2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

[henry]

Can I suggest a non-technical rule that would, potentially, close up the grid?

The sporting regulations define how aerodynamic development is restricted and policed. Right now every team gets 25 wind-tunnel-equivalent hours of development a week.

Suppose instead the number of hours depended on the performance in the WCC. High performers get less than 25 hours and low performers more. Also make the hours tradeable.

For example. The team that wins the WCC gets 12.5 and the team in last gets 37.5 ( 25 plus or minus 50%). Other teams get hours dependant on the number of points they scored. Teams would be able to look at their budget and decide whether they could afford to use their allocation. If not they could sell some hours to another team. At a simple level Manor might like to sell some hours to Mercedes, who might feel challenged by Ferrari who have a larger allocation.

Under 2015 results the allocation would be:

Code: Select all

Team	             Points	       Hours
MERCEDES	             703	       12.5
FERRARI	             428	        22.3
WILLIAMS	             257	        28.4
RED BULL RACING.  187	        30.8
FORCE INDIA	     136	        32.7
LOTUS	             78	        34.7
TORO ROSSO	     67	        35.1
SAUBER	             36	        36.2
MCLAREN	             27	        36.5
Manor	              0	        37.5
Haas	                      0                37.5

If this were successful other resources could be managed. Driver in loop simulation, chassis rig test hours, etc. In fact anything where the rich teams currently have an unfair and self perpetuating advantage.

[ScottB]

So wouldn't that result in a 'legal' equivalent of Ferrari's partnership with HAAS? You'd have the rich teams pairing up with minnows to buy up their wind tunnel time, maybe even intentionally encouraging them to finish last!

It'd be the teams in the middle, not rich enough to go buying up others time; Williams, Force India etc who'd suffer, unable to compete with the Merc's and the Ferrari's at the front, who boost their development at the expense of the teams at the back of the grid...

[dans79]

Can I suggest a non-technical rule that would, potentially, close up the grid?

I don't me to pick at you directly, but what is it with you Europeans, and constantly wanting to artificially manipulate the rules?

Let the teams at the back find a away to the front of the grid, just like every other team bar Ferrari has. Slow progression, coupled with making the right partnerships at the right time.

[bhall II]

I don't me to pick at you directly, but what is it with you Europeans, and constantly wanting to artificially manipulate the rules?

I can't speak to European sensibilities, but I can say that U.$. $ports league$ have long under$tood the value of parity, which i$ why every one of them ha$ a $alary cap in one form or another. While such a solution is obviously unworkable in F1, let's not pretend anything we do here in the States has some sort of purity to it that's lacking elsewhere. There's little difference between victory ballast, for instance, and giving the worst NFL team the first pick in the draft.

[dans79]

I can't speak to European sensibilities, but I can say that U.$. $ports league$ have long under$tood the value of parity, which i$ why every one of them ha$ a $alary cap in one form or another. While such a solution is obviously unworkable in F1, let's not pretend anything we do here in the States has some sort of purity to it that's lacking elsewhere. There's little difference between victory ballast, for instance, and giving the worst NFL team the first pick in the draft.

And none of them really work, as they all have loopholes that let you bend the rules. The only really decent one is football, and even it is still flexible when teems get creative with how salaries are paid. Baseball's is probably the worst, because the Yankee's and other top teams, don't care if they have to pay the luxury tax, and have tons of workarounds with signing bonuses, and the many loopholes with the farm systems.

All that aside, I find any kind of rule, that hinders you simple because you did a good job unsporting.

[bhall II]

I'm not saying anything about the efficacy of such rules, just that there's nothing particularly exotic, or Eurocentric, about initiatives that seek parity in sports.

[henry]

So wouldn't that result in a 'legal' equivalent of Ferrari's partnership with HAAS? You'd have the rich teams pairing up with minnows to buy up their wind tunnel time, maybe even intentionally encouraging them to finish last!

It'd be the teams in the middle, not rich enough to go buying up others time; Williams, Force India etc who'd suffer, unable to compete with the Merc's and the Ferrari's at the front, who boost their development at the expense of the teams at the back of the grid...

It would depend on how it was managed. Partnerships would probably be manipulated as you say.

One method might be to have a pool of resources. those who want to sell put hours in and those who want to buy bid for them. Money then goes to the sellers. There might have to be a minimum price. I don't know. There are people in the sport who would be able to do the sums to make it work if it were a "good idea".

[henry]

I can't speak to European sensibilities, but I can say that U.$. $ports league$ have long under$tood the value of parity, which i$ why every one of them ha$ a $alary cap in one form or another. While such a solution is obviously unworkable in F1, let's not pretend anything we do here in the States has some sort of purity to it that's lacking elsewhere. There's little difference between victory ballast, for instance, and giving the worst NFL team the first pick in the draft.

And none of them really work, as they all have loopholes that let you bend the rules. The only really decent one is football, and even it is still flexible when teems get creative with how salaries are paid. Baseball's is probably the worst, because the Yankee's and other top teams, don't care if they have to pay the luxury tax, and have tons of workarounds with signing bonuses, and the many loopholes with the farm systems.

All that aside, I find any kind of rule, that hinders you simple because you did a good job unsporting.

I don't think the rules on distributing prize money are exactly sporting, do you? Particularly given the way it then parlays into increased sponsorship raising the income disparity even higher.

F1 is not a life substitute. It's a sport, sort of. Which means it is played to an entirely arbitrary set of rules. This would be just one more rule that may, or may not, increase the pool of teams that could compete meaningfully.

[henry]

I'm not saying anything about the efficacy of such rules, just that there's nothing particularly exotic, or Eurocentric, about initiatives that seek parity in sports.

