Cost Cutting

[F1Brits_90]

Apologies if this is duplication but I couldn't find a thread about cost cutting or f1 strategy group

Interesting breaking news that I just seen on autosport thanks to Will Buxton on twitter that a cost cap for engine & gearbox supply deals to customer teams & a ban on windtunnel testing leading to a greater use of CFD, have been agreed by the members of the F1 Strategy Group, which depending on which engine spec people take could reduce engine costs from 55% or 70% compared to 2014 & 2015 50% reduction on gearboxes compared to 2014 & 2015 Should they all go through, it is understood it could represent a cost-saving of between £14.5m-£18m per season

Engine cost cap, windtunnel ban for F1 - AUTOSPORT

 

[RasputinLives]

I agree in cost capping in general but if this isn't offset by more testing being allowed then we will once again be left with a status quo situation where teams just can't catch up.

 

[Bill Boddy]

Will the teams using the old engines have a separate series to run in like MotoGP has?

 

[erinha]

They should remove 18 of the tracks from calendar too. Best cost cutting technique and they would not be necessary with these measures anyway. They can just give all the trophies to the team who wins the race in Australia.
Almost no PU development, aero development or testing... More than likely teams will end the season slower than they've started.

 

[F1Brits_90]

Team principal press conference was an odd one because they all majority disagreed with all the strategy group ideas 1 by 1, which might be the reason f1 In such a mess because they can agree on anything because team dont want to lose any advantage they made have. Begs question is strategy group no longer necessary & fia should take back control of there own flagship sport say these are rules now deal with it

 

[erinha]

It might be because the teams who agreed with wind tunnel bans etc were Red Bull, McLaren and Force India. None of them were in the press conference.
Williams, Ferrari, Mercedes were against those decisions.

 

[cider_and_toast]

If a team buys an engine, regardless of cost capping, it shouldb expect the same spec and performance as the team it buys from. The best way to ensure this is for all engine suppliers to give their all of their engine allocations for the season to the FIA who then issue the engines out at random to the teams as they are needed. Any engine upgrades would have to be done by re-calling and re-allocating all of thw engines. Simple and fair.

 

[Greenlantern101]

Restricting testing be it on track or in a wind tunnel is very much the wrong path to take. If F1 wants to be the pinacle of motorsport it needs to stop cutting its nose off to spite its face.

Sensible cost cutting ideas.
1) Limit personnel numbers. I'm sure Ferrari were employing 1500 people the last time I saw a stat. Cap every team at 500 employees.
2) Use cheap materials for components with high attrition, such as aluminum front wings, steel brakes, steel gearboxes.
3) Standardise non performance related components such as clutches, steering wheels, brake calipers, gear boxes, etc.

Feels like this subject gets talked to death and nothing happens.

Oh look.

Budget caps....let's talk
The cost cutters challenge
Team budget restrictions

 

[RasputinLives]

I have a very simple solution to this but it'll never get done because its not good for business.

Basically the engine manufacturers have a contract with the FIA/FOM to supply a certain amount of engines a year. The teams then have a contract with the FIA/FOM to be supplied with said engines. There is a limit on the amount of teams that can have one type of engine and at the end of each season the teams submit an 'order of preference' of what engines they would like and the manufacturers divy them up between them.

It would mean all teams would get an engine and also mean the engine manufacturers are less at risk of losing money as their contract is with the FIA/FOM so will always be paid. If a team can't pay its fees to the FIA/FOM then whats owed just gets taken out the big pot of prize money.

It will never happen though as it means the big manufacturer teams like Merc and Ferrari would lose a degree of control/advantage and might sell less cars.

The other one I'll say again is testing session on the Wednesday before a race weekend and on the Monday after. The whole team is already there so its the cheapest way. If you want to spice it up just say the top two teams in the constructors don't get to test.

 

[Bill Boddy]

... If you want to spice it up just say the top two teams in the constructors don't get to test.

While we are at it, fine the teams who win races, make the top drivers have more pit stops than the others. I am against penalising teams for success.

 

[FB]

As I've mentioned before the who business of budget caps is complete bollocks as the big teams (Ferrari and Mercedes in particular) will just do the R&D in other parts of their business and not tell anyone. The only way to fully control cost in F1 is to go to a spec series and and I don't think any of us want that.

Far more sensible would be engine power control systems to level the playing field on the power units and much stronger controls on the aerodynamic systems to make it more about the drivers.

 

[RasputinLives]

I agree in principle Bill Boddy which is why I said if you want to spice it up.

Right now F1 has a system that doesn't allow teams the chance to catch up if they are behind at the begining of the year. They can either accept there lot and trundle round in the B race or try to improve but end up with mass penalties for replacing parts and end up 50 places down on the grid.

A third of the field wrote Monza off as something they had to get through in order to have a chance at Singapore. Thats just not acceptable.

 

[Greenlantern101]

Standardised parts in F1. Hmm.

I would say standard brakes, suspension and gearbox wouldn't alter 'the show' too much.

F1 could introduce standard parts, Carey says

 

[cider_and_toast]

As was mentioned in FB's 'it's not the driver..' thread, at one stage in the 70's almost every car on the grid was running around with a DFV mated to a Hewland Gearbox.

 

[Incubus]

The article is a bit vague though, with nothing really specific about it. And some of the parts on F1 cars (such as brake components or electronic packages example) are already quite standardised anyway and never had more than one or two suppliers manufacturing them at any one time.

 

[FB]

So they then throw more money at the aero side to compensate for the loss of improvement they can make to the suspension? It's a nil sum gain, restrict the cars power and let them get on with messing about with other parts of the design. If they limit the power then there wouldn't be the need for multiple engine modes etc. I know I bang on about this but LMP1 has managed to create a power equivalency formula based on different hybrid systems and different fuel types. F1 is held back by the vested interests of the teams.

 

[The Pits]

Standardised steering wheels, gearboxes, and floors.

Engine modes limited by the lack of controls, meaning they need to be set and forget before leaving ghe pits.

 

[Andyoak]

The only driver controls are accelerator, brake, clutch and gear. Shut the radios down each way... And no remote control.

I want to see drivers driving and mechanics building and then seeing what happens on the day; a circuit is a forum, the arena, the proving ground. Where legends are made. Bureaucracy does not make heroes.

 

[Andyoak]

It's simplistic Sunday and wine o'clock.

 

[TR]

So they then throw more money at the aero side to compensate for the loss of improvement they can make to the suspension? It's a nil sum gain, restrict the cars power and let them get on with messing about with other parts of the design. If they limit the power then there wouldn't be the need for multiple engine modes etc. I know I bang on about this but LMP1 has managed to create a power equivalency formula based on different hybrid systems and different fuel types. F1 is held back by the vested interests of the teams.

IMHO, power equivalence has no place in F1. It works in LMP1, because LMP1 is endurance racing which by its very nature is based around building cars that keep running at top performance. F1 on the other hand has always been (partially) about who can build the fastest, most powerful car. Equating the power runs contrary to that aspect of the sport.