Discussion:
Cost Control / Cost Savings Indeed
(too old to reply)
D Munz
2017-07-20 12:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Autosport is running an article about the Mercedes gearbox issues that includes some interesting insight from Toto. He is quoted as saying:

"For me, it is amazing that there are fluids you can extract performance from that I didn't even know were in the car. And it adds up. You can find five milliseconds on a cooling product, you can find 15 milliseconds on hydraulic oil."

"With the formula of oils and fuels and the density, you can extract so much more performance out of all these crucial parts of the internal combustion engine."

They are pushing to find savings in the millisecond range. A well funded F1 team will always find way to spend the money. Or bury the costs in their supplier's spend.

Cost control was fantasy under Max and had just gotten more and more difficult and senseless as technology moves forward.

FWIW
DLM
Bobster
2017-07-20 13:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
Cost control was fantasy under Max and had just gotten more and more difficult and senseless as technology moves forward.
That's not costing the team anything. It is costing Petronas. Unless Merc are somehow funding the development of those liquids, there is no problem here with a cost cap (if one were in place, which there isn't).

I'd dispute that it was senseless. The idea was to reduce the amount spent on developing and running a car. A side effect would have been the liberalising of the technical regulations.
D Munz
2017-07-20 15:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
That's not costing the team anything. It is costing Petronas. Unless Merc are somehow funding the development of those liquids, there is no problem here with a cost cap (if one were in place, which there isn't).
I actually agree with you to a point. It is costing the suppler but where does that line end. How much cost could a team push to various suppliers and stay under a given cap? Does that ability to push cost give the higher profile teams the same advantage that unlimited spend would?

For example, could design and engineering cost on sprockets in the gear package be borne by the sprocket provider and not directly paid by the team? And would the sprocket provider be more motivated to support Ferrari or Merc because they are at the top of the F1 heap?

Kind of like the old tire war days. As I recall, some of the Bridgestone teams complained the tires were primarily made for Ferrari and their needs were secondary.

I think there are massive compliance (policing) and transparency issues with trying to control costs in F1. My rather simplistic view is don't bother.

FWIW
DLM
~misfit~
2017-07-21 01:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
Post by Bobster
That's not costing the team anything. It is costing Petronas. Unless
Merc are somehow funding the development of those liquids, there is
no problem here with a cost cap (if one were in place, which there
isn't).
I actually agree with you to a point. It is costing the suppler but
where does that line end. How much cost could a team push to various
suppliers and stay under a given cap? Does that ability to push cost
give the higher profile teams the same advantage that unlimited spend
would?
For example, could design and engineering cost on sprockets in the
gear package be borne by the sprocket provider and not directly paid
by the team? And would the sprocket provider be more motivated to
support Ferrari or Merc because they are at the top of the F1 heap?
Kind of like the old tire war days. As I recall, some of the
Bridgestone teams complained the tires were primarily made for
Ferrari and their needs were secondary.
Interesting in light of that comment that, during testing of the new tyres
and compounds pre-season Ferrari went all-out to 'co-operate' with Pirelli
(the other huge Italian firm in the F1 biz). While Merc sent Wehrlien and
did the bare minimum Ferrari sent Vettel to every session allowable. Ferrari
started the season *very* well, far better than most expected and when in a
recent race both Ferrari cars had tyre failures a lot of (less observant)
people wondered why they didn't spit the dummy and drag Pirelli over the
coals in the media about it...
Post by D Munz
I think there are massive compliance (policing) and transparency
issues with trying to control costs in F1. My rather simplistic view
is don't bother.
Fairy muff. ;)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-21 02:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fairy
yes you are
muff
you have never seen one
;)
Your smileys are fucking gay
Bobster
2017-07-21 03:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
Post by Bobster
That's not costing the team anything. It is costing Petronas. Unless Merc are somehow funding the development of those liquids, there is no problem here with a cost cap (if one were in place, which there isn't).
I actually agree with you to a point. It is costing the suppler but where does that line end. How much cost could a team push to various suppliers and stay under a given cap? Does that ability to push cost give the higher profile teams the same advantage that unlimited spend would?
Well yes, they'd have had to think of that. An example would be Ferrari. They make their own engines, and it costs them. So do you let McLaren say "honest, we get them at no charge"? No. You declare that an engine is worth a certain amount, and every one you use gets costed out at that amount as if you'd spent that money.

And they'd probably have to do that with lubricants too. Not all teams have a deal with Petronas, and some may be paying for them.
Post by D Munz
For example, could design and engineering cost on sprockets in the gear package be borne by the sprocket provider and not directly paid by the team? And would the sprocket provider be more motivated to support Ferrari or Merc because they are at the top of the F1 heap?
No. I'm guessing that since gearboxes are homologated and internals can't just be swopped out, and since not all teams make their own, you cost a gearbox at so many euros.

Some fuel suppliers will do a better job. So will some brake disc suppliers. And you have to let that happen, but the idea is to stop teams simply buying performance by dint of having more money and to control costs.
Post by D Munz
Kind of like the old tire war days. As I recall, some of the Bridgestone teams complained the tires were primarily made for Ferrari and their needs were secondary.
I don't think I see a similar possibility now with a standard tyre. OK... fuel and oil. But you can look for another deal.
Post by D Munz
I think there are massive compliance (policing) and transparency issues with trying to control costs in F1. My rather simplistic view is don't bother.
Mosley was encouraged by what was uncovered during Spygate. The teams keep massive amounts of data, and everything that is used on the car is very carefully tracked. So they know how much each screw cost and where it came from and now long it lasted.
Post by D Munz
FWIW
DLM
Willsy
2017-07-20 14:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
"For me, it is amazing that there are fluids you can extract performance from that I didn't even know were in the car. And it adds up. You can find five milliseconds on a cooling product, you can find 15 milliseconds on hydraulic oil."
"With the formula of oils and fuels and the density, you can extract so much more performance out of all these crucial parts of the internal combustion engine."
They are pushing to find savings in the millisecond range. A well funded F1 team will always find way to spend the money. Or bury the costs in their supplier's spend.
Cost control was fantasy under Max and had just gotten more and more difficult and senseless as technology moves forward.
FWIW
DLM
Hmmm... call me cynical, but if that were in fact true, I'd keep it
to myself as it tells my competitors something about the R&D that
my team is undertaking. However, if I wanted to send my competitors
off on a wild goose chase...
.
2017-07-20 14:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Willsy
Post by D Munz
"For me, it is amazing that there are fluids you can extract performance from that I didn't even know were in the car. And it adds up. You can find five milliseconds on a cooling product, you can find 15 milliseconds on hydraulic oil."
"With the formula of oils and fuels and the density, you can extract so much more performance out of all these crucial parts of the internal combustion engine."
They are pushing to find savings in the millisecond range. A well funded F1 team will always find way to spend the money. Or bury the costs in their supplier's spend.
Cost control was fantasy under Max and had just gotten more and more difficult and senseless as technology moves forward.
FWIW
DLM
Hmmm... call me cynical, but if that were in fact true, I'd keep it
to myself as it tells my competitors something about the R&D that
my team is undertaking. However, if I wanted to send my competitors
off on a wild goose chase...
You don't even understand the difference between it's and its,
case in point: "you'll see that despite it's somewhat long length..."

Shut up and go away already.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Willsy
2017-07-20 15:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Willsy
Post by D Munz
"For me, it is amazing that there are fluids you can extract performance from that I didn't even know were in the car. And it adds up. You can find five milliseconds on a cooling product, you can find 15 milliseconds on hydraulic oil."
"With the formula of oils and fuels and the density, you can extract so much more performance out of all these crucial parts of the internal combustion engine."
They are pushing to find savings in the millisecond range. A well funded F1 team will always find way to spend the money. Or bury the costs in their supplier's spend.
Cost control was fantasy under Max and had just gotten more and more difficult and senseless as technology moves forward.
FWIW
DLM
Hmmm... call me cynical, but if that were in fact true, I'd keep it
to myself as it tells my competitors something about the R&D that
my team is undertaking. However, if I wanted to send my competitors
off on a wild goose chase...
You don't even understand the difference between it's and its,
case in point: "you'll see that despite it's somewhat long length..."
Shut up and go away already.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
********
N E W S F L A S H - N E W S F L A S H - N E W S F L A S H
H E A D L I N E - H E A D L I N E - H E A D L I N E - H E A D L I N E -
********

LONDON, ENGLAND, 20TH JULY 2017

OUTRAGE AS MAN MIS-USES APOSTROPHE IN USENET POSTAGE

The internet reeled in shock today as a man from England posted
in a USENET forum related to Formula 1 racing and other motorsport
related arcana, and mis-used an apostrophe in doing so.

