New Cost Saving Agreement

[old man]

I see from an Autosport report that the teams have reached a new agreement extending the cost control excercise for another 7 years and closing some "loopholes". The report says nothing about what is actually included following the signing of a "Heads of Agreement".

Anybody know any more?

[Marbot]

I read that too. Anything that prevents a spending competetion has to be applauded.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/87047

[Pingguest]

Some more information about the new Resource Restriction Agreement.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/f...s-2722803.html

Auto, Motor und Sport AMuS provides details about the agreement (RRA):

• Head count cap on 31.12.2010 maximum 350 for design, manufacture and operation of the race cars.
• Head count cap on 31.12.2011 maximum 280 for design, manufacture and operation of the race cars.
• Budget for bought in parts or engineering contractors €40m in 2010.
• Budget for bought in parts or engineering contractors €20m in 2011.
  customer engine sales price limited to €9m, eight engines per season
  wind tunnel hours 60/week, CFD restrictions in place.

The restrictions for December are are not enforced by Ferrari yet. They will comply later and switch resources from the Scuderia to the road car and engine departments. With currently over 900 employees, they have to reduce their number of personnel to a third. Domenicali said:

Früher haben wir rein ergebnisorientiert gearbeitet. Der Zweck heiligte die Mittel. Jetzt müssen wir mit weniger Leuten, weniger Werkzeugen, weniger Geldeinsatz auskommen. Wir müssen das Ergebnis gegen die Kosten abwägen, müssen Prioritäten setzen. Das verlangt von uns eine völlig neue Denkweise, eine andere Kultur. Die Qualität deiner Mitarbeiter wird immer wichtiger. Die Aerodynamik spielt in der Formel 1 eine zu dominante Rolle. Viele Dinge sind für die Autoindustrie überhaupt nicht relevant. Dafür verkümmern bei uns die mechanischen Entwicklungen. Zurzeit nimmt die Aerodynamik 80 Prozent der Entwicklungsarbeit im Vergleich zur Mechanik ein. Wir müssen das Verhältnis auf 50 zu 50 bringen.

In the past we have worked completely target-oriented. Money was not an issue. Now we have to get by with fewer people, less tools and less money. We have to balance the result against the costs and set priorities. This requires an entirely new way of thinking from us and another culture. The quality of your employees becomes ever more important. Aerodynamics is much too dominating in F1. Many things are irrelevant for the automotive industry. On the other hand, our mechanical developments are wasting away. Today's aero takes 80% of developments compared to mechanical. We need to bring that ratio back to 50:50.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the resource restriction agreement. Instead of introducing hard, artificial restrictions, they could better agree with the FIA for regulations allowing teams to reduce their resources significantly. For example, by allowing customer parts and introducing cost-efficient engines (such as the GRE).

[Sodemo]

I wished the GRE was a V6 instead of a straight 4, won't F1 cars just sound the same as any other car after this?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I wished the GRE was a V6 instead of a straight 4, won't F1 cars just sound the same as any other car after this?

That question could be asked as well in case the GRE would be a V6, because all series would use the same V6-configuration. Any way, BMW's M12 didn't sound bad, did it?

I'm not a big supporter of the GRE, because it is not clear which engine configuration will emerge as the most efficient solution for tomorrow’s production cars. What about introducing an annual homologation for the engine block and allowing those homologated engine block in Formula 1 and other major series only?

[duke_toaster]

What about having both four, five and six cylinder options in the GRE, like Super 2000? I'm not sure about having a complete one size fits all, but a modular system is a good idea. Maybe have 1600cc at the bottom and 1800cc (or even 2000cc) at the top. The only problem with that would be at the lower tiers having the ability to install both a I4 and V6 in the same chassis.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

What about having both four, five and six cylinder options in the GRE, like Super 2000? I'm not sure about having a complete one size fits all, but a modular system is a good idea. Maybe have 1600cc at the bottom and 1800cc (or even 2000cc) at the top. The only problem with that would be at the lower tiers having the ability to install both a I4 and V6 in the same chassis.

This is the main reason why the privateers are in favour of the GRE. They could switch from engine manufactures with relative ease. And with the expected influx of new engine manufactures (the Volkswagen Group would like to enter with Audi or Porsche, BMW and Peugeot are already developing a GRE and Volvo and Saab have showed interest) the privateers could get in a very strong position.

However, if a modular system is to be chosen, then all possible engine formats should be allowed. It seems that Cosworth (!) is in favour of this route.

[1200Datto27]

Why are we allowing these socialist idea's to propagate? I would rather see the rules being opened to innovation and allow more variety into the sport.

[Wims]

If they allow more open rules the team with the most money will always win, and the not so rich ones will go bankrupt and have to abandon their F1 efforts. Not to mention that less restrictions = quicker cars, and the FIA are trying their best to limit the speed of the cars to increase safety

[rocketracer]

Originally Posted by Wims

If they allow more open rules the team with the most money will always win, and the not so rich ones will go bankrupt and have to abandon their F1 efforts.

that is a complete misnomer which is used to justify regulation, but in practise the theory just doesnt hold true.

Look at the budgets of toyota and ferrari, yet their records suggest that spending does not directly correlate into results.

In fact, the higher the levels of regulation, the more a rich team will be able to ensure success, as it reduces the scope to take design risks and gain on track success via innovation rather than business management / clout.

These new regulations are intended to lower costs and allow more manufacturer companies involvement, but that's not necessarily a good thing in my mind - as the terms in which a VW / Audi / Porsche would come into f1 becomes predominantly a branding exercise rather than a technical, competitive exercise.

[Wims]

Toyota never had a top driver capable of winning in F1 and Ferrari won 6 of the last 10 WDCs (if i counted correctly).

