Min Cost for Max - F1 goes Wal-Mart?

[whiplash]

Formula one spending has always been out of control I remember a interveiw with Patrick Head in the early 90's the more money we get the more we spend on reserch and development he said that is the only way to stay one step ahead of the competition.

So nothing changes only the size of the budget

[Belatti]

I would not worry so much, F1 will always be F1. That is how it works. Again. Enginners develop, lawyers cuts and win money, it´s like a sinusoidal, it goes up and down, the history repeats itself. A model would be like this:
A- teams develops, spends, improve and develops again
B- teams overexagerate development and spends more and more
C- costs go nuts
D- FIA bans overexagerated developments

It happened in 80s with turbos, in 90s with active suspension / abs and now with aero, with an amplification in engine development due to car manufacturers extra money injection.

Here is a graphic comparing Italian GP fast laps from 1985-2007. (I think that is the only comparable GP, with times always arround 1h16m-19m and track layout basically the same)



1987 4.0 bar for turbo engines, fuel restriction to 150 litres, 3500 cc atmospheric allowed with no fuel restriction
1988 Turbo boost restricted to 2.5 bar (250 kPa).
1989–1994 3500 cc atmospheric only.
1994 active/reactive suspension systems banned; Electronic driver aids (traction control, launch control) banned.
1995–1998 3000 cc atmospheric engines only.
1998 Grooved tyres introduced (3 grooves front, 4 grooves rear). Track (width) of cars narrowed from 2 m to 1.8 m.
1999 Front tyre grooves increased from 3 grooves to 4 grooves.
2001 Front wing raised to be minimum of 15 cm(?) from ground. (29th April, Spanish Grand Prix): Launch and Traction control allowed again.
2002 Two-way telemetry (which allows the pit crew to change the configuration of the car during the race) introduced.
2003 Two-way telemetry banned.
2004 One-engine-per-weekend rule introduced.
2005 One engine must last two race weekends. Front wing raised 50mm, rear wing brought forward and reduced in size.
2006 Engines reduced to 2.4 l capacity, 8
2007 Engines are homologated - development is not permitted since the end of the 2006 season. 19,000 rpm rev limit.

[mx_tifoso]

Here is a graphic comparing Italian GP fast laps from 1985-2007. (I think that is the only comparable GP, with times always arround 1h16m-19m and track layout basically the same)

So cost-cutting doesnt really affect overall speed and times, since teams will always manage to figure out loopholes and new ways to raise performance.

And besides, even if they do cut costs in one specific area of possible development, the capital "saved" will most certainly go to another area where it wouldn't have gone before. I believe that we are experiencing that case right now, with the restrictions on aero and engines, teams are making the transfer over to simulators and other similar technologies that will help them get the advantage. Very rational steps too, who wouldn't want to do that? If you have the ability to operate super expensive simulators (McLaren, BMW, Williams,etc.) and have them maximise the track performance when actual track time is very restricted, then why not? Removes the need for logistics as well, including the fact that sims are physically safer, from a safety standpoint.

Cutting costs is not necessarily "bad" at all, as long as it keeps the sports best interest in mind while doing so.

[Ogami musashi]

Thank you belatti for your chart this illustrates a lot the changes.

I think we can see the typical FIA panic reaction: a new technology is there: lap times fall, FIA bans it : lap times increase, teams find another way to make up: lap times fall again....BUT this will be harder and harder as future is concerned why?

If we look at the wing cars area, they produced (at high speed) more downforce than today, for less drag. i think in the 88 area cars were overpowered (like 900hp for 405kg) still lap times were far higher than today.

I have no proof but i think this was due to tires and brakes not being able respectively to handle traction and required to brake far sooner.

The top speeds were also not as high as today (despite having less drag, which shows how much downforce and tires grip are linked).

So with the time, there was a lot of areas to look for to be able to make for what was lost when banned.

But now the FIA is taking another way: it is ruling the seasons far before they start (look they want to freeze the 2011 one at the end of this year) and start having an aggressive technological implication (never seen in the world of F1).

With that technological implication, FIA will mandate the technology easier, no sooner than 2008 with the standardized ECU, in 2011 with the standardized undertray (an undertray, a major aero surface, will be standardized...)

They quite managed for now to cut speeds with the tires rule of this year and with the engines they also managed to cut the cornering and top speed s.

So i'm not quite sure that curve will be always there.

As for cost, i think we should look at the budgets vs competitiveness of some teams. In 2006 renault did run a far lighter budget than honda..and you saw the results.

Actually a lot of the cost soaring is about non racing things, like motorhomes, familly trips, advertising etc...

I'm pretty excited by the futuristic lead of F1 for 2011, i'm less about that recurrent "slow them down, make them cheaper" theme.

[mx_tifoso]

As for cost, i think we should look at the budgets vs competitiveness of some teams. In 2006 renault did run a far lighter budget than honda..and you saw the results.

Actually a lot of the cost soaring is about non racing things, like motorhomes, familly trips, advertising etc....

Of course, it's all about economics, the efficient allocation of your resources to meet your needs. In the previous years Renault worked with a much smaller budget than its competitors, and had more success them them. They managed that by stretching out those resources as far as possible, and using them in the most efficient manner, and if done well, can lead to great success. But then in contrast, Toyota and Honda, who have enormous budgets but have not been able to accomplish much in the past few years. Cost cutting is definately a good proposal, and when this comes into place here in F1, we will see the more effective AND efficient teams rise above the rest.

I agree, most of the rising costs have been attributed to logistical aspects of the sport, seeing how many of current (and future) GP's are outside of continental Europe, where most of the teams are based. Makes sense why many of the teams have "logistical" partners/sponsors.

I'm pretty excited by the futuristic lead of F1 for 2011.

-1

[Belatti]

If we look at the wing cars area, they produced (at high speed) more downforce than today, for less drag. i think in the 88 area cars were overpowered (like 900hp for 405kg) still lap times were far higher than today.

I think that cars have never been lighter than 500Kg. In 1986-1987 power reached 1200HP but only in Qualy, cause there was fuel restriction in race, where cars reached 800-900HP. In 1988 boost decreased from 4 to 2,5 bar and so power went to 750-800HP.

I have no proof but i think this was due to tires and brakes not being able respectively to handle traction and required to brake far sooner.

You bet.
In 1991, for eg., with Qualy tyres, pole times where 5 secs faster than in race, but those tyres lasted only 3 or 4 laps.

[Ogami musashi]

I'm quite okay about cost cut, but the problem is that it is targeted on technology itself rather than on the environment.

Which leads to decreased performance.
We will end somwhere with slower F1 , about the speed of a champ car, but far more expensive.

Nah i don't say it will be the case, but rather that as presented, the logic of FIA is towards this.

pretty weird.

[megz]

Im not keen on these 4 Cylinder hyper truck engines in the cars from 2011. Its ridiculous, cuts costs by increasing R&D.... Good one. Goooooooood One.....

[whiplash]

Yes laptimes have been drasticly reduced but how much of that is down to the silly slow corners and the left right flip flops that they stick on the circuits now that ruins the curcits flow.

Also I agree cost need to be drasticly reduced but the pecking order of the teams will not change the big teams will still have there hudge budgets the only way to make the feld even is to impose a spending cap.

[Ogami musashi]

I compare mainly 2004 times with today and many circuits layout are not changed.

Simply in 2004, there was more downforce at high speed, more power (thus faster high speed corners) , faster accelerations and better tires.

While 2004 season was dull because of ferrari dominance, in 2004 there was not so much problem to overtake, and costs were lower than the three years following.

[kurtiejjj]

I'm interested in the technological side of motor racing as much as anyone else here but people don't seem to realise that if there is a spending competition that is allowed to get out of hand there will be no Formula One to watch full stop!
So why don't we all just critisize Max Mosely because it's fasionable ffs

Don't get me wrong though i'm not critisizing good old Max it's just that we need some good rules and not idiotic changes like two back wings, and other weird stuff, I'm waiting for Mosley to bring on some diesel powered hybrid idea, please no! Bring slick tyres I think it will help. But don't restrict technical development.

And for more overtaking, use Jeremy Clarkson's idea: give them $10000 for an overtaking manouvre, let's see what happens

[Ogami musashi]

There's an article on http://www.grandprix.com about that, what do you think?

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19679.html

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, everybody sees just one side. Thanks, Belatti, for the graph. Now, do you want to spot the 10 differences?

1976-1993: Variante Rettifilo and Variante della Roggia introduced. The old straight was converted to the pit straight and the old Variante (where the pits exit is located) was eliminated. Before that, from 1955 until 1971 there were no changes, except for a small modification to Variante Ascari for 1974-1975, introduced for 1972-1973.


1994: Exit from Lesmo was "sharpened". This must have brought the speed down. On the other hand, the entrance to Lesmo and the exit of Parabollica had an increased radius, which must have compensated a little.


1995-1999: straight between Curva Grande and Variante della Roggia was shortened. Lesmo slightly modified.


2000-2006: Curva Grande renamed to Biassono. Rettifilo with only one kink. Again, this must have increased speed slightly, even if this chicane was "simplified" and made less entertaining.


And, as a comparison with the old times, lost forever, when men were men and women were goddesses...

1922-1933 Original track: I dream of a track like this, but with a curve with more than 360 degrees of deflection...


Conclussion: the only curve "untouched" is Serraglio... sigh. What a slow but sure way to destroy a track. From the inspiring conception to the chicane filled version we have today, we have moved from high speed curves, where modern cars are "traps on four wheels", to... I don't know what.

Finally: do you know if speed traps have changed position? Not recently, I imagine, but if I remember correctly, JPM broke the speed record in... I don't know, 2003? And then Barrichello did the same next year? JPM again broke the record in qualy, not during the race. So, or the graph is wrong or the traps changed.

Most important: Belatti did not take in account the fact that JPM, the fastest driver in history (when you introduce the chicanes in your figures) has left F1. This surely explains why speeds are going down...

[DaveKillens]

I wonder who Max I speaking for this time. Usually, when he spouts verbal diahhrea, he is actually supporting someone's interests. In this case, since he has mentioned the financial side of the business, this has to be related to two facts.
First, Bernie's nice pile of income is threatened because manufacturer's want a bigger share of the revenue. Secondly, CVC (which owns F1's commercial rights) has seen a drastic cut in revenues.