Cost cutting

Monstrobolaxa · Post 03 Mar 2004, 14:13

Well...I agree with most of you.....but like once Frank Williams said "if a sponsor gives you money....we'll spend it all" (something like this)....F1 teams aren't like a normal company they don't really have a profit cause they try to use up the maximum money possible to develop their cars.....so you can try to cut down on something but they'll just keep on using the money in other departments......if you cut on engines....they'll use it in the aerodynamics department....if you reduce the number of team elements.....they'll start giving bonuses for those who work harder.

About the brakes.....reducing the diametre....would be an intersting idea...but I'd say reducing the number of pistons in the caliper and making teams use a maximum brake system pressure.....with a pop-off valve if they exceeded the limit.....this would really increase the braking distance......then we would se who has "the balls"

but....slicks.....reduction of the tire width....and start cutting on aerodynamics.......

uzael · Post 03 Mar 2004, 18:06

The only way to prevent such massive investment in development is to make it unfeasible to spend more money to improve. If 1million more will get you 1 horsepower manufacturers will go for it. If 100million gets you 1HP then manufacturers and teams will rethink options before spending that money. Same goes for Chassis development.

Reca · Post 04 Mar 2004, 09:33

Scuderia_Russ wrote: As for brakes,maybe the grid could revert to steel disks as longer breaking distances means more overtaking,but then there's the argument of F1 being the pinnacle and steel disks might be seen as a step backwards in this sense

Contrarily to the common believe the adoption of steel discs wouldn’t increase the braking distance. Technology of steel discs isn’t static, the most recent materials adopted for pads and new alloy/treatments on discs allows a braking power even higher than carbon/carbon and a comparable resistance to fatigue (anyway in most of cases the tyre grip is the limit to the braking, not the power of the braking system). The only real advantage of carbon/carbon, so the real reason to adopt it, is the mass, a carbon disc is a bit less than 2 kg, a steel disc should be about 4.5-5 kg.

Monstrobolaxa wrote: this would really increase the braking distance......then we would se who has "the balls"

I believe that to brake 150 meters before a 70 km/h corner while running at 360 km/h requires less “balls” than to wait until the 100m signal. The fact that you know you’ll stop in a certain space doesn’t mean that it’s easy to reach that distance from the corner before to brake. And to wait until the 100m signal requires quite a lot of trust in the car, lot more than to brake at 150m especially if you consider that for the first instants the carbon disc doesn’t brake... the same lag in a 3 seconds braking is a lot more important than in 5 seconds.

Monstrobolaxa · Post 04 Mar 2004, 10:12

What I meant Reca is that if you reduce the brakes capability to stop the car...the drivers that have the most balls will try to keep their braking to the limit....as close as possible to the corner as possible.....say while the smaller "balls" will brake at 150m the bigger ones will try to brake at the 100m mark.

inspectah · Post 04 Mar 2004, 10:37

why is everybody only thinking about technical restrictions when talking about cost cutting? wouldn't it be a great idea to set a maximum budget for the teams and then they themselves could think on which department they want to save on, brakes, engines, whatever they find best. this would give an entirely new aspect and interest to the design and optimization of the car.

Guest · Post 04 Mar 2004, 12:12

Mate, how are you going to police that?

Becker4 · Post 04 Mar 2004, 12:44

uzael, i agree with you, i have been thinking this too . . . i think that the goal of the "cost war" should not be to slow the spending of money in the top teams, because like monstro said of frank williams, they will spend all they have. the goal should be to allow teams with smaller budgets to be competitive with less: they regulations should be such that once you are over say 150 million, preformance gains are very hard to come by by straight spending. this would allow teams who have smaller budgets to be more competitive and have a better showing, no matter what a team with a half billion dollar budget has. basically, a way to get more bang for your buck . . . up to a point.

marcush. · Post 09 Mar 2004, 11:12

what about that:
If one wants to test ,every lap every day has to be documented to the FIA.
One Test ,one lap has a certain value depending on the budget of the team
.So every lap you drive ,every test you do produces extra costs.
But now comes the new twist:This money is collected for a fighting fund .
Minardi And Jordan will directly receive all that collected money ,maybe
Sauber to a lesser extend.
Looking at Mclarens and Williams testing orgy ...Minardi and Jordan would soon have a real test budget with a fully funded test team...
This way no team would have a chance to kill the sport with their money ,as every lap they turn would strengthen the lesser mortals at least as much if not more ,as Minardi has more to gain ....
Soon the likes of Ron Dennis would think twice if they needed a Minardi in the second row...
The same idea would apply to aero research .So you have a wind tunnel running in 3 shifts ?Nice to hear !every hour ,will feed the fighting fund of aero research ...soon Jordan and minardi will sport the fanciest aerotweaks....as they would profit from all works outfits and had from one day to the other the biggest budget of all... what a scenario....
Jordan and Minardi soon fighting for wins...

Becker4 · Post 09 Mar 2004, 21:02

would be excellent, but don't teams have to agree unanimously to reg. changes? i can't see frank williams signing off on this plan that would give away so much of his money, especailly to his competitors . . . . though it would be noble of him to do so.

bowlingforcindy · Post 09 Mar 2004, 21:17

that sucks, the teams would kill them selves when they see their money go to minardi and other small teams, anyway, the money they spend in testing is for fuel and --- like that aint it?? what money would go into a fighting fund, that rule sucks. i say no rules, no restrictions except for some, cause f1 nowadays is about technolagy

rodders · Post 11 Mar 2004, 08:28

ok well just a thought here..

why not have 1 manufacturer supply ALL the Chassis and another supply all the engines, and another supply all the tyres !!! WOULD have to save costs, AND reduce the SPECTICAL but huge amounts !!

Nah let F1 be F1 as it is the Biggest Budget team will win and so on down the track, as I see it F1 is a bit like watching cricket..... BORING

Guest · Post 11 Mar 2004, 16:18

you guys are all butchering formula one with your idea. Formula One should just be Same size engine, engine configuration and none of that electronicaly controlled adjustable wings and all those toys they had in the early 90s. what you guys are suggesting is completely taking formula one from being the best technical thing to watch to NASCAR

uzael · Post 11 Mar 2004, 17:00

I think that there is a total difference between what most people on this board suggest needs to be done in F1, versus turning the sport into NASCAR. Fact is that I love watching F1, eversince 93 I've been a big fan, with it's up and downs it's still an awesome sport. But fact is that it can not continue indefinetly at this pace of spending increase. I read somewhere that the top teams are spending between 10-20% more every year just to maintain relative positions in the championship. Since 94 when MS/Bennetton won the championship with an approx budget of 50M-USD, the cost of competition has increased to 300Millions. That's a 600% increase in just ten years. At that rate the cost of running a team will spiral to over 1billion-USD in another decade. Fact is that the sport would be just as exciting and innovating at 1/10th the cost if the teams could put asied petty difference and come up with a much more competitive rules set. CART managed to put on a great show from 93-99 with theam budgets being around 5million per car, for a 20 race season. It's a proven fact that it can be done.

SKRAT · Post 11 Mar 2004, 21:13

Sure, as engineers, we all love when money is spent on R&D in full scale, rolling road windtunnels, linux-cluster compute CFD farms, etc. But it certainly is not competitive for private teams. That really seems to be a big part of the problem to me.

We've got manufacturers, with billions-on-billions, of annual revenue duking it out for podiums in the most technology-driven, head-to-head battlefield available - F1. The money is not about the drivers or the teams, but whether BMW, Mercedes, Renault, Toyota, and Ford can link racing performance to increase thier market share over rivals (They really don't compete with Ferrari, and I read you can even buy your own -slightly used- F1 racer too from them). Big competitive companies always mean big money. If we want to reduce costs, then we really can't have manufacturers subsidize 'their' teams as is the trend now.

I really don't want spec chassis, bodywork, engine. I like how pervasive technology filters through - to the point that FSAE projects now include CFD that a decade ago cost Ferrari 100-times the price/manpower to do. It's a tough question, but if the manufacturers are going to compete against each other, then it's going to be big money because they'll spend it trying to get an edge, not matter what the rules.

Cheers,
Paul C

rodders · Post 12 Mar 2004, 09:27

precisely Skrat... F1 has always been about development over and above the normal Road car as I see it..

Is anyone here old enough to remember seeing the REAR engined cars oppose the "What was then , conventional Front engined cars at Indy " ???

THAT was innovation, and that innovation changed how race cars are built today.. Maybe someone will come up with a Front engine car and drive train and blow the socks off everyone else !! I doubt it but hey that is R & D at its best... is called innovation or more simply put, The need to invent something is " The Mother of Creation " !!!