316 replies to this topic

[Rinehart]

Price cap has to be paired with a quality assurance so that the customer teams get the same engine as the works team. 

 

But it would be an excellent first step towards proper cost cuts. 

Its far more cost effective for the engine supplier so supply the same ones. Non issue. 

[zanquis]

My suggestion for cust cutting would be
- Standard drivercockpit/floorplan. This is the core of the car, but not crucial in how the car looks like.
If the FIA and the teams could design a standard cell that can survive the crashtest and be safe, it would cut down a lot of production cost and development cost to design a new cockpit every year. Aslong as the cell is good enough for safety then the cell can remain the same. Teams could in theory decide themselfs if they reuse the cell from next year or use a new cell (sometimes small fractures in a car will decrease performance.Leave just enough flexibility in it so that teams can still make their own suspensions or atleast have a choice between a few configurations.
The standard floorplan will eliminate huge budgets being spend on the diffuser technology, also again visually it is unimportant for the car, when is the last time a fan went to check the underside of a car?
 
- Universal engine/gearbox dimensions.
This principle is simple a team should be able to switch engine supplier without redesigning the car at all. This is all part of the plan to make cars move evolutions with a occasional complete change of cars. More like how it used to be, teams would sometimes drive the next season or part of it with the same car.

- Finally let Dallara / Mechachrome design the GP2 car according to the same specs as F1 cars, Or maybe slightly different but it should be able to keep up with the slowest F1 cars. So that in the hands of a good driver it should be able to defeat a mediocre driver in a F1. Drop the sunday GP2 race, and let the top 8 cars of the saturday GP2 race take the final spots of the F1 field. It would make GP2 mean something more then now. Expect the fight for P8 in that race be more intense then just that the few points it is now. Sprint races in GP2 are imho meaningless with the reversed grid rule. The result should be that in F1 we have the top teams as to be honest a backmarker team does not contribute much. They would be more sure to survive in F1 as they find sponsors more easily and to be sure of a full field of cars for the sunday race. It would also work as a good benchmark for team to see it they would be doing good. With Dallara we can be sure that they will not make a car that will ever really shock the topteams, just look at their track history but they can make a decent car and have the capabilities to provide enough of the grid.

[foxyracer]

I would get rid of Bernie and CVC.  F.1 might have to go bust to achieve this so in the meantime (perhaps 5 years) scrap the manufacturer's championship and use GP2 cars for the driver's championship.

 

Limit the number of people who can work on a car in pitstops to 2.

 

Get rid of ridiculously expensive engines and forget the idea that motor racing has anything to do with the environment.  If the road car manufacturers don't want to play, fine!  Let F.1 cars be built by small specialist racing car manufacturers who don't have multi billion dollar reputations to protect.

 

Ban carbon brakes.

 

Ban tyre warmers.

 

Ban pits to car and car to pits telemetry (that's a few computers and sensors saved)

 

Cars should run on ordinary pump fuel from the country F.1 is visiting.  No special brews for racing.

 

Tyres should last a whole race but there should be no ban on pit-stops, just reduce their attractiveness by limiting the number of people that can work on the car (see above)

 

Allow refuelling but from simple gravity fed containers - so, don't ban it but make it unattractive.  No need to develop engines around fuel consumption, just speed.  that's what F.1 is about.

 

Allow teams to test if they can afford it so no more reliance on expensive simulation and something they can charge people to watch.

 

I could go on and on.  But, fundamentally, no cost cap.  It could never work. The audit trails alone would be too expensive. 

Edited by foxyracer, 05 November 2014 - 11:04.

[aguri]

Why does everyone hate carbon brakes?

 

I could think of 50 more useful and less contrived regulations/de-regulations to improve the health of F1 than banning carbon brakes.

[zanquis]

Foxyracer,

Getting rid of Bernie/CVC is a sure way to kill the sport now. but he is not the problem alone but I get everyone wants to see the boogie man in him, he is also the one who made the sport bigger.

Limit the pitcrew, k wont save a penny but fine, it would make pitstops slower, 2 might be a bit too little, how you going to change a damaged front wing if 2 people are needed to lift the car without a jack... make it 4 at least. 1 for each tire possible. And when is a person helping? if he hands the tools to a mechanic is he part of the pits? no but what if he hands the tire to him? Define the limits of pitcrew. Is the guy holding the sign part or not?

