Felipe Massa, Williams, Monza, 2015

Concerns new 2017 rules will raise costs further

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Williams doubt the Strategy Group will do much to keep a lid on costs when F1 overhauls its technical regulations in 2017.

Tweets and pictures

This is what happens when you travel a lot. Try to speak in other languages but forget what country you're actually in 😄

A video posted by Daniel Ricciardo (@danielricciardo) on

Comment of the day

This weekend’s Caption Competition winner was @Wpinrui:

Marcus Ericsson, Daniel Ricciardo, Carlos Sainz Jnr, Monza, 2015

Drivers practise for the next time reporters ask them what they think about Pirelli
Ivan (@Wpinrui)

Thanks to everyone who joined in this weekend, especially @Danieljaksa, @Philereid, @Frosty-jacks-racing-team, @Todfod, @Cjpdk and @Fullcoursecaution who also made some of the best suggestions.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Gwenouille and Evered7!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

The only Italian Grand Prix to be held at a track other than Monza took place on this day 35 years ago. Nelson Piquet won at Imola, taking a one-point lead in the drivers’ championship over Alan Jones, who finished second.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 28 comments on “Concerns new 2017 rules will raise costs further”

    1. I’m also worried about the 2017 rules, but from a different area.

      Haas enter in 2016. They have 1 year on these regulations before the supposed big changes in 2017. They will be spending a lot of money over both seasons. 2016 to actually get the car designed, built and raced, and the same for the new 2017 regulations.

      The last time F1 had new teams, they were originally entering under Max Moseley’s ‘cost cap’. This never materialised and the teams found themselves spending themselves into a crisis. We’re now left with 1 team, which changed names twice over the 5 year period, only just survived this year, and are still generally off the pace.
      I don’t think F1 has learned from it’s mistakes. Haas need to have a say in the future of F1. It’s the least they deserve for committing to it.

      1. Wonder if Hass can just defer another year and just join in 2017 and save the money. Although they are rich enough to take hit of 2016.

      2. If there is a team that I’d be worried about it is lotus. Maybe sauber too although I lost all interest and respect for that team after what happened in australia. Haas has the resources to more than just survive the rule change. Getting into f1 may become even more expensive that they thought though.

        However there rarely is perfect timing to get into f1. At the very least haas will get exposure to 1 year of f1 before the rule change so when 2017 comes they may be more likely to get it right on the first try instead getting it wrong due to lack of experience.

        I’d imagine the biggest challenge for haas with the 2017 change is the lack of stability. Creating a new team is always difficult in f1. Creating a new f1 team and then having to deal with instant tech reg change can really mess up your beginning as a new team. It is not just a moving target. It’s like instead of one moving target you suddenly have 2. It makes it insanely difficult though for haas to divide its allowed wind tunnel time effectively for 2 cars for example.

    2. Surprise surprise, FOM greed harmful to F1 future!
      FOM aka Bernie and CVC don’t care about the future of F1, they just want to screw every last cent out of it till they sell out (the stock market flotation), just as a Ponzi schemer cons people out of their savings by showing them (unbelievable) past returns, CVC wants to sell a history of returns beyond avarice and a treasure trove of copyright material for further exploitation to lure in the greedy and gullible, their only problem is they have to sell the golden-goose before the chickens come home to roost and the goose succumbs to starvation and exhaustion.

      Pardon the mixed metaphor, I hope you’ll regard it as a poultry indiscretion.

      1. @hohum Poultry indiscretion? We are used to such horsing around in the UK :P

    3. FOM isn’t the only thing hindering fan growth. The article on Mark Webber is another great example of how F1 related media loves to give a stage to salty comments from former drivers, teams, suppliers and what have you.

      Meanwhile, we’ve got the likes of Boullier talking about 2017 as if they’re going to aim for F1 2004 levels of ‘racing’.

      What a joyous time to be an F1 fan.

    4. I finished reading Mark Webber’s autobiography a couple weeks ago. It was brilliant, I hardly put it down. It’s presented in true Webber fashion, almost as if he speaking out each sentence. I can understand why he is so vocal about Pay drivers, considering the sacrifice he made to get into F1.

      It’s a must read for any F1 fan.

      1. @jaymenon10:

        onsidering the sacrifice he made to get into F1

        Wow, that raised the hairs at the back of my neck.. So true..

      2. If you finished the book you will know that Webber has his fair share of help getting to the grid also, the only real success he had was the formula ford festival and everything else was mediocre. I always used to root for Mark but after reading the book I realized that he always blames everyone else for his failures, Williams fault, Marko’s fault, Sebastian, Christian, Mercedes etc etc

        A good character for the grid but as soon as he said the day his dog died was the worst day of his life it is obvious that he is living in a bubble. The man was nearly 30 and that is the worst thing to ever happen to him, lucky bloke.

    5. Not a funny caption but it’s the day-to-day banter in 2015, everyone congregates and rue Pirelli’s mistakes. They’ve made many mistakes but I’m just tired of it. The smog situation needs tending to. Bernie somehow stopped the milk farmers now he may have to stop the deforestation in Indonesia. F1’s organization has become like any established government. F1 needs its tyrant again, “Bernie the white”.

      1. @peartree Next virtual message pre-race: “Bernie, solving the world’s ills” ;)

        1. @fastiesty Did you notice the cgi Pirelli msg at the end of the monza gp? I think the to guns in FOM are getting old, there’s better ways to brainwash the youngsters. His press did rave Ecclestone on saving the Belgium gp.

          1. @peartree Funnily enough I seem to miss most of them, I only noticed them when it was pointed out in F1F Live chat. Only one I saw at Monza was the huge F1.com/app one behind Lesmo 1! I must be too busy looking at the cars..

      2. I thought the caption was hilarious, lighten up

        1. @frankjaeger It’s good it’s appropriate, you are most certainly right. Yet I’m tired of seeing Pirelli being singled out. It’s not as if most of us don’t have a gag rule at the office. Pirelli and F1 just started to do what every entity does, since ever.

          1. A good point but when this gag rule infringes on matters of safety and life, I think it’s counterproductive @peartree

            1. @frankjaeger Sure, by the way you’re fired.

    6. How can anything regarding the 2017 regulations be taken seriously at this point? No regulations are in place yet, only guesses and ideas, many of which are at cross purposes. There is no consensus from FOM/FIA/Teams unless it is top secretly hidden away somewhere. The supposed 2017 regs should they ever be decreed will raise costs immediately upon announcement for any teams wishing to remain in F1. Assuming the new regs might be announced before the 2016 season begins the teams and their suppliers will need to start churning out designs and parts and everything else while also trying to focus on their 2016 race season.

      Is one year enough time to prepare for so called “major” changes to the regulations? Wasn’t there a much longer lead time for the most recent major reg changes? Maybe it would be different if there were a clear idea of what F1 should be in 2017, but there isn’t.

      1. @bullmello, don’t worry, if the 2017 cars prove to be too expensive they’ll make new rules for 2018 to ensure the cars are less expensive.

        1. @hohum
          …which changes for 2018 will actually RAISE costs yet again. LOL

        2. @hohum – I was thinking maybe they will introduce the new regs a piece at a time over the next few years, essentially making for new and different cars every year. Yes, that will save some money.

    7. LOL, a complete overhaul of the technical regs might increase costs? How many geniuses in one boardroom has it taken for them to figure that out? Might it also result in one team getting the jump on everyone else, designing a better car, and running away with both championships? Naaaah. Stability in regulations is the only thing that brings costs down and also encourages close racing. A drastic overhaul is going to give us more years like 2014-2015 whether it’s Mercedes dominance or some other team. They may be lapping faster, but it’s highly doubtful the racing will be better the way they’re approaching it.

    8. I can appreciate the concerns of teams such as Williams regarding increased costs added to what is already being termed ‘unsustainable’ costs in F1 (other than for the top 3 teams that is). And I agree we don’t know entirely what said changes are, although perhaps since there is a meeting set up, F1 knows more than we do. Width of cars and tires, different front and rear wings, and a gravitation toward some ground effects seem to be the main areas.

      My comment is this…if there is already practically zero room for costs to increase in F1 for most of the teams even for relatively minor changes (relative to the 2 year old switch to the current PU’s amd chassis’ for example) then how could they possibly entertain something such as an enclosed cockpit of some type without that potentially massive redesign sending F1 into financial ruin?

    9. @keithcollantine I’ve been wondering, what actually caused the funny caption image above?

    10. That Motorsport.com article is spot on, detailing the greed and shortsightedness of FOM. But what is the solution? Bernie is so powerful. The problem is that there isn’t any competitor to Formula 1. Don’t get me wrong, I love Formula 1 and it must be the ultimate. But the way things are now, there must be competition so that it really caters to the needs of people who love it and not just the creme de la creme.

      For that there must be competition from a rival series. Formula E is great, but frankly it isn’t in the level or aesthetic quality of combustion engine championships. IndyCar should grow – rules must be changed slightly to attract manufacturers such as Renault, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen and BMW (and Ferrari if possible), it must race at classic European tracks such as Monza, Spa and Brands Hatch and in some Asian, Australian and South American venues, top class drivers including Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton and Rosberg should find it attractive enough to jump ship. Fan interest will soar, especially as IndyCar is much more fan-friendly anyway. This would, I believe, seriously dent F1’s already waning popularity. Perhaps something would happen then…or I have a serious case of excessive daydreaming!

      1. @pt, I am afraid that it is very much a case of daydreaming – when the IndyCar series split and tore itself apart, it did so much damage that the series has never recovered, either in terms of popularity within the US or in terms of its financial clout.

        Equally, what exactly do you mean by “rules must be changed slightly to attract manufacturers “? There is nothing to stop those manufacturers entering, but the series is commercially unattractive to them – this is a series where peak viewing figures are in the order of 400,000 per race.

        To most of the manufacturers that you have named, the series would represent a strain on their resources for very little return – why, for example, would Volkswagen want to compete in IndyCar when they have crushing dominance over the WEC, which they feel is far more in tune with the image that they want to project? As things stand, there is nothing to draw those manufacturers in, and nothing in turn to want to make the IndyCar series want to risk branching out into Europe when they are struggling for recognition in their home markets.

    11. Wow, Piquet was really on fire in that 1980 Italian Grand Prix…And I can’t believe Arnoux let himself be overtaken so easily – certainly something you don’t see these days.

    Comments are closed.