Jean Todt Says Formula 1 Is too Expensive and too Complicated

[Irisado]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39396820

For once, I agree with him.  Hopefully, the FIA will actually start to make constructive changes.

[Ian]

And I agree too Irisado, also I like Todt's opinion that instead of 2 secs between the 1st and 10th car that he'd like to see it as 0.7/0.8 secs gap.

[Scott]

You'll never hear me say F1 is too expensive or too complicated.  Todt shouldn't either.  He oversaw one of the most complex and expensive engineering accomplishments in F1 history.

The question isn't how expensive the engines are, it is about how much a manufacturer should be allowed to charge a customer team.  I would write a simple rule of a maximum engine bill per season, and guarantee that the engine spec and output was identical to the manufacturer as to the customer.  Beyond that they should be allowed to build, run and provide (to customers) as many engines as necessary.  No restrictions, no rules about reliability.  If they blow, then we know they were very close to the limit, and that's what it should be about.  In just about every other racing series teams are run constantly in the red.  As the old saying goes, if you want to make a small fortune in racing, you need to start with a large one.  There are no shortage of deep pocketed sponsors or drivers who are happy to write the cheques.  Why should that also not apply at the corporate level??  If they want the exposure and TV time with their badged engine covers, then they should be prepared to take a bath.  That's life.  If they can't take it, get out.  If F1 ends up down to one manufacturer, then we can talk, but as long as their are at least 3, I have zero sympathy for them.

As far as the cars being closer together, as it has been said time and time again, that is mostly an aero problem, and the more flicks and wings they put on the car, the more difficult it is for the car behind to use any air that is left over.  In that sense we should go back, at least go back to designing the car and ditch the wings.  Ground effects and minimal wings would keep the cars at the same pace, but actually able to race (in this case, I agree with Brawn's point in the article).

Engine noise isn't about size or number of cylinders, it is simply about rpm.  Ever since they turned them down from the days when they were running 20k, the engines have sounded poor, even the V8's when they brought them down to 16-17k.  Garbage, engineer the heck out of them and crank them up into the 20's and you'll get a wail out of a 4 cylinder.

Finally, the media.  Grow up F1.  Either renegotiate with the networks or let the contracts lapse and gradually move to an online model.  Call up Netflix or Youtube Red.  Sell subscriptions at a reasonable price where anyone can access any race from anywhere in the world and you will build the largest audience F1 has ever seen.  It is astounding that in 2017 in GPW's chat that some can only access illegal streams, or must watch in a different language than they like, or some can't even watch while they are on the move.  I should be able to pull over in a parking lot and watch a race on my phone or a tablet in the middle of Kenya if that is where I find myself.  Not having access cuts off massive numbers of fans.

[cosworth151]

On the other hand, many fans wouldn't, or couldn't, afford to pay for things like Netflix just to watch F1. It needs to be more inclusive, not less.

[Scott]

Cheaper than cable.

[lkjohnson1950]

What makes no sense at all is him saying it needs to be less expensive and less complicated, but we're keeping the hybrid engines. While I am fine with the hybrids, if he wants to reduce costs, thats a place to start. You can't have both. F1 either is high tech, or it's cheap.

[Alianora La Canta]

Scott, there already is a maximum customer supply charge, and it was dropped by $1 m this year. The engine number limit is to force a reduction in waste, partly to keep manufacturers interested (last decade's four-engines-a-weekend count simply wouldn't be accepted post-recession). Nowadays, most of the price is in design work and staffing - the former necessary to stay competitive enough for F1 to have any value at all (customer cars turning F1 to an expensive version of F2 and therefore pointless), and the latter due to the number of races plus amount of people needed to support the design, build and racing work these days. But so thin on the ground is sponsorship that even the reduced prices of engines are a problem for multiple teams.

Most series do not run their professional teams "constantly in the red". Granted, they spend a lot of time red, but they balance their books, or even make a small profit, every year from the combined total of outside receipts. Owner inputs tend to be reserved for rare large-capital expenses like buying particularly large pieces of equipment. (Exceptions: LMP1 and manufacturer-GTE squads in WEC, DTM/WTCC, possibly WRC's top manufacturer teams). Most F1 teams fail to do that - even Mercedes lost $75 m last year, despite their many sponsorships and title victories. McLaren and Williams are likely the only exceptions - the rest are largely dependent on the owners investing a lot of money each year, simply to balance the books. (Granted, that's a lot of the point with the manufacturers, but that doesn't work so well when over half the grid are independents).

There is a shortage of deep-pocketed people and companies willing to write cheques to motorsport in general and especially expensive series - that's a large part of the problem in F1's current model. That, and every single manufacturer bar Cosworth threatened to walk if the current engines weren't introduced after they were told the engines had to be road-relevant (Cosworth knew it couldn't afford this particular concept, and bowed out when it was ignored). F1 decided it couldn't continue with only Cosworth, and that it would have severe (potentially series-ending) psuedopolitical issues from the mobility side if it tried not being road-relevant so was forced into this general concept. (Whether the mobility side should interfere with the sporting side is another matter, but while Jean Todt is in power, they will be forced together).

There is quite a bit to engine noise, though higher revving will indeed produce a louder engine. There are also problems with the sound quality - for me, for example, it produces almost as many bloops, cuts and hisses as a 16-bit sound card playing a mid-1990s game. That does not sound like any sort of engine to me, and is largely down to software regarding fuel-saving. Others have complained about the lack of bass, and since expanding the exhausts didn't work for fixing it, that requires more torquey engines or an increase in displacement. Others have complained about the tonality, which is largely a cylinder count and angle issue. You get the idea.

