F1 needs rule changes Urgently

[adrianjordan]

I disagree with introducing spare cars etc. However allowing a couple of installation laps in the morning before a race seems sensible.

I also feel that teams should be allowed to more thoroughly inspect any parts that have potentially been damaged in an accident, with an FIA delegate there to ensure no foul play.

[fritticaldi]

The FIA ruined Formula One with cost cutting. Its like the Premier League Top teams not allowed to buy big players so that the small teams could contend. Absolutely absurd. F1 wants Williams to become a contender again ? LOL If the small teams cant afford F1 go to a lower formula. Allow third cars from top teams to fill in the grid.

[SmallSoldier]

The FIA ruined Formula One with cost cutting. Its like the Premier League Top teams not allowed to buy big players so that the small teams could contend. Absolutely absurd. F1 wants Williams to become a contender again ? LOL If the small teams cant afford F1 go to a lower formula. Allow third cars from top teams to fill in the grid.

And end up having a championship with 3-4 teams? I don’t think does what anyone really wants.

We need more entrants to the Championship, but if the only way to compete is to have a half a billion budget (which with no cap will keep on growing), we will only see teams leaving the sport until there isn’t one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andres125sx]

The FIA ruined Formula One with cost cutting

OMG... Everybody asking for a more fair F1 where any team can fight for victories with talent even if they don´t have the resources of big teams... and you´re asking for a F1 where only big teams have a chance?


Lecrerc didn´t participate in Monaco because:

1- He crashed in Q3 wich is one big mistake
2- Ferrari assumed a big risk to not loose the pole, and they lost everything

Both are part of F1, nothing to solve here. Stop the rant please

[henry]

A minor change would be to align gearbox usage with the rest of the power train. 3 gearboxes a season fit them when you like. No change in costs and less of a lottery. As we saw at Monaco, right now it matters a lot at which point in the season you damage your gearbox.

[nzjrs]

A minor change would be to align gearbox usage with the rest of the power train. 3 gearboxes a season fit them when you like. No change in costs and less of a lottery. As we saw at Monaco, right now it matters a lot at which point in the season you damage your gearbox.

I'd like that, I'd also like if engine change penalties excluded those where the engine was damaged in a crash.

[El Scorchio]

A minor change would be to align gearbox usage with the rest of the power train. 3 gearboxes a season fit them when you like. No change in costs and less of a lottery. As we saw at Monaco, right now it matters a lot at which point in the season you damage your gearbox.

I'd like that, I'd also like if engine change penalties excluded those where the engine was damaged in a crash.

Same. As long as you could prevent teams from 'gaming' the system to get 'free' new engines when it wasn't strictly necessary.

The cost cap and engine allocation does seem to unfairly punish genuine big accidents with a double, (grid penalties for engine) and maybe triple (budget implications down the line) whammy.

[DChemTech]

The FIA ruined Formula One with cost cutting. Its like the Premier League Top teams not allowed to buy big players so that the small teams could contend. Absolutely absurd. F1 wants Williams to become a contender again ? LOL If the small teams cant afford F1 go to a lower formula. Allow third cars from top teams to fill in the grid.

Nah, money ruined F1 by basically creating a situation where winning does not depend on competence or creativity, but on the depth of ones pockets. And the same thing ruined football, too. At least F1 is taking measures against it. Fair competition means all teams should get the same resources, and then see who can best put those resources to practice.

More on topic, F1 needs a lot of rule changes - but this is not one of them. Taking risks is part of the game, and this time Ferrari lost.

[DChemTech]

A minor change would be to align gearbox usage with the rest of the power train. 3 gearboxes a season fit them when you like. No change in costs and less of a lottery. As we saw at Monaco, right now it matters a lot at which point in the season you damage your gearbox.

I'd like that, I'd also like if engine change penalties excluded those where the engine was damaged in a crash.

Same. As long as you could prevent teams from 'gaming' the system to get 'free' new engines when it wasn't strictly necessary.

The cost cap and engine allocation does seem to unfairly punish genuine big accidents with a double, (grid penalties for engine) and maybe triple (budget implications down the line) whammy.

