6
Former McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh has been hired by the FIA, four years after he stepped down from his role with the Woking-based squad. Whitmarsh's duties will involve consultancy on effective cost-cutting measures for the future of Formula 1.
The 59-year-old was appointed as McLaren's boss in 2009, but was ousted at the end of 2013 as Ron Dennis returned to the forefront of the team. In 2014, he officially severed all times with McLaren and left to head the Land Rover BAR America's Cup team in 2015,
Following his step down from that position, he was then appointed to Formula E's Global Advisory Board, a committee led by F1 legend and FE team owner Alain Prost. In 2017, F1 CEO Chase Carey presented cost-cutting concepts to the teams on multiple occasions.
Speaking about the importance of slashing spending in F1, Carey said: "When today people on the outside look in, in some ways they look at the challenges of the sport - what the top teams are spending - and that's a deterrent.
"It ends up with realistically with about six cars competing at one level and the rest of the cars competing at another because of the spending differences and the engine differences and the like.
"We have to create a structure that makes it about how well you spend your money, not how much you spend," he added."I think that will create a better model for fans. A better model for existing partners. And a much more interesting proposition for potential new entrants."
Grand Prix of Belgium
G. Zhou
0 members have this team as their favourite
Replies (6)
Login to replycalle.itw
Posts: 8,527
We definitely need to reduce the tiered effect Carey is describing here. Problem is how to tackle it without applying artificial means, assuming that is possible. On the PU side of things, the only legit way I could see it happen is if Honda and Renault were given an extra opportunity to release upgrades compared to Ferrari and Mercedes. Problem with that is that it'd likely be unfair. Im still pondering on whether BoP in F1 is a good idea. On one hand, it works great in S-GT, on the other, DTM's BoP were far too noticeable to the point that BMW could win a title at the end of a season because Audi had taken too many points at the start-mid point and were too heavy. Finding the right balance would be tricky, and again, BoP would likely be regarded as unfair.
f1ski
Posts: 726
Mercedes was given an unfair advantage because they helped formulate the engine rules. Then development was frozen because of the token system. Then with the oil burn situation they were allowed to game the system. I think the BoP could be done where the slower teams could be given more fuel more rpms more boost to give them a slight advantage and it could stick for 2-4 races. More parity will bring more sponsors.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
The problem is that more fuel means more weight, so it isnt necessarily an advantage. In that regard, I think limiting fuel flow for the leading teams seem more fair in that regard.
Barron
Posts: 625
As far as I am concerned Mercedes actually designed the basic concept. They were way ahead of the game with an engine on the blocks as soon as the new PU era was announced. Ferrari also had a test mule in a La Ferrari running around their Fiorano track whilst Renault was still a cnc job. Talk about an uphill playing field.
Pauli
Posts: 140
Plus engines are designed to be just durable enough for current fuel rules. If you give lower teams extra fuel flow or max fuel they will add extra stress to PU which is very likely to break them much sooner than restrictive rules require.
But I think that clever BoP system could be done where penalties are nonlinear compared to spending. That way teams would have to figure out optimum spending level compared to penalties that the spending brings. But this would probably make engineering side even more complex than it is currently. But at least it would force teams to optimize their spending instead of trying to maximize revenues available for development.
Current free spending allows existing top teams generate much higher revenues because most of image value is limited to a few winner teams. Similar revenue imbalance exists in most sports in Europe. Many American sports have much more balanced revenue models that are much more balanced between teams.
f1dave
Posts: 782
There is no way to reduce spending in F1 without relaxing some of the most restrictive rules. Those who can afford to compete at this level have the money those that don't can move to FE.