The middle of Kenya does not, for the most part, have video-capable bandwidth, especially at the quality level F1 is likely to demand due to the amount of writing and data that must be clearly conveyed in its graphics. (More urban parts of Kenya, on the other hand, would probably be thrilled to have F1 on video if they thought the racing would be exciting). Also, using a pay online service would still exclude the majority of fans, who simply aren't as wealthy as F1 people seem to imagine they are and cannot afford to pay for a channel, be it traditional or online. And F1's UK Sky contract means it can't even start the "gradual transition" until 2025, unless the online platform is Sky's (that is bound to a full-price Sky package). It can try to renegotiate, but Sky would need to be fully compensated for any change because apart from lost anticipated income, it will already have amortised some costs of currently-in-use equipment on the assumption of several years of exclusivity. And Sky has lots of rich lawyers upon which to call...

The entire situation is a mess, and it will be many years before F1 can extricate itself from its mistakes. Worryingly, I don't see much sign of Jean being willing to do any spadework, as he seems to prefer to replace Bernie as Waffler Supreme.

[cosworth151]

The middle of Kenya does not, for the most part, have video-capable bandwidth,

Neither does many parts of Appalachia. I agree that F1 races need to be available online. That said, it would be disastrous if it were available only online.

[Alianora La Canta]

The middle of Kenya does not, for the most part, have video-capable bandwidth,

Neither does many parts of Appalachia. I agree that F1 races need to be available online. That said, it would be disastrous if it were available only online.

The only way that will happen, thanks to the way broadcasting contracts work, is if the global "traditional" provider is the same as the global "online" provider. (Using "online" as the backup, as sportscars tends to do, hits the Appalachian problem, because the USA is usually the first territory to lose the "traditional" provision in such an arrangement). That would mean Sky was the only option - which would again remove the possibility of the majority of fans to see F1 on either platform.

If one of the online providers moved into "traditional" broadcasting, on the other hand, that would help a lot.

[Monty]

Although I wish we could go back to the days of allowing teams to try almost anything to go faster, I recognise that F1 is already suffering from a lack of funding.
This started with the ban on tobacco advertising. There really hasn't been any big-money sponsors to take their place (except Red Bull). This means that only the manufacturers can afford to keep developing new technology. With the way things are, Honda will probably pull out, Renault have dropped F1 in the past and could easily do so again and Mercedes may decide they have proved enough of a point and move to some other motor sport (like Audi have with LeMans).
The concept of having rules to both limit the cost of the power supplies and open up the sport to independent engine specialists would definitely be advantageous to the future of F1.
Regarding making the racing more interesting; I think that would be relatively simple. Do not restrict fuel capacity or flow, increase minimum starting weight and reduce minimum finishing weight to make sure the teams run (and use) high levels of fuel, reduce the size of the front and rear wings, do not allow any aero apendages other than the wings (any aero effect must only come from the shape of the monocoque and the small front and back wings).
The cars would have more power with less aero. They would be harder to drive but overtaking would be easier.
 

[Alianora La Canta]

Some good ideas there, monty.

Would going to (good) steel brakes help? Much cheaper than carbon and braking distances will lengthen. Also combinable with virtually every other idea presented here.

[Monty]

Why don't they just hand the running of F1 over to us - we could sort it!

[John S]

Whilst I agree with a lot of your ideas Monty I can't see aero restrictions being agreed anytime soon as it's the last area that's left open for exploitation by teams. Engines, gearboxes, on board electronics, fuel and now suspensions are so restricted there is little gain to be had from doubling budgets - that's if they can get the money.

IMHO there's a problem with equalising cars too much, it makes it into a driver only series and not the teams series which it currently is. We all might find that interesting for a while, but without the incentive for teams to invest heavily I fear F1 would lose it's best in the world innovative technology and fall off the pinnacle.

[Jericoke]

Whilst I agree with a lot of your ideas Monty I can't see aero restrictions being agreed anytime soon as it's the last area that's left open for exploitation by teams. Engines, gearboxes, on board electronics, fuel and now suspensions are so restricted there is little gain to be had from doubling budgets - that's if they can get the money.

You're onto something there.  If the teams aren't spending money on aero, then they can reopen the rules on other parts that are currently standardized.  Quite frankly, aero has very little application for road cars, but improved suspension and computer controls would have plenty of applications for trickling down.

[Monty]

Actually I wasn't suggesting a reduction in spend on aero. My suggestion is to minimise the effect of aero. With a clever monocoque shape and small wings there is still huge scope to differentiate aero packages but the 'wash' caused by the package would not be so detrimental to cars following.
My idea to reduce spend is to limit the ICE. Apart from the Honda, which has the additional problem of shaking itself to pieces, the main difference between the internal combustion units is efficiency. If they could burn as much fuel as they like they would all generate about the same amount of power (even the Honda).
So avoid some of the engine complexity and ECU complexity by letting them be 'gas guzzlers' again and the theory is that independent engine builders could get involved. Of course there would still be potential to spend fortunes on the Motor Generator Unit – Kinetic (MGU-K), Motor Generator Unit – Heat (MGU-H), the energy store (ES) and associated control electronics but my limited understanding suggests that the laws of physics will ensure that there will never be a huge advantage from any one design of these items.