FIA introduces £30m budget cap

[sticky667]

Imagine Brawn 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?

they need to sign the cap between 5/22-5/29 to enter into the 2010 registration process. we'll know in a few weeks time which road they take

[Conceptual]

Does this end the rimshields for 2010?

12.5.1 All tyres must be used as supplied by the manufacturer, any modification or treatment such as cutting, grooving, the application of solvents or softeners, the fitting of heat retaining devices or pre-heating is therefore prohibited. This applies to dry, intermediate and wet-weather tyres.

[paused]

Does this end the rimshields for 2010?

12.5.1 All tyres must be used as supplied by the manufacturer, any modification or treatment such as cutting, grooving, the application of solvents or softeners, the fitting of heat retaining devices or pre-heating is therefore prohibited. This applies to dry, intermediate and wet-weather tyres.

Doubt it. If teams can argue a hole is not a hole, then surely they can argue that a rim shield is not a heat retaining device as directly related to the tyre. They are located a longway from the contact patch and to say they act to retain heat is a pretty long bow.

[Fil]

Does this end the rimshields for 2010?

the above rule is about tyres. rimshields are for conditioning/optimising brake airflow, nothing to do with tyres.

[Conceptual]

Does this end the rimshields for 2010?

12.5.1 All tyres must be used as supplied by the manufacturer, any modification or treatment such as cutting, grooving, the application of solvents or softeners, the fitting of heat retaining devices or pre-heating is therefore prohibited. This applies to dry, intermediate and wet-weather tyres.

Doubt it. If teams can argue a hole is not a hole, then surely they can argue that a rim shield is not a heat retaining device as directly related to the tyre. They are located a longway from the contact patch and to say they act to retain heat is a pretty long bow.

Well, it could be argued that it does the same thing as "baking" the rims... And if you can give an example of a "heat retaining device" that this may apply to, I would be much appreciative!

Also, with this:

11.7 KERS brake valve :
The pressure generated by the driver in the rear brake circuit may be reduced during KERS operation by the use of a brake pressure reducing valve. The valve must be manufactured, installed and operated in accordance with FIA specifications, details of which may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
The valve may only be controlled by the ECU described in Article 8.2.

Not for 2010 specifically, but as KERS continues to be opened up, does anyone think that we will see the ($25k/ea) carbon/carbon brake discs replaced by less expensive ceramic discs simply because the braking power will be shared between the disc/caliper and the KERS system?

Or could we see this implemented as soon as 2010 due to the cost savings? Especially since there is no limit on the AWD recovery of energy, just the re-application?

This may be something to watch out for as well!

[Metar]

Not for 2010 specifically, but as KERS continues to be opened up, does anyone think that we will see the ($25k/ea) carbon/carbon brake discs replaced by less expensive ceramic discs simply because the braking power will be shared between the disc/caliper and the KERS system?

Or could we see this implemented as soon as 2010 due to the cost savings? Especially since there is no limit on the AWD recovery of energy, just the re-application?

This may be something to watch out for as well!

Doubt it. They'll stick to the best, strongest materials possible for as long as they can (or as long as they can afford it - and this is a crucial area of performance where I doubt they'll skimp out on).

Plus, if you look at, say, the McLaren system - it wouldn't be braking for more than a 1-2s per lap (0.5s currenly, times two for the doubled power - however with unlimited incoming energy and front-wheel regeneration, that time might still be half a second or less!), so you'll still need your brakes for the rest of the time.

All this rule allows (it's new, isn't it?) is to prevent the sort of instability at the rear that plagued KERS teams so far, since KERS' charging caused unpredictable changes in rear brake-force - something that every KERS driver complained about, at some stage. Basically, it'll allow teams to set the valve up so that the braking-force on the rear axle gets reduced by exactly the same amount as the force created by the KERS system's charging.

[xpensive]

The economical situation in mind, I think even a team such as BGP will find it a challenge to raise 30 M£ for 2010.

Excluding Jensons retainer that is. The EvilTwins should consider themselves happy with what they've got team-wise.

[axle]

I think a £100m cap for 2010 would have been welcomed by all teams followed by progressively smaller budgets till 2013 (down to £60m)...to allow the teams time to scale down the workforces etc through natural wastage + fewer compulsory redundancies. And none of these technical sweetners would be needed. Which is going to lead to a 2-tier formula.

I don't think a 2-tier F1 is the right solution, I think it just smacks of FIA bullying. Do it our way or go away, but if they p1ss off Ferrari enough to move to LeMans etc then they will regret it as love or hate them their fan base is HUGE.

By setting a budget level that some teams simply cannot meet in 7 months time is divisive, it's another weapon to split up FOTA. As the littler teams will have to go for it but the bigger teams can't hope to make it without sacking 70% of their workforce in an economic downturn - think, FIA, just for once, about the people employed at these firms...

There is no move made to make the cars more environmentally friendly - they could make a rule that x% of the car has to recyclable, or ban pneumatic valve trains to reduce RPM's and conserve fuel...but no...again the FIA give out the wrong message.

In summary this is not about good racing, it's about muscle flexing. FIA is trying to break up FOTA and show who the boss is. But an F1 without big teams and big names is GP2, and who watches that? (Yes you lot might but I'm talking about the big picture )

[jonathan189]

They'll cause hundreds of redundancies by setting a budget cap this low. The credit crunch was going to result in cutbacks anyway -- why not let the teams and their accounts decide the budget? This way people lose their jobs needlessly.

