In the modern era the engineering challenge in Formula 1 is to micro-engineer racing cars over and over again. The sport used to be about making the fastest car without any major restrictions but since the widespread application of ground-effect aerodynamics to F1 cars in the early 1980s, the art of design has been continually frustrated by the rules, which are designed to slow the cars down.
“I suppose it probably started at the end of 1982,” Patrick Head said to me about 10 years. “If we were running unrestricted rules, we would probably have to spend two hours getting the driver into his G-suit or something before qualifying. So I don’t find it surprising. The only thing is the point at which it is felt the cars get excessively emasculated in order to maintain lap times.”
If you give engineers money they will find ways to spend that money. And they will ask for more. It is in their nature to do so. Even if innovation is nigh on impossible, it is winning that is important. Having said that, the smart F1 engineers still argue for cost-control.
“Engineering is all about resource management,” says Geoff Willis, with the Mercedes AMG Petronas. “If you remember the old definition of an engineer: he is the person who can do for a pound what any fool can do for 10. We have always had resource limitations, whether it is money, time, material properties, whatever. So it doesn’t really matter what the regulations are, there is still an engineering challenge. You are competing against others in an arbitrary set of regulations. So I don’t really mind what regulations we have. We have got to get the balance between technological interest and competition and television spectacle. The only problem we have is trying to come up with a set of technical regulations that avoids typecasting the cars. If you painted all the cars exactly the same colour and you all asked yourselves, honestly, could you actually recognise which car was which?”
Some argue that a budget cap is the answer. Some say that F1 should move to standard chassis; others that a standard rear wings would be a good halfway house. But such things will never be decided upon because teams are always looking to gain an advantage if they have more money than the others.You can argue that it is crazy to waste huge sums of money on research and development programmes which deliver a tenth of a second per lap but have no relevance to the real world outside racing – but no-one listens. The big teams spend, the small teams complain that they cannot spend. Usually it is the automobile manufacturers who outspend everyone else, but in this day and age even they are baulking at the costs and the spending spree is being led by Red Bull. The involvement of the automobile manufacturers in motorsport has always been a balancing act between the need for the car manufacturers to achieve clearly-defined marketing objectives and what is best for the sport. The most successful forms of racing involving manufacturers have been when there are very tight controls, such as NASCAR-style rule-making or homologation quotas that have to be met. The problem with this is that an escalation of costs or domination of one or two manufacturers drives out the smaller operations. Inevitably this leads to the collapse of a series when the last manufacturers withdraw. The result is that in many series where big spenders are involved there tend to be clear boom and bust cycles.
In the early years France dominated the industry but the spending quickly got out of control and in 1909 Grand Prix racing actually stopped because there were not enough competitors left. It did not revive until a new wave of car builders emerged in voiturette racing. By the mid-1920s the manufacturers were back in the sport but there was then a good illustration of the danger of relying on them when Alfa Romeo, Delage and Talbot all withdrew because of the economic climate leaving only Bugatti and a few Maserati customers. Ettore Bugatti for a while abandoned running his own teams and let his customers do the racing and the sport recovered.
The manufacturers returned in the 1930s but very quickly there developed utter domination from the German government-funded Mercedes-Benz and AutoUnion teams which pushed all other competitors out of the sport. Alfa Romeo survived the longest but Bugatti gave up the fight and smaller firms like ERA never had a chance.
The war ended that phase but only Alfa Romeo was left in the immediate post-war period until Ferrari got up to speed, at which point Alfa Romeo quit. The result was that the World Championship collapsed and had to be held for Formula 2 cars. That led to the growth of the British teams and the successes of the 1960s and 1970s and the status quo remained fundamentally unchanged until the turbocharged era of the 1980s although other manufacturers came and went without much success: notably Aston Martin, Porsche, Honda and Matra.
The turbo boom of the 1980s allowed small teams to invest and grow but as costs increased so the manufacturers began to drop out again. As development costs increased so those without engine deals fell by the wayside. The response of the FIA was a change of rules to normally-aspirated engines and this opened the way for new engine manufacturers, new specialist engine-builders and more new teams, but gradually the costs increased as the competition became more and more intense and manufacturers began to buy into teams to protect their investments in the sport. They then upped and left in 2009 when the global economy went wrong.
Cost control is at least in its infancy but it needs to be extended not just to save the small teams, but also to make sure the manufacturers come back again.
Action is required to stop the next bust cycle. If only Red Bull is standing in the way of such a change then the sport must accept that Red Bull must go, although that is not likely as it could still gain just as much exposure from the sport at a much lower price.
It is just a question of resource management…
joeblogsf1 
as usual, interesting post and fasicitnting insight, and the small history lesson is appreciated.
Joe, apologies if you have mentioned this in a previous post, but what is stopping the FIA banging heads together and imposing some sort of imminent cost control in the absence of a Concorde Agreement? To state the obvious, the smaller teams would become viable and more competitive, the larger teams would be more profitable and the sport would instantly become more attractive to those on the outside. If Red Bull (or anyone else) don’t like it, they can sod off and someone else will no doubt buy their entries.
Nothing but their own caution.
Interesting post. The one consistent part throughout most of that period has been Mr E. He has used the comings and goings of various participants to move the sport in the direction that suits his interests (eg participant/driver manager, team owner, sport owner).
True, but he is not going to last forever
I’m sure that he will find a way to give his forthcoming business vehicle Gehenna Bottomco Unltd. some kind of eternally ongoing role in the management of the sport…
Wow, Joe. Thanks for writing this up.
I though James Allen made a good point when he mentioned the thing over tyres and testing was more about the sport not working than about testing or tyres. You have written it down as it is, its a sport, there is a set of regulations, and it should make sure that there can be competitors in the sport to make it real.
Is there anyone out there who could drive such change? The last person arguing hard for a resource restriction ended up selling a very entertaining and illuminating comic book.
It is understandable that Red Bull may be playing the ‘chip-leader bully’. It is also understandable that they may be resented by some – drinks company coming in and beating everyone recently, comprehensively. Perhaps one solution is for Red Bull to start manufacturing cars, that would soon suck up plenty surplus/disposable revenue and it would be fun trying to keep one’s coffee warm in a Newey-designed cup holder.
“If you painted all the cars exactly the same colour and you all asked yourselves, honestly, could you actually recognise which car was which?”
No it would be impossible! It’s hard enough now with the mandatory numbers only visible by hovering over the top of the car. The regs say that the number must be visible from the front, which is pretty useless, when there is no effective front. A large number of teams seem to have similar colours, and McLaren changing to orange will not help.
We are unfortunately too late, all the interesting development was done 20 years ago, now innovation is banned.
Only a very drastic removal of aero features would allow huge areas of development. Full 4 wheel unlimited KERS, ABS, traction control (which will become almost essential next year to make the cars drivable) smart body skin.
As it is we will have engine development for a couple of years, but then as now, the engine regs will be tightened especially if certain teams find that they are not fastest. We now have a culture of total sport, where playing the rules and politics is as important as on track performance. We now have two teams who imagine they should be given an advantage over all the others, as a right.
Both being over endowed with money, they have plenty of toys to throw out of their respective prams until thy get their way. A strong, communicative and visible, show of leadership by the FIA may help, but will we get it?
Wouldn’t Ferrari chuck a wobbly as well in regards to cutting costs? I recall they have been pretty vocal against it anytime the issue is raised or have they changed their tune?
Having experienced decades of rule changes and having worked with many Chief Designers, the chorus that will always remain in my mind is ‘Speed costs money how fast do you want to go?’ No answer to that, is there!
NG.
I believe the solution is somewhere where CART was in the late 90s: a LEGO-play of chassis, engines and tyres. 3-4 engine suppliers, 2 different tyre manufacturers, 2 or 3 chassis makers (that’s 12 to 24 different combinations) with self-developed aerodynamic features by the teams. F1 these days seems to be only about aerodynamics anyway (this will change for next year, I do really hope).
I think banning testing for cost-cutting reasons is just plainly stupid under the current circumstances. By “current circumstances” I mean the tyre-rules: Pirelli makes new compounds of tyres, drivers and teams have a few hot laps before the season starts and only after the season started do the teams realize whether their chassis/aerodynamic/mic. developments during the winter actually worked or not. That’s money thrown out of the window.
But still, they could have and extra testing day at each track, or at least at a number of them during season, that costs just a fraction compared to a full testing weekend and is much more useful.
Remember when they wanted to ban tyre-warmers in the name of cost-cutting? Well, why just not make a rule that the tyres must last a whole weekend and then you eliminate a great number of trucks carrying tyres, half of the pit-crew and the tyres produced in general – _that’s_ cost-cutting on tyres if you really must…
But returning to my first paragraph, some would argue that “blah, F1 would be like GP2”, but in fact, if you look at F1 in 2013, it is not REALLY different from GP2: engines that are very, VERY old in F1 terms, clamped down performance, constantly restricted aerodynamic features and one tyre manufacturer with compounds that determine EVERYTHING on the cars, where everything is subordinated to this one single factor. It isn’t really that far from spec.-racing. Hell, even the cars pace close to GP2 speeds.
All this for inexplicably huge amounts of money.
So, once again, first paragraph. And there’s still the development factor with the aero-stuff.
Joe, Great insite as ever, the one word I find missing from this article is the wrod Trust or Lack off. How much of the resource management question is about trust and the inability to audit and therefore deliver trust?
Trust, in F1? You’ll be expecting charity and chastity next!
Could it be said that Jean Todt is not strong enough a character to push through a ruling like this? Would it require a new head of the FIA, someone unrelated the big spending teams to get the big changes done? An Adam Parr like character for what of a better example, of course Mr E would never let that one happen!
I don’t think you can accuse JT of that. Just stand back and watch. When he strikes it is usually the strike of a rattler…
Joe, do you think any of this would have happened if Ari Vatanen had won the Presidency of the FIA?
He is not President.
That’s Entertainment…!
Your fine historical summary indicates that the F1 Phoenix is about to self-immolate once again. I look forward to the rebirth – wonder what form it will take?
Regarding technological development I guess the tracks are just as an important a part of the equation as the cars themselves. Your first paragraph alludes to this – as I recall, ground-effects were banned because cornering speeds were far in excess of what run-off areas could cope with should the cars happen to become ‘unstuck’. ‘Running unrestricted rules’ would necessitate the overall development budget being largely apportioned to upgrading the circuits themselves with little left over for the vehicles.
It is clear the business model for F1 as a whole needs revising and, in many ways, cost control should be a sub-heading on that agenda. A better division of the sport’s income would inevitably give teams more money to spend. Conversely, a budget cap introduced in isolation could simply mean more bargaining power for CVC because it could claim the teams do not need increased revenue, thus negating the ‘future of the sport’ argument.
In our litigious world, the wording of any financial control would have to be very carefully considered and its scope clarified explicitly. Then, of course, there’s monitoring and enforcement. If two high profile sportsmen in a Mercedes can scream around Spain in alleged secrecy, the possibilities for covert action in the complex financial structures of several teams must be endless.
None of this makes cost control either a bad idea or unworkable, just difficult to properly achieve without endless squawking. I also prefer it to an excess of control parts, as these can only stifle cleverness, while achieving success within a given resource should theoretically reward it. That said, simplifying wing designs and aero generally would seem both cost-effective and good for competition and spectacle.
The other danger with control parts is they cannot be developed, thus introducing a greater risk of a status quo being maintained throughout the season, effectively deciding championships early on. This was less of a problem when there were considerably fewer grands prix but, if the television figures are to be maintained over 20 weekends, there needs to be an opportunity for results to change and a strong likelihood of a good climactic battle.
You’re on a roll today Joe. Again I completely agree with you. Manufacturers are a necessary evil in F1. Long may they keep making engines though. Incidentally I don’t include Ferrari in that statement as they have hung around and are clearly in it for the long term, though I don,t subscribe to the generally held assumption that F1 ‘needs’ Ferrari either.
Fascinating view of the history of the Championship.
I am one of those supporting stock chassis and open engine/transmission rules. With no refueling (but no limit on fuel load).
You could imagine the engineering advances coming out of such a formula that would translate to newer, more powerful fuel efficiency (if not advances in ure EV tech).
The debate about cost control is just a political game, the same as the environmental debate where lefties skew the science to further their political agenda. Cost control was invented by Mosley to bully the big guys, and his disciples are now carrying his water.
If F1 has lasted this many years during which time over a hundred teams have come and left, then there clearly is nothing wrong. Only those with an agenda want you to believe otherwise.
Tosh.
And I’m sure that if you applied some science yourself, it may ‘skew’ your argument.
Great post. I believe the only sensible thought from Max was Formula $50million.
The engineers at Force India, currently look a good deal smarter than their consultant engineers at McLaren. McLaren’s decision not to just develop last years car was probably driven by having too much cash (resources) to burn.
Joe’s post yesterday really called for the FIA to grab the moment to take back control of F1 to save all aspects of Motorsport. This is desperately needed. Next year’s costly power units could be the final straw for teams at the lower end who have to pay for engines and transmission (limited costly resource)
A sensible resource limit agreement is urgently needed. It does not really matter if Force India can develop a front wing for say £100k where McLaren cost say £250k if they are both limited to say 4 evolutions per season with 2 copies of each iteration, each season. The same principles can be applied to other elements and effectively controlled by the FIA.
The other thing that would save a fortune would be a defined floor that a 12-year old can understand. The whole problem currently is that huge resources are wasted on aerodynamics and latterly thermodynamics, that without unfettered TV access to engineers who understand the relevance, mean nothing to the average fan.
The focus needs to be on the DWC. I believe the best way to do this would be through success ballast to equalise the cars. The Constructors would not like this as their points bring in the cash so allow them an extra WCC point for every extra 5kg of ballast carried.
The two championships need to be made more distinct.
I just wonder if we not too late again for this. When Mercedes bought Brawn they did in part so because they saw that it could run a successful team usin fewer resources with a sport heading in the direction of cost control mechanism through regulation and budget caps. They maintained a much smaller and leaner outfit ahead of other teams only to get screwed as most teams actually started to spend much more! Mercedes have now done. 180 and are spending their way to success and I can’t blame them, whether its right or wrong for the long term future of F1.
Further more the green shoots are there and I believe a lot of money will flow back in, not in the least because F1 remains your best global awareness platform as a brand, which will mean more Honda’s, sponsors etc. then all talk of cost cutting will be kicked into the long grass till the next crisis.
One may wonder what happens to F1 post-Bernie. One of the much plausible options are that there will not be an F1 at all then, or a very much like GP2, GP3-esque (or F2 for that matter) low-cost series where everyone is happy.
There is nothing wrong with teams going bust because they’ve spent too much, they are paying for past mistakes. That is what competition is all about, winning and having a car for next year.
It is the opposite we should care about, that teams become a successful cartel (yes, that is the real name for a cost cutting agreement). Cost caps is like what OPEC did in the 70’s to increase profits. Luckily cartels don’t last, they are inherently week because it pays to cheat if everybody else plays by the rules. The result is nobody plays by the rules if they can get away with it.
Teams would find a way around cost restrictions, like the OPEC members in the 80’s found a way around quotas and guess what, oil price came down. You think that could be solved by puting a supercop on the job, but it doesn’t, it just makes the political side of business more atractive. More than it already is.
Good post Joe,
I think a budget cap is always going to be a tricky subject in F1. The F1 teams are a mixed bag with quite different business models and there will always be a loser no matter how the cake is cut.
The thing that interests me though is whenever there is talk of money saving there is always the assumption that this requires the engineering rules to be tightened in some way or for there to be shared electronics or shared wings. This is the worst approach to my mind as it requires increasingly huge amounts of money to be spent on invisible improvements to gain an advantage. Far better to have changing but loose rules. For instance get rid of much of the aero rules but specify a top speed and a maximum fuel usage.
Such broad changes give smaller teams a chance to innovate, produce visible changes that are engaging to compare and result in more visible progress. Engineering time and energy is spent on innovation instead of incremental (and even to a die hard like me boring) aero. The Le Mans series has a bit more of this though not quite enough and in a typically French illogical fashion. The teams always whinge about changes but so long as they get a few seasons’ notice there is no reason to not swap quite frequently.
Bring back the days when you could weld on an extra axle or stick a big fan on your car for a few quid and turn the tables..
Red Bull’s stance reminds me of The Prince Regent explaining to Blackadder how to play ‘cards’. “The object of the game is to give away all of your money as quickly as possible!”
But fear not Baldwick has a cunning plan.
thank you for the depth in coverage and clarity Joe.
can you identify at what time the UK engine manufacturer Ilmor began to design build motors for brands in both the Indy series and F1?
my memory tells me that it provided the engines for U.S. Team Penske and McLaren Mercedes for a time until recently.
Thanks for your help.
Sounds right.
Thank you for the history lesson joe, it was much apreciated. Ive never been a fan of RED BULL racing but i understand the need for the team not only to win but of the free advertising globally. As you say, If only Red Bull is standing in the way of such a change, then the sport must accept that Red Bull must go. Which is highly unlikely. The purse strings really have to be tightned for all concerned. The small teams may cry they dont have the money to compeat with the big boys, but to them this is an unfair advantage. Its hard to believe without the small teams you wont have F1 as we know it.
Good read as usual, My point would be as these are businesses who are the FIA/FOM to tell them how to operate, I mean these businesses have accountants/commercial departments who should know the ins and outs of their team.
At what point do you stop these businesses from expanding, providing Jobs in their local communities, some of these teams are based here in UK. Every business should have the aim of trying to grow, expand and be successful
You can’t stop growth in businesses as long as it is run properly, if some of the teams put as much effort into the commercial side as they do technical then some of them probably would not be complaining.
Its the concorde agreement that lays down rules as to what teams can do, I have heard, in terms of marketing, giving more to the fans, etc, etc.
I hope you understand the point I am trying to make
I’d love it if a budget cap could be paired with less restrictive technical rules. Instead of a silly arms race we might actually see who really is the most clever. Don’t like the idea of standard parts or built-in commercial advantages (Ferrari). Teams will never agree on anything, so I wish the FIA would just step in and say, “Team budget, $150 million. Open wheels, open cockpit, fuel flow X per second, max width, max height. Here are the rules, take it or leave it.”
Very naive, I know.
Great post. The issues are clear, and clearly stated. Nice work Mr Saward
Well said Joe.
I second the wish for less restrictive technical rules coming with a budget cap. But I wonder how to implement that cap? I mean, would it apply to the entire teams budget including personell salaries? Just the manufacturing costs of the cars? Where do you draw the line in terms of what counts against the budget cap and what doesn’t? Because if you don’t include personell, than obviously the Ferrari’s of the world will just go out and buy all the best people. And if you do include personell, then what do you do with existing contracts that may handicap certain teams? Also, how do you deal with something like a wind tunnel? Some teams have their own, others rent one, so it seems like teams with a wind tunnel of their own have an advantage (I’m assuming it’s cheaper to run test in your own tunnel rather than renting out someone else’s).
I’m all for budget caps but it I am curious about how they would work in F1. I’m an American and NFL Football is by far the most watched sport here. They have a flat budget cap. Every team has the same amount of money to spend on players. This applies to the players. The result in the NFL is that all teams are somewhat equally matched (although season to season you can see pretty dramatic dominance and/or ineptitude from a specific team). This makes for a more exciting sport. But it only works because it’s possible to define the part of the sport that actually determines the outcome i.e. who’s suiting up and getting on the field. I feel like the boundaries are a little less clear in F1.
Interesting read Joe. The cycle you describe isn’t just restricted to F1. The WRC has tried the same approach of changing the regs to reduce costs a couple of times (Group A to WRCars and then from WRCars to S2000) and the cycle just repeats itself. Costs start off lower, but inevitably they climb higher and higher as the easy gains in the new regulations are discovered and it becomes more and more costly to find those fractions of a second.
I’d love to see them scrap all the non safety related rules for 2 years so teams can do whatever innovations they want. Then after 2 years start bringing in regulations.
Now, there’s a million different rules and it’s all so complex that getting round them seems to be finding caveats and inconsistencies in the whitespace in the rule book.
Set a 220mph speed limit, allow all driver aids, ground effect and tell the teams to go for it. I’d love to see what they come up with!
This, gentlemen, is why we read Joe’s blog. Thansk again for giving us perspective on F1.
Disagree completely. Any form of cost control is complete anathema to what F1 means, and if it is introduced I (and probably the entire non-casual audience) will stop watching.
Cost controls would be a disaster.
How would you know the difference?