Lessons from Minardi, Prost and now Arrows

[Valve Bounce]

Minardi were lucky in that Paul Stoddart came along when they went broke. Then Prost went broke and nobody came along; now it's Arrows turn. So what are the lessons from this sad turn of affairs. It was clear that Prost went as far as he could financially to make Prost competitive with customer Ferrari engines. That sent him broke. Tom Walkinshaw followed the same route with Cosworths and now he is broke, or should I say he is financial in a negative degree.
I have said repeatedly that going the electronics route would be extremely expensive, as teams not only have to develop their cars along with the black box capabilities to run the car, but it requires immense testing mileage to make all the components work together. OK some have argued that F1 should be the technological pinacle of engineering development - and I have disagreed with this concept all along. We the F1 fans gain nothing from this huge expenditure. We cannot see the effects of such electronics gadgetry.
If the present system continues, it is not inconceivable that only 4 teams will survive this monetary firestorm: Ferrari, Williams, McLaren and Renault. That's an 8 car grid. You might throw Toyota into this, but the way the economy is heading in Japan, I have my doubts.
The question is: are we at the infancy of the development of the engine management system and all the other things the blackbox controls? How much further testing is involved to develop this to the nth degree?
So what is the answer? The floor is now open for discussion.

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

[DNQ]

It is a diabolically worrying situation and one that I hope is resolved. The old cliche is quality over quantity, but how can you have quality and depth with 8 cars? The best thing the FIA can do short term is at least see the teams get paid an even share of the TV money. And that 24 car grid-limit - get rid of it. It's not inconceivable that had that not been enforced, we may have seen more entries in F1. Remember March/Proton/Hyundai were all rumoured to be ready to enter when the 12 team limit was put in place. I hope F1 survives through all this.

[Super Tourer]

Engine's have been the bugbear of F1 ever since Renault developed the first turbo, back in the late 70's/early 80's.

Since then it's been and on/off problem of supply and a continuing race for power. I remember the BMW turbo's in the back of Piquet's Brabham, I think they got the qualifying engine close to 1000 BHP, and threw it away after the session. At that point some of the turbo team's were blowing maybe 6 engines a weekend, as the turbo had reached the edge - hence the swap to normally aspirated engine's.

It's easy to look back with rose tint's, but when most of the grid (save Ferrari, Renault and Alfa) had 3.5 cossie DFV's in the back, the teams seemed a lot closer together and some circuit's managed to suit the more nimble cossies engined car's, enabling them to beat the more powerful turbo's.

To me it's as much of a supply problem, as the lack of supply keeps the engine deals price high. If, for example, Cosworth supplied half the grid again, the economies of scale would depress prices and even the teams out a bit more.

Ironically although electronic development has increased many cost's, we now see far fewer engine blow up's than we used too, as the electronic's 'protect' the engine more, making it impossible for the driver to 'buzz' an engine. Most of the puff's of smoke we see, seem to be hydraulic related failures.

[Maxmil]

Seems to me that this is a simple case of the price of the best technology outrunning the sources of funding for teams with the exception of a very few which are either "factory" teams financed out of the carbuilders' marketing budgets (Ferrari, Jaguar, Renault, and Toyota.) or "partnerships" between well connected and well heeled privateers and carbuilders (Williams and Mclaren most notably). Some of this latter group (Jordan/Honda, etc.) are not so well funded either, and seem to have their shaky moments. I think that some new specs have to be introduced to dial back the costs of the electronics which now control the cars, the materials of construction, tires, etc, etc. What F1 is in the process of proving is that fielding the very best technology is so expensive that very few teams can now afford to race. Some move(s) toward limiting technology costs is the only solution I can see to the problem. This will not be liked by the F1 purists who scoff at NASCAR, CART and the IRL, but, Hey!, they are still racing along merrily while we count the F1 teams each meeting to make sure that someone else has not gone under.

Sorry, but "That's the way it is." as Walter Cronkite used to say every night.

[alesi95]

Ive said this in the other Arrows thread but I think its worth repeating.

In 1994 the average spending for the midfield team was $14-20million a year.
In 2002 its about $45-60million.

Rather than introduce a new set of rules intended to bring the pack closer (limiting testing, new wings , tyres etc.)
Sir Mosely and his chums should limit spending.

Sauber run about $45million a year (according to F1 Magazine)
BAR a considerbly less succesful team run on $120 million.

It would be interseting to see if they performed the same on a limit of say $45mill.

[Lee Janotta]

You can't limit spending, the accountants at the top teams would immediatly find ways around it. Shift costs over to the parent company/engine supplier, for instance.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

1. Slick tires
2. A spec electronics package with no 2-way telemetry, traction control, automatic shifting, or other electronic voodoo
3. A slightly wider track
4. 1-element spoilers
5. No barge boards or other aerodynamic elements separate from the body of the car, save for one spoiler fore and aft each.

It won't create a "level playing field", per say, but it'll make building a competitive car _much_ easier and less expensive. Much less to go wrong on a simpler car like that, and they won't need to spend any more money on the damn electronics, which will save millions immediatly. Plus the increased mechanical grip and reduced downforce will really improve the on-track battles, as well as safety by reducing the car's twitchiness, which even Schumacher's complained about!

Plus, a major shakeup of the chassis regs could really allow the designers to be very creative, and would create a lot of immediate innovation.

BTW, just my 2 cents... Hans Stuck for FIA President.

[alesi95]

You can't limit spending, the accountants at the top teams would immediatly find ways around it. Shift costs over to the parent company/engine supplier, for instance.

This is true.

[AllonFS]

Im not saying the solutions here are perfect, but they are certainly a very good start. How come some well-informed and intelligent guys on a forum can come up with sensible solutions to cost problems which would also improve the racing, while the Max n'Bernie show does diddly squat.

I guess cause we are fans and they are business men. The two of them are fiddling while F1 burns.

[Red]

Originally posted by Lee Janotta
You can't limit spending, the accountants at the top teams would immediatly find ways around it. Shift costs over to the parent company/engine supplier, for instance.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

1. Slick tires
2. A spec electronics package with no 2-way telemetry, traction control, automatic shifting, or other electronic voodoo
3. A slightly wider track
4. 1-element spoilers
5. No barge boards or other aerodynamic elements separate from the body of the car, save for one spoiler fore and aft each.

I wouldn't argue that those will reduce costs. Eventually. But for the following season they will increase them, since the changes are so radical and new developments shall be made. So actually ALL small teams will go bust in less than a year and McLaren Williams Ferrari Renault or Toyota don't care that since the following year the costs are smaller. :confused:

[Valve Bounce]

Ya got a point there. So what is your solution?

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

[alesi95]

It's true rule changes only mean team channel even more money into developing new parts.

NEW RULES = MO MONEY

[Red]

I don't have a solution. If I had, I'd run for chairman of FIA. All I can see is that the current rules work less worse than any other proposed... :confused:

[Super Tourer]

Radical rule changes always favour the rich teams, as they have the resources to react to them.

Stability of the rules enables the smaller teams to gradually chip away at the gap. Maybe the FIA should look at going the route TOCA have taken with the BTCC and introduce control parts.

I believe, wheel's, gearboxes and some other parts are controlled by TOCA, they put out tenders for manufacturer's to supply parts. The car maker's involved in the BTCC simply designed their car around the control parts.

What's to stop the FIA making electronic control units, gerboxes and for that matter, tyres, control parts and make the constructors build their car and engine's around these parts?

Instead of the usual trying to 'shut the stable door after the horse has bolted', style of regulations the FIA usually goes for.