|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
16 Apr 2005, 17:31 (Ref:1279713) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Cost cutting measures: your own proposals
Since 2003 the FIA introduced many rules to reduce the costs. The parc fermé regulations were introduced in 2003 and the one engine rule in 2004. Since this year drivers have to two race weekends with one engine and a whole race with only one set of tyres.
Most of these new rules are still controversial. According to the criticasters these rules don't make Formula 1 cheaper and certainly not more exciting. What kind of measures to reduce the costs do you think the FIA should introduce? And which of the already introduced regulations should be repealed? These are my proposals: The one engine rule, one tyre rule and parc fermé regulations should be abolished. I'm not convinced that these rules have reduced the costs. Of course, the production costs were lowered, but the development costs have increased. The increase of development costs is not only temporary, but also structurally. To cut the costs I have the following proposals: - Engine manufactures should be enforced to supply at least to two teams. This can be done by just introducing a new article in the sporting regulations, but can also enforced by introducing a championship for engine manufactures. - Teams should have the possibility to buy and use cars of other teams or car manufactures. This will teams share costs. Testing will be less important. If more teams will use the same car, less testing per team is needed to collect the same amount of information. With this measure the FIA will make it less difficult to be competitive with a small budget. - The electronics should be restricted. Maybe the introduction of the standard ECU is needed, but only if engine manufactures and teams have much room to adjust the setup of the ECU. A standard ECU should lead to, for example, a RPM restrictor. - The ratio between aerodynamical and mechanical grip must be changed toward mechanical grip. This can be done by introducing broad and slick tyres and stricter rules for the aerodynamics. By changing the ratio, aerodynamics will become less important. That will make teams to save money. - A ban on refueling during the race can also be a cost cutting measure. Teams won’t need to do time costing research to look after for a good strategy. It will also provide smaller teams to do a longer stint, so that they can drive in front of the field for a short period during the race. This will make them more attractive for sponsors. |
||
|
16 Apr 2005, 17:57 (Ref:1279721) | #2 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
- Use standard 4 stroke 125cc lawnmower engines
- Materials for chassis contruction limited to all types of wood - Pit to car communication only by smoke signals I'll think of more later. |
|
|
16 Apr 2005, 18:30 (Ref:1279731) | #3 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,727
|
None
|
|
|
16 Apr 2005, 18:32 (Ref:1279735) | #4 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,727
|
Alternatively:
Keep the new set of rules fixed for at least 3 seasons. Do not change any rules mid-season. Do not let any rule come into effect *during* the season. |
|
|
16 Apr 2005, 18:46 (Ref:1279747) | #5 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Actually, Max Mosley is not very credible with his policy. He is also responsible for the high costs. Think about the legalisation of traction control and the ban on slicks. |
|||
|
16 Apr 2005, 19:19 (Ref:1279761) | #6 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
Legalising traction control cut costs - the teams were spending huge sums trying to replicate it legally
|
|
|
16 Apr 2005, 20:07 (Ref:1279776) | #7 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
No rules at all!, No-holds-barred,get your car and driver around the track as fast as technically/physically possible.
|
|
|
16 Apr 2005, 21:17 (Ref:1279810) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 772
|
- Control Tyre
- max. amount of testing kilometres - lift all engine restrictions, limit the amount of fuel the teams have for a weekend - prohibit any winglets and other stuff like that except front and rear wing - standard ECU so things like TC can be controlled Control tyre is obvious: most testing is done for tyres, so if you have a control tyre, you reduce testing and therefore cost significantly. Same goes for testing km. Standard ECU is less for reducing cost but more for the spectacle. It will also reduce cost due to less development work, though. All those winglets just make the cars overloaded. Get rid of them and get back to the clean look of the middle to late 80s. At the same time it might make cars less sensitive, dunno. Lift engine restrictions so F1 is still the pinnacle of motorracing even though it will feature some standardisation. To keep power down, you need to limit fuel. That formula was very successfull with group c in the 80s. |
||
|
16 Apr 2005, 21:32 (Ref:1279817) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,575
|
Control tyre
1000kms max testing 3.0litre V10 with a maximum permitted power output of 1000bhp (and restricted mid-season development) but unlimited number used as I feel that the 2 race engine rule is pointless no tyre or re-fuelling during the races and possibly limited fuel over the weekend. Thats all I can think of for now. |
||
__________________
#teamyorkshire |
16 Apr 2005, 22:41 (Ref:1279856) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,313
|
I would try and standardise as many components as possible such as the clutch, gearbox casing design (ratios still free), axles and brake assembly's, these sort of changes could be made whilst still allowing the teams scope for designing unique cars, of course for any of this to happen there will be extra cost's incurred during transition.
|
||
__________________
Ignorance is the easy way out, and the easy way out is rarely the best. Fighting ignorance takes dedication, desire, and effort. |
16 Apr 2005, 22:53 (Ref:1279860) | #11 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,776
|
I think a control tyre is the main one.
