This blog has now closed. Please visit my new blog, Stepreo.

Archive: costs

The budget crap — another FIA political ploy

8 May 2009 01:03

The other big news to come from the FIA last week was its proposal for an optional budget cap limiting teams to a budget of £40 million excluding costs of drivers, engines, hospitality, marketing and fines (because that’s the FIA’s money, duh!). I don’t particularly have a problem with a budget cap in theory.

Cutting costs has been the biggest issue in Formula 1 for years, and not just from the FIA’s perspective either. Beforehand, though, the approach was to institute ever more barmy technical restrictions which, it can be argued, have adversely affected the racing. All the while, teams still spent the same amount of money simply trimming off weight and having their CFD systems create increasingly alien aerodynamic tricks.

Ideally, I would think that F1 teams should be free to raise however much money they like and spend it as they see fit. But just now it is clear that this is an untenable situation. So we must make a choice. As an F1 fan, given a choice between strange technical restrictions (18,000 RPM limit on the engine? Why? To prevent faster cars catching slower cars?) and a budget cap, I would opt for the budget cap any time. F1 is, after all, supposed to showcase the best technology. F1 teams can still do this with a limited budget so long as they have the freedom to innovate.

But it is the FIA’s motives behind the budget cap that concern me. Alongside the budget cap comes a raft of other proposals that hint towards a complete U-turn in FIA policy towards new teams.

For the best part of a decade-and-a-half, the FIA have made it difficult for new teams to enter F1. The main form this took was in the entry bond. Following the Mastercard Lola debacle of 1997. Under pressure from the title sponsors, the Lola car was rushed out a year earlier than originally intended. It went to Albert Park having done almost zero testing. The cars were a dozen seconds slower than pole position during qualifying. Before round two in Brazil, Lola went bust.

After that, new teams had to pay a $48 million entry bond in order to demonstrate that they were financially stable. That is why the trend has been for new teams to buy old teams rather than start from scratch (which only Toyota and Super Aguri did while the bond had to be paid). The entry bond was dropped a couple of years ago in recognition of the dwindling grid.

Now the FIA seems determined to welcome back smaller private teams, having spent the past decade driving them out, keen to avoid another Lola. Now, they will welcome any new interest with open arms — including Lola! There is also apparent interest from Prodrive / Aston Martin, not to forget USF1 which launched earlier this year.

A number of GP2 teams are also bound to be eyeing an entry to F1. iSport have dropped a heavy hint, while ART, Campos and Racing Engineering are also said to be interested. In March, Joe Saward believed that five new teams were in the pipeline. That number will have surely increased since then.

It is unusual because there probably haven’t been so many teams seriously considering entering F1 since the early 1990s. And it is not as though the small grid is a new problem. For several years there has been space on the grid for 24 cars. F1 has not seen more than 22 cars enter a race since 1995 (excluding the ill-fated Lola in 1997 for one race). Indeed, for four of the last seven seasons there have been only 20 cars on the grid.

Not only have the FIA introduced budget cap proposals in order to attract new teams, but FOM have agreed to actively make it easier for new teams to enter. This will come in the form of free chassis transportation and free air travel for employees. Plus, far from having to pay a $48 million entry bond, new teams will now be paid $10 million per year to enter! I’ll buy two please!

All of this is on top of the plan to increase the maximum number of cars that will be allowed to enter the championship. The grid could now potentially increase in size from 20 cars this year to 26 cars next year, the first time in recent years the FIA have countenanced such an idea.

Why does the FIA have a sudden interest in swelling the size of the grid? Could it possibly have something to do with that pesky Fota organisation that is giving the FIA a bit of well-deserved heat just now?

All ten Formula 1 teams are presenting a united front at the moment. Despite their considerable differences, the ten teams have just about managed to put them aside in order to stand up to the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone, who find it difficult to credibly counter such unanimity among the teams.

It is difficult enough for the ten teams to remain so friendly with each other. It would be awfully helpful if the FIA could make it eleven, twelve, thirteen teams that have to get on with each other. To make those extra new teams be teams that are on the same page as the FIA — as the new teams naturally would be — that would be a stroke of genius. All of a sudden, Fota would not be quite so credible.

