73 replies to this topic

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

Whether it's this proposal or any other, I just want a sport where we're not constantly wondering when the next team will fall off the grid. We've already lost 2 in the last couple of years, very very nearly lost another, a few more in trouble. The problem as well is that the manufacturers can decide they want to leave, meaning you lose more cars still, and eventually you end up with (for example) 16 cars from 4 teams and someone like Mercedes being peeved that they're last on the grid every other weekend, therefore thinking "sod this it's a waste of money" meaning they leave too and it just spirals.

 

Ultimately whatever happens, the sport needs to make it possible for teams to come in, stay in, and flourish, not be worrying about if they can pay the bills next month or not. Sadly though with the 'strategy group' basically in charge, the smaller teams are screwed if the bigger teams don't like a suggestion.

[FullThrottleF1]

Whether it's this proposal or any other, I just want a sport where we're not constantly wondering when the next team will fall off the grid. We've already lost 2 in the last couple of years, very very nearly lost another, a few more in trouble. The problem as well is that the manufacturers can decide they want to leave, meaning you lose more cars still, and eventually you end up with (for example) 16 cars from 4 teams and someone like Mercedes being peeved that they're last on the grid every other weekend, therefore thinking "sod this it's a waste of money" meaning they leave too and it just spirals.

 

Ultimately whatever happens, the sport needs to make it possible for teams to come in, stay in, and flourish, not be worrying about if they can pay the bills next month or not. Sadly though with the 'strategy group' basically in charge, the smaller teams are screwed if the bigger teams don't like a suggestion.

Hear hear.

[CountDooku]

Whether it's this proposal or any other, I just want a sport where we're not constantly wondering when the next team will fall off the grid. We've already lost 2 in the last couple of years, very very nearly lost another, a few more in trouble. The problem as well is that the manufacturers can decide they want to leave, meaning you lose more cars still, and eventually you end up with (for example) 16 cars from 4 teams and someone like Mercedes being peeved that they're last on the grid every other weekend, therefore thinking "sod this it's a waste of money" meaning they leave too and it just spirals.

 

Ultimately whatever happens, the sport needs to make it possible for teams to come in, stay in, and flourish, not be worrying about if they can pay the bills next month or not. Sadly though with the 'strategy group' basically in charge, the smaller teams are screwed if the bigger teams don't like a suggestion.

 

There is a simple solution to all this. Just allow the smaller teams to buy a chassis from a larger team which they can modify and set up as needed.

 

The chassis structure itself tends not to be a big performance differentiator but it needs to be built, crash tested and developed over the season.

 

Allow someone like FI to buy the Merc chassis, engine and ancillaries if they want. They can add aero bits later.

[KarlCson]

A socialistic formula 1   ...it shouldn't, and will never happen. There is nothing new too see under the sun here, teams has allways come and gone throughout the history of f1.

Edited by KarlCson, 01 May 2015 - 09:14.

[Nonesuch]

I think CountDooku raises a good point: it's very easy for even a half-competent engineer to make F1 cars that are a lot faster than what we currently see under the 2015 regulations. The V6 engines might be impressive, but current F1 cars aren't anywhere near the limits of a lot of other technologies. Even on Sauber's budget a team that has 'design freedom' could quite easily relegate the big manufacturers to the midfield; and they will quite rightly not stand for that.

 

I've never quite understood why Todt wants to head the FIA. He obviously isn't bothered about power, given he's not really wielded any in his time at the helm, and I'm sure he could have earned far more cash working for a manufacturer.

Jean Todt's role as FIA president is far more in line with the organisation's statutes than Max Mosley's interpretation was. As much as some like to think otherwise, the title of president isn't always a euphemism for monarch. Jean Todt is doing what the organisations that make up the FIA want him to: represent the FIA to the outside world. He's regularly talking to officials of national governments, regional bodies like the European Union, the United Nations etc. where he promotes campaigns for road safety, (low level) motorsport, and all kinds of other FIA initiatives. As president of the FIA, Todt keeps out of the day-to-day affairs of these projects - as he should.

 

[TheRacingElf]

Atleast the former FIA president comes with ideas, in all those years Jean Todt is the FIA president I've never heard any ideas coming from him. In fact I almost haven't seen of heard from him at all in all those years..

[Rocket73]

That is because the FIA is not policing spending. Duh.

 

What they do is limit resource usage like wind tunnels or CFD mainframe hours. None of these means you cannot spend huge amounts of money elsewhere.

 

Ok i see what you mean. 

[Rocket73]

A socialistic formula 1   ...it shouldn't, and will never happen. There is nothing new too see under the sun here, teams has allways come and gone throughout the history of f1.

 

Why not? At some point the whole idea of capitalism will fail. We can't keep using resources like this. F1 has become an interesting case because it's like a classic example of the capitalist ideology and it shows all the hallmarks of it.

 

Teams are failing left right and centre, budgets get bigger and bigger, the big players influence the results ( Ferrari in the 00s and then RB and now Merc ), Newey's left because of the lack of innovation etc.

 

The real spirit of F1 is engineering innovation and heroic drivers not who can spend the most. 

[ensign14]

Atleast the former FIA president comes with ideas, in all those years Jean Todt is the FIA president I've never heard any ideas coming from him. In fact I almost haven't seen of heard from him at all in all those years..

 

He's letting the facts prove that the teams are about as capable of running the sport as Gordon Brown was of running the UK.   Maybe he will step in with a grand takeover gesture.

[ardbeg]

No matter how you look at it, the result would be two formulas. MotoGP basically have three and that almost work, so maybe two is OK. Still. Now we see Ducati up there fighting for victories, allowed more fuel and freedom than the ones they compete with. Maybe it is fun for a while if the start winning, but eventually it will feel like cheating. Yes, there are mechanisms that will remove some of their benefits as time goes on, but it will always be reactive.

As a temporary solution, maybe it works, maybe it keeps the grid reasonably crowded, but it is not a solution. A solution would solve the problem, this is about hiding it.

[Fastcake]

Jean Todt's role as FIA president is far more in line with the organisation's statutes than Max Mosley's interpretation was. As much as some like to think otherwise, the title of president isn't always a euphemism for monarch. Jean Todt is doing what the organisations that make up the FIA want him to: represent the FIA to the outside world. He's regularly talking to officials of national governments, regional bodies like the European Union, the United Nations etc. where he promotes campaigns for road safety, (low level) motorsport, and all kinds of other FIA initiatives. As president of the FIA, Todt keeps out of the day-to-day affairs of these projects - as he should.

You've rather missed the fact that the FIA is practically nothing without F1. Where do you think the money comes from to fund all these forays into road safety and grants to developing countries? How would Todt get to meet all these world leaders without inviting them to F1's hospitality tents - and how does he even get through the doors in the first place without the prestige of heading F1?

Mosley let other Motorsport slide under his reign, but at least he understood that F1 was at the core of the federation.

[redreni]

I think CountDooku raises a good point: it's very easy for even a half-competent engineer to make F1 cars that are a lot faster than what we currently see under the 2015 regulations. The V6 engines might be impressive, but current F1 cars aren't anywhere near the limits of a lot of other technologies. Even on Sauber's budget a team that has 'design freedom' could quite easily relegate the big manufacturers to the midfield; and they will quite rightly not stand for that.

 

Jean Todt's role as FIA president is far more in line with the organisation's statutes than Max Mosley's interpretation was. As much as some like to think otherwise, the title of president isn't always a euphemism for monarch. Jean Todt is doing what the organisations that make up the FIA want him to: represent the FIA to the outside world. He's regularly talking to officials of national governments, regional bodies like the European Union, the United Nations etc. where he promotes campaigns for road safety, (low level) motorsport, and all kinds of other FIA initiatives. As president of the FIA, Todt keeps out of the day-to-day affairs of these projects - as he should.

 

Right, and nobody has ever believed otherwise. Not Mosley. Not anyone.

 

People tend to forget the reason why Max proposed a two-tier F1. It was purely and simply because the teams put it to him that a mandatory cost cap would constitute unlawful restraint of trade. He responded by saying "fine, let's make it voluntary then, I will provide an option to continue to spend unlimited amounts", but he made it very clear he would use the technical regulations to ensure that it would not be possible to gain a performance advantage that way.

 

Max had to tread a fine line; he couldn't say "if you don't adhere to the cost cap, I will make you run with a 200bhp engine", because that would have made it too easy for his opponents to argue that the cost cap was effectively mandatory. So he had to say the cost-capped and the non-cost-capped classes would be equalised. But at the same time, he made it clear that the idea was that entrants might as well run to the cost cap, because otherwise they'd be spending a lot of extra money for no performance gain. So if Max's idea had been implemented in the way he intended, it might have been a two-tier F1 on paper, but nobody would have actually entered the non-cost-capped class. The non-cost-capped class would have existed only on paper, for legal reasons. That wasn't acceptable to the big teams then, and it still isn't. Nor will it ever be.

[purplehaireddolphin]

Wow, I find myself agreeing with Max Mosley. To be fair not entirely unexpected, I did see an interview with him a while back where he almost "repented" and said he did come to realise towards the end of his reign that trying to control spending through technical regulations is a futile exercise.

 

But...

 

While in an ideal world this would be almost utopia for me, I'm still not sure how a cost cap could be policed. For instance Ferrari/Mercedes road car divisions, or even Williams Hybrid Power or Red Bull Technology, spending massive amounts of money on some technology ostensibly for either their road car or other projects, then selling it to the F1 company for peanuts.

 

But at the end of the day I'll happily confess to knowing the square root of bugger all about the intracies of accounting both generally and how it can be monitored/policed, so if smarter minds than mine could make this proposal work without opening a whole can of worms, I wouldn't exactly be complaining. Might get me religiously watching the races again.

 

Although it has to be said - and it doesn't bother me personally in the slightest, greater technical freedoms even under a budget cap could lead to a larger field spread. Personally I was raised on a diet of Mansell/Senna/Prost sometimes finishing half a lap ahead of 2nd place if not more, and that still seems natural to me, and I laugh when 10 second wins are classed as "dominant", but some might be up in arms if those days returned.

 

 

 

 

Yeah even when I was disagreeing with the majority of what he said/did/thought, I always felt Mosley had genuinely-held beliefs that he wasn't afraid to act on, in contrast to his friend Bernie who can be prone to change his opinion as often as others change their underwear if it can make him more money.

If they were forced to offer the said parts to other teams at the same price, that might be a way around it

[CountDooku]

Right, and nobody has ever believed otherwise. Not Mosley. Not anyone.

 

People tend to forget the reason why Max proposed a two-tier F1. It was purely and simply because the teams put it to him that a mandatory cost cap would constitute unlawful restraint of trade. He responded by saying "fine, let's make it voluntary then, I will provide an option to continue to spend unlimited amounts", but he made it very clear he would use the technical regulations to ensure that it would not be possible to gain a performance advantage that way.

 

Max had to tread a fine line; he couldn't say "if you don't adhere to the cost cap, I will make you run with a 200bhp engine", because that would have made it too easy for his opponents to argue that the cost cap was effectively mandatory. So he had to say the cost-capped and the non-cost-capped classes would be equalised. But at the same time, he made it clear that the idea was that entrants might as well run to the cost cap, because otherwise they'd be spending a lot of extra money for no performance gain. So if Max's idea had been implemented in the way he intended, it might have been a two-tier F1 on paper, but nobody would have actually entered the non-cost-capped class. The non-cost-capped class would have existed only on paper, for legal reasons. That wasn't acceptable to the big teams then, and it still isn't. Nor will it ever be.

 

 

Fair point, but Mosley was just playing politics and with semantics. What he was proposing (like you say) is an F1-wide cost cap de facto. What he is STILL proposing is an F1 cost cap.

[KarlCson]

Why not? At some point the whole idea of capitalism will fail. We can't keep using resources like this. F1 has become an interesting case because it's like a classic example of the capitalist ideology and it shows all the hallmarks of it.

Teams are failing left right and centre, budgets get bigger and bigger, the big players influence the results ( Ferrari in the 00s and then RB and now Merc ), Newey's left because of the lack of innovation etc.

The real spirit of F1 is engineering innovation and heroic drivers not who can spend the most.

About the first part, lets agree to disagree..
The second part though, is spot on and so true!
One should perhaps revert the question, and ask WHAT actually has caused the mind blowing rise of costs of being able to compete -even at low midfield level- in f1. The answer offcourse is that the techical regulations is governed into a direction where the lion part of developement basically is happening by an endless honing of aerodynamical properties (and naturally the PU) -whitch per se' is insanely expensive.
There should be created much more room for ingeniousity, and some clever engineering, in the rules -instead of that over regulated -and highly arbitrary- policy of "ban every innovation just for the sake of it" that FIA has made its trademark to pursue.

Edited by KarlCson, 01 May 2015 - 12:54.

[Rocket73]

Indeed in this era of cost cutting the introduction of the V6T Hybrid PU just doesn't make any sense. I agree that we needed a change from the V8 I just don't get the need for such a hugely complicated engine.

 

Well actually I do...it's because Mercedes influenced the decision.

[Nonesuch]

Mosley let other Motorsport slide under his reign, but at least he understood that F1 was at the core of the federation.

 

The details of the FIA's financial situation are troublesome to uncover, because it is a French non-profit organisation and thus not required to be as public as similar organisations in other countries are - or have to be. That said, the fees from motorsport series are undoubtedly a significant contributor to the FIA's funds, and F1 is probably the primary source of such motorsport fees.

 

However, as president of the FIA Todt does not need to be involved in F1's day to day activities. That Mosley was regularly busy trying to find new ways to get involved in other people's business does not mean Todt has to do the same. Todt's approach also does not mean that the FIA is not paying attention to what is going on in F1. The series and its main participants have plenty of representation within the FIA, from the working groups and comissions to the national bodies and sporting clubs that compromise the FIA's General Assembly. These people will know that F1 is important to the FIA and motorsport in general.

 

In any case, it is difficult to change something as established as Formula One. I suspect the FIA will be keen to see how the new Formula E series will deal with slowly opening up its regulations over the next few years, both in terms of costs and regulatory freedom. It could prove an interesting test-case for other series, and one that Stefano Domenicali might want to take into consideration as he plans for series like F2. Rather than trying to change F1 in the face of opposition from large manufacturers, smaller and struggling F1 teams might want to investigate switching to such new and - hopefully - increasingly interesting series.

[FullThrottleF1]

The details of the FIA's financial situation are troublesome to uncover, because it is a French non-profit organisation and thus not required to be as public as similar organisations in other countries are - or have to be. That said, the fees from motorsport series are undoubtedly a significant contributor to the FIA's funds, and F1 is probably the primary source of such motorsport fees.

 

However, as president of the FIA Todt does not need to be involved in F1's day to day activities. That Mosley was regularly busy trying to find new ways to get involved in other people's business does not mean Todt has to do the same. Todt's approach also does not mean that the FIA is not paying attention to what is going on in F1. The series and its main participants have plenty of representation within the FIA, from the working groups and comissions to the national bodies and sporting clubs that compromise the FIA's General Assembly. These people will know that F1 is important to the FIA and motorsport in general.

 

In any case, it is difficult to change something as established as Formula One. I suspect the FIA will be keen to see how the new Formula E series will deal with slowly opening up its regulations over the next few years, both in terms of costs and regulatory freedom. It could prove an interesting test-case for other series, and one that Stefano Domenicali might want to take into consideration as he plans for series like F2. Rather than trying to change F1 in the face of opposition from large manufacturers, smaller and struggling F1 teams might want to investigate switching to such new and - hopefully - increasingly interesting series.

Without smaller and struggling F1 teams, there would be no F1. You'd have Merc, RB, Ferrari and Mclaren, and none of those would want to be at the back. F1 needs to keep its independent teams.

[kevinracefan]

Mr. Mosley would be a great FIA president. (I had a different view of him some years ago)

so would Helmet Marko... probably wouldn't want the pay cut, LOL...

[nosecone]

so would Helmet Marko... probably wouldn't want the pay cut, LOL...

 

Nah(No). He's Austrian

Edited by nosecone, 01 May 2015 - 17:18.

[Fastcake]

The details of the FIA's financial situation are troublesome to uncover, because it is a French non-profit organisation and thus not required to be as public as similar organisations in other countries are - or have to be. That said, the fees from motorsport series are undoubtedly a significant contributor to the FIA's funds, and F1 is probably the primary source of such motorsport fees.

However, as president of the FIA Todt does not need to be involved in F1's day to day activities. That Mosley was regularly busy trying to find new ways to get involved in other people's business does not mean Todt has to do the same. Todt's approach also does not mean that the FIA is not paying attention to what is going on in F1. The series and its main participants have plenty of representation within the FIA, from the working groups and comissions to the national bodies and sporting clubs that compromise the FIA's General Assembly. These people will know that F1 is important to the FIA and motorsport in general.

