Any actual cost savings in the last ten years?

I don't believe in "low-cost" F1, so imposing a budget cap is an anathema to me.
If you can' afford F1, stay out of it !

But there are ways to make F1 cheaper, without imposing anything, by allowing custom cars, by which a constructor could sell his chassis to other teams, like they do with engines. Doing away with the obligation for a team to own intellectual rights on a car would be a big step to reduce cost for small teams, since they will never be able to compete with the might of major manufacturers.

We could do away with limiting the number of engines and transmissions over a season, and replace it with a grid penalty every time a team change a major component on one of his cars. Reliability has to be rewarded one way or the other, or F1 will develop a "throw-away" mentality, a bit like drag racing! .

There are rules that have been introduced over the years that I don't understand.
Why a team MUST have 2 cars?
Why a team must attend ALL the races?
Why F1 doesn't allow "wild card entries" ?
Why can't teams change drivers as they want?
Why is there a mandatory tyre change?

F1 is craving for more liberal rules; it needs more technical and operational freedom, IMO.
A quick comparison with MotoGP shows there is still a long way to go in that direction.

 

Ferrari/Mercedes spend around 150 million USD developing the 2006 onwards V8 engine.

Mercedes spend 500 Million on the initial hybrid engine for 2014, not including how much they spend each year on the engine alone upgrading it.

The teams got 8 engines a year for the V8s. Now 3.

Mercedes sells it's engines at a loss to customers, who can still barely afford the engines. An engine deal is around 20m for the season...20 million! And that's with a discount....for 6 engines (2 cars/3 engines each).

In the V10 era an engine deal for a small team was around 10 million a season, and they where using at least 1 engine per weekend per car!

I'd be inclined to agree with William to say that if you can't afford to play in F1, don't be in it...but fact of the matter is these engines need constant saving, like Le Mans engines, the over complicated aero doesn't allow for racing....All things that can be fixed.

Frankly speaking, take out the MGU-H out of the current engines and they become LOADS cheaper. Stick on conventional turbos also. Then work in a development freeze. The engine cost would go down at an enormous rate. Keep the base V6 and normal turbos. That's it. Give them 10 engines for the season that they can push hard.

And then fix the aero.

Cost comes down. Excitment goes up.

It's a win win.

Of course I prefer V10/12 engines but as a stop gap, I think my solution is great.

 

Did you read the last comments by Andreas Seidl (ex-Porsche and now McLaren) regarding F1 engines ?
I don't think so by the arguments you still use in your above post.

Seidl gives information as an insider about the rules changes in 2021, and notably the technical rules.
He participated, as an observer for Porsche, to some of the discussions about engines.
Porsche was interested for a time, and even built an engine as a feasability study, until deciding against it. (to my great regret)
The fact is that NO new engine builder has shown any interest in entering F1, whatever the rules. NOT ONE !!!
A change of engine formula is costly for anyone, and it takes years for the new formula to settle down, according to Seidl.

About the complexity of the current hybrid formula, Seidl reveals something that will completely destroy your argument.
When Liberty/FIA proposed to simplify the current power units by jetisonning the MGU-H unit and keeping just the MGU-K unit, the 4 current engine suppliers (Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda and Renault) vehemently opposed the idea, saying they had spend $M to get where they are, that the difference between units is levelling now, etc ...
Apparently one constructor threatened to quit if the current engine formula wasn't reconducted; Seidl didn't say which one.
Maintaining the current engine formula with a few tweaks has its advantage: no shortage of engine, no constructor departing in a fit of pique, engine cost going down in future once the initial R&D costs have been swallowed, etc ...
So, it looks that the same power units will be at the back of F1 cars for years to come.

.

 

Doesn’t make it right to have these hybrid crap boxes circulating in grid order week after week, terrified to rev it up in case it fails. Boring as ****, just like the average Prius is


Forza Ferrari..... the only racing team and car marque that matters. Italia forever It’s easier to apologise than it is to ask permission

 

Why a team MUST have 2 cars? To prevent 3,4,5,6 car teams

Why a team must attend ALL the races? To prevent 5 car races.

Why F1 doesn't allow "wild card entries" ? Don't know

Why can't teams change drivers as they want? WCC points

Why is there a mandatory tyre change? To have some action occur in the pits.

 

None of your answers are really convincing to me.

I remember the time when up to 26 cars turned up at GP, and qualifs selected the 20 best to start (like Indy)
Now, the 10 teams are guaranted a place on the grid.
We could as well eliminate the 2 less performing teams, and allow the 4 best ones to field an extra car each to fill the grid.
That mean we could have 4 performing cars, instead of 4 mobile chicanes.

Teams could be contracted to attend a minimum of races, and skip others when they are not ready, etc ... How do they do in Indycar ?
In WEC, the WRC and many series, there is no obligation to attend all the races.

"Wild card entries" could allow a new team to taste the water, or a F1 team leasing a car for 1 or 2 races to a F2 team, for example.
F1 used to have "wild card entries" in the past, like when Penske leased a McLaren for Donohue, etc... It's current in MotoGP, and it works.

In the WCC, it's the car that scores, not the driver. In the past, 2 drivers could alternate in the same car (the Fabi brothers ?)

Why do we need "action in the pits" in a sprint race ? GPs used to be without a stop, and that was fine.
Mandatory tyre changes are artificial, and introduce pit strategy when it should be about pure racing.

 

The reason current teams don't want to change (for now...) is precisely because they where forced to spend upwards of a billion (yes) developing these engines to get them competitive. Taking the MGU-H out will basically deem that investment as a waste of money

The reason no one wants to build a formula 1 engine is because a) the product is crap b) they'll have to invest a billion c) still risk the utter humiliation that Honda has gotten since 2015. Kind of a hard sell.

I guarantee you, a simple enough engine formula, an Cosworth//Gibson etc can see there's money to be made, they'll be in.

The biggest issue with the engines remains simple: Cost and inability to push them, due to only being allowed 3 engines.

 

According to Seidl, even before discussing the détails of a new formula (if it could be atmo, turbo, hybrid or else), no new engine builder did show any interest!!
No Gibson, no AER, no Cosworth, or BMW, Audi, Ford, Hyundai, Toyota, Nissan, not one !!!
As for the 4 that exist, they want to see the fruit of their investment, hence only a few modifications.
That's the reality, the plain facts.

Also, don't tell "they where forced to spend upwards of a billion developing these engines to get them competitive", because in fact they were there when these rules were decided, they chose them, and they were very enthusiast about them !!
It's a fallacy to say that rules are imposed on teams and constructors: they are in fact consulted all along.

 

Brrrrrrrrrr. It’s cold in here. Hell has frozen over, I agree with William, the teams that can’t afford f1 - **** off - let ferrari and others run three good cars instead of having 4 or 6 make weights circulating and getting in the way


Forza Ferrari..... the only racing team and car marque that matters. Italia forever It’s easier to apologise than it is to ask permission

 

The current hybrid formula has led to extensive cost savings.
For example , in my house, I no longer have the expense of buying Grand Prix tickets.
Result !

 

At the time the new rules where pushed through, we had Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and Cosworth in the sport. Cosworth was out immediately due to cost basis. They made this very clear. Mercedes wanted to push it through or they'd leave. Renault did the same. Ferrari was opposed, but outvoted. Honda came to the sport after Mclaren felt Mercedes stopped giving them full support now that they could win titles and needed a new engine.

Ferrari had a choice, stay in F1 and spend silly money on the engine, or leave the sport that they've been part of since day 1, and lose part of what makes Ferrari, Ferrari. They didn't have a choice really. Ferrari had to.

Would Mercedes or Renault really have left? Who knows. If they kept the V8s as they where they'd keep supplying as it makes them money.

 

I would love to see wild card entries in F1, either cars leased to other teams or 3rd drivers.

would be a great way to improve the show, attract local fan bases (i.e. put an IndyCar or NASCAR driver in the USGP, etc), and would get younger drivers more seat time than the current Friday test routine.

 

Ferrari couldn't be made to accept anything they didn't like.

Remember, Ferrari has a VETO !! The only team to have that privilege.

If Ferrari accepted the present formula, it's because they thought they would be competitive. On the engine side they are.

So far they are the second team behind Mercedes, and one can argue that they lost 2 titles because of Vettel, not their power unit.

 

At least something we agree on.

 

They are competitive on the engine side this season, I agree with that. Last year the engine got neutered early on.

Ferrari didn't use the VETO for only reasons they know.

 

I seem to remember that the Ferrari veto was given up a long time ago in a revamp of the rules and shake up of the commercial rights... I may be wrong and it is still in place and available, but I’m pretty certain of it

I think I remember (best I can do, these painkillers make me forget my own name sometimes) that they were politically manoeuvred into giving the veto up due to pressure from other teams to follow the route the majority voted on rather than get the option to stop cost cutting measures that they wanted

 

That's news to me, since I read Liberty still wants to terminate the privilèges Ferrari benefits. But you may be right, of course, I grant you that.

In any case, I don't think Ferrari would accept anything from the FIA they don't like, since you have constantly said that they have a enormous influence in F1, and that F1 wouldn't survive without Ferrari.

When you have that kind of leverage, and the possibility to blackmail an international sporting body, when a new formula is decided, you won't certainly accept new technical rules you don't like, do you?

For example, Marchione (God bless his soul) intimated that Ferrari would pull out of F1 if the forthcoming rules didn't suit Ferrari.
So, can I deduct that they accepted the hybrid rules willingly, and that nothing was imposed on them ? It was just a compromise.

 

Ferrari were NOT happy with the engine rules, hence we have V6 not V4s. It was a compromise we were forced to accept as Mercedes
And Renault wouldn’t accept anything else. We stayed in f1 for this compromise, and as I said before, f1 IS Ferrari. Liberty better be careful what they wish for


Forza Ferrari..... the only racing team and car marque that matters. Italia forever It’s easier to apologise than it is to ask permission

 

The whole cost saving thing is/was a myth. You can't do any cost saving in racing. Who is so stupid to think of that?