So, what cost cutting measures can be used?

[duke_toaster]

A Big Talk style thread ... or maybe not. (Explanation)


The need for cost cutting measures is mindnumbingly obvious, but what ones are possible, and are Max's ones sensible? Or are FOTA making more sense? Or should we get Chuck Norris in? - after all, there's no Ctrl button on his laptop keyboard as he's always in control.

Non-exhaustive list of their ideas

Max : Standard engine, not so standard engine, something to do with Cosworth. Max wants three options : Cosworth engine, build your own Cosworth engine, or use your current one. The first as an option sounds sensible, but DIY Cossies doesn't sound good. Massive climbdown from the spec engine. Could be rather effective in some senses but it will still only do 3 races.
Max : Standard transmission and gearbox If it works, it's not that bad if it's temporary
FOTA : Get a bigger share of the revenues Master of the obvious ...
FOTA : Massive testing cut Good idea.
FOTA : Must supply price for engines May not be as cheap as the Cosworth bulk-buy, but it could work as a fourth option. Great idea for the long term.

And now for some ideas from me with various degrees of practicality and common sense ness and actual agreement.

• Immediate legalization of customer cars
• No wind tunnel testing after Australia, instead teams get full designs of the other team's aero packages
• Testing ban
• Ban on use of carbon and composites in areas other than monocoque and bodywork

That's a starting point ... now I'll shut up

[chunder]

I think it's down to peopel liek Bernie and the manufacturers to really have a sit down and discussion about this.

It is rumoured that Red Bulla re struggling too and with Mateschitz buying Torro Rosso his outlay must be enormous. He can easily cut back one team and still have a presence, and remember they ahve been quicker and employ far less people than RBR?

Some Crisis meetings are in order!!

[Marbot]

FOTA wants such a meeting with Bernie.It's aim is to give more money from FOM to independent teams.

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=44729

FOTA have also suggested a complete ban on testing during the racing season.

[duke_toaster]

A total testing ban during the season is a good idea, and I'd like to see testing in the off-season limited to two to four official FIA two-day tests.

[Marbot]

One of the aims of the measures is to enable 12 teams to take part,rather than the 10 (or less) that we have now.

[Adam43]

If testing was limited to just a few days a year it would be a rare treat and they could charge a lot for the spectators to go. That would raise more money for them. Good plan.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Marbot

One of the aims of the measures is to enable 12 teams to take part,rather than the 10 (or less) that we have now.

Twelve? The aims ought to be to get around six-eight manufactureers and that many independant teams each supplying one in my opinion.

Another option would be to run an F1 Winter Series at what currently are test days, a bit like what Adam suggested.

[chunder]

Surely now they ahve to allow the use of older chassis.

Wouldnt this have allowed Super Aguri and perhaps Prodrive to compete?

[duke_toaster]

That's basically customer chassis, isn't it.

[Marbot]

Well,whatever they're gonna do,they'd better do it quick!

"Williams’ chief executive Adam Parr told The Times that he expects eight teams to line up on the Melbourne grid. Similarly, Gerhard Berger, the recently departed Toro Rosso co-owner, told Germany’s Der Spiegel that “the only question is ‘who is next?"

[Pingguest]

Two measures that should have an immediate effect:
- legalisation of the customer chassis
- a ban on mid-season test sessions and introduction of a test day every Thursday with a maximum of three cars per team.

For the longer run:
- start negotiations with ACO to produce a new and completely the same set of engine rules for both LMP and Formula 1. This will enable manufactures to design one engine for both series and hence dramatically reduce development costs. The possibility of a fuel formula should be investigated.
- make the rules more road relevent.
- stop 'spicing up' the racing. This has an opposite effect on the popularity of the sport.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Two measures that should have an immediate effect:
- legalisation of the customer chassis

Agreed

- a ban on mid-season test sessions and introduction of a test day every Thursday with a maximum of three cars per team.

Does there need to be more running in weekends? Maybe the Thursday before four or five.

For the longer run:
- start negotiations with ACO to produce a new and completely the same set of engine rules for both LMP and Formula 1. This will enable manufactures to design one engine for both series and hence dramatically reduce development costs. The possibility of a fuel formula should be investigated.

