Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 4 votes

Something to keep in mind before the first race...


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 malik

malik
  • New Member

  • 9 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 27 February 2015 - 14:02

I've been reading that three car teams will destroy F1, and so will two-tier series, spec chassis, budget caps, etc. It seems that there's no solution to the ever growing problem that everyone is going bankrupt in the sport.

Here's a thought: Instead of shooting down every single idea that goes into mind and letting F1 rot in its current state, try looking at it from another perspective and talk in more depth and detail rather than just simply stating an opinion. But more importantly, just do something, rather than leaving a void in the leadership that the FIA has left. Because at this rate, there won't be any teams left to criticize.

Advertisement

#2 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 27 February 2015 - 15:36

Customer cars

Or

standardised components like front wings, ERS/ hybrid parts or ECUs.

Millions are pumped into the aero etc so why not start there?

#3 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 27 February 2015 - 15:57

People have discussed their ideas at great length in many threads on this subject.  You might be giving them insufficient credit.

 

However, just like with anything else, you'll get a dozen people wanting a dozen different things. None of which are inherently wrong or unworkable, but which can't all be combined into one formula.

 

More importantly, it doesn't actually matter all that much. F1 is expensive now. It has been this way for as long as I've watched F1. The powers that be know this as well as anyone here.

 

There is some reason to be optimistic, though. The subject of how income is divided has become a big talking point in recent years. It might not have changed anything yet, but at least it's now out there in the open.



#4 king_crud

king_crud
  • Member

  • 7,964 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 27 February 2015 - 16:17

You should win things by watching

#5 ninetyzero

ninetyzero
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 27 February 2015 - 16:22

The sport is too expensive and they spend millions dicking around with aero. Banning the use of wind tunnels would solve a few of these problems in my opinion.



#6 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 February 2015 - 16:26

McLaren's pre-season has been so catastrophic I have been able to expect nothing at all from the first races, which may allow me to watch F1 with the same passing and non damaging interest as I have with NASCAR.



#7 RosannaG

RosannaG
  • Member

  • 1,121 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 27 February 2015 - 16:26

Stop changing the rules and please, explain the existing ones more clearly.


Edited by RosannaG, 27 February 2015 - 16:26.


#8 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 27 February 2015 - 16:50

Simple engines that doesn't need to last several races.

1 big reason for costs being so high today is because the engines must last for several races so the teams need to spend a fortune on making them last for those races.

Instead of building cheap engines that only last 400km.

 

Standard Wings.

They spend millions on small winglets on the front wings, complete waste of money.

 

Simulators needs to be banned aswell.

They constantly needs to be updated and teams spends millions on that crap.

Why not just do some testing on an actual track where the fans can come and follow.

 

Teams in england are close to race tracks, just put the car in the trailer and head out to the track and do some laps.

Ferrari has it own track in the backyard, it's Stupid that they cant use it.

Also would be so much cheaper to just roll the car out and do some running then what they do now.


Edited by Gyno, 27 February 2015 - 16:51.


#9 ninetyzero

ninetyzero
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 27 February 2015 - 16:55

Simple engines that doesn't need to last several races.

1 big reason for costs being so high today is because the engines must last for several races so the teams need to spend a fortune on making them last for those races.

Instead of building cheap engines that only last 400km.

 

Standard Wings.

They spend millions on small winglets on the front wings, complete waste of money.

 

Simulators needs to be banned aswell.

They constantly needs to be updated and teams spends millions on that crap.

Why not just do some testing on an actual track where the fans can come and follow.

 

Teams in england are close to race tracks, just put the car in the trailer and head out to the track and do some laps.

Ferrari has it own track in the backyard, it's Stupid that they cant use it.

Also would be so much cheaper to just roll the car out and do some running then what they do now.

 

The funny thing is that in-season testing was banned to save money but the top teams just spent the cash on simulators instead. :well:



#10 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 1,892 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 27 February 2015 - 17:15

Yes, it just proves that teams will spend, spend until the money is gone.



#11 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 February 2015 - 19:13

The teams have and will always spend every penny they have as long as it gives them advantage.

 

Even if that means they're running the team at a multi million dollar loss for years on end.

 

 

If the FIA really wanted to cap costs they should just mandate that each team has to make a minimum of 10% net profit every year.

That way it would make less sense to try and raise the crazy $150million+ budgets.



