42

Unless someone comes with a smarter solution, absolutely. 

 

I agree with redeni, though I rather have teams trying to circumvent the cap, than the current situation where teams simply spent their way towards success. I don't think they will be able to outsource things that easily anyway.

 

The racing side of F1 works like in any other sport, but not the engineering side. 8 people working on an engine upgrade for each 1 of the other team is anything but a fair competition. Mechanical differences become insurmountable by any driver unless the FIA restricts the regulations to such a degree that no matter how much a team spends the differences on the car will be small enough for the driver to make a difference.

 

And that brings the second issue: with the increasing number of technical restrictions, teams have come up with all sort of gadgets to have an edge wherever they can. That's led to ubercomplex systems and nerd racing.  A guy in the cockpit is being told by the engineer what to do every lap, which bottoms to move, how to brake, how to save tires, how to save fuel, when to open a gap, when to overtake... I mean, who's racing here?

 

I think we need budget caps to ease restrictions, restore the competition among teams and give back to the drivers the protagonism that most of fans like to see. If anything, restrictions should be enforced on anything mechanical or aerodynamic that hampers racing, or moves racing away from the driver and towards the pit.



#16 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,371 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 20 June 2014 - 12:46

 

I am not convinced we need a budget cap in F1, we have yet to see a team go bankrupt with huge debts unlike some football teams you hear about.

We have - the most notable being Original Lotus. $16m in debt.

#17 beute

beute
  • Member

  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 June 2014 - 13:02

 
We have - the most notable being Original Lotus. $16m in debt.

and why do Lotus' irresponsible, incompetent and shady business practices warrant unjust rules?



#18 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,371 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 20 June 2014 - 13:10

 

and why do Lotus' irresponsible, incompetent and shady business practices warrant unjust rules?

What's unjust about ensuring a level playing field?

And Lotus' "shady business practices"? May I remind you Bernie Ecclestone ran Brabham for nearly two decades? Plus perhaps you are mixing up Team Lotus with Group Lotus.

#19 beute

beute
  • Member

  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 June 2014 - 13:22

 

 
What's unjust about ensuring a level playing field?

 

A budget cap is a regulation that favors one group over another. And by definition this is unfair/unjust.

a level playing field may seem fair, but achieving it through unfair regulations defeats the point imho.

 

 

And Lotus' "shady business practices"? May I remind you Bernie Ecclestone ran Brabham for nearly two decades? Plus perhaps you are mixing up Team Lotus with Group Lotus.

forget what I said, I havent noticed the "original" in front of "lotus".


Edited by beute, 20 June 2014 - 13:27.


Advertisement

#20 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 20 June 2014 - 13:24

What the hell is real world weight distribution!? Talk about making crap up.

 

Your also talking about a spec chassis, something I am vehemently opposed to.

 

With the way F1 has been allowed to grow over the last 25 years it would be impossible for cost cuts that don't turn it into yet another spec series to work, there are several teams with budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds that will spend that money come what may and there is no way for the smaller teams to realistically gain anything like that in sponsorship or even prize money with Bernie's rigging.

 

I honestly believe that the FIA needs to tear it up and start again, without Bernie/CVC and other leeches of the sort (if that means dropping the F1 name because of Bernie's licensing then so be it), a promoter who will actually promote the sport to it's fullest, more equitable and fair payouts of the sports income and a budget cap that would allow for a freer set of technical regulations with only certain things banned (like hot blown diffusers and sliding skirts) for cost and safety reason driver aids for sporting ones. If it requires an army of accountants to make work, well it'll still be better than what we have now. 

 

It is like the seats in DTM.

Driver A: 60kg, seat 30kg

Driver B: 75kg, seat 15kg.

But the 30kg seat has to be balanced towards a normal person, so no 15kg weight at the bottom, but 5kg shoulder, 5kg back, 5kg bottom.

 

I don't mean a spec chassis, I mean a spec survival cell. Sidepods, nose, enginecover, floor, suspension, wings, etc are free for all.



#21 tifosi

tifosi
  • Member

  • 13,285 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 20 June 2014 - 13:33

Indeed, they are simply unenforceable.

 

   This.   There is simply no way to enforce budget caps, unless you make the "teams" all an enitiy of Formula One itself.

 

   Here is the issue.  Let's use Ferrari as an example, but it applies equally to any big money team.  So let's assume the budget, sans drivers, is $100M.  So Ferrari get to work on their F1 entry.

