101 replies to this topic

[RPM40]

http://www.auto-moto...e-12034464.html

 

If the series is better, it is all better. "A sport lives from tight competition. The underdog must be able to win, "says Carey. He puts on the formula : "On the racetrackClick here for the matching products on Amazon.de! are all opponents, outside we build together the sport together."

 

Liberty wants to present a plan to the teams in summer how a budget cover could look . It should not be a simple cost ceiling, but a mix of several factors: one wants to limit the number of employees, the production costs and the scope of the tools.

 

Liberty intends to carry out such a cost control before its introduction for one year without any consequences for non-compliance. "We want to see whether the monitoring mechanisms work at all," says one from the FormulaFormula Schmidt GP Spain: That's why Mercedes is afraid of Monaco! 1 management.

 

Force India team leader Bob Fernley proposes a step-by-step reduction of costs until the end of the Concorde Agreement. "Then it does not hit the big teams with the hammer. If we start with 250 million dollars, only the three top teams would have to be limited. We can then go down in 50 million steps per year. The same goes for the tools. In a first step, the wind tunnel models could be reduced to 40 percent, later prohibit the wind tunnel completely and allow only CFD. So every time has to adapt. "

 

 

 

 

[Marklar]

BREAKING NEWS: <insert top team> threatening to quit F1

[RPM40]

 

BREAKING NEWS: <insert top team> threatening to quit F1

 

 

I'm not actually sure I want a cost cap tbh. I think F1 is primarily about trying to 'ascend' to one of the top teams as a driver.

 

I'm willing to be that with equal finances it would be teams like Force India that prevail, as their entire structure is built around cost effective performance. 

 

If Ferrari haven't won a title for 10 years with a big budget advantage what hope would they have without one. 

Edited by RPM40, 19 May 2017 - 21:11.

[Ellios]

It certainly needs to be capped, but eventually not as far as first proposed - mainly because I think now Bernie's gone F1 is going to make even more money and become even more popular ! So the spending ceiling won't be lowered quite so much as the funds become more evenly distributed 

[Jovanotti]

I wish they'd rather look into fair distribution of TV revenues first, that seems a lot easier to achieve in my opinion.

[Fastcake]

It'll be good if someone could finally implement a workable budget cap.

 

The chances of Chase and the crew succeeding where Max and the FIA failed? Not great. The FIA will be in favour of one, but maybe not a scheme controlled by FOM, and the big teams will be as against it as they ever have been.

[RacingGreen]

Let's look at this through a comparison with possibly the worlds simplest sport running. The IAAF could just allow performance enhancing drugs and save themselves the trouble of bad press and policing a rule book, but they don't. Excessive spending in F1 above a budget limit can be considered as "performance enhancing payments," ie cheating. Budget caps work in many other sports, sure there are those who from time to time "outsource" or do things "off the books" or at a related company to get round the regulations because there are always cheats in any walk of life. I don't think however that it is necessarily the big teams like Mercedes who would, just think of the scandal and brand damage if they got caught. They have seen the damage to the VW brand in recent years. 

 

I'm not sure what point Bob Fernley is making  about wind tunnels. If there is a budget cap what's wrong with a team deciding how and where to spend it's allowed resources. If one team likes wind tunnels they can spend it there, if another wants extra track testing, or a third computer simulation surely it's up to them to decide.

[Disgrace]

The first priority has to be equalising prize money. Then let's talk about further measures.

[johnmhinds]

I'm not sure what point Bob Fernley is making  about wind tunnels. If there is a budget cap what's wrong with a team deciding how and where to spend it's allowed resources. If one team likes wind tunnels they can spend it there, if another wants extra track testing, or a third computer simulation surely it's up to them to decide.

 

Force India is one of the teams still using an older wind tunnel.

 

Bob Fernley just wants limits on the stuff that his own team can't do anyway and is hiding it behind this cost cap talk. He isn't really interested in lowering his own teams budget.

