Maybe if instead of the money going into a pool, it went entirely to their closest competitor. Now that might stop spending in it's tracks.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
I guess I would disagree with that statement. Assuming that the cap and cost for going above the cap is set in an effective manner, the rich teams would definitely have to think twice about if extra testing is really beneficial for the cost of doing that testing. And if they deemed the testing worth it, the teams that couldn't afford to do extra testing would still get a benefit, albeit monetary rather than data gathering.Pup wrote:You could argue too that it makes the sport even less equitable, since it would allow the only rich teams to buy their way around the testing limits.
Indeed that might be the best way to stop spendingPup wrote:Maybe if instead of the money going into a pool, it went entirely to their closest competitor. Now that might stop spending in it's tracks.
How so? Smaller teams won't be affected by it because they'd be nowhere near budget cap, they won't spend a penny hiding income they don't possess. As for abilities to hide everything - owners of FOM are not that bad at it themselves, should make it easier to police it. Wait, bad example - sale of F1 for nothing...turbof1 wrote:Accountancy has since then also massively developed. At present, we speak of Financial Technology; entreprises, especially big ones, construct their operations in such a way they often have to pay a tiny fraction of taxes they normally need to pay. And they ever get better and better at it. Every single university on this planet runs a wide accountancy education program dedicated to this.
Most companies behind F1 are very much capable of using these constructs to hide away budgets. The smallest teams will probably not have access to this. So they will be infact more disadvantaged in the long run.
Bringing in a budget cap will just result into another arms race, but this time off the track, hidden from everybody.
The only way, and really the only way, to level out the teams financially is to kill off the sport. And the only other option to level out the teams competitively is to allow innovation, which has been killed off long a long time ago.
JRalph wrote:As I am new to F1, only started watching this past year, please forgive me for my naivety on the inner workings of F1 teams, but assuming that a budget cap is needed to control costs and make it more competitive for smaller teams, a more objective measure of "cost" is needed than a team's budget which can easily be fudged.
My suggestion would be to create a soft cap on the number of hours that a team can test on the track, run in the wind tunnel or spend on their simulators. Teams would then be allowed to test on track, in the tunnel or virtually to their heart's content but for every hour above the cap that they test they would have to pay a set price into a pool. At the end of the year that pool of money would then be divided amongst the lower spending teams based on some criteria to be determined by people smarter than I.
So for example lets say there is a cap of 400 hours and any hour above that cost $50,000/hr. Then if a team like Red Bull had spent 600 hours testing during the year, they would have to pay $10,000,000 into this pool. At the end of the year that pool would then be divvied up based on the number of hours each team spent testing, with the team testing the least getting the most of that money.
Obviously those exact numbers would have to be fine tuned to make sure that it was actually helping to control costs as well as make it beneficial for the lower tiered teams, but at the same time if a team wanted to make that expenditure it can do so.
The FIA got fuel-restricted race engines through the implementation of a standardized fuel-flow meter. Again, the standardization of components is the only way impose hard limits on anything. Everything else is subject to interpretation, and the teams are extraordinarily adept at interpreting the rules in their favor.WhiteBlue wrote:[...]
I'm not worried. The FiA have committed themselves to a budget cap and they will eventually sort out the problem. It took them five years to get fuel restricted race engines and now we are going to have them. Things are not perfect in the beginning, but if you start on the right way towards the objective you will eventually arrive. It only takes persistence.
[...]
...do we construct an altogether new paradigm and somehow convince teams to relinquish all power and control, even over their own names, logos, trademarks, etc., to instead become franchises of a larger entity through which everything must pass? This is, after all, the model for three (NFL, MLB, and NBA) of the five most-profitable sports leagues in the world (F1 and EPL being the other two). It's not necessarily a bad idea, either, as those three leagues are considered non-profit organizations since all revenues from league-wide deals are disbursed equitably among their constituent franchises.hollus wrote:That sounds awfully similar to the luxury tax implemented in the NBA, and guess what? It works rather well there.
It brings it back to the question: where can you put your money in F1? People, facilities, wind tunnel programs or alternatively simulations plus some fancy R&D. materials etc. like infamous flapping wingsHow much narrower the field would lie together at a budget cap of 100 million euros?
PS: You would have to say: 100 million euros and new rules. That would shrink the advantage of the rich teams because they could then save less of their experience advantage with over. Then all would be much closer together. The consequence of such a reform would be enormous: the priorities would shift. To prohibit or restrict individual things brings nothing. As we have limited test drives, the money was invested in simulators or test benches. Now just tested at the factory. With a budget ceiling will not do. If the budget covered by sponsors and the income of the FOM-income, no one would have more budget worries. There would be no pay-Driver more. As would level off from the driver's side a bit.
One of the key numbers is the money for development. What kind of development?
Symonds: Clearly wind tunnel tests. Since the major advances come from. One percent more aerodynamic efficiency is one-tenth on the clock. Then the freedom to do many things simultaneously. We have many more ideas than what we can implement. Then the analysis. We can analyze only a limited amount of data. In the great team work for the next race starts on Sunday after the last Grand Prix. There, every detail is chewed. In practice, so many new ideas that we can investigate only a part of the big teams but 100 percent arise.
What progress will have to bring a new development, so you will blessed by you?
PS: We meet once a week to discuss new ideas. It is then determined whether we follow them or not. The process is not easy. It play because many factors play a role. At the start of the season our car was slightly over the weight limit, because we have installed for the first time KERS. It was clear that at first everything saves weight, had priority. Each kilogram less are 0.04 seconds in lap time. This is physics. We have achieved this within three races. At Silverstone, some new components came to the car, not only the 2013er 2014er but also the car help. This is also a criterion. For us it would be uneconomical to produce parts that only yield half a year benefit. It is more difficult with modifications to the fairing and the exhaust. Since the simulation tools are not perfect yet. I can say though, that my three points output bring a tenth, but do not know if these three points per arrive under all practicable conditions of the circuit. Many of the answers we will get only during test drives. Some of the changes might bring us only on certain routes an advantage. We have to consider then, if that makes any sense.
Red Bull and Ferrari do not have to take care of it.
PS: Right, but also they have a problem. Since so many programs running at once, that there is great danger of getting too involved. Sometimes the car is slower than faster.
What else - I have no clue.