#12 tomjol

tomjol
  • Member

  • 883 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 27 February 2015 - 19:18

The funny thing is that in-season testing was banned to save money but the top teams just spent the cash on simulators instead. :well:

 

The same would happen if they banned wind tunnels as you suggested. Teams would just plough the money into CFD  :well:


Edited by tomjol, 27 February 2015 - 19:19.


#13 ninetyzero

ninetyzero
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 27 February 2015 - 19:25

The same would happen if they banned wind tunnels as you suggested. Teams would just plough the money into CFD  :well:

 

True, maybe the answer is to restrict development somehow; say they can only change certain aero components (wings etc)  2-3 times a year, or make the teams only have two aero packages for the season. And also allow teams to run year old power units at a reduced cost.



#14 balmybaldwin

balmybaldwin
  • Member

  • 2,070 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 27 February 2015 - 19:29

It would be nice if the sports promoters and teams talk up all the positives, rather than just grumble about the negatives. If bernie et al stopped saying the noise is bad andstarted saying look at this amazing tech, we are going just as fast with a third less fuel etc.

#15 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 February 2015 - 19:30

True, maybe the answer is to restrict development somehow; say they can only change certain aero components (wings etc)  2-3 times a year, or make the teams only have two aero packages for the season. And also allow teams to run year old power units at a reduced cost.

 

Limiting the amount of parts they can use in a season has never lowered the cost of them.

 

Having only 4-5 engines for a whole season has only made the prices escalate as their reliability is what costs money.

 

Having only 2-3 aero setups a season doesn't lower the cost of the aero development, it just makes it more important for that aero to work perfectly out of the gate and under more conditions and would push the development costs up through the roof.



#16 ninetyzero

ninetyzero
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 27 February 2015 - 19:40

Limiting the amount of parts they can use in a season has never lowered the cost of them.

 

Having only 4-5 engines for a whole season has only made the prices escalate as their reliability is what costs money.

 

Having only 2-3 aero setups a season doesn't lower the cost of the aero development, it just makes it more important for that aero to work perfectly out of the gate and under more conditions and would push the development costs up through the roof.

 

Damn it that's probably true as well. I would say 'budget cap' but that's unenforceable.



#17 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 February 2015 - 20:05

That's why I suggested that there should be a least some rules that say the teams should be well managed and somewhat profitable so that they can grow for the future.

 

Spending crazy amounts of money is perfectly fine as long you can afford it, it's the badly run teams that go into tens of millions of debt on purpose that are the problem really.



#18 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 27 February 2015 - 21:04

The teams have and will always spend every penny they have as long as it gives them advantage.

 

Even if that means they're running the team at a multi million dollar loss for years on end.

 

 

If the FIA really wanted to cap costs they should just mandate that each team has to make a minimum of 10% net profit every year.

That way it would make less sense to try and raise the crazy $150million+ budgets.

 

That's essentially a cost cap. It's a cost cap related to income, rather than an absolute cost cap, but it still relies on the FIA being able to check up on the entrants' finances. It's not a simple matter, because there are plenty of ways and means of making your team's accounts show any amount of profit or loss you want. If you're trying to show the FIA that you've made a profit when really you've made a loss you won't be able to magic away the debts arising from the losses, but you could easily satisfy the FIA by moving it from one company's books onto another's.

 

The fact that you can hide expenditure was one of the chief obstacles to the Mosley cost cap and one of the reasons the RRA died on its bottom, and it would be the same with profit and loss. So I can't see this being feasible. Plus, if the British-based F1 teams declared a profit they'd have to pay UK corporation tax - pigs will fly before that happens, I suspect.



#19 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 February 2015 - 21:43

Maybe you should look at what the FA is doing with the Premier Leagues finances and their work to limit debts and escalating costs before you go all nay say and claim it can't be done in F1 for whatever reason.

 

The FIA and the teams could work together to write fair financial regulations for the sport, they just wont.


Edited by johnmhinds, 27 February 2015 - 21:45.


Advertisement

#20 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,328 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 27 February 2015 - 22:09

You should win things by watching

 

So... you want close, affordable racing that's completely off the wall and swarming with 1000hp hybrids?


Edited by Risil, 27 February 2015 - 22:09.


#21 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 8,799 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 28 February 2015 - 08:56

I haven't considered all the consequences, but my idea would be:

- Stock/Heavily controlled floor with big tunnels.
- heavily estricted aero, controlled wings (only 1 additional element to the main plane)
- Common engine mounts and controlled 'box' behind the bulkhead in which any power unit should fit (incl gearbox, cooling and ancillaries)
- Fixed displacement engine, everything else can be up the the manufacturer (Config, turbo, hybrid)
- Fixed sale price for the PU, Teams can switch manufacturers race to race if they wish.
- Open tyre regs - fixed sale price
- Free up suspension regs.
- Allow customer cars.

