Is budget capping realistic? (Poll)

Posted on

| Written by

Toyota would have to cut their annual budget by 90% to reach $44m
Toyota would have to cut their annual budget by 90% to reach $44m

Aside from the latest McLaren drama the other major point of discussion at the FIA World Motor Sports Council has been plans to limit F1 teams’ budgets.

I’ve always been sceptical about this and when we first did a poll on it here almost a year ago so were two-thirds of you. But with the worsening of the financial crisis and Max Mosley’s plans for a ‘voluntary’ cap, have many people changed their minds about budget capping?

Will the 'voluntary' budget cap work?

  • Yes (28%)
  • No (60%)
  • Don't know (12%)

Total Voters: 1,357

Loading ... Loading ...

Although the precise details of a budget cap are yet to be revealed, the FIA is understood to be considering a complex ‘two-tier’ system. Under this:

  • Teams that do not wish to stick to a budget cap have to stick to more limited technical restrictions
  • Teams that agree to stick to a budget limit (potentially as low as ??30m/$44.3m but likely to be higher to begin with) will have greater technical freedom, including aerodynamic development, engine restrictions and testing

I’m still voting ‘no’ on the poll above – here’s why:

  • What’s to stop a new team announcing their entry to F1 after spending unlimited sums on development and gaining a huge advantage?
  • How can the FIA expect to satisfy the teams that the competing sets of regulations offer equal opportunity to be competitive? At present we have only one set of technical rules yet only recently we have had an incredibly bitter fall-out over the interpretation of the diffuser rules.
  • Will the teams be satisfied that their rivals are not secretly spending more? Particularly car manufacturers with the potential to hide F1 costs in general research and development?

It seems to me the budget cap proposal might work if all the teams agree to take advantage of it. But that’s by no means certain.

Encouragingly, outfits such as Lola, Aston Martin and iSport have hinted they may join F1 if budget capping is introduced. But will the existing manufacturers stay? And if they don’t, could that harm F1?

Do you think the budget cap plan will work? Cast your vote above and leave a comment below.

Read more

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

61 comments on “Is budget capping realistic? (Poll)”

  1. Of corse a budget cap is realistic!
    Money is the most common metric for the team’s resources and on the other hand the most common fuel for the team’s development. Money is the easiest to police – after all this is how all tax systems work worldwide :-) Yes, there’s also tax fraud, but then there’s quite severe punishments. If one would go cheating with the sums that can make a difference in F1 (= millions) he’s then risking really a lot – FIA and the tax authorities.

    Now to Keith’s points:

    What’s to stop a new team announcing their entry to F1 after spending unlimited sums on development and gaining a huge advantage?

    Quite simple: this team will have the advantage for maximum 1 year. During this year everybody will be copying from it and the system will ballance itself.

    How can the FIA expect to satisfy the teams that the competing sets of regulations offer equal opportunity to be competitive? At present we have only one set of technical rules yet only recently we have had an incredibly bitter fall-out over the interpretation of the diffuser rules.

    This is a valid point, but not a showstopper. If FIA is really into the budget caps then they will introduce severe differences between the regulations. I.e. have the budget-capped run with the 2008 regs (plus slicks ;-)) and the non-capped with the 2009 regs.

    Will the teams be satisfied that their rivals are not secretly spending more? Particularly car manufacturers with the potential to hide F1 costs in general research and development?

    Again valid, but not a showstopper: with a really big gap in the regulations this will normalize itself. Even the car manyfacturers are cost-aware, hence they would like to get something out of the money they pour into the research. So for example, what is the point of investing in improving a grooved tyre when the competitor runs slicks? :-)

    All that said – can FIA do it the wrong way? Yes. Is the concept good and right? To me – a big Yes.

    1. Quite simple: this team will have the advantage for maximum 1 year. During this year everybody will be copying from it and the system will ballance itself.

      This would create a lot of distaste in the paddock. There would be huge fallout in the teams and create a season dominated by technology rather than driver ability. And this would happen every time a new team tries this approach.

      This is a valid point, but not a showstopper. If FIA is really into the budget caps then they will introduce severe differences between the regulations. I.e. have the budget-capped run with the 2008 regs (plus slicks ;-)) and the non-capped with the 2009 regs.

      There won’t be a massive gap in the regulations. The FIA want to let teams spend what they like if they want to, and there to be parity between the two classes. A massive difference in regulations would mean non-capped teams can’t compete. Instead the rules will be subtle, such as more aerodynamic allowances than currently allowed, or more revs in the engine.

      Again valid, but not a showstopper: with a really big gap in the regulations this will normalize itself. Even the car manyfacturers are cost-aware, hence they would like to get something out of the money they pour into the research. So for example, what is the point of investing in improving a grooved tyre when the competitor runs slicks? :-)

      Are you saying it’s okay that teams would secretly spend more and this would normalise itself? It wouldn’t. The last time a team did something against the rules in secret, the FIA slapped them with a €100 million fine and disqualified them from the constructors championship.

    2. Quite simple: this team will have the advantage for maximum 1 year. During this year everybody will be copying from it and the system will ballance itself.

      Maybe that’s the case now. But with limited staff numbers and a cap on their spending will other teams realistically be able to ‘copy’ other ideas and further develop a car during the course of the season? I can picture a situation where one team does something different, and no one has the finances to come near them all season long. To me, that would be one seriously dull championship.

    3. @Tom: there will be a massive gap – so far what is cited is no rev limits for the caped for example. Only this can give 50-100 bhp extra at almost no cost and for the entire race :-) if one tries to improve an 18K rpm-limited engine and add 50-100 bhp this will cost a fortune and may not be so successful at all. Besides, when you do not have the cap on money you have limited testing :-)

      Regarding secret spending – I think this will be the easiest to control – the world already traces money pretty well :-)

  2. Yes, very valid points ukk, but if the FIA is all for cutting spending and encouraging new teams at affordable prices why is it giving two options?
    I think they like revelling in their own complications.
    Why don’t we see a proposal for a straightforward limit to spending, and a list of the maximum any team is allowed to spend on any part of developing and building the car?
    Does the budget cap allow for cars developed and built by say Dallara, and then sold to two or three teams who race them? Will it allow Prodrive to buy an off-the-shelf McLaren? Does it allow for Ferrari built engines in Torro Rossos?
    Also, knowing the level of incompetance in the FIA, how are they going to monitor the costs by all the companies involved – not just the teams themselves. As Keith points out, there is nothing to stop the Manufacturers hiding a lot of the development function and costs within their main car-design teams, since these people need work as well, and many parts on the cars could be built in factories anywhere in the world before being assembled into the car.
    Are we going to see the FIA spending more money on its Accountants and Auditors in order to keep the teams budgets down?
    And talking of which, when are we going to see cost-cutting from the FIA itself at races, and FOM too. Do we need so many officials? Do we need so many official cars? Do we need very expensive Safety and Doctors cars?
    And do they really need to be transported all over the world? Does Bernie really need such a big Motorhome?
    If the FIA talks about cost-cutting, perhaps it needs to prove that it means it by example!

  3. schumi the greatest
    30th April 2009, 9:19

    i voted no because i cant see how mosely expects teams like toyota to go from spending nearly $500 million to around $30-40 million.

    The general concept is a good idea and will provide stability for years to come while the world economy recovers. It will alos level the playing field in terms of development etc. It will really be down to which teams can get the best designers & engineers on board.

    An example of a sport which uses a budget cap is the NFL. Now their bidget cap is alot higher than what max is suggesting, but it works, a team in the nfl hasnt often won consecutive championships. Now this isnt all down to the budget cap, there’s alot of other minute details in the sport which make that happen but it would definitley help f1.

    At the moment ferrari & mclaren are “spending” their way out of trouble, with a budget cap this cant happen.

    if the fia could police it properly and if it was for a decent amount say in the region of $100-150 million i think its a good idea but $40 million is ridiculous

    1. the NFL budget cap applies only to player salaries. outside of that, the top teams spend money furiously, looking for any advantage – training facilities, supercomputers, video analysis and production, and lots of very bright people with backgrounds outside of the sport. the same is true in the other major american sports.

      conversely, there are teams that spend as little as possible and have no intention of winning, as they are quite content with their league’s revenue-sharing scheme.

    2. You are correct about the NFL- my other sports passion besides F1 :) The big difference there is that the budget cap is on the payroll, so teams cannot afford to “buy” too much star power. Because driver salaries are not included here, big teams can still overpay for star drivers- that’s the only thing I dislike about this budget cap.

  4. HounslowBusGarage
    30th April 2009, 9:23

    As far as I am aware, there are no rules in the FIA’s book about collusion between two or more teams.
    So it would be perfectly possible for two teams who happen to be under common control (Red Bull/Torro Rosso) or who share engine suppliers (Force India/Brawn) to swop development costs and benefits season by season. Team A incurs development costs for Team B in this season. Next season, the process is reversed.
    It would also be perfectly possible for a company outside racing to incur the development costs for a team under common control. Development costs are incured by Brand A, which allows Brand B to go racing for less than £30 m.
    There are inumerable potential loopholes and ways around such regulations. And to close them the FIA would have to have the investigative powers and rights of the UK Customs and Revenue, the US IRS and the Stasi; all across seven continents and numerous local jurisdictions.
    Likely to work properly?

  5. I don’t know how much it should be, but what I know is:
    1.It will be a mistake to force the budget cap
    2.It will be wrong to make two formulas in one – budget capped teams and technically restricted ones.

    If FIA thinks that FOTA work on decreasing money spending is not enough then they should sit together and talk things through. It’s really sensitive case, to introduce budget cap and to not make car manufactures loose their sense of existence in F1. From here, from my point of view FIAs actions on this matter are completely irresponsible, but who knows whats happening inside?

  6. I don’t think the current proposals for a budget cap can work in F1, especially with two sets of regulations.

    FOTA appear to support al budget cap for all teams in principal but the problem is not only agreeing the level but what to include in it, some teams want to include drivers salaries some don’t.

    The FIA currently won’t include marketing and hospitality which is sensible because what would be the point of including money teams spend when making adverts for their sponsors, or putting on events for the public.

    There are also problems in how to stop F1 becoming a battle of accountants rather than engineers. If a team has a lot of related companies how do you stop them putting R&D in these companies. It’s not just manufacturers who could do this, didn’t Williams set up a separate company to develop its fly wheel KERS because of the potential market for it in areas such as subway trains.

    Another obvious problem is that costs will be different in different countries, be they employment costs, materials, travel or just general overheads. I bet that even if all the teams were run exactly the same and paid employees the same based on the local cost of living then you would not get the same costs for each team. You will also have the problem of exchange rate variances between all the countries.

    A two tier F1 with different regulations won’t work, the FIA has shown as recently as this season that they can’t police one set of regulations effectively let alone two. The FIA have said they intend to equalise the cars performance using the regulations, even if this were realistic, which I don’t think it is, if a team is told to abandon an area of development because it gives them too much of an advantage, what about all the money the team has already spent and all the money they will have to spend on the new piece of technology.

    One area I think the two sets of regulations will differ is that the budget capped teams will be allowed to run double diffusers while the other teams won’t.

    If the FIA are serious about a budget cap they need to work closely with FOTA on agreeing the details not just decide on their own all the details. It was reported last week that the FIA had sent letters to team principles asking what the minimum level for a budget cap should be. It didn’t say when it was sent but to get a realistic figure could take quite a while.

    I think the team which is best placed to comment on this is Williams. They are the only established team without manufacturer backing or a billionaire owner.

    I think a budget cap could work if it is the same for all teams and everyone works together to work out all the fine details before it is implemented. The cap should also start high and then be reduced over a few years to the target level rather than a sudden reduction the next year after agreement.

    1. True – the details have to be worked-out well.

      Regarding the connected companies – if you trace the money you’ll easily trace the connections between the companies and “hidden development” will be very easy to spot. For this only reasson I think limiting the money is the easiest way to control costs and stimulate competition on the innovation front and between the drivers as opposed to research departments size and production capabilities.

