316 replies to this topic

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

With Jean Todt recently saying that some of the proposals by teams to cut costs have been ridiculous (cutting $2-3m rather than tens of millions), I'd like to know what would be your solution. Surely, we cannot think of anything worse, can we?

 

My solution is this.

 

All the struggling teams - Maurussia, Catherham, Sauber etc have the chance to buy the technology and car from their parent engine supplier ie Catherham can buy from Red Bull, Sauber from Ferrari etc.

 

It can cost no more than $50,000,000 for engines, technology. spare parts and the cars with the cars they purchase being the LATEST or LAST spec of the previous season. So in other words, for 2015, Caterham can buy the very last car used by Red Bull in Abu Dhabi.

 

These customer teams also do not have access to their parent supplier's 2015 data so they will be solely reliant on the last technology of the previous season and will have to develop / adapt (if required) their cars for the following season totally on their own. Then for the next season, the customer teams again have the choice to buy the latest technology, parts of it or none of it (essentially sticking with what they have to save budget).

 

This will ensure that the bottom teams do at least have a very fighting chance for points finishes and do not have cars that are 2-3 seconds per lap slower with massive downforce defeciencies etc. Also, with the rules being as stable as they are. unless someone finds a massive loophole to create a massive performance gap, the gaps could stay relatively close. Again though, the customer teams are free to develop on their own though.

 

Have I completely lost the plot or does this seem feasible in principle at least?

[Slackbladder]

Well thats not going to be feasible when the technology changes in the way it has done for this year. But I do think customer cars have to be considered. 

 

Problem is, teams are always going to spend whatever they can to get whatever advantage you can. This year, it's powertrains which make the difference, when Red Bull was on top, it was Aero. If you lock something down, money is just going to flow into another area. 

 

If Red Bull, or Merc or whatever can throw hundreds of millions to get an advantage, they will. If they have 10m and use that to get a few tenths advantage, they will spend it. 

[Anderis]

Have I completely lost the plot or does this seem feasible in principle at least?

Well, if bottom teams are able to buy cars from top teams, then midfield teams are cooked. They either are left far behind or are forced to buy cars from top teams as well.

 

It all ends up in a situation when you only have 3 or 4 real manufacturers in F1 and the rest are just buying the car. For me, personally, F1 would lost too much of it through the solution like this.

 

Buying car from previous season will not work. Each season sees some changes in technical regulations that make the previous year's cars illegal for the next season. You can say buyer team can always modify it, but cars are designed to perform under the given set of rules, and how do you expect Red Bull's car build around EBD to perform when EBD is banned? Then it's pretty much useless car.

Edited by Anderis, 25 June 2014 - 09:39.

[pizzalover]

Simplify aerodynamics by implementing a "two part mould" rule. This would negate the need for the vast amount of resources currently spent at the moment.

 

Sorted. 

[teejay]

Aero is where massive dollars are spent.

 

Reduce brakes away from exotic stuff - it will lower costs and increase braking distances slightly, which can improve racing.

 

The issue however, ISNT cost cutting - it is about appropriate sharing of dollars coming through the sport. Wouldn't be any issues if the sport wasn't being milked by its masters.

[angrysasha]

get rid of Bernie and CVC. Give all the money to the teams. 

[SophieB]

With Jean Todt recently saying that some of the proposals by teams to cut costs have been ridiculous (cutting $2-3m rather than tens of millions), I'd like to know what would be your solution. Surely, we cannot think of anything worse, can we?

 

My solution is this.

 

All the struggling teams - Maurussia, Catherham, Sauber etc have the chance to buy the technology and car from their parent engine supplier ie Catherham can buy from Red Bull, Sauber from Ferrari etc.

 

 

 

I have a vague feeling someone in F1 (Bernie?) floated this idea around to few takers near the beginning of 2012.

 

 

Other cost cutting plans:

Roscoe to be fed supermarket own-brand dog biscuits instead of Pedigree Chum.

