The death of F1...
10-27-2007, 06:56 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sewell, NJ
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FIA never seems to get it and neither does NASCAR. Imposing more and more new regulations doesn't lower costs even if you limit the materials allowed. Forcing new rules just means the teams have to work even harder than the other guy in order to get that last tenth. Ferrari is going to spend every dime they have to be faster than the McLaren, Williams, Renault, whoever. Not much of it is Ferrari's money though, sponsors are footing the bill.
By having ever-changing rules, in the name of cost cutting, widens the gap between the "big" teams and the "small" teams. The wealthier teams have more money to spend to claw the speed back. The teams with lesser funds can't. To even be competitive the small teams had to switch customer engines, thus limiting funds even more. Anybody remember the 107% rule? Minardi often times would just squeak by to be able to race on Sunday, if we still had that qualifying restriction Spyker would have missed almost every race this season.
If the FIA thinks that any of the stable teams is spending less money now than they were with, turbacharged motors, active suspension, and all the cool electronics of the 80s and 90s they are sorely mistaken. If they ask Dr. Mario Thiessen at BMW, restrictions have the opposite effect of what the FIA intends.
The only way they can contain costs is through escrow accounts. The FIA would have to hold the money for the teams and place a cap on spending. If the FIA holds the money and tells the teams how much they can spend that is the only way I see to cut costs indefinitely. But not a single team would agree to this.
"Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
By having ever-changing rules, in the name of cost cutting, widens the gap between the "big" teams and the "small" teams. The wealthier teams have more money to spend to claw the speed back. The teams with lesser funds can't. To even be competitive the small teams had to switch customer engines, thus limiting funds even more. Anybody remember the 107% rule? Minardi often times would just squeak by to be able to race on Sunday, if we still had that qualifying restriction Spyker would have missed almost every race this season.
If the FIA thinks that any of the stable teams is spending less money now than they were with, turbacharged motors, active suspension, and all the cool electronics of the 80s and 90s they are sorely mistaken. If they ask Dr. Mario Thiessen at BMW, restrictions have the opposite effect of what the FIA intends.
The only way they can contain costs is through escrow accounts. The FIA would have to hold the money for the teams and place a cap on spending. If the FIA holds the money and tells the teams how much they can spend that is the only way I see to cut costs indefinitely. But not a single team would agree to this.
"Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
10-27-2007, 08:14 PM
#32
Registered User
Mike, you say tires but this season they should have been worse than in the prior season. With no "tire war" there was no need to bring their bleeding edge best rubber. Are you saying this season's rubber was better than the year before? Got any reference for that?
10-28-2007, 05:34 PM
#34
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USSA
Posts: 10,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Oct 27 2007, 08:23 PM
In the 1960s and 70s, the Can Am cars were using active aero devices, running more than 1000+ hp, hitting speeds of 400 kph, etc. And that was all before computerization and carbon fiber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resu77vBKm0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT6bJeheAN0
10-28-2007, 07:38 PM
#35
Registered User
All I've got are comments from insiders about how tire optimization has backed off, along with engine output, yet lap times didn't rise (much). Bridgestone themselves said they only intended four dry compounds for the whole season. Those just can't be as good as possible, no?
10-28-2007, 08:14 PM
#36
Registered User
Originally Posted by Penforhire,Oct 28 2007, 08:38 PM
All I've got are comments from insiders about how tire optimization has backed off, along with engine output, yet lap times didn't rise (much). Bridgestone themselves said they only intended four dry compounds for the whole season. Those just can't be as good as possible, no?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post