[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[old man]

Concept of measurement is simple I agree, you just add up the figures presented but the problem is where those figures come from.

Consider for example the present Honda position. They must be spending a vast amount in the effort to match their PU to the best. Any budget control would be on McLaren and Honda charge an agreed figure that fits the budget. The money spent in the factory on the engines is a different figure. Where does that fit?

If a new Honda engine beats the pants off Ferrari one assumes that Ferrari could put in an appeal on the costs. Measuring those costs back at base in Japan may be said to be outside the budget cap rules that apply to McLaren, not to their suppliers. Now the lawyers get involved.

I know this is all very obvious but a minefield IMO

Where does research into how to get more power from a given quantity of fuel fit as any car manufacturer can justifiably claim it for the road cars? Drafting rules to cover such points would be complex to say the least

[wnut]

Originally Posted by old man

Concept of measurement is simple I agree, you just add up the figures presented but the problem is where those figures come from.

Consider for example the present Honda position. They must be spending a vast amount in the effort to match their PU to the best. Any budget control would be on McLaren and Honda charge an agreed figure that fits the budget. The money spent in the factory on the engines is a different figure. Where does that fit?

If a new Honda engine beats the pants off Ferrari one assumes that Ferrari could put in an appeal on the costs. Measuring those costs back at base in Japan may be said to be outside the budget cap rules that apply to McLaren, not to their suppliers. Now the lawyers get involved.

I know this is all very obvious but a minefield IMO

Where does research into how to get more power from a given quantity of fuel fit as any car manufacturer can justifiably claim it for the road cars? Drafting rules to cover such points would be complex to say the least

I think you are absolutely on the "money" here old man:

From the statement of limitations of financial statements:

4. Verifiability Audit is the main mechanism that enables users to place trust on financial statements. However, audit only provides 'reasonable' and not absolute assurance on the truth and fairness of the financial statements which means that despite carrying audit according to acceptable standards, certain material misstatements in financial statements may yet remain undetected due to the inherent limitations of the audit. : http://accounting-simplified.com/fin....Pmg4GN5M.dpuf

The management of the auto manufacturer itself is probably unaware of the true cost of the racing program, and where all the various suppliers have put resources into supplied components.

The only cost limiting factor that I have ever seen work is in "claimer" engines where the engine is given a value say $5000 (more for an F1 engine obviously) and any competitor can put $5000 dollars down and buy the engine after scrutineering following the race. This absolutely prevents most of the ridiculous spends in engine tuning, and trick engines.

Perhaps extend this approach to all parts such as wings, gearboxes etc.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

However, audit only provides 'reasonable' and not absolute assurance on the truth and fairness of the financial statements...

Nothing provides "absolute assurance" in the regulations. The statement above is true for not just finances, but just about everything else in the sport. Outside of things checked at scrutineering (mostly basic measurements), generally speaking compliance is self reported. Teams could cheat quite a lot today if they wanted. But there are methods to expose those as well.

I get that making budget caps work would require some work. I think it has to go beyond basic forensic accounting. There may need to be structural changes to how teams are organized to create physical and financial barriers. Items that are potential areas of concern (such as power units) may need to have other rules in place. Such as...

* extensive customer car power unit allocations.
* More and wider customer car availability
* All engines at same spec (customers and manufacturers run at same spec)
* Fixed cost engines (manufacturers can spend as much as they want, but sell at a loss if they wish)
* (Sadly) tighter regulations on items that are free to spend upon to reduce the benefit of spending large sums of money.

I also suggest looking at prior banned technology. For example, allow active suspensions, but limit the number of components (actuators, sensors,etc) plus provide a spec ecu just for the suspension. That converts suspension "design" and performance into a more software based realm in which I believe would be cheaper to implement and tune for optimal performance (vs crazy complex mechanical systems). Hardware limits would provide a more level playing field (harder to spend yourself into better performance)

In parallel to budget caps, there should be a total revamp of revenue sharing.

I freely admit most all of what I propose would be strongly opposed by the manufacturers because it does not allow them to outspend other teams who may be using some of their own equipment (i.e. Another team beating Ferrari with a Ferrari engine)

Richard

[insane014]

As long as F1 manufacturers are the competing teams on the grid no cap could ever be forced in place, simple as that.

