BMW to leave Formula One at end of 2009

[SZ]

1. The cap is not enforceable please explain how you plan to find the money is some of the most secretive companies in the world.
2. the racing will not deiced the championship it will be a court.
3. Teams will either reduce cost on there own or leave F1 just like any other business let the market set the price.

1 - For the millionth time, it's not about a cap, it's about limiting spending. These are not the same thing. You can threaten a cap as a gambit to have the teams suggest equitable ways (for them) of limiting spending, or you can ask the teams to do exactly that and watch them tell you to get stuffed.
2 - Sure, if you focus on a cap. If you focus on cost reduction, no, as the rules are clear. Max/the FIA has asked the teams to develop clear rules among themselves... how much more flexibility do the teams seriously want?
3 - Teams will not reduce costs on their own individual merits if doing so limits their competitiveness, they will leave, just as BMW has done and as Renault is probably very close to doing. Limiting competitiveness in turn limits direct revenues and in compromising brand equity, limits sponsorship dollar.

How much should it cost to race in F1. As much as it takes.

'As much as it takes'. The true word of someone that doesn't earn a dollar.

F1 doesn't need armchair fanboy economists saying 'as much as it takes'. The point is that F1 needs to put a line in the sand and say 'this is how much it takes', and that figure needs to be more affordable than it is for the nine teams (currently, out of a possible 12) that would have signed up for next year. The other three came in under a totally different understanding - that that line in the sand was a 40m operating budget.

If you really want to reduce costs open up the tech regs. Right now teams are spending way to much money to gains 100s with open regs they could spend less for more time.

Bring back variables like different engines different tires ect. Have engineers come up with the rules not lawyers.

How do you think a budget cap will save F1? Unless you want to see global indy car

Well, you're half right here. The bit about spending millions on hundredths is completely true. Global indy car, get reasonable.

If you limit what engineers can spend, it becomes a battle of innovation. Good ideas are free, whether it's Formula Ford or Formula 1.

If you limit what engineers can do, eventually you have a spec series. Though some things F1 spends on are a bit useless... thankfully we have some standardisation in areas fans don't really give a damn about. No problem with more of that.

[flynfrog]

1 - For the millionth time, it's not about a cap, it's about limiting spending. These are not the same thing. You can threaten a cap as a gambit to have the teams suggest equitable ways (for them) of limiting spending, or you can ask the teams to do exactly that and watch them tell you to get stuffed.

ok how do you plan to enforce limited spending. Teams will spend what they have this is how the world works.

2 - Sure, if you focus on a cap. If you focus on cost reduction, no, as the rules are clear. Max/the FIA has asked the teams to develop clear rules among themselves... how much more flexibility do the teams seriously want?

Once again what is cost reduction how do you think it can be enforced what makes you think teams wont still spend what they have.

3 - Teams will not reduce costs on their own individual merits if doing so limits their competitiveness, they will leave, just as BMW has done and as Renault is probably very close to doing. Limiting competitiveness in turn limits direct revenues and in compromising brand equity, limits sponsorship dollar.

and new teams will come in spend less and the world moves on

How much should it cost to race in F1. As much as it takes.

'As much as it takes'. The true word of someone that doesn't earn a dollar.

F1 doesn't need armchair fanboy economists saying 'as much as it takes'. The point is that F1 needs to put a line in the sand and say 'this is how much it takes', and that figure needs to be more affordable than it is for the nine teams (currently, out of a possible 12) that would have signed up for next year. The other three came in under a totally different understanding - that that line in the sand was a 40m operating budget.

Hmm never earned a dollar myself nice guess but no. I have a pretty good job but I know I don't make enough to get back into racing competitively so I don't. Seems like pretty simple logic to me.

If you really want to reduce costs open up the tech regs. Right now teams are spending way to much money to gains 100s with open regs they could spend less for more time.

Bring back variables like different engines different tires ect. Have engineers come up with the rules not lawyers.

How do you think a budget cap will save F1? Unless you want to see global indy car

Well, you're half right here. The bit about spending millions on hundredths is completely true. Global indy car, get reasonable.

If you limit what engineers can spend, it becomes a battle of innovation. Good ideas are free, whether it's Formula Ford or Formula 1.

If you limit what engineers can do, eventually you have a spec series. Though some things F1 spends on are a bit useless... thankfully we have some standardization in areas fans don't really give a damn about. No problem with more of that.

[/quote]


hmm what don't you give a damn about I find all of the development fascinating. remeber when you could tell the car by the sound of the engine? Now we have spec v8s just like indy car. I see spec gearboxes coming soon. We have semi spec bodies and front wings now. Why not save the FIA the trouble and buy the old champ car chassis.

watch a WSBK race or a moto GP race and tell me its not cool to see all the different takes on the same problems

[SZ]

Whoever thinks these engines are spec formula items didn't send that memo to Honda and Renault last year... their supposedly 'spec' engines were down a few horses. (What's more I can hear differences in each engine).

You limit spending by doing exactly what the FIA proposes - you standardise what doesn't make a difference to teams nor fans, and you limit the pace of development. Longer life components, standardised parts where they don't matter for competitiveness. Who cares if gearboxes shift 0.01s faster than the next. If a standard gearbox weighs 5kg more and set mounting points, no one's disadvantaged but everyone saves money. No one would care if teams ran the same brakes, wheels or had common suppliers for the hundreds of other components teams buy in from (and have designed by) external suppliers. Costs would come down though, despite the development work the teams could do not being limited in the slightest. If standardisation of parts upsets you... the last time teams engineered every last nut, bolt and washer on their cars originally, WW2 was yet to happen. Get over it.

Front wings, that's a poor argument. They're far from spec - there's a 500mm section that's spec and so what? It's an aerodynamic package adjustment. You think teams are now doin 500mm spans' proportionate development less on the front wing because the FIA mandated a spec centre section? Ha! It doesn't change a thing regards development. We've seen some of the most imaginative endplate work ever this year.

Limiting development - so what if all teams test less in the tunnel than they do now? So long as they're all doing the same. Be smart and efficient. Currently the fastest car on the grid is developed in the oldest tunnel going by many decades. What started out as fastest was developed in multiple tunnels for much longer - it doesn't matter what resources you constrain teams to. When you're resource limited, the best ideas, the most efficient/smartest teams win.

If I want to see a battle between overfunded institutions outspend each other, I'll grab a coffee and go watch an auction, and not waste two valuable hours of my life taking in the inevitable.

Mate I do race and have for a while, and I'm a massive MotoGP and SBK fan. Interesting you pull that up. MotoGP is massively in cost cutting mode having lost a constructor and satellite teams. Moto2 will replace the 250's with a standardised engine and electronics package (developed from a supersports package no less) and a you-build-it frame. Purists might cry but the cost of a customer bike at the moment is EUR200k... but a near-factory-spec customer bike, ha, that's another story altogether at EUR1.5m. Those costs are going to be razed with Moto2. All I'll miss is two stroke noise.

Dorna has done exactly what the FIA has done with their premier class - they've started throwing ludicrous solutions to the teams as bait to get their --- together and come up with equitable solutions - 'if you don't want 1,000cc supersport engines mixing it with the 800cc prototypes, sort your --- out. Fast'. And you know what? They're doing it. Far faster and with a tenth the fanfare of FOTA. You don't see Ippolito (FIM) and Furusawa (Yamaha) belting each other publicly. You just see progress. No wonder BMW lost the faith with FOTA.

Every factory MotoGP team has made significant budget cuts. Yamaha is 20% under. People are losing their jobs at HRC. Possibly that's the difference in F1. No everyone's cost saving, and of those not doing so, noone wants to. So when you say F1 'teams will spend what they have', understand that most teams simply have less and less. F1 is far more costly than MotoGP. You can't have one or two teams with phenomenal budgets and others spending less and less. You open an impossible performance differential. This must be regulated. It can be done by limiting the pace of development.

Limiting the pace of development to contain costs is not a cause to say 'buy the old champ car chassis'. So it's unlimited development or no development for you? Buddy, you're in the wrong thread if so. BMW was faced with that option and said fine, no development, we're out. Three other new teams didn't come in on a cost-unlimited basis either.

SBK on the other hand costs less than 10% what MotoGP does, and provides around, oooo, 100 tims more exciting racing. Amidst the economic crisis, SBK is growing.

The latest team to join the SBK field and do relatively well... BMW. To do so they had to - from scratch and with no prior knowledge - develop a production bike (harder than a race prototype) that would go head to head with very, very developed and established competitors. With no prior experience in the segment. Which they did.

Seems BMW thinks motorsport can be equitable after all, it's just F1 that's unworkable.

[roost89]

SBK...provides around, oooo, 100 times more exciting racing.

Sorry to go off topic here but I emphatically disagree with that. But then that's opinion.

Back on topic:

Three other new teams didn't come in on a cost-unlimited basis either.

USF1 did. They were going to come in whether their was a budget cap or not. The budget cap was probably just a greater incentive for now. Here's a link to an interview with the Team Principal


I do agree with that the teams with the best designers, best designing eficiency etc will come out on top if their was a resource limitation.

[xpensive]

Sorry SZ, your postings are simply far loo long, very few bothers reading all that. Try learn how to compress things.

[outer_bongolia]

Well, there is so much discussion on limiting things, that I felt compelled to butt in a little.

Why doesn't F1 limit the development/spending for the teams with highest points? If your team is leading the championship (or in the top 3 for argument's sake), you are not allowed to bring in any new parts/components. If your team is in the bottom 5, you get no restrictions in testing, etc, etc...