Add to that IndyCar and a new "Formula 2", too. My outline would be

• Power cannot exceed a limit of 750hp (F1) or 650hp (others). This is to be achieved by rev limiting and forced induction pressure limits. Enforcement on rolling roads at race weekends as well as checks beforehand.
• In F1 there would be fuel economy bonuses in the WCC, for others there would be other incentives.<br>
• A manufacturer can only homologate one engine for the set of rules, to make it comply with each set of rules the rev limits change. Manufacturers would be groups and badge engineering would be OK (A rev limited Ferrari F1 engine could go in to a FIAT badged prototype for example).
• Number of cylinders, cylinder formation, capacity +/- 0.2 litres and aspiration type must be the same as a road going model from that manufacturer. Other than that it's free
• F1 engines must last six races, "F2" must last a season. Unsure about Indy or Le Mans but it must be reasonable.
• Manufacturers must agree to supply a minimum number of teams for a fixed sensible price agreed at the start and only increased due to inflation. In return for this the manufacturer can badge the engine however they like.

- make the rules more road relevent.

That's kinda part of the engine regulations, no?

- stop 'spicing up' the racing. This has an opposite effect on the popularity of the sport.

Lots of aspects of that haven't worked that well, I agree. Specifically the two types of tyre rule.

[Adam43]

Same engine rules for ACO and F1. Crikey, will that be good for F1 or Sportscar. It wasn't last time!
I think not, there is too much variety in Sportscar for this to help. F1 does need to be a little more restrictive (not too much mind). I'm think cc here.

[Teretonga]

Duketoaster
Max : Standard engine, not so standard engine, something to do with Cosworth. Max wants three options : Cosworth engine, build your own Cosworth engine, or use your current one. The first as an option sounds sensible, but DIY Cossies doesn't sound good. Massive climbdown from the spec engine. Could be rather effective in some senses but it will still only do 3 races.

I don't see this as a climb down by Max.
Its what I always thought his intention was from what I had read from the FIA.

I do not believe trying to formally mix engine regulations between the ACO Le Mans regs, Indy and F1 is wise, even if they are similar (2.0 V6 turbo).
Let each organisation run what it wants but if F1 had a 1.8 V6 turbo that would allow a manufacturer to run a Le Mans version if they wished.
But in saying that: If they had a common fuel flow regulation that would be really interesting.

Ban on testing?
Two pre season test weeks, the rest on the thursday before a meeting.
That would allow for the dismantling of specific test teams, just use the spare car on Thursday and any new parts or ideas.
If that is too hard a limit of 10000km (1/3rd) the current one would not go astray.
Allow customer chassis.
Engine suppliers must be make a supply of their drive trains at an agreed price (comparable to the Cosworth price) available to at least one other team.
(with sealed units and confidentiality arrangements to prevent knowledge transfer to rivals)

Seriously look at the interaction between the fans (public audience) and the teams and drivers to build the events.
Perhaps autograph sessions and public tours/viewing arrangements on Thursdays/Fridays and Saturdays before races to build local audience participation and interest. It might go gainst the grain but something needs to be done here or F1 will distance itself further from its audience (including the TV audience)

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Same engine rules for ACO and F1. Crikey, will that be good for F1 or Sportscar. It wasn't last time!

Help me out with this one: when was the last time Sportscar and Formula 1 did have the same engine rules? I can't remember any moment.

[Dead-Eye]

Group C 3.5l between 1991 and 1993. Killed Group C and the WSC.

[Clive]

How about Bernie putting something back in, o wait he can't can he? better ask mrs Bernie...................

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Does there need to be more running in weekends?

I made mistake. It should had been 'every Thursday before a race weekend'.

Maybe the Thursday before four or five.Add to that IndyCar and a new "Formula 2", too. My outline would be

• Power cannot exceed a limit of 750hp (F1) or 650hp (others). This is to be achieved by rev limiting and forced induction pressure limits. Enforcement on rolling roads at race weekends as well as checks beforehand.
• In F1 there would be fuel economy bonuses in the WCC, for others there would be other incentives.<br>
• A manufacturer can only homologate one engine for the set of rules, to make it comply with each set of rules the rev limits change. Manufacturers would be groups and badge engineering would be OK (A rev limited Ferrari F1 engine could go in to a FIAT badged prototype for example).
• Number of cylinders, cylinder formation, capacity +/- 0.2 litres and aspiration type must be the same as a road going model from that manufacturer. Other than that it's free
• F1 engines must last six races, "F2" must last a season. Unsure about Indy or Le Mans but it must be reasonable.
• Manufacturers must agree to supply a minimum number of teams for a fixed sensible price agreed at the start and only increased due to inflation. In return for this the manufacturer can badge the engine however they like.