Edited by johnmhinds, 19 May 2017 - 23:27.

[Cornholio]

The first priority has to be equalising prize money. Then let's talk about further measures.

Agreed, to me it wouldnt make sense to restrict spending while still paying the top teams huge amounts. "Here's all this extra money.. oh but you're not allowed to spend it"

I know it cant happen overnight. And even if implemented there may be issues that remain that require measures like cost caps/restriction. But levelling the payouts at least to a degree has always seemed the most logical as a first step and see how much that helps, before resorting to forensic accounting to monitor spending, or restricting technology even more than they already have.

[ArrowsLivery]

This sounds really good. Budget cap is necessary. The sport is a lot more fun when the field is really tight. It was a farce the last few years when Rosberg could drop to last in the field and still make his way up to second without much effort.

[Quickshifter]

The biggest roadblock to budget cap is effective and fair implementation because it is a massively difficult task to effectively police the spendings of manufacturer teams which produce both chassis and engines like Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes.

Red Bull are against it naturally because they feel the teams that i mentioned will find ingenious ways to spend above the budget gap which will only widen the gap not shrink it.

Budget cap will always remain a pipe dream unless FIA under new management can conjure b*lls of running the championship without Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes. There are only ten teams and in that too only a few enjoy cult following. Manufacturer teams know the power they wield and no matter who is managing f1 they can do all the talking as much as they want but there is no way budget cap will ever be a reality.

F1 is different from other series where not just the sporting aspect but also the technological aspect carries a huge appeal. If tight competition was the only barometer of fan appeal then why aren't other competitions with similar engins spec formula and bolt on aero kits carry as much appeal as f1 globally?

I keep hearing about fans loosing interest and what all. I am a Mclaren fan and i do not have to say how it is doing currently but has it changed my love for the team?

Instead of budget cap f1 should concentrate on much better fan involvement, much better social media coverage, much better and more informative broadcasting and consistent sporting rules. F1 is not as sick as it is made out to be. Been following f1 over 2 decades and there has never been a phase where you had 4 teams seriously challenging for world championship and people need to stop trying to make it what it will never become which is more than 5 teams capable of winning races on merit.

Edited by Quickshifter, 20 May 2017 - 00:21.

[minime]

Think about this, at the moment Honda are spending big and have spent big to enter and survive in F1. If there was a budget cap either they could not do that or the PU''s would not be what we have now, the latter most likely. I would think that Carey is looking at the budget, deciding how much can go to the teams and potentially how much sponsorship can be raised and working from there. 

 

It will be very interesting, we have a clever group of people who read and dodge technical and race regulations for a living and to gain advantage, another group (Liberty) who will try and enforce the cap and another group who will audit & police all this. It might even be more interesting than the racing.  Personally I don't think it will work but I admire the sentiment and live in hope. Clever versus money should be the outcome and I will take clever every time. Excess money pollutes the outcome and encourages greed and all that accompanies it and F1 is a fine example of everything that is bad about excess money and its use.

Edited by minime, 20 May 2017 - 04:33.

[Nathan]

It seems too easy to cheat..

[minime]

Further on to my above post how would Honda be subject to the cap as it isn't a team, there is more to this than meets the eye. Interesting times ahead me thinks and I hope they succeed.  

[OO7]

I'm of the opinion that costs (to become competitive) should be controlled via the technical and sporting regs as is and not by budget caps.

[secessionman]

My first full season watching F1 was in 1978, my last was obviously 2016.

 

Compare the race wins (by team) across the first and last 5 years period....

