Ideas to cut costs in F1

[machin]

Surely a standard monocoque even if that part is the external bodywork wouldn't really affect the racing.

An FIA spec monocoque can't hurt IMO...they can then spec it to fit all shapes and sizes of driver and everyone is free to work around them.

As long as it's designed with FOTA input and they can get around the mounting point issues of the different engines then it should be ok.

It wouldn't, but all the cars would look identical (as opposed to very slightly different!)... you can't standardise everything otherwise what is left for the teams to design?... F1 should always have a technical aspect to it, otherwise nobody would be interested in racing in it...

[axle]

The drivers safety cell is hardly the whole car.

If the front suspension pickups have to be included it wouldn't take a lot for them to be placed in custom locations.

[Metar]

I am sure people will want to know everything about a race winning KERS system as they wanted to know about a race winning 111° V angle over a 90° angle.

Except this: You can find info on a 111° V10, you'll know approximate power and torque figures, and know the advantages and disadvantages - but you'll never know how, for example, how the electric systems work, the details of the batteries, or anything like that.

10 years ago, teams might have shared it with the public on their own - now, even Racecar Engineering can't dig out the real details.


I'm with you two, though - Darwinism isn't the way to go in F1, otherwise we really will have 4 teams. But we must beware of over-spec'ing everything. In that aspect, really the only way to go appears to be budget-caps: Otherwise, we'll slowly but surely spec out everything an F1 car consists of. Things should stop at spec tyres, powerplants (as much as I loathe the idea - and including gearboxes) and perhaps brakes. The external surface should be absolutely free - some vague dimensions and limitations excepted, obviously.

And spec monocoques? I'm beginning to dread your ideas, Conceptual - first the random bonuses, then spec monocoques? A spec monocoque, well, you might as well sell them A1GP instead of F1.

[machin]

it (points system based on least fuel used, most number of overtakes, etc) is the best system that I have seen posted yet.

The reason the medal system was suggested was to make it easier to understand, and to encourage the drivers to race for every race win rather than settling for second place.. adding bonuses like this, even if you declare them, means you wouldn't know who had won the championship until after the event... that's not good for spectators.... Anyway, I'm straying off the topic of cost cutting...

Surely the best way is simply to limit the performance of things (weight of specific components, CG, power output, etc) so that yes budget is whatever you want it to be, but the performance gain will be very small if at all.. it would then be self limiting... this is the route the FIA is taking with the engines, and I think its good... as long as they keep introducing new technologies (like KERS) to keep things interesting they can then limit the performance of these parts once they're optimised to a point where the year on year gains in that particular area are down to 1% or so...

[Conceptual]

I think that all of these teams have the ability to co-develop a monocoque that has no outside surface, thus allowing the bodywork to be "bolted on" but designed by the seperate teams.

I hope this doesn't happen... that's how race cars used to be constructed (and still are in the lower formulae) but its terribly inefficient to have a chassis for the strength and a separate body for the aero.... The technology should definitely not be dumbed down.... just limited... it'd be like forcing them all to use carburrettors....

(just my opinion of course!)

Well, if it was Ford's 200MPG carburator, that would make it better!

[WhiteBlue]

The well known Sylt/Reid team published the following article in the financial times.

F1 teams fail payment test
By Christian Sylt and Caroline Reid
Published: December 9 2008 22:12 | Last updated: December 9 2008 22:12
The nine remaining teams in Formula One motor racing have been dealt a fresh blow after last week’s sudden announcement that Honda, the Japanese car manufacturer, will be pulling out of the sport.

A new study by the German division of Dun & Bradstreet, the business intelligence group, has questioned the creditworthiness of the majority of F1’s teams by revealing that on average only two of them paid their bills on or before the due date in 2008.

The D&B F1 Paydex study ranks the teams based on their payment behaviour and financial statements, and highlights those that are running healthy businesses and those that may be the next to reverse out of the sport.

Leading the pack is Toyota, which, on average, pays its invoices five days before they are due, with only 11 per cent of its bills being late.

It is followed by Toro Rosso and Red Bull Racing, which both pay 99 per cent of their bills on time – unsurprising given that the teams share the common ownership of the Red Bull drinks company.

Toro Rosso ranks higher than its sister team, however, since it pays its bills on the due date, whereas Red Bull Racing’s invoices are settled one day late.

In spite of its seemingly healthy results, even Toyota’s future participation cannot be guaranteed.

Its shares have lost 52 per cent of their value over the past year and the group recently announced that net income to the end of March 2009 would reach Y550bn (£4bn) – a 68 per cent drop on last year.

After Honda, Toyota has spent more than any other car manufacturer in F1 – an estimated £700m over the past five years – and yet it has never won a race.

With prudence the criterion by which successful companies are being measured, staying in F1 could devalue Toyota and cause shareholders to demand that it cuts the programme.

At the other end of the results spectrum are the teams that could be forced to leave F1 if their businesses fail to perform.

The British Williams team is the only one not to be owned by a billionaire or a car manufacturer and it occupies the penultimate place on the ranking. On average, its bills are paid 11 days late – the same delay as those paid by the moribund Honda team.

Over 2006 and 2007, Williams burnt up losses of £50m and its owners, Frank Williams and Patrick Head, took two consecutive pay cuts of £800,000. The team’s net debt trebled to £25m last year but it still seems in better health than Force India, which occupies the last spot on the ranking.

Force India is owned by Vijay Mallya, the Indian airlines billionaire.

A total of 99 per cent of Force India’s invoices are paid late and, on average, arrive 75 days after they were due.

D&B data show the delay in payment has increased from about 50 days at the beginning of 2007, when the team was owned by the Spyker car company. This compares with a delay of 15 days at most for more than 12,000 businesses also operating in the racing sector – a bleak picture that is not brightened by Force India’s financial statements.

The team made a £19.6m loss in 2005 but its 2006 and 2007 accounts are overdue with the former more than a year late – making it tough for prospective sponsors to see how secure the team is.

F1’s heavyweight teams do not have the same problem, but their creditworthiness is another matter.

Renault, BMW, Ferrari and McLaren are ranked in fourth through to seventh place with between 3 per cent and 40 per cent of their bills respectively paid late.

The impact of these results is that external suppliers may think twice about dealing with the teams, particularly with cash flow now being tight due to the global slowdown.

This is less problematic for those teams owned by car companies – they can draw on the resources of their parents – but for the independent teams outrunning the economic downturn will be perhaps their toughest ever race.

This confirms my impression that McLaren, Ferrari, BMW and Red Bull are solid. Toro Rosso is the logical ballast Mateschitz could shed. Williams are close to broke, Force India as well because the booze money will be needed to pay for the airline. Renault will be taken out by Goshn unless the cost cutting is massive enough to get them into profit.

[flynfrog]

I think that all of these teams have the ability to co-develop a monocoque that has no outside surface, thus allowing the bodywork to be "bolted on" but designed by the seperate teams.

I hope this doesn't happen... that's how race cars used to be constructed (and still are in the lower formulae) but its terribly inefficient to have a chassis for the strength and a separate body for the aero.... The technology should definitely not be dumbed down.... just limited... it'd be like forcing them all to use carburrettors....

(just my opinion of course!)

Well, if it was Ford's 200MPG carburator, that would make it better!

you failed physics didn't you

[donskar]

Interesting, WhiteBlue. Thanks for posting.

One caveat when reading this piece: for some companies making late payments is a standard business practice.

I have worked with several high tech startups - English, South African, US, and Indian - (yes, I'm old and have had several "careers") that routinely paid late in order to earn every possible penny in interest - some economists call this "float."

It's a smart business practice - as long as you can get away with it!

One wonders how long Williams can go on. And when will Malya (FIF1) pull the plug? And when will Ghosn say "enough!"? And now that Honda has gone, that removes a bit of pressure from Toyota. They compete directly with Honda, but do not really compete directly with M-B and BMW, and do not compete with Renault or Fiat at all in the USA. As a Toyota employee, I'd like to see them get out of F1. (As an F1 fan I want them to stay.)

[jon-mullen]

One caveat when reading this piece: for some companies making late payments is a standard business practice.

I have worked with several high tech startups - English, South African, US, and Indian - (yes, I'm old and have had several "careers") that routinely paid late in order to earn every possible penny in interest - some economists call this "float."

It's a smart business practice - as long as you can get away with it!

I found this to be true when I was keeping the books at two restaurants. Even though credit card deposits would come in 4-5 days of the week and we would make cash deposits nearly every day, a lag between having the money in the bank and it coming out of the bank is always desirable. In this way you can have losses in individual weeks and months and get away with it.

I'm not entirely clear on how often F1 teams get paid by Bernie or by their sponsors, but it can't be that often. I wouldn't consider the lag to be all that telling until they bounce a check to an employee or delay payroll. That's when you know you're f'ed.

[Conceptual]

Well, if it was Ford's 200MPG carburator, that would make it better!

you failed physics didn't you

Did Pogue fail too? He was awarded 3 patents after all...

http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/rex_pogue.pdf

[machin]

http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/rex_pogue.pdf

Quote from that link:

"it might take you ten minutes to accelerate from 0 to 30 miles an hour"

The day F1 cars have this performance is the day I give up on motor racing!

[WhiteBlue]

FiA and FOTA seem to head into todays talks at Monaco with two basic alternatives.

Mosley Interview

...We are in discussion mode at the moment. A lot of the teams would like a base engine, but the manufacturers may also make an offer which could be interesting, so we will see how it develops. It would be better if they accepted the proposal, but you cannot pre-judge what other people come up with. They might come up with something completely new that we haven't thought of, so one has to keep an open mind. Today is make-your-mind-up time, but I don't yet know what they are going to put forward. If it looks good, then that's fine. I just want to make sure we are not going to wander into a catastrophic situation without knowing what we are doing.

