Budget caps....let's talk

[JohnMyburgh]

I read a very interesting article on http://thejudge13.com/2013/02/17/global-premier-racing-in-an-alternative-universe/, exploring a hypothetical different commercial model. One of the biggest problems as I see it is that all the money that is generated by F1 goes into lining the pockets of bankers. As Withmarsh said, Bernie is doing a great job for his employers. To turn this around the F1 teams need to be much more joined up.

 

[Bill Boddy]

The reason Mr Ecclestone became so powerful was because the teams could not agree amongst themselves. Each team was willing to have a united front as long as it was under their conditions. I don't think that has changed.

 

[Raikkonen&Redbull=PartyTime]

An interesting take on resource restriction that has already been applied in real life:
http://thejudge13.com/2013/12/31/fa...y-fia-should-rethink-their-approach/#comments

I think creating an incentive to be frugal is the best way of promoting efficiency. Simply forcing people to stop spending won't work.

Unfortunately, I read the idea and it seems so good my cynical/realistic side suggests nothing so legislatively simple would ever be adopted, just because F1 doesn't work that way. And obviously also because no big spending team is likely to adopt a measure that actively penalises them when they currently have a system that props them up.

 

[Bill Boddy]

But Red Bull aren't worried about not getting money from the end of season pot. They are resourced by the parent company, it is advertising so it does not cost the parent company the full amount due to tax breaks, they would just spend to the limit. How would it help Marussia who don't get anything even if they finish in the top ten?

The other point is that a team may think it wise to spend say 5% of the end of season money if that spending moves them up in the WCC so that they get 10% more.

 

[Mephistopheles]

It's their money let 'em spend it as they want....

 

[Greenlantern101]

Looks like Jean Todt is none too impressed with 'the teams idea of a cost cap' calling them a joke.

Their proposals at the May 1st meeting would cut around 2 million from the 400 million budget. Jean is looking for 30-40% and recons limiting personnel numbers is a possible solution.

http://www.espn.co.uk/fia/motorspor...OTC-RSS;utm_medium=twitter;utm_source=dlvr.it

 

[Bill Boddy]

Take away all the computing power.
Yours,
A. Luddite.

P.S. I wish we could.

 

[Road of Bones]

I think that the idea of a cost cap to try and level the playing field is utterly incompatible with the fundamental core of F1 - it has never been a level playing field, from they very start: It's always been the "haves" fighting it out on-track and in the factories amongst themselves and the "have nots" scrabbling for the leftovers.

What all the FIA legislation and rules-tinkering has done in recent years is remove a lot of the uncertainty that used to go along with racing at this level - the unreliability that used to KO several of the frontrunners at various points throughout the season would allow the smaller teams to spring the occasional upset or golden result, and would keep championships alive for far longer without having to resort to ludicrous double-points bonus races.

I suggest they do away with the parc ferme rule, and let the teams tinker as much as they like between qualy and the race - I bet we'd see more cars breaking down. Reintroduce more of an element of chance to proceedings, if you like.

As for a cost cap? Pfft - if you have to ask how much it costs, then you can't afford it anyway...

 

[Greenlantern101]

Everyone including me has been moaning for the last few years about a single team dominating during a season. It was Red Bull now its the Mercs. Guess which teams have the most money and most personnel. Surely if every team was limited to the same number of personnel (Jean Todts idea) or a maximum budget we would have teams much closer together and much less risk of a run away leader as we have had in the last few years.

If everyone is limited to say 400 Personnel and 200 million you are going to have less chance of a team producing an extreme car.
And you have a better chance of new teams joining the sport.

 

[soccerman17]

Given what Sauber has been able to do in the past (but not this year with their shit drivers) on a pretty small budget we would probably see them rise to the top. And Lotus considering last year they put together a very fast car with no funding. But is it going to happen? No way.

 

[TomysF1]

I am afraid budget caps will never work. F1 was always risky investment. Not a secured one...

 

[FB]

A budget cap just plays in to the hands of the factory teams as Ferrari and Mercedes will just do the work in their other facilities and not declare it to the FIA.

 

[Greenlantern101]

Surely not, that would be cheating.

 

[siffert_fan]

A budget cap just plays in to the hands of the factory teams as Ferrari and Mercedes will just do the work in their other facilities and not declare it to the FIA.

EXACTLY

 

[sushifiesta]

Surely not, that would be cheating.

And we all know that bending the rules is just unthinkable in F1...

 

[Galahad]

Building a car that can get within 107% should be as cheap as is reasonably possible. Marussia and Caterham are managing to achieve that comfortably on very tight budgets.

For me, the rest should be unrestricted. That doesn't mean that the team with the biggest budget will win; I think actually that happens less than 50% of the time, historically. But having a big budget is also in large part a reflection of success - commercial rather than technical.

 

[siffert_fan]

For me, the worry is that the bottom feeders, Marussia, Caterham, and now Sauber, who score zero points get the least financial help from Bernie etc. That being the case, what happens if they fold? Would replacements be forthcoming, or would the number of cars competing be reduced by as many as six? And, if the latter was the case, would people still watch?

 

[Galahad]

If the grid falls below a certain size, 16 I believe, then Bernie is obliged via his contracts with TV and promoters to supply additional cars, which would have to be third cars from the top teams. Plenty would be in favour of that, I'm sure, but not I. Actually a team like Sauber with good facilities would most likely find a new owner, either a manufacturer or a Mallya-type.

The overall ideal for me on the FOM side would be an ownership change, resulting in more money from the central pool for everyone, a more equitable (but not equal) distribution of income and none of this historical success nonsense that results in Ferrari being the best-remunerated team even after their most desultory season. Too much focus on the cost side of this particular equation.

 

[siffert_fan]

I totally agree.

One of the things I liked most about the long-dead Cosworth era was that it allowed single-car teams to be born and even flourish. The equality of power train allowed teams such as Williams, McLaren, Rob Walker, Hesketh, Walter Wolf, Tyrrell etc to not only come into being, but to hold their own against much larger, better-funded teams. The Cosworth's spiritual antecedent, the
Coventry Climax did much the same.

I don't know why single-car teams aren't allowed any more. I know that there will never be another era like the one I mentioned, but why there can only be two-car teams is something I will never understand.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

90% of the costs these days are all down to the design of the cars anyway, one car teams wouldn't save much money and wouldn't be commercially viable to sponsors. Not to mention unless you let them score double points they're disadvantaged in the world championships too, so less prize money.

They just don't make sense to anyone involved.