Any limitations do not level the playing field, just ensures that level stays unequal.

[SZ]

Sorry SZ, your postings are simply far loo long, very few bothers reading all that. Try learn how to compress things.

Amusingly you're enjoying being their sole critic.

(There. A short one.)

[SZ]

roost89, realistically there are five competitive riders on six competitive bikes in MotoGP. The spread in SBK is far more diverse. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather sit down to a MotoGP race than F1 at present, but F1 is better than it used to be. This year is a step in the right direction.

Re-read your link on USF1:

"One of the biggest arguments we always had was how could you compete against Team X spending $400 million (USD). That was a hard argument to make, but now everyone realizes that whatever the number ends up being, it will be far lower than it is now and it will end up being something sustainable."

This is exactly what I've been saying: whilst they understand it's not going to be a budget cap, they're betting on significant cost reductions, and wouldn't be entering otherwise. Not the key words underlined. FOTA's been arguing about it being their right to shape the championship's cost reductions... now time to deliver.

[Conceptual]

Doubt it, it's probably more rising cost/diminished revenues as we're losing/walking sponsors/races moving from core markets/target customers more interested in green performance than 'we always hated and now we can nuke it'.

On the FIA's side of culpability, the rule changes were mighty expensive and largely haven't done anything other than throw most team's development way of and cost a lot of money now that KERS is going and the cars have significantly more downforce and rear end upwash than they were supposed to. Whilst, of course, those not fans of their company's involvement now more than ever had a compelling argument to kick up a fuss, it's a board of directors that make a decision, not any minority that voted against to start with. It's a bit like saying 'did BMW get rid of Chris Bangle because there were people that always hated his designs?' Sure there are, but a whole board signed off on them.

The board - just like Honda's, Renault's, Ferrari's etc... is responsible for shareholder interests. If it isn't making money and it doesn't look like it will, it goes. Or, eventually, they do.

Though as stated it could all be a political gambit too. My that Concorde agreement came out awfully quickly after BMW made an announcement... we'll see what it says and how they respond. A few interesting days ahead.

WHY DO YOU PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THESE THINGS ABOUT THE DDD THAT SIMPLY ARE NOT TRUE?

The WMSC clearly stated that there was evidence provided that it actually lessened the wake of the cars. Can you PLEASE quit crying about the DDD already?

[Conceptual]

Good news, Sauber working on takeover

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/77496

Good news indeed. Let's hope it would work!

But he says he does not want to be team manager

I'LL DO IT! I'LL DO IT!

And I will work on a performance pay grade!

Maybe that is what the cap should have been? All team members are paid according to perormance? It would cut the budgets for many teams by 80%!

[Conceptual]

Sorry SZ, your postings are simply far loo long, very few bothers reading all that. Try learn how to compress things.

Sometimes brilliance takes time, and I must say that I read 100% o SZ's posts and skip over most of yours...

But that is just another case of worthwhile investment. I may not agree with SZ all the time (like the perpetual crying about the DDD) but I find his posts are less speculation than most on here...

[SZ]

Well if the WMSC say it it must be true !

The cars, non DDD, have less upwash than they did in 08. With a DDD there's more than there is without, unfortunately a side effect of a better functioning rear end. Likely not over 09 levels, but there are sufficient driver comments suggesting that cars are back to being equally difficult to follow after a useful period at the start of the year. So much for the intent of the changes.

At any rate, that's not the wider point. The cars were supposed to have 50% downforce reduction over 08 spec. Fastest lap times have changed very little. Even with moderately increased mechanical grip... there's clearly not the downforce reduction hoped for. The DDD makes the difference smaller. There's no tears over the DDD from me, just the rules that allow it and the FIA for not killing it when they had the chance. Development for new aero regs cost a lot of money however. Cars will get faster every year, sure, but given the performance difference is negligible between 08/09 regs, you could understand a few teams wondering what the massive expenditure was for...

[xpensive]

Sorry about that, I know detailed engineering can be a real bore at times, as opposed to speculations in general.

[void]

Some sites and newspapers from Brazil, says that Nelson Piquet is talking about buy part of BMW-Sauber and planning to run with Ferrari engines next year.
Some links in Portuguese, sorry
http://www2.uol.com.br/teojose/noticias ... u66496.shl
http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/espo ... 2660,0.htm

[xpensive]

Great fun to wildly speculate on that one! The idea that BMW has an interest to off-load the team rather simply shutting it down makes great sense to me anyway, while Nelson has some experience of running teams for Nelsihno in lesser formulaes, correct?

But Ferrari engines, lost me there really. Couldn't the new owner by a dozen or so of this years long-life engines from BMW, re-badge them and have the maintenence through Mader, Zakspeed, or someone?