Toyman01 wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: You can't just say "you are only allowed to spend $x per year".Why? Give them a max budget and require open books.
Aside from all the other E36 M3 i wrote above, Bernie Ecclestone and other racing poobahs will not pay for 500 forensic accountants to ride herd on race teams.
z31maniac wrote: Alfa, I don't but into the "it's not perfect so it won't work." It would be better than currently. That's part of the reason I've tuned out on F1 when I used to religiously watch practice, quali, race, read the news/analysis, etc. Right now we have teams at the back of the grid with literally 1/10th the budget of the top teams. That's why they only last as long as someone is willing to lose money, then they are sold, change names and the process starts over again. I'm tired of seeing one team find the secret sauce, then dominate (because the rules are so restrictive other teams can't claw back what they lost) until the make a big rule change again. In the last 16 years, what only 2 of the non-mega teams have won (If you can count Renault's back-to-back with Alonso as not a mega-team). The only reason Brawn won is they developed the double diffuser and it was a massive advantage until the other teams figured it out. And once they did they, Brawn lost their dominance, but Button had already built up an impressive points lead.
I just don't see how it can be realistically managed to actually level the playing field.
Do you honestly think that F1 is different? When I look back in history, it's always been dominated by the big teams that had the most resources. That 6 wheeler Tyrrell wasn't that effective. The sucker Alfa did well once, but who knows it it would have lasted. The "golden years" where a team could have started in a garage was dominated by the big team- Lotus, Ferrari, and Willams rounded out the 70s. All of them had big budgets. The 80's- Honda's big $$ dominated the racing horribly badly. Ferrari dominated.
Even going back- starting with the money Alfa, and the Mercedes and/or Audi.
I don't see today's situation any different than any other era of F1. The teams with the means will always find the loopholes. Be them time, dollars, lawyers, etc.
Brawn wasn't even a fluke- that was the left over of Honda's big spending.
It's not a "current" issue. It's a constant issue.
Although, there is an alternate path of how money is spent going on. So far, Haas is demonstrating that their new model works pretty well.
Perhaps F1 is overly focused on a few thing- I agree to that. But I have a tough time seeing that a spending cap will change anything.
z31maniac wrote: The suppliers continuing to develop will be reflected in cost. Keith, let me guess, when FM puts more R&D into a product, it SHOCK, costs more doesn't it?
To the customer, yes. But to a sponsored driver? Not so much. Remember, suppliers may be willing to provide parts at below cost in order to gain the publicity. Or because there's money coming in from some other direction.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: Enforced vacation only works at the team not the suppliers. What about Sponsors selling or giving parts to teams. What about shell companies developing parts and them being sold to the team. All these things come up all the time in other businesses and even with millions and billions of $$'s trying to prove these things its never easy to prove the truth. Look at the 08 financial melt down. It's well established what happened. How many people have actually been prosecuted and sent to jail. Different situation yes, but let's face it Racing has a murkey past already so I have no doubt that at least some people involved would have no issue cheating the system. How do you prove that company A was really an part of team A when they spend $100,000,000 designing and building a widget for team A's car after company A has sold it to company B who is bought out by company C in the Cayman islands which sells it to company D in Kenya to company E in Delaware after which company E goes bust and Company F buys the tech at auction for $0.000001 on the $1 and sells it back to team A. The FEC, CIA, IMF, FBI, Interpol, Scotland yard cant prove this E36 M3 in court for far less $$ amounts than the F1 grind. I'd say it's impossible. JOhn Paul Sr finally shot a guy before they put him away for 25 years after funding his racing from the early 70's to 1983. People knew he was in the drug trade but they couldn't prove it for years and years. Don't you think people like that could set up a dozen front companies to do development work and launder it instead of $$"s.
Ok, we are now comparing trillions of dollars in Credit Default Swaps to a spending cap in F1.
I'm done. Enjoy gentlemen.
In reply to z31maniac:
The budget range of F1 is pretty compatible with Credit Default Swaps kind of work. Considering how many laws have been broken in the past for much lesser racing, as illustrated, well....
Easiest way to take the advantage out of a unlimited budget is a claiming rule.
take the top finishing 3 cars at each event. Randomly draw one. Then randomly draw either the chassis, power unit or computer. Each team that started the race get a chance at buying it for a fixed amount. But the winner of the claim doesn't take delivery until after the end next three races. It stays in the possession of the governing body until then. They can then use the actual parts, reverse engineer them for their own use, or sell the original. They just cant sell them on the open market for a profit. This gives enough chance that a revolutionary idea doesn't stay hidden, but also not a huge risk for the investment.
