Ideas to cut costs in F1

[andartop]

I think the best way by far to generate money for F1 Teams would be to do a fund raiser among fans. Can you imagine Bernie going on around the stands with his little jiggling box and Salvation Army uniform asking for people's change? I 'd definitely pay a few pounds to see that. Then they could share the profits.

The second best way would be to demand that Michael Schumacher reimburses 5% of his total profits from his career in F1 back. It would still be much less for him than you and I pay for tax each year, and certainly enough to guarantee F1's future until we all die. Then, who cares?

Last but not least, they could charge the viewers for phone calls and SMS services where the public would be voting after every 10 laps who stays and who leaves the race!!!

[twoshots]

Ultimately, Max and Bernie have no real interest in cutting costs, they only wish to keep F1 alive and putting money in Bernie's pocket. If it gets too expensive and some more teams pull out it will all collapse and their empire will vanish. If Bernie took no profit and after being paid a wage the rest of the TV money and host fees went as an equal split between the teams who make it onto the starting grid would be nice. Unfortunately the teams backed away from an independent series, the main problem being that those with the most power in F1 are those who don't need the cost cutting measures to survive.

The spec engine threat will never happen, there is too much money involved in demonstrating some sort of technical edge. Currently engines are a major part of the budget because it's the place where most benefit can be gained. No longer can teams come up with interesting ideas which gain performance, the rules prohibit anything other than masses of R&D at pseudo spec technology.

I don't want to see the WDC go to the team with the best accountants so I don't think a flat limit on expenditure is a good idea either.

You could put a salary cap on drivers per team. But that will stop all a future version of the Prost/Senna battles at MacLaren. On the other hand that would make teams pick a young (cheap) driver to pair with the expensive one who just took 90% of the budget.

Max wants F1 to remain at the forefront of technological development so he'll have to let the teams pay for it.

That said, I think making engines available to independent teams was a reasonable step. It helps make F1 more competitive by reducing the advantage of the extra investment. Taking the idea further by increasing the requirement for parts to last multiple races twinned with limiting engines to around 12,000 rpm might also help.

So I'm all for relaxing the rules to allow ingenuity and remove Bernie and his bottomless pockets. But then what do I know

[WhiteBlue]

Krafitz by the way has changed his tack o the German GP and said that it will continue in the future albeit only every second year if Hockenheim stopps.

I read an interview with Gordon Murray and he had a sensible suggestion. He said that allowing carbon fiber for suspension parts was not such a good idea. Going back to metal would improve cost and safety as the carbon parts break very easily and leave debris on track that provoke further accidents.

[timbo]

I read an interview with Gordon Murray and he had a sensible suggestion. He said that allowing carbon fiber for suspension parts was not such a good idea. Going back to metal would improve cost and safety as the carbon parts break very easily and leave debris on track that provoke further accidents.

I have a great respect for Gordon Murray, but with that particular comment I think he is wrong. Firstly, how many times driver had a puncture because of carbon fragments on the road? I think there were hardly half a dozen accidents because of this. Secondly, metal parts are more danger on impact because of higher density. Thirdly, by Ciro's graph manufacturing is 7.5% of team's expences. Even if it is 15% we would reduce some small fraction of this!

[xpensive]

Truth of the matter is that engines and drivetrain is one of the major costs of running an F1 team. For Honda actually comparable with Jenson Button's helmets, maybe that could be standardized too?.

Seriously, everything counts of course, but I believe Timbo's right, suspension parts can hardly be on top of the list of cost reductions urgency?

[donskar]

I had a thought when answering in other thread. Look at technology FIA banned for engine - variable valve timing, variable intake/exhaust geometry, probably other things. In a days of RPM restrictions maybe if they let teams use that technology once again it would be easier (and cheaper) for them to get the same level of performance. I think the main reason why engines are SOOOO expencive is that you have to squeeze ultra performance out of very mediocre (by todays standarts) technology.

Both of which are available on mundane production cars (my wife's Camry V6 has VVT! And both of which can be used to reduce emissions . . .

[ISLAMATRON]

I had a thought when answering in other thread. Look at technology FIA banned for engine - variable valve timing, variable intake/exhaust geometry, probably other things. In a days of RPM restrictions maybe if they let teams use that technology once again it would be easier (and cheaper) for them to get the same level of performance. I think the main reason why engines are SOOOO expencive is that you have to squeeze ultra performance out of very mediocre (by todays standarts) technology.

Both of which are available on mundane production cars (my wife's Camry V6 has VVT! And both of which can be used to reduce emissions . . .

YES its old technology, something every carmaker has in their lineup... what we would get of that in F1 is a multimillion dollar VVT system that may only be a couple percent more effiencient than what is on current production cars.

ICE is functionally obsolete, especially the naturially aspirated ICE.... adding VVT to F1 engines would only increase the costs more and provide a maybe 5% increase in fuel economy or power. F1 needs a complete paradigm shift.

[Scotracer]

I had a thought when answering in other thread. Look at technology FIA banned for engine - variable valve timing, variable intake/exhaust geometry, probably other things. In a days of RPM restrictions maybe if they let teams use that technology once again it would be easier (and cheaper) for them to get the same level of performance. I think the main reason why engines are SOOOO expencive is that you have to squeeze ultra performance out of very mediocre (by todays standarts) technology.

Both of which are available on mundane production cars (my wife's Camry V6 has VVT! And both of which can be used to reduce emissions . . .

YES its old technology, something every carmaker has in their lineup... what we would get of that in F1 is a multimillion dollar VVT system that may only be a couple percent more effiencient than what is on current production cars.

ICE is functionally obsolete, especially the naturially aspirated ICE.... adding VVT to F1 engines would only increase the costs more and provide a maybe 5% increase in fuel economy or power. F1 needs a complete paradigm shift.

That contradicts the aim of the FIA and this thread, however. You cannot have a shift in technology that large without costs going into an orbit around Jupiter.

The reason we have massive prices on the ICEs currently is completely down to FIA regulation - when they reduced the capacity from 3.5 litre to 3.0 revs went stratospheric and as a result, so did costs. So...why not just mandata a larger capacity and lower rev limit? This would still allow scope for development but would undoubtedly reduce costs with it. I want 3.5 V10/V12 back!

There is no easy solution here. We cannot just forget 20 years of technology and go back to the old 10 page technical regulations documents. We have Vortex Generators, 20,000rpm engines, Brakes that can make your eyes bleed, tyres that grip so much they probably would take the skin off your face if you rubbed it on one, aero parts up the arse (and then some) and gearboxes that can shift before you can even think about doing so. We have to deal with that. Being at the edge of technology isn't possible anymore as it's either too expensive or too dangerous. What can we do? That's for someone with a more sensible mind than mine to work out.

Sitting in my drive-way right now is my Honda Integra Type R. I just have to face the fact that it's more technologically advanced than F1 cars of today. Nothing I can do about it.

[WhiteBlue]

I read an interview with Gordon Murray and he had a sensible suggestion. He said that allowing carbon fiber for suspension parts was not such a good idea. Going back to metal would improve cost and safety as the carbon parts break very easily and leave debris on track that provoke further accidents.

I have a great respect for Gordon Murray, but with that particular comment I think he is wrong. Firstly, how many times driver had a puncture because of carbon fragments on the road? I think there were hardly half a dozen accidents because of this. Secondly, metal parts are more danger on impact because of higher density. Thirdly, by Ciro's graph manufacturing is 7.5% of team's expences. Even if it is 15% we would reduce some small fraction of this!

I think that Murray is right. It is one of several aereas where cost are incurred because someone once found a couple of tenths per lap and everybody else did the same. Now all are on the same level and are stuck with the cost. It is not alone the cost of making these things. Every race they are stripped and fluxed and recertified. The money truely is in the human resources wasted by the teams and the scrutineers. There is no reason why a set of suspension members should not work for a whole season instead of 1 or 2 races. The associated relative cost matters. If you can do it for 15% of the cost and improve safety, why would you stick with it? If you add up 10 of such examples in the end you do save substantial cost.

I find it extremely sad that talented team owners like Gerhard Berger , Aguri Suzuki or Eddie Jordan before had to throw the towel because the FOTA/FiA/FOM cannot control the cost to a level where they can afford to go racing. In my view this is using money as a competitive advantage which is extremely unsporting. Inventiveness, intelligence, resourcefullness and leadership are the capabilities I believe should be rewarded and not the ability to throw away your share holders money (like Toyota and Honda have been doing for some years).

[ISLAMATRON]

The reason we have massive prices on the ICEs currently is completely down to FIA regulation - when they reduced the capacity from 3.5 litre to 3.0 revs went stratospheric and as a result, so did costs. So...why not just mandata a larger capacity and lower rev limit? This would still allow scope for development but would undoubtedly reduce costs with it. I want 3.5 V10/V12 back!

There is no easy solution here. We cannot just forget 20 years of technology and go back to the old 10 page technical regulations documents. We have Vortex Generators, 20,000rpm engines, Brakes that can make your eyes bleed, tyres that grip so much they probably would take the skin off your face if you rubbed it on one, aero parts up the arse (and then some) and gearboxes that can shift before you can even think about doing so. We have to deal with that. Being at the edge of technology isn't possible anymore as it's either too expensive or too dangerous. What can we do? That's for someone with a more sensible mind than mine to work out.

