Saving F1 - the new approach?

[Red Schneider]

Downforce is king because it's the fastest way around a race track. Opening up the engine, for example, will mean that the teams will look for more power because that allows more downforce to be carried by the car. Changing the tyres will either mean very sticky tyres that don't last or tyres that last for a long time but are somewhat slower. I doubt it's even possible to make tyres that generate the cornering grip that downforce does and still last for more than a few corners.

If the rules allow for downforce to be used then the teams will go looking for it because it is a massive performance benefit - hence Chapman's "something for nothing" quip when they were developing the Lotus 78. And let's not forget that F1 has been a downforce series (even if just a relatively small amount of downforce) for more than half of its existence.

I'll just highlight that to avoid any doubt in anyone's mind: F1 is a downforce series.

I understand that downforce is key in the manner you're describing. My point is that downforce is not very road-relevant and there is not an unlimited number of ways to acquire it. They've already cleaned up the bodies and diffusers. If they were to clean up the wings, how many other avenues would there be for the engineers to increase downforce? Probably some - I'm not well-versed in that. I understand the desirability of downforce, but if you want road relevance and enticement for the manufacturers I haven't heard anyone convincingly refute my arguments.

I'm not necessarily even insisting on my points, because I don't have really firm opinions on where F1 should go, beyond being clearly the fastest series in the world, rewarding a combination of driver skill and car performance, and avoiding absurd 'show' gimmicks like sprinklers.

[Red Schneider]

I would probably drop the budget cap idea if F1 were healthily profitable for all the teams. That comes back to wresting ownership from the suits at CVC. Vastly increased team ownership of the sport may be the biggest piece of this whole puzzle, and certainly one of the most difficult to attain.

After all this is entertainment. How road relevant is Nascar anyway? If everyone makes money all the other questions suddenly become easier.

[Cam]

Guys, good discussion so far but I'd like to throw a few things out there:.....

So no suggestions or ideas yourself? We know what F1 is doing, but what would you do? How would you get the manufacturers back?

I would question whether we need to get them back. What specifically do the manufacturers bring to the table that benefits the racing?

As we're trying to come up with ideas how to keep F1 viable - both relatable and financial - getting manufacturers back in would be a huge coup and would essentially underpin the entire sport for the at least the next decade. Let's have a look at the top manufacturers in 2010 - you'll note the key absence of certain marques:

Here's a link to download a PDF: http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/ranking-2010.pdf

It seems, as is most things in life, a minority try to control the situation for their own gain and exclude competition. I could give you some similar examples, but I reckon we're all smart enough to join the dots.

Manufacturers will bring in much needed cash to support the teams and will bring large reserves of cash for 'a rainy day'. New fans will come along i.e Citroen, VW, etc, so you have new market shares and revenue streams for advertisers and ticket sales. The show will increase as people can relate to a Honda, but what's a "HRT"?? Can I buy one?? F1 is not viable and cannot continue along this path, however it doesn't mean the soul has to die, we just have to entice the new players to come to the table.

So how do we entice them back? Well, we have to understand why they left in the first place and why they are not trying to join right now. My feeling is - MrE, the FIA are the problem. Constant rule changes means companies waste millions each year throwing away innovations that are banned or changed. It's quite easy for MrE and the FIA to make these changes as they aren't spending the cash. No company would put themselves in that situation. Also, manufacturers need to sell cars, so whatever they invest in has to ultimately increase sales. The rules need to be stable and stop 'knee jerk' banning. Have a long game plan in place that the manufacturers can work too and have clear goals on items that they can cross over into real sales. You do this, no manufacturer could afford not to be in F1.

All of these changes will not change what F1 is about. It will finally show the ultimate F1 - the pinnacle of motorsport. A true comparison of cars and drivers from around the world. And it should be here for many years to come.

Over to you MrE and FIA. Will you stay on because pride and stop the manufacturers coming back or will you finally be content with the billions you've already made, retire, sit back and enjoy the next stage of F1?

[Just_a_fan]

My point is that downforce is not very road-relevant [...] but if you want road relevance and enticement for the manufacturers I haven't heard anyone convincingly refute my arguments.

1. F1 is not road relevant nor is it necessary to be road relevant.

2. Manufacturers are not required for F1 to exist.

3. F1 is not road relevant nor is it necessary to be road relevant.

4. F1 is not road relevant nor is it necessary to be road relevant.

5. F1 is not road relevant...you get the idea, I'm sure

[Just_a_fan]

It seems, as is most things in life, a minority try to control the situation for their own gain and exclude competition.

I wonder if you see the irony in such a statement coming from someone who wants F1 to be changed to something they think is suitable for the future?

[Cam]

My point is that downforce is not very road-relevant [...] but if you want road relevance and enticement for the manufacturers I haven't heard anyone convincingly refute my arguments.

1. F1 is not road relevant nor is it necessary to be road relevant.

2. Manufacturers are not required for F1 to exist.

3. F1 is not road relevant nor is it necessary to be road relevant.

4. F1 is not road relevant nor is it necessary to be road relevant.

5. F1 is not road relevant...you get the idea, I'm sure

At the moment, you're right, it's not. One idea to ensure F1 is around for the next 20 years is to change that. Private teams can't afford to race as it is now.

So what would you prefer, remain irrelevant and go broke? What ideas would you suggest to remain irrelevant and make cash?

[Cam]

It seems, as is most things in life, a minority try to control the situation for their own gain and exclude competition.

I wonder if you see the irony in such a statement coming from someone who wants F1 to be changed to something they think is suitable for the future?

Unlike you mate, I'm giving suggestions, not criticizing everyone else. That's easy to do. Try being constructive and form solutions that keeps F1 the way you want it.

[bhall]

I don't think there's any level of posturing that could entice the manufacturers to return. They're going to come and go as conditions largely unrelated to F1 will allow. If one wants their presence in the sport, the only thing you can really do is hope that they achieve some measure of success when their around. Otherwise, it seems boards of directors give their works teams about four years to do something, and then they pull the plug if there's no joy.

Jaguar/Ford had a works team for four years, and they were terrible. Honda had a works team for three years, and they were terrible. Toyota had a works team for seven (?) years, and they were terrible and expensive. BMW had a promising team for three years, but then it became terrible in the fourth, and that was that as far as the board was concerned.

F1 is advertising for manufacturers. So, they have to win, or at least be on that trajectory, for F1 to make business sense.

[Cam]

I don't think there's any level of posturing that could entice the manufacturers to return. They're going to come and go as conditions largely unrelated to F1 will allow. If one wants their presence in the sport, the only thing you can really do is hope that they achieve some measure of success when their around. Otherwise, it seems boards of directors give their works teams about four years to do something, and then they pull the plug if there's no joy.

Jaguar/Ford had a works team for four years, and they were terrible. Honda had a works team for three years, and they were terrible. Toyota had a works team for seven (?) years, and they were terrible and expensive. BMW had a promising team for three years, but then it became terrible in the fourth, and that was that as far as the board was concerned.

F1 is advertising for manufacturers. So, they have to win, or at least be on that trajectory, for F1 to make business sense.

Agreed. Although it'll be nice to know exactly why the teams couldn't become competitive i.e. if it was rule changes designed to hinder that maybe.

Having them come back may not be the solution, I'm just not sure who else has the cash and reasons to be in motorsport now.

[Cam]

F1 is advertising for manufacturers. So, they have to win, or at least be on that trajectory, for F1 to make business sense.

Even though it goes against everything I stand for in F1 - would having a 'stock' series with all the manufacturers involved work? The 'lottery' this year would be attractive if the top 10 cars all had different badges. Just a thought.

[bhall]

F1 is difficult. The manufacturers' lack of success in F1 is - ironically - as simple as that.

The 2009 rules reset should have done them a huge favor, because it put all teams on as equal development terms as is possible while maintaining some semblance of tried and true F1. BMW were certainly excited about it, as they were the only team to trot out a hybrid-spec car in testing. But, it turned out that they were completely lost without the aero band-aids they used liberally in 2007 and 2008. I'm sure Honda would like a mulligan on 2009, but it is what it is.

