Liberty planning F1 budget cap

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.

The original F1 concept was to have different engines, chassis, gearbox etc. That is why only two cars were allowed per team.

I know things are different know and budgets are tight.

My opinion, if you eliminate carbon brakes and massive front wings. The following car can set up and out brake the leading car and maybe some exciting racing.

 

Not OLD engines, the plans. Duh.

 

Budget cap is a STUPID idea. Let me say it again - it's a STUPID idea.

Caps, as they work in other pro sports, is a socialistic model that doesn't promote excellence, it promotes equality. The majority of NFL teams are average. MLS soccer is the most obvious one - random teams win every year, there are no dynasties.

The teams that are prepared to spend, or do what it takes to "be the best" are going to win. That's the way it NEEDS to be.

If you want to make it interesting, let there be a system of promotion / relegation. If you finish in the bottom 3, you get demoted to GP2. If you are top 3 in GP2, you move up to F1. Maybe that doesn't entirely work, but you get the idea...

Caps are a terrible model. Hate it hate it hate it.

 

Given how irrelevant the driver seems to be these days, I can see an argument to cap driver salaries. But let the engineers spend what they want, and give them more freedom to innovate

 

"Racing Technology" existed in some form or another before it found its way onto automobiles and race cars. What exactly have we gotten from F1 anyway? CF tubs? Existed elsewhere. Carbon brakes? Space Shuttle had them long before F1 did. ABS? Trains had em before cars. The list goes on and on. Nothing in F1 today is applicable to road cars, and why should it be? In fact, the reverse is true; hybrid drives in an automobile was produced en masse with the Prius in 1997. Talk about exciting! Buy a Prius and go F1 racing.

F1 with boundless budgets would bankrupt or drive away all teams but a few. Ferrari, Red Bull would remain because they have sweetheart $ deals with Marlboro and RB's parent company. Who would remain? Not Williams, Renault, TR, or McLaren.

Back when Schumi was racing for Ferrari, testing cost $100k a lap. No wonder why it was banned.

 

Progress is killing F1. You may not care if you are the only person watching it, but the teams do. Who do you think pays their bills? What has the hybrid engines brought us? DRS? ERS? KERS? Jack and squat. Less eyes watching by nearly HALF A BILLION PEOPLE signals that what they are doing is wrong. Which actually isn't your beloved progress, is it?

 

They made 1000HP before they switched to the vacuum cleaner V8's. Not too much of a stretch to get 900HP out of a longer life engine using what they've learned with the V8's.

 

will never work.

 

America loves a V8, and they are cheaper than these hybrid / dyson things.

Additionally, if F1 wants to put on a spectacle that has clear water between itself and Normula E (that's not a typo) it could do worse than lighting up Sundays with noisy and explosive V8's

 

This is correct. The current braking window is so diminutive there is little opportunity to gain an advantage. That is one reason Max is so impressive at the moment.

But yes, open up the window and enjoy different styles compete in the braking zone

 

I agree in part, although it's the thin edge of a wedge. Do they also allow for variations on number of wheels etc ?

Anything would be better than the current system - and in an ideal world F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport, running V12's, steel brakes and manual boxes. Most drivers would relish the challenge

 

Porsche's most in demand GT4 has a manual box. A new car selling like hot cakes.

Porsche understand their market

 

And manual boxes would be a NEW challenge to most

 

Yes, but at higher RPM. If we want engines to last 4-5 races they'll need to be RPM limited. I guess in 2005 they where still running 18500+ rpm with engines lasting 2 weekends, so my 15K rpm limit is quite low. 17-17500rpm and 4 race minimum per engine would be easily possible. All they need to change is a new head suitable for direct injection. With that they should be easily at 900bhp at 3 liters...

Of course, that would be great...but the problem is that in that time engineers started to understand what was the best engine configuration, so they'll all end up doing the same anyway.

We're talking of limiting cost (budget cap won't work of course, but restrict what they can spend money on is much more doable). A do what you want engine formula is working very much against a lower budget formula.

 

You're correct, F1 has never been cheap and I don't want a championship where every man and his dog could build something just like that. But it's needlessly expensive. As someone else has mentioned, all the FIA and F1 has done over the last 10 years is increased the budget by over 100% (with teams not surviving), and decreased the viewership by 100%. It's not attractive to sponsors right now.

When teams with 83 and 102 million (manor and Sauber) are barely hanging on to survive, then you know something is wrong. Jordan and Minardi had budgets half that. Half! It's not sustainable as right now it's a massive money losing venture. Who in their right mind would want to enter F1? Even with customer cars; if the costs are too much, new teams won't come because it's flushing money down the toilet.

+1 indeed.

Going back to manuals might seem as ''going backwards''. F1 has gone backwards before by going to smaller engines many times and banning MANY devices.