Changing anything right now will increase costs. leaving evrything alone for a couple years is the cheapest option. We are considering how to maintain high technology, road relevance & low cost(without too much power) all in 1 package.. the only package I can think of is a small displacement turbocharged engine with conventional valve actuation(no more pneumatic valave) that is required to last a larger number of races. Add in direct injection for hi-tech & road relevance.

and no your type R isnt more advanced then an F1 machine.

[xpensive]

Now that we have the 2.4 litre formula fully implemented since a few years, I figure that short term, the best way to cut engine costs would be to simply limit the performance.
No TV-viewer could ever tell if the engine was turning out 19 000 or 16000 Rpm, let alone 760 or 680 Hp, but it would mean the world in terms of lifespan for engine as well as drivetrain. And John Howett can carry his precious valve-covers with pride.

I could imagine a limit of 300 Nm at 16000 Rpm (680 Hp), nice and even numbers.

Long term, that's a different story alltogether.

[Alexpcenteno]

I guess they should get the budget from all teams and see wich is the modest one. After that they should take of 25% of this budget and them use the final value as a budget cap for all teams. In oder words all teams must spent no more than 75% of the 2008 smallest budget.
At the same time release development in all areas and get rules that help with overtaking, like the ones they are using for 2009.
This way teams would choose where to develope the car and we would be able to see better competition because of the huge diference between the cars.
More teams would be allowed in and teams from garagists will be back because it would be allowed to buy parts as much as you want from another team.
And in order to take care of every dime spent FIA would be up the team's necks.

That would help with the show I guess.


Example:

Supose Force India budget for 2008 - 100M and that it was the smallest on the field.
Next step take 25% of this budget - 75M - there you have the budget cap, not including drivers and transportation.

[Scotracer]

The reason we have massive prices on the ICEs currently is completely down to FIA regulation - when they reduced the capacity from 3.5 litre to 3.0 revs went stratospheric and as a result, so did costs. So...why not just mandata a larger capacity and lower rev limit? This would still allow scope for development but would undoubtedly reduce costs with it. I want 3.5 V10/V12 back!

There is no easy solution here. We cannot just forget 20 years of technology and go back to the old 10 page technical regulations documents. We have Vortex Generators, 20,000rpm engines, Brakes that can make your eyes bleed, tyres that grip so much they probably would take the skin off your face if you rubbed it on one, aero parts up the arse (and then some) and gearboxes that can shift before you can even think about doing so. We have to deal with that. Being at the edge of technology isn't possible anymore as it's either too expensive or too dangerous. What can we do? That's for someone with a more sensible mind than mine to work out.

Changing anything right now will increase costs. leaving evrything alone for a couple years is the cheapest option. We are considering how to maintain high technology, road relevance & low cost(without too much power) all in 1 package.. the only package I can think of is a small displacement turbocharged engine with conventional valve actuation(no more pneumatic valave) that is required to last a larger number of races. Add in direct injection for hi-tech & road relevance.

and no your type R isnt more advanced then an F1 machine.

But going back to valve-spring actuation is another step back. I am all for Direct-injection but I don't want a tiny ICE unit (under 2 litres) as it just removes most of the "raw-power" feel that the sport has and should always have.

Oh and my Type R has variable cam profiles, ABS, the same suspension layout as an F1 car (double wishbone all-around) and many other technologies that are banned in F1. Kinda sad really...

[timbo]

I think that Murray is right. It is one of several aereas where cost are incurred because someone once found a couple of tenths per lap and everybody else did the same. Now all are on the same level and are stuck with the cost. It is not alone the cost of making these things. Every race they are stripped and fluxed and recertified. The money truely is in the human resources wasted by the teams and the scrutineers. There is no reason why a set of suspension members should not work for a whole season instead of 1 or 2 races. The associated relative cost matters. If you can do it for 15% of the cost and improve safety, why would you stick with it? If you add up 10 of such examples in the end you do save substantial cost.

If you change carbon composite for metal you would not improve safety AND cost. Period. You'd either have mega-expensive unobtanium alloy having same qualities or you'd have chunky metal with high-density which would be very danger on impact.

In case of engines, my thought was that allowing some technology back may result in lower price per performance unit (price/power, price/rev or price/torque). So if teams would be restricted on performance, advanced technology would allow to have it cheaper.

[twoshots]

Ciro posted this in the KERS thread some 18 months ago.

...And then recovery and re-use of the excess heat or waste heat from the engines. We intend to have a regulation for that before 2010.

...we are looking at the possibility of a completely new F1 engine reflecting the industry tendency which is to have a downsized, turbo-charged engine.

... we are combining active steering with electronic microsystems and anti-rollbars to a new functionality. So electronics and software technology will play a major rol(e) in car technology in future. So that is also an area we are discussing. There might be a future in F1 racing where we are ahead of technology.

From here.

So we're talking about costs reduction with the strong possibility that Max will allow turbos and more electronic systems along with a complete engine redesign. That going to cost a pretty penny....