The new teams are joining specifically because of the new budget cap, and they will be happy enough to plug an FIA-supplied Cosworth engine into their cars. They will be happy to acquiesce to the FIA’s mad plans for years to come.

Most fans like to see larger grids, and many of us love to watch a small team take on the big guns. But Fota is the best chance there is for the future of Formula 1 to be mapped out in a way that is fan-friendly.

The budget cap may ostensibly be a way of securing the future of Formula 1. But the new teams could be the biggest threat to the chance of actually improving it.

4 comments

Honda's withdrawal in context

8 December 2008 00:01

Categories: Opinion

I had planned on my next post being the second part of my driver rankings. Unfortunately, real life events have intervened. In the meantime, events have overtaken me as Formula 1 was hit by a huge news story on Friday — Honda’s sudden withdrawal from the sport.

Now, normally such an announcement wouldn’t raise too many eyebrows. Ever since I started watching Formula 1 in the mid-1990s, I have watched teams and manufacturers come and go on a regular basis.

I saw Renault withdraw from the sport as engine supplier to Williams and Benetton in 1997, only to return as a fully-fledged constructor when they bought the Benetton team just a few years later in 2000. Ford came to the party when they bought the Stewart team in 1999, only to leave the sport entirely a few years later in 2004. Peugeot left the sport in a huff at their own lack of success in 2000, having only joined the circus in 1994.

I learnt quickly, therefore, that manufacturers’ interest in F1 is almost always transient. For every Mercedes that appears fully committed, there are a handful of Renaults and Hondas who will enter and exit the sport according to the wind direction.

Honda’s announcement was shocking partly because of its suddenness. The speed with which the decision was taken is made clear when you read James Allen’s account. There is also the fact that at the start of this year Honda owned not one but two F1 teams. Now they have dramatically trimmed right back to zero, and will not even offer an engine supply to any teams next season.

There is also the fact that Honda were massive spenders in F1. This appeared to signify a magnificent commitment to the sport, despite the relative lack of success. But the flipside of this is that it made Honda an absolute laughing stock within the sport.

The huge amount of money the Honda F1 team spent also made it more vulnerable to the red pen of the bosses. No other manufacturer will save as much money by axing their F1 team. It may be true that Honda’s withdrawal is for political reasons, as former BAR-Honda driver Jacques Villeneuve posits. But it is Honda’s huge costs, coupled with the utter lack of success, that made it vulnerable to such political manoeuvring.

As such, the withdrawal of Honda is not such a shock when you think about it, even though I wouldn’t have predicted it. Moreover, Honda is not a fixture of Formula 1 like Ferrari, or even Mercedes. The current incarnation of the Honda F1 project only got the nod in 1998, and even then it was quickly reigned in to become a mere engine supply deal with BAR. Honda bought the team when tobacco sponsorship left the sport just a few years ago. Despite having run a team in the 1960s, and the huge success of the corporation as an engine supplier in the 1980s, an F1 institution it is not.

What makes people worried, though, is the economic climate in which this news has come. Whereas Ford found a buyer for Jaguar Racing easily enough in Red Bull in 2003, buyers for Honda will be thin on the ground due to the lack of credit that will be available to interested parties.

Next season’s Formula 1 calendar has already lost two races — Canada and France — and China and both German circuits currently in use have recently warned that they may not hold races for much longer. Again, it all comes down to money, with circuit owners being unable or unwilling to pay Bernie Ecclestone’s fast-increasing costs of staging a grand prix at the same time as attendances are tumbling.

Meanwhile, car sales are in freefall on a global scale, with a number of large car manufacturers seemingly in serious financial danger unless drastic action is taken. In the backdrop of these events, participation in motorsports looks like an extravagance. Even if the old “win on Sunday, sell on Monday” mantra holds true in normal times, right now western consumers are tightening their belts meaning that any increase in sales may be too small to be justifiable.

As such, Honda’s withdrawal is seen as just another sign that Formula 1 faces a crisis. We have a slimmed-down calendar that relies increasingly on flyaway races away from the sport’s European heartland to help pay CVC’s bills, and no races in the vitally important North American market for the first time in five decades.

Now there is a slimmed-down grid of just 18 cars — a number that is getting smaller. When you consider that the 2008 season was originally destined to contain 24 entries, F1 has essentially lost a quarter of its teams in a matter of months. Formula 1 is beginning to look like a shadow of its former self.

Now the question everyone is asking is, “who is next?” Initially the finger pointed at Toyota. Many pointed out that Toyota are only really in F1 because Honda were there. Toyota are also, like Honda, huge spenders with little to show for it.

But Toyota quickly put the lid on the speculation by issuing a statement that appeared to affirm their commitment to F1 — although, as James Allen pointed out, the word “currently” in front of “committed” looks like a carefully worded way to give them an easy exit should things take a turn for the worse. After all, if Honda’s decision was so sudden, why would a decision from Toyota not be?

BMW and Mercedes-Benz have both also affirmed their commitment to F1. But one manufacturer has spoken with a deafening silence.

I always suspected that the first manufacturer to go would be Renault. Its CEO, Carlos Ghosn, is said to be sceptical of motorsport participation, and there has been a question mark over the team’s future ever since he joined Renault in 2005. Besides which, Renault’s history in F1 has shown that it will come and go as it pleases.

Even though some news websites have reported that Renault is committed to F1, I have seen no quotes which the other manufacturers have been happy enough to provide. Was the media palmed off with a stock answer from a Renault spokesperson?

Meanwhile, rumours circulate around Red Bull. Dietrich Mateschitz recently re-bought Gerhard Berger’s 50% stake in Toro Rosso, but many think he did this so that he could sell it more easily. But with billions to play with and no car sales to drop off a cliff, I see little reason why he would pull the plug on both teams.

Williams has been perceived to be in a vulnerable position for a few years now. It is the last brave privateer team that is in it not to sell cars and not to sell drinks, but purely for the love of racing. It has been hit hard, but it doesn’t have to be seen to be reducing costs for political reasons like the manufacturers have to. Ironically, Williams may be safer than some of the manufacturers now.

We will just have to wait and see. It’s clear that Formula 1 is currently undergoing a massive change. Could the ground be being laid for a return to a privateer era? If so, you won’t find me complaining too much, no matter how painful the current events are in the medium-term.

5 comments

Are FOTA off their rocker?

2 October 2008 18:50

Categories: Opinion

I was originally quite pleased when I heard earlier this year that the Formula 1 teams had finally decided to put their differences aside and join together as the Formula One Teams Association. At last, someone with teeth who can stand up the Max Mosley and the FIA.

That’s all well and good if FOTA turns out to be half-decent and come up with good solutions. Unfortunately, the signs are now that the teams’ ideas for the future of Formula 1 are every bit as barmy as Mad Max’s.

Take a paragraph buried in Pitpass’s story on Luca di Montezemolo’s whines about the Singapore Grand Prix earlier this week. As it happens, I kind of agree with most of what di Montezemolo had to say, although that is for a different post. But as though the shock of agreeing with the execrable Ferrari President (who also happens to be President of FOTA) wasn’t enough, what Pitpass revealed about FOTA’s early ideas literally left me open-mouthed in shock and disillusionment.

We hear that at last week’s meeting a number of issues which could result in a seismic change to the sport were discussed, including standard transmissions, standard wheels, standard brakes and standard rear wings.

We hear there may even be a vote on whether F1 should have a weight handicap system!

Excuse me for swearing, but what the very fuck?! What is this pish? Standard transmissions, wheels, brakes and even aero? Why not go the whole hog and throw in standard drivers as well? We might as well pay to watch a glorified Scalextric race.

This is beginning to look like a complete stitch-up. I know the teams desperately want to cut costs, but this is just extreme. With practically spec cars, the only competition left in F1 will be over who has the biggest motorhome and the best catering.

Lest the powers-that-be forget, Formula 1 is supposed to be all about watching the best drivers in the best cars, and that means teams constantly innovating in as many areas as possible. F1 is supposed to be about technological excellence. FOTA’s plan sounds like a watered-down European version of IndyCar — and there is a reason why so few people watch those lorries tootling round the place.

