Fota in new cost cutting push.

Caporegime
Joined
9 May 2005
Posts
31,898
Location
Cambridge
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90584

I find this article interesting that prior to losing Mercedes Mclaren where not that interested in cost cutting, now it's a big issue to protect those they are racing against :D

While clearly Red Bull are not so interested if my reading between the lines is correct :D

The one area I don't agree with is ring fencing spending on Kers/Powertrain, this is the one area that's most useful to road cars and technology to be invested in. I'd rather they gave them a simple style 97 front wing made of two elements to give them more to spend on non aero technologies. Such as economy and KERS.






Anyway the full article as Autosport remove it after 2 weeks for non subscribers....

Formula 1 teams are hoping to close in on a fresh cost-cutting deal to help secure the future of the sport during a meeting ahead of the Malaysian Grand Prix, AUTOSPORT can reveal.

Members of the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) are to gather pre-race at Sepang to go through a number of topics - including work on amendments to the Resource Restriction Agreement (RRA), discussions about the organisation's chief officers and ongoing talks about the Concorde Agreement.

Although the teams have already agreed a basic framework for the RRA based on a deal signed at last year's Singapore Grand Prix, there remain differences of opinion about further changes that it is hoped will help add stability to the whole grid.

Sources suggest that there are a number of issues that need resolving – including the use of outside suppliers, how spending on future KERS/power train development should be ring-fenced and also how breaches of RRA spending limits should be dealt with.

FOTA chairman Martin Whitmarsh believes that finding an updated RRA that all the teams are happy with is vital for the sport going forward.

"It is important," he told AUTOSPORT. "There is a desire to extend it into the powertrain which I think is eminently sensible, but we have to continue to grow and develop it. People have expressed different opinions, but we have to go forward.

"F1 needs it. You don't have to go too far down the pitlane to know that unless we can continue to go down the path of controlling and reducing costs in F1 there will be problems.

"It is okay for some of us at this end to say that it doesn't feel like a real and immediate priority – but if we don't do it then we won't have people to race against. It is as simple as that.

"I believe that I represent the interests of McLaren and the teams to say that we have to bring down the costs for all of us of being competitive in F1."

Although it is understood that Red Bull's two teams are standing out alone for a number of revisions to the RRA, Whitmarsh said it would be wrong of him to talk about whether a compromise on the issues at stake can be found.

"I don't think it is helpful for me as chairman of FOTA to talk about different opinions of teams," he said. "I think it is inevitable there will be differences on any subject, as we are a competitive bunch of people in the F1 paddock.

"I think ultimately there has been a tremendous amount of goodwill to get to where we are. There has been a lot of pain, and let's not forget that there are a lot of teams, and we are certainly one, who have had to reduce our staff and that is not an easy process to go through.

"It is the bigger teams that have in effect born the brunt of it and worked hard. But it is never enough. It is an increasingly tough competitive world out there, but we have to make sure that the restrictions that we have placed upon ourselves cover a broader spectrum of our activity."
 
sigh

How about they just let teams spend as much as they wish, if you aren't successful enough to have more revenue then that is your own fault for not being successful enough
 
Sigh, Everyone seems content on changing the sport to a same spec. Can't wait for them to allow electric, diesel or other power sources at least we will have what f1 is about technological development most of which is relevant to other industries and something that has been missing for a while and getting more anymore limited every year.
 
sigh

How about they just let teams spend as much as they wish, if you aren't successful enough to have more revenue then that is your own fault for not being successful enough

Something I have always wanted. Of course, most teams would leave as it would be too expensive. F1 got hit hard when tobacco advertising left.

Sigh, Everyone seems content on changing the sport to a same spec. Can't wait for them to allow electric, diesel or other power sources at least we will have what f1 is about technological development most of which is relevant to other industries and something that has been missing for a while and getting more anymore limited every year.

It would be great to see. With the FIA largely in control though, I can never see it happening. What I would love to see would be more teams like Audi, Porsche etc. (and none of these stupid teams like "HRT").
 
There has been talk but not in the f1 series if it had top drivers and much more innovation I would switch to watching it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo.../F1-asked-EU-set-new-electric-car-series.html

From none daily fail source
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b500a78c-5e1c-11e0-b1d8-00144feab49a.html

Also talk of it being an f1 support race, I could see this quickly replacing f1 or being merged, as they would finally understand there is more. Than enough money to sustain f1, but only if there is more return than pure advertising and that means innovation.
 
Last edited:
I agree the technology has to become more relevant to get backers. All the big sponsors they threatened would come when the ciggerette money went never happened.

For some of the big sponsors involved in sport (non f1) it just doesn't return enough value for money, for car makers it doesn't sell cars.

The 40 million banded about was unworkable, but I'd like to see standard front and rear wings because team waste far too much money developing them and then give them free reign on Kers and engine efficiency.

One picture that always stands out to me is the 97 williams wing in comparison to last years red bull. I wonder how much money was spent over the years getting to that point. I'd prefer either a standard design or a two part design like the williams wing.

 
I don't want a standard wing, but I do agree with one or two boards with no stuck on tat, openings like they have now, but as you say need kers to be opened up and ground effect reinstated.
 
I don't want a standard wing, but I do agree with one or two boards with no stuck on tat, openings like they have now.

I suppose if you regulated it to two elements like the Williams wing pictured it wouldn't need to be standard. When you look at it I doubt there was much in the differences in design back then, it's pretty simple. Hard to believe only as far back as 97 was that basic. :D

Both Newey wings but worlds apart.
 
More to the point, too much money keeps getting spent on the FIA constantly changing the rules and car designs. You make a good point though, the cost of development of just the front wing must be substantial, yet is hardly a good investment. You also have to consider now the amount of money car companys are putting into the next generation cars - electricity, hydrogen, whatever else there might be. F1 is not a good investment anymore.
 
You also have to consider now the amount of money car companys are putting into the next generation cars - electricity, hydrogen, whatever else there might be. F1 is not a good investment anymore.

At some point F1 stopped being about competing road legal car designs to prove which ones were the best, and turned into a technological showcase of purely race stuff to prove which company was the best

Then the FIA started messing about
 
Well Todt blames it on circuit design and the fall in viewing figures for not being able to clearly identify the drivers :confused:

http://en.espnf1.com/fia/motorsport/story/45247.html

Jean Todt , the FIA president, has criticised Formula One tracks where there is little chance to overtake, saying they are partially to blame for falling television audiences across the world. He singled out Yas Marina, often held up by Bernie Ecclestone as the most appealing circuit, as an example of all that is bad about the sport.

"Races like Abu Dhabi in 2010, where you cannot overtake, are unacceptable," Todt told Auto Motor und Sport. "Recent data indicates a fall in the numbers of spectators. People have many choices in how to spend their leisure and every day we must ask ourselves how we can improve the entertainment".

Richard Cregan, the chief executive of the Yas Marina circuit, said the problem was not limited to new tracks. "You can see it around the world that you have tracks equally as good as Yas Marina, many of them with a longer heritage and still F1 becomes a procession," he said. "We are looking at various track modifications that we have to do for MotoGP and also what impact they would have on Formula One. We want to be active in terms of increasing the spectacle."

Todt said the lack of visibility of the drivers was another contributing factor. "On television I can hardly tell who is at the wheel of each car. Only the experts know the helmets and many drivers change their design race to race. NASCAR does a good job. A driver, getting a starting number that he keeps for all his career, is immediately identifiable by the fans."

He also defended Formula One's new 'green' engine rules for 2013 which have so angered Ecclestone.

"One day governments will prohibit certain types of cars or engines. The FIA needs to demonstrate it is moving forward, even if it brings us no new fans," he said. "The bigger you are, the greater the role model you have to be."
 
At some point F1 stopped being about competing road legal car designs to prove which ones were the best, and turned into a technological showcase of purely race stuff to prove which company was the best

Then the FIA started messing about

but up untill mid 90's they used f1 as a test bed for new components that saw it's way into cars. Since then i has only been aero aero aero. which is useless to any other industry. This is where there is a massive potential for not only sustained funding but increase funding. They just need to open up the rules in a sensible way, one of them is allow development of kers and alternative energies. While drastically kerbing aero design.
 
but up untill mid 90's they used f1 as a test bed for new components that saw it's way into cars. Since then i has only been aero aero aero. which is useless to any other industry. This is where there is a massive potential for not only sustained funding but increase funding. They just need to open up the rules in a sensible way, one of them is allow development of kers and alternative energies. While drastically kerbing aero design.

Oh I agree entirely, I've argued for opening up the rules (outside of aero) for a while now ... but everyone just says "it's too expensive" and instead we end up with more mandated technology (ie I4 turbo) rather than mandated requirements (must complete the race with xxx amount of fuel given at start of race).
 
As I've said before, why is it now that the teams are so stratified, yet in 97 we had virtually every car out there (except for the V8-powered Tyrrell and Minardi) challenging for a win\podium at some point in the season?

As for tobacco sponsorship, I agree. It was the likes of Mild Seven money keeping the smaller teams afloat during the mid 90s.

Just for balance since I've been rather uncomplementary about the above two teams:


 
As has been said many times before by various members.

Give the teams, unlimited fuel for free practice, then in only allow them say 100kg of fuel (adjust the amount to suit) for both qualifying and the race. Then let the teams do as they wish with the engines and aero within reason. i.e no covered wheels etc..

I do remember the teams saying that current F1 engines are much more economical than something like a Prius. It's the aero drag that reduces the MPG
 
Back
Top Bottom