Rule changes will see job losses, admits Mosley.
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Don't I know it.
The question was, is it better?
The question was, is it better?
I suppose looking through rose tinted specs it was, but everything moves on and teams get bigger. A little story to explain -
If Colin Chapman designs a ground effects car and starts winning every race then the others teams need it to compete, but who knows about GE, "I know" says Frank Williams "we'll employ one of these new aero-scientist fellows, he'll sort it out for us". Following year - "Sorry lads" says the FIA "but ground effects is too dangerous, you'll have to find something else to play with.". "Hey, look over there at those funny French lot that we've been laughing at the past 3 years, seems that Turbo thingy is finally working" a nail head hitting Bernie Ecclestone explains. "But we know sod all about Turbo's Bernie?" a disgruntled Brabham techy sighs. "I know lets go to a big manufacturer like BMW and get them to build one for us". "And what about that new Carbon Fibre stuff that speccy Barnard is working on a McLaren?". "We'll just have to get some more people in who know about that stuff I suppose". "...............lad's have any of you come across something called active suspension?."
So F1 moved on, teams (like any business) got bigger because of market needs, the technology to compete on a level playing field with their rivals. It's all one upmanship. But is it better now or then, safety and technology yes, racing no.
I think this is similar to the speed cam vs safety debate.
What makes no sense at all in the philosophy of the modern world is to constrain the development of engine technology (have they done fuels as well?) when the entire world seems to want to make tings leaner and more efficient and possibly using alternative fuels.
BUT to fix the engines at a known spec is relatively a lot easier to do than to 'fix' anything else (other than gearboxes but then they will always be variables (no pun intended) to some extent unless ratios are frozen.)
Aero, on the other hand, probably has more influence over racing effects that anything else but is much more difficult to police (i.e. measure.) without getting howls of protest about secrecy. All one might do is ban almost everything Aero related or insist on standard design wings and advertising (bodywork) panels.
In which case why not hand the chassis manufacturing to a single organisation and get an engine manufacturing and supply agreement in place with a single manufacturer, maybe changed annually if the manufacturer will play ball. That way they could change engine size or fuelling requirements to suit any whim that may come into play.
Actually why not 2 divisions of GP2 spec? Or maybe some compromise that allows integration with CART and IRL and World Series by Renault and A1GP and so on with most of the season runable on the basis of (low cost) local events (EU, NA, Asia, etc.) and some sort of league system that allows the local league runners to progress to the 'World Series' finals.
The concept seems to work somehow in other sports, especially in North America. In fact in some small and unofficial ways it already works in motor sport in a few formulae.
Doesn't do much for the manufacturers I suppose but then they came and go depending on their marketeers and bean counters so what does that matter?
What makes no sense at all in the philosophy of the modern world is to constrain the development of engine technology (have they done fuels as well?) when the entire world seems to want to make tings leaner and more efficient and possibly using alternative fuels.
BUT to fix the engines at a known spec is relatively a lot easier to do than to 'fix' anything else (other than gearboxes but then they will always be variables (no pun intended) to some extent unless ratios are frozen.)
Aero, on the other hand, probably has more influence over racing effects that anything else but is much more difficult to police (i.e. measure.) without getting howls of protest about secrecy. All one might do is ban almost everything Aero related or insist on standard design wings and advertising (bodywork) panels.
In which case why not hand the chassis manufacturing to a single organisation and get an engine manufacturing and supply agreement in place with a single manufacturer, maybe changed annually if the manufacturer will play ball. That way they could change engine size or fuelling requirements to suit any whim that may come into play.
Actually why not 2 divisions of GP2 spec? Or maybe some compromise that allows integration with CART and IRL and World Series by Renault and A1GP and so on with most of the season runable on the basis of (low cost) local events (EU, NA, Asia, etc.) and some sort of league system that allows the local league runners to progress to the 'World Series' finals.
The concept seems to work somehow in other sports, especially in North America. In fact in some small and unofficial ways it already works in motor sport in a few formulae.
Doesn't do much for the manufacturers I suppose but then they came and go depending on their marketeers and bean counters so what does that matter?
Would this work?
If they want to control budgets why not give each team a budget for the year, all teams have the same budget (£20million or £30million). They have less regulations and open development of all car design and engines. The teams have to show accounts of what it is spending after each GP and at the end of the year what is has spent in total, if they go over budget they recieve penalties, loss of points, if they are under budget they recieve bonuses for the following year or even points added.
That would please the beancounters in the FIA and give them some more lovely red tape to play with.
If they want to control budgets why not give each team a budget for the year, all teams have the same budget (£20million or £30million). They have less regulations and open development of all car design and engines. The teams have to show accounts of what it is spending after each GP and at the end of the year what is has spent in total, if they go over budget they recieve penalties, loss of points, if they are under budget they recieve bonuses for the following year or even points added.
That would please the beancounters in the FIA and give them some more lovely red tape to play with.
FourWheelDrift said:
Would this work?
If they want to control budgets why not give each team a budget for the year, all teams have the same budget (£20million or £30million). They have less regulations and open development of all car design and engines. The teams have to show accounts of what it is spending after each GP and at the end of the year what is has spent in total, if they go over budget they recieve penalties, loss of points, if they are under budget they recieve bonuses for the following year or even points added.
That would please the beancounters in the FIA and give them some more lovely red tape to play with.
If they want to control budgets why not give each team a budget for the year, all teams have the same budget (£20million or £30million). They have less regulations and open development of all car design and engines. The teams have to show accounts of what it is spending after each GP and at the end of the year what is has spent in total, if they go over budget they recieve penalties, loss of points, if they are under budget they recieve bonuses for the following year or even points added.
That would please the beancounters in the FIA and give them some more lovely red tape to play with.
With all due respect FWD I don't think that would work.
Think Eddie Jordan, think Flavio Briatore, think Luca di Montezua.
Think "the steering wheel on an F1 cars costs £50,000".
I don't think Charlie Whiting could cope with that.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff