Parity in F1?

[JohnSSC]

There have been many discussions of just what rule changes would be needed to bring parity to F1.

As some of you know, I often question what there is about an F1 race that requires a Team to budget for trees to bring with them. I question why the need for palatial mobile offices and all the things teams do that make not one bit of difference in on-track performance.

The big problem is Money. We have teams spending upwards of $300 million per season and some spending $30 million. Seems like they should be able to limp along on a more limited budget so why not impose a "Budget Cap" of say $75 million? While this is still an outrageous amount of money, that, I believe would really level the playing field.

Thoughts?

[Attila]

John I think that would work to equalize the teams; however, I am sure they would find ways to get arround that regulation. They would not test for example, but Shell would. They are not spending the money, but the sponsor does. The same goes for windtunel work. Williams is not testing too much, but BMW would. They would put the engine into a "testcar" that is NOT a Williams just looks very similar to it. :-). Well, at least that is my opinion.

[Gt_R]

One way of cutting costs?

Remove the huge area of space behind the pit... Give the teams NO PLACE to park their huge oversized luxury mobile playhouse.

Then maybe, the teams would see no need to waste money buying them.

When a team struggles with it's performance, it'd be surprising if they still want to maintain the lavish extras they keep outside the race track.

Teams nowadays are getting far too big to be "effective". Really little point having hundreds of people working just to put 2 cars on the race track..which goes on to blow after 20laps.

[Logrence]

All that stuff in the paddock does make the cars go faster in one way or another - all those motorhomes are used by the teams to schmooze sponsors and whatnot.

Instead of banning motorhomes or whatever, why not look at why teams are spending money? They're spending it on exotic materials to build their cars, they're spending it on testing tyres, or they're spending it on buying customer engines, etc, etc.

I suggest carbonfibre and all these ridiculous metals are banned, I suggest one tyre supplier and testing banned outside of a race weekend or official FIA test day, and I suggest all engine suppliers being made to supply smaller teams with subsidised engines.

Banning £20 million motorhomes when teams are spending nearly £500 million a year isn't going to do much.

[Kicking-back]

Banning carbon fiber would be the biggest single way to instantly make F1 much more dangerous.

Not a very good idea.

[Super Tourer]

I don't believe parity is achievable, if you were able to cap budgets (which I think is realistically impossible) and gave Williams, Ferrari and Minardi $100M to spend, Williams and Ferrari would still produce the best cars and head the championship.

Althought budgets are a key factor, they are not the be all and end all.

Toyota have allegedly got unlimited resources, and are now into the 4th year of their program probably spending £1Bn along the way - with no sign of a podium yet, let alone being on the front running pace.

Jaguar has 3 or 4 times the combined budget of Jordan and Minardi, yet is behind one in the WCC, and barely infront of the other, and all this despite supplying Minardi with their 'old hand me down' engines.

If Minardi found another second per lap, they would still qualify last by some margin.

The new FIA proposals will reduce spending on engines for example, but there is nothing to say that BMW (for example) won't spend the 'saving' on something else, like yet another wind tunnel, or rolling road or whatever.

It's often said that rule changes often increase the gap down the grid as the better resourced and experienced teams are best equipped to react to them, and design the cars to the envelope limit.

Whereas the 'lesser' teams will be a year or so behind, as they are less able to innovate, leaving them to react as the current thinking filters down the grid.

[ljakse]

Originally posted by Super Tourer
It's often said that rule changes often increase the gap down the grid as the better resourced and experienced teams are best equipped to react to them, and design the cars to the envelope limit.

Whereas the 'lesser' teams will be a year or so behind, as they are less able to innovate, leaving them to react as the current thinking filters down the grid.

I believe this is the key. Rules should not be changed for long(er) periods so that 'slower' teams could catch up.

[fog_shadow]

policing budgets would be a nightmare. standard ECU's, brakes, single tyre supplier. all of which has been mentioned before. the problem is that this will limit innovation. one has just to look at the Ferrari and Sauber to see how having the same engine, in turn requires similar engine mounting's -> similar suspension -> similar aero .....

[Mackmot]

THe hospitality budget is not part of the race budget, spending money on all that hospitality is what the sponsors are paying to use. If you get rid of all that expense then the sponsors will go to football grounds or horse races instead.

I do think that a lot of you dont understand how business is done in todays world.

[Kicking-back]

Well said, Mackmot.

I tire of the sniping about McLaren having such and such a motorhome, or Ferrari having whatever.

These things do play a vital role.

[dcp2685]

I would love to see parity. Having a budget cap is a great way to do so. Those who watch it I think would agree, but American Football since the Salary Cap has been introduced has provided great entertainment. Previously football dynasties were produced Dallas, San fran, Pittsburg through the 70's and 80's in which those teams won probably 80% of the titles for the time frame. Now days, we've had what 8 different teams in 10-12 years? Only 2 repeat winners over that course and 1 back to back. I would recommend the following however.

- Budget Cap for the entire Team (inlcluding sponsors) of like 100M or 150M maybe. I think they could phrase it to make it work.
- Spec tire (Slicks...slow the cornering speeds too)
- 10 testing days prior to first race to see what they've developed.
- Only other testing would be on Fridays prior to the race. Although i'd expand it to 2 two hour sessions.
- Make engines last 3 race weekends. (Reduce HP too...slow them down some)

If the budget thing didn't fly w/ them...allow the manufacturers to set up sister teams. For example: Instead of BMW sending 50M over to williams send 25M to Williams and 25M to Jordan (A yellow BMW?) how cool would that be?). Both would be backed by BMW however they would be two separate and distinct teams. Kinda of like what BMW did in ALMS with PTG and AC Schnitzer. We'd have more cars on the grid and we'd have three championships too.

Drivers Champ
Team Champ
Manufacturers Champ

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally posted by dcp2685
If the budget thing didn't fly w/ them...allow the manufacturers to set up sister teams. For example: Instead of BMW sending 50M over to williams send 25M to Williams and 25M to Jordan (A yellow BMW?) how cool would that be?). Both would be backed by BMW however they would be two separate and distinct teams. Kinda of like what BMW did in ALMS with PTG and AC Schnitzer. We'd have more cars on the grid and we'd have three championships too.

Drivers Champ
Team Champ
Manufacturers Champ

The teams already can do this - they choose not to because they get bettter resutls by concentrating on one team. I'm not sure we would have more teams on the grid due to this, because anyone looking to enter would have to provide all the other facilities, and have the expertise to regulate them. Making last year's engines (or even the entire car) avalable cheaply is the only way to get more cars on the grid.

[Kicking-back]

Last year the MP4/17D showed that a year-old car can do the business.

Lets hope Stefan Johansson's discussions to run 2005 McLarens in 2006 come to fruition.

[Kirk]

Parity in F1 is a pipe dream and is literally impossible. I'm afraid we'll have to leave that to an alternate series, one with real budget caps and some commonality in mechanical aspects. Having said that, even NASCAR cannot achieve total parity, a more level playing field would be a more reasonable goal in motorsports (at that level).

[slicktoast]

KIRK. I agree 100%.

[GP Racer]

Originally posted by Kirk
Parity in F1 is a pipe dream and is literally impossible. I'm afraid we'll have to leave that to an alternate series, one with real budget caps and some commonality in mechanical aspects. Having said that, even NASCAR cannot achieve total parity, a more level playing field would be a more reasonable goal in motorsports (at that level).

I agree completely Kirk.

I love the fact that F1 is all about unbridaled technology, R&D, and being able to do and spend whatever it takes to make your car better. I also love the rich and famous lifestyle that F1 is known for. The colorful character's and the politics, and yes, the palatial quarters that they live in when at the track. Bring parity to F1, and it's no longer F1.

Parity doesn't guarantee good racing. Just look at Champ Cars, where nobody is passing anyone.

[JohnSSC]

Being American I understand that genetically, I cannot possibly understand the exciting, complex world of F1!

As has been pointed out here, some of you tire of the "sniping" about opulent mobile quarters and trees and that actually all of this is necessary to making the cars faster as the trees apparently attract money. Not only that, but there is an entirely separate budget just for "entertainment."

Does anybody else see the problem? The focus of modern-day F1 is not the atmosphere, the technology or even trying to remember how to spell: "Flavio Briatore" correctly! It is all about attracting MORE money to the team!

Now for the careful reader I hope you have noticed that I am not saying that the trees, mobile mansions and wind tunnels should be banned. What I am saying is that costs should be more under control. Then if a team wants to spend their money on such that is their choice.

A number of you who have pointed out that I just don't get it have also posted numerous times bemoaning the lack of action, yearning for a return to the days gone by when racing was better and it was up to the driver to produce good results. Well my friends, Colin Chapman didn't provide trees for Mario nor did Jackie Stewart, or Niki or Keke or Nige require them. Why I watched a bio of Jackie Stewart that showed him changing into his driver's suit in a HOTEL room! How ghastly! No private motorhome!! The humanity! Truly the Dark Ages in terms of driver pampering!

Seriously, I am well aware that the need to keep and attract sponsors makes these items somehow "necessary." My problem is that F1 has become more spectacle than racing and the absurd cost prevents a Lord Hesketh or even a Colin Chapman from getting involved. When you consider that the top five teams (Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, BAR & Renault) spend about $1.2 Billion per season, then you can see that maintaining cash flow is most likely Job 1.

There is something seriously wrong here, imho.

[Homer Simpson]

My girlfriend reminds me every other Sunday that the best way to cut costs in F1 is to stop hiring those expensive grid girls; her plan to save F1 revolves around the termination of contracts with those beautiful models and the immediate hiring of "amateurs" who presumably would be cheaper to retain. An side "benefit" of this is that these girls, not being as well endowed as the professionals, would bring a new era of conservative fashion trends to the F1 circus.

[GP Racer]

Originally posted by Homer Simpson
My girlfriend reminds me every other Sunday that the best way to cut costs in F1 is to stop hiring those expensive grid girls; her plan to save F1 revolves around the termination of contracts with those beautiful models and the immediate hiring of "amateurs" who presumably would be cheaper to retain. An side "benefit" of this is that these girls, not being as well endowed as the professionals, would bring a new era of conservative fashion trends to the F1 circus.

NEVER!

You speak heresy, my friend!

[JohnSSC]

We have to draw the line somewhere - this may be going too far!

We have to stand up for what is right!

[GP Racer]

Originally posted by JohnSSC
We have to draw the line somewhere - this may be going too far!

We have to stand up for what is right!

See what you started John?!

[Gt_R]

There's 2 ways to attract the money.

1) Spent Millions on luxury, mobilehomes, fine dining wares and hire a whole team of chefs and waitresses, then search for sponsors, hoping to impress.

2) Spend money on the car, bring in great results, and wait for impressed sponsors to call.

Many teams opted for the former.

[GP Racer]

Maybe we're just abit jealous, that it's not us sitting in those luxury mobile homes, eating fine food and sipping good wine?

I'm sure if we were, we would have no problem with F1's oppulence!

[Snrub]

Originally posted by GP Racer
Parity doesn't guarantee good racing. Just look at Champ Cars, where nobody is passing anyone.

Ummm...Did you happen to see the Monterrey race? eg. Tagliani passed more people than there are passes in an entire F1 season.

Parity can work, it's just a matter of getting the mix right. I will agree that CART has struggled a bit getting it to work right, but ultimately something should be done so that more people stand a better chance at winning or finishing well.

[GP Racer]

Snrub please correct me if I'm wrong(I'm sure you will!), but doesn't parity equal "dumbed down" racing or contrived racing, two things that you criticise, for example, the IRL for?

To me, parity stifles the creativity that F1 is known for. With every car having a different chassis, engine, suspension and tires, I don't think F1 could ever have parity...