 

   Meanwhile Ferrari decide they also will be doing Lemans.  They spend $300M on the effort, a fabulous engineering masterpiece.

 

  Low and behold if that suspension solution doesn't bolt right on to the F1 car. 



#22 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 831 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 June 2014 - 13:52

   This.   There is simply no way to enforce budget caps, unless you make the "teams" all an enitiy of Formula One itself.

 

   Here is the issue.  Let's use Ferrari as an example, but it applies equally to any big money team.  So let's assume the budget, sans drivers, is $100M.  So Ferrari get to work on their F1 entry.

 

   Meanwhile Ferrari decide they also will be doing Lemans.  They spend $300M on the effort, a fabulous engineering masterpiece.

 

  Low and behold if that suspension solution doesn't bolt right on to the F1 car. 

 

There could be a way around that, but would involve allowing customer parts and cars.

 

Force the constructors to build enough cars to equip at least 60% of the grid each to allow homologization. Force them to sell such cars to any interested competitor for a FIA predetermined price (which would be quite low). Do same for every part or upgrade - if you want to race it, first you have to make it available to everyone else.

 

If your super-expensive top secret research will be immediately available to your competition for peanuts, you'll lose motivation to spend huge amounts of money on such research.

 

But we would then likely end up with something akin to a spec series, everyone settling for the same chassis and engine combo.



#23 Elissa

Elissa
  • Member

  • 228 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 20 June 2014 - 14:09

Applying quasi spec series rules and ideals to a series which prides itself on innovation, and actively seeks out manufacturer involvement is never going to work. 

 

You have a spec series and have done with it.....

 

Or 

 

An open series and let nature take it's course...

 

F1 is hilarious in its double standards, trying to have the best of both worlds won't work long term. 


Edited by Elissa, 20 June 2014 - 15:04.


#24 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,371 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 20 June 2014 - 14:11

 

A budget cap is a regulation that favors one group over another. And by definition this is unfair/unjust.
a level playing field may seem fair, but achieving it through unfair regulations defeats the point imho.

Not having it also favours one group over another - but not necessarily the most deserving group. I could win the world title next year if I had a billion quid. How is that of any merit? 

#25 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 20 June 2014 - 14:16

No you wouldn't. The powers that be prevent that from happening. You can call Toyota on how to blow a few billion and not getting results.



#26 tifosi

tifosi
  • Member

  • 13,285 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 20 June 2014 - 16:28

 
Not having it also favours one group over another - but not necessarily the most deserving group. I could win the world title next year if I had a billion quid. How is that of any merit? 

 

  You were able to get the billion quid.  They weren't.



#27 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,377 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 20 June 2014 - 17:08

So go buy a ticket to watch the stock exchange in action. I want to see a sporting competition. External factors should be reduced as much as is possible. 



#28 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 17:15

   This.   There is simply no way to enforce budget caps, unless you make the "teams" all an enitiy of Formula One itself.

 

   Here is the issue.  Let's use Ferrari as an example, but it applies equally to any big money team.  So let's assume the budget, sans drivers, is $100M.  So Ferrari get to work on their F1 entry.

 

   Meanwhile Ferrari decide they also will be doing Lemans.  They spend $300M on the effort, a fabulous engineering masterpiece.

 

  Low and behold if that suspension solution doesn't bolt right on to the F1 car. 

 

Then do what Bernie said: give a million to "any whistleblower who is proved to be accurate"; or place a permanent FIA dude in every facility to check on their work; or don't renew their participation and replace them with new teams,... whatever. The thing is that every argument put forth against cost caps has only served to keep things as they are now. If budget caps are implemented, I am sure there will be many things to learn and be changed on the way, but doing nothing is not a great argument. And I think customer cars should not even be considered until any other possible avenue has been tried first.

 

Maybe the question is really if F1 can survive without manufacturers, and personally I can't see why that wouldn't be the case. F1 has never been about the team A or B for most of us. It has been mainly about the drivers. That's what people want to see: powerful cars driven by the best drivers in the world. As long as these two elements stay in F1, I think it will do just fine.



#29 Tuxy

Tuxy
  • Member

  • 955 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 20 June 2014 - 17:28

Here's what the governing body FAIL to realize:

 

To borrow a quote from Bruce Lee:

 

“You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water my friend.”