Engines, sorry I don't agree with you, yes the engine price should be lower but that is just a rule that any engine manufactor should be willing to provide engines to any team for a fixed price.

Ban carbon brakes I am slightly pro but more for competition effect then cost effect. Steel brakes can provide plenty of stopping power, especially if the tires would go to the suggested 18 inch as to be honest 13 inch tires on a modern F1 looks kinda silly, we are used to it but it is outdated and means that 90% of suspension work is in the tire and not the car.

Tire warmers will be banned for 2015, no new idea there....

Banning the telemetry completly will result in all data to be handle by the driver on the track, more expensive computers in every car needed, addition wieghtsaving needed to compensate for additional components increasing the cost enormously. Or we can just limit the information that can be obtained. Sometimes you need to warn the driver that the car will fail soon. We are talking about lives also.

Changing the fuel will cut... zero of the cost as it is either provided by the sponsor or relativly cheap compared to the rest. besides it is 99% identical to normal racefuel, test even indicated it would improve speed at the straights but reduce pickup on lower revs.

Tires to last the whole race, we tried that wasn't a succes. Try your second part just making pitstops in general less atractive so that drivers are more inclined to take the harder compound or take a risk on a softer tire for a moment.

Allow refeuling but with gravity?? Hmm no just no. Refeuling ban was best thing to happen to F1 in years lets keep it that way. Just limit the data about the feul so the driver needs to manage his fuel like the old days of Senna, Mansell, Prost, and all real legends.

Allow more testing sounds fine, but I think the FIA should organize plan those weekends for all teams to get easy acces.

Personally I find most idea's so far not really worth it, or they are already there.

[zanquis]

Maybe a calander change is a option for a cut in cost.

My idea would be to devide the championship into a few district championships, for instance Europe, America's, Asian, Middle east. 
And a global world championship. Some races are only for the district championships and some like for instance Australia is only for the world championship. Price money can be won/lost in each championship, the world being bigger. But it would also mean teams can sign up to drive world and/or regional championships. Making it easier for a team to start. for instance Haas could start first year only signing up for regional and when car is oke try world championship.
 

[byrkus]

Carbon brakes are not a problem. Moto GP uses them, and there's plenty of action. Alex Zanardi, on other hand, used steel brakes in '99, and while he was slower than R Schumacher, he wasn't the slowest of them all. I don't think there was 1 second lost per lap by using steel brakes.

 

The real problem here is high downforce. Without it, you have longer braking zones, and higher possibilities for overtaking (moto races). With it, you have drastically shorter braking zones, and lower possibilities for overtaking, if not (occasionally) impossible.

 

Just for instance - someone should try and fix a downforce wing on a motorcycle. Only for a straightline purposes, of course. It would reach lower speed - but its braking distance would possibly cut in half, if a rider could still remain on it.

 

 

So - lower downforce, more action, very simply put.

[Pingguest]

Many have posted their proposals, but I fail to see how most of the proposals would actually reduce costs.

[Atreiu]

Many have posted their proposals, but I fail to see how most of the proposals would actually reduce costs.

 

Customer chassis would lead to share development costs and/or to relieve the smaller teams of the perpetual burden of playing an impossible catch game. Imagine that the regulations stay perfectly stable from this year to the next, how much time and money in development would Marussia save if they could race the same chassis as McLaren in 2015 or even the Mercedes of 2014?

 

As far as I can tell, nobody gives a **** who builds a chassis, only who races it. If Sauber had a Ferrari chassis, it would not become Ferrari and neither would the tifosi suddenly adopt the team with a near religious devotion.

 

Is it clear enough?

[Clatter]

Customer chassis would lead to share development costs and/or to relieve the smaller teams of the perpetual burden of playing an impossible catch game. Imagine that the regulations stay perfectly stable from this year to the next, how much time and money in development would Marussia save if they could race the same chassis as McLaren in 2015 or even the Mercedes of 2014?

 

As far as I can tell, nobody gives a **** who builds a chassis, only who races it. If Sauber had a Ferrari chassis, it would not become Ferrari and neither would the tifosi suddenly adopt the team with a near religious devotion.

 

Is it clear enough?

They as near as damn it did have the Ferrari chassis at one time and I remember people kicking up a hell of a fuss about it.

[Frank Tuesday]

Many have posted their proposals, but I fail to see how most of the proposals would actually reduce costs.