In order to control the spending as well as make F1 more healthy organization without constant ultimatums of quitting once something doesn't go the way some want it, it needs to be done like this:

Team - assembles the car, tunes the car and hire drivers

Each season or every two to three seasons Teams bid on

PU Manufacturers - make speced PUs
Transmission Manufacturers - makes speced tranny
Chassis Manufacturers
Electronics Manufacturer
Tires
Brakes
etc you get the idea

And they mix and match the components. Each Manufacturer is limited to number of teams they can provide their component to so for more quality components , or components teams think are of higher grade will bid for more money but at the same time teams will have less money for something else. So if you have the most expensive PU and Chassis you will not likely be able to do bid on the best Tires, Transmission or Electrical and so on due to budget cap.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by insane014

As long as F1 manufacturers are the competing teams on the grid no cap could ever be forced in place, simple as that.

In order to control the spending as well as make F1 more healthy organization without constant ultimatums of quitting once something doesn't go the way some want it, it needs to be done like this:

Team - assembles the car, tunes the car and hire drivers

Each season or every two to three seasons Teams bid on

PU Manufacturers - make speced PUs
Transmission Manufacturers - makes speced tranny
Chassis Manufacturers
Electronics Manufacturer
Tires
Brakes
etc you get the idea

And they mix and match the components. Each Manufacturer is limited to number of teams they can provide their component to so for more quality components , or components teams think are of higher grade will bid for more money but at the same time teams will have less money for something else. So if you have the most expensive PU and Chassis you will not likely be able to do bid on the best Tires, Transmission or Electrical and so on due to budget cap.

Sounds like an overly complicated fantasy competition.
of the ?? spec parts you can have 3 from value group 1, 3 from group 2 etc.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Nothing provides "absolute assurance" in the regulations. The statement above is true for not just finances, but just about everything else in the sport. Outside of things checked at scrutineering (mostly basic measurements), generally speaking compliance is self reported. Teams could cheat quite a lot today if they wanted. But there are methods to expose those as well.

I get that making budget caps work would require some work. I think it has to go beyond basic forensic accounting. There may need to be structural changes to how teams are organized to create physical and financial barriers. Items that are potential areas of concern (such as power units) may need to have other rules in place. Such as...

* extensive customer car power unit allocations.
* More and wider customer car availability
* All engines at same spec (customers and manufacturers run at same spec)
* Fixed cost engines (manufacturers can spend as much as they want, but sell at a loss if they wish)
* (Sadly) tighter regulations on items that are free to spend upon to reduce the benefit of spending large sums of money.

I also suggest looking at prior banned technology. For example, allow active suspensions, but limit the number of components (actuators, sensors,etc) plus provide a spec ecu just for the suspension. That converts suspension "design" and performance into a more software based realm in which I believe would be cheaper to implement and tune for optimal performance (vs crazy complex mechanical systems). Hardware limits would provide a more level playing field (harder to spend yourself into better performance)

In parallel to budget caps, there should be a total revamp of revenue sharing.

I freely admit most all of what I propose would be strongly opposed by the manufacturers because it does not allow them to outspend other teams who may be using some of their own equipment (i.e. Another team beating Ferrari with a Ferrari engine)

Richard

I think you are correct, and the engines need to all be one spec between the manufacturers and the satellite teams. This should include mandatory and documented software management systems. The manufacturers should also have to specify the gear ratios they are going to run, we have probably reached the point where the ratios should be specified by the FIA.

I believe these measures would make the racing closer than any budget cap.

Ron Dennis said that any team that did not have manufacturer backing was never going to be a WDC contender, and I think he was right on the mark.

How the manufacturers ever got away with running different engines from their customers is still totally beyond me! Stupid failure of regulation and regulatory intent!

[S griffin]

Has anyone heard anymore about that idiotic standing start after every SC? It was supposed to be approved by the FIA, but have heard nothing

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

I think you are correct, and the engines need to all be one spec between the manufacturers and the satellite teams. This should include mandatory and documented software management systems. The manufacturers should also have to specify the gear ratios they are going to run, we have probably reached the point where the ratios should be specified by the FIA.

In most occasions, there was already parity among the manufacturers' teams and the privateers. A difference one could think of is the availability of a updated version. However, as the number of components per driver per season is limited already, one simply cannot prevent an updated power unit being available later to certain drivers (and teams).

Having said that, it is practically impossible and also undesirable to standardize the software management systems among the manufacturers' teams and the privateers. The exact configuration not only depends on the power unit, but also other parameters, such as fuel, gearboxes and drive shafts. If the software managements system is going to be standardized among the referred teams, the other components would have to standardized as well. How much independence would be left over for the privateers?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In most occasions, there was already parity among the manufacturers' teams and the privateers. A difference one could think of is the availability of a updated version. However, as the number of components per driver per season is limited already, one simply cannot prevent an updated power unit being available later to certain drivers (and teams).

Having said that, it is practically impossible and also undesirable to standardize the software management systems among the manufacturers' teams and the privateers. The exact configuration not only depends on the power unit, but also other parameters, such as fuel, gearboxes and drive shafts. If the software managements system is going to be standardized among the referred teams, the other components would have to standardized as well. How much independence would be left over for the privateers?

