Can costs be cut in F1?

[manwell]

Ive just been thinking about all the talk of cost cutting in Formula 1 and im wondering if its actually possible.
I mean if they can cut costs with smaller engine sizes and if they limited testing wouldnt the larger teams still have a whole lot of money left over to spend?
Im thinking that if the costs are cut, eventually that will lead to the smaller teams being able to catch up to the larger ones right?
But wont the emphasis then be on drivers and designers?
Depending on how much costs can be cut, would the 10's or even 100's of millions of dollars saved just go into better personell?
Will the best drivers like Shumacher, Raikkonen and Montoya be paid even more by the bigger teams so they stay with them?
Will the desigers like Adrian Newey, Mike Gascoyne and Rory Byrne start getting the salarys that the current drivers are getting to make sure the big teams have the best designers and engineers?

What do you guys think?

[climb]

Good point manwell,
actually, every sport discipline needs a pinnacle, ie a "no limits" zone where no effort is saved to improve constantly.

Attempts to limitate costs are always destined to fail, cos money can be spent in a million ways, and it's not possibile to rule them all off.

Maybe something is possible, but only via a radical revolution, not by changing single rules.

[onfullnoise]

NO , & why should they be cut, this formula is about EXCELLENCE ,& we all know what team currently wears this award....

[ASCII Man]

Minardi?

[Hungary 89]

I've had a thought about this cost cutting lark

As you have said if the top teams have the money they are going to want to spend it

So how about freezing the design of the cars until your competitiveness (or lack of) requires some development to the car.

In other words no doubt Ferrari will start next season with a car that is class of the field so they are then stuck with that car, no developments, no aerodynamic tweeks they must race that exact design whilst they lead the championship

Where as Minardi as Tail end charlies have absolute freedom on development ( but there own budget constraints will hold them back)

Now behind the scenes Ferrarri can continue to spend trillions on development but they cannot introduce any of these developments until they loose the lead in the championship

Perhaps we could also scale the extent of the development to the championship position ie if you are 2nd or 3rd then only minor tweeks are permissible but if you are last you can introduce a whole new car

I realise this is only a fledgling idea but in principle with a bit of thought it might actually work

(doubt it will ever happen though)

[onfullnoise]

It really is about time FORD got the message , they of later years have not contributed anything to F1 , only forever complaning about no wins & increasing costs ,it is about time they got off the merry-go round..

[dtype38]

Thought Ford just got off the merry-go-round :confused:

Anyway, I like Hungary 89's line of thought, but not sure that it would make much difference to the dominance of the top teams. If the red and silver cars are frozen even for a whole year, then all that budget will be spent on next year's car and they will come out of the blocks so far advance of the black and yellow stuff that the status quo will probably be undisturbed. I saw Frank Williams being interviewed and he said striaght out that they will find good use for all their sponsor money regardless of Max's restrictions. For example, if all testing were banned, they'd just spend all the testing money on better simulation software and wind tunnel work etc.

For me the key to allowing the lower teams to complete is allowing them to innovate. With more and more restrictive rules, progress can only be made in the detail and that's expensive. If the rules were relaxed it leaves more room for radical design and innovation, which isn't necessarily expensive, but a much riskier strategy. Lower order teams might then come up with a modern version of ground effect, or a fan car or the like and leap frog the top teams. So if, say, aerodynamic aids were made completely free within certain limits (needed for stuctural integrity and things like the ability to safely refuel the car) then Minardi might have a designer with a great idea for active wings and suddenly pop them up the front of the grid.

Can't see the top teams agreeing though.... might just break their monopoly at the front

[qaz]

The bigger teams will always find more ways to spend their money to get an advantage.I think action will only be taken when a few teams fold.dont like the idea of 3 Ferrari`s getting 1,2,3 week in week out though.

[Armco Bender]

No, because Bernie pockets 50% of the "costs".

[Hungary 89]

Dtype38

You are probably right that my suggestion would not see Jordan's or Minardi's suddenly winning races but it would allow BAR's Renaults and possibly Saubers closer to the front end. which would make individual races more interesting.

But championships would probably remain largely unchanged
which is the way it should be the big teams always will win the championship I just want to see some interesting races in the process.

With respect to your comments I would also like to see more inovations allowed but the big teams with there huge budgets will just copy them within one race

[Red]

You can't cut the costs period. The teams will spend every single penny of the budget no matter what FIA regulates, and noone can control "budgets".

PS: BAR and Renault should be able to win races because they did a better job than the rest. A rule that "freezes" design of the top cars is as illogical as the qualifying format supposed to "shuffle the grid to increase entertainment". Besides, it would be useless too, BAR and Renault will still spend all their available cash, leaving Jordan and Minardi at same 5 seconds per lap slower. Ferrari will still develop a new car even though the rules wouldn't allow to race it.

[dtype38]

Maybe the rule makers should remember one very important aspect of F1. That it must be allowed to push the limits of motor vehicle design in every area, and muct not be strangled by a rule book. The cars we can buy for the road now have better fuel economy, better aerodynamics, better handling, traction control, ABS, etc, etc., all mainly down to manufacturers and top race teams trying to develop faster more reliable race cars. Surely they must be allowed to make radical steps forward in F1 or, as Murray Walker once said, we would have "the rediculous situation of our family car being more technically advanced that an F1 car" !

[RWC]

f1 needs a total,from the ground up overhaul.Nothing else will do in the long run.

As for cutting costs specifically (but not doing much else as proposed by those who pretend to 'run' f1) i agree wholeheartedly with most of you.The big teams will allways find a way to spend.

A first good step would be to officially drop the 107% rule.
Mad max-How can you say that you want to cut costs yet you deliberately wont even change the rule that FORCES them to spend a minimum amount??

[BootsOntheSide]

Something has to be done to change things. F1 is increasingly becoming a manufacturer's playground and not a competitive sport. Was the Ryder Cup won by the continent with the best golf club technology?

Ultimately, Minardi spend 1/10 of the budget but get 95% of the speed - who is really succeeding here? Does it make any sense for so much money to be pumped into the sport?

[Kicking-back]

The issue with budgets is not the cost of being up front - it's the cost of competing at all.

If the rules make it possible to compete in F1 for £20 million a year, that will attract a bigger grid.

The top teams will still spend big budgets, but cutting costs means we won't end up with a grid of just 4 cars!

[Dick Spanner]

If the teams (all of them) had stuck together and carried out their threat of setting up their own race series freezing Bernie (and the FIA where possible) the opportunities for saving money (or at least getting more to spend) would have been huge. TV revenues more fairly split and equally distributed among the teams along with revenue from trackside advertising etc. New more affordable contracts for all the circuits new and old.

The teams will still try and raise as much sponsership as possible and will continue to spend it all but if all the teams were receiving an extra wad the "minnows" could probably be a damn site more competitive.

Sadly, you'll never get all the teams agreeing on anything so it will remain a wasted opportunity.

[luke]

The day the teams all agree, shall be the day I shall I will run off the edge of the Granhanyan and hope too reach the otherside!

[BootsOntheSide]

Fortunately an easy method of cutting costs has now been found - instead of holding races in Britain, France and Austria, they will be held in Bahrain, China and Turkey.

[429CJ]

Maybe teams will start using Chinese labour.
And pay them some 30 cents per hour.

[Red]

Originally posted by RWC
A first good step would be to officially drop the 107% rule.
Mad max-How can you say that you want to cut costs yet you deliberately wont even change the rule that FORCES them to spend a minimum amount??

Ok, a bit off topic, but I think I lost the plot somewhere, or missed something. For some strange reason I was sure that 107% rule was dropped 2 years ago and I missed the point when it was brought back :confused:

[alesi95]

When F1 is gone it will become pretty clear that its elitsist attitude (the pinicle of motorsport) was it's downfall.

[GP Racer]

Every racing series that I'm interested in, is fighting the same rising cost battle that F1 is, and they cannot cut there costs worth a damn either.

So what makes us think F1 can get it right?

[stoney]

Right, here's where a newbie comes into the forum after having a couple of beers and gets stuff off his chest. And also flamed by everyone in sight for being contraversial! Actually, you guys all seem very reasonable so I doubt it would happen and I don't mean to be contraversial... But I'd like to open up something for debate. The issue of costs in F1 IS an issue. Whilst we need to maintain a pinnacle - it has to be affordable to an extent (i.e. I shouldn't be able to put a team together, but it should be accessible). I remember the F1 Racing website putting the question out about what you would do to solve the cost issue. Here's my answer...

I'd limit each team's budget to £x million, say 20. I've no idea on figures for what it'd cost - so let's stick with x. With this money, you can spend it on whatever you want, but it must cover salaries, development costs and the cost of getting your car through the season. Everything. And you must turn up at every GP. F1 then has series sponsors, who put money into a kitty, which is then divided equally among the teams, tracks, admin, bernies, etc... This is ideally enough to get a basic team to the grid of each race. Then, each team can then extend on this basic allowance through their own sponship to bring it up to the maximum.

Suddenly, you need very trustworthy accountants, but you limit costs - not development.

IMHO and getting off topic, I'd also remove all rules on engine spec, etc... and focus purely on the safety aspect. You want 6 wheels - that's cool, as long as it meets safety requirements. You want a giant wing - that's cool too. Do whatever it takes to get your driver to the end of the race first - as long as it's safe. I think this is where the beer starts to fail in backing a lot of this up or making it practical - but humour me. Or laugh at me. One of the two

Well, I'm off to Nepal on Saturday so won't have much opportunity to respond. I look forward to reading your replies though!

(just as well, having read the preview!)

God bless you all...

[GP Racer]

Nice try stoney, but I just cannot see a top team like Ferrari, or McLaren, and Williams, giving up there spots on top of the podium, for the sake of equality. They could care less about equality, they are there to win, and to spend whatever it takes to do that.

Its up to the other teams to come up to Ferrari's level, its not Ferrari's job to come down a notch so Minardi can win.

If your scenario took hold, the manufacturers would walk away...

[alesi95]

No.

Costs can't be cut.