The possible dangers from the budget cap

[DiogoBrand]

Before anything else, I just wanna say that I'm in favour of a budget limit for all teams, as I think it's the only way to truly limit how much teams spend. Standardizing parts, freezing development and all that stuff, as we've seen for decades, doesn't work, so if we wanna see teams like Racing Point competing for podiums, I think a budget cap is the way to go.

However, the more I think about it, the more I imagine ways it can go terribly wrong, so I just wanna know you guys' opinion and how the FOM could mitigate those problems.

1 - Not allowing slower teams to catch up: Just like the token system did to the power units, the budget cap would introduce a barrier to how much teams can develop their cars, so if one team starts the season with a clear advantage, while another team perhaps went the wrong development route and fell behind, the second team would possibly not be able to catch up again for the whole season, or maybe even multiple years.

2 - Engine development: The budget limit wouldn't apply to engine development, so if for example Ferrari starts the season behind Mercedes and can't catch up because the budged doesn't allow them to develop their car enough, they'd still be able to spend as much as they want to try and catch on the power side. Also, a budget cap woultn't mitigate the clear advantage that factory teams have over customer teams.

3 - Sattelite teams: We've seen this from Red Bull for over a decade, more recently from Ferrari, and possibly Mercedes in the near future. If Ferrari has reached their limit, there's very little preventing them from using Haas' budget to help develop their car. I know this is a bit tricky, but I'm sure they'll be able to pull it off with a Formula One championship on the line.

So what do you guys think? Are there any clever ways of avoiding those issues?

[marmer]

Another issue with a budget cap would be huge amounts of staff being laid off

To your points
1 - this affect is already seen in football uefa ffp stops teams from catching the very best as they can't spend enough to catch them.

2 - would be fine as long as those engines where given to customer teams equally.

3 - not much that can be done here unfortunately

I would much rather see standard parts.
Every thing to do with the wheels. Brakes, ducts and nuts just have say 5 different layouts of ducts for different cooling setups standard nuts and guns and standard rims.

Change the ice parts to only have to do one race to lower quality of parts and ban fancy materials


The next easy way to reduce costs would be to limit the amount teams bring to a race weekend.
Pit wall team However many they sit on average. Less than 10
2 pit teams one for each car
What is it now 3 men per wheel so that's 12 front and rear jack men 14 a debris man so say 15 per car and another 5 each to help between sessions or sub a pit crew.
So you could have a team limit at a weekend of 50 people.
Then let everyone else stay at the factory

[DChemTech]

Another issue with a budget cap would be huge amounts of staff being laid off

To your points
1 - this affect is already seen in football uefa ffp stops teams from catching the very best as they can't spend enough to catch them.

2 - would be fine as long as those engines where given to customer teams equally.

3 - not much that can be done here unfortunately

I would much rather see standard parts.
Every thing to do with the wheels. Brakes, ducts and nuts just have say 5 different layouts of ducts for different cooling setups standard nuts and guns and standard rims.

Change the ice parts to only have to do one race to lower quality of parts and ban fancy materials


The next easy way to reduce costs would be to limit the amount teams bring to a race weekend.
Pit wall team However many they sit on average. Less than 10
2 pit teams one for each car
What is it now 3 men per wheel so that's 12 front and rear jack men 14 a debris man so say 15 per car and another 5 each to help between sessions or sub a pit crew.
So you could have a team limit at a weekend of 50 people.
Then let everyone else stay at the factory

Sorry, but I disagree with you on (1). Football is boring because there is no budget cap, such that some teams can spend enormous amounts - and the less well endowed teams can never catch up. Which is in fact the same as what is happening in F1 and causing the enormous gap between top 3 and the rest now.

And it is why a budget cap -is- needed; so that teams can compete on equal ground. People always say "f1 is a technical sport, and a budget cap would destroy that aspect". I disagree - I think one of the most impressive aspects is if teams come up with clever solutions with limited resources. Anyone can win a technical sport if their funds are unlimited - it's much more proof of ingenuity if you can clearly stand out despite having the same resources as everyone else. That really shows that your team in fact has the best engineers. And that's also why I'm against standard parts - standard parts would remove the technical competition between teams.

