FIA introduces £30m budget cap

[Conceptual]

The more I read, the more I like the 2010 cap regs!

5.2.5U UAll KERS energy storage devices must be situated between the front face of the engine and the driver's back when viewed in lateral projection. When establishing the front face of the engine, no parts of the fuel, oil, water or electrical systems will be considered.

Is this gonna mess with anyone's KERS solution? Especially in light of the larger fuel tank needed for 2010?

4.3 Adding during the race :
With the exception of fuel and compressed gases, no substance may be added to the car during the race. If it becomes necessary to replace any part of the car during the race, the new part must not weigh any more than the original part.

Well, this is still in there... I dunno how this bans refueling.

5.2.4 The amount of stored energy in any KERS may not be increased whilst the car is stationary during a race pit stop.

But can be charged while coming to a stop in the pitlane?

3.18.2U UThe incidence of the upper section described in Article 3.10.2 (if two sections are used) may be varied whilst the car is in motion, provided any such change maintains compliance with all of the bodywork dimensional regulationsU.
Alteration of the incidence of this section may only be commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics specified in Article 8.2U.
This Article applies only to Cost-Regulated Teams.

Would linking this to the steering wheel so the wings vary when the wheel is turned count as "direct driver input"?

I'm still digging, but it looks good so far!

[Metar]

Is this gonna mess with anyone's KERS solution? Especially in light of the larger fuel tank needed for 2010?

If I'm not mistaken, McLaren - they currently house the batteries at the very bottom front of the sidepods, which appears to be ahead of the driver's back.

Would linking this to the steering wheel so the wings vary when the wheel is turned count as "direct driver input"?

Race ya to the first loophole! Remember how everyone was so excited when McLaren added these "engine-map paddles" behind the steering-wheel, to be pushed while the driver changes gears? How about integrating something just like that - a horizontal bar that the driver can push with this pinkie fingers while turning the steering-wheel, adding downforce as needed for that turn?

[vall]

I smell a bit of a mess with all this, especially if not all team sign for the cap.....

The regs change is not that big and I would guess that the teams will be able to use many of the current systems in 2010 (contrary to 2008->2009 transition). How this will be accounted in the cap? Imagine Brown keeps the advantage and finish 2009 high. Then signs for the cap, puts a big engine, all movable wings, powerful KESR, etc.? Would that count as a car developed for < 40M?

[Conceptual]

It would be incredibly stupid NOT to join the capped teams for 2010. What a waste of resources if some teams choose NOT to join the cap, since 99% of what they develop will be useless for 2011 and 2012.

Plus, I cannot see a 40M car with 21kRPM, 160HP KERS, AWD and adjustable wings being beaten by the 400M uncapped cars.

Bring on The Transformers!

[PlatinumZealot]

Suppose KERS is part of the engine?

Next year should be interesting! Imagine ECU maps for the wings! lol.. that is if they are allowed to be controlled by the ECU.

The cars should be very long to hold all that fuel.. A car might have to carry around 180 lbs of fuel to finish the race!

[Scotracer]

It would be incredibly stupid NOT to join the capped teams for 2010. What a waste of resources if some teams choose NOT to join the cap, since 99% of what they develop will be useless for 2011 and 2012.

Plus, I cannot see a 40M car with 21kRPM, 160HP KERS, AWD and adjustable wings being beaten by the 400M uncapped cars.

Bring on The Transformers!

And that's exactly Mosley's plan.

[vall]

It would be incredibly stupid NOT to join the capped teams for 2010. What a waste of resources if some teams choose NOT to join the cap, since 99% of what they develop will be useless for 2011 and 2012.

Are more dramatic changes planned for beyond 2010?

Plus, I cannot see a 40M car with 21kRPM, 160HP KERS, AWD and adjustable wings being beaten by the 400M uncapped cars.

I also wonder that, but still, FIA is going to level out the performance! So, no matter how much the big ones spend, even if they manage to beat the capped cars, then FIA will come in and boost the capped cars? This just doesn't sound right to me.

Also, how do you cut that budget by a factor if 10 that fast? This going to be a problem for the big spenders. I guess what MT suggested to decrease the cap over 2-3 year period would have been better?

[WhiteBlue]

In relative terms Williams should be a team with much trouble to reduce cost. And they have welcomed the cap. For McLaren, Ferrari, BMW, Toyota and the like it should be easy to re-allocate resourses. Same goes for Red Bull and Toro Rosso. Whatch out for a Toro Rosso design department in Silverstone.

Toyota can set up a Le Mans project as they always wanted. BMW can put excess resources to other projects, Ferrari and McLaren put the guys on the road car projects. Renault are in need of some creative ideas. This is probably why Flavio has been so pissed off lately. Brawn will cut very deep and will probably loose engineers to the new teams.

