The madness of unneccessary F1 costs.

[JeremySmith]

Money can be saved according to this report ..
I seem to remember a gentleman by the name of Max Mosley that had the same idea ..

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns29966.html

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Money can be saved according to this report ..
I seem to remember a gentleman by the name of Max Mosley that had the same idea ..

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns29966.html

McKinsey and Company don't exactly have a track record that one should really shout about, or certainly not the reports that I have read in the past. They have often written studies on companies or public bodies and have "shown" that considerable savings could or should be made. However, very often it was only McKinsey and Company that benefited from following up the report, and in many instances costs actually rose solely because of the structures put in place by McKinsey.

The same can be applied to many other "consulting" firms such as McKinsey and Company, Accenture being just one of them. I speak from personal knowledge about at least one firm that I have not mentioned, but the cap still fits.

[JeremySmith]

Mike I take your word for it .
Not wishing to sound like a smart ass what do you think should be done to stop the arms war ?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Mike I take your word for it .
Not wishing to sound like a smart ass what do you think should be done to stop the arms war ?

Sorry, I probably didn't explain myself clearly. I do believe that F1 needs to adopt cost cutting measures, but I don't think that re-writing the rules every five minutes is the answer, nor a wholesale revamp of the regulations.

The last few years have seen some very expensive changes in the regulations which have culminated in the introduction of the new power-units. I would suggest that in the short to medium term that there should be a moratorium on the development of those power-units as well as on updated chassis. Then they should ban all telemetry, and all electronic driver aids such as adjustable engine mapping.

Having dispensed with electronic aids, there would no longer be any need for the army of electronics' engineers and associated "boffins" which are now present at both the circuits and back at the teams' bases. Ban all automatic or semi-automatic gearboxes along with the flappy paddles, and while we are about it, remove the radio communications with the driver. Along the way, having got rid of all the driver aids which were supposed to be already outlawed but which aren't really, we can resort to having a steering wheel which is just used for that purpose, and the driver can then actually concentrate on driving. Who knows, there may even be fewer crashes at the starts of the races.

F1 needs stability. We have a set of rules and regulations, and they should stay in place with the exceptions laid out above for some years to come. The only over-riding changes would be introduced when it is proven beyond doubt that it is being introduced for purely safety reasons. I would also ban wind-tunnels, along with simulators; they both suck up huge amounts of financial resources, and without them, nobody gains an advantage. Instead, I would suggest that very limited testing be allowed on the day after each Grand Prix (maybe two days), and in view of this, there should be at least a fortnight between races.

Lastly (at the moment; I'm sure that I could come up with some more ideas if I put my mind to it), simplify the hospitality units that have become de rigueur in the paddock, and which cost an absolute fortune to build, maintain and provide services. Chuck out all the posers and z-list "celebrities", and if they want to be seen in the paddock, let them pay not the teams; most of them have plenty enough money to pay their own way. F1 doesn't owe them anything.

[mikuni]

I agree with most of that, except I would leave paddle shift and car to pit radio, simply because I think the radio does provide a very interesting aspect for viewing.

Paddle shift is neither here nor there, and going with your first paragraph about status quo, I believe it would be far cheaper and easier to retain it. Plus the majority of road cars have a variation on it now anyway, so it would be a backwards step for the public perception of F1 to lose something as fundamental as paddle shift.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by mikuni

I agree with most of that, except I would leave paddle shift and car to pit radio, simply because I think the radio does provide a very interesting aspect for viewing.

Paddle shift is neither here nor there, and going with your first paragraph about status quo, I believe it would be far cheaper and easier to retain it. Plus the majority of road cars have a variation on it now anyway, so it would be a backwards step for the public perception of F1 to lose something as fundamental as paddle shift.

I appreciate that some might think that removing the paddle shift to be a retrograde step; however, there is reasoning behind my suggestion. The current gear changing arrangements require sophisticated electronics and likewise sophisticated hydraulics to operate. Both are expensive to provide, are equally expensive to maintain and, if you look at the DNFs over the last few seasons one, the other or sometimes both, have been the cause for those failures to complete the races. And by eliminating them from the cars and returning to a mechanical system, we will hopefully increase reliability and close down another avenue for potential cheating. And it's dirt cheap in comparison with what we have now.