Those companies have moved on; Toyota is ramped up for Le Man, BMW for DTM. I don't know what Honda's doing. Probably still sulking.

The focus just needs to stay on F1 itself. Mind the racing and mind the fans, and everything else will work out as it always does.

[Just_a_fan]

It seems, as is most things in life, a minority try to control the situation for their own gain and exclude competition.

I wonder if you see the irony in such a statement coming from someone who wants F1 to be changed to something they think is suitable for the future?

Unlike you mate, I'm giving suggestions, not criticizing everyone else. That's easy to do. Try being constructive and form solutions that keeps F1 the way you want it.

I'm putting up contrary views to yours. That's part of how a discussion between mature adults works. Aren't you able to defend your position or do you think that merely stating your position is enough? So far, all I'm hearing from you is a load of "I don't like F1 as it is so here are my knee-jerk ideas".

And since you ask, I rather like F1 as it is, so see no need to make radical changes.

Oh, and don't call me mate. Thanks.

[ESPImperium]

F1 in 2009 was to move away from the aero reliance and put 4 seconds back into the tracks pocket. They achived 30-40% of this figure as there was a loophole, also "Green credentials added" at a premium cost. 2010 was a continuation with a few smaller rule reshuffles for costs.

F1 in 2011 closed loopholes and introduced a new tyre manufacurer with a new gimmick, also green credentials added back into the ingredients. 6 part tyres, 3 part gimmick and 1 part green is what was achived.

F1 in 2012 is seeing the gimmicks effect reduced to about 2 parts and 8 parts tyres, and tyres achiving what technichal regs could never do.

The way id like to save F1 is via introducing budget caps, initially to €250m for two years, then reducing by €30m for 2 years to €190m and then by a futher €20m for another 2 years Ideal budget for a F1 team should be €150m in my opinion. Id also make it that power train manufacturers have a budget of half of that of a F1 team, initially €125m a year for 2 years then reduce it by €7.5m for 2 years then by €5m for a futher 2, ideal budget of arround €100m a year for engine manufacturers.

Id Homologate at the start of each season for engines. So for 6 weeks every year engine manufacturers could do what the heck they wanted to their units. As for teams, they can test for 12 days at the start of each season, and update in this period, however teams can only update every 6 races for the top 4 Constructors from the year before, the middle 4 can update every 5 races and the bottom 4 every 4 races. Think of it like a success penalty.

When it comes to team personell, teams can hire who ever for whatever cost outside the budget restrictions, teams can be up to 600 people in size, and engine manufacturers can have up to 400 people as well. However when it comes to races, teams can take 60 mechanichal, technichal or data personel to each race, however each person is limited to 12 hours at the track each day and must only work for 3 out of 4 days at a track (4 out of 5 at Monaco). The curfew would be done away with as teams could run a night shift of up to 6 of those 60 people at each event if they choose. However Parc Ferme would mean that no night shift would be posible at least one night. One other thing id do is that the "Race team" would be only allowed to go to no more than three-quaters of the events that year and cant do more than 3 GP on the bounce, and race teams would be limited to 90 "licenced" personell from a team submitted list to the FIA. This would prevent burn out and also promote alot of good young tallent in the track side area of the sport.

However the teams would have to have no more than 8 on the pit wall that were outside curfew rules and hours of work rules. Drivers and their physios/trainers are also excluded. In the case of Red Bull that would mean Horner, Newey, Stratigist, Rocky, Pillbeam and 3 key others would be exempt.

Engine supply is limited to 2 teams, engine suppliers with their own teams (or vice versa) would only be allowed one other team outside the "works team", this means Mercedes and Ferrari would have to cut back one team. Engine manufacturers like Renault and Cosworth could supply at tops 4 teams engines. Engine costs are capped at €10m for a seasons supply, gear boxes are at €5m and the McLaren ECU would be €1m a year.

As for new entries, id propose a system where a new entry has to have at least 5 years expeience in GP2, GP2 or WSR3.5, have the money avalable for the first 3 years in the sport. However id also make it that teams would have to have a minimum budget of 40% of the top budget to compete.

