57 replies to this topic

[Skelly1927]

Recently ex-RedBull F1 Performance Engineer stated on X that 

"As the cost cap limits salaries, the number of events increases, all in the name of generating more revenue... I think you'll see a lot of people dipping out in the coming years for other series. Teams are already dealing with losing high value engineers to other industries." https://twitter.com/...434504237687091

From day-one this was always an obvious consequence to the the Cost Cap and anti-dilution stance regarding new F1 teams. There's less opportunities, and the opportunities are there are limited in remuneration potential.

It seems somewhat bizarre that F1 is trying to promotion Diversity and Inclusion, yet at the same time making the actual jobs on offer less-desirable. Any half-smart person would look at F1 and ask themselves whether they should go into the aerospace industry. The whole thing is backwards.

In general motorsport is venturing into an anti-engineering direction. F1 is offering less opportunity, series like WEC actively punish engineering excellence, and general motorsport is moving towards more spec-racing which in the end will be its downfall. We see campaign after campaign bemoaning the technical differences between the cars, yet that's the literal foundation of the sport that provides so much opportunity. 

The question is how is the situation improved. It just seems we're witnessing a bit of a cash grab. The owners of the team see the values go sky high, the top positions aren't cost cap-limited... so where does that leave your humble engineer? Why on earth would anyone want to enter motorsport when they have the brains for something more lucrative?

Edited by Skelly1927, 26 October 2023 - 08:26.

[ensign14]

/me wonders why it is bad for engineers to ply their trade in other industries with global applicability rather than turning noise into speed

[Aaaarrgghh]

But at least the playing field is levelled, am I right?

 

Well, to be serious... what did anyone expect the result of a cost cap would be? The first thing to go will be the engineers. Surely, this is by design. I just think that people assumed that the engineers leaving RBR and Mercedes would go to Sauber or Williams, which of course they wouldn't if the money is better and work more stimulating in other areas. So I'm not surprised. This is what happens when you try to control a market like this: people will just go to other markets.

 

I think F1 for several decades now has generally been anti-innovation and continuously regulated away technical progress in the interest of creating a more entertaining product. Some people might like that. As an engineer myself, I don't. To be fair, F1 is still my favourite sport by a long way, but they are making it harder and harder for me every year. To be clear, some things, such as the suspension-mounted aerofoils in 1969, were necessary to regulate away. Some safety-related regulations must exist. But now they just keep adding regulations upon regulations to try to tighten the field and thus make it "more exciting." And it never works. But we will keep hearing that "oh, but if only we ban this technical detail and add this sporting regulation, that will do it." And so the regulations will continue to pile up until the whole thing collapses in on itself.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

They don't want motorsport... (its not "green" enough!)

[GrumpyYoungMan]

/me wonders why it is bad for engineers to ply their trade in other industries with global applicability rather than turning noise into speed

Because they are interested in "motor" sport... and as a result they "enjoy" there work...

[Skelly1927]

/me wonders why it is bad for engineers to ply their trade in other industries with global applicability rather than turning noise into speed

/me wonders why any motorsport fan would not be concerned that the sport they are fan of apparently is seeing a decline in opportunities

[PayasYouRace]

Even when I graduated 14 years ago, I was looking at F1 jobs (even had a few interviews) but it was clear then that F1 was going to be a high profile but hard work option, with little free time and many demands on one’s free time. A single man’s (or woman’s) game. At the time I was fine with that, and I eventually joined the military which is the ultimate expression of that. But I know now that if I had landed one of those jobs, I’d probably have left the F1 world by now in search of better work-life balance.

It’s important to remember that F1 is a sport, it’s entertainment, and it should have rules that make it competitive and exciting for the viewer. If, as an engineer, you wish to be on the cutting edge of technology, your best bet would be to enter other industries. Those that enter F1 as engineers are always going to have to deal with the demands of the sport first. They have to be those that enjoy the sport immensely. And that’s probably better. Have the sport populated by the engineers who have a genuine passion for racing, and not just those wanting to get rich.

[Anderis]

/me wonders why any motorsport fan would not be concerned that the sport they are fan of apparently is seeing a decline in opportunities

I think the bloated F1 teams from 2010's did more harm than good to the sport. Not everything is supposed to experience indefinite growth. Yes, it sucks for people who dreamt of a career in F1 but such is life.

 

There would be more opportunities if F1 added new teams, though.

[Skelly1927]

Have the sport populated by the engineers who have a genuine passion for racing, and not just those wanting to get rich.

There is a crossover where the cost far outweighs anything else. It's not too dissimilar to saying high costs in motorsport ensure only those who are truly passionate actually compete.

Those who come from a particularly less-well off background will be wise to forgo their desire to be in motorsport for something more lucrative and stable. I am not sure that's a good thing. It basically leaves the opportunities for those already from comfortable backgrounds.

[ensign14]

/me wonders why any motorsport fan would not be concerned that the sport they are fan of apparently is seeing a decline in opportunities

That happened when everything moved to a one-make formula and 20 F1 teams was reduced to 10.

 

Cost cap ought to lead to more ingenuity so better engineering experience.

[Skelly1927]

I think the bloated F1 teams from 2010's did more harm than good to the sport. Not everything is supposed to experience indefinite growth. Yes, it sucks for people who dreamt of a career in F1 but such is life.

 

There would be more opportunities if F1 added new teams, though.

Calum Nicholas started at Marrusia. Ricciardo got his first drive at HRT. Bianchi would have ended up at Ferrari. 

The 3 extra teams were excellent for F1.

[Skelly1927]

That happened when everything moved to a one-make formula and 20 F1 teams was reduced to 10.

 

Cost cap ought to lead to more ingenuity so better engineering experience.

If anyone could develop a new team you might be right, but the teams are pretty much locked at 10. Nothing stifles innovation like closed shops. All free market economies know this.

[PayasYouRace]

There is a crossover where the cost far outweighs anything else. It's not too dissimilar to saying high costs in motorsport ensure only those who are truly passionate actually compete.

Those who come from a particularly less-well off background will be wise to forgo their desire to be in motorsport for something more lucrative and stable. I am not sure that's a good thing. It basically leaves the opportunities for those already from comfortable backgrounds.

The cost cap is overall good for the sport though. Spending was insane, and still is.

What’s needed are fewer races and open competition allowing new teams. Less burn-out for employees and more opportunities for employment.

[Myrvold]

If anyone could develop a new team you might be right, but the teams are pretty much locked at 10. Nothing stifles innovation like closed shops. All free market economies know this.

 

Which is a much bigger problem than a cost cap then.

Also, I'm sure there's more jobs in WEC and IMSA than it was 5 years ago.

[Skelly1927]

Which is a much bigger problem than a cost cap then.

 

the cost-cap and anti-dilution go hand in hand.  You don't get one without the other.
 

[PayasYouRace]

the cost-cap and anti-dilution go hand in hand. You don't get one without the other.

Not really. The cost cap reduces the need for an anti-dilution fund. The former is imposed on the teams by the sport to keep costs down. The latter is requested by the teams due to their greed in spite of the budget cap negating the need for it.

[Skelly1927]

Not really. The cost cap reduces the need for an anti-dilution fund. The former is imposed on the teams by the sport to keep costs down. The latter is requested by the teams due to their greed in spite of the budget cap negating the need for it.

Without the anti-dilution fund there is no budget cap acceptance. Again, they come as one. 

[PayasYouRace]

Without the anti-dilution fund there is no budget cap acceptance. Again, they come as one.

Even though they achieve the opposites. It’s the greed of the teams. Nothing more.

[Myrvold]

the cost-cap and anti-dilution go hand in hand.  You don't get one without the other.
 

 

And we have it, without issues... except the teams want to change their original agreement... 

 

I am not sure I follow the logic either. I am pretty damn sure they would have an anti-dilution thingy with free budgets as well...

[Skelly1927]

And we have it, without issues... except the teams want to change their original agreement... 

 

I am not sure I follow the logic either. I am pretty damn sure they would have an anti-dilution thingy with free budgets as well...

I don't think this was the case. The big teams didn't want budget caps. However as a compromise top jobs were protected and anti-dilution fee ensured protection for their teams. This is very basic negotiation stuff. Again, these things all come together. I don't think the big teams would care a jot about Andretti if they were still free to spend $500m a year.

The anti-dilution is to stop teams coming in and taking advantage of the budget-cap. Again, these come together.

Edited by Skelly1927, 26 October 2023 - 09:45.

[Sterzo]

F1 teams expanded to a ludicrous extent, spending a fortune on ever more engineers. We stopped that for good reasons. Why are we surprised there are now fewer engineers?

[IrvTheSwerve]

Even when I graduated 14 years ago, I was looking at F1 jobs (even had a few interviews) but it was clear then that F1 was going to be a high profile but hard work option, with little free time and many demands on one’s free time. A single man’s (or woman’s) game. At the time I was fine with that, and I eventually joined the military which is the ultimate expression of that. But I know now that if I had landed one of those jobs, I’d probably have left the F1 world by now in search of better work-life balance.

It’s important to remember that F1 is a sport, it’s entertainment, and it should have rules that make it competitive and exciting for the viewer. If, as an engineer, you wish to be on the cutting edge of technology, your best bet would be to enter other industries. Those that enter F1 as engineers are always going to have to deal with the demands of the sport first. They have to be those that enjoy the sport immensely. And that’s probably better. Have the sport populated by the engineers who have a genuine passion for racing, and not just those wanting to get rich.

 

Absolutely. With my experience with graduates, the ones that go into Formula 1 are engineers that love the sport, not so much for the money (even though the salaries are decent). The working hours and pressures are high, the ones that travel with the race team essentially don't have a life outside of F1.

 

A good graduate would be far more likely to progress onto an exceptional salary with a decent non-working life outside of Formula 1. Quite often I've had graduates move from F1 to the automotive industry, e.g. McLaren F1 to McLaren Automotive. From what I gather, it's generally a 'nicer' environment to be an engineer in.

[Skelly1927]

F1 teams expanded to a ludicrous extent, spending a fortune on ever more engineers. We stopped that for good reasons. Why are we surprised there are now fewer engineers?

Reducing opportunity is a good thing? We literally have motorsport organisations walking into schools saying "get into motorsport engineering" while at the same time actively reduced the number of roles, or at best reducing the wage potential.

No one think that's a bit odd? Telling kids about all the opportunities, while actually doing nothing to increase opportunity, and actually reduce opportunity. 

[Aaaarrgghh]

Even when I graduated 14 years ago, I was looking at F1 jobs (even had a few interviews) but it was clear then that F1 was going to be a high profile but hard work option, with little free time and many demands on one’s free time. A single man’s (or woman’s) game. At the time I was fine with that, and I eventually joined the military which is the ultimate expression of that. But I know now that if I had landed one of those jobs, I’d probably have left the F1 world by now in search of better work-life balance.

It’s important to remember that F1 is a sport, it’s entertainment, and it should have rules that make it competitive and exciting for the viewer. If, as an engineer, you wish to be on the cutting edge of technology, your best bet would be to enter other industries. Those that enter F1 as engineers are always going to have to deal with the demands of the sport first. They have to be those that enjoy the sport immensely. And that’s probably better. Have the sport populated by the engineers who have a genuine passion for racing, and not just those wanting to get rich.

Good point. Of course, it's a balance between entertainment and technical showcase. You can't simply ignore the entertainment aspect. I just think that it has gone way too far in the show-oriented and over-regulated direction. I can't help but think, for instance, that if wings on cars were discovered today, they would be regulated away.

[GreenMachine]

This was discussed when the cost cap was mooted (introduced?).  Old news, nothing to see here, move along ...

 

It's a cost cap, FFS, what do you expect from a cost cap?!  All of the expenses have to be managed and contained, so a few engineers have to find other work, big deal, the good ones will be retained so, again, nothing to see here but some necessary culling.

[Skelly1927]

This was discussed when the cost cap was mooted (introduced?).  Old news, nothing to see here, move along ...

 

It's a cost cap, FFS, what do you expect from a cost cap?!  All of the expenses have to be managed and contained, so a few engineers have to find other work, big deal, the good ones will be retained so, again, nothing to see here but some necessary culling.

We literally have motorsport organisations going into schools to sell the sport form an engineering perspective.... to then say "so what we lose engineers" doesn't add up unless you don't mind children being sold something that isn't there. People are making money with motorsport engineering courses. 

very bizarre on a motorsport forum to ever hear "who cares about the sport's brain drain"

Edited by Skelly1927, 26 October 2023 - 11:01.

[Aaaarrgghh]

The cost cap is overall good for the sport though. Spending was insane, and still is.

What’s needed are fewer races and open competition allowing new teams. Less burn-out for employees and more opportunities for employment.

See, I don't think the spending in itself is the issue. Why is spending an issue? Because fewer people can get into F1 and be competitive. Does the cost cap remedy this? Well, we'll see. At this moment I don't see that the cost cap has changed or will change much of anything. Even though people are leaving RBR now, I have a hard time seeing Williams win the championship in five years.

Why is the spending so high in the first place? When did it become too high? What is too high? The reason I don't like the cost cap is because it's a band aid solution that arbitrarily says that "this is too much" and does not fix the root issue. I genuinely don't know exactly when or why F1 became so impossible to get into and be competitve at. However, I would look at the business model and regulations of F1 itself before I looked at a cost cap solution. I genuinely do think that a more open F1 with more innovation would be easier to get into and win in. I suspect that the teams and Liberty would not be interested in any real solutions, though.

With that said, your second paragraph (which I in principle agree with) highlights precisely how F1 goes against its own stated ambition of lowering costs.

Edited by Aaaarrgghh, 26 October 2023 - 11:07.

[Nathan]

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say Red Bull or Mercedes have more engineers on the pay roll today than all the F1 teams had combined in the early 90's when the perception is F1 engineering was at or near its zenith.  As to providing job opportunity we are just now coming off the peak of 'who wants a job in F1'.  Combined, the 10 teams must have 7-8,000 employees? 

 

At any rate, I'll take the more balanced competition from budget caps to watching the top 3 teams out hire the rest.

 

I also think it is inevitable engineering becomes less important in racing because cars are well over a century old now and the meaningful gains in performance have been discovered. The race track no longer serves as a testing bed for road cars.  F1 went from 40-50 engineers finding tenths of a second at a time to 300 engineers searching for 100ths. At some point that is a bit silly.

Edited by Nathan, 26 October 2023 - 11:29.

[IrvTheSwerve]

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say Red Bull or Mercedes have more engineers on the pay roll today than all the F1 teams had combined in the early 90's when the perception is F1 engineering was at or near its zenith.  As to providing job opportunity we are just now coming off the peak of 'who wants a job in F1'.  Combined, the 10 teams must have 7-8,000 employees? 

 

At any rate, I'll take the more balanced competition from budget caps to watching the top 3 teams out hire the rest.

 

I also think it is inevitable engineering becomes less important in racing because cars are well over a century old now and the meaningful gains in performance have been discovered. The race track no longer serves as a testing bed for road cars.  F1 went from 40-50 engineers finding tenths of a second at a time to 300 engineers searching for 100ths. At some point that is a bit silly.

 

Maybe if the regulations were opened up a bit, it would help. The innovation could be spectacular.

[noriaki]

We literally have motorsport organisations going into schools to sell the sport form an engineering perspective.... to then say "so what we lose engineers" doesn't add up unless you don't mind children being sold something that isn't there. People are making money with motorsport engineering courses. 

very bizarre on a motorsport forum to ever hear "who cares about the sport's brain drain"

 

And what exactly would having no cost cap, less brain drain and top teams spending their money on more and more very intelligent engineers achieve in the modern, highly computerized times? Ever-more complex front wings and sophisticated engine modes? Even fewer mechanical problems?

 

Sure - this never ending optimization of existing concepts might still be interesting from an engineer's point of view... but from a racing fan's point of view, teams having more manpower to eliminate faults only makes the sport more predictable, more perfect - worse. 

Edited by noriaki, 26 October 2023 - 11:58.

[Skelly1927]

And what exactly would having no cost cap, less brain drain and top teams spending their money on more and more very intelligent engineers achieve in the modern, highly computerized times? Ever-more complex front wings and sophisticated engine modes? Even fewer mechanical problems?

 

Sure - this never ending optimization of existing concepts might still be interesting from an engineer's point of view... but from a racing fan's point of view, teams having more manpower to eliminate faults only makes the sport more predictable, more perfect - worse. 

Are we seriously have a discussion how we need less engineers, less opportunity? We are seeing less opportunity for drivers as well.

I believe we need a rival to F1 to be honest. Something totally new, but that aside we need a general cultural change to embrace the technical competition. I find it very odd we have diversity programs to encourage people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get into motorsport, while literally pulling up the bridge at the same time. We need more diversity and inclusion, but also we need to remove opportunity. It's insanity. 

[Myrvold]

We literally have motorsport organisations going into schools to sell the sport form an engineering perspective.... to then say "so what we lose engineers" doesn't add up unless you don't mind children being sold something that isn't there. People are making money with motorsport engineering courses.

very bizarre on a motorsport forum to ever hear "who cares about the sport's brain drain"

I will also repeat myself, but say in a slightly different way.
There is more than F1.

[Skelly1927]

I will also repeat myself, but say in a slightly different way.
There is more than F1.

There is but opportunities are reducing. F3 and F2 are now spec. General development within tin tops has been replaced by BoP and or spec parts. I know engineers from a number of series (DTM, F1 etc...) who absolutely hate what a lot of series have become are are looking elsewhere. 

Engineers are 'competitors' themselves, and we're seeing that competition removed from the sport (and I mean in the wider non-f1 context) I don't think that's a good thing.

[Primo]

Maybe more industries should have a cost cap...

[Nathan]

The innovation could be spectacular.

 

Electronically sure, but we aren't coming up with a new kind of braking system, they aren't going to discover a new material to build the cars from, or a new way to construct the cars. What would the innovation be for, the car industry or entertainment?  

[Red5ive]

The cost cap in F1 if anything - should be a lot lower.

[PayasYouRace]

Are we seriously have a discussion how we need less engineers, less opportunity? We are seeing less opportunity for drivers as well.

You keep talking about opportunity. But engineering, as with the other STEM fields, are woefully understaffed across industry as a whole. Engineers are always in demand everywhere because there aren’t enough of them. That’s why getting kids interested in STEM is important. High profile applications like F1 are great for getting kids interested, but it’s rare that they won’t have the opportunity to pursue a career in engineering. There’s more to industry than F1, and F1 won’t benefit by becoming even more bloated, even more expensive.

[Myrvold]

There is but opportunities are reducing. F3 and F2 are now spec. General development within tin tops has been replaced by BoP and or spec parts. I know engineers from a number of series (DTM, F1 etc...) who absolutely hate what a lot of series have become are are looking elsewhere.

Engineers are 'competitors' themselves, and we're seeing that competition removed from the sport (and I mean in the wider non-f1 context) I don't think that's a good thing.

Almost like there hasn't been an influx of teams in IMSA and WEC either...

[noriaki]

Are we seriously have a discussion how we need less engineers, less opportunity? We are seeing less opportunity for drivers as well.

I believe we need a rival to F1 to be honest. Something totally new, but that aside we need a general cultural change to embrace the technical competition. I find it very odd we have diversity programs to encourage people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get into motorsport, while literally pulling up the bridge at the same time. We need more diversity and inclusion, but also we need to remove opportunity. It's insanity. 

 

It's not insanity. Sure, innovation used to be an exciting part of F1, but in the 2000s where "everything" has already been invented, new concepts visible to the naked eye have become rarer and rarer if not completely extinct. Innovation has largely been replaced by optimization, and so, from the perspective of the sport, massive engineering teams working on optimization is effectively a huge waste of money. Optimization does not make the racing product that the fans want to watch any better. 

 

Also, complaining about reduced engineering opportunities compared to the opportunities drivers have is a bit rich, considering the recent decades. The average F1 team size in the early 1990s was what, 50-100 people, and all drivers needed to obtain an opportunity in one of the 30-40 seats was a couple of millions at most. Whereas in 2020 it was 500-1000 people employed at a single team whereas drivers often need to find tens of millions of backing on the junior ladder to get into one of the 20 seats.

 

Sure - please introduce more teams to F1. I will also advocate it if F1 was changing the ruleset more often - those moments of change are where most differences in concepts arise and that's exciting. However, dropping the cost cap and returning back to the 1000+ employee F1 teams would only be beneficial to the pay cheques of the employees / engineers and detrimental to all others in general.

[krea]

The elephant in the room is that F1 is basically solved from a purely engineering point of view. Even within a cost cap framework if you let engineers go crazy they could (and literally did) make cars too fast for anyone's sake, you are forced to add so many rules and limitations that the engineering aspect even becomes the more unappealing part of F1. 

[pacificquay]

If you look at Red Bull's performance this year, or McLaren's turnaround I'd say good engineers are more important than ever, quite the reverse of the OP's position.

[Skelly1927]

If you look at Red Bull's performance this year, or McLaren's turnaround I'd say good engineers are more important than ever, quite the reverse of the OP's position.

The original comment was from ex-Redbull Performance Engineer.

Engineers are still important, no one is saying they aren't. 

[thefinalapex]

Calum Nicholas started at Marrusia. Ricciardo got his first drive at HRT. Bianchi would have ended up at Ferrari. 

The 3 extra teams were excellent for F1.

 

I really miss those teams from 2010. I thought it was a great addition.

[Scotracer]

Because they are interested in "motor" sport... and as a result they "enjoy" there work...

 

I'm an automotive engineer. I love cars. I love motorsport. 

 

I learned pretty quickly during my Masters when making connections with F1 engineers that it wasn't the job for me:

 

1) Pay is pretty mediocre

2) Hours are not pretty (even if you're home base staff; much much worse if you're track-side, obviously)

3) Potential progression is quite limited as the teams (aka companies) are relatively small

 

So I moved in to road vehicle design. Now I'm a research scientist at an energy company in e-Mobility. 

[Sterzo]

The elephant in the room is that F1 is basically solved from a purely engineering point of view. Even within a cost cap framework if you let engineers go crazy they could (and literally did) make cars too fast for anyone's sake, you are forced to add so many rules and limitations that the engineering aspect even becomes the more unappealing part of F1. 

Worthy of a thread in its own right.

[Aaaarrgghh]

The elephant in the room is that F1 is basically solved from a purely engineering point of view. Even within a cost cap framework if you let engineers go crazy they could (and literally did) make cars too fast for anyone's sake, you are forced to add so many rules and limitations that the engineering aspect even becomes the more unappealing part of F1. 

Many things have been "solved" until someone came up with something new.

[krea]

Many things have been "solved" until someone came up with something new.

 

There is sadly only so much you can do with driving in circles on somewhat uniform tracks before you hit too many practical limits. Just imagine you could put all the banned technical solutions on today's cars you would end with a car which is just too fast for the way F1 operates - you wouldn't even need to come up with something new.  

Edited by krea, 26 October 2023 - 15:26.

[PayasYouRace]

Many things have been "solved" until someone came up with something new.

You can’t force innovation though. The science of building cars for going round a track quickly is fairly mature now. Yea, people will always have new and good ideas, but is a sport the best place to implement them?

[ensign14]

Many things have been "solved" until someone came up with something new.

True, but track limitations have basically forced a halt.  It took until about 2004 to beat the speed record from the 1971 Italian GP.  The lap record at the Spa 1000km in 1970 was faster than any F1 race lap for a similar period of time.  For three decades people were trying to get back to where they were.

[Clatter]

I really miss those teams from 2010. I thought it was a great addition.

Applied under the premise that there would be a cost cap, and had to use the Cosworth engine. They really didn't stand much of a chance.