  7. I’m all for the budget cap, lets just remove the voluntary bit. However I appreciate the current teams need to come back from astronomical amounts, so voluntary it is, but I’d say its going to be mandatory after 3 (or 5) years.

  8. ComeBackMontoya
    30th April 2009, 9:49

    We all know how Max works. He wants a budget cap but knows the teams will disagree with the amount whatever he suggests, so by going in low the negotiations with the teams will bring it up to something more reasonable and ultimately he gets his way.

    However, $30m does sound extremely low, when you consider that there are reports of KERS alone costing £45m in development for some teams. Also, surely Ferrari would be racing for free with the extra money they get for their ‘historic contribution’ to the sport. I feel the FIA have cost the teams more than they will ever save them with their constant changes to rules. Let’s just have some stability in the rules for a while with maybe development caps in some key areas.

    1. Yes, the most expensive item for the teams is crazy rules changes and things like KERS

  9. I think so, so long as everyone agrees so there isn’t a 2-tier situation. All the teams spend less money, about the same as what they did 15 years ago, and they’re all allowed more technical freedom. Sounds good to me.

  10. Above all, there should not be a two-tier system. Already the one set of rules is difficult and conflictive enough.

  11. I think we can all see that “voluntary” will become “mandatory” in time. If this forces teams to think, rather than spend, their way out of trouble, then that sounds like a good idea. It is a matter of good fortune for the FIA that two of the teams currently at the top fit the template of privateer with customer engine towards which we seem to be heading. One of these teams, however, already has a B team and this will presumably become the norm as a way of sharing development costs. I hope this does not squeeze out genuine new teams from joining the grid, as these B teams will become invaluable for the larger teams in finding and maintaining a competitive edge.

  12. I think MadMax’s two tier budget cap proposal is a certain way to prove to the resisting teams that it can be done.

    lets say it goes to action in 2010 and Prodrive gets to fourth in the championship with a cosworth engine on lets say a $60 million cap… then Max would go… I told you it can be done. what’s the harm in running all 13 teams at 60 mil a Pop, when in 2011 everyone concurs or is forced to concur, the budget drops by 5 million/year until they get to a manageable number.

    however what i find hard to understand is the unlimited regulations thing. how far can you go in out of the box development these days without hemorrhaging millions of dollars? loot at KERS, teams are said to have spent collective billions and still not all of them have perfected it… it’s this part of the issue that worries me, the Cap alone would work but it would turn F1 into a ******* spec series….

  13. In principle in the current world the budget cap is a good thing, but I cannot see how the FIA can police it.

    I also think more should be outside the limit – for example the whole teams salaries. Teams should not be forced to make massive job losses just because its either invest money in aero or the engine or pay people. The general infrastructure costs such as the running costs for the factory, the hardware, the software packages I can accept as being part of the budget, so that limits the number of people to a certain extent. But plenty of talented engineers will loose their jobs, even in the smaller to mid sized teams.

    Martin Bell April 30, 2009 at 10:06 am
    I think we can all see that “voluntary” will become “mandatory” in time. If this forces teams to think, rather than spend, their way out of trouble, then that sounds like a good idea.

    I think the current financial climate will force teams down this route anyway, parent companies are bound to reduce their spending and sponsors will be hard to find (unless your Brawn!).

    The only good thing about the budget cap is all these extra interested teams. Bigger grids can only be a good thing – for one Force India won’t always be at the back haha!!

  14. I don’t like the idea of limiting money on principle. Let’s say a team invest a lot of money (a capped team) and then it turns out that the idea didnt work, or the FIA decided it’s illegal. Then what? Money’s spent, money’s wasted. They’re stuck for the rest of the season. It’s too artificial. Just like so many of the regulations that they keep introducing.

  15. Interesting point you raise there about Ferrari, ComeBackMontoya. The FIA has to level the playing field. The can no longer be teams receiving more money for historic reasons.

    As I’ve maintained in the past, the natural aim of any organization is to grow. Increase in staffing, increases in salaries and all. What happens to teams if their budget is limited. Would you work in a team for 10years and not get a raise in your salary? If you suffer losses in infrastructure or maybe destruction of equipments do you then abstain from replacing those equipments even if vital for your race appearance?

    The problem with Max is he doesn’t look into the details, he just comes up with a seemingly nice figure and expects its perfect.

    For one, teams like Ferrari, Toyota, BMW, Renault and maybe Mclaren/Mercedes will have to operate under a different set of rules. This is as they are engine manufactures. While the cost of manufacturing the engines is not really know. There is no doubt that the research that goes into making a reliable engine, apart from being fast, is quite massive. And there is no guarantee that those costs will stay static. There are heavy duty manufacturing equipments that have life a fixed life span or require periodic updates. How will these be addressed?

    Just make the car rules very simple with strict interpretations. Avoid ambiguity. The cars should become very clean, no extensions. That way it will be pointless spending millions on wind tunnel work. Teams can then spend as much as they want. But there wont be much performance difference between the cars.

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      30th April 2009, 11:02

      That’s a nice point Oliver.

      Would you work in a team for 10years and not get a raise in your salary?

      Suppose you worked there for 10 years and the team became very successful – super successful – and the Boss came round to you and said “Sorry mate, no bonus, no pay rise this year because we are already up to our budget limit. In fact you’re going to have to workj harder because we’re firing your assistant . . .”

  16. Rules rules rules.
    Haven’t they figured out yet that more rules decreases the popularity of F1?
    The FIA constantly is shed in a bad light because they try and enforce rules differently per driver/team.

    They should focus on less rules.
    There is only room for 1 type of rule. That is safety.

    Take the collision between Vettel & Kubica in australia. That collision happend because of the tyre rules. Not because one driver wanted to take the other out.

    More on topic: The budget caps. It is ridiculous. If I want budget caps or the same kind of vehicles, I turn to other motor-racing sports. But this is F1. It has a reputation. It has true history. Don’t make this a formula ford circus. Please.

    How about forcing technical specs to be public.
    If a high budget team develops something, other teams can benefit if they want to.
    Or, they could choose not to develop it, so no-one benefits.
    Either way, the secrecy will be gone & research costs will go down.

    1. Take the collision between Vettel & Kubica in australia. That collision happend because of the tyre rules. Not because one driver wanted to take the other out.

      That’s nonsense. The speed difference was caused by the tyres. That’s all.

  17. I have never understood this “budget cut” thing, why kill an already dying man, i mean look at Ferrari and Mclaren, they are not winning races even with their huge “budgets”.

  18. Bigbadderboom
    30th April 2009, 11:44

    I agree in principle and voted yes, however like everyone else here I think enforcement will be near impossible.

    Where do McLaren stand with their KERS, they have developed it for other teams, so whos budget is it from.
    Likewise Ferrari customer engines.
    Also McLaren spend a lot on R+D for their road car division, whats to stop them developing under one company then simply porting parts over.

    I think two tier system is out of the question, it makes the spectacle too difficult to follow.

    It is obvious that something needs to be done, the sport cannot continue with its current economic model.

    In any case of enforcing spending restrictions, Driver salaries should be seperate.

    1. And I like this rule:
      “The teams must demonstrate that they have adhered to the spirit of the regulations and spend no more than 50% of the value of the 2010 cap on the development of the 2010 car (in 2009). Furthermore, there are limits on the value of stock of car parts which can be carried into 2010.”

    2. thanks, tom

      To enable these cars to compete with those from teams which are not subject to cost constraints, the cost-capped cars will be allowed greater technical freedom.

      The principal technical freedoms allowed are:

      1. Movable wings, front and rear.
      2. An engine which is not subject to a rev limit.

      The teams will also be allowed unlimited out-of-season track testing with no restrictions on the scale and speed of wind tunnel testing

      that’s the important part, right there. that’s enough to make mcferrari take the cheap route.

