Do wonder how they plan to enforce this. If they give a maximum of people allowed under employ of a team, the teams will simply ''outsource'' them (the same people...) from other companies. If they limit budget, how is that controlled? Only way to make it cheaper is (disclaimer: broken record) by simplifying the engines, more or less standardized KERS/Batteries, limit aerodynamic development on the wings, availability of standardized gearboxes at a decent price... A current Power Unit costs minimum of £750k. During the development era of V10s, an engine (which was constantly being developed) was between £180-£250k. A gearbox costs an astronomical £120k. There is no way in hell a gearbox should cost that much. The only difference is that they're in another casing. The casing, once designed (it holds the suspension parts on etc), costs **** all to build. It's a bunch of cogs and some hydraulics controlled by a computer. A top spec racing hewland gearbox with magnesium casing is under £20k. I see no reason why an F1 gearbox should cost 6x that. More expensive, sure. Aerodynamic departments of F1 are HUGE. Limiting the development of the wings will quite simply lead to a smaller sized team thus (far) less costs and improved racing. Monocoque design will still be free so length and shape will be different for most teams I struggle to think what to do with engines because over time teams generally agreed that the V10 is best regarding the engine formula at the time (3000cc max). Ferrari/Honda/BMW had a 90 degree angle, Renault 75 and Mercedes 72 in their final V10 iterations (Renault especially played around with crank angles a lot). I think it's interesting to have a secondary or tertiary power unit option available: In addition to the 4 liter V10 with ERS, have the teams be allowed to run a twin turbo V8 and perhaps a single turbo I4 as well. My big worry is that either one of the 3 engine options could be the dominant force and we'll be stuck with what we have now, a team utterly dominant over the rest of the field, and after a year everyone wants the same sort of engine making the other 2 completely redundant. F1's engineers are too clever for their own good, so a ''let them do what they want'' engine formula will never work anymore. Some people will ***** it'll be too much like a spec series but as I said above, the engineers are too clever and you can't simply unlearn people what they already know. I remain of the opinion that a forced budget cap is pointless and will never work, but cost cutting and improving racing + increasing fan base is entirely doable. Even Ross Brawn has said so, if F1 is doing what it keeps doing now logically speaking Electric engines is next, but that's what Formula E is for and it's in F1's best interest to NOT go that way.
Liberty is American, so primarily interest in managing a show, not supporting a sport. It's a different outlook to run a show business rather than a world championship. I expect many changes, some we will like, others we will hate. If they are serious about cost capping, they will introduce more common components and I can see F1 turning into a specs series. It makes sense from a financial point of view. That's what happens when a sport gets too big; it attract people who invest in it and want to shape it to their liking. So, Indycar2 is looming on the horizon.
This is some curious thinking! One of the biggest complaints over the last couple of seasons has been how teams have been severely restricted when it comes to developing their cars in order to catch up with Mercedes due to the token system, and finally the FIA has decided to drop the idea and allow free development. Now though, Liberty want to bring in a budget cap so, if a team finds itself lagging behind Mercedes again (or another dominant team), and they've spent all of their budget at the start of the season, even though the rules allow them to develop what they want to, they won't be able to catch the dominant team up as they'll have no money available! So F1 would be straight back to square one again - Whoever starts the season with a big advantage will win the Championships! Nice thinking Liberty!
Maybe the idea is that without mega budget, no team will be able to field a car that is too dominant. If you impose more common components, restrict costs, limit aero, you will end up with a cheaper formula, of course. Gene Haas gave a clue when he said he couldn't understand why some components couldn't be bought over the counter, like in NASCAR! F1 will be turned into a specs series.
Surely they're intelligent enough to know that standardized F1 cars will kill F1 quicker than endless domination by a team/driver.
I am not so sure about that. The new generation of fans has no idea apart from cheering up some celebrities on the track, taking selfies and expecting plenty of overtaking. Most of them have no idea who is who, what's the car, etc. but is more interested in chasing autographs, swilling beer and talking about the rock band that was entertaining them last night. That's the kind of conversations I used to hear at the track. So, I don't think a one-make series would be seen differently. Sorry to be so brutal, but that's the way I see it. I even changed my opinion about other categories becoming specs series to survive. Has Indy disappeared because of it?
I think they have something more drastic than that to reduce cost, like mandatory Dallara carbon fiber chassis, standard transmission and suspension, etc...
Personally I didn't get that idea from attending a race. I saw few autograph chasers but a huge amount of fans there to cheer on their favourite driver/team who seemed to be more into the cars that lack of famous people (because there weren't any). I don't really get that sense either from reading comments on instagram/youtube/twitter or forums. They've already got their entry for 2018. IMO it's because it's more relevant to electric car development and a LOT cheaper than F1. I think the shape should be free. Dimensions back to pre-2009, so to limit downforce. 1 single element (gurney flap). Of course it could be standardized but since not a lot can be gained from it not a huge amount of development will be done on it, so they might as well have their own design... It's an interesting idea to have a standardized (dallara) chassis available but not mandatory. Then use any manufacturer engine. I'm not that keen on standardized suspension at all, but I guess with a dallara chassis the options would be limited. Would they design their own body around the chassis? Teams with bigger budgets can still design their own chassis + body (so length etc will also be of their own choosing). I just hope they see sense on using an engine that'll keep fans interested. From talking to other people at the track, and of course reading on forums/youtube/instagram/twitter, the very vast majority loathe the current engines. Sports best interest is still a 4 liter direct injection V10/12 with ERS IMO. I believe manufacturers with a true interest in electric vehicles will go to formula E
Indy's viewership is off 70% from their peak in the 90's. I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make, but there's a vast difference between surviving and thriving.
I don't think budget caps in F1 would work at all, you can't enforce them, and it will numb the racing even more than it is now. God knows we want some excitement, not more boredom
All Liberty can do is try to persuade the teams into agreeing to a cap. They can't enforce anything other than reducing payouts...which would blow up in their faces. I think F1 should go old school. 5 engine/season V-10 with stick manual gearbox, the only electronics on the car is for the spark plugs, LED RPM cluster, and to power the radio and run the rain light. The only buttons on the wheel would be PTT, drink, and engine off. Spec front wings, spec rear wing. And something that I've been saying for a long time now...5 year rules stability. R&D for new rules obliterates budgets, and rules stability lets other teams catch up. You are right in that caps cannot be enforced, but you can curtail where they can spend it if you remove development for wings, engine and transmission.
As long as it exists for me to watch it, that's enough. I am not interested in the size of the audience .
+1 4 liter V10 or V12 direct injection, that's 4 engines per race so with a rev cap at 15-16K they'll do that easily. At those revs 1000hp would still be possible. Personally I think a basic ERS system would be good for a power bump, but that's me. It's not necessary to me. Such engines will be relatively cheap to produce, there is no reason why they should cost more than 200K per unit (and a dedicated manufacturer such as Cosworth, TAG, AER, Zytec, Judd could easily be under that number by some margin). I agree on manual gearbox too. 6 speed H gate. It may be going backwards in time but the engineers have outdeveloped F1 cars a long time ago, they're too clever for the sport. The last time I saw a genuine misshift was Alonso exiting parabolica during Monza 2006 qualifying. It was a double upshift so only cost him a tenth or 2. I think now software prevents it (double upshifts or going down the gears too quick). Standardized front/rear wings I can debate a little, as I said earlier with limited elements (none except for gurney flap to adjust downforce levels), development won't be really intense so it won't swallow a budget. The difference between the fastest and slowest cars should be much smaller with rules like this. It'll certainly be incredibly unlikely to have a car 1 second faster than the rest of the field, or even half a second. It'll be more down to the driver to win races, which is what it really should be about. Car development cost has been cut by an incredible margin with rules we're discussing. With limited sponsors (Mclaren not having a title sponsor, and unable to find one for 2 years now, says it all! What HOPE does a small team have? NONE I tell you...none!) this is absolutely necessary. Current F1 is simply not exciting enough, a combination of rubbish engines, no noise, way to big a gap between the first 2 cars and the rest of the field, idiotic rules on aerodynamics that prohibit overtaking....come on! In 2004, at the height of Schumacher/Ferrari dominance, 800 MILLION people watched F1 over 18 races. In 2016, hopefully at the height of Mercedes dominance, 400 million people watched F1 over 21 races. That's a huge drop. I'm not blaming it all on the engines, but a huge chunk is because of it.
