FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

I have a very simple cost cutting solution. Stop hosting F1 events in countries that could give two craps about the sport. Host 75% of the races in Europe where travel costs would be significantly reduced. Have the other four of five races in countries that do give two craps.

ESPNF1 No firm agreement has been found between Formula One's 11 teams after they met in London on Thursday to discuss money-saving proposals.

The teams met at Biggin Hill in the wake of the scrapping of the proposed cost cap, which had been set for 2015, following opposition from the six teams in the Strategy Group. The smaller teams were furious with that decision and have now reportedly been asked to come up with their own ideas for trimming the rising costs in F1.

The suggestion came from FIA president Jean Todt, originally in favour of the cost cap, in the hope the teams will have something to bring back in time for a meeting at the Monaco Grand Prix. A letter to Todt from the smaller teams last month reportedly threatened EU intervention on the issue.

But it appears a major revolt over cost has been avoided for the time being, though the smaller teams remain unconvinced about the benefit of the sporting and technical regulations being proposed. The Telegraph reports the four smallest teams, Sauber, Force India, Marussia and Caterham, all hope to push the agenda back in the direction of a cost cap.

All the teams on the grid agree something needs to be done about the issue, though the six teams in the Strategy Group - Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Lotus and Williams - disagree with the smaller outfits that a cost cap is the way forward.

A solution may become increasingly difficult to find as the season progresses. Overall approval for future rule changes will be made at the World Motorsport Council on June 26, after which unanimous consent would be needed from all teams to make further changes.

[sagi58]

I have a very simple cost cutting solution. Stop hosting F1 events in countries that could give two craps about the sport. Host 75% of the races in Europe where travel costs would be significantly reduced. Have the other four of five races in countries that do give two craps.

Now that's a solution that makes too much sense/cents for it to be taken seriously!!
I have to agree with the savings your solution would generate AND then we could all settle into
a routine of races with a similar start time, instead of those gawd awful early starts!!

[myownalias]

Why don't we have all 20 races in the UK; that'll be the ultimate cost cutter as most of the teams are based in England; it'd be interesting to see a F1 car going around Knockhill!

[Jabberwocky]

or Pembrey

[NHcheese]

Or Hackney.

[1Lemon]

I can't wait for the Gregs Newcastle formula one grand prix.

[Jabberwocky]

M25 Grand Prix

Sent using NCC-1701

[What's Burning?]

This discussion quickly took a turn towards pointlessness.

[myownalias]

This discussion quickly took a turn towards pointlessness.

Much like cost cutting you might say?

[What's Burning?]

This discussion quickly took a turn towards pointlessness.

Much like cost cutting you might say?

I think the problem has two components. 1) cost 2) innovation.

One way around costs is through innovation and innovation is relatively hamstrung in the sport. This year though we saw a shuffling in the teams for the first time since 2010 and that was only due to the new regulations. In another two year's time the same running order will develop.

I'd be very curious to find out how much, Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren spent to put their cars on the grid this season but I'm certain that both Red Bull and Ferrari outspent the other teams. IMO Williams is probably the happy medium when it comes to costs versus results, maybe Force India as well. The rest are probably putting costs ahead of innovation just to be able to finance the team year in year out.

[scotty]

The main cost is STILL apparently transport around the globe. You'd have thought streamlining the calendar would be a super simple solution (well, it is) but apparently a couple of big-paying races negate that, stupidly. I'd love to see simulators go away and especially the high-cost-low-reward aero development costs be reduced by limiting time spent using them - again, fairly easy to implement in theory. Why none of these have been addressed i don't know, politics no doubt.

WB - Mercedes far outspent others on engines SO FAR it seems (with the obvious result) but as for whole car expenses i couldn't say.

[racechick]

I thought wind tunnels were massively high on the expense sheets.

[Jabberwocky]

Don't believe that RC, wind tunnels are just full of hot air. Lol.

More seriously about wind tunnels the problem is that the running costs are very high, where as the CFD cluster (computer servers) would be more expensive to buy but cost less to run.

As for Simulator, if people can not test they need ways to check what new components do somehow. It amazes me how complicated simulator programs can get.

Sent using NCC-1701

[What's Burning?]

It's all about using what you learn with one tool to refine the other tool and it's a cycle.

CFD/Wind Tunnel ----->On Track Testing -----> Simulator Update----> CFD/Wind Tunnel

So if you get bad or poor data in one of the steps it propagates throughout all of your other testing environments and it makes things more difficult get out of a tailspin. On track testing is the only way to get accurate data to verify and update your computational models. Just what we saw with Ferrari having a hell of a time with their wind tunnel.

[racechick]

Apologies if this has already been posted. It gives the 2013 team budgets and some interesting facts about the general financing if F1. It is last years but never the less shows the massive finance discrepancy form Ferrari to Marussia.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1927 ... of-control