[Kristian]

I liked an idea someone mentioned on here previously - budget caps, with weight penalties for those over. So basically still spend as much as you like, but it negates the point of spending extra than the recommended with a reduced performance advantage. Probably unworkable though....

 

But as had been said, the biggest issue is the TV and income distribution to the teams; its disgusting really. 

[Gorma]

Historically customet cars have been huge part of formula 1.

[Nemo1965]

Posted this in the WEC thread. Recycle people, save the planet!

 

1. A mandatory minimum six cm rideheight, front and rear, electronically controlled by the FIA just like they are controlling fuelconsumption electronically. F1 cars could still have rake for downforce, but the front of the car should still be: 6 cm high.

 

This would seriously f@#$ up both underside and upside aerodynamics, making huge investments in aero less profitable and investments in mechanical grip more profitable. And what is the nice thing about suspensions? Anyone could see them and copy them. Ahaaa.

 

 

2. Mandatory single-element front wing. Clearly. No explaining needed.

 

3. Big rear wheels (as Gary Anderson suggested, and Pirelli). More stable cars, bigger wakes in the rear, all clear. Less incentive to push money in aerodevelopments that try to screw up the aero of the following car wit clever rear-diffusors (of which I suspect some...)

 

4. Ten year rule-stability, NO CHANGES IN THE ENGINES! The longer the engines can be re-used, the lower the costs will get.

[ClubmanGT]

Crate engines

[redreni]

The question implies that costs need to be cut. But the big teams have made it clear they're happy to go on spending ridiculous sums and having another spending war and they refuse to let anyone stop them, so I don't think anything ought to be done about their spending.

 

Reading Horner's recent interview with Deiter Rencken, it becomes clear that the big teams probably are interested in addressing a separate issue, which is the minimum cost of just getting on the grid. Because they don't want the small teams to die as then they'd end up having to run three or four cars, they don't want grid numbers to fall to the point where it looks mickey mouse, and most of all they don't want to accept a smaller slice of the pie so that the small teams can have enough to get onto the grid under the current rules. And in the case of Horner, they also dont want FOM to get a smaller slice of the pie, because they know what side their bread's buttered.

 

My solution? I don't believe there isn't enough money in F1 to have a full grid of proper constructors. I think mean-spirited cuts to testing or practice or anything of that nature just make the sport look foolish and aren't needed. To keep the grid healthy, in my view we need to give points to every classified finisher, all the way down to last place, FOM needs to give the small teams better coverage on the World Feed, so that the small teams' cars become worth sponsoring for decent money, and there needs to be a more realistic distribution of commercial revenes, with the smaller teams getting more, FOM getting less, and the big teams getting about the same amount. But the only way FOM would accept less is if the teams were united, and threatened to take their ball away and play on their own, without FOM. And we're far from that at the moment. Ecclestone has done a magnificent job, with individual deals with individual teams for their slice of the commericial revenue, and the F1 Commission, of creating mistrust and acrimony between the teams.

Edited by redreni, 25 June 2014 - 10:22.

[V8 Fireworks]

 

Crate engines

 

 

 

I like this one 

 

http://www.mulsannes...com/juddgv5.jpg

 

Who cares if it is 90s technology?  Judd is a reputable company, the engine is cheap and makes the prerequiste 750hp!!

[V8 Fireworks]

Reduce brakes away from exotic stuff - it will lower costs and increase braking distances slightly, which can improve racing.

 

 

?  Hardly a big issue or cost.

 

The cost is the level of R+D... hundreds of engineers at the factory, when in the past a F1 team of the 60s may have had less than half a dozen engineers and built a more than competitive motor car.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 25 June 2014 - 10:28.

[PayasYouRace]

Posted this in the WEC thread. Recycle people, save the planet!

