Comments on 'Reflections on Rule Changes' on F1 Insight

Comment by Peter Boyle

01/05/2009 22:26:27

Let's see. The teams have to spend less money to gain R&D headroom. Anyone else think this is a good recipe for compromising safety?

Comment by Steven Roy

01/05/2009 22:52:29

I really hop the teams decide to have a breakaway championship. I am sure Bernie's back up plan is to move all his media and circuit deals over to a breakaway championship and cut out Max and CVC

Comment by Nick Goodspeed

02/05/2009 03:38:04

If the two teams that have been the great majority of the show over the last decade will only be spending 1/8 of what they had been spending, isn't it only fair that those watching should be charged 1/8 the previous entry fee?

Comment by Clive

02/05/2009 17:30:32

Peter: It will be interesting to see how the conflicting aims of safety and development function under a budget cap. Maybe the FIA will allow safety improvements to be outside the budget.

Comment by Clive

02/05/2009 17:33:00

Steven: Well, it would be a huge undertaking to create a breakaway series and the teams would have to be united in the drive towards it. If Max turns out to be inflexible over the amount of the cap, however, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Comment by Clive

02/05/2009 17:34:10

Nick: Hah, good point! Now try to convince Bernie... ;)

Comment by Nick Goodspeed

02/05/2009 18:28:57

I wonder how far Ferrari is prepared to go to push back against the "voluntary" budget cap and I wonder what sort of backbone we can expect from McLaren on the same issue, now that Ron Dennis "The Menace" has stepped back?

Comment by Clive

02/05/2009 19:25:40

Nick: I can't see Ferrari going as far as to withdraw from F1 but they will undoubtedly try to use FOTA to batter some sense into the FIA. It will then be a matter of keeping the smaller teams happy while the fight goes on. Expect the cap to remain but at a considerably higher ceiling. McLaren will probably keep quiet whenever possible but will maintain ranks with FOTA. They must be as against the level of the cap as Ferrari is but will be hesitant to appear as the bad boy yet again in the eyes of the FIA.

Comment by Lonny

03/05/2009 11:15:16

Perhaps it would be best if F1 just died. For example if several of the bigger teams withdrew what would be left? Maybe then something better would emerge for the ashes. Something that eliminated Max and Bernie and brought in people who cared about the tracks, fans and others who are currently being ignored

Comment by Björn Svensson

03/05/2009 13:00:10

Ohh, the anger of Ferrari, i'm trembling. Why can't they just keep their speaking on a reasonable level, why do they always have to get down to the level of childs playing in a sandbox. I can understand that they wight not be ready to level down their investments as much as proposed, since the whole company revolves around F1-racing. Not being able to have an unlimited amount of people and resources might hamper the progress of the cars, and the other rules in affect might do the job to make F1 grind to a halt. What good is unlimited revs if the engines are to last for 6 races next season? Please don't forget why the maximum revs was imposed to start with. It was because we had engines blow up every second race or so. Instead i would like to see the revs dropped down to the level of street sportscars. Around ten or twelve thousand should be sufficient. The better way to go with the rules must be to allow more freedon to the teams, and maybe allow both turbocharged and compressors-charged engines. And to set the weight of the cars to around 800 kilos. I would also have the cars to run on 100% ethanol. If it is enginering Max want in F1, then he must stop immediately to tinker around with what the teams are allowed to do and not to do. Just set a budgetcap and let the teams roam free. And i don't think that the new cap with it's restrictions is that much of an advantage, even with the unrestricted amount of training and the movable wings. Training also costs money, and with all the enginering going into building and maintaining the new cars, there's not going to be much funding left for other expences.

Comment by Clive

03/05/2009 14:45:23

Lonny: You may be right, although there were be an interim period with no decent racing at all. The withdrawal symptoms would be horrendous...

