Better cost cutting measure in Formula 1

[NFSCARBON1]

I think a better way to keep costs down in F1 is for the FIA to stop changing the rules. Everytime they do the teams have to make a new car which costs tens of millions to develop. If they kept the same rules for a few seasons teams could use the same cars with only slight modifications

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The problem with that is that when one team asserts dominance over the grid, they'll continue to be at the front and everyone will be forced to keep spending to update their current cars rather than release new ones. Can you honestly see teams like Mercedes being able to justify staying in the sport if they're forced to keep running a car that is basically an extension of their previous design?

A better way to do it would be to implement Mosley's budget cap, but to do it better. Cap spending at one hundred million dollars a year, with exclusion from the championship for anyone who overspends.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

The problem with that is that when one team asserts dominance over the grid, they'll continue to be at the front and everyone will be forced to keep spending to update their current cars rather than release new ones. Can you honestly see teams like Mercedes being able to justify staying in the sport if they're forced to keep running a car that is basically an extension of their previous design?

A better way to do it would be to implement Mosley's budget cap, but to do it better. Cap spending at one hundred million dollars a year, with exclusion from the championship for anyone who overspends.

How do you prove they haven't spent more though? They always tell us F1 tech ends up in road cars so your Ferrari, Merc etc.. are still spending what ever they want developing those how do you stop that filtering into F1?

Almost every sport manages to keep a playing field in which no single cometitor dominates I don't understand how motorsport gets it so wrong that they have to impose regulations to stop a team dominating.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

All those other sports do it by moderating the rules. Which is exactly what the FIA is trying to do. But because so much money gets spent - Formula 1 is easily the most expensive sport in the world - the teams are able to find loopholes faster than teams in other sports might. And no other sport is so entirely dependent on machinery as motorsport.

 

[Ardius]

Even without rule changes, F1 will be expensive as long as there is relatively unlimited resources available. In other words, as long as teams like Ferrari spend $300 million or whatever, its always going to cost the same amount to keep up.
The spending war really started around 1998-2000, when the manufacturers came back. This was why we lost so many independent teams.
That said, even with an independent-only grid, there will still be some teams spending more money than others. This happens in all motorsports too, right down to karting level - the best mechanics and equipment are necessary and they come at a price.

Unfortunately, its very difficult to govern resource restrictions, so the teams have to voluntarily restrict themselves. This is why FOTA is hopefully a step towards that, but it is not guaranteed.
Currently we have rumours about Red Bull overspending past the current Resource Restriction Agreement, which they obviously deny. How can anyone really prove it without Red Bull handing over their accounting records?

This is not an issue plaguing just F1, its an issue in all sports. Blackpool can never hope to beat Manchester United simply because they don't have the money. Money pays for the best players, drivers, mechanics, designers, managers, etc. Its the way the world works.

The only solution anyone has raised that would 100% regulate costs is doing away with the "constructors" and basically making F1 a spec-series, where everyone has the same car. It wouldn't be F1 then though, F1 is all about making your own car, and thats where costs start to soar. Even then, the best teams would generally be the ones with the most money.

At some point, you have to stop and realise and accept that F1 is expensive and forever will be. By the very nature of itself, it cannot be cheap. It can be cheaper, but it will always be more expensive than running in any other motorsport or sports in general. The days of turning up in your Cooper and having a fight with the best in their Ferrari's are long gone. We also can't demand better overtaking without them fiddling with the rules to help that. The rules do need changing.

Lastly, I would also add that the most interesting seasons in F1 have usually been after major rule changes as it mixes up the grid quite a bit as people get their designs more right or wrong than others. With static rules, you tend to get the same teams dominating and the rest never really getting past because there is very little chance of mistakes. In 2000-2004, it required teams to out-spend each other to gain advantages, most of the time during that period, it was tyres that made the difference.

 

[Lizard]

The problem is the cost of top end staff.
For example if you wanted to tempt Hamilton and Newey to your team you would have to fork out 40 million (and possibly more) for their salaries alone and you still have a pit crew to pay for the resources to build the car and research.
Then you have repair costs, entry fees, transport and hotels.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Success ballast,..

Ignoring the "why penalise successful teams" argument, I don't see many drawbacks at all, but many many benefits.

.. but it will never happen.

 

[Ardius]

Success ballast does not negate the issue, we have success ballast in BTCC, WTCC and GT1 and it really makes no difference most of the time. The smaller teams are still behind the bigger teams, and it still pays in results to pay out for the best mechanics, parts, drivers, etc.

 

[F1 fan]

Success ballast,..

God no... Personally, I find success ballast to be a bit of a gimmick. Formula one has always been about ingenuity and exploiting every last loophole within the regulations. Recent examples are the F-duct, blown diffuser and double diffuser. Why slow down the faster cars?

And how did we get into subjects like success ballast, when the thread is about cost cutting?

An enforced budget cap is the only way to cut costs. No team is going to voluntarily spend less than the rest to cut costs. If the funding is there, it will be used. The difficulty of the situation is that Formula one is attempting to go "green"er. Currently, developing greener technologies is ridiculously expensive as the R & D costs will rise sharply. The fia needs to focus on one thing at a time here.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Success ballast,..

Ignoring the "why penalise successful teams" argument, I don't see many drawbacks at all, but many many benefits.

.. but it will never happen.

The purpose of a race is to determine who is the fastest or who has the most endurance. Anything that interferes with that is fake and not acceptable.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Success ballast does not negate the issue, we have success ballast in BTCC, WTCC and GT1 and it really makes no difference most of the time. The smaller teams are still behind the bigger teams, and it still pays in results to pay out for the best mechanics, parts, drivers, etc.

God no... Personally, I find success ballast to be a bit of a gimmick. Formula one has always been about ingenuity and exploiting every last loophole within the regulations. Recent examples are the F-duct, blown diffuser and double diffuser. Why slow down the faster cars?

And how did we get into subjects like success ballast, when the thread is about cost cutting?

An enforced budget cap is the only way to cut costs. No team is going to voluntarily spend less than the rest to cut costs. If the funding is there, it will be used. The difficulty of the situation is that Formula one is attempting to go "green"er. Currently, developing greener technologies is ridiculously expensive as the R & D costs will rise sharply. The fia needs to focus on one thing at a time here.

If it can bunch the field up a bit, and limit the differential in lap times between the guys at the front and the guys at the back it will help produce closer racing.

One of the big benefits, in relation to the thread topic,.. if it didn't work, they can tweak the ballast amounts at no cost to the teams.. at the moment, they change the technical regs and teams spend 50 million on development... with ballast, they can say "okay, the system isn't working, we'll revise it...", the teams use the same cars etc., there's no perceivable rule changes for the average spectator. Less technical changes mean less REQUIRED expense for the team.

The purpose of a race is to determine who is the fastest or who has the most endurance. Anything that interferes with that is fake and not acceptable.

Then most of F1 is fake and unacceptable, you have to say "who is fastest given a certain set of conditions and constraints", or at best formula 1 would be a spec open wheel series, that was decided at the end of Q2 on Saturday afternoon. Formula 1 doesn't show who is fastest, only which is the best combination of driver and car (with the biggest difference typically being the car)

 

[Ardius]

Yet there are still large budget differences between teams in series with success ballast and the difference in times is still fairly large in some cases. It only really benefits the top teams when they are behind each other, as the ballast has a much greater influence than on smaller teams, where the benefit gained from less ballast is far outweighed by lacking machinery or team ability.

 

[niky]

In some series, it takes so much ballast to actually create a difference in a car's performance that it's ridiculous. I used to believe it would be good for F1... but I'm not so sure anymore.

Personally, I'd like to see F1 on a spec chassis. Same tub, crash cell and suspension geometries front and rear. Same fuel tank. The teams would then design their aero around the tub and their engine. No engine restrictions. Teams would simply have to pick what they think will give them the best combination of economy and power.

 

[IceMan PJN]

Success ballast,..

While we're at it, why not throw out an arbitrary safety car every two or three laps to bunch the field up and implement some measure of reversing the grid. We could also have a rule that if you spend too many consecutive laps in the lead that you have to serve a drive-through penalty, and we could do the same if the leader creates a gap of more than X-amount of seconds over the next guy.



Chalk me under the "it's fake and I hate fake" column.

If we're all racing in some new series and I win a few races in a row, I get penalized by having 250 kilograms of cinder blocks piled into the back of my car. Then Bob wins and numbskull fans are excited about the race and how somebody finally managed to beat me. It wasn't really Bob that beat me, but rather the cinder blocks beat me. Granted, it can be argued that maybe so-and-so is having so much success because of his car being better than the other guys', but how much of his dominance is due to an advantageous car and how much from his own skill? I'd definitely hate to see skill penalized. "Sorry, but you're too good. Here's your bricks."

Yes, I know that's not exactly a perfect illustration since it's common knowledge that some F1 cars are simply better than others. It's just one of my illustrations against the use of success ballast in general, though. It's just phony and I don't like it.

 

[Ardius]

Indeed, at least people recognise that not everyone's car is of the same ability, in fact, it actually highlights the ability of some drivers to drive beyond what people expect from that car.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I understand the criticism of success ballast, but it's a discussion for a different thread. The suggestion related to this thread because it is a very cheap way to control how the cars behave on track, which at the end of the day is what most of the EXPENSIVE regulation changes are designed to achieve.

I'll be honest, I'm really trying hard not to rant about F1, I've typed out about 5 paragraphs and then deleted them because its off-topic... I do still have a soft spot for F1... but the more it becomes like an expensive version of GP2, the harder it is for me to see any appeal.


So, genuine question, why do they need to drive down the cost, what will it achieve?

 

[Ardius]

Thats my point though, regulations aren't going to cut costs, there will always be teams out-spending other teams as long as there are "constructors" and no spec-series stuff.
I don't really see this argument for bigger regulation changes being "more expensive" to the teams. At the end of the day, the teams have the same budget regardless of whether there are major rule changes or not. You could say its more effecient use of the budget because there is a greater chance of immediate success as opposed to static regulations which are much more difficult to really gain an advantage on your opponents.
For example, if 2009 had only slightly modified 2008 rules, Brawn and Red Bull would never have challenged for the championship. It would still be Ferrari and McLaren. Honda may have still spent a fortune on the Brawn, but not won the championship, maybe have got closer to the top. Red Bull would still be midfielders. Is this more cost effective for those teams? Is it really a bad thing that Ferrari and McLaren had to spend more time and effort to catch up again?
Ferrari will always spend $300 million, whether it includes a radical new design concept or simply a new wing mirror which is slightly better than McLaren's.

Personally, I'd rather not see F1 go down these routes of making it "cheap" and "improving the show". F1 isn't in peril, we still have 12 teams and plenty of sponsors. While they should strive to make things a little cheaper than they are, it doesn't need radical changes. Just as overtaking should be made easier, but doesn't need radical or controversial changes.

So, genuine question, why do they need to drive down the cost, what will it achieve?

They do need to drive down cost because lately its become a little absurd. In 2000 it may have seemed great to have unlimited budgets when manufacturers were happy to chuck the money in. But as we have found out (and as many people predicted), the manufacturers are also tied to their own interests and are never around in F1 forever.
F1 needs to be more viable for not only independent teams to survive and compete, but also for manufacturers to take a more active and long-term part in the sport. There's no point in having Toyota come in for a few years and spend a shed load of money and achieve little, it doesn't add anything to the sport. Its better to make it cheaper and allow Toyota or whomever to run an F1 programme longer and for greater benefit.

This is also partly why they are forced down the "green" route, at the end of the day, the sport relies on companies and corporations to stump the money to fund the teams and circuits. With the current recession as well as the current obssession with going "green", its in the sport's interests to appeal to both.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The cost of regulation changes to the bigger teams may not make too much of a difference, that is true, but there isn't really a problem with the front-running teams... the problem is with the teams which basically can't afford to be in F1, are 5 seconds off the pace, can only hire drivers who pay them, get very little air-time and generally bring very little to the table for the average fan... I'm sure they'd rather spend money on perfecting the basics, rather than having to spend all their budget building a brand new car. Money doesn't guarantee success in F1, but the small teams cannot afford to waste it.

If it's stability F1 needs then fair enough, but if in order to do that it sacrifices it's unique selling points then I don't see logically what F1 would offer that 'lesser' open wheel series can't.. if you take away the big names, take away the money, standardise more of the tech, strangle creativity..., what are you offering fans that other series cannot?

 

[F1 fan]

There's no point in having Toyota come in for a few years and spend a shed load of money and achieve little, it doesn't add anything to the sport.

Yeah, but they did bring Glock back to F1 and (more notably) bring Kamui Kobayashi to F1. I read somewhere a few days ago (think it might even have been you that said it) that If it wasn't for Glock's injury, Kamui might be back at his father's sushi resteraunt right now. Kamui's toyota's legacy from f1.
Anyway, back on topic...

Its better to make it cheaper and allow Toyota or whomever to run an F1 programme longer and for greater benefit.

But still, didn't Toyota have a ridiculous budget? The largest in f1 if I'm correct. They overspent on their own accord. Unless you're talking about an enforced budget cap?

 

[BigYoSpeck]

If they want to limit teams dominating why not impose point penalty's for accidents, spins and failing to finish? That then stops it being an all out push for peak performance because those wins offset the odd hiccup if those incidents could potentially undo previous successes and forces them to pursue more consistent performance.

 

[The Outlaw]

Adding a bit of fuel to the subject - it looks as though RBR have been accused (by most of their rivals & a few insiders) of overspending last season. They also seem to have a defiant stance on the newly proposed/revised RRA (Resource Restriction agreement), which will call upon further enforcement and analyzing of teams budgets, which makes me suspicous that they are possibly trying to hide some of their behind the bush resources/tactics by wanting more lenient policing.

Source: http://planetf1.com/news/18227/6649725/Red-Bull-accused-of-blocking-new-RRA

Red Bull accused of blocking new RRA

Reports that Red Bull overspent during the 2010 season are refusing to go away, despite claims to the contrary from team principal Christian Horner.

Former FIA president Max Mosley was the first to lift the lid on the Milton Keynes-based outfit's request for "amnesty for the non-compliance" of the Resource Restriction Agreement (RRA) last year.

Red Bull team boss Horner, though, has denied the allegations.

"We completely adhered to the RRA within 2010 - and Red Bull Racing had only perhaps the third or fourth-largest budget in Formula 1," he told Autosport "We've achieved great efficiency in reducing the headcount versus our external spend.

"We are all in favour of containing costs moving forward, and the RRA is a good way of achieving that - as long as it is consistent, fair, equitable and transparent across all the activities of all the teams. We don't want to turn the formula into a power-train dictated Championship."

However, speculation that they spent more than they were supposed to persists.

According to BBC Sport's Andrew Benson, the 2010 Championship winners not only exceeded their budget, but they are now also blocking the new RRA.

'Rivals - almost without exception, I'm told - believe Red Bull exceeded en route to winning the world title last year the limitations laid out in the document that defines how teams commit their budgets. They also claim that Red Bull are blocking a new version of the so-called Resource Restriction Agreement to take the sport through to 2017, where the current one runs only to 2012.

'One insider at a rival team said Red Bull had been "flouting" the RRA. This is quite a serious accusation, as it effectively claims Red Bull either spent longer developing the aerodynamics of their car, employed more staff, or spent more money - or all three - than they were allowed to. In other words, they had an unfair advantage.'

Teams are still to agree on the new cost-saving agreement, but Red Bull are apparently unhappy with some of the proposed changes.

The BBC blog adds: 'One team principal, who did not wish to be identified, said that the new RRA relaxes the restrictions on resources - teams can spend a bit more money and employ a few more staff - and in return the policing is stricter, both in terms of how teams' spending is analysed and the penalties for exceeding the limits.'

A better way to do it would be to implement Mosley's budget cap, but to do it better. Cap spending at one hundred million dollars a year, with exclusion from the championship for anyone who overspends.

IMO the budget caps are far too difficult to enforce with any type of accuracy, as a teams resources can be extremely widespread and immeasurable (many aspects which you cannot put a price on - i.e. accumulated technology & experience from other racing series & production vehicle tech...like the 4 cylinder turbocharged powerplants which will be used in 2013).

Basically the budget caps will help to some extent, but to think that it will help to make an accurate and even playing field (in terms of money spent by the teams) is a bit laughable in my view.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

They should do it like the Finnish Folk Races where they set a limit on the value of the car and if someone offers you that value you have to sell it

 

[Akmuq]

Yeah and virgin will just get a loan off Beardy Branson and buy the RB6.

 

[niky]

"Welcome to Round Twelve of the 2011 F1 Season. HRT is running in the second of last race's RBR, while Team Lotus has opted to stick with the McLaren they bought four races ago. Tensions are high in Ferrari camp, as Alonso has cried foul over not being able to fit in Vettel's race-winning RBR. It was later found out that RBR had stuck a whoopie cushion under the seat..."

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Adding a bit of fuel to the subject - it looks as though RBR have been accused (by most of their rivals & a few insiders) of overspending last season. They also seem to have a defiant stance on the newly proposed/revised RRA (Resource Restriction agreement), which will call upon further enforcement and analyzing of teams budgets, which makes me suspicous that they are possibly trying to hide some of their behind the bush resources/tactics by wanting more lenient policing.

I suspect this is a political move for 2013 by their rivals. I don't know what the penalites for overspending would be, but at the very least, they'd be suspended for a while. The other teams know that Vettel would have won the World Championship by more than 60 points if it weren't for his reliability worries, and that no doubt scares the hell out of them. If Red Bull can pull their act together and have cars as reliable and drivers as consistent as their top speed is good, they're going to be very hard to beat.

A major overhaul of the technical regulations is coming into effect in 2013. The exact rules will be shaped by the 2012 cars. If Red Bull were to lose their voting rights in 2011, they would have no say over the techical rules for 2012, and the 2012 rules are going to heavily influence the 2013 rules. It's a little complex when worded like that, but the basic idea is that by paralysing Red Bull's influence, the teams may be able to come up with a rulebook for 2012 that steps away from the direction Red Bull take, making it easier to rein them in by 2013. It would not surprise me at all if Ferrari did this. Mercedes, too - a few of the senior Ferrari and Mercedes people were annoyed that an energy drinks company won the World Constructors' Championship because Red Bull are not a road car manufacturer.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The other teams know that Vettel would have won the World Championship by more than 60 points if it weren't for his reliability worries, and that no doubt scares the hell out of them. If Red Bull can pull their act together and have cars as reliable and drivers as consistent as their top speed is good, they're going to be very hard to beat.

I don't think it's that simple. Usually speed and reliability are inversely-related. If they improved reliability then, no doubt, speed would be down.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The point is that if Red Bull had had as consistent a season as the likes of Ferrari did, they'd have been nigh on untouchable. Vettel's engine melt-down in Korea wouldn't have mattered because he probably would have won the championship by then. The other teams don't want that. The others teams don't like that. And since only half of winning in Formula 1 on the track - the other half being winning in the rulebook - it would not surprise me at all if a rival team leaked documents abut Red Bull's spending to Max Mosley and/or the press in order to justify an investigation into the team that would result in Red Bull being banned from having any input into rule changes that would have a significant impact on the final 2013 regulations.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The point is that if Red Bull had had as consistent a season as the likes of Ferrari did, they'd have been nigh on untouchable.

2010 isn't the best season to be playing what-if scenarios. If anything, the top contenders were all pretty inconsistent.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The point is that Red Bull is good - and they're only a young team. They're six years odl and they already have a WDC and a WCC to their credit. Some of the older, established teams will feel threatened by that.

 

[niky]

And if Brawn hadn't lucked out on the double-diffuser ruling, Red Bull would be a six year old team with two World Championships to their credit. (theoretically... but they had the best chances of anybody that season...)

The political angle seems plausible. But if Ferrari's in the camp calling RBR out, it's sort of a pot-kettle thing, honestly...