Would this reduce the costs?

[Pingguest]

Two-event engines, the parc fermé-regulations, the new technical restrictions for the engines, all examples of measures to reduce the costs. I still don't like these regulations. I think these rules take away much of the basic principles of Formula 1.

But costs have to be reduced. In the past couple of months I thought about other measures to reduce the costs, such as:
- eliminating all driver aids (traction control, tyre blankes, electronic differentials, semi-automatic gearboxes);
- eliminating refuelling and introducing a maximum amount of fuel to use, to provide teams with a less powerful engine an advantage;
- reintroducing a restricted form of ground effect, to allow teams with a less powerful engine to compromise their lack of horsepower.

But when I read the 2006 Sporting Regulations I found this one:

Originally Posted by the FIA, as stated in Article 73, section B of 2006 Formula One Sporting Regulations

No tyre may be used in the Championship unless the company supplying such tyre accepts and adheres to the following conditions:

- one tyre supplier present in the Championship this company must equip 100% of the entered teams on ordinary commercial terms;
- two tyre suppliers present: each of them must, if called upon to do so, be prepared to equip up to 60% of the entered teams on ordinary commercial terms;
- three or more tyre suppliers present: each of them must, if called upon to do so, be prepared to equip up to 40% of the entered teams on ordinary commercial terms;
[...]

So, why can't the FIA introduce the same sort of rules for chassis’s and engines? I know that the FIA has the pretension to introduce a 'free market' by 2007 or 2008, but it doesn't seem likely that the FIA is willing to force constructors and engine manufactures to supply to other teams. But I think this would massively reduce the costs. The FIA could introduce additional regulations, such as a price cap. It would allow smaller teams to be competitive even without having a factory.

What's your thought on this?

[Peter Mallett]

When I were a lad the engine thing wasn't an issue. You were either Ferrari and ran your own engine or you were a garagiste and you ran a Cosworth.

Costs were comparably astronomical but there were more teams because of the commonality of parts. The introduction of manufacturures in the eighties pushed costs up due to all that R&D capability.

So, I can't see how anybody can discuss cost cutting in the environment we have now. Its more about who has the most and best toys, rather than competition.

[Gt_R]

Pingguest, what you raised is a valid point. I have long think that a car manufacturer who enters the sports should face the same obligation as tyre manufacturers.

This is to help sustain the competitiveness of smaller teams, while at the same time time ensure that their future is more secure when discussing financial deals. (remember the days when Minardi/Jordans are left without engine deals right til the last weeks...how do these poor teams negotiate sponsors when they don't even have an engine?)

It's simple to implement really. Any auto-manufacturer who joins is obligated to provide, should the need arises by a smaller team, to supply customer engines. Only when a auto manufacturer already supply two/three teams while others one, it can refuse to supply additional.

Specialist engine manufacturers are not tied by this obligation, but can offer if they want to.

For example, in season X (based on 2006)

1) Renault
2) Mclaren Mercedes
3) Ferrari
4) Sauber BMW
5) Toyota
6) Honda

7) Williams Cosworth
8) Red Bull Ferrari

say no engine deals yet.. (fiction situation)
9) Midland (can choose from 1-6..but if choose Ferrari, Ferrari can opt to reject due to Red Bull deal. The others are obliged to supply.) - Midland opt Toyota
10) STR (can choose from 1-6.. but Ferrari and Toyota can choose to reject if chosen. Remaining obliged)
11) Aguri (May choose, or cooperate with Cosworth)

[avsfan733]

as it stands now in NASCAR (don't look at me like that I got this from race car engineering), any team/manufacturer can buy any other manufacturers engine at what I believe is a fixed price. Those cars run no data no telemetry no fuel injection and they still spend a large some (I have heard estimates of above $20 million US per car per season. and thats without any really advanced technical research and without ANY air freight. I like the idea though it seems like any way of reducing costs should be considered.

My personal idea is to allow any team with less than 5 years experience to buy year old chassis from teams for a specific price so that they can at least be somewhat competitive while they get on their feet

[pink69]

I'd be all for the removal of Driver Aids, but the reason FIA legalised them, is because there was no way they could fully enforce the rules, teams would find ways around it. So to stop one team having the advantage, everyone's allowed them. The drivers don't even have to change up gears anymore for crying out loud. If F1 wants to be considered the pinicle of motorsports, it needs to test the drivers to their limits.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by pink69

I'd be all for the removal of Driver Aids, but the reason FIA legalised them, is because there was no way they could fully enforce the rules, teams would find ways around it. So to stop one team having the advantage, everyone's allowed them. The drivers don't even have to change up gears anymore for crying out loud. If F1 wants to be considered the pinicle of motorsports, it needs to test the drivers to their limits.

The FIA's excuse to legalize driver aids like traction control is nonsense, isn't it? The FIA banned most driver aids in 1994. Some people suggested to introduce a standard, but fully adaptable ECU. But the FIA didn't listen.

[kmsport]

"So, why can't the FIA introduce the same sort of rules for chassis’s and engines? I know that the FIA has the pretension to introduce a 'free market' by 2007 or 2008, but it doesn't seem likely that the FIA is willing to force constructors and engine manufactures to supply to other teams. But I think this would massively reduce the costs. The FIA could introduce additional regulations, such as a price cap. It would allow smaller teams to be competitive even without having a factory.

What's your thought on this?"



.....because the influence that the major manufacturers have on F1 would kill it instantaneously if they collectivley decided to withdraw from the World Championship.

[N I Tram]

The manufacturers wouldn't do that - they rely on F1 for advertising, brand image and promotion.