The majority of the radio chatter that is broadcast is mostly inane nonsense, and will possibly only interest those with now true knowledge of motor racing. The TV directors only choose what they consider to be interesting, and as it is delayed by an unknown amount of time, it usually has no relevance to the picture that the viewers are watching. And again, it hands back the responsibility for driving the car and bringing it to the finish to the driver.

Another cost saving, easy to introduce, would be to only allow one dry and one wet compound and structure per race, and only one set of tyres per car per race, except in the case of a puncture or a wet/dry race. This would save a considerable amount of money, and, if one considers racing from the past, if they could race from start to finish on one tyre, then with modern manufacturing processes, why the hell can't Formula 1 do it now. It certainly would have far more relevance to road going cars; I would certainly expect my car to travel for more than 60 or so miles on a set of tyres. In the sixties, and I know that I really shouldn't try to compare with current F1, I used to use one set of tyres for a whole season, and that was for testing, practice, qualifying and the races, about 20 per year.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I appreciate that some might think that removing the paddle shift to be a retrograde step; however, there is reasoning behind my suggestion. The current gear changing arrangements require sophisticated electronics and likewise sophisticated hydraulics to operate. Both are expensive to provide, are equally expensive to maintain and, if you look at the DNFs over the last few seasons one, the other or sometimes both, have been the cause for those failures to complete the races. And by eliminating them from the cars and returning to a mechanical system, we will hopefully increase reliability and close down another avenue for potential cheating. And it's dirt cheap in comparison with what we have now.

The majority of the radio chatter that is broadcast is mostly inane nonsense, and will possibly only interest those with now true knowledge of motor racing. The TV directors only choose what they consider to be interesting, and as it is delayed by an unknown amount of time, it usually has no relevance to the picture that the viewers are watching. And again, it hands back the responsibility for driving the car and bringing it to the finish to the driver.

Another cost saving, easy to introduce, would be to only allow one dry and one wet compound and structure per race, and only one set of tyres per car per race, except in the case of a puncture or a wet/dry race. This would save a considerable amount of money, and, if one considers racing from the past, if they could race from start to finish on one tyre, then with modern manufacturing processes, why the hell can't Formula 1 do it now. It certainly would have far more relevance to road going cars; I would certainly expect my car to travel for more than 60 or so miles on a set of tyres. In the sixties, and I know that I really shouldn't try to compare with current F1, I used to use one set of tyres for a whole season, and that was for testing, practice, qualifying and the races, about 20 per year.

I'm not too sure about getting rid of paddle-shift, it's been around for quite a while now, as has the technology and as was mentioned it's starting to be implemented in road cars but I'm all in favour of a change regarding the tyres.

The number of compounds is ridiculous, what's wrong with a hard and a soft compound and leave it at that? The whole option tyre thing came from Champ Car and has been adopted by F1 but as with a lot of things that F1 adopts it's been made overly complex. I might be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if part of the problem with the exploding tyres, was due to the many compounds being made and not enough time spent testing them all thoroughly.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Sorry, I probably didn't explain myself clearly. I do believe that F1 needs to adopt cost cutting measures, but I don't think that re-writing the rules every five minutes is the answer, nor a wholesale revamp of the regulations.

The last few years have seen some very expensive changes in the regulations which have culminated in the introduction of the new power-units. I would suggest that in the short to medium term that there should be a moratorium on the development of those power-units as well as on updated chassis. Then they should ban all telemetry, and all electronic driver aids such as adjustable engine mapping.

Having dispensed with electronic aids, there would no longer be any need for the army of electronics' engineers and associated "boffins" which are now present at both the circuits and back at the teams' bases. Ban all automatic or semi-automatic gearboxes along with the flappy paddles, and while we are about it, remove the radio communications with the driver. Along the way, having got rid of all the driver aids which were supposed to be already outlawed but which aren't really, we can resort to having a steering wheel which is just used for that purpose, and the driver can then actually concentrate on driving. Who knows, there may even be fewer crashes at the starts of the races.

F1 needs stability. We have a set of rules and regulations, and they should stay in place with the exceptions laid out above for some years to come. The only over-riding changes would be introduced when it is proven beyond doubt that it is being introduced for purely safety reasons. I would also ban wind-tunnels, along with simulators; they both suck up huge amounts of financial resources, and without them, nobody gains an advantage. Instead, I would suggest that very limited testing be allowed on the day after each Grand Prix (maybe two days), and in view of this, there should be at least a fortnight between races.

Lastly (at the moment; I'm sure that I could come up with some more ideas if I put my mind to it), simplify the hospitality units that have become de rigueur in the paddock, and which cost an absolute fortune to build, maintain and provide services. Chuck out all the posers and z-list "celebrities", and if they want to be seen in the paddock, let them pay not the teams; most of them have plenty enough money to pay their own way. F1 doesn't owe them anything.

Sounds like something I wrote a few months ago, welcome to the bandwagon.

[wnut]

Meanwhile back to reality:

"But as Auto Motor und Sport correspondent Michael Schmidt reported late on Tuesday, the body ultimately decided "that nothing is decided".
It means any rules revolution almost certainly cannot now be introduced before 2017."

and outrageous costs will still be the order of the day

"Schmidt said proposals to significantly reduce costs also foundered on Tuesday, as "everything remains the same" for now.
He reports that Lotus, Force India and Sauber - F1's vociferously struggling midfield teams - proposed that they be allowed to collaborate and share standard components, with "one doing the wind tunnel testing, another making the suspension, the third the transmission".
"The big teams refused," said Schmidt.


http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns29969.html


Essentially the costs that suit the big teams stay as a barrier of entry to the lesser teams.

[wolfhound]

I think if the 3 teams do not get satisfaction maybe they should move en block to the WEC it would certainly be worth investigating.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I think if the 3 teams do not get satisfaction maybe they should move en block to the WEC it would certainly be worth investigating.

Set up a break away series with sensible rules that promote actual racing, start negotiating with free to air broadcasting, and they can go to France, Germany, Argentina, Mexico, India, Portugal and South Africa for a start. Sure their will be a heap of other suggestions too.

Fraction the price double the spectacle, not owned by bankers.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Set up a break away series with sensible rules that promote actual racing, start negotiating with free to air broadcasting, and they can go to France, Germany, Argentina, Mexico, India, Portugal and South Africa for a start. Sure their will be a heap of other suggestions too.

Fraction the price double the spectacle, not owned by bankers.

I wouldn't bother with India, Cricket is King and no one in India seems particularly bothered about the loss of the Indian GP.

[chillibowl]

how would you go about getting places like Monaco to sign up for the rival or similar series?

[jee]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

how would you go about getting places like Monaco to sign up for the rival or similar series?

The same way Tony George/IRL got races like Long Beach from CART, compete the Top Dog until it dies.

This rival series could start with races on many dropped F1 or the better grade 2 tracks.

They could of course not start with the Indy 500 equivalent, but they could try to compete for the core fanbase which are in the established racing countries.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by jee

The same way Tony George/IRL got races like Long Beach from CART, compete the Top Dog until it dies.

This rival series could start with races on many dropped F1 or the better grade 2 tracks.

They could of course not start with the Indy 500 equivalent, but they could try to compete for the core fanbase which are in the established racing countries.

The IRL initially raced only on ovals, so I would think the equivalent would be a predominantly European based series, racing on those tracks and countries that Bernie has discarded because of the fan base, plus an Australian and South American race.

[VIVA GT]

I agree with most of what Mike has suggested above apart from the paddle shift issue.
Although it needs complicated electronics & hydraulics to operate it, it not only has relevance to many road cars (and I do think road relevance is important, despite how tenuous it may be), it also is a reliability/cost cutting aid.
I appreciate that some would argue that mechanically selecting gears through a lever in a (sort of) H pattern (but for seven gears, so that'd be a double H pattern!), but the risk of over-revving one of these fantastically costly new engines by inadvertently downshifting two extra gears would be a big issue!

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by jee

The same way Tony George/IRL got races like Long Beach from CART, compete the Top Dog until it dies.

This rival series could start with races on many dropped F1 or the better grade 2 tracks.

They could of course not start with the Indy 500 equivalent, but they could try to compete for the core fanbase which are in the established racing countries.

Yes and it's all but killed open wheel racing in the USA ..

[mikuni]

Yes, while a breakaway series has a certain romantic ideology around it, all it would do is dilute both series and by around 2020 both would fold, only to restore a half hearted attempt at F1, similar or worse than it is today.

We've just seen this unfold down here in New Zealand with our national touring car series' over the last few years and ultimately, everyone loses out. Most though, the fans.

[JeremySmith]

Again I feel that there is not that much wrong with F1 that some * stabilty* in the rule making department PLUS some real leadership shown by the FIA rather than acting like an *innocent* bystander.. Last but not least some darn good promotion..

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Again I feel that there is not that much wrong with F1 that some * stabilty* in the rule making department PLUS some real leadership shown by the FIA rather than acting like an *innocent* bystander.. Last but not least some darn good promotion..

Jeremy, I think the major problem with F1 is that Bernie sold it to the banks for a fortune that F1 is paying for, and it is run to the benefit of 4 teams to the detriment of the rest.

Perhaps if there was European break away series Bernie and his mates would be forced to negotiate a better deal to bring the rebels back into F1, there may also be compromises that result in better racing,

[bjohnsonsmith]

This is an interesting article. The smaller teams wish for sharing of major car parts, including the monocoque.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117821

[chillibowl]

im not sure i quite understand.

FI, Sauber, and Lotus would collectively build a chassis together? im not sure what the framework of such a union would look like.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im not sure i quite understand.

FI, Sauber, and Lotus would collectively build a chassis together? im not sure what the framework of such a union would look like.

I interpret to mean that they would like to have the ability to purchase the "core" of the car from any of the other constructors, e.g. Ferrari or Mercedes. The purchasing team would be responsible for the body, though, as well as wings etc. In some respects, it would be a similar arrangement as at present whereby teams are allowed to use other teams' power-units and running gear.

If this was to lead to a lowering of costs for the blunt end of the grid, then I can see no problem in allowing the proposal.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im not sure i quite understand.

FI, Sauber, and Lotus would collectively build a chassis together? im not sure what the framework of such a union would look like.

If approved I assume any team who wishes to be involved could work out the details. It likely would be some level of committee design and shared budget (with a lower overall cost for those involved).

Overall I have mixed feelings. I am first and foremost a fan of teams solving problems on their own, but I also see nothing wrong with "voluntary" parts sharing and VERY limited "spec" parts. Lastly, I don't think a complete car should be able to be purchased (or shared) between teams. Each team should still be constructing the final car (even if using some shared or spec parts). And the article just talks about an core monocoque (a concept I could get behind).

I don't think this would be the death knell of the constructors concept as I think it will likely continue to be an independent constructor that is not doing much in the way of parts sharing that will win the championship. This assumption (in my mind) will only hold true as long as you have large players like Ferrari, etc. in the mix. If the sport was to suffer a catastrophic exit of those players then it would likely result in "kit car" style players rising to the top of the heap.

I am sure this gives someone like Williams heartburn as they seem to be on the razors edge of either being a front runner that is leaving the midfield behind, or just another midfield player. They recently have broken free (on their own) from that midfield pack and don't want them to have any new help catching back up.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I interpret to mean that they would like to have the ability to purchase the "core" of the car from any of the other constructors, e.g. Ferrari or Mercedes. The purchasing team would be responsible for the body, though, as well as wings etc. In some respects, it would be a similar arrangement as at present whereby teams are allowed to use other teams' power-units and running gear.

If this was to lead to a lowering of costs for the blunt end of the grid, then I can see no problem in allowing the proposal.

In the article it states, ''They ( the teams) want to create the idea of a 'core car' - where major components such as the monocoque are jointly developed and shared between them.'', nothing about purchasing a ''core'' car. Teams would then individually develop wings and other bodywork so each team had a different looking car, a bit like the aero-kits Chevy and Honda are designing for IndyCar.