How to cut costs without a cost cap?

[Moxie]

Teams can only use engine supplied by manufacturers that participate in Formula One. Hence, the so-called oligopoly remains intact.

at a price not controlled by the oligopoly.

Of course the oligopoly will remain intact. However, it would be required that the engine blocks and heads be produced in the thousands and sold to the public in production vehicles. Teams could get their hands on engines by purchasing them on the open market. Realisticly, teams would not be likely to purchase whole high end sports cars from a dealer, and take their engines for F1 use. They would probably still order engines direct from the manufacturers. However, since that possibility would exist, there would be downward pressure on price.

[Pingguest]

Teams can only use engine supplied by manufacturers that participate in Formula One. Hence, the so-called oligopoly remains intact.

at a price not controlled by the oligopoly.

Of course the oligopoly will remain intact. However, it would be required that the engine blocks and heads be produced in the thousands and sold to the public in production vehicles. Teams could get their hands on engines by purchasing them on the open market. Realisticly, teams would not be likely to purchase whole high end sports cars from a dealer, and take their engines for F1 use. They would probably still order engines direct from the manufacturers. However, since that possibility would exist, there would be downward pressure on price.

As part of your proposal, the ancillary items should be left free. Hence, a proper racing engine is still to be developed. That requires the participation of car manufacturers.

I do agree Formula One should be looking for the economy of scale. But that could be done by changing the regulations in such way, that participants could use the same engine as they do in other series / at other events - e.g. Le Mans.

[Lorenzo_Bandini]

How to ? Horner propose a wind tunnel ban.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 1406280559

[FW17]

Guess the Red Bull tunnel irrecoverably crashed

[dans79]

How to ? Horner propose a wind tunnel ban.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 1406280559

Does anyone else get the feeling he is desperately grasping at straws?

[Moose]

Does anyone else get the feeling he is desperately grasping at straws?

No, he's protecting his lead.

He knows that the lead the top teams have over the smaller teams in terms of aero is completely insurmountable if they don't have access to a wind tunnel to see precisely what's going on.

[FoxHound]

How to ? Horner propose a wind tunnel ban.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 1406280559

Nothing to do with Newey and Prodromou upping sticks to pastures new? Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[santos]

Does anyone else get the feeling he is desperately grasping at straws?

No, he's protecting his lead.

He knows that the lead the top teams have over the smaller teams in terms of aero is completely insurmountable if they don't have access to a wind tunnel to see precisely what's going on.

He hit his head on the floor. When he woke up he thought he was in 1960. Maybe something like Alonso suffered.

[Moxie]

As part of your proposal, the ancillary items should be left free. Hence, a proper racing engine is still to be developed. That requires the participation of car manufacturers.

I do agree Formula One should be looking for the economy of scale. But that could be done by changing the regulations in such way, that participants could use the same engine as they do in other series / at other events - e.g. Le Mans.

I see your point, and I admit that I am not an engineer, Perhaps this idea is way off base from an engineering perspective. This approach is an economic one. I am sure that the engineers of the group will point out my errors. Roll with me for a bit.



Lets pretend that Ferrari chooses to use the Ferrari 136 engine block and heads that are currently available in the Ferrari 458 as well as several Maserati and Alfa Romeo models. A team could purchase a Ferrari 458, put the engine into their chassis, and make it go down the track for the cost of $250,000 to $300,000.

This is F1 and development is the name of the game. Without a doubt the manufacturers would have an advantage. This proposal doesn't address the financial inequity in F1. It just lowers the hurdle to get in the game.

[alc59]

Guess the Red Bull tunnel irrecoverably crashed

Nope. He reckons the Red Bull lead on CFD is greater than their lead on wind tunnel testing.
That doesn't mean it's not one of the more sensible ideas for a cost cap.

[Mui]

If its a money problem, then the smaller teams should just pool their money together. Instead of making the big teams use less money, smaller teams should just increase theirs. If force india , sauber and lotus or the next to team to enter f1 have a $100 million each then they can use the money to reach at least some kind of economies of scale. The smaller teams should collude in order to go up against the bigger teams. It would mean 3 teams having exactly the same car. They can put it under the banner of technical partnership or whatever floats the FIA boat. The only distinguishable difference being the track side team and race day strategies.

It would also be bang for buck for sponsors. Basically having their brand on 6 cars. Liveries can be different to but the brand name stays or if their a conglomerate they can put a subsidiary brand on the car.

The only problem with this is that once one team becomes successful, they might opt out in the future and everything breaks down and their back to square 1.

[Moose]

If its a money problem, then the smaller teams should just pool their money together. Instead of making the big teams use less money, smaller teams should just increase theirs. If force india , sauber and lotus or the next to team to enter f1 have a $100 million each then they can use the money to reach at least some kind of economies of scale. The smaller teams should collude in order to go up against the bigger teams. It would mean 3 teams having exactly the same car. They can put it under the banner of technical partnership or whatever floats the FIA boat. The only distinguishable difference being the track side team and race day strategies.

It would also be bang for buck for sponsors. Basically having their brand on 6 cars. Liveries can be different to but the brand name stays or if their a conglomerate they can put a subsidiary brand on the car.

The only problem with this is that once one team becomes successful, they might opt out in the future and everything breaks down and their back to square 1.

The smaller teams can't do this for a number of reasons
1) Prize money is a large part of their income - they would only get one set of prize money, not 2,3 or 4
2) Another large chunk of their income is drivers. They can only have two drivers paying them at any one time (at least, unless you're Sauber apparently), so again, pooling money doesn't work here.
3) The final large chunk of their income is sponsorship. You can probably do reasonably well here and get twice as many sponsors on a car as they currently do, but you certainly can't manage to just "pool" the money as you suggest, the result will certainly be significantly smaller than the total they currently get.

[notsofast]

How about a different approach. Suppose the winning constructor's cars are used for next year's GP2 series. And suppose the amount paid for those cars is determined up front. That would give the constructors an incentive to reduce costs, because doing so would increase next year's profits.

[void]

I think, the first thing is to make aero, chassis and engine rules more stable. Make possible a constructor sells his last year chassis to a non-constructor team, using standard engine and gear mounts. The non-constructor teams can develop aero packages or just buy from the constructor.

[Per]

Guess the Red Bull tunnel irrecoverably crashed

Nope. He reckons the Red Bull lead on CFD is greater than their lead on wind tunnel testing.
That doesn't mean it's not one of the more sensible ideas for a cost cap.

I totally agree, with both statements.

I'm not a Red Bull fan and I generally dislike Christian Horner whenever he appears in media, but politics aside and regardless of who'd benefit from this and who wouldn't, I find the idea extremely attractive. Cuts a great deal of cost while keeping development freedom open and allowing teams to gain an edge by being smart.

If you can't control how much money teams spend (budget cap), and you don't want to restrict what they spend it on (technical limitations, custom parts), maybe restricting the use of certain tools is indeed the most sensible way to approach the cost problem.