[hulmerist]

I think a £100m cap for 2010 would have been welcomed by all teams followed by progressively smaller budgets till 2013 (down to £60m)...to allow the teams time to scale down the workforces etc through natural wastage + fewer compulsory redundancies. And none of these technical sweetners would be needed. Which is going to lead to a 2-tier formula.

I don't think a 2-tier F1 is the right solution, I think it just smacks of FIA bullying. Do it our way or go away, but if they p1ss off Ferrari enough to move to LeMans etc then they will regret it as love or hate them their fan base is HUGE.

By setting a budget level that some teams simply cannot meet in 7 months time is divisive, it's another weapon to split up FOTA. As the littler teams will have to go for it but the bigger teams can't hope to make it without sacking 70% of their workforce in an economic downturn - think, FIA, just for once, about the people employed at these firms...

There is no move made to make the cars more environmentally friendly - they could make a rule that x% of the car has to recyclable, or ban pneumatic valve trains to reduce RPM's and conserve fuel...but no...again the FIA give out the wrong message.

In summary this is not about good racing, it's about muscle flexing. FIA is trying to break up FOTA and show who the boss is. But an F1 without big teams and big names is GP2, and who watches that? (Yes you lot might but I'm talking about the big picture )

that's basically what i came in this thread to say, the cap should've been stepped, but the more open rules should apply to everyone, this would encourage clever engineering solutions rather than spending millions to gain hundreds of a second advantage

a formula one where smaller teams can actually compete whilst keeping the big manufacterers happy is what going to keep it sustainable

this whole situation just stinks of mosley, the fia and bernie's whole attitude to the running of f1, they're not trying to keep it as what the fans actually want

if bernie actually gave the teams more money they'd be less reliant on sponsor money and hence more likely to survive in the difficult economic climate

[vall]

if bernie actually gave the teams more money they'd be less reliant on sponsor money and hence more likely to survive in the difficult economic climate

I totally agree and I said it some time ago: Why not MrM and FOTA press the greedy gnome to give teams more TV money and set a budget cap for everyone somewhere between 50 and 100 MEuro?

[Chaparral]

Basically what the previous 4 or 5 contributors and others have said - I have held the opinion that this cap is ALL about driving a wedge within the FOTA group by Ecclestone & Max nothing more nothing less - Williams have come out and said no they dont want a two tiered series, Mclaren are not happy for the same reason, VJ Mallya is not sure, Ferrari definitely dont want it and Id reckon RBR, Renault, Brawn and Toyota will come out and say the same thing in the end - this will end in tears Im sure and could even lead to the main game guys pulling out/moving their show to another arena outside the control of the FIA and FOM - it may not happen till 2012 when the current teams agreements run out with FOM though. Im pretty sure with just simple maths that despite all the 'concessions' it will be nigh impossible to run a 2 car team on 40 million pounds PA especially if your technical freedoms are greater then the teams with unlimited finance - tech/innovation/materials costs money thats a plain fact of life. Mosley has given concessions on a number of areas (Any team agreeing to operate within the budget cap will be able to use movable front and rear wings and, most crucially, an engine not subject to a rev limit unlimited off-season testing will also be allowed, along with unlimited wind-tunnel testing) and Ecclestone is offering 10 million pound per team (for 2010 only) + will cover costs for freighting 2 cars and equipment + 20 economy air fares for each team to the fly away races. He is also talking of reducing the revenue paid to the current teams to 'help' with the costs to the race organisers - how that will work I dont know - but it obviously doesnt see his/CVC's take reduced - how unusual.

At the end of the day the FIA cannot act quickly enough to the day to day issues of running the series how the hell can they run a cost cap of this nature and administer that whilst maintaining a 'parity' section of the series - a simple cost cap would have been manageable in step down amounts this is absolute b/s - the --- is about to hit the fan methinks and one alternative is (the main game guys moving to their own series) I just dont know the likelihood of it all unless FOTA has the guts and drive to actually break away to create a 'premier league' or Grand Prix World Championship or whatever you name it - I would believe that if they do they would drag a few of the potential newcomers along with them leaving Ecclestone CVC and FIA with nothing.............that I would like to see.

FOTA own the product so are in a very strong position if they remain united - FIA have some muscle but it can be side stepped as the various US series do - Ecclestone controls the income (at the moment) but he's in a precarious position if he has no product.............

[axle]

Actually I agree with MrE about revenue. They team shouldn't get more...the tracks should.

Not many tracks, especially the European ones turn a profit for running a GP, that shouldn't be the case. The tracks should get more money back from FOM for hosting events - in a way it should guarantee the survival of the track for a year...without decent tracks there is no racing.

Teams should reduce their expenditure, but they don't need more revenue. MrE should lose more of his pot to the tracks that are selected to host the show.

[freedom_honda]

Sooner or later big teams will HAVE to join the budget cap because FIA will definitely ensure that teams with a budget cap to be faster than free-spending team in order to push big teams to join them.

[Fil]

the budget cap will bring back the importance of the engine to the fore, and quite possibly the driver too, as the expenditure on these is unrestricted, whilst aero and mechanical development will be restricted via financial means.

now just a matter of finding out what they're going to be allowed to develop and explore on the engine side.


as an extra thought, is KERS defined as part of the engine, as such being exempt of the budget cap?