 

1978-1982 :

Ferrari - 16

Williams - 16

Brabham - 10

Lotus - 9

Renault - 9

Ligier - 7

McLaren - 5

Tyrrell - 2

 

 

2012-2016 :

Mercedes - 55

Red Bull - 25

Ferrari - 8

McLaren -7

Lotus* - 2

Williams - 1

 

1978-1982 : Grand Prix won by top 2 teams - 43%

2012-2016 - Grand Prix won by top 2 teams - 82%

 

I've seen many people denigrate Rosberg's WDC over the years on the basis that he only won one race in 1982. Au contraire, this was the finest example ever seen of a driver winning a WDC in a series representing driving talent, 7 different constructors and 11 different drivers won races that year and, aside from Reutemann in South Africa, none of his team mates finished a race in the top 4. (And yes, I'm more than aware of what happened within Ferrari that year, I still stand by my point).

 

If F1 wants to aspire to being the pinnacle of Motor Sport then it needs to be the pinnacle of racing, I have never bought that it should be the pinnacle of automotive excellence, especially if that is to the detriment of racing. Nobody gets off on 2002/04/13/14/15/16 unless they are devoted to one particular driver/team. That is very different to enjoying good racing.

[RPM40]

The thing is back in the 70s/80s the cars were unreliable so other teams got gifts

[RedBaron]

Budget caps are a terrible idea.

 

It will unsettle the big manufacturer teams.

 

We need manufacturers in Formula 1 showcasing their excellence so they can sell road cars to the 23 people still watching F1.

[Nonesuch]

As I've argued before; just admit the technology race is - for all practical and affordable purposes - over and start building a proper GP1 series.

[RPM40]

The thing I don't get, on one hand they make these overly complex engines that no one likes, sound like garbage and have given us 4 of the least competitive years in the sport whilst crippling McLaren, on the other hand they are trying to introduce budget caps.

 

Item 1 on the list, new engine formula that is both easy and fair. That will tighten up the grid.

[superden]

A budget cap.

[RacingGreen]

My first full season watching F1 was in 1978, my last was obviously 2016.

 

Compare the race wins (by team) across the first and last 5 years period....

 

1978-1982 :

Ferrari - 16

Williams - 16

Brabham - 10

Lotus - 9

Renault - 9

Ligier - 7

McLaren - 5

Tyrrell - 2

 

 

2012-2016 :

Mercedes - 55

Red Bull - 25

Ferrari - 8

McLaren -7

Lotus* - 2

Williams - 1

 

1978-1982 : Grand Prix won by top 2 teams - 43%

2012-2016 - Grand Prix won by top 2 teams - 82%

 

I've seen many people denigrate Rosberg's WDC over the years on the basis that he only won one race in 1982. Au contraire, this was the finest example ever seen of a driver winning a WDC in a series representing driving talent, 7 different constructors and 11 different drivers won races that year and, aside from Reutemann in South Africa, none of his team mates finished a race in the top 4. (And yes, I'm more than aware of what happened within Ferrari that year, I still stand by my point).

 

If F1 wants to aspire to being the pinnacle of Motor Sport then it needs to be the pinnacle of racing, I have never bought that it should be the pinnacle of automotive excellence, especially if that is to the detriment of racing. Nobody gets off on 2002/04/13/14/15/16 unless they are devoted to one particular driver/team. That is very different to enjoying good racing.

 

While I in principle agree I think the decrease in number of winners has much more to do with reliability.

 

For example lets look at the British Grand Prix during the two periods you have highlighted:

 

 

As you can see the slowest car on 1978 - 82 grid was on average 106.4% of the pole time. Not much different in the 2012 - 16 period's 108.4% when you consider the 2014 Grand Prix's wet/dry qualifying. The real difference between the two is in the number of classified finishers which has gone up from 42.9% of starters to 76.9%. This is largely due to mechanical reliability as during the 1978 - 82 period 84.5% of the  DNF's were for mechanical (and not collision) reasons.

 

As I said earlier these figures are for British Grand Prix only but I would be surprised if they were completely unrepresentative of the periods as a whole.

Edited by RacingGreen, 20 May 2017 - 08:17.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Stabilise the regulations, a fairer way to spread the money... 