 

It all depends upon how you define reducing costs.  Cost and spending are not the same thing.  Ultimately, every team will spend every penny that they can.  No technical regulation can reduce spending.  You can only eliminate avenues of spending which, in turn, allows teams to spend that money elsewhere.  The apparent goal of many people is to eliminate avenues where spending money can greatly improve performance, and force the spending into avenues where the gains will be minimized.  By doing this, you reduce the amount of money that must be spent to achieve a certain level of relative performance. 

 

Lets assume that top teams are currently spending $600M and the bottom teams are spending $75M to achieve 97% of the performance.  The goal is to allow teams to spend that same $75M to achieve 99% performance (or to spend $30M to achieve 97% performance).  In doing so, you've reduced the cost of relative performance.  

[Atreiu]

They as near as damn it did have the Ferrari chassis at one time and I remember people kicking up a hell of a fuss about it.

 

IIRC, it was around 2003 and 2004.

I really didn't care and it did not throw the order upside down. On the other hand, Sauber did look MUCH MUCH more respectable back then. So to me it's proven to work and/or be healthy for F1.

 

Wasn't this the case with STR in 2007 ans 2008?

[chipmcdonald]

1) Salary caps like NBA's won't work in F1. It's been explained why many times. 

2) It is true that teams will spend all the money they have going after the tiniest increase in performance. 

 

 

 Not if you gear the regulations towards diminishing returns.  

 

Which again supports my contention that *they don't want it to be affordable*.

 

When the V10's reached maturity and the regulation allowed it, you could keep spending money on refining it but you were only going to get a tiny bit of a return.  Meanwhile you've got Cosworth catching up. 

 

That's the kind of scenario that makes financial sense.  It's still F1 - if someone wants to toss money at it they can, or if somebody comes up with a genius breakthrough they can implement it and gain the advantage.  But just spending money doesn't yield a 1:1 advantage as it does today.

 

The complexity of the the hybrid engine and braking systems is a money pit that will suck dollars into it for many years, and the ENTIRE time prevent anyone to dare to enter a new engine the further down the line we go.  That is antithetical to F1 itself, not to mention does nothing to improve the sport or help costs. 

 

FOM has to be bold and say "this is what we're going to do: car racing, without subjective philosophical concerns outside of that premise".   Bozo hybrid schemes and the sudden emphasis that everything has to be "road car relevant" in order to have manufacturers participate came out of the sky. 

 

But like I said, I don't think there is any concern for it to actually be more affordable, it is about protecting the "dignity" of the big marques investment.  Ferrari does not want Cosworth to be make a competitive engine, Mercedes doesn't want Hyundai coming in with a team threatening them.  So you come up with goofy technical rules that force expenditure to be more directly related to performance: not only an illogical oddball hybrid scheme, but you make the regs such that it's not open to experimentation - completely defeating the notion of actual engineering competition and having things relate back to "road car relevance".

 

Spec front wing, that cuts a chunk out of the aero budget;

Because of the spec front wing, you get diminishing returns on researching everything further along on the car, disincentivising spending;

Off the shelf FIA spec cockpit/survival cell, decrease manufacturing costs via mass production, as well as each team designing that part;

Conventionally aspirated IC motors, allow previously homologated off the shelf engines/designs, no goofy  brake by wire systems - simplify.

 

 

I think that is all you would need to massively bring the costs down.  McLaren could put a car in a windtunnel twice as much as Caterham, but they would only get to tweak the nose/front of chassis/engine cowling/rear wing, and unlike now if they hit a wall - you couldn't start the entire money-suck process over by changing the front wing.  It's all about the front wing.  

 

But if they wanted to keep tweaking they could, and maybe they get a little bit of an advantage.  Genius would still be rewarded, ala the double diffuser, etc..  But with 30% of the downforce taken out of the financial picture, AND that limiting how many iterations you can create behind it - that would yield enormous cost savings and tighten up the field.

 

F1 should be arranged so that every car manufacturer on the planet wants to participate.  The more complex the regulation the less that is going to happen, and the more expensive.  Ultimate fun would be if they were allowed to run assembly line engine blocks and maybe pistons. That would be the ultimate "road car relevant" formula....

[Rinehart]

Many have posted their proposals, but I fail to see how most of the proposals would actually reduce costs.

 

You don't see how Customer Cars & Power Units, both obliged to be supplied by constructors and manufacturers to Customer teams at set prices, would reduce costs?