If you want to watch a spec series, you can take your pick. There is GP2, A1GP (if they can ever get round to actually building the blasted cars), World Series by Renault and now even Max Mosley’s sorry Formula Two scheme. That is not to mention the literally countless spec series that operate lower down the chain.

If even Formula 1 becomes a spec series with standard this, that and the other, what is left? Please. We have to have at least one motor racing category that is dedicated to technological advancement. The world is already over-populated with spec series that there would simply be no point in F1 transforming into one.

I haven’t even gone into the weight handicap system. Needless to say, this would be a total disaster for F1. We want to see the best drivers and the best cars win. That is what sport is supposed to be about. Why should people be punished for being fast? What a load of nonsense. Remember, BTCC’s figures went off a cliff when they introduced their ludicrous ballast system. Why do they think we want to see fast cars going slowly? Keith skewers weight handicap systems here as well.

Meanwhile, Martin Whitmarsh has unveiled FOTA’s big plan for spicing up the Grand Prix weekend. But it doesn’t sound very spicy to me. Apparently, the biggest problem with Formula 1 is Fridays! Silly me for not noticing! And what is the great thing that is going to solve this ill? A mickey mouse time trial with a cash prize!

WTF?! First of all, Fridays are the one bit of F1 that are more-or-less perfect if you ask me. They are called practice sessions, I get to watch the cars practicing. For me, that is a win. There is a certain pleasure to be derived from watching F1 cars do their thing at high speed but without necessarily competing with one another.

Why does this — of all aspects of the F1 weekend — need to be tampered with? Why does there need to be competitive action on a Friday? As far as I’m concerned, Friday is for practicing. Competitive action is for a Sunday.

Don’t forget that no-one will watch anything if it happens on a Friday. People are at work. They’re doing other things. Remember the doomed experiment with spreading qualifying over two days. That was pretty hastily dropped because they realised that no-one could be bothered watching the Sunday morning session — and that was a Sunday, never mind a Friday!

As for having a cash prize, I mean please. This isn’t a game show — it’s Formula 1. Besides, do they really think fans will be that bothered to watch mega-rich drivers getting even richer? No thanks.

See more on this from Clive at F1 Insight, with whom I totally agree on this.

I think I preferred the chaos and deadlock of old over these hare-brained schemes of FOTA.

3 comments

Are there now too many feeder series?

16 September 2008 19:30

Categories: News, Non-F1, Opinion

I will turn my attention to the Italian and Belgian Grands Prix later this week. But over the past couple of days a lot more information has come out on the new Formula Two series. It has got me thinking.

I was one of many who was really sceptical about the Formula Two idea when it was first announced by Max Mosley. It was clearly a move in the strategic political wrangling between Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone — just another Max Mosley vanity project.

The FIA’s insistence that a Formula Two car would only cost around €250,000 seemed infeasibly optimistic. But the plans look a lot more solid now that it has been announced that the cars will be supplied by Jonathan Palmer’s MotorSport Vision company. The cars will be designed by WilliamsF1 (yes, that WilliamsF1), and the engines will be turbocharged 1.8 litre Audis. Although it is not yet clear who will manufacture the chassis, the firm aim is to keep costs to below $350,000 (at current exchange rates, very close to the original target).

MotorSport Vision will also own the commercial rights to the series. MSV knows its stuff as it already owns the commercial rights in addition to being the promoter and organiser of British Superbikes. The FIA hasn’t chosen a bunch of dummies to run Formula Two.

Initial reports seemed to be written on the assumption that Formula Two would replace the already established Formula Palmer Audi. However, according to Grandprix.com, Jonathan Palmer is still committed to expanding Formula Palmer Audi in addition to Formula Two.

Meanwhile, GP2 — clearly the most well-established second-tier motor racing category in Europe — will continue unaffected. GP2 already has the F1 support slot, so Formula Two will instead support the World Touring Car Championship with a possibility of supporting some races in the Le Mans Series and DTM, with a few standalone races chucked in for good measure.

This news surrounding Formula Two does make me wonder though. Are there now too many lower-category racing series?

For all the doom and gloom about costs in Formula 1, motor racing as a whole appears to be booming. In recent years a handful of series with big ambitions have all been set up. I can’t think of any that have disappeared to make way for them. These new series are all more or less competing with each other, finding more and more ludicrous “unique selling points” in order to justify their existence.

Just last month Superleague Formula held its first race. Superleague is probably the strangest of the lot. Each car represents a football team. The cars’ liveries are based on the football club’s colours. Instead of drivers and teams scoring points on the racetrack, football teams do. Huh?!

It’s not an original idea. A few years ago someone else came up with Premier 1 Grand Prix which was fundamentally the same idea. But that never came off the ground. In fairness to Superleague, they have at least got their championship going. There are also some impressively big names involved. There are some cute associations too. For instance, the AS Roma car is run by the Fisichella Motor Sport team — Giancarlo Fisichella being a Roma supporter.

However, I doubt what Superleague can really achieve. It lacks a really, really big name like Manchester United. Grandprix.com has also been disparaging about the quality of the drivers involved. The most famous driver in the field is the embarrassed F1 reject Antônio Pizzonia who will race for Corinthians when it doesn’t clash with his glittering career in Stock Car Brasil.

The chance for any crossover appeal is surely also limited. A mickey mouse series like this certainly won’t get my interested in football. And I have spoken to a friend of mine who is an avid Glasgow Rangers supporter who is just perplexed by the whole idea. He only cars about Rangers winning on the football pitch, not on the racetrack.

Another relatively new series along similar lines is A1 Grand Prix. It might have a name like that cowboy plumber’s firm, but A1GP markets itself as the “World Cup of Motorsport”. Again, teams and drivers don’t score points. Instead, nations do.

Like Superleague, the driving standard does not seem too high. The only drivers to have made the leap from A1GP to F1 in the past are Scott Speed and Nelsinho Piquet. It’s not exactly the champions’ hall of fame.

At first I thought A1GP was a silly concept, and I still think in many ways it is. But to its credit, whenever I have caught highlights of the races it has looked pretty exciting. The series seems to grow more and more every year. For the coming season they have pulled off a major coup by clinching a deal with Ferrari to supply chassis and engines. A1GP has made a big name for itself in the space a few years and looks set to stay.

Increasingly, Formula 1 drivers are emerging from the World Series by Renault. Its first incarnation was as a relatively modest series centred in Spain. Over the years it has grown and grown until it has become a convincingly European series. Part of the prize of winning the championship is to have a test drive with the Renault F1 team. Six of its nine champions have also had careers in F1, sometimes in the following year. Heikki Kovalainen and Robert Kubica have been two notable beneficiaries of the Renault F1 test.

GP2 is also a relatively new series, although it was built on the foundations of Formula 3000 and has and advantage because it is essentially Bernie Ecclestone’s pet project. This means that all of the races have a ready-made audience in an F1 support slot. The racing is great and plenty of promising drivers have come through the ranks including Nico Rosberg, Lewis Hamilton and Timo Glock.

Rumour has it that next year will see the inception of GP3. The series is said to be a re-branding of International Formula Master, which currently supports the FIA World Touring Car Championship. Formula Master was itself only invented in 2007 and was envisaged as a competitor to Formula 3.

GP3 even has a logo that looks very similar to the GP2 logo. It seems a foregone conclusion that any GP3 Series would run as a Formula 1 support event.

The Formula 1 package is already pretty full up, never mind motor racing as a whole. In addition to Formula 1 and GP2, the Porsche Supercup is a well-established part of the F1 weekend. However, as a supercar race as part of a package of open-wheel racing, it sticks out like a sore thumb. If any series gets the heave-ho for GP3 (which you imagine would have to happen), it is surely the Porsche Supercup.

It’s worth remembering that F1 already had a new support series in 2007. Formula BMW Europe has supported several F1 races this year. This series is yet another new invention, although it is a merger of Formula BMW UK and Formula BMW ADAC. Now instead of being an entry-level series with cars tootling around small national circuits, Formula BMW Europe is now an impressive international series that is held on Formula 1 circuits.

If this all comes together, Bernie Ecclestone would have quite an interesting little portfolio. Formula 1, GP2, GP3 and Formula BMW Europe. Those are four pretty distinctive categories with a clear hierarchy. Makes you wonder — maybe it is only a matter of time until Formula BMW Europe is rebranded as GP4.