 

A budget cap No, there will always be a way to exploit it - a budget cap would actually favour Red Bull (sadly!) as they are basically TWO teams... (are they behind a cap?)

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 20 May 2017 - 08:16.

[Augurk]

I couldn't agree more to the introduction of a budget cap.

Caps have become overly complex and expensive in recent years. Time to revert back to something simple fans can afford.

[P123]

My first full season watching F1 was in 1978, my last was obviously 2016.
 
Compare the race wins (by team) across the first and last 5 years period....
 
1978-1982 :
Ferrari - 16
Williams - 16
Brabham - 10
Lotus - 9
Renault - 9
Ligier - 7
McLaren - 5
Tyrrell - 2
 
 
2012-2016 :
Mercedes - 55
Red Bull - 25
Ferrari - 8
McLaren -7
Lotus* - 2
Williams - 1
 
1978-1982 : Grand Prix won by top 2 teams - 43%
2012-2016 - Grand Prix won by top 2 teams - 82%
 
I've seen many people denigrate Rosberg's WDC over the years on the basis that he only won one race in 1982. Au contraire, this was the finest example ever seen of a driver winning a WDC in a series representing driving talent, 7 different constructors and 11 different drivers won races that year and, aside from Reutemann in South Africa, none of his team mates finished a race in the top 4. (And yes, I'm more than aware of what happened within Ferrari that year, I still stand by my point).
 
If F1 wants to aspire to being the pinnacle of Motor Sport then it needs to be the pinnacle of racing, I have never bought that it should be the pinnacle of automotive excellence, especially if that is to the detriment of racing. Nobody gets off on 2002/04/13/14/15/16 unless they are devoted to one particular driver/team. That is very different to enjoying good racing.

Thing is, domination by a select few teams is not a new phenomenon. Between 1988 and 1992 only four teams won races, and the top two of them took 81% of victories. So we aren't so different now as we were then, except now the quirk of unreliability gives less opportunity for an outsider to win.

[CountDooku]

As I've argued before; just admit the technology race is - for all practical and affordable purposes - over and start building a proper GP1 series.

Heresy! The tech is 75% of F1 for me.

[CountDooku]

F1 doesn't have a spending problem, it has a revenue problem. If the big teams want to spend, let them- it's their money.
What you can't have is the shitty income distribution system with Concorde and that should be the number 1, 2 & 3 priority of Liberty.

[smr]

A budget cap would be great, we need to have a sport where it's possible for all teams to win races imo, if the cars are more evenly matched then we'll really see a difference between the drivers which is surely what we all want to see. Instead of it being about 90 percent car and 10 percent driver it'd be much better if it was 50 percent car and 50 percent driver.

[ferkan]

A budget cap would be great, we need to have a sport where it's possible for all teams to win races imo, if the cars are more evenly matched then we'll really see a difference between the drivers which is surely what we all want to see. Instead of it being about 90 percent car and 10 percent driver it'd be much better if it was 50 percent car and 50 percent driver.

Lol no. This is pinnacle of racing. For better or worse that means big manufacturers will pour hundreds of millions to get any sort of advantage over their rivals.

If teams like FI want budget cap so that they can win, maybe try some aero kit series?

[Neno]

Not happening Chasey

[smr]

Lol no. This is pinnacle of racing. For better or worse that means big manufacturers will pour hundreds of millions to get any sort of advantage over their rivals.

If teams like FI want budget cap so that they can win, maybe try some aero kit series?

 

Explain how a budget cap would prevent Formula 1 from being the pinnacle of racing?

[Boing 2]

Here's a plan, allocate test days according to championship position, lower teams get more days higher teams get less, day allocations recalculated every 1/3 of the season. 

 

So, 1st team gets 3 days per year, last team gets 12 days and the rest are graduated in between BUT you also allow teams the right to sell half their test days to any other team for a preset value. So a small team can raise money by selling test days or use them to test or exchange days for cash in engine deals, ($6M + 6 days for an engine instead of $12M)

 

This also helps big teams like McLaren who are in a rut and low down the order as they can just use the track time to sort out their problems and get back up to the sharp end. There's also the advantage of limiting the leading teams development whilst allowing its pursuers to test more and close up.

[SonnyViceR]

The thing is back in the 70s/80s the cars were unreliable so other teams got gifts

 

Yet only 6 cars scored points. And not all races counted towards actual championship

[JHSingo]

Inherently sensible idea, and so for that reason it'll never happen. F1 teams are far too stubborn to agree to such a thing, and then there's the policing it aspect which would undoubtedly cause a lot of issues too...

 

Maybe in this new era of F1, with Liberty in control, things have changed. But I highly doubt F1 teams would ever accept a budget cap, even it was for the benefit of the sport and smaller teams.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

I think it is time for the bigger teams to let go some of their advantage to still have the remaining advantage.

[P123]

A budget cap would be great, we need to have a sport where it's possible for all teams to win races imo, if the cars are more evenly matched then we'll really see a difference between the drivers which is surely what we all want to see. Instead of it being about 90 percent car and 10 percent driver it'd be much better if it was 50 percent car and 50 percent driver.

A budget cap would make sod all difference to that. There will always be a team that does a better job. Red Bull and Ferrari, McLaren and Merc... they all spend similar sums. That doesn't mean between them the driver is suddenly a major factor.

It would also be far too easy for the likes of the four major teams to circumvent a cap given all of their offshoots and the possibilities for creative accounting. How fun would a championship decided by accountants be... How successful was the RRA? It wasn't. How do you police it? You couldn't. Let's sacrifice a 1000 or so jobs just to ignore the real problem, which is revenue distribution?

Nah, think I'll pass on the idea of a budget cap. It would merely be a means of lessening the pressure on the promoter to pay out income to the teams and enabling them to take a larger cut for themselves.

Edited by P123, 20 May 2017 - 11:50.

[New Britain]

Nah, think I'll pass on the idea of a budget cap. It would merely be a means of lessening the pressure on the promoter to pay out income to the teams and enabling them to take a larger cut for themselves.

 

or enabling them to reduce ticket prices....

[Branislav]

I support Nascarization of F1

[minime]

Thing is, domination by a select few teams is not a new phenomenon. Between 1988 and 1992 only four teams won races, and the top two of them took 81% of victories. So we aren't so different now as we were then, except now the quirk of unreliability gives less opportunity for an outsider to win.

 

Motor racing has always been the same, money and resources win every time in every category and a budget cap will not stop that. Watch for the teams to white ant this idea before it can grow legs as it threatens their idea of fair play. I have alway maintained that it will never work and still do and there are far simpler and more effective ways to go about reducing spending but the teams would go ape if someone even thought about introducing those things.  

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Here's a plan, allocate test days according to championship position, lower teams get more days higher teams get less, day allocations recalculated every 1/3 of the season.

So, 1st team gets 3 days per year, last team gets 12 days and the rest are graduated in between BUT you also allow teams the right to sell half their test days to any other team for a preset value. So a small team can raise money by selling test days or use them to test or exchange days for cash in engine deals, ($6M + 6 days for an engine instead of $12M)

This also helps big teams like McLaren who are in a rut and low down the order as they can just use the track time to sort out their problems and get back up to the sharp end. There's also the advantage of limiting the leading teams development whilst allowing its pursuers to test more and close up.

Plain wrong.

The smaller teams don't test due to money for testing so won't help.

[johnmhinds]

If the lower teams knew they were going to have more test days then they should reallocate money towards that instead of investing it all in the pre season design and testing.

 

Having more testing available to you later in the season could give you a major advantage in those later races.

 

And that testing could also be used to develop new ideas for next years car which would boost those lower even teams more.

Edited by johnmhinds, 20 May 2017 - 15:03.

[CountDooku]

I say we propose a rule that until there is a cap on the wealth of the billionaire owners of F1 (let's say $40m, after all who could need more than that in a lifetime???), they STFU about proposing budget caps for everyone.
Let's see how Mr Carey love his socialism then.

[Kalmake]

The lower teams would sell those test days on day 1.

[Boing 2]

Plain wrong.

The smaller teams don't test due to money for testing so won't help.

 

Therefore......you sell half your days to raise the money to use the other half.

[Boing 2]

The lower teams would sell those test days on day 1.

 

Fair enough, why is that a problem if it raises the cash needed?

[Boing 2]

If the lower teams knew they were going to have more test days then they should reallocate money towards that instead of investing it all in the pre season design and testing.

 

Having more testing available to you later in the season could give you a major advantage in those later races.

 

And that testing could also be used to develop new ideas for next years car which would boost those lower even teams more.

 

At the minute with in-season testing limits that's not possible but if the rules were loosened up it would be an option.

[F1Lurker]

I think a budget cap is fine.

 

I would exclude driver and personnel salaries—just cap head count. This should give young/unproven talented people a chance to break-in.

 

I would cap the cost of physical operations—factory utilities, rent, property plant and equipment (purchase/rental), wind tunnel, CFD ...etc. Something like $100m. I would open up wind tunnels, CFD, road testing etc, teams can do whatever they want within budget. The rental versus purchase of equipment would be tricky. I would probably use an amortization schedule as an equivalent to rent for PPE.

 

I would treat engines separately. Teams would all have a budget for engines of 15m a year. I would not cost cap engine development directly—would use restrictive regulations.

 

Some calibration would be needed but this can work. The richer teams could still have a significant advantage and they would pay for the best people and drivers. However, the gap should not get completely ridiculous and everyone would be able to make money.

[cpbell]

Though I am in favour of a budget cap if necessary, I do agree with those posters above who argue that a fairer distribution of income between the teams ought to be the first priority for FOM in the Liberty Media era, if only for the reason that it would give everyone a chance to see what difference an alternative income distribution model makes.  Once that becomes apparent, a debate can then be had on whether a cap is needed, and, if so, at what level it should be set. 

 

Regarding the view that trying to get all the teams in a position of being able to win a GP in any one season on pure performance, that's self-evidently unrealistic.  It's about equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome: rather like the difference between Communism and Social Democracy, everyone should have a chance to achieve as much as their effort and talent allows.  At present, there is a lack of equality of opportunity; what we ought to aim for is a situation wherein a small team can, with suitable sponsorship, develop their way over the course of a couple of seasons or so from mid-grid to being a front-running team as Red Bull did between 2008 and 2010.

Edited by cpbell, 20 May 2017 - 15:50.

[ArrowsLivery]

Heresy! The tech is 75% of F1 for me.

 

It would be nice if they shared more of that tech with the fans. Right now we know next to nothing, and even the articles written by the tech "experts" are usually complete rubbish. It would be great if the teams had to publish some of that data that they collect, after qualifying for example. 

 

Here's a plan, allocate test days according to championship position, lower teams get more days higher teams get less, day allocations recalculated every 1/3 of the season. 

 

So, 1st team gets 3 days per year, last team gets 12 days and the rest are graduated in between BUT you also allow teams the right to sell half their test days to any other team for a preset value. So a small team can raise money by selling test days or use them to test or exchange days for cash in engine deals, ($6M + 6 days for an engine instead of $12M)

 

This also helps big teams like McLaren who are in a rut and low down the order as they can just use the track time to sort out their problems and get back up to the sharp end. There's also the advantage of limiting the leading teams development whilst allowing its pursuers to test more and close up.

 

Problem is that the teams at the back of the grid can't afford to go testing. And them selling track time to the other teams would just increase the gap between the have's and the have-not's even more.