How to cut costs without a cost cap?

[Xwang]

This is something I was thinking too.

[langwadt]

Just a wild idea.

What if a rule was enstated that at some point at the end of the season all teams were forced to disclose their IP to each other? That would be in a form of a technical drawings package, windtunnel data, CFD data, performance data etc.

This would not remove the incentive for the top tier teams to innovate, since it still would give a whole season advantage. For the lower ranked teams it would cut down on development costs and increase their competitiveness. At worst they could copy last year's winning car.

Even for the top teams it would not be all bad, since they can use the data of their competitors to speed up their own development.

What do you think?

like a variation of Folkrace, you can spend as much money as you like but if someone offers you a set amount you have to sell it to them

[Blackout]

Freezing the monocoque for two or three seasons (and reduce CFD and windtunnel costs in the same time) is another good idea IMO...

[GitanesBlondes]

If one were truly serious about cutting costs, you would have to eliminate front wings, rear wings, diffusers, mandate the floor is flat from front to back, and cannot extend out from the body. That takes a whole number of areas out of play that eat up a significant chunk of budgets.

The other option is to copy IndyCar and have a spec chassis designed that allows for no additions/alterations. What you see in Melbourne is exactly what you see in Abu Dhabi. You then in turn lose what little remains of F1's uniqueness, but if cutting costs is the only goal, then spec chassis is where it starts, followed by a low cost engine that is pretty much of a spec design. You'll be able to field a team for $10 million.

[turbof1]

If one were truly serious about cutting costs, you would have to eliminate front wings, rear wings, diffusers, mandate the floor is flat from front to back, and cannot extend out from the body. That takes a whole number of areas out of play that eat up a significant chunk of budgets.

The other option is to copy IndyCar and have a spec chassis designed that allows for no additions/alterations. What you see in Melbourne is exactly what you see in Abu Dhabi. You then in turn lose what little remains of F1's uniqueness, but if cutting costs is the only goal, then spec chassis is where it starts, followed by a low cost engine that is pretty much of a spec design. You'll be able to field a team for $10 million.

I doubt that; in an interview with Pat Symonds it was reported that the operative-side only, getting to races, doing races and moving from races, costs around 40 million a year. Anything you have above that can go to developing the car. Yes, turning it (more) into a spec series will also decrease such costs since it simplifies the work. But it will not be divided by 4.

Indycar is much more efficient since it largely stays within the US, decreasing transportation cost and etc by a huge chunk. Imagine F1 staying in europe; I think that'll shave off quite a lot.

[The Egg]

It has been mentioned before but why not simplify the front wings?
Not a spec front wing, but limited elements and no extra bits and pieces above or below...
We saw in past years with red bull that they sealed the diffuser with vortices from the front wing. That gave them a huge advantage as they could work the diffuser harder to get more down force. Conversely we have seen mclaren max out on front wing to get balance right. If development of the front wing is limited then that will limit the down force in total and should bring the field closer together...with the added benefit that there is less scope for teams to bring a new wing every race

[GitanesBlondes]

If one were truly serious about cutting costs, you would have to eliminate front wings, rear wings, diffusers, mandate the floor is flat from front to back, and cannot extend out from the body. That takes a whole number of areas out of play that eat up a significant chunk of budgets.

The other option is to copy IndyCar and have a spec chassis designed that allows for no additions/alterations. What you see in Melbourne is exactly what you see in Abu Dhabi. You then in turn lose what little remains of F1's uniqueness, but if cutting costs is the only goal, then spec chassis is where it starts, followed by a low cost engine that is pretty much of a spec design. You'll be able to field a team for $10 million.

I doubt that; in an interview with Pat Symonds it was reported that the operative-side only, getting to races, doing races and moving from races, costs around 40 million a year. Anything you have above that can go to developing the car. Yes, turning it (more) into a spec series will also decrease such costs since it simplifies the work. But it will not be divided by 4.

Indycar is much more efficient since it largely stays within the US, decreasing transportation cost and etc by a huge chunk. Imagine F1 staying in europe; I think that'll shave off quite a lot.

Transportation isn't going to add $40-$50 million to a budget.

http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... omparison/

TOTAL BUDGET
Top F1 team: $470 million; Top IndyCar team: $15 million

This includes the following key areas of spending:

THE CAR
Top F1 team: $125 million; Top IndyCar team: $3 million

The largest single cost for most F1 teams is the design, development and construction of a bespoke chassis. F1 teams must construct their own chassis and although the manufacturing costs of an F1 car are a relatively small $15 million per year, top teams can spend well over $100 million on research and development.

All IndyCar teams must buy their chassis from series provider Dallara. The price is $345,000 per chassis, but the purchase of aerodynamic packages designed for different circuits can add another $150,000-$200,000. A team typically gets through three chassis per driver each year.

The engine figures are incorrect as they mention $130 million for F1. Not sure where they got the number from.

But the costs of chassis/engine/aero are a fraction of what they cost in F1. Even if you factored in the transportation costs of F1, it would still be far less when you think about what a set of engines costs for the season.

Running the Indy 500 only will cost about $1 million, which frankly is not a lot of money for a premier race. And you can actually run just the 500 instead of the whole season. You can't just run one race in F1.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mo ... r/2156011/

[turbof1]

Mind that I said "the operation-side". Transport is just an example from it; you'll obviously need a lot more measures. The cost bigger then transport to, let's say, China is actually operating that far from your base. For instance you need more staff, more equipment, higher control costs, staff overhead, accomodation,... .

Going to a race weekend involves much more then just transportation. Perhaps I enlarged it too much with my example. However, the point was that just running, running and not developing anything, a F1 team in the current format costs around 40 million. For a team like Marussia mind you; teams like Ferrari and Mercedes will pay that multiple times. Since the minimum of operating is already too much for bottom teams, I'd say you need to tackle operating costs first and/or increase income so that they can run the operational side without deficits. Just running down aero development will not help since marussia and caterham only invested very limited in that.

I'd say make first of sure teams can operate viable in F1 before trying to make them more competitive. Starting from such a business plan will already go a long way.

[emaren]

F1 is weird, even if they said 'Everyone uses a Dallara chassis from 2016', you can bet that the teams would still spend just as much money, they would just find different ways of making changes to go faster.

Perhaps it would be obsessive levels of preparation once the 'raw' chassis arrives, or maybe it would be optimisation of components or systems, or maybe aerodynamic helmets.

The only way to cut the costs is by removing the availability of the money.

That might be a mass exodus of advertising, or an exodus of the more affluent teams. If Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes and perhaps Williams decided to go play at LeMans racing rather than F1, then f1 would once more become a more affordable sport. Meanwhile lemanstechnical.corn would be full of topics regarding reigning in costs......

[Aesto]

Quite frankly, cutting costs in a significant manner is simply impossible. The reason? Any solution needs to be viable both financially and politically. This thread contains a lot of ideas in line with the former, but none with the latter. The top teams hold all the power in Formula 1, and reducing spending is just not in their interest. Sauber or Force India are guaranteed to never be able to bother Red Bull or Mercedes as long as they can barely afford to pay the bills, never mind develop the car. So why would the frontrunners do anything to change that?

[turbof1]

Quite frankly, cutting costs in a significant manner is simply impossible. The reason? Any solution needs to be viable both financially and politically. This thread contains a lot of ideas in line with the former, but none with the latter. The top teams hold all the power in Formula 1, and reducing spending is just not in their interest. Sauber or Force India are guaranteed to never be able to bother Red Bull or Mercedes as long as they can barely afford to pay the bills, never mind develop the car. So why would the frontrunners do anything to change that?

Currently we are locked into the Seventh Concorde Agreement. Except if all teams agree, no changes will be made until it expires. That'd be in 2020.

The most realistic path F1 will walk is except if Sauber, Lotus and Force India find more sources, atleast 1 of them and likely more will fold before 2020. Chances are that Haas also headed to the exit before that time. I really don't see new teams entering F1 either. F1 will probably be pushed in a very sore crisis, so deep that they'll need to consent to changes in the concorde agreement before 2020. Either that, or by 2020 F1 is gone. Just the few top teams is not enough to keep the whole deal viable.

That's dark and grim, but as you said the frontrunners will only act in their self interest. There's no motive, no incentive other then the avoidance of extinction of the racing class they put billions into, to give up their privileges.

[Aesto]

The most realistic path F1 will walk is except if Sauber, Lotus and Force India find more sources, atleast 1 of them and likely more will fold before 2020. Chances are that Haas also headed to the exit before that time. I really don't see new teams entering F1 either.

There will always be another billionaire-petrolhead with an inflated ego and the belief that he will succeed where everyone has failed. And then he will fail. And his willing replacement will already be waiting in the wings.

People always expect an existing system - be it a financial, political or social one - to break down under perceived pressures. But the status quo has a way of perpetuating itself. Nothing ever really changes - at least not much.

[acosmichippo]

I agree that freezing/simplifying car components is not going to cut any costs. Money gets spent on the components that will give the greatest advantage in time. Let's say (just for the sake of argument) right now that order is 1) front wing, 2) diffuser, 3) side pods. If you simplify the front wing so there's less time to gain there, teams aren't just going to pocket that money - it will get diverted to the diffuser and side pods. The same total money is being spent, only on different parts of the car.

So then the next step would be to simplify all parts equally. Except that won't work either since we'd just end up back at square 1 where developing the front wing gets you the greatest advantage in time, even though it may not be as much of an advantage as before. Now teams are spending just as much money for less performance. What's the point in that? You might say this would lead to closer racing between the top and bottom teams, and I might agree with you, but it will NOT reduce costs, which is the more pressing issue. The bottom teams won't be competing at all if they can't afford to be there in the first place.

Really the only "simplifying" or "freezing" of car components situation that would reduce costs would be a full spec series, and I don't think anyone wants to see F1 become that.

[turbof1]

The most realistic path F1 will walk is except if Sauber, Lotus and Force India find more sources, atleast 1 of them and likely more will fold before 2020. Chances are that Haas also headed to the exit before that time. I really don't see new teams entering F1 either.

There will always be another billionaire-petrolhead with an inflated ego and the belief that he will succeed where everyone has failed. And then he will fail. And his willing replacement will already be waiting in the wings.

People always expect an existing system - be it a financial, political or social one - to break down under perceived pressures. But the status quo has a way of perpetuating itself. Nothing ever really changes - at least not much.

The issue is that the status-quo already is broken. Too much of F1's income has shifted to the big 5, and with increased costs we've arrived at the breaking point of the lesser teams. The big problem is that everything is locked behind contractual paperwork until 2020.

On top of that: these aren't the 80's and 90's; even the billionaire-petrolheads are more careful where they want to spend their money on. The crisis made inflated ego's step aside for more rational decisions. Stepping into F1 simply is not a rational decision.

It'll of course never be a Marx-predicted calamity, but things look grim. The way I perceive it, this is just going towards a F2 or GT1 drama.

[Aesto]

I'm not saying that F1 doesn't have a problem. I'm saying that F1 definitely will and probably can go on without dealing with it :p