Max's Standard Engine Plan Thing
Discussion
Just been poking around Autosport and I found this;
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72324
If I understand this correctly, does this mean that non-manufacturer backed teams i.e. everyone except Ferrari, McLaren, BMW and Toyota and whoever buys Honda will be forced to run the standard Cosworth powertrain, but the factory teams can run whatever the hell they like?
Just another case of the rich get richer, the poor get poorer
Also, sorry if it's a repost!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72324
If I understand this correctly, does this mean that non-manufacturer backed teams i.e. everyone except Ferrari, McLaren, BMW and Toyota and whoever buys Honda will be forced to run the standard Cosworth powertrain, but the factory teams can run whatever the hell they like?
Just another case of the rich get richer, the poor get poorer
Also, sorry if it's a repost!
The intent seems to be to allow manufacturers to continue to make engines of their own if they like - but as they are not allowed to outperform the "spec" Cosworth engine, it's a pointless exercise. You may as well just change the cam covers.
Looks like Max is dividing the manufacturers from the customer teams, dangling the carrot of cheap powertrains under the customer teams' noses, and effectively telling the manufacturers that they can either spend a lot more money on their engines than the rest for no discernible advantage, or join the club.
So - everyone eventually signs up to Max's Mad Plan because you'd be mental not to under those terms.
And as the manufacturers leave, Max can bully the teams around as they are customer teams not affiliated to manufacturers.
Divide and conquer as ever. Will Bernie start trying to set up a breakaway series for manufacturers I wonder?
Looks like Max is dividing the manufacturers from the customer teams, dangling the carrot of cheap powertrains under the customer teams' noses, and effectively telling the manufacturers that they can either spend a lot more money on their engines than the rest for no discernible advantage, or join the club.
So - everyone eventually signs up to Max's Mad Plan because you'd be mental not to under those terms.
And as the manufacturers leave, Max can bully the teams around as they are customer teams not affiliated to manufacturers.
Divide and conquer as ever. Will Bernie start trying to set up a breakaway series for manufacturers I wonder?
Ever since the FIA's '3 choices' on engines was announced, this was on the cards; and what's wrong with Cosworth supplying 3/4 of the grid with engines? It's not exactly an unheard-of phenomenon and, if it gets F1 back to the healthy state of numbers it enjoyed last time there were Cosworths in the back of most cars, then great!
The manufacturer teams can still run their current engines, their power will be measured and that will become their standard output (for want of a better term).
So actually they could still have their own engines and save a bucket load of cash on development, at least until they have 1.8 3 cylinder turbos thrust upon them.
D
So actually they could still have their own engines and save a bucket load of cash on development, at least until they have 1.8 3 cylinder turbos thrust upon them.
D
If Cosworth can produce an engine that cheaply to the current regs and still be competitive against a big manufacturer's engine, why do they need to be tendered to do it?
There surely must be some disparity between Cosworth's rules and the current rules in order to produce parity.. if not now, at least in the future when on the track the performance difference is realised.
There surely must be some disparity between Cosworth's rules and the current rules in order to produce parity.. if not now, at least in the future when on the track the performance difference is realised.
FNG said:
The intent seems to be to allow manufacturers to continue to make engines of their own if they like - but as they are not allowed to outperform the "spec" Cosworth engine, it's a pointless exercise. You may as well just change the cam covers.
Looks like Max is dividing the manufacturers from the customer teams, dangling the carrot of cheap powertrains under the customer teams' noses, and effectively telling the manufacturers that they can either spend a lot more money on their engines than the rest for no discernible advantage, or join the club.
So - everyone eventually signs up to Max's Mad Plan because you'd be mental not to under those terms.
And as the manufacturers leave, Max can bully the teams around as they are customer teams not affiliated to manufacturers.
Divide and conquer as ever.
BINGO! Mosley's game is transparent, as usual.Looks like Max is dividing the manufacturers from the customer teams, dangling the carrot of cheap powertrains under the customer teams' noses, and effectively telling the manufacturers that they can either spend a lot more money on their engines than the rest for no discernible advantage, or join the club.
So - everyone eventually signs up to Max's Mad Plan because you'd be mental not to under those terms.
And as the manufacturers leave, Max can bully the teams around as they are customer teams not affiliated to manufacturers.
Divide and conquer as ever.
I think it's pretty obvious, as least conceptually, how to make the sport more competitive, more affordable, more innovative, more fun, and potentially more relevant to road cars, whilst attracting, not discouraging, the big carmakers. That is, impose an expenses cap whilst opening up the technical formula.
One team could spend the lion's share of its limited budget on the engine, another on aero, and a third on tyres.
By having a cost cap, today's big-spenders would be less at risk of reaching the point where they could no longer afford to compete, and the smaller fry would, if anything, be able to raise more money than currently, both because some sponsorship money would have become unusable by the big teams, and because the smaller teams would in future have a better chance of being competitive than today.
Free up the technology, with all the benefits that that would bring. If there's an issue with the speeds being too high, give the teams a fuel usage cap which constrains Vmax and bend entry speeds, and has obvious "green" benefits.
flemke said:
BINGO! Mosley's game is transparent, as usual.
I think it's pretty obvious, as least conceptually, how to make the sport more competitive, more affordable, more innovative, more fun, and potentially more relevant to road cars, whilst attracting, not discouraging, the big carmakers. That is, impose an expenses cap whilst opening up the technical formula.
One team could spend the lion's share of its limited budget on the engine, another on aero, and a third on tyres.
By having a cost cap, today's big-spenders would be less at risk of reaching the point where they could no longer afford to compete, and the smaller fry would, if anything, be able to raise more money than currently, both because some sponsorship money would have become unusable by the big teams, and because the smaller teams would in future have a better chance of being competitive than today.
Free up the technology, with all the benefits that that would bring. If there's an issue with the speeds being too high, give the teams a fuel usage cap which constrains Vmax and bend entry speeds, and has obvious "green" benefits.
I love the sound of that, but i've never understood how you can limit how much money a team spends, shirley they can be doing r&d but just pass it off as something else, it seems very hard to police the idea, like you said though, it definitely would make it more innovative and fun.I think it's pretty obvious, as least conceptually, how to make the sport more competitive, more affordable, more innovative, more fun, and potentially more relevant to road cars, whilst attracting, not discouraging, the big carmakers. That is, impose an expenses cap whilst opening up the technical formula.
One team could spend the lion's share of its limited budget on the engine, another on aero, and a third on tyres.
By having a cost cap, today's big-spenders would be less at risk of reaching the point where they could no longer afford to compete, and the smaller fry would, if anything, be able to raise more money than currently, both because some sponsorship money would have become unusable by the big teams, and because the smaller teams would in future have a better chance of being competitive than today.
Free up the technology, with all the benefits that that would bring. If there's an issue with the speeds being too high, give the teams a fuel usage cap which constrains Vmax and bend entry speeds, and has obvious "green" benefits.
mchammer89 said:
flemke said:
BINGO! Mosley's game is transparent, as usual.
I think it's pretty obvious, as least conceptually, how to make the sport more competitive, more affordable, more innovative, more fun, and potentially more relevant to road cars, whilst attracting, not discouraging, the big carmakers. That is, impose an expenses cap whilst opening up the technical formula.
One team could spend the lion's share of its limited budget on the engine, another on aero, and a third on tyres.
By having a cost cap, today's big-spenders would be less at risk of reaching the point where they could no longer afford to compete, and the smaller fry would, if anything, be able to raise more money than currently, both because some sponsorship money would have become unusable by the big teams, and because the smaller teams would in future have a better chance of being competitive than today.
Free up the technology, with all the benefits that that would bring. If there's an issue with the speeds being too high, give the teams a fuel usage cap which constrains Vmax and bend entry speeds, and has obvious "green" benefits.
I love the sound of that, but i've never understood how you can limit how much money a team spends, shirley they can be doing r&d but just pass it off as something else, it seems very hard to police the idea, like you said though, it definitely would make it more innovative and fun.I think it's pretty obvious, as least conceptually, how to make the sport more competitive, more affordable, more innovative, more fun, and potentially more relevant to road cars, whilst attracting, not discouraging, the big carmakers. That is, impose an expenses cap whilst opening up the technical formula.
One team could spend the lion's share of its limited budget on the engine, another on aero, and a third on tyres.
By having a cost cap, today's big-spenders would be less at risk of reaching the point where they could no longer afford to compete, and the smaller fry would, if anything, be able to raise more money than currently, both because some sponsorship money would have become unusable by the big teams, and because the smaller teams would in future have a better chance of being competitive than today.
Free up the technology, with all the benefits that that would bring. If there's an issue with the speeds being too high, give the teams a fuel usage cap which constrains Vmax and bend entry speeds, and has obvious "green" benefits.
It's been thought too difficult to police costs (the big problem being cross-subsidies from other activities).
The way I see it, however, the sport is currently spending about $3B a year on all its stuff (and that's not including the nearly $1B that Bernie and friends take off the top).
If we were to cap budgets to $100M/team across 10 teams, so that the teams were spending $1B all together, we'd have a surplus $2B. Of that $2B, $1B in cost savings could be retained by the teams, and we could use the other billion on forensic accounting and systems to police the spending cap. (I'm being facetious - it should cost a small fraction of that, but I think the magnitude of the numbers suggests how this should not be beyond the wit of man.)
The tricky part would probably be the fact that, for something like this to work, as with most regulatory powers, it would rely on the integrity of the FIA.
On second thought...
flemke said:
said some stuff about cost capping
I agree, give all of them x amount of cash each let them get on with it. As part of the entry process they have to provide budgets for the year ahead and all accounts are audited by a 3rd party.The problem is that the teams would easily find a way round it (honestly they would) they would just spend a huge amount of cash covering their tracks.
D
flemke said:
The tricky part would probably be the fact that, for something like this to work, as with most regulatory powers, it would rely on the integrity of the FIA.
On second thought...
Surely not a problem as long as the punishments for infringement includes some form of spanking?On second thought...
The problem is that if the tgeams have the money they will spend it. If they haen't, they wont. Mosley's much vaunted cost cutting exercise with the one engine/two races and the no development unless I let some team or another develop their engine (I couldn't think of a catchy title) was about as much a success as most people expected. From Pitpass.com:
"Several years ago Mosley pledged that freezing engines in 2007 to the previous year's specification would "avoid a great deal of unnecessary expenditure." Likewise, this was the reason for his introduction of the two-race engines in 2005. Yet these expected cost cuts did not transpire. In 2007 McLaren's total costs increased 5.5%, Honda's by 21.9% and Red Bull's by even more."
I'm not one to say 'I told you so' - oh, no. Wait a minute. I am.
I told you so.
There were much simpler methods to cut costs for those who wanted to but while Ferrari, McLaren, Honda, Toyota, et al have lots of money, they'll spend it. Success breeds sponsors, sponsors breed income and income breeds success.
The teams will spend less moneh when they have less money to spend. But if they can't spend it on one thing, they'll spend it on another. Ferrari spent wisely a few years ago by investing in the best personnel they could and built a management team that has been equalled only by, perhaps, Williams and Head. Then they bought the best driver they could. They had lots and lots of money but the management spent it wisely in general and the norm was they were the team to beat.
The trick is to enable teams to have a way into F1 without spending a fortune and also to allow teams a way to compete at some level. It's done in other forulae.
There's only half a dozen cars any year that can win a GP on merit. All the other cars do is to fill the grid with dross. How much better if there was a fomula for cars with last year's engines, transmission and aerodynamics? It would enable the manufacturers to gain some extra money by flogging last year's rubbish - at a fixed price presumably - to those who want to generate some of the skills required for the move up to the big boys.
But that's just one option. It might work. Or, of course, it might be as useless in cutting costs as Mosley's suggestions.
But for me F1 has to be technically led. One engine, transmission etc might make it closer but it wont make it F1.
"Several years ago Mosley pledged that freezing engines in 2007 to the previous year's specification would "avoid a great deal of unnecessary expenditure." Likewise, this was the reason for his introduction of the two-race engines in 2005. Yet these expected cost cuts did not transpire. In 2007 McLaren's total costs increased 5.5%, Honda's by 21.9% and Red Bull's by even more."
I'm not one to say 'I told you so' - oh, no. Wait a minute. I am.
I told you so.
There were much simpler methods to cut costs for those who wanted to but while Ferrari, McLaren, Honda, Toyota, et al have lots of money, they'll spend it. Success breeds sponsors, sponsors breed income and income breeds success.
