F1 costs - ways of reducing them

[321apex]

Much has been discussed about containment of F1 costs. Although there could be many ways to "skin a cat", I believe any cost reduction methods should be SIMPLE to police, yet effective.

I would propose my ideas:
- reduction in the number of sensors on board of a race car
- reduction in the number of carbon elements sticking from or located away from the main covers - turning vanes, disc brake cowlings, etc
- introduction of template to police certain shape elements of car body - wings or covers
- reduction of FIA F1 technical rulebook from it's current size to 15 pages

The above ideas will yield following:
a) sensors require an army of electronics people and remove the input of a driver, it should be driver knowing the tire condition instead of an engineer telling him that
b) carbon elements need designers, wind tunnels, autoclaves, sensors and fancy engineers to continuously redesign and revalidate them
c) templates for wings and body will equalize the field by diminishing the amount of vanes and trinkets that can be placed on them
d) FIA rulebook is mired with complicated or nearly unpoliceable regulations in practical sense. Instead it should be black or white, determinable by simple investigative criteria requiring a maximum 1 minute of time.

[TzeiTzei]

I haven't given this much thought, but I don't think that you can really reduce costs with technical regulations. Unless you go fully into a single spec car, then there will always be an area from where a team can gain an advantage by throwing huge amounts of money at it. But that's just my 2 cents. The way I see it is that a budget cap is the only way to really make a difference in spending...but that's gonna be difficult.

[notsofast]

We're already seeing what cost reduction does to racing. With the limits on tires, there's an advantage to be gained by driving below the limit. That's not real racing, is it? Why not turn it around? Why are we worried about cost? Perhaps all commercial revenues should be distributed equally between all cars that satisfy the 107% rule. Wouldn't that be enough to have a go at glory? Anyone who wishes to invest more, can. I believe it's mostly self-regulating. If any one team overspends and dominates to the point where viewers stay away, they'll get less revenue.

[Glyn]

There is an easier way...... Just set a budget cap! ££££

But the bigger teams don't want that.

[321apex]

There is an easier way...... Just set a budget cap! ££££

But the bigger teams don't want that.

I do not think that $$$ cap is very effective. Companies can easily make their expenditures clandestine.

[321apex]

The F1 teams spend the money on:
- personnel
- their tools
- their creations

Limiting areas where these creations can be applied, you end up limiting the overall cash spent. ie. achieving the goal.

[321apex]

We're already seeing what cost reduction does to racing. With the limits on tires, there's an advantage to be gained by driving below the limit. That's not real racing, is it? Why not turn it around? Why are we worried about cost? Perhaps all commercial revenues should be distributed equally between all cars that satisfy the 107% rule. Wouldn't that be enough to have a go at glory? Anyone who wishes to invest more, can. I believe it's mostly self-regulating. If any one team overspends and dominates to the point where viewers stay away, they'll get less revenue.

With respect to tires, there should be 1 compound instead of 2 and there should be no limit to number tires at races. I would allow 2 day open testing following each GP when next event on calendar is at least 2 weeks later. This would limit the high dollar simulators.
I won't comment on the money distribution thing.

[wesley123]

- reduction in the number of sensors on board of a race car

Sensors aren't really expensive, so less sensors won't cut the cost much, plus it would lower the overall tech involved.

- reduction in the number of carbon elements sticking from or located away from the main covers - turning vanes, disc brake cowlings, etc
- introduction of template to police certain shape elements of car body - wings or covers

Let's have a spec series already.

- reduction of FIA F1 technical rulebook from it's current size to 15 pages

Not feasible as it would cause a book full of loopholes.

Personally, I am for standardization of the crash structures and tub. That will confirm safety of the drivers that meets a certain level, and would remove the issue where some teams try to get too close to the limit and have to re-do the crash tests multiple times.

Add to this opening up of the rules and imo you got a great set.

You can keep on limiting rules and what not, and make it cheaper to be able to run. But all it causes is a gap, teams with less resources still wouldn't be able to keep up with the top teams. It will always be this way and it has always been that.

Open up the rules and it gives teams the possibility to do something big with much less resources, because the rules allow for that. The current rule set is so incredibly closed that it doesn't allow anything special, thus the less resourced teams do not have a chance to begin with, and they won't be able to keep up either.

[321apex]

I haven't given this much thought, but I don't think that you can really reduce costs with technical regulations. Unless you go fully into a single spec car, then there will always be an area from where a team can gain an advantage by throwing huge amounts of money at it. But that's just my 2 cents. The way I see it is that a budget cap is the only way to really make a difference in spending...but that's gonna be difficult.

Regulations are the only means to provide control over the make up of the racing formula. There is no other instrument.

My suggestion of limiting the number of onboard sensors is a simple one. Engineers would know far less about the car at any given time than they do now, transferring this feedback role back to the driver. Each sensor be it pressure, temp, speed, etc requires technical people to scrutinize the data, maintain data acquisition systems and act on that data by making fancier trinkets. That's how it snowballs.

[Lycoming]

- reduction of FIA F1 technical rulebook from it's current size to 15 pages

Not feasible as it would cause a book full of loopholes.

Totally doable.

Appendix would still be monstrous though.

[321apex]

Just consider any of the wheel corners.
You have sensors galore and an acre of carbon fibre to boot. All beautifully sculpted carbon fiber, but I miss seeing glowing discs and it takes a team of engineers to manage these 4 upright corners.

What's the deal with ribbed inner wheel rims? There is so much invisible nonsence happening that is inflating the operating cost, which effectively bars entry to newcomers.

[321apex]

- reduction of FIA F1 technical rulebook from it's current size to 15 pages

Not feasible as it would cause a book full of loopholes.

Totally doable.

Appendix would still be monstrous though.

I especially like 5.4.2:
5.4 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145 kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.

Ever tried establishing the precise location of CG of an object?
The rulebook needlessly applies controls to areas that are nearly impossible to control or verifiable in the field.

[beelsebob]

I especially like 5.4.2:
5.4 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145 kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.

Ever tried establishing the precise location of CG of an object?
The rulebook needlessly applies controls to areas that are nearly impossible to control or verifiable in the field.

It's trivial to verify which side of a 200mm height it is – you stick a pivot there, and see which way up it turns. Finding the CoG is much harder than verifying which side of that plane it is.

[321apex]

I especially like 5.4.2:
5.4 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145 kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.

Ever tried establishing the precise location of CG of an object?
The rulebook needlessly applies controls to areas that are nearly impossible to control or verifiable in the field.

It's trivial to verify which side of a 200mm height it is – you stick a pivot there, and see which way up it turns. Finding the CoG is much harder than verifying which side of that plane it is.

If it was 199mm then it would no longer be trivial. Please explain how you would verify this post race.

[beelsebob]

I especially like 5.4.2:
5.4 Weight and centre of gravity :
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145 kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.

Ever tried establishing the precise location of CG of an object?
The rulebook needlessly applies controls to areas that are nearly impossible to control or verifiable in the field.

It's trivial to verify which side of a 200mm height it is – you stick a pivot there, and see which way up it turns. Finding the CoG is much harder than verifying which side of that plane it is.

If it was 199mm then it would no longer be trivial. Please explain how you would verify this post race.

You would demand that all teams have conical mounting points on their engines the points of which are 200mm above the reference plane, in a straight line through the centre of the car. This would be trivial to measure. You would then have a test rig able to hang the entire PU off those two conical mounting points, with decent bearings to allow it to swing, and observe which way up it hung.