 

1. A mandatory minimum six cm rideheight, front and rear, electronically controlled by the FIA just like they are controlling fuelconsumption electronically. F1 cars could still have rake for downforce, but the front of the car should still be: 6 cm high.

 

This would seriously f@#$ up both underside and upside aerodynamics, making huge investments in aero less profitable and investments in mechanical grip more profitable. And what is the nice thing about suspensions? Anyone could see them and copy them. Ahaaa.

 

 

 

That's the nice thing about aerodynamics. Anyone can see them an copy them. Ahaaa! /sarcasm.

 

Seriously you're not going to make savings in aero research by making things more difficult like that. You just force aero development into the smaller areas that you can play with.

 

Good aero rules are those that will be restrictive of numbers of elements, and base dimensions. The rules that got rid of all the flips and fins were good. This year's maximum height for the rear wing elements and banning of the beam wing are good. Next should be the front wing, mandating no more than two elements (plane and flap). I know you've only suggested a single element, but I'm happy to allow two to help with adjustments.

[ANF]

there needs to be a more realistic distribution of commercial revenes, with the smaller teams getting more, FOM getting less, and the big teams getting about the same amount.

[SophieB]

I found the previous Bernie plan I was thinking of, it was frrom June 2012: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/100562
 
 

When asked by Gazzetta dello Sport about the possibility of third cars in F1, Ecclestone said: "I don't think it will happen. But I would like to see some of the smaller teams with a single car sold by a top team, which had been used the previous year. Perhaps it could be driven by a rookie."
Ecclestone believes the plan could be put in place as early as 2013.
"I would like that," he said. "Some teams would certainly get better results compared to now and spend less, immediately."

 

[SenorSjon]

Have single car teams, or allow two liveries. But since there are few consumer sponsors left, this wouldn't make much of a difference. Best would be to reset the bunch and start from scratch. More meddlng won't work. And budget caps won't work either. There is so much wrong and there are so much threads about this subject, I will not repeat everything again.

 

Personally, I've kicked out my Sport1 trial. So back to RTL and BBC for viewing.

[Rocket73]

Cost cap! Cost reduction is just bollox...hundreds of rules and usually they are completely counter productive. 

 

Take the money out of the equation and bring back all things F1 and motor racing like testing and innovation and individuality.

[4MEN]

Before anyone propose anything we should know how the money is spent in F1. When they proposed the ban on thermal blankets it made me laugh. One simple measure, though, would be limit the number of personnel at races.

[nosecone]

First of all; i don't think that we have a spending problem and even if we had one the unfair prize money distribution was to blame. I know that the vast majority in here will disagree but that is my opinion

 

The problem is (IMO) that the money is distributed in an unfair way. The problems start at the very top, since Bernie is getting nearly 50% of the money of the sponsors and tv stations. If Bernie cutted his own earnings to about 10% no team would have financial problems. Of course i can't proof this thesis. The second problem is the distribution between the teams. The teams that are rich anyway get the most money. I agree that teams with a big history and teams that are important for the F1 get more money but the F1 over-did that policy.

 

We shouldn't focus on cost cutting and making stupid proposals like banning tyre warmers to save 10pounds. What the F1 has to do is introducing a new prize money distribution.

Edited by nosecone, 25 June 2014 - 12:07.

[Nemo1965]

First of all; i don't think that we have a spending problem and even if we had one the unfair prize money distribution was to blame. I know that the vast majority in here will disagree but that is my opinion

 

The problem is (IMO) that the money is distributed in an unfair way. The problems start at the very top, since Bernie is getting nearly 50% of the money of the sponsors and tv stations. If Bernie cutted his own earnings to about 10% no team would have financial problems. Of course i can't proof this thesis. The second problem is the distribution between the teams. The teams that are rich anyway get the most money. I agree that teams with a big history and teams that are important for the F1 get more money but the F1 over-did that policy.

 

We shouldn't focus on cost cutting and making stupid proposals like banning tyre warmers to save 10pounds. What the F1 has to do is introducing a new prize money distribution.

