Is cost cutting damaging the sport?

[thatone1967]

Just having a conversation with a colleague at work about how the race could possibly have benefited from fuel stops being allowed and also in the longer term how testing is affecting the sport.

What are the thoughts on the cost cutting being (partially) reversed when there is more money around, ie: after the global economic crisis recedes?

[Mazda Baiter]

Should there be:

Fuel stops - No
Testing - Yes

[aeropilot]

Cost cutting in the wrong area is damaging the sport...

Getting rid of refuelling was a good idea.

The tyre rules are a stupid idea, give the teams more leaway with what they can do would be better on more tyre choices. would be better.

I'd quite like to see pit to car radio being stopped, putting the drivers more in charge of their own destiny rather than just being a team puppet. That liven up the races and make them less processional.

F1 & Teams could also save a fortune by cutting out all the 'hangers-on' from the paddock

[Rude-boy]

Mazda Baiter said:

Should there be:

Fuel stops - No
Testing - Yes

Agreed but I would say that there should be ban on all non officeial testing and have 6-10 days of official testing during the season.

[AndrewW-G]

aeropilot said:

I'd quite like to see pit to car radio being stopped, putting the drivers more in charge of their own destiny rather than just being a team puppet. That liven up the races and make them less processional.

Including the telemetry, keep data logging and all the on board functions, but make the drivers work it all out themselves, can see the drivers who are quick yet seemingly unable to play a long game, strugling without their engineer telling them what to do.

[thatone1967]

aeropilot said:

I'd quite like to see pit to car radio being stopped, putting the drivers more in charge of their own destiny rather than just being a team puppet. That liven up the races and make them less processional.

Massa would be screwed!

[DangerousMike]

"Ok Felipe, good race, time for your bath now"

[rdjohn]

I was interested in this comment from Flav in Autosport, last week

"There are teams in F1 who are one or two seconds faster compared to a GP2 team, and to be one or two seconds faster, they spend a minimum of 60-70 millions, while GP2 spends three. There's something wrong there."

As an engineer, I am intrigued by the technical complexities of the cars, but given that we will never be given an explanation as to why the Red Bull is 1 second quicker than the next fastest car, I would much rather watch drivers race each other in comparable cars.

IMHO the money is simply going in the wrong areas - simpler aero packages and engines with fewer personnel and hangers-on at races must leave more money for improving the show a lot. Mad Max was right on this issue.

A minimum of two pit stops could be implemented next week to improve the show, but egos always get in the way in F1.

[DangerousMike]

what would a two pit stop minimum have done to enliven the race yesterday? About the only think I can think of is that it might have enabled button to pass Schumacher in the pits, which is less exciting than seeing him try to do it on track.

[EDLT]

They haven't actually cut costs, just stopped teams from spending it in certain ways. If they've got $100 million to spend they will find some way to spend it.

[eccles]

People seem to forget that most of the clingons in the pit lane are from sponsoring companies, or from companies they're trying to get sponsorship out of.
F1 has always had random celebs hanging round the pit garage, this gets TV coverage, which gets sponsors logos seen.

[Scuffers]

rdjohn said:

I was interested in this comment from Flav in Autosport, last week

"There are teams in F1 who are one or two seconds faster compared to a GP2 team, and to be one or two seconds faster, they spend a minimum of 60-70 millions, while GP2 spends three. There's something wrong there."

As an engineer, I am intrigued by the technical complexities of the cars, but given that we will never be given an explanation as to why the Red Bull is 1 second quicker than the next fastest car, I would much rather watch drivers race each other in comparable cars.

at a wild guess, I would suggest this is down to GP2 cars not being 'slowed down' by regs

problem with F1 cars now is that the regs have been changed so many time just to slow them down, this fly's in the face of the evolution of a race car.

[rdjohn]

DangerousMike said:

what would a two pit stop minimum have done to enliven the race yesterday? About the only think I can think of is that it might have enabled button to pass Schumacher in the pits, which is less exciting than seeing him try to do it on track.

It would give spectators the certainty of knowing that drivers are able to drive 10/10ths throughout, rather than endurance racing to conserve their engines; gearboxes; fuel and tyres.

Save the money on the aero packages and not the spectacle.

I honestly think the only way JB would have passed Schuey was if he had deliberately opened the door for him. Despite having a much quicker car in race spec., he seemed pretty clueless on how to do it race wise, but again, he had to conserve his tyres and so could not take chances. He did however stay top of the WDC.

[Jasandjules]

thatone1967 said:

aeropilot said:

I'd quite like to see pit to car radio being stopped, putting the drivers more in charge of their own destiny rather than just being a team puppet. That liven up the races and make them less processional.

Massa would be screwed!

Do you think he would choke to death if told not to breathe in and out by his pit crew......