Back at the start of motor racing, before anyone had dreamed up the idea of a race called the Grand Prix, there was a big debate: what did the future hold? Would these horseless carriages be powered by steam, electricity or by some other sort of fuel. It was solved, of course, by the passage of time and the use of new technology. To create steam you needed four things: time, fuel, water and a spark. Electricity had to be created or stored. And so it was that the petrol-powered internal combustion engine won the day. One hundred and 20 years later, we have similar discussions about the internal combustion engine, electricity and hydrogen fuel cells. Conventional engines are still amazingly inefficient when one considers the development that has gone into them, but they still win at the moment, although the fuel is running out, so ways must be found to eke out what we have left, until some bright spark figures out the next step. Thus, I think Max Mosley’s idea about freeing up F1 but imposing a budget cap is an idea with much merit. Mosley may be an ex-FIA President but as the current incumbent is failing to do the job, he’s the best we’ve got at the moment. And while he only has the power to throw out ideas, these ideas are pretty smart and people may pick them up and run with them. If Jean Todt has any ideas, they are well-hidden. If this goes on, one might imagine the sporting clubs at the FIA deciding to try to create a separate federation for motorsport, as was the case 25 years ago, when the FIA dealt with its stuff and FISA dealt with the sport. The problem with that is that the sport (read F1) funds the FIA, so the motoring clubs (which benefit from the money) will be opposed to the idea. Many of these clubs are big businesses but they don’t invest in the FIA because it doesn’t really do much that is not being done by other bodies, such as the United Nations or the World Health Organisation. Small wonder Todt wants a bigger and better job…
Mosley says that his one big regret is that he was not able to push through a budget cap proposal when he was FIA President. There are ways of doing this that have been demonstrated in other sports where costs have got out of control. It is the only way to go. Mosley’s new wizard wheeze is to offer teams that agree to a budget cap, freedom to do whatever they want to do.
“I can imagine that very soon all the teams would fall into the camp of the budget limit,” he said. “They would realise that you can also do great motor sport and build technically advanced cars with 100 million.”
The car industry is all about cost-efficiency and it is odd that motor racing has escaped that philosophy. Instead, the companies that want to spend, spend and those who do not want to, stay away. Better, surely, to have more involved all spending sensible money.
joeblogsf1 
The reason the internal combustion engine has dominated isn’t development, it’s energy density. Nothing comes close to petrol.
“Mosley says that his one big regret is that he was not able to push through a budget cap”.
Hmm, I would have thought “Getting caught” must feature on his list of regrets somewhere.
I read Adam Parr’s book again the other day. Puts a great perspective on that period.
The issue is, though, that while mosely says “you can;t control costs through regulations” and that’s true, neither can you control speed through cost restrictions. And it’s speed that needs to be controlled for safety’s sake. the spiralling costs do relate to trying to work within an ever-tighter rulebook, but that rulebook’s been getting tighter to try and keep speeds down.
Without a rulebook that sets out specific limits on power and downforce, then I don’t see this working, at least on the chassis side. cars would get too quick, too fast.
Sounds like Max is campaigning for re election , tell the people what they want to hear?
He’s too old
Too old physically, maybe, yet not to old in intellect. It is refreshing to hear Max’ sharp and constructive ideas again. The contrast to Jean Todt is striking….
Three years younger than Ferdinand Piech. Both appear to have their marbles.
How do you enforce a budget cap?
Go and talk to an accountant…
I think it’s a valid question Joe, How do you police a cap, and check how many hours teams use their wind-tunnels. It is a side of the sport barely covered by respected sites like this one and JAonF1, and it surprises me.
It is all entirely plausible. They are already policing wind tunnel time. The financial side is also possible.
Its not that easy Joe. Just ask FIFA about enforcing their FFP rules… With OEMs owning and running teams and “leveraging” their corporate resources and assets, its hard to ring-fence an F1 team from an accounting perspective…
Wasn’t that on the table before? I remember there was talk of allowing capped teams to run ground effect floors etc… to be honest I would love to see innovative development so I’m all for the idea.
The real question to me would be what are these statements all about? Is max looking for attention, positioning himself for a new job or genuine hope that someone will take his advice.
Any thoughts Joe?
These comments are part of an attempt to break the current log jam by any means possible…
Max prompted by whom though? I assume Bernie?
His own initiative, or does he have a puppet master?
I think he has a book coming out.
This idea will take F1 back to its unregulated roots – Great idea all contained within a Capped budget.
But at the same time the limited testing regulation needs to be simultaneously scrapped as with most other regulations.
Limitations breed innovations.
Teams spend vast amounts of money making their cars as light as possible only to go and add lead weight as ballast to conform to the regulations.
Perhaps there should be a seperate championship in F1 as to which team can waste the most amount of money.
Except that, with no budget cap, it’s not lead; it’s probably tungsten, depleted uranium, or very expensive dense unobtainium………
“Mosley’s new wizard wheeze is to offer teams that agree to a budget cap, freedom to do whatever they want to do.”
Wasn’t his wizard wheeze in 2009 basically the same? Interesting that he’s softened his position on the actual budget figure – the €45M proposed in June 2009 would only be €49M in today’s money, as opposed to the “100 million” quoted above.
A figure of €100M might have kept BMW in the sport, I seem to remember Mario Thiessen saying that the €45M cap would mean laying off two thirds of his staff. I wonder if he’d have been able to accept laying off one third.
It wasn’t wrong then…
Didn’t Mario Thiessen effectively end up laying off all of them by pulling out of the sport because BMW could no longer afford it?
Joe – don’t we risk another repeat of a Williams active suspension or Brawn double diff-user whitewash where the rules become too free?
Cost aside, but the tight rules have surely evened the playing field somewhat? To draw a comparison, spec racing often has the tightest racing due to the minimal difference between the cars – thereby emphasising the driver’s skill as the differentiator. I’m not saying F1 should become a spec series, but the limitation provided by any set of rules surely helps bunch the field.
Of course we do but when Lotys had ground-effect in the 1970s we somehow survived…
Formula Ford might be one of the best examples of how to run a spec series; spec engines, free chassis and VERY close racing. Of course there are no wings etc……….
Well that might be the case in the states but as far as the UK national championship is concerned (the one that *might* matter to the F1 world) the formula you describe is dead and has been replaced with a fixed chassis/engine, slicks and wings formula. If anything it’s closer to a true spec series now because the chassis is fixed. The old formula didn’t really contain a ‘free’ chassis anyway as the regs dictated a pretty strict design envelope.
With all due respect, I personally don’t see why anyone would be negative about freeing up the manufacturers. On the F1 show Claire Williams said that F1 was about designing the best car, going out there and ‘annihilating the competition’. I agree. Last season was exciting even though one team was markedly ahead of the others. Engineers would benefit by the ability to be creative. I think the homogenisation of the field could easily harm the sport…
Joe, do a proofread. You hit the `k´ key twice instead of the intended `l´ in `Mosley´. Prego.
I didn’t say grazie…
😀 There you go.
Segaiolo
That’s two appearances of “Moskey” and two of “Mosley”. Is this a subliminal message? Perhaps you imply that Max is a bit bosky (shady and/or mildly pissed). Or is he a Russian agent? (That would be a surprise…) Kenneth Horne said that whenever he came across a double entendre, he always whipped it out.
Ah yes “Beyond our Ken” and “Round the Horne” were classics and introduced Polari to the public though most of us did not know that for another 40 years.
Motor racing was great back then.
100 million is incidentally what Audi is spending on a season of the WEC, give or take. They have very open engine regs, moderately restrictive aero / chassis regs.
I have been spouting this same idea to friends and colleagues for many years, glad someone with visibility has started saying the same. I think in general it is a great idea and will surely move the focus more towards innovation rather than endless (expensive) refinement. Back to a time when the best brain wins, not the biggest wallet.
I do think there are potential issues as well though, chief amongst them will be the ability of drivers to actually drive the cars. With the knowledge we have now and deregulation I would fully expect a ground-effect, active suspension, 500kg, turbo ERS engined car to generate unsustainable lateral g-forces.
“If Jean Todt has an ideas, they are well hidden.” Joe, you made my morning.
I thought Jean Todt was playing a clever game. I believed that Todt deliberately sat on the side line whilst Ecclestone and FOM tied themselves in knots, to arrive as a saving knight.
It is true that Ecclestone and FOM tie themselves up. But Todt is saving nowt.
You said…”the companies that want to spend, spend and those who do not want to, stay away”… I challenge you…nobody wants to spend, but they do want to win and if their pockets are deep, they will spend – but not for the sake of spending…
It amounts to the same thing
I wrote a letter to auto sport along these line years ago, and they were good enough to publish it. Why not make the only engine regulation one that limits the amount of energy the car is allowed to carry on the start line. It is quite simple to calculate the energy content of the fuel used from petrol through electricity and steam (or any other compressed gas). This would promote real innovation. Otherwise they would have to be 4 open wheel, open cockpit cars to remain recognisable as F1 cars. As for aero, bring back active suspension & ground effect if possible within a capped budget, the cars looked much better without these over complicated wing forms that would not be necessary with ground effect.
The teams would just use accounting ingenuity. Not everyone gets a trophy in the real world.
I believe the idea of a budget cap vs less restrictions could be a good one, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate: Do you really think it would work out for those who choose to take advantage?
As you noted in a recent column, gone are the days when all cars looked different with all sorts of crazy ideas because good aero is good aero, and time has proven the current generic design to be the most efficient.
Assuming the current design is as efficient as possible within the current rules, only teams with unlimited budget could afford to do enough research to find improvement, therefore the teams that are allowed to push the boundaries are by definition the ones who can’t afford to.
Wouldn’t the budget cap therefore prove more of a hindrance to the sport in general?
I think a 100m cap on expenses with the incentive of technical freedom is the path to go.
That is – we need to allow now-banned technology to be resurrected such as:
Fan Cars, Skirts, Ground-Effects, and active ride.
Maybe even the special transmission Williams had years ago.
Steve
Although unrealistic, I prefer a ‘Run what ya brung’ approach.