Budget Cap Dead In Water.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

You have never raced a car? it shows with simplistic thinking of this nature. I will illustrate a major fault in modern F1...TIME. Because the cars stop so quickly the possibility of passing under brakes from top speed is severely limited due to the braking elapsed time from when the driver gets on the brakes to the turn in at the corner. If the braking period were to be increased by the use of steel brakes then passing under brakes would occur more than now. No passing under brakes means that if DRS had not been introduced the top cars positions would be basically static as it used to be all due to time under brakes. This static positioning of cars for the whole race occurs right back down the field due to each car falling into performance stratas within the field. The time contingency under brakes is largely responsible for this occurrence. There is more to it but braking distance is a major factor.

Casper fourWheelDrift has posted one of the areas that he believes would even the playing field, he has chosen not to re-iterate the points that we are doing to death. An uneven bumpy track surface would make braking distances vary lap to lap and would certainly make driver skill and the ability to balance a car more important in the racing equation.

The areas in spec racing that contribute the most to costs are the bits that you leave unlegislated.
At club level - open tyres!
In F1 as I posted above, open aero!

It is usually an area that a group of individuals within the class believe that they have the resources and experience to exploit better than everyone else in the class! e.g. Contacts for buying ex higher formulae used slicks cheap, then someone who can afford new slicks joins and the original supporter of the open piece of legislation starts wringing his hands in anguish because the rules are so unfair and he wants them changed.

Raced cars and written the controlling legislation, fun times!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The lack of freedom came from this spec movement which was aimed at the idea of reducing costs without a cap. It has failed fabulously.

I've pondered that idea of more freedom with rules changes more often. I hadn't thought of a shorter notice. I think it is a good concept. Closing out the nifty idea that came from something other than money has been our biggest loss from going down this route.

If you gave Newey freedom and the same budget as everyone else I think you would find that he would use his thinking skills and well sorted wind tunnel to dominate F1 like you have never seen before.

Where do you go if a team is under the budget and dominating?

Merc have done a pretty stellar job by exploiting a pretty small area of design, and everyone is now whining!

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wnut

There is no way on this Earth a budget cap can work.

If you think that Mercedes, Fiat, Renault are going to allow people to pick through their affairs you are smoking something that is both dangerous and illegal.

The above companies are all puplic companies and would normally have a higher level of financial scrutiny than the likes of Sauber or McLaren that are not.
I think that the top management of these companies would probably like to see F1 costing them less so that they could potentially get more bang for their buck.
It would be interesting to go to top managment of the companies rather than the top of the F1 part of the team and ask them if they would like to see a budget cap.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

The above companies are all puplic companies and would normally have a higher level of financial scrutiny than the likes of Sauber or McLaren that are not.
I think that the top management of these companies would probably like to see F1 costing them less so that they could potentially get more bang for their buck.
It would be interesting to go to top managment of the companies rather than the top of the F1 part of the team and ask them if they would like to see a budget cap.

From the system that delivered the GFC!

Surely a gentleman's sporting agreement as to what they will spend should more than suffice!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

The above companies are all puplic companies and would normally have a higher level of financial scrutiny than the likes of Sauber or McLaren that are not.
I think that the top management of these companies would probably like to see F1 costing them less so that they could potentially get more bang for their buck.
It would be interesting to go to top managment of the companies rather than the top of the F1 part of the team and ask them if they would like to see a budget cap.

How short are the memories of those who watched Honda, Toyota, and BMW leave F1 and the assets of two of those teams revert to of their principals because the cost was unsustainable financially and politically for those public companies in the current financial climate at that time....

We know from experience that trying to regulate to a spec regulation doesn't reduce cost, just narrows the region where you can spend and the well funded eek out an advantage the have not's can't do it.

If you chose specifically areas to attack wasteful spending you could easily write specific regulation that would curb spending in areas that really made a difference to teams so you levelled the field. I could easily make a specific difference to valuable spending in F1 if given the power to do so.

Suggestions that it is impossible to make a budget cap work are a nonsense. That is simply the behaviour of a rebellious teenager fighting parental restriction on liberty and behaviour, what he can and can't do.

Back in 1983 John Watson won at Long Beach in a McLaren that came from 23rd place on the grid. Lauda was second in a McLaren that came from 22nd. Wattie's record to win from 23rd cannot be broken in 2014 because we don't even have that many starters....

