How to cut costs without a cost cap?

[turbof1]

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...

If they listen to this and make dimensional changes to the front wing forcing me to start from scratch, I'm gonna show you how much I dislike it .

From a cost cutting perspective this is a very sensible proposal. However, as you mentioned I don't like that this is just more standarization then it already is. I do fully agree with you that if this is going to be the case, efforts need to be made to maintain downforce levels.

I'd personally go for resource restriction. So not a budget cap, but a max allowed personel combined with more stringent rules about cfd and windtunnel times, plus additional limits on machinery time producing physical parts. To compensate I'd also include more testing which teams are FORCED to attent. If all teams have to attend, the average cost will go down.

So in short limit their output. And open up the technical rules very steadily throughout the years. Budgets will automatically go down since they simple can't spend more if they are at full capacity the rules prescribe.

There's no use now to reduce wing complexity, they already invested heavily in it and these costs have been made, done. Reducing complexity will put big R&D cost burdens on the teams to reoptimize to the situation. You're better off letting them produce these things but force them to spend less on it.

[lebesset]

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.[/quote]

I think that is exactly the point

[WaikeCU]

I count 21 crew members during a pitstop.

Scrap:
- 4x tyre on
- 4x tyre off
- 2x stabilisers
- 2x backup jacks

So only 9 crew members left during a pitstop. Since there's no tyre warmers anymore. Only 4 crew member responsible for each wheel. They have to remove the tyre off, put the new one on and fasten it. 2 guys for the front and back jack and 1 lollipop man.

[bhall II]

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.

I think that is exactly the point

How does that work? If the team in 2nd place chases the team in 1st place, and the team in 3rd chases the team in 2nd, and the team in 4th chases the team in 3rd, and so on down the line, you can see that, unless a team is content to merely circle around the track, the cost to compete is ultimately established by the top teams, and those teams are willing to spend ----tonnes of money to win.

Also, consider the following:

2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix fastest qualifying times for the fastest team and the slowest team:

Mercedes: 1:40.480
Caterham: 1:44.540

Mercedes reportedly spent $517 million this year, and Caterham is estimated to have spent ~$109 million. That means Mercedes spent $408 million for just over four seconds worth of lap time, or $102 million per second. (For some bonus context, the GP2 pole was taken with a 1:48.088, and those cars cost less than $5 million a year to run.) So, I think it's pretty easy to see that diminishing returns mean nothing in Formula One when a team spends a million bucks to gain one hundredth of a second.

It seems like this conversation comes up at least a half-dozen times a year, and I feel like it tends to miss the forest for the trees every time.

For any restriction, be it one in terms of materials, practices, or personnel, teams will simply divert that expenditure to another less restricted area. This has been proven time and again when the moves to implement control tires, ban in-season testing, standardize ECUs, ban refueling, limit CFD and wind tunnel usage, forbid powerplant updates, or any of a whole host of other restrictions, have all failed to bring down overall costs.

It's F1: as long as someone is willing to spend absurd amounts of money, absurd amounts of money will be spent.

[mrluke]

What do you think a team will do if they save £10m on the cost of the developing front wings?

They will spend it on another part of the car, not put it back in a savings account.

Mercedes reportedly spent $517 million this year, and Caterham is estimated to have spent ~$109 million. That means Mercedes spent $408 million for just over four seconds worth of lap time, or $102 million per second. (For some bonus context, the GP2 pole was taken with a 1:48.088, and those cars cost less than $5 million a year to run.) So, I think it's pretty easy to see that diminishing returns mean nothing in Formula One when a team spends a million bucks to gain one hundredth of a second.

But the actual loss to Mercedes was around $50m which needs to be factored in to the "cost to compete" Im pretty sure the cost to Redbull of running the red bull team is now much smaller than that due to established sponsorship deals etc.

We are in the situation where it is more expensive to drive around at the back than it is to win, the problem is to be at the front you need a much higher cashflow.

[turbof1]

Mercedes reportedly spent $517 million this year, and Caterham is estimated to have spent ~$109 million. That means Mercedes spent $408 million for just over four seconds worth of lap time, or $102 million per second. (For some bonus context, the GP2 pole was taken with a 1:48.088, and those cars cost less than $5 million a year to run.) So, I think it's pretty easy to see that diminishing returns mean nothing in Formula One when a team spends a million bucks to gain one hundredth of a second.

IMO, the comparison to GP2 isn't fair. Very understandable to make the comparison, but simply not fair. GP2 is a spec series, with the car being developed from much simpler aerodynamics which are rather more about creating downforce en masse. Simpler aero means a lot less development costs. And since every car is practically the same, you have a much lower average cost because of economies of scale and scope.

It's the sacrifice of not only having a non-spec series, but also forcing teams to build their own car instead of running a customer one.

Give any manufacturer in f1 freedom to develop a car as they please and then let them provide that same car to 13 teams. Cost will go down by a huge chunk, without any sacrifice in speed (or indeed an increase in speed). No, I'm not putting this forward as a solution. Just to highlight what it means to run a non-spec series.

[CBeck113]

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.

The changes don't need to be dramatic. But a later change to the aero rules (for instance: for 2015 - front wind 1200mm, rear wind 1800mm, no diffusor, stiffer walled tires available at the first race only) would force the design teams to find solutions quickly, giving a small window for the smaller teams with good ideas to collect points, which could end up winning them points & money, leading to the chance to move up the ladder in F1.

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.

But I don't imagine that being expensive in the first instance - the data analysis may very well be, but collection is relatively cheap. The only thing that should change is that the team should only be allowed to communicate with the driver via pit board. The driver must then make all the necessary decisions himself.

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.

Cost caps cannot ever work in F1. Never. That is why I made my proposal - give them a chance to earn their money, and if they are successful over a few seasons, they will grow and become more competitive.

[emaren]

It is my guess that there is no way to reduce the costs outside of a catastrophic global recession.

If the global economy completely tanks and advertising budgets are cut dramatically, then the teams will have less money, therefore they will spend less......

If this happened, we would probably see the demise of Mercedes, Ferrari etc in their current guises. The high-end luxury goods sponsors would disappear and the sport would probably go back to how things were in the 1960's.

While there is sufficient money available in the advertising pool, F1 will continue to spend itself into oblivion. Only teams that are able to find sufficient working capital stand any chance of climbing to the mid field. Only teams that can raise significant sponsorship can hope to fight near the pointy end of the field.

The challenge that I see is not in how to feed the smaller teams, but how to make it clear that the cost of entry is not $100M, it is closer to $300M if you are going to thrive. The small teams that joined have all been hopeless simply because they have tried to become giant killers with a pitiful budget.

[turbof1]

Cost caps cannot ever work in F1. Never. That is why I made my proposal - give them a chance to earn their money, and if they are successful over a few seasons, they will grow and become more competitive.

I agree that cost caps cannot work. However, the concept giving them the chance to earn their money and that they will grow over time doesn't really work either. Infact, that's the concept nowadays. And it simply is not working out because the standard set at the top is too high.

What I did notice is that small teams aren't even able to survive. It's one thing not being able to compete because the difference in budget is too big, but the budget to survive is also too low. The standard to survive is NOT set by the top teams. Meaning there is simply not enough income to compensate the costs.

Investors and sponsors aren't as willingly as they were in the past. Money put in F1 is money you'll probably never see again. And the recession of 2008 made them ever since more cautious. Combine that with a highly assymetric distribution of the prize money and you'll get teams failing to survive.

Imo, money redistributing should be done to a level that every team atleast gets just enough money to survive. The prize money what's then left can be used to distribute accordinh competitiveness.

[Facts Only]

Trying to cut costs in F1 is like telling a child with £10 to spend on toys that they can only buy toys worth upto £5, they will just buy 2 toys for £5 each so still spending all £10.

As mentioned its the teams at the back were the economics really don't work, the best way to help would be to help bring in more sponsors, the loss of tobacco money really dented the smaller teams as nearly every team used to be able to get a big tobacco label on the car. Now alcohol sponsorship is coming under attack as well it will just get worse for the smaller teams.

Costs don't need to be brought down, income needs to be increased.

Also teams have been going bust and then being replaced since the beginning of F1, in 20 years how many of the 14 teams have survived in there original form? Ferrari, Williams, McLaren and Sauber, plus the remnants of Benetton, Minardi and Jordan. The Caterham/Marussia thing is nothing out of the ordinary.

[lebesset]

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.

I think that is exactly the point

How does that work? If the team in 2nd place chases the team in 1st place, and the team in 3rd chases the team in 2nd, and the team in 4th chases the team in 3rd, and so on down the line, you can see that, unless a team is content to merely circle around the track, the cost to compete is ultimately established by the top teams, and those teams are willing to spend ----tonnes of money to win.

Also, consider the following:

2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix fastest qualifying times for the fastest team and the slowest team:

Mercedes: 1:40.480
Caterham: 1:44.540

Mercedes reportedly spent $517 million this year, and Caterham is estimated to have spent ~$109 million. That means Mercedes spent $408 million for just over four seconds worth of lap time, or $102 million per second. (For some bonus context, the GP2 pole was taken with a 1:48.088, and those cars cost less than $5 million a year to run.) So, I think it's pretty easy to see that diminishing returns mean nothing in Formula One when a team spends a million bucks to gain one hundredth of a second.

It seems like this conversation comes up at least a half-dozen times a year, and I feel like it tends to miss the forest for the trees every time.

For any restriction, be it one in terms of materials, practices, or personnel, teams will simply divert that expenditure to another less restricted area. This has been proven time and again when the moves to implement control tires, ban in-season testing, standardize ECUs, ban refueling, limit CFD and wind tunnel usage, forbid powerplant updates, or any of a whole host of other restrictions, have all failed to bring down overall costs.

It's F1: as long as someone is willing to spend absurd amounts of money, absurd amounts of money will be spent.

it's about creating diminishing returns for the leaders ; for sure , the big teams will carry on spending large chunks of cash , but by taking away areas where they can buy lap time at a reasonable [ to them] price you can narrow differentials

eg extrapolate this scenario ad absurdum ; we find 10 things where we can reduce usage hence costs and slow the leading teams by 4 seconds and the back markers by 2 seconds ...the leading teams have saved €20million and the back markers $10 million ; better racing already except the leading teams will spend the money to get the time back ...but how much time will they get for $20 million now ? certainly not 2 seconds , I can't see even $200 million doing that

even the big teams have limits and can you see RBR or mercedes spending a billion dollars , you think that they will now believe they are getting enough bang for their buck ? now you are talking about government sponsored projects where the taxpayer foots the bill , nobody measuring the return on the expenditure

[Ciro Pabón]

I'm all in with Steven and Flyn. No more changes and compassion with backmarkers. That gives you a stable series and one where pricks do not abound.

I suggest to check how other series work. Some work as horses do: you win a race, you get more weigh (or its equivalent).

[Pingguest]

Currently, teams have more or less parts for one specific track, as one track requires more downforce (e.g. Monte Carlo) and the other requires less drag (e.g. Monza). I think the regulations should be changed as such that teams do no longer need to alter their cars for one specific track. One could think of the introduction of an absolute downforce limit in terms of kilograms. Whether they race on Monte Carlo or Monza, the balancing between downforce on one hand and drag on the other becomes the same.

[Edax]

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

That number seems on the low side low to me. An average developer/engineer working in a high tech facility costs about 160kEur per year, which translates to about 1700 manhours. So 125kEur (£100k) gives you about 1300 manhours. That can run a ten man team for 3.5 weeks. Just for the design and testing I'd say this is the bare minimum, but then I haven't even allocated any money to tooling (moulds) and materials. Those fancy titanium brackets also come at a price.

I'd say the top teams would spend more than this on a design iteration of a front wing, let alone on a complete wing design.


I think there is money to be saved on the front wings, however standardising part the wings would (for me) take away some of the technical appeal of F1.

I have been wondering for a long time why they do not standardise the monocoque. I suspect that for the smaller teams this is one of the more expensive parts to make due to the crash testing etc. For us it is not so interesting, since it is largely hidden behind panelling and its function has not that much to do with going fast.

They could just have the monocoque's made by an outside supplier and supplied to the teams as a base part of their vehicle. I think that this is already standard in F1 powerboats, where the teams get supplied with a standard survival cell and have to design a boat around it.

[acosmichippo]

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.

I agree. You're never going to be able to stop a team from spending however much they want to spend. BUT lowering the minimum cost would at least make it easier on new teams to enter the sport and keep struggling teams in. Competing with the big dogs is a completely different story.