The tyre war has caused headaches into reducing the speed of the cars. If there was currently a control tyre I don't think the 2005 aero regs would have been brought in. I expect building cars to new regs put the R&D costs up as well. All the money that goes into engine development is eeking out more RPM for more power. If pneumatic valve systems were out-lawed and only conventional spring valves were used that would put a physical limit on the maximum RPM you can have (I think I've read somewhere its around the 17,000 mark? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!). Perhaps bringing turbo back too. The top manufacturers could tune as much power as they wanted, but if you were on a control tyre there's only so fast you can go and surely there would come a point where having x million hp would become irrelevant. |
||
__________________
Successfully crashing a probe into the moon is like saying you successfully swam the English Channel by having your corpse wash up on the beach. |
16 Apr 2005, 22:58 (Ref:1279864) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,313
|
I suppose it depends on whether you want to slow them down or cut costs, however the differing trains of thought will cross at some point.
|
||
__________________
Ignorance is the easy way out, and the easy way out is rarely the best. Fighting ignorance takes dedication, desire, and effort. |
16 Apr 2005, 23:13 (Ref:1279871) | #13 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,776
|
I guess the two tie-in. I mean, you can get up to a certain point with a certain budget. But pushing the envelope is where you start spilling cash everywhere. If there was a control tyre there wouldn't need to be as much tyre testing, as mentioned earlier in the thread.
Getting more power from the current normally aspirated engines mostly involves pushing the RPM. Remove that and it may help. Of course the manufacturers would look to other areas, but perhaps it might give the smaller concerns a chance, with competitiveness and cost in one swoop. Of course in reality it would probably be far more complicated, but I'm just thinking of it as a high-level concept. |
||
__________________
Successfully crashing a probe into the moon is like saying you successfully swam the English Channel by having your corpse wash up on the beach. |
17 Apr 2005, 01:33 (Ref:1279941) | #14 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
The new V8 rules are far more restrictive anyway (90 degree V angle,minimum weight,98mm max bore,etc), so they go a long way to at least making the engines more on an equal level.But i feel it still needs the addition of a control tyre or a longer lasting tyre along with reduced downforce to keep things interesting.
F1 is getting better,but things like the qually format are a backward step and need sorting ASAP. Of course what F1 really needs regardless of the rules are at least 5 or 6 teams up at the front all with a good chance of winning.We may have something like that this season.But if the regs had stayed the same i'm sure Ferrari would have won the races up to now. |
|
|
17 Apr 2005, 10:11 (Ref:1280151) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
A control tyre won't improve racing. It will make the aerodynamics more important. Of course, tyre testing will be far less important. But the saved money will be spend a other posts.
A restriction on testing is also useless. By a further testing restrictions teams will have to invest in expensive, advanced simulation technology. |
||
|
17 Apr 2005, 10:26 (Ref:1280176) | #16 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,291
|
Forcing the aero to be far simpler would be a very good thing, as the "gain" from developing it would be much less, so at the moment lets say the Ferrari aero gives it a 3 second pure advantage over Minardi. If you remove many of the components, and reduce the amount of winglets, the advantage would be less.
This would help racing, but might not help cost cutting, maybe in the long term, but in the short term it would mean having to redesign the entire aero on a car. |
||
|
17 Apr 2005, 10:39 (Ref:1280198) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,049
|
1 Pitstop per race with 10 guys performing the stop for BOTH cars (reduces manpower and wages for the extra 6-10 guys per stop).
12 Testing Days, of which half can be taken DURING the season. Any tests outside the 12 must be used with a PlayStation or X Box. V10 Engine with a 18K RPM limit. |
||
__________________
You Know I'm a good Bloke |
17 Apr 2005, 13:53 (Ref:1280385) | #18 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 772
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
17 Apr 2005, 14:38 (Ref:1280414) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,193
|
Salary cap for drivers and engineers.
|
||
__________________
Think, then act. Don't act, then think. -Jamie Hyneman |
17 Apr 2005, 14:51 (Ref:1280423) | #20 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,727
|
If you want to cut costs, you should make new rules which set a cap on the amount of money spent.
If you want to bring the speed down, you should make new rules which somehow bring the speed down. If you want to improve safety, you should make new rules which directly improve safety. -------------- If you start by saying that you want to improve safety, than announce a set of rules which "will bring the speed down" (saying that that will improve safety), and introduce a set of rules which only makes it unsafe to drive through corners at the old speeds (hoping the teams will react by bringing the speed down), there is obviously something wrong. So when introducing new rules, it is very important to state within that rule *why* the new rule is introduced. That will make it much simpler to act if some team acts "against the spirit of the rules", or "legally within the rules, but in fact against the spirits of the rules". -------------- Also, when introducing new rules which might heavilly change the results, it might be good to decide beforehand exactly what you want: - a sport which includes the best drivers? - a sport which includes the best teams? - a sport which includes both the best drivers and the best teams? - a sport which brings the best races? - a sport which gives the spectators at the circuit a spectacular race? - a sport which gives the TV-spectators a spectacular race? - a sport which brings the sponsors a lot of exposure? - a sport which brings the teams a lot of exposure? - a sport which brings the racers a lot of exposure? - a world championship, with races all around the world? - a sport which has a lot of races at the traditional places? - a sport with drivers from all over the world? - a sport with drivers from the traditional countries? - a sport with drivers from the richest countries? - a sport with drivers from the most populated countries? - ... As long as you don't know what you want, it doesn't make much sense to just change the rules hoping that it will somehow magically result into something which happens to be exactly what you apparently wanted from the start (whatever that is) ... |
|
|
17 Apr 2005, 16:11 (Ref:1280485) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,744
|
The control tire issue is obviously significant. It doesn't sound like it will ever happen. What if instead the tire manufacturers had to submit 6-8 compounds at the start of the year. They would each be given an old car eg. F2003 and told to hire a driver and test however they like. That would force the tire manufacturers to spend the money, but not the teams. Test millage for teams could then be enforced.
Reduce aero the proper way, by reducing wing area. Go back to venturi tunnel undertrays and mandate the geometry of it. That would result in teams having the ability to mess with say half the aero equation and make competition closer. If the competition is closer, perhaps less despirate measures will be taken with R&D. |
||
__________________
No Rotor, No Motor. |
17 Apr 2005, 21:34 (Ref:1280698) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Stop changing the rules every five minutes would be a good place to start I think..Am I right in saying that they are introducing V8's from next year? To be honest I am not sure that there should be any cost cutting measures in F1.
Last edited by JeremySmith; 17 Apr 2005 at 21:36. |
||
|
17 Apr 2005, 21:39 (Ref:1280702) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,809
|
A fun way to cut costs, and to improve the racing, is for all sponsorship money to go to the FIA.
The FIA could then dole it out in equal amounts to the teams. With draconian penalties for anyone going over budget - the FIA would audit all team accounts. So it would not matter who got most sponsorship, the teams would each get 10% anyway. We'd then see who the best team genuinely was... |
||
__________________
Birmingham City FC. Founded 1875. League Cup Winners 2011. |
17 Apr 2005, 23:44 (Ref:1280761) | #24 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16
|
Hi some good points above and thought i would add some thoughts. I believe that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport and shouldn't be turned into a spec formula.
1)Tyres. Although it is looking likely that a control tyre won't be the case in the near future the idea does have so many merits. Removing the 'tyre wars' would reduce testing amounts and control year on year increases in car speeds. From the point of view of the spectator, they are oblivious as to whether the driver has spec A or spec B tyres etc. 2)Distribution of funds. In my opinion these rules were drafted in a backlash against the recent ferrari domination. However with Ferrari receiving a greater proportion of funds from the FIA, then this is a perpetuating situation that might only get worse. By sharing the wealth more equally would enable the teams to perform better against Ferrari. 3)Stability. When the rules are changed it is generally those that have the greatest resources to meet the challenges that profit. The situation is made worse when the rule changes are made late and leave insufficent time to design new cars. Introduce a 12 month freeze on rule changes before an given season. 4)Aerodynamics. Not sure that the progressive removal of aerodynamic design freedom is good because it just encourages the teams to go away and claw back the downforce loses. As a flipside as the downforce decreases the drag usually does likewise and straightline speeds may increase. A large percentage of the teams budgets must go on running the wind tunnels. All those at the top and middle of the grid run their tunnels 24 hours a day with 3 shifts of engineers/technicians. These costs on top of the enourmous costs of running the tunnels (think moving tonnes of air at 70mph+) must be crippling...and i read somewhere that Williams now have 2 top line tunnel??? Only suggestion would be to limit teams to a certain number of bodywork packages throughout the year perhaps but this is going against the principle of total freedom? Any ideas? |
||
|
18 Apr 2005, 01:56 (Ref:1280821) | #25 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 374
|
1. Control tires.
2. Engine suppliers must supply at least two teams with current spec engine. 3. Flat bottom cars (limits aero) 4. No electronics. None. Nada. Manual clutch/shift. 5. Car "as launched" at beginning of year cannot have bodywork chgs during season. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
V8 Supercars - Cost Cutting | Peter Nightingale | Australasian Touring Cars. | 43 | 14 May 2006 13:38 |
EJ on cost cutting in F1 - "disillusioned " | Super Tourer | Formula One | 23 | 21 Feb 2004 16:45 |
Carly down to 1 car, despite new cost cutting regs | pink69 | Touring Car Racing | 3 | 22 Jul 2002 18:43 |
Why cost cutting measure's will never work..... | Super Tourer | Formula One | 2 | 4 Mar 2002 13:53 |
Cost Cutting In The Shell Rounds. | darren | Australasian Touring Cars. | 2 | 5 Jul 2001 11:35 |