In 1990 an Italian tyre company (guess who) produced an outstanding qualifying tyre that enabled lower end teams to record great qualifying performances in Phoenix.
The top ten qualifying positions were held by Berger's McLaren, Martini's Minardi, (yes front row!) de Cesaris' Dallara, Alesi's Tyrrell, Senna's McLaren and Piquet's Benneton, Prost's V12 Ferrari and Grouillard's Osella, Boutsen's Williams, Modena's Brabham.

Alesi got in front and led for 14 laps before Senna got him but Alesi never gave up and came home second... Boutsen was third, Piquet fourth, Modena in a Brabham fifth and Nakajima in the other Tyrrell six, and Martini still made it home in 7th... and they didn't need to stop to change tyres...

We would never see a race like that these days because the financial playing field is so sloped.
The lesser teams don't have a chance... ever.
Pirelli haven't forgotten how to make GP tyres, nor have Dallara and Minardi always made poor GP cars

The previous year Christian Danner took a Rial from the single car team from 26th on the grid at Phoenix to 4th place in the race and later in 1989 Johansson took an Onyx in their first year to a third in Portugal...
In 1993 Sauber in their first F1 season still put a car into the top six in Donnington qualifying...

That was GP racing on a much more level field than what we have today.
What we presently have is a field and a process of financial distribution that locks out teams and rewards a select few with the bulk of the financial return effectively giving all but the very rich little chance of ever achieving success.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

Casper fourWheelDrift has posted one of the areas that he believes would even the playing field, he has chosen not to re-iterate the points that we are doing to death. An uneven bumpy track surface would make braking distances vary lap to lap and would certainly make driver skill and the ability to balance a car more important in the racing equation

The Author of that cannot be serious and deliberately endanger drivers with an idea like that. It is a phenomenon that naturally occurs on tracks and is a real problem with classes that have limited suspension and tyre wall travel. I suppose that the F1 cars do not suffer so much from it as their braking zones are so late, superkarts fall into this category also. Some people get the most hairbrained ideas simply because they have never raced anything.

I note the points regarding thinking and also accessing commercial financial information, these are all points I have made here in the past. Some media commentators such as Joe Saward should put their brains into gear before pontificating on ideas such as a cap and ponder questions such as accessing the financial and commercial aspects of companies operations such as Ferrari. Does he really expect Ferrari, RB or McLaren to open their books to scrutiny? It makes you want to question the thinking that goes behind some of this commentary.

I guess we are all "experts" in some way, the internet is full of them.

[Casper]

Can you post a link to that article please Wnut, thanks.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Can you post a link to that article please Wnut, thanks.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wnut

In reference to this

wnut wrote...

Casper fourWheelDrift has posted one of the areas that he believes would even the playing field

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

The above companies are all puplic companies and would normally have a higher level of financial scrutiny than the likes of Sauber or McLaren that are not.
I think that the top management of these companies would probably like to see F1 costing them less so that they could potentially get more bang for their buck.
It would be interesting to go to top managment of the companies rather than the top of the F1 part of the team and ask them if they would like to see a budget cap.

But you are not accounting for areas of responsibility and buck passing.

I imagine the phone conversation could go something like this.....

CEO to F1 team boss - we want you to vote for the budget cap to increase our ROI
Team boss to CEO - our advice is that we do not vote for it because a) we do not believe that others will stick to it and b) our current budget gives us a performance advantage over others
CEO to Team Boss - yes but the board want costs cut
Team Boss to CEO - happy to vote for the budget cap if that it was you are asking, but as this will have a direct impact on team performance/results and therefore your investment to date, I will vote for this on the understanding that it is yours and boards decision
CEO to Team Boss - vote against it and when we want to save budget we will pull out completetly
'click'

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

If you gave Newey freedom and the same budget as everyone else I think you would find that he would use his thinking skills and well sorted wind tunnel to dominate F1 like you have never seen before.

Where do you go if a team is under the budget and dominating?

Merc have done a pretty stellar job by exploiting a pretty small area of design, and everyone is now whining!

Precisely illustrating my point.

They opened up a little area for development and suddenly it's no longer Red Bull dominating. What happens if there are a lot more areas open for development. You really think one team has a monopoly on all the good ideas?

Adrian Newey can go to town on his aero stuff. Another team figures out suspension like nobody's business. Another team figures out energy recovery like nobody's business. Somebody else has a differential that gets the power onto the ground better than anybody else. Some of this stuff would be stuff that nobody outside the team knows what that team is doing different. They know what parts of the track that team has an advantage and then spend a bunch of time trying to figure out what it is. They don't know what to throw gobs of computing power at because they don't even know what "it" is! All the cars have different advantages and disadvantages. Real racing!

Like we used to have.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

There is no way on this Earth a budget cap can work.

If you think that Mercedes, Fiat, Renault are going to allow people to pick through their affairs you are smoking something that is both dangerous and illegal.

The next problem is dealing with pricing, Mercedes makes its active suspension available to the F1 team for a dollar ($1).
It costs RBR $20 million to produce an active suspension.
Lotus pursues a blind alley and sinks $20 M with no result.
Ferrari stays with its current suspension for nothing.
Newey decides to ditch KERS and save weight and cost.

What does a simulator cost?
How do you depreciate assets?
Cost the Ferrari test facility at Fiorana?

Where are we now?

Like I said, the field of battle moves to the accounting wars. To me, that's a much better place for the battles than the current system of outlawing every innovation.

If you want to field a team, you have to agree to the accounting rules of disclosure.

And, yes, teams would spend $20,000,000 going down a blind alley sometimes. I've never spent $20,000,000 going down an blind alley, but as a professional designer, I know the world is full of them. All innovation comes from being willing to go a direction that everybody passed by before, because they thought it might be a blind alley.

Sometimes it isn't a blind alley.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

...Back in 1983 John Watson won at Long Beach in a McLaren that came from 23rd place on the grid. Lauda was second in a McLaren that came from 22nd. Wattie's record to win from 23rd cannot be broken in 2014 because we don't even have that many starters....

In 1990 an Italian tyre company (guess who) produced an outstanding qualifying tyre that enabled lower end teams to record great qualifying performances in Phoenix.
The top ten qualifying positions were held by Berger's McLaren, Martini's Minardi, (yes front row!) de Cesaris' Dallara, Alesi's Tyrrell, Senna's McLaren and Piquet's Benneton, Prost's V12 Ferrari and Grouillard's Osella, Boutsen's Williams, Modena's Brabham.

Alesi got in front and led for 14 laps before Senna got him but Alesi never gave up and came home second... Boutsen was third, Piquet fourth, Modena in a Brabham fifth and Nakajima in the other Tyrrell six, and Martini still made it home in 7th... and they didn't need to stop to change tyres...

We would never see a race like that these days because the financial playing field is so sloped.
The lesser teams don't have a chance... ever.
Pirelli haven't forgotten how to make GP tyres, nor have Dallara and Minardi always made poor GP cars

The previous year Christian Danner took a Rial from the single car team from 26th on the grid at Phoenix to 4th place in the race and later in 1989 Johansson took an Onyx in their first year to a third in Portugal...
In 1993 Sauber in their first F1 season still put a car into the top six in Donnington qualifying...

That was GP racing on a much more level field than what we have today.
What we presently have is a field and a process of financial distribution that locks out teams and rewards a select few with the bulk of the financial return effectively giving all but the very rich little chance of ever achieving success.

That post is a thing of beauty!

It really illustrates what we've lost.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by miatanut

That post is a thing of beauty!

It really illustrates what we've lost.

We got a small glimse of this at the start of 2012 when everybody was trying to figure the tyres out but after that normal service was resumed.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

In reference to this

wnut wrote...

Casper fourWheelDrift has posted one of the areas that he believes would even the playing field

In this thread:

Post #43 by fourWheelDrift followed by your critical post #46, hence my post #50.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

We got a small glimse of this at the start of 2012 when everybody was trying to figure the tyres out but after that normal service was resumed.

These results were just random aberrations due to faulty strategy, is a mixed result based on a game of chance or team errors great F1?
I think not!

Just issue tyres of random quality .and specification to the teams and make them go racing.
Draw the grid out of a hat.
Institute success ballasting.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Like I said, the field of battle moves to the accounting wars. To me, that's a much better place for the battles than the current system of outlawing every innovation.

If you want to field a team, you have to agree to the accounting rules of disclosure.

And, yes, teams would spend $20,000,000 going down a blind alley sometimes. I've never spent $20,000,000 going down an blind alley, but as a professional designer, I know the world is full of them. All innovation comes from being willing to go a direction that everybody passed by before, because they thought it might be a blind alley.

Sometimes it isn't a blind alley.

You have no commercial reality. Just try persuading any of the big teams that F1 needs to look at their complete corporate structure and financial accounting. That is nothing short of ridiculous, not going to happen in my lifetime. Everyone keeps on about a budget cap, how do they manage it when the top teams have their finances entwined in major commercial entities such as RB, Ferrari etc. I can't believe that people will entertain this proposition in this day and age, years ago when it was commercial sponsors and those sponsors were not entwined in the corporate affairs of the team then it was a proposition that could have been entertained, all except Ferrari and they most probably would have welcomed it as someone might have been able to see how the company could have made some money. Seriously ferrari would always have resisted it. Can you image Mr ferrari's reaction to a proposal that someone look at his companies books? They could have sold tickets to that conversation.

[wnut]

I am with you here Casper, budget caps will just plain never happen!

[miatanut]

They will happen when the little teams get tired of being doormats and band together.

[wolfhound]

I suspect something will happen to help the smaller teams if they kick up enough of a rumpus because Bernie/CVC is the biggest potential loser if the EU comes looking.
I would suspect there are a number of areas they could look like anti compeditive practices, abuse of a dominant position plus a few others.
The last thing Bernie/CVC wants is another investigation into F1's practices.
It would also be very damaging for the FIA.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I suspect something will happen to help the smaller teams if they kick up enough of a rumpus because Bernie/CVC is the biggest potential loser if the EU comes looking.
I would suspect there are a number of areas they could look like anti compeditive practices, abuse of a dominant position plus a few others.
The last thing Bernie/CVC wants is another investigation into F1's practices.
It would also be very damaging for the FIA.

I am with you, a change will be forced on them by outside influence, no other way. It will not be a budget cap as proposed but some other corporate and structural change. The small teams are getting royally screwed and there is no way that F1 want only four or five big budget teams as the public perception would not be good. As others have intimated, there seems to be doubt about some teams not getting to Barcelona and if that is the case then something will happen shortly. There is no way that the F1 hierarchy wants headlines of teams giving up mid season due to financial constraints as they would then have to defend the viability of the series and how they allowed the situation to arise.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by miatanut

They will happen when the little teams get tired of being doormats and band together.

It will not happen for all the reasons I have outlined. Is Joe Saward still on the budget cap kick? I must wander over and have a look. he wouldn't publish my last contribution as it disagreed with his view so I don't bother to look these days. He has that right of course but it is not a balanced view he presents by any stretch of the imagination.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Casper

It will not happen for all the reasons I have outlined. Is Joe Saward still on the budget cap kick? I must wander over and have a look. he wouldn't publish my last contribution as it disagreed with his view so I don't bother to look these days. He has that right of course but it is not a balanced view he presents by any stretch of the imagination.

Never say never.

It's pretty clear it won't happen in the near term. They will continue to propose treatments to the symptoms to make it look like they are doing something. Long term, it's apparent the viability of the sport is suffering and it's impacting the sport's appeal of some teams can never win, and that will eventually lead to real change.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Casper

It will not happen for all the reasons I have outlined. Is Joe Saward still on the budget cap kick? I must wander over and have a look. he wouldn't publish my last contribution as it disagreed with his view so I don't bother to look these days. He has that right of course but it is not a balanced view he presents by any stretch of the imagination.

Olympic athletes, tennis players, boxers etc. All these people have to abide by the drug/doping laws. This means being available *at all times* to have a blood sample taken. If they don't accept the rules, or breach them without explanation, they don't compete. This was a major change to the way things were done, has a massive effect, and could be regarded as an infringement of their liberties. BUT, it works *.

So, you have similar rules but money based for anyone wanting to enter F1. You MUST make your full team finances available, or you don't compete. It's a big change, affects a lot of things, is a PITA, but it's really no different from the introduction of the doping regs in other sports. A rule intended to level the playing field.


* Even, now, in cycling. Sometimes.

[wolfhound]

I see where Manchester City have been fined for financial irregularities by UEFA. I wonder will such things ever happen in F1?