one step closer to Mosely's dream of SPEC F1.
Discussion
Ah, good old Tom Purnell. What he doesn't know about Formula 1 wouldn't fill the Pacific ocean. Not quite anyway.
It's oldish news though.
It's got to get past the FOTA first. The days when Mosley could ride roughshod over concord agreements has long gone. I think this one will fade into the background in exactly the same way that Mosley isn't.
What is farcicial, of course, is that 2010 is more changes for next season. More changes equals more costs. I would be that the alterations to the regs that have come about through Mosley's messing has cost each team more than 50m over recent years.
It's oldish news though.
It's got to get past the FOTA first. The days when Mosley could ride roughshod over concord agreements has long gone. I think this one will fade into the background in exactly the same way that Mosley isn't.
What is farcicial, of course, is that 2010 is more changes for next season. More changes equals more costs. I would be that the alterations to the regs that have come about through Mosley's messing has cost each team more than 50m over recent years.
I guess they've seen that NASCAR has remained mainstream and commercially successful despite the heavy rule changes towards spec cars and parts (and arguably without the $ savings too) and figured that there is not very much to lose, only a few old-school fans that probably don't go to races anyway, and some moral ground to gain. They might even replace the old fans with the new ones that with historical ignorance believe the cars should be the same.
Edited by zac510 on Wednesday 4th February 17:47
How it would make sense I can't figure. Cost reduction is logical, but limits don't work. If we take just McLaren and Ferrari they currently have budgets over and above the amount suggested, much of which is agreed with sponsoring organisations for 2010. What are they supposed to do with any surplus? They will possibly be contractually obliged to use it to develop what should be winning F1 cars, if so, what happens if they don't spend it in doing so?
MM, once again, has ideas which are totally unrelated to the reality the world lives in, and those of the sport in which he is supposedly concerned with operates.
MM, once again, has ideas which are totally unrelated to the reality the world lives in, and those of the sport in which he is supposedly concerned with operates.
it is non-sensical to implement a budget cap AND standard parts. Standard parts cut costs anyway. if you implement a budget cap, then let the teams decide what to spend it on. You don't need to mandate standard parts in this case as you have already capped the teams' budgets. If they want to 40 million on catering, then why not?
Edited by DangerousMike on Thursday 5th February 08:44
I suspect there is some EU legislation about restriction of trade or competition which could be brought into play (I think the FIA is still in the EU isn't it ? Or did it actually get moved to Monaco ?).
There's also the small matter of how much cost saving could be achieved in the face of large redundancy payments to all the employees who would inevitably have to go as a result of these proposed limits.
The other thing I can see happening is that another layer of companies will develop to employ particular functions so that the race team company, on which the limit is imposed, sub-contracts work to those other companies and gets around the rules that way. Or we could perhaps see drivers being employed by separate companies and sub-contracting their services to the race team.
Given that Max doesn't have a background in running successful businesses, it seems a bit rich to be calling the shots to multi-billion dollar companies who probably have a much better idea of the value of F1 to their brand.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff