FIA to police costs in 2013?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Smaller teams seem to have gone under the radar and lobbied Todt to do something about Red Bulls spending.

http://www.f1today.net/en/news/small-te ... -spending?

And the original German publication.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 83071.html

Both Sauber and Williams are most vociferous in this, but 10 of 12 teams are happy for the FIA to monitor spending within a sporting code. The 2 teams against it are Red Bull and their sister team Torro Rosso.
Limits on actual spend and Wind tunnel time are both being mooted, with a budget in the region of 150 million euros.
This figure is rumoured to be what Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes are running at give or take.

It also does not include budgets for Engine or KERS production and development.

With Red Bull running at circa 250 million a year(Auto Motor Und Sport), there seems to be the possibility that they will have to make massive changes in the next 6 months to comply if this is to be forced through.

[bhall]

Williams shareholder Toto Wolff has now joined Sauber in pushing Red Bull to move. "At the moment they spend an estimated EUR 250 million (per season)," he said, "so the cost ceiling would save Mr Mateschitz a hundred million euros. It would be doing him a favour," said Mateschitz's fellow Austrian, "because his model of unlimited spending no longer has the same advantage due to the current rules. The results of the first six races should have convinced him," added Wolff.

By now, history should have convinced Mr. Wolff that teams are going to spend whatever they're going to spend whether anyone else likes it or not.

Cost-cutting measures only work if a team has a genuine desire to cut costs for the sake of cutting costs; it can't be used a way to curb performance gains. Otherwise, teams unwillingly subjected to a budget cap will ruthlessly search for ways around it.

They're very good at that, too. We're talking about people whose bread and butter is searching for and exploiting gray areas.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

That's all fine and dandy, but the problem still needs to be addressed.

Red Bull have shown to have no appetite for the RRA, And wanted engines included in any deal.
How can Red Bull realistically ask such a question?

Example. Mercedes spend about 100-130 million a year on their team, and a further 80-100 million building, developing and supplying 3 teams with engines.
Red Bull spend 250 million a year, and get their engines gratis from Renault.

On paper they spend the same, but in reality Red Bull spend almost twice as much.
If Todt used an iron rod, implementing this and policing it would eliminate grey areas IMO. So long as there is agreement reached with Force majeure.

[djos]

Red Bull have shown to have no appetite for the RRA, And wanted engines included in any deal.
How can Red Bull realistically ask such a question?

I think it's fairly obvious why they want this ... because they know the Car companies in F1 wont like it and while everyone bickers they can spend what they want - quite clever really. =D>

[bhall]

I don't know if clever is the word I'd use.

If Red Bull insists that engines be covered within any cost-cutting measures, they, along with other customer teams, should be required to pay for their engines at a standard rate or build their own. Without such a provision, engine supplying teams would be handicapped.

Of course, that brings up other questions. Could Renault then sponsor Red Bull at the same rate as the cost of a year's worth of engines and support? How would this work with Cosworth and PURE? And what's the difference between Red Bull and Red Bull Technologies if the latter can effectively sublet engines to itself?

[ESPImperium]

To my understanding the new RRA would require teams to develop a chassis over a 2 year period, whitch is much closer to what Red Bull are against.

It basically means that the tech rules have to be stable for a period of 5 years minimum, with only housekeeping done when a grey area is found in the regs. In other-words the cars this year would have to be developed into next, unless one car was a evolution of last years rules set.

However this will be offset by the arrival of "Customer" cars and the re allowance of B-Specs for the second year.

The definition of "Customer Cars" would be where teams could buy a previous chassis IP and get a outside chassis manufacturer to build it. Teams eligible to use this method would be teams that were P11 & P12 in the constructors title the previous 2 years or a prospective 13th team. Teams could only use this method once per rules set.

B Specs would allow teams to manufacture better chassis a year on from their current spec, but must be at least 60% the same as the year previous.

Also teams would be limited to producing either 7 or 9 chassis per 2 year period.

As for budgets, there is a rumored maximum and minium for the teams being concidered.

2013 = 250 Max - 65 Min
2014 = 210 Max - 80 Min
2015 = 180 Max - 90 Min
2016 = 150 Max - 95 Min
(All figures in dollars)

Driver tallent would be excluded from budgets, and teams at the sharp end are also wanting the senior team management to be excluded as well, whitch would see the top 12 erners in the team that arnt drivers excluded as well. Whitch would see the budgets for drivers and managements mirror the resource budget of the team.

I can see Red Bull kick off on this one.

It will be ugly, i promise you that.

[Jersey Tom]

I really do think that some more parity in spending is a good thing. I always have said I've wanted to open up the rule book to go along with that. Still lean toward it. Though there's some benefit to keeping the box a bit hemmed in as far as having good competition.

[bhall]

How does a two-year chassis cut costs if teams are allowed a B-spec that's 60% different for the second year? Is it just assumed that the B-spec would be 40% cheaper?

I don't see how that works. Teams already have to design around an engine and tires. Now teams are going to have to design around an engine, tires and 40% of the previous car.

But, which 40%?

F1 rarely makes sense these days.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I think it's fairly obvious why they want this ... because they know the Car companies in F1 wont like it and while everyone bickers they can spend what they want - quite clever really. =D>

So Red Bull can continue to spend what they like and Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault must remain in a frozen formula with Engines?

This freezes Red Bulls advantage of having the ability to outspend rivals. It is not healthy for competition, which is what the F1 championship really is all about.
As AMuS intimated, you may as well hand the WDC and WCC to RB every season and let the rest carry on in a sub formula.

I can hear the cries of "it happens all the time", but the world has changed so much in the last 20 years that generally speaking it's budgets that dictate who wins what. Some will use Toyota as an example of why it doesnt, and I will counter that by calling it mismanagement. Honda? Read mismanagement once again.
If you have a near endless budget, and a decent structure with the right staff you will win. Ferrari have proven that as have McLaren and now Red Bull.

Doesn't mean that because there is historical evidence and precedent, that one cannot change. It is in fact because of these factors that things must indeed change.

Red Bull are the only ones who don't like it. The sport is bigger than Red Bull, and it really is time that Formula 1 cease to be about big budgets and more about technical ingenuity. Just my opinion there.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

. ...I always have said I've wanted to open up the rule book to go along with that. Still lean toward it. Though there's some benefit to keeping the box a bit hemmed in as far as having good competition.

Precisely JT.

I'm not talking 60 million budgets, but 250million?
Lower the maximum budget, and free up the regs to allow for more innovations. Particularly energy recovery and fuel consumption technologies. This has far more relevance to the man in the street whilst not detracting anything from the show.
Again, F1 is not about relevance. But if you made it relevant it attracts more participants.

Clipping Humongous budgets will have no negative impact on the sport of F1, in so far as 250 miilion is 100 million more than what others are thought to be running.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I don't know if clever is the word I'd use.

If Red Bull insists that engines be covered within any cost-cutting measures, they, along with other customer teams, should be required to pay for their engines at a standard rate or build their own. Without such a provision, engine supplying teams would be handicapped.

Of course, that brings up other questions. Could Renault then sponsor Red Bull at the same rate as the cost of a year's worth of engines and support? How would this work with Cosworth and PURE? And what's the difference between Red Bull and Red Bull Technologies if the latter can effectively sublet engines to itself?

Exactly why the manufacturers are peeved. Red Bull dont pay for their engines. They just whack em into their £250 million budget machines.
Yet over 100 millions worth of investment went into this engine.
Should we say Red Bull thus have a 350 million budget?