Has Brawn GP (nee Honda).........
Discussion
Set a new precedent in F1 in giving up development of a previous years car so early to concentrate on the next years car?
I say the above based on the fact that it has obviously been of benefit to Brawn (Honda) from the 2008 to 2009 season (whether Honda powered or otherwise)
Additionally we are only four races into the new season and we already have mutterings of:
1. Kimi effectively saying this years title is gone.
2. Lewis effectively saying the same thing, albeit in Maclaren dictated hyperbole.
3. A below par BMW (both drivers) and Renault (always Piquet, sometimes Alonso)
4. A further "fundamental" change to the regs for 2010 of no re-fuelling meaning larger fuel tanks in the car etc thus taking resources away from "normal" development if the regs were to remain constant season to season.
In short i just get the impression that the teams are already thinking if you aren't in a position to win it in 2009 (or have the resources to try and do something about it) then you might as well scrap 2009 car development now and start with a clean sheet for 2010 irrespective of what "face" is put on in the paddock to the media for the rest of the season?
I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
I say the above based on the fact that it has obviously been of benefit to Brawn (Honda) from the 2008 to 2009 season (whether Honda powered or otherwise)
Additionally we are only four races into the new season and we already have mutterings of:
1. Kimi effectively saying this years title is gone.
2. Lewis effectively saying the same thing, albeit in Maclaren dictated hyperbole.
3. A below par BMW (both drivers) and Renault (always Piquet, sometimes Alonso)
4. A further "fundamental" change to the regs for 2010 of no re-fuelling meaning larger fuel tanks in the car etc thus taking resources away from "normal" development if the regs were to remain constant season to season.
In short i just get the impression that the teams are already thinking if you aren't in a position to win it in 2009 (or have the resources to try and do something about it) then you might as well scrap 2009 car development now and start with a clean sheet for 2010 irrespective of what "face" is put on in the paddock to the media for the rest of the season?
I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
onemorelap said:
Set a new precedent in F1 in giving up development of a previous years car so early to concentrate on the next years car?
I say the above based on the fact that it has obviously been of benefit to Brawn (Honda) from the 2008 to 2009 season (whether Honda powered or otherwise)
Additionally we are only four races into the new season and we already have mutterings...
Five. Four of which have indeed been won by Brawn.I say the above based on the fact that it has obviously been of benefit to Brawn (Honda) from the 2008 to 2009 season (whether Honda powered or otherwise)
Additionally we are only four races into the new season and we already have mutterings...
Eric Mc said:
Ferrari won the 1961 Championship by doing this.
Not quite true. Ferrari won the 1961 champioship by being the only oens prepared, but tha was because the other teams thought the 1.5 ltire formula would go away and pinned their hopes on the Intercontinental formula (a breakaway series - sound familiar). When they realised that wasn't going to happen they rushed round to prepare cars.onemorelap said:
In short i just get the impression that the teams are already thinking if you aren't in a position to win it in 2009 (or have the resources to try and do something about it) then you might as well scrap 2009 car development now and start with a clean sheet for 2010 irrespective of what "face" is put on in the paddock to the media for the rest of the season?
I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
At the moment most of the teams are undecided if they are going to race in 2010 so I'm not sure they'll be developing cars for it just yet.I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
profstoff said:
onemorelap said:
In short i just get the impression that the teams are already thinking if you aren't in a position to win it in 2009 (or have the resources to try and do something about it) then you might as well scrap 2009 car development now and start with a clean sheet for 2010 irrespective of what "face" is put on in the paddock to the media for the rest of the season?
I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
At the moment most of the teams are undecided if they are going to race in 2010 so I'm not sure they'll be developing cars for it just yet.I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
profstoff said:
onemorelap said:
In short i just get the impression that the teams are already thinking if you aren't in a position to win it in 2009 (or have the resources to try and do something about it) then you might as well scrap 2009 car development now and start with a clean sheet for 2010 irrespective of what "face" is put on in the paddock to the media for the rest of the season?