My previous post was as a nod to Ferrari's previous modus operandi of protesting changes in F1 by threatening to switch to a different racing category, and even coming up with a prototype car to add to the pressure of those in charge to change their minds (as they did way back yonder when they created a Ferrari Indy car) - But I'm sure you got that! OFF TOPIC BUT...... What Ross Brawn needs to realise is that legislation will eventually catchup with motor racing and the days of the petrol/gasoline burning internal combustion engine are coming to an end. It's all very well people wanting a return to bigger capacity engines and less technology on F1 cars, but there's going to come a day when petrol/gasoline burning internal combustion engines will be banned from use in the vast majority of the World, including motor racing. And how could F1 still claim to be at the pinnacle of technology if it is still burning petrol/gasoline when road cars are using far more complex alternative fuel systems? - They'll be using dinosaur technology, desperately clinging onto the past! Don't get Me wrong, I hate the path that the World is now going on with electric cars and self driving cars, but I also realise that sooner or later it's going to happen and it's no good trying to bury your head in the sand and pretend it isn't. BACK ON TOPIC..... The idea of a budget cap in F1 has been discussed ad nauseam of the last 20 years and it has been clearly demonstrated that the "cons" outweigh the "pro's" by quite some margin, and that there would be a high risk of it actually being detrimental to the sport by severely restricted opportunities for car/technology development, and restricting the possibilities of over coming a team with a big car advantage in a season, so it seems strange that Liberty are putting in back on the table again. Liberty haven't even taken over F1 yet and already they are talking about interfering with the sport in ways that could prove to be detrimental! - As The Who once sang (From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgubG-MOPT4 ): "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss" All I can say is: "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again Don't get fooled again No, no!"
I'm in favor of having them dig out the old V-10's. Why? They are already fully developed. Honda has one. Ferrari has one. Mercedes has one. Renault has one. Aside from sorting them out for longevity, all the R&D work has been paid for. Spec front and rear wings simply to reduce the mad spending without turning the cars into total spec units. 3-5 profiles, bare units supplied to the teams by the FIA. As I already said earlier, no electronics, either...except for fuel and spark. Nothing anywhere else. Transmissions and diffs get the purely mechanical treatment. Also, no regs as to what tires to run and when. Teams get a set # for each race of any compound they want. No more of this crap of seeing who can go the slowest the fastest. F1 needs to be a sprint start to finish. Also, no DRS. It has done nothing for the sport. No hybrid crap, either. It isn't exciting in a Prius, and it isn't exciting in F1. All the FIA/CVC/Teams have done is double the cost of participation while halving their viewership. This is not a formula for long term success.
Yep I agree for the most part...ERS/DRS not needed of course. 3 liter V10's will be too small to have decent power and last that long, that's why we need 4 liter. Also old units didn't have direct injection, though that's relatively easy fix. Really agree on mechanical diffs as well. Been saying it for years. They take away from driving massively.
The only way to reduce costs, is for teams not to have to engineer each a car. There is no need for 12 teams to design different chassis, different suspension, different transmission different aero and different engines to go racing. Most of the components could be shared, like uprights, brakes, steering arms, wishbones, steering column, steering wheel, gearbox, pedal box, etc... and save massive cost. Even the basis carbon-fibre tub could be shared. If teams don't have each to re-invent the wheel, they won't need to have so many engineers, designers, fabricators, machinists, etc... and could save a lot on their operating budget and wages. Team strength could be divided by 3, I reckon... Just look what Haas is doing. But if those components aren't made mandatory, then there is no point. A team like Mercedes will come along, employ 50 engineers to design a steering arm that will cost 10 times more than a standard one and do exactly the same job, and everybody will want to match that. F1 has gone budget crazy, I think, because engineers have been given too much freedom in designing what they want, without any consideration for the cost.
Getting old engines out of museums to put them back on the track already exists, it's called Historic Racing. But it's hardly a viable recipe for the "pinnacle of motorsport" as F1 keeps being called ...
Am I the only person who thinks there should be no budget caps and no limits on testing? I WANT to see what engineers can come up with. A lot of racing technology used to find its way into street production, but what are they discovering now? A whole lot of nothing since they don't have the time or allowance to make anything work properly. I don't even care if the same team wins all the time. Let the smartest have the championship.
