MONACO Grand Prix 2009 - Race 6/17 - Page 3

Glaucus · 23-05-2009, 08:39

The top budget last year was toyota at $445.6m which back then was about £286mill.

But I don't want to see a cap or two tier racing. It is not needed. Only reason max and co want it is to make it look attractive for new teams. Which although would be nice. I would rather less teams and proper spending and development throughout the year.

do all circuits still have 13pits?

divine · 23-05-2009, 08:55

Couldn't tell you how many pits circuits have but one would assume that team entries would be limited to the lowest number anyway. I would hope that as stupid as the FIA are, they wouldn't run 26 cars if there were only enough garages to fit 24 at one track.

If you put the cap so high, what does it achieve?

Glaucus · 23-05-2009, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by divine

Couldn't tell you how many pits circuits have but one would assume that team entries would be limited to the lowest number anyway. I would hope that as stupid as the FIA are, they wouldn't run 26 cars if there were only enough garages to fit 24 at one track.

If you put the cap so high, what does it achieve?

it still lowers budget by ~30% and you retain what f1 is about.

divine · 23-05-2009, 09:20

Great. So all you've done is knock the budget of about 4 teams a small amount with no other tangible benefit. What an awesome solution that would be.

At least if you do it 'properly' you give smaller teams a chance to compete on a more level playing field and we'd see the truly great engineers shine, the ones who can develop good solutions that are cost effective too, not just throw money at expensive bits.

I think ultimately different people have a different view of what F1 is. To you, clearly it is the ability to throw money at everything and utilise the most expensive tech possible. To me it is watching the drivers shine, watching people compete on a vaguely level field, watching engineers come up with clever solutions regardless of silly amounts of money. It holds far less interest to me when it has reached the point that unless you have millions upon millions to spend, you'll barely achieve anything.

When was the last time a 'cheap' team competed closely with an expensive one and what were the respective budgets in that year?

Glaucus · 23-05-2009, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by divine

At least if you do it 'properly' you give smaller teams a chance to compete on a more level playing field and we'd see the truly great engineers shine, the ones who can develop good solutions that are cost effective too, not just throw money at expensive bits.

Which wont work as you can't develop anything new due to the rules. Even under the new rules you can't develop anything new.
Why do you want to see a redicluse level playing field with such little money they can't do anything. Refinement is expensive. Under the current rules or under the propose rules. That's all they can do.

As I said I don't want a budget cap. Budgets will be set by market value and what teams can afford.

divine · 23-05-2009, 09:37

such little money they can't do anything? Don't be stupid, it'd be perfectly workable. The only reason they don't do it now is because they don't have to. There is no penalty to spending obscene amounts.

Take a look at other engineering disciplines and the opposite is true, because if you can't make a better solution than your competition for the same or less money, you lose contracts and go out of business. Whilst there is a difference between business and sport, claiming that cutting budgets from £250-£300 million to £150 million would mean they "can't do anything" is just pig headed and misguided.

You have a point about new developments under such restrictive regulations and it would be nice to see more open rules at the same time but even so, refinement does not have to be as expensive as it is now, it just is because it can be and it isn't regulated.

All 'market value and what teams can afford' will do if things carry on as they are is cement the situation whereby the 4 richest teams eventually always win out, smaller teams only get a stab with massive rule overhauls and the smallest teams keep dropping out but without such ready replacements.

F1 should be about the engineering and racing with at least some semblance of equal footing, not just spunking the biggest bank balance you can find on everything. I don't want a spec series but at least starting from an equal footing - i.e. similar budgets would be far better than having half a grid that only race for 7th and 8th places because ultimately unless everyone else crashes they haven't got a hope in hell of doing better.

divine · 23-05-2009, 09:48

As an aside - FP3 in 10 minutes \o/

Glaucus · 23-05-2009, 14:19

Wahoo Button does it again! ye-hahhhh

Daz · 23-05-2009, 14:29

Lord knows where he pulled that from, he was lucky to survive Q2!

Glaucus · 23-05-2009, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daz

Lord knows where he pulled that from, he was lucky to survive Q2!

he had 6th fastest lap and was safe, with only one or two taht ould beat him.

But that was a stormer of a lap from nowhere.

23-05-2009, 08:39	#21
Glaucus Absinthe Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,855	The top budget last year was toyota at $445.6m which back then was about £286mill. But I don't want to see a cap or two tier racing. It is not needed. Only reason max and co want it is to make it look attractive for new teams. Which although would be nice. I would rather less teams and proper spending and development throughout the year. do all circuits still have 13pits? __________________ Last edited by Glaucus; 23-05-2009 at 08:42.

23-05-2009, 08:55	#22
divine Moonshine Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Southampton Posts: 3,201	Couldn't tell you how many pits circuits have but one would assume that team entries would be limited to the lowest number anyway. I would hope that as stupid as the FIA are, they wouldn't run 26 cars if there were only enough garages to fit 24 at one track. If you put the cap so high, what does it achieve? __________________

23-05-2009, 09:20	#24
divine Moonshine Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Southampton Posts: 3,201	Great. So all you've done is knock the budget of about 4 teams a small amount with no other tangible benefit. What an awesome solution that would be. At least if you do it 'properly' you give smaller teams a chance to compete on a more level playing field and we'd see the truly great engineers shine, the ones who can develop good solutions that are cost effective too, not just throw money at expensive bits. I think ultimately different people have a different view of what F1 is. To you, clearly it is the ability to throw money at everything and utilise the most expensive tech possible. To me it is watching the drivers shine, watching people compete on a vaguely level field, watching engineers come up with clever solutions regardless of silly amounts of money. It holds far less interest to me when it has reached the point that unless you have millions upon millions to spend, you'll barely achieve anything. When was the last time a 'cheap' team competed closely with an expensive one and what were the respective budgets in that year? __________________ Last edited by divine; 23-05-2009 at 09:23.

23-05-2009, 09:37	#26
divine Moonshine Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Southampton Posts: 3,201	such little money they can't do anything? Don't be stupid, it'd be perfectly workable. The only reason they don't do it now is because they don't have to. There is no penalty to spending obscene amounts. Take a look at other engineering disciplines and the opposite is true, because if you can't make a better solution than your competition for the same or less money, you lose contracts and go out of business. Whilst there is a difference between business and sport, claiming that cutting budgets from £250-£300 million to £150 million would mean they "can't do anything" is just pig headed and misguided. You have a point about new developments under such restrictive regulations and it would be nice to see more open rules at the same time but even so, refinement does not have to be as expensive as it is now, it just is because it can be and it isn't regulated. All 'market value and what teams can afford' will do if things carry on as they are is cement the situation whereby the 4 richest teams eventually always win out, smaller teams only get a stab with massive rule overhauls and the smallest teams keep dropping out but without such ready replacements. F1 should be about the engineering and racing with at least some semblance of equal footing, not just spunking the biggest bank balance you can find on everything. I don't want a spec series but at least starting from an equal footing - i.e. similar budgets would be far better than having half a grid that only race for 7th and 8th places because ultimately unless everyone else crashes they haven't got a hope in hell of doing better. __________________ Last edited by divine; 23-05-2009 at 09:40.

23-05-2009, 09:48	#27
divine Moonshine Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Southampton Posts: 3,201	As an aside - FP3 in 10 minutes \o/ __________________

23-05-2009, 14:19	#28
Glaucus Absinthe Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,855	Wahoo Button does it again! ye-hahhhh __________________

23-05-2009, 14:29	#29
Daz The Stig Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Swad! Posts: 10,713	Lord knows where he pulled that from, he was lucky to survive Q2! __________________ apt-get moo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode