F1 costs - ways of reducing them

[321apex]

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.

What should be the crank position?
Please forgive me, but with several "would's" you've gallantly described a future science project instead of an important, quick and simple scrutineering action post race that it should be NOW (on site)... in May 2014.
Every regulation must be polieceable in a straight forward way, otherwise you get a fake pretense of a regulation subject only to the barriers of conscience or beligerance of participants.

We are getting away from the main focus of this thread, which is HOW TO REDUCE COSTS in F1.

[beelsebob]

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.

What should be the crank position?

Doesn't matter - the rule should not be broken with any crank position, so random testing is fine.

Please forgive me, but with several "would's" you've gallantly described a future science project instead of an important, quick and simple scrutineering action post race that it should be NOW (on site)... in May 2014.

You realise that this is only as complex as most of the other actual testing methods that are used, right?

[Wayne DR]

The CVC made a profit of $865m (£540m) in 2012, and are talking about record profits in 2013. This could possibly be a good place to start, but I digress…

From the team side of the ledger, according to John Todt, Mercedes F1 team currently has around 1,250 staff, while Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren have between 700-900 staff. This is a massive cost, and, in my view, where biggest cost savings lie, along with the bricks and mortar.

It is a fact that the manufacturer teams and the “Bibitari” are always going to spend as much as they can possibly afford on F1 to secure the championship (that is the gold at the end of the rainbow). It will be extremely hard to monitor and control. (Example: Mercedes or Ferrari decide to start development of a new GT car powered by say a ‘1.6L V6 single turbo with ERS’, some of this development would obviously spill over into F1… F1 engines have commonly been used in other racing series, so the finance for research and development simply switches sides.)

There has been a suggestion from the teams around more ‘interchangeable components’, why not take that concept to the next level? The current rules require every team to design, build and test their own cars, why?

I have mentioned a few times on forums, that allowing ‘Customer Cars’ to be purchased/hired (and possibly even repaired and maintained) by ‘Works Teams’, would make F1 racing more affordable for the Minnows (which is the goal, is it not?)

At present to be competitive, every team needs either own or have nearly exclusive access to a design office (with massive computers for CFD calculations and a selection of 3D five axis printers), wind tunnel(s), casting/forging/machining facilities, manufacturing facilities AND a maintenance workshop to design, build and maintain their cars. Customer Cars eliminates most of this, and the associated costs, for the smaller teams, and puts their drivers in cars that are within say 90-95% of the Works Teams cars…

I think it was Frank Williams that said, a competitive car is 25% drivetrain, 25% aero, 25% tyres and 25% driver, so the driver would then become more important and we get a better show (Again, one of the goals?).

Don’t you think Marko and Mateschitz would have a long hard look at Torro Rosso’s facilities, if they could put all four of their drivers in cars designed and built at Milton Keynes?

Just my 2c…

[321apex]

Doesn't matter - the rule should not be broken with any crank position, so random testing is fine.

My remark was in jest.

You realise that this is only as complex as most of the other actual testing methods that are used, right?

I would like to reiterate my point.
The rules should be enforceable in practical terms, which means that if a dimension is specified by the rules it should be measureable within reasonably short time, perhaps in less than 15 minutes, on site, post race with ready means at FIA disposal. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a farse.

If specified measurements can not be made as I described, then they DO NOT BELONG in a rule book.

[321apex]

The CVC made a profit of $865m (£540m) in 2012, and are talking about record profits in 2013. This could possibly be a good place to start, but I digress…

I believe CVC is a legitimate business, so I don't buy your suggestion. What would you do to Apple?

From the team side of the ledger, according to John Todt, Mercedes F1 team currently has around 1,250 staff, while Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren have between 700-900 staff. This is a massive cost, and, in my view, where biggest cost savings lie, along with the bricks and mortar.

Completely agree!

It is a fact that the manufacturer teams and the “Bibitari” are always going to spend as much as they can possibly afford on F1 to secure the championship (that is the gold at the end of the rainbow). It will be extremely hard to monitor and control. (Example: Mercedes or Ferrari decide to start development of a new GT car powered by say a ‘1.6L V6 single turbo with ERS’, some of this development would obviously spill over into F1… F1 engines have commonly been used in other racing series, so the finance for research and development simply switches sides.)

Nothing wrong with spreading development cost of created technology and in my view it has been done for years.

There has been a suggestion from the teams around more ‘interchangeable components’, why not take that concept to the next level? The current rules require every team to design, build and test their own cars, why?

I have mentioned a few times on forums, that allowing ‘Customer Cars’ to be purchased/hired (and possibly even repaired and maintained) by ‘Works Teams’, would make F1 racing more affordable for the Minnows (which is the goal, is it not?)

Do you recall the times when F1 had pre-qualifying? In 1989 season there were 21 teams competing and all of them largely built their own race cars. In my view, the team constructor part is fine, but the cost to compete has escalated out of control.

At present to be competitive, every team needs either own or have nearly exclusive access to a design office (with massive computers for CFD calculations and a selection of 3D five axis printers), wind tunnel(s), casting/forging/machining facilities, manufacturing facilities AND a maintenance workshop to design, build and maintain their cars. Customer Cars eliminates most of this, and the associated costs, for the smaller teams, and puts their drivers in cars that are within say 90-95% of the Works Teams cars…

Limiting the number of sensors on board and fixing geometry of some parts of the car would render a lot of this cool engineering stuff useless. The cost structure required to compete eliminates teams one by one. When Mclaren has trouble signing a title sponsor 5 races into a new season, how do you rate Marussia's chances? Who will keep paying their bills?

I think it was Frank Williams that said, a competitive car is 25% drivetrain, 25% aero, 25% tyres and 25% driver, so the driver would then become more important and we get a better show (Again, one of the goals?).

Frank Williams is probably right.

Don’t you think Marko and Mateschitz would have a long hard look at Torro Rosso’s facilities, if they could put all four of their drivers in cars designed and built at Milton Keynes?

Just my 2c…

In an era of limited testing, can anyone prove that Toro Roso IS NOT a Red Bull test team?

[mcjamweasel]

The rules should be enforceable in practical terms, which means that if a dimension is specified by the rules it should be measureable within reasonably short time, perhaps in less than 15 minutes, on site, post race with ready means at FIA disposal. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a farse.

If specified measurements can not be made as I described, then they DO NOT BELONG in a rule book.

Well that means that you can no longer have any rules concerning engine internals or construction materials.

Don't be so bloody simplistic.

[idfx]

F1 costs - ways of reducing them

They will change salaries.
source: marca
Link: http://www.marca.com/2013/08/25/motor/f ... 24201.html
site in Spanish

Sueldos medios en la F1
Puesto Sueldo
1 - Ingeniero de pista 110.000 Euros
2 - Jefe de departamento (fábrica) 80.000 Euros
3 - Analista de telemetria 70.000 Euros
4 - Ingeniero júnior 50.000 Euros
5 - Técnico en fábrica 50.000 Euros
6 - Jefe de mecánicos 60.000 Euros
7 - Mecánico número 1 50.000 Euros
8 - Mecánico 45.000 Euros
9 - Jefe de camioneros 45.000 Euros
10 - Camionero 40.000 Euros
11 - Responsable de la cuenta publicitaria del patrocinio 70.000 Euros
12 - Asistente de la cuenta 50.000 Euros
13 - Asistente de márketing 24.000 Euros
14 - Secretaria 24.000 Euros

[Wayne DR]

I believe CVC is a legitimate business, so I don't buy your suggestion. What would you do to Apple?

Apple make mobile/cell phones, and have competitors that do the same. The CVC have a monopoly and don't really make anything. As a paying fan that goes to races, I am happy to see them make a reasonable profit. They could support smaller/new teams better is all I am saying.

Nothing wrong with spreading development cost of created technology and in my view it has been done for years.

I agree, my point is that a budget cap will give car manufacturer teams an unfair advantage as they can potentially still develop F1 technology under a GT/Sports Car programme. To some extent this advantage already exists, but it will become more substantial.

Do you recall the times when F1 had pre-qualifying? In 1989 season there were 21 teams competing and all of them largely built their own race cars. In my view, the team constructor part is fine, but the cost to compete has escalated out of control.

YES, as a teenager living in Australia, my first exposure to F1 was that first "turbo era" in the 80's with Senna and Prost.

I was listening to a couple of podcasts the other day, and they had Emanuele Pirro on one episode and James Weaver and Andy Wallace on another. James Weaver was talking about testing the Benetton/BMW at the end of the '86 season chasing an F1 drive, that went to Pirro. That car apparently made something like 1100hp in Quali trim, 900hp in race trim and was so horrifically violent on the driver.

It is a fact of life that cars will get faster and faster, why do the FIA feel the need to reduce downforce to slow them down, thereby making them less safe?

I am a big fan of Pre-Qualifying. In my opinion, drivers racing who either cannot put a lap together in Q3 or have cars outside of the 107% rule, have no business being in the race (a little harsh maybe...). All they do is increase the likelihood of one of the front runners having an accident by tripping over them during the race. During '89, there were teams that went to events and did not race.
(I do take solace in the fact that Maldonado is currently leading the F1 "Penalty Points" World Championship... )

Limiting the number of sensors on board and fixing geometry of some parts of the car would render a lot of this cool engineering stuff useless.

I see your point, and it could reduce costs. I still think it will only force the big teams will put more R&D effort into trying to then automate systems (i.e. Double DRS) to get around the lack of sensors. The designers/engineers know what they are trying to make that banned sensor or part on the car do, and will find some ingenious way to get around the banned technology.

Unfortunately, we can't unlearn the concepts and technologies that make the cars as fast as they are right now. The FIA bans something to limit either cost or speed, and then the teams re-double their efforts to gain back what is lost.

If the FIA want to limit speed (for safety reasons), they should simply limit engine rpm and top gear drive ratios directly, rather than horsepower and downforce.

The cost structure required to compete eliminates teams one by one. When Mclaren has trouble signing a title sponsor 5 races into a new season, how do you rate Marussia's chances? Who will keep paying their bills?

McLaren had a bad year last year, and I was hoping they would bounce back, but unfortunately I don't see an end to their pain in sight. For Marussia, the sad fact is the answer is probably their drivers! (There is potential for CVC to assist here, to a point... Chilton did get fastest lap in testing at Barcelona on day one, so his sponsors and Marussia's will be loving that!!)

I actually find myself asking how many potential current and future legends of the sport (the likes of Senna, Prost, Schumacher, Stewart, Lauda, Clark, Moss or even Fangio!) have not been discovered, because of how difficult it is now to get into this sport!

In my part of the world it is nearly impossible for anyone to make it into F1. Daniel Ricciardo moved to Europe aged 17 to compete in Formula Renault, Mitch Evans (in GP2) moved to Europe aged 16 to compete in GP3. Mitch finished second in the Australian Formula Ford series in 2009 (aged 14!!!).

In an era of limited testing, can anyone prove that Toro Roso IS NOT a Red Bull test team?

I had to consider this for a while to fully comprehend the enormity of the statement, and how far reaching the potential implications are. Red Bull have always called Torro Rosso (TR) a "development squad", but it is only when you contemplate the impact of potentially developing a WHOLE TEAM in the background to backup/assist your lead team, that you start to see what is possible (It's a whole spare team!!).

Not only up and coming drivers, but designers, mechanics too.
The legendary Adrian Newey overseeing design on the lead team, with a separate "young guns" team TR, eager to design "that component" that gets them the desk at Milton Keynes...
Not sure how that upgrade will work in China? Bolt it onto a TR in Australia, and you have a whole race of real data!
The possibilities are endless!

This is all hypothetical obviously, but Mateschitz is a very shrewd business man, and this makes good business sense. What is having the ability to potentially carry out in-season testing to "significantly increase the chances" of you win the championship worth, in terms of global advertising and potential increased "soft drink" sales? $70-80m ?

(Sorry, just my cynical, bitter and twisted view of the world... There is probably NO correspondence or contact between Milton Keynes and Faenza. After all, staff of Italian teams never pass design information on their cars to teams located in Britain do they? BTW, as an aside, I do see the irony of Alonso now being at Ferrari...)

Unfortunately this scenario also becomes viable for the car manufacturer teams under a budget cap. Ferrari are limited to a workforce of say 400 by a budget cap. They simply start a second "junior team" (called say "Alfa Romeo") at a new facility, which would have a similar budget and workforce...

[Cam]

Before deciding on ways to reduce costs, I think everyone should step back and ask "what do we want from F1?".

So far, we've got - F1 needs:
• to be relevant to car industry - while others say has no place being relevant to car industry
• needs manufacturers - while isn't enticing manufacturers (there's no full grid of 10 manufacturers)
• constructors - who don't construct (spec parts, tight regs that force same designs)
• massive waste of money, while purporting cost saving measures.
• false competition - one wrong move ruins a season
• dubious talent - overlooked, overvalued or impossible to isolate against equipment
• performance - what should be championed? - is it the car, the driver, the tyres, the engine?

What does F1 have to bring? When you strip all the politics, sponsors, glitter, rules, everything but the essence - what is F1 supposed to be? Why does it exist? We all know why it used to exist.... but what about today.

There's so many layers, so many angles, we've all lost what is was. While trying to please everyone, it pleases no one.

Stop trying to add, and start taking away. Remove anything 'not required'. What we'll be left with is what it should actually be. Cost that up. It' won't be much and we'll have a far better sport.

[321apex]

Well that means that you can no longer have any rules concerning engine internals or construction materials.

Don't be so bloody simplistic.

There is an institution called - "engine teardown" - widely practiced across the world in all racing formulas from go-karting on up. I have been subjected to engine teardowns few times and it works quite well as a deterrent. With engine internal material restrictions, there are simple criteria that are designed to determine LEGALITY quite quickly.

[marcush.]

I think you are completely wrong here .deleting some sensors will do nothing to reduce cost as you will again have to invest more into work at home eg Simulation and rig testing .If you don´t have the deep pockets to do it all you are already on your way to the back of the field.

The spending is directly related to the involvement of manufacturers and lately also due to some unreal wealthy individuals who can simply afford to do it one way or another .

If Renault and Daimler leave it will be Ferrari against Honda and some "customer" powertrains and very soon the rediculous spending will find an end simply because the Money is not there .
One day Didi Matschitz will realise formula 1 is boring (we have seen other austrians making similar remarks in times when it did not work out as expected) and the Lotus
owners as well as Force Indias,Marrussia,Caterham,TR all rely heavily on their very well of owners being prepared to fill all Money drains opening up ...this will not go on forever .
I´m sure Formula 1 will soon have to face reality and shrink to manageable size -Daimler will Review their Engagement very soon as the titles are all but certain already.
what else to gain ? another 4 ? or 5 ? I think they will weigh up the potential gains vs a depart on Mission accomplished lets move on to new ventures ....Renault has had enough already methinks ..they can bin their development up to date and start afresh if they want to compete....it may be time to call it a day for them as well...

[Cam]

F1 costs - ways of reducing them

They could go back to using "off the shelf parts". This would give a two fold benefit. One, parts from manufacturers would get better and two, the public can access those same parts. Teams are free to mash them together however they see fit, but nothing 'custom' could be manufactured. Every team then has access to the same bits (parity) and it's down to the creativity of the engineers to make something a great driver can win with - putting the emphasis back on team & driver.

[Moxie]

It is all about the financial incentive. As long as the front teams stand to gain $100 million in prize money and another $100 million in sponsorship money they will spend $199 million to keep the logos of their sponsors in the public eye. They will spends every cent possible to lead the races, put their drivers atop of the podium, and win a championship for their car and driver, but most importantly for their sponsors.

To decrease the cost of F1 the financial incentive must be reduced for the front running big spenders, and the financial gains must be increased for the rear running financially strapped teams. I am not suggesting that winners should not win more than losers, but the inequity of the F1 prize structure is so great that it resembles a Ponzi scheme.

[santos]

I was looking for the calendar for 2015 and there is one thing that i don't understand. Why is the season starts in Asia, comes to europe, makes a run in canada, back to europe, returns to Asia, back to north america and ends again in Asia... Wouldn't be cheaper to make all the races followed on every continente?

[Jolle]

Before the question "ways to reduce f1 costs", the question should be, how much does it costs, and what are the expensive parts (of the company, not of the car)
As I think out loud, a F1 team consists of:
- The factory, designing and manufacturing of the car itself
- The racing team: on track engineers, mechanics, transport, etc etc
- Engine department (in case of Merc en Ferrari) or engine lease
- Markering department

If there would be more standardized parts, there would only be a cost reducing at the factory itself. And with big budgets on the top teams, it would only mean that the free elements would get developed even more. Haas said he wants basically, as much as possible, come from ferrari instead of his own factory, just running a racing team instead of a racing factory.

The racing team is quite expensive, many engineers traveling around the globe, etc etc. a max of amount of people allowed to travel with the "technical" team would help.

Engine lease: this looks like a very high expensive piece of the puzzle. In the glory days this was the key to the many teams we once had. You bought a coshworth, welded some tubes, got a guy with a van and you had a team. I do believe that this new engine formula is the future, but maybe more forms of using old spec engines for smaller teams? I have no idea.

Markering must stay free of rules, this is whats making a formula 1 team a company and how they make money.

The distribution of the F1 money (almost 2bln) should be in such a way that all teams (even the very small ones) should be able to pay the engine, a basic factory and the racing team. Everything else (marketing, drivers, big name engineers/designers, management) should be the though sponsors, etc etc. This way you would have small teams able to survive and big teams (and big names) pushing the limit.