 

I agree with you there and I've posted this opinion (the division of money is unfair) so often, I fear to slowly become the Cato de Censor of this board (Delendam Carthago!), but the distribution itself would not change the insane spending F1 has forced itself into a corner with. In the discussion about 'Ferrari leaving the sport', I made a table with new division of the price-money. Much, much faire IMHO, but not a solution for the smaller teams or the midfield teams.

Edited by Nemo1965, 25 June 2014 - 12:15.

[KWSN - DSM]

Forget mandating cost saving measures as dollars and cents statements, stop introducing insanely expensive new technology, stop mandating shared parts, stop mandating single tire manufacturer, stop all the make everything the same concept, stop the flawed thinking that F1 needs to have any carry over or connection to the cars we drive on the road, stop making specific accommodations for and to the manufacturers, share the wealth based on performance, stop giving any team a greater say, stop giving any team funds based on their history in the sport, stop giving any team more of a say based on their history in the sport.

 

Write regulations which will tighten the time difference between front and rear, write regulations which will allow overtaking on track without the use of artificial gimmicks, give the FIA the power to make any changes for whichever reason they want to all regulations.

 

Open the franchise, BRAKE the contract with FOM.

 

[lustigson]

Teams will spend whatever amount of money they have — and probably more — wherever regulations allow. That's why sporting and technical regulations can never fully limit the amount of spending by the top teams. A budget cap is the only way to do that. I realize that this is extremely difficult, but not impossible.

 

Since the FIA run an open championship, they should decide the rules. And I believe that, since all competitors voluntarily sign up for the championship, it is up to them to show the FIA that they comply with the rules. That includes any budgetary restrictions. In other words: competitors are guilty unless they can prove their innocence.  

 

Edit: Oh, and CVC should stop sucking all the money out of the sport.

Edited by lustigson, 25 June 2014 - 14:20.

[Seanspeed]

Each team gets a money printer.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Historically customet cars have been huge part of formula 1.

 

We don't talk about that. Or how many teams just bought a Cosworth and went racing. 

[RealRacing]

Aside from the obvious better distribution of earnings, which won't happen unless BE has an elbow operation, I see rule stability as a natural way to reduce costs. With the right limitations and strict control to avoid loophole exploitation, the cars and PUs will reach a point of maximum development when improvements are too hard to come by or won't amount to much so the ROI for improvements will be very marginal. In this sense, F1 would be similar to a stock series without actually being one. It's the big rule changes from season to season that create huge R&D costs where the smaller teams simply have no chance. 

 

Also, and, I would think, a very simple measure, would be to adjust the calendar so that a series of GPs are held in relatively close proximity instead of having to fly back to Europe and then to America again for example. Why Canada, then Europe, then US? I'm thinking logistics costs could be reduced significantly by doing this.

[Timstr11]

-Less restrictive technical rules

-but coupled with a more equitable division of income.

-F1 must be owned by the teams participating in the sport so that all profits flow back to the teams who are the true investors and make it all happen, rather than into the pockets of those who merely own the F1 naming rights (Bernie/CVC).

-The FIA (together with the F1 owners) must remain the rules governor, with changes to ensure that rule making does not stall.

 

Unfortunately the chance for the above to happen is only when a huge disruption occurs. Something like a big financial or other type of crisis with big financial losses for the current owners.

Edited by Timstr11, 25 June 2014 - 14:59.

[Ross Stonefeld]

How are more open technical rules a cost savings? 

[Atic Atac]

I worked as Auditor for a few years in big companies and, believe me, a cost cap it's absolutely impossible to control or monitor. Too many grey areas and too many ways of outsourcing R&D, materials, technology, etc..

 

I agree with some posters before, Teams will expend all they have to get advantages. What's important is making "easy" to build a competitive competitive car with a normal budget and let the bigger teams expend millions looking for small advantages if they want. It's their problem.

