Honda calls for budget caps

[Marbot]

Not wanting to spend another small fortune on yet another Turkey,Honda calls for 'house keeping' cuts.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64483

[Notso Swift]

I can already see Sir Frank agreeing on this, he knows he can make the fastest car for a given budget

[orrmate]

Max, if you're reading this, find a way to get it done. It certainly won't be easy to implement, but its the only realistic way to radically reduce spending. As has been said many times over, the constant regulation changes and restrictions have done nothing to decrease spending, in fact in most cases they have made it worse.

It'd be great if they could make this work. Don't V8 supercars have a form of budget cap?

[SALEEN S7R]

Hmm it sounds like a good idea but somehow I dont see the top teams agreeing, if the FIA were to force through these rules I can see threats of the GPWC once again being re-egnited.

[racer69]

Bad idea, i didn't think F1 was socialist racing.

Are Honda already giving us excuses for if they don't perform next year??

[Greenback]

Honda can afford to "waste" their entire car advertising space on the EARTH design in 2007, why are they complaining?

[Oldtony]

I wonder is that Honda talking for Honda, or is there a bit of Super Aguri in thier thinking.
Actually it is probably the only way to put some sort of cap on spending that is related to the efficiency of the team. It does present a whole heap of problems in administration and enforcement though.
Orrmate is right that there is a sort of budget cap on V8SC, which is why the TWR teams which share resources and have a direct link to the manufacturer seem to have an advantage. Same applies to FPR/888. That is on the technical development side.
The idea of a salary cap for the drivers is much more sensible, and probably more workable. For the very small percentage they contribute to the performance of the car they are way overpriced. I think even the Car manufacturers would agree with that. I wonder if Carlos Goshn thought Nando was a bargain?????

[sizzle]

Originally Posted by orrmate

It'd be great if they could make this work. Don't V8 supercars have a form of budget cap?

V8 supercar have ditched it because it is unworkable.

[Pingguest]

How should the idea, if implented, be enforced?

Originally Posted by racer69

Bad idea, i didn't think F1 was socialist racing.

Formula 1 has already been transformed to a socialist racing series. The tyres and electronics are nationalised, ahm I mean, standardised.

[touringlegend]

If this was the case, what is to stop a team having the manufacturer set up a "research" division, where all the money is spent, then this team sells their findings to the racing team for pennies ?

[TFHarv]

I was always told that F1 was supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport with the best technology being used by the best drivers?

Why is it that the regulations keep slowing down cars and limiting development???

Yes they need to keep the sport safe but why do they get to dictate what happens with the development.

They choose where to hold the races and they demand the circuits meet standards.

Is that not the area they should be looking at not the cars? Why are they limiting the cars and not the circuits? If a car is being slowed down by budget cuts and limiting development is this because the circuit's they are racing on are not safe enough for the cars?

Maybe they should address this so that money was pumped into actual circuit safety for all drivers of all forms of vehicle?

Budget caps is just another way of making teams get creative and leads to further "spygate" episodes.

Why not just let teams get on with designing the best cars using anything they can design and think of (whilst keeping the driver safe within those particular regs) and maybe we might get some more strange ideas like six wheeled cars and the the likes

[JohnSSC]

Originally Posted by touringlegend

If this was the case, what is to stop a team having the manufacturer set up a "research" division, where all the money is spent, then this team sells their findings to the racing team for pennies ?

"And we have a winner!!!"

Nailed that one right on the head...

Although I am amused at the "socialism" comments, as if spending $280 million (US) to race two cars 17 times furthers the "common good."

The good news is that htere is plenty of $$ in F1. The bad news is that it is being spent on trees, Brand Centres, 24 X 7 wind tunnel operations, canooter valves made of unobtanium...

[Burnsie]

Would you accuse me of being overly cynical if I suggested that the reason Honda are calling for budget caps, is that they can't find a prominent sponsor?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by burnsie

Would you accuse me of being overly cynical if I suggested that the reason Honda are calling for budget caps, is that they can't find a prominent sponsor?

Or perhaps Honda Central have tightened the purse strings on the team, given poor results to date.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by TFHarv

Why not just let teams get on with designing the best cars using anything they can design and think of (whilst keeping the driver safe within those particular regs) and maybe we might get some more strange ideas like six wheeled cars and the the likes

We seem to be obsessed with speed!

Back in the late sixties,early seventies,when Porsche 917s etc were screaming down the Mulsanne straight at speeds well,well above 200mph (320 kph),what were the F1 cars doing?

"(whilst keeping the driver safe within those particular regs)" : The spectators at most tracks already require the use of binoculars just to see the bit of track directly in front of them! Also,if the cars go much faster then drivers will need to wear g-suits just to stop them from 'blacking-out' on fast corners.There has to be a limit somewhere.

[Gt_R]

I agree.

The blame placed on FIA in restricting certain developments and "controlling speed" simply ignored that there is a physical limit of drivers, and in safety concerns, with a whole hosts of variables that need to be considered.

F1 cars are going around a circuit as fast as they can, and on many tracks, the time records have been rather constant year after year within a couple of seconds, which partly is controlled/affected by the regulation changes. And F1 cars are still the quickest around the circuit across various series.

Honda calling for a budget cap isn't surprising, and it comes after numerous teams (admittedly those with smaller budgets) raised similar concerns. However, it is difficult for the FIA to implement and to monitor, and merely will only open up to more controversy, which the sports does not need at this time.

Honda is probably strained in the expenditure and lack of success, hence having difficulty in getting a top dollar sponsor. And their biggest rival, Toyota has almost too much to spend, not a comfortable position for Honda to be in.

FIA can't realistically control the budgets of teams, but their current approach is as close as what can be done, which is to direct spending to areas which has good development scope and are useful to automotive industry. Control ECUs and limitations to aerodynamics will help stop teams from spending excessive millions on just a hair of an improvement, while allowing teams with small budgets to still be able to produce a competitive car relative to a huge and full works team.

[TFHarv]

I didn't actually say to speed cars up there is more to F1 than speed thats given and by removing things like traction control are we not making it more dangerous for drivers rather than safer.

Developments in aerodynamics if left unristricted could have possibley led to making the cars safer and less dependent on driver fitness to cope with G forces, who knows what they may have developed if they didnt have to fight a rule book to regain the losses they made via alternative innovation.

Same with suspension and other things banned from use, even by teams stating they are illegal in the rules, because they cant figure out how they work and therfore they want them banned

Slick tyres is a good one. Would as an example the US GP farce that happened with the michilins have even arose if they had been using slicks instead of the grooves?

What im saying in a very non-technical way, as i don't profess to be an engineer in any shape or form, is that putting regulations in place to stop development can be bad for the sport and not just for speed reasons.

[Fish_Flake]

Here's an idea: have a soft cap. Teams can spend as much over the cap that they want, but every €100,000 overspent, their car's minimum weight will rise by 1 kg.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by TFHarv

I didn't actually say to speed cars up there is more to F1 than speed thats given and by removing things like traction control are we not making it more dangerous for drivers rather than safer.

They could also have ABS and ESP etc,ABS was a standard fitment to some road cars twenty plus years ago.Do we really need to see it make another appearance (?) on F1 cars?

Originally Posted by TFHarv

Developments in aerodynamics if left unristricted could have possibley led to making the cars safer and less dependent on driver fitness to cope with G forces, who knows what they may have developed if they didnt have to fight a rule book to regain the losses they made via alternative innovation.

You can't alter the laws of physics.Without the aid of g-suits,pilots,race drivers,rollercoaster riders etc will all black-out at some point if the vehicle that they are in exceeds their physical limits.

Originally Posted by TFHarv

Slick tyres is a good one. Would as an example the US GP farce that happened with the michilins have even arose if they had been using slicks instead of the grooves?

Probably just as likely since the tyres would still have been near or at their limit.

Originally Posted by TFHarv

What im saying in a very non-technical way, as i don't profess to be an engineer in any shape or form, is that putting regulations in place to stop development can be bad for the sport and not just for speed reasons.

I'm not sure that they are bad for the "sport",but they may be bad for F1s image as the pinnacle of motor sport.

[Peter Mallett]

Its really easy. Get rid of the micro management, tell the teams they can build a car within certain dimensional limits, source the engine from anywhere as long it's 3 litres, apply mechanical gearchanges and get rid of traction control. Put big slicks on them and tell the drivers to race.

Any restrictions applied by the FIA have done nothing to slow down development in fact its been the reverse, resulting in cost escalation not seen in any industry other than F1.

Perhaps I can be accused of being a dinosuar but I always thought the principal was to race not see how much wind can go past the car in a tunnel.

[KineticEnergy]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Its really easy. Get rid of the micro management, tell the teams they can build a car within certain dimensional limits, source the engine from anywhere as long it's 3 litres, apply mechanical gearchanges and get rid of traction control. Put big slicks on them and tell the drivers to race.

Any restrictions applied by the FIA have done nothing to slow down development in fact its been the reverse, resulting in cost escalation not seen in any industry other than F1.

Perhaps I can be accused of being a dinosuar but I always thought the principal was to race not see how much wind can go past the car in a tunnel.

Isn't this one of the fundamental problems of the spectacle itself. With so much reliance on aerodynamic grip (and the inherrent huge spend to optimise it) that when approaching a car to overtake, the loss of aero grip makes the overtaking extremely difficult. How much wind tunnel testing is done with a vehicle placed in front of the subject on the rolling road?

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by Fish_Flake

Here's an idea: have a soft cap.

No way - Modern helmets are much safer.

I'll get me coat...etc

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

source the engine from anywhere as long it's 3 litres,

hmmmm..........stick a couple of turbo's on there and Woooaaahhhh!

3 litres is possibly a little on the large side if the regs are opened up to just regulate cubic capacity.

Imagine an 800cc MotoGP bike engine fitted with a couple of turbo's!

[FPV GTHO]

Well you'd have equivalency formulas for that. 3 litre would simply reflect the current naturally aspirated reciprocating engines.

[sizzle]

26 minutes and we have the first amendment to the rules!