The easiest way to make F1 engines cheaper is to make them electric. It’s just a matter of time.
There is one major reason why F1 can't go electric - and that's Formula E's contract with the FIA. Formula E has an exclusive licence with the FIA for 25 years to run a single seater-all-electric championship. F1 would either need to pay Alejandro Agag a massive pile of cash (hundreds of millions or possibly billions) for the rights, or it needs to maintain an ICE in place until 2039...There is no reason why F1 can't go electric, though it will involve brining back refuelling i.e channge of battery, I wouldn't suggest going down the change car route, i.e two cars to complete a race swapping as required as governing altering the set up when charging or changing the battery. Changing the battery initially would involve some clever thinking to reduce pit time, but except for safety the design and installation should be free and not go down the standard battery route, that way we may get a system that would mean we can treat the battery pack as a fuel that can be standardised for road use.
F1 needs to stop pretending its about road car technology just to pander to the manufacturers of road cars. Having a budget cap is absolutely fine but, It should be all about designing the best cars and putting the best drivers in them.
I have to say that I don’t quite agree with you,..True Galahad which is why Dear old Bernie wanted the manufacturers in. They could afford to pay out more while demanding less in comparative terms.
If you go back to the early 90s, the most technologically advanced cars were being produced by independent teams. They were getting the lions share of the money. Once Dear old Bernie got his mate Max to hand over the keys to the commercial rights, Bernie took out a far greater slice. If the teams were taking 80 percent of the commercial rights before 1997/98, afterwards they were probably only getting 50 percent all be it of a bigger pot thanks to Bernie.
If you have a pool of independent teams who rely on that cash to develop, Bernie has to keep growing the pot at a bigger, and potentially unsustainable rate. By bringing in the manufacturers, suddenly you have a group who are happy to take their purse from Bernie and still spend 3 times what they are given by FOM because they have other revenue generating opportunities.
I would argue that financed properly and with a far better and more open rule book that relies more on intuition and engineering and less on spending billions to gain 100th of a second, independent teams could produce outstanding designs as they always did in the past.
I genuinely think that Mosley had the right idea in 2010... have a strict budget cap, but allow much more leeway with the regs. Then teams can’t just throw money at optimisation, but can instead, as you suggest use more intuition..
I don't have a problem with what Mosley was trying to do in 2010 but he lost his battle with his great mate Bernie precisely because he couldn't put the genie back in the bottle.
Like I said to G, Bernie needed the manufacturers to come into the sport precisely because they were willing to chuck cash at the wall to see what stuck.
Companies like Toyota must have wasted millions on their F1 project until the credit crunch blew them out. You can't tell me that they were getting more back from Bernie than they put in?
It was a brave move for Mercedes to enter F1 as a manufacturer in the immediate aftermath of the global banking crisis. Fortunately for them, Honda, BMW, Toyota and a short while later, Renault all pulled out as constrictors.
I'm not convinced Ferrari are different. They are now a publicly traded company with accountability to shareholders. It is no longer Enzo's hobby.One has to look back to how F1 started, it was a manufacturers formula with private entrants as manufacturer B teams plus a few well heeled amateur entrants with their "hybrid" i.e mixture of chassis/engines and bodywork but it was basically amatuer for the spectacle, privateers with no hope but fun and start money. Except for the manufacturers you entered your car, paid the fee got scrutineered and off you raced, you didn't need a commitment to race the season, then came the Enzo Ferrari so called garageistas, who after a few false starts started winning, these guys were generally engineers or small production sports or racing car builders, Cooper, Lotus, Brabham etc, they made their money by selling their cars to privateers and selling support and expertise to their customers.
Today the manufacturer rules, the limitations of regulation discourage thinking out of the box, privateers are discouraged by swinging entrance fees to join the club, even billionaires have problems affording joining the club. F1 made enough money to support its 10 or 12 races but Bernie and the old Brabham F1 team decided to do a JR Ewing on F1 even to the extent of regulating the regulator, F1 is not a sport any longer is a billion dollar circus operated by big business collecting as much cash as possible on a worldwide basis from goverments, circuit owners, fans and manufacturers.
I suppose the real question is whether the the advantage to the manufacturers is real in advertising return or a myth that can they really get off without losing sales to the non participating manufacturers, are their products actually better than the non participating manufacturers, Ferrari are a different case, they're Italians and have a religious fervour to F1 and motor racing as a sport and have a right to win.