[Rules] Bernie wants customer cars for new teams, for their first three seasons

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

What's your view on customer cars now Marbot? I know you were in favour of them.

The problem with customer cars is that which I have stated before. They will allow 'newcomer' teams to jump up the rankings by doing nothing on merit.

SFW stopped the last customer car deals going through (Prodrive), because he said that it would be unfair for someone to come in and buy a Ferrari, McLaren or Red Bull chassis, and then watch them build up their infrastructure while he had to spend his money solely on trying to beat the newcomers kit cars.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The budget cap was thought to be unenforceable.

So it's strange that they think the RRA should work.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

I'd just love to see a budget cap that's the same for all. 40M, that's it. Done. Do the best you can with it.

The creme SHOULD rise to the top, so your Ferrari's and the likes complaining about it shouldn't be complaining, it should be another test for them that they should be able to overcome what with their vast experience in the sport.

Selby

How are you able to enforce it and how do you know if a team only spent 40 million?

Marbot: They will allow 'newcomer' teams to jump up the rankings by doing nothing on merit.

Yes, because Ferrari are really going to give their competitor a car their equal.

SFW stopped the last customer car deals going through (Prodrive), because he said that it would be unfair for someone to come in and buy a Ferrari, McLaren or Red Bull chassis, and then watch them build up their infrastructure while he had to spend his money solely on trying to beat the newcomers kit cars.

Then make the Williams car go faster. I know this is a novel concept in motorsport...

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

How are you able to enforce it and how do you know if a team only spent 40 million?

finding out how much a team spends is relatively easy...finding out before they win a championship is the problem. maybe a system of fines and penalties including bans from future championships would work. presumably the penalties would have to be so severe that teams would think twice about short term violations. its not perfect though.

additionally this would work better if teams were involved in F1 for long enough for the penalties to mean anything to them. Mclaren ate a 100mil penalty because they wanted to remain in F1...i cant see a customer team caring as much.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

finding out how much a team spends is relatively easy...

No it's not. There are off-the-book payments. Work could be outsourced and the FIA would have no way of knowing the real costs that went into designing something. You could have sponsors that give the team a smaller amount of money than previously planned but they cover part of the engineering and driver costs which would reduce the amount the team pays. (e.g. Instead of main sponsor giving a team $20 million, they give them $10 million, cover a driver's salary outside the realm of the F1 team $5 million, and then throw $5 million to an engineering staff as a "bonus".) Our sports in the U.S. are largely ran on salary caps and they have a large number of loopholes.

maybe a system of fines and penalties including bans from future championships would work.

Anyone that thinks F1 would ban McLaren or Ferrari from competing in future championships raise your hand.

[chillibowl]

the world of forensic accounting might not be as glamorous as F1 but it is quite refined. these are massive corporations with every deposit being accounted for in bank accounts and every payment issued via a company cheque and additionally being reported as an income or expense to their local tax authorities. for them to be making off the book payments would suggest that they (and their suppliers) are not only defrauding any RRA agreements but also the country which they operate in. they may bend the rules but they are hardly criminal organizations.

given enough time every penny they have ever received or spent can be accounted for and if they dont have invoices or their records are not kept in an open manner they get fined.

but you are right, the most serious penalty is one they would never impose on a top team.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

they may bend the rules but they are hardly criminal organizations.

i just reread my post and am a bit embarrassed by how naive i must have sounded there!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The problem with customer cars is that which I have stated before. They will allow 'newcomer' teams to jump up the rankings by doing nothing on merit.

So far, you have always been supportive for the standardization process. That position contrasts with the above statement: if the big budget teams cannot use their resources for performances gains, the small budget teams will jump up the rankings by just doing nothing on merit.

So it's strange that they think the RRA should work.

Do they? In the past two years there has been controversy about whether or not Red Bull complied with the rules set by the Resource Restriction Agreement. More recently, two teams left FOTA and are no longer bound by that agreement.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

How are you able to enforce it and how do you know if a team only spent 40 million?

They seem to think that they can enforce the RRA, so why not police something that is far more effective. Remember that the budget cap rules only enforced the spending on the car, and not much else.

Forensic accounting (as pointed out elsewhere) is also a very high tech way of keeping things in check.

Even if you couldn't say that any team had spent exactly 40 million, you would still have something that is much fairer than we have now.

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Yes, because Ferrari are really going to give their competitor a car their equal.

It would probably be a legal version of their previous seasons car. But even that car would be superior to anything that some mid field teams could come up with for the year after.

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Then make the Williams car go faster. I know this is a novel concept in motorsport...

Why should Williams spend £80m on their own car when there are tried and tested cars out there that only require a fraction of the money spent on them.

Then you have the problem of who is buying what car and with whose money. I'm not too sure that Red Bull would be keen to sell a car to a third party with funds provided by Ferrari.

It all gets rather complicated in the end, when the real problem is that some teams are still spending far too much money.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

So far, you have always been supportive for the standardization process. That position contrasts with the above statement: if the big budget teams cannot use their resources for performances gains, the small budget teams will jump up the rankings by just doing nothing on merit.

Standardization with regard to things like Suspension uprights, etc, is not the same as handing over a complete chassis to a newcomer team.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Do they? In the past two years there has been controversy about whether or not Red Bull complied with the rules set by the Resource Restriction Agreement. More recently, two teams left FOTA and are no longer bound by that agreement.

This is because some teams are unwilling to allow outside agencies to look at their accounts. More of which we shall hear of later on in the season.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Standardization with regard to things like Suspension uprights, etc, is not the same as handing over a complete chassis to a newcomer team.

In the past decade a number of the main components, such as the aerodynamics, engines, electronics and tyres, were standardized or 'equalized'. As divergence is almost outlawed, teams are close to using the very same chassis.

This is because some teams are unwilling to allow outside agencies to look at their accounts. More of which we shall hear of later on in the season.

Indeed they do not. Why is that? Because they did not comply with the rules set by the Resource Restriction Agreement? Or is it, because enforcing the rules would require a Soviet-like interference?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but you are right, the most serious penalty is one they would never impose on a top team.

McLaren know how lucky they were to get only a $100,000,000 fine. But the main point was to make the team look dishonest (as indeed it was), which can have far more damaging effects than a huge fine or a ban.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In the past decade a number of the main components, such as the aerodynamics, engines, electronics and tyres, were standardized or 'equalized'. As divergence is almost outlawed, teams are close to using the very same chassis.

Name one manufacturer in F1 today that isn't happy that it's not spending 50% of its budget on engine performance. But I do know that I can tell you how happy they all are that the 2014 engine regulations are what they are, because they would never have agreed to any of them without the majority of them being set in stone.

People like PURE don't want the rug being pulled from under their feet when they're half way through developing a four cylinder turbo engine and then are told it's going to be a V6. What would have been even worse is that they could have been told that they could have any configuration of engine that they liked, but then they'd better hope that someone builds a chassis for it to fit into, some time in 2013.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Indeed they do not. Why is that? Because they did not comply with the rules set by the Resource Restriction Agreement? Or is it, because enforcing the rules would require a Soviet-like interference?

No probs if you have nothing to hide.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The problem with customer cars is that which I have stated before. They will allow 'newcomer' teams to jump up the rankings by doing nothing on merit.

Fair enough. I thought you were in strongly favour of it before.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Great discussion.

BR, you raise a valid point. I don't want to see more teams having to move aside for the bigger team they brought the chassis from, because let's face it, team orders are now legal. Also with the restrictions, it means newer teams would just be handed a pretty competent chassis that's basically completely up to standard of the midfielders, which isn't really fair for any of the other midfield teams.

Also, as mentioned, if the RRA can 'work', why couldn't a cap work?

Could you not have delegates from the FIA working for each team overseeing all expenditure?

Plus, as was also mentioned, the cap is only for the spending on the car itself, not anything else.

Selby

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Fair enough. I thought you were in strongly favour of it before.

Perhaps there could be two separate championships? One for the factory run cars and another for the 'customer' teams?

MotoGP will be running a system of claiming rules teams (CRT) this season, which basically allows production based motorcycles to race with the prototypes and also allows them other benefits like more fuel during the race and more engines per season. Essentially, it's a two tier championship.

The rules are fairly long winded, but are something that could be implemented by many series, should they find themselves in the dire state that MotoGP has.

http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/168...ming_rule.html

MotoGP is also of the mind that the CRT bikes will be a full time replacement for the prototype bikes in the near future.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Name one manufacturer in F1 today that isn't happy that it's not spending 50% of its budget on engine performance.

Marbot, that is actually a very easy one: Ferrari.

People like PURE don't want the rug being pulled from under their feet when they're half way through developing a four cylinder turbo engine and then are told it's going to be a V6. What would have been even worse is that they could have been told that they could have any configuration of engine that they liked, but then they'd better hope that someone builds a chassis for it to fit into, some time in 2013.

If Formula 1 serious about innovation in the engine department, it should regulate the chassis instead of the engine.

No probs if you have nothing to hide.

Why do not they let the FIA run all teams then?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Marbot, that is actually a very easy one: Ferrari.

Even Luca di Montezemolo understands that costs must be cut if F1 is to survive.

His latest 'battle cry':

"If Formula One still wants Ferrari it must change and go back to being at the cutting edge of research, while always keeping an eye on costs."

I'm sure that Mr Philip Morris agrees with him wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If Formula 1 serious about innovation in the engine department, it should regulate the chassis instead of the engine.

What engine(s)?

You see, this is the thing. Car manufacturers are moving on from the internal combustion engine, but motorsport isn't. Indeed it has been said that motorsport will be the last bastion of the internal combustion engine.

I dare say that most F1 fans wouldn't be at all pleased with what the teams would have in store for them if the engine regulations were left open. I think that even the 2014 engine regulations don't really tell the full story of which direction most car manufacturers are heading in. We should think ourselves lucky that they have come up with a reasonable compromise.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Why do not they let the FIA run all teams then?

Why not. It's their championship.

[Bononi]

Oh poor Philip Morris.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Even Luca di Montezemolo understands that costs must be cut if F1 is to survive.

His latest 'battle cry':

"If Formula One still wants Ferrari it must change and go back to being at the cutting edge of research, while always keeping an eye on costs."

I'm sure that Mr Philip Morris agrees with him wholeheartedly.

The quote stated above does not support your statement that no team "isn't happy that it's not spending 50% of its budget on engine performance". It is perfectly possible to reduce costs and make teams spend half of their budget to engine development. In fact, if the development of all components except the engine will be banned, all resources will be spend on engine development.

What engine(s)?

You see, this is the thing. Car manufacturers are moving on from the internal combustion engine, but motorsport isn't. Indeed it has been said that motorsport will be the last bastion of the internal combustion engine.

I dare say that most F1 fans wouldn't be at all pleased with what the teams would have in store for them if the engine regulations were left open.

We do not know, actually. It is not very likely that with open regulations the entire field would use electric motors as the sole mean of propulsion.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In fact, if the development of all components except the engine will be banned, all resources will be spend on engine development.

This is why most regulations are of the technical variety, rather than the straight out limiting of budgets kind. Because, as we saw with Toyota, you can have a huge budget, but still be caught out on the finer aspects of the sport.

If you had maybe said to Toyota that all of the chassis will be of equal performance, and all that you need spend money on is the engine, then it's quite possible that Ralf Schumacher and Jarno Trulli would have been multiple world champions by now.

Having said that, an overall budget of £40m would have certainly sorted out the engineers from the idiots.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

We do not know, actually. It is not very likely that with open regulations the entire field would use electric motors as the sole mean of propulsion.

It may be that some of the less well off teams will have to make do with an old V12 Ferrari engine. Oh bum!

[wolfhound]

Bernie now wants a budget cap.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97969

If we have a budget cap thenthere would be no need for smaller teams to use other teams chassis.
Mind you Bernie has been bouncing a few ideas recently, could it have anything to do with concorde negotiations?

[Bononi]

After all, Bernie, after all...

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

This is why most regulations are of the technical variety, rather than the straight out limiting of budgets kind. Because, as we saw with Toyota, you can have a huge budget, but still be caught out on the finer aspects of the sport.

If you had maybe said to Toyota that all of the chassis will be of equal performance, and all that you need spend money on is the engine, then it's quite possible that Ralf Schumacher and Jarno Trulli would have been multiple world champions by now.

Having said that, an overall budget of £40m would have certainly sorted out the engineers from the idiots.

That would not have been necessary. As the cases with BMW, Toyota, Honda and even McLaren prove: teams with a small budget - albeit in relative terms - can beat the bigger teams.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

That would not have been necessary. As the cases with BMW, Toyota, Honda and even McLaren prove: teams with a small budget - albeit in relative terms - can beat the bigger teams.

I think that it was Keith Duckworth (Cosworth) who said that: "A good engineer can make for $1 what any idiot can make for $100."

I'd like to see that being put to the test in real terms. Because, at the end of the day, it's no good continuing to develop a technology on an F1 car, if you only got around the problems you had with it by coating it in a thick layer of Gold or some other precious metal.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

But in this day and age of business, business, business, what will be the incentive for a team like Force India for example (a very competent team) to run their own car?

Why should they have to? Formula One shouldn't have to be a place where every team has to do all of the things by themselves. It wasn't that way up until the tobacco sponsorships made it possible, and even then it wasn't the only way. Ligier were basically given a Benetton in 95 and didn't win a race. Sauber were given Ferrari's old cars and didn't win races. It's not a guarantee, but it IS a great relief , and I 'd argue that it's as pure a notion as there is in Grand Prix racing.