The teams will spend less moneh when they have less money to spend. But if they can't spend it on one thing, they'll spend it on another. Ferrari spent wisely a few years ago by investing in the best personnel they could and built a management team that has been equalled only by, perhaps, Williams and Head. Then they bought the best driver they could. They had lots and lots of money but the management spent it wisely in general and the norm was they were the team to beat.
The trick is to enable teams to have a way into F1 without spending a fortune and also to allow teams a way to compete at some level. It's done in other forulae.
There's only half a dozen cars any year that can win a GP on merit. All the other cars do is to fill the grid with dross. How much better if there was a fomula for cars with last year's engines, transmission and aerodynamics? It would enable the manufacturers to gain some extra money by flogging last year's rubbish - at a fixed price presumably - to those who want to generate some of the skills required for the move up to the big boys.
But that's just one option. It might work. Or, of course, it might be as useless in cutting costs as Mosley's suggestions.
But for me F1 has to be technically led. One engine, transmission etc might make it closer but it wont make it F1.
Derek Smith said:
But for me F1 has to be technically led. One engine, transmission etc might make it closer but it wont make it F1.
Absolutely. There has got to be genuine technological competition, on a world-class level, and NOT phony competition in a wee niche that's been dreamed up by the FIA to suit its political objectives.The only justification that F1 can have for its claim to be Formula "One" is if it is more advanced than anything else. Without that, it cannot command premium media exposure, the highest circuit fees, the highest sponsorship rates, or the best drivers, or make the claim that the driver with the most of its points is the "World Drivers' Champion".
The way that Spanky is going, with standard drivetrain, then standard dimensions for the chassis, followed by standard aero, we'll have GP1, not F1.
F1 is all about bleeding edge development within the rules. No development, no F1.
If they restrict technology, teams will spend to the n.th degree to exploit what technology that they have. Look at NASCAR, budgets have gone sky high because they are using F1 techniques to exploit every last plough shear to make the cars faster. The have spec body profiles, they have a fairly spec chassis design, they have limits on the engine, though in recent years have allowed bespoke "production 'based' engines" (I say that with tonque in cheek).
While I grew to hate the winglets, and all of the crass aero bits and bobs, chimneys and exhausts that came out near the driver's earholes, F1 was at the pinnacle of aerodynamic development.
The cars now look totally stupid. Just like they did when they went narrow with grooved tyres. Just like they did when ground effect came in, then when it was banned. Just like they did when someone put the engine in the back, and then put ruddy great aerofoils on the back. Just like they did when F1 went to 1500cc engines.
Whatever the rulemakers do, it'll piss us off. There's not much they can do, top flight motorsport is now addicted to exotic materials, and it is those exotic materials that have made the sport much safer for the competitors.
I am pleased to see slick tyres, but again, a single manufacturer deal does nothing for the sport of F1.
What's more, the view that customer cars are not F1, IMHO is wrong. I'd love to see a single privateer Williams powered by a Mercedes V12 running on Pirelli's in the field with mix & match "have a go's" in there. None of this "Pay Mrs Ecclestone $48M" and HAVE to run TWO cars in IDENTICAL paintschemes, etc... I want to see 35 cars turn up on Friday morning, with a qualifying race on Saturday for 25 of them, and 16 of them go through. Where the top 10 in the championship automatically qualify, with 1st place starting in 10th on the grid, 2nd in 9th, etc....
I'll carry on dreaming.
Standard engines? Oi, Mosley - NO!
F1 is all about bleeding edge development within the rules. No development, no F1.
If they restrict technology, teams will spend to the n.th degree to exploit what technology that they have. Look at NASCAR, budgets have gone sky high because they are using F1 techniques to exploit every last plough shear to make the cars faster. The have spec body profiles, they have a fairly spec chassis design, they have limits on the engine, though in recent years have allowed bespoke "production 'based' engines" (I say that with tonque in cheek).
While I grew to hate the winglets, and all of the crass aero bits and bobs, chimneys and exhausts that came out near the driver's earholes, F1 was at the pinnacle of aerodynamic development.
The cars now look totally stupid. Just like they did when they went narrow with grooved tyres. Just like they did when ground effect came in, then when it was banned. Just like they did when someone put the engine in the back, and then put ruddy great aerofoils on the back. Just like they did when F1 went to 1500cc engines.
Whatever the rulemakers do, it'll piss us off. There's not much they can do, top flight motorsport is now addicted to exotic materials, and it is those exotic materials that have made the sport much safer for the competitors.
I am pleased to see slick tyres, but again, a single manufacturer deal does nothing for the sport of F1.
What's more, the view that customer cars are not F1, IMHO is wrong. I'd love to see a single privateer Williams powered by a Mercedes V12 running on Pirelli's in the field with mix & match "have a go's" in there. None of this "Pay Mrs Ecclestone $48M" and HAVE to run TWO cars in IDENTICAL paintschemes, etc... I want to see 35 cars turn up on Friday morning, with a qualifying race on Saturday for 25 of them, and 16 of them go through. Where the top 10 in the championship automatically qualify, with 1st place starting in 10th on the grid, 2nd in 9th, etc....
I'll carry on dreaming.
Standard engines? Oi, Mosley - NO!
thunderbelmont said:
The way that Spanky is going, with standard drivetrain, then standard dimensions for the chassis, followed by standard aero, we'll have GP1, not F1.
F1 is all about bleeding edge development within the rules. No development, no F1.
If they restrict technology, teams will spend to the n.th degree to exploit what technology that they have. Look at NASCAR, budgets have gone sky high because they are using F1 techniques to exploit every last plough shear to make the cars faster. The have spec body profiles, they have a fairly spec chassis design, they have limits on the engine, though in recent years have allowed bespoke "production 'based' engines" (I say that with tonque in cheek).
No, sky high budgets in NASCAR are still only in the tens of millions. It's not really comparable. F1 is all about bleeding edge development within the rules. No development, no F1.
If they restrict technology, teams will spend to the n.th degree to exploit what technology that they have. Look at NASCAR, budgets have gone sky high because they are using F1 techniques to exploit every last plough shear to make the cars faster. The have spec body profiles, they have a fairly spec chassis design, they have limits on the engine, though in recent years have allowed bespoke "production 'based' engines" (I say that with tonque in cheek).
Dr JonboyG said:
thunderbelmont said:
The way that Spanky is going, with standard drivetrain, then standard dimensions for the chassis, followed by standard aero, we'll have GP1, not F1.
F1 is all about bleeding edge development within the rules. No development, no F1.
If they restrict technology, teams will spend to the n.th degree to exploit what technology that they have. Look at NASCAR, budgets have gone sky high because they are using F1 techniques to exploit every last plough shear to make the cars faster. The have spec body profiles, they have a fairly spec chassis design, they have limits on the engine, though in recent years have allowed bespoke "production 'based' engines" (I say that with tonque in cheek).
No, sky high budgets in NASCAR are still only in the tens of millions. It's not really comparable. F1 is all about bleeding edge development within the rules. No development, no F1.
If they restrict technology, teams will spend to the n.th degree to exploit what technology that they have. Look at NASCAR, budgets have gone sky high because they are using F1 techniques to exploit every last plough shear to make the cars faster. The have spec body profiles, they have a fairly spec chassis design, they have limits on the engine, though in recent years have allowed bespoke "production 'based' engines" (I say that with tonque in cheek).
[quote=dpbird90]...does this mean that non-manufacturer backed teams i.e. everyone except Ferrari.../quote]
Umm, Ferrari aren't a manufacturer team under the F1 definition.
No, I've never really understood that either (other than the FIAs red-mist).
Umm, Ferrari aren't a manufacturer team under the F1 definition.
No, I've never really understood that either (other than the FIAs red-mist).
Edited by //j17 on Tuesday 9th December 11:32
If you doubled the NASCAR fan base then surely the team's budget would sky rocket, whether the governing body likes it or not.
The stakes for winning races, championship and sponsors would increase and in turn the expenditure for small gains to start winning or keep winning would explode.
The stakes for winning races, championship and sponsors would increase and in turn the expenditure for small gains to start winning or keep winning would explode.
ok i reckon allow the cosworth / x-trac package in for a good price. it looks like it's going ot happen. manufacturer teams can still make their own engine, more powerful than the cosworth. but every team has to stick rigidly to a development budget. therefore those that buy the FIA package can spend more elsewhere.
doesn't matter if costs come down, if the manufacturers have no reason to stay, they won't.
doesn't matter if costs come down, if the manufacturers have no reason to stay, they won't.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff