[Rules] 'Resource Restriction Agreement': The why and the when of it.

[Marbot]

In case anyone thought that the budget cap had been completely forgotten:

http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2551

Will the likes of Ferrari and Mercedes have it their own way in the future? Or will 'fresh thinking' shine through?

[awrb]

Why is it that this is the only industry where we're actually going to enforce redundancies upon people? Surely this is a stupid idea, and we should at least let all these millions of pounds paid in advertising go to employees.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by awrb

Why is it that this is the only industry where we're actually going to enforce redundancies upon people?

Well, it's not the only industry that makes people redundant is it.

Originally Posted by awrb

Surely this is a stupid idea, and we should at least let all these millions of pounds paid in advertising go to employees.

Problem is that the manufacturers and sponsors get a bit fed up of losing after a while, and tend to take the "millions" elsewhere (Toyota etc). Are you suggesting that Ferrari share theirs? !!

[Marbot]

Todt to get tough on team spending.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80685

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Will the likes of Ferrari and Mercedes have it their own way in the future? Or will 'fresh thinking' shine through?

Mercedes want it. It wouldn't be cheaper to run their own team compared to supplying McLaren under the old unrestricted development system.

[Tourer]

IF this can be made to work then it has got to be good for the sport overall. F1 had got to a point that it was synonymous with excess, greed and overspend. Not a good look really.

Very hard to come up with sensible restrictions, to police and enforce them so not an easy task but good luck to the people doing it.

Even with more teams appearing on the grid, there is probably going to be a lot of people currently employed who are looking for work elsewhere, and this is the shame of it. Potentially though, that could mean plenty of talented people ending up in other forms of racing such as F3, touring cars, NASCAR, sports cars etc which could be a boost for all of those categories.

The idea of people losing jobs when things are tough saddens me but I don't think that F1 has much choice - to let things run on as they are is clearly out of step with the rest of the world and probably keeping some potential sponsors away.

It will be interesting to see how this is going to work as the details become clearer.

[Chiefy]

I think restrictions are important, and I share Jean Todt's sentiments that the cessation of development of KERS is a shame. Sadly people will lose their jobs - but with more teams, surely there will be more openings. Those smart enough to think ahead could jump ship to a newer team before losing out at an older one.

[Marbot]

This article suggests that F1 teams are already restricted to a 50 mil budget, reducing to 30 mil for 2011!

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...udget-cap.html

[Pingguest]

That 'Resource Restriction Agreement' will be as unenforceable as the budget cap. Therefore this piece of legislation shouldn't be introduced.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

That 'Resource Restriction Agreement' will be as unenforceable as the budget cap.

It's already been introduced and it's probably a lot easier than you think to enforce it.

Sure there are going to discrepencies here and there, but you're going to be able to spot the difference between 40 mil and 140 mil a mile away. It would also be fairly difficult to keep the existence of around 750 employees totally secret.

[neiltb]

I can see teams "offloading" developement work to 3rd parties (more than they do already eg brakes). If these companies have a vested interest, they could get some space on the car to show their name.

How would you police that? I could sponsor your team with payment in kind and you get another dozen phantom employees.

[Lotusonpole]

Originally Posted by neiltb

I can see teams "offloading" developement work to 3rd parties (more than they do already eg brakes). If these companies have a vested interest, they could get some space on the car to show their name.

How would you police that? I could sponsor your team with payment in kind and you get another dozen phantom employees.

With regard to 3rd party suppliers:
That is how it used to be ages ago. Before commercial sponsors, the only stickers you might see on an F1 car were those of suppliers with a direct interest, i.e. those of the oil/petrol company, spark plugs, brakes, gearboxes etc.

P

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It's already been introduced and it's probably a lot easier than you think to enforce it.

Sure there are going to discrepencies here and there, but you're going to be able to spot the difference between 40 mil and 140 mil a mile away. It would also be fairly difficult to keep the existence of around 750 employees totally secret.

Teams could always outsource and let their sponsors to pay the bill directly.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Teams could always outsource and let their sponsors to pay the bill directly.

So you don't think that 'out-sourcing' is trackable then?

I wonder what the punishment could be for those that were spending over budget?

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

So you don't think that 'out-sourcing' is trackable then?

I wonder what the punishment could be for those that were spending over budget?

It cannot be a fine - that would just be regarded as part of the cost of winning. (i.e. I overspent by 20mill, but got fined 5mil, so really, I just overspent by 25mil, which is good because that overspend won me a race etc) It would have to be loss of results/points.

James

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

It cannot be a fine - that would just be regarded as part of the cost of winning. (i.e. I overspent by 20mill, but got fined 5mil, so really, I just overspent by 25mil, which is good because that overspend won me a race etc) It would have to be loss of results/points.

James

Exclusion from the current and future championships would probably do the trick.

Some think that McLaren's 100 mil fine was harsh, but in reality it could have been a whole lot worse!

[neiltb]

don't get me wrong, I think a cap is necessary but these F1 types are sneaky and would just find ways to bend or sneak around rules.

I guess that more spec parts certainly gets you a bit closer as someone can't pay to improve it for 'free' if it has to be the same as the next guys.

[Marbot]

I think that in future any progress a team will make will most certainly be down to someone having a 'good idea', rather than just throwing money at making what everyone else has got a little bit better. Which is how it should be.

[neiltb]

unfortunately it's the guys who follow the good ideas that get it on the cheap, the development work is done and running.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by neiltb

unfortunately it's the guys who follow the good ideas that get it on the cheap, the development work is done and running.

That's true but the only benefit they get is to lift themselves to the standard of the others. The team that makes it work first enjoys a brief period in the sun during which their good idea gives them an advantage. It is the nature of F1 that it doesn't last long but for me at least that's one of the things that can make it so interesting.

[Chiefy]

I am interested in this after hearing Martin Brundle make a quiet comment about one of the teams in the grand prix last week. I think he referred to Williams and guessed their budget could be in the region of 160m (dollars?).

Does anyone have any knowledge of how the resource restriction agreement is working out in F1? What changes have taken place since its introduction? Is F1 scaling back its budgets in line with its promises?