46 replies to this topic

[FirstnameLastname]

In the Perez thread, all year we’ve been debating if his position is ‘sustainable’ because Max has won the WDC but Redbull are going to come 3rd in the WCC

Logically… is this not actually the ideal turn of events for the team? With the cost cap they can’t spend the money they’d want to anyway, but the lower you finish in the championship the more wind tunnel time you get… so you can continue to give your star driver a great car, and then fill the 2nd seat with a cash grab driver.

There’s no actual point in winning the constructors championship… unless the shareholders want the cash.

Something that should surely be looked at again… it can be a bit of a competition killer surely? I wonder where the ‘sweet spot’ in the standings is, in terms of cash vs tunnel time.

[RedRabbit]

The teams very much value the WCC and winning it. It's become a lot more prestigious recently and is what they base staff bonuses on.

The wind tunnel restrictions are definitely not what many people imagine them to be. Even when Red Bull were penalised, the amount of wind tunnel time left was still enough to occupy the tunnel nearly 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 10 months.

[PayasYouRace]

I think the sweet spot is winning the WCC.

[ATM]

Yeah, I tend to agree with that, usually more money is better than less money. Not to mention the hype, being able to lure better drivers/technicians, better marketing opportunities with în turns brings even more money thus stability for the medium and long term...

[Deeq]

Yeah, I tend to agree with that, usually more money is better than less money. Not to mention the hype, being able to lure better drivers/technicians, better marketing opportunities with în turns brings even more money thus stability for the medium and long term...

Yeah, that but they cant use the extra funds fully the cap gets in the way..there is a flaw in the system. Either have a cap or testing restrictions (track or tunnel) not both.
Keep the cap but lift other restrictions.
Both of these let to the unintended side effect of eliminating all risks from the sport --> closed shop or cartel.

Edited by Deeq, 26 November 2024 - 13:13.

[arrysen]

Racing teams are racing teams - choc full of competitive people who will push as hard as they can. They absolutely live for today, or at least this race or this season, because despite all the time and effort that goes in, next year's car might be a dog, your star driver might injure himself and miss half the season, anything could happen really.

 

So they push like hell for what can be achieved now, in a relatively known situation. Whilst the idea of some more wind tunnel time would be appealing, it pales in significance compared to the chance to win races and specifically the WCC now - the WCC and the finishing order in that being the BIG prize that all teams measure themselves and their competitors by. Make no mistake, it will piss RBR off mightily to be 3rd in the pit lane order all next year, 3rd in the motorhome order and not up where they would rather be. 

 

Likewise it is probably only about now that Mercedes is accepting where it is - first couple of years not in the #1 spot would have hurt deeply when they've "owned" it for a few years. 

 

They'll all be going as hard as they can, when they can.

[onemoresolo]

In the Perez thread, all year we’ve been debating if his position is ‘sustainable’ because Max has won the WDC but Redbull are going to come 3rd in the WCC

Logically… is this not actually the ideal turn of events for the team? With the cost cap they can’t spend the money they’d want to anyway, but the lower you finish in the championship the more wind tunnel time you get… so you can continue to give your star driver a great car, and then fill the 2nd seat with a cash grab driver.

There’s no actual point in winning the constructors championship… unless the shareholders want the cash.

Something that should surely be looked at again… it can be a bit of a competition killer surely? I wonder where the ‘sweet spot’ in the standings is, in terms of cash vs tunnel time.

 

But why would you want more wind tunnel time if your goal isn't to win?

 

If you want to win, you wouldn't deliberately prevent yourself doing so.

 

If you don't want to win, you wouldn't want the wind tunnel time anyway.

 

More wind tunnel time isn't the prize.

 

Say a team sand bagged to get wind tunnel time and builds a great car. Would they then sandbag that great car in order to get more wind tunnel time again?

 

It would be a nonsense. The goal is to win, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Think through the logic a little further and you'll see deliberately performing badly makes no sense.

 

The wind tunnel time due to Perez is a poor consolation prize. Nobody at Red Bull would turn down the WCC to get that.

Edited by onemoresolo, 26 November 2024 - 13:54.

[pdac]

It goes for any initiative that favour losers - yet people still call for things like reverse grids and all kinds of other things to handicap winners. It's supposed to be about striving to be the best, not playing the percentages. There's enough natural handicaps to contend with (e.g. managing tyre wear). We don't need artificial ones.

[Deeq]

But why would you want more wind tunnel time if your goal isn't to win?

If you want to win, you wouldn't deliberately prevent yourself doing so.

If you don't want to win, you wouldn't want the wind tunnel time anyway.

More wind tunnel time isn't the prize.

Say a team sand bagged to get wind tunnel time and builds a great car. Would they then sandbag that great car in order to get more wind tunnel time again?

It would be a nonsense. The goal is to win, nothing more, nothing less.

Think through the logic a little further and you'll see deliberately performing badly makes no sense.

The wind tunnel time due to Perez is a poor consolation prize. Nobody at Red Bull would turn down the WCC to get that.

You are being unnecessaryly harsh on the OP.. what if your objective is to win WDC and only WDC?
Kind like RBR situation this year.. sacrifice WCC but win WDC and as a bonus steal a match on your opponents by getting more development next year!

It goes for any initiative that favour losers - yet people still call for things like reverse grids and all kinds of other things to handicap winners. It's supposed to be about striving to be the best, not playing the percentages. There's enough natural handicaps to contend with (e.g. managing tyre wear). We don't need artificial ones.

Indeed, if you have a cap, you dont need more artificial performance penalties.

Edited by Deeq, 26 November 2024 - 14:02.

[pdac]

...

Indeed, if you have a cap, you dont need more artificial performance penalties.

 

Yep, the approach should have been (and still can be) introduce a budget cap and then subsequently bring in big changes to the regulations. That will ensure that everyone has the same start - same budget and little carry-over from past differences. Also, the budget cap should have been applied to ALL expenditure (including the drivers and the senior staff).

[onemoresolo]

You are being unnecessaryly harsh on the OP..

If I am I apologise. I'm talking more generally than directly to the OP.

what if your objective is to win WDC and only WDC?
Kind like RBR situation this year.. sacrifice WCC but win WDC and as a bonus steal a match on your opponents by getting more development next year!

But that's what I'm saying. I don't believe that is their objective. Their objective would be to finish as high in the WCC as possible.

The extra development time softens the blow of that failure/disappointment but was by no means what they set out to achieve.

I don't believe your objective would ever be anything less than finishing as high as you can. The logic doesn't work that you'd be happy to deliberately finish lower, to get a better chance of maybe finishing higher next time. It doesn't add up.

[onemoresolo]

You are being unnecessaryly harsh on the OP..

If I am I apologise. I'm talking more generally than directly to the OP.

what if your objective is to win WDC and only WDC?
Kind like RBR situation this year.. sacrifice WCC but win WDC and as a bonus steal a match on your opponents by getting more development next year!

But that's what I'm saying. I don't believe that is their objective. Their objective would be to finish as high in the WCC as possible.

The extra development time softens the blow of that failure/disappointment but was by no means what they set out to achieve.

I don't believe your objective would ever be anything less than finishing as high as you can. The logic doesn't work that you'd be happy to deliberately finish lower, to get a better chance of maybe finishing higher next time. It doesn't add up.

[juicy sushi]

In the Perez thread, all year we’ve been debating if his position is ‘sustainable’ because Max has won the WDC but Redbull are going to come 3rd in the WCC

Logically… is this not actually the ideal turn of events for the team? With the cost cap they can’t spend the money they’d want to anyway, but the lower you finish in the championship the more wind tunnel time you get… so you can continue to give your star driver a great car, and then fill the 2nd seat with a cash grab driver.

There’s no actual point in winning the constructors championship… unless the shareholders want the cash.

Something that should surely be looked at again… it can be a bit of a competition killer surely? I wonder where the ‘sweet spot’ in the standings is, in terms of cash vs tunnel time.

This is sort of like the theory of "tanking" in North American professional sports.  The reward there being higher draft picks in following years.  I don't think it's likely to be that big of a deal in F1, but it is maybe a smart move this year because while it won't make a difference for the 2025 car, having marginally more hours than your key rivals in the run-up to 2026 might be something that has value.  But I think it's clear that this wasn't deliberate on Red Bull's part, and instead maybe a silver lining to Perez fading badly as a driver.

[Nathan]

Not so much because you are still a champion with your driver. Maybe its more like trading away your 2nd star so your other star can 'get the ball more'.  You have the MVP/leading scorer to sell jerseys and tickets, but probably not winning the championship finals.

 

I think it should be an option to voluntarily not win the WCC and forgoe cash to try and push for a WDC.

[Deeq]

Not so much because you are still a champion with your driver. Maybe its more like trading away your 2nd star so your other star can 'get the ball more'. You have the MVP/leading scorer to sell jerseys and tickets, but probably not winning the championship finals.

I think it should be an option to voluntarily not win the WCC and forgoe cash to try and push for a WDC.

I agree with you re last paragraph but with the proviso no performance penalties for those that opt to win both Championships.
The incentives are wacky to let such a loop-hole.
Or change the cost cap so as to exclude WCC bonuses from!
Or
No performance restrictions/penalties at all.

[Deeq]

If I am I apologise. I'm talking more generally than directly to the OP.


But that's what I'm saying. I don't believe that is their objective. Their objective would be to finish as high in the WCC as possible.

The extra development time softens the blow of that failure/disappointment but was by no means what they set out to achieve.

I don't believe your objective would ever be anything less than finishing as high as you can. The logic doesn't work that you'd be happy to deliberately finish lower, to get a better chance of maybe finishing higher next time. It doesn't add up.

Ought to is not the same as is.
Okey you dont believe they acted such a way..
Suppose they/RBR wanted to "tank" their WCC campaign but not their WDC campaign, how do you think they would go about that?
Could they have acted (that) differently than they did this year?
They couldnt have done a better job than they did this year..i.e sabotaglng their WCC but not WDC imho.

[garoidb]

I think the sweet spot is winning the WCC.

 

I think either McLaren or Ferrari, the current top two in the WCC, would take great pride in winning it again after so many years (1998 and 2008 respectively). I am sure there are ways they can promote their achievement for the benefit of their brands and their sponsors, as well as attracting future drivers, sponsors and fans.

[loki]

The winner of the constructors championship gets the money.  The winner of the drivers championship gets a laurel and hearty handshake.

Edited by loki, 26 November 2024 - 19:31.

[MikeTekRacing]

i talked about this over summer a few times.

- winning WCC brings you money. If you can offset that somehow, it's just that. Money

- if you think you'll fall short it makes sense to focus on maximizing your tunnel time for next year. It increases your chances to win the next one

- WDC is more important for the public

- the WCC and staff bonus thing is not valid. They might have their bonus tied to WCC, there is absolutely NOTHING preventing a private company from giving them the bonus anyway.

[Disgrace]

There are no guarantees that your additional wind tunnel time will in the future compensate your present-day sacrifice. Ask BMW.

[P123]

The teams very much value the WCC and winning it. It's become a lot more prestigious recently and is what they base staff bonuses on.

The wind tunnel restrictions are definitely not what many people imagine them to be. Even when Red Bull were penalised, the amount of wind tunnel time left was still enough to occupy the tunnel nearly 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 10 months.

 

Is it?  Perhaps for some teams, perhaps not.  They are free to do as they wish.  Being able to avoid paying staff bonuses isn't perhaps a negative. 

 

There is a non-financial benefit to be had from doing badly.  It's built into the regulations to help give underperforming teams a leg up.  Red Bull may well have hit the sweet spot of WDC exposure, along with more wind tunnel time for the beginning of the following season with an artificially low WCC position.  Almost makes sense to have a Perez for a front runner.  There's certainly some upside, it's not all pain. 

[PlatenGlass]

I just find handicap systems in a top-level sport a bit of a strange idea.

[pdac]

The winner of the constructors championship gets the money.  The winner of the drivers championship gets a laurel and hearty handshake.

 

As it should be. The drivers don't make the cars, the teams do. If a driver is lucky enough, they will get to drive a great car and win the WDC with it.

[Nemo1965]

I only can imagine that a team nearing the end of their budget can start to think: ‘Okay, are we really going to spend our last 10 millions for these updates that might win us the WCC? Or let we fall the chips where they may, and in the worst case we get a bonus of more windtunnel time?’

But keeping a disappointing driver to manufacture a loss? Damned unlikely!

[MikeTekRacing]

There are no guarantees that your additional wind tunnel time will in the future compensate your present-day sacrifice. Ask BMW.

there are no guarantees in investments in general, yet success comes more to those who sacrifice short term gratitude for the long term gain.

Not everything can and should be sacrificed, there are situations and situations.

Red Bull come after a few years of success and a further penalty due to the cost cap issue. They clearly had an underdeveloped car and maybe losing WCC is not something that bat.

In order for them to fight for WCC they would have had to:

- invest in the 2nd car and offer it the same attention as the first one. Opportunity cost here for the WDC

- change their 2nd driver, lose sponsorship certain money for an uncertain WCC money and an uncertain improvement in performance (other than trust me bro Tsunoda would have won the wcc with them)

[MikeTekRacing]

But keeping a disappointing driver to manufacture a loss? Damned unlikely!

as I said above - bringing a better driver is NOT easy. It meant losing the sponsorship (so certain money) for maybe money.

it also meant investing in the 2nd driver;s preferences, which under the cost cap means not investing in the 1st one

[MattK9]

Surely windtunnel time in 2025 is more valuable than normal. Smashing the 2026 regs and starting strong at the beginning of a regs cycle is more beneficial than WCC in 2024.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, because I'm really having a hard time thinking a team would lose on purpose.

[balmybaldwin]

I just find handicap systems in a top-level sport a bit of a strange idea.

It's still early days for the cost cap with a lot of pre cost cap knowledge still relevant (and possibly still unknown to the lesser teams).  Until we have Regular examples of teams yo-yoing in the standings then I think the graduated restrictions are perfectly workable and reasonably fair way of bringing the back marker teams into a more respectable place its not like the top team gets nothing while bottom team runs 24/7. Perhaps when things are looking more equitable then it could be dropped or scaled back

Handicaps have long been involved in top level horse racing, teams that go down football leagues get cushion payments, The worst NFL team get to pick first in the draft etc.

 

I guess it's more common where there's a lot of emphasis on there being a "show" or needing close competition

[Wuzak]

Surely windtunnel time in 2025 is more valuable than normal. Smashing the 2026 regs and starting strong at the beginning of a regs cycle is more beneficial than WCC in 2024.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, because I'm really having a hard time thinking a team would lose on purpose.

 

If a team has less windtunnel and CFD time, they will spend less money on that, and will have more money to spend on other things - like suspension design, or bringing the car down to minimum weight.

[PayasYouRace]

I just find handicap systems in a top-level sport a bit of a strange idea.

Yet it’s quite common in many top level sports. It’s almost a fundamental aspect of sport as a concept, to level the playing field for the best competition.

[onemoresolo]

Ought to is not the same as is.
Okey you dont believe they acted such a way..
Suppose they/RBR wanted to "tank" their WCC campaign but not their WDC campaign, how do you think they would go about that?
Could they have acted (that) differently than they did this year?
They couldnt have done a better job than they did this year..i.e sabotaglng their WCC but not WDC imho.

They could have caused Perez to DNF every race and finish below Mercedes as a result also, if you want to take this even further. So yes they could have done a better job if that was their aim. But it wasn't.

[Beri]

Yet it’s quite common in many top level sports. It’s almost a fundamental aspect of sport as a concept, to level the playing field for the best competition.

 
 
Yet, it doesnt feel right. Luckily such system is not really in place in Formula One. And the 2021 title battle has proven that if you simply keep the rules the same long enough, the field will edge closer. Thus it being a shame Formula One went for the current ground effect cars which are then again being overhauled a mere 4 seasons later. It is just a matter of time when the field crops up. Imagine had we have had the 2021 rules with the current budget cap until 2026. We would have had some epic seasons, Im dead certain about that.
Handicap systems, in my book, are only in place to aid the impatient who want to see immediate result. Not so much a handicap system as in weight distribution and such, but still a great example; is the restrictor plate, or its current tapered spacer, in NASCAR. Officially introduced to aid in safety, but very conveniently aiding in regulating performance and levelling out the competition. Since then, other than new techniques, allegedly there havent been real revolutions in NASCAR' engines mainly due to this system in place. Which in turn also adds another drawback of having handicap measures; they have the tendency to stop true innovation.

[PlatenGlass]

Yet it’s quite common in many top level sports. It’s almost a fundamental aspect of sport as a concept, to level the playing field for the best competition.

It's definitely nothing like a fundamental aspect.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 27 November 2024 - 09:42.

[Sterzo]

It's definitely nothing like a fundamental aspect.

It's why we have a formula, and have since before 1906.

[Venom]

It’s a fundamental of American sports. The best players out of college go to the worst team’s from the previous season. And it works very well.

People will complain either way - either about a lack of perceived fairness, or lack of close competition. The F1 field is closer than ever now, but at the same time a team like Red Bull has been able to chalk off 4 titles in a row, so the current rules are proving to be a good balance of promoting competition while not screwing over the team at the top if they continue to do a good job.

[pdac]

I don't want a level playing field on anything other than the amount of money the teams have available to spend. I quite like the idea of one team crushing their opponents. It shows that they have done a really great job. I'm quite comfortable with seeing fights for lower places where teams end up with fairly similar cars in terms of competitiveness. I'd also like to see that at the front, but I don't care if it doesn't happen.

[Nathan]

Yet it’s quite common in many top level sports. It’s almost a fundamental aspect of sport as a concept, to level the playing field for the best competition.

 

But F1 is first an engineering exercise, where as those other sports are actually straight up human performance.

[MattK9]

Positive feedback loops are very easy to fall into as a sport. Do well, earn more money, employ more staff and have a better factory, do even better next year. In competitive terms did they do better because they are more skilled, or because they had an unfair advantage?

 

Inducing some negative feedback loops are important in sport for trying to keep a more level playing field, given that the natural order is positive feedback loops.

 

Some series have more obvious negative feedback loops. F2 & F3 have some reverse grids. BTCC had weight ballast replaced with restricting hybrid use, as well as reverse grids. MotoGP have restricted testing programmes for top teams. F1 teams get reduced windtunnel time.

[FirstnameLastname]

Is there not the additional sting that your fee for taking part next year is linked to how many points you scored in the previous year too?

More points you score, a bigger cost to the team.

[FirstnameLastname]

Sauber scoring today… feel good story

But they won’t get any extra prize money for it will they? And it’ll bump their entry fee up next year…

[AlexPrime]

WCC is more valuable than tunnel time, less valuable than WDC 

[jee]

For prize money this is true, but does it really matter under the budget cap as long as enough money is coming in through sponsoring? They are also saving on bonusses for team members 

From a marketing perspective the WDC is a lot more valuable than the WCC in my opinion.

[Jerem]

A question I've been wondering about since budget cap and wind tunnel restrictions were introduced a few years ago. Does the prize money give enough incentive to fight for an extra WCC position when on the other hand it cuts down your allowed wind tunnel and CFD time?

 

I tried to dig up a few figures to put it into perspective. According to sources:

- budget cap 2024 = $165M (excluding marketing, travel costs, and the top 3 salaries within the team)

- estimated prize money in the WCC 2023 = from $140M (1st) to $60M (10th), each place worth ~$10M

- wind tunnel & CFD baseline: 320 WT runs P7, with 5% steps depending on the rankings (P1 gets 224 runs, P10 gets 368) - and other restrictions that I don't want to write - for each ATP (aerodynamic testing period), there are 6 per year.

While I can understand that smaller teams may still struggle to find enough budget to hit the cap, it seems easy enough for top teams to find enough sponsorship to reach that limit (it's "only" $25M above the prize money for P1 - even though you still need to find money to pay for things outside the budget cap, especially drivers which are probably the most expensive in top teams). On the other hand, a higher WCC ranking means a hefty reduction in wind tunnel and CFD usage.

The equation is the following. For 1 spot in the WCC, you earn ~$10M more and you lose ~15 wind tunnel runs per ATP (90 per year). Note that the wind tunnel allocation is revised mid-championship.

So, do you think this affects how eager teams are to grab an extra spot in the WCC? I think winning WCC is still the goal, but if you're not going to win, aren't you better off in P3 rather than P2?

[Anderis]

So, do you think this affects how eager teams are to grab an extra spot in the WCC? I think winning WCC is still the goal, but if you're not going to win, aren't you better off in P3 rather than P2?

It only makes sense if you believe you can win the WDC in the following year, otherwise you're just taking a lower WCC position in exchange for maybe having a slightly better chance for a higher position in the future (only for one year, because then you'll have more restrictions again so you're back to square 1)- with this attitude your average WCC position over the years will be lower and you're not gaining anything tangible.
 

[PayasYouRace]

Already a thread. Threads merged.

[PayasYouRace]

Ultimately, the teams wouldn't have agreed to this system if it didn't still incentivise doing well. You might lose a bit more wind tunnel time, but you still have more prize money to spend on other aspects that aren't restricted. Plus, if you're at the budget cap, it just means less funding that you have to source from your sponsors, or owners, or whoever, to make your budget.

[Jerem]

Already a thread. Threads merged.

Sorry, I hadn't seen that thread! Thanks for the merge.