The F1 rulebook is the cup, the car is water.

 

If you design a misshapen cup, the water will take on a misshapen form.

 

If you design regulations that govern the design of the car that does not align itself to the essence of what makes F1 great, you get dicknose cars, grooved tires, no passing, cheese tires, Indy 2005 etc etc etc.

 

F1 needs the right course correction before it's too late.  

 

 



#30 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,371 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 20 June 2014 - 17:52

No you wouldn't. The powers that be prevent that from happening. You can call Toyota on how to blow a few billion and not getting results.

 

Yes I could.  I'd just buy Mercedes with it.  Or at least get my name on it.  Job done.



#31 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,008 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 20 June 2014 - 18:26

No, just no!

I can't believe people are still entertaining the idea of a budget cap. Open up the regulations and let teams spend what they have. While they're at it they can remove the ridiculous tyre rules as well.

Monisha Kaltenborn (Sauber) warns over customer cars but finishes off with this little gem.

"Formula 1 is about constructors and we have to meet the requirement of listed parts to be a constructor.

"F1 needs in its DNA this challenge. It's never been any different; you've always had manufacturer teams and smaller teams competing against each other."

If that is the case then she should stop bitching about costs and get on with it. Whoever said success in formula 1 is cheap?

#32 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,377 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 20 June 2014 - 18:34

You people are so ignorant sometimes. If you have a financial free for all you'll have less competition, and after not too long, fewer teams. 



#33 nosecone

nosecone
  • Member

  • 807 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 18:46

As many wrote already. It is impossible to control a cost cap. The rich teams can avoid this restriction easily by outsourcing some engineers to supply companies.

 

Maybe with tight and strict regulations it would work but i doubt the FIA can do this since they are known for clumsy legislation.

 

Of course we have to avoid a spending war like in the early 2000's. But i don't think a general budget cap would work.


Edited by nosecone, 20 June 2014 - 18:48.


#34 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,184 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 June 2014 - 18:51

There was an idea I thought of last time. If teams really would attempt all sorts of underhanded tactics to evade a budget cap, maybe the costs of auditing each team should be met from that teams prize money. The more convoluted your books are, the more you lose as the accountants have to spend more time digging through whatever bull you try and set up.



#35 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,552 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 20 June 2014 - 22:31

There was an idea I thought of last time. If teams really would attempt all sorts of underhanded tactics to evade a budget cap, maybe the costs of auditing each team should be met from that teams prize money. The more convoluted your books are, the more you lose as the accountants have to spend more time digging through whatever bull you try and set up.

I guess you have a way too positive idea of what accountants really do in their time. Anyway it would need another controlling authority who check what accountants do and whether they use their time 100% efficient.....etc etc.



#36 beute

beute
  • Member

  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 June 2014 - 23:20

 
Not having it also favours one group over another

no it doesnt.

 

Not having it means you show no favoritism one way or the other, that's the just stance.

 

there is a difference between actively enforcing something and *not* interfering at all.

One is showing favoritism towards one group in particular, while the other has no content and therefor no possible favoritism whatsoever.

 

One has subjective fairness(if such a thing even exist :p), the other has objective fairness. I know which one I prefer.

who decides what is fair? a marussia like budget for all? or more like a lotus level budget? what is the right and just answer here? We dont know, and certainly no central authority does know.

so it's best and fairest to let it up to the teams, it's their money, it's their risk. Let them do what they want with it and let them reap what they sow, that's my opinion.

 

Where there is no preferential treatment there is no one to complain about injustice, except for those that do want an unjust favor in the name of "equality" and other nice and just sounding words. In politics those people are called lobbyists.


Edited by beute, 20 June 2014 - 23:24.


#37 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 20 June 2014 - 23:34

No, just no!

I can't believe people are still entertaining the idea of a budget cap. Open up the regulations and let teams spend what they have. While they're at it they can remove the ridiculous tyre rules as well.

Monisha Kaltenborn (Sauber) warns over customer cars but finishes off with this little gem.

"Formula 1 is about constructors and we have to meet the requirement of listed parts to be a constructor.

"F1 needs in its DNA this challenge. It's never been any different; you've always had manufacturer teams and smaller teams competing against each other."

If that is the case then she should stop bitching about costs and get on with it. Whoever said success in formula 1 is cheap?