[Rinehart]

I'm all for Customer Cars. It brings the biggest single element saving, it lowers the cost of entry for new teams, it changes nothing of F1 tradition (there used to be customer cars), it improves racing, it reduces the need to change the prize structures and its probably the easiest to gain agreement on.  

 

In the same way that some teams have a works engine deal which gives a higher integrated level of performance, others have a customer engine deal and fair well - I fail to understand how having some teams designing and building their own car, others having a customer deal to use one, is any different whatsoever. That team would still have to receive the engine and the chassis from those suppliers and then play racing car team optimising it and running it all year. In much the same way that Penske or Joest do in their categories of motorsport - and I've never heard anyone consider them to be anything other than a world-class racing teams.

 

Under a scenario where we had about 6 Constructor teams building their own chassis of which about 4 had works engine deals and 2 had customer engine deals and then 6 Customer teams which had separate customer chassis and engine deals - we'd have a whole rage of Engine/Chassis combinations and performances. Potentially some of the better run Customer/Customer teams could interfere with the poorer run Constructors. Ideal.

 

I think with the best will in the world it is going to be unlikely that anyone of the Customer/Customer teams could win the championship (unless they lucked into a Brawn 2009 chassis / Mercedes 2014 engine type scenario - and even then would it be so bad? Surely over time the Constructor/Works teams would be more sustainably competitive. 

 

The only issue is how you divvy up the FOM money when 6 teams are racing without the cost of constructing. Frank Williams is dead against a penny of his potential prize money being won by a team that does not construct its own chassis. So just a second... The bottom 5 teams won about £150m between them last year. So put THAT in a separate pot for the Customer Teams championship - that doesn't appear to take any bread from Frank's table. Its money given to teams below Williams level of performance anyway. 

Edited by Rinehart, 05 November 2014 - 16:32.

[Kalmake]

Well, I care and that STR win with a newey-copy-car was lame.

 

It's not healthy if customer cars beat some of the constructor teams, possibly killing them off. It can end up like American open-wheels which is cheap and, for me, boring.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Well, I care and that STR win with a newey-copy-car was lame.

It's not healthy if customer cars beat some of the constructor teams, possibly killing them off. It can end up like American open-wheels which is cheap and, for me, boring.

I disagree to an extent.

Part of F1 should be about a bit of randomness. A small(er) that builds a good car should be able to win a race. Torro Rosso's win in 2008 or a Maurussia getting points at Monaco is magical and should be frequent occurences in F1. In my opinion anyway.

Costs should not dictate a hierarchy.

[Nathan]

If customer cars can beat constructors cars, maybe those constructors don't belong?

 

F1 is about seeing the best, not supporting the weak.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

If customer cars can beat constructors cars, maybe those constructors don't belong?

F1 is about seeing the best, not supporting the weak.

if constructors cannot do a good enough job (ala Ferrari or Mercedes 2010-2012) then maybe they need to reassess?

[Atreiu]

Well, I care and that STR win with a newey-copy-car was lame.
 
It's not healthy if customer cars beat some of the constructor teams, possibly killing them off. It can end up like American open-wheels which is cheap and, for me, boring.

That was the exception to the rule, more often than not the customer teams will not beat the constructors. And it was fortunate because it resulted in Vettel's promotion to Red Bull and fast-tracked his career. How many other drivers have seemed to be terrific but never had a proper car to demonstrate their speed?

In all honesty, I can't find a single rational downside to how Vettel and STR won Monza 2008.

[Frank Tuesday]

It all depends upon how you define reducing costs.  Cost and spending are not the same thing.  Ultimately, every team will spend every penny that they can.  No technical regulation can reduce spending.  You can only eliminate avenues of spending which, in turn, allows teams to spend that money elsewhere.  The apparent goal of many people is to eliminate avenues where spending money can greatly improve performance, and force the spending into avenues where the gains will be minimized.  By doing this, you reduce the amount of money that must be spent to achieve a certain level of relative performance. 

 

Lets assume that top teams are currently spending $600M and the bottom teams are spending $75M to achieve 97% of the performance.  The goal is to allow teams to spend that same $75M to achieve 99% performance (or to spend $30M to achieve 97% performance).  In doing so, you've reduced the cost of relative performance.  

 

An even more detailed consideration is how much outside sponsorship is required to achieve 99% performance.  If $75M is required to meet 99% performance and the FOM payments are $60M, one would need only $15M in outside sponsorship to meet the 99% goal.  Currently, teams need $60M in sponsorship to meet 95%. 

[Rinehart]

Well, I care and that STR win with a newey-copy-car was lame.

 

It's not healthy if customer cars beat some of the constructor teams, possibly killing them off. It can end up like American open-wheels which is cheap and, for me, boring.

 

If a team that only has the resources to buy a chassis and an engine and then do their best to optimise them run then - beats - a team that has the huge advantage of financial muscle to design, build and develop its own car optimsed to its engine.... well I'm sorry, but the first team in this equation sounds like they deserve to be ahead to me...

 

And at the moment the rich teams are killing the small teams. The problem isn't that Marussia only spend £60m, its that Ferrari spend £260m!!!!

[Rinehart]

if constructors cannot do a good enough job (ala Ferrari or Mercedes 2010-2012) then maybe they need to reassess?

 

Yeah, exactly, Williams beating Ferrari this year is not that different from a Customer Car team beating a Constructor Team.

 

At the end of the day, Williams have gone out and bought the Mercedes engine and that seems to be the main ingredient.

 

I just think this illustrates that people draw some funny lines based on subconsciously drawn up boundaries of "tradition".

 

What is tradition. The fact that the very first F1 races that featured Customer Cars or sometime 30 years later by which time they'd all been squeezed out?...

[Kraken]

Cut telemetry out, simplify aero, simplify gearboxes, four people for each pitstop.

 

Seeing as Red Bull and Ferrari spend 100 million or so more a year than any other team write a rule which gives them a ten place penalty for every race. 

[jonpollak]

My cost cutting idea?

 

Void ALL my wife's credit cards..

 

simples

 

Jp

[Fastcake]

Cut telemetry out, simplify aero, simplify gearboxes, four people for each pitstop.

 

Seeing as Red Bull and Ferrari spend 100 million or so more a year than any other team write a rule which gives them a ten place penalty for every race. 

 

How exactly would limiting the number of mechanics save any money? 

[prpr]

Dispense with free practice and qualifying on Friday and Saturday, in favour of a one-make rallysprint, autotest and touring car race. Determine the grid for the touring car race from the accumulated results of the rallysprint and autotest. Results of touring car race to decide the grid for the Grand Prix. Use Rover SD1s for the rallysprint and race, and Austin Maestros for the autotest... (See Donington Park, 1983).

[prpr]

http://m.youtube.com...h?v=pH0gGZsObqg

[foxyracer]

How exactly would limiting the number of mechanics save any money? 

If they aren't there you don't have to pay them!!!!  How much does employing 20 mechanics cost?  At the 1971 Canadian GP, BRM fielded five cars overseen by seven mechanics.....

[foxyracer]

Carbon brakes are not a problem. Moto GP uses them, and there's plenty of action. Alex Zanardi, on other hand, used steel brakes in '99, and while he was slower than R Schumacher, he wasn't the slowest of them all. I don't think there was 1 second lost per lap by using steel brakes.

 

The real problem here is high downforce. Without it, you have longer braking zones, and higher possibilities for overtaking (moto races). With it, you have drastically shorter braking zones, and lower possibilities for overtaking, if not (occasionally) impossible.

 

Just for instance - someone should try and fix a downforce wing on a motorcycle. Only for a straightline purposes, of course. It would reach lower speed - but its braking distance would possibly cut in half, if a rider could still remain on it.

 

 

So - lower downforce, more action, very simply put.

Carbon brakes work in Moto GP because tyre grip is the limiting factor.  steel brakes on cars will significantly increase stopping distances and improve overtaking.  They cost a lot less too and have more relevance to road use.

[Fastcake]

If they aren't there you don't have to pay them!!!!  How much does employing 20 mechanics cost?  At the 1971 Canadian GP, BRM fielded five cars overseen by seven mechanics.....

 

The teams don't hire people purely to change the tyres. The pit crew consists of the regular mechanics, all of which have jobs back at the factory, who work on the car but have no other role during the race. If you limit the number who can work on the car during a pit stop, you'll still have to pay for their salaries and travel, and they'll just spend the time watching the race in garage.

 

At a stretch, you could argue limiting the pit crew is actually wasting money, as you're not getting the maximum out of your team.

[aguri]

Well, I care and that STR win with a newey-copy-car was lame.

 

It's not healthy if customer cars beat some of the constructor teams, possibly killing them off. It can end up like American open-wheels which is cheap and, for me, boring.

 

Nah mid-field teams and privateers should have a realistic shot at winning races fairly regularly (Once every couple of seasons). It is what makes F1 exciting. 

 

Everyone remembers the truly great drives like Vettel in 08, Button in 06. Underdog wins out of no where are awesome. 

[Kraken]

How exactly would limiting the number of mechanics save any money? 

People get paid wages, they stay in hotels and they take flights. Cutting out the telemetry would drop the staff by a lot as there would be no need for 20 people in the back of the garage and more back at HQ poring over data.

 

Of course if you limit the number allowed for a pitstop it goes without saying that there would have to be a rule to limit the number of overall mechanics etc so there was a drop. I thought that was fairly obvious and didn't need to be stated......

 

I'd go even further and limit it to one wheel at a time with two guys. Certainly spice up the action.

 

IMO the single biggest problem F1 has is the huge number of people required to run an F1 team.

Edited by Kraken, 06 November 2014 - 07:45.

[ExFlagMan]

Several posts have suggested ideas that slow down pit stops. If that where to happen there would be a need to get rid of the stupid blue-flag rules whereby you have to give way to someone lapping you within 3 sectors. With longer pit stops anyone in the mid field who pits early could get 'lapped' by a front runner running long, and it is often the case the driver loses significant time during the lapping process.
Similarly for the suggestion to allow more freedom on tyres/refuelling rules as the can have similar consequences.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 06 November 2014 - 08:16.

[foxyracer]

Several posts have suggested ideas that slow down pit stops. If that where to happen there would be a need to get rid of the stupid blue-flag rules whereby you have to give way to someone lapping you within 3 sectors. With longer pit stops anyone in the mid field who pits early could get 'lapped' by a front runner running long, and it is often the case the driver loses significant time during the lapping process.
Similarly for the suggestion to allow more freedom on tyres/refuelling rules as the can have similar consequences.

The point I am making is that pit stops should be the exception rather than the rule.  So tyre stops would only be needed in the event of a puncture or serious flat-spot such as Kimi's a few years ago.  Fuel would only be required exceptionally e.g. a splash and dash near the end of a race such as Jim Clark's at Monza in 1967.  Pit stops would take too long to be used tactically so overtaking would have to happen on the track and races would be easier for fans to follow.

[foxyracer]

People get paid wages, they stay in hotels and they take flights. Cutting out the telemetry would drop the staff by a lot as there would be no need for 20 people in the back of the garage and more back at HQ poring over data.

 

Of course if you limit the number allowed for a pitstop it goes without saying that there would have to be a rule to limit the number of overall mechanics etc so there was a drop. I thought that was fairly obvious and didn't need to be stated......

 

I'd go even further and limit it to one wheel at a time with two guys. Certainly spice up the action.

 

IMO the single biggest problem F1 has is the huge number of people required to run an F1 team.

Brilliant.  Someone that understands the point I am making.  The issue here is that the cars are much too complicated (and therefore expensive) if they need that number of mechanics to run them.  As I said earlier, in '71 seven mechanics could run five cars.  If I take my road car for service I don't expect 20 mechanics to be working on it - and I certainly wouldn't want to pay them!!  F.1 has to get realistic.

[Rinehart]

I appreciate the good intention of discussing savings on brakes, mechanics, etc. But to me it misses the point.

 

The lowest cost to run an F1 team is allegedly £90m (Caterham's budget of £60m + loss of £30m) of which £30m is spend on engines and £25m on designing and building the car. 

 

So 61%, virtually 2 thirds of all the costs of lowest funded team, is tied up in these 2 elements.

 

To me its obvious, If we don't start here, with engines and chassis, I don't see how we are going to create a sustainable F1.

 

That's the reason Customer Cars and Subsidised Engines its my preferred method. Its not that I prefer them on sporting grounds. I see them as the ONLY solution. 

[Fastcake]

People get paid wages, they stay in hotels and they take flights. Cutting out the telemetry would drop the staff by a lot as there would be no need for 20 people in the back of the garage and more back at HQ poring over data.

Of course if you limit the number allowed for a pitstop it goes without saying that there would have to be a rule to limit the number of overall mechanics etc so there was a drop. I thought that was fairly obvious and didn't need to be stated......

I'd go even further and limit it to one wheel at a time with two guys. Certainly spice up the action.

IMO the single biggest problem F1 has is the huge number of people required to run an F1 team.

I was referring to the pit stops, but the same point applies to telemetry. The engineers running over the data during the race all have other roles at the factory, so you won't be lowering the headcount. As for travel costs, if you're only banning live telemetry they'll still need the engineers there to run over the data between sessions, and if you want to ban it all together you'll save a small amount of money but be sacrificing an incredibly useful tool.

You won't save anything just by limiting the pit crew or telemetry. You could cut a small amount by limiting the number of staff that can travel to each Grand Prix (I believe there was some form of cap under the RRA) or try to limit the total number of staff employed by each team, which would likely be so fraught with difficulty you might as well attempt a budget cap. Would you instead propose implementing one of those?

We're never going back to the days of a dozen blokes working out of a shed however. The world has moved on since those times, and you can't just reverse progress.

[Kalmake]

Nah mid-field teams and privateers should have a realistic shot at winning races fairly regularly (Once every couple of seasons). It is what makes F1 exciting. 

 

Everyone remembers the truly great drives like Vettel in 08, Button in 06. Underdog wins out of no where are awesome. 

I never said they shouldn't. But they should build their own cars.

[aguri]

I appreciate the good intention of discussing savings on brakes, mechanics, etc. But to me it misses the point.

 

The lowest cost to run an F1 team is allegedly £90m (Caterham's budget of £60m + loss of £30m) of which £30m is spend on engines and £25m on designing and building the car. 

 

So 61%, virtually 2 thirds of all the costs of lowest funded team, is tied up in these 2 elements.

 

To me its obvious, If we don't start here, with engines and chassis, I don't see how we are going to create a sustainable F1.

 

That's the reason Customer Cars and Subsidised Engines its my preferred method. Its not that I prefer them on sporting grounds. I see them as the ONLY solution. 

 

 

I never said they shouldn't. But they should build their own cars.

 

I agree teams should build there own cars to an extent, but there are certain things that are not worth multiple teams building.

 

I think it should all start with a spec FIA tub that every team must run. 

 

From there the non-works teams should be able to buy up to a whole front and rear end (Engine, Gearbox, Steering, Suspension, Brakes) if they want to. That pretty much locks in a similar car that is not quite a customer car. At that point it just becomes who can package it the best and find small innovations (like the double diffuser).

 

As others have said. The idea is to get a 40M-100M euro team within half a second of a 350M euro team. A close field like this would dramatically increase the chances of upsets, which is good for the sport. 

 

What you want to avoid is a situation like Lotus this year where a privateer team was stuck with an expensive, second rate (compared to RBR) engine which is integrated poorly into a bespoke designed car. Far too much money spent for far too little relative performance.

[Tuxy]

Let F1 die.

 

I feel like I'm watching 'Weekend at Bernies' when I read about the problems that persist in the sport.

 

It's a dead language, being propped up by megalomaniacs with more ego than sense; steering this lifeless corpse (unconvincingly) back to its former glory.

 

Too much money, too much chicanery, too much riding on the image of the sport rather than the essence of it.

 

So I have the perfect cost-cutting solution.  Let it die.  Give brilliant minds free-reign to redefine in a modern age what the pinnacle of engineering, speed and daring on four wheels should be.

 

The exercise will shake-loose the rust, stale-piss, and elitist-snobbery, and get back to its innocent roots.

 

"I (the public) am Caesar...

 

 

...Die well".

[desmoulins]

Melt down Lewis' bling at the end of every season and distribute it between the less well off teams

[Clatter]

I never said they shouldn't. But they should build their own cars.

If they buy the parts from another team and bolt them together themselves have they built their own car?

[Rinehart]

I agree teams should build there own cars to an extent, but there are certain things that are not worth multiple teams building.

 

I think it should all start with a spec FIA tub that every team must run. 

 

From there the non-works teams should be able to buy up to a whole front and rear end (Engine, Gearbox, Steering, Suspension, Brakes) if they want to. That pretty much locks in a similar car that is not quite a customer car. At that point it just becomes who can package it the best and find small innovations (like the double diffuser).

 

As others have said. The idea is to get a 40M-100M euro team within half a second of a 350M euro team. A close field like this would dramatically increase the chances of upsets, which is good for the sport. 

 

What you want to avoid is a situation like Lotus this year where a privateer team was stuck with an expensive, second rate (compared to RBR) engine which is integrated poorly into a bespoke designed car. Far too much money spent for far too little relative performance.

Perhaps I haven't understood, but is your idea any different from Customer Cars? It just sounds like a more elaborate version of the same thing to me. 

