€150 Cost cap proposed by liberty
Discussion
Munter said:
Not if it's not suitable for other teams to actually use. A Brake disk that Williams could genuinely buy, sure, no problem crack on. An aero part that would only work on the Ferrari F1 car due to the aero all having to work together. No chance.
What's this £50k bill for?
Part from another Ferrari subsidiary.
How much did it cost them to research, design and build it?
£200m
And you paid £50k for it?
Yes
And it's not really suitable for any other team is it?
No
You just paid £200m for it and got excluded. Have a good day.
I am being slightly flippant with my example. My point remains that the teams have very, very smart people and we would likely have 2-3 years of appeals as each loophole is removed.What's this £50k bill for?
Part from another Ferrari subsidiary.
How much did it cost them to research, design and build it?
£200m
And you paid £50k for it?
Yes
And it's not really suitable for any other team is it?
No
You just paid £200m for it and got excluded. Have a good day.
You can't cover every scenario with the rules.
I think it will help, but I don't think it could be the great leveller.
Vaud said:
I am being slightly flippant with my example. My point remains that the teams have very, very smart people and we would likely have 2-3 years of appeals as each loophole is removed.
You can't cover every scenario with the rules.
I think it will help, but I don't think it could be the great leveller.
I sort of agree with you. But I don't think it's going to be as easy to get around as people think. Assuming Liberty do it properly and they have people embedded in the teams looking at all income, all the costs, and following up on suppliers of everything, be it data/info or physical.You can't cover every scenario with the rules.
I think it will help, but I don't think it could be the great leveller.
I don't know if €150m is the right number though. We still want them to be cutting edge machines I'd have thought.
Liberty has to start somewhere and this is just a starting point, they'll be lots of fine tuning before they get something to put on the table, there is another proposal out there, I believe this one is the one F1 racing has seen. Whether €150m is a workable number I don't know, it's a starting point as is the €50m but at least [new]teams will know the absolute minimum they are due before they start and can write their business models around that, I like the fact they're given x amount as a starter and anything over that that they find through sponsorship is a bonus, could you go f1 racing for €100m assuming no sponsors, how much does a season cost, I don't know, again the numbers might need adjusting but the principle is right
Munter said:
I sort of agree with you. But I don't think it's going to be as easy to get around as people think. Assuming Liberty do it properly and they have people embedded in the teams looking at all income, all the costs, and following up on suppliers of everything, be it data/info or physical.
I don't know if €150m is the right number though. We still want them to be cutting edge machines I'd have thought.
The cars are only marginally faster than GP2, but $150million is about 50 times the cost of a GP2 season. What is currently being spent is simply bonkers.I don't know if €150m is the right number though. We still want them to be cutting edge machines I'd have thought.
They are not cutting edge, or road relevant. Just mega expensive, missing 3-teams from a full grid and not actually as exciting as they should be.
Liberty are on the right track.
If they gave them FIA spec front and rear wings and said no other aero add-ons, they wouldn't need to spend anywhere like the amount they currently do. So much money is wasted on aero and it just harms the racing first by ensuring the following car is at a disadvantage and also the smaller teams can not compete
I don't get the proposal. You raise $50m in sponsorship and get $100 from Liberty. If you win, you get $70m in prize money. But next year you can only spend $150m so what to you do with the $70m, just bank it? Where's the reward for success if you can't use the prize money to improve your team?
HustleRussell said:
You have to try to understand the politics under the surface, are you really going to exclude Ferrari when they cheat, for instance? Would have been entirely unthinkable under Ecclestone.
Would Ferrari, Mercedes or Renault dare to be found cheating? Fining McLaren $100million for Spygate did not wound them, at the time. But being excluded from competing the following year, is so severe it should be an effective deterrent. Remember when Toyota were found cheating in WRC, they withdrew for a couple of decades.Bear in mind that the current regs are designed to equalise, that is the Formula. Currently, only those teams with a massive budget and 1000+ engineering staff are the ones capable of winning. They achieve this by exploiting loopholes in the regs. In every other form of sport, this is regarded as cheating. When Russia return to top level athletics, I am certain they will be chastened.
A decent set of regs from Ross Brawn's team, backed by the FIA, with a severe penalty for cheating is the best way of levelling the playing field. Are we really happy for teams to dominate for year after year? This year seems refreshing because we have moved from a monopoly to a duopoly. Every other team, including Red Bull, are effectively "also-rans". That has to be wrong.
Huge budgets and terms like "road-relevance" are only ever likely to give us dominant teams.
Fernando, at the drivers briefing last Thursday, said how refreshing it was at the Indy race to have absolutely no idea who would win the race. He went on to say that the top-15 places in qually and the top-15 in the race, are usually known (to the teams, through simulation) before the race even starts.
Change is desperately needed; hopefully, it is on its way. F1 needs to move into the 21st Century and get the right balance for exciting entertainment and something that any average viewer is able to immediately recognise as a top-level sport.
As before when spanky was pushing the agenda I can't see how you effectively police it.
If panasonic sponsor team y and also supply them batteries and assoc elec motors etc then the price they charge can become contentious, and what do liberty propose, demanding a team of accountants and engineers audit panasonics books and reasearch facilitates?
Seems a dead cert for a load more bickering, allegations and upset IMO.
If panasonic sponsor team y and also supply them batteries and assoc elec motors etc then the price they charge can become contentious, and what do liberty propose, demanding a team of accountants and engineers audit panasonics books and reasearch facilitates?
Seems a dead cert for a load more bickering, allegations and upset IMO.
Sa Calobra said:
Non story even though I'd love to see basic wide bodied V12's screaming around.
The cars are complex. Just building and maintaining one is $$$$.
Plus you have the rule changes every season. Abolish them for a start then.
Basic hybrid is here to stay, if at a lower complexity that before. The cars are complex. Just building and maintaining one is $$$$.
Plus you have the rule changes every season. Abolish them for a start then.
rdjohn said:
Would Ferrari, Mercedes or Renault dare to be found cheating? Fining McLaren $100million for Spygate did not wound them, at the time. But being excluded from competing the following year, is so severe it should be an effective deterrent. Remember when Toyota were found cheating in WRC, they withdrew for a couple of decades.
Bear in mind that the current regs are designed to equalise, that is the Formula. Currently, only those teams with a massive budget and 1000+ engineering staff are the ones capable of winning. They achieve this by exploiting loopholes in the regs. In every other form of sport, this is regarded as cheating. When Russia return to top level athletics, I am certain they will be chastened.
A decent set of regs from Ross Brawn's team, backed by the FIA, with a severe penalty for cheating is the best way of levelling the playing field. Are we really happy for teams to dominate for year after year? This year seems refreshing because we have moved from a monopoly to a duopoly. Every other team, including Red Bull, are effectively "also-rans". That has to be wrong.
Huge budgets and terms like "road-relevance" are only ever likely to give us dominant teams.
Fernando, at the drivers briefing last Thursday, said how refreshing it was at the Indy race to have absolutely no idea who would win the race. He went on to say that the top-15 places in qually and the top-15 in the race, are usually known (to the teams, through simulation) before the race even starts.
Change is desperately needed; hopefully, it is on its way. F1 needs to move into the 21st Century and get the right balance for exciting entertainment and something that any average viewer is able to immediately recognise as a top-level sport.
You ask if Ferrari, Merc and Renault would risk being found to be cheating. The unequivocal answer is yes. We have many examples of at least the first and last in that list doing just that. Bear in mind that the current regs are designed to equalise, that is the Formula. Currently, only those teams with a massive budget and 1000+ engineering staff are the ones capable of winning. They achieve this by exploiting loopholes in the regs. In every other form of sport, this is regarded as cheating. When Russia return to top level athletics, I am certain they will be chastened.
A decent set of regs from Ross Brawn's team, backed by the FIA, with a severe penalty for cheating is the best way of levelling the playing field. Are we really happy for teams to dominate for year after year? This year seems refreshing because we have moved from a monopoly to a duopoly. Every other team, including Red Bull, are effectively "also-rans". That has to be wrong.
Huge budgets and terms like "road-relevance" are only ever likely to give us dominant teams.
Fernando, at the drivers briefing last Thursday, said how refreshing it was at the Indy race to have absolutely no idea who would win the race. He went on to say that the top-15 places in qually and the top-15 in the race, are usually known (to the teams, through simulation) before the race even starts.
Change is desperately needed; hopefully, it is on its way. F1 needs to move into the 21st Century and get the right balance for exciting entertainment and something that any average viewer is able to immediately recognise as a top-level sport.
This goes from the dark ages until (possibly) now - let's not mention HAAS testing bits.
But what threat is there with regards elimination from the following year's season. Say if - and I pick them because we all know they wouldn't dream of cheating - RB are caught in flagrante delicto. Could they be kicked out? At the moment the answer is no, because the grid would be reduced by four cars, and that's at least.
It is a sad fact of sport and life that if it isn't policed, there are no rules. Look at Benetton and the removal of the safety 'valve'. Schumacher is seen as too valuable to the sport, at least for Germany, so they get severely told off. I mean, really severely. That's a classic case. The very quick refuelling stops were being commented on by all and sundry, but nothing was done. It took an incident that could have shut the sport down for the FIA to do anything. Or do I mean nothing. Tyrrell, on the other hand, was not worthy of such consideration.
As for Alonso still stirring after all the years, perhaps that little speech was down to the fact that in F1 we know that a McLaren won't win. I wonder if he sees LH as a shoe-in for the next race.
If a cost cap could be policed in Formula 1 we would already have one.
How can costs be capped when every team has a different level of extant operational facilities? For example, Force India outsource most of their manufacturing, composite work and aero testing. Ferrari and Mercedes do (nearly) all of these thing in-house, using facilities already owned by themselves or subsidiary companies. How can the costs be compared? Ferrari and Mercedes manufacture engines and ancillaries, and supply these to other teams. The unit cost of the internal combustion engine to Mercedes differs from the cost at which exactly the same ICE is provided to Williams and Force India. Haas recently tried Carbone Industrie brakes, because their drivers have had problems with Brembos. Would Carbone Industrie be compelled to supply their brake components at the same price as Brembo?
Some teams have their own wind tunnel, some have more than one. Some do not have their own tunnel, and (as is the case with Force India) they use the Toyota tunnel in Cologne. When Ferrari and McLaren had "correlation" problems, with on-track results differing from the wind tunnel, they too rented time at the Toyota tunnel while repairing and recalibrating their own. How would that be costed?
A Cost Cap is a blunt instrument, and Formula 1 has too many variables. A Cost Cap would only work if cars were constructed from the same off-the-shelf components from the same supplier, and everybody started with the same level of facilities and equipment.
How can costs be capped when every team has a different level of extant operational facilities? For example, Force India outsource most of their manufacturing, composite work and aero testing. Ferrari and Mercedes do (nearly) all of these thing in-house, using facilities already owned by themselves or subsidiary companies. How can the costs be compared? Ferrari and Mercedes manufacture engines and ancillaries, and supply these to other teams. The unit cost of the internal combustion engine to Mercedes differs from the cost at which exactly the same ICE is provided to Williams and Force India. Haas recently tried Carbone Industrie brakes, because their drivers have had problems with Brembos. Would Carbone Industrie be compelled to supply their brake components at the same price as Brembo?
Some teams have their own wind tunnel, some have more than one. Some do not have their own tunnel, and (as is the case with Force India) they use the Toyota tunnel in Cologne. When Ferrari and McLaren had "correlation" problems, with on-track results differing from the wind tunnel, they too rented time at the Toyota tunnel while repairing and recalibrating their own. How would that be costed?
A Cost Cap is a blunt instrument, and Formula 1 has too many variables. A Cost Cap would only work if cars were constructed from the same off-the-shelf components from the same supplier, and everybody started with the same level of facilities and equipment.
Liberty are trying to look forward. They are assembling their talented Police force now. In comparison, the blazered FIA stewards of yore were woodentops playing Politics.
They are now offering a franchise and guaranteeing $100million upfront each year, plus prize money. That will interest other racers as they will genuinely be able to compete. So,if there are 26-cars, who will miss a year from any team who have been caught blatantly cheating.
Charlie just does not have the resources to do that job thoroughly. The trick front suspensions are a good example of what was wrong. The cars are scrutineered and not subjected to a detailed audit. It's reasonable to conclude that RB and Mercedes have been cheating and been getting away with it. Good drafting of regulations will prevent such ambiguities happening in the future.
Lotus were once top of the pile, they sank without a trace., simply because they ran out of cash, just like Manor, Caterham and HRT did. It was not as though their cars were crap, they simply could not raise sufficient funds to be on a level playing field with Sauber. That was how Bernie engineered it to be.
The sport needs some sensible rules and sound governance. Bernie and his Pirannah club are gone.
They are now offering a franchise and guaranteeing $100million upfront each year, plus prize money. That will interest other racers as they will genuinely be able to compete. So,if there are 26-cars, who will miss a year from any team who have been caught blatantly cheating.
Charlie just does not have the resources to do that job thoroughly. The trick front suspensions are a good example of what was wrong. The cars are scrutineered and not subjected to a detailed audit. It's reasonable to conclude that RB and Mercedes have been cheating and been getting away with it. Good drafting of regulations will prevent such ambiguities happening in the future.
Lotus were once top of the pile, they sank without a trace., simply because they ran out of cash, just like Manor, Caterham and HRT did. It was not as though their cars were crap, they simply could not raise sufficient funds to be on a level playing field with Sauber. That was how Bernie engineered it to be.
The sport needs some sensible rules and sound governance. Bernie and his Pirannah club are gone.
Dermot O'Logical said:
If a cost cap could be policed in Formula 1 we would already have one.
How can costs be capped when every team has a different level of extant operational facilities? For example, Force India outsource most of their manufacturing, composite work and aero testing. Ferrari and Mercedes do (nearly) all of these thing in-house, using facilities already owned by themselves or subsidiary companies. How can the costs be compared? Ferrari and Mercedes manufacture engines and ancillaries, and supply these to other teams. The unit cost of the internal combustion engine to Mercedes differs from the cost at which exactly the same ICE is provided to Williams and Force India. Haas recently tried Carbone Industrie brakes, because their drivers have had problems with Brembos. Would Carbone Industrie be compelled to supply their brake components at the same price as Brembo?
Some teams have their own wind tunnel, some have more than one. Some do not have their own tunnel, and (as is the case with Force India) they use the Toyota tunnel in Cologne. When Ferrari and McLaren had "correlation" problems, with on-track results differing from the wind tunnel, they too rented time at the Toyota tunnel while repairing and recalibrating their own. How would that be costed?
A Cost Cap is a blunt instrument, and Formula 1 has too many variables. A Cost Cap would only work if cars were constructed from the same off-the-shelf components from the same supplier, and everybody started with the same level of facilities and equipment.
Wind tunnel work is severely limited already. I would not expect that to be changed.How can costs be capped when every team has a different level of extant operational facilities? For example, Force India outsource most of their manufacturing, composite work and aero testing. Ferrari and Mercedes do (nearly) all of these thing in-house, using facilities already owned by themselves or subsidiary companies. How can the costs be compared? Ferrari and Mercedes manufacture engines and ancillaries, and supply these to other teams. The unit cost of the internal combustion engine to Mercedes differs from the cost at which exactly the same ICE is provided to Williams and Force India. Haas recently tried Carbone Industrie brakes, because their drivers have had problems with Brembos. Would Carbone Industrie be compelled to supply their brake components at the same price as Brembo?
Some teams have their own wind tunnel, some have more than one. Some do not have their own tunnel, and (as is the case with Force India) they use the Toyota tunnel in Cologne. When Ferrari and McLaren had "correlation" problems, with on-track results differing from the wind tunnel, they too rented time at the Toyota tunnel while repairing and recalibrating their own. How would that be costed?
A Cost Cap is a blunt instrument, and Formula 1 has too many variables. A Cost Cap would only work if cars were constructed from the same off-the-shelf components from the same supplier, and everybody started with the same level of facilities and equipment.
There are ways to enforce compliance to a reasonable level. Nothing is perfect but if there's a will, then it is possible.
All the 'cost cap' is is a way of measuring, in this case by cost, of the team's preparation of a car.
There will never be anything like a level playing field. There was never any desire for it. Ferrari was given an advantage via the regs. The big teams were given other advantages. Competition from new teams was limited, almost eliminated. It was just as if the FIA wanted an unbalanced grid.
If a price cap is introduced then there will be a certain compliance by the teams. It will have to be more than lip service if Liberty mean to change things. If they get a full grid, even prequalifying - remember those days? - then the threat of penalties will become real. At the moment the teams have a certain power over the legislators. They can now threaten to run off with the ball.
Other teams, maybe more from the USA, will come knocking even if it is, in the short term, sill unequal. That's when the grandees might feel the pinch.
No team should be on the grid by right. It would be shame if Ferrari left, and they might if merit is rewarded, but if there's another team to fill the gap, who really cares? I was shocked when Lotus went but F1 went on.
rdjohn said:
Munter said:
I sort of agree with you. But I don't think it's going to be as easy to get around as people think. Assuming Liberty do it properly and they have people embedded in the teams looking at all income, all the costs, and following up on suppliers of everything, be it data/info or physical.
I don't know if €150m is the right number though. We still want them to be cutting edge machines I'd have thought.
The cars are only marginally faster than GP2, but $150million is about 50 times the cost of a GP2 season. What is currently being spent is simply bonkers.I don't know if €150m is the right number though. We still want them to be cutting edge machines I'd have thought.
They are not cutting edge, or road relevant. Just mega expensive, missing 3-teams from a full grid and not actually as exciting as they should be.
Liberty are on the right track.
Bottas: 1:28.769
Leclerc: 1:38.907
In Spain:
Hamilton: 1:19.149
Leclerc: 1:29.285
In Monaco:
Raikonnen: 1:12.178
Leclerc: 1:19.309
I have said before that each team should be given enough money to cover the basic costs of taking part in the series, how you calculate that is a different matter! However it would seem that one would be looking at the current budget for Sauber, Force India etc.
They would then be able to go and get sponsors to increase their budget. This would still mean the big teams being able to outspend their rivals but at least the resources being spent would be generated by their efforts rather than history or at the expense of their smaller rivals.
They would then be able to go and get sponsors to increase their budget. This would still mean the big teams being able to outspend their rivals but at least the resources being spent would be generated by their efforts rather than history or at the expense of their smaller rivals.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff