Why F1's cost-cutting proposals fall short

As this is written, just two weeks remain to Formula 1's June 30 regulatory deadline, after which rule changes for the following season require unanimous agreement within the 25-strong* Formula 1 Commission, rather than by 70 per cent majority before that date.

Thus, if F1 is to make any progress in 2015, the sport needs to get all its ducks in a row before Wednesday's F1 Commission meeting in London, ahead of the FIA's crucial World Motorsport Council session in Munich on June 26 - at which changes escalated to the WMSC by the Commission are either ratified and pass into law, or are rejected and returned for redrafting.

Some form of cost control is high on the wish lists of all F1 teams (and the FIA), and a whole host of proposals - mostly emanating from a Strategy Group meeting held in London on Ascension Day Thursday - are down to be debated, yet none are expected to deliver appreciable cost-saving, if at all. Indeed, some are likely to lead to cost increases in the longer term...

Todt labelled the team's cost-cutting ideas as a joke © XPB

FIA president Jean Todt has had sight of the proposals, whether those devised by the Strategy Group - termed "a joke" by him - or framed by the independent teams, desperate to secure their futures through regulatory cost control. However, these failed to find favour, simply as the minnows have no voice on the Strategy Group, and thus no way of having their concepts tabled.

The Strategy Group's proposals, collectively devised by Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Lotus, Red Bull Racing and Williams, and formulated last week during meetings in London of the Sporting and Technical Working Groups, are grouped under the heading Improving the Show, and relate to the 2015-17 period.

The points have previously been described in these pages but, as those planned for 2015 will be voted on, these are listed below for ease of reference:

A blanket ban on, er, tyre blankets - a proposal which does not (yet) seem to have been discussed in depth with sole tyre supplier Pirelli, for the company recently expressed concerns about such developments at short notice.

Simplification of fuel systems - reduction in the number of pumps and removal of internal baffles. (!)

Simplification of brake ducts - through removal of winglets and donuts, restricted brake slot cooling and reduction in future aero development.

As an aside, one of the last deals negotiated by now-defunct FOTA was a reduction in teams' annual tyre bills of approximately £1.1 million by £160,000 should individual outfits elect to carry Pirelli branding on their blankets. Yet in these straitened times, just four - Williams, Force India, Marussia and Caterham - availed themselves of the offer.

The irony is that the annual bill for warmers (including transport) runs to nowhere near the discount available, particularly given that most teams hold excess stock of blankets, which would be redundant in the event of a ban!

Any wonder Todt kept a totally straight face when he pronounced the proposals "a joke"?

However, absolutely "no joke" are some of the other sporting and technical proposals which the Strategy Group dreamed up during their meeting after Monaco, for, among other discussion points, one of Friday's free practice sessions could be scrapped, as first revealed by AUTOSPORT here.

Under said proposals, scrutineering will take place on Friday mornings, with curfews from operating on Thursday evenings and parc ferme regulations prevailing from post-running on Friday. In addition, race team headcounts will be reduced by all of two (from 60 to 58).

Friday practice could be restricted to just one session © XPB

Not only would this result in additional simulation work for those with access to such hi-tech machines and further disadvantage for the underprivileged, but such changes would see already-deprived fans robbed of a further 90 minutes of track action, further pressuring circuit owners already squeezed by the double whammy of outrageous race hosting fees and spectators increasingly reluctant to pay eye-watering ticket prices.

Friday running is the most economical form of on-track testing imaginable, for no circuit rental need be paid and cars, kit and personnel are all in place, but facilitates direct comparisons at crucial times just when it's most needed: immediately before a grand prix.

Then, where TV broadcasters have traditionally been able to compile highlights packages of Friday action for broadcast that evening, the proposed timing of the sole remaining Friday session (1700-1830 local time) is such that only abbreviated packages can be complied.

Simply put: any business that treats its primary and secondary customers with such disdain deserves neither of either category - and, yes, Strategy Group members, consider yourselves directly addressed.

Talking testing: the plan is to reduce in-season testing to three four-day tests - one of which must be solely for rookies - for 2015, and to a brace of four-day tests - ditto - from the following year.

Pre-season running will again take place only in Europe (three tests of four days each), much to the chagrin of Pirelli, which pushed for tests held under more representative track conditions.

How could 12 days of pre-season running held in the midst of a European winter possibly provide the sort of data required by Pirelli (and teams) to handle the heat of Malaysia/Bahrain/Abu Dhabi? Penny-wise, pound-foolish readily springs to mind.

In addition to the control tyres adopted back in 2008, the concept of specification wheel rims and braking systems is being pursued. While eminently logical on the face of it, this scuppers any chance of teams acquiring sponsorship from wheel makers.

Should F1 decide on spec wheels/brakes, then surely such supply should be tendered for, with the successful applicant supplying the entire grid free of charge.

If, after all, Formula One Management, the commercial rights holder for world motorsport's premier championship, cannot arrange free wheels and brakes (and, for that matter, tyres), what chance teams of securing any meaningful sponsorship?

Not within the gift of the Commission are engine costs - currently said to run to around £20m a year for a two-car supply, or almost the pre-turbo engines levy. Teams are targeting reductions of around 60 per cent, which could, of course, only be achieved if the manufacturers agree to absorb the balance.

Current cost-cutting ideas are unlikely to help smaller teams © XPB

Already they subsidise engines, with, for example, Renault carrying around 50 per cent of the actual cost, with its annual budget running to £130m, and recoveries from its four teams said to be around £65m.

Could the company (or any other supplier, presently planning to enter the sport) justify an F1 programme were it forced to absorb 75 per cent of its costs? Just consider how few have entered in the past five years: one, Honda...

However, the planned quid pro quo would, though, be a reduction in engine usage to three units per driver per annum - should overall event mileage decrease through initiatives such as reduced testing and the scrapping of FP1 - down from the present five and four planned for 2015, but likely to be pushed out to 2016.

Thus a 60 per cent decrease in overall income for the manufacturers against a unit usage reduction of 35 per cent if all strands come together. Sounds like the ultimate F1 bargain, that.

Also planned is a change of regulatory deadline from June 30 to February 28: "Sensible" applies here, for the longer the lead times before introduction of (costly) regulations changes, the less the pressures on teams which do not have the facilities or manpower of the Big Four.

However, given that such a change would aid the smaller teams, what odds the majors will vote against it?

Then, teams will in future be required to nominate a single windtunnel - which, again, plays directly into the hands of majors (to wit, Strategy Group members), for not all minnow teams have access to their own tunnels, forcing them to mix-and-match given that proprietary facilities are not available on demand 24/7. Thus, smaller teams will ultimately be forced to build their own tunnels.

This begs the question: cost savings? What cost savings?

However, should a rather more ominous rule change proposal come to pass, then there could be short-term savings that play straight into the hands of the majors, at the ultimate expense of independents and, crucially, the future of the sport.

Hidden in the fine print is a proposal to remove "survival cells" from Appendix 6 of the Sporting Regulations, which lists those parts the teams are required to, at the very least, own the intellectual property to, if not design and built the components in-house. In other words, the listed parts may not simply be bought from other teams or proprietary suppliers.

Article 1.14 of the FIA's Technical Regulations defines a survival cell as "A continuous closed structure containing the fuel tank and the cockpit", i.e. the basis for what is commonly known as the monocoque, although this is listed separately.

While on the face of it the deletion of survival cells is no big deal, the move holds major implications, for the next step will likely be the delisting of monocoques from Appendix 6 - already there is talk of standardised front-impact and roll-over structures - and thus F1 is but a single step away from becoming a customer chassis formula.

What next? The customer cars so craved by the CRH and major teams as outlined here?

The foregoing make up just two items on an agenda running to nine headings, with such as Power Unit Sound (still), Responsibility for Rule Changes (FIA, FOM, teams), the (long overdue) establishment of an FIA Hall of Fame, and the ubiquitous Any Other Business section (will Forza Rossa eventually be accepted in full?) also listed.

Seems it will be a long Wednesday in the Sapphire Room at FOM's headquarters in Biggin Hill, starting 10am.

*Bolstered by one/two seats should Haas Formula/Forza Rossa formally enter the FIA F1 World Championship.