I would not be surprised to see a lot of engineering talent show up in rallying and DTM type racing.

The new technology for capped teams is quite fascinating:

- no rev limit
- full adaptive aero under SECU control for reduced drag, front and rear
- AWD
- AW KERS
- Double power KERS
- aero assisted cornering
- 15 kg higher minimum weight for KERS

It will be difficult for the FOTA to sell this a spec racing yawn. And there are some loop holes for Ferrari build into the plan:

Watch out for a bunch of Ferrari engineers doing engine reliability development next year. All that will be outside the budget, but will give extra power to the engine.

Aston Martin will not like that but will not be too much bothered. Like every other team they will not expect to be champions in their first season. So they can afford to let Ferrari have a shot a glory 2011 but in the long run they (AM) will have their opportunity.

Generally I think this new approach is very sporting and good engineers should make even more of a difference than before.

[paused]

Cosworth will be licking their lips in readiness for 2010.

I wonder if we'll see the end of Williams-Toyota.. the budget cap leaves Williams in a stronger financial position to not need Toyota's financial partnership.

Since RBR has been talking to the press recently that they haven't finalised their 2010 engine deal, is anyone willing to bet that RBR is the first team to annouce running a cosworth engine? After all Jaguar were running Cosworth for many years.

[Scotracer]

Formula One took a big step towards a leaner future yesterday with its first cap on team spending and immediately sparked a row with Ferrari, the sport’s oldest and most prestigious competitor.

As the FIA, motor sport’s world governing body, announced a £40 million voluntary budget limit on teams entering next year’s championship to help to sustain Formula One through the world recession and encourage new teams to take part, it was accused by Ferrari of ruining the sport with new regulations that are neither fair nor properly thought through.

In a strongly worded letter to Max Mosley, the president of the FIA, which was leaked to The Times, Luca Di Montezemolo, the Ferrari president, says that caps have been foisted on teams without proper warning. Ferrari claim that the rules will cause only damage to Formula One because of the inevitable wrangling about policing them and allegations of cheating.

Di Montezemolo goes on to warn about the emergence of a two-tier championship next season, with some teams running with a capped budget but greater technical freedoms and others still spending hundreds of millions of pounds but subject to stricter technical controls. The Italian’s views found support yesterday from other teams, among them Williams and McLaren Mercedes.

“There are doubts as to whether or not two categories of teams should be created which will inevitably mean that one category will have an advantage over the other and that the championship will be fundamentally unfair and, perhaps, even biased,” the Ferrari president told Mosley. “In any event, this would create confusion in the public’s mind, which would seriously lower the value of Formula One.”

Di Montezemolo’s outburst came as the FIA released the full details of the cap, which is set at £10 million more than Mosley’s original proposal outlined in March and is likely to lead to large-scale redundancies in some of the biggest teams. The cap covers most aspects of expenditure, but areas exempted include marketing and hospitality budgets, driver salaries and engine costs for 2010 only.

Mosley remained unmoved by the concerns of Ferrari. In a written reply to the Ferrari president, Mosley underlined that the world recession is hitting the sport’s two main sources of income — the car industry and the financial services sector — especially hard and it is his duty to respond.

“We cannot just sit and wait, hoping nothing bad will happen,” Mosley told Di Montezemolo in a letter also seen by The Times. “We have already lost one manufacturer [Honda]. Despite my repeated requests, not a single manufacturer has given us a legally binding undertaking that it will continue in Formula One. We already know that current levels of expenditure are unsustainable for the independent teams. If we are to reduce the risk of the Formula One World Championship collapsing, we have to allow new teams in. We also have to reduce costs drastically.”

Mosley rejected the idea that the budget cap could lead to a two-tier championship, arguing that the technical freedoms given to capped cars are an “insurance policy” to help to maintain a full grid and to close the performance gap between low-budget teams and those backed by unlimited expenditure.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 202033.ece

This is not going to end well...and I was so looking forward to the new regs

[WhiteBlue]

It is not difficult to see why Monty is taking that position. According to official reporting Ferrari have increased profit and sales during the recession while every other manufacturer have suffered losses and some are going under like Chrysler. Ferari parent company FIAT will probably buy Chrysler outright.

So it would be very tempting to carry on for Ferrari and to hell with the problems of the other teams. I think that a majority of FOTA will see things different.

[Scotracer]

Ferrari's sales have been tampered with, I bet you. There's no way they are selling more cars in this climate.

Ferrari also wont leave F1 because they need it just as much as it needs them. Possibly we may see the budget cap be increased so it's more realistic for the bigger teams?

[Conceptual]

Is this gonna mess with anyone's KERS solution? Especially in light of the larger fuel tank needed for 2010?

If I'm not mistaken, McLaren - they currently house the batteries at the very bottom front of the sidepods, which appears to be ahead of the driver's back.

