Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Former FIA president Max Mosley is proposing the introduction of an optional cost cap in Formula 1, which would then subsequently open up the regulations for those that choose it.
The idea of a cost cap has been a mainstay argument of Formula 1 for several years, with the many parties struggling to agree on the terms that would appease larger teams with more substantial budgets and the smaller privateer outfits. The most recent proposal of its kind was canned last year.
With a crunch meeting looming to determine the direction of rules and regulations in the coming seasons, there are concerns that the mooted move to 1000bhp engines to improve the spectacle will have the adverse effect of further inflating costs that rose with the introduction of the current V6 Hybrid power units only last year.
As such, Mosley, in an interview with Auto Motor und Sport has proposed a selective cost cap for teams that wish to partake in it. In return, the teams will be granted relative freedom in designing cars in an effort to make up for the monetary restrictions, a move that he believes would subsequently open the door for more technological innovations.
"I can imagine that very soon all the teams would be in the camp of the budget cap,” he said. “Then they will realise that you also offer 100 million great motorsport and can build technically advanced cars.”
The issue of cutting costs in F1 has persisted over the years, though the collapse of Caterham and – briefly - Marussia at the end of the 2014 season, plus the continuously perilous positions of Sauber, Lotus and Force India have given rise to greater concerns about the sport's future direction.
F1's latest Strategy Group meeting will be held next month.
Interesting concept and could reinvigorate F1 as the ultimate in technology...
The problem is that a cost cap will probably be very hard to enforce. I doubt the accountants that move multinationals money around in circles to avoid paying tax will have problems moving money around to make almost any budget fit within a cap
If some one like Max Mosley comes up with ideas he should at least think it through and answer the glaringly obvious questions before rattling it off to any member of the press who's still willing to give him the time of the day, such as...
The stumbling block to this and every other proposal to cap costs is not getting the teams to agree to it, its getting the teams to agree to the way the budget cap will be policed, and he should know that given how long he tried to implement a budget cap for when he was president, so what's changed there Max?
And how on earth would safety be controlled without a rule book?
The only way to enforce a budget cap would be to force everyone in the F1 ecosystem to conduct their business on a electronic basis that is fully traceable or have the $100 million provided in the form of marked $100 bills, joking ;p
I never believed in Max Mosley. He was the one that proposed the current crop of "green" hybrid drivetrain that has pushed costs through the roof.
The original plan as proposed in the last decade, was to cap the teams' expenditure. In case they would receive more money from sponsors than they would spend, teams would simply make a profit that they could pay out as dividend to their shareholders. Third parties could thus effectively influence a team's net result. This made me think about the criticism that a budget cap would unenforceable.
Because what applies to finance, applies to the sporting as well: third parties could effectively influence a team's result. If sponsorship is allowed to improve a team's financial results, there is no reason not to allow sponsorship for improve a team's sporting results. In other words: what is the main difference between a sponsor providing financial support and one providing non-financial support? Currently, teams already have sponsors that solely or mainly supply them products and services. One could think of oil and gas companies supplying lubricants and fuel. The so-called 'works' teams were traditionally sponsored by engine manufacturers, as they were not invoiced at all or just for fraction of all costs.
In this context, one should not be afraid for teams bending the budget cap. It should be enough to demand the teams being separate entities and transparent about their sponsors. This would still create a level playing field, especially if the regulations would allow more room for creativity and intelligence. Of course, teams would still have to find sponsors, but that is a natural part of their job.
Pingguest wrote:The original plan as proposed in the last decade, was to cap the teams' expenditure. In case they would receive more money from sponsors than they would spend, teams would simply make a profit that they could pay out as dividend to their shareholders. Third parties could thus effectively influence a team's net result. This made me think about the criticism that a budget cap would unenforceable.
Because what applies to finance, applies to the sporting as well: third parties could effectively influence a team's result. If sponsorship is allowed to improve a team's financial results, there is no reason not to allow sponsorship for improve a team's sporting results. In other words: what is the main difference between a sponsor providing financial support and one providing non-financial support? Currently, teams already have sponsors that solely or mainly supply them products and services. One could think of oil and gas companies supplying lubricants and fuel. The so-called 'works' teams were traditionally sponsored by engine manufacturers, as they were not invoiced at all or just for fraction of all costs.
In this context, one should not be afraid for teams bending the budget cap. It should be enough to demand the teams being separate entities and transparent about their sponsors. This would still create a level playing field, especially if the regulations would allow more room for creativity and intelligence. Of course, teams would still have to find sponsors, but that is a natural part of their job.
if they can bend the budget cap the result same as no cap, a couple of teams that spend 400M and have a chance of winning, and the rest that have trouble scraping together 100M and doesn't have a chance