 

So basically, any team must have access to a compititive PU at a reasonable cost, and aero rules must be simplified to make it harder to gain a significative advantage by overspending in this area.

[Timstr11]

How are more open technical rules a cost savings? 

 

I think what will remain is teams spending what they've got. That is not going to change (unless you can find a way to introduce a budget cap). But to garner a bit more interest in the sport, a relaxation of the rules might work. But this is not the main thing for me. The fundamental thing is the ownership of the sport and the distribution of income.

[Option1]

Customer cars.

 

Get rid of wings, and every other aero aid.  Yes, some of it is easier said than done, as aero will still play some role, but it's a start.

 

In truth though, no matter what the solution is the teams will still spend whatever their budget (and that's their budget whether it's open to see or hidden because of mandated caps) is.  Get rid of aero for them to spend money on then they'll pour that money into some other part of the equation. 

 

Neil

[MikeV1987]

Get rid of bernie

[Ross Stonefeld]

 

Get rid of wings, and every other aero aid.  Yes, some of it is easier said than done, as aero will still play some role, but it's a start.

 

 

I wonder if there'd be someway to cap or at least heavily restrict downforce. Like...nothing forward(or rearword on the rear) of the center of the wheel rim? 

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

I found the previous Bernie plan I was thinking of, it was frrom June 2012: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/100562
 
 

Bernie is a genius. He doesn't get enough props!

 

 

Simplified aero may not work as F1 has to show that it is the LEADING formula in the world for aerodynamic design and design ingenuity.

 

Tighter rules that have very little scope to maneovure may be better.

 

Then again, we could all still end up with similar looking cars and that would be boring.

Edited by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001, 25 June 2014 - 15:53.

[Wingcommander]

Only a budget cap would seriously cut costs. All this nonsense about spec parts is just... nonsense, and IMO completely against what F1 should be. The same goes for customer cars. Having A and B teams and stopping half the teams from being constructors would very much decrease my interest in the sport. But then again, with double points etc. they don't seem to be that interested in what a fan like me thinks. Slowly but surely I'm starting to think that it would better if F1 just killed itself and they could go back to basics. Maybe FIA should start F2 again, but this time not as a spec series. 

[Imateria]

The problem is that the teams are always willing to spend whatever they can get their hands on. McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull are very happy spending 200 million+ pounds a year and no amount of "cost cutting" is ever going to change that. To keep themselves relatively competitive the rest of the grid has to spend themselves into oblivion, or risk being so slow that they can't qualify anyway, also leading to oblivion. The highly restrictive, and increasingly so, rules don't help as it forces the teams into highly expensive development by reiteration. Again, the big teams can and will spend whatever they like on this and we've seen how Red Bull has mastered this and just how complex their aero is. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if we want F1 to be the best it can be then we need to rip the sport up and start again.

 

First order of business would be to take Bernie, CVC and the rest of the share holder leaches and throw them in a dungeon (preferably Max Moseley's) and throw away the key.  

 

Then there's the obvious redistribution of the sports income. I can't be bothered to work out the percentages but there's no way that one team that's already rich should be able to gain 10 times that of another. I'd still allow the extra "bonus" payments but limit them to teams that have been in the sport in their current guise for 25 years or more (so thats Ferrari, McLaren and Williams, and Sauber in another 3-4 years) and not have them being anywhere near as much as they currently are. The rest would go to the FIA to be spent on running, policing and promoting the sport.

 

Budget caps. I know this would be extremely problematic to implement and police but I think it's the only solution that will allow F1 to stay being F1 and cut costs. I think the rules would require careful wording forcing the teams to demonstrate that they have spent their budget on developing and building the parts themselves or if something has been outsourced then it is available to all other teams at the same price. Obviously engine development wouldn't be included in the cap as that would kill Ferrari and Mercedes. This might be a little (or a lot) simplistic but I think it's a good direction to start from in making a budget cap realistic and workable.

 

The tech regs is the difficult part. One thing I would like is to see the sport borrow from the WEC's rules that has allowed for such variety, and go even further. First I'd like to see the teams given the choice of going with current style cars though with the regulations governing where the bodywork can be tightened up in some areas and relaxed in others or go with ground effect cars that have very restrictive upper body work rules. As for engines, going with WEC style energy consumption per lap rather than the max fuel/flow rate rules we currently have and complete freedom on engine configuration would be brilliant, especially if someone like Cosworth, AER, Zytek or Judd can be persuaded to supply a standard turbo or NA car without the need for supper expensive and complex hybrid systems. The idea would be to bring back variety to the grid, I mean who wouldn't want to see Honda racing a Hydrogen fuel cell car against a Ferrari V12?

 

I don't mind customer cars in themselves so I'd be OK with them being brought back to the sport, preferably with the grid limit removed, allowing customer teams to run just 1 car if the want to and forcing any customer team to make modifications to year old cars themselves, or at least outsourcing the work to any other company that isn't one of the other teams, and that they have to build their own car after a maximum of 5 years in the sport. Energy consumption rules can be adjust to prevent them from being too competitive and forcing out the midfield teams, but it would make for an easier way to get new teams in and up to speed with the sport and then building their own cars.     

 

Maybe it's largely fantasy and has too many problems but I quite like these ideas.   

[onewingedangel]

Have more stable rules that would allow teams to run cars through more than one season if they choose.

 

Would also allow a smaller team to delay the introduction of their new car until mid-way through a season and copy any significant design directions implemented by the big teams.

 

Active suspension systems would mean the teams would need fewer components and set up would be a lot quicker.

Edited by onewingedangel, 25 June 2014 - 17:13.

[Andrew Hope]

I don't want cost-cutting. F1 is a giant money pit and if you can't afford to throw the GDP of a small country into it every year you shouldn't be there.

Edited by Andrew Hope, 25 June 2014 - 17:17.

[Option1]

I wonder if there'd be someway to cap or at least heavily restrict downforce. Like...nothing forward(or rearword on the rear) of the center of the wheel rim? 

It should be possible to at least meter it I would think, so a rule that sets a limit could be feasible.

 

Bernie is a genius. He doesn't get enough props!

 

 

Simplified aero may not work as F1 has to show that it is the LEADING formula in the world for aerodynamic design and design ingenuity.

 

Tighter rules that have very little scope to maneovure may be better.

 

Then again, we could all still end up with similar looking cars and that would be boring.

No, I don't think that F1 does have to show it's the "leading" formula for aero design.  To my mind it's as silly as the sound kerfuffle; i.e. something only relevant to a select sub-set of the hardcore F1 fans.   in my (sometimes it's even humble) opinion, F1 would do better appealing to the world at large as being at the forefront of design ingenuity for things that might actually find their way onto road cars.  IMHO, the whole hybrid engine (I refuse call them a PU - sounds like short hand for how a skunk smells) thing is actually a good move.

 

Neil

Edited by Option1, 25 June 2014 - 17:20.

[xflow7]

There are some solid arguments to reducing aerodynamic downforce, but I don't think cost savings is one of them.  What makes people think that reducing available downforce will reduce spending on aero?  You could say no downforce is allowed at all and they'll expend just as much effort on aero, only it will be focused on minimizing drag rather than maximizing L/D.

[Nemo1965]

I worked as Auditor for a few years in big companies and, believe me, a cost cap it's absolutely impossible to control or monitor. Too many grey areas and too many ways of outsourcing R&D, materials, technology, etc..

 

I agree with some posters before, Teams will expend all they have to get advantages. What's important is making "easy" to build a competitive competitive car with a normal budget and let the bigger teams expend millions looking for small advantages if they want. It's their problem.