  19. the easiest thing to do is to not vote for max in the upcoming elections.F1 is an sport of serious money anyone getting into it knows that look at force india do you here them moaning and he’s a billionaire.Max is the problem grooved tyre’s ,making the cars narrower in the 90’which cost the teams 100’s of million’s and increased the budget’s in the first place,V10 being dumped team’s having to retool whole engine department’s ask paul stoddart what he thought of that one 100mil again, the overtakeing shamble’s working party,KER’S,every thing that is expensive about F1 comes back to max get ride of him no problem.His idea of F1 is for it to be like A1 gp same cars same engine cheap to get into everyone happy problem people ain’t watching and sponsor’s ain’t paying.How has he come to the conclusion that it only take’s 40mil to run a team where are his figure’s all he has said is “they” have worked it out and it can be done.OK max show us the figure’s toyota the largest car manufacturer in the world can’t do it for 40mil and be competetive but you can this guy’s on another planet and the sooner he is gone the better.People may bag bernie but he’s getting payed a lot of money be countries/people to see his product because it was a good product max is trying to turn it into A1,IRL which isn’t a good prodict he better be carefull or max will cook his goose and that’s bad new’s for all of us.

  20. keepF1technical
    30th April 2009, 12:51

    so should i spend my budget in the off season to get a head start but then crash and burn during the year because i cant afford development.

    or just use the last years car unchanged for the first few races and spend my budget rapidly copying anybody else during the season.

    all in all, a bad idea for technical development of ‘the pinnacle’ of motorsport.

    and thats assuming my budget is not used up on lawyers trying to clarify the FIA’s inadequate rules.

    1. absolutely agree with you.

  21. From the FIA’s budget cap Q&A

    Are you worried that F1 will effectively become a two-tier championship?

    There is one set of Technical Regulations and as always there are choices for all teams as to how they decide to attack the Championships

    .

    What are they on about? The Technical Regulations may be supplied in one book but budget capped teams will be working to a different set of technical regs to the other teams.

  22. It will certainly help out the new teams entering into the sport, no doubt about it. but what about the money thats already gone into R&D? are the teams going to abandon that & leave it half finished? then certainly it’ll be a waste on money. I would recommend an income tax raid on MAX & BERNIE. that would solve all of f1’s financial woes!!!

  23. The way they’ve set it up, there’s a pretty big incentive to work within the budget. I think we’ll see a majority go that route – even the Ferraris and McLarens – though they may put up a fuss about it.

  24. These new rules make owning an F1 team potentially quite profitable for example Vodaphone (ALONE)are reported to pay McLarren 30million a year in sponcership.

    Now off to find 40 million for next year shall i start with my bank manager!!!

  25. all i say is……why make it voluntary?

  26. I think the budget cap is workable.

    However the two-tier nature of it is not.

  27. The notion of customer engines becomes interesting. If Ferrari decide to not work within the cap, their engine will have a rev-limiter on it. However a team that adopts the budget cap and buys the engine from Ferrari will not have a rev-limiter on the same or similar engine.

    There’s little incentive to go over the cap for the big teams. Surely the rev-limiter differential will overcome any aero advantage a big-budget team can come up with?

  28. I don’t know. Let’s ask Russia if Communism worked last time.

  29. Budget cap should be a good idea, but, not on a “voluntary” basis creating two tiers in F1 and reviewing the limits. 30 Million is not enough.

    1. its £40million

  30. a good Q&A on the measures:

  31. Wee, refueling ban is now official :) Sorry for the offtop.

  32. I have my doubts it would work. In theory it would be great, seeing every team working with the same money, just like it would be great to see a salary cap in the Premier League – every team would effectively operate on the same cash.

    But teams would find ways around the cap and it would be time well wasted by the FIA going through all the books to make sure the teams are adhering to their cap.

    The FIA can’t even keep track of one set of regs, so why have two? The FIA also said they would ban refuelling because the casual fan doesn’t understand it. So how the hell is a casual fan going to understand that one car is rev-limited for some bogus reason and the other isn’t?

    The FIA would do better to impose a ‘maximum number of days of development’ for each team and tell teams to cut the crap like bringing massive motorhomes to pander to the wealthy posers who turn up at races. And impose a salary cap.

    In other words, trim all areas rather than have a budget cap.

  33. Just another half baked Idea from Max. It will not work and will be impossible to police. Give FOTA a clear mandate to control costs & leave it to them.

  34. I think this could work. I noticed some said that this would put the racing aspect based all on the technology. I thought that was what F1 was about. To be realistic the best driver in the field can only do so much with the car he is given. Button is a great example; uncompetive car for several years. This year he gets a good car and has 3 wins. Alonso is anohter good one. two Championships with Renaut due to a good car. No so the past two years but you can tell he can get the most out of what he has. All in all I think it can work, will it remains to be see.

  35. I think we are missing the fundamental point here: there wil be TWO sets of rules and only ONE championship. That is a recipe for disaster any way you cut it. The FIA has stated that they will alter the rules if necessary (essentially at their own discretion) to keep the “median performance” of the capped and non-capped teams equivalent. So we are talking about mid-season rule changes, which we already know are hugely expensive, but more importantly the FIA could DIRECTLY affect the outcome of the championship under the guise of keeping things even.

  36. Crap, i mistakenly voted yes, but meant no. There’s no way it will work unless you want F1 A and F1 B

  37. HounslowBusGarage
    30th April 2009, 16:50

    So we are talking about mid-season rule changes, which we already know are hugely expensive,

    Well that’s no good. The teams will have spent all their budgets by then!

  38. The answer is put mosley and bernie at the shelf.

    They already know this. But are waiting for godot.

    At least I never care for motor racing and I hate cars.

    Put the cap on the money they earned and learn from that.

  39. Frank Williams is a big example.
    Forgotten by some and with huge mistakes (sam micheals and rosberg) and still stand up.

  40. Maurice Henry
    30th April 2009, 18:11

    Maybe we will end up with a 1988 style twin series in one. It would have been sensible to phase this idea in over a period of time having consulted with the people actually running the teams. As someone mentioned, the FIA costs the teams more money than they ever save them. Ian Phillips of Force India said something to this effect during free practice 2 at the Chinese GP. He was talking about the FIA rule that banned spare cars on the grounds of cost. In actual fact there were no savings at all, as they still had to bring the same number of people and equipment that would have dealt with the spare car, otherwise they would not have had enough mechanics to do the pitstops. They ended up putting the spare mechanics onto the two principle race cars. The FIA could be setting us up for the biggest rules confusion F1 has ever seen. This nonesense will alienate the fairweather fans they are desparate to attract.

  41. All this mess is done on purpose in anticipoation of the Concord pact. Bernie wants to make it easy to have more teams in a short notice, in case the main teams leave him if he does not give them more money.

    Bernie tells Mo : “Mo, put out a lot of contradicting regulations and create problems that dont exist, so we can promote divisions among the teams. If you cant beat them, at least confuse them”

  42. It’s a good idea, but… it spells nothing but trouble at ever more hearings to determine who’s doing what that they maybe should not be doing, bla, bla, bla.

    The way to go here, is what has already begun to be implemented, that is what amounts to forced budget slashing – limitations on aero thingamajigs and testing this year, refueling and tire warmers (not the biggest part of the budget, lol).

    I say: continue in the same direction – of course teams will find ways to get around budget caps, so figure out ways for smaller teams to not have to spend 300m$ and stay competitive, and that means keeping the technology relatively simple.

    Keith, how about starting a thread where people can post THE ONE thing they feel would best help F1 be accessible and competitive. It could be titled: “I f I were running the FIA, I would….”

    I would get rid of all but the most basic electronic components.

  43. how can FIA know how much money each team is using?…

    i have always wondered that…

  44. I like it, but big teams will still have an advantage because driver’s salaries are not included.

  45. In truth I think that the FIA is too far away from the teams. If teams are interested in budget caps then maybe F2 or even gocarting would be nice for them. But why clip the wings of the teams who have always been in the forfront on innovation? Furthermore, the system is not going to be foolproof and much time will be wasted in investigations, alligations and trials. Oh what a horrible sport this is developing to be.

  46. Laterally thinking – I think the FIA are going about this budget capping in the wrong way. They should negotiate with the teams a minimum amout that is needed to run a team, say £40 million, and then say that this minimum cannot be exceeded by a factor of three. This gives the bigger teams room to manouver and when the credit crunch is over this will allow the lower teams to persue more sponsorship and performance…

Comments are closed.