Crash net on FOTA Position

...In contrast to the FIA's suggestion, FOTA has put forward its own method which it argues would cut costs whilst retaining F1's spectacle, by dint of using the same engine for four races – rather than three as the governing body has proposed – shortening grands prix by 50 kilometres and reducing annual testing from 30,000km to just 10,000km by 2010.

Following that, in 2011 FOTA's plan is to introduce a turbocharged 1.8-litre engine specification, which the organisation claims will cost €1.5 million less than that which Cosworth would provide....

I see a number of problems with the FOTA proposal.

• They would have to contractually guarantee a customer price in the future. That is a promise which they already broke once before.
• Before the price comes down in 2011 customers will have paid 30 million more.
• There would be no gurantee that the money will be there to do the development. If manufacturers pull out there will still be no new lower cost engines
• Shortening GPs does not impress me. I want full length GPs. That is why it is called a Grand Prix!!

Perhaps they can compromise on the issues and surely getting through the 2009 season will be the crucial thing. If Ross Brawn's proposal is adopted and they go for 4 race engines next season +iron clad supply contracts for the next 3 years I could see the FiA accepting that.

[axle]

Can't see sponsors wanting less air time either...

[WhiteBlue]

It was allways said that the show will not be reduced. So they should not do it. In the meantime Mosley has come down pretty hard on Ferrari and McLaren, who are trying to shoot down KERS.

FIA President Sets Out Vision for Formula One

By Ian Lockwood December 10 2008
FIA President Max Mosley set out his vision for Formula One and its sustainable financial future in his keynote address to the Motor Sport Business Forum in Monaco today. In a crucial week for the sport, Mosley gave his opinion on the withdrawal of Honda from Formula One and what the sport must do to remain both sustainable and relevant in these changing times.
Mosley said: “Honda pulled out because of falling car sales and there is no guarantee that these falling sales, which affect all manufacturers, will not drop further. If they do then we have to prepare for other manufacturers to pull out not only from Formula One but other areas of motor sport as well.

“But what is wrong with Formula One today was wrong before any of the present economic problems cropped up. Essentially it’s the rules, which have become ever more restrictive compressing the work of the engineers into an ever smaller area.

“As such, success in F1 today consists of optimizing every single part of the chassis to the ultimate degree and that is both extremely expensive and utterly pointless.”

An example in point, according to Mosley, is that one team currently spends over US$1,000 each for a specialised lightweight wheel nut imported from California and uses over 1,000 of these a year. That is over US$1 million for something no fan is aware of and makes no discernible difference to the show.

Mosley said that the continual search for lighter, exotic materials “has created a mentality in F1 where the engineers are only comfortable in refinement, they don’t do innovation. That is slowly destroying F1. It is enormously expensive and is not really what an engineer should be doing.”

An illustration of this is the Kinetic Energy Recovery System which will be part of the sport next season.

Mosley said: “We’ve finally found a serious engineering challenge for the teams in KERS. Some manufacturers have risen to this challenge, one manufacturer has produced electric systems which will astonish people when they appear, another team is working on a completely new technology which will also astonish people.

“But some leading teams, such as Ferrari, have said that they don’t like KERS because it is ‘too complicated’. Could you imagine the great F1 engineers like Chapman or Duckworth saying ‘I can’t do that because it is too complicated’? It is a symptom of a disease in F1 where incremental change becomes the whole object of the exercise and real serious innovation plays no part.”

Mosley added that the aim now is to stabilize the sport by making a low-cost engine available to all teams. In the longer term this will allow the development of ultra efficient down-sized engines, combined with advanced energy recovery systems, which will maintain the relevance of the sport in an ecological age.

Mosley said: “We need dramatically to cut costs and get innovation back into Formula One. We must stabilize the system with a base engine which anyone can have and which is inexpensive, as well as a standard gearbox. That will stabilize Formula One until we can bring in new energy-efficient engines which undoubtedly will be the future.

“But I would hate anyone to think that we want Formula One to lose sight of one of its main objectives, which is to remain the pinnacle of motor racing technology. If properly managed the regulations will ensure that this continues to be the case.”

This sounds like praise for Williams and BMW =D> and a slap in the face of McLaren and Ferrari who still try to shoot the new technology down. [-X It is also nice to see that efficient ICEs are still on the FiA agenda and not only cost cutting. =D>

[mcdenife]

But what is wrong with Formula One today was wrong before any of the present economic problems cropped up. Essentially it’s the rules, which have become ever more restrictive compressing the work of the engineers into an ever smaller area.

“As such, success in F1 today consists of optimizing every single part of the chassis to the ultimate degree and that is both extremely expensive and utterly pointless.”

The gal of the guy, when he is singularly responsible for this state of affair with his constant medling and rule changes while power triping.

PS: Strange that you conclude he was refering to Mclaren (Williams and/or BMW) as well when he only mentioned Ferrari by name.