About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[GitanesBlondes]

It is funny to read all the speculatin and tripe about a cost cutting mechanism that is not even on the first step of invention let alone introduction or implementation.

Everyman and his dog knows that cost control is imperative for F1 in order to make a full grid of individually designed and constructed chassis viable. Now we have for the first time a rule making mechanism which will work with simple majorities and we have an FiA presidency that is determined to see things through at the same time. Why should such unique conditions not lead us to new results? Why must we always put on the dark goggles and the full set of blinkers?

I can easily imagine that this round of cost cutting measures to be implemented in 2015 will be successful and will improve F1. In my view the constructor principle will be reinforced if teams work against cost caps. We have already seen how the engine and power pack development can be influenced on the cost side. If a purely accounting based cost capping is not feasible the engine mechanism can be used as a blueprint for cost control on the chassis side.

Teams can be restricted to fixed numbers of aerodynamic specs per season and tubs can be homologated for several seasons. Assemblies like the exhaust, suspension, gear box, brakes, cooling system, fuel system or the stearing assembly can be homologated for a variable number of seasons.

The teams could come up with entirely new ideas if they do some serious brainstorming on it. F1 has been diagnosed as half dead for decades and has always found ways to renew itself. It can happen again and it will happen in my view.

If this budget cap is somehow rammed through, please let me know how well it works out when the accusations of rampant cheating are the only thing reported (like the Pirelli tires in 2013) for the bulk of the 2015 season.

[xpensive]

Everybody in the F1 business knows that a budget-cap or staff-limit would never work, which is why there is no such.

The only way is to reduce the pay-off from xcessive spending, flat bottoms and no front wing would go a long way.

[Aesto]

What is it with everyone in this thread ganging upon aero? Even in spec series like GP2 or GP3 there are huge performance differences between the richer and the poorer teams. The teams will always find something to spend money on and gain an advantage. Even if they couldn't develop the cars at all anymore they would just pump millions into designing the most efficient wheel-gun or driver food or whatever.
The only solution to this problem that can actually work is a budget cap. Yes, it won't be perfect, and yes, some teams will cheat, but can things get any worse than they are now? A budget cap WILL bring costs down, even if it doesn't achieve parity.

[FoxHound]

It is funny to read all the speculatin and tripe about a cost cutting mechanism that is not even on the first step of invention let alone introduction or implementation.

What is so difficult to understand about a cost cutting mechanism?
It's cutting costs and setting a budgetary ceiling. Spend what you like on X so long as it falls under Y.
It may be funny to you, but it is actually rather important. Why? The FIA have shown us time and again it's ineptitude in enforcing it's own rules.
All it would take is some wording around the rules for the FIA to be powerless.

Everyman and his dog knows that cost control is imperative for F1 in order to make a full grid of individually designed and constructed chassis viable...<SNIP>...The teams could come up with entirely new ideas if they do some serious brainstorming on it. F1 has been diagnosed as half dead for decades and has always found ways to renew itself. It can happen again and it will happen in my view

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that.
In one sentence you mention F1 needs this, in the next you say it has always found ways of renewing itself as it's being diagnosed as half dead.
Why on earth do you need a budget cap for this? This put's an artificial ceiling on workforces and ideas as well as suppliers.
You also create a new black hole for accountants and lawyers to have a field day with blind alleys and blank account ledgers. It's already happened! Recall the Capgemini audit on Red bull?
http://grandprix247.com/2011/09/21/red- ... agreement/

And here is what Red Bull think of an FIA policed budgetry control.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98277


Finally,

We have already seen how the engine and power pack development can be influenced on the cost side. If a purely accounting based cost capping is not feasible the engine mechanism can be used as a blueprint for cost control on the chassis side. Teams can be restricted to fixed numbers of aerodynamic specs per season and tubs can be homologated for several seasons. Assemblies like the exhaust, suspension, gear box, brakes, cooling system, fuel system or the stearing assembly can be homologated for a variable number of seasons.

How many years of the same 2.4 litre V8's did we have to see? 7 years? How is this innovative?
Where is the innovation in this spec series of yours WB?
All I keep reading is homologation....this is F1, not touring cars.

[GitanesBlondes]

What is it with everyone in this thread ganging upon aero? Even in spec series like GP2 or GP3 there are huge performance differences between the richer and the poorer teams. The teams will always find something to spend money on and gain an advantage. Even if they couldn't develop the cars at all anymore they would just pump millions into designing the most efficient wheel-gun or driver food or whatever.
The only solution to this problem that can actually work is a budget cap. Yes, it won't be perfect, and yes, some teams will cheat, but can things get any worse than they are now? A budget cap WILL bring costs down, even if it doesn't achieve parity.

A budget cap will only bring down costs in theory. When the top teams are doing an end run around the budget cap with creative accounting, and dummy corporations, let me know how well that works. Oh wait, even better is say if Ferrari by way of their partnership with Shell uses Shell to do R&D for them and provides the workers. How is the FIA even going to figure that out?

Budget caps in F1 are a pipe dream that will never be enforced effectively.

