[vincesanity82]

Motor racing's governing body is being urged to consider the radical idea of a budget cap for teams in Formula One as a way of stopping costs escalating out of control. With the FIA having outlined a plan to limit the use of wind tunnels and other aerodynamic development as their latest step to limit costs, following a 10-year engine freeze, Honda Racing chiefs are calling for a more unconventional regulation. They think that the FIA should introduce a cap on team budgets, rather than limit the teams on what they can develop on their cars. -- Autosport.com

autosport.com - F1 News: Honda call for team budget caps in F1

[DOF_power]

I agree, cap the budgets but free the regulations.

[Racer Duck]

It's a good idea .. one that'll occupy quite a few folks to first define it, and then to monitor the teams. I think the parting remarks in this article bear repeating:

Fry admitted it would take a lot of work to specify what was in a team's 'capped' budget and what was not.

"Some of it looks easy on the face of it, but you have to think about what is included and what is not included," explained Fry. "Are your marketing people included? How do you account for resources that are shared with a car manufacturer?"

[DOF_power]

Here's an article on Grandprix.com
Why F1 needs a brave new world

The danger for F1 is that the sport either needs a lot of manufacturers or none at all. It would be disastrous for one to remain in a completely dominant position - as so often happens in sports car racing - rendering the competition irrelevant as a sporting spectacle. So what is the answer to all of F1's problems?
The logic suggests that what automobile manufacturers would like to see would be some form of budget-capping.
...
Perhaps the FIA should create a structure to require the teams to make full financial disclosure about how budgets were spent and if there were any anomalies there could be investigations by accountants and lawyers versed in such matters, backed up by suitable administrative and civil punishments as necessary. This would make any offence criminal as it would, in effect, be defrauding the other teams. This would function along similar lines as stock exchange commissions around the world. Commissioners would have to have suitable qualifications and be non-partisan and have staggered five-year terms thus creating enough stability for the job to be interesting but enough changeover to ensure that no bad habits were allowed to develop. The United States's Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established as a result of the Wall Street Crash of 1929. When the markets fell public confidence in the industry fell with them. That faith had to be restored and the SEC was the result. Perhaps a similar response would be the smartest solution to the problems of F1 today. The espionage scandals of 2007 are shaking confidence in the sport and the FIA would be wise to look at a much broader picture than the "fire-fighting" work of today.

[Racer Duck]

I think it gets back to the question "Who is concerned about the cheating/espionage, the fans, the teams/manufacturers or the sponsors?"

I think for the most part, most fans enjoy the "antics" of the various parties. It gives a bit more drama to the sometimes boring race for the Championship. On the other hand, there's always the good guys and the bad guys; the eternal struggle between good and bad. Some (fans, teams/manufacturers and sponsors) like (the appearance of) being the "bad guy" while others wouldn't ever consider it an option.

When the subject turns to numbers (stock prices, won-lost ratios, ROI, etc.) it gets boring very quickly except to the (very, very) few.

Racing has always been about a difference of opinion (who's fastest) and the quest to justify your opinion. Team budgets are just another way to make the the lesser better and the better less. The thought is team budgets will increase competition, but I'm not sure it really does because winners always find ways to win while those that don't win always find ways to not win.

[DOF_power]

This measure is just about controlling costs via budget cap as opposed to bans and freezes.

As long as it will keep some of its essence, Grand Prix racing will never be a close field, and only a handful or less of the cars/drivers will have a shot of winning.
It's been like that since 1906 with the first official Grand Prix, when the (super advanced for its time) Renault AK 90CV (with its hydraulic dampers and detachable wheel rims) essentially won that race before it even started. In 1950, when the first World Championship F1 GP took place, everyone knew only an Alfa-Romeo 158 could win the race; the only question was witch one will it be.
So yes the winners will still win and the field will still be more lose than elsewhere in this competition. But that's the price for innovation.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

This measure is just about controlling costs via budget cap as opposed to bans and freezes.

As long as it will keep some of its essence, Grand Prix racing will never be a close field, and only a handful or less of the cars/drivers will have a shot of winning.
It's been like that since 1906 with the first official Grand Prix, when the (super advanced for its time) Renault AK 90CV (with its hydraulic dampers and detachable wheel rims) essentially won that race before it even started. In 1950, when the first World Championship F1 GP took place, everyone knew only an Alfa-Romeo 158 could win the race; the only question was witch one will it be.
So yes the winners will still win and the field will still be more lose than elsewhere in this competition. But that's the price for innovation.

exactly. but team budgets can be detrimental to innovation.

There's just no way to know in advance whether the next major innovation will be inexpensive or not. So how does one set a useful team budget that promotes innovation and yet still controls costs?

[DOF_power]

In the old days there were lower budgets and a higher degree of innovation.
I don't mean refinement/evolution, I mean radical ground breaking innovation.
Now its a lot more about tweaking/optimising/finding the tolerances then ground breaking innovation.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

In the old days there were lower budgets and a higher degree of innovation.
I don't mean refinement/evolution, I mean radical ground breaking innovation.
Now its a lot more about tweaking/optimising/finding the tolerances then ground breaking innovation.

but in the old days the technologies were less expensive and less exotic. In the old days they didn't have carbon fiber driver "buckets" custom built for the driver like they do today. and they were less restricted on what they could do...

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

but in the old days the technologies were less expensive and less exotic. In the old days they didn't have carbon fiber driver "buckets" custom built for the driver like they do today.

In this case it's true, but other series have carbon fibre monocoque chassis and the budget are a lot smaller. From IRL to Le Mans/LMS/ALMs, GP2 and so forth.

The use of composites however it not that new really. The first time an F1 team started experimenting was in 1976 (Brabham with carbon brakes). By 1979 Brabham had carbon-steel brakes and a monocoque enforced with carbon composites. By the early 80s McLaren and Lotus had true composite monocoques and even carbon-carbon brakes. So we're talking about technologies that are at 25 years old.
The IRL carbon-steel brakes were ground braking ... in 1979; the fully composite chassis witch Audi introduced with their R10 in 2006 was ground-braking in 1982; but you see it's not the late 70s/early 80 and Formula 1 Grand Prix racing is not the little league.
Without the innovation, the progress, the cut-throat "catch up to survive and innovate to win" Modus Operandi it will be Grand Prix racing.

and they were less restricted on what they could do...

True.

[simple simon]

to me this just sounds like Honda is crying poor ...... sounds like they are spreading themselves too thin

[DOF_power]

I meant to say "it will NOT be Grand Prix racing."

As for Honda, they've got money, I doubt that's the problem.
At one point in 2004 Honda did complain that the rules favour Ferrari (testing and/or technology, can't remember what), but then in 2005 and 2006 Renault took all the titles, while in 2007 McLaren had the better car.

Anyway, I agree with budget caps but greater freedom to innovate.

[Racer Duck]

I agree. budget caps are probably ok. BUT only if freedom to innovate is not part of the budget caps.

There ought to be a fixed amount under which a car can be constructed, not counting research/innovation.

once that's done, then the ticklish problem of salaries looms .. who's covered by the caps and who isn't. do you allow trade offs like M. Schumacher for reduced car construction costs, for example?