Discussion
markcoznottz said:
The world has changed around the sport to be fair, although I never understood why the desicion was taken to deliberately make the cars ugly, narrow tyres, grooves tyres, high noses etc etc, I would've banned the lot on the spot, up to 1991 the cars were stunning.
Then I suggest you know nothing about F1All the changes to the cars were for a reason. Whilst they may not have worked it was the TWG that sanctioned them. Not Bernie. Though much as his detractors will hate it. Safety in F1 is actually Mosely's legacy.
Narrow and Grooved Tyres - Idea was to reduce mechanical grip and get the cars sliding about. Obviously it just meant the designers upped the aero grip to compensate. So it negated it
High noses are to stop the cars submarine-ing when they run up the back of each other. - Works but throws up other problems.
Problem is you can unlearn what you know so short of going back to quite hideous square sidepods and no winglets, you wont get back whatever you're preferred car design is.
Rich_W said:
Then I suggest you know nothing about F1
All the changes to the cars were for a reason. Whilst they may not have worked it was the TWG that sanctioned them. Not Bernie. Though much as his detractors will hate it. Safety in F1 is actually Mosely's legacy.
Narrow and Grooved Tyres - Idea was to reduce mechanical grip and get the cars sliding about. Obviously it just meant the designers upped the aero grip to compensate. So it negated it
High noses are to stop the cars submarine-ing when they run up the back of each other. - Works but throws up other problems.
Problem is you can unlearn what you know so short of going back to quite hideous square sidepods and no winglets, you wont get back whatever you're preferred car design is.
Based on that reply I'd suggest you know nothing about F1.All the changes to the cars were for a reason. Whilst they may not have worked it was the TWG that sanctioned them. Not Bernie. Though much as his detractors will hate it. Safety in F1 is actually Mosely's legacy.
Narrow and Grooved Tyres - Idea was to reduce mechanical grip and get the cars sliding about. Obviously it just meant the designers upped the aero grip to compensate. So it negated it
High noses are to stop the cars submarine-ing when they run up the back of each other. - Works but throws up other problems.
Problem is you can unlearn what you know so short of going back to quite hideous square sidepods and no winglets, you wont get back whatever you're preferred car design is.
The TWG didn't exist during the changes made to grooved tyres and narrow track cars.
The grooved tyres were to reduce cornering speeds. The designers didn't up the aero grip to compensate, they always go for max aero within the regulations, no matter what tyres are used.
We have had high nose, low nose, high nose, low nose, high nose, low nose almost by the season, they keep changing their minds what they want.
Bernie ensured the circuit medical facilities were improved, he went so far as to cancel a GP until the locals let Prof Sid on site.
Bernie made a fortune from F1, but you cant argue he wasn't the driving force behind its modernisation. He did more good than bad IMHO.
jsf said:
Based on that reply I'd suggest you know nothing about F1.
The TWG didn't exist during the changes made to grooved tyres and narrow track cars.
The grooved tyres were to reduce cornering speeds. The designers didn't up the aero grip to compensate, they always go for max aero within the regulations, no matter what tyres are used.
We have had high nose, low nose, high nose, low nose, high nose, low nose almost by the season, they keep changing their minds what they want.
Bernie ensured the circuit medical facilities were improved, he went so far as to cancel a GP until the locals let Prof Sid on site.
Bernie made a fortune from F1, but you cant argue he wasn't the driving force behind its modernisation. He did more good than bad IMHO.
I agree. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him and I do think it was probably time for a change; however, there's no question in my mind that overall Bernie's influence on F1 has been positive over the period he's been in charge. So yes, more good than bad IMO.The TWG didn't exist during the changes made to grooved tyres and narrow track cars.
The grooved tyres were to reduce cornering speeds. The designers didn't up the aero grip to compensate, they always go for max aero within the regulations, no matter what tyres are used.
We have had high nose, low nose, high nose, low nose, high nose, low nose almost by the season, they keep changing their minds what they want.
Bernie ensured the circuit medical facilities were improved, he went so far as to cancel a GP until the locals let Prof Sid on site.
Bernie made a fortune from F1, but you cant argue he wasn't the driving force behind its modernisation. He did more good than bad IMHO.
fomb said:
I wonder if this will lead to the smaller teams getting a fair share of the prize fund?
I personally hope that this will be the case.However I'm also thinking there may be trouble ahead especially if they try to do something with Ferrari's payment they get for just turning up.
spitfire-ian said:
fomb said:
I wonder if this will lead to the smaller teams getting a fair share of the prize fund?
I personally hope that this will be the case.However I'm also thinking there may be trouble ahead especially if they try to do something with Ferrari's payment they get for just turning up.
It's beyond reason why an already rich team need to be paid the most just because they've been around a while and are red.
Many many other teams JUST as deserving. They should fall in line or get out.
).Vaud said:
spitfire-ian said:
I personally hope that this will be the case.
However I'm also thinking there may be trouble ahead especially if they try to do something with Ferrari's payment they get for just turning up.
They'll throw their toys out of the pram... However I'm also thinking there may be trouble ahead especially if they try to do something with Ferrari's payment they get for just turning up.
But, with RB involved in the set up of the 'new order' is it likely that the status quo of the 'old order' will continue and they'll huff and puff and still end up with special treatment....?
Time will tell.
aeropilot said:
I would have said, that given the 'new order' would hopefully call their bluff and let them walk away......
But, with RB involved in the set up of the 'new order' is it likely that the status quo of the 'old order' will continue and they'll huff and puff and still end up with special treatment....?
Time will tell.
I think there is an argument for a structured payment to teams rather than, for instance, payment via results. The big teams need to plan for some years in advance and long term investment is less easy if there is massively variable income. But, with RB involved in the set up of the 'new order' is it likely that the status quo of the 'old order' will continue and they'll huff and puff and still end up with special treatment....?
Time will tell.
Also, payment by results penalises the smaller teams. Such a system would not have kept Manor on the grid.
So a set sum paid to every individual team on the grid. Turn up and you get it. There should be increments for the years you have been running in F1, but up to a maximum of, say, 20 years.
There should still be prizes, mainly of money, with each individual race win receiving a sum with the same additional sum going to the WDC winner. Also there should be benefits in kind; advertising space around the circuit sort of thing, for no charge. Primacy in other matters.
Perhaps the pace car having the markings and colour of the previous year's WCC, or their logo being behind the podium.
Perhaps an encouragement, such as an interest free loan, for new teams, to be paid out of results. Liberty will then have a claim on the team should it fail to survive and be able to sell its assets to the highest bidder. Or something like that as I can see problems if it is not closely governed.
Easier access to the grid for new teams, with a maximum of 32 cars on the grid before prequallifying for all those over the 24 favoured cars. The best of the rest will show out and at the end of the season the best 12 teams will be exempt from PQ. Promotion and relegation.
Money going to the richest teams is part of life and even F1. Success breeds success. Higher charges for sponsors, that sort of thing, is possible to legislate against, but not successfully, nor fairly. Giving an extra dollop of funding to (one of?) the richest teams on the grid doesn't help the sport.
I think with a new broom, and obstructions removed, there is a chance of planning for the future.
Quickmoose said:
I'd love it LM faced down Ferrari. jumped up team.
It's beyond reason why an already rich team need to be paid the most just because they've been around a while and are red.
Many many other teams JUST as deserving. They should fall in line or get out.
As participants Ferrari are by far the biggest draw in F1. If any other team folded and disappeared off the face of the earth, it wouldn't really have earth shattering implications. If Ferrari left F1 to do something else, the value of F1 would reduce immediately. Whether it would recover is anyone's guess.It's beyond reason why an already rich team need to be paid the most just because they've been around a while and are red.
Many many other teams JUST as deserving. They should fall in line or get out.
There are two elements to consider; the participation itself and the results of that participation. Is it wrong in principle to reward participants both for their results and for their contribution to the wider success of the sport?
By that rationale, istn't it difficult to say Ferrari are wrong in taking advantage of what they bring to the sport? If I were responsible for the success of an organisation, I'd want a representative slice of the pie, wouldn't you?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff