PDA

View Full Version : How to achieve cost reductions: Serious suggestions



Tallgeese
25th February 2009, 19:20
I reckon that the problems with regard to lack of over-taking can be resolved by reverting to the pre-2003 pointing system, that is to award the top-six finishers (10-6-4-3-2-1) but without putting so much money at stake (& hence more cautious driving) cost-cutting should be treated as a related but separate priority.

I say that the following things must be done:

F1 chassis design must last 32-36 races (two seasons) with modifications being allowed during that time. It seems that the R&D & construction efforts should be spread out over a longer-season frame. As I see it, the 2008 aerodynamic regulations need not be changed much, with present bodywork & appendages remaining. Likewise, with the current engine rule (x2 races) & a standard F1 gearbox (x4 races) & present regulations on aerodynamics (standard front/rear wings) should produce the dramatic cost reductions required.

Garry Walker
25th February 2009, 21:15
We need to change rules every year and waste over 50 million dollars for introducing idiotic devices that are not needed at all (hint - KERS), then standardize them for the season after. That`s the way to go.

CNR
25th February 2009, 21:34
do they need to have 2 to 3 new cars per year why not 8 to 10 cars in one build run then that is it for the year. (allowing for replacements for unrepairable cars using the same car plans)

Tallgeese
25th February 2009, 21:47
I support KERS, I just don't think that it was the right time to introduce it or the correct approach. A standard KERS? I don't know, I don't like it any more than a standard engine.

wedge
25th February 2009, 23:59
F1 chassis design must last 32-36 races (two seasons) with modifications being allowed during that time.

Interesting idea but how would one enforce this? How does say a B-spec chassis (and so forth) not be classed as a new chassis?

The only way to drastically reduce costs would be to turn F1 a spec series. That is not would want F1 to be. The present regs are fine.

Ranger
26th February 2009, 03:31
Changing the rules every year makes R&D costs skyrocket. If there was any stability these costs would be much less.

ArrowsFA1
26th February 2009, 07:00
1 The 2.4-litre, 19,000rpm V8 engines are expensive even though they are required to last two race meetings and their specification is theoretically frozen. I suggest they knock 2,000 revs off the maximum permitted engine speed and allow the teams until the eve of the first race to reoptimise only the ancillaries and electronics. Then they must be used for four races. The fans donít care about the revs.
2 Teams do 30,000km of testing a year with no spectators. F1 exists for the TV audience and the media coverage and anything that doesnít add to the show needs a line through it. Ban testing outside of the Friday and Saturday of grand prix weekends. This will help the smaller teams compete and they will all save a fortune. Allow limited preseason and high-speed straight-line testing to ensure safety and reliability of the cars.
3 At the end of the first race and again in mid-season, all cars must be made available to all teams for close inspection, measurement and photography. This will keep the competition closer and dissuade stratospher-ic spending on wind tunnels and computers.
4 Reduce the allocation of dry tyres from 14 to eight sets per race weekend. So many tyres travel the globe, are mounted and then used for just a few miles.
5 Share common components and consumables. We have a standard supply of tyres, why not extend that to brakes, gearbox, wheel hubs and fixings, to name just a few? These items will never gain the sport one spectator. Savings will not fully apply until 2010.
6 Limit the total number of team personnel at the race track to, say, 50. Limit pitstops to eight crew.
7 Consider postponing Kers. The regulations for 2009 include incorporating Kers (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) devices that store otherwise wasted braking energy, converting it into power. Having saved the teams Ä5m with the engine freeze, developing this new technology costs much more. Toyota are not running it initially but BMW and others are keen. The smaller teams are wholly dependent on expensive hand-me-downs from the manufacturers. It may be too late to make full savings.
8 F1 generates huge revenues in sanction fees, TV rights, trackside advertising and corporate hospitality. Much less than half flows back to the F1 teams and virtually none filters into grassroots or junior level. With capped costs and a guaranteed increased income, the 12 F1 franchises would become very attractive, generating full grids and further economies of scale. With the likes of Jenson Button on the market and an enormous pool of young and fast emerging talent, driver retainers will be self-regulating. Teams will quickly regulate other labour costs.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article5298985.ece

PolePosition_1
26th February 2009, 09:15
Martin Brundle suggested have cars open to inspection after the first race and mid season, so that it would discourage teams from spending millions on finding 0.1s because their secrets would be open to everyone mid season, discourage huge expenditure. And those who did wish to spend that amount of cash on small developments, at least the poorer teams wouldn't be as disadvantaged.

PSfan
26th February 2009, 09:37
Martin Brundle suggested have cars open to inspection after the first race and mid season, so that it would discourage teams from spending millions on finding 0.1s because their secrets would be open to everyone mid season, discourage huge expenditure. And those who did wish to spend that amount of cash on small developments, at least the poorer teams wouldn't be as disadvantaged.

Yah great idea... for 2 races a year we'll have the special olympics of motor racing, where the teams bring the most dumbed down versions of their cars to the race so the other teams don't borrow their ideas...

Not suprised this stupid idea came from Brundle... probably got the idea from McLeran...

PolePosition_1
26th February 2009, 09:53
Yah great idea... for 2 races a year we'll have the special olympics of motor racing, where the teams bring the most dumbed down versions of their cars to the race so the other teams don't borrow their ideas...

Not suprised this stupid idea came from Brundle... probably got the idea from McLeran...

You honestly believe the teams would be willing to bring a crap car and lose out on valuable points so teams don't see their cars?

Anyhow, it'd be quite easy to make sure the teams didn't do that if the Stewards inspected the cars and teams had to justify any 'downgrades'.

PSfan
26th February 2009, 10:16
You honestly believe the teams would be willing to bring a crap car and lose out on valuable points so teams don't see their cars?

Why wouldn't they keep some of their better kept secrets at home for 2 races a year. The can probably maintain an advantage for years with the right technical break-through


Anyhow, it'd be quite easy to make sure the teams didn't do that if the Stewards inspected the cars and teams had to justify any 'downgrades'.

Really? think that will work... how many times did ferrari revert back to the no hole in the nose config? how about the races when one of the ferrari's ran with the shark tale, and the other didn't. You don't think explanations could be made for simplified versions at some races?

PolePosition_1
26th February 2009, 10:30
Why wouldn't they keep some of their better kept secrets at home for 2 races a year. The can probably maintain an advantage for years with the right technical break-through



Really? think that will work... how many times did ferrari revert back to the no hole in the nose config? how about the races when one of the ferrari's ran with the shark tale, and the other didn't. You don't think explanations could be made for simplified versions at some races?

Considering last 2 years championships have been decided by 1 point, I can't see many teams decided to bring a car to a race weekend in hope of keeping its secret, only for it to cost them a championship worth millions and millions.

wedge
26th February 2009, 11:59
Yah great idea... for 2 races a year we'll have the special olympics of motor racing, where the teams bring the most dumbed down versions of their cars to the race so the other teams don't borrow their ideas...

Not suprised this stupid idea came from Brundle... probably got the idea from McLeran...

That idea was actually a bit of a joke in the wake of the spy scandal.

Sonic
26th February 2009, 20:04
Perhaps not a serious idea but hear me out.

The problem comes IMO in if a team is restricted on spending in one area assuming they have the funds available they will simply spend it elsewhere.

So to get around that how about taking the teams ability to make their own commercial deals away? Instead of team sponsors we could have championship sponsors - one for each team competing - stumping up a set budget per year. The sponsors would then be allocated randomly to each team.

Teams would then spend the funds in whichever way they see fit. On drivers, car development, wind tunnels etc. but as the funds are in a FIA controlled accounts once its gone its gone.

The sponsors would be rotated each year so that each one gets a fair exposure at the sharp end of the grid.

Tallgeese
27th February 2009, 17:29
Perhaps not a serious idea but hear me out.

The problem comes IMO in if a team is restricted on spending in one area assuming they have the funds available they will simply spend it elsewhere.

So to get around that how about taking the teams ability to make their own commercial deals away? Instead of team sponsors we could have championship sponsors - one for each team competing - stumping up a set budget per year. The sponsors would then be allocated randomly to each team.

Teams would then spend the funds in whichever way they see fit. On drivers, car development, wind tunnels etc. but as the funds are in a FIA controlled accounts once its gone its gone.

The sponsors would be rotated each year so that each one gets a fair exposure at the sharp end of the grid.


I don't disagree but I'd say that sponsorship cannot be rotated.

As I see it, one engine x2 races (1,000km including race weekends) will optimise engine development to go to the distance, & one chassis-design to last x2 seasons (32-36 races) will mean that constructors must optimise the car to be as flexible as possible. Personally I don't like any of those regulations or what's going on, but hey, someday I hope it becomes sustainable enough someday to beef up the regulations.

What is the point of cost-cutting? Well not only to make F1 more competitive for all teams but sustainable in general for sponsors. Everybody who has extra money to spend will spend it elsewhere (i.e. aerodynamics) as the engine freeze meant very little money could be placed in R&D. As we all saw, the radical aero profiles of (say) Ferrari, McLaren-Mercedes, BMW Sauber & even Renault were in part as they had more money to test it. Had the engine freeze not been on, they probably would have put more money into more power.

In limiting testing teams such as Ferrari, McLaren-Mercedes & BMW Sauber will not have any place to put that extra money & that would enable constructors such as Renault, Toyota, Williams, Red Bull, Toro Rosso?, Force India & the ؟Honda? outfit to catch up. Quite how far this amounts to 'dumbing down' F1 remains to be seen but it could be done to promote other areas of R&D (KERS perhaps?) for constructors to gain an advantage.