Comment by Clive

03/05/2009 15:03:59

Björn: Mosley sets the ground rules for arguments in F1 and he seems to like these childish squabbles. Luca just knows how to do it too. ;) I think Gerrari objects so much to the level of the budget cap because they fear they would not be able to compete if unable to spend more money whenever they were in trouble. They have found it difficult at times to compete with the "garagistas" even with their financial advantage so trying to stay competitive on an equal amount of money might be impossible for them. The maximum revs were limited in an attempt to slow the cars, not to increase reliability. In fact, there have been more Ferrari engine failures since the rev limits were imposed than in the decade before that. Engines like the Cosworth were getting to 20,000 rpm reliably and consistently so there should be no problem in just freeing them to do the same again. And the fact that the capped teams would have no restriction on number of engines used per season would again assist towards reliability. Okay, there is a cost involved in all this, but teams are going to have to buy a certain number of engines each year regardless of which option they take. And pre-rev limit engines were reliable enough for only eight or ten being needed per season. The engine costs are not covered by the cap anyway so a team could spend considerably on engines during the year without it affecting their budget. There are teams already who spend little more than the budget cap proposed and who compete quite effectively. Be assured that they could build some very fast cars for the money allowed were they given technical freedom. We might have a return to complete Williams domination, for instance, so experienced are they in getting the most from their money. Big teams used to throwing money at any problems would suffer severely from the restraint of a limited budget but would be unable to make their extra financial muscle count if they took the uncapped option. It's fine having loads of cash but not much good if you can't spend it on making your car better.

Comment by Nick Goodspeed

03/05/2009 16:19:02

I would love to see the rpms drop. The voices of the cars of F1 have gone from a throaty roar to banshee shriek since I start going to races. I had a record of Mercedes-Benz racing cars from the 30s to the 50s. Music!!! :-)

Comment by Clive

03/05/2009 16:56:48

I know what you mean, Nick, but I kinda like the scream of a modern F1 engine. Perhaps it is my preference for smaller engines that always run at higher revs than the big ones. So I will miss that high-pitched howl if they do take the recs down much lower than they are now.

Comment by Björn Svensson

03/05/2009 20:40:20

I'm sorry for writing such an illinformed comment Clive, i just found out that the enginecostws would not be included in the budgetcap. Maybe i should have followed some of the links you provided in the original posting. Any how, i agree with Nick that i would prefer the engines to have aroar instead of the high pitched howl ot todays engines. Just listen to the MotoGP-bikes and Superbikes, since they got from 2stroke to 4stroke engines the sound of their machines have definitely become much more enticing. Or we could compare to the cars in the ALMS-series, WHAT A SOUND! And, yes Clive, i know of the methods of Max Mosely when it comes to proposing new rules. But i can never see why not Ferrari learn this as well. Every year it,s the same. Max proposing, Ferrari screaming their heads off, and at the end some of the other teams comes with a compromise and the finished product lands somewhere between the both.

Comment by Clive

03/05/2009 20:59:45

Well, I also like the sound of a big engine at lower revs - was just thinking that the modern engine is a distinctive sound in its own right, the sound of high technology! I sometimes wonder why the teams don't become wise to Mosley's tactics but I suppose they have to go through the steps of the dance to achieve what they want. You're right though - it's childish.

Comment by Nick Goodspeed

04/05/2009 01:43:40

How about the best of both worlds? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZMPDCNyQxE (Turn up the Volume)

Comment by Clive

04/05/2009 02:19:32

Yes, of course I respond to such a marvellous sound. The engines of each period in F1 have their distinctive sounds and all are deeply affecting and memorable. I just happen to like the ear-piercing scream of a modern engine at its peak revs as much as I like the sounds of yesteryear.

Comment by Clive

04/05/2009 02:55:21

Try these for size: Modern Renault V8 at Silverstone Cosworth V8 2.4l at 20,000 rpm The sound is muted by the test bed exhaust arrangements, unfortunately, but it does at least prove what I was saying about the Cosworth engine!

Comment by kingofdamage

15/08/2011 01:32:58

cheap propecia generic bxizc cialis 23831