Discussion
Nobody wants to spend $135m developing the fastest car they can only to have it hobbled by BOP when they could spend substantially less developing a slightly slower car and let BOP hobble everyone else and be just as competitive.
BTCC is the WWE of motorsport, so it shouldn't be compared to F1.
BTCC is the WWE of motorsport, so it shouldn't be compared to F1.
thegreenhell said:
Nobody wants to spend $135m developing the fastest car they can only to have it hobbled by BOP when they could spend substantially less developing a slightly slower car and let BOP hobble everyone else and be just as competitive.
PreciselyGene Haas would love it.
But we don't want a field full of Haas' I think.
thegreenhell said:
Nobody wants to spend $135m developing the fastest car they can only to have it hobbled by BOP when they could spend substantially less developing a slightly slower car and let BOP hobble everyone else and be just as competitive.
BTCC is the WWE of motorsport, so it shouldn't be compared to F1.
Yet manufacturers are pouring money into WEC and endurance racing just to see their efforts hobbled by BoP because manufacturers want an equal chance to win.BTCC is the WWE of motorsport, so it shouldn't be compared to F1.
How many times do people complain about the best driver in the best car dominating? The other teams need to do a better job!
Without BoP it will continually stay like that.
The budget cap is a joke. The original intentions when Max Mosely was at the helm was to attract and help the new teams.
The resource restrictions as they are don't work at all. As with the budget cap all it does is reinforce the status quo.
thegreenhell said:
Nobody wants to spend $135m developing the fastest car they can only to have it hobbled by BOP when they could spend substantially less developing a slightly slower car and let BOP hobble everyone else and be just as competitive.
BTCC is the WWE of motorsport, so it shouldn't be compared to F1.
Why is everyone so determined to make this a binary issue? Nobody is talking about “hobbling” anyone. That’s not the purpose of handicapping; it is to close up the field. A handicap can just as easily be about concessions (eg in-season testing, more CFD, etc) as adding weight.BTCC is the WWE of motorsport, so it shouldn't be compared to F1.
For instance, free practice could be tiered - front-runners get one-hour sessions, others get longer.
Personally I think the cap should go, the best of F1 in terms of competitiveness was before the cap anyway.
Lose the cap to allow teams to close the gap
And Freeze the rules, this would close the field at some point and would itself eventually limit the spend as there’s only so much scope for improvement,
Lose the cap to allow teams to close the gap
And Freeze the rules, this would close the field at some point and would itself eventually limit the spend as there’s only so much scope for improvement,
Edited by usn90 on Wednesday 24th April 17:29
skwdenyer said:
Why is everyone so determined to make this a binary issue? Nobody is talking about “hobbling” anyone. That’s not the purpose of handicapping; it is to close up the field. A handicap can just as easily be about concessions (eg in-season testing, more CFD, etc) as adding weight.
For instance, free practice could be tiered - front-runners get one-hour sessions, others get longer.
you are determined to double down on semantics of 'handicapping'. More in-season testing, more CFD etc isn't guaranteed to produce results quickly for other teams to be able to even up the field. Adding the dimension of a weight differential would produce a definitive impact on laptime. For instance, free practice could be tiered - front-runners get one-hour sessions, others get longer.
Just look at the system of handicapping in horse racing for example...... You don't have a handicapping system of say allowing lower rated horses to receive extra stimulants or jockeys get bigger/stiffer whips or more allowance to use them but one where the top rated horses have to carry more weight.
usn90 said:
Personally I think the cap should go, the best of F1 in terms of competitiveness was before the cap anyway.
Lose the cap to allow teams to close the gap
And Freeze the rules, this would close the field at some point and would itself eventually limit the spend as there’s only so much scope for improvement,
Problem is, if you remove the cost cap, the likes of Williams and Haas will die. The spending has to be controlled.Lose the cap to allow teams to close the gap
And Freeze the rules, this would close the field at some point and would itself eventually limit the spend as there’s only so much scope for improvement,
Edited by usn90 on Wednesday 24th April 17:29
I would keep the cap, just make the concessions for lower performing teams greater.
Liberalize the rule book--optional fueling, optional tire changes, optional engines such as bringing back V10 or running with IndyCar engines. How about embracing push to pass as in IndyCar? F1 has added unnecessary cost with the engine regs. Fans don't want to see a procession. It would be nice to think a car that qualified at the back has a chance to win--when was the last time that happened (OK probably a time Lewis qualified 18th and made it to the podium)? Probably a wet race in Brazil in 2003 when a Jordan won.
isaldiri said:
skwdenyer said:
Why is everyone so determined to make this a binary issue? Nobody is talking about “hobbling” anyone. That’s not the purpose of handicapping; it is to close up the field. A handicap can just as easily be about concessions (eg in-season testing, more CFD, etc) as adding weight.
For instance, free practice could be tiered - front-runners get one-hour sessions, others get longer.
you are determined to double down on semantics of 'handicapping'. More in-season testing, more CFD etc isn't guaranteed to produce results quickly for other teams to be able to even up the field. Adding the dimension of a weight differential would produce a definitive impact on laptime. For instance, free practice could be tiered - front-runners get one-hour sessions, others get longer.
Just look at the system of handicapping in horse racing for example...... You don't have a handicapping system of say allowing lower rated horses to receive extra stimulants or jockeys get bigger/stiffer whips or more allowance to use them but one where the top rated horses have to carry more weight.
If we want to watch *racing* there must be a chance of a different outcome. Otherwise we can just watch pre-season testing and then reward the best designers.
What we have now is the natural corollary of extreme simulation tools and tiny windows of opportunity for differentiation. It is primarily an aero race now, with differences nobody can see and few can understand. Mechanical design choices have all-but been eradicated by rule-makers, which does seem rather strange.
So the next best thing is to give teams on the back foot more chance to understand and develop their cars. More free practice, or in-season testing, for instance. It isn’t perfect, but what we do know from recent history is that teams *can* get a lot more out of their cars if they’ve got the time to do so.
What else do you suggest?
dobly said:
Are we sure that Perez has exactly the same car as Max? I’m no apologist for Checco being second rate, but as is stated further up this post, he (and the other teams) was nowhere near Max’s lap times in China…
The gap per lap between Verstappen and Perez in the race was mostly less than the differences between Norris and Piastri or Russell and Hamilton.Of course he is. Do you really think with the cost cap Red Bull are able to develop two cars inside the cap? It is far cheaper to build two identical cars.
This an urban myth that has been going on for decades. More recently Schumacher and Irvine, Vettel and Webber, Hamilton and Bottas...
It may be true that the car is developed more around Max than Checo, that would explain the difference. Same car, but set up to suit Max.
This an urban myth that has been going on for decades. More recently Schumacher and Irvine, Vettel and Webber, Hamilton and Bottas...
It may be true that the car is developed more around Max than Checo, that would explain the difference. Same car, but set up to suit Max.
Harry Flatters said:
I know tis is probably contentious, but IMHO Perez is having another shocker. Media (and RB) seem to suggest that he's had a strong start, but f*ck me, he should be! He's got the same car as Max. But, he is consistently finishing way behind Max (between 13s and 56s, so far this year) and providing zero in the way of a challenge. RB could care less about this lack of competition to Max, as long as they are smashing both championships. They have no incentive to replace Perez. I mean, why would they? He brings cash and he's doing 'enough'. Why even consider a change to say Sainz, which could challenge and p*ss Max off.
The incentive may be commercial. One of the paradoxes of dominance is that after a while, you stop appearing on TV. The cameras will follow you for a few laps and for the rest of the race, all focus is on the tight squabbles down the field. Over time, this has the effect of diminishing the value of the rate cards a team uses for sponsors.
Strong inter-team rivalry steals focus, gives more TV time, and increases the marketable value of the team to sponsors.
Admittedly, the money Perez brings may offset this to a degree and 'brand exposure' is not the primary goal it once was in F1 but is still important.
dobly said:
Are we sure that Perez has exactly the same car as Max? I’m no apologist for Checco being second rate, but as is stated further up this post, he (and the other teams) was nowhere near Max’s lap times in China…
What incentive do Red Bull have to give Perez an inferior car?This is not 1988. The difference in the Red Bull is aero, not engine. Why would Red Bull make different parts for Checo?
It's not as if Max needs more help.....
Muzzer79 said:
What incentive do Red Bull have to give Perez an inferior car?
This is not 1988. The difference in the Red Bull is aero, not engine. Why would Red Bull make different parts for Checo?
It's not as if Max needs more help.....
Teams often only have one set of optimal parts, upgrades for example. At Red Bull, which driver do you think gets first dibs at those?This is not 1988. The difference in the Red Bull is aero, not engine. Why would Red Bull make different parts for Checo?
It's not as if Max needs more help.....
It works the same way at other teams, too. Famously at Brawn. At Ferrari back when they had spare cars, which driver was it normally set up for and who had first dibs at that?
An F1 team will have two pit crews. One likely better than the other. Who gets first dibs at that?
Has happened in F1 throughout. F1 teams will focus on whoever's likely to win them the most constructors' points.
MitchT said:
Muzzer79 said:
SoulGlo said:
Muzzer79 said:
I watch the Indycar, which at least gives exciting racing, but it's not the same.
Where can you watch Indycar without having to subscribe to Sky Sports F1?I could see a Ricciardo or Magnussen doing a good job state side.
I hate the idea of handicapping the top guys and I think the cost cap needs to stay but be changed to how for freedom in terms of upgrades.
The Engine development cap needs to go. Let teams make 'spicy' engines again.
Increase the wind tunnel time for the lower runners and reduce it for the current pace setters. The difference between the two ends needs to be more significant.
The Engine development cap needs to go. Let teams make 'spicy' engines again.
Increase the wind tunnel time for the lower runners and reduce it for the current pace setters. The difference between the two ends needs to be more significant.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff