Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Casto
Hey! That sounds like something I would say.  Depending upon the arguement, it can be the end. Whenever I have used it, I have yet to get a reply. Typically I use it when fans want to revert to older regulations in some type a fantasy that it will recreate clones of cars from a previous era.
Thanks. I just bought a copy moments ago. 
I can't reconcile those two statements. Are you saying the reason so much money is that the regulations are poorly written? That finding the right attorney will create such good regulations that teams will not spend money either looking for loopholes or even to play within the spec?
Richard |
No- I am not saying the regs are poorly written , they achieve their purpose by , for example , excluding some technology , or design traits , on the grounds of safety or cost . Huge amounts of money are spent simply because teams have it to spend . At the moment ...
I do mourn the fact that the regs effectively mandate the same car - but a softer prescriptive touch at least enables some innovative thinking .
Ever since the big guys returned to F1 in numbers, the money supply became grotesque and we all know how it works- give' em $500m and they want $550m , if only so as to show off their carbon fibre toilet seats , like BAR did..
At the moment they are happy to spend a 100 grand to save a tenth on a new winglet. I'd rather a capped budget but less prescription . That way, someone might spend 100 grand on something left field which saves a second