Revealed: Formula 1's new cost-cutting plan

[timbo]

GitanesBlondes which era did you choose for reference? Because there were periods when more than half of the grid was running DFVs and there were cars which successfully competed without major changes for a few seasons, and there was GoodYear tyre monopoly for a few years in a row (drivers did complain about them too).

Apart from ban on tyre blankets and fuel system simplification I think the list is sensible.
Would it help to cut costs? Don't think so, however it would make a point of diminishing returns a bit lower, giving more hope for a small teams to compete -- which will in fact improve their chances of getting bigger sponsor contracts and so on.
Look at Sauber which is suffering from being overweight compared to Ferrari. With standard crash structure you remove a variable where Ferrari can pour money into and safe few grams compared to Sauber.
A simpler front wing will not generate such complicated flow pattern and the deficiency of FW performance between Marussia and RedBull will be smaller.
Will it make F1 spec series? With the list as it is, no (IMO of course).
Were there many people complaining about single SECU? Not really. About same refuelling equipment? Not really. That the whole grid purchases brake disks and pads from just a few manufacturers? Not really.
Does anybody complain about standard side crash structure this year?
Of course there is a fine line to take, but IMO it's pretty good.

[FrukostScones]

2015
Tyre blanket ban rubbish "costsaving" and dangerous (and only to make a "show")
Fuel system simplification no
Brake duct simplification no
Front wing simplification hell no
Gearbox usage flow brought in line with engine life ok
Increase in curfew no
Ban on front and rear interconnected suspension yes

2016
Standard front impact structure never
Standard rear impact structure maybe, but stillsh*t
Standard final drive system no
Standard steering rack no

2017
FIA standard active suspension no, don't think it will help cost saving or racing, and spec active suspension makes no sense at all...
Move to 18-inch wheel rims hahahaha, that will look hideous, you heard it here first

[beelsebob]

The worst thing about "spec active suspension" is that it just shifts the problem. It changes it from being "design complex hardware to balance the car" to "design complex software to balance the car". Worse, letting the teams actually design their own active suspension would have direct applications in road cars, this should be where they're going.

[GitanesBlondes]

GitanesBlondes which era did you choose for reference? Because there were periods when more than half of the grid was running DFVs and there were cars which successfully competed without major changes for a few seasons, and there was GoodYear tyre monopoly for a few years in a row (drivers did complain about them too).

Apart from ban on tyre blankets and fuel system simplification I think the list is sensible.
Would it help to cut costs? Don't think so, however it would make a point of diminishing returns a bit lower, giving more hope for a small teams to compete -- which will in fact improve their chances of getting bigger sponsor contracts and so on.
Look at Sauber which is suffering from being overweight compared to Ferrari. With standard crash structure you remove a variable where Ferrari can pour money into and safe few grams compared to Sauber.
A simpler front wing will not generate such complicated flow pattern and the deficiency of FW performance between Marussia and RedBull will be smaller.
Will it make F1 spec series? With the list as it is, no (IMO of course).
Were there many people complaining about single SECU? Not really. About same refuelling equipment? Not really. That the whole grid purchases brake disks and pads from just a few manufacturers? Not really.
Does anybody complain about standard side crash structure this year?
Of course there is a fine line to take, but IMO it's pretty good.

Still going on about that 70s Cosworth era not being quite as interesting eh timbo?

Keep spinning that myth that there weren't major changes going on...

Teams crying about tires even in the Goodyear days is nothing new. Do you know why they were crying about the tires? Because they wanted them developed to their liking...this was going on for years and years because they all had their own idea of what the tire compounds should have been...but at the end of the day, people were still driving on the limit during races regardless of how the Goodyear compounds suited their cars. At the end of the day, Goodyear managed to handle every era in which they supplied Formula 1 admirably with all of the changes that were seen - from the ply bias to the radials to the one year of grooved treads they supplied during...at the end of the day, they decimated every opposing tire manufacturer they ever faced including Pirelli.

