$1million cut per supercar team.

[Downoz]

Here.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23770,00.html

[SSbaby]

Turn them into 'Brute' sedans. Surely they'd cost less than $150K?

[Just Do It!]

The same article link was sent to me. It is on the NZ Herald website tonight so it is clearly big news.

Some of the smaller teams might have to be careful though.....wouldn't cutting $1 million as the thread heading implies almost certainly cut most of several teams budgets??

[v8babe]

Wakey wakey people... AA had it in their mag yonks ago.

[EfiOz]

It's not as if they can cut back on expensive technology so I guess the helmet polishers will all get the sack instead.

[mountainstar]

Nascar chassis might cost $100k but some teams build 10-60 chassis a year.

V8 Supercars might be a bit more expensive but tend to get used a lot more and for much longer.

[RotorFan]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

V8 Supercars might be a bit more expensive but tend to get used a lot more and for much longer.

Good point. They don't seem to have thought about that.

The only reason they want to cut costs is to increase profit.

How are teams spending $6M on a car? Where do they spend the money? Is it in wind-tunnel testing? Maybe they can just ban that?

[Prickly_Goo]

I find it quite amusing..

First TC works to get the grid down to 28 cars, now he's saying he wants more cars and more teams, but cheaper racing..

I reckon it should only apply to the big factory run teams, you say to a team like PCR or Britek that you wanna cut their budget by $1mil, thats basically a quarter of their budget roughly...

It shouldnt cost more than $4-5mil to run a top team.. $6-10mil is just getting crazy.. Dont punish the small teams because the bigger teams have got TOO big...

[Denosaur]

As silly as it might sound, why not introduce a one chassis per year rule for those at the top end of pit lane. This would then reduce any gap in development that you get between front runners and mid to rear runners.

HRT went thru at least 3 chassis's last year that I can remember hearing about. Cut out introducing new car mid way or at the end of the season, like they did at Phillip Island, and there's a saving already.

[mountainstar]

It wasn't that long ago I remember Larry Perkins saying his running costs were $1 million a year per car.

I also remember 8-9 years ago a V8 supercar cost $300-$350k, now people are talking $500-$600K.

It seems to me the big cost increase came when teams started doing their own shells rather than sourcing them from an outside supplier.

I'm not a big fan of cutting the costs out of the car, so we can have a crapper of a car to save a few bucks. If though a good control part can save everyone costs and it's a part that doesn't have a huge bearing on the competitiveness of the car, then fine.

I'm sure payrolls have played a bit part in this. It also wasn't long ago teams were 10-20-30 guys, now you've got 50-60 people.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Denosaur

As silly as it might sound, why not introduce a one chassis per year rule for those at the top end of pit lane. This would then reduce any gap in development that you get between front runners and mid to rear runners.

HRT went thru at least 3 chassis's last year that I can remember hearing about. Cut out introducing new car mid way or at the end of the season, like they did at Phillip Island, and there's a saving already.

If you do it for one, you need to do it for everyone.

What happens if that chassis gets clobbered and is not repairable? Or if you have a driver that runs over everything in sight or gets hit by james courtney every weekend and it's "repairable" but by the end of the season looks like the station wagon that ran over a cliff in National Lampoons Vacation? What do you do then? What if you have a rule that if a chassis gets written off, you can replace it with a new one, then teams are finding ways to write off cars so they can be replaced?

[Denosaur]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

If you do it for one, you need to do it for everyone.

What happens if that chassis gets clobbered and is not repairable? Or if you have a driver that runs over everything in sight or gets hit by james courtney every weekend and it's "repairable" but by the end of the season looks like the station wagon that ran over a cliff in National Lampoons Vacation? What do you do then? What if you have a rule that if a chassis gets written off, you can replace it with a new one, then teams are finding ways to write off cars so they can be replaced?

Fair point, make it for everyone then. As for if they crash them hard enough, well, the team can go back to a previous chassis, which has to be the last one they used.

Since they're considering going down the NASCAR path of a COT type chassis, then they might as well introduce the chassis registration and checking system that NASCAR have at the tech centre. That means each chassis is tagged with ID chips, or DataDOT's by VE$A to keep a track of that chassis. I think copying this system that NASCAR has developed, will help keep track of chassis. Just look at the system that the Ward's have on there ARC chassis, where the parts are marked with DataDOT's to make sure no one is doing modifications or tampering with parts/piece's.

As for writing off chassis's to try and introduce another one. Each team would have specifically justify that the chassis is beyond repair. If it happens on a race weekend, the obvious investigation would take place at the track. If on the other hand something happens like Seton's crash at Phillip Island during testing about 9 years or so ago, then the team would have to explain how it happened and why they should be allowed.
This rule would include any flex in the frame, if it still happens, but that would be governed by introducing a rule stating that it is beyond 'x' millimeters.

End of the day, all I'm suggesting is eliminating the introduction of multiple new chassis's through the year. Which might gain the team a ten or thousandths of a second, but is it really worth $600k in panels, tube, parts and man hour's.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Turn them into 'Brute' sedans. Surely they'd cost less than $150K?

I agree 100%, I have been saying the same thing for some time.

[RotorFan]

I think thats a good idea to cut costs of the car without doing this COT crap that no one wants - allowing only one car per year. You could go further and say each team can only introduce one new car per year, so the number 2 would run last years car. A little bit like DTM.

[EfiOz]

Salary cap.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by EfiOz

Salary cap.

They tried that in the DTM and it didn't work.

All they'll do is figure a back door way around it.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Denosaur

Fair point, make it for everyone then. As for if they crash them hard enough, well, the team can go back to a previous chassis, which has to be the last one they used.

As for writing off chassis's to try and introduce another one. Each team would have specifically justify that the chassis is beyond repair. If it happens on a race weekend, the obvious investigation would take place at the track. If on the other hand something happens like Seton's crash at Phillip Island during testing about 9 years or so ago, then the team would have to explain how it happened and why they should be allowed.
This rule would include any flex in the frame, if it still happens, but that would be governed by introducing a rule stating that it is beyond 'x' millimeters.

End of the day, all I'm suggesting is eliminating the introduction of multiple new chassis's through the year. Which might gain the team a ten or thousandths of a second, but is it really worth $600k in panels, tube, parts and man hour's.

Certainly an idea, having to use the old car.

In HRT's case those chassis's were hand me downs to other teams in the Walkinshaw hemisphere. Ultimately how many teams are building multiple cars every year? I don't keep exact track of chassis numbers like some can, but as I recall, SBR is still circulating 05/06 chassis depending on what gets wrecked that week, DJR 04/05 chassis, Britek 03/06 cars, Tasman had older cars till recently, etc. How many teams are actually using cars built for this season and if they are how many are they building? From all appearances teams are getting at least 2 years service out of chassis as a rough average.

If you amortize the cost of the car, say $600K, use it for 2 years, sell it onward to a Fujitsu team for $300K, the car is costing you $150k a year in depreciation. Not bad really if you have several million in sponsorship per car, plus a million in VESA income per car plus merchandise sales for the top teams and other revenue streams. Looks like a sweet deal to me and many dont seem to lack for boats and other toys. If you're a team like TKR or PCR, you don't have any build costs(labor and materials) at all. You're just leasing or buying an older car, which again will likely get sold onward to a Fujitsu operation or get run someday as a revenue generating ride car. Again not a bad deal once you do some numbers.

Ultimately I'm starting to see that the more restrictive you make things, the more time and money people spend trying to find ways around it. It's an epiphany I've had in recent times with different situations I've seen.

Therefore, I'm not convinced a lot of rules regarding savings, will actually save teams any money. They'll just find another area to spend it or refine the current one.

[Denosaur]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Certainly an idea, having to use the old car.

In HRT's case those chassis's were hand me downs to other teams in the Walkinshaw hemisphere. Ultimately how many teams are building multiple cars every year? I don't keep exact track of chassis numbers like some can, but as I recall, SBR is still circulating 05/06 chassis depending on what gets wrecked that week, DJR 04/05 chassis, Britek 03/06 cars, Tasman had older cars till recently, etc. How many teams are actually using cars built for this season and if they are how many are they building? From all appearances teams are getting at least 2 years service out of chassis as a rough average.

If you amortize the cost of the car, say $600K, use it for 2 years, sell it onward to a Fujitsu team for $300K, the car is costing you $150k a year in depreciation. Not bad really if you have several million in sponsorship per car, plus a million in VESA income per car plus merchandise sales for the top teams and other revenue streams. Looks like a sweet deal to me and many dont seem to lack for boats and other toys. If you're a team like TKR or PCR, you don't have any build costs(labor and materials) at all. You're just leasing or buying an older car, which again will likely get sold onward to a Fujitsu operation or get run someday as a revenue generating ride car. Again not a bad deal once you do some numbers.

Ultimately I'm starting to see that the more restrictive you make things, the more time and money people spend trying to find ways around it. It's an epiphany I've had in recent times with different situations I've seen.

Therefore, I'm not convinced a lot of rules regarding savings, will actually save teams any money. They'll just find another area to spend it or refine the current one.

Damn it, your right again!! Screw them in one area and they'll find something else to exploit. Without going down the NASCAR path of a standard chassis, they'll find something else to spend the money on.

Most mid-field teams get about 2 years out of each chassis, other than HRT and T8 who have been at about 6 months. In the case of GRM for example, they do have another chassis on jig getting built at the moment, and we may see it later this year or next. More than likely the current 'No.1' chassis might get handed down internally, before it goes out on the market in the next year or two for a Dev. Series runner.

But mind you, recently reading that NASCAR has developed an engine for one of the many categories they sanction, which is apparently almost half the cost of getting the same engine from a builder, could have merit in this country, not only for main game players, but for the Dev Series and below.

[Steve Carter]

Heres an interesting article sent to me yesterday written by Geoffrey Harris on the V8 series http://editorial.carsales.com.au/car...w/2940442.aspx

My best guess would be that its Ford looking at the numbers as theyre behind Holden in the sales stakes and this new Falcon despite being a cracker of a car wont turn things around + unlike Holden they dont have any viable export markets to help with the bottom line - I could be wrong though.

Im not sure what either manufacturer spends but I was reading only yesterday that some 2 car teams are spending $6 million per car per season + its $600,000 to build a new car + teams like Triple Eight cart 40 personnel around to each race - now thats serious money probably around $20 million a season plus for Triple 8 and other top teams. Remember you have Lowndesy on I think $1.2 mill a year or it could be higher cant remember.

As for income to the series the TV rights with Seven - well the closest figure I heard was $80 mill per year for the rights to V8 Supercars (they used to be payed $18 mill pa by Ten I think) - not sure of the split but Cochrane and his partner Erskine get 25% of all income.

There was talk about a spaceframe chassis like NASCAR but thats come to nought although yesterday it was suggested that they would look at a NASCAR style COT build as a NASCAR costs $150,000 as opposed to the V8 build costs. So some interesting times ahead and unless Im mistaken or reading something into all this over the last 12 months - V8Supercars have to act reasonably quickly with a plan going forward to drastically cut costs or watch the whole thing fall over - whether its a silouhette series with a NASCAR build and shells I dont know but the budgets they are running cannot be sustained and its the technology thats the big cost - just an informed opinion

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Steve Carter

Heres an interesting article sent to me yesterday written by Geoffrey Harris on the V8 series http://editorial.carsales.com.au/car...w/2940442.aspx

My best guess would be that its Ford looking at the numbers as theyre behind Holden in the sales stakes and this new Falcon despite being a cracker of a car wont turn things around + unlike Holden they dont have any viable export markets to help with the bottom line - I could be wrong though.

Im not sure what either manufacturer spends but I was reading only yesterday that some 2 car teams are spending $6 million per car per season + its $600,000 to build a new car + teams like Triple Eight cart 40 personnel around to each race - now thats serious money probably around $20 million a season plus for Triple 8 and other top teams. Remember you have Lowndesy on I think $1.2 mill a year or it could be higher cant remember.

As for income to the series the TV rights with Seven - well the closest figure I heard was $80 mill per year for the rights to V8 Supercars (they used to be payed $18 mill pa by Ten I think) - not sure of the split but Cochrane and his partner Erskine get 25% of all income.

There was talk about a spaceframe chassis like NASCAR but thats come to nought although yesterday it was suggested that they would look at a NASCAR style COT build as a NASCAR costs $150,000 as opposed to the V8 build costs. So some interesting times ahead and unless Im mistaken or reading something into all this over the last 12 months - V8Supercars have to act reasonably quickly with a plan going forward to drastically cut costs or watch the whole thing fall over - whether its a silouhette series with a NASCAR build and shells I dont know but the budgets they are running cannot be sustained and its the technology thats the big cost - just an informed opinion

Ford is just as capable of developing those export markets like Holden.

I think the tv money is more like $80 mil over 5-6 years, not every year.

[Steve Carter]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Ford is just as capable of developing those export markets like Holden.

I think the tv money is more like $80 mil over 5-6 years, not every year.

I think (no I know) you will find thats a per annum budget with TV and no Ford have not a chance in hell of doing the export thing sorry Mountainstar

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Steve Carter

I think (no I know) you will find thats a per annum budget with TV and no Ford have not a chance in hell of doing the export thing sorry Mountainstar

Looks like the actual terms of the Channel 7 deal is five years with a $65 million payout over the five years. Ten was paying $7.5 million a year for the rights.

I don't see why Ford can't make a better effort at exporting it's products from Australia. Not doing it could mean it's death over the long term.

[Gaz170]

I believe the Falcon and Territory would sell well in South Africa. Similar climate and distances, all it would take is some marketing initiative.

And a Turbo Territory in the UK would be interisting, send one to the guys from Top Gear to test.

[cavvy]

It is not up to Ford Australia where the cars they produce are sold.

Next on Ford Australias build agenda is the Focus.

Stop dreaming !!

Remember win on Sunday sell on Monday ... Toyota make that about as relevant as a gallon of standard petrol. Move on ...

[Gaz170]

Originally Posted by cavvy

It is not up to Ford Australia where the cars they produce are sold.

Next on Ford Australias build agenda is the Focus.

Stop dreaming !!

...

No, but they need to convince HQ in the US about better economies of scale by exporting them.

Edit - I stand corrected- the Territory IS sold in South Africa! http://www.ford.co.za/servlet/Conten...Page&c=DFYPage