FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[EwanM]

Campos hindered by budget cap U-turn

By Jonathan Noble Thursday, August 27th 2009, 10:28 GMT

Campos Grand Prix says its plans to enter Formula 1 have been made harder by the scrapping of a budget cap rule, but the team is adamant it can still be successful in the sport.

The Valencia-based team was one of three outfits that was awarded an entry to next year's world championship, but it has had to rethink its plans after originally only getting involved because of the attraction of a £40 million budget cap.

With the FIA and Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) agreeing to ditch the budget cap in favour of a cost reduction programme, however, Campos has had to rethink its approach to F1.

And managing director Daniel Audetto, who has returned to F1 following a spell at the helm of Super Aguri, has revealed that the team's investors came close to pulling the plug on the operation totally because of the revised regulations.

"Our investors, who already put the money up front because the FIA had to do a thorough due diligence, they are not happy at all, and we can even say upset, with how things have been handled with the entries," Audetto told AUTOSPORT.

"When we entered and we showed we had the resources and money, which was set at £40 million for the budget cap, we had the guarantee of many performance advantages. First there was the engine being set at 20,000rpm. There was the unlimited number of engines per season, there was unlimited testing mileage. We had also some aerodynamic devices, and other little elements too.

"These all disappeared, and the only thing that did not disappear was the budget we already had. So we cannot now afford to go the level of others, so with £40 million, and 120-130 people will be very tough."

He added: "I have to tell you, at one point, the investors considered pulling out totally, to stop. So for me, but especially for Adrian [Campos], it was not easy to convince them to stay, because we could no longer promise the moon.

"They had already spent in the region of 8 million Euros, and they even consulted their lawyers, about the situation - and it would have been the end forever because if you start legal action then it is difficult to come back from there."

Despite the setback caused by the rule changes, Audetto believes that the team can still establish itself in F1 - with its new car due to run for the first time in January next year, and work on sponsors and drivers to be ramped up over the next few weeks.

"From September, we will start to make our presentations to potential sponsors and we will start to close some deals with drivers, because drivers and sponsors are often connected," he explained.

"So from next month, we will become more operational and fully operations from October 1, with the first test in the middle of January. Then we will be built up from a small budget, and if we can show like we did with Super Aguri that we are professional, that we can do well compared with the money we have, I think we can attract more sponsors and investors.

"We are also relying on the FOTA cost reduction programme that eventually, when the costs are reduced to what they were in the early 1990s, then everyone will be close to our budget. But that will take three years."

GP2 race winner Russian Vitaly Petrov is favourite for one of the seats at Campos, with experienced Spaniards Marc Gene and Pedro de la Rosa also strongly linked to the team.

Audetto said serious talks were ongoing with seven drivers, but he did not expect a final decision to be made until later in the year.

"We are not in any hurry," he explained. "In our situation, where we are a new team, and because of what is going on in F1, with BMW and with the reduction of costs, I think we well wait until October or the end of the championship. We are not in a hurry.

"We are not going to test the car until the middle of January, so maybe we can get a better deal then. But if there is an opportunity to get a good driver with a good deal now then we will do it.

"Adrian will make the decision because of his experience and his knowledge. He brought up Fernando Alonso, so there is no one better than Adrian to choose. I can help him with my advice, but the final decision is his."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78021

[McLaren Fan]

I really feel sorry for them, but I would rather see Campos struggle on the track even more than they were already going to next year than have a two-tier Formula One and an absurdly low budget cap. Moreover, if Mosley's regulations did get the nod, most of the sport's best teams would have gone elsewhere, so Campos would be racing in Formula One in name only. So, it's not all bad for them.

[RA Dunk]

There own fault for signing up before the new budget cap was signed done and dusted really, most of us really knew it wasnt going to happen so cant see why they didnt see it either TBH

[Jabberwocky]

I am sure that as far as they where concerned the budget cap was already in place. I wonder if they could sue the FIA for moving the goal posts.

then again there is nothing them only spending 40 mil

[RA Dunk]

I am sure that as far as they where concerned the budget cap was already in place.

