73 replies to this topic

[AustinF1]

Sauber backs Mosley's idea to allow design freedom to teams who commit to budget cap: http://www.racer.com...revolution-idea

 

I think it gets a little tricky when you start talking about trying to enforce such a cap, but this definitely has my attention. I like the idea so far in concept.

Edited by AustinF1, 30 April 2015 - 16:46.

[alframsey]

I think I like it but I'm not sure yet...

[krobinson]

I don't think budget cap can work. Bigger teams can get around that so very easily.

[AustinF1]

I don't think budget cap can work. Bigger teams can get around that so very easily.

That's my concern, too...but maybe the bigger teams might not want to go that route. If some smaller teams went for it, it might produce some interesting ideas and results.

[jonpollak]

Very good idea in principle.

Never thought I'd say this but ....
Come Back Max !!!!

Jp

[kevinracefan]

awesome idea in concept...

almost impossible idea to police...

[AustinF1]

Never thought I'd say this but ....
Come Back Max !!!!

Jp

I'm right there with you JP. I surely wouldn't agree with everything the guy says or does, but he has large attachments, isn't afraid to think 'outside the box', and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Qualities sorely lacking in today's F1. 

[pRy]

Max originally wanted a budget cap of 60 million euros for the 2010 season with technical freedoms for the teams who agreed to work within the cap. It was a good idea then too. But predictably the big teams such as Ferrari with their unlimited budgets spat their dummies out and threatened to break away. As a result the budget cap was forgotten about to keep the big teams happy.

 

The same will happen this time. Mercedes etc who have the big budgets will object to smaller teams having more freedoms and they'll never pass the idea. Especially not with an FIA leader like Jean Todt who never seems to want to rock the boat.

 

Max is a smart guy. He did a great deal for safety and he saw the financial crisis in F1 developing years ago. No one listened then. I doubt they'll listen now. Not unless the smaller teams who are at risk of collapsing all band together and do something to force the hand of the bigger teams. I don't hold much hope of it happening. 

 

Perhaps with Luca gone at Ferrari maybe there is some hope that they'll be prepared to listen to an idea like this. Who knows. Credit to Max for not shutting up over this idea. He's been banging on about it on a yearly basis.

[Tourgott]

Very good idea in principle.

Never thought I'd say this but ....
Come Back Max !!!!

Jp

 

Yep. Way better than Jean.

[FerrariV12]

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.

 

 

I'm right there with you JP. I surely wouldn't agree with everything the guy says or does, but he has large attachments, isn't afraid to think 'outside the box', and isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Qualities sorely lacking in today's F1. 

 

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.

Edited by FerrariV12, 30 April 2015 - 17:21.

[Boing 2]

Before we get too sentimental let's not forget what a poisionous atmosphere he created in the sport with endles scandals and accusations of preferential treatment and petty vendettas. No, he was an overly confrontational, sneering, condescending nasty piece of work and the  sport is better off without him.

 

Let's also not forget he was complicit in selling off F1's commercial rights which is part of todays problems in the sport.

[AustinF1]

Before we get too sentimental let's not forget what a poisionous atmosphere he created in the sport with endles scandals and accusations of preferential treatment and petty vendettas. No, he was an overly confrontational, sneering, condescending nasty piece of work and the  sport is better off without him.

 

Let's also not forget he was complicit in selling off F1's commercial rights which is part of todays problems in the sport.

All valid points. I just think he brings to the table some things that are needed now, like starting this budget cap/engineering freedom discussion, which can really bring positive change on two fronts. Those are discussions that need to be had for the good of the sport, imho. 

[redreni]

I agree with the OP; it's a good idea in principle. It's not necessary for teams to spend infinitely more and more money in order to make the sport everything we want it to be, and if you want to reduce team spending to a lower amount than the market dictates, the only way to do it is through regulation. And the only effective way to do it by regulation is to directly regulate the amount teams can spend, not by making a list of extravagant items on which teams spend the most money and then banning them. In the end, the latter approach just means the same amount of money gets spent on less and less effective ways of gaining performance.

 

But it would only work in a world where a governing body (or its accountants) was allowed more or less full and unfettered access to teams' books, and there were robust mechanisms in place to stop activity being kept off the team's books. Mosley's idea of foresnic accounting wouldn't work, because the accountant can be as independent and thorough as you like; it will only examine the books of the entrant. It won't be able to check that none of the R&D on the car that's entered, none of the parts, none of the blueprints, are the result of spending by some other company. And in the case of works teams, part of the point of them spending the amount they do on motrosport is that information and resources can be shared between R&D people at the parent company and at the F1 subsidiary.

 

It can't work, unfortunately. Not in this world. The bigger entrants wouldn't accept it, and ultimately the FIA can't stop them going off on their own if they don't like F1's rules.

 

I must say, though, I am a bit surprised Sauber, of all teams, wants to open its books up to scrutiny by anyone....

Edited by redreni, 30 April 2015 - 19:30.

[Abranet]

You just can't have an open rules formula. The cars will simply become too fast for the circuits.

 

wide tyres, massive diffusers, huge wings, ground effects, Unless you have a very small budget in mind so you simply can't afford to do everything and control the speed that way but the big teams will still want to be spending £150mil + and too much technology is already known that doesn't need further huge investment to develop that the cars will just be too fast. Safety will become an issue There has to be more parameters than just how much you spend. 

[KingTiger]

It sounds like a good idea in practice, but the big teams will certainly cheat. 

[Jimisgod]

Very good idea in principle.

Never thought I'd say this but ....
Come Back Max !!!!

Jp

 

Don't get whipped into a frenzy, it'll take more than a few strokes of the clock before Max is in a position to go hell for leather on the current regulations.

[MrPodium]

"The 2010 regulations published last month included an optional £40m cap, with teams who accept it granted greater technical freedom than those remaining with unlimited budgets. Ferrari have said that would create an unacceptable two-tier series and have threatened to walk away. So too have Renault, Toyota and the two Red Bull teams." - Max Mosley.

 

http://www.theguardi...get-cap-ferrari

 

And that worked how well?

[Jimisgod]

Ha, Renault and Toyota have already left and RBR has been threatening recently. Only Ferrari makes a difference.

[SanDiegoGo]

what a proud moment it will be when arrivabene gets to issue his first ferrari veto. they should have a ceremony. nothing too ostentatious just big enough to let everyone know that ferrari can still hold the sport to ransom should it choose to. #forza ferrari

[ensign14]

Very good idea in principle.

Never thought I'd say this but ....
Come Back Max !!!!

Jp

 

Meh.  Max was just listening to me.

 

 

I'd have F1 to see who the best car/driver combination is. So give each team a budget of £50m or £100m or whatever (something sufficiently low) and tell them to do what they like with it. If you can do a 12 wheel drive 27 litre turbine then do it.

 

From 2007.

 

Clever bloke, Max.

[Atreiu]

I like it simply because the alternative is the slowly suffocating stalemate the teams, Todt and Bernie have in place.

[Atreiu]

Very good idea in principle.

Never thought I'd say this but ....
Come Back Max !!!!

Jp

 

 

Off topic, is there anyone poised to become Todt's successor?

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Freedom in design always open cans of worm and surely teams like Sauber can't keep up in such situations. One of the best things about current rules is that there is no game changing loophole. So it is over all package that make the difference and that is good for Formula1.

[kevinracefan]

^"there's no game changing loophole".... exploited, YET...

never say never

[xflow7]

It's interesting, but to be honest it doesn't quite appeal to me, partially because of the difficulty in enforcement.

 

My latest thinking on what would be an interesting approach is based on an assumption that an overall team-level spending cap is basically unenforceable.  But a price cap for a system or sub-system that is bought in *is* enforceable provided that every team (or even several teams) are guaranteed to have access to it at that price.

 

So my latest thinking is a milkshake of price-cap/customer cars/technical partnerships.  It goes like this:

 

Designate some number of systems or sub-systems that are believed to be performance critical and specify for each a maximum system/subsystem cost.  For sake of illustration, let's say:

 

- Power Unit - $10M /year

- Gearbox - $4M /year

- Front Wing Assembly - $50k / each

- Rear Wing Assembly - $50k / each

 

Then you stipulate that these 4 systems must be made available to X number of teams at those costs and that customer units must not be more than Y design revisions behind the 'works' design.

 

The teams remain responsible for the design/construction/sourcing of those items that aren't on the list, but are guaranteed the ability to purchase at a non-exorbitant cost those other key elements if they choose.  Of course, the purchasing team must work out whether their pretty new Red Bull FW will work with their car, but in a way that helps to enforce some of the design responsibility of a constructor that many fans want to retain.

 

So Mercedes can spend whatever they want, but any team (up to X) can buy in elements of the Mercedes technology at a known (somewhat affordable) cost.

 

So you maintain F1 as a constructor series, with technical latitude, but put an effective cap on what is needed to buy in the major technologies of the front runners.

 

I think it's brilliant. 

Edited by xflow7, 30 April 2015 - 19:55.

[Fastcake]

Very good idea in principle.

Never thought I'd say this but ....
Come Back Max !!!!

Jp

Max was too corrupt and abrasive by the end for me to really miss him. Nevertheless, at least he was willing to act when necessary, and try and come up with potential solutions to the sports ills. Todt's reign of silence and passiveness has done precious little, other than playing Machiavellian games in the Place de la Concorde.

[noikeee]

Before we get too sentimental let's not forget what a poisionous atmosphere he created in the sport with endles scandals and accusations of preferential treatment and petty vendettas. No, he was an overly confrontational, sneering, condescending nasty piece of work and the  sport is better off without him.

 

Let's also not forget he was complicit in selling off F1's commercial rights which is part of todays problems in the sport.

 

Oh absolutely. He did a lot of terrible things when at the helm of the sport, and was just an incredibly unlikeable man. I'd rather have I'm-not-here-I-don't-know-what-a-Formula-1-is Mr. Todt.

 

... but this is still a good idea (if somehow you managed to get all F1 teams to agree to it). A broken clock is right twice a day, etc. I'm just not sure how much technical freedom should be allowed. It's ridiculously restrictive now, but open it completely and you could end up with overly quick cars (therefore unsafe), other unforeseen safety issues, an incredibly spread out field, or poor racing. The regulations should still retain some element of control.

 

If a cost cap can be policed (big if), hell yes to it!

Edited by noikeee, 30 April 2015 - 20:46.

[Gyno]

Why not have both.

 

Big teams wanna spend money, let them waste all their money but they have to follow alot of strict rules.

The smaller teams who sign up to budget cap gets to build what ever they want and run what ever engine they wanna run.

[New Britain]

Max Mosley may advocate this idea, but he did not conceive it. The idea existed apart from him long before 2009.

[SanDiegoGo]

Why not have both.

 

Big teams wanna spend money, let them waste all their money but they have to follow alot of strict rules.

The smaller teams who sign up to budget cap gets to build what ever they want and run what ever engine they wanna run.

 

 

because the "big" teams don't want to be beaten by a manor ground effect car. .

[blackhand2010]

Slightly off-topic, but 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.

 

At least with Max you knew he was power hungry, and liked battling. Todt just seems to like the free lunches.

 

Back to topic; I do wonder whether Max keeping himself in the news is a precursor to another bid...

[Gyno]

because the "big" teams don't want to be beaten by a manor ground effect car. .

Well then they would welcome the budget cap with open arms once they see a team with a budget of 100 millions beat their team that waste 3-4 times that.

[KarlCson]

You just can't have an open rules formula. The cars will simply become too fast for the circuits.

wide tyres, massive diffusers, huge wings, ground effects, Unless you have a very small budget in mind so you simply can't afford to do everything and control the speed that way but the big teams will still want to be spending £150mil + and too much technology is already known that doesn't need further huge investment to develop that the cars will just be too fast. Safety will become an issue There has to be more parameters than just how much you spend.

Those all are very good and valid points -but could easily be kept at bay by a fixed amount of fuel.
The reason this duck never will fly is because its strictly political. A budget ceiling would OFFCOURSE, sooner rather than later, be violated by some/all of the richer teams and manufacturers, and the astronomical fines following thereby would, offcourse, need to be payed to..FIA! -is it Max going in for an reelection by alluring board members with even greasyer steakes?
There is no, what so ever, reason to tie together a discussion about a budget cap, to the one about technical freedom and ingenuity in formula 1 -that should naturally anyway -allways- be the obvious essence of the premier league of car racing.

Edited by KarlCson, 01 May 2015 - 07:00.

[KingTiger]

Well then they would welcome the budget cap with open arms once they see a team with a budget of 100 millions beat their team that waste 3-4 times that.

 

But then you're going to have someone hide their budget and get freer rules while spending 2-3x the intended budget. 100 million is way too high anyway, teams like Sauber probably have half of that. The gaps will only be bigger since the best teams have the best facilities and engineers. 

[Wuzak]

I think if they put a budget cap in place that it is high enough initially for the big teams to conform without too much restructuring.

 

The cap could be brought down over a few years, and the regs opened up more.

 

I see that the Haas team has already decided to buy everything from Ferrari that they are not required to build by the rules.

 

http://plus.autospor...3263.1410486413

 

That includes the PU and gearbox (as for Sauber and Manor) and other items such as suspension.

[jonpollak]

Max Mosley may advocate this idea, but he did not conceive it. The idea existed apart from him long before 2009.

The Lawyer guy said as much....

It's who has the HootSpa to get it done...That'll be the guy that gets the credit.

I liked Monisha's swipe at the palace des Todt too.

 

Jp

Edited by jonpollak, 01 May 2015 - 03:09.

[Peter0Scandlyn]

I don't think budget cap can work. Bigger teams can get around that so very easily.

 

Same old same old....

[Peter0Scandlyn]

awesome idea in concept...

almost impossible idea to police...

 

Idea seems self explanatory. What's difficult about policing it?...(the idea that is.....)

[V8 Fireworks]

Why not simply ban works engines and works constructors?

 

Make the race teams indepent buyers of Mercedes engines or Williams chassis like Indycar.  With a fixed price that engines and chassis can be sold for, and must be available to 13/Number of suppliers + 1 teams.

[krobinson]

Idea seems self explanatory. What's difficult about policing it?...(the idea that is.....)

 

How would you police the costs of a big team like Ferrari or Mercedes? Think about it a little bit. They can "outsource" whatever they want in their huge corporation and there is nothing you could do about it.

[nosecone]

Seems difficult to enforce... but the idea is great.

 

Has somebody seen Jean Todt recently? He seems to let F1 go down. No ideas, no changes...

 

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

Edited by nosecone, 01 May 2015 - 07:10.

[Henri Greuter]

It sounds so oppositie to another. When you have full freedom do investigate `everything` then you need even more money to use that freedom to the fullest and develop literally everyting that is possible because of this freedom.

 

Full freedom with a limited budget, then the budget is the biggest limitation you have since you can't make use of all that freedom.

 

 

Henri

[quaint]

Why not simply ban works engines and works constructors?

 

Make the race teams indepent buyers of Mercedes engines or Williams chassis like Indycar.  With a fixed price that engines and chassis can be sold for, and must be available to 13/Number of suppliers + 1 teams.

Yeah, why not just end the whole series to prevent the chance of it having more financial troubles...

 

It's easy to get support for a “design freedom” from F1 fans, but that's only misleading. There will have to be limits on design; you could easily build simply too dangerously fast a car with 100 million per year.

Edited by quaint, 01 May 2015 - 07:46.

[CountDooku]

I think I like it but I'm not sure yet...

 

Your bum must hurt from spending so much time on the fence!

[jestaudio]

What on earth makes anyone think banning the works teams would be great for the sport, ban them and say goodbye to the engines and the tech that goes with them, no manufacturer would put up with being banned from racing and then be expected to supply engines. may as well bring back the Mecachrome engine and call it a spec series

[Rocket73]

I think it's marvellous idea and interestingly it won't go away.

 

Unpoliceable? It's only accounting. I'd rather a bunch of accountants slaved over the details than have it all through the rules of our beloved sport. 

 

Big teams will cheat? They do already so what's to lose? 

 

Safety...cars too fast? limit tyre size and some aero will stop that.

 

Performance spread would be greater? Don't think so. From what I have gathered the small teams know how to go faster but can't afford it.

 

Bring it on, Bring back the real essence of F1.

[CountDooku]

There is a fatal flaw in these proposals. A lot of the tech that makes F1 cars go at warp speed is already well known. These parts do not need too much development and the older teams like Sauber have raced this tech in the past. Ground effects, diffusers, tyre shrouds, barge boards, powerful vortice generators etc.

 

If these "B rule teams" can buy a competitive engine, they would completely walk the formula. The only way to slow them down would then be to add lots of restrictions to the B teams which defeats the objective of the proposal. It actually has nothing to do with spending, which can easily be policed.

Edited by CountDooku, 01 May 2015 - 08:03.

[Rocket73]

Spending can be easily policed? Really? With all the 'cost cutting' in place we have bigger budgets than ever and a dwindling grid.

[CountDooku]

Spending can be easily policed? Really? With all the 'cost cutting' in place we have bigger budgets than ever and a dwindling grid.

 

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.

[PayasYouRace]

If it can be properly enforced then I think it would be great. But that's a big if.