Cheating, and rule breaking would be delt with sharply and harshly. Drivers would face a weekend at trackside after 3 repremands and another for every 2 after that. Teams found cheating shall be parked indefinetly untill found guilty or innocent. Licenced personell would face a life ban as the only penalty avalable if found guilty of "crash gate" or "spy gate" scandal, and this would apply to all forms of motorsport in root to branch form.

Technichal rule infringments will be delt with as they presently are, however each race shall have a Technichal Steward. Technichal appeals shall be heard the Monday after every race for the team that has protests lodged. And on stewarding, each race will have 3 stewards, with one ex driver steward. The stewards will be chosen from a pot of 7 professional F1 stewards, the driver steward will rotate witn ho driver doing more than 2 events that year, and having raced in F1 for at least 10 events in the past decade. The technichal steward will be an ex designer at a team and hasnt been active for at least 2 years at one team. Nothing Technichal gets put to the FIA sennite, it is all delt with localy and quietly.

The Promotors would all pay the same for each event that year, so €25m a year for a race would rake in €500m for the rights holder, Id also make it a 5% year on year increase for the promotors of the races, whitch is decent enough. Also events that dont sell 95% of their avalable tickets for the weekend for 2 years on the bounce would be at risk of being replaced, it would mean that new tracks would be senseable to have low toal capasities for a few years till the event is established enough to warrent an expansion. TV rights would be sold for market value in 2 packages in every territory, a full package for €100m and a F1 lite package for €50m a year, think Sky F1 Vs BBC. Accross the world that would also be arround €2b a year.

Say F1 got €2.8billion a year in revinue, it could afford to split it 40% to the teams, another 40% to the stake holders or share holders in the FOM company, and a futher 15% to the FIA to go after their Roads Safer and other things they do in Grass Roots formulas. The last 5% would be used as prise money for GP2 and GP3 teams, whitch would make the teams there less dependant on pay drivers, so more quality drivers would be able to get a seat in those formula.

F1 needs to see all the above to happen, it needs a democratic and open buisness model where people dont get ripped off, and there is actual value built into the sport. For this the FIA, FOM, FOTA, GPDA, FOPA and anyone else in the sport needs to bang their effing heads together hard to make it work. Yes there will be pain in the short term, but in the long term teams will be more equal and people will want to buy into the sport in sponsorship for the executives or by buying a ticket to a event for dad or for mum buying their son or daughter a Vettel, Alonso or Hamilton T shirt or baseball cap.

Can F1 be a profit maker, i think so. Can F1 be a fair and exciting sport for all who work in it, i also think so.

[bhall]

You've obviously put a lot of thought into that, but reality has a tendency to resist cookie-cutter solutions such as the ones you've proposed. One-size-fits-all anything rarely ever works.

[Just_a_fan]

5. F1 is not road relevant...you get the idea, I'm sure

At the moment, you're right, it's not. One idea to ensure F1 is around for the next 20 years is to change that. Private teams can't afford to race as it is now.

So what would you prefer, remain irrelevant and go broke? What ideas would you suggest to remain irrelevant and make cash?

The problem is that there are any number of road relevant series out there: Le Mans, sports cars, rallying, touring cars. How do you make F1 stand out from those? They're all road car based or at least non-open wheelers. It makes sense to make them road relevant if such a thing is necessary - and I'm not toally convinced that it is.

Racing is about entertainment - it is not about road car development.

F1 is expensive partly because of all of the irrelevant stuff that has been packaged with it - all of the corporate hospitality, jet setting around the place, the inflated salaries etc. You could strip a lot of that out and F1 would still be exciting, fast racing but at a fraction of the cost. Think I'm wrong? Well, towards the end, the entire Minardi team was run for less than Ferrari paid their two drivers. Think of that: two cars running at about 95-97% of the pace of the front runners for less than $50m a year all in. Want to make F1 affordable in the long run? Look at the stuff that can be stripped out easily rather than raping the sport with wholesale changes to the technical side of things with no proof that it'll work, resulting in huge costs to design new cars/systems from scratch whilst still keeping all of the expensive bolt-on crap in place. Occam's Razor should be applied wherever possible.