AFAIK Pingy the privateers are taking the whole power unit from the manufacturers, and would at least stand a chance of being competitive with all the software as per the manus. Now they are trying to configure a limited use component to be competitive without the chance of proper testing, it is a bad joke really, all they are getting is a controlled package that has no hope of being competitive with the manufacturer that is supplying the PU.

[TrapezeArtist]

Perhaps budget control could be approached in a different way, by linking it to the distribution of funds by FIA/FOM/whoever. Instead of a dogmatic rule that says "you must not spend more than X", create a formula whereby the big spenders get less from the FIA/FOM pot and the little guys get more. Done that way, Ferrari are still free to spend half the Italian GDP if they want to, but they won't get any of it from the rest of F1.

How to objectively measure how much a team spends though? That remains the tricky bit of the equation.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

AFAIK Pingy the privateers are taking the whole power unit from the manufacturers, and would at least stand a chance of being competitive with all the software as per the manus. Now they are trying to configure a limited use component to be competitive without the chance of proper testing, it is a bad joke really, all they are getting is a controlled package that has no hope of being competitive with the manufacturer that is supplying the PU.

The privateers are indeed taking the power unit, but the software management involves more than just the power unit. Teams are using fuel from different suppliers, use different transmissions. If the software management will be standardized among manufacturers' teams and privateers, the latter will have to buy exactly the same fuel and transmissions.

[old man]

I read or saw somewhere that getting the Mercedes power unit includes the use of the same oils and fuel. Same for the other PU suppliers?

[wnut]

F1's hybrid engines just "marketing blurb" - Adrian Newey

http://www.f1reader.com/list/news/la...n-newey-162291

"Is F1 a technical showcase for motor manufacturers, of their engine prowess for instance, or is it a spectacle that involves man and machine? Depending on who you are, you are one way or the other.

My personal view is that it should be a battle of drivers coupled with the creativeness of engineers.
That means it shouldn't purely be battle of resources, which is what it has tended to become on the engineers' side."

[PhilipR]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1's hybrid engines just "marketing blurb" - Adrian Newey

http://www.f1reader.com/list/news/la...n-newey-162291

"Is F1 a technical showcase for motor manufacturers, of their engine prowess for instance, or is it a spectacle that involves man and machine? Depending on who you are, you are one way or the other.

My personal view is that it should be a battle of drivers coupled with the creativeness of engineers.
That means it shouldn't purely be battle of resources, which is what it has tended to become on the engineers' side."

Hmm, well Newey is a bit biased. His expertise is aerodynamics and he would like a formula were aerodynamics are more important than engines.
Never do hear him complain that Formula 1 is too aero-dependent and that aerodynamics is one of the reasons the races tend to feature very little overtaking.


I honestly think this should e somewhere in the middle, allow freedom for the engineers to develop new engines(the reason manufacturers are joining), allow engineers to develop interesting are concepts whilst also allow drivers to make a difference. - and now its time to wake up and get back to reality

[wnut]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

Hmm, well Newey is a bit biased. His expertise is aerodynamics and he would like a formula were aerodynamics are more important than engines.
Never do hear him complain that Formula 1 is too aero-dependent and that aerodynamics is one of the reasons the races tend to feature very little overtaking.


I honestly think this should e somewhere in the middle, allow freedom for the engineers to develop new engines(the reason manufacturers are joining), allow engineers to develop interesting are concepts whilst also allow drivers to make a difference. - and now its time to wake up and get back to reality

Very convenient that the manufacturers get to charge the rest of the competitors extortionate fees for their engines which only they are prepared to develop, and they can offset the earnings against their racing programs. Never forgetting that their customers are subject to the engine performance that the manufacturer thinks they deserve.

[PhilipR]

Originally Posted by wnut

Very convenient that the manufacturers get to charge the rest of the competitors extortionate fees for their engines which only they are prepared to develop, and they can offset the earnings against their racing programs. Never forgetting that their customers are subject to the engine performance that the manufacturer thinks they deserve.

Very true, I am not on the side of the manufacturers either, I believe they also hold too much power now and unfortunately there are not more manufacturers wanting to enter to offer engine alternatives. Not to mention these engines are so advanced and expensive it is probably impossible for an independent engine manufacturer to build formula 1 engines.

And these hybrid engines I get why they are doing it but it is such a gimmick. Yes f1 cars are more efficient and less polluting but behind the scene the F1 circus still causes pollution as hell(transporting via trucks, planes and cargo ships). My thinking is if they really want to go green, go all the way and not just put up a very expensive smokescreen.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

Very true, I am not on the side of the manufacturers either, I believe they also hold too much power now and unfortunately there are not more manufacturers wanting to enter to offer engine alternatives. Not to mention these engines are so advanced and expensive it is probably impossible for an independent engine manufacturer to build formula 1 engines.

And these hybrid engines I get why they are doing it but it is such a gimmick. Yes f1 cars are more efficient and less polluting but behind the scene the F1 circus still causes pollution as hell(transporting via trucks, planes and cargo ships). My thinking is if they really want to go green, go all the way and not just put up a very expensive smokescreen.

I think that the engine manufacturers should be allowed to run the type of engine they agree on, but, the cost should be set, and they should be forced to give everyone the latest specs, and until they can no upgraded spec. Make an engine supplier supply a minimum of 4 teams, less at the discretion of the FIA, only if not enough cars exist to supply!

The limp excuse that they cannot supply the latest spec to everyone is just nonsense, in the 80s Renault were bringing 50 engines to a GP for 2 cars!

As far as green washing goes, just lose the hybrid rubbish, 240 kgs worth, and concentrate on the ICs efficiency in 500 kg cars!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

I think that the engine manufacturers should be allowed to run the type of engine they agree on, but, the cost should be set, and they should be forced to give everyone the latest specs, and until they can no upgraded spec. Make an engine supplier supply a minimum of 4 teams, less at the discretion of the FIA, only if not enough cars exist to supply

Yes!

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

I think that the engine manufacturers should be allowed to run the type of engine they agree on, but, the cost should be set, and they should be forced to give everyone the latest specs, and until they can no upgraded spec. Make an engine supplier supply a minimum of 4 teams, less at the discretion of the FIA, only if not enough cars exist to supply!

The limp excuse that they cannot supply the latest spec to everyone is just nonsense, in the 80s Renault were bringing 50 engines to a GP for 2 cars!

With respect, for as long as I can remember, teams have raced cars of different specifications, sometimes by choice and at other times dictated by circumstances.

And surely customer teams should be able to decide whether they wish to run the latest spec units, like last year when Red Bull chose not to use the latest version in Mexico. And why shouldn't customers have the option to not have to run untested power-units; making 8 cars use the new units risks all 8 cars having failures, as opposed to just the work's team's 2 cars.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

With respect, for as long as I can remember, teams have raced cars of different specifications, sometimes by choice and at other times dictated by circumstances.

And surely customer teams should be able to decide whether they wish to run the latest spec units, like last year when Red Bull chose not to use the latest version in Mexico. And why shouldn't customers have the option to not have to run untested power-units; making 8 cars use the new units risks all 8 cars having failures, as opposed to just the work's team's 2 cars.

Sauber this season are going to run 2016 Ferrari engines because alledgely they wanted to get ahead on the design of their 17 car but Ferrari wouldn't /couldn't give them then engine configuration changes .

[chillibowl]

even if Sauber knew, would they have even been able to afford the 2017 engine?

then again, if one makes the argument about guaranteeing a supply of engines at a maximum set price for customer teams, then should RB, with their resources and budget size, only have to pay the same amount as Sauber for a latest spec engine?

[old man]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

And these hybrid engines I get why they are doing it but it is such a gimmick. Yes f1 cars are more efficient and less polluting but behind the scene the F1 circus still causes pollution as hell(transporting via trucks, planes and cargo ships). My thinking is if they really want to go green, go all the way and not just put up a very expensive smokescreen.

Exactly what have you in mind by "go all the way" please?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

With respect, for as long as I can remember, teams have raced cars of different specifications, sometimes by choice and at other times dictated by circumstances.

And surely customer teams should be able to decide whether they wish to run the latest spec units, like last year when Red Bull chose not to use the latest version in Mexico. And why shouldn't customers have the option to not have to run untested power-units; making 8 cars use the new units risks all 8 cars having failures, as opposed to just the work's team's 2 cars.

I can't speak for wnut, but I personally believe the spirit of the idea is that customers have access to the same spec as the manufacturers. So yes, if something new is released a customer may choose to keep what they have. But they have the option to run the most recent if they want. As someone mentioned earlier, things like engine allocation limits also factors in.

Richard

[PhilipR]

Originally Posted by old man

Exactly what have you in mind by "go all the way" please?

You putting me on the spot!

I do not have a solution but what I meant is that they are milking the green initiative when the only progress they have made is on the surface and superficial. In the background it is all just as polluting as it always has been. My idea is if you want to go green, you should do it through all your processes and not just the ones that get the most attention and media.

[S griffin]

It's interesting though that Newey says he would support a windtunnel ban. Not sure how much effect that would do though