Reply With QuoteInteresting stuff. I doubt they bow out.
A little posturing from Ferrari...
No race spoilers visible on linked page WHEN I posted this. No guarantees for when you click through...
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/5/9348.html
Maybe 4 wheels aren't so bad after all... wickett.org
It only goes to show when people can no longer discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, or sexual orientation, they can improvise and still find someone to hate. - Dave Moulton
Interesting stuff. I doubt they bow out.
Smile
93' LE #1136 - FM II
250k miles
I agree... but the series may be more competitive without them. But it may just leave Merc/McL to dominate... if they can sideline the Brawn GP team, that is!Originally Posted by Sharpie
Well... I have to agree with them... the two tiered rule structure is pretty lame.
--
Dave"Opinions are like
..."
Most of the current rules in F1 are pretty lame. Given the direction of the rules changes in the last few years, F1 is well on its way to becoming a spec racing series, which is truly sad.
I think F1 should have just four rules:
- Limit the overall aero
- A minimum weight
- You start the race with your qualifying fuel load
- Each car gets a set amount of fuel for the race weekend. Practice, qualifying, and the race itself. No exceptions. Run out of fuel, you lose.
This would allow teams to experiment with different engine arrangements, power adders, hybrid systems, etc. in order to balance power and efficiency, and it might just make F1 relevant again by leading to trickle down technology that can be applied to road going cars. It would certainly allow for more mechanical variety than the current F1 structure.
Iain
"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
I agree with Altiain's ideas, but that would cause the costs to sky-rocket, which is what the new rules are trying to control. However, I do not want a spec series, either. It's a tough problem for the people making the rules.
Another thing to consider is how spec series also cause the costs to increase. Spec series are supposed to make it cheaper, but in the end, the costs increase because teams eventually start spending so much money trying to eeek every last bit of performance out of the given specs, so they spend a ton of money for little gains. Thus, you end up with the NASCAR juggernauts.
Sounds like autocrossers.
Meh. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports. You want cheap, go run somewhere else.
My proposal would least allow manufacturers the potential to recoup some of the costs by applying the technology to roadgoing cars (like variable valve timing, ABS, and traction control, all of which were derived from motorsports technology). When you end up with a spec series - especially a technologically irrelevant spec series (NASCAR, anyone?) - then it becomes nothing more than a very expensive marketing exercise, which is much harder to justify.
Iain
"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
Looks like Renault is flipping Ecclestein the finger as well... Good to see the teams standing up for themselves.
The pinnacle of motorsports has long been about money. I'm not convinced it's time to change that.
Clearly, some limits on the aero are required so the drivers aren't turned into lopsided sacks of mush, but beyond that, as a driver of yore once said... "Fuck the nitshit rules! Tear off the wings. If they can get the car 250 miles an hour down the straight, so be it. Let the driver figure out how to get it around the corner."
Maybe 4 wheels aren't so bad after all... wickett.org
It only goes to show when people can no longer discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, or sexual orientation, they can improvise and still find someone to hate. - Dave Moulton
I like the way you think
Blah blah blah!
the economy is strong and flexible.
TXMC: Drinkin, shootin, racin!
Posting Permissions
