About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[747heavy]

=D> =D>
thanks WB

[Blackout]

How many people the 5 top teams currently employ ?

[WhiteBlue]

How many people the 5 top teams currently employ ?

This was the status of March 2010 by AMuS.

[Pingguest]

Personally, I'm not a supporter of the RRA. Its artificial and difficult to enforce. Those argument are the very same against the budget cap, as opposed by the teams in 2008. Instead, it would be better to introduce regulations which allow cost-efficiency, such as (re-)allowing customer parts.

[Giblet]

Other teams will be doing lots of looking and calling teams out that are cheating the rules.

[andrew]

So the number of people employed by each team is restriced. What about outsourcing? I take it the teams can outsource as much as they like or is this restricted?

[747heavy]

Is it reasonable to assume the Ferrari number includes the engine department?

[timbo]

Is it reasonable to assume the Ferrari number includes the engine department?

I think so. I also think Mercedes figures exclude MHPE.

[WhiteBlue]

Is it reasonable to assume the Ferrari number includes the engine department?

This is actually unclear. It could be both ways. The numbers relate to Ferrari's gestione sportiva. AFAIK there is not an engine facility in the gestione sportiva. I believe that engines are done in a central department at Ferrari, but I'm not exactly a specialist regarding the inner organization of the Italian team.

The reporting schemes that I know saw Luca Marmorini and Gilles Simon report to the company CEO and not to the head of the gestione sportiva (team principal). I reckon that it would not make sense to have separate engine departments for F1 and road cars. I would not do it that way. You cannot do a sensible load balancing with your engine guys if you split them up that way.

[timbo]

This is old news, but from this link http://newsonf1.net/2006/news/10/oct26f.htm
we may see that Engine Department is included to GS.
In the Todt/Brawn/Martinelli time Engine department was also reporting to Todt, not to Montezemolo.

[747heavy]

I don´t know fo sure either, but the number seems a bit high for the chassis side only.

It´s more in line with the amount of people Toyota employed in Cologne for both engine & chassis. But I could be wrong.

As for the spilt from road and race car engines, I guess there are both sides of the argument.
BMW and Toyota had road&race car operations seperate, and Mercedes seems to go down the same route with MHPE.
Sure there are some crossover synergies between both, but I don´t think it is nesessary to have them both under one roof.

[Blackout]

How many people the 5 top teams currently employ ?

This was the status of March 2010 by AMuS.

Thanks

[multisync]

So the number of people employed by each team is restriced. What about outsourcing? I take it the teams can outsource as much as they like or is this restricted?

If they could have unlimited outsourcing then shell companies would be set up and departments would be hived off and TUPE'ed over. Therefore a financial restriction on the amount you can outsource.

The agreement afaik is strictly limited to those directly employed with the car building. The accounts and advertising etc remains outside of the agreement..

I stand to be corrected as I had this discussion last year with someone who was part of the process and I don't recall all the details....

[mx_tifoso]

Other teams will be doing lots of looking and calling teams out that are cheating the rules.

So nothing will change then?

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 722803.htm

AMuS give some detail about the resource restriction agreement (RRA):

• Head count cap on 31.12.2010 maximum 350 for design, manufacture and operation of the race cars
• Head count cap on 31.12.2011 maximum 280 for design, manufacture and operation of the race cars
• Budget for bought in parts or engineering contractors €40m in 2010
• Budget for bought in parts or engineering contractors €20m in 2011
• customer engine sales price limited to €9m, eight engines per season
• wind tunnel hours 60/week, CFD restrictions in place

This is old news, but from this link http://newsonf1.net/2006/news/10/oct26f.htm
we may see that Engine Department is included to GS.

The source that timbo quoted is very relevant. It is also interesting to see that Montezemolo already confirmed in 2009 that teams with integral engine department have a higher head count than teams without engine department.

The philosophy seems to be unlimited resources for engine companies separate from teams. These companies can spend what they want but they may charge the customer teams no more than €9m per season and two cars.

Autosprint mentioned a figure of 415. If we assume for a moment that this figure applies to Ferrari next year, which makes sense for an Italian paper, we could conclude that the allowance for additional head count for teams with integral engine department (like gestione sportiva) would be 65. The AMuS figure for 2011 was 350. If you add 65 you arrive at 415.

Until I see a more sensible explanation I will work on the assumption that The AMuS figures are still correct and that indeed the unique Ferrari situation was the loop hole which has now been plugged by setting the additional allowance to 65.

Teams like Mercedes and Renault will have an advantage from their structure. It looks like they have no resource restrictions for the separate engine companies in place as long as they accept the engine sales price of €9m. They can run huge deficits if they decide to do so.

I believe that the independent teams will try to plug this advantage by keeping the engine freeze until 2013 and introducing tighter specifications on the engines after 2013. So the dreams of Cosworth to have total technical freedom and only a fuel limit will probably be unrealistic.

I expect that the independents will force spec technology in all areas where massive spending can create an advantage for power train developers. Such technologies would be turbo charging and compounding, direct injection, variable valve timing and lift, variable compression, variable intake and exhaust, KERS and laser ignition.

My problem with that policy is the stranglehold it will impose on efficiency technologies. It kills exactly the very same technical developments which the FiA has aimed to promote by the new 2013 engine formula. Those considerations are perhaps more relevant for the engine thread but RRA and power train policies are inter connected and can never be seen in isolation.