Ideas to cut costs in F1

[WhiteBlue]

Just a few geeks will understand differences in aero. The majority of people are only interested in the drivers and the racing.

[Metar]

But then again, zero geeks will be able to follow the changes in KERS systems.

The more F1 restricts itself, the further it removes itself from the technical-minded fans: While we can't even think of seeing true innovations such as ground-effects, turbochargers and active suspensions (as those were already tried and banned), it basically moves from no longer hearing (and sometimes seeing) brand-new V12s, V10s and V8s to seeing spec V8s, from radical aerodynamic attempts (see Tyrrell 019, F2003GA or the 2005-gen cars) to almost-spec aero, and down to invisible, silent modifications that we'll never see or know about.

[modbaraban]

Just a few geeks will understand differences in aero. The majority of people are only interested in the drivers and the racing.

I had a vote on my site's sidebar. I've recently stopped the vote after several months it was on.

It was like this:

Do you support the standartization trend in Formula1 in favor of better racing spectacle?

Yes. I'd like to see more overtaking. (41%)
Not sure. (11%)
No way! F1 is a constructors championship mainly. It should stay that way. (48%)

That's not a technical site at all. Most of the visitors wouldn't really tell the difference between F2008 and F2005. As you can see the majority prefered the 'technical' F1, even to better racing. And I didn't even mention the cost cutting issue that doesn't usually turn the pertolheads on.

[donskar]

. . . They [BMW]have fewer resources than McLaren/Merc and Ferrari . . .

They have chosen to commit fewer resources. They certainly are not a poor sister of F1.

[flynfrog]

So, you mean Force India could simply ask Sutil to slowly inch around the track for a season on the same engine in the same chassis while paying him five cents per race, and earn an amazing 215 points for driving the slowest car ever, and 60 points for the driver's championship? Something smells fishy here.

Alonso holds the record of a whole season, including a championship, in a single R26 chassis - but that deserves respect, not points. Money-bonuses, perhaps (though the real bonus already comes with not having to produce a new backup chassis). But points for that stuff? Almost as bad as the medal system, if not worse - it'll reward sucking, as far as racing is concerned, more than being, say, a competitive midfield team.

I don't expect my criteria to be the final ones, and those obvious loopholes would be filled. But instead of having a medal system replace the drivers points system, I would rather see bonus points for consistant results or specific cost saving mechanisms used by the constructors.

I say that you can either regulate it, and the teams will spend 100 million circumventing the regulations, or you reward it, and the 100 million doesn't get spent. You can slam it all you like, but it is the best system that I have seen posted yet.

How is this racing? its more like a game of chess


my idea to cut costs STOP TRYING TO CUT COSTS.

every cost cutting measure put in place has failed

let the teams sort there own budget some will do better than others this is life.

[Conceptual]

So, you mean Force India could simply ask Sutil to slowly inch around the track for a season on the same engine in the same chassis while paying him five cents per race, and earn an amazing 215 points for driving the slowest car ever, and 60 points for the driver's championship? Something smells fishy here.

Alonso holds the record of a whole season, including a championship, in a single R26 chassis - but that deserves respect, not points. Money-bonuses, perhaps (though the real bonus already comes with not having to produce a new backup chassis). But points for that stuff? Almost as bad as the medal system, if not worse - it'll reward sucking, as far as racing is concerned, more than being, say, a competitive midfield team.

I don't expect my criteria to be the final ones, and those obvious loopholes would be filled. But instead of having a medal system replace the drivers points system, I would rather see bonus points for consistant results or specific cost saving mechanisms used by the constructors.

I say that you can either regulate it, and the teams will spend 100 million circumventing the regulations, or you reward it, and the 100 million doesn't get spent. You can slam it all you like, but it is the best system that I have seen posted yet.

How is this racing? its more like a game of chess


my idea to cut costs STOP TRYING TO CUT COSTS.

every cost cutting measure put in place has failed

let the teams sort there own budget some will do better than others this is life.

How can you say that giving the driver with the most victories at the end of the year more points is NOT racing? Wouldn't that make the drivers try even harder to overtake first place instead of settling for second??? This is 100 times better than the medal system. At least Williams or FIF1 could win the constructors championship with these criteria, instead of rewarding gross spending, like the current "racing" that you so want to see...

If these bonuses were awarded, or even announced, you would immediately see the teams refocus with the intent of aiming for performance that would be rewarded with these end of year bonuses, and then the need to cut costs go away.

And I still haven't gotten a reply as to the idea of a Drivers salary cap.

[WhiteBlue]

But then again, zero geeks will be able to follow the changes in KERS systems.

The more F1 restricts itself, the further it removes itself from the technical-minded fans: While we can't even think of seeing true innovations such as ground-effects, turbochargers and active suspensions ....

I'm not advocating to stop innovation and the talk about it. I just say that F1 cannot afford to spend unlimited in all areas of technology. Therefore a carefull selection should be made and such areas selected that benefit the core business of manufacturers and the public. Efficiency of ICEs, KERS and HERS are very high up on that agenda. I am sure people will want to know everything about a race winning KERS system as they wanted to know about a race winning 111° V angle over a 90° angle.

Nobody seems to mind much that gearboxes are standardized and most likely brakes wheels, suspensions and the whole four corners of the cars. It is a reality that even Merc have said that cost must be cut by 50%. Mc Laren estimate that their revenues will drop 30%. Imagine how that will hit some lesser teams that go looking for sponsors. Williams for example just lost Lenovo to McLaren. They will feel the pintch much harder.

[flynfrog]

I don't expect my criteria to be the final ones, and those obvious loopholes would be filled. But instead of having a medal system replace the drivers points system, I would rather see bonus points for consistant results or specific cost saving mechanisms used by the constructors.

I say that you can either regulate it, and the teams will spend 100 million circumventing the regulations, or you reward it, and the 100 million doesn't get spent. You can slam it all you like, but it is the best system that I have seen posted yet.

How is this racing? its more like a game of chess


my idea to cut costs STOP TRYING TO CUT COSTS.

every cost cutting measure put in place has failed

let the teams sort there own budget some will do better than others this is life.

How can you say that giving the driver with the most victories at the end of the year more points is NOT racing? Wouldn't that make the drivers try even harder to overtake first place instead of settling for second??? This is 100 times better than the medal system. At least Williams or FIF1 could win the constructors championship with these criteria, instead of rewarding gross spending, like the current "racing" that you so want to see...

If these bonuses were awarded, or even announced, you would immediately see the teams refocus with the intent of aiming for performance that would be rewarded with these end of year bonuses, and then the need to cut costs go away.

And I still haven't gotten a reply as to the idea of a Drivers salary cap.

why would williams deserve to win the constructors they have an average car with an engine they didnt built in and a couple of average drivers. They dont win races and they back mark the field show me one race series where money doesn't win this is the way racing works. Granted it has to be spent correctly not like the Japanese teams. The drivers will work them selfs into a salary cap look at Ralf

Racing to me is not some supper complex system to reward back markers racing is the fastest driver in the best car winning that day

[xpensive]

Just a reflection, sometimes it is a little difficult to respond to certain postings due to the, let's say, innovative way of using the English language.

However, I agree with WB, that a Darwinistic approach to motor racing is probably not the way to go, unless you are happy watching racing between 3 or four teams.

At the other end there's the IRL, basically a one-make series, with a technical interest-level next to zip. Or NASCAR, where you can change the rules between races if someone is too fast for the pack.

In the above context, finding a golden compromise for F1 will be a challenge, but I still believe that some sort of engine-drive-train standardization is the way to go.

