What rules would you change/add in 2010?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crashbroke23
  • 52 comments
  • 3,515 views
the teams should save money when and if they need to ,don't make the FIA force them to with budget caps
 
Expecting the teams to be self-regulating like that won't work. If they think that spending four hundred million dollars will make them go faster, then they'll happily spend four hundred million dollars. Toyota did, and look how effective that was. Even if the budget cap is the wrong way to go about it, to me, the idea behind it is pretty sound: make Formula One competitive on the circuit, not in the journals and ledgers. If you let the teams dictate it, they'll just go in whichever direction they please and the result will be that we get a repeat of 2004, which no-one wants to see.
 
I see where you're going, and yes we need to keep F1 costs limited, but 40 million pounds is not nearly enough to run an F1 team. Isn't that the same ferrari spends in about 3 races? Bernie Ecclestone is turning F1 into a game of saving money when it's supposed to be a game of open wheeled 1000hp sports cars generating tons of downforce traveling around the best tracks in the works at speeds exceeding 200mph.
 
Last edited:
PJ-FFL
I see where you're going, and yes we need to keep F1 costs limited, but 40 million pounds is not nearly enough to run an F1 team. Isn't that the same ferrari spends in about 3 races?
Click to expand...
An doesn't that strike you as being entirely too much? Forty million pounds for about sixty hours of on-track time?

PJ-FFL
Bernie Ecclestone is turning F1 into a game of money when it's supposed to be a game of open wheeled 1000hp sports cars generating tons of downforce traveling around the best tracks in the works at speeds exceeding 200mph.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite, actually. If the costs are unregulated, teams will spend as much as they can. Then it stops being a race on-track and starts being a race to see who can spend the most. By moderating expenditure, teams are forced to try and get as much out of every dollar spent as possible.
 
Do you race?
Toyota did, and look how effective that was.
Click to expand...

but toyota just couldnt figure out how to get it all to work. its just like race car drivers. there are great drivers that know how to put concept into reality and bang out fast laps all day every day. then theres some drivers that they know what they need to do but they just cant seem to do it. same thing with engineering. look at brawn. he knew what needed to be done and was able to do it, others like force india know what need to be done they just cant put concept into reality. a budget cap isnt going to help that.

but honestly i see F1 as being the one sport that shouldnt have budget caps and so many tight restrictions of the sport. its the elite, the best of the best, so show me what the best got. its just like any other sport. all the other smaller series should have restrictions so that teams dont end up falling out and can keep the series running. but at the top level of every sport you have the elite (the NFL, the NBA, what ever soccer has) these things dont have budget caps (okay NFL does but i think thats just stupid along with the rest of the world).
 
NapoleonMikey
but toyota just couldnt figure out how to get it all to work. its just like race car drivers. there are great drivers that know how to put concept into reality and bang out fast laps all day every day. then theres some drivers that they know what they need to do but they just cant seem to do it. same thing with engineering. look at brawn. he knew what needed to be done and was able to do it, others like force india know what need to be done they just cant put concept into reality. a budget cap isnt going to help that.
Click to expand...

......which supports that statement anyway, Toyota were throwing away money when money doesn't solve problems, getting the right people does.
Budget caps are not aimed to help the manufacturers anyway, and Force India can put concept into reality, its just they cannot keep up with the development cycle of the bigger teams, if we have a budget cap, the development cycle becomes more about being efficient and would reward those who were clever rather than those with lots of money.
If you want proof about Force India...look at this year, they have caught up, not in spades like other teams but they have caught up. Last year they were off the pack by 2 seconds, this year its down to 1 second and they are managing to get both cars into Q2.
 
Ardius
......which supports that statement anyway, Toyota were throwing away money when money doesn't solve problems, getting the right people does.
Budget caps are not aimed to help the manufacturers anyway, and Force India can put concept into reality, its just they cannot keep up with the development cycle of the bigger teams, if we have a budget cap, the development cycle becomes more about being efficient and would reward those who were clever rather than those with lots of money.
If you want proof about Force India...look at this year, they have caught up, not in spades like other teams but they have caught up. Last year they were off the pack by 2 seconds, this year its down to 1 second and they are managing to get both cars into Q2.
Click to expand...

Getting the right people costs money, or are salaries not included in the buget cap?

And just because everyone has the same amount of money, that doesn't mean Force India will suddenly be able to put concept into reality.

With less money to try things yourself, espionage is going to be even more tempting.

Instead of who can spend the most, it will be come a competition of who can hide the most spending.
 
peterjford
Instead of who can spend the most, it will be come a competition of who can hide the most spending.
Click to expand...

Well thats true, that wasn't what was originally said.

There's a difference between spending your money carefully and hiring the right people and spending your money all over the place and hiring the right people. For all we know, both teams have the "right people" already.

My point was merely that Toyota have serious problems with money management when they are achieveing less than Force India currently, perhaps also the strategists at FI are better than the Toyota ones?
 
Ardius
My point was merely that Toyota have serious problems with money management when they are achieveing less than Force India currently, perhaps also the strategists at FI are better than the Toyota ones?
Click to expand...

So one technically-different race suddenly means Toyota are worse than Fifi? Last I checked, Toyota, while no longer at the sharpest end, still have a pole, podiums and points, while Fi broke into Q2 for their very first time at Monaco. Comparatively, Toyota's troubles this year aren't any worse than McLaren's, or god forbid, BMW. Even Ferrari and Renault, who both appear to have improved substantially, have less to show for their money. Even the relatively-disappointing 2007 season was miles better than Honda's who, with a similar budget, managed to turn a previous race-winner into one of the worst on the grid.

With current conditions, the only thing a budget-cap will bring is trouble. I like the idea, and I suggested it for years in my F1 arguments, but there are too many problems to practically implement it in a sophisticated international sport like F1. Plus, for their money, Force India get nothing - I think it was TheCracker who commented that their bodywork is visibly poorly made, with imperfect surfaces... So long and nary a point to be seen, shoddy reliability, and poor showings in almost every aspect of the car's performance.


You also missed his point. His point was that under a cap, they'll keep spendin - they'll just hide it better. Even the smallest of teams are managed by smart managers, and their operations span the globe - somewhere, there's got to be a place the FIA sniffers won't find. As soon as you place a cap, it becomes a game of hide and seek: Nit-picking over exact currency conversions, price of labor and materials, the exact prices of R&D... And of course, "random" events like Marlboro deciding to give Ferrari engineers a $10k reward every month, should they choose to cut their salaries by $10k a month. Engineers suddenly can all afford CAD stations at home, and for some odd reason, arrive at work full of ideas that were tested at, uh, the local university - and of course that fat wad of cash didn't come from the team, it was a gift by the sponsors!
Consider the controversy the diffusers caused, and then imagine the uproar when Renault discovers that Mercedes let McLaren spend some free time in their tunnel with a scale MP-4/25. Or that Ferrari was hiding a second operation in the Dallara tunnels (After all, Dallara were tasked with the F60's initial development, while Ferrari was busy fighting for 2008), and in reality spent $120m. How fun will it be when every result will be questioned - did the competitor really pay just $25k for a chassis? Does spending $40m on special airflow-conditioning paint and gloss really constitute a justified expense for the sponsors (they want better paint!) and thus exempt from the cap? When you don't know if your championship leader is legal, or if even the last-placed team paid over the limit.
 
I never claimed to have said the budget cap will work, that wasn't my point. My point was that money doesn't equal progress, which is the whole reasoning about bringing in the budget cap to stop the rediculous lengths certain teams are going to.
I never tried to say that the budget cap will work but I am reasoning the idea behind it.

My point about Force India was currently, as in, right now, the past race, Toyota were outdone by them. I agree, Toyota are vastly better than FI in a number of areas, but is it so outlandish to think a smaller, cheaper, team can have the "right people" and the expensive, large team have the "wrong people"? I'm not saying this is the case, I am suggesting it is possible and money doesn't have to mean competitiveness.
 
It's not outlandish at all - watch how Honda wrecked the 2006 challenger into the ground, while Aguri, with a single, small-scale tunnel and a 40-person factory managed to actually improve that car.

But to say that one botched race for Toyota and some one-off showing by Force India shows they have the wrong or right people is a far stretch.
 
Metar
But to say that one botched race for Toyota and some one-off showing by Force India shows they have the wrong or right people is a far stretch.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough, but I am using exaggerated reasoning to get my point across ;) or at least thats the excuse I'm using :p
 
Rules changes for 2010:-

Cars to have endurance fuel tanks installed
All races to become endurance events, last to run out of fuel wins
Friday practice to be for test drivers only
Qualifying to be a twenty five lap shootout, slowest car each lap is eliminated
No penalties for gearbox changes
 
Teams should have the ability to choose between a V8 or a turbodiesel V6. Wonder how that would work out.
 
Packaging and weight would be an issue-you would have some pretty unbalanced vehicles with all that weight out back.

Instead of stop/go penalties etc., the Race Director lowers your rev limiter by 1000rpm-good for fuel economy, bad for ultimate speed.
 
not enough to really do much, the driver would just use the KERS more than normal, and actual contro lof tihngs like rev limiters from a single switch is years in the future.
 
FOTA have decided they don't want KERS for next year. Too expenseive, with too little gained. Look at BMW-Sauber who really concentrated on it and got nowhere because the F1.09 has been totally lacklustre.
 
They concentrated too much on KERS, and it backfired in the most spectacular way imaginable.

The only reason we have KERS in 2009 anyway is BMW Sauber: When FOTA discussed cost-saving measures late last year, every team wanted or agreed to scrap it except BMW, who insisted that they spent money on developing a competitive system and can't lose that advantage now - only to realize that it doesn't work at all with Kubica, and even Nick's advantage isn't that huge.
 
As a very minor rule: all cars must run with a large racing number clearly visible on the rear wing, like Honda did in 2007 and 2008. I know the cars carry different-colored camera housings in order to distinguish one driver from another and you can occasionally tell from the helmet colours, but I imagine they would be difficult to tell apart from a distance.
 
Do you race?
As a very minor rule: all cars must run with a large racing number clearly visible on the rear wing, like Honda did in 2007 and 2008. I know the cars carry different-colored camera housings in order to distinguish one driver from another and you can occasionally tell from the helmet colours, but I imagine they would be difficult to tell apart from a distance.
Click to expand...

I already got that rule sorta sorted out. Still your idea would be good if my idea wasn't used.

The rule change is that the second driver for each team uses a inverted livery of the first driver's car. For Example; Jenson Button would use the current livery for his Brawn GP car since he is the #1 driver for the team. Rubens Barrichello would use a inverted livery (what is white is now yellow, and what is yellow is now white,) since he is the #2 driver. It would make F1 more a feast for the eyes and easier for normal fans of F1 to know who is who. Sort of like what Corvette Racing is doing with their C6.R's this year;
Click to expand...
 

Latest Posts

Back