Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
WhiteBlue wrote:Lowe seems to support this in his Autosport interview by aiming for efficiency in engineering:
Paddy Lowe wrote:Although it may not appear things have changed, they have, and it will get tougher over the next 12 months. In some ways it is good that some people haven't noticed the change, because we still need to put on a show and it's not good for that if there is suddenly a perception that we've turned into dinosaurs technologically. I would hope we can still continue by being more efficient, and we're finding greater efficiency all the time. Things are changing behind the scenes, and people not being able to spot it is probably a good thing.
This would be in line with predictions that budget or resource cuts will not fundamentally change F1 as the pinnacle of motor racing if they are done in the right way. I tend to support Richards' position that technical superiority on equal or similar resources has greater value and represents more closely the ethos of the golden days of F1.
This is you, admitting you were wrong, right? Sorry, but it's hard to tell sometimes.
Pup wrote:This is you, admitting you were wrong, right? Sorry, but it's hard to tell sometimes.
What are you smoking today, Pup? Since 2008 I have agreed to a budget cap or resource restrictions in F1. In earlier years I thought it would not work but the work of Purnell at the FiA convinced me like many other people.
I know that you have been supportive of a budget cap as early as 2005 or 2006 but at that time plans were a lot less sophisticated than they are now. Particularly the focus on resources was a big step forward.
For me the sterility of F1 without new teams did it. Super Aguri's demise really broke the camel's back for me. Inmy view SA had a lot more right to exist than Honda. They achieved a lot more with much fewer resources. That situation highlighted what was wrong in F1 at the time of unlimited corporate spending.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:Inmy view SA had a lot more right to exist than Honda. They achieved a lot more with much fewer resources. That situation highlighted what was wrong in F1 at the time of unlimited corporate spending.
Likewise Minardi. They ran a whole team for less than Ferrari's drivers were getting.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Pup wrote:This is you, admitting you were wrong, right? Sorry, but it's hard to tell sometimes.
What are you smoking today, Pup? Since 2008 I have agreed to a budget cap or resource restrictions in F1. In earlier years I thought it would not work but the work of Purnell at the FiA convinced me like many other people.
I know that you have been supportive of a budget cap as early as 2005 or 2006 but at that time plans were a lot less sophisticated than they are now. Particularly the focus on resources was a big step forward.
For me the sterility of F1 without new teams did it. Super Aguri's demise really broke the camel's back for me. Inmy view SA had a lot more right to exist than Honda. They achieved a lot more with much fewer resources. That situation highlighted what was wrong in F1 at the time of unlimited corporate spending.
You're the one who's smoking, my friend. I've never been a fan of any budget cap, and never will be. Paddy isn't talking about a budget cap here, as you well know. He's talking about FOTA's resource restrictions, which you've bashed from the beginning. Like this post, just a few doors down...
WhiteBlue wrote:So now we see the glorious FOTA plan of a restricted number of homologated aero developments fail. It is painfully obvious that a budget cap would have been the right thing to do.
But I know how you work when proven wrong. Instead of admitting it, you gradually turn your argument so that you don't have to. Step one is to take the thing you disagreed with, and label it as a version of what you had been arguing for. Please continue, as it's an interesting process to watch.
Humbug! I have supported the budget cap and been against insufficient substitutes like the mentioned homologated aero configs. You may have realized that the Paris compromise basically implemented the budget cap objective, to go back to a budget or resource levels of the mid 90ties with a glide path so they ramp in over last year, this year and next year. It is basically the Mercedes compromise proposal from May 2009 with a bit of embroidery.
I may have holes in my memory but I was under the impression that you were pretty much the first saying that auditors could practically control formal F1 team budgets. Perhaps I need to go back to some discussions on GP.com.
Edit: You were right. It was anakzaman who was so vocal for auditors.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
Regardless of who said what and when, I cannot comprehend how naive you have to be to believe in a budget/resource cap, it would be like telling Apple and Microsoft they cannot spend that much money on research. In this globalized world, how are you gonna police the level of information flowing, checking the amount of GB entering and leaving the design office? Designing an F1 car is not about how many designers at ProE desks you have, even if Ken Anderson thought so, it could be about how many TB of CFD produced in a Nissan location in China.
Only way to stop the spending is to make it useless, like proclaiming a flat-bottom rule all the way.
But that's me.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
For one F1 teams are operating under sporting law and legally binding mutual contracts. Those rules and contracts are known to employees and whistle blowing on cheaters is encouraged. There is constant flow of personnel between teams. So the answer is: It is self policing. Any cheaters found would be exposed to severe retribution.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
Those are advantages for resource restriction rather than budget caps. If you're allowed X number of hours on a wind tunnel, then at least wind tunnel employees are likely to know if they're exceeding the limit. But if a company like Ferrari is spending $20M over some overall budget, only the higher ups are ever likely to know, and if they do, it's far more difficult a thing to prove, particularly for companies like McLaren, Mercedes, or Ferrari, who can shift resources in and out of their F1 budgets at will to meet pretty much any figure the FIA give them.
The resource restrictions, while I wish they didn't exist, have the benefit of being more easily policed, which is of course one reasons why they went that direction. X number of people at the track, you have to use material X on this or that, etc. - all pretty obvious. Another advantage is in flexibility, where the teams are able to accommodate things, like Michelin's conditions for returning, without having to go through the FIA and all that entails. They won't be perfect, but they will be far easier to police than an overall budget would be.
F1 without restrictions would be better, but until the FIA and Bernie get their heads out of the sand and start working with FOTA to increase the value of the sport, I'm afraid we're stuck with them.
Other than the last sentence I agree. Resource restrictions are better than a budget cap. Much more thought and optimization has gone into it and it shows. But resource restrictions had never been agreed without the threat of the budget cap.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
There needs to be some pretty harsh punishments for infringing the agreed caps. I wonder what they will be. I guess a very public warning first time and then season exclusion the second time should just about do it...
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
The author is Michael Schmidt from AMuS who travels the F1 circus for many years and has excellent connections.
I'm very surprised to see the figures of McLaren. They must have made very serious efforts to get the head count down.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
The only problem with team head count is where you draw the line with what counts as "the team"? If you had a major partner who was doing lots of research for you, would that partner count as part of the team????!
Yep, not a big surprise when you see how the big teams and particularly Ferrari have perverted the budget restriction plan. Earliest the 2012 season will see cars that are build under the full resource restrictions and and the budget cut was first seriously proposed in 2008. Four years lost by politicking and in the end we cannot even know if the RRA in its final phase will really meet the objective. I reckon you will still need 170 mil $ per year to be competitive and 45 mil $ as a back marker.
Lets assume that your top team spends:
15 mil for 280 team personnel
10 mil for team directors (Newey for instance 6,5 mil $)
25 mil for hospitality
15 mil for engines and power train
35 mil for driver salaries
25 mil for Capex or leases for facilities and equipment
15 mil for travel expenses
10 mil for materials and consumable
20 mil for bought in services and outsourcing
If that is a ball park figure a new team with minimum budget still competes against a four times stronger rival. It will take many years to get into a winning shape.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
The author is Michael Schmidt from AMuS who travels the F1 circus for many years and has excellent connections.
I'm very surprised to see the figures of McLaren. They must have made very serious efforts to get the head count down.
I have to wonder: how many headcount are saved by the teams that buy their engines rather than developing them? To be as clear as possible, I assume that Mercedes, Renault, and Ferrari have a certain number of people in their engine departments -- departments that do not even exist at RBR, Toro Rosso, Williams, Force India, and many other teams.
I'm not talking about the technicians who build/maintain engines for clients, but the core team who designed and now develop the engines, the ones at Ferrari and M-B who tear down blown engines to find the cause of failure, then work to eliminate the problem (insofar as possible).
Enzo Ferrari was a great man. But he was not a good man. -- Phil Hill
