On rules and regulations

[RH1300S]

I think that limiting budgets is practically impossible.

Let's just say there was a way to audit expenditure at year end, even IF they could place a value on items not charged for (what about a "suppliers" development time?, or "free" flights if an airline sponsors you?, free fuel?, free team wear? - how do you place a true value on any of those things?) - There would be so many ways people would try to get around the difference between cash out and value of items coming in.

The big problem I can see is that auditing takes time, it's not clear cut at the best of times (let alone on the F1 budgetary maze) - so you would end up with championships being protested after the event, very unsatisfactory for a sport.

You need to know who has won when they cross the finish line....it's bad enough when cars are technically protested (although much easier to measure and usually happens within hours, not days or weeks).

[USAF1FAN]

You have a good point about ""suppliers" development time...", that's where the teams would cheat. But I wasn't thinking about a year-end audit. I was thinking of a team of maybe a half dozen full time FIA approved auditors. I believe Ferrari employs 1,000 in their F1 program--they can afford six accountants. As far as "free" services go, the auditors would have the authority to put a value on it just like they must in the corporate world.

They are currently policing testing; agreed that this is more difficult, but wouldn't it be better than requiring that an engine last three race weekends and then having to penalize a driver/team with grid position or weight penalties because an engine blew?

[manchild]

If low-tech things that boost power and enable better overall performance aren’t banned than no one would search for surrogate into high-tech high-cost zone. FIA can cut costs as much as it likes but big manufacturers will always make much better car with 100 mil. $ than Midland or Red Bull with same amount of money. That is what killed small teams in the previous decade – no matter what technology FIA banned big teams always managed to make better cars than small teams. Since small teams couldn’t afford high-tech and were prevented to use inventiveness of their designers they disappeared.

[USAF1FAN]

After seeing open-wheel racing essentially get destroyed in the U.S. and watching F1 shoot itself in the foot at Indy, I worry about F1's future. I am not a NASCAR fan, but it is interesting to see an organization that follows the opposite philosophy regarding technology succeed beyond anyone's imagination. They are bigger than football!

F1 must control costs for the sake of the future. And, I agree with the guy who started this post--leave the rules alone for a while!

[dumrick]

Let me give an example: Vodafone has signed with McLaren a multi-year contract to sponsor McLaren. Therefore, McLaren will have X money to spend. This value has already been negotiated and will go into McLaren's budget starting 2007. Now, FIA wants to limit costs. Will McLaren buy gold-plated motorhomes instead of inveting it on the sport????? The baloon analogy is very good and clearly shows this point.

Another thing: for the first time in decades, the most important technical motorsport event is taking place outside F1: the Audi R10 and the assault of DIESEL powered engines to Le Mans. Peugeot is following and many car makers must start wondering WHAT can they get in terms of image from F1, even if audiences keep high, if the technical content perceived in the sport dicreases. In my point of view, FIA is killing F1 by turning it in a kind multi-chassis GP2 or more powerful F3. Audi's policy is clear as water, if one investigates the importance of the Diesel market in most markets nowadays (mainly Europe). It won't be needed for the public to follow the 24-Hour race to use, in the case that Audi wins, as a powerful sales argument that TDI technology outclasses the competition in the most symbolic endurance race in the world.
Is this kind of radical thinking moved by the comercial interests of companies that has brought money, publicity, focus and interest to F1, since the 70's.

As a contrast, in F1 we will now have fixed-angle, fixed-CG engines, pre-aproved materials, standard CPU's and so on...

Concerning NASCAR, I'm sure that, unlike F1, most of the world has never heard about it (even I, if I'm able to catch a couple of seconds of images in news once every six months, I'm a lucky guy), so "sucess beyond anyone's imagination" is a very relative concept!!!!

[Guest]

Your observation about Audi and their diesel effort at Lemans is interesting. This is why I like to FIA proposal for 2008 to allow hybrid technology.

But no one is addressing the issue--the budgets are out of control. There need to be a limit.

[manchild]

If problem was in budget that teams like Williams, Mclaren, Lotus, Brabham, Matra, Tyrell, Ligier etc. would have never won a grand prix or any title over Ferrari(FIAT), Mercedes, Jaguar(Ford), Renault and other big manufacturers during 1950-2000.

When Brabham beat Renault it had nothing to do with budget but with liberty to use technology. BMW engines on Brabham used special fuel and beat Renault even though it had immeasurably larger budget and sources. That is just one of many examples.

In 2005 Renault won two titles even though it had much lower budget than Toyota, Ferrari and Mclaren...



These are not Alonso and Fisi

[Scuderia_Russ]

When Brabham beat Renault it had nothing to do with budget but with liberty to use technology. BMW engines on Brabham used special fuel and beat Renault even though it had immeasurably larger budget and sources.

Brabham didn't beat Renault just because of the fuel they used though. Gordon Murray designed some amazing cars over that period (BT48 wasn't a looker and I've read there were cooling issues on the BT46) but his good ideas far outweighed the bad ones. Brabham were like the Renault F1 of their day. A fantastic atmosphere in the team which itself was made up of remarkably talented individuals that with Bernie's guidance and demand for perfection, pushed the boundaries of F1 engineering and ideas. Brabham were the first to use refuelling, had the first tyre heating device but like you say were the first to use something close to rocket fuel! Apparently it was so dense that Brabham employees were putting it (I'm sure I would have been one of them) in their road cars (despite warnings). In an interview with Charlie Whiting recently he said that people were getting no further than 100 metres down the road before the carburettor float and needles had melted! A mechanic splashed some on his Casio which just fizzled and popped before falling off his wrist! The peeps down at the health and safety brigade would have had a field day.

[manchild]

I agree with things you posted. I was talking about 1983 and mentioned fuel as crucial reason for close victory of Brabham. But all other things you mentioned backup the idea that small team beat big manufacturer because it was free to use technology and ideas of designers which is now impossible. Inventiveness of designers and engineers beat the big budget - that is exactly how it should always be but that is something Mossley doesn’t agrees on.

[DaveKillens]

The history of motor racing is full of landmark designs that set a new standard when conceived and put on track. And sometimes, a small team or engineer would come up with a world-beater. Of course, the new stifling regulations make this almost certainly impossible. For top, established teams intent on just garnering good press, this innovation is something to be avoided. Why risk millions when some new idea could wipe out a season's public relations investmant? So I don't expect to see any new innovations that break the present format.
The boys with the big money have Max's ear. He knows that sudden changes might cause them to panic and run away to other pastures. So it's in Max's best interests to stifle changes, not to allow any new, radical technology or concepts that might offer wins or publicity to a team that hasn't billions to spend.

[jezzwa]

Certainly, F1 needs to keep at the top of motorsport and the top means radical designs, the FIA need to control the budgets and let the creative engineers work without changing rules and qualifing all the time.

[terrorist22]

What's really cramping the teams is the constant rules changing. If the regulations stayed stable for five years I'm sure the top teams will reach the limits of the regulations while allowing the smaller teams to catch up much faster (dunno about Midland).

Supervising budget is impossible; hopefully Bernie will give all teams a much bigger share of the commercial profits to ALL the teams and not just the top 10. It's ridiculous what FOM is charging. Just like Mercedes-Benz with its cars, FOM finds a way to charge large amounts of money for almost anything you can think of in a grand prix.

Even though NASCAR is starting to get expensive, at least they are gaining new forms of sponsorship and exposure to keep the sport alive, while it seems like F1 is eating itself alive (like Pizza the Hutt, Spaceballs).

[Guest]

Certainly, F1 needs to keep at the top of motorsport and the top means radical designs, the FIA need to control the budgets and let the creative engineers work without changing rules and qualifing all the time.

I agree: Control the budgets and stop changing the rules every year--it's costing too much to completely redesign cars every year.

[DaveKillens]

I was at the 1974 GP at Mosport in Canada, and what were all the fans and photographers talking about? The Brabahm BT42. It was an innovation in packaging, Murray really created an amazing machine. He really did "step outside the box" in creating that chassis, something that sadly, we don't see much anymore.
Innovation is good, change is something that should be mandatory in "RACING". These days, in the interest of grabbing the attention of the ordinary citizen, who usually knows little about the intricacies of motor racing, it's now all about finding rules to gain TV attendance. Personally, I don't like it, F1 is slowly moving closer to NASCAR in philosophy, putting similar cars on the track just to put on a pretty show of lights and noise. Yes, we do see great drivers displaying incredible skills, but it could be a lot more with cars that are different. Some of the great eras in motor racing history have been all about innovation and constant change. The Can Am with the ground shaking monster Mclarens, Donohue's 917, the six wheeled Tyrell, just to name a few.
The rules change constantly, but the teams are allowed very little chance to innovate or try something truly radical. These days, it's more about finding the correct strategy in dealing with this year's rules, and mechanical and aero refinement, rather than attacking the problem from different angles.
I still love f1, but it could be so much more than a two dimensional sport, like a piece of flat paper.

[DaveKillens]

There is a term.. "past the point of diminishing returns". basically it's about getting most of the performance out of something, and to go further would require a lot more effort and money to wring out the last one percent of performance. In most real world scenarios, it just isn't worth it, sometime just to get that last one percent, it costs almost as much as the previous 99%. But in F1, they have to go for that last one percent, and I wonder just how much it costs to get that little bit. How much wind tunnel time and hours are spent just to gain a fraction of lesser drag, or added downforce?
No wonder F1 costs so much, with little allowance to bring something truly different to the track, all the teams can do is spend huge chunks of money tweaking that last one percent. No one is going to show up with a new concept and leapfrog the pack in performance.
I have no problem with all the rules relating to safety, and the sporting regulations. But the technical regulations should be restricted to just one page of paper.