1. As I said in a previous thread, a WCC point for fuel economy per race isn't going to work. Teams can easily decide to manipulate if their driver has no chance for a good result. Any legal correction (like only awarding this WCC point of if a team's driver finished in the top-8) will make the system artificial and thereby uncreditable or may still be uneffective.
2. The 2009 Formula 1 season is scheduled to have 17 races. With engines lasting six races, the next season would require 2.83 engines. If the most aspect of the engine performances are fixed and equalised wouldn't it be much better to have the engine to last the entire season? And how will the performance fix affect the racing?
3. A rule which effectively requires all engines to be production based is against the spirit of the sport and doesn't allow very much room for technical innovation.
4. A price cap is not a cost reduction. Manufactures will simply have to pay more for their presence in Formula 1.

Specifically the two types of tyre rule.

I'm more frustrated about the control tyre, post-qualifying parc fermé and Safety Car rules.

[Oldtony]

Why do all the cost cutting suggestions always have to be technology based?
Has anyone looked at the salary distribution and non engineering costs in an F1 team?
How about no motorhomes, no "corporate" entertainment and catering.
Pay for drivers and team managers/principals capped with bonuses payable per point scored.
No B grade celebrities to host, thus no need for all the security to keep the real fans out.
No "" commercial rights" holder margin.
If you look at the situation the world is in at present it wasn't caused by technological development, it was caused by high flying paper shufflers getting very rich and looking after their own interests.
Maybe F1 has the same problem

By Pingguest the way the most powerfull engine ever in F1 was based on a stock block which had been submited too a unique low cost curing an nitriding process!!

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

How about no motorhomes, no "corporate" entertainment and catering.

No B grade celebrities to host, thus no need for all the security to keep the real fans out.

May as well have said "how about no sponsors?" which, I think you will agree, would not help the budgets.

The major spend with the least reward is the technology. However, it would obviously be bad to get rid of it all. Not an easy balance to strike!

Testing should obviously be cut. That is a major expense. NASCAR recently banned it altogether, which I feel is a bit drastic. Maybe limit the teams to a weeks worth?

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by chunder

.....buying Torro Rosso his outlay must be enormous. He can easily cut back one team and still have a presence, and remember they ahve been quicker and employ far less people than RBR?

But you must remember there would be no Torro Rosso chassis without the design team, aero team, prototyping, two wind tunnels and other facilities provided by RBR

[JeremySmith]

I have always wondered why Mr Mateschitz was running two teams in the first place to be honest..

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I have always wondered why Mr Mateschitz was running two teams in the first place to be honest..

Because he could?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Because he could?

LOL...Well maybe not anymore

[phoenix]

Although I have a very dear friend employed as an F1 aerodynamicist, I believe there is a ludicrous amount of money spent on this single aspect of F1 cars.

OK, next year design limitations come into effect as certain elements are made standard and sticky-out-bits banned. But that will mean the designers concentrating more on every square millimetre of the bodywork and any part of the car in the airflow that is not restricted. They will be hunting for an ever-shrinking needle in a haystack and spending more time, effort and money doing so for ever diminishing returns. Until, dare I say it - some great hunk of aero development is banned - like full scale wind tunnels, or the time spent in them - just as on-track testing time is limited.

My list of cost saving ideas - and I am no fan of MM - includes:

No carbon brake discs, only iron/steel - apart from cost savings there will be the possibility of better racing, as braking distances will be increased.

Apart from the safety cell and any part of the car that is essential to the safety of the driver, which I believe includes the nose cone, no composite materials other than GRP. This would include a ban on expensive composites for removeable bodywork (other than the nose cone), all suspension components, wings, air intakes, brake and other ducts etc.


Engines and gearboxes will be sealed at the beginning of the season - so they have to get their ratios right and build engines with wider torque curves.

10 points lost for each and every an engine change or seal broken - both constructor and drivers championship.

10 points lost for each and every gearbox change or seal broken - both constructor and drivers championship.

If there are to new engine parameters:

8 cylinders
Maximum bore 93mm
Maximum inlet valve diameter 36mm (x 2)
Steel connecting rods
Aluminium alloy pistons
Steel piston rings

Capacity remains at 2400cc but revs would be limited to about 16,000 rpm by a) the smaller inlet valve area b) the longer stroke length and rod material c) and the points lost if an engine fails and has to be replaced during a season.

Pump Fuel - Tesco 99 by Greenergy and no additives!

There's more, but that will do for now.