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by 1200Datto27

Why are we allowing these socialist idea's to propagate? I would rather see the rules being opened to innovation and allow more variety into the sport.

I agree. Whose idea was the GRE's? With all these manufacturers so eager to jump on the band wagon, its usually the case with 'spec' type engines that one or two wind up producing the better engine. Also what are the rules regarding who can produce customer engines?

[rocketracer]

Originally Posted by Wims

Toyota never had a top driver capable of winning in F1

Whether the toyota drivers were the reason why toyota werent a winning team (which is a stretch to say the least), it only serves to illustrate that spending does not directly relate to results.

Originally Posted by Wims

and Ferrari won 6 of the last 10 WDCs (if i counted correctly).

and previous to that they won 0 of 10 WDCs, and 1 of 10 WCCs in a less regulated era. So regulation seems to have been good to them.

to be fair, you obviously need money and a big budget in order to be competitive at the top level in f1, but that will only get you to a certain point.

I dont advocate a total open market, as surely some regulation is needed, but heralding standardisation as the great saviour of the sport and a boost for the "little guys" is both ineffective in how it can be policed, and it also stifles the variety and interest in the technical side of the sport, which has (throughout it's history) been one of the main attractions of f1.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by rocketracer

I dont advocate a total open market, as surely some regulation is needed, but heralding standardisation as the great saviour of the sport and a boost for the "little guys" is both ineffective in how it can be policed, and it also stifles the variety and interest in the technical side of the sport, which has (throughout it's history) been one of the main attractions of f1.

Unforunately I think F1 has been stiffled to such an extent, it is in danger of becoming a spec series despite the various constructors, engines and chassis.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Unforunately I think F1 has been stiffled to such an extent, it is in danger of becoming a spec series despite the various constructors, engines and chassis.

Hi BJ I think your logic is correct, the only thing that is not spec is the aero, and the wings should in my opinion be spec like the tyres and the general aero regs should be much tighter.
If they make the engine spec reasonably tight then maybe we will get independent manufacturers too.
The manufacturers have to be making good money with the current engine specs and numbers. They cost the teams a fortune, but they are not that complex.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by 1200Datto27

Why are we allowing these socialist idea's to propagate? I would rather see the rules being opened to innovation and allow more variety into the sport.

I can only agree with these sentiments.

But will glady settle for cars that can actually race one another!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Hi BJ I think your logic is correct, the only thing that is not spec is the aero, and the wings should in my opinion be spec like the tyres and the general aero regs should be much tighter.
If they make the engine spec reasonably tight then maybe we will get independent manufacturers too.
The manufacturers have to be making good money with the current engine specs and numbers. They cost the teams a fortune, but they are not that complex.

Hi Wnut, if you're going to make aero more spec then F1 is going to become a spec series very soon, with identical cars made by different manufacturers. I therefore think a freeing up in engine and/or chassis design needs to be freed up; innovation needs to be encouraged.

[Marbot]

Is it just me that wishes the original 2010 regulations had been put in place?

Anyone remember what they were?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Is it just me that wishes the original 2010 regulations had been put in place?

Anyone remember what they were?

The equally artificial and unenforceable budget cap?

[TrapezeArtist]

Do the teams have to pay their FIA fines out of the regulated budget?

[TrapezeArtist]

Just a thought:
If wings were not allowed, and some sort of spoiler device was mandated to prevent the cars generating a decent amount of underfloor downforce, there would be no need for high-revving engines. Driveability would be more important than outright power.

Result (possibly):
Cars that are difficult to drive (putting premium on driver skill)
Cars that can overtake (long braking distances and no wings to be upset by the wake of the car in front)
Cars that are spectacular to watch (excess of power over grip)
Durable engines (allow relatively large engines for "adequate" power and good drivability)
Smaller run-off areas (much lower cornering speeds)

Stands back and waits for the outcry.......

[1200Datto27]

Just put a turbo on a Formula Ford, that will give you the result that you are after.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Just a thought:
If wings were not allowed, and some sort of spoiler device was mandated to prevent the cars generating a decent amount of underfloor downforce, there would be no need for high-revving engines. Driveability would be more important than outright power.

Result (possibly):
Cars that are difficult to drive (putting premium on driver skill)
Cars that can overtake (long braking distances and no wings to be upset by the wake of the car in front)
Cars that are spectacular to watch (excess of power over grip)
Durable engines (allow relatively large engines for "adequate" power and good drivability)
Smaller run-off areas (much lower cornering speeds)

Stands back and waits for the outcry.......

Ah a convert to real racing!

This is exactly what the cars were like in 1967 and 1968 before the wings came in. 450bhp on treaded tyres - magnificent racing and driver skill was of the utmost importance.

[JamesH]

Problem is that the cars would be slower than FPA, F3 etc.

And there are probably series like this already!!

The more money that is thrown at a race series, the less like a race series it becomes. The best car races are those seen at club events around the world, not in f1. Minuscule budgets, closely matched cars, low horsepower, limited aero. And yet the racing is so much better. But, and this is the big one - NO-ONE wants to watch proper racing, or there would be more spectators at club events. They are just not shiny enough.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Just a thought:
If wings were not allowed, and some sort of spoiler device was mandated to prevent the cars generating a decent amount of underfloor downforce, there would be no need for high-revving engines. Driveability would be more important than outright power.

Result (possibly):
Cars that are difficult to drive (putting premium on driver skill)
Cars that can overtake (long braking distances and no wings to be upset by the wake of the car in front)
Cars that are spectacular to watch (excess of power over grip)
Durable engines (allow relatively large engines for "adequate" power and good drivability)
Smaller run-off areas (much lower cornering speeds)

Stands back and waits for the outcry.......

The current cars don't generate any downforce from the undertray, as it's flat, the difuser does that, double, blown or otherwise.