Thanks bhall II for making the point for me. I had salary caps and draft picks in NFL in mind when I made the post.

I had another model in mind as well but I didn't dare mention it.

[dans79]

I don't think the rules on distributing prize money are exactly sporting, do you? Particularly given the way it then parlays into increased sponsorship raising the income disparity even higher.

F1 has no rules regarding prize money. FOM/Bernie handles all the money, and that is why the dispersion of it, is so skewed. Bernie negotiated individual contracts with the teams, that guaranteed certain teams a lot more money. I agree it's not fair, and if i had my way, the used car salesman would be locked away in a German prison right now.


regardless, I am against what you proposed.

[henry]

I don't think the rules on distributing prize money are exactly sporting, do you? Particularly given the way it then parlays into increased sponsorship raising the income disparity even higher.

F1 has no rules regarding prize money. FOM/Bernie handles all the money, and that is why the dispersion of it, is so skewed. Bernie negotiated individual contracts with the teams, that guaranteed certain teams a lot more money. I agree it's not fair, and if i had my way, the used car salesman would be locked away in a German prison right now.


regardless, I am against what you proposed.

In my view the payment system is part of the rule set that constrains F1. And it has a vey significant effect on the performance, pecking order, of the competition. You, I, and many others may not like it, but it is as it is. The sporting rule on which I based my suggestion exists because of the financial disparity.

All the fiddling with dimensional or format rules will simply make the money more and more important. every now and then a poorer team will find a solution that pulls them forward but the teams with lots of money will quickly claw that back and more.

Do you think that this disparity is sporting? If you don't what do you think the FIA should do about it?

[nevill3]

I do not see that the disparity in payments to individual F1 teams as fundamentally wrong, for example if you were trying to entice sports people to a sporting event, you would have to pay a higher fee to the bigger stars e.g Usain Bolt or Mo Farah than to the also rans who make up the numbers. So long established teams should attract higher payments but the prize money remains the same for all competitors which I think it still does in F1.

The teams negotiated their own contracts and so should expect to compete within their own budget constraints rather than complaining when a more successful team spends its way out of poor performance. The new engines price has been very damaging to the smaller teams and so they should be seeking recompense from the people/organization that forced this new engine formula on them especially if the change happened half way through an existing financial remuneration contract, therefore introducing an unexpected rise in running costs.

[henry]

I do not see that the disparity in payments to individual F1 teams as fundamentally wrong, for example if you were trying to entice sports people to a sporting event, you would have to pay a higher fee to the bigger stars e.g Usain Bolt or Mo Farah than to the also rans who make up the numbers. So long established teams should attract higher payments but the prize money remains the same for all competitors which I think it still does in F1.

The teams negotiated their own contracts and so should expect to compete within their own budget constraints rather than complaining when a more successful team spends its way out of poor performance. The new engines price has been very damaging to the smaller teams and so they should be seeking recompense from the people/organization that forced this new engine formula on them especially if the change happened half way through an existing financial remuneration contract, therefore introducing an unexpected rise in running costs.

Agreed other sports have variable payments as you say. The problem for F1 is that the money is much more readily converted into a performance advantage. The chances of getting from also ran to frontline competitor in F1 are pretty much zero. That is not true of athletics or other sports where the improvements in performance you can buy have a natural cap.

The problem of engine costs is one of viability, for the smallest teams, the rules, including finance, should always ensure qualified teams can afford to compete rather than just turn up. An extra $10m for development for mid table teams will make a pretty small dent in their disparity in their development provision compared to the 4 lead teams .

The way F1 works, and has worked, for a couple of decades groups of skilful personnel anywhere other than the top 4 teams are never going to win anything. That doesn't seem much like a sport.

[dans79]

Do you think that this disparity is sporting? If you don't what do you think the FIA should do about it?

I already said it wasn't sporting. To fix the issue, two things need to happen, Bernie needs to be removed from the equation (i don't care how), and the FIA needs a rule that mandates teams only get paid by how the finish in the championship.

[turbof1]

Removing Ecclestone is not going to solve the issue: there's always the next greedy businessman standing in line for his job. Rather, the 100 year commercial rights deal witht the FIA which was made in 2000 and started when the original deal ended in 2011, has to be terminated to have any chance to stop the current stranglehold. The FIA will have to somehow retake the commercial rights.

But that on its own is a very delicate matter: it was infact the EU Commission that pushed for such a move back in 2000: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/story/ ... 58,00.html

More immediately, however, the European Union competition commissioner Mario Monti must give the green light to the new deal.

Monti had previously complained that, by having a stake in the income from the world championship while also overseeing the sport's rules, the FIA was in an unfairly monopolistic situation. Now, via the 100-year deal, the governing body is being seen to isolate itself from Ecclestone's commercial operation, and thereby - in theory, at least - remove itself from further legal criticism.

Also from that article: the absolutely scandalous cheap price the FIA leased out F1:

In exchange for a payment of £211.76m - which represents about a year's revenue to Ecclestone's Formula One Management.

Ecclestone will pay the FIA £35.3m immediately, and the balance over the remainder of the term at £1.76m per year.

(Yes indeed, it's not even going to be inflation corrected over time!)

Currently, the legal bail out is having the grid drop below 18 cars (or 16 cars? Don't remember exactly), something Ecclestone, his successor or anybody from CVC will try to avoid at all costs, as this will activate a clause and make the lease contract void.

I do want to make the remark that the FIA under Todt is just as incompetent as it was under Mosley, as the former sold out a huge chunk of the regulation side for an equally measily amount of money as his predecessor did with the commercial side. Chances are that the FIA will simply sell the commercial rights again for less then peanuts again, and for a pseudo-indefinite timeframe again.