With so many lower-level series now, I can’t help but wonder if it’s all a bit much. Are there really enough credible drivers to keep so many high-profile international series going? What is the unique selling point of each of these series?

I thought Formula Two would never be able to carve itself a niche. But the FIA has already come up with a pretty good justification of its existence:

The objective is to make top-level international single-seater racing available to drivers who at present have difficulty in raising enough money to demonstrate their talent… [C]ompetitors from countries which do not yet have an established motor racing structure will find it easier to progress.

The FIA will also award Super Licenses to drivers competing in the Formula Two championship. If the FIA decides to stop awarding Super Licenses to GP2 drivers, they could well successfully swipe the rug from underneath GP2′s and Bernie Ecclestone’s feet. Whatever, I find it difficult to believe that there is space for quite this many “second tier” series.

Update: I don’t believe it! I have just written this post and I have already learnt about yet another new racing series called A2GP, with A3GP possibly also in the pipeline. I mean really!

6 comments

How KERS will ruin great racing

20 August 2008 17:14

Categories: History, Opinion

It is worth remembering that the 2008 season so far has been, by all accounts, an exciting season for on-track action. There have been plenty of overtaking manoeuvres of note. Felipe Massa’s double move on Kovalainen and Barrichello in Canada was a stormer that I won’t forget quickly. Nick Heidfeld managed two double overtakes at Silverstone. And let’s not forget Lewis Hamilton’s bold moves at Hockenheim.

Even races that were expected to be utter snooze-fests have contained their fair share of surprises. The French Grand Prix was spiced up by Räikkönen’s exhaust problem and even the Hungarian Grand Prix had an incredible sting in the tail.

This season the field is closer than it has been perhaps for decades — who knows, perhaps ever. I’ve had a look at this season’s qualifying times, and the average gap between the fastest car and the slowest car is 103.26%. That’s not bad going at all when you recall that around a decade ago it was fairly common for drivers to fail to qualify for being more than 107% slower than pole time.

The closeness of the field this year — not just from the fastest to the slowest car, but particularly the closeness of the teams vying to be 3rd or 4th fastest a the moment — is what has contributed to this season’s great racing and an intriguing championship.

It’s not an accident that the field has become so close in Formula 1. The relative stability of the technical regulations in recent years has meant that the teams’ R&D programmes are yielding diminishing returns. As one team boss told Grandprix.com recently:

We work 24 hours a day in the wind tunnel. But we have hit a wall. We have only managed to find three percent more downforce this year. We just cannot find any more.

It seems as though the teams have discovered almost all there is to discover about how to make their cars go faster — certainly in terms of aerodynamic factors. You can see this in the wide indifference the ‘shark fin’ has met with. Team after team says that the shark fin has made little or no perceptible difference in performance — yet they all still run with it. One theory I have heard is that Red Bull simply designed the shark fin so make more space for the Red Bull logo, and that all the other teams have simply copied the design to make it look as though they’re still trying to experiment with aerodynamics.

Now the FIA proposes to do away with all of this ‘closeness’ nonsense by ripping up the rulebook and starting again. If there is one thing a radical overhaul of the rules is sure to do, it is to spread the field. We saw this in 1998 when McLaren rose from the midfield to become almost dominant. 2009′s regulation changes are far more radical, potentially opening the door for next season to be a snooze-fest dominated by one team that just happened to find the edge first.

As an aside, it’s worth pointing out that such a radical change in the rules does not do very much in terms of cutting costs. Yet again, the FIA’s cost-cutting mantra is undermined by the FIA itself.

I have not even touched on KERS yet, which is bound to lead to huge gaps between different teams. You can see this in the reaction of some teams who are currently trying to get the other teams to agree to run without KERS until 2010. Those teams whose KERS programme is not quite up to scratch are desperate to delay the new system’s introduction.

This is inevitable as KERS is very much at the experimental stages of its development and different teams are trying out different techniques. One of these techniques will be shown in the long run to be the most effective, but we are yet to find out which that is. In the meantime, the teams that were lucky enough to strike on the right technique first time will crush their opponents.

Closer racing in 2009? Don’t count on it. Make the most of the great racing of 2008 while you can.

12 comments

doctorvee