Jump to content
JJ

F1 2010 - it's all going to change!

Recommended Posts

I haven't been following Formula 1 over the past few years. What the hell brought this on?

 

This might be a Jimbo's telly moment too.

Edited by Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't been following Formula 1 over the past few years. What the hell brought this on?

 

This might be a Jimbo's telly moment too.

 

Throwing their toys out of the pram because they can't spend the money they want to under the proposed new regs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first.

 

I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop.

 

The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another.

 

What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first.

 

I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop.

 

The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another.

 

What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move.

 

It's not really a very good "ethos" though is it? (and it's not true anyway now, it's pretty much out of reach almost any individual) They'd be better off getting rid of all regulations going that way (nor does Fop suspect F1 will be the driving force behind this century's automotive industry - not unless they limit them all to Nano's :D).

 

Or as Fop thinks allowing wheel spikes (and possibly mini-guns) on the cars. :o

Edited by Fop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first.

 

I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop.

 

The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another.

 

What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move.

 

It's not really a very good "ethos" though is it? (and it's not true anyway now, it's pretty much out of reach almost any individual) They'd be better off getting rid of all regulations going that way (nor does Fop suspect F1 will be the driving force behind this century's automotive industry - not unless they limit them all to Nano's :D).

 

Or as Fop thinks allowing wheel spikes (and possibly mini-guns) on the cars. :o

 

Why not? It's worked for almost 60 years...

 

As for being out of reach of almost anyone, Brawn had totally disproved that theory this season. They're working on a minimal budget (around the figure the FIA wants to bring in) yet they're still comfortably beating the teams who throw money into the sport (Ferrari, Toyota).

 

The advantage is techincal ability, not financing. Teams should be allowed to spend what they like - if the FIA are so concerned about costs, why did they hike the entry fee and superlicence costs this winter by a record amount?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first.

 

I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop.

 

The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another.

 

What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move.

 

It's not really a very good "ethos" though is it? (and it's not true anyway now, it's pretty much out of reach almost any individual) They'd be better off getting rid of all regulations going that way (nor does Fop suspect F1 will be the driving force behind this century's automotive industry - not unless they limit them all to Nano's :D).

 

Or as Fop thinks allowing wheel spikes (and possibly mini-guns) on the cars. :o

 

Why not? It's worked for almost 60 years...

 

As for being out of reach of almost anyone, Brawn had totally disproved that theory this season. They're working on a minimal budget (around the figure the FIA wants to bring in) yet they're still comfortably beating the teams who throw money into the sport (Ferrari, Toyota).

 

The advantage is techincal ability, not financing. Teams should be allowed to spend what they like - if the FIA are so concerned about costs, why did they hike the entry fee and superlicence costs this winter by a record amount?

 

Haven't they just basically got lucky with a technical loophole? Or at least got away with something most other teams thought was against the regulations and therefore got a big step up this season with most of the rest playing catch up?

 

That can happen once (or maybe even twice), but its not going to be the case all the time or even the majority of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite agree. Chuck a packet of Skittles down the bog, flush, watch them go round. Hardly any discernible difference at all.

 

Edited for wrong ket :o

Edited by Big Onion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite agree. Chuck a packet of Skittles down the bog, flush, watch them go round. Hardly any discernible difference at all.

 

Edited for wrong ket :o

 

 

Ket :D Proper old skool term :panic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're calling the FIA's bluff.... and I think the FIA will blink first.

 

I'm no Ferrari fan but I totally support them on this. F1 was created as a machine for rich blokes to spunk as much money as they wanted on fast cars. Putting a budget cap on it will remove the very ethos of the sport. There are other formulae which they can apply this to - F1 should be left as it is. For one thing it's the developmental workshop for road vehicles. If the budgets are capped, there'll be less development on the track and therefore less development in automative engineering full stop.

 

The FIA have already changed their stance by suggesting a two-tiered championship as a compromise - tighter technical regulations for those who don't conform to the budget caps than those who do. This would leave us in an absolutely ridiculous situation of 10 cars fighting for one championship and 10 for another.

 

What doesn't seem to be widely reported is that this isn't just the opinion of Ferrari - it's of all the FOTA teams which is everyone. Ferrari are just making the first move.

 

It's not really a very good "ethos" though is it? (and it's not true anyway now, it's pretty much out of reach almost any individual) They'd be better off getting rid of all regulations going that way (nor does Fop suspect F1 will be the driving force behind this century's automotive industry - not unless they limit them all to Nano's :D).

 

Or as Fop thinks allowing wheel spikes (and possibly mini-guns) on the cars. :o

 

Why not? It's worked for almost 60 years...

 

As for being out of reach of almost anyone, Brawn had totally disproved that theory this season. They're working on a minimal budget (around the figure the FIA wants to bring in) yet they're still comfortably beating the teams who throw money into the sport (Ferrari, Toyota).

 

The advantage is techincal ability, not financing. Teams should be allowed to spend what they like - if the FIA are so concerned about costs, why did they hike the entry fee and superlicence costs this winter by a record amount?

 

Haven't they just basically got lucky with a technical loophole? Or at least got away with something most other teams thought was against the regulations and therefore got a big step up this season with most of the rest playing catch up?

 

That can happen once (or maybe even twice), but its not going to be the case all the time or even the majority of the time.