The incident caused large sections of the internet to go into
meltdown, and Google's servers to crash as casual internet
observers around the world flocked on to the site to see the
carnage for themselves.

The incident happened at approximately 15:41 BST when a male
posted a reply on the Usenet group containing the phrase
"By the way, if you DO click the link that I lovingly and thoughtfully
constructed just for you and your mum, you'll see that despite *it's*
somewhat long length (which would have been in issue in 1985 on a 9K6
dial-up connection to FidoNet) it actually works perfectly and takes
you to the intended article."

Sahidma Baresh, of Dhaka, Bangladesh commented "It was carnage.
I just waiting at the bus stop for my bus when all of a sudden
all the billboards stopped working, and the traffic lights went
out. Then the incident began trending on twitter and it all made
sense. By the way, any chance of a lift?"

Dotty, a long-time frequenter of the rec.autos.sport.f1 usenet
group where the incident occurred commented: "The particular
person involved has a track-record of mis-using apostrophes and
failing to trim URLs in particular. Me and my mum couldn't believe
it. By the way, did you notice how I used the term 'track-record'
in relation to an incident that took place in a Formula 1
newsgroup? I know! I'm great, aren't I? Yes you can quote me."

Willsy, the author of the offending article was suitably contrite
and quick to own-up to the error: "Ye's, Im really sorry about
that, the humble apostrophe is an aspect of written English thats
always troubled me. It's always confused me as to when an apostrophe
is and isnt required. Still, its not like I do it all the time,
I just dont know what the fuss is all about. Dont ask me."

John Richards, of the Apostrophe Protection Society
(http://www.apostrophe.org.uk/) commented: "Well, frankly, this
comes as no surprise to us, it serves as a telling indictment of
the shocking standard of apostrophe abuse that is frankly endemic
within the UK. I blame the Government. This wouldn't have happened
if Margaret Thatcher were still running things."

As of approximately 16:00 hrs BST things were beginning to return
to normal. The incident only caused a minor blip on the Top 100
Shares Index, and the pound remained largely un-affected against
other currencies.

Do you know somebody that was involved in this incident? Have
you or somebody you know been directly affected, or do you have
more information? If so, please dial 1-800-nobody-fucking-cares
and leave a message, and somebody will call you back.

********
N E W S F L A S H - N E W S F L A S H - N E W S F L A S H
H E A D L I N E - H E A D L I N E - H E A D L I N E - H E A D L I N E -
********
ENDS
Bigbird
2017-07-20 19:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
You don't even understand the difference between it's and its,
If you know something about punctuation you could help yourself by
talking to Heron. His punctuation would be an embarassment to a
preschooler.
geoff
2017-07-20 20:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Shut up and go away already.
An odd an peculiarly American disconnection in the time-space continuum.

How can you tell somebody to "go away already", because if they have
already gone away there would be no point in telling them to go away ?!!

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2017-07-21 02:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
How can you tell somebody to "go away already", because if they have
already gone away there would be no point in telling them to go away ?!!
Your queer assed, excessive punctuation is worse.
b***@topmail.co.nz
2017-07-21 10:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
"For me, it is amazing that there are fluids you can extract performance from that I didn't even know were in the car. And it adds up. You can find five milliseconds on a cooling product, you can find 15 milliseconds on hydraulic oil."
5 ms per lap? For 60 laps, that means 0.3 seconds.
Are they worried that red team is that close?
Bobster
2017-07-21 11:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@topmail.co.nz
Post by D Munz
"For me, it is amazing that there are fluids you can extract performance from that I didn't even know were in the car. And it adds up. You can find five milliseconds on a cooling product, you can find 15 milliseconds on hydraulic oil."
5 ms per lap? For 60 laps, that means 0.3 seconds.
Are they worried that red team is that close?
(5ms + 15ms) * 60 laps gives 1.2 seconds. From those two items. Top teams will chip away at every little thing because over a race distance they will all add up.
Loading...