WHAT ????????

[Steven Roy]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71638

The FIA and FOTA have reached agreement on cost cutting measures. The good news is no standard engines the insane news is from 2010 we will have standard KERS.  What is the point to that?  The whole point was that teams would compete to develop KERS now they are going to have standard units.  What is the point to that?  All that does is increase risk and give us the obscenity of a push to pass button in F1.

[johnbull]

Steven, there's a very valid reason for that. There's method in their madness.

We all know that Ferrari just can't get the KERS thing to work and are lagging way behind.  With their own effort they know they are going to be way uncompetitive. If they use someone elses they might at least have a hope in hell of being competitive.

Makes sense, doesn't it.

[TheStig]

Details are emerging about the agreement reached between the FIA and FOTA, representing the F1 teams, following their meeting at Geneva today. A joint statement from the two declared “significant cost savings for 2009 and 2010″ had been agreed but added no further detail.

However Autosport has published details of some points of the agreement including changes to the 2009 F1 rules.

It seems some of the more alarming proposals, such as standard engines and shorter races, have been staved off. But the decision to make Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) standard components as early as 2010 is a surprise.

Autosport claims the following have been agreed:

Engines to last three races in 2009 - a FOTA proposal.

Manufacturers to supply 25 engines at a cost of €10m - presumably that is a year’s supply for one team. The FIA wanted such a supply for half that cost.

A new limit to be set on maximum testing distance - FOTA proposed a cut from 30,000km to 20,000km.

Future meetings to be held on reducing the cost of developing parts and extending the use of customer chassis

Standard KERS to be introduced from 2010 or 2011 - a significant change in Mosley’s position. As recently as this morning he said:


    KERS will be essential on all road-going vehicles in the future, irrespective of their means of primary propulsion. The FIA therefore intends to keep KERS as a performance differentiator in Formula One and, indeed, increase its importance in 2011.

Since he first proposed KERS Mosley has been adamant that it would boost F1’s environmental credibility. But he seems to have conceded that the cost of allowing teams to develop these entirely new systems themselves is too great.

The prospect of only having to use a home-grown KERS for as little as one year will be good news for those teams known to be struggling with their development programmes ofr the hybrid systems, such as Ferrari.

The impression from these developments is that FOTA have had their way on a number of points and Mosley’s threats of radical changes such as standard engines has not cowed them into letting their position be undermined or provoking a split within their ranks.

That gives me the feeling we have not yet seen the full picture of what the future proposals are. Keep an eye on Mosley to see what his next move will be.


TheStig

[Chameleon]

So is the FIA going to refund the amounts already spent by the teams on developing their own KERS systems?

[johnbull]

NO. It's trying to economise. At least that's what Max is trying to persuade us.

[John S]

Standard KERS does not necessarily mean one supplier, it can also be working within a defined set of specs. It makes sense to decide on one direction to keep costs down, the teams may still end up with their own individual units.

[Steven Roy]

johnbull,

I cannot believe I didn't make the Ferrari connection.  I must be going senile to miss that.

Chameleon,

Not just what they have spent on development.  Williams bought a company so that they could tie up a flywheel system while everyone else was using batteries.

I don't understand the obsession with cutting testing.  Testing costs nothing.  It is the simulation tools (wind tunnels, CFD and the likes) that cost a fortune.  In the 70s and 80s teams used to go to Rio for weeks on end testing.

[Cam]

I don't understand the obsession with cutting testing.

I have always assumed it comes down to creating more variability at the race meet.  The more the teams test the more homogenous the cars become.  Less testing they are forced to do more setup work at the track with more possibility of getting it wrong so the field gets mixed up a bit more.  Also another way to get teh teams to spend more time on the track at the race.

cheers,
Cam

[Steven Roy]

In principle that should be the case Cam but with simulators and the like they turn up with cars that are 90% there on set up and only have to make minor changes.  Even when they go to a new track they get very close on set up in the factory.  All you have to do is look at the times on the first run on a Friday morning and compare them to the best times of the weekend. 

THe days when teams arrived not know gear ratios or which wing to use are gone.  Now they may make minor changes but testing would make no difference to things.

[lkjohnson1950]

Testing is expensive! The teams have to pay for the facility, the crews, the wear and tear on parts, the occasional crashed car. Plus it's an obvious part of the game. The general public doesn't see the computer sims, wind tunnel hours,etc. But they certainly see the cars on the track since the media report it.

Lonny

[Alianora La Canta]

The cost of consumables (particularly bodywork-related ones) has gone through the stratosphere since the 1970s and 1980s. An entire car cost approximately $250,000 to build in 2004 (not counting R&D costs). That would have funded an entire team for a season in the days when Rio testing was common.

[cosworth151]

That $250,000 figure is for the car less engine, isn't it?

In any case, the cost of testing, like everything else in the sport, has gone through the roof. I liked the system they had a few years ago. Allow the teams to run a t-car and test driver on Fridays of race week-ends. The teams get valuable data on the actual track, and the fans get a better show for their (our) money!

[Steven Roy]

I have no problem with the Friday test driver thing so long as all the teams get to run.  I don't like any situation where some teams are allowed to do something that others are banned from.  In principle though race weekends are about race drivers so if a third car and driver is going to be shipped all round the world let them race.

[lkjohnson1950]

Absolutely!! Wouldn't 25 or 30 cars make a better show?

[Alianora La Canta]

Cos, yes that figure was just for making the car. Given that a lot of it is replaced more frequently than the engine, and I've yet to see a figure for the cost of a single engine production without the R&D and assorted other costs, I thought it would be a suitable illustration of the effects of F1 inflation on the practicality of testing.

A version of the Heathrow agreement with all the teams involved would be very pleasing to me. It would also remove all need for in-season testing. It could cause problems because some tracks won't take 30 F1 cars in one go (the minimum a track must carry to get on the calender at the moment is 24) and therefore a split session arrangement of some kind would be necessary. Perhaps have the "third drivers" have the track to themselves for the morning and give the track to the race drivers in the afternoon?