How to cut costs without a cost cap?

[lebesset]

looks pretty clear that a budget cap is never going to get agreed , but what regulations could cut costs in small chunks ..relatively speaking

any thoughts on what might be done without altering the character of F1 ?

how about brakes ? if ~I understand correctly the big teams get through a couple of sets of everything each race whereas the poorer teams make do with one

so 40 sets of everything cost ? my guess $1million per season , half that for the small teams then ; we already have a 5 engine rule or is it 4 or......well whatever it is with all the bits and pieces
why not the same for brakes , say 5 sets of everything , easily achievable by the manufacturers for 10thousand Km for a season , slight loss of efficiency , but not much
ok peanuts for the big boys but for the small teams 10 items like that would be serious money AND level the playing field

any ideas ? what would one front wing for the season save ? homologated after pre season testing ?
or a simpler front wing as well ?

you get the drift ...couldn't it work ?

[Blanchimont]

My suggestions for the wings/aero to make them easier and cheaper to design.

Front wing:
- maximum of three sections when cut vertical and parallel to the car center line
- the three sections have to stay the same for the whole front wing and can only be extruded normal to the cut plane to form the front wing
- the endplates are simple vertical plates, no holes are allowed in it

Rear wing:
- two sections allowed just like now, to stay the same over the complete width
- extrusion as for the front wing
- endplates are simple vertical endplates, holes only allowed in them in the region above the two sections

Wings at the brake ducts and monkey seat should be banned and in axchange the diffuser could be made a bit higher and longer to regain the downforce. Maybe even ban the barge boards, vortex generators at the side pods and the flow directing plates under the survival cell and next to the side pods?

The downforce levels could be kept the same by regulating/increasing the total surfaces for the front wing, rear wing and the diffuser(floor) if necessary. Maybe turbof1 won't like it...

[lebesset]

My suggestions for the wings/aero to make them easier and cheaper to design.

Front wing:
- maximum of three sections when cut vertical and parallel to the car center line
- the three sections have to stay the same for the whole front wing and can only be extruded normal to the cut plane to form the front wing
- the endplates are simple vertical plates, no holes are allowed in it

Rear wing:
- two sections allowed just like now, to stay the same over the complete width
- extrusion as for the front wing
- endplates are simple vertical endplates, holes only allowed in them in the region above the two sections

Wings at the brake ducts and monkey seat should be banned and in axchange the diffuser could be made a bit higher and longer to regain the downforce. Maybe even ban the barge boards, vortex generators at the side pods and the flow directing plates under the survival cell and next to the side pods?

The downforce levels could be kept the same by regulating/increasing the total surfaces for the front wing, rear wing and the diffuser(floor) if necessary. Maybe turbof1 won't like it...

any idea what that might save ?....I once read a figure of £100k to design , test and build a pair of new front wings but find it hard to believe

[Xwang]

What about reducing the number of engineers and mechanics during the events (reducing a lot of travel expenses). This should be something completely controllable by FIA and FOM.
In the seventies F1 teams were very very smaller.

[bhall II]

Absent complete standardization of the entire car, I don't think anything can keep overall costs down, because top teams will spend whatever it takes, wherever it's possible, in order to find a competitive edge.

Case in point: F1 cars and practices are more restricted now than they've ever been in the sport's history, yet top teams still spend $300-500 million a year.

Like it or not, that's simply the nature of the beast.

[Vettel Maggot]

What about reducing the number of engineers and mechanics during the events (reducing a lot of travel expenses). This should be something completely controllable by FIA and FOM.
In the seventies F1 teams were very very smaller.

I often think about this when I see banks of engineers staring at laptops behind the pitbox.

[flynfrog]

Absent complete standardization of the entire car, I don't think anything can keep overall costs down, because top teams will spend whatever it takes, wherever it's possible, in order to find a competitive edge.

Case in point: F1 cars and practices are more restricted now than they've ever been in the sport's history, yet top teams still spend $300-500 million a year.

Like it or not, that's simply the nature of the beast.

To your point bhall I don't think the problem is the spending on the top teams its the high cost of entry to be at the back of the grid. The question should be how can we make the cost of entry to the bottom teams lower.

[bhall II]

As harsh as it may sound, I think I have to (reluctantly) agree with Ecclestone on that issue. Someone has to finish in last place, and any team that can't compete financially with those that are able to spend hundreds of millions is destined to remain at the back of the pack. So, the question then becomes, why would you alter the regulations when doing so cannot fundamentally alter the status quo?

[Trocola]

I don't think there is a problem with spending in F1. I think the problem is that TV money do not go to teams, but to Berni and CVC. In Spain, Real Madrid and FC Barcelona spend more than 500 million € a year and they get benefits, because they control their own TV rights.

[lebesset]

As harsh as it may sound, I think I have to (reluctantly) agree with Ecclestone on that issue. Someone has to finish in last place, and any team that can't compete financially with those that are able to spend hundreds of millions is destined to remain at the back of the pack. So, the question then becomes, why would you alter the regulations when doing so cannot fundamentally alter the status quo?

I don't think that is the point !
when did any team come in except at the back ? what is needed is teams to come in and claw their way up the pecking order in time ...for that to happen the gulf mustn't be as wide and the teams able to stay there , maybe get the odd good result due to luck maybe , give sponsors the encouragement to come in and grow the team

it can't happen at the moment , but cut their costs a little and handicap the big spenders a little ...maybe THEY will spend just as much but it will be the law of diminishing returns

[CBeck113]

There's an even easier solution that no one seems to mention:

Announce the rule changes, including those to the car within twelve weeks before the start of the season. These changes shoudl occur every year.

Crazy, right? But it has two distinct advantages:
1. Engineering is once again in the center of the team's success, i.e. a small team can gain an advantage for a few races before teh bigger teams catch up
2. If you have no time to spend the money, you just can't spend it.

I'd bar larger engine changes, possibly instate an open standard with a minimum car weight and separate driver & seat minimum weight (forcing them to choose between weight & efficiency, aka make ERS optional but not necessary to win), although that could be very interesting too, but otherwise do things like:

* wing changes
* Floor changes
* diffusor changes
* Refueling y/n
* tires (yes, I went there)
* number of pit crew members (that would be cruel...)

The changes should be random and occur yearly, so that no one can plan for all the possible changes. No one fromt he teams would be involved in the decision. We all know that by the end of the year the big teams will be on top, but the fight for the TV money and WCC points would be very interesting. And a flat out domination like Mercedes this year or Red Bull & Ferrari before that wouldn't be preprogrammed - they'd have to work for it.

[Richard]

There's an even easier solution that no one seems to mention:

Announce the rule changes, including those to the car within twelve weeks before the start of the season. These changes shoudl occur every year.

Crazy, right? But it has two distinct advantages:
1. Engineering is once again in the center of the team's success, i.e. a small team can gain an advantage for a few races before teh bigger teams catch up
2. If you have no time to spend the money, you just can't spend it.

Lets set aside from the small matter that it takes more that 12 weeks to build a car!

The big teams would simply use an army of staff and warehouses of computers to rapidly optimise and prototype every possibly solution. The smaller teams would have to hope their hunches were correct and explore fewer options.

[CBeck113]

There's an even easier solution that no one seems to mention:

Announce the rule changes, including those to the car within twelve weeks before the start of the season. These changes shoudl occur every year.

Crazy, right? But it has two distinct advantages:
1. Engineering is once again in the center of the team's success, i.e. a small team can gain an advantage for a few races before teh bigger teams catch up
2. If you have no time to spend the money, you just can't spend it.

Lets set aside from the small matter that it takes more that 12 weeks to build a car!

The big teams would simply use an army of staff and warehouses of computers to rapidly optimise and prototype every possibly solution. The smaller teams would have to hope their hunches were correct and explore fewer options.

Yes, they would most likely have to based their cars on the car from the end of the previous year. This would also force them to be flexible in their base design to be able to adapt it to rule changes.

It would be impossible for the teams to maintian such a staff, since that staff would need to be qualified for the work...and those employees are hard to find and harder to keep for a few weeks per year and 80 hours per week. Plus, many countries have enough laws in place to help control these business practices (ok, after writing that it could be a definite advantage for Ferrrari!)

[Steven]

Changing regulations dramatically each year is a recipe for disaster. One example is RTL who are considering dropping out of F1 broadcasting, with one of the reasons quoted that the regulations are too complicated for casual fans to understand. The regs need clarity, simplicity and continuity. Preferrably also moving back a bit, allowing more freedom, but then again, that will only be possible if costs can be controlled somehow.

I also remember a hint of Ecclestone earlier this year that F1 may be looking at a limit in live telemetry, reducing the number of data sent from cars to the pits. This is similarly a difficult point, as data gathering has dramatically increased due to ERS this year.

I've been a backer of a cost cap, but since that looks off the table for the next few years, I think the easiest way forward to a more equal distribution of TV money. Maybe distribute it so that the highest paid team is getting 5 times or even less the money allocated to the smallest. Differentiating it more only builds competitive differences, counteracting the FIA's attempts to bunch the field by ever tightening regulations.

[lebesset]

Changing regulations dramatically each year is a recipe for disaster. One example is RTL who are considering dropping out of F1 broadcasting, with one of the reasons quoted that the regulations are too complicated for casual fans to understand. The regs need clarity, simplicity and continuity. Preferrably also moving back a bit, allowing more freedom, but then again, that will only be possible if costs can be controlled somehow.

I also remember a hint of Ecclestone earlier this year that F1 may be looking at a limit in live telemetry, reducing the number of data sent from cars to the pits. This is similarly a difficult point, as data gathering has dramatically increased due to ERS this year.

I've been a backer of a cost cap, but since that looks off the table for the next few years, I think the easiest way forward to a more equal distribution of TV money. Maybe distribute it so that the highest paid team is getting 5 times or even less the money allocated to the smallest. Differentiating it more only builds competitive differences, counteracting the FIA's attempts to bunch the field by ever tightening regulations.

I quite agree about the rapid changes of regulations being a non goer , but , if ~I understand correctly , the agreement is already signed giving certain teams a fiscal advantage and I don't see them agreeing to lose that any time soon ; or maybe you think bernie will suddenly develop a conscience and give the lesser teams a bonus ? suffice it to say I don't believe that there is an possibility of that fix , however desirable

but regulation changes could be made for 2016 and give suppliers enough time to develop product .... and I do mean develop ....going back to my original suggestion what relevance do brakes that only last 300Km have to the real world , and what difference would it make to the racing to have lap times increase by 0.2 seconds ? should we be yearning for the days when engines were only used for one race ?