Would linking this to the steering wheel so the wings vary when the wheel is turned count as "direct driver input"?

Race ya to the first loophole! Remember how everyone was so excited when McLaren added these "engine-map paddles" behind the steering-wheel, to be pushed while the driver changes gears? How about integrating something just like that - a horizontal bar that the driver can push with this pinkie fingers while turning the steering-wheel, adding downforce as needed for that turn?

I think that I would just put some control potentiometers onto the steering rack, since technically, the rack only responds to the drivers input (barring bump steer) and not computer controlled.

I am rather disappointed that they didn't allow the coup de grace of full venturi's and reactive suspension. THAT would have guaranteed that everyone got on board the budget cap train!

I hope that the USGP team is a serious endeavor. I have a close friend that is much too modest, and WAYYYYY over educated. He is an aerospace engineer that works part time jobs hoping to get in with the military as a contractor.

I hope that someone else picks him up however, having him designing killing machines is a VERY scary thought. I would much rather see him make cars go faster instead!

Anyways, I have not gotten any further into my study of the new regs, but I am looking for every out-of-the-box loophole that I possibly can conceive, and I will keep you posted!

[Scania]

Is this gonna mess with anyone's KERS solution? Especially in light of the larger fuel tank needed for 2010?

If I'm not mistaken, McLaren - they currently house the batteries at the very bottom front of the sidepods, which appears to be ahead of the driver's back.

because they don't use Li-Po but A123, it's safer

[Conceptual]

Formula One took a big step towards a leaner future yesterday with its first cap on team spending and immediately sparked a row with Ferrari, the sport’s oldest and most prestigious competitor.

As the FIA, motor sport’s world governing body, announced a £40 million voluntary budget limit on teams entering next year’s championship to help to sustain Formula One through the world recession and encourage new teams to take part, it was accused by Ferrari of ruining the sport with new regulations that are neither fair nor properly thought through.

In a strongly worded letter to Max Mosley, the president of the FIA, which was leaked to The Times, Luca Di Montezemolo, the Ferrari president, says that caps have been foisted on teams without proper warning. Ferrari claim that the rules will cause only damage to Formula One because of the inevitable wrangling about policing them and allegations of cheating.

Di Montezemolo goes on to warn about the emergence of a two-tier championship next season, with some teams running with a capped budget but greater technical freedoms and others still spending hundreds of millions of pounds but subject to stricter technical controls. The Italian’s views found support yesterday from other teams, among them Williams and McLaren Mercedes.

“There are doubts as to whether or not two categories of teams should be created which will inevitably mean that one category will have an advantage over the other and that the championship will be fundamentally unfair and, perhaps, even biased,” the Ferrari president told Mosley. “In any event, this would create confusion in the public’s mind, which would seriously lower the value of Formula One.”

Di Montezemolo’s outburst came as the FIA released the full details of the cap, which is set at £10 million more than Mosley’s original proposal outlined in March and is likely to lead to large-scale redundancies in some of the biggest teams. The cap covers most aspects of expenditure, but areas exempted include marketing and hospitality budgets, driver salaries and engine costs for 2010 only.

Mosley remained unmoved by the concerns of Ferrari. In a written reply to the Ferrari president, Mosley underlined that the world recession is hitting the sport’s two main sources of income — the car industry and the financial services sector — especially hard and it is his duty to respond.

“We cannot just sit and wait, hoping nothing bad will happen,” Mosley told Di Montezemolo in a letter also seen by The Times. “We have already lost one manufacturer [Honda]. Despite my repeated requests, not a single manufacturer has given us a legally binding undertaking that it will continue in Formula One. We already know that current levels of expenditure are unsustainable for the independent teams. If we are to reduce the risk of the Formula One World Championship collapsing, we have to allow new teams in. We also have to reduce costs drastically.”

Mosley rejected the idea that the budget cap could lead to a two-tier championship, arguing that the technical freedoms given to capped cars are an “insurance policy” to help to maintain a full grid and to close the performance gap between low-budget teams and those backed by unlimited expenditure.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 202033.ece

This is not going to end well...and I was so looking forward to the new regs

This is simple to fix.

Run F1 2010 like normal, with what is left of the non-capped teams. If there are only a few teams, they must run extra cars to have a minimum of 18 on the grid. IE: Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, BMW and Toyota can each run 4 cars.

Then, after the F1 race, the F1-P or Formula One Prototypes race. All teams are budget capped, and can showcase this amazing new tech freedom.

At the end of 2010, the viewership ratings are compared, and the highest viewed series becomes the Formula for 2011!

I would rather see it split into 2 distinct series than have it "balanced" by handicaps.

Think of it! 2x the racing, 2x the excitement, 2x the TV exposure and 2x the driving talent...

I LOVE IT!