 

Got lucky? Nope, they've engineered their car around one particular innovation which has shown to be a success. Only like the Wings, Ground Effect, Turbos, Raised Nose, etc in the past. The others are playing catch up but then again Brawn took another step forward with the changes they made for Barcelona.

 

As an aside, 'The Cock' has alluded to something on his blog (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/) which the press are overlooking and which will mean that the FIA will back down:

 

“The chairman of the Board of Directors (Montezemolo) was mandated to evaluate the most suitable ways and methods to protect the company’s interests.”

 

This has several meanings in one. It means that they are looking into a legal challenge because they believe that ‘binding contractual obligations’ have been breached. These refer to a veto right which Ferrari negotiated into its deal when it broke ranks with the other manufacturers in early 2005 and signed up to stay in F1 until 2012.

 

The breached contractual obligations he alludes to is that this veto states that Ferrari have to be in agreement with something the FIA want to push through in order for it to become legitmate. In short, if the FIA enforce the salary cap, they've broken their contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Got lucky? Nope, they've engineered their car around one particular innovation which has shown to be a success. Only like the Wings, Ground Effect, Turbos, Raised Nose, etc in the past. The others are playing catch up but then again Brawn took another step forward with the changes they made for Barcelona.

 

Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses)

 

Do you really think it won't be closed/tightened up next season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses)

 

See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident.

If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened.

Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses)

 

See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident.

If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened.

Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it.

 

That's how it works, it no big secret.

 

But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it.

 

Either way the regulations will certainly be tightened up for next season, not allowing the same thing to happen again (although some thing else of course might).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses)

 

See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident.

If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened.

Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it.

 

That's how it works, it no big secret.

 

But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it.

 

Either way the regulations will certainly be tightened up for next season, not allowing the same thing to happen again (although some thing else of course might).

 

Your insight is amazing.

Now shuuuush Chris.

Edited by sammynb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses)

 

See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident.

If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened.

Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it.

 

That's how it works, it no big secret.

 

But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it.

 

Either way the regulations will certainly be tightened up for next season, not allowing the same thing to happen again (although some thing else of course might).

 

Your insight is amazing.

 

Seemingly so. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought they identified a loose bit of technical specification and took advantage of it interpretation-wise? (not saying they did anything wrong, just saying that they got lucky and that it was a one time things irrespective of money, and it wouldn't happen again - the ruling was upheld for them, but again on purely technical terms, not really in the spirit of the rule - although again that is of course largely how F1 progresses)

 

See Fop some days you hit on the truth purely by accident.

If it wasn't for cars like the Cooper Climax (developing a mid-engine F1), the work of Colin Chapman/Lotus and a host of others who all took advantage of "the rules" then cost effective development would never happened.

Motorsport at the highest level has always been about getting away with it - see Toyota and their mid 90s rally team if you still don't get it.

 

That's how it works, it no big secret.

 

But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it.

 

Either way the regulations will certainly be tightened up for next season, not allowing the same thing to happen again (although some thing else of course might).

 

Your insight is amazing.

 

Seemingly so. :o

 

Oh I forgot :D

Now shuuuush Chris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it.

 

You claimed that success in F1 was pretty much out of reach of anybody on the grounds of costs which I've suggested Brawn GP have challenged that belief.

 

They didn't 'get lucky', they've got one of the best technical leaders the sport has ever seen. Ross didn't stumble on the rear wing accidentally you cretin, he developed the whole car around it using his own knowledge of aerodynamics.

 

And how could they have easily had the ruling go against them? There was a big grey area in the technical regulations with regards to the rear diffuser. When Brawn became aware of the advantage that designing the the car this way and that the ruling could be interpreted in different manners, he asked the FIA and WMSC to clarify the ruling way back in April 2008. They never acted on his request and therefore he (and Toyota and Williams) pushed ahead with their designs.

 

The others are bitter as the fundamental design of their cars (Renault, the engine - Red Bull, the rear suspension) currently prevents them being able to make use of this design.

 

They can't possibly introduce the two-tier system. One of the 'advantages' they're offering to teams who accept the budget cap is flexible rear wings..... That will give them around a 2 second a lap advantage. Ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But to say Brawn has managed to disprove that money = winning F1 because they got lucky with it this season is silly, especially as they could have just as easily had the ruling go against them and been stripped of the point they've won with it.

 

You claimed that success in F1 was pretty much out of reach of anybody on the grounds of costs which I've suggested Brawn GP have challenged that belief.

 

They didn't 'get lucky', they've got one of the best technical leaders the sport has ever seen. Ross didn't stumble on the rear wing accidentally you cretin, he developed the whole car around it using his own knowledge of aerodynamics.

 

And how could they have easily had the ruling go against them? There was a big grey area in the technical regulations with regards to the rear diffuser. When Brawn became aware of the advantage that designing the the car this way and that the ruling could be interpreted in different manners, he asked the FIA and WMSC to clarify the ruling way back in April 2008. They never acted on his request and therefore he (and Toyota and Williams) pushed ahead with their designs.

 

The others are bitter as the fundamental design of their cars (Renault, the engine - Red Bull, the rear suspension) currently prevents them being able to make use of this design.

 

They can't possibly introduce the two-tier system. One of the 'advantages' they're offering to teams who accept the budget cap is flexible rear wings..... That will give them around a 2 second a lap advantage. Ridiculous.

 

 

Will they repeat this next season though? And the season after that and after that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×