Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto
...I am of the opinion that technical regulations will NEVER solve budget disparity... UNLESS the regulations specify a 100% spec solution in which ZERO development can happen. If there is room for development then teams will spend as much money as they are capable of raising. That is how it works today. In my opinion there has to be budget caps to keep the field "more" level than it is now.
(Small edit: Even if there is room for zero development, then well funded teams can make themselves "better run" in ways that smaller teams would struggle. So this should be seen in even spec series in which those with cash are able to get 100% out of the car while those with significantly less budget will struggle to do well with the same car. It's about shrinking the gap down)
|
i tend to think this as well.
all things being equal, it sounds reasonable to say that less complexity, simpler rules, more standardized parts etc would lead to lower costs.
but in reality, since the 90s (dawn of the manufacturers' era) costs have consistently gone up well past what one would expect through inflation and with arguably the the greatest budget increases happening over the past several years just as controlling cost through technical regulations and increased standardization became the norm.
the big teams just found other areas to spend in and imo they probably found more success/gains by overspending in those areas so naturally they spent more in those areas.
from this point of view, it seems to me that less technical freedom, more standardization, and rules banning this and that is directly correlated with increased spending.
for me, chasing reduced spending parity through the technical regs has not worked at all.