The reason for the blame on aero is because aero is what has caused costs to multiply at an unsustainable rate. Having locked in engines since the 2008 season isn't driving costs. Aero development is insanely expensive, and even more so when it comes to refining things for fractional gains.

[FoxHound]

Agree on that gitanes...making a habit of that!

F1 needs sponsorship. This is a given.

Now imagine for one moment, mercedes f1 operation disects itself from the "AMG" nomenclature.
Mercedes will be Mercedes Petronas blah blah...
AMG as a sponsor is in no way involved with the team other than paying mercedes for its branding on the cars...on paper at least.

Meanwhile...

In Afflaterbach, cfd codes analysts, suspension guru's, engine genies swarm over how to get the next tenth of a second.
What a budget cap creates is the F1 equivalent of Area 51.
If the fia want to police each and every sponsor, they are in for a rude awakening.

The budget cap is flawed. It is there for teams to make profit, and misses its target due to the failings already being described in this thread.
Not to mention the implications it will have on real innovation, which sadly costs money.

[xpensive]

What do you know, of all the most unlikely bed-fellows...

[Pup]

can things get any worse than they are now?

Easily?

I mean, it really isn't that bad. F1 has survived for over a decade now with these budgets. And the budgets have remained roughly the same despite RRA's, rev limits, homologation, long-life engines, etc. Expenses don't track regulations. Oddly enough, they track income, much like any other endeavor.

This budget cap isn't about the small teams. It's about Red Bull and the inability to police the RRA. So saying "yes, it won't be perfect, and yes, some teams will cheat" is pretty much just saying that nothing will change.

[GitanesBlondes]

Agree on that gitanes...making a habit of that!

F1 needs sponsorship. This is a given.

Now imagine for one moment, mercedes f1 operation disects itself from the "AMG" nomenclature.
Mercedes will be Mercedes Petronas blah blah...
AMG as a sponsor is in no way involved with the team other than paying mercedes for its branding on the cars...on paper at least.

Meanwhile...

In Afflaterbach, cfd codes analysts, suspension guru's, engine genies swarm over how to get the next tenth of a second.
What a budget cap creates is the F1 equivalent of Area 51.
If the fia want to police each and every sponsor, they are in for a rude awakening.

The budget cap is flawed. It is there for teams to make profit, and misses its target due to the failings already being described in this thread.
Not to mention the implications it will have on real innovation, which sadly costs money.

We might not agree on things Silver Arrows related, but it's always good to find a common ground on something out there!

Couldn't agree more though with what you've said in the above post.

I think WhiteBlue might have been the one to say that somehow the FIA would be able to enforce all of this with the help of large accounting firms, but really, does anyone think the teams are suddenly going to open all of their books for examination by FIA bean counters? I highly doubt it, or they will only show what they feel is relevant to keep up the guise that they are operating within the realm of the rules. The sponsors on the other hand are going to have no problem providing ways for even lesser teams to do their own little end runs.

The way I look at it is even without restrictions, the top teams are unwilling to even state what they are spending on their F1 operations. People for years have been relying on the word of a moron like Sylt as the final world on budgets. Fact is, no one really knows what they are spending, and are never going to know. There's zero reason to tell the public as the benefit is non-existent.

The only way to drive costs down is to rewrite the technical rules in such a way that it drives down the costs in the most costly area of R&D. There is a balance to be had within the rules that can cause less money overall to be spent, but to still foster development.

If the in-season testing ban has done little to alleviate costs, then it should come as no surprise to anyone that it was never warranted to begin with.

I'd love to see a F1 again that rewards true mechanical engineering ingenuity, as well as one that sees 15-20 teams scrambling for 26 grid spots as we saw a quarter of a century ago. Max Mosley told us it was embarrassment to have those teams competing out there. I disagree. Even without any real chance of winning, when some backmarkers scored points by way of attrition, it was exciting to see it happen. Take away all of the aero tricks and gizmos, you have a better chance of seeing a true full grid again.

[Aesto]

The reason for the blame on aero is because aero is what has caused costs to multiply at an unsustainable rate. Having locked in engines since the 2008 season isn't driving costs. Aero development is insanely expensive, and even more so when it comes to refining things for fractional gains.

This is only because under the current regulations, putting money into aero development is the most effective way of improving your car. If investing into the engine, the suspension, electronics, etc. provided more benefits, the teams would refine those things to the nth degree instead.

can things get any worse than they are now?

Easily?

How? Let's assume the budget cap is introduced.

Worst case: nothing changes, spending remains the same. Somewhat likely.
Best case: all teams spend exactly the same, F1 becomes a level playing field. Extremely unlikely.

Most likely case: Spending for the top teams is nominally reduced by 50-80 million or whatever, but through loophole exploitation etc. they manage to bring that number down to 20 million. Even then, the gap between the biggest and the smallest teams becomes a bit more narrow, ensuring a bit more success for the likes of Sauber, Williams, etc. Perhaps we'll even lose a pay driver or two.

I mean, it really isn't that bad. F1 has survived for over a decade now with these budgets.

So survival is sufficient? We are currently in a situation where teams like Lotus and Sauber build very innovative cars (even Adrian Newey has praised their 2012 cars and stated that the 2013 RB has taken a few cues from the latter) but just can't compete at the level they deserve to because they can't afford to keep R&D at the same level as the bigger teams throughout the year. There has even been the perverse situation where some of the smaller teams were forced to vote against their own commercial interests (agreeing to in-season testing, from which the likes of Sauber can't expect any competitive benefit) by their engine suppliers. Would it really be so bad if F1 didn't need pay drivers any more and, god forbid, the teams might actually turn a profit?

And the budgets have remained roughly the same despite RRA's, rev limits, homologation, long-life engines, etc. Expenses don't track regulations. Oddly enough, they track income, much like any other endeavor.

Well, at least we're in agreement about that

[GitanesBlondes]

Aesto,

I'm well aware of aero being the only place to put development.

The argument I, and others have been making is the entire thing needs to be inverted.

Instead of locking the engines as was done in 2008 and keeping aero open, the inverse should have been done. Actually, to go a step further, given all of the problems aero has caused over the years with regards to close racing and so on, wings should have been banned outright. The FIA whines about the money being spent, yet they come up with rules that ensures the amounts of money spent in order to be competitive is going to be excessive.

They seem to have this thing against mechanical engineering by the looks of all their moronic decisions.

Herein lies the problem in a nutshell: A large vocal majority (with the attention span of a gnat mind you) wants racing to resemble all of the exciting parts of a Hollywood race film without the boring parts of racing. That's not how racing works. Exciting races cannot be predicted, they just happen. The FIA and FOM are trying to control the outcome of the product with all this idiotic garbage they come up with.

[Pup]

can things get any worse than they are now?

Easily?

How? Let's assume the budget cap is introduced.

Let's assume it works. Spending goes down, midfield teams become competitive.

The manufacturers and richer teams don't like that. Unhappy with not being able to showcase their abilities, they leave for another series. With the manufacturers in a competing series, F1 loses its position as the top tier of racing. With diminished appeal, sponsors are no longer willing to stay in F1, or if they are, only at much reduced rates. The remaining teams now once again find it hard to raise funds, but this time they're on the threshold of even being able to field cars. Entries decline, and faced with only drastic options like turning F1 into a spec series or eliminating flyaway races, the FIA decides to close the book on the series and put their weight behind the series that the manufactures all went to to begin with.

Sort of like what happened when Max destroyed Group C and all the manufacturers fled to F1.

Fans fall into the trap that F1 has to be all things to all people. It never has been. F1's reason for being is the high budgets, glamorous locations, and general madness. Take that away and you've got nothing worth preserving.

[Pup]

Instead of locking the engines as was done in 2008 and keeping aero open, the inverse should have been done. Actually, to go a step further, given all of the problems aero has caused over the years with regards to close racing and so on, wings should have been banned outright. The FIA whines about the money being spent, yet they come up with rules that ensures the amounts of money spent in order to be competitive is going to be excessive.

I don't think getting rid of aero would make any difference to budgets or to competitiveness. My argument is that it will make better racing, which will bring more interest and more money to the sport, and less need for gimmicks like double points, DRS, etc.

I'd rather attack the problem from the income side rather than the expense. I'd rather FOM and the FIA do their damned jobs instead of sitting on their asses and blaming the teams for everything that goes wrong with the sport. Make the sport worth watching and then promote the hell out of it. 1 in 4 Fortune 500 companies sponsor Nascar, but F1 - the pinnacle of motorsport with it's worldwide audience - can't fund more than a handful of teams.

No one asks why.

But if you do want to reduce costs for smaller teams, the answer is very clear - customer cars.

[GitanesBlondes]

Instead of locking the engines as was done in 2008 and keeping aero open, the inverse should have been done. Actually, to go a step further, given all of the problems aero has caused over the years with regards to close racing and so on, wings should have been banned outright. The FIA whines about the money being spent, yet they come up with rules that ensures the amounts of money spent in order to be competitive is going to be excessive.

I don't think getting rid of aero would make any difference to budgets or to competitiveness. My argument is that it will make better racing, which will bring more interest and more money to the sport, and less need for gimmicks like double points, DRS, etc.

I'd rather attack the problem from the income side rather than the expense. I'd rather FOM and the FIA do their damned jobs instead of sitting on their asses and blaming the teams for everything that goes wrong with the sport. Make the sport worth watching and then promote the hell out of it. 1 in 4 Fortune 500 companies sponsor Nascar, but F1 - the pinnacle of motorsport with it's worldwide audience - can't fund more than a handful of teams.

No one asks why.

But if you do want to reduce costs for smaller teams, the answer is very clear - customer cars.

Pup where do you think all of this money is being spent? Aero.

If teams couldn't spend on aero, they wouldn't even be employing 300-500 employees as there would be nothing to do.

[Pup]

Seriously? You think they'd just pocket that money and call it a day?

"Yeah, we could spend money on the suspension, or engines, or aero efficiency, but it's just not the same as when we were making wings. We'll just settle for 2nd."

Besides, it's not all being spent on aero. We don't talk about engines, because they aren't interesting anymore, but that hasn't stopped the spending...

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 15#p433015