Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbot
Any cheap performance gains are going to be found and used by all the teams (best engine configuration etc),and then the little bits of extra performance that make the difference between winning and losing will cost the millions that the "capable" but skint teams don't have.
Teams don't have to build anything any more to find out if it works or not.Oh no! You can use all sorts of computer programmes to tell you which engine configuration will give you the best power;fuel consumption;reliabilty.Consequently everyone will turn up to the first race of the new 'open' regulations with the same engine,and then spend millions on refining the concept that everyone else has used.Sound familiar?
With regard to Wrex's post.I don't think that any innovative regulations will work without the use of a proper 'budget cap'.Personally I think that F1 missed a trick by not adopting the majority of the budget cap rules.If you can't design and build an F1 car,over a season,for £40m then there's something fundamentally wrong somewhere.
We were told by FOTA (well,some teams in FOTA that may now regret their decision) that a budget cap would stifle innovation when,in fact,quite the reverse would be true.
If you can control overall costs then you can have innovation and close competition.If you allow a "Dog-eat-Dog" situation with innovative regulations then you'll end up with maybe two teams on the grid.
|
Maybe the teams did miss something Marbot.
IMHO Have basic rules such as overall dimensions, engine capacity and any regs that have a direct influence on retaining or improving safety standards and let the teams do what they want in any area as long as the overall budget cap is not passed.
The problem is and was what the cap should be.
