Quote:
Originally Posted by coppice
Huge amounts of money are spent simply because teams have it to spend .
|
I think there is two parts to that. There is pointless spending on common parts (which is easier for them to try to address) and the second is my point I make frequently which is they will spend as much as they are able to spend. See comment below as to why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coppice
I do mourn the fact that the regs effectively mandate the same car - but a softer prescriptive touch at least enables some innovative thinking .
|
I bemoan that as well. In my heart, I love the technology and creative solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coppice
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..
|
F1 is in a weird feedback loop. Everyone (particularly the fans) want it to be a "big deal". But increased exposure creates sponsorship value, which drives budgets up. If F1 was a half rate sport with few fans (some might argue that is true today!
) then few would be willing to spend the money to push budgets high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coppice
I'd rather a capped budget but less prescription .
|
I can't agree more. I did mention earlier that while this could work, I suspect teams will self limit the size of the sand box.
If you had a cap of $100 million and said... "Bring whatever you want". It would scare the crap out of everyone. No doubt a select few would say "let me at it" as they think they would have the next great idea. Such as Nissan did with their tricycle LeMans car. But that is an example of the potential for HUGE faceplants. Someone like Mercedes or Ferrari might show up and their "idea" might be a huge dog. They are OK with being second or maybe third. They are NOT Ok with being last.
So they will insist on the safe route which is "just like it is today, but just smaller". So continue with tight regulations, etc.
Richard