Revealed: Formula 1's new cost-cutting plan

[Manoah2u]

cost cutting plans are BS.

It might just save 'development costs' for the teams themselves, but the teams will still lose loads of money to 'buy' these parts. The current V6 hybrid engines are much more expensive then last year's v8. The tires of pirelli today are much more expensive then Bridgestone's bullet-proof tires. So cost-cutting is BS.

All i see is 'greying out' f1 and putting it under more control. It's as if F1 slowly is turning into A1GP. and A1GP failed for a reason. If these things are applied to F1, it'll go out the same direction as A1GP and die the same death.

F1 is under way too much rules. And if the small teams are crying, then let them cry. F1 doesn't 'need them' to excist.
The teams need to perform instead of whine. Just look at HRT. they were dangerous at their final races.

IMHO, if one team is able to survive and the other doesn't, it just means the other deam did their job/homework better.

I do belive the rules should be equal to all, though, and i think it's unfair some teams are given more prize money over another for the same results.

I think the biggest cause for F1 dealing with financial problems is the ban on cigarette sponsors. I think that's a good thing, but it goes without saying that the loss of money there has to be made up somehow. But to solve such a loss of figures is nearly impossible. F1 teams were running cigarette sponsors for a reason: they brough money other sponsors couldn't.
The problem thus isn't cost-cutting or high costs, the problem is lack of income.

However, a lot of potential 'income' doesn't happen because there are too many 'rules' in f1 that block potential sponsors.
Combine that with the economic world struggle that started a couple years ago, and you get the difficult sitation f1 is in now.

But the above cust-cutting ideas are rediculous. They sound like ideas from accountants that come fresh out of their education and only know the world of 'books' and not 'real life'.

F1 should stop letting unimaginative people that just have university degrees come with ideas that fail time after time. Just because people cost a lot and have a degree doesn't mean they solve stuff. It only means they read in books. Nothing more.
F1 should abandon this 'trend' and get back to basics.

Lose the 'spec' ideas, and allow motor racing again. Multiple types of engines, multiple tires, etc. lose the 'decoder' fashion and bring F1 back to general TV. lower the ticket prices and lose the Tilke-addiction. F1 raced on many tracks for years without needing miles of off-track safety grids. There are enough tires and barrier technology around to put in 'dangerous' areas. A tire wall where Kubica slammed into the wall would solve enough to improve driver safety.

Lose the fake and artificial elements in F1 like DRS.

Anyway, the F1 teams are still able to do what they threatened years ago; a breakaway series.
I believe bernie threatened with a GP1 series if i'm not mistaken.
But the teams could do that themselves just aswell. Abandon the sinking ship and bail to get aboard a working ship.

They could start their own GP1 series and go back to basic themselves with their own working rules.
They could allow Cigarette sponsorship. They could go 18 inch and make it work. I'm sure with a little discussion,
Michelin would agree a 17" tire too, perhaps with a bit bigger total size. Ditch the rediculous rules.

Go free and just widen the suspension like it was before, mandate crash structures and driver protection safety,
and go for it.

Bernie might have contracts with some tracks, but i'm sure the teams themselves can fix contracts themselves just aswell.

Mexico, Argentina, Imola, Adelaide, Brands Hatch, Zandvoort, Korea, India, there are plenty tracks not on the calender that are able to house breakaway series without contract problems. And i'm sure with enough pressure Monaco, Silverstone, Japan, Spa-Francorchamps, etc. will welcome them just as well.

Just do it.

[Töm87]

Ideal to fill in the gap to Spain. According to J. Noble and some 'leading figures' - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113705

Summary:

2015
Tyre blanket ban
Fuel system simplification
Brake duct simplification
Front wing simplification
Gearbox usage flow brought in line with engine life
Increase in curfew
Ban on front and rear interconnected suspension

2016
Standard front impact structure
Standard rear impact structure
Standard final drive system
Standard steering rack

2017
FIA standard active suspension
Move to 18-inch wheel rims

Do things like baning tayre blankets and different rim sizes really save any substentiala mount of money
What about limiting the number of team members and equipment brought to Grand Pris.