In essense, let the manufacturers spend what they want but keep the costs reasonable for the teams. Controlled aero and increased/ever developing mechanical grip.

The way F1 is at the mo, the 'exciting' new engines are actually very controlled and offer little scope for a manufacturer to improve them. Also, the continual 'sharpening of the razor blade' of upper body aero is largely irrelevant to the the person in the stands and is damaging to close racing.

NB: On reflection, it looks like I just described IndyCar/CART from the early 90's.... But, that's not a bad thing. Have at it boys!



#22 Hellenic tifosi

Hellenic tifosi
  • Member

  • 6,564 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 28 February 2015 - 09:24

At the same time, I would also allow teams to freely select tyres for each event, notifying Pirelly some weeks in advance of course.



#23 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 28 February 2015 - 13:03

The funny thing is that in-season testing was banned to save money but the top teams just spent the cash on simulators instead. :well:


They had simulators years before the testing ban. They are generally more cost effective than doing the activity as well.

#24 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 01 March 2015 - 17:48

They had simulators years before the testing ban. They are generally more cost effective than doing the activity as well.

 

Sure, per individual test a simulation is far cheaper than a test in the real world.

 

But they are doing several orders of magnitude more simulations than real world tests, so development costs haven't been lowered with the rules that limit real world testing



#25 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 March 2015 - 01:45

They had simulators years before the testing ban. They are generally more cost effective than doing the activity as well.


But they are hidden and have zero worth for any sort of marketing and promotion. It's one worthy tool, but F1 should be wiser than too rely too heavily on it.

#26 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 02 March 2015 - 04:45

How does F1 crawl out of the hole it's in? My opinion:

 

F1 got to where it is by breaking the rules and being outrageous. Now it's spending too much effort trying to make everyone happy -- a certain recipe for failure, imho.

F1 needs to do what it's good at. Be unapologetically outrageous, "in your face", and daring. F___ anyone who doesn't like it. If you make half the world love you and the other half hate you in the process, you're way ahead of the curve.


Edited by AustinF1, 02 March 2015 - 04:50.


#27 Hellenic tifosi

Hellenic tifosi
  • Member

  • 6,564 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 02 March 2015 - 06:50

Sure, per individual test a simulation is far cheaper than a test in the real world.

 

But they are doing several orders of magnitude more simulations than real world tests, so development costs haven't been lowered with the rules that limit real world testing

 

Also, having in-season tests means that potential new drivers can be developed and evaluated in a much more controlled environment.



#28 chrisPB15

chrisPB15
  • Member

  • 423 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 02 March 2015 - 09:01

How does F1 crawl out of the hole it's in? My opinion:

 

F1 got to where it is by breaking the rules and being outrageous. Now it's spending too much effort trying to make everyone happy -- a certain recipe for failure, imho.

F1 needs to do what it's good at. Be unapologetically outrageous, "in your face", and daring. F___ anyone who doesn't like it. If you make half the world love you and the other half hate you in the process, you're way ahead of the curve.

 

I disagree. Most of the exciting tech that arrived in F1 was not 'outrageous', 'rule breaking',  nor did it make people hate F1. Composite materials for example had a big impact but were already known as were the original aerofoils and Turbos.

Driver aids and safety have had a massive impact on 'in your face' and 'daring' aspects of F1.

 

I would bring back manual gearchanges without hesitation. I would also widen the tracks and raise viewing areas so cars can run off underneath.


Edited by chrisPB15, 02 March 2015 - 09:05.


#29 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 4,141 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 02 March 2015 - 09:21

- heavily estricted aero, controlled wings (only 1 additional element to the main plane)

 

Realistically this alone would have a major impact and I would love to see it tried. 

 

I'm not averse to mixed F1/F2 grids if the F2 formula set is workable - maybe the FIA needs a GP2 wildcard/local driver garage or something.

 

If we are going to have customer cars then I'd like to see them used in a privateer-style single-car-per-team championship - let them win races if they manage it, but only award points for the F1 title to full championship teams. 

 

I don't mind restricting the technical side of F1 but the category itself should still be front and centre.

 

Chris is also onto something, reliable three-pedal H patterns must surely be doable with today's technology. Make the drivers drive again.