[WEC] LMP1 Cost Control Suggestions

[gregtummer]

With only 5 full season WEC LMP1s, it is time for suggestions on cost control.

So how do we keep the costs under control while allowing technology and innovation that satisfies both factories and privateers?

Here's my ideas using the 2013 rules as an example:

#1 LMP1 factories ~$50 million spending limit (F1 said they can figure out the accounting on multinational teams, so WEC could too)

#2 Privateer LMP1s ~$15 million spending limit (I guess it costs Muscle Milk $7.5 million a year to run the HPD with one car, so travel may go a little over $15 million for 2 cars traveling all over the world)

#3 LMP1 factories run at 900kgs

#4 Privateer LMP1s run at 800kgs

#5 Make it so teams don't have to upgrade cars every year
Year old factory cars run 875 kgs, privateers run 775kgs
Two year old factory cars run 850kgs, privateers run 750kgs (drop 25kgs for each year old the car is to remain competitive)

Obviously all of these numbers aren't set in stone and they can be adjusted a bit but these are just guidelines.

But what this does, is it has some cost control so a factory like Audi doesn't blow everyone out of the water and scare everyone off, but it also leaves room for innovation.

It also sets cost cap limits so a private team like Rebellion doesn't blow the privateers out of the water if they choose to do so.

It also makes it so the privateers have a chance. Can Audi overcome the 100kg weight disadvantage though aero, fuel efficiency, hybrid technology, and race strategy?

It also makes it so factories and privateers don't have to upgrade their cars every year. Can the new aerodynamics from HPD offset the 25kg weight advantage and 50kg weight advantage 1 year old and 2 year old cars have?

[rayman167]

Don't travel too much will save a lot

[Maelochs]

I like the weight/longevity idea, and the stable rules. I like the whole budget-limit idea.

I sincerely question whether any entity (including F1) can really audit all those multinationals and be sure none are cheating.

Unless those multinationals completely opened their books (which I strongly doubt any would do) then how could any outside audit be sure about what was spent where? And how much would it cost for all the lawyers and accountants neede to keep track, and how much more for all the protests and appeals?

If some way to keep track of the money can be found, then great, let's do it. I like those rules.

[pach233]

Before everyone goes into the minutia of discussing cost saving measures, I would just like to say....

You only have to cut costs to the point where they match your revenue. Series have this obsession with cost cutting and have totally ignored revenue raising by promotion and generating new fans. Thus we have gotten neither cost cutting nor revenue raising leaving us in the mess we're in today.

Woops did I confuse this with the doom and gloom thread? Is this about the U.S. government?

[Holt]

You could just do nothing and let the cycle repeat itself. Let the big factory teams die out, and the privateers will come in and take their spot, preferably with old factory equipment. Let the big factory teams save money by showing up once or twice a year, but always at Le Mans.

When the economy improves enough the big teams will come back and run full time again.

Only F1 is capable of such enormous waste year in and year out thanks its undying, loyal (logical or not) worldwide allegiance of fans. For everything else there will be ups and downs.

If the WEC fails like others before it then something else will rise in its place.

Either that or restrict how much of the cars teams can develop. Like F1 with how they restricted the wings and alot of the car recently.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Racing is not socialism! Sorry to sound like a broken record. Not all teams, drivers, or cars are equal. Not everyone should have a shot at the win if they don't deserve it. Cost caps are not realistic nor enforceable as Red Bull has shown in F1 and I suspect they are not alone. Audi dominates ACO racing and they deserve to, like them or not, based on the resources (not just $) they dedicate to it. Toyota was a revelation last year doing what they did with the limited time and other resources. Guess what? Audi will be better for it. As Maelochs has said, it's not about how much you spend, it's the return one gets from said spend. The WEC is expensive, it should be - it is a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP! I can't speak to Europe but as for the rest of the world what exposure can teams show they gained for the sponsors? Don't dumb down the product on the track to make it cheaper, improve the way the product is presented to increase its' value. The media package is horrible! If I missed a WEC race last year via the stream there was no legal way to go back and watch it later nor was there any television coverage in North America. That's a start. We need at least one feeder series for Le Mans, if we end up with all spec series where does that leave us?

[joeb]

Borrowing from F1, I kind of like the idea of manufacturers in P1 selling engines to privateers.

Also like the idea of manufacturers selling last years cars to privateers.

[Mike E]

It would be useful to know where the money is actually spent.

Presumably a large chunk goes on staff salaries. Audi and Toyota must employ more people than Strakka and Rebellion, even taking the staffing of HPD/Wirth and Lola into account (pre going bust, of course). Limit the number of staff accredited at each meeting?

One of the best things about this sort of racing is variety. I cannot stand spec series. But maybe some lessons could be learned from the current DTM rules, which Audi knows lots about. You can still differentiate between makes while sharing common components. Lights, wheels, brakes, gearboxes, seats and belts, instruments, ECUs, fire systems, fuel tanks/bladders, refuelling rigs, etc etc could be sourced centrally. Having said that, it could be quite painful for the suppliers of these things who did not win the contracts.

Travel obviously costs. Is this managed centrally for the WEC like it is for F1?

I guess the irony of Toyota providing strong competition for Audi is that it will push both of them further away from the privateers in terms of performance. And so discourage more privateers from taking them on.

Ho hum.

[urdragon]

For me the wec format/Calendar/num rounds is perfect, it needs better TV coverage and marketing to improve ROI to teams, maybe to share more prototypes and GT's with other international series, to share investments.

[chernaudi]

As I posted in the Toyota thread, I feel that the thing that's hurt LMP1 privateers the most over the past couple of years are huge formulae changes that are only good for 2-3 years or so, and fairly significant changes between, or even during, the race seasons. In LMP900/675 and the original (big engined) LMP1/2 classes, you had fairly stable rules for the most part and the cars were affordable. But the smaller engines in LMP1 are more expensive (trying to make a 3.4 flatcrank V8 have the longevity of a 6 or 7 liter V8 isn't cheap), and having to update cars every year due to--or to take advantage of--rules changes isn't doing the private teams any favors.

I think that the ACO and FIA would've been wise to just neck down the air restrictors on the big engined cars and keep the larger capacity engines legal. Think of it this way, when the Avro Shackleton was designed, it was a maritime patrol aircraft based on the WWII Lancaster heavy bomber, but the big difference was that the Shackleton needed longer range because of it's new role. How much of that change was obtained was the change from the Lancaster's Rolls-Royce Merlin engines to R-R's Griffon engines, which the Griffon was an enlarged Merlin (37 liters vs 27 liters). The larger Griffon produced more torque than the Merlin, and that meant more power at a lower RPM, which meant great fuel economy.

I can see the same thing happening if the ACO/FIA just grandfathered the larger engines, and I even saw a link to an article by John Judd that showed that a larger engine would be benefited under the 2014 regs anyways.

I just think that, even though the ACO/FIA meant well with the regs (smaller engines in theory are more fuel efficient), the cost of the change over to those without a factory engine deal--and the cost of said engine deals as well--was a big short term investment that was only good also for a relatively short term (a three year rules package).

Rules stability is the most important thing, and that's something that's lacking the past few years. These are similar changes to those that doomed sportscar racing in about 20 years ago (changes that required teams to spend tons of money, and benefited only the big factories). Of course, what would be nice are stable rules that benefited all. But is there really a balance between cutting edge alternative technology cars that factories like Audi and Toyota have presented, and off the shelf customer specials that can't realistically be able to compete with them on a steady basis. Ironically, LMP900/675 gave us that. Yeah, there were no diesels and hybrids back then, but you had a factory team that was being challenged by customer teams with the same car, and a team with one of the most unconventional LMP1's of all time--of course, I mean the famous Panoz LMP1 roadster, which was front engined and powered by a fuel injected aluminum version of the Ford small block NASCAR V8. If we had a formula where we can get back to that, that would IMO be a savoir. Because the irony of these supposedly "open" rules is that you see teams doing more of the same, as far as similar cars with similar engines. And the cars under the LMP900 rules were cheaper, even taking in account inflation.

[Speed-King]

Rules stability is the most important thing, and that's something that's lacking the past few years. These are similar changes to those that doomed sportscar racing in about 20 years ago (changes that required teams to spend tons of money, and benefited only the big factories). Of course, what would be nice are stable rules that benefited all. But is there really a balance between cutting edge alternative technology cars that factories like Audi and Toyota have presented, and off the shelf customer specials that can't realistically be able to compete with them on a steady basis. Ironically, LMP900/675 gave us that. Yeah, there were no diesels and hybrids back then, but you had a factory team that was being challenged by customer teams with the same car, and a team with one of the most unconventional LMP1's of all time--of course, I mean the famous Panoz LMP1 roadster, which was front engined and powered by a fuel injected aluminum version of the Ford small block NASCAR V8. If we had a formula where we can get back to that, that would IMO be a savoir. Because the irony of these supposedly "open" rules is that you see teams doing more of the same, as far as similar cars with similar engines. And the cars under the LMP900 rules were cheaper, even taking in account inflation.

You raise some interesting points there, but couldn't it be that part of why the privateers were competitive with Audi back then was not the rule set, but rather that Audi wasn't pushed to the level they are on now by another serious factory effort? After all, Audi was winning most of the races anyway. So why push harder and spend more money for only marginally better results?

Someone raised a similar point in another thread, saying how a P1 class with Mazda, Nissan and Honda on limited budgets and customer cars might be more interesting than what we have right now, if on a somewhat lower technological level.

[TheNewBob]

Originally Posted by Mike E

It would be useful to know where the money is actually spent.

A valid point, its all very good introducing cost caps but is this capping what a manufacturer team spends or what a privateer team spends? A cap of, say 30 million per season will likely give Audi and Toyota a few headaches for a little while but teams such as Rebellion or Oak Racing would still find themselves in a real battle to gain a fraction of that amount in sponsorship. Be interesting to know exactly what a big team's money is actually spent on, then you could start looking at which costs need to be cut.

Chernaudi's point of regular rule changes is the other major point here, if teams haven't already spent money on new cars, then replacing the old, larger engines and attaching enormous fins on the bodywork (probably as part of a costly big aero upgrade package) will have hurt the bank balance enough already, only to find that in 2014 they have to fork out yet more cash for something else completely new.

The only advantage I can see is if the new rules will be something stable that everyone likes and can survive with just a few tweaks here and there for a good 7-8 years, then the current period of concern and change will have been worth it. We've already lost a spectacular GT class, I hope we don't end up losing a spectacular prototype class too...

[HORNDAWG]

NONE!







L.P.

[rwindle]

Expecting privateer teams to be able to compete with manufacturers is unrealistic in any endeavor. The factories have much more to gain therefore they will invest more.

[The Badger]

Make it cheaper with a control tyre ..... every little helps and levels the playing field while yer at it .

(1) P1 Michelin
(2) P2 Goodyear
(3) GTE Dunlop

..... this would also stop special works teams express use of a certain tyre compound .

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Make it cheaper with a control tyre ..... every little helps and levels the playing field while yer at it .

(1) P1 Michelin
(2) P2 Goodyear
(3) GTE Dunlop

..... this would also stop special works teams express use of a certain tyre compound .

Bad idea. That way we wouldn't have people like Team Falken Tire on the grid.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Bad idea. That way we wouldn't have people like Team Falken Tire on the grid.

Agreed, I don't think Spec parts is right for Le Mans.
I'm not sure the tire companies would want this either, they seem to like the competition (Bridgestone and Michelin LOVED to exposure they got in F1 with their battles)