[MercedesAMGSpy]

I know a good cost-cutting plan, all the teams will drive with identical cars and we have our own spec series. This is ridiculous and against everything F1 stands for.

[Töm87]

Why not simply make a cap space?
150 million max?

[timbo]

Why not simply make a cap space?
150 million max?

Unfortunately it's not simple.

[timbo]

F1 is under way too much rules. And if the small teams are crying, then let them cry. F1 doesn't 'need them' to excist.
The teams need to perform instead of whine. Just look at HRT. they were dangerous at their final races.

IMO this is shortsighted. What grid would we have if four teams which wrote the letter to FIA recently leave?
The hallmark of the manufacturers involvement in F1 was 2007-2008 seasons. The grids were closest we ever had in F1 history. Crisis hits and three manufacturers leave on a whim. A manufacturer cannot afford to stay on the grid without winning too. So not caring about teams whose only purpose of existence is racing in F1 might just lead to diminishing grids.

IMHO, if one team is able to survive and the other doesn't, it just means the other deam did their job/homework better.

While this view has merit, unfortunately, to get more resources you need better results for which you need more resources. Marussia and Caterham are doing OK job, they are not worse than Minardy was in relative performance.

I do belive the rules should be equal to all, though, and i think it's unfair some teams are given more prize money over another for the same results.

You mean Ferrari's bonus?

I think the biggest cause for F1 dealing with financial problems is the ban on cigarette sponsors. I think that's a good thing, but it goes without saying that the loss of money there has to be made up somehow. But to solve such a loss of figures is nearly impossible. F1 teams were running cigarette sponsors for a reason: they brough money other sponsors couldn't.

Look at the grids prior to tobacco sponsorship ban. Who got Camel's money? Williams. Marlboro's? McLaren and Ferrari. Mild Seven? Benetton. The bigger teams always had bigger backing. The other end of the grid might get occasional boosts like West for Zakspeed in '80s (or often in terms of personal driver's contracts, e.g. Marlboro was supporting a few drivers on the grid personally, and the sticker was places on the car too) but they were mostly devoid of big financial backing by tobacco companies.

The problem thus isn't cost-cutting or high costs, the problem is lack of income.

But how much income you may possibly get? The budgets grew over the years. It is fact. How many companies on Earth are willing to drop hundreds on millions in return for a limited exposure?

However, a lot of potential 'income' doesn't happen because there are too many 'rules' in f1 that block potential sponsors.

What rules exactly block sponsors?

[Smokes]

cost cutting plans are BS.


All i see is 'greying out' f1 and putting it under more control. It's as if F1 slowly is turning into A1GP. and A1GP failed for a reason. If these things are applied to F1, it'll go out the same direction as A1GP and die the same death.

A1 gp was actually pretty good to watch but it was hardly televised so that is why it failed.

The biggest problem with F1 is too much money and improved reliability has spoiled the sport and hence why FIA is trying do more controlled specs so it not a case of having a ton of money to win as it is now. and there are different winners each race.
if they wanted to they could reduce the aerodynamic influence by bringing back ground effect tunnels a mandate a specific drag co-efficient to stop people adding lots of drag inducing appendages to car like in 2008. They bring back steel discs to increase the stopping distances and allow more over taking.

[sennaf1god.94]

My list will be like this>

Engine: Development freezed during in-season, free during pre-season until regular 12 Month homologation.
Chasis: Same ban on in-season development, standard rear crash structure, standard suspension height control (manually activated, not intelligent), standard groundeffect underfloor, standard non adjustable front and rear wings similar to Monza´s Renault R25:



And then you won´t need ANY ARTIFICIAL device like DRS to see brutal fights like these:






Goodold close racing.

[beelsebob]

My list will be like this>

Engine: Development freezed during in-season, free during pre-season until regular 12 Month homologation.

This would do the complete opposite of being useful. The teams would spend no less money on engines because they would be busy developing next year's motor, but we'd still see one team able to run away with a championship based on a superior engine in the first few races.

Chasis: Same ban on in-season development, standard rear crash structure, standard suspension height control (manually activated, not intelligent), standard groundeffect underfloor, standard non adjustable front and rear wings similar to Monza´s Renault R25:

Again, this would have disastrous effects. We'd be looking at the possibility of (for example, this year), Mercedes being able to just walk off with the championship, as no one would be able to attempt to catch them.

And then you won´t need ANY ARTIFICIAL device like DRS to see brutal fights like these:

We already get brutal fights like these. See Bahrain.

[calvarez]

I really understand why smaller teams are looking for a budget cap in order to find a way to match top (and historical) teams, but I don't like the way F1 is going with these proposed changes.

This is going to be like Nascar some day, with all cars looking almost the same for the common people and with no advanced technology at all that can be applicable to street cars -all tech hidden.

[timbo]

with all cars looking almost the same for the common people

I think it's pretty much always been, except some real oddballs like P34. E.g. during early '90s most of the grid looked pretty similar. And in that respect the proposition is relatively benign -- we don't have standard wings, the biggest concern is forward crash structure, but I imagine it would be covered by some sort of fairing.

and with no advanced technology at all that can be applicable to street cars -all tech hidden.

F1 never were the place where technologies for road cars were developed in its history.

[calvarez]

I agree with you Timbo, except for the 6-wheeler it has been pretty much the same.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, there's a lot of F1 technology on street cars... energy recovery systems, drive controls, brake controls and even gearboxes. Maybe they were banned sometime in F1 but their development might have started here.

[Harvey]

I know it's already been talked to death (probably already in this thread - I didn't read past the initial post) but what exactly is wrong with a near total relaxation of the technical rules with a hard and enforced cost cap? Everyone wins - casual fans get "different looking" cars, engineering geeks get the "outside the box" solutions, smaller teams have to worry less about 10s of millions of sponsor cash, the FIA can preach that they have successfully reined in gratuitous spending, and the bigger teams might even be able to do something else on the side to increase their public image or for a bit of fun (LMP, Pikes Peak, LSR, etc) if they still want (and are allowed) to abuse the sponsors cheque books.

What I worry about when I see more and more restrictive rules is the creation of smaller and smaller (and less interesting/noticeable) performance differentiators. By halting engine development mid-season, the dark art of aero stepped up to spend the development budget. By reducing the number/angle/position of wing elements, we're seeing more and more complex shapes within those (previously very simple) wings and supporting structures. No doubt this will continue within a new sphere in future years, when new performance differentiators are found/needed.

However, I do agree with some things. Spec brake ducts and rear crash structures for one. Totally irrelevant to the racing, so why spend 100s of man hours refining their aero performance? They're synonymous with the idea behind the spec ECU and dash displays. And they seem to be a spec item success story.

[Lycoming]

The only item on that list that I consider even remotely reasonable in standard crash structures, though not as a means of cost saving. The big teams will just end up spending more time/money on the tub or other bits instead.

We wouldn't have this problem if they distributed more of the TV revenues to the small teams, or opened up more avenues of income (ie. making use of the internet) and then also sending that money to the teams.

But that's like saying America wouldn't have a problem with poverty if all the big CEOs agreed to take a pay cut.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, there's a lot of F1 technology on street cars... energy recovery systems, drive controls, brake controls and even gearboxes. Maybe they were banned sometime in F1 but their development might have started here.

It's more accurate to say there's a lot of Street car technology in F1 cars. ERS is road car technology that was eventually adapted to be used in F1. KERS was first run in 2009. When did Toyota start selling the prius? more than 10 years be fore that. I don't know what you mean by drive and brake controls, but F1 gearboxes are rather different from street car gearboxes. F1 gearboxes are stressed members carrying suspension loads and are sequential manuals. These days, road cars are either automatics with torque converters or double clutch. Very different.

[bhall]

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?

Does it really matter? In either case, I'd need to find five times my budget in order to catch up.

Formula One is not for everyone.