FOTA is dead

[WhiteBlue]

WhiteBlue
You talk as if these are facts.

Well there are some facts:

• teams have agreed on a budget/resource frame and by all published communications intend to keep to it
• resource restrictions in the chassis/racing sector did work to bring the cost down. That is confirmed by all FOTA communications. For top teams RRA has reduced costs by €100-150m.
• the only time in the last 20 years that engine cost have come down was triggered by the engine freeze combined with longevity sporting targets. The cost drop was something like €30m for customer teams and €90m for manufacturers.
• Ferrari and Mercedes publicly declared that they do not want to go back to unlimited spending on engines

I don't think that I need to bring quotations for these facts. People who observe the debate are familiar with those things. If you don't believe me I can make an effort to dig out the documents.

Based on those facts a sensible system of resource restrictions needs to involve the power train from 2014 and it should not increase the costs of manufacturer and customer teams. At least that is the way I see it. If you come to different conclusions we can end the debate here because the basis of discussion doesn't match.

[timbo]

You seem to overlook the advantage they gain for their own team (Ferrari, AMG Merc). It may not be an immediate concern for a team like McLaren but they could be cut out of an engine deal sometime in the future. Customer teams like Red Bull, Williams or Sauber would probably face a huge bill for their energy recovery systems in 2014. The MGUH, MGUK, the power electronics and the energy storage system will all be designed by the engine manufacturers for their own teams.

The works teams rarely gained any advantage over customers. Apart from Ferrari and Renault (and in latter case it was not a truly works team euther), how many works teams have won a championship?

And history shows that cost caps on engines never worked without a freeze. So where is the cost cap going to come from?

Sorry, but there were not many, if any, freezes in the history of F1, so saying would something work or not solely due to freeze is unfounded.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@WB
Right so, bearing in mind your above post:

1. Why do you insist engines be further regulated when aero is by far the most expensive single expense in f1.

2. Teams have not agreed on the RRA specifically how its enforced..and this is why red bull and Ferrari have left the group.

My understanding of the facts are that red bull wanted further limitations on manufacturers, when there are already such structures in place.
And Ferrari(along with McLaren and mercedes) wanted more transparency in the RRA, with suspicions raised on how red bull could bring tailor made packages for each race this year.
Further speculation was raised when auditors said red bull accounts showed discrepancies and where left blank in some instances.

This whole merry go round stems from one thing... Red bull playing every trick in the book to keep it's advantage.
The reality is if aero was capped in the same fashion as engines, red bull would be the biggest losers.

[timbo]

Based on those facts a sensible system of resource restrictions needs to involve the power train from 2014 and it should not increase the costs of manufacturer and customer teams.

I'm not sure what do you mean by "should not increase the cost of manufacturer and customer teams".
There must be some form of RRA on powertrain, but it should be independent and nondeductible from RRA on chassis. Otherwise how would you control spending of pure engine manufacturers?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Exactly right timbo.


Horners comments about manufacturers spending more than red bull stem from one thing:
They have to build their own engines and not buy them at a reduced price like red bull!
I find his comments regarding this beyond belief, seen as though a man in his position ought to know the difference between buying an engine, and designing and building one.

Engines aren't the issue.

The playing field needs to be levelled so that engines can once again become as important as aero.

[WhiteBlue]

Lets forget this debate. We differ too much in the basics. My view of the future is based on a total cost cap at status quo. That is my understanding of what the teams and the FiA want. I subscribe to the theory that more money should be spend on power train and less on aero. So the money for power train development needs to come out of the resources and budgets for chassis and particularly aero development. Very simple in principle if you accept the basic idea. You seem to disagree and there is no point to discuss the finer details if one cannot agree on the basics of a budget.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Hmmm much like red bull and FOTA

Basically the premise you are stating is cap both. No real issue with that 5 years from now.
But to implement this immediatly would be impossible for reasons I have been over.

The overriding issue, the here and now if you like, is that aero dominance is rampant. To equalise this, you new to slide scale downwards aero dependance, and once an equilibrium is reached you can implement caps.

Engine freeze has been agreed by all the engine makers and they are all reasonable happy with it for the last few years. If there's issue the FIA have allowed changes.
I dont want to bully red bull(pun not intended), but they seem to want to carry on as is, and this will not suffice the other top teams.

If middle ground isn't reached then the FIA will step in an stampede through a set of rules neither may like.
In this situation all teams lose by not at least gaining some general consensus.
Lest we also forget that Ferrari will insist on some sway of these changes when the Concorde agreement is due sometime soon.

Red bull could end up spitting feathers, through their hardline.

[timbo]

Lets forget this debate. We differ too much in the basics. My view of the future is based on a total cost cap at status quo. That is my understanding of what the teams and the FiA want. I subscribe to the theory that more money should be spend on power train and less on aero. So the money for power train development needs to come out of the resources and budgets for chassis and particularly aero development. Very simple in principle if you accept the basic idea. You seem to disagree and there is no point to discuss the finer details if one cannot agree on the basics of a budget.

Does that mean that Ferrari and Mercedes should built both chassis and powertrain on the same budget as RedBull (which builds only chassis)?

[WhiteBlue]

Does that mean that Ferrari and Mercedes should built both chassis and powertrain on the same budget as RedBull (which builds only chassis)?

No. Simplified all racing teams are restricted to the same chassis and race day resources, which doesn't include engines.

Engines cost are currently restricted by the freeze and the longevity rules.

Three of the four top teams basically do not pay for engines (Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull). The race teams get the engines foc from the manufacturer.

Merc and Ferrari also gets the KERS foc.

In the future the resources for all teams should be further restricted and that amount of resources or money should be utilized for engine development. Details need to be worked out once they agree to the principle.