[CMSMJ1]

I'm with Flynfrog here. =D>

F1 is supposed ot be the pinnacle. It cnanot be dumbed down and expect to stay the same.

the teams will spend what they want to. Part of the reason for Honda pulling out is that F1 has become a marjketing excercise rather than an engineering one. If Honda were able to develop technology then they could conceivably stay in f1 to do that. When it is dumbed down too much that all you can do is go for gimmicky advertising then you know the end is nigh.

Stop tigheting up the rules and focus on one thing. Not Eco, no bio, not sodding cap this and ban that.

Have a car - 4 wheels, 1 driver, have to go 300 miles and not kill anyone on the way. You can have a weight limit and basic size limits.

If you want to win it..and some people always do...then you spend the cash you have to do so. If you don't want to spend the money go and race in IRL or touring cars...or even in A1GP.

Let those series be for the poor people...who can aspire to F1!

[xpensive]

And I would like to see the old Group 7 CanAm series back in a modern guise with 2000 Hp engines, full-blown ground effects and the whole shabang...

[WhiteBlue]

It is not going to be the way the Darwinists like CMSMJ1 would like it to go. Simply because some sensible people know that it would be a suizide recipe for F1.

I recommend You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet by Mike Lawrence on Pittpass for reading. If you like 2005 Indianapolis style races between 8 cars by Ferrari, McLaren, BMW and Red Bull they may keep going that way. But I doubt that the fans will watch it.

Honda have been embarassed by three customer teams this year. It is hard to top that. But there are other teams in real trouble if sponsors and FOM money dry up at the same time while the economy continues in the doldrums.

Toro Rosso could have just the same fate as Super Aguri. Goshn at Renault is well known for a hard line on cost cutting, Williams are loosing sponsors and may have another flop in 2009 which they cannot survive and Force India's cash cow may need the money to save the core business of the Kingfisher airline. Toyota could discover that they are still the last manufacturer team in F1 despite the billions spent to move ahead and may decide that face is more important than throwing more good cash after bad money. All of this could happen within 12 months time if nothing changes in F1.

The men at the power tables know this and so there is unanimous consent that F1 is not going to take the Darwinist approach. Men like Mosley, Ecclestone, Montezemolo, Dennis, Haug, Theissen and Mateschitz all want to continue and have realised that serious cost cutting between 30 and 60% of the current budgets is unavoidable. And they will agree the necessary steps to bring it off. Of that I am certain.

There is no alternative in sight to drastic cost cuts on the engine side by regulating output and doing more races. Gearbox standardization is as good as agreed and a bunch of other chassis components will follow. Further reduction of in season testing - possibly to zero - is unavoidable and there will almost certainly be a cap on team personal attending races and pit stops. The real bone of contention will be aero. The tunnel work is hugely expensive but teams have various stages of investment completed and it will be very difficult to find agreement to a restrictive formula on capping aero costs. In the end they may let Mosley play the bad guy again by imposing the restrictions they cannot agree.

[machin]

I think that all of these teams have the ability to co-develop a monocoque that has no outside surface, thus allowing the bodywork to be "bolted on" but designed by the seperate teams.

I hope this doesn't happen... that's how race cars used to be constructed (and still are in the lower formulae) but its terribly inefficient to have a chassis for the strength and a separate body for the aero.... The technology should definitely not be dumbed down.... just limited... it'd be like forcing them all to use carburrettors....

(just my opinion of course!)

[axle]

Surely a standard monocoque even if that part is the external bodywork wouldn't really affect the racing.

An FIA spec monocoque can't hurt IMO...they can then spec it to fit all shapes and sizes of driver and everyone is free to work around them.

As long as it's designed with FOTA input and they can get around the mounting point issues of the different engines then it should be ok.

[machin]

However, I believe that the major point to cut expenses would be to limit on going development. Like team can only alter aero-package four times a year and suspension, cooling ec twice.

This does sound good... That way the teams have to design either for a compromise for all tracks or specifically for high speed or low speed tracks... would make it interesting...

...however the flip side is that teams would be bitching that they have to wait til the next allowed upgrade date to improve their car if its deficiant...