Or - have a full teardown of the winning car in post race with other teams and media present (with pictures or video) and publish the code from a standard ECU online.
z31maniac wrote: Ok, we are now comparing trillions of dollars in Credit Default Swaps to a spending cap in F1. I'm done. Enjoy gentlemen.
No, I'm not trying to compare the two, I'm using the fact that the combined government agencies of the world can't prove the trail or fault when Trillions are involved and people’s lives were ruined as example. With trillions of $$'s the world economy, people livelihoods and house down the E36 M3ter they can't prove what happened even though they know it. Give that, when the stakes are so much lower, how the hell would a sporting authority prove what a team had spent to develop a car.
jj wrote: Not to be too far off topic, but is this the same guy? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/10/racing-driver-scott-tucker-arrested-over-multimillion-dollar-payday-loan-scam
Yep same guy...vastly worse than Bernie Madoff IMO.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:z31maniac wrote: Ok, we are now comparing trillions of dollars in Credit Default Swaps to a spending cap in F1. I'm done. Enjoy gentlemen.No, I'm not trying to compare the two, I'm using the fact that the combined government agencies of the world can't prove the trail or fault when Trillions are involved and people’s lives were ruined as example. With trillions of $$'s the world economy, people livelihoods and house down the E36 M3ter they can't prove what happened even though they know it. Give that, when the stakes are so much lower, how the hell would a sporting authority prove what a team had spent to develop a car.
They know who did it and how it happened and they can prove it.
But are you really going to put the guys in jail who put you in power? Come on.
/flounder. I'm really done this time.
Rusnak_322 wrote: Easiest way to take the advantage out of a unlimited budget is a claiming rule. take the top finishing 3 cars at each event. Randomly draw one. Then randomly draw either the chassis, power unit or computer. Each team that started the race get a chance at buying it for a fixed amount. But the winner of the claim doesn't take delivery until after the end next three races. It stays in the possession of the governing body until then. They can then use the actual parts, reverse engineer them for their own use, or sell the original. They just cant sell them on the open market for a profit. This gives enough chance that a revolutionary idea doesn't stay hidden, but also not a huge risk for the investment. Or - have a full teardown of the winning car in post race with other teams and media present (with pictures or video) and publish the code from a standard ECU online.
No top line series would ever do a claiming rule. Too much intellectual property at stake. Look what happened when an Ex Ferrari employee wen to McLaren with the set up book, not the full design. It cost McLaren $100 million USD and all their points. People ended up bared from the sport and had to pay individual fines of over $200K.
Other supposed breach of date has involved Police in different countries.
Claimer rules are for hobbyist series.
GameboyRMH wrote:jj wrote: Not to be too far off topic, but is this the same guy? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/10/racing-driver-scott-tucker-arrested-over-multimillion-dollar-payday-loan-scamYep same guy...vastly worse than Bernie Madoff IMO.
Yup, headlines are deceiving though. It's not necessarily the pay day loan thing they have arrested him for, it's using tribal land as a fake front to incorporate his business to get round laws in some areas, that and apparently illegal debt collection practices.
For a look at open rule book racing, look to America's Cup. That has been a E36 M3-storm for years, where they fight over the rules in the world's courts, and the winner gets to write the next set. They are coming back to reality a bit this year.
MattGent wrote: For a look at open rule book racing, look to America's Cup. That has been a E36 M3-storm for years, where they fight over the rules in the world's courts, and the winner gets to write the next set. They are coming back to reality a bit this year.
Good point.
I also realized last night that LeMons, chump car and even GRM's own challenge have pretty much proved price caps are close to impossible to enforce. Look at the E36 M3 storms that used to occur on here with people claiming people are cheating. Look at the open flaunting of rules in LeMons build threads. Chump car has at least recognized that and has a list of exempt cars.
Here is my take on how to control costs. It's my dream racing organization.
You have 5-6 classes of cars, class is based solely on MSRP.
Say cutoffs at 25k, 50k, 100k, 250k, 500k, 1 million, 5 million.
For each class there will be an accompanying homolgation number that must be offered and sold to the general public for no more than the class price. the number gets smaller as the price goes up.
The race cars take the homolgation model, strip it, add safety stuff. Final weight must be equal to or greater than the base car. No performance mods.
This places the companies own accountants as your financial enforcers. the penalty for overspending is the amount overspent times the homolgation number. pretty soon it doesn't make sense, especially in the lower class brackets.
You'll need to log in to post.