I doubt it TBH, they probably thought it would go through but now it hasnt their worried

[Jabberwocky]

it is a tough call for them, as they really have 3 options

1, tell the FIA that they do not want to play anymore

2, Run and spend 40 Million, and hope that they are not 10 seconds off that pace, cos if they do getting some sponsership for the following year might be a problem

3, Run spend as much as they like and hope they do a decent job and get the sponsors to warrant the extra money

[JamesD89]

There own fault for signing up before the new budget cap was signed done and dusted really, most of us really knew it wasnt going to happen so cant see why they didnt see it either TBH

Yeah I tend to agree, they should have held back until spending had reduced enough to make an impact. What fun does any team have at the back of the grid?

[Jabberwocky]

I think they had to hit the deadlines that the FIA laid out, it is just that FOTA messed the deal up for them

[Frosty]

I am sure that as far as they where concerned the budget cap was already in place. I wonder if they could sue the FIA for moving the goal posts.

then again there is nothing them only spending 40 mil

They could only sue if there was a contract saying that there was going to be a 40 mil budget cap.

[Jabberwocky]

I suppose it is down to the wording of the contract. the F1 2010 rules may of been used

[ProjektMayhem]

While I agree that Formula One needs to reduce costs in order to survive I'm beginning to think they're in over their heads with all of the initiatives they're attempting at once:
- green technology; notoriously expensive (see: KERS)
- decreased spending; difficult to implement
- increased spectacle; hinders technological advancement by means of standardized parts

Green technology was an initiative aimed at trying to kill two birds with one stone: 1) increase the relevance of the sport as it pertains to emerging technologies for road cars, and 2) place that focus on reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The hope for KERS was that a technology could be developed that would allow for the reclamation of wasted kinetic energy in the cars; to make them more efficient. Then they attempted to tie this in with increasing the spectacle by giving the drivers access to that reclaimed energy to bolster performance. Hindsight being 20/20, until the recent resurgence of McLaren KERS was viewed as a dud technology, too expensive to develop for the little gain it presented. In the first half of the season it only served to help drivers maintain a lead when one existed because the KERS unit weighed so much as to be a hindrance.

What they should have done (in my opinion): introduced one variable at a time. Increased mechanical grip from the resumed use of slick tires and the ban on aerodynamic components would have (and has proven to) been all that's necessary to increase the spectacle and increase the opportunities for overtaking. After that begin to introduce components for hybrid engines; make them mandatory by, say, 2016. It'd be possible to decrease the fuel consumption by an exorbitant amount with a high-performance hybrid engine (imagine the trickle-down to sports cars with this technology). KERS would be a natural component of the hybrid system so long as it wasn't used as some sort of "boost" function. This would properly accommodate not only green technology but decreased spending as well.

Decreased spending initiatives only came about as a result of the global economy crash. Aunt Bernie never had any intention of decreasing the spending of teams; it's too much of a talking point on the extravagant environment that is F1. Additionally, teams wouldn't have to decrease much of their spending if profits were distributed a bit more fairly. As it stands all incoming money is divided in half. Half goes to the teams and the other half goes to the commercial rights holders. How ridiculous is that? There's no reason Bernie should make as much as he does. Not when he removes a grand prix from the country that provides the world's largest market to the sport's competitors. From a business standpoint (and F1 is first and foremost a business) that makes zero sense.

Yes, certainly, costs needed to be reduced. But why is it put upon the teams to solely reduce their spending? A 75/25 split would make much more sense in light of the balance of what each side of the party brings to the table. Bernie is not 50% of Formula One, so he doesn't deserve 50% of its profits.

And why is it necessary for an entire country to pool money together to afford to host an F1 race? Pure insanity.