And you think limiting the use of your CFD and wind tunnel capabilities and ultra restrictive technical rules better ?



#38 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,907 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 June 2014 - 02:45

Slightly off topic, how are salary caps enforced in North American proffessional leagues? Can anything be learned from them.



#39 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 831 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2014 - 03:37

Slightly off topic, how are salary caps enforced in North American proffessional leagues? Can anything be learned from them.

 

It's apples and oranges, it only regulates how much a team can spend on it's players' wages. You only need to monitor players' (in F1 terms: drivers') paychecks. The F1 budget cap situation is several orders of magnitude more complex than that.



Advertisement

#40 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 21 June 2014 - 03:41

Slightly off topic, how are salary caps enforced in North American proffessional leagues? Can anything be learned from them.

 

In Australia: 

 

All NRL player contracts must be lodged with the Salary Cap Auditor. These contracts are reviewed and each player's remuneration is included in the Salary Cap.

In addition, the CEO and Chairman of each club must provide a statutory declaration to the NRL at the beginning and end of each season in support of the club's Salary Cap calculation.

The Salary Cap Auditor monitors each club's Salary Cap position throughout the year based on the information provided by clubs. In addition, the Salary Cap Auditor may perform investigations into the remuneration of players if discrepancies arise. These investigations usually involve the club and its associated entities and cover all payments made and agreements entered into that may result in benefits being provided to players.

The Salary Cap Auditor also continually monitors media reports and makes enquiries in an effort to uncover any information that may have Salary Cap implications.

When clubs have been found to either breach the Salary Cap or have made undisclosed payments to a player, then the club is issued with a breach notice.

If they don't comply, they are simply fined.

 

F1 teams will try different ways to circumvent caps, but how do you hide $50-100 millions extra? Not a chance that can happen. At the very least, it will force all the teams to have similar budgets, which is the main goal. There is no need to uncover shenanigans until the last cent. And if budget caps don't work as some say, do they have any other idea that doesn't involve customer cars or doing nothing? (Doing nothing will probably lead to customer cars or spec series, as far as I can see).


Edited by Astro, 21 June 2014 - 03:52.


#41 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 21 June 2014 - 07:06

It's apples and oranges, it only regulates how much a team can spend on it's players' wages. You only need to monitor players' (in F1 terms: drivers') paychecks. The F1 budget cap situation is several orders of magnitude more complex than that.

 

It may be more complex, but I don't think is apple and oranges. Every year there are audits that cover global multinationals offering from bubble gum to fairy dust. In F1, they would have to audit mainly employees + suppliers. It seems we are talking about auditing North Korean nuclear facilities instead of F1 teams.



#42 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 275 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 21 June 2014 - 07:40

As many wrote already. It is impossible to control a cost cap. The rich teams can avoid this restriction easily by outsourcing some engineers to supply companies.

 

Maybe with tight and strict regulations it would work but i doubt the FIA can do this since they are known for clumsy legislation.

 

Of course we have to avoid a spending war like in the early 2000's. But i don't think a general budget cap would work.

 

Many people wrote something, means not that it is a fact.

Totally possible to have a cost cap, which is why the rich teams are so opposed to it.

 

One idea I enjoyed form Finnish amateur racing, set a cost limit and then at the end of each race allow the competitors to buy the cars from each other at the cost limit. Knowing your gearbox or aero kit can be adopted by the competition at "cost price" sure would limit your desire to overspend.

 

Not that such a mechanism would be right for F1. Otoh, an imaginative mechaism can be employed that isn't as stupid as the current boondoggle.

Let's not live in denial. Money calls the tune at present because money has awarded itself the votes.
 



#43 aguri

aguri
  • Member

  • 223 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:24

Mandatory FIA Safety Cell with seat+driver weighing 90kg, balanced around the seat to match real world weight distribution.

Engines cost 5m/year max for a team.

Max width, height and length of the car for practical reasons.

 

Besides that, Go!

 

The engine price cap will keep developing engine manufacturers honest about their spending. Why build engines from Expendium and Unobtainium while no-one can pay them? The mandatory safety cell will prevent larger drivers from starving and balancing out smaller or larger drivers. It is also cheaper for teams to bolt the rest of the car to the safety cell and no more crash tests needed before entering parts.

 

This is easily the best solution IMO.

 

Pre-homologated FIA safety cell + max engine price regulation.

