Ideas to cut costs in F1

[jon-mullen]

Generating income has the same effect as cutting costs, right? How about this one:

Start releasing seasons on DVD. Seriously, if you're going to block every YouTube clip that has an F1 car in it, you should probably make them available elsewhere. There's an extremely limited amount of historic F1 merch and it's something I would definitely ask for for x-mas. I just got into the sport two years ago (when I got cable) and it pisses me off that I have to hear Varsha talk about Senna and Prost and Andretti and the Hills and I can't even watch a damn clip of them driving.

[donskar]

It's good to see some posters finally taking a broader view.

Bernie wants us to focus on cost cutting without giving a thought to the other side of the coin.

Bernie: cut the teams costs/budgets
Sanity: yes, but let's also look into increasing the teams' income

And I'm sure Bernie also enjoys us scurrying down the "green" rathole while he hoards growing piles of "green." Want an instant cost-cutting measure? Eliminate or postpone KERS for the time being.

[WhiteBlue]

... Want an instant cost-cutting measure? Eliminate or postpone KERS for the time being.

There are several fundamental reasons for continuing.

1. You have to be consistent. teams that have build their strategy around KERS will be disadvantaged. So you cannot change it four month before the season starts without unanimous agreement.

2. There are items with higher cost that make a lot less sense for the show and the sport, gearboxes and aero expenses being prime examples.

[xpensive]

As I remember correctly , BMW was the only team in FOTA to vote against postponing KERS recently as they feel they are ahead of the rest in that area.
But this has surely nothing to do with your position on the matter WhiteBlue? *S*

To my mind, and for once I agree with Luca Montezemolo, having 10 teams spending tens of millions of MEURs each on developing independent systems for recovery of a few kW of energy is more than nuts.

[WhiteBlue]

I do not denie that the situation of BMW has an influence on my thinking. They have fewer resources than McLaren/Merc and Ferrari and have focused them earlier on the 2009 car. If they had not done that they may have had a chance for the title this years for the consistency they were showing. You cannot punish them by changing the rules at this stage. Besides most of the money is already spend. Our friend Luca is just looking at building or leasing another very expensive wind tunnel. To cut such wastefullness would do much more good than cutting or delaying energy saving technologies.

[xpensive]

On wind-tunnels, I agree compltely, why I wrote the following the other day:

Apparently Max Mosley has changed his mind too, realizing that this kind of spending will end with three or four teams competing. I just hope that he has advisors good enough to change the aerodynamic rules to make three-shifts work in a full-scale rolling-ground windtunnel redundant. Multi MW blowers on full song for 24 hours year around?

I should advocate flat bottoms, along the entire length of the car, very easy to police and extremely efficient to reduce downforce and need for CFD/windtunnels.

[pipex]

What is the status right know of the "budget cap" idea? There have been any discussion?

Regards

[timbo]

I do not denie that the situation of BMW has an influence on my thinking. They have fewer resources than McLaren/Merc and Ferrari and have focused them earlier on the 2009 car. If they had not done that they may have had a chance for the title this years for the consistency they were showing. You cannot punish them by changing the rules at this stage. Besides most of the money is already spend. Our friend Luca is just looking at building or leasing another very expensive wind tunnel. To cut such wastefullness would do much more good than cutting or delaying energy saving technologies.

I think wind-tunnel is not VERY expensive compared to KERS. Even Sauber in its pre-BMW days could build one that considered very sofisticated and was major plus for BMW, when they wanted to purchase them. One thing with windtunnel is that once you build it - you use it and that's all. KERS require redesign of the whole car with braking, cooling, weight destribution - everything that needs to be sorted out. Besides, I bet if team would want to sell its windtunnel there would be many of potential buyers, while with KERS technology it is still a question whether F1 could offer anything useful on that side.

However, I believe that the major point to cut expenses would be to limit on going development. Like team can only alter aero-package four times a year and suspension, cooling ec twice. Look at what differentiated most rich teams with smaller ones - last year Spyker altered their package only a few times, this year with FI they introduced something new almost every race, just like others do.
It just amazes me why we are not discussing this! This is the major point of expences, every year teams effectively develop a car TWICE, as cars on Brazil are very, very different to Australia...

[xpensive]

This is exactly what i mean timbo, as most upgrades during the season these days are done for aerodynamic reasons, why not simply limit the benefit from wasting endless working hours in a power-gobbling full-scale rolling windtunnel?

For 2009 FIA has tried to put an end to all the ridicilous tack-ons to the body-work developed in the wind-tunnel, while I am sure a flat-bottom rule should be even more efficient to limit that sort of useless spending.

As for the argument that the big-spenders will just re-direct their money to some other area, what can I say? There is no law against stupidity, if a team wants to waste their money on hostesses, celebrity helicopter services or 8000 EUR helmets, it's their choice but the point is to limit the cost of actually racing.

[timbo]

This is exactly what i mean timbo, as most upgrades during the season these days are done for aerodynamic reasons, why not simply limit the benefit from wasting endless working hours in a power-gobbling full-scale rolling windtunnel?

Not only aero - suspensions, transmissions, hydraulics, even tube to the extend that sometimes crash-tests are required mid-season. There should be limit on number of changes you can make per season.

For 2009 FIA has tried to put an end to all the ridicilous tack-ons to the body-work developed in the wind-tunnel, while I am sure a flat-bottom rule should be even more efficient to limit that sort of useless spending.

I don't think flat bottom would change anything and it is dangerous on not active-suspension cars as 1994 had shown, but I think we can all tolerate standart floor and probably rear wing. I'm against all standart front wing as it is tied to every other aero piece.

PS I think that development limit may result in that teams would build cars with wider optimum performance window that can would be easire to adapt to driver's demand by tuning of suspension etc which is a good thing. I thing it is crazy when to change balance the whole suspension must be redesigned.

[Conceptual]

Has anyone suggested driver salary caps? I imagine if the drivers were capped at 10MUSD/yr that it would immediately drop the operation costs, and cut out the "manager" middleman.

I think that all of these teams have the ability to co-develop a monocoque that has no outside surface, thus allowing the bodywork to be "bolted on" but designed by the seperate teams. Offering the spec engines, and holding the manufacturers to the performance limits of the Cosworth, while still allowing for fuel efficiency innovation.

I think that this can be done with simple end-of-year bonus points to the championships.

If to the WCC there were bonus points for:
Most laps on a single engine. +10pts
Most laps on a single chassis. +10pts
Most laps on a single gearbox. +10pts
Most laps on a single fuel load. +20pts
Least introduced upgrades. +20pts
Least consumed Fuel. +20pts
Least consumed tyres. +20pts
Least DNF's. +50pts
Least money spent. +75pts

and so on...

It can be done for the drivers as well:
Most fast laps. +10pts
Most laps led. +10pts
Most on track overtakes. +20pts
Most wins. +30pts
Most pole positions +20pts
Least DNF's +50pts
Least paid driver +10pts

yadda yadda...




By setting those as end of year bonuses would get exactly what they are aiming for, and the teams would figure out the best way to do it to win.

But, the bookies would start having fits if the information wasn't readily available...

[Metar]

So, you mean Force India could simply ask Sutil to slowly inch around the track for a season on the same engine in the same chassis while paying him five cents per race, and earn an amazing 215 points for driving the slowest car ever, and 60 points for the driver's championship? Something smells fishy here.

Alonso holds the record of a whole season, including a championship, in a single R26 chassis - but that deserves respect, not points. Money-bonuses, perhaps (though the real bonus already comes with not having to produce a new backup chassis). But points for that stuff? Almost as bad as the medal system, if not worse - it'll reward sucking, as far as racing is concerned, more than being, say, a competitive midfield team.

[WhiteBlue]

... I think wind-tunnel is not VERY expensive compared to KERS. Even Sauber in its pre-BMW days could build one that considered very sofisticated and was major plus for BMW, when they wanted to purchase them. One thing with windtunnel is that once you build it - you use it and that's all. KERS require redesign of the whole car with braking, cooling, weight destribution - everything that needs to be sorted out. Besides, I bet if team would want to sell its windtunnel there would be many of potential buyers, while with KERS technology it is still a question whether F1 could offer anything useful on that side.

However, I believe that the major point to cut expenses would be to limit on going development. Like team can only alter aero-package four times a year and suspension, cooling ec twice. Look at what differentiated most rich teams with smaller ones - last year Spyker altered their package only a few times, this year with FI they introduced something new almost every race, just like others do.
It just amazes me why we are not discussing this! This is the major point of expences, every year teams effectively develop a car TWICE, as cars on Brazil are very, very different to Australia...

The point of having KERS versus aerodynamics development as a competition discriminator is the value of such research beyond F1. There is little doubt at least from BMW that KERS and HERS research will be a technology accelerator for their core business. F1 aero cannot fullfill that role. So in a wider sense aero is a useless art. It would be better to severely limit the resources it absorbs by designating it as an area not applicable to competition. just set a fixed level of maximum downforce and do moderate research into reducing drag.

When you look at possible areas of cost cutting you have to do a cost/benefit analysis. The cut should be applied where low benefits are achieved by expensive technology. Aero is costing teams as heavily as engines and if engines come down in cost as they have obviously decided it will be the most expensive field with the lowest benefits for road cars.

[Metar]

On the other hand, aero is perhaps the most important area, after engines, for the spectators. You can't see a difference between two KERS systems, but you can definitely watch the team's aero progress.

If F1 was an open sport, it could work - but it's a very secretive and closed one, in the past years, so we can't get any info from the teams on their KERS systems, struggles and changes. If they printed true information, then KERS as a performance-differentiator would work for the fans, as well - but right now, it doesn't matter if a team has a Flybrid or Battery KERS, and apart from the general concept, we'll never know the true specifics, the exact numbers, or why a system is better than another.

Even aero progressed, lately, beyond the grasp of us mere mortals - with each item designed to manipulate airflow far beyond the immediate vicinity, we can only speculate on the effects - but at least we see the changes.

[Conceptual]

So, you mean Force India could simply ask Sutil to slowly inch around the track for a season on the same engine in the same chassis while paying him five cents per race, and earn an amazing 215 points for driving the slowest car ever, and 60 points for the driver's championship? Something smells fishy here.

Alonso holds the record of a whole season, including a championship, in a single R26 chassis - but that deserves respect, not points. Money-bonuses, perhaps (though the real bonus already comes with not having to produce a new backup chassis). But points for that stuff? Almost as bad as the medal system, if not worse - it'll reward sucking, as far as racing is concerned, more than being, say, a competitive midfield team.

I don't expect my criteria to be the final ones, and those obvious loopholes would be filled. But instead of having a medal system replace the drivers points system, I would rather see bonus points for consistant results or specific cost saving mechanisms used by the constructors.

I say that you can either regulate it, and the teams will spend 100 million circumventing the regulations, or you reward it, and the 100 million doesn't get spent. You can slam it all you like, but it is the best system that I have seen posted yet.