 

So basically, any team must have access to a compititive PU at a reasonable cost, and aero rules must be simplified to make it harder to gain a significative advantage by overspending in this area.

 

I know of two Formula 1 teams that already - with the meagre personel-limits which there are (or were?) imposed - are very creative in hiding the real cost/personel of their Formula 1 teams. I don't understand the trick exactly, but it has to do with hiring young personel as 'trainees', instead of full blown senior employees.

 

The affordable power-unit: I agree with you there. 

[masa90]

I dont think cost cutting in itself is going to work.

 

They ban testing on track->they make simulators etc and it costs just more and is making the difference even bigger.

 

One biggest help for teams would be to spend the money to teams more efficiently. Big dogs wouldnt be able to spend so much if they dont get as much prize money. Ofcourse sponsordeals etc will be bigger for the "better" teams but the difference would shrink.

 

Now it is on a deathspiral with most new rules failing and instability which is really expensive and big stress to the teams.

[Tsarwash]

Allow single car teams, and allow teams to enter less than all of the races, say five race entry minimum. That would allow smaller teams to dip their toe without committing such a huge wad of money.

[R Soul]

Teams should be allowed to miss races, but I accept that this might only be a small saving.

 

I agree with previous comments about a more even distribution of funds, but I think the circuit owners should get some of the TV revenues too. They also have to cut costs. On that note, I think there should be a fixed hosting fee rather than the each circuit negotiating a fee with automatic increase.

 

I like the idea of customer cars but I think their return might be a bit of a shock to the system. Perhaps customer teams should only be allowed to run one car. And perhaps they should only be allowed to take part in 16 races (or a lower number if we have fewer than 19/20 races).

[Atreiu]

1 - Customer chassis. It would lead to shared development costs and also relieve the smaller teams from the burden of chassis design and development from scratch. Just like they do with engines/powertrains/PUs. Imagine if all "constructors" had to also construct their PUs.

 

2 - 1 car teams.

 

3 - Teams are not obliged to go to every single GP. Of course, the payout for their results will be proportional to their attendance. For example, 2 teams score 10 points and tie in the WCC. But team A went to all 20 GPs and team B only to 16. Team A will be entitled to 100% of the WCC prize and team B only for 80%. Of course, if team B happened to skip the furthest and most expensive fly away GPs, it might actually better for their finances.

[4MEN]

http://www.tsmplug.c...-formula-1-car/

The cost of the engine is ridiculous.

[Fastcake]

Allow single car teams, and allow teams to enter less than all of the races, say five race entry minimum. That would allow smaller teams to dip their toe without committing such a huge wad of money.

 

The costs come from designing and building the cars in the first place. Once you consider the loss of prize money, sponsorship, and a pay driver in the second seat, I'd be surprised if you saved anything. You're probably only going to end up with a smaller grid in the final race, as teams teetering on the brink and with nothing to gain pull out early. I don't want to see smaller grids.

Edited by Fastcake, 25 June 2014 - 19:18.

[HaydenFan]

2-3 year chassis/engine freeze (with limited development work), and a cut in work force. Yes, that second part is a rough one. Especially in this economy, but the biggest cost is work force. Maybe do what other sports do. Place roster limits to teams. You can have "x" number of people at the track, "x" number of people working only at the factory (these are not garages, they are racing factories). 

 

Cut down the engineering side. You hear about how teams have a group of engineers on the pit wall, behind the garage, and at the factory. Cut that out! 

 

The biggest cost is staffing. When you have hundreds of people working on a car, it is going to cost hundreds of million of dollars. It'd be a cruel part of cost cutting, but it is what everyone is doing to cut costs to business. 

[4MEN]

 

The biggest cost is staffing. When you have hundreds of people working on a car, it is going to cost hundreds of million of dollars. It'd be a cruel part of cost cutting, but it is what everyone is doing to cut costs to business. 

Cut the staff of CVC + Bernie and we are done!