 

What this means is that every team starts at the same point, they then have to build their own Aero, Suspension, Brakes, Steering with minimal regulations. 

 

Sure it won't stop Ferrari, Merc and RB spending huge amounts of money; but it will limit the benefit of spending extra money past a certain point.

 

All those that think this implies a spec formula are misguided IMO. 


Edited by aguri, 21 June 2014 - 11:50.


#44 Fourjays

Fourjays
  • Member

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 21 June 2014 - 13:46

It is a good idea in theory. It works well in sports like the NBA where you are limiting those directly responsible for your success (the player). Applying a cap to F1 is different though as there are many avenues for teams to outsource, borrow, copy, buy-in, share, etc. It is a different kettle of fish and I'm not sure it would actually work in the end.

 

I think a better solution would be to divide the money up equally (or a large portion of it). Any extra money a team gets from sponsorship is fair play (and successful or historic teams will find it easier to get sponsors anyway, negating the need for a biased distribution of funds). I'd also look at anything that can cut the cost or importance of aero development - it is ridiculously expensive to make even minor gains and good aero isn't exactly synonymous with good racing.

 

For ultimate relevance and non-aero development... open up the mechanical/engine regulations with a simple fuel limit, decreasing year on year. V6, V8, V10, turbo, diesel, whatever - as long as it uses no more than X amount of fuel per race. Would probably get some more interest from the engine manufacturers then, which further increases funds available for teams. Plus it makes it more interesting for the fans.


Edited by Fourjays, 21 June 2014 - 13:46.


#45 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 275 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 21 June 2014 - 20:32

It is a good idea in theory. It works well in sports like the NBA where you are limiting those directly responsible for your success (the player). Applying a cap to F1 is different though as there are many avenues for teams to outsource, borrow, copy, buy-in, share, etc. It is a different kettle of fish and I'm not sure it would actually work in the end.

 

I think a better solution would be to divide the money up equally (or a large portion of it). Any extra money a team gets from sponsorship is fair play (and successful or historic teams will find it easier to get sponsors anyway, negating the need for a biased distribution of funds). I'd also look at anything that can cut the cost or importance of aero development - it is ridiculously expensive to make even minor gains and good aero isn't exactly synonymous with good racing.

 

For ultimate relevance and non-aero development... open up the mechanical/engine regulations with a simple fuel limit, decreasing year on year. V6, V8, V10, turbo, diesel, whatever - as long as it uses no more than X amount of fuel per race. Would probably get some more interest from the engine manufacturers then, which further increases funds available for teams. Plus it makes it more interesting for the fans.

 

 

The outsourcing loophole can be closed by requiring external suppliers to sell the same version to any team on the grid for the same price.

 

If the teams can only gain comparative advantage from internal IP developed with a fixed budget we could get to see some very interesting alternative solutions - rather than the current approach of "throw money at it and see what sticks".



#46 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 9,008 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2014 - 21:46

And you think limiting the use of your CFD and wind tunnel capabilities and ultra restrictive technical rules better ?

I didn't say that. Budget caps and restrictive rules are stupid.

If the technical regulations are opened up there is a higher possibility of a small team finding a golden bullet through clever engineering.

All these restrictions are just crazy and is ruining what was once a great spectacle.

#47 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,134 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 June 2014 - 22:38

There's also one cost cutting rule I've always disliked. It's longlife engines and gearboxes. They've reduced made techincal retirements so rare. It's not anymore about cars barely lasting to the finish line like it once used to be. If there were a cap on engine budgets, I wonder if that meant using more engines that are cheaper, or using few expensive engines like now?



#48 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,371 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 21 June 2014 - 22:55

I didn't say that. Budget caps and restrictive rules are stupid.
 

 

Well, a Ferrari fan would say that.  Ferrari need to spent four times as much as the opposition to have a chance of winning.



#49 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 21 June 2014 - 23:57

I didn't say that. Budget caps and restrictive rules are stupid.

If the technical regulations are opened up there is a higher possibility of a small team finding a golden bullet through clever engineering.

All these restrictions are just crazy and is ruining what was once a great spectacle.

You can't have both, come on free budget +almost  free technical regs will signify the death of everyone bare Ferrari+ 2 or three constructors. The only way that would work is to do it a la DTM, meaning separating constructors and teams which is against F1 spirit.



#50 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,034 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 22 June 2014 - 05:40

How would you monitor the expenditure?