Finally: Ferrari will always find a way to spend $500M/year on racing. Toyota is a car company. BMW is a car company. Mercedes is a car company. Honda is a car company. Ferrari is a racing company, and as far as I know is the only company of its kind in the world. The only reason it started selling road cars was to fund its racing team, and the only reason it still sells road cars is essentially marketing. I think they're beautiful, but in a perfect world Ferrari road cars wouldn't exist; everyone would have a Maranello Red foam hand to wave at races. That's essentially what Ferrari's road cars are: exquisitely built, beautifully styled, ungodly fast foam hands. They're marketing tools. So to make any attempt at holding Ferrari to a budget cap is like telling Honda they can only spend $60M a year on all of their manufacturing endeavors.

Increased spectacle has been an initiative since Schumacher was still handing out punk cards on a weekly basis. People love a champion, but they love conflict more. This year has really helped, as it's not been the same two or three drivers winning every race. Furthermore there's still the element of an unstoppable force (Brawn), underdogs (Brawn preseason; Red Bull, McLaren currently), and lots of conflict to make this a really interesting story. Continuing on this path alone will make the next two or three years really special. But it didn't take much to achieve: the return of slicks and the reduction of aero.

Bring back the USGP, add in US F1, an American driver, and be a little kinder with the licensing and realistic about what's necessary to host an F1 race (which would trickle down to lower cost of admission) and there's nothing stopping Formula One from being the premiere auto sport in every country.

We all know NASCAR has nothing on F1, but it's simply more accessible, cheaper, and easier to understand. And despite my hatred for the sport I have to appreciate the management and marketing for turning it into what it is.

In summation: The mismanagement of the sport by both the commercial rights holders and the FIA (not sure why they're involved outside of sanctioning and creating safety standards) has really put a strain on not only new teams, but also the sport's image as a whole. They've created a very confusing and impossible situation with half of their initiatives contradicting the other half. For teams like Campos to really make it a change of management is necessary, and I also think the FIA needs to get their grubby little hands out of the pot as well.

Sorry to ramble, just trying to be detailed.

[headless]

.

[darwin dali]

You omitted FIAT in your Ferrari analysis

[McLaren Fan]

Green technology was an initiative aimed at trying to kill two birds with one stone: 1) increase the relevance of the sport as it pertains to emerging technologies for road cars, and 2) place that focus on reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The hope for KERS was that a technology could be developed that would allow for the reclamation of wasted kinetic energy in the cars; to make them more efficient. Then they attempted to tie this in with increasing the spectacle by giving the drivers access to that reclaimed energy to bolster performance. Hindsight being 20/20, until the recent resurgence of McLaren KERS was viewed as a dud technology, too expensive to develop for the little gain it presented. In the first half of the season it only served to help drivers maintain a lead when one existed because the KERS unit weighed so much as to be a hindrance.

What they should have done (in my opinion): introduced one variable at a time. Increased mechanical grip from the resumed use of slick tires and the ban on aerodynamic components would have (and has proven to) been all that's necessary to increase the spectacle and increase the opportunities for overtaking. After that begin to introduce components for hybrid engines; make them mandatory by, say, 2016. It'd be possible to decrease the fuel consumption by an exorbitant amount with a high-performance hybrid engine (imagine the trickle-down to sports cars with this technology). KERS would be a natural component of the hybrid system so long as it wasn't used as some sort of "boost" function. This would properly accommodate not only green technology but decreased spending as well.

In my view, one of the main reasons KERS didn't take off was that there was no impetus to use it, as it was too restricted. Amongst other things, limiting it to the six seconds was an awful decision, as it was not sufficient to overcome the penalties your KERS-equipped car has in terms of problems with weight distribution and the mass of the KERS.

Assuming Formula One was to go down the route of using hybrid engines, I would like to see the same regulations being used across the grid. In other words, everybody has to use the same "green" parts their engines at the same time during the lead up to hybrid engines being compulsory. I wouldn't like to see a repeat of the same situation we are having with KERS now.

You omitted FIAT in your Ferrari analysis

True.