Quote:
Originally posted by 911pcars
If they're trying to contain costs, they should stick with one engine and chassis spec. whatever it is, and stick with that. Standardizing certain components might help without the effect of turning it into a spec series. The change to V8 engines will only save the cost of replacing 4 extra con rods, pistons and a few valves - surely outweighed by the R&D cost of starting with a new engine spec. - again. If less is more, how about 6 cylinders?
Sherwood
|
I don't disagree with your comments and you have a lot of ideas, the point again (without trying to beat a dead horse) is that its "Formula 1". Everything that you have just described is IRL, Cart, and Nascar, which have are 2 or 3 chassis builders, 1 spec tire, only 3 engines, etc. A lot of what attracts certain people to the F1 sport, myself included, is the constant innovation that happens and pushes the racing car envelope. What they need is clear and concise technical regulation that doesn't change every season and allows teams to develop their cars for closer competition. Its argued that reducing downforce and going to a spec tire makes it cheaper for the little teams to catch up, when in actuality they have limited budgets as opposed to say Ferrari who can afford to throw 200 personnel at a problem in 6 months to emerge dominant. Changing the rules every year is silly. If Max Mosley had his way (and he layed all this out in Monaco in '04), he'd do away with semi-auto gearboxes, all driver aided electronics and introduce an FIA spec ECU which can't be altered by the teams, he'd take the wings off the car (which by the way you'd need like a 90% reduction from current downforce to see any real passing benefits), 1 spec brake rotor and caliper, etc. etc. I personally don't think the teams can support the dollars they'll need to continue with their immense engineering race to keep the sport progressing and viable, however a set of stable rules would keep the costs under control and further innovation. Paul Stoddart of Minardi got all but Ferrari to agree to a limit of testing days to better control costs, but Ferrari would not agree to that as they earn $38 million annually from Bridgestone to do tire testing. The current secret "Concorde Agreement" in F1, in this case, also needs a serious re-write which does not favor the FIA and Ferrari, such that only a simple majority is also needed to change the regs when a serious issue arises.
In a nutshell, there's always more than meets the eye. At the end of the day, Michelin screwed up. But the FIA's refusal to alter the course for the majority, even when the Michelin teams agreed to race for no points, was far worse. It ailienated and screwed the US fans out of a race, all in the name of fairness for the sport and Ferrari, who of course was running Bridgestone tires. But we ain't launching the space shuttle here, and the sponsorship, fan base and enthusiasm on the whole was damaged more in that 1 instance and stupid decision not to bend than probably ever in the history of F1.
If Ferrari is soooo great, Schumi is sooo great, Jean Todt is sooo brilliant at running Ferrari, why the heck where they soooo worried about adding in a chicane? I agree it wouldn't be fair to Ferrari, but many Ferrari decisions as of past have not been too hot for sport as a whole either.
