How to cut costs without a cost cap?

[kooleracer]

The Energy Cap!

I think F1 should look at how to even the playing field. The smaller teams can't compete because they don't have enough money, tools, employers etc. whatever the cause maybe. If you wan't to even the everything out you should look at how the cars are produced. Cars are produced by resources like manpower, tools etc. But the most important ingredient is electricity. Without electricity you can't run the factory nor any of its facilities.

So to create a level playing field the FIA should introduce a energy cap. I don't know how much kWh every team uses per year. But lets say the bigger teams use 20.000 kWh a year and the smaller teams are know only using 10.000 kWh. Lets say the FIA sets a limit of 8.000 kWh a year. Big teams know have to make a choice how to use their capacity of 8.000. Big teams have a lot of simulation tools big supercomputers etc. The FIA know only looks at the amount of kWh you use not how you use it. Teams that have an excess of 600 people in staff now have to think twice about how the allocate the most precious resource in F1, energy. This limit would mean smaller teams, more efficient use of energy and level playing field.

The engine manufacturers know would also have a limit of 3000 kWh per team ( just a randon number). So Ferrari has 2 teams then they can use 4500 kWh. Mercedes has 4 teams to make things even they can use 7500 kWh a year. This will encourage manufactures to support more teams. Which is healthier for Formula 1. To monitor this the FIA just needs to install some energy meters at each factory. If you go over this limit you are automatically disqualified for the season.

The FIA should take values that are based on a FIA team with 500 employees. Teams that don't have a wind tunnel also get the same amount of kWh allocated and their consumption will be monitored accordingly. This is the only way to make F1 "policable". Teams can't make infinite amount of updates anymore because the energy allocation doesn't allow that anymore. So even if you have big budgets you will have to smart about how you use your energy allocation. So big teams still have better resources available but they can't use them as they like anymore. They will have the same restrictions like any other team.

[Richard]

So the big teams will invest massively in the efficiency of their factories and offices so they can produce more output (parts or calculations) with fewer kWh. Meanwhile small tams will have kit that is several years old that was built for speed, but they'll not be able to afford the 20% more efficient machines used by the big teams? SO that's an instant 20% penalty.

Also what about the different energy uses for old v new buildings, also many are in different climates?

Unfortunately any sort of budget cap would be a nightmare to police. That's why the FIA focus on the outputs at the track, ie how many PU or staff at the circuit. The only exception is wind tunnels and CFD but they are easy to measure because they're unique (they are so big that they are hard hide or subcontract).

[diffuser]

I don't think this is worth talking about any more.

I think your biggest problem is that secretly the big F1 teams don't want an even playing field. This is an advertising platform first then a sport. Merc, Honda, BMW and Ferrari aren't/weren't in this to have the highest ratings possible. That's what the SAP's/Martini's do. They're in this to show that they have the fastest cars. Having the same money to spend as everyone else makes that harder. When they fail repeatedly to be the fastest a la BMW in the past and or pre Brawn Honda, they pull out. Unless of course you're Ferrari, which are basically bribed to stay. Actually if you believe that distribution of F1 funds table/graph from late last year (I forget which forum it was in) Ferrari are not the only teams getting kickbacks (the top 5 are), they're just getting the most.

The 2nd biggest problem is the CVC, F1, Bernie and the teams. The CVC, F1 and the Teams should all be the same thing. That is the only owners of F1 should be the teams, the CVC shouldn't exist. Bernie and/or his replacement should receive a salary like the NFL president and work for the teams. If you allow teams to Join F1, they would become a equal partner in F1 and should be charged accordingly.


The 3ird issue is works teams shouldn't exist. It is true that Works teams get an unfair advantage, then they shouldn't exist. If Ferrari want to build both a PU and a chassis, that's fine but it shouldn't get done under the same roof. All communication between the 2 should go through FIA, or something like that , that all the teams using that PU could share. Also the Ferrari Chassis team would pay the same Price for the PU as other teams using that PU and the only budget allocated to the Ferrari PU would come from the Money all PU manufactures charge Chassis teams (if there are 3 PU Manufactures, then they're receive 1/3 of all the money paid by chassis teams).

To summarise, the problem is, it's being run as several separate businesses, Instead of 1 business.

It's still the best motorsport in my opinion. It could be alot better.

[kooleracer]

So the big teams will invest massively in the efficiency of their factories and offices so they can produce more output (parts or calculations) with fewer kWh. Meanwhile small tams will have kit that is several years old that was built for speed, but they'll not be able to afford the 20% more efficient machines used by the big teams? SO that's an instant 20% penalty.

Also what about the different energy uses for old v new buildings, also many are in different climates?

Unfortunately any sort of budget cap would be a nightmare to police. That's why the FIA focus on the outputs at the track, ie how many PU or staff at the circuit. The only exception is wind tunnels and CFD but they are easy to measure because they're unique (they are so big that they are hard hide or subcontract).

Thats not totally true, because the smaller teams have less personal they already use less kWh in their factory. Mercedes has 800 working in Brackley and smaller teams have half of that or even less. Energy efficiency is is easier to level then money or other resources. Most factories in are F1 are already very efficient. Ofcourse the bigger teams will be able to afford more energy efficient tools and factories. But there is not a lot of ways to be efficient because most appliances today are already as efficient as they can be because of rules already in place by the EU . So the difference will definitely not be as huge as you might think.

Also it would boost the green credentials F1 wants to portrait. With a green image it would easier also to attract big companies.

[Xwang]

The 3ird issue is works teams shouldn't exist. It is true that Works teams get an unfair advantage, then they shouldn't exist. If Ferrari want to build both a PU and a chassis, that's fine but it shouldn't get done under the same roof. All communication between the 2 should go through FIA, or something like that , that all the teams using that PU could share. Also the Ferrari Chassis team would pay the same Price for the PU as other teams using that PU and the only budget allocated to the Ferrari PU would come from the Money all PU manufactures charge Chassis teams (if there are 3 PU Manufactures, then they're receive 1/3 of all the money paid by chassis teams).

To summarise, the problem is, it's being run as several separate businesses, Instead of 1 business.

It's still the best motorsport in my opinion. It could be alot better.

Well maybe someone else could say that a team should produce all the car (chassis and engine) because a chassis without an engine is as useless as an engine without a chassis so what is the right opinion?

[diffuser]

Yeah...you didn't understand me.

I'm not saying 1 way is better than the other. I'm just saying to be fair you can't go both ways.

[Scania]

standard DRS for front & rear wing could use any where, it make more easy on aero

[Gatecrasher]

But there is not a lot of ways to be efficient because most appliances today are already as efficient as they can be because of rules already in place by the EU

A supercomputer built on 14nm technology will be way more efficient and better both in electrical and compute power than an equivalent 22nm machine. Cost might change a bit

Don't believe the EU has anything to do with that.

[Pingguest]

So the big teams will invest massively in the efficiency of their factories and offices so they can produce more output (parts or calculations) with fewer kWh. Meanwhile small tams will have kit that is several years old that was built for speed, but they'll not be able to afford the 20% more efficient machines used by the big teams? SO that's an instant 20% penalty.

Also what about the different energy uses for old v new buildings, also many are in different climates?

Unfortunately any sort of budget cap would be a nightmare to police. That's why the FIA focus on the outputs at the track, ie how many PU or staff at the circuit. The only exception is wind tunnels and CFD but they are easy to measure because they're unique (they are so big that they are hard hide or subcontract).

Thats not totally true, because the smaller teams have less personal they already use less kWh in their factory. Mercedes has 800 working in Brackley and smaller teams have half of that or even less. Energy efficiency is is easier to level then money or other resources. Most factories in are F1 are already very efficient. Ofcourse the bigger teams will be able to afford more energy efficient tools and factories. But there is not a lot of ways to be efficient because most appliances today are already as efficient as they can be because of rules already in place by the EU . So the difference will definitely not be as huge as you might think.

Also it would boost the green credentials F1 wants to portrait. With a green image it would easier also to attract big companies.

And what about the involvement of third parties? A team could have their major parts being produced by a supplier, one that is outside the rules.
The best way to reduce energy consumption because of the production is to have the car homologated for the entire season and requiring major partis - e.g. the whole drivetrain - to last the entire season.

[Sniffit]

I'd say that the problems isn't the cost but rather the lack of revenue.
Measures to cut cost will and already have affected the formula in a negative way (vis-a-vis testing,CFD cap etc.).

If one intend to ensure the survivability/competetiveness of teams, large and small one has to ensure that the money is more evenly distributed, there is no reason to have the rather lopsided revenue allocation that we have today other then pure myopsis and shortsightedness.

It is easy to say that one has to adjust the suit to fit the body and the teams like Caterham and Marussia have themselves to blame for overspending, however when the revenue stream is so heavily guided to the bigger teams making sure that you are still in the black is viritually impossible without large cash injections from owners, even though you might have been established in the sport for years.

[FW17]

A common core car plan

Good idea for 3 - 4 teams to share a chassis to save costs

Common -
1) Fuel tank
2) Chassis
3) side impact pipes
4) roll bar

(not sure if pick up points can be moved by teams within a range or that has to be fixed)

Teams -
1) nose and front wing
2) splitter
3) side pod
4) front suspension
5) floor
6) engine cover and rear wing

Other constructor supply-
1) engine
2) gear box
3) rear suspension
4) front and rear brakes

Formula 1's smaller outfits are pushing to be allowed to share more car parts in the future in a bid to help lower costs.

Despite complaints last year from Force India, Sauber and Lotus that spiralling budgets threatened their survival, F1's chiefs have done very little to help the situation.

With no concessions given to increasing prize money, and major cost cutting ideas blocked by the top squads, the smaller teams have now got together to pursue an alternative path.

They want to create the idea of a 'core car' - where major components such as the monocoque are jointly developed and shared between them.

DIETER RENCKEN: 'Core car' could be the answer for F1

The pooling of resources would help lower their costs, while being allowed to individually develop items such as wings and other bodywork would ensure that each team had a different looking car.

The 'core car' plan has been discussed at recent strategy group and F1 commission meetings, but has not gathered enough support from the bigger teams to be given the green light.

AUTOSPORT understands that one of the reasons for the large teams' opposition was that F1 rules already allow a significant degree of car technology sharing - so it was felt unnecessary to expand it any further.

It is the basis of sharing common parts that is helping Haas make the move into F1, having agreed a technical partnership with Ferrari.

Despite the resistance of the big teams, it is understood that the small outfits are continuing to lobby the FIA and F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone to be given the chance to introduce the idea.

They insist that if the 'core car' gets the go ahead it would help cut costs dramatically, and ensure the survival of all the current teams.

[WaikeCU]

With Manor now only having Will Stevens as the only driver signed up for the season, it got me actually thinking. Wouldn't it be better to allow teams like Manor to prep a single car, single driver for the season? It would mean that they can concentrate on one driver and one car. Updates would be made for one car only. So they save cost by not having to prep a 2nd car for a 2nd driver. The team would save costs, because they only have one driver and one car to work on. Logistic wise it would save a lot as well. The team can concentrate on making that single car perform and I believe they can grow faster with this. Once financially healthy and the performance starts to kick in, they can hand in a request to put a 2nd car on the grid. It would also be better for new teams who have interest in joining the F1 grid.

[Lasse-E]

With Manor now only having Will Stevens as the only driver signed up for the season, it got me actually thinking. Wouldn't it be better to allow teams like Manor to prep a single car, single driver for the season? It would mean that they can concentrate on one driver and one car. Updates would be made for one car only. So they save cost by not having to prep a 2nd car for a 2nd driver. The team would save costs, because they only have one driver and one car to work on. Logistic wise it would save a lot as well. The team can concentrate on making that single car perform and I believe they can grow faster with this. Once financially healthy and the performance starts to kick in, they can hand in a request to put a 2nd car on the grid. It would also be better for new teams who have interest in joining the F1 grid.

I am no expert on F1 team budgets, but I imagine that the difference between running 1 or 2 cars, are negligible compared to the the development cost. Also Many of the smaller teams depend on their drivers to bring a significant part of the budget in cash or sponsorship, and with only one car, that will effectively half the income form drivers. On top of that potential sponsors will only get half the exposure, and thereby half sponsorship value/income.

[Moxie]

I agree that a budget cap would be impossible to police. I suggest that solutions that work on the principles of basic economic incentives will work best.

I have long argued for a more equitable distribution of prize money. I'll not repeat that argument here, I'm sure you are all tired of reading the same thing.

In another topic I suggested that F1 should get away from using exotic engines that sell for $50 million. By forcing the manufacturers to use "production" engine blocks and cylinder heads, the economics of engine supply and demand will be changed. Generally my idea goes like this:

Starting with a regulation that prescribes uniform pump fuel, the manufactures may have complete freedom to design an engine to use that fuel for maximum speed and efficiency. The catch is that the engine block, and the cylinder heads must be made available to the public in sufficient numbers to make cheating economically unviable.

The engine blocks and cylinder heads must be used in cars that meet the legal standards of safety and road worthiness in Europe. The heads may be sold as aftermarket parts, but must still be sold in sufficient numbers that cheating is not an option.

When I use the phraze "sufficient numbers" I suggest that this number is at least a few hundred units. My original suggestion was 5000 units. Honestly I'm not sure what the regulation number should be. I do not expect the cars to be so affordable that a university student could buy a new Fiat with the F1 engine package. But I do expect the car to be affordable enough that the whole production run cannot be purchased by a dealership coincidently owned by the nephew of Sergio Marchionne.

These requirements will enable a team to purchase the basic parts for an F1 engine on the open market. Certainly the teams will continue to spend a lot of money to get the most about of those blocks and heads. But the basic building blocks will be available at a price not controlled by the oligopoly.

Perhaps I am a little too pleased with my own idea here, but my favorite part about this idea is that it actually opens up the engineering possibilities for the engines. One manufacturer may choose to use a design similar to the Ford Ecoboost system with a turbocharged direct inject, whereas another manufacturer may choose a hybrid system. A third manufacturer may introduce a design yet to be seen. The limiting factor of design will no longer be a complex set of measurements and limitations. Instead the limiting factors will be the road regulations of Europe, and the economic inviability of selling cars with engines that will only last ten hours.

[Pingguest]

These requirements will enable a team to purchase the basic parts for an F1 engine on the open market. Certainly the teams will continue to spend a lot of money to get the most about of those blocks and heads. But the basic building blocks will be available at a price not controlled by the oligopoly.

Teams can only use engine supplied by manufacturers that participate in Formula One. Hence, the so-called oligopoly remains intact.