But hold on, i thought we're suppose to make racing cheaper? Now they have to bring in new people who understand KERS and can help develop it to F1. Sounds like more money to me. So now to next year they'll bring back slicks. Great i cant wait! Back to the good days of racing. But now everyone has to completely redevelop their cars to meet the reduced areo down force rules. More moey down the drain. It's just my oppion but saving money isn't something i want to see in F1. F1 is about being unique in development and advancement not Standardized like NASCAR, which means spending money.F1 = Saving money?
F1 = Saving money?
Ever since i can remeber F1 was about the biggest names in the automotive world spending the biggest money to prove the can win. I think its great to see all the techincal advancements in aero and engine development. It is in my oppinion the most advanced form of racing. But now they want to scale back the spending. Why? I mean i understand the actual reasoning but i dont like it. I like that Millions are spent on the racing. This isn't NASCAR. This isn't the good ol' boys driving their cars around. They've frozen engine development to save money and slow the cars (waste). In my eyes they've killed a part of the racing. They also made everyone run the Mclaren ECU to save money and try to standardize the sport (Like NASCAR). Now there's talks of no more tire warmers witch i assume is to save money but at what cost? Those are actual safety devices in my eyes. Like most of the drivers are saying with out them they will be sigificantly slower than the other cars on track until they come to temp. which could create some dangerous situations. And now we come to KERS. Which i think is a great idea and push the engineers to a new level. But hold on, i thought we're suppose to make racing cheaper? Now they have to bring in new people who understand KERS and can help develop it to F1. Sounds like more money to me. So now to next year they'll bring back slicks. Great i cant wait! Back to the good days of racing. But now everyone has to completely redevelop their cars to meet the reduced areo down force rules. More moey down the drain. It's just my oppion but saving money isn't something i want to see in F1. F1 is about being unique in development and advancement not Standardized like NASCAR, which means spending money.
But hold on, i thought we're suppose to make racing cheaper? Now they have to bring in new people who understand KERS and can help develop it to F1. Sounds like more money to me. So now to next year they'll bring back slicks. Great i cant wait! Back to the good days of racing. But now everyone has to completely redevelop their cars to meet the reduced areo down force rules. More moey down the drain. It's just my oppion but saving money isn't something i want to see in F1. F1 is about being unique in development and advancement not Standardized like NASCAR, which means spending money.Go Kimi Go!!!!
Re: F1 = Saving money?
Reduced aero is a good thing IMO because it should bring more overtaking. Engine freeze is a disaster. Renault has already complained that their engine isn't as powerful as others' but they can do nothing about it as you're not allowed to develop your engine.
Money saving is good for getting more championship contending teams, but the plan isn't working. As you said, KERS brings only additional costs when the teams have to hire new people and invest on new things.
Somehow I think that FIA hasn't really thought about these things thoroughly.
Money saving is good for getting more championship contending teams, but the plan isn't working. As you said, KERS brings only additional costs when the teams have to hire new people and invest on new things.
Somehow I think that FIA hasn't really thought about these things thoroughly.
Re: F1 = Saving money?
Should is a great word. Reduced aero should produce more over taking but who knows. i hope it does. Ferrari's car look pretty naked with out all the aero parts but it had some very nice lines.
Yes saving money will help bring more teams to F1 but i hope its worth it.
Yes saving money will help bring more teams to F1 but i hope its worth it.
Go Kimi Go!!!!
Re: F1 = Saving money?
I think thr still some parts of engine which allowed to be alter .. the reason f2008 has horsepowerAzShadow wrote:Reduced aero is a good thing IMO because it should bring more overtaking. Engine freeze is a disaster. Renault has already complained that their engine isn't as powerful as others' but they can do nothing about it as you're not allowed to develop your engine.
Money saving is good for getting more championship contending teams, but the plan isn't working. As you said, KERS brings only additional costs when the teams have to hire new people and invest on new things.
Somehow I think that FIA hasn't really thought about these things thoroughly.
And Engine Freezing is defiantly move towards cost reduction while kers is towards F1 Go Green!
Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings PEACE -Buddha
There is no point in defining a point... But there is a point in trying -Zack
[Videos]
Donate & support us
-ZACK- IO
There is no point in defining a point... But there is a point in trying -Zack
[Videos]
Donate & support us
-ZACK- IO
-
David Smith
- kart driver
- Posts: 64
- Joined: 27 Apr 2008, 22:56
Re: F1 = Saving money?
Yeh they would need to allow certain parts of the engine to be altered,, or what would happen with any new teams who join f1, they could join with a greater engine etc. Think by engine freeze, they mean its staying V8.
Re: F1 = Saving money?
I agree F1 is all about creativity..it takes time to develope, and developing cost money...but I don't think an engine freeze was the way to go. I feel the one gearbox to four gp rule is good, so is the engine change rule...the intinial cost is high, but the product will be good, and less will be made due to that rule... I don't think a team entering the sport should be on the same level HP wise with the other teams they have not earn that. if they came in and did well from the start with the old rules then they get respect. the bottom line is F1 is an expensive sport. and only those who can afford invest and do well. if the rules continue its heading to be just like Gp2 but with more glamour
e10rice wrote:Ever since i can remeber F1 was about the biggest names in the automotive world spending the biggest money to prove the can win. I think its great to see all the techincal advancements in aero and engine development. It is in my oppinion the most advanced form of racing. But now they want to scale back the spending. Why? I mean i understand the actual reasoning but i dont like it. I like that Millions are spent on the racing. This isn't NASCAR. This isn't the good ol' boys driving their cars around. They've frozen engine development to save money and slow the cars (waste). In my eyes they've killed a part of the racing. They also made everyone run the Mclaren ECU to save money and try to standardize the sport (Like NASCAR). Now there's talks of no more tire warmers witch i assume is to save money but at what cost? Those are actual safety devices in my eyes. Like most of the drivers are saying with out them they will be sigificantly slower than the other cars on track until they come to temp. which could create some dangerous situations. And now we come to KERS. Which i think is a great idea and push the engineers to a new level.
Re: F1 = Saving money?
Years ago I read an article that explain why cost-cutting in F1 is not possible, you could read it here http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15592.html
This is a extract from the article:
"Everyone has marvellous justifications of how money will be saved, but with the passage of time the budgets just keep on going up. If you cut money out of one area with the regulations, the investment is switched to another area. If you restrict the regulations, then the money is spent in the areas where there is freedom. Thus one can ban electronic management units but then intense development will go into mechanical systems to replace the defunct systems. ... If you reduce testing to save money, teams invest in expensive machines to do the testing on static rigs in their factories"
I agree with this article, F1 is not saving money it is spending the money in other areas. The FIA regulations could have good intentions, but with a opposite result: a more expensive sport. Also, sometimes these regulations instead of helping the sport, it looks like its trying to finish with it.
This is a extract from the article:
"Everyone has marvellous justifications of how money will be saved, but with the passage of time the budgets just keep on going up. If you cut money out of one area with the regulations, the investment is switched to another area. If you restrict the regulations, then the money is spent in the areas where there is freedom. Thus one can ban electronic management units but then intense development will go into mechanical systems to replace the defunct systems. ... If you reduce testing to save money, teams invest in expensive machines to do the testing on static rigs in their factories"
I agree with this article, F1 is not saving money it is spending the money in other areas. The FIA regulations could have good intentions, but with a opposite result: a more expensive sport. Also, sometimes these regulations instead of helping the sport, it looks like its trying to finish with it.
Re: F1 = Saving money?
Team personnel: Aldo Costa (Ferrari), Sam Michael (Williams), Adrian Newey (Red Bull Racing), Willy Rampf (BMW Sauber), Pat Symonds (Renault).
Q: (Mike Doodson) I’m interested to know if the changes made over the last three or four years have saved money and if they will save money in the future?
AN: It depends whether you are a customer such as Williams and ourselves or whether you are a manufacturer in the first place. Certainly in our case with Renault, it hasn’t really had very much effect because what Renault charge us for is the manufacture, supply and operation of the engines, not the development. That they absorb within their works’ effort. For us as privateers, it hasn’t really had very much effect. I’m sure for the manufacturers themselves it has had an effect, depending on how they’ve taken it. Some manufacturers have really cut right back and taken the intent of the engine freeze – which was to stop spending as much money on the development of the engine – to heart. Other manufacturers have continued spending on smaller gains, accepting that whilst the gains will be smaller per euro spent, there were still gains available. I don’t know if that answers your question. From now on, when there is a more solid freeze, then the cost to the manufacturers will probably go down as well. Again, there’s no sign from the supplied teams, which you could argue are perhaps those who would most like the financial assistance, that it has actually made much difference.
WR: I don’t know about a figure about overall engine costs but overall, the number of engines has gone down because with frozen engines, the development programme is much much lower than it was before and for each modification we do on an engine, you have to do quite a few dyno runs. It means that it’s not only a development programme but also for reliability reasons. To confirm it you have to run a lot of engines and this is not necessary any more. So for sure there is a significant step down in engine costs.
PS: I think that your question was about changing the engine, rather than the engine freeze. Obviously changing the engine, going from the V10 to the V8, did require a lot of money, change always does. The freeze is a different thing, and certainly at Renault we embraced the freeze and we took it in the spirit in which it was intended and it did save us a lot of money. As Willy said, for every development that you do, you need to run engines on the dyno. They’re not cheap, these engines, and I think that’s one of the problems with the frozen engine. We’ve actually frozen an engine that is an expensive engine. It’s an engine that we designed to run at over 20,000rpm and I think that if we had known at the time that the freeze was coming and it was designed, we would probably have worked harder at reducing the unit costs of the engine. They are expensive engines, as I say. It depends whether they are test or race engines but they approach a quarter of a million euros an engine. But our engine-related budget has gone down considerably since the engine freeze, so it has been good for us. I don’t think I’ll talk numbers. Or percentages.
AC: Very similar situation for us also. For us, the rules have meant big cost reduction in engine activity in terms of development costs, in terms of costs of overall units that you produce in a year, and also it reduced the number of people involved in the engine department, really, so it was a bigger cost-saving. As Pat said, we could probably have done more in terms of reducing the unit price of the engine and I have to add another point. We could have done more to increase the mileage of the engines before freezing, so instead of two races, we could probably have done something more, even better. But OK, we have to accept the situation as it was done.
SM: Just to finish on that point Aldo just raised, because that’s also a significant point that changed two or three years ago, and that’s going from the quantity of engines that we used to use. We used to go through twelve engines every two race weekends. We now go through two, so that’s come down by a factor of six, because we used to change engines… engines used to do 350 kilometres, so you would change them every night on both cars. Notwithstanding what Adrian said, because he’s right about the cost to private teams, but if you actually said right, you need to multiply the number of engines you need now by six, then that would be a pretty big number.
Q: (Michael Schmidt – Auto Moto und Sport) Question to Aldo Costa: It seems that Ferrari is playing down the importance of the new nose a little bit. To say it’s just another aero development sounds a bit odd. I think it’s a big effort to do that, bigger than just putting a new flap on, so it must be worth it.
AC: Yeah, of course you have to consider the performance gain versus the money you spend doing this development because we don’t have an infinite budget. So performance development versus cost was something worth doing, for sure. As you say, it was probably a bit bigger in terms of advantage than a small flap or a front wing endplate. But in terms of performance advantage it’s in the range of other car developments that we do during the year.
IMO.. Main hurdle in cost reduction is constant regulation changes!
Drivers are paid too much 
osweat:
Q: (Mike Doodson) I’m interested to know if the changes made over the last three or four years have saved money and if they will save money in the future?
AN: It depends whether you are a customer such as Williams and ourselves or whether you are a manufacturer in the first place. Certainly in our case with Renault, it hasn’t really had very much effect because what Renault charge us for is the manufacture, supply and operation of the engines, not the development. That they absorb within their works’ effort. For us as privateers, it hasn’t really had very much effect. I’m sure for the manufacturers themselves it has had an effect, depending on how they’ve taken it. Some manufacturers have really cut right back and taken the intent of the engine freeze – which was to stop spending as much money on the development of the engine – to heart. Other manufacturers have continued spending on smaller gains, accepting that whilst the gains will be smaller per euro spent, there were still gains available. I don’t know if that answers your question. From now on, when there is a more solid freeze, then the cost to the manufacturers will probably go down as well. Again, there’s no sign from the supplied teams, which you could argue are perhaps those who would most like the financial assistance, that it has actually made much difference.
WR: I don’t know about a figure about overall engine costs but overall, the number of engines has gone down because with frozen engines, the development programme is much much lower than it was before and for each modification we do on an engine, you have to do quite a few dyno runs. It means that it’s not only a development programme but also for reliability reasons. To confirm it you have to run a lot of engines and this is not necessary any more. So for sure there is a significant step down in engine costs.
PS: I think that your question was about changing the engine, rather than the engine freeze. Obviously changing the engine, going from the V10 to the V8, did require a lot of money, change always does. The freeze is a different thing, and certainly at Renault we embraced the freeze and we took it in the spirit in which it was intended and it did save us a lot of money. As Willy said, for every development that you do, you need to run engines on the dyno. They’re not cheap, these engines, and I think that’s one of the problems with the frozen engine. We’ve actually frozen an engine that is an expensive engine. It’s an engine that we designed to run at over 20,000rpm and I think that if we had known at the time that the freeze was coming and it was designed, we would probably have worked harder at reducing the unit costs of the engine. They are expensive engines, as I say. It depends whether they are test or race engines but they approach a quarter of a million euros an engine. But our engine-related budget has gone down considerably since the engine freeze, so it has been good for us. I don’t think I’ll talk numbers. Or percentages.
AC: Very similar situation for us also. For us, the rules have meant big cost reduction in engine activity in terms of development costs, in terms of costs of overall units that you produce in a year, and also it reduced the number of people involved in the engine department, really, so it was a bigger cost-saving. As Pat said, we could probably have done more in terms of reducing the unit price of the engine and I have to add another point. We could have done more to increase the mileage of the engines before freezing, so instead of two races, we could probably have done something more, even better. But OK, we have to accept the situation as it was done.
SM: Just to finish on that point Aldo just raised, because that’s also a significant point that changed two or three years ago, and that’s going from the quantity of engines that we used to use. We used to go through twelve engines every two race weekends. We now go through two, so that’s come down by a factor of six, because we used to change engines… engines used to do 350 kilometres, so you would change them every night on both cars. Notwithstanding what Adrian said, because he’s right about the cost to private teams, but if you actually said right, you need to multiply the number of engines you need now by six, then that would be a pretty big number.
Q: (Michael Schmidt – Auto Moto und Sport) Question to Aldo Costa: It seems that Ferrari is playing down the importance of the new nose a little bit. To say it’s just another aero development sounds a bit odd. I think it’s a big effort to do that, bigger than just putting a new flap on, so it must be worth it.
AC: Yeah, of course you have to consider the performance gain versus the money you spend doing this development because we don’t have an infinite budget. So performance development versus cost was something worth doing, for sure. As you say, it was probably a bit bigger in terms of advantage than a small flap or a front wing endplate. But in terms of performance advantage it’s in the range of other car developments that we do during the year.
IMO.. Main hurdle in cost reduction is constant regulation changes!
Drivers are paid too much
osweat:Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings PEACE -Buddha
There is no point in defining a point... But there is a point in trying -Zack
[Videos]
Donate & support us
-ZACK- IO
There is no point in defining a point... But there is a point in trying -Zack
[Videos]
Donate & support us
-ZACK- IO