I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
At the moment most of the teams are undecided if they are going to race in 2010 so I'm not sure they'll be developing cars for it just yet.I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
andyps said:
profstoff said:
onemorelap said:
In short i just get the impression that the teams are already thinking if you aren't in a position to win it in 2009 (or have the resources to try and do something about it) then you might as well scrap 2009 car development now and start with a clean sheet for 2010 irrespective of what "face" is put on in the paddock to the media for the rest of the season?
I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
At the moment most of the teams are undecided if they are going to race in 2010 so I'm not sure they'll be developing cars for it just yet.I accept that the teams will already have an eye on 2010 by now but i suppose in summary it is a question as to what level of resource will already be re-directed to the 2010 car as opposed to the 2009 car?
As of today, the cap is just a proposal, some of which was changed only yesterday. Would the amount that a team has already spent on their '10 car count against their limit for next year? If not, I can imagine the wealthier teams' puttng extra resources into the new car before the gate is closed.
flemke said:
Has the FIA even said how they would measure their proposed £40M cap wrt current expenses?
As of today, the cap is just a proposal, some of which was changed only yesterday. Would the amount that a team has already spent on their '10 car count against their limit for next year? If not, I can imagine the wealthier teams' puttng extra resources into the new car before the gate is closed.
That is a very interesting point, and one wonders if there could be any way of policing it now or in the future - even if the FIA have thought of it. Certainly for existing teams taking part next year it would be very difficult to separate expenditure in 2009 between the '09 and '10 cars, businesses regularly move end/beginning of year expenditure between the years to suit a particular requirement. It is very likely that the teams have varying year ends, and therefore monitoring teams for the first two or three years would be very difficult as they could apportion expenditure to different areas until a specific pattern had been established. As of today, the cap is just a proposal, some of which was changed only yesterday. Would the amount that a team has already spent on their '10 car count against their limit for next year? If not, I can imagine the wealthier teams' puttng extra resources into the new car before the gate is closed.
Then add in the category which the FIA have wonderfully called "marketing" and it would become even harder. As a marketer I would include product development as a function of marketing, therefore all product development falls under this banner - I am sure that is not what MM means, but he and his team can't even define diffusers in a singly understood way. The manufacturer teams could do product development for road cars under the guise of the F1 team and call it marketing - improving the image of the road cars, the whole purpose of the F1 team anyway. An example of how an organisation offsets expenditure as marketing - Tesco claim that their home shopping service is profitable, although many in the industry do not accept this, the simple way that it can be accounted to show profitability is to include many of the costs under the marketing banner - all the vans drive around as mobile billboards, and therefore are a promotional expense rather than a cost of the internet shopping service.
I am pretty sure the F1 teams could be equally creative in accountancy terms as they are in technology.
Further question... given the creativity of some accountants...
What is to stop Fiat group deciding to make an investment in a technology set (eg KERS v2) and paying for it via a different subsidiary (eg Alpha), and then selling the technology / IPR to Ferrari at a knockdown rate - eg, just the production/manufacturing cost, rather than true market worth? Other R&D costs could then be written off elsewhere in the group....?
Would be against the spirit of the new rules, but trackable?
What is to stop Fiat group deciding to make an investment in a technology set (eg KERS v2) and paying for it via a different subsidiary (eg Alpha), and then selling the technology / IPR to Ferrari at a knockdown rate - eg, just the production/manufacturing cost, rather than true market worth? Other R&D costs could then be written off elsewhere in the group....?
Would be against the spirit of the new rules, but trackable?
plg101 - I think the answer is that it will be almost impossible to police, even though MM has said it will happen. One issue, ironically, is the cost of the policing. I am not sure if accountancy charges are included in the cap, but assuming not, the teams will pay large amounts to accountants to get within the cap whilst maximising their capability within the rules (assuming they can afford it). The FIA are then going to have to pay equally large amounts to understand what has been done, plus other fees to then consider what it all means. Who is going to pay for that? The FIA are forecasting a loss this year for their own operations, so somewhere they will have to raise their income to pay for the forensic accountants, and it won't be coming out of MM's pocket.
The commitments you specifically mention for new teams are actually exempt from the cap however.
The commitments you specifically mention for new teams are actually exempt from the cap however.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff