Budget Cap Dead In Water.

[wnut]

http://www.pitpass.com/51376/Blame-The-Teams

"The budget cap, that ideologist concept that would safeguard the sport, almost single-handed, by controlling costs and provide an even playing field for all the teams, is dead. Deceased.

The grand plan, touted by FIA impresario Jean Todt, which he assured us just weeks ago would be part of the 2015 regulations, hit the proverbial brick wall that has been built over the years by the Formula One teams themselves."


"The various changes in engine formula and focus on hybrid technology are nothing but window dressing. The package in which Formula One is delivered may have changed but inside it remains the same stagnant beast it was before the global financial crisis. And let's face it, if the GFC couldn't shake some sense of reality in to the teams that financial controls are needed nothing will. All those in favour, say aye."

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by wnut

http://www.pitpass.com/51376/Blame-The-Teams

"The budget cap, that ideologist concept that would safeguard the sport, almost single-handed, by controlling costs and provide an even playing field for all the teams, is dead. Deceased.

The grand plan, touted by FIA impresario Jean Todt, which he assured us just weeks ago would be part of the 2015 regulations, hit the proverbial brick wall that has been built over the years by the Formula One teams themselves."


"The various changes in engine formula and focus on hybrid technology are nothing but window dressing. The package in which Formula One is delivered may have changed but inside it remains the same stagnant beast it was before the global financial crisis. And let's face it, if the GFC couldn't shake some sense of reality in to the teams that financial controls are needed nothing will. All those in favour, say aye."

Just noting the source I would assume that is the gospel according to Bernie.
And, noting the timing and the attack on Todt I would assume events in Munich need some sort of diversion in place.

[Adam43]

No, no, the important thing is that this is yet another thing, or the same thing again, that let's us repeat what we said last Thursday. I'll start.

I would be surprised if F1 makes it to the double points race at the end of the year. If you'll excuse a bit of positivity, which I know is not really the thing for these threads, that will be a good thing as double points is stupid.

Lap it up.

[Teretonga]

The budget cap is dead because the strategic group that heads F1 is flawed.
Giving the FIA, the commercial rights holder (Bernie represents CVC) and the 6 most important teams equal voting shares locks the FIA into accepting Bernie and the teams as regulators voting against them and losing power as regulators.
The teams (Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Mercedes, Lotus and Williams) won't agree between themselves (two of them pushed to vote against their interests) and they do not represent themselves as the 5 lesser teams (Sauber, Torro Rosso, Caterham, Force India, Marussia) are outside and have no formal representation....

The new formula is a politically correct baby from Todt but he is manipulated constantly by his past associations and reluctance to take a strong stand, if it offends the others, for what is in the sports best interests.

[wolfhound]

I suspect we ended up with this voting system because Bernie wanted it and at the time that Todt agreed to it he was under pressure to get an agreement prior to his re-election.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I suspect we ended up with this voting system because Bernie wanted it and at the time that Todt agreed to it he was under pressure to get an agreement prior to his re-election.

I wouldn't disagree wolfhound, but its no way to run the sport and it puts the FIA in a loser's position, even if you were a strong type.

Todt has been nothing like as effective a president as he was when managing Peugeot rallying and Ferrari F1, so is he the right person for the job. The previous presidents were much more pro-active, Mosley being rather forceful and directive but in Bernie's pocket, and his predecessor Balestre was completely authoritarian. Neither was that good for the sport but the FIA is like a ship drifting on an ocean with no rudder, no direction, no ability to cope with the politics or form a consensus of direction.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I wouldn't disagree wolfhound, but its no way to run the sport and it puts the FIA in a loser's position, even if you were a strong type.

Todt has been nothing like as effective a president as he was when managing Peugeot rallying and Ferrari F1, so is he the right person for the job. The previous presidents were much more pro-active, Mosley being rather forceful and directive but in Bernie's pocket, and his predecessor Balestre was completely authoritarian. Neither was that good for the sport but the FIA is like a ship drifting on an ocean with no rudder, no direction, no ability to cope with the politics or form a consensus of direction.

Maybe Todt has not been as strong in F1 as he could be but he has reinvigorateded a lot of other championships since he came to the job. Mosley was almost a one trick pony when it came to FIA championships.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Maybe Todt has not been as strong in F1 as he could be but he has reinvigorateded a lot of other championships since he came to the job. Mosley was almost a one trick pony when it came to FIA championships.

I think he has done a very good job!

He is a very astute politician.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wnut

If the simulators are so good, she should be able to take her "test" in the simulator!

If the lesser teams walked away from the sport the big teams would throw a party, I bet all of them could field a third car at the next GP!

from Simona de Silvestra thread

It would be interesting if the smaller teams along with the one or two of the weaker teams in the stratagy group were to form a group within F1.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

from Simona de Silvestra thread

It would be interesting if the smaller teams along with the one or two of the weaker teams in the stratagy group were to form a group within F1.

Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel and the smaller teams will get a vote.

http://www.pitpass.com/51462/Exclusi...ny-in-Brussels

"More than a decade later the FIA has accepted a new Concorde Agreement in which both the Federation and the smaller teams can be out voted in the F1 Strategy Group. This is what happened at the recent meeting in Bahrain where the FIA found it impossible to introduce a cost cap strongly supported by the smaller teams. By accepting a decision-making process that can be dominated by an alliance between the larger teams and the commercial rights holder the FIA appears to have weakened its regulatory power."

[wolfhound]

Among the proposals for cost reductions from the stratagy group is a proposal for standard steering racks!!!!!

How much would that save a few grand?........ well in F1 terms 100K?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113705

While these proposed restrictions will reduce some costs the top teams will still have budgets 3 or 4 times greater than the midfield teams. That gap alone will allow them to find another area to exploit for more performance unless a small team can get lucky and smart at the same time.

An example is a proposal to simplify front wings. I suspect that might mean a maximum number of elements or that the element profile has to be the same over its entire width. That might appear a cost saving but how many hours will be spent in the wind tunnel perfecting the new wings.
A stricter limit on wind tunnel useage might be a better idea alomg with limits on CFD power or through put.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Among the proposals for cost reductions from the stratagy group is a proposal for standard steering racks!!!!!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113705

.

I think they want to standardize the steering rack, sadly they don't seem to be looking to re-introduce manual steering.

I find this a difficult concept as different drivers usually like different steering ratios, and different feel.
Seems to be on a hiding to nothing as far as cost saving goes, probably shortly be using electric steering anyway!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

I think they want to standardize the steering rack, sadly they don't seem to be looking to re-introduce manual steering.

I find this a difficult concept as different drivers usually like different steering ratios, and different feel.
Seems to be on a hiding to nothing as far as cost saving goes, probably shortly be using electric steering anyway!

I looked at the list from the Autosport article and it seemed like an odd collection of stuff. It came across less about "controlling costs" than about "stuff we just don't want to spend money on" (it might be hard to explain, but I think there is a difference between the two).

The steering racks for example. I suspect they likely feel that they are all using similar solutions, so just have a spec setup with a few suppliers and you get some small amount of economy of scale and some cost saving. They might even homologate a few different ratios to suit driver preference and track specific realities (Monaco).

Then... you take all of that money you saved... and redirect it into something else such as aero.

Richard

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

An example is a proposal to simplify front wings. I suspect that might mean a maximum number of elements or that the element profile has to be the same over its entire width. That might appear a cost saving but how many hours will be spent in the wind tunnel perfecting the new wings.

The same as now, up to the limit of time allowed.

As with all these rules it is about minimising the impact of the additional spend, not reducing the spend. The different between the best and worse single element wing is likely to be lower than the best and worse multi element wing.

The grid is close. People spend what they have, but the rules try and make it so that £10m gets you 0.01 not 0.1s.

A stricter limit on wind tunnel useage might be a better idea alomg with limits on CFD power or through put.

My understanding is that the limit on wind tunnel testing is there or there abouts already.
CFD? It'd be better to also restrict thinking! i know a lot of people who would benefit, let alone teams.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I looked at the list from the Autosport article and it seemed like an odd collection of stuff. It came across less about "controlling costs" than about "stuff we just don't want to spend money on" (it might be hard to explain, but I think there is a difference between the two).

The steering racks for example. I suspect they likely feel that they are all using similar solutions, so just have a spec setup with a few suppliers and you get some small amount of economy of scale and some cost saving. They might even homologate a few different ratios to suit driver preference and track specific realities (Monaco).

Then... you take all of that money you saved... and redirect it into something else such as aero.

Richard

I think you're right.
The 'odd collection' is a nominal exercise to make it look like they are doing stuff but nothing concrete will happen regarding financial savings.

The big teams know they have a massive advantage over the small teams and will not sacrifice it to balance the field in any way at all.

[wolfhound]

I would agree with the previous number of posts than other than limiting certain development routes these proposals don't seem to offer much in terms of real savings.
The stuff they are talking about standardising will reduce some costs but it is peanuts in overall terms.

[Casper]

F1 as a spectacle to attract income is in a fairly poor state to say the least but no one wants to let go of their little bit of the money tree or the influence that they can wield no matter how small that might be. Greed is what it is all about and all the pontificating and grandstanding will not alter that. Don't believe me? Name me one person if F1 who has promoted something that will cause him or her to lose influence and dollars apart from those in the media.

It can be made a spectacle within a budget but the present lot want no part of it and I have always maintained that to police and enforce it is impossible. Those that want to spend more money will find ways of doing so and it is clearly a ludicrous fantasy that they could be stopped from doing so. These are clever people who are experts at getting around rules written specifically to rein then in and they still find ways around those rules.

If a way could be found to limit spending and remove all the stupid rules that take away the engineering flair and thinking that the F1 guys are capable of and made it great in the past then it could result in some interesting answers to what makes one car go faster than the next. Ditch the spec class scenario and allow the thinking to explore ways that have not been used due to stupid rule restrictions. Spec classes in themselves never stopped anyone spending money and I have raced in more than one and seen the results of money being spent to circumvent the rules that were enforced on competitors. In fact it encourages those with big money to participate as they know they can sustain the spending where others can't. It is this point that F1 finds itself in, big spenders and the poorer teams who cannot sustain that type of spending. Am I the only one here who has raced in spec classes, seen the above and can see it happening in F1?

It is highly unlikely that any of the above will happen except for the greed to continue unabated and F1 to fall into a big hole they cannot dig their way out of. I keep watching and hoping that things will change but please not a spending cap within the present structure, that is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Oldtony]

There is a lot of very "rose tinted" looking back going on in this thread.
My avatar indicates the time when I really did start getting interested in F1. At the time that interest was sparked by the race at Pescara. Won by a lap, and that lap is getting up to Nurburgring length. Yet it was in it's day a thriller. Fangio's great drive at the ring would these days be written off as boring due to the infrequency of passing moves. Between then and now there have been great races and great seasons. But they haven't all been great races. Even Senna, Mansell and Prost gave us the occaisional snore fest and the dominant Schumacher era would, by the standards some people on here are judging races, have been an absolute disaster for F1.
How about admitting that the racing these days is great. The technical challenge is great, and all that this type of discussion is likely to cause is further "tarting up" of racing which is the main threat to the integrity of F1

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

There is a lot of very "rose tinted" looking back going on in this thread.
My avatar indicates the time when I really did start getting interested in F1. At the time that interest was sparked by the race at Pescara. Won by a lap, and that lap is getting up to Nurburgring length. Yet it was in it's day a thriller. Fangio's great drive at the ring would these days be written off as boring due to the infrequency of passing moves. Between then and now there have been great races and great seasons. But they haven't all been great races. Even Senna, Mansell and Prost gave us the occaisional snore fest and the dominant Schumacher era would, by the standards some people on here are judging races, have been an absolute disaster for F1.
How about admitting that the racing these days is great. The technical challenge is great, and all that this type of discussion is likely to cause is further "tarting up" of racing which is the main threat to the integrity of F1

Tony, I think this is more a discussion of the likely outcomes of the Formula 1 working group's efforts to control costs following the decision not to institute a budget cap and the publishing of their "cost saving" meeting agenda viz:

The ideas that are up for discussion during Thursday's meeting are:
2015
Tyre blanket ban
Fuel system simplification
Brake duct simplification
Front wing simplification
Gearbox usage flow brought in line with engine life
Increase in curfew
Ban on front and rear interconnected suspension
2016
Standard front impact structure
Standard rear impact structure
Standard final drive system
Standard steering rack
2017
FIA standard active suspension
Move to 18-inch wheel rims

It is they who are trying to save costs in a strange manner, and us predicting the results and suggesting alternative measures. FWIW.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

F1 as a spectacle to attract income is in a fairly poor state to say the least but no one wants to let go of their little bit of the money tree or the influence that they can wield no matter how small that might be. Greed is what it is all about and all the pontificating and grandstanding will not alter that. Don't believe me? Name me one person if F1 who has promoted something that will cause him or her to lose influence and dollars apart from those in the media.
.

Chapman foregoing exclusive use of the Coswrth DFV because it would ruin the sport.
Bernie deciding not to use the fan car because it would provoke the other teams and he was trying to form FOCA for his own ends and had bigger stakes to play for than winning the WCC.

Originally Posted by Casper

Spec classes in themselves never stopped anyone spending money and I have raced in more than one and seen the results of money being spent to circumvent the rules that were enforced on competitors. In fact it encourages those with big money to participate as they know they can sustain the spending where others can't. It is this point that F1 finds itself in, big spenders and the poorer teams who cannot sustain that type of spending. Am I the only one here who has raced in spec classes, seen the above and can see it happening in F1?

It is highly unlikely that any of the above will happen except for the greed to continue unabated and F1 to fall into a big hole they cannot dig their way out of. I keep watching and hoping that things will change but please not a spending cap within the present structure, that is a disaster waiting to happen.

This is exactly what I have found, as soon as a class becomes spec spending becomes more important than engineering.
Any supplier of a spec component immediately increases his prices to reflect his monopoly position. Ever tried to race a non factory backed production car - wow. It was cheaper to machine many parts from billet, but you were not allowed to! The manufacturers were also going through their stock to assemble selected components into trick engines.
If a component is specified to a weight, e.g. a wheel then people start casting special wheels with light rims or machining the weight out of the rim to gain an advantage.
I don't know what the full answer is, making cars totally overpower the chassis and aero seems to be a good way from a driver comparison and sporting point of view, but then the driver becomes the expensive performance differentiator.

Engineering creativity can also be really expensive as in aero and wind tunnels and seemless shift transmissions.

There doesn't seem to be any answer!


Formula Ford was the only class that ever seemed to establish a set of rules that basically worked, even then ... and now look!


But I completely share your frustration with spec formulae Casper.

[wolfhound]

If you want to see open rules but low cost racing then head to a 750MC meeting for those in the UK.

Now if you could bring that philosophy to F1...........

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

Engineering creativity can also be really expensive as in aero and wind tunnels and seemless shift transmissions.

There doesn't seem to be any answer!

Engineering creativity can work IF the budget cap can be introduced and enforced. The chances of that happening when greed is involved is zero and is the typical problem when large amounts of money and influence are involved. As for Chapman etc I don't think that his actions are pertinent today as much as I think he was the best thing that happened to F1. I thought the fan car was banned from racing, not withdrawn, perhaps I am wrong. As an aside I wonder where F1 would be today if Chapman had enjoyed a full career in design and racing of F1 cars.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by wnut

Tony, I think this is more a discussion of the likely outcomes of the Formula 1 working group's efforts to control costs following the decision not to institute a budget cap and the publishing of their "cost saving" meeting agenda viz:

The ideas that are up for discussion during Thursday's meeting are:
2015
Tyre blanket ban
Fuel system simplification
Brake duct simplification
Front wing simplification
Gearbox usage flow brought in line with engine life
Increase in curfew
Ban on front and rear interconnected suspension
2016
Standard front impact structure
Standard rear impact structure
Standard final drive system
Standard steering rack
2017
FIA standard active suspension
Move to 18-inch wheel rims

It is they who are trying to save costs in a strange manner, and us predicting the results and suggesting alternative measures. FWIW.

I don't buy that any of the above will actually significantly reduce budgets, the teams that can will simply spend the money elsewhere.

The limit on testing was supposed to reduce costs, but all that happened was that teams spent that money (and more) on elaborate simulators, jigs, rolling roads and simulation software.

Can anyone name one regulation change that was supposed to reduce costs that has actually put them down - the reg changes for this year have put costs up for everyone!

Even if the budget cap had been enforceable, and I doubted that from the first time it was mentioned, it would have been set at such a high level that it would have been of no benefit to teams below the top 4 or 5 and certainly no help to Sauber, Caterham and Marussia.

[Adam43]

The simple concept of reducing costs (without cap) is not about reducing spending. It is about reducing the effectiveness of spending and hence reducing the minimum cost to be there or there abouts.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

I don't buy that any of the above will actually significantly reduce budgets, the teams that can will simply spend the money elsewhere.

The limit on testing was supposed to reduce costs, but all that happened was that teams spent that money (and more) on elaborate simulators, jigs, rolling roads and simulation software.

Can anyone name one regulation change that was supposed to reduce costs that has actually put them down - the reg changes for this year have put costs up for everyone!

Even if the budget cap had been enforceable, and I doubted that from the first time it was mentioned, it would have been set at such a high level that it would have been of no benefit to teams below the top 4 or 5 and certainly no help to Sauber, Caterham and Marussia.

With the top six teams in the 'Strategy Group' there was no way the budget cap was going to be approved. They would sabotage any attempt to make it work or even the proposal get off the ground, because they didn't want it.

The Concorde agreement does create a wide differential between the upper and lower teams, one that is effectively putting them into a second level category.... perhaps we should simply add a second class of field fillers into F1 a bit like the turbo era where there was a Jim Clark Cup for the normally aspirated...
Don't laugh, because the difference between the have and have not teams is greater now then it was then.

It's all very well having them all under the same technical regulations but if there is such a financial gap that the lesser teams cannot compete on even a shadow footing, and that cap is reinforced by the commercial operations of the championship, then as far as the sporting and entertainment value is concerned the series is shooting itself in the foot.

So what needs to happen is specific spending on staff and specific development costs that is set at a reasonable but not highly restrictive level for the top teams (you aren't trying to bring them back to the lower teams but limit their advantage in highly expensive development trends).
Then you balance the 'Concorde Agreement' returns so the difference between the top and bottom teams is not 70+ million to ten million but from 50 million to 20-25 million.
Yes it closes the field and Bernie may not agree but this is for the health of the sport. The big teams will be able to make it up more easily than the lower teams can make it up now...
Then you impose significant fines for violations of the costs restrictions agreement and the fines are significant, in tens of millions of dollars.
The majority of the money is dispersed equally amongst the FIA and the lower teams (eg. $20 million fine is 25% to the FIA and the balance amongst the bottom three teams).
If it was an engine restriction broken the fine could be to the FIA and the teams the manufacturer supplies. The fines to the teams could be made by a reduction in their engine lease....

This is not impossible to measure, nor impossible to create nor impossible to police, nor is it impossible to enforce....