Of course the Goodyear race division went downhill after Leo Mehl retired as their products in other race series became subpar. But hey, when he was there, what a ride it was....

[flyboy2160]

These proposed measures, along with the already anti-competitive spec tires and engine restrictions/homologation, just reflect the egalitarian, anti-competitive philosophical principles that ruin both F1 and the world. Without really courageous leadership, it's impossible for F1 to resist them.

To repeat a poster from MotoGP: "There isn't a spending problem, there's a revenue problem. Bring back the fags and booze advertising and there will be plenty of money up and down the grid."

This is hypocrisy at the highest level. If "they" are so concerned about the "little" teams, why not distribute more of the revenues to them?

[GitanesBlondes]

Like all things in life, a pecking order is quickly established even when things are supposed to be some egalitarian paradise. You see it in NASCAR and IndyCar. The teams with the most money even in a spec-series more often than not, find a way to win all the time. If anything, it is made worse rather than better because of the inability of low revenue teams to spend the necessary money to keep up with the Jones' so to speak.

[timbo]

Still going on about that 70s Cosworth era not being quite as interesting eh timbo?

Where did I say it wasn't interesting? I only implied that diversity is not be-all-end-all.

Keep spinning that myth that there weren't major changes going on...

And did I say that? There were plenty of changes overall. I would go on record though, that between major leaps, like Cooper mid-engines, Lotus' sidepods and ground effect and Renault's turbo the pace of development was slower.

Teams crying about tires even in the Goodyear days is nothing new. Do you know why they were crying about the tires? Because they wanted them developed to their liking...this was going on for years and years because they all had their own idea of what the tire compounds should have been...but at the end of the day, people were still driving on the limit during races regardless of how the Goodyear compounds suited their cars. At the end of the day, Goodyear managed to handle every era in which they supplied Formula 1 admirably with all of the changes that were seen - from the ply bias to the radials to the one year of grooved treads they supplied during...at the end of the day, they decimated every opposing tire manufacturer they ever faced including Pirelli.

Of course the Goodyear race division went downhill after Leo Mehl retired as their products in other race series became subpar. But hey, when he was there, what a ride it was....

And I didn't say they were bad, either. I said teams complained, but it wasn't bad for the show.

[wesley123]

In the end, this only makes matters worse. All these cost-reductions has a small downside; They also decrease the area where teams can find time. The biggest teams can thus spend more money elsewhere, and make the gains there. This only establishes the dominance of the wealthier teams. The gap might decrease, but since there are less roads to Rome, there are also less ways a smaller team can have a potential advantage, thus, their position at the back of the field is pretty much certain.

What was fun about F1 before all of the cost-saving rules was that stuff could go wrong, to where less wealthier(or less capable, in whatever way you like it) teams could possibly take advantage. And in turn, they could be there when the others had bad luck.

Now it is very simple, Marussia runs at the back, whether they like it or not. Why? Because they have no way to get an advantage anymore, and they don't have the funds to keep up with the development race, thus their place at the back of the grid becomes more and more solid. And who wants to sponsor a backmarker? No one. But it becomes much more interesting if this backmarker would have a lucky shot once or twice a year, then it suddenly becomes a good, cheap deal.

In the end, it only turns into a spec series where the teams with the least money are certain of their position at the back of the grid

[MOWOG]

[hyperbole]How long before F1 orders all teams to use basically the same car? In NASCAR, the chassis are all the same. The only difference is the decals applied to resemble production headlights and radiator grille details.

Think how much money the teams could save if the cars were all the same and all you need do is slap your Ferrari or Red Bull or Sauber stickers on it and go racing? [/hyperbole]

If "they" are so concerned about the "little" teams, why not distribute more of the revenues to them?

Surely you jest, Flyboy! That would upset the hegemony that the top 4 teams enjoy, have enjoyed and always will enjoy. And yse, I know. Don't call you Shirley!

[Sombrero]

Divide the FOM TV revenue in egal share for the 11 teams whasoever the point standing.

[mrluke]

Imagine mercedes going back to their board and saying "sorry we came 3rd again this year, but we did it really cheaply!"

The big teams have their budget and they will spend it regardless of regulation.

Only chance of a small team mixing it up is from open regulations where there is chance they will make something work the big boys didnt think of as they were too busy pursuing a different avenue.

[timbo]

In the end, this only makes matters worse. All these cost-reductions has a small downside; They also decrease the area where teams can find time. The biggest teams can thus spend more money elsewhere, and make the gains there. This only establishes the dominance of the wealthier teams. The gap might decrease, but since there are less roads to Rome, there are also less ways a smaller team can have a potential advantage, thus, their position at the back of the field is pretty much certain.

I think it works the other way. It makes gaining performance less cost-effective.

What was fun about F1 before all of the cost-saving rules was that stuff could go wrong, to where less wealthier(or less capable, in whatever way you like it) teams could possibly take advantage. And in turn, they could be there when the others had bad luck.

The last example of small team giving the "biggies" run for their money was perhaps Tyrrell in '90. For last couple of decades it never worked this way IMO.

[bhall]

It makes gaining performance less cost-effective.

Exactly. So, how do you keep teams from looking for that performance anyway? It's never happened before.

Red Bull attacked the 2009 aero regulations and testing ban through the purchase of a whole other team. Mercedes just spent upwards of €500,000,000 in order to eek out an advantage within the most restricted powerplant regulations in F1 history. And there's no telling what manner of mischievous bullshit Ferrari has been up to.

Remarkably, every bit of this is happening right now under the aegis of a plan already implemented to reduce costs, and the results are absolutely absurd. It's like watching Monty Python without being in on the joke.

But, you know what? The teams are gonna have to bend some rules somewhere down the line, otherwise the 2017 version of "the pinnacle of motorsport" is liable to be slower than anyone will care to watch. Today's cars are already off the pace compared to times set during the mid-2000s by as much as 8-10 seconds/lap for the majority of a f̶u̶e̶l̶-̶s̶a̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶a̶d̶e̶ race. I don't see how that trend can possibly be reversed given this drastic new proposal and the planned reduction in total fuel allowed.

This would all be funny as hell if it weren't so frustrating.

[Cam]

This now kind of reminds me of an elderly and sick grandparent. We all have memories of years ago, the fun we had together. It was carefree and joyous, wild almost. A time when dreams were lived and heroes born. But things started to change - a winter was coming. As the years went by we could see the motivation changing. The fire leaving his eyes. Something underneath was not quite right. What was once fun was now 'irrelevant' and from then, every visit, you could sense the 'feeling' had changed. He said it was for the best - but we never believed that. And as each year passed, it just wasn't as fun to see 'grandpa' anymore. The younger siblings, well, they didn't see grandpa when he was in his prime... oh the stories. You should have been there. I'm sorry they weren't. All they see now is a crippled thing, handicapped, confused, meek, struggling to even know who he is - certainly not the strapping legend in all those old photos. So it's no wonder the young ones don't come to visit. For us though, we still visit as we do remember the good times. We still visit because we feel a sense of responsibility. We hope each time that he's having a better day - but he doesn't. We're the only ones left that care - us few. But I admit, even I don't visit as often any more and when I do, I certainly don't stay as long.

Maybe the doctors are right. Maybe it's time we pulled the plug, so this sick, tired, former shadow of itself can die the death that is hovering over it's bed - and has been for some time. Yes, we will mourn, we will cry, we will lament, however, we all then get a chance to move on to something better.

[timbo]

Exactly. So, how do you keep teams from looking for that performance anyway? It's never happened before.

Say, you have team X which can spend 100 mil and team Y which can spend 500 mil. This difference might give team Y 3 seconds over team X, or 1 second. If you are in team X, which would you choose?