 

You're basically saying that a car should be broken down into many parts and the Customer team should be able to buy every single part from any suppliers, but they should have to construct (assemble) them together and then work on their own developments. So lets say a "car" is made up of 25 main components, you could buy all 25 from Ferrari or 5 each from 5 suppliers - but you have to screw them all together and develop it yourself. 

 

Where as I'm thinking Customer Cars is exactly as above, except the main part of the car can arrive in one screwed together piece in the first place so of these 25 components 15 of these could arrive in one already constructed car. 

 

Either way its still a customer car.

[Rinehart]

If they buy the parts from another team and bolt them together themselves have they built their own car?

 

That's my point. Its the "Constructors" Championship. Construction is about assembly.

 

Is "constructing" a car to design it, fabricate it, integrate specialist parts (e.g. the gearbox) and then assemble it - because I think its just the assembly part.

 

I think constructing should just be screwing the damn thing together. If you've got the money to make these bits first, as opposed to buying them in, you have an advantage.

Edited by Rinehart, 06 November 2014 - 17:05.

[Rob]

The only equipment you can take to a race are a socket set and a basic tool box.

[aguri]

Perhaps I haven't understood, but is your idea any different from Customer Cars? It just sounds like a more elaborate version of the same thing to me. 

 

You're basically saying that a car should be broken down into many parts and the Customer team should be able to buy every single part from any suppliers, but they should have to construct (assemble) them together and then work on their own developments. So lets say a "car" is made up of 25 main components, you could buy all 25 from Ferrari or 5 each from 5 suppliers - but you have to screw them all together and develop it yourself. 

 

Where as I'm thinking Customer Cars is exactly as above, except the main part of the car can arrive in one screwed together piece in the first place so of these 25 components 15 of these could arrive in one already constructed car. 

 

Either way its still a customer car.

 

I think with a customer car it becomes an all or nothing thing. Like for next season Merc will supply the whole rear end on the Force India, but only the PU to Williams and Lotus, because WIlliams and Lotus think they can build a better gearbox than Merc. 

 

Under what I suggested, even if a team could effectively buy a whole chassis, they would still need to do the aero work, lay the carbon etc. They might use a bbs wheels instead of enkeis, brembo brakes instead of carbon industries etc. 

 

A total copy customer Merc is never going to beat a merc. But a customer with a 50 percent merc car, might build a better gearbox, find an aero advantage, get better brakes pads etc and that might allow them to go faster. 

 

It discourages straight satellite teams and instead encourages (fairly low cost) innovative mid-field outfits.

[ViMaMo]

By cost cutting does it mean F1 would not be using cutting edge technology but cost effective technology and still be the fastest around a closed circuit? Freeze aero or freeze engines?

[Peter Perfect]

1. No budget cap - if the teams want to spend themselves out of business that's their issue

2. Cap customer PU/Engine costs - Obviously the biggest cost at the moment
3. PU/Engine manufacturers must supply up to X number of customers if requested - They can't avoid the capped PU/engine cost by not supplying anyone else

4. Better redistribution of money - Winners still get a bonus but distribution is much flatter between the ends of the grid, and no special payments to historic teams!

 

This isn't about protecting the manufacturer teams, if they want to spend oodles they can (and in Mercedes case). It's about making sure that a back-of-the-grid team can survive on a reasonable budget.

[Tombstone]

I thik the biggest problem lies within this diagram.

 

I don't have a problem with columns 1 & 2, other than the fact they should incorporate all the teams, no matter how many (probably capped at 12 or 13) enter the championship, instead of solely the top 10.

 

I do have a problem with the 'Constructor Championship's Bonus Fund', the 'Historical Payments' and the 'Ferrari Payment'. These, together with the '11th & 12th Teams' (column 3) which would not be needed if coumns 1 & 2 incorporated the whole grid, total some $300M. There are many ways that this $300M could be distributed more equitably, even if one retained some minor favouritism for the teams that have been in the longest. Even something as simple as a linear scale distributed over 11 teams, for example, would give, in millions of $: 50, 45.5, 40.9, 36.4, 31.8, 27.3, 22.7, 18.2, 13.6, 9.1, 4.5.

 

A more equitable distribution of funds might not allow the 'minnows' to compete for points on every occasion, let alone podiums or wins, but it would at least give them more of a chance of paying the bills, staying in profit, and actually pitching up to every race meeting. 

 

Edited by Tombstone, 07 November 2014 - 13:51.