In any case, it is difficult to change something as established as Formula One. I suspect the FIA will be keen to see how the new Formula E series will deal with slowly opening up its regulations over the next few years, both in terms of costs and regulatory freedom. It could prove an interesting test-case for other series, and one that Stefano Domenicali might want to take into consideration as he plans for series like F2. Rather than trying to change F1 in the face of opposition from large manufacturers, smaller and struggling F1 teams might want to investigate switching to such new and - hopefully - increasingly interesting series.

The financial sustainability and long term plan of the sport is hardly a day to day activity. It's fundamental to the existence of F1, and if that isn't Todt's job, who outside of the President of the governing body is meant to have this responsibility? Formula One is still the FIA's championship, however much Bernie tries to buy control, and in a time of crisis they are the ones who should be stepping up. If Todt does not want to personally deal with F1, then he should appoint someone to act in his place, not just abdicate all responsibility for the sport.

The FIA under Todt has become utterly impotent, and this is not just an outsider view. Try and find someone not under Todt's patronage who thinks the federation has been doing a good job, and compare it to the amount of criticism.

[anbeck]

A problem I see is that the big teams will say that they are unable to 'downsize' rapidly. What I therefore would like would be an interim regulation over the time span of 5 or so years which would give big teams the necessary time to structurally downsize.

 

Let's say that you'd have an 'unlimited' class, which is what F1 is now: strict rules, but spend what you have.

Then you'd obviously have the 'capped' class, which has to work under a budget cap but with a lot of freedom on how to spend the limited resources.

 

Between that, you'd have 2 or 3 other steps, where teams can have, say, 125%, 150% and 175% of whatever will be the defined budget cap. They get a little more money, in order to keep their staff and infrastructure afloat for a few years, but are not as free regulation-wise as the completely capped teams. This could work like tokens in the power units right now: every part of the rules (for the whole car, not simply the PU) is given a certain value, with parts of the car that are more influential on performance than others being more "expensive" to buy (with a front wing taking for example 5 tokens and brake ducts 1, or whatever). Teams could therefore slowly go down in spending, and getting more engineering freedom each year. It would be a balancing nightmare, but it might be a feasible way to get everybody in line.

 

While Sauber, Force India and so on could go under the cap directly, other teams could start spending a little less and choose in which part of the regulations they want to get more freedom. Mercedes, I assume, has lots of staff, and so they could start in the 2nd class from top, use 175% of the budget that is defined as the budget cap, but only get a very limited number of tokens. If they think they might get a performance advantage in the PU department, they could spend their tokens there and start to have some PU freedom. Red Bull, on the other hand, might take the same 175% class, but choose to buy itself more freedom in aerodynamics using their tokens.

 

Obviously, the incentives should be for everybody to downsize as soon as possible. It even might spice up things: imagine Force India or Sauber to come up with some sort of holy grail, such as a blown diffusor or the F-duct, and the big teams cannot copy it, because they have put their tokens and development freedom into the rear wing and suspension! 

[KarlCson]

[quote name="anbeck" post="7149637"
Obviously, the incentives should be for everybody to downsize as soon as possible. It even might spice up things: imagine Force India or Sauber to come up with some sort of holy grail, such as a blown diffusor or the F-duct, and the big teams cannot copy it, because they have put their tokens and development freedom into the rear wing and suspension! [/quote]

That is actually THE problem. If the series becomes too randomized, it will inevitably lead to investors (teams, manufacturers) escaping it -one cant motivate, or defend, huge financial and human resource investments in something whitch is not based on an methodic technological process leading to progress -and (hopefully) at the end, some sporting and/ or commercial return of funds.

Edited by KarlCson, 01 May 2015 - 21:08.

[AustinF1]

Without smaller and struggling F1 teams, there would be no F1. You'd have Merc, RB, Ferrari and Mclaren, and none of those would want to be at the back. F1 needs to keep its independent teams.

Exactly. I've said this many times over. Every time a backmarker time is lost, that just brings the big teams that much closer to the back themselves. It's hard to fathom the short-sightedness these teams are displaying.