[Rules] Zak Brown and Changes to F1

[S griffin]

Of course if there is a major recession and car manufacturers need to make cuts, their F1 programme is the one most likely to be cut. Renault did it at the end of 85 and so did Toyota at the end of 09, both times during a financial crisis

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

So as I believe Mr B is alluding, we need to see a total re write of the rules to make sure there is racing. If that means doing away with over complicated engines/eight speed gearboxes, wings, daft floors that are wings and other gubbins, then it will assist the smaller teams.

I think I missed this when I posted above. So I agree with you Peter. I think the sport needs to be simpler. To my point above, this should help reduce the mandatory spend. The bare minimum to get on track. That amount is too high due to complex solutions.

Where I am focused is to prevent the story below.

I will get details wrong, but in mid 2000's in the US there was the SCCA D Sports class of racing. This is club racing. Quick cars, but plus or minus, relatively basic prototype race cars and I believe relatively stable and affordable. A gun named Scott Tucker (now in prison) decided he wanted to win that championship. It became prestigious for him. So he dumped a bunch of money into pushing the envelope on what could be done. His discretionary budget was insanely high. He got what he wanted, but he also changed the face of DSR via the solutions he brought to the class. He killed what had been a relatively affordable and popular class of racing.

I think that story is F1 in a nutshell. The goal of what I am talking about is to stop the Scott Tucker's of this world. Which in F1 is the manufactures and their deep pockets. Caps don't prevent them from participating, but it does prevent them from reaching deep into their pockets to force small teams into being noncompetitive. Noncompetitive teams will struggle to find sponsorship in the best of time.

We have to reduce the cost of entry (so they can participate) AND level the playing field so they are not just token entries.

Richard

[Peter Mallett]

Yes I take your point.

[chillibowl]

im having a hard time following along.

isnt Zak suggesting that budgets need to get reduced even more?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/52175140

'Brown, speaking in an exclusive interview with BBC Sport, believes the $175m (£143m) budget cap, scheduled to come into force in 2021, needs to be lowered significantly, or the sport risks a potential disaster.'

and,

Brown has proposed a limit of $100m (£81.5m) and would be prepared to compromise on $125m (£102m).

He believes that a lower cost cap - with the same exemptions as now, such as driver salaries - would serve to make the field more competitive by reducing the financial advantage of the big teams and give the smaller teams a better chance of achieving good results.

if you agree with Mr. Brown's assessment then surely you must also accept the need for and logic behind budget caps as well as cost controls no? also i dont think he is advocating a re writing of the rules...just a lower budget cap number with the same rules.

also i think he is using 'budgets caps' and 'controlling costs' as synonyms and in this thread people seem to be talking about them as separate things...or at least some sort of chicken vs the eggs situation.

[Peter Mallett]

But you can't lower the costs without reducing the technology. Bare in mind he has to be somewhat diplomatic here.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But you can't lower the costs without reducing the technology. Bare in mind he has to be somewhat diplomatic here.

I agree.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

also i think he is using 'budgets caps' and 'controlling costs' as synonyms and in this thread people seem to be talking about them as separate things...or at least some sort of chicken vs the eggs situation.

I think there are three distinct terms, that are all subtly different but related:

Budget Cap - the maximum amount that a team can spend on its F1 activities. What Brown seems to advocate.

Reducing Costs - making it possible to compete (for results, not just participate) at a lower cost than currently.

Controlling Costs - putting a set of regulations in place that prevents larger budgets from guaranteeing success.

In isolation:

-A budget cap means that whichever team spends that amount the most effectively, and if your budget is not at the cap, you have no chance.
-Reduced costs means that teams with smaller budgets will have occasional success, but the largest budgets will always prevail in the long term.
-Controlled Costs is the hardest to implement. Make it possible to have sustained success with a smaller budget, but allow teams to spend more if they wish but with no guarantee for success.

Currently, budget will eventually outweigh talent. If you cap that, talent can beat budget (provided you have the maximum budget permitted)
Reduced Costs means that talent will occasionally outweigh budget.
Controlled Costs means that talent will regularly outweigh budget.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think there are three distinct terms, that are all subtly different but related:

Well stated. One thing to add.

Reduced Costs - Help maintain the field
Controlling Costs - Help maintain a level playing field.
Budget Cap - Catch all ceiling when Controlling Costs fails (as controlling costs is hard to do).

I think all three can work in unison.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But you can't lower the costs without reducing the technology. Bare in mind he has to be somewhat diplomatic here.

while lower costs would presumably mean less overall areas of technology in the sandbox, that is not the same as saying the areas of technology left to play with under reduced costs or budgets would represent (for lack of a better phrase) a 'net reduction in overall technology' right?

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think there are three distinct terms, that are all subtly different but related:...

im afraid that subtlety is lost on me.

as an accountant, i see all of that as different ways of saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

...I think all three can work in unison.

thats because they are the same thing!

also, i am really really bored so i argue!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im afraid that subtlety is lost on me.

as an accountant, i see all of that as different ways of saying the same thing.

Ha! I did my best to Google and search for appropriate business/accounting terms of crmalcom's definitions.

Budget Cap - This is a tough one as I suspect it is an artificial construct from an economics perspective. I think "spending cap" might be a better term? Either way, I think you know what it is.

Reducing Costs - Working to keep the "fixed costs" as low as possible. Reduce/minimizing the "barriers to entry".

Controlling Costs - Create rules (technical or otherwise) the creates "diminishing returns" on additional investments.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Whether we see them as different ways of saying the same thing or not - those in the paddock do see them as different.

Brown wants to control costs, and advocates a reduced budget cap as a solution.
Horner wants to reduce costs, and doesn't think that a budget cap is the answer.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Ha! I did my best to Google and search for appropriate business/accounting terms of crmalcom's definitions.

that could not have been fun...you must also be bored!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

that could not have been fun...you must also be bored!

I am distracting myself from more productive work!

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Whether we see them as different ways of saying the same thing or not - those in the paddock do see them as different.

Brown wants to control costs, and advocates a reduced budget cap as a solution.
Horner wants to reduce costs, and doesn't think that a budget cap is the answer.

I would have thought it is easier to control costs if there is a budget cap in place.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I would have thought it is easier to control costs if there is a budget cap in place.

Maybe, I'm not an expert in that discipline.

'Red Bull team boss Christian Horner told BBC Sport in an interview last week that the budget cap was "secondary" and that "reducing the cost to go racing" was more important.'

[S griffin]

Of course it could be that Horner’s cars are winning and Brown’s are not is why their solutions are different from each other, but that would be quite a cynical thought

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Maybe, I'm not an expert in that discipline.

'Red Bull team boss Christian Horner told BBC Sport in an interview last week that the budget cap was "secondary" and that "reducing the cost to go racing" was more important.'

Without a budget cap, it would be very tempting to just spend and therefore see costs rise. Horner must be very disciplined.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Maybe, I'm not an expert in that discipline.

'Red Bull team boss Christian Horner told BBC Sport in an interview last week that the budget cap was "secondary" and that "reducing the cost to go racing" was more important.'

I like everyone fit quotes like that into my own reality (aka "my agenda".) I take the Horner quote as meaning...

"reducing the cost to go racing" = Make it easier for small teams to run cars on a very small budget. With "to go racing" being important. That is my "fixed cost" from earlier in the thread. The minimum cost to bring a car to the grid.

Which means, survival of grid is paramount. Second is improving racing (pulling the budgets of the top teams down closer to that of the smaller teams).

I will try to shut up now as I am just repeating myself and likely aggravating some folks.

Richard

[Armco Bender]

The need to take the rules back to 1974.
When you could build an F1 car in your garage and tow it out to the track behind a Transit van.

[S griffin]

And put in a Cosworth DFV in and a Hewland gearbox

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

The need to take the rules back to 1974.
When you could build an F1 car in your garage and tow it out to the track behind a Transit van.

Out of curiosity. Does anyone know of an online repository of older F1 technical and sporting regulations?

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Out of curiosity. Does anyone know of an online repository of older F1 technical and sporting regulations?

Richard

I found this.

http://www.somersf1.co.uk/p/fia-form...gulations.html

[Armco Bender]

And put in a Cosworth DFV in and a Hewland gearbox

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I found this.

http://www.somersf1.co.uk/p/fia-form...gulations.html

Now there’s something I can pass the time with during this lockdown

[Oldtony]

Can the mods transfer this discussion to Historic Racing where it obviously belongs?