And in recent years, the 'technical excellence' opportunities already have been reduced. Although there are no standard parts introduced, the ever stricter regulations basically amount to less and less radical differences between the teams - an ever smaller gap for a poorer, small team to come up with a brilliant idea - giving an even bigger advantage to rich teams, who have the resources to exploit subtle (nearly invisible by the layman) opportunities much better. But that's just evolution, not revolution. I'd be strongly in favor of opening up more space on the car to play with - but equalizing the resources with which to do so. Then we may see some interesting developments in the pecking order. (drivers, in my view, should be out of the budget cap - a top team can still opt to distinguish with the top driver, while traditional backmarkers may take a shot by introducing the next big talent).

But of course the start of the budget cap should start with a big scramble in general regulations - so that all teams start equally, and the top 3 doesn't have a headstart. Because in that case you may be right, and limited resources make it more difficult to catch up.

[Capharol]

https://www.racefans.net/2019/03/25/ana ... ize-money/
Analysing F1 prize money for 2021

[henry]

...

So you could have a team limit at a weekend of 50 people.
Then let everyone else stay at the factory

Current limit is 60. So not a huge saving.

[subcritical71]

...

So you could have a team limit at a weekend of 50 people.
Then let everyone else stay at the factory

Current limit is 60. So not a huge saving.

Keep the 60 limit and cut the backhaul back to the factory so everything needs to be done at the track (while cars are on track anyway).

[turbof1]

One big issue overlooked is how the make sure the budget cap is abided. It will mean the FIA needs to do audits through the whole company. That might be easy for smaller teams like Sauber or Williams, but for big integrated companies like Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and even HAAS, that's a titannic work. It's very costly to make sure that for instance Mercedes is not booking production of parts under their roadcar devision. It also raises question whether machinery for production parts should be part of the cap (because if it has to be, what stops Renault for instance to invest into a new machining tool for its roadcar devision and conveniently use it for F1 too). Audits also means spitting through very sensitive company data, with any significant leaks being potential company-ending consequences. There is also ambiguity around that engine development is excempt from the cap. What about research to bodywork around the PU (because you know, Ferrari just has to know what kind of cooling it needs) which is also directly related to the chassis/aero performance.

[subcritical71]

One big issue overlooked is how the make sure the budget cap is abided. It will mean the FIA needs to do audits through the whole company. That might be easy for smaller teams like Sauber or Williams, but for big integrated companies like Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and even HAAS, that's a titannic work. It's very costly to make sure that for instance Mercedes is not booking production of parts under their roadcar devision. It also raises question whether machinery for production parts should be part of the cap (because if it has to be, what stops Renault for instance to invest into a new machining tool for its roadcar devision and conveniently use it for F1 too). Audits also means spitting through very sensitive company data, with any significant leaks being potential company-ending consequences. There is also ambiguity around that engine development is excempt from the cap. What about research to bodywork around the PU (because you know, Ferrari just has to know what kind of cooling it needs) which is also directly related to the chassis/aero performance.

That is a big one and I would agree that it would be impossible to police internal company finances to ensure compliance. Even Ferrari and Haas were rumored to be sharing wind tunnel time to get around the rule limits (just to show how abuses *could* occur).

[Espresso]

...
So what do you guys think? Are there any clever ways of avoiding those issues?

1. Every time the 'B-teams' are catching up, the manufacturer A-teams push for some new regulations changes to improve 'racing'.
Stability in changes will level the field; constant changes keep the difference.
I'ts not about budget cap or other mojo, it's about stability in rules.

2. This would only work if engine manufacturers will be 'forced' to supply any team on demand.
And standard components is also another culprit, F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. Safety regulations are fine for me, but just let it remain that way. Standard (engine + chassis) components only 'handicap' the sport.

3. Count out Red Bull please, this B-team problem has been infused solely through Haas & Ferrari cooperation model.
Torro Rosso had done it for the initial (build-up) year, taking an old chassis. but Red Bull let let Torro Rosso be an independent entity, as they knew it was a grey area in the rules they didn't want to go into.
Torro Rosso has been used (clearly) as a 'drivers academy' for Red Bull.
This approach set an example and resulted in the current influx of young drivers. We have to thank Red Bull for this development.
Secondly Torro Rosso is known to come up with numerous inventive design elements copied by other teams.

So only after the Haas/Ferrari cooperation, did Torro Rosso follow suit in 2019, but even now their design department have a different approach is Red Bull. For example the front wing design....

[turbof1]

One big issue overlooked is how the make sure the budget cap is abided. It will mean the FIA needs to do audits through the whole company. That might be easy for smaller teams like Sauber or Williams, but for big integrated companies like Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and even HAAS, that's a titannic work. It's very costly to make sure that for instance Mercedes is not booking production of parts under their roadcar devision. It also raises question whether machinery for production parts should be part of the cap (because if it has to be, what stops Renault for instance to invest into a new machining tool for its roadcar devision and conveniently use it for F1 too). Audits also means spitting through very sensitive company data, with any significant leaks being potential company-ending consequences. There is also ambiguity around that engine development is excempt from the cap. What about research to bodywork around the PU (because you know, Ferrari just has to know what kind of cooling it needs) which is also directly related to the chassis/aero performance.

That is a big one and I would agree that it would be impossible to police internal company finances to ensure compliance. Even Ferrari and Haas were rumored to be sharing wind tunnel time to get around the rule limits (just to show how abuses *could* occur).

I didn't say impossible, though. Just very, very costly (this is will require a worldleading auditing company) and you need to have very specific ruling.

[TAG]

^^ I was going to comment on the financial tracking but @Turbo was on it. Team would skirt budget regulations the same way they skirt FiA regulations on the cars.

Want great racing, leave the regulations alone for more than 6months at a time like we do today.

[subcritical71]

^^ I was going to comment on the financial tracking but @Turbo was on it. Team would skirt budget regulations the same way they skirt FiA regulations on the cars.

Want great racing, leave the regulations alone for more than 6months at a time like we do today.

I would like to see more consistent regulations, especially on the PU side. I wouldn't mind small changes year to year, but really dislike the every 6 year wholesale change cycle we are currently on. This only benefits those that can afford to shell out the money. In recent times the teams were just getting on parity to each other when, bam, all of a sudden things change too much.

[turbof1]

^^ I was going to comment on the financial tracking but @Turbo was on it. Team would skirt budget regulations the same way they skirt FiA regulations on the cars.

Want great racing, leave the regulations alone for more than 6months at a time like we do today.

I would like to see more consistent regulations, especially on the PU side. I wouldn't mind small changes year to year, but really dislike the every 6 year wholesale change cycle we are currently on. This only benefits those that can afford to shell out the money. In recent times the teams were just getting on parity to each other when, bam, all of a sudden things change too much.

Agreed. The power unit format finally is coming to maturing, and the gaps are closing. Unfortunaly, we are going to see wholesale changes on the aerodynamics again in 2022 at the earliest (because I really don't see them getting new wholesale changes to the aero through for 2021, as that would leave only 2 years for development). Also, budget caps are great for stable regulations, but you are inevitably raising costs significantly when turning the technical rulebook upside down.

[dans79]

I have never understood the budget cap argument, the top teams are approaching half a billion a year each. No way can the FIA keep track of all The money moving around, not to mention all the possible ways you can work around a budget cap legally.

I find this new need for the entire grid to have a chance of winning rather odd to begin with since F1 has never been that way. If they want the grid to be competitive, then as others have said keep the rules stable and stop changing them. Also stop letting Pirelli change the tires ever year as well.

[Zynerji]

I still prefer a minimum cap with full design/ data sharing. It would self limit.