It seems to me the cap on parts can be removed with the budget cap in place? It's up to a team to chose where they want to spend their resources, it doesn't seem necessary to put any limitations on that. Quite the converse, it would be nice to see whether different teams make different choices there, e.g. diverting more to frequent drivetrain replacements, or more to aerodynamic upgrades.

[El Scorchio]

I'd like that, I'd also like if engine change penalties excluded those where the engine was damaged in a crash.

Same. As long as you could prevent teams from 'gaming' the system to get 'free' new engines when it wasn't strictly necessary.

The cost cap and engine allocation does seem to unfairly punish genuine big accidents with a double, (grid penalties for engine) and maybe triple (budget implications down the line) whammy.

It seems to me the cap on parts can be removed with the budget cap in place? It's up to a team to chose where they want to spend their resources, it doesn't seem necessary to put any limitations on that. Quite the converse, it would be nice to see whether different teams make different choices there, e.g. diverting more to frequent drivetrain replacements, or more to aerodynamic upgrades.

Are you suggesting that the cap should be on R&D and new/upgraded parts rather than manufacturing identical replacement parts? If so, completely agree and I don't think it would be impossible to manage or police even if it put more work on scrutineering.

So for instance (irrespective of grid penalties etc.) a new gearbox or suspension parts which are identical to the old/existing/damaged one is free of budget cap, but if they wanted to replace with a spec that hadn't already been used on the car at some point, it would come out of the budget?

[DChemTech]

Are you suggesting that the cap should be on R&D and new/upgraded parts rather than manufacturing identical replacement parts? If so, completely agree and I don't think it would be impossible to manage or police even if it put more work on scrutineering.

So for instance (irrespective of grid penalties etc.) a new gearbox or suspension parts which are identical to the old/existing/damaged one is free of budget cap, but if they wanted to replace with a spec that hadn't already been used on the car at some point, it would come out of the budget?

In an ideal world, I would say all teams can spend the same maximum budget X on all performance-related activities (so, pretty much anything except marketing?). That would really make it a sport - with equal conditions, who performs best? (who makes the best choices in resource allocation, and who utilizes those resources to the maximum). That would include both design and manufacturing. Now, of course we do not live in an ideal world, and 'unexpected write-off' of parts, sometimes outside of your own hands, is an issue. Having some opportunity to manufacture copies out-of-cap would be a resolution to that. But I am also OK with keeping it in budget; every team will need to anticipate for some unexpected damage, and that is part of the game, too. But in any case I think that with a cap on budget in place, a cap on parts is no longer needed. Teams are already punished budget-wise if they want to introduce a new part, whether that is because of an incident or because of innovation. If a team wants to change their ERS systems 5x due to upgrades, fine with me. It means they have less funds available to upgrade other things.

[El Scorchio]

Are you suggesting that the cap should be on R&D and new/upgraded parts rather than manufacturing identical replacement parts? If so, completely agree and I don't think it would be impossible to manage or police even if it put more work on scrutineering.

So for instance (irrespective of grid penalties etc.) a new gearbox or suspension parts which are identical to the old/existing/damaged one is free of budget cap, but if they wanted to replace with a spec that hadn't already been used on the car at some point, it would come out of the budget?

In an ideal world, I would say all teams can spend the same maximum budget X on all performance-related activities (so, pretty much anything except marketing?). That would really make it a sport - with equal conditions, who performs best? (who makes the best choices in resource allocation, and who utilizes those resources to the maximum). That would include both design and manufacturing. Now, of course we do not live in an ideal world, and 'unexpected write-off' of parts, sometimes outside of your own hands, is an issue. Having some opportunity to manufacture copies out-of-cap would be a resolution to that. But I am also OK with keeping it in budget; every team will need to anticipate for some unexpected damage, and that is part of the game, too. But in any case I think that with a cap on budget in place, a cap on parts is no longer needed. Teams are already punished budget-wise if they want to introduce a new part, whether that is because of an incident or because of innovation. If a team wants to change their ERS systems 5x due to upgrades, fine with me. It means they have less funds available to upgrade other things.

In an ideal world absolutely. Everything should be covered.
The thing that doesn't quite add up to me is teams being financially punished for circumstances beyond their control, so therefore maybe a distinction between replacing like for like broken parts vs developing new or upgraded ones needs to be made.

For instance if Red Bull have to spend a million dollars rebuilding a destroyed chassis because their driver got caught up in a crash that wasn't even their fault or could do nothing to avoid, then it seems unfair that it potentially impacts on the amount of R&D they are able to do going forward for this season and next.

Definitely they'd be fools not to budget for damage and I am sure they all have, but a couple of freak accidents here and there could make things very difficult.

Maybe the point is that it's not a bad thing if RBR and Mercedes have less to spend on R&D because it potentially brings the field closer, but I sure in the real world the cars toward the middle and back of the grid get involved in a lot more incidents and they have to take resource away from their already tight R&D which just drops them further behind. I'd be willing to bet RBR and Merc's annual repair bills are amongst the lowest on the grid.

[Dr. Acula]

The FIA ruined Formula One with cost cutting. Its like the Premier League Top teams not allowed to buy big players so that the small teams could contend. Absolutely absurd. F1 wants Williams to become a contender again ? LOL If the small teams cant afford F1 go to a lower formula. Allow third cars from top teams to fill in the grid.

And end up having a championship with 3-4 teams? I don’t think does what anyone really wants.

We need more entrants to the Championship, but if the only way to compete is to have a half a billion budget (which with no cap will keep on growing), we will only see teams leaving the sport until there isn’t one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, from a budget point, a spare car hardly makes any difference, because all teams have basically a third or even fourth car with them, just in parts. So the material for a spare car is available in every race no matter what. I mean LeClerc DNS not because Ferrari had no drive shafts left, they simply noticed the defect far to late.

[dans79]

We need more entrants to the Championship, but if the only way to compete is to have a half a billion budget (which with no cap will keep on growing), we will only see teams leaving the sport until there isn’t one.

How is the 200 million dollar entrance fee, going to garner more entrants?
https://www.racefans.net/2020/09/16/200 ... -panthera/


IMO, F1 is a mess right now, because Liberty and the FIA are focusing to much on cost, both directly and indirectly. Not to mention they are the reason the costs are so high to start with. The rules are so tight that to gain a competitive advantage teams have to throw huge sums of money into the diminishing returns black hole. Yet, they still have ridiculous special payout for some teams.

Not to mention some people just need to deal with the fact that racing is a rich person/organizations sport, regardless of what level you are participating at.

[DChemTech]

In an ideal world absolutely. Everything should be covered.
The thing that doesn't quite add up to me is teams being financially punished for circumstances beyond their control, so therefore maybe a distinction between replacing like for like broken parts vs developing new or upgraded ones needs to be made.

For instance if Red Bull have to spend a million dollars rebuilding a destroyed chassis because their driver got caught up in a crash that wasn't even their fault or could do nothing to avoid, then it seems unfair that it potentially impacts on the amount of R&D they are able to do going forward for this season and next.

Definitely they'd be fools not to budget for damage and I am sure they all have, but a couple of freak accidents here and there could make things very difficult.

Maybe the point is that it's not a bad thing if RBR and Mercedes have less to spend on R&D because it potentially brings the field closer, but I sure in the real world the cars toward the middle and back of the grid get involved in a lot more incidents and they have to take resource away from their already tight R&D which just drops them further behind. I'd be willing to bet RBR and Merc's annual repair bills are amongst the lowest on the grid.

I agree, on the other hand, the smaller teams are anyway below the budget cap, while the large teams will push reach as close as possible to the cap - and as such, allowing for repairs outside of the cap, in essence increases the spending difference between smaller and larger teams again. Hence a small preference to have the repairs inside the cap as well, and let the teams decide how much 'unforeseen' costs they budget.

In the end, the difference would be small anyhow I guess. Whether you would say "the budget cap is 150 million", or "the budget cap is 145 million, but all teams are allowed to spend an extra 5 million on repairs (without upgrades)", the effect is likely similar. Well, except maybe for teams that forget to budget for repairs in the former scenario, and end up not being allowed to make them anymore.